Mapping Route 100

In the last couple of weeks, I've had to pack up my bags and head back to Seattle from Denmark. For the past six months I have had the privilege of researching at Aalborg University, supported by a Valle Scholarship from the University of Washington. The experience has been extremely educational and I hope to return to research again for the university's Centre of Mobilities and Urban Studies in the future. But, it was time for me to head home and finish up my coursework for concurrent masters degrees in Seattle...

Before departing, I pulled together the first full draft of the working paper my research partner and I have been writing about Aalborg's bicycle commuter Route 100. In addition to writing, this involved my finalizing the set of maps that will be included within the paper to display our theoretical and ethnographic work.

Although the draft working paper is not quite ready to be unveiled to the public, I'm pleased to say that the maps are! Below is a document including every single map I have designed for this project. I have organized the maps according to which portion of our Linear Mobilities research model the theme of the map falls under. Additionally, I have maps exhibiting our fieldwork, the distribution of flyers advertising our online survey, and comparisons between themes we have researched.

Route 100 Survey…Deterrents

To follow up on my most recent blogpost which discussed motivations, I now turn to an the initial analysis of survey responses regarding deterrents for riding a bicycle in general and specifically along Route 100.

Deterrents

As with the investigation into motivations, deterrents are likewise assumed to have a strong influence on how individuals regard Route 100 as well as whether and when they choose to ride a bicycle. Possible deterrents listed on the survey address both emotional considerations as well as preferences for physical conditions.

Deterrents for Bicycling

The results on deterrents for riding a bicycle in general are relatively comparable among five of the six possible responses listed on the survey. A total of 34.3% of respondents reported that absolutely nothing deters them from riding a bicycle. Users riding only one segment of the route account for the highest proportion of respondents stating that nothing prevents them from riding a bicycle, comprising 35.59% of individuals selecting this response. The presence of hill or complicated topography is the second most common deterrent, reported by 30.81% of respondents. Those respondents who ride the entire length of Route 100 comprise the group most frequently reporting topography as a deterrent, with 21.43% of this type of user indicating that this reason keeps them from riding their bicycle.

Similar to the inclusion of safe bicycling situations as a possible motivation for riding a bicycle, the survey included the emotional fear of getting into accidents with both motorized and non-motorized roadway users as possible deterrents. The fear of accidents with motorized vehicles, described as personal vehicles and buses, is the third most common deterrent selected by survey respondents. Regular route users of the entire route and those who only use one portion of the Route 100 are the two types of users most frequently deterred by a concern for having an accident with motorized vehicles, accounting for 36.73% and 32.65% of respondents expressing this fear respectively. Former regular users of Route 100 are less deterred by this fear, with this group of users accounting for 22.45% of individuals reporting this deterrent. A concern for potential accidents with non-motorized vehicles, described as other bicyclists and pedestrians, is the least common of the deterrents included on the survey, comprising only 9.3% of responses. Of this small percentage, 43.75% of those indicating a fear of accidents with non-motorized vehicles are current users of all Route 100, another 31.25% are users of a portion of the route, and 18.8% are former route users.

Ranking just under the fear of accidents with motorized vehicles, 24.42% of respondents indicated that time spent waiting for lights to change at intersections can be a deterrent preventing them from riding a bicycle. Those respondents who use the entire length of Route 100 are far more deterred by the wait time at traffic lights than other users, accounting for 42.86% of responses. Users of only a portion of the route only account for 21.43% of respondents selecting this deterrent. Another 22.67% reported that the need to cross intersections is also a deterrent, which may be related to a fear of accidents with motorized vehicular traffic.

Respondents who anticipate becoming future riders of Route 100 reported very few deterrents to riding a bicycle. This type of users only comprise 1.74% of all responses for general deterrents for riding a bicycle and this group of respondents reported only the top three most common deterrents. Survey respondents that are not users of Route 100, not surprisingly, report a greater number of deterrents than future users. This group accounts for 11.63% of reported deterrents and rank the possibilities in the same order as the overall population of respondents.

The most prevalent write-in response to the question of what deters respondents, in general, from riding a bicycle is the incidence of bad weather conditions. A total of 12.21% of respondents expressed that rain, wind, snow, and ice can prevent them from bicycling on a given day. In fact, some respondents indicated that weather has the largest influence over whether the select to travel by bicycle. Similar to this write-in response, another 0.58% of respondents stated that when snow is not cleared from the bicycle path during the winter, they do not feel comfortable riding.

As with the unintentional exclusion of affordability as a motivator, the research team admits that failing to include weather conditions on the survey is an unfortunate oversight. During interviews with Route 100 users, individuals reported that weather is a large determining factor in choosing to ride when they have the option to use an alternative mode. However, because it was not listed on the survey, this research cannot accurately assess the how weather conditions compare to other deterrents for riding a bicycle.

Just as respondents indicated that the provision of pavement markings for bicycles can motivate individuals to ride their bicycle, the lack of pavement markings was written-in by 2.91% of respondents as a deterrent for riding. Another 1.74% of respondents indicated that personal discomfort during and after a bicycle ride might prevent them from traveling by bicycle. This was related either to a distaste to feel sweaty or be required to wear a different type of clothing while riding than is necessary once they are at their given destination. The distance of a trip was also listed as potential deterrent by 1.16% of respondents. Some individuals indicated that they elect to walk when distances are short and will choose a motorized mode when the distance is longer then they prefer to ride. The duality of this write-in response subtly ties to the SMART Mobilities Strategy developed by Aalborg Municipality. This strategy aims to develop a mobilities system that accommodates whichever the most convenient and sustainable mode of transportation is for any given trip, as opposed to dictating that one mode is always the best to use.

Deterrents for Using Route 100

When focusing in what deters respondents to use Route 100 specifically, the response of nothing acting as a deterrent is more universal. A total of 46.51% of respondents indicated that nothing prevents them from using Route 100. This was also the most common deterrent reported by most types of Route 100 users, with individuals riding the entire route, a portion of the route, and former riders accounting for 36.25%, 25%, and 27.5% those selecting this option respectively. The only respondents that did not express being deterred by nothing are those individuals who are not yet users, but plan to be in the future.

Following the same ranking as deterrents for riding a bicycle in general, the presence of hills and slopes is cited as the second most common reason that Route 100 is not used by 22.67% of respondents. The majority of respondents that consider the topography to be an issue are those who ride the whole route, comprising 41.03% of individuals deterred by hills. Another 16.28% of all respondents reported that they are deterred from riding Route 100 because there are too many vehicles driving near to the route.

Only 14.53% of respondents express that a fear of having an accident with a motorized vehicle is a deterrent from using Route 100. This means that 13.96% fewer respondents indicate that they worry about an accident with a motor vehicle on Route 100 than when riding a bicycle in general. Similarly, 15.12% fewer respondents reported that time spent waiting at a traffic light is a deterrent for using Route 100 than was reported for bicycling in general. Of the 9.3% of respondents that do consider wait time a deterrent, 62.5% are individuals who use the entire length of the route.

In keeping with the pattern that deterrents are not as strongly felt along Route 100, 18.6% fewer respondents indicated that the number of intersections that must be crossed along Route 100 is a deterrent as well as 3.49% fewer expressing a concern that they may have an accident with another non-motorized traveler. In fact, 11.55% fewer deterrents, overall, were reported for using Route 100 than for riding a bicycle in general. This difference illustrates that the reason that respondents might not select to use Route 100 is more related their larger concerns regarding riding a bicycle, than specific issues with Route 100 itself.

As is the case for general deterrents for riding a bicycle, the most common write-in deterrent for riding Route 100 is bad weather. A total of 5.23% respondents indicate that weather is a determining factor in their choice to ride the route, with 44.44% of individuals reporting weather as a deterrent are former Route 100 users. This is 6.98% fewer than the number of respondents who wrote-in expressing that weather is a deterrent for riding a bicycle in general.

The only other write-in deterrent for using Route 100 is that the route itself is inconvenient, which was reported by 2.33% of respondents. An equal number of all types of users conveyed that they are deterred from using Route 100 because it is not the best route for the trip, with the exception of those respondents who anticipate becoming future users of Route 100. Not including the alignment of Route 100 as a deterrent is an additional oversight that the research team regrets not including on the list of deterrents. During the interviews that took place after the survey closed, it was learned that many individuals do in fact have ideas of better alignment for the route. Just as it is impossible to compare the weight of weather as a deterrent to those listed in the survey, however, this research is also unable to accurately state how much of a deterrent alignment is compared to the other deterrents.

Take-Away

The general take-away from this look at deterrents is that stronger deterrents exist for riding a bicycle than for using this specific route. The application of this finding is that, Aalborg Municipality should focus on addressing deterrents that hinder residents from using a bicycle at all beyond simply focusing in the process of developing the local bicycle commuter network. Additionally, advertising improvements that decrease wait time at intersections or any effort to route riders around, instead of up hills might help encourage more individuals to choose to ride a bicycle and, therefore, use a network.

Route 100 Survey…Motivations

As was promised quite a ways back, I have finally gone through the results of the Route 100 survey that address motivations and deterrents for riding a bicycle. In this blogpost, I present the results of the questions regarding motivation and my next post will address what it is that deters our survey respondents from riding a bicycle. 

Of course, these results are specific to the population of respondents to the survey on Route 100…the responses given by the 172 individuals who answered the survey my research partner and I deployed may provide insight to further explorations of motivations for riding a bicycle and selecting to commute with this mode of transportation.

Motivations

Motivations for riding a bicycle and using Route 100 have an assumed connection to how users perceive the mode of transportation. In order to analyze how what drives ‘people’ to use their bicycle, the survey investigated the motivations for riding a bicycle in general and what specifically motivates respondents to use Route 100 itself. Respondents were granted the ability to select multiple motivations listed in the survey as well as write-in additional reasons they select to ride a bicycle or use the route.

Motivations for Bicycling

The most common impetus for riding a bicycle in general is the benefit to personal health that bicycling provides, with 83.14% of respondents indicating this motivation in the survey. Unlike driving a car or riding a bus, using a bicycle as a means of transportation insists that the rider experiences free exercise while traveling. The second most prevalent motivation, with 78.49% of respondents for bicycling is the convenience it provides. Another 63.37% of individuals responded that the enjoyment they received from riding a bicycle was a motivation for selecting to ride. Current users riding the entire length of the route or only one segment also listed these as their top three reasons for choosing this mode of transportation. Enjoyment is the strongest motivator for riders of all of Route 100 and the second strongest for riders of one portion of the route, respectively accounting for 35.78% and 28.44% of respondents selecting this as motivator. Only former regular users stated that convenience is their most important motivator, comprising 28.15% of respondents indicating this response.

Just over a third of respondents, 34.88%, express that they choose to ride a bicycle because it is good for the environment. Slightly fewer respondents are motivated to ride a bicycle when there are well-maintained facilities provide for bicycle transportation and safe spaces for bicyclists to ride, accounting for 26.16% and 22.09% of responses respectively. Safety is most important to regular riders of the entire route, with 39.7% of those indicating safe situations as a motivation being in this group. Maintenance on the other hand, is the most valuable to former users of Route 100, who comprise for 37.78% of individuals selecting this option. Linked to these two motivations, the presence of pavement markings for bicyclists was reported as a motivation by 154.53% of survey respondents. At the very bottom of the list of motivations, accounting for 5.81% of respondents, was the option to state that nothing acts as a motivator for riding a bicycle.


One important motivator inadvertently left off of the list of motivations in the survey was the low cost of riding a bicycle. In the write-in section of the survey, 16.86% of respondents stated that riding a bicycle is “cheap” or that it “saves money”. The largest proportion of respondents expressing that cost is what motivates them to ride a bicycle are those who are regular riders of the entire length of Route 100, accounting for 34.28% of this write-in motivation. Another 31.03% of respondents writing-in this motivation are former riders of Route 100 and 24.14% currently ride one portion of the route.

The oversight of not including affordability in the survey means that the results of the survey cannot indicate how much of motivator the cost of bicycling compares to health, convenience, and other motivators that were included. The second most common reason that was written-in by 7.56% of respondents is that bicycling is their preferred mode of transportation. Another 2.33% of respondents indicated that they select to ride a bicycle because it is either the fasted or the most flexible mode of transportation. Favorable weather conditions was written-in by 1.16% of respondents, with the very small population of respondents, 0.58%, stating that their bicycle is the only mode of transportation that they have access to.

Motivations for Riding Route 100

To further the investigation of motivations, the survey focused in on Route 100 and inquired why users choose to ride this particular bicycle route. Just with responses to the more general question on motivations for riding a bicycle, the presence of well-maintained facilities and safe situations for bicycling act as nearly equal motivators for using Route 100, accounting for 27.3% and 25.58% of responses respectively. As with general motivations for riding a bicycle, those riding the entire length of Route 100, find that safety is the more important of the two motivators, with this group accounting for 40.91% of individuals selecting this response. Unlike the general motivations, however, it is the regular rider of the whole route which finds well maintained facilities most important, with a total of 36.26% of those choosing good maintenance as a motivator being in this group of respondents.

The presence of pavement markings indicating where bicyclists should use the roadway is the third most frequently selected motivator for using Route 100, with 19.19% of respondents selecting this possible response. Those respondents who ride all or part of the route as well as those who formally use Route 100 have a generally equal outlook on the importance of pavement markings.

Unlike the general question on reasons for using a bicycle as a mode of transportation, having no motivation was not the least common response. A total of 13.37% of respondents stated that nothing motivates them to use Route 100, but only 12.79% indicated that the wayfinding along the route is a motivator. That wayfinding is considered the least important of the motivators included in the survey is further reflected upon in the expanded discussion of Route 100 initiatives.

As with the motivations for riding a bicycle in general, respondents also provided extra insight beyond into motivations for using Route 100 beyond the options listed in the survey. A total of 12.79% of responses indicated that they choose to use Route 100 because a bicycle is the only mode of transportation they have access to—which can be tied to the write-in answer regarding the affordability of riding a bicycle. Another 9.3% of respondents explained that Route 100 provides the best route for their trip. This response reflects well on the planning of the route, as it indicates that Aalborg Municipality successfully aligned the commuter route to provide access to Aalborg University.

The third most common write-in response for selecting to use Route 100, accounting for 1.74% of responses, is the priority provide to bicyclists along the route. The of the topography along Route 100 was described as a motivator by 1.16% of respondents, which is exhibited as an interesting response in the analysis of deterrents to riding a bicycle in general and along Route 100. Of all the write-in responses, the least common statement is that bicycling is the preferred mode of transportation, with 0.58% of respondents submitting this response.



As may be clear, the possible response for motivations for bicycling in general differ slightly from those specific to the use of Route 100. This research project assumes that all general motivations are also applicable to the motivations for using Route 100 specifically. Considering this, the analysis assumes that health, convenience and enjoyment are stronger motivators for bicycling than any of the response specific to Route 100, as these options were more frequently selected than any options regarding explicitly related to Route 100.

One unfortunate outcome from this section of the survey is that non-users and future Route 100 users did not report many motivations for riding a bicycle. For non-users, convenience is the most important motivator for riding in general and for selecting to user Route 100. Those individuals who plan to use Route 100 in the future rank convenience at the same level as nothing at all acting as a motivation, but these responses together only account for 1.16% of all responses. A care for the environment is the most important factor for future riders who plan to use Route100, yet these responses also only account for 1.16% of all responses for motivations. That more was not learned about these groups of users means this research cannot well pinpoint what could be done to increase bicycle ridership among these groups of ‘people’.

Coming Next...

My next blogpost will highlight the antithetically reasons for bicycling and using Route 100, considering what deters ridership in general and along this route itself.

Brown Bag Seminar: Linear Mobility

This afternoon, my research partner and myself delivered our third and final presentation on our research project on bicycle commuter Route 100. As a part of the Brown Bag Seminar Series run by Aalborg University's Centre for Mobilities Studies, this presentation was given primarily to PhD students and faculty with the Department of Architecture, Urban Design, and Media Technology. An abstract for this presentation is published on the C-MUS website and provides context for our project. The focus of the seminar was to briefly introduce the Linear Mobilities research framework we defined for this project and present the findings of our ethnographic research.

Packed full with charts and maps describing our quantitative and qualitative research and analysis, the presentation is provided below in it's full glory…

If you would like a copy of the presentation or are interest in entering into further dialog about the presentation or the project itself…do not hesitate to get in contact with me!

