Research Questions: PART 2

My last post reflected on the primary research question that my collaborative research project on Route 100 focuses on. The primary question, "what is this thing" is supported by two secondary questions that aim to dig deeper into specific areas of interest for myself and the rest of the research team. In the same format that I discussed the primary question, this post introduces the first of two secondary questions. I begin by dissecting the reason and theoretical purpose behind the question, then follow this up by explaining how we planned to (and currently are) analyzing the question using our empirical research.

SECONDARY RESEARCH QUESTION:

"WHAT DOES ROUTE 100 AFFORD?

WHAT DOES IT PREVENT?"

Defining Vocabulary

To approach this secondary research question, it is vital to define the vocabulary used in both parts of the question.

The word "Afford" is a verb that can be defined in the following ways:

1.  to be able to do, manage, or bear without serious consequence or adverse effect.
2.  to be able to meet the expense of; have or be able to spare the price of.
3.  to be able to give or spare.
4. to furnish; supply.
5.  to be capable of yielding or providing.

Likewise, the word "Prevent" is also a verb and is defined as:

1.  to keep from occurring; avert; hinder.
2.  to hinder or stop from doing something.
3.  to act ahead of; forestall.
4.  to precede.
5.  to anticipate.

Each of the above definitions are relevant to this research and might be expressly considered as sub-questions to explore the advantages and disadvantages of Route 100 for users.

But before getting to the sub-questions…I would like to begin to hash-out the theoretical aspect of this research question.

Theory of Affordances 

The Theory of Affordances proposed by James J. Gibson, refined in his book "The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception", offers a theoretical basis for approaching this question. Gibson introduces this theoretical concept by suggesting that:

"…the affordances of the environment are what it offers to the animal, what it provides or furnishes, for either good or ill." (Gibson 1986: 127)

For the purposes of this project, the "environment" is Route 100 and the "animal" is any person interacting with the route and its facilities. And, with regards to this secondary research question, it is assumed that when and where affordances do not exist, a prevention has potentially occurred.

I briefly discussed the connection to Gibson's theories in my last blog post on "What is this thing?".

Physical Setting

What is provided on the ground is the basis for what activities and behaviors are possible in a given space. Gibson suggests that the physical characteristics of a space either support or inhibit the affordances in the space. He specifically states that horizontal, flat, extended, and rigid locations provide superior support the capacity of affordances. The substances and resources existing in a given setting likewise influence the possible affordances to those living in and interacting with in a physical space. Physical locations are also filled with object, both attached and detached, which may allow or restrict how the environment is interacted with. According to Gibson:

"[d]etached objects must be comparable in size to the animal under consideration of they are to afford behavior" and "Sheets, sticks, fibers, containers, clothing, and tools are all detached objects that afford manipulation." (Gibson 1986: 133)

Embodied Users

Beyond what the physical setting accommodates and makes possible or impossible, Gibson indicates that what an environment affords or prevents must be "measured relative to the animal." (Gibson, 127) This concept is echoed in the notion of 'mobilities divides' proposed by Jensen. While the characteristics of the physical setting remain constant, the affordances the setting provides are potentially different for each individual, or group of individuals. Gibson refers to the ecological concept of the  "niche" to explain that each type of animal, each type of person, utilizes the physical setting in a unique way. The various functions, skills, position, or needs of a given animal constructs its niche, which Gibson describes as a "set of affordances". (Gibson 1986:128)

The species of animals influences what niche it fills, and therefore what affordances the environment provides. Animals with hands, for example, are afforded the ability to interact with the objects and manipulate the substances in an environment differently than those without hands. The set of affordances that mankind processes as a result of physical capabilities, size, and brain functions has allowed the species to alter the environment on a larger-scale than other species living on the planet. Gibson explains by using objects as tools to wield the material resources:

"[t]he layout of surfaces [have] been changed, by cutting, clearing, leveling, paving, and building. Natural deserts and mountains, swamps and rivers, forests and plains still exist, but they are being encroached upon and reshaped by man-made layouts." (Gibson 1986: 129)

The myriad alterations that mankind has made to the environment are all in the interest of augmenting the potential affordances the physical setting can accommodate to the species. Where land is too vertical to afford walking upon, actions may be taken from installing stairways or systems of serpentine pathways to measures as drastic as regrading entire hillsides to create horizontal expanses. Gibson adds that these enhancements to:

"...locomotion [are] guided by the perception of barriers and obstacles, that is by the act of steering into the openings and away from the surfaces that afford injury." (Gibson 1986: 132)

Furthermore, how, or whether, an animal approaches improving locomotion is a function of what the animal believes is possible. That is to say, it is:

"…what we perceive when we look at objects are their affordances, not their qualities." (Gibson 1986: 134)

…and that:

"…[y]ou do not have to classify and label things in order to perceive what they afford."  (Gibson 1986: 134)

By this, Gibson highlights that it is not only the physical elements of the setting that form the affordances an environment allows. Rather, it is the perception, cleverness, and ingenuity of the embodied user that determines what the setting yields. That is not to say that the environment is unable to inhibit particular uses and possibilities, but the degree to which locomotion and other activities are prevented very much depends on how the animal responds to the environment.

Social Interaction

The possibility for social interactions in an environment is dependent on the existence of embodied users in a space. Gibson suggests that:

"[t]he richest and most elaborate affordances of the environment are provided by other animals and, for us, other people." (Gibson 1986: 135)

Based on this line of thinking, larger concentrations of embodied users existing in a physical setting allow for a great possibility for affordances. It is, therefore, indicated that the wealth and quality of affordances is severely limited in a physical setting without the presence of animals. Just as animals reap affordances through their perception of and interaction with the objects and substances in the environment, interacting with other animals can contribute to what affordances an environment offers. Different embodied users may assist one another in expanding their respective perception of the physical setting.

They may also work together to make minor and major alterations to the environment in order to increase the number or improve the quality of affordances available. This might result in the development of a settlement or the building of infrastructure mega-projects to connect and service area residents. Different users may also afford one another the possibility of obtaining vital resources needed for survival.

Working List of Sub-Questions

In order to best explore this secondary research question, a set of sub-questions have been developed in order to target the team's research and analytical foci. These questions are not exhaustive, but rather intended to provide a foundation for understanding what Route 100 affords and prevents to people and the physical environment.

How each sub-question is to be approached is related to the empirical research done during the course of this project. During November and December 2013, the project team implemented an online survey advertised to Route 100 users. The questions within this survey were crafted to provide insight into the users experience with the goal of augmenting responses to the project's research questions. To that end, a brief explanation of how each sub-quetion is potentially influenced and answerd by the survey responses.

A complete list of the survey questions can be found in a previous blogpost, including the rationale behind each individual question.

The Physical Setting

2-A.1   What does Route 100 furnish or supply?

This research project has defined primary types of infrastructure provided along Route 100, including: 1) Shared Roadway; 2) Blue Bicycle Lanes; 3) Bicycle Lanes; 4) Grade-Separated Bicycle Lanes; and 5) Off-Street Paths. A part of this /project is to map out where each of these types of infrastructure are provided. It is assumed that each type provides a different set of affordances, as they vary in safety, legibility, and purpose. Considering responses to survey question 5.1, which asks which types respondents prefer, it might be possible to extrapolate what types furnish and supply 'more' to users based on which are more preferred. 

In addition to these types of infrastructure, there are also many other facilities provided along Route 100. This project has focused in on a specific set of facilities that were implemented between 2010 and 2011 as a part of the CIVITAS Initiative project. There are a total of seven initiatives, including a new bicycle counter, bicycle air pumps, and Route 100 signage. The initiatives are discussed in more specificity in this past blogpost. All questions included in Section Six of the survey addressed these initiatives, repeating questions asked in a survey given by Aalborg Municipality in 2011. Respondents were asked if they are familiar with initiatives and the importance they place on each individual initiative. The research team assumes that more familiarity and importance implies that the facility supplies something significant to the physical environment.

The  Embodied User

2-B.1   What does the route afford and prevent to different types of Route 100 users?

It is expected that different types of Route 100 users experience different benefits and hindrances when using the route. By looking at identifying questions from the survey, an analysis of how, or if, affordances are dissimilar for different types of users is possible. Survey question 2.1 allows the research team to analyze the results of the survey considering whether or not respondents are regular route users, if they have only used it once before, etc. Additionally, question 2.4 highlights the primary purpose respondents have for using the route.  Moreover, questions from Section One allow analysis considering age, gender, and length of residency in the local area.

These various possible categories can used to explore how various types of users are affected by the route. The research team assume the possibility that particular user types might perceive Route 100 differently. Based on the logic presented by Gibson, these contrasting perceptions might highlight differences in what is afforded and prevented to each type of user. Particular types of infrastructure addressed in survey question 5.1 or facilities presented in Section Six may appeal more or less to different types of users. Contrasts in responses might be a result of familiarity with or experiences of Route 100. 

The majority of questions in  Section Five of the survey broach the topic of motivations and deterrents. While these inquires are primarily of interest to the look "from below", wisdom might be gained by looking at how motivations and deterrents vary among different types of users.

The Social Interactions

2-C.1   Are social interactions afforded along Route 100?

The research team assumes that because Route 100 is intended to be a commuter route, most users ride the route alone. While users may be using the route alone, all of the solo riders are inadvertently sharing the route. Gibson's theory supposes that the concentration of animals in an environment breeds the potential for greater, more valuable affordances through their interaction. Applying this theory to infrastructure, it is interesting to consider whether the presence of more users has positive or negative impacts to the users. Do clusters of riders afford the possibility useful and enjoyable interactions? Or, do accumulation of bicyclists along the route prevent individual riders from using the route as they prefer? 

This question is not addressed through the Route 100 user survey, as it was determined too complex to approach and truly understand through the online questionnaire. Instead, during the post-survey interviews, the research team asked interviewees to describe how they experience the route when using it with others. Additionally, interviewees were asked where nodes of activity occur along the route, aiming to pin-point places where interactions are more likely to take place. The answers to these interview questions will be used to gain a better grasp on the existence of interactions along Route 100, and the role they play for riders.

"From Above"

2-D.1   What affordances does Route 100 aim to provide bicyclists?

All seven CIVITAS Initiatives were put into action in order to target three specific goals collaboratively established by CIVITAS and Aalborg Municipality. These goals aim to improve: 1) free flow conditions for cyclist; 2) traffic safety; and 3) visibility and service. Whether or not these affordances are provided to Route 100 users is further explored with the look "fro below".

"From Below"

2-E.1   Are the project goals achieved from the perspective of Route 100 users?

The survey provides insight into the first goal by scrutinizing how efficient Route 100 is. This is primarily approached in the survey by asking respondents to indicate how efficient they believe route is on a scale of 1 to 10 in question 7.4. Bicycle safety is likewise approached through the survey by asking respondents to rate how safe they think Route 100 is to ride in question 7.5. In addition to this subjective rating, respondents are also asked to reveal if they have been in an accident along Route 100, and where, in question 4.4. 

The project's third goal, aims to increase the allure of riding a bicycle. As has been stated, the questions in Section Six address each of initiative carried out in the process of developing Route 100. It is assumed that the visibility of bicycling is related to how many of the initiatives respondents state they are aware of in question 6.1. The importance of each initiative, demonstrated in the section's remaining questions, might be used to indicate the level of service these expenditures provide to route users.  Question 7.1 asks respondents to rate the condition of Route 100 and 7.2 on a 1 to 10 scale. These ratings might also provide insight as to whether the route is providing adequate services and allure for bicyclists.

Moreover, connivence, safety, and maintenance are all included on the lists of potential motivations and deterrents on the questions asked in Section Five. Based on the frequency with which these possible responses are selected by respondents, a deeper analysis of how well these goals are currently achieved might be possible.

2-E.2   What factors create affordances for Route 100 users?

This question is very similar to one of the sub-qusetions defined for the the primary research question of this research project. To better understand what Route 100 is, the research team is interested in what inspires and discourages users to use the route. Refining this inquiry, this question aims to explore what influence motivations and deterrents have on the affordances provided. Questions 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 ask respondents to indicate what motivate them to ride a bicycle and to use Route 100, respectively. Those motivations  which are common responses to 5.2.2 are assumed to highlight specific elements of Route 100 that respondents and users find attractive or pleasant. 

The survey additionally asked respondents to pin-point deterrents to using a bicycle and riding on Route 100 expressed through questions 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. The research team plans to use the responses to these questions in order to augment knowledge of what Route 100 affords by understanding what prevents respondents from using the route. 

Sources

Afford. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/afford (accessed: January 17, 2014).

Prevent. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Prevent (accessed: January 17, 2014).

Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Associates , Inc: Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1986.

Research Questions: PART 1

A series of four blogposts on the Research Questions for the paper "Get Your Kicks on Route 100". Each research question will be presented with a discussion of their purpose and how the research team is plans to reach conclusions.

Project Learning Goals

Before jumping into the topic of research questions…I want to reflect on why and what I'm doing here…

There are two main reasons why my research partner and myself both ended up in Denmark to work on this project. For one, we are both especially interested in the role and implementation of bicycle infrastructure, facilities, and services in urban and sub-urban contexts. The Centre for Mobilities and Urban Studies at Aalborg University is a particularly ideal place to engage in this research, as faculty and researchers are engaged with topics of mobilities design.

As we made arrangements with our supervising faculty member, we were offered the opportunity to strengthen our research abilities by engaging in a research project on bicycle facilities development. Route 100 was selected as the subject of our collaborative working paper, as we are able to engage in our own fieldwork along the route and conveniently interact with users. Furthermore, this topic affords the application research concepts and theories relevant of mobilities and urban design to the project and final analysis of the bicycle route. We both, therefore stand to expand our knowledge of research and theoretical research methods related to mobilities, design, and the implementation of bicycle facilities. Additionally, we expect to learn and teach ourselves practical application so of research methodologies and theories to the study of a real-world piece of mobilities infrastructure - potentially a valuable skill.

In addition to the aim of writing a working paper on Route 100, this project has been designed to improve our respective research capabilities. This objective is fundamental to the project's primary research question.

PRIMARY RESEARCH QUESTION:

"WHAT IS THIS THING?"

Why Ask "What is this Thing?"

A reason that we have defined such an vague question is to avoid siloing our research with a specific, specific purpose. Had the team selected to look specifically at the function of wayfinding along Route 100, for example, it is possible that interesting or important elements of the route may not be learned. As this project is meant to be explorative, imploring the research team to ask constantly ask questions, a broad question was desired to avoid a narrow research project.

Our supervisor encouraged this question, aiming to foster a research environment not constrained by any one, particular concern. While it may go without saying, this research question continually forces us to think about what kind of thing Route 100 is. The unbounded nature of the question means that answers may be discussions on the physical infrastructure, user commute patterns, or on funding resources. That is, it inspires the research team to look at any particular part of what the route may be, and then consider function polices, users, or stones. The point of asking "What is this thing?" is to limit constraints and invite exploration.

Theoretical Framework

A series of sub-questions has been developed during the investigation of what Route 100 is. The research team has designed the sub-questions to "What is this thing?" to approach a conclusion using the Staging Mobilities framework.

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

In keeping with the wide scope of this question, this framework is used with the goal of best understanding multiple elements of what makes the route a thing. This theoretical framework is employed categorize the sub-questions to the research questions. With each group of sub-questions, the reserach team endeavors to better grasp, for example, what makes up the Physical Setting of Route 100 and what types of activities and Social Interactions occur along or on the route.

Connection to Research Survey

Throughout this post I refer to questions asked in the Route 100 user survey deployed by this myself and my research partner in November and December 2013. The purpose of this survey was to gain a deeper understanding of how the route is perceived and experienced by individuals interacting with it each day. Moreover, the intent was to explore and enhance the conclusions to the project's research questions. This past blogpost contains a complete list of survey questions, including the rationale behind each individual question.

Working List of Sub-Questions

Within the following five sections introduce possible sub-questions to the primary research question: "What is this thing?" During the early stage of this project, the research team created and deployed a survey for Route 100 users. A total of 172 individuals responded to the online survey and 89.5% of respondents are, or have been, regular riders of all or a portion of Route 100. The responses to survey questions provide information valuable to answering the sub-questions and greater research question. A relevant survey question for each sub-question does not exist. Where the survey may provide insight, the question mentioned in the explanation and rationale of each sub-question.

The Physical Setting

1-A.1   What types of infrastructure are provided along Route 100?

Five types of infrastructure have been identified by the research team as existing along Route 100. These are: 1) Shared Roadway; 2) Blue Bicycle Lane; 3) Bicycle Lane; 4) Grade-Separated Bicycle Lane; and 5) Off-Street Path. It is not implied that these five types are interchangeable - there is no insinuation that one is a replacement for another - rather, these are the five major infrastructure typologies provided along Route 100. A map showing where each of these types of infrastructure a located along the route will be created, along with an estimate of how many kilometers of each type is provided along the route. In survey question 5.1, respondents are asked to indicate which of these five defined typologies they prefer using.

1-A.2   What facilities and services are provided along Route 100?

The development of Route 100 involved implementing upgrades aimed to improve the experience and encourage bicycle commuting to the campus. The seven initiatives are: 1) Reorganization of Flow at Bus Stops; 2) Segregated Bicycle Filter Lane, or Shunt; Bicycle Counter; 4) Automatic Air Pumps; 5) Lane Lights before Humlebakken on Hadsundvej; 6) Route 100 Signage and Wayfinding; 7) Reverse Duty to Give way at Bonnesensgade and Fyensgade. Each of these initiatives is discussed specifically in Section Six of the survey. In addition to these facilities implemented between 2010 and 2011, the streets and off-street paths used by Route 100 are equipped with street lamps.

1-A.3   What facilities and services are not provided along Route 100, or are not adequate?

The research team has noticed that there are no bicycle traffic lights located along the route. Wayfinding signage seems to be placed poorly, as signposts are often too near to decision points for bicyclists and in locations where riders may not look. Moreover, few or no bicycle markings or signage exist along shared roadways, making it unclear if or where it is safe for a bicycle to ride. Through the post-survey interviews, respondents shared that the lighting in the tunnels on the off-street path is inadequate and more lighting, brighter, lighting should be installed along the off-street paths themselves. Snow removal has also been a reported issue. Several indicated that when roadways are removed of snow, the excess snow and debris is pushed into the portion of right-of-way designated for bicyclists. Although it is not directly asked or mentioned in the survey, respondents are asked to provide additional comments in question 8.1. It is assumed that respondents are likely to comment on  short-commings or highlights of the route, if they believe room for improvement exists. The statements provided in through this question may, therefore, provide insight for what the is the physical users does not provide to users.

1-A.4   What types of materials are used along Route 100, and how?

Roadways in Aalborg are generally made of Asphalt, as are grade-separated bicycle lanes and off-street paths. The asphalt along the off-street path typically has dashed lane markings along the centerline of the path. Bicycle lanes are demarcated by a solid white line, or dashed where vehicles commonly cross, and bicycle pavement stamps. Blue bicycle lanes are created by installing a strip of blue paint, with dashed white lines at the edges, and bicycle stamps down the middle. Bicycle lane and pavement stamps sometimes navigate riders to a grade-separated bicycle lanes. At the curb of a grade-seperated lane, a strip of cobblestones and/or other stones is installed and adds a visual queue of the physical separation. Although most of the route uses consistent materials and facilities design, a portion of a grade-separated bicycle lane in the City Centre is at-grade with the sidewalk. The the entire width of the sidewalk/bicycle lane surface is paved with decorative sidewalk slabs, perhaps made of slate, marble, or asphalt. A strip of dark cobblestones act as the dividing line between the two users, providing a visual queue that the space is shared, but divided. 

The kinds of materials and their applications have an impact on how well users understand how to use the facility and what the facility can be. An argument can be made that consistency in transportation design is a strong way to increase the legibility of a facility. Being more familiar, able to navigate and read the infrastructure may increase how safe or enjoyable the ride is, or even increase the rider's confidence. The post-survey interviews that the research team do with those responding positively to question 9.1 will delve more deeply into how interviewees experience different types of infrastructure and the materials used in the design.

The Embodied Users

1-B.1   Who uses Route 100?

A dominate goal in implementing of the Route 100 initiatives was to make more attractive to students to ride a bicycle to the main campus Aalborg University. Therefore, the research team is interested learning if it is students of the university that are the dominate users of the route. This is learned through question 1.5, in which respondents are asked to indicate if if they are associated with Aalborg university by asking if they are: 1) Aalborg University Students; 2) Students at other Universities or Institutions; 3) Aalborg University Staff and Faculty; 4) Staff and Faculty at other University's or Institutions; 5) Employed Elsewhere in Aalborg; 6) Employed Elsewhere Outside of Aalborg; or 7) Unemployed. More interested in whether or not students are using the route, the research team is also interested in the proportion of Aalborg University staff who commute to work by bicycle, as both users are considered equal types of users. 

This question is also answered by looking the results of every other question in Section One and several questions in Section Two. More important to this research project than knowing whether respondents are use route, as planned, to commute to the University, is how often, how old, and for how long respondents use the route. Each question in this section highlights differences among respondents and provides a means of understanding who users are, based on what is asked in the survey.  

As this survey is aimed at learning more about the experience of Route 100 users, many questions are looked at together with question 2.1. This question asks respondents to identify themselves as a: a) Regular user; b) Regular users of only on part of the Route; c) A former regular users; d) Future regular user; ore) Not a regular users, and does not expect to be. The research team intends to focus in on the answers of those frequent users, more familiar with the route when considering how satisfied respondents are with facilities and commute patterns. Those responding a), b) or c) are assumed to be more familiar with the route than other respondent, therefore providing a more experienced perspective.

1-B.2   Why do people use Route 100?

Similar to the interest of who uses Route 100, is why they use it. In the survey, question 2.4 asks users to describe their primary use of the route as being to: a) Commute to School; b) Commute to Work; c) Exercise; d) Recreation: e) Shopping; or f) Visit Family or Friends. If commuting to school is a common use, then it may be inferred that the route is serving its intended purpose. Moreover, the degree to which exercise and recreation activities are a minority or majority is an indication of whether the route serves more of a utility or enjoyment purpose for users. The questions asked in Section Seven provide ratings for different aspects of user satisfaction, which additional may help to describe why respondents do or do not use the route.

This sub-question is also addressed through questions 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.3.1, and 5.3.2, which ask what motivates and deters respondents from using Route 100. These two qualities, motivations and deterrents, each influence why and how one to uses a piece of infrastructure. As the municipality is aiming for a 40% increase in the commute trip mode share for bicycles by 2025, understanding motivations and deterrents may be a useful in considering what in additional improvements or circumstances may help to reach this goal.

1-B.3   How do users learn about Route 100?

How respondents learned of Route 100 is an indication of how well the route was advertised by the University and Municipality. Or, it may exhibit that most respondents are long-time users of an "obvious" route to campus. This question is explicitly asked in the survey, though question 2.1.

The Social Interactions

1-C.1   Do social interaction occur along Route 100?

One possible method for determining whether and the extent to which social activity occurs along Route 100 is to apply Jan Gehl's "Three Types of Outdoor Activities". Gehl's logic describes three categories of outdoor activities occurring in public spaces. These are as the: 1) Necessary Activities; 2) Optional Activities; and 3) "Resultant" Activities. The first category is comprised of those activities that  are required, including grocery shopping, commuting to school or work place, or other errands. The optional activity are those which mainly occur when there is time, such as the decision to take a walk or enjoy the an afternoon in the park. Optional activities do not need to occur in the pubic space, but do if and when the public environment is more attractive than alternative locations. "Resultant' activities are the social activities explained by the occurring where a wealth of optional activities exists. The type of activity is described in question 2.4, which asks what the primary activity of the respondent is. These results can be organized according to Gehl's definitions of activities to examine to what extent Route 100 creates social interactions. 

This sub-question is also approached during the post-survey interviews, during which interviewees are asked to indicate where nodes any nodes of activities exist along the route. Kevin Lynch describes nodes as intersections or focal points of an area. In addition to helping build a generalized mental map of Route 100, the answer to this mapping exercise question is subtly investigating where and if areas of activities exist along the route. Nodes of activity are expected to exist in the proximity of, or between, local destinations. The number of nodes, as well as the number of local destinations, may be an indication of how much activity occurs along and adjacent to the route. 

1-C.2   What activity should occur along Route 100?

As is discussed in other sub-quesions, Route 100 was implemented with a goal of attracting more students of Route 100 to get to campus by bicycle. Question 2.4 allows the research team to learn whether respondents are indeed mostly students commuting on the route, or if another non-target demographic is dominate. Regardless of the answer to that question, it is recognized that the intended activity may not be the only one to occur on the route. Where activities should occur is a product of what infrastructure is provided as well as what destinations exist in an area. Activities should occur around local destinations, which may include more than the two end points of the route. While, of course, the primary activity that is intended along Route 100 is commuting to school, other activities possible along the route should ben encouraged, rather than discouraged, to occur. Any additional activities or access points along the route may accommodate the possibly of social interactions along the route.

"From Above"

The user survey is not intended to provide significant insight into this area of the project. This is due to the fact that users are not directly involved in the political processes and regulatory decision making that dictates how projects are planed and implemented. Understanding this portion of the Staging Mobilities framework requires further research into the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of Route 100.

1-D.1   Why was Route 100 planned?

Route 100 was planned by Aalborg Municipality as a means of encouraging more students to ride a bicycle instead of driving a car to get to the University campus. This aim is involved with a larger Municipal agenda of attracting more residents and visitors to travel by bicycle, increasing the mode share for bicyclists to 40% by 2025. Aalborg University is an important destination in the city, as approximately 1/10th the population of Aalborg studied there 2013. Designating a route to this major destination is a strategy for encouraging the many individuals associated with the University to choose to commute by bicycle and help the city reach the target mode share.

1-D.2   How was Route 100 implemented?

Understanding the process behind the implementation of Route 100 is an important part of the framework that the route is understood through. Areas of financing, project management, and what the goals of the project each exhibit what the purpose of the project was for the municipality. 

Financing for this route came from three different sources. One third of the money came from the CIVITAS Initiative and another third was received through Danish Roads Directorate's "Cykel Puljen", a pool of money for bicycle projects. The last third of the funds were provided by the Municipality itself. Each source invested funds into particular parts of the project. The entire project was supervised by Aalborg Municipality, with some project support from the CIVITAS Initiative. 

In coordination with the CIVITAS Initiative, three primary project goals were established in order to meet the target of increasing the number of students commuting by bicycle. These goals are as follows, create: a) free flowing conditions for cyclists; b) Traffic Safety; and c) Visibility and Service. Focused on these goals, a "tool box" of innovative Route 100 Initiatives were developed to make the route more attractive. Once drafting an initial set of initiatives, staff from the City of Aalborg worked with a hired professional to run a visioning workshop. The purpose of this activity was to get feedback on the existing set of proposed initiatives and potentially develop new ideas. Different groups were invited to the workshop, including Aalborg University students, representatives from the local police, and members of the Danish Bicycle Embassy. The seven initiatives were finalized during the winter of 2009 to the spring of 2010. Construction began august of 2010 and was completed by spring of 2011.

