Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Victor | Bikability Workshop Decemver 2010

253

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
253
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. BIKEINFRASTRUCTURESVictor Andrade, Ole B. Jensen, Henrik Harder, Jens Madsen
  • 2. GoalTo investigate bike infrastructure cases – based on a web-based questionnaire.To make an assessment with respect to the state ofknowledge as well as evidence of effects.
  • 3. Case studiesSelection criteriaLess than last 5 years old.Distinct typologies between the casesLocal government interested to share informationSignificant cases
  • 4. Vestergade Vest Hans Broges Gade Bryggebro& Mageløs
  • 5. Data CollectionWeb surveyBike countingInterview and e-mailsField observational survey & image collection 16-12-2010 5
  • 6. StructureCity Scale•Municipality vision•Bicycle networkInfrastructure Scale•Before and after•The costs of the infrastructure•Design characteristics and streetscape•Cyclist countings•The web survey•Main findings•Residential location of respondents•Descriptive statistics•Relations between socio-demographic variables and web-survey answers
  • 7. Before After
  • 8. Street Design
  • 9. Street Design
  • 10. Traffic Calming
  • 11. Shared-use Space
  • 12. Respondents Residential Location
  • 13. Bike Parking
  • 14. Signage
  • 15. Counting
  • 16. Biking more oftenSatisfaction with the infrastructure
  • 17. Chi2 testto identify possible relations between socio-demographics(independent variables) and the variables originated from theweb survey questions (dependable variables). 20
  • 18. 21
  • 19. Final ConsiderationsThe findings highlight important factors assuch the relevance of fast connectivity andsafety for cyclists.Fast connectivity and safety are strategicdimensions of a design solution that mustbe taken in consideration.
  • 20. Final ConsiderationsShared-used spaces seem to present morechallenges for the cyclists who need to ridetheir bikes and, at the same time, negotiatetheir space with pedestrians.Shared-use spaces are not common inDenmark, but they can be an alternativeway to create more lively cities enhancing avariety of experiences.The findings indicate that purpose-builtbicycle-only facilities are perceived bycyclists as safer environments to ride a bike.
  • 21. Final ConsiderationsThe three studied typologies have bothadvantages and disadvantages and there isnot one better than another, the choicedepend on the political goal behind.When deciding to implement or improve abike infrastructure, the particular qualitiesand potentials of each typology should beanalyzed in order to decide what kind ofbike infrastructure would be appropriate tobe implemented.
  • 22. Final ConsiderationsThe majority of respondents in the casesanswered that they ride a bike in theirrespectively infrastructures with the mainpurpose to go to work.The result indicates that different typologiesor a conjugation of typologies can beefficiently used for commuting.What seems to be important is how fast theinfrastructure connects the cyclists to theirdestination and how safe it is to ride a bikein the infrastructure.
  • 23. DeliveryMarch 2011Bike Infrastructures Report(final version)June 2011Paper 01Design characteristics &socio-demographicsSeptember 2011Paper 02Shared-use space & publicdomain

×