FHWA Study Tour for
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in
England, Germany, and The Netherlands

Notice

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Transportation.

The metric units reported are those used in common practice by the persons interviewed. They have not been converted to pure SI units since, in some cases, the level of precision implied would have been changed.

The United States equivalents to the foreign currency amounts appearing in this report are based on the rates of exchange in effect during the time of the study tour.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document.

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

FHWA International Technology Scanning Program
Study Tour Summary Report on
FHWA Study Tour for
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in
England, Germany, and The Netherlands

Prepared by the study tour team

Charles V. Zegeer
University of North Carolina

and

Michael Cynecki, City of Phoenix, Arizona
Peter Lagerwey, City of Seattle, Washington

John Fegan, Federal Highway Administration
Carol Tan, Federal Highway Administration

Brian Gilleran, Federal Highway Administration
Bob Works, Minnesota Department of Transportation

and the

Transportation Technology Evaluation Center (TTEC)
International Technology Research Institute
Loyola College in Maryland

Baltimore, MD 21210

Prepared for

Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, DC 20590

October 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1. .INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Study Objectives and Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Study Team Members . . . . . . . . . . . 3
European Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. PLANNING FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Background and Government Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Usage Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Accident Statistics and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Funding Pedestrian and Bicyclist Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Public Transit . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3. FACILITIES IN ENGLAND . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Pedestrian Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Bicycle Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Traffic Calming Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4. FACILITIES IN THE NETHERLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Pedestrian Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Bicycle Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Traffic Calming Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . 55

5. FACILITIES IN GERMANY . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Pedestrian Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Bicycle Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Traffic Calming Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Public Transit . . . . . . . . . . . 74

6. FACILITIES IN SWITZERLAND . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Pedestrian Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Bicycle Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Traffic Calming Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . 81

7. EDUCATION AND PROMOTION PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Great Britain . . . . . . . . . . . 83
The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . 87

8. ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATION ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Great Britain . . . . . . . . . . . 89
The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . 89

9. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . 91

The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . 93

10. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND TRANSFERABILITY TO THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . . . . . . 95

11. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . 99

LIST OF TABLES

Table . . . . . . . . . . . Page

1. Number of seriously injured road accident victims in The Netherlands in 1991, by transport mode and age . . . . . . . . . . .20

2. Number of seriously injured road accident victims in The Netherlands in 1991, by transport mode, type of road, and collision partner . . . . . . . . . . .21

Figure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page

1. Zebra crossing with belisha beacons in London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

2. Pedestrian pushbutton hardware in Great Britain gives feedback regarding when to cross . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3. Pedestrian green man (WALK) and red man (DON'T WALK) signal displays . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4. Toucan crossings in Great Britain provide separate pedestrian and bicyclist signals where trails cross roadways . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5. Pedestrian pavement messages and refuge islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6. Pedestrian barriers (separators) are used extensively in London to channel pedestrians to preferred crossing locations . . . . . . . . . . . 31

7. Pedestrian crossing prohibition at midblock crossing in London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

8. This new pedestrian and bicycle bridge spans railway lines in Cambridge, England . . . . . . . . . . . 32

9. Tactile warning strips on sidewalk curb ramps guide visually impaired pedestrians to a formal street crossing . . . . . . . . . . . 33

10. Pedestrian work zone barricades on sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

11. Pedestrian mall in York, England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

12. Time-restricted pedestrian mall in Cambridge, England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

13. Narrow bicycle lane in Cambridge, England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

14. Contraflow bicycle lane in Cambridge, England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

15. Bicycle trail on an abandoned railroad right-of-way south of York, England . . . . . . . . . . . 37

16. Entrance to bicycle trail is designed to restrict entry by motor vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

17. Networks of 20-mph zones in British neighborhoods often include signs, street narrowing, speed humps, or other measures. The combination of multiple measures on a neighborhoodwide basis is most effective. . . . . . . . . . . . 39

18. Speed humps slow traffic speeds on residential street in York, England . . . . . . . . . . . 39

19. Diagonal motor vehicle diverter at a residential intersection in York, England . . . . . . . . . . . 40

20. Temporary barriers used to block a street to motorized vehicles in London . . . . . . . . . . . 40

21. "Speed cushions" in use in a residential street in the English city of York . . . . . . . . . . . 41

22. This pedestrian crossing at the Amsterdam airport includes zebra pavement stripes and pedestrian signing . . . . . . . . . . . 44

23. Pushbutton at Amsterdam pedestrian crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

24. Most Dutch bicycles are not fancy, but they provide basic transportation for their owners . . . . . . . . . . . 46

25. Some bicycle paths parallel roadways, such as this one in Groningen, The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . 47

26. Typical bicycle lanes in The Netherlands are often reddish in color and wide

enough for two cyclists to ride side by side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

27. Bike lanes are sometimes marked through intersections . . . . . . . . . . . 48

28. Bicycle signals used in Amsterdam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

29. .This bicycle street in Amsterdam serves more pedestrians than bicyclists . . . . . . . . . . . 52

30. Advance bicyclist stop line at intersection in Groningen, The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . 52

31. Barriers are used to block motor vehicles and allow bicyclists through traffic on this Dutch street . . . . . . . . . . . 53

32. An army of bicycles awaits their owners at this Dutch bus terminal . . . . . . . . . . . 53

33. This bicycle bridge in Groningen provides easy crossing over a canal . . . . . . . . . . . 54

34. Intersection design in Houten gives priority to bicyclists and pedestrians over motor vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . 55

35. Triangular pavement marking shapes (built into the pavement at this location) indicate that motor vehicle traffic must yield to cyclists and pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . 56

36. In Houten, motor vehicles must use a ring road to travel between districts . . . . . . . . . . . 58

37. Pedestrian pushbutton device gives feedback SIGNAL KOMMT (signal is coming) to waiting pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . 59

38. Pedestrian mall in Munster, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

39. Street used for pedestrians and streetcars in Freiburg, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

40. Off-street bicycle and pedestrian path in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

41. Asphalt pedestrian and bicycle lanes on Freiburg sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

42. Lane used for buses and bicyclists only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

43. Illustrations of bicycle shelters and bicycle lockers used in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . 66

44. Rubberized C-curbs separate bicycle lanes from motor vehicle lanes in Frankfurt . . . . . . . . . . . 68

45. Pedestrian and bicyclist bridge near Freiburg rail station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

46. .One of many 30-km/hr zones on residential German streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

47. Concrete bollards are used in Freiburg for traffic calming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

48. The German vekehrsberuhigung are similar to the Dutch woonerven (living streets) . . . . . . . . . . . 71

49. Example of a midblock narrowing in Germany to slow vehicle speeds . . . . . . . . . . . 72

50. City parking along a German street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

51. Pedestrian mall with part-time vehicle restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

52. Yellow zebra crosswalks used for pedestrian crossings in Basel, Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . 76

53. Pedestrian pushbuttons used at some Basel intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

54. Pedestrian refuge island located in a wide street in Basel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

55. Bicyclist pushbutton signal in Basel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

56. Special bicycle lane and routing at Basel intersection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

57. Two-way bicycle street in Basel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report documents the findings of a U.S. study team that visited England, The Netherlands, and Germany. The trip sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration was taken September 3-19, 1993. Members of the study team also spent 1 day in Basel, Switzerland, and obtained a limited amount of information from that visit. The purpose of the trip was to learn as much as possible about practices and policies for improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety and promoting use of these modes. Topics covered included roadway facilities, educational and promotional programs, traffic enforcement issues, and relevant pedestrian and bicyclist safety research.

Study team members met with local and federal officials, visited pedestrian and bicyclist facilities, and compiled relevant literature and other written documentation. Some of the major findings of this trip are discussed below.

REDUCING VEHICLE SPEED

Reducing vehicle speeds was found to be of major importance in the effort to improve the environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. To be effective, facilities should be self-enforcing; for example, roadways should be designed so as not to permit vehicles to exceed speed limits easily.

A variety of traffic calming strategies are used to reduce speeds on neighborhood streets. These methods can be of great benefit to pedestrian and bicyclist safety. They include

* Speed humps;

* Raised crosswalks, which are basically speed humps at crosswalk locations;

* Road narrowing (chokers);

* Chicanes (barricades and posts are used to create a slalom-type effect in the street);

* Midblock street narrowing by extending the curb and allowing only one direction of traffic at a time;

* Midblock street closures that result in cul-de-sacs but still allow pedestrians and cyclists to pass through;

* Angle parking on alternating sides of the street;

* Pedestrian refuge islands, which also narrow the street; and

* Diagonal diverters at intersections to cut off a through street route.