1-D.2   Who is interested in Route 100, where is the project documented?

Thus far, the research team has identified four websites publishing information on Route 100. Knowing this information is meant to exhibit what groups are interested in the route. Aalborg University announced the official opening ceremony for the route, but no further information has been found on the institution's website. It has been surprising that the university does not appear to promote or advertise the route to students and staff some how.

The most comprehensive materials are hosted on the CIVITAS Initiative's website. A webpage dedicated to describing Measure 51 (Route 100) provides important documents, such as, links to the 2011 user survey, a progress report of the project, and the final project evaluation. Each of these documents are written by Aalborg Municipality Staff and provide detailed information on all areas of the planning. 

Very little information about this project, however, is provided on the Municipality's own website. The connection is specifically mentioned on the Municipality's webpage promoting Aalborg as a city for cyclists, but the project is not described in any length. On the Municipality's page on services for bicyclists, the air pumps and bicycle counter that were implemented along Route 100 are listed without mention of the involvement with the CIVITAS Initiative project noted. The route is drawn in the city's bicycle network map and is shown in the Municipality's Bicycle Action Plan, but neither source provides any route details. One of the lone pieces of documents addressing Route 100 is an online brochure including a specific reference to the CIVITAS projects, an explanation of the new network of prioritized bicycle commuter routes, and a map of the route itself. 

More information directly addressing Route 100 that what is provided by the Municipality itself can be found in the local paper. The Nord Jysk paper published a series of articles on the route during planning and implementation. This article discusses the purpose behind implementing the bicycle route. After the route initiatives were completed, another article addressed the services and width of grade-separated bicycle lanes along the route. 

1-D.3   How is Route 100 defined?

Route 100 is identified as a high priority bicycle commuter route in the city's 2013 Bicycle Action Plan. However, the CIVITAS Initiative refers to the project as a "motorvej" (highway). The local paper has likewise referred to the route as a highway. In an interview with the Aalborg Municipality project manager who worked on the Route 100 project, this difference the description was explained to the research team. Initially, the project referred to Route 100 - and other similar routes in the city's network - as a highway but changed the description to a commuter route. Using the term 'highway' was decided against because it implied a speedy, entirely separated facilities for bicycles. The change to 'commuter route' reflects the goal to increase the number of individuals selecting to use a bicycle as a part of their daily routine. 

A secondary research question, asks if there are challenges behind the term 'superhighway' when referring to bicycle infrastructure. This research question is raised is to consider whether, and how, this term influences how individuals perceive what the route 'is' and what it 'should be'. This research investigation will discuss the importance of terminology used is in what a piece of infrastructure or facility is perceived to be.

1-D.4   What is the intended function of Route 100?

Route 100 planned and implemented in order to connect bicyclists from the City Centre to the main campus of Aalborg University. As is discussed in sub-question 1-D.1, this route is one of several commuter routes in the City of Aalborg as part of an effort to increase the mode share for bicyclists. In the CIVITAS Initiative documents, it is explicitly stated that university students are the target audience of the route. In the user survey, questions 1.5 and 2.4 both identify if respondents are Aalborg University students and if they use Route 100 to commute to school. While the research team has no assumptions whether or not students are a sizable population of respondents, it is interesting to learn whether the route is meeting the function to serve students or if its use is better appreciated by another audience or users.

"From Below"

1-E.1   How do users feel about Route 100 infrastructure, facilities, and services?

All of the questions asked in Section Six of the user survey attempt to answer this sub-question. These questions ask respondents to indicate which of the new innovative initiatives they are aware of. In a follow-up series of questions, ratings are given for the usefulness of each Route 100 initiative. High and low ratings may provide a way of understanding how respondents feel about the route. The research team may also consider at the deterrents and motivations specific to Route 100 in questions 5.2.2 an 5.3.2 to answer this sub-question. These feelings may highlight if there are patterns in how respondents are affected by different facilities or conditions.  The more motivated than deterred respondents indicates a more positive feeling of the route. 

The survey additionally asks users to identify which of the five infrastructure typologies respondents prefer in question 5.1. The types of infrastructure are also described above in sub-question 1-A.1. My most recent blogpost on preferences, I have written up an initial analysis of the responses to this question. Asking which types users prefer is to consider whether Route 100 allows the research team to investigate whether the route provides the type of infrastructure favored by respondents. Building on this investigation, question 4.3 provides information on where respondents enjoy along Route 100. Comparing responses on the most enjoyed sections of the route, to what type of infrastructure is provided in each section, to which types of infrastructure are preferred may together highlight an explanation for why certain sections are more enjoyed than others. 

Together with supplementary statements from the post-survey interviews, the answers to these survey questions can help build an understand of what respondents and users think and feel about Route 100. 

1-E.2   How is Route 100 perceived?

This sub-question is best answered by turning to the research of James Gibson. In "The Ecological Approach to Visual Preference", Gibson introduces the Theory of Affordances and explains that:

"…the affordances of the environment are what it offers to the animal, what it provides or furnishes." (pg 127)

Following this line of thinking, how the route is, therefore, perceived is an outcome of what it affords to users. Gibson explains that topography and the layout of a surface each impact what the environment can offer to users. A difference so subtle as the physical size of an individual influences what portions of the physical setting the one can see, interact with, or understand.

It is additionally stated that the implementation of infrastructure and facilities is a human response aiming to improve the environment by increase potential 'affordances' it provides. The initiatives implemented along Route 100 are involved in this conversation. Each initiative serves as an service or facility aimed at improving the route and encourage increased ridership. The response and ratings provided through Section Six of the user survey exhibit how pleased respondents are with these initiatives. Higher ratings suggests a better perception of these portions of the route. 

This sub-question designed to addressed by working backwards from what the route affords to users in an attempt to describe how it is perceived.  Based on the types of activities respondents engage in while using Route 100, learned through question 2.4, it is possible that affordances can be identified. A common type of use indicates a common perception for what the route is used for. 

The concept of affordances is further examined in a secondary research question which asks what the route affords and prevents. Survey questions in Section Five are particularly interesting to consider for this investigation.

1-E.3   What inspires users ride Route 100?

What inspires an individual to use Route 100 is, at its core, a question of motivation. Survey question 2.4 explains respondents primary reason for using Route 100, which should certainly be considered an inspiring reason to ride it. Commute times and distances may also be involved with why the respondent selects to travel by bicycle. Shorter trips are often easier by bicycle than by car, especially if it is easier to find parking for a bicycle where you need it. These areas are addressed within Section Three and Section Four of the survey. 

Two questions in the survey, questions 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, directly address the topic of motivation and ask what gets respondents on their bicycle in general and what motivates them to use route 100 specifically. It is equally interesting and important to consider the responses to questions 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, which inquires what deterrents face when making the choice to ride or not ride a bicycle. All of these questions combined provide the possibility into an explorative analysis as to which circumstances and environments are the most important contributing factor in a decision to ride a bicycle.

Survey Questions Rationale

In my last several posts, I have been looking at the results of a user survey I deployed together with my research partner in Aalborg. We have been researching bicycle Route 100 for the past 3 ½ months and the survey was our way of learning more about the perspective of the actual users of the route. Taking a break from reviewing the survey responses, the next several posts are intended to better establish the purpose and practical application of responses to the Route 100 user survey.

I was asked by one of my supervising professors in Seattle to explain the rationale behind the survey and our research project. In this post, I exhibit the intension behind each question asked in the Route 100 user survey. The descriptions provide a rationale for why the question is included in the survey and how it is possibly related to other questions and project research areas. While writing these paragraphs about each question, I engaged very closely with each question. This process caused me to create a framework for looking at the questions and how they should be compared and contrasted with one another in the analysis of the results.

A duel aim of this posts is to provide my research partner with a draft of the our research methodology behind the survey questionnaire. She was responsible for drafting the survey questions. Using the text provided in this blogpost, she will augment the explanations with reference to the research methodologies and analytical approaches that inspired specific questions and lists of possibilities.

In following posts, I will address each one of our research questions, explaining their purpose and how the survey helps provide insight into these questions. A future series of posts will go through the questions asked during the post-interview user surveys and the interview with staff from Aalborg Municipality.

Survey Rationale & Use

One member of the research team drafted the questions within each section, with a focus on research methodology and theory applicable to this research project. As noted, the specific references to theory will be added to this text in an edited version.

As noted, the specific references to theory will be added to this text in an edited version.

As should be illuminated through the description of each question, the purpose of this survey is to uncover details on respondents' experiences and use of Route 100. Each question was designed to learn a specific piece of information, rather than prove one theory right or wrong.

Perhaps a subtle, unconscious nod to Grounded Theory, no specific hypotheses were written or formally applied to the survey given to Route 100 users. That said, the research team did have preconceived notions of how respondents would answer particular questions. The assumptions and expectations described below are reflective of team's conversations and background research done prior to drafting the questions.

Complete List of Survey Questions

SECTION ONE:  About You, the User...

The survey begins by asking a series of basic identifying questions  of respondents. These questions are not personal in nature, and are planned to be used for two primary purposes. This information may be used to provide a general description of the 'who' responded to the survey, allowing the research team to understand to what general group or groups in the population the survey results represent. In addition to providing descriptive information on the survey, these questions may also be used in the theoretical analysis component of this research project.

One portion of the Staging Mobilities methodology suggests the concept that different users of a facility or a space will have different experiences, which he defines as the Mobility Divide. In his book, Jensen suggests that:

“... the socially stratifying practices related to mobility differentials that either comes about as a function of economic resources, intellectual and knowledge capabilities, practical skills, geographical location, or cultural frames all contributing to the fact that some people know how, can and will be mobile whilst this is out of range for others.” 

The mobility differentials described above are the specific aspects of one's personality, past experiences, or various capacities. These differences influence how an individual will interact with or understand a piece of infrastructure or facility. Identifying questions included in this section may assist the research team in investigating where respondents generally exist in the 'mobilities divide'. Question 1.4 and 1.5 may indicate general knowledge and skills, question 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4 may impact economic livelihood. Question 1.2 and 1.3 may provide an indication of familiarity with the area and local geography. Moreover, each one of the questions impacts what potential cultural frame the respondents looks out at the world. The process of understanding the 'mobilities divide' is part of filling in the Staging Mobilities model by using these results, as well as those in Section Two and Section Three, to develop a description and understanding of the Embodied Users.

A preliminary analysis of the profile of survey respondents was the topic of this previous blogpost, looking at a blend of the questions in this section as well as in Section Three.

1.1      What is your gender? (choose one)

a) Male; b) Female

This initial question is purely descriptive, primarily intended to provide the research team with data on how many males and females respond to the survey. No specific assumptions exist for how gender impacts survey results, nor is it considered an important factor to most of the responses. This does not, however, disregard the possibility that each gender will respond differently to various survey questions. Personal motivations for and deterrents from riding a bicycle may be different among the two genders. It is also possible that commute time or preferences for different types of bicycle infrastructure also exist. Where the difference in results indicate a notable similarity or dissimilarity, results related to gender may be presented within the working paper.

1.2      How old are you by the end of 2013? (whole number)

Fill-In Blank Text Box

Knowing the exact and average age of respondents adds to the general descriptive data and statistics on survey respondents. The survey was deployed online and the format may be more accessible to a younger age group, or perhaps it does not.  As with gender statistics, there are no formal assumptions concerning respondent age. The research team allowed the respondent to provide their actual age in the survey. This strategy is aimed to hone in on what exact ages of respondents. Important age groups will be determined based on the results, as opposed to having prescribed age cohorts ahead of time within the survey itself.

1.3      How long have you lived in Aalborg Kommune? (choose one)

a) 0-2 years; b) 2 to 5 years; c) 5+ years; d) I live outside of Aalborg Kommune

In addition to providing descriptive data, knowing how long a respondent has lived in the area potentially provides insight into how well they are able to navigate the city. This question is asked in order to investigate if more recent area residents answer the questions in this survey differently than long-time residents. The assumption is that an individual who has lived in or around Aalborg for a longer period of time is more familiar with the street-grid, neighborhoods, and local environment. Less familiar respondents may be more likely to get lost and may therefore rely more heavily on signage and other wayfinding devices designed into the transportation system. This question is also designed to correlate with question 2.2, which ask how long the respondent has been using Route 100.

1.4      What is the highest level of education you have earned? (choose one)

a) Not Formally Educated; b) Elementary School (Folkeskole); c) Business School (Handlsskole); d) Technical Education (Teknisk Skole); e) High School (Gymnasium); f) Bachelors Degree (Bachelorgrad); g) Masters Degree (Kandidat); h) Doctorate Degree (PhD); i) No Response

Asking what the highest level of education achieved is, as with gender, age, and length of residency, planned to provide descriptive statistics for the general survey response rate. No specific assumptions or hypothesis exist for this question. It might be postured that more highly educated individuals are better able to navigate a transportation system due to potentially broadened knowledge bases, there is no assumed truth to this insinuation.

1.5      What is your Job/Occupation? (choose one or many)

a) Student at Aalborg University; b) Studying at another School or Institution; c) Employed at Aalborg University ; d) Employed Elsewhere in Aalborg; e) Employed Elsewhere Outside of Aalborg; f) Unemployed

This final descriptive question aims to highlight how many respondents have some association with Aalborg University. Route 100 was implemented by Aalborg Kommune in order to serve the University's main campus. It is, therefore, of interest to the survey if respondents are within the target group of respondents. In addition to providing descriptive data for the general overview of the survey results, the analysis will look for correlation between this question and questions regarding preference, motivations, and reported rating of Route 100. The survey expects that survey respondents who are students or employees of Aalborg University maybe more familiar with the route and implemented initiatives. The questions asked within Section Two are designed to further fetter out distinctions among those who respondents associated with the University. 

SECTION TWO:  You and Route 100

These questions aim to understand how familiar respondents are with Route 100. Familiarity is derived by how long respondents have used Route 100 and if they are regular users, asked in questions 2.2 and 2.1 respectively, in addition to several other questions in this survey. The purpose for understanding familiarity in this survey is to gage which respondents answers may be more or less interesting in other sections of the survey. It is entirely possible that regular users of Route 100 may know the initiatives discussed in Section Six better than others. Longer-term riders may also have a different set of motivations and deterrents in Section Five than newer, users of the route.

Thinking about familiarity is, like in Section One, considering the 'mobilities divides' that exist among respondents. An individual who is more familiar with the route likely feels more comfortable and safe when riding. The more familiar person may also see the route differently than new users, because as navigation becomes less important a rider has more time to notice and appreciate the surrounding.

2.1      Are your currently a regular user of Route 100? (choose one)

a) Yes; b) Yes, but only on part of the Route; c) No, but I used to be; d) No, but I plan to be in the future; e) No, I do not and I do not expect to be

The descriptive frequency statistics are of interest to the survey results are important to the general explanation of the survey results. Although the survey results are not considered statistically significant due to the fact that an accurate population size is difficult, if not impossible, the percentage of survey respondents who are active, past, or non- users of Route 100 adds augments or obscures the importance of the results. The survey assumes that a greater number of respondents indicating a-d) implies that the results are more valid or of greater research interest. As the overarching aim is to understand what Route 100 is and respondents with personal familiarity provide insight into how the route is perceived by those interacting with it. Contrary to this assumption, it is also recognized that the responses of a non-familiar user is of equal value. It is possible that the route is less legible or seems more dangerous to non-users.  

2.1*     If you are not or no longer are a regular rider, please briefly describe why. (max 250 characters)

Fill-In Blank Text Box

As a follow-up to the previous question, this allows the respondents who are previous user to explain why they no longer user Route 100. Instead of providing a list of possible reasons, a short statement is asked or so that exact reasons can be pinpointed instead of generalized. Any recognized trends among reasons will be reported in the working paper and may be codified in the analysis if it is of interest. Assumptions were not made ahead of time, but correlation will be looked for among respondents with similar reasons for ending their use of the route.

2.2      During what year did you start using Route 100? (including the time before you knew it was named "Route 100")

a) Before 1999; b) 2000 to 2010; c) During 2011; d) 2012 to Present; e) Unsure; f) I'm not an user of Route 100

There are two primary reasons for including this question on the survey. One is to compare results with responses to question 1.3 in order to better understand how familiar respondents are with Route 100. Those respondents who are longer time residents and have used the route for a greater number of years are considered to be more familiar with the route than others. This familiarity is of supreme interest in the analysis of how well respondents know the Route 100 initiatives and how important they believe each individual initiative is respectively. In addition to and aside from adding to the descriptive data on respondents, this question is asked in order to learn how long individual respondents have been using the route. That the dates are separated as they are is because all route initiatives were planned and implemented from mid-2011 to early 2012, allowing the research team to gage how familiar a respondent was with the route prior to changes. Accounting for the dates of implementation, the survey assumes that a respondent who began their use of Route 100 during or after 2012 may be less familiar with the new initiatives. This is because they may not know to notice the changes, but rather expect that they exist. Alternatively, users who started using the route prior to 1999 may be entirely unmoved by new signage and wayfinding, but might be wildly excited about the counter or bicycle pumps.

2.3      How did you learn about Route 100? (choose one or many)

a) Used the route before it was named; b) Aalborg University; c) Aalborg Kommune; d) Your Employer; e) Newspaper; f) Internet; g) Through this survey

The aim of the survey was to learn how the respondent learned about using Route 100 as a connection between the City Centre and Aalborg University main campus. There is no specific expected result. This question is primary explorative in nature. As the route was planned by the Kommune, the research team was curious to know if Aalborg Kommune was responsible for teaching residents to follow the route. The local paper, Nordjylland Post, covered the story in a dozen articles and it is also possible that employers interesting in promoting sustainable transportation practices may education their employees about the route. Unfortunately, the survey overlooked the possibility that riders may have learned of the route by happenstance as there is no question asking about wayfinding or route signage.

2.4      What is your primary use of Route 100? (choose one)

a) Commute to School; b) Commute to Work; c) Exercise; d) Recreation: e) Shopping; f) Visit Family or Friends

This question is posed to respondents for duel purposes. The activity respondents are engaged in while using the route can be correlated to 1.4, 1.5, 2.1 and 2.2. By looking at these results together, the research team can better describe and understand who survey respondents are. Responses show if Aalborg University students and staff do indeed use the route to commute to school or work. An intension in the implementation of Route 100 was to encourage more students to commute to school by bicycle instead of using a personal motor vehicle. It is assumed that commuting to school or work are the two most common purposes. The research team prohibited respondents from selecting more than one purpose, in order to focus on the actual primary use. It was considered to allow for several uses or ask the secondary use. However, it was determined that multiple primary uses would cloud the actual primary use and was not valuable enough to include an additional question.

2.5      Do you ever combine your usage of Route 100 with another mode of transportation? (choose one or many)

a) No; b) Walking; c) Bus; d) Train; e) Moped; f) Motorcycle; g) Automobile

The question itself is explorative and intends to learn if survey respondents and Route 100 users are intermodal transportation users. Within Aalborg Municipality's drafted Mobility Strategy a goal is established to support intermodal transportation. This stated goal intends that it should be easy to transfer from one's car, to the train, to a bus, and to foot, providing whatever the easiest mode is at a given time for a given segment of a trip. All modes of transportation common in Aalborg are listed as possible responses, and respondents can select any of the different modes they may use in conjunction with their bicycle when using Route 100. It is assumed that intermodality is not common for regular users of Route 100. Secure bicycle parking is provided at the Aalborg Central Station by DSB (and is a free benefit to DSBPlus members) and along bicycle lockers are available for rent on Universitetsboulevarden by the Kommune. This makes it entirely possible to transfer from any other mode to a bicycle at both ends of the route, allow the question of if this is done by respondents to be explored. Unlike switching from a bus to the train, switching to a bicycle requires that the bicycle itself is parked somewhere convenient along the route. This necessitates the presence of convenient, safe bicycle storage and that the users plans stages this transfer in their trip.

2.6      Do you think of Aalborg as a "City for Cyclists"? (considering: connections between bicycle routes, bicycle parking, signange, ...)

Rate from 1 (It Is Not) to 10 (Very Much Is)

The effort implementing additional services to bicyclist along Route 100 is a part of a larger municipality-wide goal to become a city for bicyclists. Purely explorative in nature, this question is intended to provide the research team for a gage for how well survey respondents believe the Aalborg is achieving this goal. A ten-point lidar scale is used for responses in order to produce quantitate data to be analyzed for qualitative results.

SECTION THREE:  When Do You Use Route 100?

In this section, the survey investigates how frequent and when respondents use Route 100. Each of the questions below are potentially linked to questions 1.5 and 2.4 to describe the commute patterns of respondents associated with Aalborg University. It might also be interesting to learn whether age and/or gender has an influences on how often a respondent uses Route 100 or how long their ride is by looking for correlation with questions 1.1 or 1.2. Moreover, when looked at with question 2.1, patterns of use can be looked at with the users types respondent identify themselves with too better understand what a "regular users" and "past user" are.

3.1      How often do you use Route 100? (choose one)

a) Once a week; b) 2 to 5 days a week; c) 6 to 7 days a week; d) Very Rarely; e) I've only used it once or twice; f) I've never used it; g) I've stopped using it 

The purpose of this question is to understand how frequent survey respondents typically use Route 100 and help determine how to view a given responses' survey. It is assumed that those respondents choosing b) likely use the route as part of their commute trip. Respondents who select c) are assumed to be use the route as primary means of transportation. In addition to these assumptions, these categories of responses indicate that the these users are more familiar with the route than respondents using it less frequently. The research team will use the response to this question to explore whether there is any correlation between the results to this question and question 2.1 and the questions in Section Six.

3.2      What time of the year do you use Route 100? (choose one or many)

a) Winter; b) Spring; c) Summer; d) Autumn

This survey assumes that weather has an influence on one's decision to make a trip by bicycle. As winter weather is typically the least pleasant to ride in, it is expected that it is during winter that the fewest respondents are using Route 100. No further survey questions inquire what impact weather has on their commute. The reason for this is that weather impacts are not of particular relevance to this research project. Focusing on the seasons provides cursory descriptive data that can be explored and correlated with the questions within Section Five.

3.3      What time do you typically use Route 100? (choose one or many)

a) Before 07:00; b) 07:00 to 09:00; c) 09:00 to 12:00; d) 12:00 to 15:00; e) 15:00 to 18:00; f) After 18:00; g) I'm not sure…; h) No Response

Like all other transportation infrastructure operates, it is expected that there are peak-period patterns along Route 100. The results of this question are intended to be primarily descriptive and aim to explain what times of day the route is busier than others. As the route is targeted at , those busy periods are assumed to occur at the beginning and end of the normal work day. In order to filter if these responses are linked actually linked to school or work commutes, this question can be linked with questions 2.4 and 3.1.

3.4      When you use Route 100, how long is your typical ride from start to finish? (choose one, including the time before and after you are on Route 100)

a) 0 to 5 minutes; b) 6 to 10 minutes; c) 11 to 15 minutes; d) 16 to 20 minutes; e) 21 to 30 minutes; f) 31 to 45 minutes; g) I'm not sure…; h) No Response

One general assumption of this research question is that Route 100 users are not, as a rule, only using the route during their commute. Planned to explore how much of a respondent's typical trip is along the route itself, this question is directly linked with question 3.5 and may be of interest to responses within Section Four. The goal for this is series of questions is to study how much of a respondent's typical ride is occurs on or off of Route 100. There is no expectation for how long a typical ride should be, nor how much of the ride should occur on Route 100. 

3.5      When you use the route, how much time are you riding on Route 100? (choose one, only including the time you ride on Route 100)

a) 0 to 5 minutes; b) 6 to 10 minutes; c) 11 to 15 minutes; d) 16 to 20 minutes; e) Over 20 minutes; f) No Response

In addition to being descriptive of respondents trip duration, the results of this question also allow for explorative research for this project. It is assumed that a longer period of time one rides along on the route generates more familiarity with the infrastructure, facilities, ad services. Responses to this question can be looked at together with questions 2.1 and 3.1, which also can be tied to familiarity with the route. These results related to familiarity are potentially correlated with results in Section Five and Section Six.

SECTION FOUR:  Your Ride Along Route 100

With the aim of learning which parts of the route respondents use more regularly and have more familiarity with, the research team created a map dividing Route 100 into five main sections. The survey uses these sections to examine which portions of the route are the most frequently used and how much of the route respondents users ride. Responses in the section can be linked to all of Section Three and Section Five. Preliminary analysis of these questions is documented in this past blogpost.

The qualities and route of each section is described below. Note that these descriptions were not provided during the survey itself, but instead were presented a map.

Please use the map below to answer the following questions.

ROUTE SECTION A... 

...is located within the City Centre from Nytorv, along Nytorv and Østerbro. In this section, users must use shared roadways on until the tunnel passage on Nytorv, east of which riders are accommodated with grade-seperated bicycle lanes. The first Route 100 wayfinding signage is located at the southwest-corner of Nyhavngade and Bonnesensgade. This sign directs riders to turn left onto Bonnensensgade to follow Route 100 to the Aalborg University. The boundary line used for this section exhibits that, at the 90-degree turn, the route goes from a downtown setting to an urban residential corridor.

ROUTE SECTION B... 

…is located along Bonnesensgade and Samsøgade, between Østerbro and Øster Alle. At the north end of this section, a bicycle air pump has was installed at the corner of Østerbro and Bonnesensgade as a Route 100 initiative. Campus-bound users must ride on shared roadways and city-bound riders are provided a grade-separated bicycle lanes, to the right a lane of angled parking spots. A second Route 100 initiative was implemented where the route intersects at Bonnesensgade and Fyensgade, where the right-of-way was reversed and is given roadway traffic is traveling along the Route 100 corridor. The research team determined that this section ends at the intersection of Samsøgade and Øster Alle, where the elevation rises and the character of the route changes.

ROUTE SECTION C...

...is located between Øster Alle to Hadsundvej, along Riishøjvej. Just south of Øster Alle, the route's elevation rises, bicycle lanes are provided on both sides of the street, and bicyclists share the road with one-way, northbound bus traffic. Two round-a-bouts follow, through which riders are directed to follow Route 100 signage installed at each intersections. No bicycle infrastructure is provided within the round-a-bouts, so bicyclists must ride with regular traffic through the intersection. East of Petersborgvej, a grade-seperated bicycle lanes are provided on both sides of the street. The most southeastern edge of this section is where Riishøjvej joins with Hadsundvej.

ROUTE SECTION D...

