The Weesperstraat ‘knip’: an international perspective

In the summer of 2023, the busy Weesperstraat in Amsterdam was closed to cars during a six-week trial. The purpose of this ‘knip’, or cut in the road network, was to reduce car traffic in the city. The trial suffered setbacks and met with opposition. While knips have become a politically sensitive topic, this doesn’t necessarily mean that future knips are off the table.

This article discusses the trial against the background of similar schemes abroad. It serves as a background analysis for an article in OEK, the magazine of cyclists’ organisation Fietsersbond Amsterdam.

Contents:

• Knips in Amsterdam
• Examples from abroad
• Traffic evaporation
• Shift to walking, cycling and public transport
• Displacement
• Are road closures fair
• Emergency services
• Other aspects
• Politics
• Public support
• Lessons
• Discussion

Knips in Amsterdam

In order to free up space for pedestrians, cyclists, playing children and green areas, Amsterdam wants to reduce car use and ownership. A key instrument to achieve this are ‘knips’ or cuts in the road network (Gemeente Amsterdam 2019). Knips are basically modal filters: they block (most) car traffic, but pedestrians and cyclists are allowed through.

A number of knips have been implemented succesfully without much controversy. An example is the partial closure of Munt Square to car traffic in 2016. However, the Weesperstraat trial in 2023 met with intense opposition. Subsequently, the small-scale ‘palenplan’ (bollard plan) in the Jordaan neighbourhood in Amsterdam West met a similar fate.

The Weesperstraat, with a traffic volume of about 27 thousand vehicles per day,¹ is part of a north-south route through Amsterdam. In 2023, the municipality closed the road to car traffic during a six-week trial, from 12 June to 23 July, from 6am to 11pm.

The goal of this trial was to learn lessons and inform a possible future decision on a permanent closure. Reducing traffic along the north-south route was considered desirable for a number of reasons: improving the liveability of the area; improving air quality; creating more room for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport; and improving traffic safety.

During the trial, emergency services complained about delays, partly because barriers that should let them through malfunctioned; residents of the Kattenburgerstraat protested because their street saw an increase in car traffic; and motorists complained that it took longer to reach their destination. These problems were extensively reported in the media and discussed in the city council, and led to questions in the national Parliament.

Alderwoman Melanie van der Horst had expected criticism, but hadn’t foreseen the intensity of the controversy (Stoker 2024). She didn’t yield to pressure to prematurely end the trial. However, it seems unlikely that a permanent knip will be implemented at the Weesperstraat. Van der Horst is currently working on a new plan to reduce traffic at the Weesperstraat, which will include a 30km/h speed limit, and halving the number of lanes on a part of the route.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that future knips at other locations are also off the table. However, the municipality first wants to have a debate on how knips affect specific groups, and more broadly on what is needed to keep the city liveable and accessible.

The municipality is considering knips at a number of locations. These include quiet residential streets, but also busy routes with up to about 20 thousand vehicles per day, such as the Stadhouderskade. The map below shows a selection of locations where knips have been or may be introduced.

The following projects and plans involve knips:

• Agenda Autoluw: the city’s plan to reduce car use and car ownership. The plan mentions knips as one of the instruments to achieve this and specifically mentions the Weesperstraat trial and the Van Woustraat knip;
• Palenplan Centrum West: a plan to reduce through traffic in a few neighbourhoods in Amsterdam West. This includes knips using bollards on roads with traffic volumes of up to a few thousand vehicles per day. The plan has been suspended;
• Aantrekkelijk OV in een 30 km/u stad: a plan to improve the circulation of public transport following the introduction of a 30km/h speed limit in most of the city in December 2023. This plan includes possible knips at roads with up to about 20 thousand vehicles per day;
• Sloterweg Verkeersveilig: this includes four knips at roads in Amsterdam Nieuw-West. These roads used to have traffic volumes of up to six thousand vehicles per day. The goal is to increase traffic safety;
• Tweede Fietsring: a plan to make a route around the wider city centre more bicycle and pedestrian friendly.

The Amsterdam branch of cyclists’ organisation Fietsersbond has argued that a coherent set of knips is needed to create more room for cycling, walking and public transport (Fietsersbond Amsterdam 2018). In response to the Agenda Autoluw, it has said that more comprehensive measures are needed to reduce car traffic on major roads, including knips at the Ceintuurbaan and Stadhouderskade. The Fietsersbond also expressed concern that the temporary character of the Weesperstraat trial might create confusion (Fietsersbond Amsterdam 2019).

Examples from abroad

Amsterdam is not the only city to implement knips. For example, the Belgian city of Ghent has used knips to divide the city centre into six sectors. Motorists who want to ride from one sector to another have to use the ring road. Some knips use bollards, some cameras, and some only traffic signs. Emergency services, buses, taxis and refuse trucks are allowed through (IVA Mobiliteitsbedrijf 2019).

In the UK, a substantial number of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs)² have been implemented. These projects aim to prevent through traffic in residential areas, using bollards, planters or cameras. The latter allow through permitted traffic such as buses or emergency services (Aldred and Verlinghieri 2020). A study in London found that typical internal roads within LTNs had traffic volumes of about 1,200 vehicles per day before implementation (Thomas and Aldred 2024).

These schemes in relatively quiet residential areas are of course not comparable to the closure of the busy Weesperstraat. However, there are also examples of cities that have closed roads that were even busier than the Weesperstraat.

During the 1950s and 1960s, ‘freeways’ were constructed in many cities. By the 1990s, some cities started removing them. In the US, the reason was often that roads had reached the end of their life cycle; they were sometimes replaced with new roads. Outside the US, roads were more often replaced with parks, pavements, cycle routes, and public transport lanes (Khalaj a.o. 2020).

An example is the closure in 2016 of the former voie Georges Pompidou along the river Seine in Paris, which was used by 35 thousand cars per day (Bou Sleiman 2021). In Seoul, an expressway through the city used by 168 thousand cars per day was closed in 2003 (Ryu and Kwon 2016). In 2015, Brussels banned car traffic on the main artery through the city, the Boulevard Anspach, which had been used by 1,200 cars per hour during rush hour (Vanhellemont and Vermeulen 2016). This measure was taken in response to ‘Picnic the Streets’ protests, with up to 3,000 participants (Tessuto 2016, Vanhellemont and Vermeulen 2016).

Note that many of these projects involve not just closing streets to motor traffic, but also turning streets into pedestrian areas or ‘shared spaces’ for pedestrians and cyclists. This means that they may have additional effects, such as privatisation of public space through pavement cafés and shop windows (Hubert a.o. 2020).

A number of studies have been done to evaluate the effects of road closures. Something to keep in mind is that there is natural variation in traffic volumes, which means that a margin of error will apply to any changes measured after a road is closed (Aldred and Verlinghieri 2020, Cairns a.o. 2002). Effects on walking may be underreported because data on walking is often not available, since pedestrians can’t be detected as easily as other modes of traffic (Xiao a.o. 2023). To some extent, this also applies to cycling.⁴ It has been argued that more research is needed to better understand the effects of road closures on traffic, and also on social equity (e.g., Nello-Deakin 2020).

Traffic evaporation

When roads are closed, broadly three things may happen: motorists may make fewer trips; they may switch to other means of transport such as public transport or cycling; or they may use alternative routes (of course, a combination may occur). The first two options imply a reduction in car use, a phenomenon that has been called ‘traffic evaporation’ or ‘disappearing traffic’.

Based on over 70 case studies and a survey among 200 transport professionals, Cairns a.o. suggest that it’s normal to expect about 11% disappearing traffic from ‘roadspace reallocations’, although the size of the effect may vary considerably (Cairns a.o. 2002).⁵

During the Weesperstraat trial in Amsterdam, the number of unique cars in the city dropped by 11 thousand per day. Three-quarters of this effect was attributed to the trial. Given that the closed section of the Weesperstraat had been used by 27 thousand vehicles per day, this appears to be a substantial effect. When a bridge in Bristol was closed due to a climate protest, traffic in the wider area fell 2.5% (Melia and Calvert 2021). As will be discussed below, road closures in Ghent, Seoul and the UK also led to a reduction in car traffic.

In Paris, the issue of traffic evaporation has become a topic of political contention, with socialist mayor Anne Hidalgo claiming that traffic evaporation did occur and the republican president of the Paris Region, Valérie Pécresse, expressing doubts. An institute presided by Pécresse⁶ published a report that opens with the conclusion that ‘no traffic evaporation whatsoever could be observed or established’ (Boichon a.o. 2017), but this is a bit disingeneous since the research design didn’t allow for any conclusions on this matter (Héran 2018). Based on the available data, it appears plausible that traffic evaporation did occur.⁷

Shift to walking, cycling and public transport

When roads are closed, people may switch to other modes of transportation, such as public transport, cycling and walking. One reason may be that driving becomes less convenient; another that cycling and walking may feel safer when car traffic is reduced.

When Seoul closed its elevated expressway through the city in 2003, it simultaneously expanded the underground rail network. After the removal, car use decreased, while use of the underground increased (Chung a.o. 2012). In Paris, one study found a small increase in the use of RER trains following the closure of the Seine bank (Bou Sleiman 2021).

In Ghent, the traffic plan that included a number of knips led to substantial changes in how residents move into, out of and around the city centre. The share of trips made by bicycle or public transport rose 5 percentage points each, while the share of trips by car decreased 7 percentage points (IVA Mobiliteitsbedrijf 2019).

In the Weesperstraat trial, no effect on public transport use and cycling was found. A likely explanation is that the six-week duration of the trial was too short for such effects to occur (Gemeente Amsterdam 2024b). A study of LTNs in the UK found an increase in cycling and walking, and lower car ownership and use. Importantly, the findings suggest that it may take at least a year for effects to fully materialise (Aldred a.o. 2024).

Displacement

If no traffic evaporation takes place, motorists will use other roads. A study of 46 LTNs in London found that traffic on internal roads dropped from a median of about 1,200 to about 660 vehicles per day. There was almost no displacement to boundary roads, which suggests traffic mostly evaporated (Thomas and Aldred 2024). A study in Paris found that air pollution decreased in the city centre, but increased along the Boulevard Périphérique. This increase appears to have been limited compared to the original traffic volume on the closed voie Georges Pompidou.⁸

During the Weesperstraat trial in Amsterdam, air quality improved in the pilot area and this effect was large in comparison with other measures to improve air quality. There was an increase in air pollution in some other streets, although pollution levels remained lower than in the streets where air quality improved as a result of the pilot (Gemeente Amsterdam 2024b).

The degree to which traffic evaporation or displacement will take place, will likely depend on the alternatives that are available. If there is motor traffic capacity available on parallel routes, then this may favour displacement. If space is made availabe for other types of transport, such as public transport or cycling, people may choose to switch to those alternatives (Cairns a.o. 2002, Aldred and Verlinghieri 2020).

Are road closures fair

Critics sometimes argue that road closures benefit privileged groups at the expense of less privileged groups. For example, in the UK, it is sometimes «alleged that LTNs are often placed in wealthier middle class areas, with traffic often diverted to the poorer and more deprived communities» (Dudley a.o. 2022). However, various studies failed to find such a pattern (Aldred and Verlinghieri 2020, Aldred a.o. 2021).

As for the Weesperstraat trial in Amsterdam, a back-of-the-envelope analysis also does not suggest that traffic was diverted mainly from wealthy areas to disadvantaged areas. Streets that saw reduced traffic include the Wibautstraat with relatively low house values, and the Valkenburgerstraat with higher house values. Streets where traffic increased include the Piet Heinkade, which has relatively expensive houses.

Others have argued that neighbourhoods will become more attractive when fewer cars drive through them. This may drive up house prices and make neighbourhoods unaffordable for people with low incomes. Aldred and Verlinghieri argue:

This is not an argument against improving the public realm. The problem results from housing and land use policies that prioritise free markets and profit maximisation over tenancy rights. Pricing and regulation measures [...] are needed to protect low-income residents. The solution to high house prices is not to maintain dirty and dangerous residential streets to suppress prices (Aldred and Verlinghieri 2020; for a critical discussion see also Tessuto 2016).

Another line of critique claims that programmes to reduce car traffic are designed for people who can manage without a car: people who do not have disabilities that prevent them from walking or cycling, and who live in areas with decent public transport connections, and where services such as shops, hospitals and schools are nearby. In focussing on people who can manage without a car, programmes would disregard people who do depend on their car. Note that when people need a car, this is often related to a lack of good quality and accessible public transport.

A study in Scotland found that disability organisations were very critical of projects in which road space is taken away from cars. They argue that some disabled people need a car to drive long distances, partly because buses, bus stops, trains and train stations are often inaccessible to disabled people. They also pointed out that sudden changes in traffic infrastructure may be problematic for people who need to plan their journeys carefully to find accessible routes (Douglas a.o. 2023).

This doesn’t mean that people with disabilities are necessarily against efforts to reduce car use. A study in the UK found that among residents of LTNs who have mobility issues (people who reported that they have a health condidtion, illness or disability that affects their mobility), 49 percent support their LTN, compared to 63 percent of residents without mobility issues. More in general, 71 percent of people with mobility issues support reducing road traffic in their local area, compared to 81 percent of people without mobility issues (Logan a.o. 2021).

Another group of people who may depend on their car are people who live outside central urban areas, in places that lack nearby services, where employment may be disappearing and where public transport doesn’t provide a viable alternative to the car. They may also be affected by road closures in city centres, for example if they work there.

In peripheral areas where fewer services are nearby, people are more likely to own a car. However, there may still be substantial numbers of people who don’t own a car, for example because they cannot afford one. For instance, households in Amsterdam Nieuw-West own on average 0.56 cars (Gemeente Amsterdam 2023a), which implies that many households don’t have a car. Taking car dependency for granted does not provide a solution for these households (cf. Aldred and Verlinghieri 2020). They would benefit more from improved public transport and other services.

Aldred and Verlinghieri draw attention to yet another aspect of the impact of LTNs. Traditional traffic planning tends to prioritise commuting, «yet commuting trips are skewed to men and working age adults; whereas by contrast, women make relatively high numbers of school run trips. If LTNs make walking and cycling to school, to the shops, or to local friends’ houses safer and more pleasant, this can help redress the balance in transport planning which has often seen only the commute as important» (Aldred and Verlinghieri 2020).

Emergency services

A frequently voiced concern is that road closures may affect response times of emergency services. For example, the ‘bollard plan’ in Amsterdam West was suspended after emergency services said it took too long to unlock bollards.

The Weesperstraat trial also caused a debate about effects on emergency service response times. The evaluation of the trial found that response times for ambulances and fire services had indeed increased, but norms for acceptable response times had not been exceeded (Gemeente Amsterdam 2024b). Afterwards, alderwoman Van der Horst said: «It turned out that the emergency services had been worried for years about the city becoming busier. We had not yet had a proper discussion about this. The knip brought those concerns to a head» (in Stoker 2024).

After the closure of the Seine riverbank in Paris, emergency service response times increased somewhat, but according to emergency services this had not caused any health risks for people being rescued (Boichon a.o. 2017).

Goodman a.o. analysed fire emergency response times after the introduction of an LTN in London, where streets were closed with barriers and bollards that emergency services can unlock. They found no increase in response times. In fact, response times improved somewhat on boundary roads of the LTN area. Interestingly, they did find a change in the reasons that were reported for delays, with an increase in delays that were ascribed to ‘traffic calming measures’. The authors suggest that this may be because «[d]elays such as needing to detour around a modal filter may be more visible and salient to firefighters than other causes of delay, particularly soon after a scheme is implemented» (Goodman a.o. 2020).

Effects on emergency services can perhaps be prevented if road closures are enforced with cameras instead of bollards or barriers. Amsterdam is currently testing this technology at the Sloterweg.

Other aspects

In Brussels, it has been observed that closing its main artery for cars helped to connect different parts of the city. «There used to be a very clear separation between the neighbourhoods on the two sides of the avenue. People really stayed in their neighbourhood, that is no longer the case» (in: Hendrickx 2022).

One study found that the introduction of an LTN was associated with a 10% decrease in overall crime, driven by significant decreases in violence and sexual offences; public order and possession of weapons; criminal damage and arson; burglary; and vehicle crime. A possible explanation is that the LTN resulted in more walking and interaction on streets, and consequently in more ‘eyes on the street’; more sense of ownership; and reduced ease of access for potential criminals (Goodman and Aldred 2021).

Politics

Measures to reduce car traffic often become a ‘battleground of political ideologies’ (Marquet a.o. 2024), with opposition to such measures often associated with the political right. However, this doesn’t mean that right-wing politicians or voters necessarily oppose measures to reduce car traffic.

In Seoul, it was a conservative mayor who decided to demolish the expressway through the city (Lee and Anderson 2013). In fact, the plan was the main issue in the election campaign that got him elected in the first place (Ryu and Kwon 2016).

As mentioned above, debates in Paris over the place of cars in the city are often interpreted as a conflict between the socialist mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, and the republican president of the Paris Region, Valérie Pécresse (Commenges a.o. 2024). However, the first efforts to reduce car use and promote cycling were made by mayors Jacques Chirac and Jean Tiberi. «So it’s clearly the right that started to reduce traffic. The left, which won the mayoral election in 2001, only continued this policy» (Héran 2018).

In the UK, LTNs and their predecessors have been actively promoted by Conservative politician Boris Johnson, in his former roles as Mayor of London and Prime Minister. In Oxford, LTNs have been introduced by a Conservative county council. When control passed to a progressive coalition in 2021, implementation of LTNs continued, but Conservatives now became strong opponents of these projects (Dudley a.o. 2022).

In Barcelona, low-traffic ‘superblocks’ were introduced by the centre-right party which presented them as an initiative that would serve business interests. They were accused of taking political credit for an idea that had already existed before. When Ada Colau of Barcelona en Comú became mayor, she introduced her own version of the superblock plan, which was subsequently criticised by politicians of the right. As a business owner put it, ‘all right-wingers [were] up against the superblocks because they have been the proposal of BComú’ (Zografos a.o. 2020).

These examples suggest that right-wing politicians aren’t necessarily against measures to reduce car use. However, they may oppose them when political opponents introduce or implement them.

It appears that the process leading to the implementation of road closures is seldom smooth. For example, the introduction of LTNs in the UK during Covid has been described as a top-down process in which local governments were given tight deadlines and inconsistent guidance (Dudley a.o. 2022). The LTNs from 2020 have been described as ‘not at all perfect’ and ‘a bruising experience for local authorities’ (Bosetti a.o. 2022).

The closure of the voie Georges Pompidou in Paris met with opposition from the regional government and has been challenged in court (Commenges a.o. 2024). The pedestrianisation of the Boulevard Anspach in Brussels has been described as an ad-hoc decision without proper planning, consultation or communication, in which different government agencies failed to cooperate (Vanhellemont and Vermeulen 2016). Urban planners have described the measure as an important step in the right direction, but one lacking in vision (Hendrickx 2022).

On the one hand, these somewhat messy decision-making processes may have affected the quality of these schemes. On the other hand, many would still consider them successful, which would imply that a messy process can still lead to a successful scheme.

Public support

Some British authorities do not use the term LTN, because it is perceived as controversial. They prefer terms like Active Neighbourhoods, Healthy Neighbourhoods, Quiet Neighbourhoods or People-Friendly Streets (Aldred a.o. 2024, Bosetti a.o. 2022). Similarly, Barcelona has replaced the term ‘superblock’ with ‘green corridors’ (Marquet a.o. 2024) and Amsterdam now speaks of ‘filters’ instead of ‘knips’.

Despite the controversies they often spark, road closures tend to enjoy public support, especially after their effects become clear. For example, in 2018, 55% of Parisians said they wanted to maintain the pedestrianisation of the Seine bank (Mairie de Paris 2018). In Ghent, 50 percent of residents approve of the traffic plan that brought them knips and a car-free inner city, while 30 percent disapprove. Support is somewhat lower among older people than among younger people. Polarisation over the traffic plan has declined over time (IVA Mobiliteitsbedrijf 2019).

The popularity of measures to reduce car traffic may even play a role in elections. A study in Barcelona’s Eixample district found that 66% supported the superblocks, with support highest among people who live in one (Nello-Deakin a.o. 2024). Interestingly, another study found that voters in districts where superblocks have been implemented were more loyal to Colau’s party than voters in other districts (Marquet a.o. 2024).

In the UK, about half the population are in favour of LTNs and about one-sixth oppose them, with support strongest among young people and among people who live in an LTN (Aldred and Verlinghieri 2020, Bosetti a.o. 2022). A poll in London found that support among Conservative voters was somewhat lower than among the general public, but still substantial, with 46% in favour and 23% against (R&WS 2021).

Reportedly, Boris Johnson has argued that schemes must be in place long enough ‘for their benefits and disbenefits to be properly evidenced’ (Dudley a.o. 2022). Local authorities in London say that in their experience, local acceptance of LTNs increases over time and that there are practically no requests to remove LTNs that have been introduced before 2020 (Bosetti a.o. 2022).

Like many other schemes, Brussels’ decision to close its central artery for motor traffic was a controversial one (Vanhellemont and Vermeulen 2016). Between 2017 and 2021, support for this measure increased from 47% to 53% among residents; from 55% to 64% among employees who work in the city centre and from 69% to 82% among visitors of the city. Support was initially stronger among young people, but subsequently became more widespread among other age groups as well (Te Boveldt a.o. 2023).

Lessons

The Amsterdam Municipality has contacts with cities like Brussels, Barcelona, Bologna and Rome. The main lessons it has learned from these cities is that there’s no ‘quick fix’ and that it’s important to involve stakeholders in projects. Studies of road closures have proposed various recommendations.⁹ The section below discusses some of these recommendations, as well as their relevance for the Weesperstraat case.