Signs and paint alone are generally ineffective in slowing vehicle speeds, and roadways need to be designed for slow speeds using measures such as those listed above.

RESTRICTING TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

To improve safety and promote more bicycling and walking, a city should be designed to keep through traffic out of the city center and to encourage travel by modes other than the automobile. Incentives and disincentives (the carrot-and-stick approach) should be provided to keep through traffic out. High motor vehicle parking costs also need to be emphasized. Dutch cities such as Delft, Groningen, and Houten prevent motorists from cutting across zones within the urban area but still allow access between zones for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users. A ring road in those cities for vehicles leaving one zone to travel to another greatly reduces the convenience of motor vehicles. This design also allows bicyclists to move freely through the city on separate paths; bicycling and walking are encouraged and made safer.

REDUCING TRAVEL DISTANCES

Travel distances should be shortened to encourage safer and increased levels of bicycling and walking. Shorter travel distances require high-density development and the location of employment near places of residence. Strict land-use controls are very important in high-density development. Land area is limited in some European countries, and careful planning is exercised to ensure maximum efficiency of space.

High-density development does not necessarily lead to a crowded feeling. The crowded feeling is due largely to traffic congestion and traffic noise. Shorter travel distances may result in a change of lifestyle. Traveling by foot and by bicycle is much slower than traveling by motorized transportation. This slower traveling leads to a slower pace of life for many people.

HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROBLEMS

The issue of highway capacity is treated much differently in Europe than in the United States. In the United States, problems with traffic congestion are typically addressed by adding new roadways, increasing the number of lanes, building parking garages, or other measures that accommodate more motor vehicles. In cities such as London and Frankfurt, these problems are often handled by increasing parking costs, reducing the number of available parking spaces in the downtown area, turning downtown streets into pedestrian malls, and encouraging more use of public transit.

In some cities in The Netherlands, in particular, extensive networks of bicycle lanes and paths are provided to encourage more use of bicycles. In cities such as Delft, Groningen, and Houten, motor vehicle traffic is prevented from moving freely through the cities through the use of one-way streets, physical traffic diverters, and dead-end streets. Through such physical traffic barriers, motorists are forced to go out to ring roads to go around a city to get to most destinations instead of traveling directly through the city. Other facilities allow pedestrians and bicyclists to travel directly to their destinations. Many downtown streets are designated exclusively for (or give priority to) pedestrian or bicycle use.

PHILOSOPHY OF NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION

Many European city planners believe in bicycling or walking as a form of local transportation, particularly those who themselves bicycle or walk to work. Some of these cities have had a long-standing commitment to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle transportation, and the political climate allows such activities. Also, many of those cities with successful bicycle and pedestrian program projects have had the planners and engineers involved from the beginning.

Encouraging bicycling and walking is justified by some cities (e.g., London) on business and economic grounds. Retail activity is often improved in areas where many people walk and bicycle. Local business owners often resist pedestrian malls and traffic calming prior to their installation, but they usually experience a considerable increase in business afterward. It is important to mention, however, that the success of pedestrian malls requires more than just closing streets to motor vehicle traffic. Careful planning is required to ensure that there are historical or other attractions to encourage pedestrians to use the malls. Furthermore, bicyclist and pedestrian facilities should be separated whenever possible, since walking and bicycling are incompatible at the same facility.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS AND FACILITIES

A wide range of facilities for pedestrians was found within different cities in the countries visited. Some traditional measures are used, such as pedestrian signals, safety islands, sidewalks and walkways, and overpasses and underpasses. Also, many types of experimental and innovative measures (as compared to U.S. practices) are also used. For example, there are pedestrian pushbutton devices that light up after they are activated, letting the pedestrian know that the signal will change soon to a WALK indication. Such a feature is intended to increase pedestrian compliance with pedestrian signals.

Pedestrian crossing types used (mostly in Great Britain) that differ from those in the United States include the following.

* Zebra Crossings. Zebra crosswalk stripes with flashing lights on poles (belisha beacons) are used in Great Britain. Pedestrians have the right-of-way and drivers must yield to crossing pedestrians. Zebra crossings are preceded by zig-zag pavement markings on the vehicle approaches.

* "Pelican" Crossings. These are crossings controlled by traffic signals--pedestrian "green man" or "red man" signals with fully automated pedestrian push buttons--and with no zebra marking. Dotted lines or road studs (square metal studs) mark the crosswalk. These crossings are only used at midblock pedestrian crossings. A flashing "green man" indication is used for clearance. On the vehicle approach, a flashing amber with steady red signal precedes the green ball. These are also commonly used in Great Britain.

* "Puffin" (Pedestrian User-Friendly Intersection) Crossings. Traffic and pedestrian signals with infrared pedestrian detectors and barriers are used to channel pedestrians to cross within the crosswalk lines. Infrared or pressure mat detectors are used to determine the presence of a pedestrian and go to a red traffic signal and "green man" pedestrian indication. Motion detectors extend the green interval to accommodate very slow walking speeds.

* "Toucan" Crossings (i.e., cyclists "too can" cross together). These are shared crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists. The preferred layout includes a tactile warning surface, audible signals, or tactile rotating knobs; pushbuttons with a WAIT display on each corner of the crossing; red lamp monitor; and vehicle detection on all approaches.

* Automated Pedestrian Crossings. These are experimental devices, tested in England, France, and The Netherlands, which have pedestrian presence detector mats, near-side pedestrian signals, and infrared detectors that extend the clearance interval for pedestrians until they are safely across the street.

BICYCLE MEASURES

A variety of bicycle measures are used to increase bicycle travel and safety in many European towns and cities. Networks of on-street bicycle lanes and separated paths are common in many areas. In urban areas where right-of-way is limited, bicycle lanes are often provided along with bicycle pavement marking symbols or words. Separate bicycle signal indications are sometimes used in urban areas. At some intersections, stop bars for motor vehicles are positioned before the intersection, but bicycles stop at the intersection. Thus, bicyclists begin the green signal in front of motor vehicles, making them more visible. Since bicyclists both have the right-of-way and are in front of the motor vehicle operator, the problem of right-turning motor vehicles striking bicyclists attempting to proceed straight or turn left at intersections is reduced. It also enables bicyclists to make left turns without having to merge left in motor vehicle traffic.

Separate paths are provided in many areas. Some paths allow joint use by pedestrians and bicyclists. In The Netherlands, separate facilities are commonly provided for bicyclists and pedestrians. Some paths are striped, with one side for bicyclists and the other for pedestrians, or colored pavement designates the bicycle path. Various types of railings and physical barriers prevent motorcycles and mopeds from using the paths. Separate bike paths are typically safer than bike lanes between intersections, but are less safe than bike lanes at intersections. This is, again, a function of visibility. Bicyclists on bike paths are often out of the motorists' view and often run into the roadway in front of oncoming cars.

Other bicycle-related facilities include

* Bus lanes that can also be used by bikes;
* Pedestrian zones that can be used by cyclists during off- peak hours;
* Intersection improvements that facilitate bike travel;
* Bike parking lockers and covered spaces at a park-and-ride (or park-and-bike) lot at a transit station;
* Bike rental and parking at the train station; and
* Off-street bicycle trails.

SAFETY EDUCATION AND PROMOTION

Each of the three countries visited gives high priority to safety education and promotion programs for pedestrians and bicyclists. For example, The Netherlands emphasizes cyclist training not simply as following a set of rules, but as learning how to handle a bicycle more skillfully and safely in traffic. In Great Britain, television messages teach drivers to "Kill Your Speed, Not a Child" on residential streets, in conjunction with the 20-mph zone being implemented at selected locations. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety programs in England are also taught to children, with sponsorship by the Department of Transport and financial support from numerous private companies. Although bicycle helmet use is rarely observed, helmet use is strongly encouraged by the government in Great Britain (in spite of opposition by some cycling groups), and retroreflective tags and materials are provided to children. In Germany, "youth traffic schools" use police department instructors to teach practical lessons, while regular school teachers address sign recognition and theoretical understanding. In some cities, school students are given tests on bike-handling proficiency and recognition of traffic signs and signals. Graduates receive a driver's license, a certificate, and a safety pennant.

