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) |
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment