Closing urban arteries to through traffic: a street experiment in Amsterdam

RESULTS 

According to the experiment results published by the Municipality of Amsterdam, there was 18 % less car traffic in the Weesperbuurt neighborhood during the pilot (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2024a). The Municipality claims the cut also led to a 3 % reduction in traffic throughout the city, equivalent to a reduction of 11,000 vehicles. However, the most popular detour route was jammed up with a 40 % increase in traffic. As a consequence, air quality improved by 14 % in the Weesperbuurt, but deteriorated by 9 % along detour routes. The residents on Weesperstraat were positive about the project, because people could cross the road more easily and experienced less noise, especially during the morning rush hour. Meanwhile, the quality of life on the diversion routes deteriorated. There, residents suffered from reduced pedestrian and cycling accessibility, noise and stench. 

Concerning public reception of the experiment, it is reported that 74 % of road users surveyed were dissatisfied with the pilot (Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau, 2024). These were mainly car users, taxi drivers and entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, pedestrians, cyclists and local residents were mostly satisfied with the test. After one week from the start of the 6-week experiment, some parties in the City Council requested the immediate stop of the trial, citing poor accessibility to city center businesses and problems with deliveries among others (AT5, 2023). The Municipality acknowledged that more time to inform stakeholders about the pilot could have been taken, and more attention should have been paid to the nuisance along the diversion routes (Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau, 2024). Another stakeholder group was negatively affected by the project: the Municipality reported that emergency services were sometimes inconvenienced when the barriers did not open for them automatically as it was planned (Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau, 2024).It was concluded that first responders should have been involved earlier in the planning so they could further weigh in on accessibility measures.  

FROM EXPERIMENT TO FINAL REDESIGN 

The results of the experiment established that, despite enabling a modest reduction in car movements in the city of Amsterdam, the closure of Weesperstraat to through traffic negatively impacts liveability along alternative routes for vehicles that previously drove on Weesperstraat (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2024a). This seems to suggest that a more comprehensive approach may be needed to achieve a larger reduction in car movements, which may in turn allow the city to close a major road like Weesperstraat to through traffic without it negatively affecting other streets and neighbourhoods. 

Nonetheless, the result of the experiment also allowed the Municipality of Amsterdam to identify potential ways to mitigate the issues of noise pollution, road safety and poor air quality in Weesperstraat. The street will be redesigned, introducing a 30 km/h speed limit and reducing of the number of lanes; select sections of Weesperstreet will be narrowed a one-lane street (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2024). This allows to improve pedestrian and bike crossings and permeability between the two sides of the street, while avoiding excessive rerouting of traffic to the surrounding area. It is expected that the measures will be implemented from 2025 onwards. 

EXPERIMENT ASSESSMENT 

This section assesses the Weesperstraat knip experiment according to five criteria proposed by Bertolini (2020):
radical, challenge-driven, feasible, strategic, communicative. 

I argue that the project is challenge-driven, as it stems from the need to improve liveability on a busy throughfare; the results could be extended to other similar streets in the city. The experiment seems feasible, since it disrupts current car flows but it does not prohibit car movements in the target street. The experiment is also strategic, as the experiment impacts are monitored and analysed. The experiment is only partially communicative and mobilizing, as it was initiated and executed by the Muncipality without much public involvement. While the proposed goal and expected disruptions were communicated by the City to residents and drivers, there is nothing that citizens can ‘join’ or truly partake in. Lastly, it could be said that the experiment is not radical, since it does not focus on proposing new uses for the reclaimed carriage space that are clearly different from common practices. Nonetheless, in my opinion, the mere goal of aiming to reduce car movements and improve liveability on a wider throughfare, the backbone of car mobility in a city, is radical in itself. This is even more true when it is done by experimenting with modal filters, which are often found in quieter neighbourhood streets and not at all on major roads.