Deneysel bisiklet ile kentsel yollarda trafik etki düzeyi belirlenmesi: Konya saha çalışması

Öz

Dünyada son yıllarda aktif hareketlilik kavramı ve sürdürülebilir şehirler giderek yaygınlaşmaktadır. Türkiye’de de şehirlerin yaşanabilir olması adına her geçen gün artan bir çaba vardır. Çalışma ile, kentsel alanlardaki trafikte bisiklet kullanımının daha iyi hale getirilmesi için, bisiklet kullanımında trafik etki düzeyi (bikted) modeli geliştirilmiştir. Modelin uygulanmasına katkı sağlamak amacıyla tasarlanan prototip deney bisikleti ile Konya şehir merkezindeki 2 güzergâh üzerinde belli şartlarda veri kaydı yapılarak, güzergâhların etki düzeyleri bulunmuştur. Güzergâhların, bisiklet şeritli ve ayrılmış bisiklet yolu altyapısına sahip koridorlarında bisiklet kullanımının, karma trafik (altyapısız) koşullarına göre daha güvenli olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Koridorlarda; eğim, parklanma, tali yol bağlantısı ve araç-bisiklet mesafesinin trafik etki düzeyini artırdığı belirlenmiştir. Kavşaklarda; kavşak türüne bakılmaksızın kavşak parklanmasının, bisikletli kavşak geçiş mesafesinin ve bisiklet altyapısının kavşakların trafik etki düzeyinde etkili olduğu belirlenmiştir. Konya’da belirlenen güzergâhlardaki saha çalışmasıyla, kentin bisikletliler açısından güvenlik ve konfor durumu belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışma, kentsel bisiklet güzergâhlarının trafik etki düzeylerinin belirlenmesinde yeni bir model ortaya koyarak, kentsel yollarda planlanan ve tamamlanmış bisiklet yollarının durumunu ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, bikted modeliyle kentsel yolların bisiklet kullanımı açısından sınıflandırması yapılabilmektedir. Model, geliştirilmeye açık bir yapıda ve kentsel bisiklet kullanımını artırmaya yönelik çalışma yapan yerel yönetimler için bir rehber niteliğindedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bisikletçi trafik stres seviyesi
• Şehir trafik güvenliği
• Bisiklet güvenliği

Destekleyen Kurum

Çalışma, Konya Teknik Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Birimi tarafından 231104021 numaralı proje ile desteklenmiştir.

Kaynakça

1. 1. Eryiğit S., Sürdürülebilir ulaşımın toplumsal boyutunda bisikletin yeri, Doktora Tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Konya, 2012.
2. 2. Konya Sürdürülebilir Hareketlilik Planı Projesi (KSHKP), İller Bankası, 2022.
3. 3. Türkiye Kentsel Bisiklet Ulaşım Strateji Planı, WRI Türkiye, 1-41, 2022.
4. 4. Türkiye Bisiklet Ulaşım Master Planı, https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/cygm/menu/turkiye_bisiklet_yolu_agi_master_plani_cilt1_20211221042955.pdf. Erişim tarihi Kasım 3, 2024.
5. 5. Saplıoğlu M., Aydın M. M., Choosing safe and suitable bicycle routes to integrate cycling and public transport system, Journal of Transport & Health, 236-252, 2018.
6. 6. Uz V. E., Karaşahin M., Bicycle in Urban Transportation, Turkey Engineering News, Urban Transportation, 41-46, 2004.
7. 7. Yılmaz D.Ç., Gerçek H. Prioritization of Integrated Bicycle Network Clusters in Istanbul with Analytical Hierarchy Method, Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 20(6), 215-224, 2014.
8. 8. Eren E, Uz V.E., A Review of Bike Sharing: Factors Affecting Bike Sharing Demand, Sustainable Cities and Society, 54 (1), 2020.