...is located along Hadsundvej, from Riishøjvej to the Nordjyske Motorvej. Heading south, the elevation of this section slowly rises, with a hill climb on the overpass over the Motorvej. At the intersection of Riishøjvej and Hadsundvej, a bicycle filter lane, or shunt, was installed on the southwest corner. The filter lane provides campus-bound riders a free, right-hand turn. (No special facility is provided for city-bound riders.) This facility not only enables riders to turn without needing to come to a full stop, it also enables bicyclists to avoid interaction with vehicle so they must only yield to pedestrians and other riders. Grade-separated bicycle lanes stretch along Hadsundvej from Riishøjvej until just past Mariendalsvej, north of Humlebakken. Bicycle lanes are briefly provided until the road intersects with Humlebakken. Blue bicycle lanes guide Route 100 users through the intersection and onto the grade-separated bicycle lanes on the south end of the intersection. City-bound riders are provided bicycle lane lights south of the intersection of Hadsundvej and Humlebakken. These lights signal to riders when the traffic light will be green and was also implemented as a Route 100 initiative.

Just north of Hirsevej, a second bicycle air pump is installed on the west side of the street. An automatic bicycle counter is installed adjacent to the air pump. Bicycle lanes are provide along the southern half of the section. At each bus stop along the stretch, the bus stops were reorganized aiming to enhance safety for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the lane to board or alight a bus. Six of the seven Route 100 initiatives were implemented along Hadsundvej in this section. The research team isolated this as a distinct section as the wide streets, a cluster of bicycle initiatives, and that infrastructure provided for the primary modes of transportation causes Hadsundvej to feel and function as a corridor. This section ends after bicyclists ride over the Nordjyske Motorvej and are directed to enter an off-street bicycle path by a wayfinding sign.

ROUTE SECTION E...

...is located after Route 100 crosses over the Nordjyske Motorvej, along the system of off-stree paths just north of and within Aalborg University's main campus. Following a sign for the University, riders enter the the path off of Hadsundvej, head south down a hill briefly before sending riders through a tunnel under the same street. After a signed decision point for campus-bound riders to stay on Route 100, users must cross through a second tunnel under Universitetsboulevarden. The route then connects with a path along Niels Borg Vej, with it ending across the street from the entrance to a university parking lot on Fibigerstræde. Wayfinding signage is installed along the off-street paths, and a last sign is located at the end of the route.

4.1      Where do you usually "enter" Route 100? (choose one based on the map above)

a) Section A; b) Section B; c) Section C; d) Section D; e) Section E; f) I'm not sure…; g) No Response

The first question about the route sections is descriptive and is intended to provide descriptive data showing the most common entry point onto Route 100. As the research team assumes most users travel this route from the City Center to Aalborg University, therefore it is expected that sections a or section b is where the majority of riders enter the route. The responses to this question may become more interesting when compared to question 3.3 to discover the time of day entry peak. This question can be looked at with question 1.2 to build more descriptive data on the survey respond general profile. Furthermore, this question is directly liked with question 4.2. These set of questions can be used to describe the typical beginning and typical ride-end sections are located for regular users and others using Route 100.

4.2      Where do you usually "exit" Route 100? (choose one based on the map above)

a) Section A; b) Section B; c) Section C; d) Section D; e) Section E; f) I'm not sure…; g) No Response

Paring with question 4.1, this question is included in the survey to investigate where the majority and minority of respondents exit Route 100 or end their trip. These questions together can estimate the average distance that respondents ride on Route 100; discovering which sections are most used. The survey assumes that the majority of respondents exit the route at the University in section e. The City Centre is assumed to be the second most common destination along Route 100. 

4.3      When you ride Route 100, what Section do you enjoy the most? (choose one based on the map above)

a) Section A; b) Section B; c) Section C; d) Section D; e) Section E; f) None; g) No Response

This is the first of a many following questions that aim to learn more about why, where, and under what circumstances respondents enjoy using Route 100. No explanation of what the term "enjoy" means, allowing each individual respondent to interpret what this means for themselves. The research team assumes that Section D is the least enjoyed, because it is a large street with faster moving traffic than other portions of the route. The sections enjoyed the most and the least may be correlated with question 5.1, which types of infrastructure respondents prefer. Further explorative analysis can be done by linking this question with questions 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, investigating whether respondent's motivation or deterrents for riding a bicycle are correlated to which section of the route they enjoy the most.

4.4      Have you been in an accident on Route 100? If so, where? (choose one based on the map above)

a) Section A; b) Section B; c) Section C; d) Section D; e) Section E; f) I have not been in an accident; g) No Response

The purpose of learning where respondents have experienced accidents is to infer which sections of Route 100 are more and less dangerous. It is assumed that more accidents are likely to occur in section b, at the large intersections, or along section d. The results of this question may also be compared to the previous question 4.3 to discover if there is any correlation between enjoyment and safety among respondents.

4.4*     If you have been in an accident, please briefly describe it. (max 250 characters)

Fill-In Blank Text Box

This question was included to allow respondents to provide details on the accident they were in. Depending on responses, the type of accidents described may be codified to look for any patterns describing in which section similar types of accidents occur.

SECTION FIVE:  Your Preferences, Motivations, and Deterrents

In this section, a series of questions investigate what qualities attract or inhibit a respondent from riding a bicycle. The responses to these questions tie back to the overarching research question of this project. As the research team documents the myriad angles on what Route 100 is, this section provides the team with descriptive data on how respondents feel about the route. This knowledge may augment a discussion of negative qualities of a particular type of infrastructure, by including the opinion of respondents. All questions in this section may be compared to most questions in Section 2, in order to learn if particular types of users have a proclivity for a specific type of infrastructure or share motivations or deterrents. Looking at the responses in this section with questions 3.1, 3.2, 4.2, and 4.4, may indicate if particular patterns of use are associated with preferences.

Results from this section will be particularly considered as the research team writes the and engages in the theory component of the final analysis. The aim is of this section is to discover if any existing, relevant research theories explain how the users feel about bicycle infrastructure or responds to riding a bicycle.

Please use the images below to answer the following question.

5.1      What type of bicycle infrastructure do you prefer using? (choose one or many)

a) Shared Roadway; b) Blue Bicycle Lane; c) Bicycle Lane; d) Grade-Separated Bicycle Lane; e) Off-Street Path; f) No Response

The type of infrastructure preferred is expected to be associated with which types feel more comfortable to ride. The five types of infrastructure listed in the survey were included because the are each used along Route 100. Shared roadways provide no physical protection for bicyclists an often no pavement markings are on the road. Grade-separated bicycle lanes provide improved protect bicyclists, as the roadway is furnished with a dedicated path for riders. Considering the element of safety and how this affects enjoyment, the research team assumes that more respondents a) will be the least preferred type, with d) and e) as most preferred. This question provides  descriptive information on preference, which may be linked to question 4.3, as well as the remaining questions in Section Five. Implications of this information are an improved understanding of what types of infrastructure respondents and local users would prefer seeing and using in the City of Aalborg. 

In this previous blogpost, the responses to this question are reviewed and a preliminary analysis is presented. 

5.2.1    What motivates you to ride a bicycle in general? When/Because… (choose one or many)

a) It is a well-maintained facility; b) There are pavement markings; c) It is convenient for me; d) It is healthy for me; e) I feel safe on the route; f) I enjoy riding my bicycle; g) I ride because I care about the environment; h) Nothing, I just ride a bicycle; i) Other: Fill In Blank Text Line

Learning what motivates respondents to ride their bicycle provides additional descriptive data on preference.  The intension of this question is to understand what generally inspires an individual to ride a bicycle. Understanding why respondents choose to ride a bicycle can help guide where resources are used or how infrastructure is developed. There are assumptions for which motivations are the most frequent among respondents. Response h) is an indication that riding a bicycle is second-nature, f) shows that the respondent finds bicycling enjoyable, and d) exhibits that the respondent appreciates the health benefits of riding. It is expected that the results to this question might be somehow related to the responses given to question 5.3.1. Motivations may also be linked to what types of infrastructure respondents express preference for in question 5.1. A flaw in this question that the list of motivations does not include anything about weather or economic concerns. 

5.2.2    What motivates you to ride on Route 100? (choose one or many)

a) It is a well-maintained facility; b) It is convenient transportation choice; c) I feel safe on the route; d) Bicycle lane markings on the pavement show me where to ride; e) The bicycle wayfinding signs with distance and direction; f) It is the only form of transportation I have access to and use; g) Nothing, I just ride a bicycle; h) Other: Fill In Blank Text Line

This question is linked to question 5.2.1, intended to build off of the general motivations and pin-point why respondents are motivated to use Route 100 specifically. Expanding on the previous question was deemed necessary, to see if there are deviations in what motivates respondents in to use any facility and if any particular elements drive them to use Route 100. The presence of wayfinding, lane and pavement markings, and convenience are added to the list of, replacing questions regarding health and enjoyment. Responses h) allows respondents to provide additional motivations note included on the list, such as weather and economic circumstances. It is expected that convenience will be a strong motivator, as the route was implemented to provide a convenient connection between the City Centre and the university.