The Past

To reflect on our "past moments together"…our first presentation focused on sharing our research goals and initial ethnographic research accounts. The abstract for this presentation is posted here and my post-presentation reflection is on this previous blogpost. Then, not long ago, we took part in an event called "Bring Your Own Model, Plan, etc…" which asked presenters to give short presentations on anything related to mobilities design. I discuss the event in this previous blogpost and more information can be found here. Today's presentation leaned heavily on work done in the first two, but added a substantial amount of information on the results of our online user survey and interviews with Route 100 users.

The future

All three of our presentations were supported by the Centre for Mobilities and Urban Studies. Our association with this centre stems from our being hired as research interns to do a project with the final deliverable of a working paper for C-MUS. We still have much work to do to finish up our working paper, but this sure was a milestone!

Thank you to those who attended and engaged us with interesting questions, comments, and throughs for future applications for this research. And thank you to those who supported us individually we prepared the presentation and helped us see the light at the end of the tunnel. It was our largest group yet (and no, I will not share how 'huge' attendance was…) and we appreciate everyone who donated an hour of their time to listen to our ramblings. In the coming weeks, the draft of the paper should be wrapped up and today's seminar was certainly beneficial to our efforts concluding the project.

Preliminary Maps of Route 100

Over the past several days, I have feverishly been designing the final set of maps for the research project I am doing on Route 100 in Aalborg. My research partner and myself will be presenting at a brown bag seminar this coming Thursday and hope to soon be handing in a draft of our working paper. The maps are intended to be used both as visuals in the presentation as well as graphics for the paper.

As my last several blogposts have been long, graphic-free dialogs about theoretical research…I feel like it is about time I share a mostly visual and easy to digest blogpost. In keeping with the research project, I have grouped the maps according to which component of our research component the maps are associated with. For more information on our research framework, you can read my most recent blogpost.

As to our impending presentation…

To those who are in the Aalborg area, you are welcome to join us and attend our presentation for the Centre for Mobilities and Urban Studies this week! All of the maps in this post are low-quality versions of what will be presented on February 20th, in addition to charts displaying the quantitative analysis of our survey results.

Find our abstract and look for details on time and location on the C-MUS announcement. We are presenting over lunch, so bring your own brown bag!

PEOPLE

This set of maps display ethnographic accounts provided to us during interviews with Route 100 users. We interviewed a total of eight individuals. We aggregated their responses into a generalized understanding of how the route is perceived with regards to their enjoyment, feeling of safety, what sections they like and dislike, and where they can socialize along the route.

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Sections of Perceived Enjoyed | Credit: Cat Silva)

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Sections of Perceived Safety | Credit: Cat Silva)

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Sections Liked and Disliked | Credit: Cat Silva)

Asking where people feel social is our attempt to explore where nodes of activity may occur along the route. During the interviews, we did not specific what they of 'social feeling' we were looking for, so the responses ranged from where interviewees felt they were often around other bicyclists, noticed pedestrian activity, or common meeting places and destinations.

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Places That Feel Social Defined by Interviewees | Credit: Cat Silva)

PLACES

For the survey we deployed in the Winter of 2013, we divided up the route into five sections. The sections were created in order to ask survey respondents to identify where they entered and exited the route, where accidents occurred, or where they most enjoy riding the facility. These sections were separated where infrastructure and feeling of the streets changed--based on the type of activities or land uses my research partner and myself recalled from our initial rides of the route.

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Online Survey Division of Sections | Credit: Cat Silva)

To follow up on our assumptions made prior to the survey, we asked our interviewees to indicate where they would divide the route into sections. The divisions were nearly the same, however users tended to split our section A into two separate parts.

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Interviewees' Division of Sections | Credit: Cat Silva)

This third map of the sections of Route 100 provides a description of the typologies of each section as well as the reason for the division.

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Rationale for Division of Sections | Credit: Cat Silva)

As is discussed in the notes on the map above, these sections very much relate to the type of bicycle infrastructure provide for bicyclists along the route.

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Bicycle Infrastructure | Credit: Cat Silva)

We also asked our interviewees to tell us where the visible and invisible landmarks that they notice when riding Route 100. Visible means any buildings, structures, or other identifying features of the environment. Invisible means places they pass by that may not be directly on the route, but that the rider thinks about while riding the route. After the interviews, we grouped the landmarks into seven categories of places. For the presentation and paper, we will present a series of maps display the exact landmark at each identified location.

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Landmarks Defined by Interviewees | Credit: Cat Silva)

We asked interviewees to locate places that they might visit while using the route. There is a great deal of overlap among the maps for places to visit, places that feel social, and route landmarks. In the analysis of the interview responses, this relationship will be explored.

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Places to Visit Defined by Interviewees | Credit: Cat Silva)

PLANS

In a pervious blogpost, I have discussed the various route initiatives that were implemented as a part of the Route 100 project. Seven different types of facilities and infrastructure were added to the roadway to accommodate Route 100 riders. The location of each initiative is mapped below.

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Seven Innovative Initiatives | Credit: Cat Silva)

PRACTICES

The last component of our research framework is looking at the practices that Route 100 users engage in. Our research project considers what activities users engage in (i.e., commuting, shopping, for leisure, etc) and the routine pattern of using the route. Although we do not have maps indicating these general concepts, we did explore the concept of practice during our interviews. As bicyclists are quite exposed to weather conditions, part of each interviews was dedicated to inquiring which portions of the route are experienced differently during different weather situations. During our interviews, we asked interviewees to locate areas where they tend to enjoy sun-shine, where wind is consistently an issue, or where rain is particularly irritating. The aggregate of these feelings is displayed on the following map.

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Perception of Weather | Credit: Cat Silva)

The speed at which users will ride Route 100 depends on personal ability and topography as well as to line of sight, perception of safety, and weather conditions. Each and all of these factors impact how an individual will choose to ride the route That is to say, different factors are assumed to influence how fast or slow a user will ride their bicycle.