9. 9. Pekdemir M.I., Altintasi O., Özen M., Assessing the Impact of Public Transportation, Bicycle Infrastructure and Land Use Parameters on Small-Scale Bicycle Sharing System: Izmir Example, Sustainable Cities and Society, 101, 2024.
10. 10. Dündar S., Günay G., Gezginci P.A., Soyer E., Mert E., Modeling of Shared Bicycle Use Demand, 14th Transportation Congress, Istanbul, Türkiye, 18-20 October 2023.
11. 11. Özden A., Kun S.B., Türkiye’de Bisiklet ve E-Skuter Altyapısının Kentsel Ulaşım Bakımından Değerlendirilmesi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 2025.
12. 12. TEAC. Technical and Environmental Administration of Copenhagen.https://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/Section-11 Environmentalmangament_copenhagen.pdf. Erişim tarihi Aralık 10, 2024.
13. 13. Urban design consultancy based in Copenhagen, Brussels and Montréal Copenhagenize Index. 2019, https://copenhagenizeindex.eu/cities/copenhagen. Erişim tarihi Aralık 15, 2024.
14. 14. Mekuria M., Furth P., Nixon H., Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectıtıvıty., Mineta Transportation Institute College of BusinessSan José State UniversitySan José, 11-19, 2012.
15. 15. Olmos L., Tadeo M., Vlachogiannis D., Alhasoun F., Alegre X., Ochoa C., Targa F., Gonzales M., A data science framework for planning the growth of bicycle İnfrastructures, Transportation Research Part C 115,112, 2020.
16. 16. Barero G., Rodriguez V. A., Asking the user: a perceptional approach for bicycle infrastructure design, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 16, 3 (1), 246-257, 2022.
17. 17. Fournier N., Bakhtiari S., Valluru N., Campbell E., Christofa S., Roberts M., Accounting for drivers’ bicycling frequency and familiarity with bicycle infrastructure treatments when evaluating safety., Accident Analysis and Prevention, 137, 2020.
18. 18. Stülpnagel R., Binnig N., How safe do you feel? A large-scale survey concerning the subjective safety associated with different kinds of cycling lanes, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 167, 2022.
19. 19. Zhao C., Carstensen T., Nielsen T., Olafsson T., Bicycle-friendly infrastructure planning in Beijing and Copenhagen between adapting design solutions and learning local planning cultures, Journal of Transport Geography, 68 (1), 149-159, 2018.
20. 20. Wysling L., Purves R., Where to improve cycling infrastructure? Assessing bicycle suitability and bikeability with open data in the city of Paris, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 15, 2022.
21. 21. Janssen B., Schepers P., Farah H., Hagenzieker M., Behaviour of cyclists and pedestriansnear right angled, sloped and levelled kerb types: Do risks associated to height differences of kerbs weigh up against other factors?, Etjır, 18 (1), 360-371, 2018.
22. 22. O’Holleran C., Hull A., Bicycle infrastructure: can good design encourage cycling?, Urban Planning and Transport Research, 2 (1), 369-406, 2014.
23. 23. Knight A., Charlton S., Protected and unprotected cycle lanes’ effects on cyclists’ behaviour, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 171, 2022.
24. 24. Koh P., Wong D., Influence of infrastructural compatibility factors on walking and cycling route choices, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36 (2), 202-213, 2013.
25. 25. Karakaya A., Ritter T., Biessmann F., Bermbach D., CycleSense: Detecting near miss incidents in bicycle traffic from mobile motion sensors, Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 90, 2023.
26. 26. Furth P., Sadeghinasr B., Moreno L., Slope stress criteria as a complement to traffic stress criteria, and impact on high comfort bicycle accessibility, Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, 112, 2023.
27. 27. Kovacsova N., Valkveld W., Winter J., Hagenzieker M., PC-based hazard anticipation training for experienced cyclists: Design and evaluation, Safety Science, 1-16, 2020.
28. 28. Boisjoly G., Lachapelle U., Geneidy A., “Bicycle network performance: Assessing the directness of bicycle facilities through connectivity measures, a Montreal, Canada case study, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 1-15, 2019.
