Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Amanda Lange Salvia, Tony Wall

Active Modes and Sustainability

  • Filipe MouraEmail author
  • Sofia Kalakou
Living reference work entry



Active mobility modes are all modes of transportation that involve physical activity and do not require the use of motorized vehicles. Although active modes of mobility include walking, jogging, running, bicycling, small-wheeled transport (skates, skateboards, push scooters, and hand carts, among others – also referred to as micro-mobility), and wheelchair travel, the designation active modes refers commonly to walking and biking.

Active modes are a crucial component of sustainable urban mobility development because (i) they are more energy and environmentally efficient, as they are human-powered; (ii) they promote health as they involve physical activity; (iii) they are socially active, as walking and cycling are often related to collective and socializing activities; and (iv) they are inclusive, since they are free or cheaper transportation modes facilitating the access of people to participate in the normal activities of the society, irrespective of their socioeconomic background.

Comparing Active and Motorized Transportation Modes

Transportation systems are composed of three main components: infrastructures, transportation modes that use the infrastructures, and people and goods that are transported by the several modes. Transportation modes refer to the different ways in which people and goods move from one place to another. Modes can be grouped into means of transportation that include land, water, and air transportation. The various types of transportation modes are rail, road, maritime (or fluvial), and air. Today, urban transportation means are mainly road, rail, and fluvial. The urban road transportation modes divide into active (or non-motorized) and motorized modes.

Many city centers and streets have been planned and designed with a car-oriented perspective. Driving from anywhere to anywhere has been the planning paradigm over the last decades, and motorized accessibility has prevailed active or public transportation accessibility, especially to economically active centers like central business centers or downtown (Ghel 2011; Jacobs 1961). However, the vicious cycle of automobiles, where increasing car demand asks for more capacity investments and increasing road capacity increases motor traffic (Newman and Kenworthy 1989), called for action toward a more sustainable direction.

Today, people-oriented urban planning and design are replacing the car-centered city planning. Planning for better accessibility relying on public transportation and active modes is the new paradigm, instead of planning for motorized mobility (Handy and Niemeier 1997). Furthermore, the effect of the built environment on the active travel of citizens is now recognized, and the interaction and contact between people are promoted (Handy 2005). These are fundamental elements of more lively and better quality-of-life cities with positive health impacts and higher energy and environmental efficiency (Cervero and Kockelman 1997; Ewing and Cervero 2010; Ghel 2011; De Nazelle et al. 2011; Giles-Corti et al. 2013).

The following table portrays characteristics of active modes (here, the focus is on walking and cycling) compared to motorized modes concerning a selected set of indicators of urban mobility.

Active modes can be very competitive for short trips, including the so-called “first” and “last mile” trips, which correspond to walking to (“access trip”) or from (“egress trip”) a bus stop or railway station (Fig. 1). Under 500-m trip length, walking is the fastest mode, altogether. Given proper infrastructure, cycling is faster than any other mode, for distances of up to 5 km, private cars included, depending on traffic congestion and parking availability of cars.
Fig. 1

Urban density and transport-related energy consumption. (Adapted from Dekoster and Schollaert 1999)

The following picture (Fig. 2) illustrates the urban space used by 69 people in different modes: walking, cycling, bus, and private car (1.15 person/car). This remarkable difference is even more substantial if we consider the shy distance between vehicles, that is, the buffer zone between each vehicle and the vehicle downstream. According to the values presented in Table 1 previously, when traveling, cars take up to 70 times more space than 1 pedestrian or 30 times more space than a bicycle.
Fig. 2

Road space comparison of 69 passengers in a single bus, 69 pedestrians, 69 bicycle rides, and 60 cars (corresponding to an average occupancy of 1.15 passenger/car) (Australian Cycling Promotion Foundation 2018)

Table 1

Urban mobility key performance indicators for active and motorized transport modes






Suburban rail


Speed – in km/ha







Travel time for 2 km – in mina







Travel time for 5 km – in mina







Space needed per person in vehicle – in m2/personb







Travel space needed per person (speed in brackets) – in m2/person (km/hr)b











Fossil-fueled energy efficiency – in MJ/pass.kmc







Calories consumed over 1 km – in kcal (MJ)d

60vii (0.251)

33viii (0.138)





CO2 emissions (gCO2-e/







Sources: aadapted from Dekoster and Schollaert (1999)

bLitman (2013)

cChester and Horvath (2009) (lifecycle energy consumption and emissions)

dAinsworth et al. (2011)

