In this post I will focus on where respondents Enjoy Riding and what type of infrastructure respondents Prefer Using. Using the same set of sections described my last post, respondents were asked where they enjoy their ride along Route 100. Then, they were shown images of five main infrastructure typologies used along the route and asked to indicate which (one or many) they prefer using when riding a bicycle. As will be noted near the end of the post, this particular analysis will not be complete until we have a completed map of where different types of infrastructure are provided along the route…this post aims to delve into this discussion and begin to think about how preferences are impacted by enjoyment, safety, etc.
Where do Respondents Enjoy Riding?
Based on the same five sections, 28.5% of respondents enjoy riding on Section E the most. Another 22.1% find Section C the most enjoyable. This trend is true both for regular users of the entire route and those who only use a portion of Route 100. The fewest number of respondents, 4.1%, enjoy riding in Section A. This trend is similar for all types of users and is more highlighted among those using the entire length of Route 100. The primary difference between section A and E is that the former is comprised of shared roadways and some grade-separated bicycle lanes and the later is a system of off-street paths.
For clarity, a map of the sections of Route 100 is provided below. See my most recent post on the sections for brief details on the different sections and where survey respondents typically use the route.
 |
| (10/2013 | Route 100 in Sections | Credit: Cat Silva) |
What Infrastructure Typologies do Respondents Prefer?
As we further analyze the results of the survey, we will detail more clearly what type of bicycle infrastructure are located within each defined section. In order to best investigate why certain sections are more and less enjoyable to respondents, the survey asked what infrastructure bicyclist prefer. These results will be related back to which sections of the route are more and less enjoyable. In addition to the type of infrastructure, this research project will also address where the new Route 100 initiatives are located and add this to the puzzle.
The survey and this research project focuses on the five types of bicycle infrastructure provided along Route 100. These typologies do not all provide the same function nor are they necessarily replacements for one another. Focusing on these five types of infrastructure is intended to help determine if Route 100 riders have a higher or lower preference for any particular typology. The five types are:
- Shared Roadway (usually, with no markings)
- Blue Bicycle Lane (located within intersections)
- At-Grade Bicycle Lane (with no physical barrier, on the roadway or roadway shoulder)
- Grade-Separated Bicycle Lane (also known as cycle track)
- Off-Street Path (shared with pedestrians)
Within the survey, respondents were provided with an image of each of the five defined typologies and were asked to indicate which they prefer using, allowing respondents to indicate none or all. The grade-separated bicycle lane and off-street paths are by far the two most preferred types of infrastructure. In the remainder of this post, I will present the image used in the survey and describe the results. This discussion will bring in some of the commentary we received during post-survey interviews we have done with respondents volunteering their time to our research project.
The Shared Roadway
An overwhelming 97.7% of all respondents dislike shared roadway infrastructure. The shared roadway is located in Section A, along the City Centre portion of Route 100. Just as this section is the least enjoyed, this type of infrastructure is the least preferred among respondents. Only a tiny total of three respondents indicated that they like this type of facility. Not a single respondent who used to be a regular Route 100 user and those who currently use a portion of the route. |
| (July 2009 | Shared Roadway on Nytorv along Route 100 | Credit: Google Street View) |
The image (below) shown in the survey is along a confusing stretch where there is little indication of where the bicycle should be riding. Unlike in the United States, there are no "sharrows" (shared lane pavement markings) indicating that bicyclists have equal access to the road nor where they should ride. Although I am appalled by the idea that stamping a "sharrow" on the ground in the same as providing a facility, I do believe this method is superior to a roadway without any clear indication of where the bicyclists should be.
 |
| (10/12/2013 | Shared Roadway Image on Østerbro used in Route 100 Survey | Credit: Franziska T.) |
During our post-survey interviews, we asked our interviewees where they felt bicyclists should be riding on this stretch. Some indicated that they ride on the asphalt with traffic. These individuals often noted that they felt unsafe being with the cars, but it feels like the safest option because the cars are forced to slow down and are more aware of their presence. Others believe that they are meant to ride on the concrete slabs (where the bicyclist is in the photo below), but noted that the space is far too narrow. Still others felt they should be up on the sidewalk, but that they preferred to be on the street because it can be just as unsafe to ride alongside pedestrians. Interestingly, however, looking at this same location on Google Street View from 2009 shows that this stretch of road provided bicyclists a grade-separated lane.
 |
| (July 2009 | Grade Separated Bicycle Lanes on Østerbro | Credit: Google Street View) |
The changes, while attractive, effectively makes this portion of the route an unmarked shared roadway
Upgrade paving materials, bollards, and colored paint made the street itself more attractive, but this entirely distracts from the intended functionality of the infrastructure. Riders are required to exert extra effort to figure out where they 'should be' and where they feel the safest. Had the these particular upgrades not occurred, the street would be more ideal for bicyclists instead of becoming the less preferred shared roadway.
The Blue Bicycle Lane
A blue bicycle lane is a type of infrastructure comprised a strip of blue paint, which is the same width as a bicycle lane, drawn across an intersection. This blue paint can be seen throughout Denmark and the same concept is found in an array of different colors around the world. In fact, one of my first blog posts was comprised of my excited ramblings about a green bicycle lane installed around the corner from my home in Seattle. The primary purpose of installing colored paint across intersections is to signal to all road users where bicycle riders can, should, and could be when crossing a street.
This infrastructure directs bicycle traffic safely across the intersection, and clearly indicates to riders where they should be - i.e., not on the crosswalk and not riding with vehicular traffic. The paint also alerts to drivers that they should be on the look out for bicyclists and to yield to bicycle traffic when attempting to make a right-hand turn across the lane. Moreover, the paint shows bicyclists where they are heading, so they are in the right place to enter the infrastructure provided across the street.
 |
| (10/12/2013 | Blue Bicycle Lane Image on Hadsundvej used in Route 100 Survey | Credit: Franziska T.) |
Only 17.4% of respondents indicated that they prefer the provision of blue bicycle lanes across intersections. This low number could be explained by the fact that most respondents more thoroughly appreciate other typologies. Or, this result may also indicate that most respondents do not believe these blue lanes add much value to their commute. Of those who do prefer blue bicycle lanes, 73.3% are current regular riders of the entire length of Route 100 and those using only a portion of it. That active bicyclists are those with the strongest preference for this type of infrastructure may further imply that those who prefer blue bicycle lanes are those who regularly interact with and understand the benefits of the painted strip.
 |
| (10/12/2013 | No Blue Bicycle Lane at Route 100 Roundabout | Credit: Franziska T.) |
The legibility and safety elements that a blue bicycle lane can provide may help new or fearful riders feel more comfortable when crossing any intersection. That said, what is interesting along Route 100 is that blue bicycle lanes are not provided at every crossing. No blue paint is provided at the two roundabouts on Riishøjvej. This may be due to space limitations, but no indication of where bicyclists should be while in the roundabout effectively makes these intersections shared roadways. Even more interesting, no blue bicycle lanes are provided at Bonnesensgade or Fynensgade where bicyclists are given the right of way. Supplying a blue lane across these intersections would be particularly beneficial for Route 100, as it would further enhance bicycle mobility and visibility at these crossings. Perhaps if this intersection infrastructure were provided at more major points along Route 100, more respondents would prefer or appreciate the provision of blue bicycle lanes.
 |
| (10/12/2013 | No Blue Bicycle Lane at Route 100 Improved Intersection | Credit: Franziska T.) |
The Bicycle Lane
A bicycle lane is an area of the roadway dedicated to bicyclists, demarcated by a painted line on the ground. This type of infrastructure is located at-grade with surface traffic, typically adjacent to the sidewalk. Bicycle lanes are often stamped with bicycle pavement markings indicating to all road users that the lane is for bicycle riders. Similar to the blue lanes across intersections, bicycle lanes provide a clear indication of where bicyclists should ride on the road and other road users must yield to bicyclists when crossing the lane. As is shown in the photo below, the lane marking may change from solid to dashed at driveways or side streets where vehicles must cross the bicycle lane in order to enter regular traffic. This change lets riders know to be more cautious and lets drivers know they have the right to cross the lane at this point. Aside from these locations, bicycle lanes should only be used by bicyclists and meant to provide a safe zone for riders on the road. |
| (10/12/2013 | Bicycle Lane on Route 100 | Credit: Franziska T.) |
Much more popular than riding along with cars on shared roadways, bicycle lanes are preferred by 31.4% of all survey respondents. The largest base of users who prefer this typology are regular riders of Route 100, but only 39.3% of these users listed bicycle lanes as a preference. As I will discuss in the following sections, the reason that more riders do not prefer bicycle lanes may be the limited safety they provide compared to the two remaining types of infrastructure provided along Route 100.