POLICE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

Active police enforcement of pedestrian and bicyclist activities is limited in the three countries. Many officials have the philosophy that streets should be self-enforcing; that is, residential streets should receive traffic calming treatments (e.g., street narrowing, speed humps, traffic diverters, barrier posts) to force motorists to reduce speeds. Police have many other duties and do not have sufficient time to enforce speeds on all streets.

Enforcement of vehicle speeds and other traffic rules is not as high of a priority in The Netherlands as in many parts of the United States. In spite of that, however, speed control (which is intended to improve safety for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists) is one of the top enforcement priorities in The Netherlands. Towing away vehicles parked in bicycle lanes is also common. Police in Great Britain and The Netherlands also try to enforce traffic signal violations, and the British have started using post-mounted cameras to take pictures of motor vehicle signal violators and mail them tickets. In The Netherlands, police occasionally enforce violations by bicyclists who ride on high-speed roadways where cycling is prohibited (although such violations do not occur frequently). In each country, pedestrian compliance with pedestrian signals is not particularly good, and enforcement agencies are attempting to increase pedestrian signal compliance through innovative signals, rather than through placing a high priority on enforcement.

ANALYSES AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Analysis and research of pedestrian and bicycle safety issues show that there is a need for improved reporting of pedestrian and bicycle accidents and injuries (and of accidents in general) in each country visited. Studies of hospital injury data involving pedestrians and bicyclists in Great Britain and The Netherlands reveal low accident reporting, particularly where only minor injuries are involved. Great Britain apparently does include bicyclist injuries in their official statistics, regardless of whether a motor vehicle was involved. (In the United States bicycle crashes with no motor vehicle involvement are rarely included in State accident statistics.)

A considerable amount of pedestrian and bicyclist safety research has been conducted in these countries in recent years, particularly by organizations such as the Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveilgheid (SWOV) (to be referred to as the SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research hereafter in this report) in The Netherlands and the Transport Research Laboratory in Great Britain. Encouraging results have been found related to safety benefits of innovative pedestrian signal hardware (e.g., pedestrian signals with infrared or pressure-sensitive mats); determining when bicycle lanes versus paths are appropriate; and the effectiveness of traffic calming techniques, such as 30-km/hr zones. More research is needed to further evaluate these and other measures in the United States.

BACKGROUND

The conflict between motor vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists has been a serious problem in the United States for decades. For example, in 1992, a total of 5,546 pedestrians were killed on our nation's highways.⁽¹⁾ In addition, more than 100,000 pedestrians are seriously injured each year in the United States,⁽²⁾ approximately 700 to 900 bicyclists are killed each year in collisions with motor vehicles, and many thousands are seriously injured. It has been estimated that over a half-million people in the United States are treated each year in hospital emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries, though many of these do not involve a motor vehicle.⁽³⁾

In spite of these statistics on bicyclist and pedestrian injuries, recent surveys have shown that bicycling and walking are among the most popular activities of Americans of all ages. For example, it has been estimated that 131 million Americans regularly walk or bicycle for exercise, recreation, or simply relaxation and enjoyment of the outdoors. Bicycling and walking, however, have still not reached their potential in the United States. According to the Nationwide Personal Transportation Study (NPTS) in 1990, only 0.7 percent of all travel trips (i.e., trips with a purpose) are currently made by bicycling, with 7.2 percent made by walking.⁽⁴⁾

In recent years, there has been renewed interest in the United States in improving the safety and use of bicycling and walking at the national as well as State and local levels. A federal report entitled Transportation Choices for a Changing America: National Bicycling and Walking Study⁽⁴⁾ has recently been completed. This report, usually just called the National Bicycling and Walking Study, was mandated by Congress approximately 4 years ago to recommend ways to encourage more people in the United States to bicycle and walk. The recent Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) legislation passed by Congress encourages State and local agencies to provide for nonmotorized as well as motorized transportation.⁽⁴⁾

The National Bicycling and Walking Study report discusses numerous benefits that can result from increasing bicycling and walking in our society in place of motorized transportation. Such benefits include improved personal health and fitness, a cleaner environment from reduced auto emissions, reduced congestion, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and many others. However, U.S. society has primarily focused on providing roadways to accommodate more and faster motor vehicle traffic, and many improvements are needed for bicyclists and pedestrians.⁽⁴⁾

Bicycle and pedestrian topics are now areas of national emphasis within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and many States--Florida, Oregon, Minnesota, North Carolina, and others--are working to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist facilities and programs. In addition, many U.S. cities have, both in the past and more recently, taken a strong interest in improving quality of life for their pedestrians and bicyclists through engineering, education, and enforcement measures. Cities such as Seattle, WA; Portland, OR; Boulder, CO; Palo Alto, CA; Davis, CA; and others have taken a leading role in such nonmotorized programs.⁽⁴⁾ However, while there is some encouraging activity relevant to making life easier for those who bicycle or walk, there is still much that needs to be done in the United States.

While looking for ways to improve programs and facilities for bicycling and walking in the United States, it is critical to review practices that have been used successfully in other countries. Much has been written in recent years regarding many of the successful nonmotorized programs in western Europe, including The Netherlands, Germany, England, and Switzerland. A 1992 report for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (A Study of Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs in European Countries) documents some of the successful activities found in these and other countries throughout Europe.⁽⁵⁾ For example, a variety of speed reduction measures (often called traffic calming techniques) are used in cities throughout western Europe to slow motor vehicle traffic and enhance the safety and movement of bicyclists and pedestrians. Auto restrictive zones, pedestrian and bicyclist streets, street narrowing measures, speed humps, and other traffic diversion techniques have all been successfully used in different ways to reduce motor vehicle volumes or speeds, particularly on selected downtown and residential streets. Traffic calming is most successful when done on an areawide basis as opposed to "spot" traffic calming measures.

Many kinds of pedestrian treatments and facilities used in some of these European countries differ greatly from the standard U.S. practices. In addition, bicycle transportation is a way of life in some parts of Europe (e.g., as much as one-third or more of all trips in some cities are made by bicycling or walking), and facilities such as well-designed bicycle lanes and paths have become an integral part of the transportation network in many areas. Pedestrian and bicyclist research, policies and practices, and roadway strategies and educational efforts are all components of a whole program of bicyclist and pedestrian safety.

There is much that can be learned in some of these European countries for direct application or transfer to U.S. experiences. However, in order to thoroughly understand the details of many of these pedestrian and bicyclist practices, it is necessary to review such facilities and programs firsthand. It is also important to talk directly with key policy makers, engineers, and planners who are instrumental in these pedestrian and bicyclist programs and to learn from their successes. Then specific State and local agencies must find the programs and measures that are most suited to their own situations to improve the quality of life for pedestrians and bicyclists in their own areas.

STUDY OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

The purpose of this report is to document the findings of a European project team visit to England, The Netherlands, and Germany, which was sponsored by FHWA and conducted on September 3-19, 1993. Discussions of practices in Great Britain in this report refer to those generally used in England, Scotland, and Wales, and not those in Ireland. Certain study team members also spent 1 day in Basel, Switzerland, and a limited amount of information is provided from that visit. The report documents findings from many areas, including planning practices for pedestrians and bicyclists, roadway facilities, educational and promotional programs, traffic enforcement issues, and some of the relevant pedestrian and bicyclist research that has been conducted in these countries. It is hoped that the findings in this report can be used in the United States to accelerate our progress toward improving the quality of life and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists in the years ahead.

STUDY TEAM MEMBERS

The study team consisted of the following FHWA, university, city, and State representatives:

Team Leader: Charles Zegeer, Associate Director, Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina
Michael Cynecki, Traffic Engineer, Street Transportation Department, City of Phoenix, AZ
John Fegan, Bicycle Program Manager, FHWA Office of Environment and Planning
Brian Gilleran, Highway Engineer, FHWA Office of Highway Safety
Peter Lagerwey, Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator, Seattle Engineering Department Seattle, WA
Carol Tan, Research Engineer, FHWA Office of Research and Development
Robert Works, Transit/Bicycle Programs Manager, Minnesota DOT

To document information learned during the trip, study team meetings and group discussions were held in the evenings and study team members were assigned to write daily summaries. These summaries--along with a large assortment of reports, articles, planning reports, and brochures--were then used in writing this report.

EUROPEAN CONTACTS

During the period of September 3B19, 1993, study team members visited officials from national transport departments, cities, universities, consulting firms, and other organizations in England, The Netherlands, and Germany. The representatives who met with U.S. study team members are listed below.

The Netherlands

Each of these contact people was very helpful in providing information to U.S. study team members. The draft study report was sent to select contact personnel for review and comment to ensure accuracy. Also, plans were made for continuing interaction and information exchange on pedestrian and bicycle safety and accommodation.

Great Britain

Promotion of bicycling and walking in Great Britain is becoming more important. Safety has been the criterion previously used for bicycle and pedestrian programs. However, the use of areawide traffic calming schemes is now replacing isolated improvement of "black spots" (i.e., high-accident locations). In addition to safety considerations, traffic calming is used to reduce vehicular speed, enhance health, reduce the fear of traffic and crime, reduce automobile pollution, and enhance the environment for bicyclists and pedestrians.

In Great Britain, a broader range of incentives for bicycling is being required than in the past: bicycle lanes or separate paths, secure parking at destinations, employer-provided changing facilities, and a general social change in attitudes toward the bicycle and its use. Political decisions, such as reallocating some pedestrian space to bicycle lanes, were also discussed.

The use of traffic calming in the form of 20-mph zones is being extended from residential streets to commercial areas as well. Multidisciplinary design teams use the themes of "community" and "quality of life". Reducing speed is the primary goal. While safety has been the motivating factor in the past, traffic design now promotes increased levels of bicycling and walking. Recent guidelines on traffic calming are available to local areas. Traffic calming as an areawide approach is preferred over "black spot" improvements.

To discourage the increased use of motor vehicles, particularly for commuting into downtown London, the number of parking spaces is limited to approximately 18,000 in London. Also, parking costs in downtown lots are 25 pounds (approximately $40 to $45 U.S.) per day to encourage the use of public transit over the personal car.

One of the concerns expressed involved reduced mobility for children in recent years. For example, Meyer Hillman discussed the concept that children are given significantly less license to travel independently than previously, due largely to lack of adequate walkways and street networks that allow safe walking and bicycling. A comparison of 1971 and 1990 survey data seemed to indicate a "dramatic" reduction in the free mobility of children. He felt this had implications for their rights and for their physical, social, and emotional development. Considerable controversy also exists with respect to the use of bicycle helmets in Great Britain, as discussed elsewhere in more detail.⁽⁶⁾

In Cambridge, England, land use planning is designed to create jobs adjacent to housing areas as a way of reducing the future flight from congested areas and associated problems. This tactic gets at an overall solution--reducing overall travel--instead of simply treating the symptoms with reactive traffic engineering treatments.

The Netherlands

Bicycles are allowed on approximately 96 percent of roads in The Netherlands, and are prohibited on only about 4,000 km of roads that are generally comparable to U.S. interstates. Most roads are intended for joint bicycle and motor vehicle use. Approximately 4 percent of roads have separate cycle paths for bicyclists and mopeds running along both sides. Outside the urban areas, approximately 13 percent of roads have bicycle lanes. The success of nonmotorized travel as part of the transportation system depends largely on well-planned zoning policies. A key element of successful zoning practices is to establish clear urban boundaries. Strip development along suburban arterials (which is common practice in the United States) rarely, if ever, exists in The Netherlands. Zoning practices are oriented to providing short trips. For bicycle and pedestrian programs to be successful, local agencies need to get citizens involved in their design, and citizens must have "authorship or ownership."^{(7, 8)}

Some of the safety objectives in Amsterdam include enforcing safe traffic behavior, providing publicity about safe bicycle riding, and encouraging motorists not to park their cars on bicycle lanes. Identifying and correcting unsafe roadway features are also important objectives.

In The Netherlands, increasing bicycle use and improving safety for bicyclists are intertwined. Measures for increased mobility are the same as those for increased safety. For example, extensive networks of bicycle lanes and separate bicycle paths are used. "Hot spots" have been improved, and more areawide improvements are being implemented.

The report, "Sign Up For the Bike,"⁽⁹⁾ is especially significant, since it is a manual containing the Dutch experience with the infrastructure needed by bicyclists. It is an important result of the Dutch Bicycle Master Plan. The five criteria used for the design of the infrastructure measures include traffic safety, directness of connection, aesthetic value, comfort, and social safety. An earlier policy on transport and transportation in The Netherlands had been developed with no mention of bicycle use. Both bicycle activists and citizens noted the omission. The policy was later rewritten, and a group of government officials, activists, tourist organizations, and railway representatives was formed. The Bicycle Master Plan was developed by this group and then passed by the Parliament. The plan enumerates clearly stated goals, and the means of reaching them. A five-step integrated approach was developed with subgoals in the following five areas:⁽⁹⁾

* Replacing short car trips with bicycle trips;

* Increasing connections between bicycle routes and public transportation;

* Reducing injuries and fatalities to cyclists;

* Reducing theft of bicycles; and

* Permanently incorporating bicycle policies into all traffic and transportation policies at all levels of government.

The vision of the Master Plan includes an overall increase in mobility, which provides opportunities to engage in economic and social activities.

One bicycle planning tool that has been developed in The Netherlands is a bicycle forecasting model. The model is useful for planning the best cycling network and allocating the budget among possible projects. The cycling model includes a traffic model to determine how many cyclists use a particular roadway segment each day and their origins and destinations. An evaluation model shows where new cycling facilities are needed, partly on the basis of traffic safety needs.⁽¹⁰⁾

The bicycle planning model forecasts bicycle use on the basis of where people live, work, shop, and go to school, and also considering the shortest routes and the unique habits of the population. The model has a three-part formula, which considers

* Modal split (car, bike, and transit);

* Safety, accidents, and environment; and

* Economic viability.

On the basis of these inputs, the model is adjusted until the desired balance of transport modes is accomplished.⁽¹⁰⁾

Several outputs of the bicycle forecasting model may be produced, including⁽¹⁰⁾

* A map that shows projected bike use of every route under current conditions (varying line widths indicate different volumes);

* A map that shows the location of facilities that are needed to reach a particular use level;

* A map that shows facilities needed to resolve high-accident intersections;

* An analysis of whether cyclists will use a proposed facility to determine whether it will be cost effective; and

* Projection of the number of conflicts that will occur at a particular intersection if a new facility is built.

The model has been successfully applied in The Netherlands and other European countries and will be studied for application in the United States.

Groningen has been named by the Bicycle Federation of America as the number one city in the world for bicycling. It is the sixth-largest city in The Netherlands, with approximately 170,000 residents (350,000 in the region). The city is nearly 1,000 years old and residents have an average age of 35 years. Of all the jobs available in the city, about half are filled by people living outside the city.

City officials state that the main reason to promote bicycling and walking is to improve the quality of life. The city has three major priorities for making transportation improvements:

Developing a compact city involves building housing close to the old city. Businesses are located where they are accessible by transit or by bike. The hospital is located near the city center (they are rebuilding on the site of the existing hospital). Shopping centers are not allowed on the edge of the city. Officials ensure that shopping, with the exception of car dealerships and furniture stores, is close to all residential areas.

Parking is limited to make bicycling faster than driving. Only one parking spot is allowed for every five employees. Bicycle parking is required, but no specific number of spaces is required. A new university library was built near downtown and near the old university area to reduce trip lengths.

Developing environmentally friendly transport involves giving priority to economically important vehicles (e.g., delivery vehicles, etc.). Circulation is intentionally made difficult for cars but not for bicycles. Traffic circulation policy includes dividing the city into four sectors so it is not possible for motor vehicles to travel from one sector to the other. Motor vehicles must go out to the ring road to travel to any other sector. Bicycle use is stimulated by

The third major transportation objective in Groningen is to take an integrated approach with public policy. The major point is that all public policy must be coordinated. For example, the following steps are being taken in the inner city:

In addition to these three primary objectives, several other ideas and goals are also part of the Groningen transportation plan.

Houten was given "new town" status in 1979 by The Netherlands' central government in response to a national housing shortage. Under this new town concept, the central government has input on the decisions of where and when new housing is to be built and also provides financing for housing. Houten was chosen as a new town project because of its proximity to the rail line, the freeway, and the town of Utrecht.