29. 29. Bosen J. F. H., Scholten C., Cycling to work and making cycling work: What makes committed utility cyclists despite perceived risks of air pollution and traffic?, Journal of Transport & Health, 28 (1), 101-519, 2023.
30. 30. Ferenchak N., Marshall W., Traffic safety for all road users: A paired comparison study of small & mid-sized U.S. cities with high/low bicycling rates, Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research, 2 (2), 100-110, 2024.
31. 31. Apparicio P., Carrier M., Gelb J., Seguin A., Kingham S., Cyclists’ exposure to air pollution and road traffic noise in central city neighbourhoods of Montreal, Journal of Transport Geography, 57, 63-69, 2016.
32. 32. Ising H., Kruppa B., Health Effects caused by Noise: Evidence in the Literature from the Past 25 Years, Noise- Health, 6 (22), 5-13, 2004.
33. 33. Soni A., Makde K., Amrit K., Vijay R., Kumar R., Noise prediction and environmental noise capacity for urban traffic of Mumbai, Applied Acoustics, 188 (3), 108516, 2022.
34. 34. Begou P., Kassomenos P., Kelessis A., Dataset on the road traffic noise measurements in the municipality of Thessaloniki, Data in brief, 29, 105214, 2020.
35. 35. Apparicio P., Gelb J., Cyclists’ Exposure to Road Traffic Noise: A Comparison of Three North American and European Cities, Acoustics 2020, 2, 73–86. 2020.
36. 36. Gao J., Sha A., Huang Y., Hu L., Tong Z., Jiang W., Evaluating the cycling comfort on urban roads based on cyclists’ perception of vibration, Journal of Cleaner Production, 192, 531-541, 2018.
37. 37. Olieman M., Perianu R., Perianu M., Measurement of dynamic comfort in cycling using wireless acceleration sensors, Procedia Engineering, 34, 568-573, 2012.
38. 38. Gomes H., Savionek D., Measurement and evaluation of human exposure to vibration transmitted to hand-arm system during leisure cyclist activity, Brazılıan Journal of Medıcal Engineering, 30, 291-300, 2014.
39. 39. Bergström A., Magnusson R., Potential of transferring car trips to bicycle during winter, Transportation Research Part A, 37 (8), 649–666, 2003.
40. 40. Mackenzie J., Dutschke J., Ponte G., An investigation of cyclist passing distances in the Australian Capital Territory, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2021.
41. 41. Beck B., Chong D., Olivier D.J., Perkins J., Tsay M., Rushford A., Li A., Cameron L., Fry P., Johnson R., How much space do drivers provide when passing cyclists? Understanding the impact of motor vehicle and infrastructure characteristics on passing distance, Accident Analysis and Prevention 128, 253-260, 2019.
42. 42. Walker I., Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39 (82), 417–425, 2007.
43. 43. Stülpnagel R., Hologa R., Riachi N., Cars overtaking cyclists on different urban road types Expectations about passing safety are not aligned with observed passing distances, Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 89, 334-346, 2022.
44. 44. Apasnore P., Bicycle-Vehicle Interactions at Mid-Sections of Mixed Traffic Streets: Examining Passing Distance and Bicycle Comfort Perception, M.S. thesis, Carleton University, Carleton, Canada, 2016.
45. 45. Moller M., Useche S., Siebert F., Janstrup K., What differentiates e-bike riders from conventional cyclists in Denmark? A user-based study, Journal of Transport & Health, 34, 2024.
46. 46. Xu J., Li B., Jiang P., Qin K., Ni Z., Huang X., Zhong R., Fang L., Zhao M., ‘’Riding practices of e-bike riders after the implementation of electric bike management regulations: An observational study in Hangzhou, China, Heliyon, 2024.
47. 47. Kruijf J., Lierop D., Ettema D., Kroesen M., Dijst M., E-cycling intention versus behavioral change: Investigating longitudinal changes in e-cycling intention and actual behavior change in daily commuting, Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research, 2024.
48. 48. Bai L., Sze N., Red light running behavior of bicyclists in urban area: Effects of bicycle type and bicycle group size, Travel Behaviour and Society, 21, 226–234, 2020.
49. 49. Singleton P., Poudel N., Bicycling comfort at roundabouts: Effects of design and situational factors,” Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 94, 227–242, 2023.