Notes: n/a, not applicable

iincludes alighting/boarding times at stops

iiwith congestion

iiiUrban Diesel Bus (peak)

ivbased on light rail (Munich)

vbased on commuter rail (San Francisco Bay Area)

viconventional gasoline sedan

viimale/35y/170 cm/70 kg for 1 km walk at 4.8 km/h

viiimale/35y/170 cm/70 kg for 1 km trip at 15 km/h

Furthermore, energy consumption for walking or cycling has two effects: firstly, it consumes calories with positive consequences for health; secondly, it is much more efficient than motorized modes to overcome the same distance (although at a much slower speed, naturally). According to Table 1, a car will consume almost 10 or 20 times more energy to overcome 1 km than someone walking or cycling, respectively. If compared with buses, the differences are three or five times bigger, respectively. Moreover, if fossil fuels power motorized vehicles, CO2 will be emitted, and private cars are far more polluting than buses, trains, or light rail.

In the end, these indicators highlight the reasons why resourcing to active modes together with public transportation can be so compelling for a more sustainable urban mobility.

Social, Health, and Environmental Benefits from Active Modes

The growing awareness of the need to reduce the use of cars and to shift to active transport is mostly driven by the significant individual and collective benefits for a more inclusive society, health, and the environment. There are many possible effects, some of which are extremely difficult to evaluate, for instance, impacts on the social fabric of a community, on the sense of well-being of the population, and even on the crime rate. Other impacts were reliably evaluated and quantified, such as health impacts of the physical activity and air pollution (Rabl and Nazelle 2012).

Figure 3 (below) presents the typical benefits for an individual who shifts from car to bicycle, expressed in annual avoided costs (€). The higher gains include health, where damage costs could be reduced by a meaningful €1,310/yr, with a lifetime benefit of €52,418. Shifting to bike can also add exposure risks to accidents and pollution intake while riding. Still, the order of magnitude is three times lower compared to health gains due to physical activity. For the walking scenario, the benefit of physical exercise was estimated at €1,192/yr, with a cost of change in air pollution exposure to the individual of -$15/yr. Collectively, society would benefit from reduced noise production by private cars (€1,700/yr per person) and productive lost time in congestion (€1,650/yr per person).
Fig. 3

Typical benefits for an individual who shifts from car to bicycle (Reprinted from Rabl and Nazelle, vol.9(1), “Benefits of shift from car to active transport”, 121–131, Copyright (2012), with permission from Elsevier)

Researchers in Auckland, New Zealand, studied the costs and benefits of transforming urban roads over the next 40 years, using best practice such as physical separation on main roads and bicycle-friendly speed reduction on local streets (Macmillan et al. 2014). The authors concluded that $NZ10 to $NZ25 would be saved for every dollar spent on bicycling infrastructure. Interestingly, these gains would include the savings in reduced investment in road infrastructure as fewer cars would circulate and wear them out.

Living in neighborhoods more “walkable” and “cyclable” (with sidewalks, bike paths, parks, higher density, and stores within walking distance) has been associated to a better quality of life, mostly related with healthier weight status and better mental health (Giles-Corti et al. 2013; De Nazelle et al. 2011; Pucher et al. 2010; Saelens et al. 2003; Sallis et al. 2009). While more physical activity leads primarily to weight losses (and reduction of weight-related diseases like obesity), positive impacts of active modes on mental health are less evident. Still, Evans (2003) mentions that socially supportive networks influence mental health indirectly and these are greater in areas with higher pedestrian connectivity or more meeting areas. Furthermore, there is evidence of more joy experienced by Dutch cyclist commuters in the study by Keck et al. (2007).

Social interaction is by itself an important benefit of areas that favor active modes. Appleyard and Lintell (1972) were pioneers in this analysis and studied how different traffic levels of streets affected the livability and quality of the street environment, on three streets of San Francisco. Besides the positive impact on the reduction of noise, air pollution, stress, and traffic hazards, they concluded that residents of lower traffic streets tend to have more friends and acquaintances than those living in streets with moderate or heavy traffic. Also, residents declared to have broader “home territories” (that included areas of friends and acquaintances) than those living in busy streets. The following figure illustrates the results of different social interaction intensities for different traffic levels (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4

The revealed social interaction of residents of three streets with differing traffic levels (Appleyard and Lintell 1972)

Streets’ pedestrianization is today frequent in many cities worldwide (i.e., conversion of the streets with motorized road traffic into walkways or plazas without motorized traffic). However, the emblematic case of the Times Square in New York is a clear example of the benefits of social interaction of walkable environments where walking, strolling, and staying generate interaction, besides the positive economic effects on retailing (The City of New York 2010).

