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.
Analysis of cyclist
path choices in
shared space
intersections in
England
Allison Duncan, MAppSc, MLA
Doctoral Candidate i...
General presentation outline
• Definitions
• Existing literature
• Questions, hypotheses, assumptions
• Methods, research ...
What is shared space?
• Removal of curbs
• Removal of traffic control
devices
• Removal of lane striping
• Entry monument
...
What are shared space goals?
• Traffic calming
• Increased
perception of risk
• Democratization of
space
• Equal priority ...
Literature: where it began (for me)
5
Existing literature
17
4
3
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
General Shared Space lit Pedestrian specific Visually-impaired Bike ...
Definitions: Paths
A path is defined at
the intersection
scale—it is the
course that bike
riders take when
riding through ...
Definitions, cont’d
• Nodes are the points required to define a
path. The number of nodes describes the
amount of deviatio...
Nodes, node difference, and ODs
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Observed:
n= 9 n...
Research questions
• How do cyclists actually maneuver through shared
space intersections?
• Does the shared space design ...
Hypotheses
• No significant difference in paths ridden through
shared and control intersections
• There will be greater pa...
Assumptions
• Even some cyclists who are intimidated by the
shared and control intersections will ride through
the selecte...
Research design & methods
• Shared and control (non-treatment)
intersections
• Video observations
– At least 3 days per si...
My video set-up
14
Study sites
• A Ashford
• B Coventry
• C Poynton
15
Study sites: Coventry control (n = 422 )
16
Study sites: Coventry control elements
17
Coventry control video
18
Study sites: Coventry (n = 490)
19
Study sites: Coventry elements
20
Coventry (shared) video
21
Study sites: Elwick Square (n = 357)
22
Study sites: Elwick Square elements
23
Elwick Square (shared) video
24
Study sites: Poynton (n = 206)
25
Study sites: Poynton elements
26
Poynton (shared) video
27
Video observations: variables
• Characteristic
– Gender
– Helmet
– Bicycle type
• Behavioral
– Sidewalk use
– Crosswalk us...
Video processing
29
Observational results: selected variables
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Wye Poynton cntrl Coventry cntrl Elw...
Coventry control
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
SWNE NESW NWNE NWSW SWNW NENW SESW NWSE SENW
mean n...
Coventry (shared)
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
WE EW NW EN WN NE SN NS
mean node difference per OD
North...
Elwick Square (shared)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
NS SN SENW NWSE NWS SNW NES SEN NSE
mean node dif...
Poynton (shared)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
WE EW SWNE NESW NEE NEW WNE SWW ESW
mean node differenc...
Discussion
• Elements play a role
35
• Cyclists used the edges and crosswalks in both
the control and shared spaces.
Discussion
• Crosswalk use
– > sidewalk connector
– Pressure relief zones
Northeast to southwest
• Veering
– General safe ...
Hypotheses revisited
• No significant differences in paths ridden
– Sidewalks, crosswalks
• Complex sites
– Poynton vs Cov...
Summary
• Sidewalk and crosswalk use
– Bicycle flexibility and versatility
– Cyclist reluctance to ride as
concept assumes...
Contributions to practice and policy
• Bicycle riders want
the space to avoid
motor vehicles
• Provide room for
lateral mo...
Acknowledgements
This research was generously supported by a National
Institute for Transportation and Communities
Dissert...
Thank you
41
This research did not:
• Look specifically at intersection safety. Conflict
and avoidance behaviors were only noted
when o...
Contributions to the literature
• Understudied mode
• Evaluation of cyclist movements on this scale
• Creation of a new, e...
Limitations
• Shared space projects are rare.
• Study sites were not ‘pure’ shared space designs.
• Two of the three contr...
Future research
• Comparative research at sites without marked
crosswalks and segregated sidewalks including
how drivers r...
Variables Total
(n=1746)
Wye
control
(n=76)
Poynton
control
(n=195)
Coventry
control
(n=422)
Elwick
Square
(n=357)
Poynton...
Observational results: selected variables
47
48
Observational results: nodediff
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Wye Poynton cntrl Coventry cntrl Elwick Sq Poyn...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

An Analysis of Cyclist Path Choices Through Shared Space Intersections in England

305 views

Published on

Allison Duncan, Ph.D. Candidate, Portland State University

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

An Analysis of Cyclist Path Choices Through Shared Space Intersections in England

  1. 1. Analysis of cyclist path choices in shared space intersections in England Allison Duncan, MAppSc, MLA Doctoral Candidate in Urban Studies Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies & Planning 12 February 2016 1
  2. 2. General presentation outline • Definitions • Existing literature • Questions, hypotheses, assumptions • Methods, research design • Findings • Discussion • Practical thoughts 2
  3. 3. What is shared space? • Removal of curbs • Removal of traffic control devices • Removal of lane striping • Entry monument • Leveling of site • Consistent paver, usually textured • Street furniture and landscaping • Geometric devices (Hamilton-Baillie, 2005; Lutz, n.d.) usa.streetsblog.org, town of Sneek, The Netherlands 3
  4. 4. What are shared space goals? • Traffic calming • Increased perception of risk • Democratization of space • Equal priority for all modes 4
  5. 5. Literature: where it began (for me) 5
  6. 6. Existing literature 17 4 3 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 General Shared Space lit Pedestrian specific Visually-impaired Bike specific Number of articles on shared space 6
  7. 7. Definitions: Paths A path is defined at the intersection scale—it is the course that bike riders take when riding through an intersection. 7
  8. 8. Definitions, cont’d • Nodes are the points required to define a path. The number of nodes describes the amount of deviation in a path. • An evaluative path unit • Observed # nodes – ideal # nodes = node difference (the DV) • OD: “origin-destination” 8
  9. 9. Nodes, node difference, and ODs 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Observed: n= 9 nodes Ideal: n= 4 nodes Coventry, north to south OD • Observed # nodes – ideal # nodes = node difference (DV) 9
  10. 10. Research questions • How do cyclists actually maneuver through shared space intersections? • Does the shared space design influence bicyclist path? 10 google.com
  11. 11. Hypotheses • No significant difference in paths ridden through shared and control intersections • There will be greater path variation through more complex sites as compared to simpler shared spaces 11 google.com
  12. 12. Assumptions • Even some cyclists who are intimidated by the shared and control intersections will ride through the selected intersections. • The path taken reflects a cyclist’s perceptions of the intersection. • Each path is counted separately, even if the same cyclist is seen on return trip. 12
  13. 13. Research design & methods • Shared and control (non-treatment) intersections • Video observations – At least 3 days per site, twice a day – All good weather days 13 google.com
  14. 14. My video set-up 14
  15. 15. Study sites • A Ashford • B Coventry • C Poynton 15
  16. 16. Study sites: Coventry control (n = 422 ) 16
  17. 17. Study sites: Coventry control elements 17
  18. 18. Coventry control video 18
  19. 19. Study sites: Coventry (n = 490) 19
  20. 20. Study sites: Coventry elements 20
  21. 21. Coventry (shared) video 21
  22. 22. Study sites: Elwick Square (n = 357) 22
  23. 23. Study sites: Elwick Square elements 23
  24. 24. Elwick Square (shared) video 24
  25. 25. Study sites: Poynton (n = 206) 25
  26. 26. Study sites: Poynton elements 26
  27. 27. Poynton (shared) video 27
  28. 28. Video observations: variables • Characteristic – Gender – Helmet – Bicycle type • Behavioral – Sidewalk use – Crosswalk use – Curb use – Walking portion – Walking companion – Number of nodes – Node difference – OD 28
  29. 29. Video processing 29
  30. 30. Observational results: selected variables 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Wye Poynton cntrl Coventry cntrl Elwick Sq Poynton Coventry Control Site Shared Sidewalk and Crosswalk use Sidewalk use Crosswalk use Veer to crosswalk Chi-Square test: Sidewalk use p < .001 • Full data set • Shared data set • Control data set 30 Chi-Square test: Crosswalk use p < .005 • Full data set • Shared data set
