Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Cristian Navas - Testing collaborative accessibility-based engagement tools: Santiago de Chile Case

44 views

Published on

Every month in the Webinar series a member of our team or invited expert, presents either recent research results or a city case study. The presentations are done online allowing people anywhere to participate and ask questions in real-time. The series address issues relevant to researchers and practitioners and is open to everyone using our news website. About 800 subscribers get the announcement directly, you can also sign up for free here.

Published in: Engineering
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Cristian Navas - Testing collaborative accessibility-based engagement tools: Santiago de Chile Case

  1. 1. Testing Collaborative Accessibility-Based Engagement Tools: Santiago de Chile Case Cristián Navas Duk | 2017 Msc. Urban Studies and Planning Candidate DUSP - MIT Cambridge, MA | August 2017 1
  2. 2. Agenda • Introduction: CoAXs tool and accessibility formulation • Research Questions and Objectives • Literature review: Engagement process and Metropolitanism • Experiment design and tool development • Results • Conclusions and future research 2
  3. 3. CoAXs • MIT Collaborative Accessibility-Based Stakeholder Engagement Tool  CoAXs. • CoAXs focus on accessibility, or potential connectivity to opportunities • Open-source, open data-based, web-based online platform. • Display the performance of public transportation systems. • Encourage the engagement of community and stakeholders groups in transport (transit) planning process 3
  4. 4. How CoAXs looks like? • Based on OSM • Developed for PEDs and Transit. • GTFS • Opportunity layers: Jobs location. 4
  5. 5. CoAXs Accesibility –Simple formulation, no need of demand modeling –Relation between spatial information and transit service supply D is the selected destination opportunity/activity type (e.g. jobs). M is the mode of travel (e.g. auto, transit GTFS). T is a time window for the trip (e.g. peak, off-peak). C is the cutoff time if a binary cumulative opportunity measure is used (e.g. maximum allowable journey time), see below. qj(D) number of opportunities of type D in zone j, Tij(M,T) is the typical time or generalized cost to travel from zone i to zone j by mode M at time T.
  6. 6. CoAXs Accesibility 3. Accesibilidad desde modelos no tradicionales (continuación) –C = 30 min –T= AM –D=Jobs –M=transit –ai=10 jobs i j
  7. 7. Research Questions and Objectives • Research questions: •How could Accessibility Based Visualization Tools (ABVT) be used to improve current engagement processes and advance to a more effective transportation planning? •Could ABVT tools encourage wider metropolitan (rather than local) discussions in a transport planning engagement process? 7
  8. 8. Research Questions and Objectives • Objectives: 1. Explain transport planning engagement process and their particularities in the context of Santiago de Chile. 2. Build a web CoAXs toolkit and design a simulated transit planning engagement process for tool testing in Santiago de Chile. 3. Develop a simulated participatory experience in Santiago for two different testing groups: Stakeholder and Decision Makers. 4. Analyze and evaluate the results of the testing experience. 5. Develop recommendations for new CoAXs testing experiences and further research. 8
  9. 9. Literature Review 1. Engagement process in Transportation Planning (1/2) – Poor public participation in Transportation Planning: Predict and Provide (PP) and Decide, Announce and Defend (DAD) traditional approaches  Division between Planning and Decision Making; increased gap with Transportation social aspects. – Traditional approaches characteristics  project or solution oriented and Technical language:  Non expert audience. – Consequences Traditional approach: Public Mistrust, NIMBY, Lack of Project Buy-in, and LACK of Collaboration across scales. 9
  10. 10. Literature Review 1. Engagement process in Transportation Planning (2/2) – Santiago’s Case: Example of institutional competition and lack of integration across scales (National, Region and Municipal). Example of poor public participation in planning  traditional TP approaches. – Data Visualization  Transport Planning has not leveraged Vis. Technology to participatory process: mostly are focused on the planners and engineers tools. Vis. tools still on PP or DAD approach (vis. Project oriented solutions) 10
  11. 11. Literature Review 2. Metropolitanism (1/2) – Metropolitan Planning  could generate better Transportation Planning • Better public transport services • Better coordination for transportation policy • Encouragement for sustainable urban development and mobility – The Challenge  Public engagement process at Metropolitan Scale. – The Opportunity  The use visualization tools. (CoAXs) 11
  12. 12. Experiment design and tool development 1. Experiment design (1/2) • Objective: Recreate a real participatory experience in the Chilean Context • Workshop design characteristics: • Two testing groups: Decision Makers (DM) and Stakeholders(SH) • 6-12 participants per workshop (20 total) • 3 facilitators: Street Design, Demand Forecasting, Urban Development. • 4 workshop staff: Data Collection, Technical Support, Room Set-up, Gral. Coord. • Visualization device: 75 inches touchscreen 12
  13. 13. Experiment design and tool development 1. Experiment design (2/2) • Workshop Activities • Preparation and Introduction  Materials, COUHES, Intro and Pre-survey • Basic Use and Coax Capabilities  CoAXs Atlanta • CoAXs Testing  Stgo’s Base scenario, Stgo’s Base-project comparison • CoAXs Evaluation  Post-survey and Debrief • Data Collection • Pre and Post Surveys • Tool interactions and conversations records (Staff) 13
  14. 14. Experiment design and tool development 2. Tool Development (1/1) • Tool features selection and new development • Based on SA previous CoAXs versions • Accessibility (isochrones) • Fix project multi-Selection (CoAXs Atlanta)  Stgo’s Transit Projects selection • New Opportunities: Jobs (total), Education (by ranking) and Health (by type) 14 Time Frame Operative Year Name Mode Origin - Destination (commune) Characteristics: Operative Information Short term 2018 Line 3 Subway La Reina - Quilicura Frequency: 2 min. Am peak, Travel time: 30 min, Long: 22 km 2018 Line 6 Subway Providencia - Cerrillos Frequency: 2 min. Am peak, Travel time: 20 min, Long: 15 km 2018 Tren "Nos- Alameda" Urban Railway Nos - Santiago Frequency: 6 min. Am peak, Speed: 58 km/h, Travel time: 24 min, Stations: 9 2018 New Transantiago Bus service N/A Represent 20% of changes in total network, 19 new bus routes services, and 17 modifications Mid Term 2022 Teleferico Bicentenario Elevated cable car Providencia - Huechuraba Frequency: 6 sec. Am peak, Max. Speed: 20 km/h, Travel time: 15 min, Stations: 3 2022 Tranvia Las Condes Tram Lo Barnechea - Las Condes Frequency: 4 min Am peak, Speed: 27 km/h, Travel time: 20 min. Stations: 12 Long Term 2025 Line 7 Subway Vitacura - Renca Frequency: 2 minutes, Speed: 40 km/h, Stations: 20
  15. 15. Experiment design and tool development 15
  16. 16. Main Results • Workshop’s General Results • Enthusiastic participants, adequate testing environment, no technical difficulties, adequate room and setup, no inconveniences. • 6 DM and 9 SH participants, DM 40% desertion. • Surveys: High level of responses, only few empty answers. 16Room setup, 602 [sqft] area DM answering Pre-survey SH Testing base scenario
  17. 17. Main Results • Survey results: • Project impact results (pre-post analysis) • Project learning results (pre-post analysis) • Projects and accessibility measures for achieving goals (pre- post analysis) • General workshop experience and tool evaluation • Quantitative results: • Tool interactions 17
  18. 18. Survey Main Results • Project impact results (pre-post analysis) 18  DM and SH mostly change attitudes after using CoAXs (+ change).  Stgo. Metro. Area and PT riders most + changes. Metro planning  DM very positive, SH Positive and Neutral 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pre Survey Post Survey Preand PostSurveyComparison,AverageParticipants Results: Howdo youthink the transportationprojects presentedwillimpact each of the groups? Yourself Your neighborhood Your commune Santiago Metropolitan area Peoplewalking Peoplebiking Peopledriving Peopleriding public transport 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pre Survey Post Survey Preand PostSurvey Comparison, AverageParticipants Results: How do youthink the transportationprojects presentedwillimpact each of the groups? Yourself Your neighborhood Your commune Santiago Metropolitan area People walking People biking People driving People riding public transport Decision Makers Stakeholders
