Paul Schepers

Road authorities are systematically expanding 30 km/h zones to enhance safety. This requires understanding how built environment characteristics are associated with driving speeds, but only a few studies, typically based on small samples, focus on 30 km/h streets. Using a spatial error model, this study examines the relationship between built environment factors and 85th percentile speeds on 47,000 km of Dutch 30 km/h streets (N=159.000). Driving speed and traffic volume data were estimated using floating car data, while built environment characteristics were collected from public sources. The results show that higher driving speeds are associated with greater traffic volumes, longer street lengths, closed pavement, separated bicycle tracks, visually marked bicycle lanes, and longer road sections. Features linked to lower driving speeds include curves, speed humps, raised intersections, exit constructions at zone entrances, narrower carriageways, roadside parking, nearby premises, and higher address densities. Furthermore, the identified interaction effects show that measures like speed humps and raised intersections have greater impacts in high-speed environments (i.e. long and busy streets with closed pavement) but limited effects in low-speed settings. These findings emphasize the need to consider combinations of road design elements and their context-dependent effects to understand driving speed on 30 km/h streets. Out study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of speed-reduction measures, offering guidance for interventions targeting streets with excessive speeds.

The provision of convenient, safe and seamless facilities for cyclists is one core success factor in promoting cycling as a mode of transport. Cycling infrastructures and planning philosophies differ greatly between countries, but there is no systematic overview or comparison of similarities and dissimilarities. The aim of this study is to provide an in-depth international overview of guidance material for cycling facilities in European countries and to develop recommendations for advancing provisions for cyclists. International guidance materials for cycling facilities along street sections are collated, systemised and compared. For researchers, the findings provide background information to better understand cycling behaviour and safety. For planners, the findings support their efforts to support cycling and to improve guidance materials. The results show that, in general, countries that are just beginning to promote cycling tend to offer a greater variety of cycling infrastructures in their guidance materials than more mature cycling countries. Countries differ in whether they prefer to put cyclists on the street level or on the sidewalk and whether they mix cyclists with other user groups in the same space. There was even greater variability among countries in the criteria for selecting types of cycling facilities than in the design characteristics (width, buffer zones, etc.).

Pedestrian facilities have been regarded in urban street design as “leftover spaces” for years, but, currently, there is a growing interest in walking and improving the quality of street environments. Designing pedestrian facilities presents the challenge of simultaneously accommodating (1) pedestrians who want to move safely and comfortably from point A to B (movement function); as well as (2) users who wish to rest, communicate, shop, eat, and enjoy life in a pleasant environment (place function). The aims of this study are to provide an overview of how the task of designing pedestrian facilities is addressed in international guidance material for urban street design, to compare this with scientific evidence on determinants of pedestrian activities, and to finally develop recommendations for advancing provisions for pedestrians. The results show that urban street design guidance is well advanced in measuring space requirements for known volumes of moving pedestrians, but less in planning pleasant street environments that encourage pedestrian movement and place activities. A stronger linkage to scientific evidence could improve guidance materials and better support urban street designers in their ambition to provide safe, comfortable and attractive street spaces that invite people to walk and to stay.

High pre-World-War-2 modal shares of cycling in European countries sharply decreased during the post-war decades. In the 1990s, European governments introduced policies to increase bicycle use. However, a database or longitudinal study on the development of bicycle use in European countries is lacking. The goal of this paper is to examine to what degree the amount of cycling has increased over the past decades, also in the context of potentially competing modes. Distances travelled per capita according to National Travel Surveys have been collected and were aggregated to seven 4-year periods between 1990 and 2017. Multilevel regression analyses on distance travelled per capita by bicycle, on foot, by public transport, and by passenger car were conducted for all countries. Additionally, analyses were conducted for which the 14 countries with data on bicycle use were divided in three groups categorised according to distance cycled per capita at the beginning of the study period. Distance cycled per capita per year ranged from some 30 km to 900 km. The results of all four regression analyses suggested that distance cycled per capita remained fairly constant over the past decades. Germany is an exception with some 150 km per capita more, in relative terms a 50% increase. Geographical variation in development is evidenced by a substantial increase of distance cycled per inhabitant in the capital cities of the countries included in the study. The outcomes suggest distance travelled on foot and by public transport (bus, tram, and metro) also remained fairly constant while the distance travelled by car increased by about 10% during the study period. We did not find indications that cycling substitutes travel on foot, by public transport or by car.

To create a safer environment for bicyclists and pedestrians, the usefulness of different types of kerbs as a separation between these two modes has been questioned by both researchers and practitioners. Right angled kerbs pose risks to cyclists due to their height but are assumed to separate them well from pedestrians. Sloped and levelled kerb types are more forgiving but allow road traffic users to move onto each other’s infrastructure, creating a potential risk of collision. We examined the effects of different types of kerbs on cyclists’ and pedestrians’ behaviour. This is operationalized as a road user moving onto another traffic user’s infrastructure (i.e. crossing the kerb). A total of 14,502 bicyclists and 3,578 pedestrians at 12 different locations in Amsterdam were observed. We also examined the motives for crossing the kerb, and some smaller studies were carried out on corners and intersections and in some other Dutch cities for making comparisons. The results show that cyclists moving on the sidewalk is a relatively rare event for all kerb types and no conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians were observed. We therefore consider it unlikely that the risks of the height difference weigh up against the advantages in terms of separating cyclists and pedestrians. Thus, in the ambition of separating bicyclists from pedestrians as well as designing a ‘forgiving’ kerb to accept that people make mistakes, both the sloped and levelled kerb types come out as best practice.