50. 50. Deeter L., Hurwitz D., Russo B., Smaglig E., Kothuri S., Assessing the impact of three intersection treatments on bicyclist safety using a bicycling simulator, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2023.
51. 51. Zangenehpour S., Strauss J., Moreno L., Saunier N., Are signalized intersections with cycle tracks safer? A case–controlstudy based on automated surrogate safety analysis using video data Sohail, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 86, 161–172, 2016.
52. 52. Mohammadi A., Piccinini G., Dozza M., How do cyclists interact with motorized vehicles at unsignalized intersections? Modeling cyclists’ yielding behavior using naturalistic data, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1-8, 2023.
53. 53. Ng A., Debnath A., Heesch K., Cyclist’ safety perceptions of cycling in frastructure at un-signalised intersections: Cross-sectional survey of Queensland cyclists, Journal of Transport Health, 6, 13–22, 2017.
54. 54. Sorton A., Walsh T., Cycling Stress Level as a Tool to Evaluate Urban and Suburban Cycling Compatibility, Transportation Research Record, 1438, 17-24, 1994.
55. 55. Mekuria M., Furth P., Nixon H., Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectitivity, Report, Mineta Transportation Institute College of BusinessSan José State University, 11-19, 2012.
56. 56. Hagen L., Ralph K., Will parents let their children bike on ‘‘low stress” streets? Validating level of traffic stress for biking, Transportation Research, 65, 280–291, 2019.
57. 57. Wang K., Akar G., Lee K., Sanders M., Commuting patterns and bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS): Insights from spatially aggregated data in Franklin County, Journal of Transport Geography, 86, 2020.
58. 58. Bearn C., Mingus C., Watkins K., An adaption of the level of traffic stress based on evidence from the literature and widely available data, Research in Transportation Business Management, 29, 50–62, 2018.
59. 59. Imani A., Miller E., Saxe S., Cycle accessibility and level of traffic stress: A case study of Toronto, Journal of Transport Geography, 80 (2), 2019.
60. 60. Bisiklet Yolları Yönetmeliği, Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı, 2019.
61. 61. Urban design consultancy based in Copenhagen, Brussels and Montréal, Copenhagenize Index Available: https://copenhagenizeindex.eu/cities/copenhagen. Erişim tarihi Kasım 15, 2019.
62. 62. Querg J., Keler A., Grigoropoulos G., The Munich Bikeability Index: A Practical A,pproach for Measuring Urban Bikeability, Sustainability, 13, 428, 2021.
63. 63. Landis B., Vattikuti V., Brannick M., Real-Time Human Perceptions Toward a Bicycle Level of Service, Transportation Research Record, 1578, 119-126, 1997.
64. 64. Harkey D., Reinfut D., Knuiman M., Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index, Transportation Research Record, 1636, 13-20, 1998.
65. 65. Broach, J., Dill J., Gliebe J., Where do cyclists ride? A route choice model developed with revealed preference GPS data, Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 46 (10), 1730–1740, 2012.
66. 66. Gomez K., Castro M., Analysis of sight distances at urban intersections from a vulnerable users' approach: A case study, Transportation Research Procedia, 226–233, 2020.
67. 67. Marchiori M, Safe Cycle: Infrastructural Control for Bikers, IEEE 16th Int. Conf. on Dependable, Autonomic Secure Comp, 16th Int. Conf, 2018.
68. 68. Gadsby A., Hagenzieker M., Watkins K., Aninternational comparison of the self-reported causes of cyclist stress using quasi-naturalistic cycling, Journal of Transport Geography, 91, 2021.
69. 69. Liu L., Suzuki T., Quantifying e-bike applicability by comparing travel time and physical energy expenditure: A case study of Japanese cities, Journal of Transport Health, 150–163, 2019.
70. 70. Fenre M., Paste A., Bicycle rolling resistance under winter conditions, Cold Regions Science and Technology, 187, 2021.
71. 71. Konya Ulaşım Ana Planı (KONUAP), Boğaziçi Proje, Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2014
72. 72. Konya Bisikletli Ulaşım Ana Planı (BİSUAP), Boğaziçi Proje, Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 1-436, 2018.
73. 73. Konya Sürdürülebilir Kentsel Hareketlilik Planı Projesi (KSHKP), İller Bankası, 1-198, 2022.