  31. 31. Coventry control -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 SWNE NESW NWNE NWSW SWNW NENW SESW NWSE SENW mean node difference per OD Northwest to southwest 31Northeast to southwest
  32. 32. Coventry (shared) -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 WE EW NW EN WN NE SN NS mean node difference per OD North to south32East to north
  33. 33. Elwick Square (shared) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 NS SN SENW NWSE NWS SNW NES SEN NSE mean node difference per OD North to south33South to northwest
  34. 34. Poynton (shared) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 WE EW SWNE NESW NEE NEW WNE SWW ESW mean node difference per OD Southwest to northeast 34 west to east
  35. 35. Discussion • Elements play a role 35 • Cyclists used the edges and crosswalks in both the control and shared spaces.
  36. 36. Discussion • Crosswalk use – > sidewalk connector – Pressure relief zones Northeast to southwest • Veering – General safe haven – Lateral movement – Increased deviation, number of nodes 36
  37. 37. Hypotheses revisited • No significant differences in paths ridden – Sidewalks, crosswalks • Complex sites – Poynton vs Coventry 37
  38. 38. Summary • Sidewalk and crosswalk use – Bicycle flexibility and versatility – Cyclist reluctance to ride as concept assumes • The presence of a large sidewalk or additional plaza area expanded the rideable area • When the space was available, many people chose to ride on it. 38
  39. 39. Contributions to practice and policy • Bicycle riders want the space to avoid motor vehicles • Provide room for lateral movement • Integrate elements and landscaping • Effective form of calming 39
  40. 40. Acknowledgements This research was generously supported by a National Institute for Transportation and Communities Dissertation Fellowship. 40
  41. 41. Thank you 41
  42. 42. This research did not: • Look specifically at intersection safety. Conflict and avoidance behaviors were only noted when obvious. • Measure riding speed, time to cross, and time for drivers to yield. • Look at driver behavior or pedestrian behavior. • Look at variables such as age or clothing type. 42
  43. 43. Contributions to the literature • Understudied mode • Evaluation of cyclist movements on this scale • Creation of a new, evaluative unit (nodes) • Evaluation of street elements, furniture, and layout 43
  44. 44. Limitations • Shared space projects are rare. • Study sites were not ‘pure’ shared space designs. • Two of the three control sites were eliminated. • Video observations were limited by camera resolution as well as camera siting. • It was difficult to evaluate the riding skill and confidence level. • Node difference is not a perfect measure 44
  45. 45. Future research • Comparative research at sites without marked crosswalks and segregated sidewalks including how drivers respond in sites lacking marked crosswalks. • In-depth look at the placement of site furniture/elements and their impacts on cyclist behavior. • Intercept surveys of cyclists who have just ridden through shared spaces to ask about their immediate experiences. 45
  46. 46. Variables Total (n=1746) Wye control (n=76) Poynton control (n=195) Coventry control (n=422) Elwick Square (n=357) Poynton (n=206) Coventry (n=490) Helmet use Yes 39% 66% 87% 25% 18% 54% 38% Unk 14% 7% 3% 29% 9% 25% 7% Gender Male 48% 59% 64% 45% 45% 41% 48% Female 10% 24% 6% 8% 12% 7% 10% Unk 42% 17% 30% 47% 43% 52% 42% Bike type Flat bar 64% 53% 25% 68% 84% 39% 74% Drop bar 19% 37% 64% 10% 3% 35% 14% Sidewalk use Yes 53% 0 7% 64% 88% 62% 42% Crosswalk use Yes 19% 0 1% 33% 18% 25% 13% Veer 1% 0 0 0.5% 2% 0.5% 3% Curb use Curb cut 3% 0 0 7% 0 1% 3% jump 5% 0 1% 3% 0 7% 13% Avoidance 2% 4% 0 3% 0.3% 0 4% Conflict 0.5% 1% 0 0.2% 0.6% 0 1% Walk comp 1% 0 0 1% 2% 3% 2% 46
  47. 47. Observational results: selected variables 47
  48. 48. 48 Observational results: nodediff 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Wye Poynton cntrl Coventry cntrl Elwick Sq Poynton Coventry Control vs Shared: mean node differences 63% 40% 157% 71% 81% 122% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% Wye Poynton cntrl Coventry cntrl Elwick Sq Poynton Coventry control: shared: Control vs Shared: Coefficient of variation

×