Old Houten (prior to 1979) had a population of 4,500. The population of Houten is currently 27,000, and the population will expand to 30,000 by next year when additional housing units are completed. There are 8,000 new homes in Houten, which have allowed this growth. The central government is considering a plan to build 6,000 or more additional houses in Houten in the next few years. However, an alternative solution being considered is to leave Houten as is and build a whole new town around a neighboring village.

Houten is 5 km in length and has 17 district neighborhoods. There is a ring road around the city that provides direct access to each neighborhood, but cars cannot drive directly between neighborhoods without going to the ring road. Pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed on the ring road, and grade-separated pedestrian and bicyclist crossings are provided outside of the city. All neighborhoods are connected by direct bicycle and walking paths, which provide convenient access to school, shopping, and other areas.

A greenbelt 50 to 200 meters wide passes through the center of Houten. Offices and retail businesses that employ many people are located near the city center, therefore encouraging shorter trips that can more easily be made by bicycle. Lower-density employers are located outside of Houten.

As a result of these and other planning strategies, Houten has 25 percent less car use than other towns of similar size in The Netherlands. Twice as many people use the train as in other comparable Dutch cities. Furthermore, no fatal traffic accidents have occurred in Houten in the past 5 years.

Delft has a population of 90,000, who collectively bicycle approximately 500,000 km per day. The street system operates at various levels: the urban network, the district network, and neighborhood networks. Bicycle paths link the railway lines and city center.

The Delft policy on cycling encourages public participation. The cycle plan has no stated objectives specifically related to reducing motor vehicle traffic; rather, it encourages people to travel more frequently by bicycle and to feel safer and more comfortable while doing so. In 1985, the Ministry of Transport and Public Works sponsored a film that documents bicycle policies and facilities in Delft. One bicycle promotion program in Delft includes a poster with the message "Delft can do better without your car."

Germany

With the unification of eastern and western Germany, the population of Germany reached 79.8 million in 1990. (West Germany had a population of just below 60 million prior to unification.) Over the past 20 years, bicycle sales, use, and crashes have increased. For example, bicycle ownership per 1,000 increased from 429 in 1973-74 to 593 in 1980 and to 726 in 1985-86.⁽¹¹⁾

Germany's current goal is to reduce carbon dioxide levels by 25 percent by the year 2005. Another is to promote more local travel by bicycle as an alternative to motor vehicles, particularly for short commuting trips. The former city of East Berlin has dense land development in a mixed residential and business layout, which is conducive to mass transit, bicycling, and walking. Trip distances there are one-quarter the length of those in other German cities. The former East German government had previously promoted mass transit much more than bicycling and walking. The German government is also interested in promoting bicycle and pedestrian use for recreational travel on holidays and weekends.

Noise reduction and other environmental legislation drives some programs. Both vehicle speed and volume are used as criteria for 30-km/hr zones, but speed reduction is a more important goal. For locations with up to 2,500 vehicles per day, shared use of the roadway is acceptable. For roadways outside of local areas, separate bicycle facilities are being provided.

Sight distance at roadway junctions is considered critical so bicyclists and motor vehicle operators can have a clear view of each other. Pathways should cross roadways near the junctions of roadways. The minimum width for separate facilities is 1.6 m.

There is a new manual on Planning, Engineering, and Designing Bicycle Facilities. The easier problems in design were addressed initially. The more difficult facility problems are now being worked on.

As in The Netherlands, bicycle theft is a major problem in Germany. In fact, bicycle theft is the most common type of reported theft. Insurance (costing about 100 marks a year) is available to replace bicycles that cost around 500 marks. In the summer months, financial incentives are given to employees to cycle to work.

Frankfurt, with a population of 680,000, has an estimated 300,000 commuters daily: 200,000 by automobile and 100,000 by trains and buses. This distribution is quite different from 1961, when 100,000 commuted by train and bus and only 30,000 by auto. Frankfurt is a vibrant commercial center with a strong financial district in the city center. There are no special efforts made exclusively for bicyclists, such as those in Munster, Freiburg, and Erlangen.

Officials are keenly aware of the need to increase shopping activity in the city center. In some areas that are clearly for pedestrians, various planting amenities (e.g., flower boxes, trees) and opportunities for very slow, winding auto traffic (e.g., chicanes) are successful draws. These measures are intended to attract people into the downtown rather than to the four outlying shopping mall developments that compete for Frankfurt's shoppers.

Munster is 1,200 years old and has 280,000 inhabitants, with 130,000 inhabitants in the town center. The regional population is estimated at 1,500,000. There are 1,016,000 jobs in Munster, with 64 percent white collar jobs, 29 percent blue collar jobs, and 7 percent self-employed. Munster also has the second-largest university in Germany, with 58,000 students. There are about 140,000 cars (about one car for every two people) and an estimated 300,000 bikes in the city.

The city is focusing on promoting environmentally friendly modes of travel, including cycling, public transit, and walking. This occurs in a number of ways, such as building new transit stations and bus facilities, improving transit scheduling, and building park-and-ride or park-and-bike facilities. There are also efforts to reduce car traffic in the downtown area, including creating more pedestrian malls and reducing the number of parking spaces in the downtown area (approximately 7,400 parking spaces currently exist).

In Freiburg, the politics of transportation are no longer the hottest topic. In fact, the subject of adequate living space (housing) is on the forefront of political debate. City officials anticipate that Freiburg (with a population of 190,000, of whom 27,000 are university students) will soon have housing built for an additional 10,000 people in one part of the city.

Political decisions in Freiburg are a matter of compromise and coalition building, with a city parliament of 48 members from a wide spectrum of political backgrounds. The Lord Mayor of Freiburg is directly elected and serves along with five burghermeisters. With this arrangement, the city has, over 25 years, successfully developed progressive transportation improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. Other positive steps have been the institution of traffic calming and 30-km/hr zones, along with the development of the city's electric tram (streetcar) system. One city official indicated that Freiburg considers itself fortunate to have both the planning and the implementation functions concentrated within one office, thereby keeping the project development process under their own control.

About 80 percent of the city's buildings were destroyed during World War II. Because of the efforts of one dedicated city planner, Freiburg rebuilt itself on the model of its own medieval street layout, with many destroyed buildings replicated in the process. The actual remains of the medieval town are located about 3 m below the current street level. Along many of the streets, mountain spring-fed viaducts flow gently alongside the sidewalks and trolley rails, adding the calming background sound of running water to the city's hustle and bustle.

The newer sections of Freiburg have not been quite so successful. The once-popular Le Corbusier model of tall buildings surrounded by a patch of green has proven to be a less satisfactory living arrangement than the older, more traditional layout. In the 1970's, architects were allowed to purchase and rehabilitate one old building apiece. This restriction was intended to prevent a single developer from buying all of the buildings, then simply leveling them and building blocks of flats.

The old town center has a ring road around it, with adjacent parking facilities. This makes it possible to enter the town center without a car, but it also means that all car traffic comes very close to that town center.

Every year, 2,000 new cars are added to the city; currently there are about 95,000 private automobiles in Freiburg. There is no free parking near the town center's pedestrian area. Metered parking is 2 Deutsche marks (DM) ($1.20 U.S.) per hour, with no parking at all in the town center. In outlying areas of the city, the metered parking is usually between 1 DM ($.60 U.S.) and 1.50 DM ($.90 U.S.) per hour; in residential areas, between 30 percent and 70 percent of total parking capacity is reserved for residents. In addition to paying 100 DM ($60 U.S.) per year, residents who want reserved parking must obtain a certification that they do not have another reserved space elsewhere in a public parking facility. A visitor in the residential areas may park for 2-1/2 hours; overnight visitors must use an off-street parking facility. In many residential areas, parking has been removed and streetscape improvements (trees, flower beds) have been built, making the street a nicer place to live.

Basel is another European city with several centuries of history, and one that is actively trying to retain and recreate the historical features of its street system. In some cases streets are resurfaced with cobble and other stone. The city is actively identifying locations to eliminate parking in the downtown area.

Basel has very good public transportation, with train, trolley, and bus transportation in the city. A transit (trolley and bus) pass that can be purchased for 50 Swiss Francs ($30 to $35 U.S.) per month allows unlimited travel and is transferrable to other family members to encourage greater use. Recently, the residents voted for a 20 percent increase in vehicle fuel tax to support improvements in public transportation.