5.3.1    What deters you from riding a bicycle in general? When/Because... (choose one or many)

a) There are too many hills to climb; b) There are too many intersections to cross; c) There are too much time waiting at stop signs and traffic lights; d) There is a lack of lane lights and/or street lights; e) I'm worried about getting into an accident with a car or bus; f) I'm worried about getting into an accident with a pedestrian or another bicycle; g) Nothing deters me from riding a bicycle; h) Other: Fill In Blank Text Line

This question is the antithesis of question 5.2.1 and aims too understand what inhibits respondents from using a bicycle. Possible responses consider that users may dislike the hills, crossing so many intersections, or are afraid of getting into an accident. The research team has no specific assumptions regarding this question. The primary aim is to investigate if respondents with particular a motivation for riding a bicycle frequently avoid the activity due to a particular deterrent. Additionally, the responses to this question may be compared to those of question 5.3.2 in order to learn if a different set of deterrents apply to riding in general to riding than to using Route 100 specifically.

5.3.2    What deters you from riding on Route 100? (choose one or many)

a) I'm worried about getting into an accident with a car or bus; b) I'm worried about getting into an accident with a pedestrian or another bicycle; c) It is a poorly maintained facility (too many pot holes or worn out pavement markings); d) Too many vehicles travel beside the route; e) Too many hills to climb; f) Too much time waiting at stop signs and traffic lights; g) Too many intersections to cross; h) The lack of lane lights and/or street lights; i) I do not feel safe on the route; j) Nothing deters me from using Route 100; k) Other: Fill In Blank Text Line

It is assumed that the responses to this question will correlated to those answers to question 5.3.1, but may highlight specific concerns about Route 100 itself. The question aims to provide descriptive data explaining why respondents may avoid using Route 100. Deterrents added to this list in this question include the poor maintenance of the route or concerns of safety specific to the route. A failure of this question is that lane lights and street lights, two functionally different facilities, were tied together in the survey. This means that the research team cannot understand what responses for h) truly indicate.

SECTION SIX:  Changes Along Route 100

The planning for Route 100 was done in coordination with a European Union organization named CIVITAS which focuses on testing innovative urban sustainable transportation initiatives in urban areas. Working with this organization, seven types of initiatives were carried out along the route. In 2011, in the month after the route was completed, Aalborg Kommune administered a survey investigating the effectiveness and usefulness of the implemented initiatives.

This section of the survey repeated the questions asked in 2011. The initial survey questionnaire can be found on the CIVITAS Initiative's website. Using the same set of questions asked as a portion of this survey is intended to see if opinion has changed. The official survey was given shortly after the last initiative was implemented, giving respondents little time to learn and get used to everything along the route. Asking the same questions allows the research team to investigate whether the respondents to this survey have a like or dissimilar perspective of the different Route 100 initiatives than respondents had in 2011.

The 2011 evaluation is summarized on this past blogpost and the official version of the document can be found here.

6.1      Which initiatives are you familiar with on Route 100? (choose one or many)

a) Lane lights; b) Improved Intersection; c) Bicycle Counter displaying  the time and temperature; d) Bus passenger boarding platforms; e) Shunt/Free right-hand turning; f) Bicycle pump on Bonnesensgade; g) Bicycle pump on Hadsundvej; h) Wayfinding signage; i) None

6.2      How important are the lane lights to you? (rate from 1 to 10, see image below)

Rate from 1 (Not at All) to 10 (Very Important)

 

6.3      How important are the improved intersections to you? (rate from 1 to 10, see image below)

Rate from 1 (Not at All) to 10 (Very Important)

6.4      How important is the bicycle counter to you? (rate from 1 to 10, see image below)

Rate from 1 (Not at All) to 10 (Very Important) 

6.5      How important are the new bus passenger boarding platforms to you? (rate from 1 to 10, see image below)

Rate from 1 (Not at All) to 10 (Very Important)

6.6      How important is the new shunt/free right-hand turn to you? (rate from 1 to 10, see image below)

Rate from 1 (Not at All) to 10 (Very Important)

  

6.7      How important is the bicycle pump on Bonnesensgade to you? (rate from 1 to 10, see image below)

Rate from 1 (Not at All) to 10 (Very Important)

6.8      How important is the bicycle pump on Hadsundvej to you? (rate from 1 to 10, see image below)

Rate from 1 (Not at All) to 10 (Very Important)

6.9      How important is the Route to you? (rate from 1 to 10, see image below)

Rate from 1 (Not at All) to 10 (Very Important)

SECTION SEVEN: How Do You Rate Route 100?

The final set of questions asks users to quantify their feelings about Route 100. As the survey is primarily qualitative, few of the results are ranked in order of importance. The goal for this section is to create quantitate variables to be compared to one another. Such a comparison indicates to the research team the strengths and weaknesses of Route 100. The results of each question should be looked at with 2.1 and look at the difference in ratings between regular route users and other respondents.

The ratings found in all rating questions below may be looked at together to investigate overall satisfaction of Route 100. A rough estimate of the general satisfaction of Route 100 is calculated by averaging questions 7.1, 7.2.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5.  Each of these five questions represents different areas that may influence satisfactions.

7.1      How do you rate the Condition of Route 100? (rate from 1 to 10)

Rate from 1 (Poor) to 10 (Excellent)

The average rating implies how the average respondent feels about the overall conditions of the route. This topic is appears in the list of motivations in questions 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, allowing respondents to indicate that a well-maintained facility encourages them to use a bicycle. Maintenance and quality of the roadway is also included as a possible deterrent in question 5.3.2. Questions 5.2.2 and 5.3.2 may be correlated to this question, as the specifically ask if maintenance of the route itself impacts their desire to use Route 100. 

7.2.1    Do you know where to find bicycle parking along Route 100? (choose one)

a) Yes; b) No; c) No Response

This question is asked in order to validate question 7.2.2. If a respondent is not familiar with where to find bicycle parking on the route, their response to the following question is disregarded. The assumption is that an individual who is unaware of a facility cannot know how useful that facility is. An additional piece of descriptive data derived through this question is how aware respondents are of parking opportunities along the route.

7.2.2    How useful is the bicycle parking along Route 100 to you? (rate from 1 to 10)

Rate from 1 (Not Useful at All) to 10 (Very Useful)

The usefulness of bicycle parking is asked to assertion of parking is available where it is needed along the route. Bicycle parking was not included as an initiative, but parking is an additional service that aligns with the project goals. If parking is not useful, it can be either because it is not installed in an adequate location in order to access a desired short-term destination. Alternatively, there may be parking opportunities, but no locations of interest to visit. The research team will locate businesses and parking along the route, and compare the results to this question in order to determine which possibility is more likely.

7.3      How much do you enjoy riding Route 100? (rate from 1 to 10)

Rate from 1 (Do Not Enjoy) to 10 (Enjoy Very Much)

The purpose of this question is to establish how much respondents enjoy their experience riding Route 100. It is assumed that the results to this question will have some correlate with questions 7.4 and 7.5, as opinions on efficiency and safety are likely to influence how much the route is enjoyment. These results may be linked to the response that one enjoys riding their bicycle in question 5.2.1, as those respondents may also be likely to enjoy riding this route. 

7.4      How do you rate the efficiency of Route 100? (rate from 1 to 10)

Rate from 1 (Inefficient) to 10 (Very Efficient)

Planning behind Route 100 explicitly aimed to provide "free flow for cyclists" and the research team infers providing an efficient level of service for bicycle traffic. This question investigates if respondents are pleased with the efficiency of the connection from the City Centre to the University. Ratings on efficiency could be attributed to frustration over many of the deterrents listed in questions 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. There is no assumption for how efficient respondents will feel Route 100 is.

7.5      How safe do you feel when riding Route 100? (rate from 1 to 10)

Rate from 1 (Unsafe) to 10 (Extremely Safe)

Understanding whether or not respondents feel safe along the route may provide additional explanation for how often respondents use route 100, question 3.1. The feeling of safety may also be linked with whether or not the respondent has been in an accident along the route, which is asked in question 4.4. The research team has no expectations for how safe respondents will indicate they feel using Route 100. 

SURVEY COMPLETED: Final Thoughts

8.1      Do you have any final thoughts, experiences, rants, or raves about Route 100 that you would like to share? (max 750 characters)

In the recognition that the survey is not an exhaustive list of questions that could be asked of Route 100 users. This section allows interested respondents to share their thoughts, to expand on their answers or address something the research team did not include or allow the respondent to express. The responses to this question will be used to learn more about the perspectives of respondents and possibly discover new features or purposes of Route 100.

THANK YOU: Post-Survey Interview

The very last section briefly asks respondents if they are willing to assist the research team by providing a face-to-face interview after completing the survey. These interviews are intended to help the research team garnish more details on why specific answers were selected as well as to encourage interviewees to elaborate on their responses. Interviewees are also asked engage in a short series of mapping exercises to locate where they experience using Route 100. The mapping technique developed by Kevin Lynch, which locates where paths, edges, nodes, districts, and landmarks are, was thought of when establishing what to ask of respondents and how to interpret the maps.

9.1      Are you interested in providing the research team with a face to face interview? (choose one)

a) Yes; b) No

9.1.1    If yes, what is your name?

Fill In Blank Text Box

9.1.2    If yes, what is your email address?

Fill In Blank Text Box