The indirect benefits that derive from active modes are challenging to measure. Those include the reduction of road repairs and maintenance, avoided costs due to greenhouse gas emissions, health care, and the increase in bicycle tourism and industry. Retail and real estate business also experience positive effects with the implementation of urban plans that promote walking and bicycling in their zones. Campbell and Wittgens (2004) estimated that the annual economic benefit of active transport is $3.6 billion per year with the potential to reach $7 billion with a 15.2% modal share increase.

Active Modes and Sustainable Urban Mobility

As the world moves toward a global population of nearly 10 billion by 2050, most of which will be in urban areas, today’s challenges for cities (for instance, health, air quality, noise, and social justice), are likely to increase (UN Habitat 2016). Mobility is a crucial dynamic of urbanization, as travel demand (i.e., every trip made) derives from every socioeconomic activity needed or wished to be undertaken. As such, the required infrastructure to provide mobility always shapes the urban form of cities, that is, the way the territory is defined by roads, transport systems, spaces, and buildings. Despite the increasing level of urban mobility worldwide, access to places, activities, and services has become increasingly difficult. The urban sprawl, by which there is a horizontal, low-density growth of cities over vast areas, implicates longer distances between functional destinations such as workplaces, schools, hospitals, administration offices, or shopping amenities, leading to a growing dependency on motorized transportation to overcome such distances and, eventually, private car-centered mobility.

Consequently, widespread congestion and traffic gridlock have now become the norm in many cities, impacting urban life through negative externalities such as pollution, noise stress, and accidents. Furthermore, in sprawled cities, the physical separation between functional destinations often leads to longer hours of commuting and as much as a third of income expenditure on transportation (UN Habitat 2016). This physical separation is overcome with more mobility at the expense of a fossil-fuelled motorized transportation system. Newman and Kenworthy (1989) did an extensive collection of land use, transportation, and energy data on 32 major cities in North America, Australia, Europe, and the more developed part of Asia, back in the years of 1960, 1970, and 1980. The figure below illustrates the relationship between urban density (i.e., number of inhabitants per hectare within cities’ boundaries) and transport-related energy consumption (expressed in annual gasoline use per capita). More sprawled and car-dependent urban areas, such as American cities, will consume much more fuel to get people connected than denser and transit-oriented cities, such as in Japan. This relationship remains true today (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5

Urban density and transport-related energy consumption. (Adapted from Newman and Kenworthy 1989)

The percentage of active modes across cities varies substantially depending on the urban planning strategies but also on the level of development of the country. Cycling and walking tend to be more common modes in less developed countries because of the corresponding lower (or no) costs and the lack of more modern and alternative transport infrastructures. Figure 6 charts the modal split of selected cities in the world where an impressive 89% car share and 5% for active modes, in Dallas (USA), contrasts with shares of active modes above 35% in Tokyo (Japan), Shanghai and Beijing (China), Delhi (India), Madrid and Barcelona (Spain), Hamburg and Berlin (Germany), and Amsterdam (Netherlands).
Fig. 6

Modal split, journey to work trips, selected cities (LTA et al. 2011)

Generally, half of all urban car trips are less than 5 km (Dufour 2010). As referred previously, walking is a competitive alternative for short trips. For example, 80% of Amsterdammers have stated that they were willing to walk up to 1 km, a percentage that decreases significantly to 25% when considering distances of 1 to 2.5 km and 3% in the case of 2.5 to 3.7 km (Meijer 2012). As such, walking and cycling can cover a very significant part of daily trips in all cities.

Planning endeavors and policies are aiming at distorting this modal split that focuses on motorized transport and has been established at this state for the past decades in most parts of the world. Worldwide, many different institutions have prepared policy and design plans to promote walking and audits indicating the right strategies that can guarantee the development of walkable urban areas (Abley and Turner 2011; Ryus et al. 2014, among others). The practice has shown that investments in pedestrian networks can favor the share of walking as a mode (Lamíquiz and López-Domínguez 2015); likewise building cycle networks and facilities triggers latent demand of regular bike trips, following the motto “build it, they will follow” (Macmillan et al. 2014).

Many European and Canadian cities are following the path to the efficient development of active modes and showcase how to plan and build cities for pedestrians and cyclists instead of catering for motorized transport. In an era where the shared economy is rising, the integration of actives modes in urban and transport planning is more evident than ever. The societies adopt more efficient and sustainable mind-sets: all environmental, social, and economic benefits of transport actions are in the center of interest.