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Perception of Speed | Credit: Cat Silva)

EXAMPLE OF CROSS-COMPONENT RELATIONSHIP

Any combination of these maps can and should be explored for a well-rounded analysis of Route 100. We do not get have the time or energy to delve into each potential comparison…but here is one example that we will discuss in our presentation. Take note of where there are links between the different feelings and user perceptions of Route 100.

(02/18/2014 | Route 100: Comparison of Enjoyment, Safety, and Speed | Credit: Cat Silva)

Now time to finish up the presentation and get these graphics ready for the working paper!

Linear Mobilities Framework

For those who follow my blog, I am involved in a project analyzing and evaluating a bicycle commute route in Aalborg, Denmark. Recently, my research partner and myself created a new research framework with which we are analyzing Route 100--a bicycle commuter route connecting Aalborg City Centre with Aalborg Municipality. In many of my recent blogposts, I have been highlighting our research questions and our approach to this project. As my time researching in Aalborg is very sadly coming to a close, my partner and myself have been ferociously working on completing a draft of our research project. We still have a ways to go…not a big surprise…but we are writing as fast as we can!!

In my most recent blogpost, I provided an explanation for the Staging Mobilities framework established by our research supervisor here in Aalborg. Today, I am presenting the initial draft of the framework we developed for our present project, based on our supervisor's framework.

The purpose of creating the Linear Mobilities framework is to target the Staging Mobilities model directly at the study of Route 100 and the bicycle commuter network in Aalborg. In this blogpost I will introduce the four primary components of the model and will next provide an explanation for how this model refers back to the concept of Staging Mobilities.

Components of Linear Mobilities Model

The four components of the Linear Mobilities Model described below are:

A. People
B. Places
C. Plans
D. Practices

(02/10/2014 | Linear Mobilities Model | Credit: Cat Silva)

Source of Analytical Information

To inform and explore these each component, the results of a survey the research team developed and deployed for Route 100 users are used. Although the survey was written prior to the creation of the Linear Mobilities framework, the related Staging Mobilities model was very much in mind. Nearly every survey question is directly applicable and useful for an analysis of one or more components of the new model. Moreover, individual face-to-face interviews with survey respondents were conducted with volunteers.

Theoretical Connections

Each component of the Linear Mobilities model is directly linked to the Staging Mobilities research framework established by Ole B. Jensen. For more information on the Staging Mobilities model, refer to my most recent blogpost or look up the book under the same name published by Routledge.

'PEOPLE'

The first component of the Linear Mobilities model is ‘people’, which specifically looks at the bicycle riders using of Route 100.

(02/10/2014 | Linear Mobilities Model: People | Credit: Cat Silva)

In order to construct a representation of the users of Route 100, the research team looked at the four primary areas: 1) General Profile; 2) User Affiliation; 3) Type of User; and 4) Route Familiarity. These areas are intended to work together and inform an understanding of the perception users of Route 100.

The general profile of the Route 100 users is defined by the categories of age, gender, and educational background. User affiliation primarily considers whether users are students or employees of Aalborg University, or if they are not associated with this institution. The reason this distinction is made is due to the purpose and alignment of the route. As the route explicitly provides a connection to the main campus of the university, the research is specifically interested in understanding whether those associated with the university comprise the largest user group. The type of user is delineated along the lines of how often an individual rides the route, and how much of the route they use. This area differentiates among those who are current, regular riders of the entire route and current, regular riders who only use a portion of the route. Additionally, this area identifies former regular riders as well as riders who do not use the route at present, but do plan to become regular users in the future. And finally, familiarity is examined under the presumption that how aquatinted with the route had an impact on how the use and experience their bicycle ride. Familiarity is related to the type of user, and is further explored by contemplating how long users have been residents of Aalborg Municipality and how long they have been using Route 100.

As is stated above, user perception defined as a function of all four attributes of ‘people’. This assumption is reflective of the fact that the each of the parts individually influences how an individual observes and comprehends the world around them. In addition to considering how each of these areas effect perception, route enjoyment as well as rider motivations and deterrents are also of importance.

'PLACES'

The second component of the Linear Mobilities model is ‘places’, which is targeted at explaining the environment as well as the implementation of planning initiatives.

(02/10/2014 | Linear Mobilities Model: Places | Credit: Cat Silva)

Details of Component

For this portion of the model, the research team inspects the physical roadway and how it is ‘staged from above’ by looking at these five areas: 1) Street Typologies; 2) Landmarks; 3) Bicycle Infrastructure and Facilities; 4) Roadway Quality; and 5) Cultural Frames.

Street typologies are generalized and grouped according to whether the roadway runs through a residential area, a commercial district, or exist as a thoroughfare connecting different parts of the city. Information on the official land uses and street typologies might also be gathered from the municipality. For the purpose of this project, however the roadways are instead described based on observations made by the research team.As this project is targeted at an investigation of a bicycle route, special consideration is given to whether and how bicyclists are accommodated along the planned route. The physical elements of Route 100 are categorized as infrastructure or facilities. What is provided is a function of what is planned for, thus the ‘plans’ component is also considered an important factor in implementing portions of the physical environment.

Along Route 100, there are myriad structures, landscapes that might act as landmarks for riders. This includes religious, commercial, and intuitional buildings. Parks and pieces of the infrastructure, such as the three tunnels along the route, may also serve as landmarks. Such landmarks are considered to play a role in how bicyclists experience their ride. Those structures and landscapes near to the route can help orientate individuals or might evoke feelings of pleasure or memories.

