This thesis provides an insight into the role of dockless shared-bikes (Mobike) in Delft. The objective of is to fill the knowledge gap about the users of shared-bicycles and their motivations to use shared-bikes in Delft. A survey is and finally gained 91 useful results. 76% of respondents are students, and in general, people are highly educated. 46% of respondents are commuters who work/study in Delft, 5% are tourists, and the other half are living in Delft. Most of the Delft’s inhabitants also own a bike; they are classified as ‘casual’, occasional Mobike users with the main reason to use Mobike as a temporary replacement for their own bike. Most of the commuters, who live outside of Delft, do not own a bike in and use Mobike every (week)day. Their main motivator to use Mobike is out of convenience. All this information finally leads to the main conclusion about the role of dockless shared-bike in sustainable mobility in Delft. From this research, it turned out that 98% of Mobike trips is replacing trips made with other sustainable transport modes such as walking, other forms of cycling and public transport.

The Hyperloop concept is a new method of transportation. Con side ring this, it still has a vast amount of challenges to tackle and overcome. One of these challenges is the boarding security system, on which this research is focused. The Hyperloop is a tube-based transport method. The pods in which passengers travel have to be entered via certain access points, since the tube is in near vacuum state and can not be entered everywhere along its length. To ensure security and safety of the system's users, a boarding security system is required. In this report, the aim is to create the beginnings of a design of such a boarding security system. Several already-existing transportation methods, which can be compared to the Hyperloop in one or a number of ways, were analyzed for their boarding security systems. Their boarding processes, risks and measures were noted. This was done by arranging each of the systems risks, related to boarding security, and combining these with their respective measures, costs and placement. The transportation methods which had the highest risks, also had the most and most extreme measures to combat these respective risks. The Hyperloop is a closed system. This enables it to be considered a high-risk system, mainly because emergency exits and access for help are hard to realize. Another aspect which increases risk, is the high velocity at which the Hyperloop is expected to operate. This high velocity can accelerate and multiply the resulting damage in case an accident happens. The most significant analyzed transportation method (in terms of amount of terrorist countermeasures) was the airplane. At an airport, a combination of cameras, active personnel (such as guards and camera surveillants) and extensive security checks are implemented to maximize security. To custom fit a security system to the Hyperloop, the actual properties of the Hyperloop system itself have to be determined. Therefore, a certain variation of the Hyperloop was chosen out of several to further use in this report. The chosen variation has four key features; the tube is placed above ground surface level, the pods are sized to fit about 20 passengers, the transportation system can be used without reservation and the pods enter a pressurization room (locked and entered by gates) to make it possible for travelers to enter. The risks of this specific system were determined to mostly be hijackings and bombings, this was done by analyzing terrorist attack statistics. Before determining the boarding security system's elements, limitations were set. These limitations limit (and change) the security measures, by implementing other factors that should be considered. This is an important part, since an overflow of security measures can increase overall system costs and therefore degrade user experience. These limitations were costs, time delays and differences in laws and culture per country. Costs were chosen to not be varied, since the overall security costs per ticket price are but a small portion of the expected overall ticket price (about €10 per flight per person for air travel, which will be used as a simplification). Two significant limitations are time delays and regional differences. Time delays reduce travel flow. Regional differences, like terror attack probability per nation, influence the required anti-measures. These two limitations are combined to create two versions of the boarding system. One version is automated, which costs less time but is possibly less safe. The other one is a partially automated system with manual additions, which takes up more workforce and time (e.g. by also performing checks by hand) but the re fore increases security by broadening the overall security process. The implemented system will depend on the specific region. The boarding security system consists out of the following components: - Luggage and passenger check, which includes metal detectors, x-ray scanners and possibly explosive detection devices. - A well-ordered, structure d boarding procedure which enhances the capability to maintain an overall view on what is happening and what the passengers are doing. This means a mostly guided system, initiated once the traveler enters the station facility. The guiding of the travelers is to mainly happen via the station's layout; the positioning of gates and rails, which indicate the path passengers are to follow. This makes it easier for the personnel to spot extraordinary activities. - A team of personnel to inspect the camera footage, perform checks in manual regions and operate as security guards and first-aid helpers. As one can tell, the defined boarding security system above seems to resemble that of an airport. However, a key difference is that air flights are reserved. The Hyperloop, according to the assumed system used in this report, is not. Therefore, the 3rd point of the boarding security system (well­ordered boarding procedure) is of great importance. By increasing the structure in the system, it becomes easier for the personnel to focus on their respective function which can increase efficiency.

This research investigates the influence of priority road markings on cyclists’ behaviour at bicycle street crossings. Almost all bicycle street crossings are controlled by priority markings or by the priority rule: traffic coming from the right has priority. At these crossings there is a lot of interaction between cyclists, so it is important that the bicycle traffic can pass the crossings without severe conflicts. For the research two crossings were observed. One crossing with priority markings and one without priority markings, both with traffic from four directions. At both crossings a camera recorded the cyclists passing the crossing for one hour at three different moments in the day. The conflicts on the footage are investigated in the analysis. Firstly, It was investigated if priority was given when it should have been given. Also the severity of the conflicts and the behaviour of the cyclists who had to give priority were classified. Finally the influence of the kind of crossing (crossing or merging), the influence of groups and the influence of scooters were addressed. The results show no relation between the presence of a scooter in a conflict and the percentage of cyclists not giving priority while they should have given priority. Also merging and crossing conflicts show no large difference in priority behaviour. But when groups are part of a conflict, priority is less often given while it should have been given. After these three influences, conflicts in general are compared for a crossing with priority markings and a crossing without priority markings. The observed crossing without priority markings shows a larger percentage of severe conflicts. Also the cyclists who had to give priority show more often reckless behaviour in conflicts. From these results it is concluded that priority markings control the priority on a crossing better than the priority rule: traffic coming from the right has priority.