Get it right

It has been argued that it’s important to get schemes right at the beginning, and to ensure that all the details are implemented correctly (Cairns a.o. 2002, cf. Aldred and Verlinghieri 2020). An important aspect the Weesperstraat trial didn’t get right at the beginning were the barriers that should let emergency services pass trough. The municipality has concluded that these should have been more thoroughly tested in advance (Gemeente Amsterdam 2024a).

Implement in stages

Cairns a.o. have recommended to implement controversial schemes in stages. This will make it easier to manage potential side effects (Cairns a.o. 2002). Perhaps the closure of the Seine river bank can be seen as an (unplanned) example of an implementation in stages. In 2002, the city introduced Paris Plage, which involved closing the river bank to convert it into a beach during the summer, when many Parisians leave the city. In fact, the permanent closure of the voie Georges Pompidou in 2016 consisted in not reopening it after the summer.¹⁰

The Weesperstraat trial could have been implemented gradually as well, using the relative quiet of the Covid lockdowns or the summer vacation. However, the city has opted to wait for a period with ‘normal’ traffic because it thought this would make the trial more representative.¹¹ If it had decided to carry out the trial during a more quiet period, it might have been easier to deal with side effects such as the traffic increase at the Kattenburgerstraat.

Alternatively, the city could have started with reducing the number of lanes and lowering the speed limit to 30km/h and see how that works, before deciding on a full closure of the Weesperstraat. Yet another option would have been to introduce car-free Sundays along the entire north-south route the Weesperstraat is part of, as proposed by cyclists’ organisation Fietsersbond Amsterdam in 2019 (Kruyswijk 2019).

Allow time for effects to materialise

It has been recommended to allow trials time to ‘bed in’ (Aldred and Verlinghieri 2020), which may take up to three years (Douglas a.o. 2023). Amsterdam has opted for a rather short six-week trial, expecting that traffic would have adjusted after three weeks (Gemeente Amsterdam 2023b). The short duration of the trial implies that some effects did not occur, such as people switching from cars to other modes of transport (Gemeente Amsterdam 2024b).

Involve stakeholders

Various studies emphasise the importance of involving stakeholders, including disabled people’s groups and emergency services, in planning (Aldred and Verlinghieri 2020, Bosetti a.o. 2022, Douglas a.o. 2023, Vanhellemont and Vermeulen 2016). Consultations are not a neutral activity: they involve decisions about whose voices get to be heard and which organisations get to represent groups of people affected by the measure (Bosetti a.o. 2022, Hubert a.o. 2020).

Amsterdam has carried out a consultation before the planned implementation of the Weesperstraat trial in 2021. However, implementation was delayed due to Covid, and the city didn’t really update its consultation when the trial was implemented in 2023. Various stakeholders felt their concerns had not been heard or taken into account (Gemeente Amsterdam 2023c).

Equity

Various authors recommend to consider how a scheme will affect different groups including people with a disability, residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods and people who don’t own a car (e.g., Douglas a.o. 2023, Aldred a.o. 2021).

The planning document for the Weesperstraat trial focuses on technical issues and communication, with little attention for equity. For example, it doesn’t discuss potential consequences of the pilot for people with a disability. While it acknowledges that streets like Kattenburgerstraat would see an increase in traffic, it doesn’t discuss what that means or how it might be mitigated (Gemeente Amsterdam 2023b). In the evaluation of the pilot, such issues have been given more attention.

Public transport

It has been recommended to invest in frequent, reliable, accessible and affordable public transport as an alternative to travelling by car (e.g., Bosetti a.o. 2022, Hubert a.o. 2020).

The planning document for the Weesperstraat trial didn’t include measures to improve public transport (Gemeente Amsterdam 2023b). However, one of the goals of knips is to create more room for public transport, most explicitly so for the knips proposed as part of the plans to improve the circulation of public transport following the introduction of a 30km/h speed limit in most of the city.

Exemptions

Various schemes offer exemptions for specific categories of car users, such as emergency services, refuse trucks and sometimes local residents. Bosetti a.o. argue that exemptions are ‘double-edged’: «They may increase the acceptability of LTNs among local residents at the time of their introduction, but they also mean it is harder to reallocate road space to other uses – such as pocket parks or play spaces – since there is still a stream of vehicles using the street» (Bosetti a.o. 2022).

Amsterdam has indicated that it may expand the categories of motorists who will be given an exemption if new knips are to be implemented. Stakeholders have suggested a large number of groups that should be given special consideration: not just emergency services and caregivers, but also, for example, local residents and their visitors, hospital and university employees, taxis, theatregoers, logistics firms, and hotel guests ‘for whom public transport doesn’t provide an alternative’ because they are ‘accustomed to a certain level of comfort’ (Gemeente Amsterdam 2023c). Of course, if all these groups would be exempted, knips would become pretty much meaningless.

Discussion

The Amsterdam Municipality is still processing the results of and responses to the Weesperstraat knip. On the one hand, the local government doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to discuss locations or timelines for future knips or filters. On the other hand, alderwoman Melanie van der Horst has said that firm measures to reduce car traffic are unavoidable: otherwise, car traffic will increase 30% over the next 25 years, in a city where traffic is already busy and parents are hesitant to let their children play outdoors, because it doesn’t feel safe (Stoker 2024).

International studies suggest that road closures can be an effective way to create space and improve the liveability of cities. While such schemes are often controversial, a majority of residents tend to support them once they have experienced their effects.

The Weesperstraat trial has been criticised among other things because of the effects on residents along alternative routes such as the Kattenburgerstraat and because of delays experienced by emergency services. These problems have turned knips into a politically sensitive topic.

However, the international literature suggests that such problems could be addressed in future knips by adapting the project design, for example by improving consultation; implementing the scheme in stages; and changing the way in which access is regulated.

Sources

Aldred R and Verlinghieri E (2020). LTNs for all? Mapping the extent of London’s new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. Possible.

Aldred R, Goodman A and Woodcock J (2024). Impacts of active travel interventions on travel behaviour and health: Results from a five-year longitudinal travel survey in Outer London. Journal of Transport & Health 35: 101771. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2024.101771.

Aldred R, Verlinghieri E, Sharkey M, Itova I and Goodman A (2021). Equity in new active travel infrastructure: A spatial analysis of London's new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. Journal of Transport Geography 96: 103194. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103194.

Boichon N, Bouleau M, Courel J, Debrincat L, Pauget N, Ghersi V, Kauffmann A, Mietlicki F and René-Bazin R (2017). Fermeture des voies sur berges rive droite à Paris: Bilan du suivi et de l’évaluation un an après. Comité régional de suivi et d’évaluation des impacts de la piétonisation des voies sur berge rive droite à Paris.

Bosetti N, Connely K, Harding C and Rowe D (2022). Street Shift: The Future of Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods. Centre for London.

Bou Sleiman L (2021). Are car-free centers detrimental to the periphery? Evidence from the pedestrianization of the Parisian riverbank.

Cairns S, Atkins S and Goodwin P (2002). Disappearing traffic? The story so far. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer 151: 13-22. doi:10.1680/muen.2002.151.1.13.

Chung J, Yeon Hwang K and Kyung Bae Y (2012). The loss of road capacity and self-compliance: Lessons from the Cheonggyecheon stream restoration. Transport Policy 21: 165-178. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.009.

Commenges H, Debrie J and Maulat J (2024). L’automobile, objet géopolitique ? Une lecture des débats sur la place de la voiture dans la région francilienne:. Hérodote N° 193: 109-125. doi:10.3917/her.193.0109.

Douglas MJ, Teuton J, Macdonald A, Whyte B and Davis AL (2023). Road space reallocation in Scotland: A health impact assessment. Journal of Transport & Health 30: 101625. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2023.101625.

Dudley G, Banister D and Schwanen T (2022). Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and the Paradox of UK Government Control of the Active Travel Agenda. The Political Quarterly 93: 585-593. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.13198.

Fietsersbond Amsterdam (2018). Amsterdam 2025, stad van de fiets.

Fietsersbond Amsterdam (2019). De fietser in de Agenda Amsterdam Autoluw- mooie woorden zijn niet genoeg. Commentaar van de Fietsersbond afdeling Amsterdam.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2019). Amsterdam maakt ruimte: Agenda Amsterdam Autoluw.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2023a). Monitor Autoluw: Indicatoren 2021.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2023b). Plan van aanpak pilot knip Weesperstraat.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2023c). Terugkoppeling en lessen focusgroepen Pilot Weesperstraat.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2024a). Aanbevelingen over projectvoering Pilot Weesperstraat.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2024b). Pilot Weesperstraat: Onderzoeksrapport.

Goodman A and Aldred R (2021). The Impact of Introducing a Low Traffic Neighbourhood on Street Crime, in Waltham Forest, London. Findings, 16 February. doi:10.32866/001c.19414.

Goodman A, Laverty AA and Aldred R (2020). The Impact of Introducing a Low Traffic Neighbourhood on Fire Service Emergency Response Times, in Waltham Forest London. Findings.