As this project is targeted at an investigation of a bicycle route, special consideration is given to how, and whether, bicyclists are accommodated along the planned route. The physical elements of Route 100 are categorized as infrastructure or facilities. Quality is assumed to be a determinant in how safe, secure, comfortable, and cared for users feel. For the purposes of this model, the term quality is mean to simultaneously describe the traits as well as the general upkeep of the route’s infrastructure and facilities. To that end, the quality of the roadway is assessed both with a consideration for the condition of the physical topography, the surface, and the degree to which the bicycle route is maintained by the municipality.

With theoretical research on the in mind, personal perceptions are embedded in how ‘people’ experience their environment. Cultural frames influence how individuals understand and use a given physical setting, as features are more or less legibility due to familiarity and background. Bicyclists new to the area or for whom the culture of bicycling in Denmark is foreign may not be able to read the route as easily as those who have grown up riding their bicycle in the northern Jutland.

'PLANS'

The third component of the Linear Mobilities model considers the ‘plans’ that are responsible for envisioning the future for Aalborg Municipality and the bicycle commuter network.

(02/10/2014 | Linear Mobilities Model: Plans | Credit: Cat Silva)

Details of Component

The ‘plan’ component of the Linear Mobilities model delves into the planning, policy, and funding documents behind the implementation of the route. Broken up according to scale of influence, the three primary areas of ‘staging from above’ are: 1) Aalborg Municipality; 2) Danish Roads Directorate; and 3) CIVITAS Initiative.

As the local planning authority, Aalborg Municipality is responsible for creating the planning documents meant to guide the development and growth of the area. One document describes the goals for the municipal strategy within the context of northern Denmark. Others focus more directly at the physical setting or create a strategy for the development of the municipality. At the smallest-scale relevant to this research project is the municipal Bicycle Action Plan (Cykelhandlingsplan in Danish), which establishes specific metrics for achieving specific target goals related to bicycling. All of these documents are intentionally interlinking, with the smaller-scale plans referring approaches and intentions established in larger-scale plans. With the exception of the largest-scale vision, relevant planning documents share the same 2025 planning horizon.

With respect to transportation projects, the implementation of planning projects within these planning documents is answerable to the Danish Roads Directorate (Dansk Vejdirektoratet in Danish), which is responsible for managing all work done on the state-run roadways in Denmark. All projects, such as Route 100, are subjected to the scrutiny of the Directorate and must follow the Road Rules (Vejreglerne in Danish). One aspect of the Route 100 project was not addressed under the Road Rules, which required that a special permit be applied for through the Directorate before implementation was possible at a legal and administrative level. Moreover, the Directorate issues funds set aside specifically for bicycle projects and (Cykelpuljen in Danish). Aalborg Municipality applied for and received funding through this source. Through both of these mechanisms, the national government had a hand in determining how Aalborg Municipality developed ‘places’ along the route.

This bicycle route project was planned by Aalborg Municipality in concert with the CIVITAS Initiative, which is an organization co-financed by the European Union that focuses on developing innovative sustainable transportation techniques for urban areas. Collaboratively, these two parties established the goals and developed the implementation initiatives for the Route 100 project. The CIVITAS Initiative provided funding for the project and required the Municipality to evaluate the success of the project after implementation. Results of this evaluation are intended to inform future CIVITAS Initiative projects, but they also served to meet the evaluation requirements imposed on the project by the Cyklepujlen funds given by the Danish Roads Directorate.

'PRACTICES'

The fourth and final component to the Linear Mobilities model is ‘practices’, which encompasses the activities and routines that ‘people’ carry out in ‘places’ along Route 100.

(02/10/2014 | Linear Mobilities Model: Practices | Credit: Cat Silva)

Details of Component

This final component of the Linear Mobilities model aims to define and describe the ‘practices’ that users of Route 100 engage in. The two primary areas of interest to this component are: 1) Activity; and 2) Routine.

The activities that bicyclists conduct while using Route 100 are looked divided between the necessary and optional. (Gehl 1982:9-11) Necessary activities are categorized as commuting and shopping. As the primary purpose for implementing the route was to encourage those affiliated to Aalborg University to commute to school or work, it is expected that commuting to and from the campus is the dominate necessary activity. The route alignment itself supports this assumption, as accessing the university from the city centre is the most obvious use. That said, the route is permeable from end to end and there are no barriers to bicyclists using the route as a connection point on the way to other destinations. Accounting for this fact, the existence of possible optional activates is recognized. Such activities are categorized as being recreational, for exercise, or for the purpose of visiting family or friends.

In addition to categorizing the activities ‘people’ use Route 100 for, a deeper assessment of user ‘practice’ is done by exploring the routine use of the route. Rider routine is gaged considering to how frequently they use the route and how these patterns change according to the time of day and the season of the year. The length of the trip along the route and the rider’s destination is also analyzed. Route 100 rider routines are expected to related back to the type of ‘people’ using the route. Individuals who are affiliated with the university are expected to use the route more regularly than non-affiliates. Furthermore, the level of familiarly that ‘people’ have with the ‘places’ along the route is assumed to be strongly related to how frequently the route is used.

Next Up...

My next blogpost will explicitly reference these four components back to the Staging Mobilities concept in order to explain or process….then I will FINALLY get back to the results!

Describing "Staging Mobilities"

My current research project on Aalborg’s Route 100 is largely inspired by the framework established by Ole B. Jensen’s Staging Mobilities model. Rather than directly adopting this theoretical model, however, the research team selected to adapt and reconstruct this analytical approach. This choice was made as the Staging Mobilities model was created as an applicable framework with which to investigate the ‘situational mobilities’ of any given place or mobility experience. As this project aims to research and evaluate a specific mobilities project, the research team took the opportunity to develop a model precisely fitted to the materials and information the available on Route 100.