  19. 19. Survey Main Results • Project learning results (pre-post analysis) 19  DM and SH mostly change attitudes after using CoAXs (+ change). DM ++ Change.  Highest changes in describing project impacts.  Debating differences between DM and SH, equal number of + changes (67%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Pre Survey Post Survey Preand PostSurveyComparison,AverageParticipantsResults: To what extent do youdisagree/agreewith the followingstatements? I learned agreatdeal aboutthe projects I can describe the projects to a friend or colegue. I can describe the impactsof the projectsto a friend or colegue.. I have the knowledge to debate confidently about this projects. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Pre Survey Post Survey Preand PostSurveyComparison,AverageParticipants Results: To what extent do youdisagree/agreewith the followingstatements? I learned a greatdeal about the projects I can describe the projects to a friend or colegue. I can describe the impacts of the projects to a friend or colegue.. I have the knowledge to debate confidently about this projects. Decision Makers Stakeholders
  20. 20. Survey Main results • Projects and accessibility for achieving goals. (pre-post analysis) 20  High agreement in pre-survey evaluation  DM and SH predominantly no attitude change  Unexpected result  Biased results: MIT Sponsorship, Survey design: no possible positive change (62 % & 56%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Pre Survey Post Survey Pre and Post SurveyComparaison,AverageParticipantsResults: To what extentdoyou disagree/agreewiththefollowingstatements? Projects...effective at advancing important transportation goals. Projects …advancingothergoals such as education,health,environment,etc. Accessibility ... for better transportpublic policy making Accessibility ….encouragediscussion abouttransportprojectimpacts Decision Makers 0 1 2 3 4 5 Pre Survey Post Survey Preand PostSurveyComparison,AverageParticipants Results: To what extent do youdisagree/agreewith the followingstatements? Projects...effective at advancing important transportation goals. Projects …advancingothergoals such as education,health,environment,etc. Accessibility ... for better transportpublic policy making Accessibility ….encouragediscussion abouttransportprojectimpacts Stakeholders
  21. 21. Survey Main Results • General workshop experience (2.4 post survey question) • Very positive responses among DM & SH • Participants largely agreed about: open discussion, others interest in diverse opinions, and support on groups recommendations (trust). • Tool evaluation: Usability and usefulness • Positive responses about usability and usefulness among DM & SH • Participants agreed that CoAXs provide a useful environment for collaborative work. • Participants agreed that CoAXs would support the kinds of conversations that the public needs to have about transport. • Friendly, for training, brings confidence, help to understand how travels is for others, etc. 21
  22. 22. Qualitative results • Tool interactions 22 Variable Decision Makers Stakeholders Total Participants 6 9 Total CoAXs Interactions 37 99 Total (potential) Interaction Time [min] 84 59 Interactions per Participant 6.17 11.00 Interactions per Minute [n/min] 0.44 1.68 Workshop Type of Interaction Point Move Marker Click/Tap/Zoom Decision Makers 13 13 11 Stakeholders 30 18 51 Workshop Interaction Interface Map Control Panel Decision Makers 29 8 Stakeholders 79 20 • SH Group largely interact with the tool • SH develop more advanced interactions • MAP interaction was preferred (3/4)
  23. 23. Conclusions and future research • Conclusions (1/2) • Experiment results confirmed the utility of CoAXs for: • Project impact understanding and project learning • Contribution to a good workshop experience • Provide a useful environment for collaborative work. • Support the kinds of conversations that the public needs to have about transport. “All of this positive results triggered by the use of CoAXs, promise (potentially) to improve the public engagement process, advancing through a more effective transportation planning” 23
  24. 24. Conclusions and future research • Conclusions (2/2) • Metropolitanism and CoAXs: • Experiment showed that this version of CoAXs is more likely to change perceptions in high scales (Metro Areas). • Comments during debrief activity corroborated that result. 24
  25. 25. Conclusions and future research • Future research • Metropolitanism and CoAXs. • Develop new regional analysis feature for expanding the actual origin point isochrone to areas (Coveyal’s regional analysis). • Expanding the experiment for more confident results. • Instead of developing special workshops for tool testing (having this first promising results), new testing experiences should be recommended as part of a real transportation planning process • Chilean Context application: intermedium cities transport planning and zoning municipal/metro planning studies 25
  26. 26. Thanks 26

×