In this context, the objective behind the initiative for the development of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP) in the European Union is the efficient amelioration of transport-related problems following a participatory and integrated approach; a pledge for sustainability; a clear vision, objective, and measurable target; and a review of transport costs and benefits, building on existing practices and regulatory frameworks (ELTIS 2014). Among many concepts, sustainable urban mobility per se considers two crucial planning concepts as alternatives. The first one relies on reclaiming traditional neighborhoods and making them more walkable with proximate daily activities; the second one is transit-oriented development (TOD) that aims to boost the activities around main transport interfaces (which are main urban transport hubs, like railway, bus, or metro stations), where the “last mile” trip relies on active modes. Importantly, TOD restricts private car use and promotes active modes.

This urban mobility framework approach has been applied in many case studies (CIVITAS and EPOMM networks). Active modes are a cost-effective way to alleviate congestion problems in central areas with dense activities. Specific policies have ameliorated this bottleneck by banning the entrance of vehicles into the city center, leaving the space available to pedestrians, and improving the quality of life and the execution of activities of all inhabitants, employees, tourists, and local agents. The reduction of parking areas in public spaces assists as well as the promotion of active modes by impeding motorized transport.

Traffic calming approaches have also been effective in the attempt to favor active modes and especially walking. For instance, many cities encourage changes in traffic flows by restricting the speed limit at the level of neighborhoods or the city center. Hence, the so-called 30-speed areas are developed to facilitate the sharing of streets by both active and motorized modes, in harmony. Pedestrian and cycling signaling is also used to enhance safety, by reserving space and time for active modes while increasing the drivers’ awareness of active modes in the area. Regarding the design of the infrastructure, the removal of barriers in walkways and the reductions of pedestrian crossing distance are means to enforce walking, while many carriageway rearrangements are useful to spare space for cycling through bike lanes, counter-flow lanes, or bike paths.

People nowadays show a propensity to favor active modes against motorized transport given the proper conditions. A study of the American Planning Association (2014) indicated that “81% of Millennials and 77% of Active Boomers say affordable and convenient transportation alternatives to the car are at least somewhat important when deciding where to live and work.” In Canada, 82% and 62% of people have stated that they are willing to walk and cycle more instead of driving (Campbell and Wittgens 2004). A study in the USA, assuming that 100 employees would shift from driving to active modes at a typical urban worksite, estimated that each commuter would benefit 8.75 $/trip, considering the total cost of trip expenses and accounting also for the costs of environmental and health damages, time losses, and safety casualties (Litman 2018).

Overall strategies and practices have been identified to integrate active modes in urban and transport planning as priorities. Proper infrastructures need to be provided to achieve the maximum benefits of active modes. Next, planning and design principles for active mode infrastructure are presented.

Facilities for Active Modes

This entry presents the main features of active modes, how active modes relate with infrastructures, and which are the implications for planning and design of facilities. The entry is divided into two sections for “pedestrians and walkways” and “cyclists and bikeways.”

Pedestrians and Walkways

Ultimately walkways may be any space wherever people can walk, to the extent that they are physically able to do so. Walkways divide into outdoor and indoor facilities, whether fixed or moving. Outdoor facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, intersections, bridges, accessible sections, trails, and indoor facilities that may be tunnels or corridors (fixed or moving) connecting to the surface or underground areas.

There is not one single definition of how pedestrian networks should be structured or classified. The definition presented hereafter was proposed within the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan of Valencia (Broseta 2015) and used here for its clarity and simplicity. An urban pedestrian network (or pedestrian corridors) comprises walkways of different sizes and different purposes (Fig. 7). Main routes cross central areas and join them with adjacent areas. Side routes are smaller and run through specific parts of the city. Radial routes refer to a smaller scale and link main attractions with the surroundings of the neighborhood. Finally, ringed routes link the pedestrian inner space of neighborhoods.
Fig. 7

Structural corridors proposed in Valencia. Plane PRO_PEA_03 of Valencia SUMP, 2013. (Adapted from Broseta 2015). (Main routes (in red); side routes (in blue); radial routes (purple); ringed routes (brown))

Due to the low degree of dependencies in pedestrian movements, space requirements are mainly related to the space surrounding the pedestrian. Fruin (1971) introduced the concept of body ellipse to illustrate the buffer zones a pedestrian requires to move freely in space (Fig. 8) that corresponds to 50 cm by 60 cm for standing areas, with a total occupation of 0.3 m2 (equivalent to 108% the ellipse). This simple space occupation is determinant for the collective behavior of pedestrian flows in walkways.
Fig. 8

Body ellipse graph (where 18″ = 55 cm and 24″ = 73 cm) (Fruin 1971)

As for road traffic, the pedestrian traffic flow diagram portrays the collective behavior of pedestrians within walkways also reflecting the interactions between one another. Importantly, speed decreases as space per pedestrian decreases, and there is a maximum flow for the infrastructure analyzed which peaks at an estimated mean of 1.34 m/s, although variation occurs in a range of 1.08 m/s (Saudi Arabia) to 1.6 m/s (UK and USA) (Daamen et al. 2005).

An indicator of the quality of the space provided to pedestrians is the perceived level of service (LOS) for pedestrian movements that express the average space available per pedestrian along a sidewalk (HCM 2010). The different LOS for pedestrians is described in the HCM (2010) as a function of space availability (Table 2).
Table 2

LOS levels of pedestrian movements



Flow rate

Average speed

V/C ratio
























































Note: “V/C ratio” is the ratio between the volume of pedestrians (per minute for a width of 1 m) and the capacity of the walkway (which corresponds to the maximum number of pedestrians using a facility per time unit)

Pedestrian walking behavior and decision-making encompass more variables than the simple provision of space before they decide to walk to their destination and how they are going to do it. Also, pedestrians with different personalities have different walking behavior, according to their preferences (e.g., walking speed) and their habits and attitudes (e.g., the continuous use of the same route to reach the same destination without even considering other options because they are used to that one). Walking behavior changes according to the following main aspects (Handy 2005):
  • Related to the pedestrian, including sociodemographic profile (e.g., gender, age), physical conditions (e.g., any disabilities or health state), and personal psychology, culture, and lifestyle (which relate to preferences, habits, and attitudes)

  • Related to the trip, including its purpose, the time of the day, the number of people walked with, how well the place is known in navigation, and available alternative modes

  • Related to the built environment and its facilities, including its walkability, the effectiveness of the wayfinding guidance, and the land uses that attract people to the area

Urban planning and design have a decisive role to play and must ensure that pedestrians can move seamlessly around spaces with adequate guidance. In this context, the concept of walkability (Bradshaw 1993) has been introduced to express the extent to which an urban environment is more accessible and attractive to pedestrians (Abley and Turner 2011) and many tools have been proposed to assess it – for example, Walk Score (Front seat 2011), Pie model (Singleton et al. 2014), or IAAPE (Moura et al. 2017), among other tools. Certain qualities describe walkable environments such as legibility, imageability, enclosure, human scale, transparency, linkage, coherence, and complexity (Handy 2005) allowing the use of respective indicators for the assessment of its walkability which are connected, convivial, conspicuous, comfortable, convenient, coexistent, and committed (Moura et al. 2017).

Furthermore, pedestrians collect information continuously from different sources (i.e., signaling, information signs, other agents in walkways, among other stimuli), but they also need well-designed architecture to assist them (Rüetschi 2007). Among other techniques, Space Syntax is emerging as a useful and intuitive tool (Hillier 2005) to support urban and transport planners in the design of the city. In this way, with a proper built environment configuration, orientation can be facilitated, and walking is encouraged. Also, wayfinding, the process of finding one’s way in the geographical or built environment and knowing how to get to the required destination (Fewings 2001), comprises a requisite for efficient pedestrian space.

Cyclists and Bikeways

Cycling is clean, quiet, economical, and accessible. Technological developments are making it increasingly efficient and more comfortable. On short-distance urban routes (up to 5 km), it is faster than cars, especially under congestion. When combined with other modes (e.g., public transportation or shared solutions), bicycles can cover broader areas, effectively. The potential of cycling, as a means of transport for daily commutes to the workplace, school, or other regular activities, such as leisure activities, should be promoted in the new urban sustainable development paradigm (UN Habitat 2016).

Bicycles are well-suited for trips up to 7 km, pedelecs (which are bicycles assisted with a small electric engine) even for trips up to 15 km. Like for walking behavior, cycling depends not only on the bike users’ characteristics but also (and perhaps more importantly) on the cycling facilities and network provided. For that, it is critical to know the population of potential cyclists and target measures more accurately to meet their needs and requirements.

Dill and McNeil (2013) examined a seminal typology of cyclist developed by the City of Portland, Oregon, which categorized cyclists in four groups: “the strong and the fearless,” “the enthused and confident,” “the interested but concerned,” and “no way, no how.” The study classified 900 survey respondents by their stated comfort level with cycling on a variety of facility types, their interest in cycling as transportation, and their physical ability to cycle. While many types of cyclist and definitions can be found in the literature, Felix et al. (2017) proposed three types of cyclists:
  1. 1.

