• Intersections
  • Right-of-way intersections
  • Roundabouts
  • Traffic lights
  • Multi-level solutions
  • Miscellaneous
• Stretches of road
  • Bicycle streets and mixed traffic
  • Bicycle lanes and bike paths
• Bicycle parking
  • Bicycle parking facilities
  • Buildings

• Suggestions

Tip: to view the examples bank in full screen (F11 in Internet Explorer and Firefox. F11 again to return to normal view)

• Chapters

  • 1. Shared-space Haren
  • 2. Location and traffic volume
  • 3. Re-design 1983
  • 4. Evaluation re-design 1983
  • 5. Re-design 2003
  • 6. Shared space squares
  • 7. Roundabouts
  • 8. Position of cyclists
  • 9. Freedom for cyclists
  • 10. Parking not allowed
  • 11. Parking allowed
  • 12. Illegal parking
  • 13. Pavement
  • 14. Ease of crossing for pedestrians
  • 15. Shared space?
  • 16. Evaluation

• 1. Shared-space Haren

  

  Haren, Rijksstraatweg, mixed profile. In the nineteen eighties Rijksstraatweg was used as an experimental project for traffic safety. National authorities provided the funds to construct separate bike paths. Currently Rijksstraatweg is renowned as an exemplary shared-space project. The bike paths have been demolished.

• 2. Location and traffic volume

  

   Rijksstraatweg has first and foremost a local function, providing access to shops and amenities. In addition it is used by many commuters from Haren and surrounding areas to reach Groningen. On a daily basis approximately 9,000 motor vehicles and 4,000 cyclists use this road, the same numbers as in 1980. Motor vehicle volumes were temporarily considerably lower the first few years after re-design (approx. 6,500 mv/24h). This was a belated effect of the road works. The road has been laid-out along shared-space principles over a length of approximately 500 metres.

• 3. Re-design 1983

  

  In 1983 Rijksstraatweg had undergone major re-design work. The aim of this reconstruction was comparable to that of 2003: improve quality of life and traffic safety as well as traffic flow. At the time the measures taken were however completely different. The 10 metre-wide road was reduced to two lanes of 2.75 metres each. Cyclists were provided with bike paths (1.75 metres wide). Splitter islands (traffic needles) were to improve ease of crossing and a stopping prohibition was to improve traffic flow. In addition these measures were accompanied by: “nice furnishings in the town centre by means of ornamental paving, lighting fixtures, benches, flower tubs and such”.

• 4. Evaluation re-design 1983

  

  Since the funding for this project was provided by the national authorities’ residential zone experiment (BREV), the re-design has been extensively evaluated. Conclusions: the situation had improved, but not all aims had been achieved. By separating the various types of traffic participants and the absence of parked cars the traffic situation had become more quiet and clear. But traffic safety had deteriorated for a number of groups. According to the evaluation cyclists often did not take the slightest notice of the regulations. They would cross diagonally, ride on the pavement or in the wrong direction on the bike path. There was a lot of criticism about the bike paths. These were not wide enough and the difference in height between bike path and lanes was felt to be dangerous, as cyclists could no longer swerve to avoid pedestrians or people in wheelchairs. Moreover quite a number of conflicts arose from the fact that crossing pedestrians kept their attention focussed on motor vehicles and would then be unpleasantly surprised at the bike paths

• 5. Re-design 2003

  

  A completely different approach was chosen for the 2003 design. There was a stronger emphasis on the residential aspect and engineering solutions (traffic islands, markings, bike paths) were avoided as much as possible. Despite the heavy traffic volume of between 8,000 and 9,000 motor vehicles per 24 hours a maximum speed of 30 km-hour was introduced. Cars and bicycles have to share a lane. With the exception of some stretches there is no difference in height between lane and pavement. The lane is bordered by trenches, railings, trees and lampposts.

• 6. Shared space squares

  

  On two locations the profile is interrupted by slightly raised small squares paved with bricks over their entire width. Shared-space in the most literal sense of the word. Essentially all traffic participants may use the entire square. The squares are located at logical sites: at sidestreets and for instance in front of a church. All intersections are equal. Traffic from the right has a formal right of way. All slopes are gradual and real speed bumps do not occur.
  

