$community_name

Public space

Safe and Healthy Mobility

CONTEXT

 

Road safety in the public space of our towns and cities is a key element in terms of mobility both for pedestrians and cyclists and for users of public transport and private vehicles.

When safety is not treated as a priority there is an increased risk of accidents and, consequently, death or serious injury. Also, indirectly, an unsafe and unhealthy environment in terms of air quality discourages people’s active mobility because, as pedestrians and cyclists, they are much more vulnerable than other road users.

Read more

OBJECTIVE

• Reduce accidents, air contamination and the seriousness of injuries.
• Foster active mobility, public transport and shared mobility.
• Reduce private vehicle transport.

PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Road safety in the public space mainly depends on three factors: infrastructure (its design), users (their behaviour), and vehicles (their type).

When designing or renovating the public space it is necessary to take into account the various types of users (on foot, bicycle (electric), scooter (electric), public transport, private vehicle, etc.), how they interact with each other, and the hierarchisation of the streets and their uses. Various elements or strategies can be used to order these flows and increase people’s safety:

• Hierarchise the streets in accordance with who has priority. Everyone must be aware of the type of space and who has preference, which can be achieved with correct signage and a design that visually and intuitively makes it clear (e.g. different colours, textures and flooring).
• Discourage the use of private vehicles by means of push policies (e.g. fewer lanes, fewer car parks, implementing contamination and congestion fees, etc.).
• Incentivise public and active transport, making it more convenient and quicker by means of pull policies (e.g. wide pavements, more frequent and higher quality public transport, giving priority to buses at traffic lights, etc.) (Creutzig et al. 2012, Rissel 2009).
• Favour active mobility. Provide a basic network for pedestrians and cyclists that is accessible, continuous and pleasant and provides access to the main facilities in a well-organised manner (to foster their use it is necessary to have infrastructure for bicycles within a range of 400 m from all homes) (Buehler and Pucher, 2012; Krizek and Johnson, 2006; Mertens et al., 2016; Pucher et al., 2010).
• Use flooring, textures and colours that make it easy to distinguish zones.
• Redesign streets to limit through traffic and reduce its speed.
• Design a network of bicycle lanes (streets with a speed limit of less than 30 km/h can be shared by cyclists and cars).
• Implement traffic calming measures to reduce the speed of motor vehicles (e.g. limiting speed to 30 km/h, excluding private vehicles from certain stretches, making lanes narrower, including elements designed to reduce speed, where applicable, etc.).
• Facilitate safe access to public transport stops and protected waiting areas, with real-time information about the bus service.
• Design a continuous network of pedestrian routes to link the main points to residential areas and have elements to make the route more pleasant and entertaining (e.g. fountains, urban furniture, play areas, shade, public toilets, green and blue spaces, etc.).
• Improve the safety levels of road works and construction projects that affect public streets.
• Avoid the installation of bins and other visual obstacles just before a pedestrian crossing or junction, as they make it difficult to see vehicles and pedestrians.
• Regulate traffic lights at junctions (giving priority to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport).
• Design safe pedestrian crossings at intersections and halfway along blocks in order to prioritise and connect pedestrian routes. Administer a suitable amount of green time at traffic lights to allow people to cross, and install visible access ramps.
• Make connections between pedestrian routes, cyclist infrastructure and public transport intuitive (Davison and Lawson 2006; McCormack and Shiell 2011).
• Install rails at the entrances to public buildings to separate the pavement from the road with the aim of preventing possible accidents when large groups of people leave en masse.

In addition to careful design, it is necessary to:

• Incorporate educational measures (e.g. actions at schools, road safety courses, civic responsibility courses, etc.).
• Coordinate the various security agents (local police, the Mossos d’Esquadra [autonomous police force of Catalonia], etc.).
• Raise public awareness about the inherent dangers of traffic.

