• 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 roundabout Drachten
  • 2. Location
  • 3. Traffic flows
  • 4. Old situation
  • 5. The shared-space roundabout
  • 6. In accordance with recommendations
  • 7. No separation of pedestrian and bike paths
  • 8. Freedom for cyclists
  • 9. The bicycle crossings
  • 10. Detail bicycle crossings
  • 11. Pedestrian crossing at a distance
  • 12. Some chaos on the bicycle crossing
  • 13. Priority behaviour
  • 14. Extending left hand
  • 15. Extending right hand
  • 16. Low speed
  • 17. No traffic islands
  • 18. Central island
  • 19. Low bands
  • 20. Loading zone
  • 21. Lighting
  • 22. Evaluation
  • 23. Details
  • 24. Eight differences in traffic engineering

• 1. Shared-space roundabout Drachten

  

  Drachten, Laweiplein, shared-space roundabout. Laweiplein is one of the best-known examples of shared space at a busy intersection. By regulating as little as possible, traffic participants would be encouraged to assume more responsibility for their own behaviour. Laweiplein has drawn national and international attention from traffic engineers and others.

   

   

• 2. Location

  

  Laweiplein is located to the south of the Drachten central shopping district. Laweiplein roundabout is part of a kind of ring road around the shopping district. Another well-known example of shared space, De Kaden intersection, is also located on this.

• 3. Traffic flows

  

  Over 18,000 motor vehicles and 5,000 cyclists use the roundabout daily. The flow of motor vehicles is mainly east to west and vice versa. Bicycle intensities are evenly divided over the various legs. By far most cyclists ride straight ahead. The roundabout also is of major importance to public transport. Almost all regional buses use the roundabout. At peak times this means approximately 10 buses per hour. 

• 4. Old situation

  

  In the old situation traffic on Laweiplein was regulated by means of traffic lights. The design of the intersection was tailored to this purpose: separate direction lanes for cars and even bicycles, overflow bike paths, advanced positioning areas for cyclists, traffic islands and pedestrians crossings.

   

   

• 5. The shared-space roundabout

  

  In 2003 Laweiplein was redesigned in accordance with shared-space principles. By regulating as little as possible, traffic participants would be encouraged to assume more responsibility for their own behaviour. And the design should contribute to the quality of public space (and the local economy) without affecting the traffic function. To this purpose two fountains have been constructed whose height increases with increasing numbers of motor vehicles. (At the time of the visit the fountains were not in operation).

   

   

• 6. In accordance with recommendations

  

  Although the basic principle was to regulate as little as possible, a number of additional traffic measures have been taken. Essentially the intersection is a ‘normal’ roundabout with a central island and an obligatory anti-clockwise direction of the traffic. Priority arrangements are in favour of cars and bicycles on the roundabout. This solution conforms therefore in essence to the standard recommendations for intersections of two local roads within towns.

   

   

• 7. No separation of pedestrian and bike paths

  

  A major distinguishing feature of the roundabout is the fact that there is no separation between cyclists and pedestrians. The approach roads do have bicycle lanes, but as soon as cyclists enter the roundabout they meet a bricked space to be shared with pedestrians. The sign bike path is absent, so technically cyclists could use the lanes as well.

• 8. Freedom for cyclists

  

  In the bricked space cyclists may comfortably choose their own way (cut corners, wide turns), except for the north-west quadrant. There is no room there as a bank building lies close to the roundabout. There cyclists have to make a tight turn to the left in order to follow the roundabout.

   

   

• 9. The bicycle crossings

  

  The bicycle crossings (approx. 2 metres wide) have been executed in bricks (instead of the usual red asphalt) between two wide bands. The crossings are not raised, although the use of bands does give the impression that they are at a somewhat higher level. The sole markings are give-way markings (no blocks). The sign ‘yield’ is also absent.

• 10. Detail bicycle crossings

  

  A rather unfortunate detail of the bicycle crossings is the drain located at the very corner. Particularly in the north-west quadrant, where cyclists have to make a tight turn due to lack of space, cyclists regularly end up in the drain. At the very location where they should be able to focus exclusively on the interaction with motorists.

• 11. Pedestrian crossing at a distance

  

  On all approaches wide pedestrians crossings have been realised, often at some distance from the roundabout. The original design contained no pedestrian crossings, as this somewhat contravenes the principle to regulate as little as possible. As a result of public comments, however, it was decided to add pedestrian crossings anyway.

• 12. Some chaos on the bicycle crossing

  

  Many pedestrians, however, use the bicycle crossings instead of the pedestrian crossings, as these are more inviting (closer to the roundabout). This results sometimes in a rather chaotic situation on the bicycle crossing, particularly when there are also cyclists going against traffic.