The reason for designing a new research framework was primarily an educational exercise for the research team. Engaging in the adaptation of Jensen’s framework required the research team to both develop a thorough understanding of the existing theoretical model as well as earnestly plan out the analysis of Route 100.

The new framework is tentatively titled the Linear Mobilities model, as it has been designed for application to a path, as opposed to a nodal or site-specific mobility project. Each part of the new framework is directly based on the components of the original Staging Mobilities model, with certain aspects receiving more attention and specificity.

In this blogpost, I will explore and describe the Staging Mobilities model. The following post, I will introduce and explain the Linear Mobilities model created for this current research project.

STAGING MOBILITIES FRAMEWORK

A fundamental notion of the Staging Mobilities framework and the publication by the same name is that “mobility is more than movement between points A and B.” (Jensen 2013:3) As Jensen writes, “mobilities do not ‘just happen’ or simply ‘take place’.” (Jensen 2013:5) This assertion is based on the idea that the movement people in a given setting cannot simply be though of as people moving from place to place. Rather, the movement of an individual person can be an experience rich with intentional practices, unintentional interactions, and myriad possible purposes. Jensen suggests that these movements and experiences are ‘staged’ by how people individually and collectively use the physical setting as well as how the governing body designs and plans a given space or mobility system.

The three central components of the Staging Mobilities framework, which are described below, are:

A. Physical Settings, Material Spaces, and Design

B. Social Interactions

C. Embodied Performances

In addition to these primary components, the framework describes the ‘mobilities situation’ by also considering the influences to the entire model ‘from above’ and ‘from below’. The last portion of the model is the ‘mobilities in situ’, which is placed in the center for the model and symbolizes the circumstances, experiences and conditions of the ‘mobilities situation’ created by all of the model’s components working in concert.

(11/09/2013 | Staging Mobilities Model | Credit: Ole B. Jensen)

Physical Settings, Material Spaces, and Design

This piece of the model recognizes both the tangible and intangible elements of physical settings concerning mobility. Using the vocabulary developed by Kevin Lynch, the path is the principle element in the mobile setting. The path may be though of as the tangible roadways and pathways, public and private transportation systems, bus stops and station areas, signage or street furniture, or even sewer lines and internet connectivity. It is along these physical infrastructural systems and transportation hubs that people congregate. (Jensen 2013:36) Although people are in transit, the intangible socio-cultural elements related to how, why, and when the physical setting is used. (Jensen 2013:39) The motions and practices people engage in are as important in creating the physical setting as the stationary structures, materiality, and design of the environment. (Lynch 1960:2)

Social Interactions

Subscribing to the notion that human beings are a part of the physical setting necessitates a consideration for how different individuals in a space interact with one another. Just as one must navigate around the fixed infrastructure in place, even the most cursory of movements might need to be adjusted to accommodate the presence of other human beings. Building on the theories of Erving Goffman, the Staging Mobilities framework develops the concept of the ‘mobile with’ to describe the other individuals or groups of individuals with whom one must share a given space with, for a brief or extended period of time.  (Jensen 2013:51; Goffman 1972:19) When riding a bicycle, for example, one’s ‘mobile with’ might be the other riders using the same path or drivers in cars adjacent to the bicycle lane. (Jensen 2013:54)

Under many circumstances, the individuals may not directly interact with one another but Goffman suggests that they engage in ‘civil inattention’. This concept highlights that individuals tend to be acutely aware of the actions and movements of their ‘mobile with’, though staring and obvious focused attention is generally avoided. (Jensen 2013:52; Goffman 1963:84) This ‘civil inattention’ is not an expression of voyeurism. Rather it is a means of enabling a safer co-presence and practical negotiation of the shared setting. How this negotiation takes place and the level to which individuals interact with their ‘mobile withs’ is quite dependent on the cultural frames and the traffic laws and social codes that govern the physical setting. (Jensen 2013:56) Proximity is also an important determinant of how and if interactions take place. Generally speaking, physical proximity affords the highest potential for communication and a greatest degree interaction. Networked technologies, however, have altered this truth and people are now able to be in contact with other individuals across the world. Where digital connections are available through wireless internet or smartphone networks, the definition of one’s ‘mobile with’ is extended and the type of interactions had with people near and far to one another are transformed. (Jensen 2013:57)

Embodied Performances

Beyond appreciating the social interactions, the notion of embodied performances aims to epitomize the infinite movements, practices, and activities that might occur in a given setting. The work of James Gibson is a great use in discussing how people use, or perform, in the physical environment. How the physical environment is used and what activities occur in a given setting are a result of the ‘affordances’ that the individual perceives are possible. (Gibson 1986:127) The particular niche that an animal fills influences what the environment affords and how it is perceived, or what ‘set of affordances’ they possess. (Gibson 1986:128) Human beings enjoy the ability to modify landscapes and can therefore design their own ‘mobile affordances’. (Jensen 2013:63; Gibson 1986:129) The access to technological innovation and instruments has the power to enhance man’s ‘mobile affordances’, as perception of the environment is altered and a greater capacity to remake the mobile setting is afforded. (Jensen 2013:64-65; Ihde 1990:75)