Hendrickx K (2022). De voetgangerszone in zeven lessen: ‘Dit was een grote, maar visieloze stap vooruit’, 07 June. https://www.bruzz.be/analyse/de-voetgangerszone-zeven-lessen-dit-was-een-grote-maar-visieloze-stap-vooruit-2022-06-07.

Hubert M, Corijn E, Neuwels J, Hardy M, Vermeulen S and Vaesen J (2020). Van “grote voetgangerszone” tot stedelijk en grootstedelijk project : troeven en uitdagingen voor het Brusselse stadscentrum (nieuwe uitgave): Synthesenota BSI. Brussels Studies. doi:10.4000/brussels.5047.

Héran F (2018). Voie sur berge à Paris : rétablissons les faits, 16 January. https://reporterre.net/Voie-sur-berge-a-Paris-retablissons-les-faits.

IVA Mobiliteitsbedrijf (2019). Evaluatie circulatieplan Gent.

Khalaj F, Pojani D, Sipe N and Corcoran J (2020). Why are cities removing their freeways? A systematic review of the literature. Transport Reviews 40: 557-580. doi:10.1080/01441647.2020.1743919.

Kruyswijk M (2019). Fietsersbond: maak Wibautstraat elke zondag autovrij. Parool, 19 February.

Lee JY and Anderson CD (2013). The Restored Cheonggyecheon and the Quality of Life in Seoul. Journal of Urban Technology 20: 3-22. doi:10.1080/10630732.2013.855511.

Logan T, McPhedran R, Young A and King E (2021). Low Traffic Neighbourhoods Residents’ Survey. Kantar.

Mairie de Paris (2018). 55% des Parisiens favorables au maintien de la piétonisation des berges rive droite. https://presse.paris.fr/pages/14980.

Marquet O, Fernández Núñez M and Maciejewska M (2024). The political price of superblocks. Electoral outcomes of sustainable transport interventions in Barcelona. Environment International 189: 108789. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2024.108789.

Melia S and Calvert T (2021). Does Traffic Really Disappear When Roads are Closed?.

Nello-Deakin S (2020). Environmental determinants of cycling: Not seeing the forest for the trees? Journal of Transport Geography 85: 102704. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102704.

Nello-Deakin S, Sancho Vallvé C and Sila Akinci Z (2024). Who's afraid of pedestrianisation? Residents' perceptions and preferences on street transformation. Habitat International 150: 103117. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2024.103117.

Nikolaeva A (2024). The politics of non-knowing, smart technology and just mobility transitions: A case study and research agenda. Environment and Planning F, 25 February. doi:10.1177/26349825241228591.

R&WS (2021). Steady support for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London, 15 March. https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/steady-support-for-for-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london/.

Ryu C and Kwon Y (2016). How Do Mega Projects Alter the City to Be More Sustainable? Spatial Changes Following the Seoul Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project in South Korea. Sustainability 8: 1178. doi:10.3390/su8111178.

Stoker E (2024). Worstelen met de autoluwe stad: wat leerde Amsterdam van de veelbesproken ‘knip’? Volkskrant, 12 February.

Te Boveldt G, De Wilde L, Keseru I and Macharis C (2023). Pedestrianisation as a step in a societal transformation? An analysis of support and opposition in Brussels. Cities 143: 104577. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2023.104577.

Tessuto J (2016). Changer la ville pour changer la vie ? Le mouvement citoyen PicNic the Streets et l’invisibilisation des enjeux socio-économiques liés au réaménagement du centre-ville de Bruxelles. Environnement Urbain / Urban Environment 10

Thomas A and Aldred R (2024). Changes in motor traffic in London’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and boundary roads. Case Studies on Transport Policy 15: 101124. doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2023.101124.

Vanhellemont L and Vermeulen S (2016). De aanleg van de voetgangerszone in het Brusselse stadscentrum (2021 - ...): Een analyse van (het discours van) het procesverloop. BSI-BCO.

Varoquier J and Hasse B (2018). Paris : mais si, le trafic autour des voies sur berge s’améliore ! Le Parisien, 18 February.

Xiao CS, Sinclair N, Saunders L and Panter J (2023). Evaluating the impact of low traffic neighbourhoods in areas with low car ownership: A natural experimental evaluation. Journal of Transport & Health 33: 101658. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2023.101658.

Zografos C, Klause KA, Connolly JJ and Anguelovski I (2020). The everyday politics of urban transformational adaptation: Struggles for authority and the Barcelona superblock project. Cities 99: 102613. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2020.102613.