• 13. Priority behaviour

  

  Cyclists on the roundabout have the right of way and in almost cases this is observed by motorists approaching or leaving the roundabout, according to an evaluation by Noordelijke Hogeschool Leeuwarden (NHL). Over 95 per cent of cyclists continue on their way without having to stop. This exemplary traffic behaviour can most certainly be attributed in part to the low speed of motor vehicles.

   

   

• 14. Extending left hand

  

  Cyclists wanting to continue on the roundabout in most cases extend their left hand (so motorists can see they have to yield). The percentage of cyclists extending their left hand is considerably higher (70 to 80%) on legs with a lot of motor vehicles than on legs with less traffic (approx. 50%). It is a familiar phenomenon on other roundabouts elsewhere in the country as well that cyclists indicate their intentions better when it is busy and they are in close proximity to motor vehicles.

• 15. Extending right hand

  

  A considerable number of cyclists also extend their right hand on leaving the roundabout. According to the regulations cyclists leaving a roundabout should indeed do so, but the self-interest is minor. This is mainly an act of courtesy towards motorists, indicating there is no need to yield. This type of indication also occurs more frequently on the busy legs (40 to 50% of cyclists) than on the less busy legs (approx. 10%), according to the NHL evaluation.

• 16. Low speed

  

  Due to the large volume of traffic speeds are in general quite low. During the afternoon peak hour there are almost always queues on the approaches. At that time the east leg is busiest. According to Omni-X calculations average waiting time on this leg is 37 seconds (I/C value 0,91). The observations in the NHL-study reveal on the other hand that actual average waiting times are somewhat shorter (less than 24 seconds). Despite the heavy load delays for cars and buses have almost halved in comparison to the previous situation (traffic lights).

• 17. No traffic islands

  

  On the approach roads no traffic islands have been implemented, as usual in roundabouts with comparable intensities. Traffic islands provide a rest to cyclists, giving them an opportunity to dare to exercise their right of way. Moreover, a traffic island increases handling capacity since approaching motorists can ascertain sooner whether cars will be leaving the roundabout. An advantage of the solution employed here, without traffic islands, is that the approach road need not be as wide (approx. 6 metres). If necessary large lorries may use the oncoming lane. Overall, this presents a more compact and less technical picture.

• 18. Central island

  

  The central island, too, is somewhat smaller than usual in roundabouts with comparable intensities. Since no traffic islands have been used on the approach roads, a smaller central island will suffice, according to CROW recommendations. The central islands sports a hillock, so traffic can only survey a small part of the roundabout. The surmountable area is relatively small and steep.

   

   

• 19. Low bands

  

  The difference in height between lanes and the pedestrian/bicycle areas is limited (approx. 5 cm). In principle lorries and cars may easily swerve onto the pedestrian/bicycle areas, but in actual practice this happens only rarely.

   

   

• 20. Loading zone

  

  The bicycle/pedestrian areas are seldom used by cars for loading and unloading. There are no physical barriers.

• 21. Lighting

  

  .

  As a result of the aim to improve the quality of the public space, a lot of attention has been paid to the lighting. The number of light towers has been limited as much as possible. The central island contains a tower in a nondescript colour. The lampposts in the pedestrian/bicycle areas are modest.

   

   

• 22. Evaluation

  

  The NHL evaluation questioned users about their opinions on this roundabout, before and after reconstruction. In particular the quality of public space and traffic circulation are felt to have improved. Over half of all respondents judge these aspects to be good. Traffic safety, however, is felt to have worsened. Only 17 per cent feel traffic safety to be good. Accident records, however, demonstrate the number of casualties has decreased (although the numbers were not high in the old situation either).

• 23. Details

  

  A number of details have been changed on the basis of the evaluation. Various differences in height proved to be treacherous. Extra lighting has made this more visible.

   

   

• 24. Eight differences in traffic engineering

  

  A list of the eight differences with the standard roundabout:

  1. No separation between bicycle and pedestrian areas;

  2. Bicycle crossing in bricks instead of red asphalt. No block markings;

  3. Pedestrian crossing at a distance instead of next to bicycle crossing;

  4. Only 4x sign Obligatory direction of traffic. Signs Give way, Pedestrian crossing, Pass traffic island on the right, and Obligatory bike path have not been used. Right of way only regulated by give-way markings;

  5. Compact central island without surmountable area;

  6. No traffic island with anticipatory marking. Therefore less width needed;

  7. A single light tower on central island in nondescript colour and a number of modest lampposts instead of eight light towers, half of which would be painted blue-white as a result of signposting;

  8. Small differences in height instead of 12 cm high bands.