    Current cyclists, who cycled in the past month for commuting and would cycle again during the next month and are typically more proficient and physically able to cycle

  2. 2.

    Potential cyclists, who cycled at least once in the near past (e.g., 12 months) for leisure or commuting and would cycle again if some conditions were fulfilled or someone who did not cycle in the near past but is willing to do it although not convinced yet

  3. 3.

    Non-cyclists, who did not cycle in the near past (e.g., 12 months) and are unsure if they are willing, or are unwilling, to shift to cycling in the near future

After characterizing the types of cyclists, it is essential to know the “cycling maturity levels of cities,” which varies according to the number of cyclists in the city, the development level of the cycling network and infrastructures, the urban planning approach, and the dominant mobility culture (Dufour 2010). Different stages of cycling maturity have different investment priorities to promote cycling on regular trips. The European Union’s Intelligent Energy PRESTO Cycling Policy Guide (Dufour 2010) defines the following cycling maturity levels of cities:
  1. 1.

    Starter cities have few cyclists, little infrastructure, no cycling culture (i.e., cycling is considered unsafe and not respected by motorized vehicle drivers), and car-oriented urban planning and design. Current cyclists in starter cities may quit if conditions do not improve or deteriorate.

  2. 2.

    Climber cities, cyclists are present but the potential bicycle modal share (i.e., the percentage of regular trips made by bicycle) has not yet stabilized, and considerable progress has to be made to encourage more modal shifting to regular cycling.

  3. 3.

    Champion cities or “bike-friendly” cities, cycling is a regular practice and embedded in the local mobility culture. Here, cyclists expect a high level of quality of infrastructure, and the challenge is to maintain the cycling modal share by improving the quality, comfort, and security of cycle networks and facilities.

Fig. 9 illustrates the expected impact of cycling conditions on the modal share of regular bike trips, where non-cyclists are expected to become potential cyclists and potential cyclists are expected to become cyclists (Felix et al. 2017).
Fig. 9

Starter, climber, champion cycling cities, and modal shares (Dufour 2010)

Many guidelines are available to plan, design, and promote cycling in cities (NACTO 2014; Austroads 2014; Transport for London 2014; Australian Cycling Promotion Foundation 2018, to mention a few). These manuals are entirely consistent across the board in regard to the recommendations for planning and design of the cycle network and facilities. Here, we present some basic guidelines on the expectations of an effective cycle network (i.e., providing accessibility within the urban area) and cycle facilities (i.e., ensuring comfort and safety, overall).

According to manuals referred to above, an appropriate cycle network should qualify positively for the following features: safety, coherence, directness, attractiveness, and comfort. Table 3 presents the definitions proposed by the Australian guide for cycle network planning and design (Austroads 2014). Importantly, these features should have indicators and be verifiable in the planning and design stages of the cycle network (Moura et al. 2017).
Table 3

Bicycle network features (Austroads 2014)

Route feature



Minimal risk of traffic-related injury, low perceived danger, space to ride, minimum conflict with vehicles


Infrastructure should form a coherent entity, link major trip origins and destinations, have connectivity, be continuous, signed, consistent in quality, easy to follow, and have route options


The route should be direct, based on desired lines, have a low delay through routes for commuting, avoid detours, and have efficient operating speeds


Lighting, personal safety, aesthetics, integration with surrounding area, access to different activities


Smooth skid-resistant riding surface, gentle gradients, avoid complicated maneuvers, reduced need to stop, minimum obstruction from vehicles

The basic feature that determines the design requirements of cycle paths is the “dynamic envelope” of the cyclist, which determines the minimum effective width that cyclists require to move in safely and comfortably. The table below presents the different dynamic envelope widths for different cycling situations (Table 4).
Table 4

The dynamic envelope of cyclists for different cycling situations (Transport for London 2014)

Cycling situation

Dynamic envelope width (m)

Dynamic envelope of a standard cyclist, taking into account “wobble room” when moving


The indicative maximum dynamic envelope of the widest cycle types, assuming less “wobble room” for types with three or more wheels


The recommended minimum clearance between the furthest extremity of a moving motor vehicle and the outside of the dynamic envelope of a cyclist at 30 km/h or less


Recommended minimum safe clearance at 50 km/h


The recommended clearance between dynamic envelopes of cyclists moving in the same direction


Accordingly, cycle paths must satisfy the dynamic envelope of the cyclist for the different cycling situations. As such, although there are numerous design solutions across the world, there are four main types of cycle facilities that vary according to the degree of separation required between cyclists and motorized vehicles. The following figure defines what degree of separation is advised for different types of streets or roads, according to the guidelines of Transport for London (2014) (Fig. 10).
Fig. 10

Degrees of separation and types of cycle facilities (Transport for London 2014; Austroads 2014)

Logically, the higher is the place function of streets and avenues, the more the cyclist has to be protected since speed and flow of motorized traffic tend to increase.