REFERENCE EXPERIENCES

LEGISLATION

L’acord de govern GOV/127/2014, va aprobar el Pla d’actuació per a la millora de la qualitat de l’aire a les zones de protecció atmosfèrica, segons el qual han d’elaborar un PDE tots els centres generadors de mobilitat d’acord amb l’article 3.4 del Decret 344/2006, que generin més de 5.000 viatges al dia.

• ORDEN VIV/561/2010, de 1 de febrero, por la que se desarrolla el documento técnico de condiciones básicas de accesibilidad y no discriminación para el acceso y utilización de los espacios públicos.
• Decret 135/1995, de 24 de març, de deplagament de la Llei 20/1991, de promoció de l'accessibilitat i de supressió de barreres arquitectòniques, i d'aprovació del Codi d'accessibilitat.
• Llei 3/2012, del 22 de febrer, de modificació del text refós de la Llei d'urbanisme, aprovat pel Decret legislatiu 1/2010, del 3 d'agost.
• Llei 2/2004, de 4 de juny, de millora de barris, àrees urbanes i viles que requereixen una atenció especial.
• Llei 4/2003, de 7 d'abril, d'ordenació del sistema de seguretat pública de Catalunya.
• Real Decreto 1627/1997, de 24 d'octubre, por el que se establecen disposiciones mínimas de seguridad y salud en las obras de construcción.
• Llei 9/2003, de 13 de juny, llei de mobilitat de Catalunya.

STUDIES AND TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION

• Dombriz, M.A., 2009. Recomanacions de mobilitat per al disseny urbà de Catalunya . Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament de Política Territorial i Obres Públiques.
• Miralles-Guasch, Carme, 2010. Dones, mobilitat, temps i ciutats. Generalitat de Catalunya. Institut Català de les Dones.
• WHO, 2019.Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for walking and cycling, V 4.2.
• Boschetti, F. 2017. Handbook of good practice case studies for promotion of walking and cycling.
• Muñoz, Sarah-Anne 2009. Children in the Outdoors. A literature review. Sustainable Development Research Centre.
• NHTSA sd. Walkability Checklist. NHTSA
• NHTSA sd. Bikeability Checklist. NHTSA
• Department for Transport under licence from the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 2007. Manual for Streets. Welsh Assembly Government.

Scientific papers:

• Buehler, R., Pucher, J., 2012. Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: New evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes. Transportation, 39(2).
• Creutzig, F., 2012. Decarbonizing urban transport in European cities: four cases show possibly high co-benefits. Environmental Research Letters, 7(4).
• Davison, K. & Lawson, C., 2006. Do attributes in the physical environment influence children’s physical activity? A review of the literature. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 3(19).
• Elvik, R., Bjørnskau, T., 2017. Safety-in-numbers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence. Safety Science, 92.
• Hamer, M. & Chida, Y., 2008. Active commuting and cardiovascular risk: a meta-analytic review. Preventive Medicine, 46(1).
• Hamer, M., Chida, Y., 2009. Physical activity and risk of neurodegenerative disease: a systematic review of prospective evidence. Psychological Medicine, 39(1).
• Colorectal Disease, 11(7).
• Jacobsen, P.L., 2003. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Injury Prevention, 9(3).
• Krizek, K.J. & Johnson, P.J., 2006. Proximity to Trails and Cycling and Walking. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1).
• Kyu, H.H., et al., 2016. cancer, colon cancer, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and ischemic stroke events: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. BMJ, 354(i3857), 1-9.
• McCormack, G.R., Shiell, A., 2011. In search of causality: A systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.
• Mertens, L., et al., 2016. Differences in environmental preferences towards cycling for transport among adults: a latent class analysis. BMC Public Health, 16(782).
• Pucher, J., Dill, J., Handy, S., 2010. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international review. Preventive Medicine, 50.
• Rissel, C.E., 2009. Active travel: a climate change mitigation strategy with co-benefits for health. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, 20(2).
• Woodcock, J. et al., 2011. Non-vigorous physical activity and all-cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(1).

---

---