The city has a policy to reduce vehicle parking in the central part of the city and has set up a permit parking system for the residents most affected. It is also city policy not to build any more parking garages in the city.

Great Britain

About 33 percent of trips in Great Britain are made by foot. Improvements for pedestrian safety are usually made at the local level. It is estimated that the 20-mph zones have resulted in a 70 percent casualty reduction overall and an 80 percent reduction in casualties to children.

In Cambridge, England, about 35 percent of peak hour journeys by city residents are cycle trips, while 46 percent are by car.

The Netherlands

In The Netherlands, 27 percent of trips are by bicycle, 17 percent by walking, and 6 percent by public transportation. There are between 18,000 and 19,000 km of bicycle facilities in the country, but the Dutch would like to construct more. One-quarter of car trips could "easily" be made by bicycle, according to a survey of motorists.

Approximately 48 percent of all trips made in Groningen are by bicycle, 31 percent by car, 16 percent by walking, and 5 percent by public transport. This use of bicycles in Groningen is about 10 percent to 15 percent higher than for similar-sized cities in The Netherlands.

However, of the 40,000 daily commuters from outside the city, approximately 84 percent travel by car, 4 percent by bicycle, and 12 percent by public transport.⁽¹²⁾

In surveys, citizens support bicycling because it is inexpensive, healthful, good for the environment (compared to motor vehicle travel), and it allows people to "stay in touch" with the environment. Reasons given for not bicycling include inclement weather, long distances to travel, and concern over status. Fear of motor vehicle traffic was not given as a major deterrent to bicycling.

In Delft, approximately 40 percent of trips are made by bicycle, and approximately 60 percent of the people claim to cycle to work at least some of the time. City officials survey the need for bike racks and install them. They cite that 12 bicycles can fit into one motor vehicle parking space. Thus, conversion to bicycles is touted as an important way to save space, which is a valuable resource in The Netherlands.

Germany

A 1986 survey indicated that bike trips accounted for 6 percent of travel in West Berlin and 2 percent in East Berlin. It is now 7 percent in Berlin versus 10 percent for work trips throughout Germany. Walking now accounts for 12 percent to 14 percent of all work trips. It was also reported that on a distance-of-travel basis, cars are 8 times safer than bicycles and 20 times safer than motorcycles. When factoring travel time, bicyclists have 30 percent higher risk than motorists of being involved in a crash.

Bicycling is a frequent activity in Munster. About 43 percent of trips are by bike and 48 percent are by car, which is a very high percentage of bike travel compared to most German cities. The city has an advertising campaign (poster and postcards) to compare the space used by various modes of travel and the advantages of using public transit and bicycling. The campaign compared the amount of space needed to transport 72 people with the following statistics:

Bicycles are becoming more expensive; a new mountain bike can cost as much as 3,000 DM ($1,200 U.S.). This means that more and better locking facilities, which allow locking the frame of the bike, are needed. Within Freiburg's historic town center, cycle parking lots have been created by removing car parking spaces. Freiburg has 170,000 bicycles and 95,000 cars.

Within Freiburg, 80 percent of all trips do not exceed 5 km in length, and 60 percent of trips do not exceed 3 km. These short trips are likely candidates for conversion to transit, bicycling, or walking. In terms of modal split, private cars captured 60 percent of the trips in 1976 but only 46 percent in 1992. Public transit increased from 22 percent to 27 percent between 1976 and 1992, while bicycle use increased from 18 to 27 percent.

Switzerland

A 1991 study of trips within the city of Basel (i.e., where both ends of the trip are within the city) showed 20 percent pedestrian, 20 percent bicycle, 30 percent transit, and 30 percent automobile use.

Great Britain

According to the official statistics of Great Britain's Department of Transport, there were 51,587 road crashes resulting in injury to pedestrians in 1992. Of those, 1,347 pedestrians were killed, 12,841 seriously injured, and 37,399 sustained minor injuries. Approximately 1 in 6, or 17 percent, people injured in road crashes is a pedestrian. Since 1966, pedestrian deaths have dropped by more than 50 percent and are at their lowest level since such records were first kept in 1926.⁽¹³⁾

Pedestrian groups most vulnerable to injuries include the very young and the very old. Children under the age of 15 years account for 39 percent of pedestrian casualties (i.e., injuries or deaths), with the highest casualty rate to the 12- to 15-year-old age group. Fatality rates were highest for pedestrians aged 70 years and above. In terms of accident cause, 31 percent of child pedestrian casualties involved a pedestrian masked from the driver's view by a stationary vehicle. Built-up roads account for 95 percent of pedestrian casualties, and pedestrian crossings accounted for only 9 percent of pedestrian casualties. British officials claim to have one of the best overall safety records in Europe, but there is still a problem with pedestrian injuries, particularly involving children. Since many drivers claim that they failed to see pedestrians prior to crashes, efforts are made to encourage pedestrians to wear fluorescent material in the day and reflective material at night.⁽¹³⁾

In terms of bicycle injuries in 1992, 24,962 accidents were reported, in which 204 cyclists were killed, 3,787 were seriously injured, and 20,764 received minor injuries. The cyclists most at risk in Great Britain include children and teenagers. In terms of the cause of cycle injuries, over half of child cycle accidents resulted from children playing or doing tricks, while three-quarters involve no other vehicle. (Note that unlike accident statistics in many other countries, which include only crashes involving motor vehicles, Great Britain's Department of Transport also includes bicycle injuries that do not involve a motor vehicle.) As with pedestrian casualties, 90 percent of bicycle casualties occur on built-up roads. Approximately 74 percent of bicycle casualties occur at intersections.⁽¹³⁾

The underreporting of bicycle accidents has been found to be a major problem in Great Britain. A Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) hospital-based study found that as many as 68 percent of cycle accidents may not be reported to the police. The study also found that slightly more than half of the cycle casualties involved head injury, including 29 percent injury to the cranium, meaning skull fractures, concussions, and abrasions. As a result of the high incidence of head injuries to young bicyclists, the Department of Transport encourages the use of good quality helmets to reduce the seriousness of accidents. Helmets that adhere to established British standards and/or American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or Snell standards are available,⁽¹³⁾ but the percentage of bicyclists wearing helmets is unknown. Although the Department of Transport does not support a mandatory helmet law, it does support their use.

Lack of visibility caused about 20 percent of bicyclist accidents in which more than one vehicle was involved. Bicyclists in Great Britain are encouraged to wear fluorescent material in daytime, to use lights, and to wear reflective material at night to increase their visibility.⁽¹³⁾

In Cambridge, England, approximately half of the recorded road crashes involve bicyclists, which corresponds to an annual average of 363 out of 711 accidents involving cyclists from 1989 to 1993. In recent years the number of accidents involving cyclists has decreased, from a peak of 400 in 1990 to 330 in 1993, but the high level of cyclist casualties remains of concern. The reduction in cyclist casualties in recent years corresponds to a reduction in vehicular traffic over the same period, largely due to recessionary effects. The city has adopted a planning and transport strategy with the aim of preventing a further increase in car traffic in the city once the recession lifts, in order to maintain the benefits to cyclists and the general environment.

The Netherlands

Each year in The Netherlands, official statistics show approximately 50,000 road users are injured (minor or severe injuries).⁽⁸⁾ In 1991, 13,303 severely injured road users were officially reported; of those, 1,281 people died and the rest were admitted to hospitals. Thirty-nine percent (5,236) of these serious injuries involved car passengers, 23 percent (3,115) were cyclists, and 10 percent (1,347) were pedestrians, as shown in Table 1. Moped riders accounted for 17 percent (2,234) of the injured victims. Among persons aged 65 and older, pedestrians and bicyclists were greatly overrepresented, compared to car passengers.⁽⁷⁾

Road accident victims are shown in Table 2 by mode of travel, speed limit of road, and collision pattern. Note that most pedestrian and bicycle injuries occur on the 50-km/hr roads, indicative of built-up (urban) areas. Collisions between cyclists and cars occurred most frequently at intersections.⁽⁷⁾

To better quantify the level of underreporting of road injuries, the SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research conducted a survey of the Dutch population. The survey resulted in an estimated 430,000 road user casualties (i.e., injuries, including fatal injuries), of which about 210,000 qualified as "injured" by the international definition, that is, the event occurs on a public road, at least one moving vehicle is involved, and there is an injury (as defined in The Netherlands, more than a scratch). Of those 210,000 injuries, the police reported 45 percent of them (95,000), but only 50,000 were included in official statistics. Only about 24 percent of all road accident casualties are reported in The Netherlands. The study also concluded, however, that the official statistics were much more complete for the more serious injuries. In fact, nearly 100 percent of fatalities were reported, and about 79 percent of hospital in-patient injuries were reported. Further, underreporting of crashes was thought to be far greater for bicyclists than for automobile drivers.⁽¹⁰⁾

Personal (or social) safety concerns are an important but not overriding concern in facility design in The Netherlands, according to government officials. Near misses are not reported, and accident data are difficult to obtain. Accident data are used to justify 30-km/hr zones, but are not usually used to justify expenditures. Indices of comfort are also important. Politicians believe that safety is not a major problem. Bicycle helmets are not thought necessary in lower-speed traffic situations, and it is believed that mandating their use would discourage bicycle use.