As such, the recommended on-carriage cycle facility provision depends on the speed of motorized vehicles such as the corresponding traffic flow. The figure below charts this relationship and advises for the more adequate types of cycle facilities (Fig. 11).
Fig. 11

Degrees of separation and types of cycle facilities (SUSTRAN 2014)

Final Remarks

This entry began with a short definition of actives modes. The following four entries aimed at complementing this definition by providing basic and crucial information on the most widely used actives modes, i.e., walking and cycling. In the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, this entry is instrumental, since it explains in depth the term “active modes” within the context of sustainable urban mobility. The term relates to the Goal 9 “build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation” and, more particularly, to the sustainable development of urban areas that are increasingly concentrating population and economic wealth while facing heavy challenges of sustainability.

This provides an in-depth understanding of the term while giving access to a complete list of up-to-date references that gathers together the main contributors to the topic, both from academia (where most cited papers were preferred) and the industry (resorting mainly to reference international institutions).

As a final note, pursuing people to move from motorized transport to active modes, namely, leave the car and walk or bike, is not an easy task. Mobility habits are part of culture and changing culture may prove to be an arduous task. However, the practice has shown that building the adequate infrastructures and facilities for active modes and entailing proper communication of their benefits can convince passengers to change their habits and engage in more active mobility. For that, school programs are a sustainable mobility education which are a crucial piece of any sustainable urban mobility development, preferably starting with younger generations beginning as soon as elementary school.