The Grade-Separated Bicycle Lane
Far preferred to shared roadways and twice as desirable as bicycle lanes, 77.3% of respondents indicated that they appreciate the provision of grade-separated bicycle lanes. The primary difference between this typology and the standard bicycle lane is that the infrastructure is usually raised slightly above street around the same height as the sidewalk. Unlike the painted strip on ground, a physical separation and curb prevents motor vehicles from encroaching or stopping in the bicycle lane. |
| (10/12/2013 | Grade-Separated Bicycle Lane on Route 100 | Credit: Franziska T.) |
A total of 70.4% of regular Route 100 users prefer grade separation. This higher percentage may be due to the fact that this typology provides a higher degree of safety via the vertical physical barrier from regular roadway traffic. This may also be a more preferred type of infrastructure as it exhibits a distinct investment in bicycling as a mode of transportation, which may make riders feel more accepted and equal to motorized road users. Very interestingly, it was also the regular Route 100 users that indicated they do not like grade separation facilities, accounting for 17.8% of those not preferring this typology. Although there are benefits of grade separation, this type of infrastructure limits roadway capacity for bicycles. When standard bicycle lanes are provided, riders can easily pass slower riders and/or cargo bikes ahead of them.
 |
| (10/12/2013 | Grade-Separated Bicycle Lane on Nytorv on Route 100 | Credit: Franziska T.) |
The grade-separated bicycle lanes inhibit such movements and can potentially slow down speedy riders. Another potential difficulty riders face is at bus stops, where boarding and alighting passengers cross over the bicycle's lane. Depending on how aware the bicyclists or pedestrian is of their surroundings, this modal interaction may be dangerous. There is also added conflict with pedestrians when there is no grade separation between the lane and the sidewalk. While riders are safer from motorized vehicles, pedestrians do not always understand the subtle indication of a bicycle lane and may use the space as an extended sidewalk.
The Off-Street Path
Off-street paths are shared among all non-motorized modes of transportation. This type of infrastructure is typically located adjacent to or away from motorized roadways. When the path is adjacent to the road, sizable physical barrier is often in place, with bollards or stanchions preventing vehicles from entering the path. Lane striping often exists, indicating two-way use or with one side meant for pedestrians and the other for bicyclists. |
| (10/12/2013 | Off-Street Path Lane Markings on Route 100 | Credit: Franziska T.) |
These paths can be singular facilities connecting two particular points or may be a part of a larger network of shared use paths or other local trails. The latter is true for the path that Route 100. In Section E of our map, a system of off-street paths from the local area connect together and bleed into Aalborg University's campus. Riders and walkers coming from different directions merge and disperse on the way to their respective destinations. Wayfinding is provided at decision points and users are instructed through signage that the paths are two-way streets. Generally, the design of this path system is effective, but one major flaw with the off-street path that Route 100 uses is how it ends. The path suddenly deposits riders onto a two-way road that users must cross without a formal crossing provided. Once crossing the street, the gateway onto the university campus is a parking lot where bicyclists and pedestrians must cautiously make their way to safety.
 |
| (10/12/2013 | End of Route 100 at Aalborg University | Credit: Franziska T.) |
Slightly higher than the results for grade-separated bicycle lanes, 81.9% of regular Route 100 users prefer off-street bicycle paths and making this the most preferred typology among these users. It is respondents who only use a portion of Route 100 that find off-street paths the least favorable, but there are still 67.3% of these users who prefer this typology. Overall, 70.9% of survey respondents indicated that they prefer using off-street paths. This makes off-street paths the second most favorable infrastructure, second only to grade-separated bicycle lanes.
 |
| (10/12/2013 | Tunnel on the Off-Stret Path on Route 100 | Credit: Franziska T.) |
During our post-survey interviews, several individuals stated that the system of paths by Aalborg University is the only place where they are surrounded by green vegetation - making this a more pleasant portion of the route to ride on. However, our interviews also highlighted that a tunnel that riders must go through can be an unsafe place to ride. Lighting is limited in the tunnel and sharp turns at the entrance and exit has the potential to cause collusions. The second highest incidence of accidents reported through the survey occurred in the section where off-street paths are used. That noted, Section E remains to be the most enjoyed by respondents and off-street paths the second most preferred typology among survey respondents.
Next Step in Preferences vs Enjoyment
Because Section E is comprised only of off-street paths, it is easy to mull over this paradox. The other sections, however, are made up of several types of infrastructure which makes it more difficult to determine if enjoyment and safety are linked or antithetical to rider preferences. As we more clearly map out where different types of infrastructure are provided along Route 100, this discussion will be continued. Furthermore, this line of thinking will be connected back to our research questions and I will be begin to consider how preferences and enjoyment influence what Route 100 affords and prevents to users.Check Back!
Next a coming post, I plan to reflect on the results of Aalborg Municipality's evaluation of the seven Route 100 Initiatives implemented as a part of the CIVITAS project. In a previous post, I discussed each of the initiatives and the results of a survey done by the Municipality in 2011. Our survey repeated identical questions and I will review if opinions have changed for better or worse in the two years since the initial survey was undertaken.
In following posts, I will begin to look at the results of what motivates survey respondents to use their bicycles as well as what deters them. These motivations and deterrents will loop back into the current discussion of enjoyment, as these results may likely link into which typologies and route sections are more appealing to Route 100 users.
No comments:
Post a Comment