People might engage in myriad and varied performances in the physical setting depending on their needs, cleverness, cultural frames, or resources at a given time. Generally speaking, these performances will take the form of walking, running, bicycling, driving, or as passengers of single occupancy vehicles or public transportation systems. (Jensen 2013:67-77) An individual’s choice to utilize any of these modes of transportation is a function not only of their personal ‘mobility affordances’, but also of their ‘mobility aesthetics’ and ‘mobile kinesthetic’.  In addition to the way in which the mind perceives the environment, the body also develops its own understanding for how to navigate, orientate, and physically move about in different ‘mobile situations’. (Jensen 2013:77-78) This embodied performance, this ‘mobilities choreography’, takes into consideration how individuals move their bodies in order to negotiate the physical setting along side their ‘mobile with’. (Jensen 2013:78)

Forces External to Model

In addition to the three components of the Staging Mobilities model, the framework acknowledges that forces external to the model are involved in the staging of all ‘mobile situations’. The inclusion of these external forces in the model is recognition of the fact that the physical setting, social interactions, and embodied performances are influenced by ‘from above’ as well as ‘from below’. While neither force is defined in explicit detail, a general discussion of each is explored throughout Jensen’s book. In study of Nytorv in Aalborg, Denmark, Jensen coins and utilizes the metaphors the ‘river’ and the ‘ballet’ to describe the ‘look down’ and ‘eye level’ perspectives of the site. (Jensen 2010:394) Very much analogous with the concept of ‘staging from above’, he suggests that the ‘river’ is the design of the space, the geography, and the facilities in the urban environment. (Jensen 2010:394) The term ‘ballet’ was first used by Jane Jacobs to describe the “seeming disorder” that users of the city sidewalk engage in every day. (Jacobs 1961:50) This complicated dance is comprised of the different tactics and interactions individuals choose to engage in order to traverse a given setting. (Jensen 2010:394-395; Jacobs 1961:50-54) As the ‘river’ can be related to ‘staging from above’, the notion of the ‘ballet’ can be paralleled with ‘staging from below’. (Jensen 2013:20)

Using the idea of ‘scenography’ as a metaphor, Jensen suggests that staging ‘from above’ is in line with the idea that scenes are planned and choreographed settings. (Jensen 2013:8) With this metaphor in mind, ‘from above’ refers to the controlled, planned, or programmatic elements of any ‘mobilities situation’. Staging ‘from above’ may take the form of local or national laws and economic regulations, site-specific and municipal planning documents, or design manuals and development codes. In practice, these types of administrative documents and policies dictate the implementation of infrastructure. This includes the determination of where and how pavement is installed, signage is placed, and connectivity is offered. (Jensen 2013:10) The ticketing systems and timetables created for public transportation service as well as the timing of traffic light cycles for along city streets are also very much ‘staged from above’. (Jensen 2013:102) Moreover, prescribed traffic rules and gestures that individuals must follow and employ in order to safely navigate traffic—such as the established hand signals bicyclists use to indicate their turning movements—are also be considered ‘staging from above’.

The notion of ‘staging from below’ is reflective of the various interactions and maneuvers that people in motion have and make use of as they navigate the physical setting. (Jensen 2013:9-10) ‘Staging from above’ aims to orchestrate the functions of the environment, but it is the practices and perceptions of individuals that determine how the infrastructure and facilities are used ‘from below’. (Jensen 2013:78) Regulations for roadway and station-area signage, for example, are intended to provide a coherent system that people can use to orientate themselves. It is individual’s interpretation of the semiotics, however, that determines the legibility of a space. (Jensen 2013:42) That said, regardless of how well an individual understands the environment, access to smartphones and other modern technologies can greatly reduce how much one must rely on their ability to read a particular setting. (Jensen 2013:128)

Beyond individual perception and access to technology, larger cultural frames strongly affect how people interact with the environment and their ‘mobile withs’. (Jensen 2013:130) The fashion with which individuals employ the prescribed signaling gestures or whether passengers boarding public transportation yield to alighting passengers largely depends on the social norms practiced by a given population in a given place. (Jensen 2013:102) Likewise, what rules and infrastructural systems an administration puts in place is a result of the accepted and agreed upon approach to govern and manage the public landscape.

Jensen does not suggest whether ‘staging from above’ or ‘staging from below’ is more impactful to the Staging Mobilities model. That said, the text and visual representation of the framework implies that ‘staging from above’ most impacts the physical setting, and it is the ‘staging from below’ that has a greater significance to the social interactions and embodied performances that occur in the setting.

NOTE: In previous blogposts I have referred to this model, but have recently realized that my research partner and myself had a slight misunderstanding of the framework. I have referred to "embodied performers/users", under the misguided assumption that this component of the model was mean to describe the motions of people. Luckily, the exercise of describing Jensen's model for the purposes of creating our own new research framework resulted in my finding this error.

Coming Tomorrow…

Now that we have established a nuanced understanding of the Staging Mobilities model and have provided a detailed explanation of the framework…we are ready to describe and justify the new Linear Mobilities model that myself and my research partner have created. My next post will describe this model and connect it back to the components of Jensen's model. 

After this next post, I will return to my analysis of the results of the survey of Route 100 users that we deployed last year. As is the process of may research projects, the way that I am organizing this analysis has been redeveloped and updated according to our new, more informed research approach.

Bibliography

Gibson, J. J. (1986) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, New York: Psychology Press.
Goffman, E. (1963) Behaviour in Public Places. Notes on the Social Organisation of Gatherings , New York:
The Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1972) Relations in Public. Micro Studies of the Public Order, New York: Harper & Row.
Ihde, D. (1990) Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Vintage Books.
Jensen, O. B. (2010) ‘Negotiation in Motion: Unpacking a Geography of Mobility’, Space and Culture , vol.
13 (4), pp. 389-402.
Jensen, O. B. (2013) Staging Mobilities, Abingdon and New York: Routledge. (Note: Page numbers indicated relate to a non-print-layout portable document format of the book, provided through a course at Aalborg University.)