In Groningen, a common accident pattern occurs at intersections where cars turn right across bicycle paths. One solution tried in that city is to bring the path as close as possible to the intersection (so the bicyclists are in view of the motor vehicle operators) or to pull the path back away from intersection so a motorist can turn the corner and then wait for bicyclists crossing the street. Intersections with high accident levels are identified and then fixed when the whole intersection is rebuilt. In other words, they attempt to work for a comprehensive solution. Bicyclists hitting pedestrians is generally not a problem. If such accidents do occur, they are usually not serious, because speeds are low.

No fatal accidents have occurred within the ring road in 5 years, on any mode of transportation. The keys to safety are that cars yield to bikes, cars travel slowly, good sight distances are provided at intersections, and there is no through traffic in the neighborhoods.

Germany

Statistics on bicycle crashes have been documented in several sources. In 1979, 1,174 bicyclists were killed, representing 9 percent of all traffic fatalities. Also, 47,704 crashes involved bicyclist injuries, which represented just under 10 percent of all traffic-related injuries.⁽¹¹⁾ A study by Pauen-Hoppner reported that more than 60,000 bicyclists were injured in crashes in 1984.⁽¹⁴⁾

The fatality rate (in deaths per 1 million inhabitants) was reported to be 138 for all traffic and 13 for bicyclists. Furthermore, compared to other European cities, bicyclist accident rates in German cities are considerably higher. For example, between 1982 and 1985, the rate of bicycle injury crashes per 100,000 working population was approximately 80 in West Berlin, compared to 33 in Amsterdam, 22 in Copenhagen, and 16 in Stockholm.^{(11, 15)}

For motorists, the prevalent safety issues include speed and alcohol use. In Freiburg, Germany, accidents involving bicyclists have remained relatively constant over the past 10 years, in spite of the increasing volumes of bicycle traffic. Official police statistics are used, but a supplemental form has also been employed. Hospital injury reports are three times the number of police-reported accidents. Politicians do not look for accident reports for program backup. Accident data are not used to justify expenditures.

Overall traffic accidents are high due to the recent influx of new drivers into Frankfurt as a result of the destruction of the Berlin Wall and the increased immigration from East Germany. Last year the city experienced 30 more bicycle accidents than the previous year and recorded an increase in pedestrian accidents as well.

There is an Accident Commission in Frankfurt, as in other German cities, which collects and reports accident statistics uniformly. The recent increase in pedestrian and bicycle accidents seems to have been the result of

Frankfurt has experienced a rash of false insurance claims from pedestrians claiming to be hit and injured by motorists in one very congested part of the city, but these are being handled by the city. In 1992, they recorded more than 3 accidents at each of 54 separate intersections. Recordable accidents must cost more than 3,000 DM ($1,800 U.S.) or result in bodily injury or death. Below 3,000 DM, the claims are settled through insurance firms.

Great Britain

Safety had been the motivation behind efforts in this area in the past. Three years ago, funds were allocated by the national government in England to local authorities for roadway safety. The "Feet First Project" now provides money to improve the roadway environment. Funding is provided for national efforts and for local city or borough efforts. Improvements designed purely to increase pedestrian mobility are hard to justify on the basis of a "value for money" concept (cost-benefit analysis). However, those schemes designed to reduce accidents can be very cost effective. For example, 20-mph zones pay for themselves in about 16 months, according to one government official.

Funding for bicycle projects comes from several sources: 50 percent from municipal governments, 15 percent from provincial authorities, and 35 percent from the Ministry of Transport and other national budgets. The concept of "leveraging" national bicycle money is also important. Bicycling improvements cost 2.5 cents per km; walking improvements cost 0.5 cents per km; and 50 times these amounts are spent for mass transit.

The Amsterdam metropolitan area has been decentralized. Although bike facilities are inexpensive in comparison to roadway expenditures, getting funding at the local level is difficult. Quality, not quantity, whether of advocates or of arguments, is important.

In Groningen, the central government used to pay 80 percent of the cost of constructing bicycle facilities. Today, they pay for only 50 percent, which is the same as for motor vehicle facilities. Consequently, there is less incentive to spend money on bicycle facilities than there was a few years ago. However, 70 percent to 75 percent of transportation money is still spent on bicycle facilities.

Germany

On trunk roads and motorways, even in local areas, Federal money may be spent only on increasing the roadway capacity for motorized vehicles. Subsidies provided by the Federal government for local roads and for public transportation cannot be used for bicycle facilities. A new funding program that would provide money for these facilities may become available soon. Local money is currently the only source of funds for bicycle or pedestrian facilities, except in the former East Germany, where Federal shares of 90 percent (with a 10 percent local match) can be used for bicycle/pedestrian projects. Transportation agencies favor automobile flow, while urban and environmental agencies in Berlin favor bicycle and pedestrian travel.

Frankfurt's annual bicycle budget ranges from 250,000 DM to 500,000 DM ($150,000 to $300,000 U.S.). This budget is small when compared with a much smaller community such as Freiburg, where the annual bicycle budget is 4 million DM ($2.4 million U.S.).

There is one company that provides both heavy rail, trolley, and bus services in the Frankfurt metropolitan area. The annual total subsidy is 500 million DM ($300 million U.S.), of which the State pays 20 million DM ($12 million), Frankfurt pays 230 million DM, and the Federal government the remaining 250 million DM.

Currently, there is much discussion about how to fund overall transport and traffic programs in Germany. Since 1956, there has been a simple tax formula on gasoline that has funded program costs. With a downcast economy, new, more complicated schemes are being proposed and debated. There exists a tension between Federal and local agencies on how to fund a balanced transportation system.

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

The project team observed a variety of pedestrian facilities in England. It should be mentioned that many of these facilities were also used in other countries in Great Britain, but all of them were specifically observed in England. Some of these are mentioned below.

Zebra crossings (see Figure 1) include zebra crosswalk stripes across the road with dashed lines used to mark the crosswalk on both sides. Flashing yellow lamps ("belisha beacons") are mounted on poles on each side of the crosswalk. These crossings are installed at selected midblock locations (never at intersections). At zebra crossings, pedestrians have the right-of-way, and drivers must yield (i.e., slow or stop) to pedestrians in the crosswalk. Zebra crossings are preceded by zig-zag pavement markings next to the curb on the vehicle approach.

Pelican crossings are midblock crossings controlled by traffic signals and pushbutton pedestrian signals. The pushbutton hardware lights up and conveys specific messages to pedestrians during each interval, as shown in Figure 2. A walking green man symbol and a standing red man are displayed, as shown in Figure 3. A flashing green man indicates pedestrian clearance. A flashing green man on the pedestrian approach concurrent with flashing amber and red ball on the vehicle approach precedes the green ball indication on the vehicle approach. Instead of zebra crosswalks, pelican crossings have dashed (not solid) parallel lines to mark the crosswalk. As with zebra crossings, pelican crossings are not used at intersections, but are installed only at selected midblock locations.

Toucan crossings (see Figure 4) are shared crossings for pedestrian and bicyclists (cyclists "too can" cross together) at selected crossings at the intersection of roadways with pedestrian and bicycle paths. The preferred layout includes a tactile warning surface, audible beepers or tactile rotating knobs, pushbuttons with "WAIT" display in each corner of the crossing, infrared red lamp monitoring, and vehicle detection on all approaches. The desirable crosswalk width is 4 m; the minimum acceptable width is 3 m. Signal indications include red standing man, green walking man, and green bicycle. The flashing amber with the red ball indication is not used for the vehicle approach. Crosswalk lines are delineated by white squares.

Puffin (Pedestrian User Friendly INtersection) crossings, generally installed at intersections, consist of traffic and pedestrian signals with red pushbutton devices and infrared or pressure mat detectors. After a pedestrian pushes the button (or stands on the mat), a detector verifies the presence of the pedestrian. This helps eliminate "false signal calls" associated with children playing with the signal button or people who push the button and then decide not to cross. If a pedestrian is present at the end of a vehicle cycle, the red traffic signal is indicated to motorists, and pedestrians see the green man (i.e., WALK display). A separate motion detector extends the green interval (if needed) to ensure that slower pedestrians have time to cross safely. If a pedestrian pushes the button but fails to wait for the "green man" symbol, the detector will sense that no pedestrian is waiting and will not stop motor vehicle traffic needlessly.

Puffin crossings are recent developments and are said to improve pedestrian safety and reduce unnecessary vehicle delay. Since the motion detector can detect only those pedestrians walking within the crosswalk lines, physical barriers are used on the curbs to channel pedestrians into the crosswalks. At some crossings, tactile surfaces have been introduced that guide a visually impaired person to the crosswalk. Puffin crossings are currently used at 27 demonstration sites in Great Britain. One official stated that they expect to eventually replace all pelican and toucan crossings with puffin crossings if they are found effective based on pedestrian accidents, vehicle delays, detector and equipment adequacy, and other factors.

Pedestrian messages, such as "LOOK RIGHT" or "LOOK LEFT" (see Figure 5), are painted on the street next to the curb to remind pedestrians which direction to look for motor vehicle traffic prior to stepping into the street. These messages are used extensively in London, where many tourists visit. (Many U.S. tourists are accustomed to looking left for traffic before stepping off the curb and looking right for traffic when standing at a pedestrian island in the middle of a two-way street).

Pedestrian refuge islands are used at many intersection and midblock crossing locations to help pedestrians cross wide streets. Island structures are generally equipped with curb ramps. They frequently have a tactile warning for visually impaired pedestrians, sometimes with midblock pedestrian signals.

Some islands are designed with barrier fencing and a staggered crosswalk to encourage pedestrians to cross each direction separately, thereby making it a safer two-step process.

Pedestrian separators (barriers) are common in some British cities, such as London, to channel pedestrians to specific "safer" crossing locations (see Figure 6).

Special pedestrian crossing prohibitions are installed at a few crossing locations; these signs flash during periods when pedestrians are not allowed to cross due to unsafe motor vehicle conditions (see Figure 7).

Pedestrian overpasses and underpasses (subways) are used in many locations where it is not safe or feasible for pedestrians to cross at street level. For example, a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge has been constructed to span the railway lines near the Cambridge Rail Station (see Figure 8). The facility, which has been in place for 3 years, has generated about a 7 percent increase in bicycle and pedestrian use across that span of railway.

Sidewalks are used on all residential roads. Most of the older arterials already have houses and sidewalks adjacent to them. Tactile warning strips are used on some wheelchair curb ramps to help prevent blind pedestrians from unknowingly walking down the ramp into the street (see Figure 9). Where sidewalk repair and maintenance is under way, visible red-and-white barricades are used, as shown in Figure 10.

Pedestrian malls are used extensively in many English towns and cities to accommodate more pedestrians and promote safer walking in downtown areas. Malls are restricted to pedestrians either full-time (Figure 11) or part-time (Figure 12).

a.

b.

BICYCLE FACILITIES

A variety of bicycle fatalities occur in Great Britain, particularly in smaller cities such as York and Cambridge, England, which have extensive networks of bicycle lanes and paths. Bicycle lanes are commonly narrow; some were observed by study team members to be 3 feet wide or less in many cases, as shown in Figure 13. Along some city streets, contraflow bike lanes exist; that is, one-way bicycle lanes move in the opposite direction to one-way motor vehicle traffic (see Figure 14). Double yellow lines next to the curb mean no parking.

Bicycle trails are found in some areas of Great Britain, which allow for long-distance cycling separate from motor vehicles (see Figure 15). Entrances onto these trails are designed to prevent most types of motor vehicles (including motorcycles) from entering (see Figure 16). Such barriers cause some problems for bicyclists who enter or exit the trail. Bicyclists are also allowed to use an extensive network of exclusive bus lanes throughout London. In York, an abandoned rail line became an excellent bicycle facility using the existing bridges and underpasses. A 1,000-mile cycle route network for London is planned over the next several years.

TRAFFIC CALMING STRATEGIES

A variety of traffic calming techniques are used in Great Britain. Among these are chicanes (i.e., zig-zag routes), width reductions, roundabouts, and road humps. These methods tend to be effective measures for keeping vehicle speeds at reasonable levels once traffic has been slowed down initially via a signalized intersection. The 20-mph zones (see Figure 17), recently introduced, have spread rapidly. They rely on traffic calming measures to ensure that drivers comply with them. Various calming devices, such as speed humps dispersed at regular intervals (see Figure 18) introduce a frequency of auto driver decisions that encourages smoother, lower speeds. Traffic diverters sometimes block motor vehicle movement through intersections, as illustrated in Figure 19.

Innovative portable barricades are used to quickly implement traffic closure plans, as shown in Figure 20. These water-filled, brightly colored plastic barricades can be moved easily if necessary.

Another type of traffic calming technique used in England is speed cushions, as illustrated in Figure 21. Passenger cars and small delivery vans experience the bump's traffic calming effect. However, the tires of transit buses can straddle the raised area and escape the jarring effect of the speed cushion, because these vehicles are wider than passenger cars. In this way, transit riders are spared the uncomfortable jolt that normally occurs when a large transit bus passes over a speed hump or speed table. Passenger car speed is still reduced, as the traffic calming device remains effective for them, while allowing transit and emergency vehicles to pass virtually unimpeded.

One official mentioned that tension exists between city interests to minimize in-city auto traffic, and county residents who want auto access into the city. One city official stated, however, that most of the public strongly supports traffic calming strategies.

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Much of the knowledge gained from officials in The Netherlands emphasized traffic calming strategies and bicycle facilities. However, some considerations are also made for pedestrians. For example, for midblock crossings, instead of using zebra crossings (where motorists are supposed to stop and yield to crossing pedestrians, but sometimes don't) they now use "block crosswalks." These show a dashed line across the roadway, at which pedestrians do not assume vehicles will stop. Zebra crossings are used only where motor vehicle drivers could be expected to stop (e.g., lower-speed routes). Special pedestrian signing is sometimes used at zebra crossings (see Figure 22). Providing audible feedback on pedestrian pushbutton devices is largely a local decision. Crosswalks on speed humps are also used.

Pedestrian signal displays include a red standing man (i.e., DON'T WALK) and a green walking man symbol (i.e., WALK). A flashing green man (i.e., you may walk, but the red man display will follow soon) follows the steady green man phase. Pedestrian pushbuttons are also used at some crossing locations (see Figure 23). Pedestrian signals are placed at arterial intersections with high volumes of pedestrians and motor vehicles. They are installed near the vehicle traffic signal.

A flashing yellow indicator has been tested in The Netherlands (along with a legal regulation) in some simple situations instead of a solid red ball for pedestrian signals. The symbol used for the yellow indicator is a triangle with an exclamation point inside it. The flashing yellow tells pedestrians that they may cross at their own risk, but other traffic has priority. The zebra crosswalk markings are removed at such locations to avoid suggesting that pedestrians have priority in crossing. Pedestrians still have the option of waiting or calling for the pedestrian green. The pedestrian green is an exclusive movement and therefore should be conflict free. The motivations for testing this symbol include the following:

The disadvantages found with the triangle signal include the following:

Another device tested in The Netherlands was a "pedestrian sender." This device provides a means for signal preemption for vulnerable pedestrians, including the visually and mobilely impaired. The pedestrian sender is similar to the emergency beepers used by the elderly and impaired to call for help. This device influences the traffic controller by doubling the pedestrian green time, activating an acoustic signal, and preventing conflicting traffic movements. No information about providing a directional indication to the vulnerable pedestrian was available. The results of a questionnaire indicated gr