Developing safe infrastructure for micromobility like bicycles or e-scooters is an efficient pathway towards climate-friendly, sustainable, and livable cities. However, urban micromobility infrastructure is typically planned ad-hoc and at best informed by survey data. Here, we study how data of micromobility trips and crashes can shape and automatize such network planning processes. We introduce a parameter that tunes the focus between demand-based and safety-based development, and investigate systematically this tradeoff for the city of Turin. We find that a full focus on demand or safety generates different network extensions in the short term, with an optimal tradeoff in-between. In the long term, our framework improves overall network quality independent of short-term focus. Thus, we show how a data-driven process can provide urban planners with automated assistance for variable short-term scenario planning while maintaining the long-term goal of a sustainable, city-spanning micromobility network.
Adminaité-FodorDJostG (2020) How safe is walking and cycling in Europe?PIN Flash Report 38, European Transport Safety Council.
2.
AlessandrettiLAslakULehmannS (2020) The scales of human mobility. Nature587(7834): 402–407.
3.
BarthelemyM (2022) Spatial Networks: A Complete Introduction: From Graph Theory and Statistical Physics to Real-World Applications. Springer Nature.
4.
BoeingG (2017) OSMnx: New methods for acquiring, constructing, analyzing, and visualizing complex street networks. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems65: 126–139.
5.
CardilloAScellatoSLatoraV, et al. (2006) Structural properties of planar graphs of urban street patterns. Physical Review E73(6): 1–7. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.73.066107.
6.
ChiccoADianaM (2022) Understanding micro-mobility usage patterns: a preliminary comparison between dockless bike sharing and e-scooters in the city of turin (italy). Transportation Research Procedia62: 459–466.
ComiAPolimeniANuzzoloA (2022) An innovative methodology for micro-mobility network planning. Transportation Research Procedia60: 20–27.
9.
CookSStevensonLAldredR, et al. (2022) More than walking and cycling: What is ‘active travel’? Transport Policy126: 151–161.
10.
CreutzigFJochemPEdelenboschOY, et al. (2015) Transport: a roadblock to climate change mitigation?Science350(6263): 911–912.
11.
CROW (2016) Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic.
12.
DaraeiSPelechrinisKQuerciaD (2021) A data-driven approach for assessing biking safety in cities. EPJ Data Science10(1): 11.
13.
FazioMGiuffridaNLe PiraM, et al. (2021) Planning suitable transport networks for e-scooters to foster micromobility spreading. Sustainability13(20): 11422.
14.
GauvinLBajardiPPepeE, et al. (2021) Socio-economic determinants of mobility responses during the first wave of covid-19 in italy: from provinces to neighbourhoods. Journal of The Royal Society Interface18(181): 20210092.
15.
GösslingSChoiADekkerK, et al. (2019) The social cost of automobility, cycling and walking in the European Union. Ecological Economics158: 65–74.
16.
IgnaccoloMInturriGCocuzzaE, et al. (2022) Developing micromobility in urban areas: network planning criteria for e-scooters and electric micromobility devices. Transportation Research Procedia60: 448–455.
17.
ITF (2021) Travel transitions: How transport planners and policy makers can respond to shiftingmobility trends. OECD Publishing.
18.
KlanjčićMGauvinLTizzoniM, et al. (2022) Identifying urban features for vulnerable road user safety in Europe. EPJ Data Science11: 27, (in print).
19.
KondoMCMorrisonCGuerraE, et al. (2018) Where do bike lanes work best? a bayesian spatial model of bicycle lanes and bicycle crashes. Safety Science103: 225–233.
20.
LambWFWiedmannTPongratzJ, et al. (2021) A review of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018. Environmental Research Letters16: 073005.
21.
LarsenJPattersonZEl-GeneidyA (2013) Build it. but where? the use of geographic information systems in identifying locations for new cycling infrastructure. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation7(4): 299–317.
22.
LovelaceRGoodmanAAldredR, et al. (2017) The propensity to cycle tool: an open source online system for sustainable transport planning. Journal of Transport and Land Use10(1): 505–528.
23.
LyonsGDavidsonC (2016) Guidance for transport planning and policymaking in the face of an uncertain future. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice88: 104–116.
24.
McKenzieG (2019) Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in washington, dc. Journal of Transport Geography78: 19–28.
25.
Natera OrozcoLGBattistonFIñiguezG, et al. (2020) Data-driven strategies for optimal bicycle network growth. Royal Society Open Science7(12): 201130. DOI:10.1098/rsos.201130.
26.
NelsonACAllenD (1997) If you build them, commuters will use them: association between bicycle facilities and bicycle commuting. Transportation Research Record1578(1): 79–83.
27.
NieuwenhuijsenMJ (2020) Urban and transport planning pathways to carbon neutral, liveable and healthy cities; a review of the current evidence. Environment International140: 105661.
28.
OECD Publishing (2021) Transport strategies for net-zero systems by design.
29.
OlmosLETadeoMSVlachogiannisD, et al. (2020) A data science framework for planning the growth of bicycle infrastructures. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies115: 102640.
30.
OlszewskiPSzagalaPRabczenkoD, et al. (2019) Investigating safety of vulnerable road users in selected EU countries. Journal of Safety Research68: 49–57.
31.
OspinaJPDuqueJCBotero-FernándezV, et al. (2022) The maximal covering bicycle network design problem. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice159: 222–236.
32.
QuerciaDSchifanellaRAielloLM (2014) The shortest path to happiness: Recommending beautiful, quiet, and happy routes in the city. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM conference on Hypertext and social media., pp. 116–125.
33.
QuerciaDSchifanellaRAielloLM, et al. (2015) Smelly maps: the digital life of urban smellscapes. In: Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.
34.
ReckDJHaitaoHGuidonS, et al. (2021) Explaining shared micromobility usage, competition and mode choice by modelling empirical data from zurich, switzerland. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies124: 102947.
SandersRLNelsonTA (2022) Results from a campus population survey of near misses, crashes, and falls while e-scooting, walking, and bicycling. Transportation Research Record: 03611981221107010.
37.
SchläpferMDongLO’KeeffeK, et al. (2021) The universal visitation law of human mobility. Nature593(7860): 522–527.
38.
ShahNRAryalSWenY, et al. (2021) Comparison of motor vehicle-involved e-scooter and bicycle crashes using standardized crash typology. Journal of Safety Research77: 217–228.
TeschkeKHarrisMAReynoldsCC, et al. (2012) Route infrastructure and the risk of injuries to bicyclists: a case-crossover study. American Journal of Public Health102(12): 2336–2343.
41.
VybornovaACunhaTGühnemannA, et al. (2022) Automated detection of missing links in bicycle networks. Geographical Analysis0: 1–29.
42.
ZhaoCCarstensenTANielsenTAS, et al. (2018) Bicycle-friendly infrastructure planning in Beijing and copenhagen-between adapting design solutions and learning local planning cultures. Journal of Transport Geography68: 149–159.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
