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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.