  1. Abley S, Turner S (2011) Predicting walkability (No. 452). NZ Transport AgencyGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, Meckes N, Bassett DR, Tudor-Locke C, Greer JL, Vezina J, Whitt-Glover MC, Leon AS (2011) Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Medicine & science in sports & exercise, 43(8):1575–1581Google Scholar
  3. American Planning Association (2014) Investing in place: two generations’ View on the future of communities. American Planning Association. Available online: Accessed 1 Oct 2018
  4. Appleyard D, Lintell M (1972) The environmental quality of City streets: the Residents’ viewpoint. J Am Inst Plann 38(2):84–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Cycling Promotion Foundation (2018) We ride Australia [WWW Document]. Accessed 22 June 2018
  6. Austroads (2014) Cycling aspects of Austroads guides. Project No. NT2011. Published by Austroads, LdaGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradshaw C (1993) Creating – and using – a rating system for neighborhood walkability: towards an agenda for “local heroes. In: 14th international pedestrian conference, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  8. Broseta MT (2015) Urban quality improvement programs in the sustainable urban mobility plan of Valencia (Spain). WIT Trans Built Environ 146:351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell R, Wittgens M (2004) The Business Case for Active Transportation: the Economic Benefits of Walking and Cycling. NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials). Programme “Go for Green”. Gloucester, ONGoogle Scholar
  10. Cervero R, Kockelman K (1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 2:199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chester MV, Horvath A (2009) Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains. Environ Res Lett 4(2):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daamen W, Hoogendoorn SP, Bovy PHL (2005) First-order pedestrian traffic flow theory. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1934:43–52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Nazelle A, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Antó JM, Brauer M, Briggs D, Braun-Fahrlander C, Cavill N, Cooper AR, Desqueyroux H, Fruin S, Hoek G, Panis LI, Janssen N, Jerrett M, Joffe M, Andersen ZJ, van Kempen E, Kingham S, Kubesch N, Leyden KM, Marshall JD, Matamala J, Mellios G, Mendez M, Nassif H, Ogilvie D, Peiró R, Pérez K, Rabl A, Ragettli M, Rodríguez D, Rojas D, Ruiz P, Sallis JF, Terwoert J, Toussaint JF, Tuomisto J, Zuurbier M, Lebret E (2011) Improving health through policies that promote active travel: a review of evidence to support integrated health impact assessment. Environ Int 37:766–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dekoster J, Schollaert U (1999) Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities. Published by the European Community, DG XI, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. Dill J, McNeil N (2013) Four types of cyclists? Examination of typology for better understanding of bicycling behavior and potential. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2387(1):129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dufour D (2010) PRESTO cycling policy guide – general framework. European Cyclist Federation 8ECF, available at
  17. ELTIS (2014) Guidelines: developing and implementing a sustainable urban mobility plan. European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. Available online: Accessed 1 Oct 2018
  18. Evans GW (2003) The built environment and mental health. J Urban Health 80:536–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ewing R, Cervero R (2010) Travel and the built environment. J Am Plan Assoc 76:265–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Felix R, Moura F, Clifton KJ (2017) Typologies of urban cyclists: a review of market segmentation methods for planning practice. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2662:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fewings R (2001) Wayfinding and airport terminal design. J Navig 54(2):177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Front Seat. Walk Score Methodology (2011) Available online: Accessed 7 June 2011
  23. Fruin JJ (1971) Pedestrian planning and design, revised edn. Elevator World, MobileGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghel J (2011) Cities for people. Island Press, available at
  25. Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Knuiman M, McCormack G, Van Niel K, Timperio A, Christian H, Foster S, Divitini M, Middleton N, Boruff B (2013) The influence of urban design on neighborhood walking following residential relocation: longitudinal results from the RESIDE study. Soc Sci Med 77:20–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Handy SL (2005) Critical assessment of the literature on the relationships among transportation, land use, and physical activity. Report TRB Special, 102Google Scholar
  27. Handy SL, Niemeier DA (1997) Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environ Plan A 29:1175–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. HCM (2010) Highway capacity manual – 2010. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Hillier B (2005) The art of place and the science of space. World Architecture 185: 96–102. Available online: Accessed 1 Oct 2018
  30. Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Keck S, Harms L, Jorritsma P, Kalf N (2007) Beleving en beeldvorming van mobiliteit. Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  32. Lamíquiz PJ, López-Domínguez J (2015) Effects of built environment on walking at the neighborhood scale. A new role for street networks by modeling their configurational accessibility. Transp Res A Policy Pract 74:148–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Litman T (2013) TDM Encyclopedia – Glossary [WWW Document]. Victoria Transp Policy Inst. Accessed 19 June 2018
  34. Litman T (2018) Evaluating active transport benefits and costs. Guide to valuing walking and cycling improvements and encouragement programs 11 April 2018. Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs Victoria Transport Policy InstituteGoogle Scholar
  35. Macmillan A, Connor J, Witten K, Kearns R, Rees D, Woodward A (2014) The societal costs and benefits of commuter bicycling: simulating the effects of specific policies using system dynamics modeling. Environ Health Perspect 122:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meijer R (2012) Traffic planning in Amsterdam shared spaces Shared mobility. IMPACTS annual conference, Paris – JuneGoogle Scholar
  37. Moura F, Magalhães J, Santos LP (2017) Growing from incipient to large cycle networks in hilly consolidated urban areas: the case of Lisbon. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res 1:170–190Google Scholar
  38. NACTO (2014) Urban bikeway design guide. ed. National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). Published by Island PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Newman PW, Kenworthy JR (1989) Gasoline consumption and cities: a comparison of US cities with a global survey. J Am Plan Assoc 55(1):24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pucher J, Buehler R, Bassett DR, Dannenberg AL (2010) Walking and cycling to health: a comparative analysis of city, state, and international data. Am J Public Health 100:1986–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rabl A, de Nazelle A (2012) Benefits of the shift from car to active transport. Transp Policy 19:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. LTA (2011) Passenger transport mode shares in world cities. Journeys. Singapore: Land Transport Authority, 2011Google Scholar
  43. Rüetschi UJ (2007) Wayfinding in scene space modelling transfers in public transport. Doctoral dissertation, University of Zurich, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  44. Ryus P, Ferguson E, Laustsen KM, Schneider RJ, Proulx FR, Hull T, Miranda-Moreno L (2014) Guidebook on pedestrian and bicycle volume data collection – NCHRP REPORT 797. Transportation Research BoardGoogle Scholar
  45. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D (2003) Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health 93:1552–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD, Conway TL, Slymen DJ, Cain KL, Chapman JE, Kerr J (2009) Neighborhood built environment and income: examining multiple health outcomes. Soc Sci Med 68:1285–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singleton PA, Schneider RJ, Muhs CD, Clifton KJ (2014) The pedestrian index of the environment (PIE): representing the walking environment in planning applications. In: Presented at the 93rd annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. SUSTRAN (2014) Handbook for cycle-friendly design. SUSTRAN.
  49. The City of New York (2010) planNYC Progress report 2010: a greener, greater New York. The City of New York, New York. available at
  50. Transport for London (2014) London cycling design standards. TfL - Transport for London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. UN Habitat (2016) The New Urban Agenda, adopted by the United Nations on 20 October 2016 [WWW Document]. Accessed 26 Sept 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CERISInstituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Section editors and affiliations

  • Heather Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.CERIS Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal