As a result, infrastructure policy requires a holistic approach. It is not just about fulfilling the original aim of ensuring people can travel from A to B safely and effectively – we need supra-regional transport concepts that take account of the different types of road user, their specific requirements, and the policy intentions with respect to the mobility revolution. These concepts must be taken up and implemented for local projects. Essential considerations, both for standalone projects and the overarching concept, must be: safety (road safety and general safety), the sustainability of the measures and mobility options that are being promoted, achieving net zero during implementation and when the solution is “in operation”, maximizing usability, care and maintenance, and creating livable spaces with a high-quality environment. Potential future changes to mobility patterns and the type of vehicles that people choose to use also need to be considered, so as to ensure changes can be made with a minimum of effort later on.
However, such measures can only be implemented in a meaningful way if the existing space is reallocated. This is because there is generally only a finite amount of space available to work with, which cannot be extended. Yet this is also precisely where major political problems lie. Getting rid of parking spaces, reducing traffic lanes, lowering the speed limit, installing asphalted bicycle paths in parks, introducing bans on overtaking cyclists, excluding certain road users from bicycle boulevards, or blocking off main roads for cyclists all constitute restrictions on people’s existing rights. It is not an easy nut to crack – neither for politicians (who are dependent on votes) nor anyone affected (who will each have their own opinion about how they should be able to travel and about sustainability, along with various other needs). As a result, far too often we see a search for compromises which essentially do not achieve any of the goals that were set and ultimately cause confusion and dissatisfaction overall, and in the worst case lead to more accidents and casualties. A good and frequently seen example of this is when lines are painted on the road to mark out a bicycle lane. These lanes are mostly too narrow for cyclists, they encourage car drivers to make dangerous overtaking maneuvers, and they only go as far as the next intersection before suddenly stopping because an overarching active travel concept has not been implemented. The only figures that look good in this respect are the municipal statistics on the amount of cycling infrastructure installed.
In order to adopt a holistic approach to infrastructure planning, all stakeholders must be Ideally, the different types of road user would be incorporated in a holistic infrastructure planning approach. consulted early on in the planning phase so that their specific needs can be defined. This also concerns deciding how the (re)construction costs and the resulting follow-on costs and work should be allocated. Depending on the nature of the specific project, this could fall not only to the relevant contracting road enterprise and the official departments responsible for environmental protection and mobility, but also the public transport providers affected, the organizations responsible for road cleaning, the police, the rescue services, and affected telecommunications service providers and utility companies. Depending on the scale of the measures, it may also be necessary to consult accident commissions, associations that champion the interests of pedestrians, cyclists, and people with impairments, and the affected citizens.