• 7. Roundabouts

  

  To the north the shared-space area is bordered by a roundabout with mixed circulation. The roundabout provides extra emphasis to the beginning of the residential area. To the south there is also a roundabout. but this one was constructed a number of years ago (with bike paths and cyclists without priority).

• 8. Position of cyclists

  

  From the very start the bicycle provisions on this stretch of Rijksstraatweg have been the subject of heated discussions. The first plans envisaged a mixed profile, but the design was changed to accommodate objections by residents and interest groups. The pedestrian area was provided with a non-obligatory bike path by means of a line of bricks. Cyclists were free to choose between the road and the bicycle lane on the pavement. However, this half-hearted solution caused so much discontent at the evaluation that the non-obligatory path has disappeared again. Text in figure: Bicycle on road, bike path allowed as well.
  Non-obligatory bike path by means of brick marking

• 9. Freedom for cyclists

  

  Officially cyclists now have to ride on the road, but due to the absence of height differences cyclists may easily avail themselves of the entire profile width. For instance because the road is obstructed by unloading trucks, or in order to park in front of a store. In actual practice many (young) cyclists do as they please. Not all pedestrians will appreciate this freedom for cyclists.

• 10. Parking not allowed

  

  The most striking feature is the absence of parking places. At the back of the stores there is plenty of parking space. It was therefore not necessary to include large numbers of parking spaces in the profile. There is a zone where parking is not allowed and illegal parking on the pavement is discouraged by means of railings. The absence of parked cars leads to an open and transparent situation. A row of parked cars along the road would have resulted in a completely different situation. Both for cyclists (who would be wedged between driving and parked cars) and for crossing pedestrians (who would be much less visible).

• 11. Parking allowed

  

  Despite the aim of resolving parking and loading/unloading as much as possible by the back, some handicapped parking spaces and unloading zones have been constructed. These are however not dominantly present. In addition unloading trucks are regularly parked on the road. Part of the cyclists will feel this to be obnoxious and dangerous (although they could easily continue their trip on the pavement). On the other hand this does have a calming effect on speeds

• 12. Illegal parking

  

   There are usually some cars parked illegally on the two squares, for instance to allow the driver access to a cash point. At the time of this visit this was not obnoxious. In the evaluation residents and interest groups did insist on better enforcement of the parking laws by police.

• 13. Pavement

  

  Pedestrians have clearly gained more room, but as stated before, regularly have to share their territory with cyclists. Remarkable are the signs indicating a foot path. It is not usual to use this sign for a pavement along a road. It appears to be contrary to the principles of shared space as well. According to police, however, the sign is necessary in order to be able to write parking tickets for illegal parking. As there is no difference in height between road and pavement, the pavement would not have a legal status. Without the sign motorists might argue it is a parking lane

• 14. Ease of crossing for pedestrians

  

  Another advantage for pedestrians is the enhanced ease of crossing. There are hardly any physical barriers to crossing and the speed of motor vehicles is moderate (on average 36 km/hour; V85= 43 km/hour). However, at the request of residents and interested parties several pedestrian crossings have been realised, although this actually contravenes the shared-space philosophy. Out on the street pedestrians (as well as cyclists) prove to be attached to the pedestrian crossings as well
  

• 15. Shared space?

  

  Rijksstraatweg has become well-known as an example of shared-space. In this philosophy designers should regulate as little as possible and stimulate traffic participants to assume more responsibility for their own behaviour. However, in this instance road authorities did lay down a number of constraints in order to ensure success for the design, for instance creation of a 30 km/hour zone, a zone where parking is not allowed, railings to prevent illegal parking and a roundabout. In addition ‘the popular request for clarity’ has led to pedestrian crossings and additional warning signs.

• 16. Evaluation

  

  Almost everyone will agree that the quality of the public space has improved considerably. In addition accident figures show a positive trend as well. Yet a percentage of traffic participants continues to wrestle with a lack of clarity and the absence of designated areas (for cyclists or pedestrians). Supporters of shared space feel this is only a matter of getting used to the situation.