1
Declaration ‘I certify that this is my own original work (unless otherwise specified) and does not exceed 12,000 – 14,000 words (excluding tables, references and appendices)’ 13, 912 words
Signed …Kenji Holdsworth…
Date …08/01/2016…
i
Abstract The way we move within the urban setting has forever altered as cities expand. Through research set within Cardiff, the dissertation aims to address how understanding cyclists’ movement can help us understand how cyclists’ do not move in the way vehicles do, which the dissertation addresses in four main sections. Firstly within the literature review inaugurates from the broader picture by addressing why the qualitative aspect of travel is so important in relation to liveability, which is then followed on by addressing the current legal framing system. This is then complimented with the technical aspect of design by exploring scripting that helps mould the way we design for users.
The second section addresses the methodology, and in detail explains how the methods conducted within this dissertation were carried out. The third section then critically analyses the data collected and searches for any correlation within the data. The final section, the conclusion, and summaries the finding with additional recommendations added for improvements to the legal framing and current road layout.
ii
Contents Page Page Declaration
I
Abstract
II
Contents
III - V
List of Figures
VI - VII
List of Tables
VIII
List of Abbreviations
IX
Acknowledgements
X
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-3
1.1 Brief introduction
1
1.2 Structure of the dissertation
1-3
1.3 Aim of the dissertation
3
Chapter 2: Literature Review
4 - 23
2.1 Literature review introduction
4-5
2.2 Qualitative aspect of travel
6-7
2.3 Concept of liveability
8 - 11
2.4 Legal framing within the UK
12 - 16
2.5 Notion of scripting
16 - 19
2.6 Introduction to desire lines
19 - 23
2.7 Research questions
23
Chapter 3: Methodology
24 - 43
iii
3.1 Methodology introduction
24 - 25
3.2 Ethical consideration
25 - 27
3.3 Reason for a preliminary data collection (Desire Lines)
27 -28
3.4 Preliminary research (Desire Lines)
28 -35
3.4.1 Questions to consider
28 - 29
3.4.2 Location
29 - 31
3.4.3 Time
31
3.4.4 Weather
31 - 32
3.4.5 Recording devices
32 - 34
3.4.6 Data collection
34 - 35
3.5 Desire lines methodology
35 - 38
3.5.1 Changes to assessed locations
35 - 36
3.5.2 Changes to assessment times
36
3.5.3 Software used to present the data
37 - 38
3.5.4 Evaluation of desire line data collection
38
3.6 Interviews
39 - 41
3.7 Intercept surveys
41 - 43
Chapter 4: Context
44 - 48
Chapter 5: Analysis
49 - 65
5.1 Why should we not ignore qualitative methods?
49 - 52
5.2 When and why do cyclists use space in ways other than prescribed?
52 - 59
iv
5.3 How could we better accommodate cyclist movement in urban areas? 5.4 How can understanding movement contribute to a liveable city agenda? Chapter 6: Conclusion
59 - 63
6.1 How can we understand cyclist movement in urban space?
67 - 68
6.2 Vehicle or pedestrian?
68 - 69
Chapter 7: Recommendations
70 -74
7. 1 Woodville Pub recommendation
70 - 72
7.2 Cowbridge Road recommendation
73
7.3 Policy Recommendation
74
Chapter 8: References
75 - 81
Chapter 9: Appendices
82 - 112
63 - 66 67 - 69
v
List of Figures Page Fig: 1
‘Directness of Travel’
11
Fig: 2
‘Distance willing to walk’
15
Fig: 3
‘Cowbridge Road Jug Handle Section edited by Holdsworth, 2015’
29
Fig: 4
‘Woodville Pub Pedestrian Zone edited by Holdsworth, 2015’
30
Fig: 5
‘Corbett Road, Column Road and Park Place Junction edited by Holdsworth, 2015’
30
Fig: 6
‘Amsterdam Frederiksplein Desire Line Data 16.26pm to 33 17.26pm, February 18th 2014’
Fig: 7
‘Vantage point from which a 180 degree view of the junction can be seen’
34
Fig: 8
‘Adobe Photoshop initial failed attempt’
37
Fig: 9
‘Adobe Illustrator improved ease of transferring data’
38
Fig: 10
‘Map showing Copenhagen’s Cycle Super Highways and other key cycling routes’
46
Fig: 11
‘Map showing the Cardiff City Centre cycle routes and laws. ‘For full map see Appendix’
47
Fig: 12
‘Average Number of Cyclists per ½ Hour at the Cowbridge Jug Handle Location’
50
Fig: 13
‘Desire Line Map 7-8pm Cowbridge Road 30th September 2015’
52
Fig: 14
‘Desire Line Map 4-5pm Woodville Pub Pedestrian Junction 29th September 2015’
52
Fig: 15
‘Partly enlarged image of a Desire Line Map 7-8pm Cowbridge Road 30th September 2015’
55
vi
Fig: 16
‘The Jug Handle along Cowbridge Road’
56
Fig: 17
‘Broken Glass covers the Jug Handle on Cowbridge Road’
57
Fig: 18
Desire Line Map 8.45-9.15pm Woodville Pub Pedestrian 60 Junction 29th September 2015’
Fig: 19
‘Desire Line Map 7-8pm Cowbridge Road 30th September 2015’
61
Fig: 20
‘Blue Cycle Lanes on junctions’
63
Fig: 21
‘Pedestrian Island Recommendation’
70
Fig: 22
‘Desire Line Map 5.45-6.15pm Woodville Pub Pedestrian Junction 29th September 2015’
71
Fig: 23
‘Shared Space Concept’
72
Fig: 24
‘Cycling blue line’
73
vii
List of Tables Page Table: 1
‘Understanding the topic’
5
Table: 2
‘Factors Affecting Walkability’
6
Table: 3
‘Six point criteria to effectively plan and design for urban walkability’
7
Table: 4
‘List of potential risks whilst conducting social research’
26
Table: 5
‘Ten questionable practices in Social Research’
26
Table: 6
‘Questions to consider’
29
Table: 7
‘Times chosen for preliminary Desire Line data collection’
31
Table: 8
‘Age Grouping and reason for grouping’
35
Table: 9
‘Times chosen for Desire Line data collection’
36
Table: 10 ‘Research Questions’
39
Table: 11 ‘Questions used for Semi-Structured Interview’
40
Table: 12 ‘Intercept Survey Questions’
42
Table: 13 ‘Example of Intercept Survey Response’
42
Table: 14 ‘Intercept Survey Responses at the Woodville Pub Location’
51
Table: 15 ‘Interviewee 1 and 10 responses Woodville Pub Location’
54
Table: 16 ‘Interviewee 2, 4 and 5 responses Cowbridge Road Location’
54
viii
List of Abbreviations Page USA
United States of America
5
UCLTI
University College London Transport Institute
9
AA
Automotive Association
10
TfL
Transport for London
10
LCC
London Cycle Campaign
10
DfT
Department for Transport
13
CTC
The National Cycling Charity
13
STS
Science and Technology Studies
16
CEGB
Cycling Embassy of Great Britain
20
CLDP
Cardiff Local Development Plan
21
CAA
Civil Aviation Authority
32
ix
Acknowledgements My thanks to Justin Spinney for supervising this dissertation and directing myself on course through the written process and answering the many questions that I had on the subject of cycling. My thanks also to Cardiff Council and Sustrans for allowing myself to interview members of staff, and for the staff to respond with detailed answers. A final thank you to other members of staff at Cardiff University who have help within this dissertation also.
x
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Brief introduction
In recent years there has been an increased surge of media attention surrounding the demand to better accommodate cyclists on UK roads. The media have both criticised and supportive of recent improvements particularly in London, with mixed options revolving around how to successfully accommodate cyclists such as Smale (2016) who has recently wrote an article titled ‘pedal power - the unstoppable growth of cycling’. This dissertation will therefore, with the use of intercept surveys, interviews and desire line data and previous academic knowledge will aim to analyse the information gathered and aim to answer the main research questions. The main research questions are, firstly ‘How can we understand cyclist movement in urban space? and secondly ‘Whether cyclists therefore should be classed as a vehicle or a pedestrian within the legal framing system?’
1.2 Structure of the dissertation
The dissertation consists of nine chapters, each with an individual purpose. The primary chapter is in fact this chapter, the introduction that allows insight into what is to come within the dissertation in an appropriately condensed form.
1
The second chapter of the dissertation is the literature review; the literature critically identifies the debates relating to liveability, the approach towards scripting and the development of desire lines. This is undertaken in order to further comprehend how desire lines could help understand movement to a greater extent. The literature however goes beyond obvious understanding and explores areas that have perhaps been forgotten within cyclists’ movement. The anticipated effects of the enhanced understanding of ‘desire lines’ aims not only to supplement legal framing but to also the way we conduct design currently. The literature also highlights areas that can be researched further in an attempt to clarify understanding to the furthest degree possible.
The third chapter, the methodology explains in detail how each of the three methods used within this dissertation were carried out which were intercept surveys, interviews and desire lines method. The section goes into particular detail, especially for the desire line data collection due to no previous methodology for this particular type of data collection being readily available to the public.
The context (the forth chapter) acts as a bridge between the previous chapters and the analysis, as the context compares the legal framing within Cardiff to neighbouring European countries. The fifth chapter, the analysis, follows on from this as it compares the data collected and analyses the data from the methods conducted.
2
The sixth and seventh chapters, the conclusion and recommendations summaries the finding from the dissertation and creates both recommendations for the locations used within this dissertation and policies that may be considered to improve cycling in Cardiff. The References and Appendices that will include all the data collected in relation to this dissertation will then follow (eighth and ninth chapter), as it contains additional information and acts as a way to retrieve more information on the topic.
1.3 Aim of the dissertation
The aim of the study is to answer the main research questions (as mentioned in 1.1), to reiterate these are: 1) How can we understand cyclist movement in urban space? 2) Whether cyclists therefore should be classed as a vehicle or a pedestrian in the legal framing system? These research questions however are helped answered by four subresearch questions that are referred to though the paper, these are as follows: 1) When and why do cyclists use space in ways other than prescribed? 2) How could we better accommodate cyclists’ movement in an urban setting? 3) How could such understanding contribute to a liveable city agenda? 4) What kind of methodologies helps us understand cyclists’ use of space? With the aid of these sub research questions the dissertation will work towards answering the main research questions.
3
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Literature review introduction
The aim of the literature review is to examine the understanding of how ‘cyclists’ movement has been understood within the academic literature and parenthetically within the legal framing system and the implications this imposes on urban planners.’ The initial starting point of this chapter was constructed as a result of a growing concern amongst academics and media coverage that addressed whether cyclists should be treated as a ‘vehicle or pedestrian?’ and why the qualitative aspects of travel should be taken into deliberation; Spinney (2008) most notably quoted that:
“After decades of planning, engineering and urban design favouring either motor vehicle or pedestrian movement (but largely the former), cycling now has the dubious honour of a singularly liminal status as a mode of movement: the range of appropriate movements for the cyclist are conflated with those of motor vehicles under law, with the result that many of the affordances of the hybrid bike-rider are rejected as legitimate spatial practices. Denied any access to footways and many pedestrian public spaces, and relegated to the gutter on the carriageway, the cyclist occupies a liminal space between vehicle and pedestrian” (p.21-22).
The literature review therefore explores the way in which the study of ‘desire lines’ can therefore act as a tool in analysing how the cyclist movement could
4
be accommodated within legal framing or whether the framing could ultimately be altered to allow a natural flow for cyclists to become available, without compromising safety, for example ‘running red lights on left turns as some countries such as the USA and Germany currently allow to accommodate cyclists’ (Mead, 2015). The chapter therefore will be analysed in five separate sections to fully understand the academic studies surrounding the topic at hand:
Table: 1 ‘Understanding the topic’
These sections segregate the important factors that revolve around the field of study and allow a detailed insight into the different topics and comparison between the way the surrounding environment is developed and the way humans respond.
5
2.2 Qualitative aspect of travel
The literature review commences by addressing the wider scope of analysis through the question ‘‘why we should care about understanding qualitative aspects of journey?’ In order to answer this the focus requires the topics of liveability and mobility to be addressed.
Recent major developments have seen London attempt to be more procycling with the immense developments currently in construction, dubbed the ‘cycle superhighways’. Kumar (2009) identifies that ‘although improved connectivity and distance should be highly prioritised within the built environment there are other factors such as safety, quality of the pathway, design of the pathway and land use pattern that should be considered alongside the two aforementioned qualities’ (p.25).
Table: 2 ‘Factors Affecting Walkability’ (Kumar, 2009 p. 25)
Southworth (2005) is known for reviewing the creation of walkable cities, however although his research was not focused on cycling the comments and
6
analysis made were transferable onto cycle friendly design. Southworth (2005) analyses that within his six point criteria for effective design for walkability, three of the six points were focused towards qualitative aspects of journey. These were:
Table: 3 ‘Six point criteria to effectively plan and design for urban walkability’ (Southworth, 2005 p. 250 cited in Holdsworth, 2015a)
Three of the points that Southworth (2005) identifies goes beyond simply getting people from start to finish in the shortest length of time but instead looks towards how improvements in quality must amalgamate with distance and connectivity in order to result in overall improvements to liveability within the urban environment. Although not all academics share this view, it is in fact reciprocated by the likes of (Wang et al 2016, Tolley (2008), whom have in turn, shared their own impression on why qualitative aspects of journey should be understood and how the broader aspect of improved liveability could benefit the lives of citizens that not only live in the area but also for those who commute to or through the area each day, as journey satisfaction does not simply revolve around time, cost and distance but how the journey makes us feel.
7
2.3 Concept of liveability
The dictionary definition identifies that ‘liveability’ in simple terms is an area that is “fit to live in” (Couclelis, 2013, p.42 cited in Holdsworth, 2015b). Within academia the likes of Woodcock (2009) critically argued that the term is vague to use, as there is “no established framework or uniform definition of measuring liveability” (para. 6 cited in Holdsworth, 2015b). Although Woodcock (2009) does in fact acknowledges that there is a general understanding that the idea of ‘liveability’ focuses on fundamental aspect from within the “home, neighbourhood, and metropolitan area that contribute to safety, economic opportunities and welfare, health, convenience, mobility, and recreation” (Vuchic, 1999 cited in Woodcock, 2009 para. 7).
It is suggested by Gehl (2010) that in order to create a ‘Liveable Space or Environment’ the three key features must be obliged by in order to make it hospitable. Gehl (2010) suggests that this requires the space to be welcoming to ‘necessary actives, optional actives and social actives’ (pp. 20 -22). Within this Gehl (2010) aims to promote open spaces within urban environments to allow a higher overall quality of life in order to create an ideal ‘Liveable City’. Many cities within Scandinavian countries including Copenhagen model their ideas on this concept of the ‘Liveable City’ by promoting a ‘good mix of homes, culture, work place and shops for a better urban life’ (Copenhagen, 2009 cited in Holdsworth, 2015b).
8
To further the view of Gehl, the idea of the ‘liveable city’ has in fact a key focus on cyclist. O’ Grady (2015) addresses that there are the likes of Copenhagenize, whose company philosophy is creating a more liveable city; in particular by “looking past the car, which they consider an outmoded form of transport in modern cites” (O, Grady, 2015 para. 3). It is also useful to note that some countries in Europe such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen lead a particular ‘pro-city’ approach, a phrase coined by Colville-Andersen to describe an environment which is “safe and friendly for cyclists and pedestrians, by any means possible [such as] traffic calming and better infrastructure” (O’Grady, 2015 para. 4).
UK cities currently rank very poorly on the ‘liveability index’ (The Economist, 2015), which is scored on 30 factors that contain healthcare, educational resources and transportation. The UCL Transport Institution (UCLTI) urges urban planners in the UK to “learn from successful examples in neighbouring European countries” (UCLTI, 2015 p. 1). UCLTI also argue that ‘mobility characterises a city’s identity which should be a pleasurable and exiting experience for users’, (2015, p.1) that should made from “a collective decision, both top-down and bottom-up, about how mobility and transport can improve quality of life, equity, safety and security” (2015, p.1). The main focus within liveability is not as simple as making a place aesthetically pleasing. Liveability ultimately circulates around the idea of quality; a place where design meets the needs of the people, as Gehl (2010) addresses we are creating “cities for people”. Since the end of the 50s transport planners have focused heavily on time, cost and distance as the
9
primary determination for journey satisfaction with the ‘introduction of the first motorway in the UK with the Preston by Pass (M6)’ (AA, 2015). From this point onwards, transport planning had neglected the pedestrians and cyclists and classed them more as a ‘secondary mode of travel’ (Tight et al, 2011 p.1580). The naivety that surrounds the topic of quality of experience has occurred due to the fact that there is much misconception around what it entails. ‘The quality of experience for cycling encompasses directness, comfort, safety, coherence, attractiveness and adaptability’ (TfL, 2014 pp.5-6). A key area that has still gone relatively unnoticed is the directness of travel that cyclist’s desire. Although it is argued that motorised vehicles, in most cases may have to travel the same distance, the physical excision of the cyclist is unmatched by the driver, a prime example of this is the one-way systems within Central London. In ‘2013 30 one-way streets for vehicles and cyclists were altered to accommodate two-way cycling on one-way vehicle streets’ (LCC, 2013). Although this may seem as a large step, this affordance has gone unnoticed in much of the UK, as presently, many cycle lanes follow the routes of vehicles. Copehangenize (2013) released an image of how directness of travel has changed over the last 200 years (Fig:1), the image shows how until the 1920’s directness of pedestrians and cyclists were prioritised over vehicles, however post-1950, the directness of these two modes have been disrupted to the point where it no longer affords cyclists.
10
Fig: 1 ‘Directness of Travel’ (Copenhagenize, 2013)
Although this directness is slowly being resolved by commitments made by the likes of TfL, the ability to design directness for cyclists and pedestrians is still being hampered by the indirect priority given to vehicles and the legal framing attached to bikes.
11
2.4 Legal framing within the UK
To follow on from the previous section, it is argued by the likes of Spinney (2008) that many aspects of ‘six point checklist seen within TfL’s ‘2014 London Cycle Design Standards’ are rarely met as the current legal framing within the UK fails to address that cyclists are in fact far more similar to pedestrians in the way they move than vehicles primarily due to their size and versatility. Another issue that has been brought up by academics is that with the increased amount of motored vehicles to bicycle ratio, there is an evergrowing concern with the safety of cyclists. Bendixson (1974) is one of said academics who quotes:
“The first consideration has been to prevent pedestrians from getting in the way of vehicles (the safety of bicyclists has been ignored). The psychological and physical requirements of people on foot have been disregarded” (Bendixson, 1974 p.57 cited in Spinney, 2008 p. 114).
Spinney (2008), confirms that it was not until the ‘radical popularisation, that saw “bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines” pushed into the classification of ‘carriage by the government’ (Ministry of Justice, 1888 cited by Spinney, 2008 p.109). This was not so much a problem as very few large vehicles occupied the roads. However, shortly after the First World War (by 1920) the number of motorised vehicles occupying the roads had reached a total of ‘187,000 privately owned cars and around 88,000 public vehicles, which by 1930 had reached a staggering 1 million vehicles on UK roads by
12
1930’ (Fullerton, 1975). Since then the number of registered vehicles on UK roads has ‘increased from 4 million in 1950 to over 34 million in 2010’ (Department of Transport, 2011). Spinney (2008) analyses that this shift we have witnessed, especially over the last 50 years has ever increasingly affected not only pedestrians but by all means cyclists to a greater degree, as Spinney (2008) quotes:
“Whilst such a situation disadvantages both pedestrians and cyclists, I argue here that it disadvantages cyclists more because they are deemed to be vehicles and therefore must operate within a system designed overwhelmingly to accommodate motorised vehicles.” (p.114).
The Department for Transport (DfT) has indicated that ‘there has been rise in cyclist numbers every year since 2008’ (CTC, 2015), yet unfortunately reality has seen cyclists, for a long period of time treated as neither pedestrian/ vehicle (to a certain extent). The researcher suggest this as the currently legal framing in the UK stipulates that cyclists “must not cycle on a pavement” (Highway Act, 1835 section 72). This law, may have been more widely accepted back in 1835, however in cities were motorised vehicles dominate the roads; cyclists are treated as inferior vehicles on roads and inferior on pavements. This makes it increasingly hard for cyclists to move within their ‘desired line’, which is unlike pedestrians whom “are not obliged to abide by many restricting rules and can usually act as ‘natural pythagoreans’” (Spinney, 2008 p.114). The term ‘natural phythagoreans’ is an analogy based upon travelling along the shortest side of the triangle than two, in essence ‘the
13
shortest route possible’, which pedestrians and cyclists would choose to do given the option.
Hammond and Musselwhite (2013) have a different view in resolving directness as they suggest that ‘a large majority of walkers are also off put by roads for the same reason as cyclists, as roads primarily cater for motorized vehicles’ (p.79). Hamilton-Baillie (2008) analyses that the UK Government should focus attempts to make roads safer and more affordable for cyclists and pedestrians with ‘shared space’ on roads being the most widely accepted ‘resolution in solving multi-modal transportation’ (p. 176). Hammond and Musselwhite (2013) identified that “when shared space is implemented, lower speeds are found amongst the traffic and there is an improved vehicle flow [however what the academics identified that shared space is only really effective in areas] where there is already a lower traffic flow and higher pedestrian numbers” (p.79).
Hamilton-Baillie (2008) uses an example from the Netherlands in Haren near Gronigen, which shows shared-space being implemented that emphasized walking and cycling whilst creating a more social environment for the citizens. This was done by ‘removing high curbs and bicycle lanes and creating a 6 meter wide carriage. This resulted in traffic speed falling by 5 km/h, however reportedly resulted in more reliable bus journeys, less bicycle and pedestrian accidents with motorised vehicles and happier cyclists and pedestrians’ (p. 170). Hammond and Musselwhite (2013) found negatives in the concept of ‘shared space’ as it could in fact become problematic in certain cases. Hammond and Musselwhite (2013) state “if a shared space street became too
14
complex even the greatest risk reduction elsewhere might not rebalance the situation, resulting in increased danger or avoidance of the street altogether” (p.80). Therefore it is vital to conduct thorough evaluation of sites, before emplacing such infrastructure in order to avoid problematic scenarios that not only deter cyclists and pedestrians but also ultimately fail to afford their needs of non-motorised modes of travel. Interestingly similar sort of data from questionnaires within the ‘Bike Life Cardiff Report 2015’ developed by Sustrans (2015) revealed that ‘shared space on roads was less popular amongst cyclists than segregated cycle lanes and routes’ (p. 10). This mixed opinion inevitably may vary with every different location; therefore it is advised that every location should be examined individually to create the best possible solution to lead to a more liveable environment. However it was much agreed that the quality of the surrounding is a key factor in any area, as Kumar suggests that ‘distances people are willing to travel will depend on the surroundings they travel through’ (p.34).
Fig: 2 ‘Distance willing to walk’ (Kumar, 2009 p.34 cited in Holdsworth, 2015).
This section draws up key questions, which would require further analysis to understand in greater detail. From subsequent further research within the data
15
collection on desire lines we can hopefully identify ‘whether cyclists act and therefore should be classed as a vehicle or pedestrian’ and how alterations in the legal framing and in the way transportation design is created, the affordance towards cyclists could eventually be improved as currently by straight-jacketing movement of cyclists we are making the journey more arduous and less enjoyable. One way in which academics can further understand these movements is through the notion of scripting.
2.5 Notion of scripting The notion of scripting is more commonly used within the fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS) with many academics (Bijker and Law, 1992;Akrich, 1992; Fallan, 2008) analysing how this ‘instruction manual can be misunderstood, ignored, discarded or rejected by actors who decide not to play the role ascribed to them by the designer’ (Fallen 2008 p.63). Although it is greatly argued that the likes of Akrich (1992) and Latour (1992) fail to distinguish between the ‘physical and socio-technical script’, Fallan (2008) addresses the key difference between the two clearly. Fallen does this by breaking down addressing the two individually; he firstly describes how the physical script itself is “embedded in the artefact’s physical form, and consists of those properties of the product’s physical form that (or a least try to) tell the user of the intended use” (p.64), the physical script therefore indicates links with the subject of affordances. Affordance was a term coined Gibson in the late 1970’s. Gibson (1986) implies that affordances are the “complementarity of the animal and the environment” (p.127). Gibson describes further by stating that, “the affordance of something does not change as the need of the
16
observer changes. The observer may or may not perceive or attend to the affordance, according to his needs, but the affordance, being invariant, is always there to be perceived” (p.139). An example that Gibson provides to explain this is further is a chair is designed in mind for the users comfort; however “knee-high for a child is not the same as knee-high for an adult, so the affordance is relative to the size of the individual” (p.128), which in theory would alter the way the individual would sits on the chair. The physical script and the theory of affordances go hand in hand as they both “seek to exercise direct influence over users, by promoting the product’s physical properties and utilitarian function” (Fallan, 2008 p.66).
Norman (2002), within his book ‘The Design of Everyday Things’, addresses affordances from a new angle. The book implies that physical scripting is far more important as, as Fallen (2008) points out, Norman (2002) is “concerned almost exclusively with products’ utilitarian functions” (Fallen, 2008 p.64). However Fallen (2010) disagrees by commenting that “the distinction between physical script and socio-technical script should not be understood as a conceptual dichotomy, but as one possible—and often rewarding—way of nuancing our conception of how things act, communicate, and transform meaning.” (Fallan, 2010 p.16). In order to go into detail this further the definition of the socio-technical script must be understood. Unlike the physical script, Fallen (2008) points out that the socio-technical script focuses more on the “transportation and transformation of a product’s symbolic, emotional, social, and cultural meanings” (p.65). In a sense in relation to the study of desire lines, the socio-technical script takes the role of a manual such as the Highway Code (Gov.uk, 2015) as once again Fallan (2008) analyses that the
17
socio-technical script “seeks to exercise influence by way of indirect attraction” (p.66). It has been brought to attention by the likes of Spinney (2008) that there has always been an issue revolving around the fact that cyclists do not necessary follow the script as seen time and time again in the case of desire line data. For instance the ‘Holmens Kanal, Copenhagen case study’ Copenhagenize (2015) shows in particular the way the ‘users adapt and manipulate objects to meet their own needs, desires and ability’ (Fallan, 2008 p. 67-71). This notion is approached in different way by academics but more or less come to the same conclusion that “Objects can be manufactured and manipulated” (Gibson, 1986 p.133) and that “the issue is not only what design does to people, but what people do with design” (Fallan, 2008 p.70). An earlier case shown by Mohun (2001) shows how the socio-technical and physical script failed to meet the needs of its intended consumers. The analysis shows how back in ‘1900-1929 in order to reduce risk amusement park owners produced a limited number of models that relied on a system of concession (sociotechnical script). These models were created based on the assumption that their clients were mostly adults who wanted to revisit the carefree world of childhood through these rides’ (physical script) (pp.295-297). This assumption within the physical and socio-technical scripting that the amusement park owners made was created falsely as “by the 1920s, such attractions (intended for adults) had begun to disappear except in spaces specifically intended for real children”(p.297). This cements the point that is it important to both considers the physical and socio-technical script equally when constructing objects required for humans.
18
The need for scripting within development shows a clear purpose to which planners and urban designers may well follow. Script analysis helps establish who the intended users are and whether the designers have ultimately understood the users needs. The scripting alone can only carry the analysis so far; what is lacking if further primary/ secondary data that will help identify whether scripting correlates directly in practice. Whether it does or does not, the knowledge gained will help create a liveable environment to live in. In order to convey any further analysis, the method of desire lines will be conducted to hopefully develop the ideas brought forward by Fallen (2010) and others alike. The study of desire lines has a significant link to scripting as it falls under the category of de-scripting as instead of following the script, cyclists and pedestrians are seen disobeying the script due to their affordances differing from those assumed by the system designers.
2.6 Introduction to desire lines
The term ‘desire lines’ as well as having links with scripting has been attached to the concept of ‘liveability’ by academics such as Colville-Andersen (2013), as the two terms complement each other to a large degree, the term ‘desire line data collection’ was first used in the context of cycling by Copenhagenize in September 2013. The whole concept of desire lines aims to “analysis cyclist behaviour and how cyclists react to urban design” (Copnhagenize, 2015 para. 1); with this urban planners can ‘rethink roads/footpaths/ cycle lanes, to not only meet the needs of cyclists and pedestrians to create a liveable
19
environment for all’ (para. 2). The term ‘desire lines’ however is in fact not an original concept. It has only recently been reinvented; the original concept was ‘first coined by the French philosopher Gaston Bachelard in his book the Poetics of Space in 1958’ (Copenhagenize, 2013). Within his work, Bachelard identifies how the “lived-in and human experience of architecture affects and shapes its development” (Bachelard, 1958 cited in Elder, 2008). Bachelard defines desire lines as a “path that isn’t designed but rather is worn casually away by people finding the shortest distance between two points”(Bachelard, 1958 cited in Elder, 2008) which the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain (CEGB), simplifies the definition to “a desire line represents the shortest and most obvious path between A and B” (CEGB, 2015).
Most literature notably understands that desire lines are visible on grass and soft ground and therefore used within ‘landscape planning and parks’ (Colville-Andersen, 2010), as seen in Malone’s paper ‘Pave the Cowpaths’ that researches desire lines on fields. Allow on roads desire lines are less obvious, planners should “look where the paths are already being formed by behaviour and then formalize them, rather than creating some sort of idealized path structure that ignores history and tradition and human nature and geometry and ergonomics and common sense” (Malone and Crumlish, no date). Malone and Crumlish are supported by the likes of Spinney (2008) who states that pedestrian are “not obliged to abide by its rules constantly and can usually act as ‘natural pythagoreans’ and follow a desire line perceived to require the least expenditure of energy” (p.114) and that cyclists should be able to do the same. Chimero (2008) also makes a noteworthy analysis as he
20
quotes that “people ignore design that ignore people” (Chimero, 2008 cited by Simmons, 2011 p.117); in other words design should enable the affordances of different users, not try and constrain them.
Within Urban Planning Colville-Andersen notes that ‘desire lines are as old as settlements themselves as they were structured on the desire lines of the people who first settled there, nowadays planners are rediscovering desire lines and applying it to urban planning and in particular cycle planning’ (Colville- Andersen, 2013). Colville-Andersen’s company Copenhagenize therefore works in cities such as Copenhagen and Brussels to reshape cycle routes to suit pedestrians and cyclists to a greater extent through focusing on desire lines and other forms of primary data collection. A beautiful quote by William James reads “Our dealings with Nature are just lines in innumerable directions” (James, 2007 cited in Christopher, 2010 para. 3). Copenhagenize follows this quote to a certain extent as they observe cyclists and take the most used routes that currently do not afford cyclists and turn them into cycle friendly routes, as seen in projects such as ‘Islands Brygge’ (Copenhagenize, 2013). Addressing the transportation section of the Cardiff Local Development Plan 2006-2026 (CLDP), which was updated in September 2013, the document forthrightly fails to mention the use of ‘desire lines’ as a tool for measuring cyclist and pedestrian movements. Instead it is evident the key focus is primarily on how many cyclists are getting from one location to another, with the focus being on ‘traffic queuing, traffic flows and pedestrian/cycle counts’ (Cardiff Council Interview, 2015). In essence the focus is based more upon
21
the numbers of cyclists and pedestrians travelling from A to B rather than how they are getting there.
Councils such as Cardiff use traffic counts, however developing areas relying heavily on traffic counts can lead to major issues, as ‘traffic counts are only conducted on roads which are expected to have higher number of cyclists and are limited in their use as they are not conducted on routes such as canal paths’ (DfT, 2013 pp.4-5). Traffic counts shown within the ‘Reported Road Casualties Great Britain: 2013 Annual Report’ assists in analyzing the volume of cyclist traffic across Britain, however frustratingly the figures do not show the circumstances of these incidents and whether better design roads could have prevented many of the injuries and fatalities from occurring.
Form of data collection such as traffic counts are known to be not as useful as it lacks basic human observation, which Colville-Andersen (2013) suggests “is the key to creating a much more effective route to planning our cities and the movements within the cities for whom we share the urban environment”. The researcher believes that the use of ‘direct observational method’ in the Cardiff, that the likes of Colville Anderson (2013) suggests would help improve liveability within cities. The lack of use currently may simply be down to the fact that the method of ‘desire lines’ is relatively new in relation to the concept of planning on roads for cyclists and pedestrians alike. This shows within the literature also as there are few academic papers focusing primarily on desire lines of cycling in the UK, which is very dissimilar to the types of academic papers available in other European Nations.
22
With the help of interviews and intercept surveys that emanate from a bottomup approach as suggested in section 2.3, the desire line method allows researchers to therefore further understand cyclist movement unlike more traditional methods. This advantage helps analyse how cyclists use space and how this could lead to further improvements as, as Gehl suggests ‘in order to understand humans you must first observe them’ (Gehl, 2010).
2.7 Research questions The literature presented within the review addresses four sub-research questions as mentioned in the introduction, which will be analysed through this dissertation:
1) When and why do cyclists use space in ways other than prescribed? 2) How could we better accommodate cyclists’ movement in an urban setting? 3) How could such understanding contribute to a liveable city agenda? 4) What kind of methodologies helps us understand cyclists’ use of space? The four questions aim to answer the main research questions that are:
1) How can we understand cyclist movement in urban space? 2) Whether cyclists therefore should be classed as a vehicle or a pedestrian in the legal framing system? These questions will be answered throughout the dissertation through analysis with primary and secondary data.
23
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Methodology introduction
The prominence for a detailed methodology within the study of desire line comes as no surprise due to the limited resources and literature that revolves around the way in which ‘desire line data’ are collected. The need of a thorough methodology ‘is important as it allows researcher to appropriately answer the question set’ (Creswell, 2014). Methodologies also ultimately “examine the underlying rationale for the method which produce valid knowledge” (Clough and Nutbrown, 2002. p. ii).
Within this dissertation three types of data collection methods were chosen due to the fundamental input they bring into answering the main research questions at hand they are:
(1) Desire Lines (2) Interviews (3) Intercept Surveys
The methodology will try to ‘describe and analyse each method from a transparent viewpoint’ that is argued for by Clough and Nutbrown (2002. p.29). However the inevitable bias that is attached to interpretive qualitative work is argued to sway analysis as argued by Elliot and Timulak (2005 p.148).
24
Before conducting any research the literature review was addressed in order to “determine whether the topic is worth studying” (Creswell, 2014 p.25). After confirming this, the literature helped identify whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed method research should be conducted. A quantitative and qualitative study was chosen; as although most of the research focuses on qualitative, the desire line data will have an element of quantitative as due to the recording of the number and age of cyclists that travel across various desire lines seen during the research.
Within this Methodology there will be analysis into the steps taken before performing the research that includes, ethical consideration and any preliminary data collection completed. This is then followed by the data collection of the three methods, concluded with a short summary of the section.
3.2 Ethical consideration
Before undertaking the research ethical consideration was taken into account. Robson (2007) addressed a ‘code of practice’ for the safety of the social researcher, which should be considered “particularly if you are likely to be involved in risky fieldwork situations” (p.69). Table: 4 is one created by Craig et al (2000) that outlines the potential risks:
25
Table: 4 ‘List of potential risks whilst conducting social research’ (Craig et al, 2000 cited by Robson, 2007)
The list shown above was considered when conducting the Desire Line data collection as the last set of data collected was at 10-10.30pm. In order to reduce risk, the researcher therefore stood in a well-lit area and had a mobile phone ready in case of an emergency. In regards to being accused to ‘improper behaviour’, the researcher reduced the risk of this by standing in a public space and notified the local shop of the nature of the research. Besides the safety of the researcher, the participant must be also considered. Kimmel (1988) has suggested re-reading the ‘Ten questionable practices in Social Research’ before conducting research, these include:
Table: 5 ‘Ten questionable practices in Social Research’ (Kimmel, 1988)
26
Table: 5 therefore was considered throughout all three of the methods. For Desire Lines, observation of participants is done without their consent. Bryman (2012) suggests that “because participants are not given the opportunity to refuse to cooperate. They are involved whether they like it or not” (p.138). Bryman (2012) however accepts the fact that ‘participants should be informed although recognises that many investigations conducted by the likes of Festinger et al (1956) do not inform the participant within covert observation’ (p.138). Within the desire line investigation to ensure anonymity, people’s everyday lives will not be interrupted and any videos of passers-by will be deleted after analysis, this therefore argues the need for consent before recording their movements within the assessed area.
Within the interviews, the participants wished not to be named but allowed their place of work to be used. They also wished that any negative comments made towards other groups or organisations were also to be edited out, which again was respected. This made sure the interviewee felt safe sharing the information that was used within this dissertation.
3.3 Reason for a preliminary data collection (Desire Lines)
The unusual task that was encountered during this research was that although desire lines have been created (most notably by Copenhagenize, 2013c); the company have yet to disclose their methods in collecting the data. Therefore the researcher had the task of developing a method of collecting the data based on limited knowledge. The key influence in replicating the
27
types of results seen within Copenhagenize (2013c) came primarily from literature on observational methods and images of Copenhagenize’s finished ‘desire line’ maps.
The Desire Line Data Collection has some key limitations due to the lack of literature attached to the topic. Observational methods have been generally criticised by many academics such as Robson (2007), who states that “observation is neither an easy nor a trouble-free option [as there are major issues] concerning the extent to which the observer affects the situation under observation”. (p.311). However Robson (2007), is also seen addressing the advantages of the method stating that the “major advantage of observation as a technique is its directness” (p.310). This ‘directness’ in data collection, will allow the researcher to focus on the research question at hand; whilst the method is challenging with practice and time the method is achievable without creating unknown biases. Therefore in order to understand the method further and to reduce any biased results a preliminary data collection was carried out.
3.4 Preliminary research (Desire Lines)
3.4.1 Questions to consider
Before carrying out the preliminary research for the desire line data collection, consideration into what specifications the research needed for the collection were reviewed. These were as followed:
28
Table: 6 ‘Questions to consider’ Preliminary research was conducted therefore to assist the “author to identify the most appropriate research” (Tjandra and Darnton, 2011. p.524).
3.4.2 Location
Initially the expected preliminary research was conducted outside the Cowbridge Road Jug Handle Section (Fig. 3), Woodville Pub Pedestrian Zone (Fig. 4) and Corbett Road, Column Road and Park Place Junction (Fig. 5).
Fig: 3 ‘Cowbridge Road Jug Handle Section edited by Holdsworth, 2015’
29
Fig: 4 ‘Woodville Pub Pedestrian Zone edited by Holdsworth, 2015’
Fig: 5 ‘Corbett Road, Column Road and Park Place Junction edited by Holdsworth, 2015’
These locations were highlighted after raised concern that these locations failed to afford cyclists due to ill equipped design and planning. Locations
30
were selected after initial observations alongside reviews of Cardiff Council literature such as Keep Cardiff Moving 2013. The locations contained a range of old and new cycling infrastructure however they were raised concerns over how the area actually afforded cyclists and therefore were chosen as potential areas of study.
3.4.3 Time
After the locations were chosen, the time of day was decided based on peak travel times to (8-9am) and from work (5-6pm) and at lunchtime (1-2pm), which was based on a standard 9am-5pm working day. The assessment times was therefore chosen to be:
Table: 7 ‘Times chosen for preliminary Desire Line data collection’
3.4.4 Weather
The preliminary research at Cowbridge Road took place on a day that had light to medium rain, which caused problems due to potential inconsistency in data as cyclist flow was greater in times when the rain was at its least The other two locations were analysed on dry days that delivered results that were more expected at the time of day, therefore in order to keep analyse the
31
locations evenly three consecutive dry day were planned to be assessed on for the actual data collection.
3.4.5 Recording devices The recording of the data was the most perplexing part of the method, as although it would have been less challenging to video the assessed area with an UAV (drone) that are currently used “in surveying and mapping, police applications, agriculture tasks such as tracking herds and flocks of livestock, and environmental and wildlife observation” (Goldberg et al, 2013 p. 1), the funds and permission was simple not available. This is due to ‘Article 167 of the Civil Aviation Authority prohibits the flight of these UAV 150m near a heavily congested area’) (Civil Aviation Authority ‘CAA’, no date).
Video recording from various angle was assessed as an alternative means of recording the data, however due to lack of areas to set up the video cameras and security issues, again it was not a valid option. Examples created by Copenhagenize (2014) in Amsterdam most likely have used recording devices especially in the example as seen in Fig: 6.
32
Fig: 6 ‘Amsterdam Frederiksplein Desire Line Data 16.26pm to 17.26pm, February 18th 2014’ (Copenhagenize, 2014).
This assumption is made due to the sheer number of cyclists that entered the intersection (1,744) during the 1-hour that the data was acquired from however this method was unable to be replicated although it is recommended for future researchers.
As a compromise for the lack of recording devices, a vantage point was selected at each of the locations that allowed visibility of the entirety of the junctions assessed. An example of one of these vantage points below can be seen in Fig: 7. The vantage points were carefully selected as being too exposed could “affect the situation under observation [therefore it was vital that where the researcher chose to stand ensured that] the observed were unaware of being observed” (Gittelson et al, 1997 cited in Robson, 2002 p.311). Therefore as Hennink et al (2011) quite fittingly analysed that ‘a
33
certain skill is required in order to observe situations in a heavily congested area’ (p. 194).
Fig: 7 ‘Vantage point from which a 180 degree view of the junction can be seen’
The vantage point seen above, allowed the researcher to have, in this case a 180-degree view of the assessed junction that helped the researcher accurately collect data.
3.4.6 Data collection
The recording of data was redesigned just before the preliminary data collection. Initially, the desire line of each individual cyclist was going to be recorded, however after considering the outcomes, it was redesigned so that a tally system would record similar desire lines of likeminded cyclists. The
34
second issue that was assessed was, ‘what ages would be grouped together in the data?’ After much deliberation these were the groupings:
Table: 8 ‘Age Grouping and reason for grouping’
The groupings proved to be an effective way of collecting the data, as one of the aims was to see whether the age of the cyclist affected the way in which they cycled. The age of the cyclist was in fact subject to person perception of the researcher (therefore may not be entirely accurate), however it does provide a general idea of what age groups are the analysed junctions over the course of the day.
3.5 Desire lines methodology
From conducting the Preliminary Data Collection a few key changes were made in order to improve the data collected.
3.5.1 Changes to assessed locations
The preliminary research drew up issues at the ‘Corbett Road, Column Road and Park Place Junction’ (Fig: 3) location, as due to the number of cyclists,
35
pedestrians and cyclists present in the one location it made it increasingly hard for the researcher to keep tally of the number of cyclists crossing. Also as many cyclists dismounting when approaching the crossing it made it morally difficult to either include them into the data as cyclists or pedestrians. For the reasons stated the location was therefore dropped from the research.
3.5.2 Changes to assessment times
The times of the day for which the assessment was going to take place in order to get a greater sense of cyclist movement throughout the day. As the assessed areas had a higher student population the key assessed times were adjusted from the suggested times in ‘3.4.3’ in order to capture a wider range of bike usage as the recommended peak travel times did not correlate with what was recorded especially for the location outside the Woodville Pub. The adjusted time schedule was therefore:
Table: 9 ‘Times chosen for Desire Line data collection’ The adjusted schedule hoped to identify whether different cycling patterns
36
emerged between day and night time cycling, with the expected intention that this would reveal that cyclists would follow the highway code more at night than during the day.
3.5.3 Software used to present the data
The software used to transfer the data onto the computer proved to be a challenging task in itself to replicate the same sort of maps featured on the Copenhagenize (2015) as seen in Fig: 6. Initially Adobe Photoshop was approached Fig: 8, however due to pixelated lines and limitations of drawing the lines themselves, Adobe Illustrator was instead used (Fig: 9). The software reduced pixilation and increased productivity in the transfer of the different desire lines onto a digital map that represented the main advantage of the software used.
Fig: 8 ‘Adobe Photoshop initial failed attempt’
37
Fig: 9 ‘Adobe Illustrator improved ease of transferring data’
3.5.4 Evaluation of desire line data collection
Overall during the research the objective in assessing the desire lines of cyclists were achieved to a large extent, however for researchers replicating the desire line data collection, it is highly recommended that sufficient recording devices, as recommended in 3.4.5. Axinn and Pearce (2006) state that this type of preliminary data collection gives “the investigator first-hand knowledge of the strength and weakness of the data collection plan, it allows the investigator to discover dimensions of the data collection plan that are not working as planned, and it allows investigators to make changes to the data collection plan to ensure that the final implementation is in fact successful” (p.38), which in this case was.
3.6 Interviews
38
The desire line method is cited by Cross et al (2006) to be often usefully complement “information obtained from virtually any other technique” (Robson, 1993 cited in Cross et al, 2006 p.195). Interview and intercept were for this reason chosen to accompany the desire line method, as they were vital in answering the research questions in particular:
Table: 10 ‘Research Questions’
The interview was designed to accompany the desire line method and to further understand the topics brought up within the literature review. A semistructured style interview with only four questions was selected as this form of interview allowed the interviewee to expand on the topic; with allowance for the researcher to make sure that the conversation was kept on topic if they felt it was drifting off topic. Robson (2007), quoted that a semi-structure interview was beneficial as it could “be modified based upon the interviewer’s perception” (p.270). It was also noted that a benefit of this type of interview meant “question wording can be changed and explanations given; particular questions which seem inappropriate with a particular interviewee can be omitted, or additional ones included” (p.270). This deemed most useful as unlike a fully structured interview wording and order of the questions could be changed based on the response given.
39
Based on the semi-structured interview, suggested by Robson (2007) the loosely based questions created were as follows:
Table: 11 ‘Questions used for Semi-Structured Interview’
These questions were designed to get different perspectives on the current planning system that revolves around the design of roads for cyclists. The interview also aimed to analyse how scripting is used in practice, however for the interviewee to understand the question the technical wording had been taken out which improved the answer received.
In order to help the interviewee understand the aim of the interview, visual aim in the form of desire line maps were shown in order to resolve any misconceptions of what desire lines were.
The interviews both took place at the interviewees work location within Cardiff. However ‘in order to make sure that the work place environment did not sway the interviewees comments the interviews were both recorded on microphone in a conference room within the building’ as suggested by Silverman (2011 p.153). This meant the recording were clear and helped making transcribing
40
the interview later an easier task than if it was recorded in a busy environment. To help find key references at a later date, notes were also taken to allow the researcher to refer to key parts of the interview with greater ease.
3.7 Intercept surveys
Intercept surveys were chosen above other methods such as online questionnaires due to the fact that intercept surveys allowed the users to ‘reach the targeted population with ease, increases response rate and cost effective’ (Schaller, 2005). Schaller’s (2005) research is based upon Intercept Surveys on Transits however the methods used within the literature can be translated into intercept surveys elsewhere. One of the main advantages of this type of survey was the ‘ability to survey the interviewee during the immediate experience’ (p.6). This proved most useful as the researcher asked simple questions on how they used the provisions currently provided and how they would improve it.
The major limitation of the intercept survey at the locations analysed (Fig: 3 and 4), was that the interviewees were limited solely to people who stopped in the vicinity of the assessed area. This therefore limited the potential amount of respondents but in retrospect did potentially provide the most accurate answers.
41
Although an idea as to the correct length of an intercept survey was not mentioned within studies conducted by Schaller (2005). Taking into consideration that the interviewee had other places to go the interviews were kept to a length of 30 seconds to one minute. This allowed enough time to receive the answers required and kept the interviewee content, whilst giving the interviewer enough time to write down the responses received.
The intercept survey started with a quick introduction of what the researcher was conducting followed by two brief questions:
Table: 12 ‘Intercept Survey Questions’
On top of these two questions additional information was taken on the approximate age of the interviewee (using the same age groupings as seen in table: 8) and what type of bike was used. Therefore a response would potentially look like this:
Table: 13 ‘Example of Intercept Survey Response’
42
The intercept survey proved to be the right choice to compliment the desire line methodology as it provided the concise data that can be used in the analysis. Another method that could have been used which would also be effective is questionnaires. Although the data provided from this would also have been useful, the intercept survey provides key data straight after the interviewee had experienced the movement across the area assessed.
Across research proved effective in accumulating a vast array of data in a relatively short space of time. The data collection for the desire line data collection proved to be most challenging due to lack of previous records. However the other two methods (intercept survey and interview) were straight forward in their collection and complimented the data gathered from the desire lines method, which will be analysed in detail within the analysis chapter.
43
Chapter 4: Context
The UK is criticized by academics and media for lack of focus given to the need of alteration in the way cycling is afforded for. Although recently there have been some improvements recently such as the Active Travel Act 2013 Wales, which calls for a new approach in pedestrian and cycling related facilities, the question arises however on whether ‘liveability’ strategies on cycling could possibly be adopted from neighbouring European countries or not? ‘The London Cycle Campaign has certainly idealised their ambitions based on suggested designs in Amsterdam for London’ (LCC, 2015), however this would not necessarily relate back to a city such as Cardiff due to varying layout and space within the city.
Secondly, following on from this, a query also surfaces on how a bottom- up approach should be considered. Cardiff Council aim to become a bottom-up group as they currently have close links with Cardiff Cycle City (one of Cardiff’s largest cycling groups) who claim to “represent the whole spectrum of cycling interests [within Cardiff]” (Cardiff Council Interview, 2015). However online mediums such as Facebook suggest that ‘most members are currently working professionals’ (Facebook, 2015). In retrospect a foundation for a stronger relationship between citizens and the government will inevitably improve the way in which money is used and allow the council to “get a better idea of what people want in Cardiff” (Cardiff Council Interview, 2015). Based on the Intercept Surveys carried out on the two location (Woodville Pub Pedestrian Crossing and Cowbridge Road Jug Handle), there seems to be a
44
key link missing between the council and the citizens in the designing of the infrastructure in these two locations in affording cyclists movement.
In order to improve cycling within Cardiff, Cardiff Council have brought in a similar standard to TfL’s ‘London Cycling Design Standards six-point checklist’ this addresses ‘safety, directness, comfort, coherence, attractiveness and adaptability’ (TfL, 2014 pp.6-7), which are all necessary aspects for improvement for Cardiff. The key link to implementing these standards is finding the right methodologies will help understand cyclists’ use of space. There currently seems to be no right answer to this, however neighbouring European nations such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam that have successfully implemented more appropriate infrastructure for cycling have opted for observation as a key method. Within the Interviews conducted both Sustrans and Cardiff Council acknowledged that Cardiff as a city could be more cycle friendly with the potential to do so. Sustrans quoted that “a third of the population in Cardiff want to cycle but don not feel they can currently… which is largely due to safety” (Sustrans interview, 2015). This is understandable as in 2013 statistics released by CTC (2015) suggest that there were ‘96,216 bicycle related casualties from 2010-2014, which equates to an average of 19,243 casualties per year. Considering that there roughly 5 million cyclists on UK roads in 2013, this equates to an approximate statistic of 1/ 50 cyclists being involved in the UK over the 5 year period (that we know about)’ (CTC, 2015). Only when quoting these statistics, does the enormity of the ‘shared space issue’ on UK roads become an alarming reality.
45
There is a key argument of dissatisfaction of cycling in the UK, which many relate back to the constraints that are imposed upon cyclists. After analyzing Copenhagen it is evident that dissatisfaction of cycling and constraints do not necessarily go hand-in-hand as the Laws within Demark, if anything may constrain cyclists to a greater degree to oblige to rules than the UK; as it is not uncommon to be presented with ‘on the stop fine or cautions’ (Cycle Guide DK, 2010).
Fig: 10 ‘Map showing Copenhagen’s Cycle Super Highways and other key cycling routes’. Source: (Bredenberg, 2012)
46
Fig: 11 ‘Map showing the Cardiff City Centre cycle routes and laws. ‘For full map see Appendix’ (Source: Keep Cardiff Council, 2010).
However due to the far greater provisions provided to cyclists (See Fig: 10 for Cycle superhighways in Copenhagen) compared to what is seen in Cardiff (See Fig: 11 Cardiff Cycle and Walking Map), constraints in the form of ‘laws’ do not necessarily show correlation with dissatisfaction. This is shown within Copenhagen Bicycle Account 2012 that shows that ‘The citizens of Copenhagen show on average a 95% satisfaction with Copenhagen as a cycling city’ (City of Copenhagen, 2012 p.5). However as Spinney (2008) rightly points out “real life does not solely take place within the confines of the law” (p.95), Spinney then proceeds to talk about London’s cycle routes and mentions that “for cycling to be more effective there needs to be changes in
47
law, policy and industrial practice” (p. 130). This could be said also about as Cardiff Council who also addresses urgency for change as they quoted that cycling is “by no means perfect… we need to do more on a wider scale” (Cardiff Council Interview, 2015).
48
Chapter 5: Analysis
5.1 Why should we not ignore desire lines?
Referring back to a question made earlier on in the dissertation that was, ‘why we should care about understanding qualitative aspects of journey?’ We should care about it not only to afford cyclists and to create a liveable environment through directness and comfort but inevitably to also to increase safety is a key means of why qualitative aspects of journey should be considered. Sustrans and Cardiff Council within the interviews conducted recommends that in terms of methodologies chosen ‘observational and surveys are key methods in analysing cyclists use of space’. Sustrans (2015) in their observational method have taken to a desire line methodology approach as they suggest cycling modelling is ideal as it is “carried out in the same way that you measure flows and volumes of traffic and where cyclists are travelling… [the] empirical data… gives a real understanding of how cyclists are traveling which we haven’t necessarily got at the moment” (Sustrans Interview, 2015). However although Cardiff Council did not clearly state how their observational methods were carried out in Cardiff, they again did suggest that they used cycle modelling to “show what the impact would be on the changes such as impacts on traffic queuing” (Cardiff Council interview, 2015). Modelling tends to rely on observational data to a large degree; therefore to choose an observation related methodology was a certain factor within this dissertation. Desire lines are also gradually becoming a preferred choice of Sustrans, much like what is seen in Copenhagenize Design
49
Company whom operate in Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Brussels, this is due to the versatility of data it produces such as direction of travel and traffic count data (as seen below).
Fig: 12 ‘Average Number of Cyclists per ½ Hour at the Cowbridge Jug Handle Location’
To create a greater understanding Sustrans and Cardiff Council also recommended the use of Surveys, to help understand user needs and to create transparency within planning and design. Through the Active Travel Act, Sustrans has hoped that local authorities to take up the opportunity to “ask people about the barriers that cycling has and where they would like to see improvements… [However] some authorities have carried out exercises where they’ve just asked people to validate their own assessment, which isn’t quite as useful” (Sustrans Interview, 2015). This comment is unintentionally confirmed by Cardiff Council that suggested through filling in surveys and interviews they get cycle bodies to comment and provide useful information that their “own observations simply haven’t picked up” (Cardiff Council, 2015).
50
As an alternative to surveying; within the dissertation a more concise intercept survey technique was chosen which took place at the sites assessed, which as stated by Shaller (2005) in the previous section allowed the researcher to ‘survey the interviewee during the immediate experience’ (p.6). This unlike focus groups and surveys conducted by Cardiff Council, this method gave a greater accuracy in response from the interviewees themselves. An example of this is again shown below:
Table: 14 ‘Intercept Survey Responses at the Woodville Pub Location’
In retrospect the intercept survey and the use of the interview to help analyse the desire line data were ideal as it provided an explanation into different movement as opposed to just seeing where the movements were happening
51
as without these two methods there would be little primary data to explanation in why these movements occurred.
5.2 When and why do cyclists use space in ways other than prescribed?
Fig: 13 ‘Desire Line Map 7-8pm Cowbridge Road 30th September 2015’
Fig: 14 ‘Desire Line Map 4-5pm Woodville Pub Pedestrian Junction 29th September 2015’
52
These examples of a desire line map created as part of the dissertation aims to analyse ‘when and why do cyclists use space in ways other than prescribed? This question has a key focus on areas that are specifically not designated for cyclist use. In the locations analysed in this dissertation movements has been seen that relates back to Fallan’s (2010) notion of descripting. This is because many of the cyclists are seen disobeying the script due to the primary fact that their affordances differ from the ones the designer created and placed in the two locations observed. The Cowbridge Road map indicates use of the pavements by cyclists along with the a number of cyclists avoiding the jug handle which was designed for cyclists but instead taking the direct route over the junction that is currently designed predominately for vehicle use only.
Similarly at the second map for the Woodville Pub Pedestrian Junction the data indicates that many of the desire lines go across the pedestrian path, which does not afford cyclists, as it currently is not a cycling designated path. The Council is currently aware of the situation as they state that:
“We recognise that we do in fact need to do something there. As we know cyclists go across there and we know conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians do occur, which comes up fairly regularly in fact” (Cardiff Council Interview, 2015).
After consulting cyclists regarding the Pedestrian crossing outside the
53
Woodville pub through the method of intercept surveys, of the two cyclists who responded as ‘did not decide to go across the pavement’, would have in other circumstances. The responses were: Interviewee 1
“Would if it were a short cut to where I needed to get to”
Interviewee 10
“I would normally cut across (on his mountain bike) but with this bike I find it more comfortable to go on the road (hybrid bike, with a child seat attachment”
Table: 15 ‘Interviewee 1 and 10 responses Woodville Pub Location’
The responses indicate that directness would be a key factor for travel, however Interviewee 10 also suggests that comfort is also a factor that would alter their judgment and bring into mind how hybridity should play an important part in design not only for the age of the cyclist but also on whether the infrastructure provided affords various types of bikes. To see whether these two key factors were seen elsewhere, the responses were compared to that of the jug handle section through coding. The responses revealed that again a common factor that resulted in 3 of the 5 respondents not using the infrastructure specifically designed for cyclists was because it was more direct not to use the Jug Handle. The responses were as follows:
Interviewee 2
“Easier to go straight”
Interviewee 4
“I would say I’m an good cyclist, I’ve never used this kind of cycle path and I don’t intend to any time soon”
Interviewee 5
“I can understand the appeal but it’s not for me”
Table: 16 ‘Interviewee 2, 4 and 5 responses Cowbridge Road Location’
54
The results from the intercept survey of both locations coincide with what is being seen within the desire line maps. For the Cowbridge Road location, the number of cyclists that could have used the Jug Handle but chose not to stood at 108 over a 6.5-hour period. What was noteworthy however that was picked up throughout the day Cowbridge Road was that many of the cyclists that were cycling on the pavement initially decided not to join the jug handle section but to instead cycle across the pedestrian crossing instead.
Fig: 15 ‘Partly enlarged image of a Desire Line Map 7-8pm Cowbridge Road 30th September 2015’
The sort of movement seen in Fig: 15 could be explained by Pooley et al (2013) research that identified three main factors of why people may alter their travel habits such as type of vehicle chosen and the way in which they travel. The three factors are “concerns about safety (risk), family responsibilities (relatives) and how walking or cycling may be perceived by
55
others (reputation)” (Pooley et al, 2013 p.71 cited in Holdsworth, 2015a). In this case risk and reputation could have been the two potential factors, risk could have deterred potential cyclists joining onto the jug handle as, as seen in the image below there is in fact no drop curve onto the jug handle itself if you were in fact joining onto it from the pavement. Another risk is the sharp right-angled bend of the jug handle; whilst collecting the desire line data it became clear that many of the novice riders struggled to get around the sharp bend with ease. The final risk was not in fact to the cyclist but to the bike. Whilst inspecting the Jug Handle it was clear that it doesn’t appear to be swept regularly causing glass to build up that could potentially cause punctures.
Fig: 16 ‘The Jug Handle along Cowbridge Road’
56
Fig: 17 ‘Broken Glass covers the Jug Handle on Cowbridge Road’
The other factor that is ‘reputation’, comes down to personal opinion. Personally, the researcher understood why some people may not want to use this jug handle, as he limited space made you feel confined between the boulder and the pavement and in some ways out of place using the infrastructure provided especially if it was raining. The lack of affordance the infrastructure at the two locations provided resulted in definite de-scription by the cyclists to afford their own needs. The aspect of attitude that was less considered before collecting data also proved to have an impact on the way people negotiate the urban environment. Hopefully with documents such as TfL’s ‘London Cycling Design Standards six-point checklist’ and ‘Active Travel Act Wales’ will help acknowledge the need of cyclists that will gradually be understood as Sustrans states in an interview that:
57
“Hopefully it will not take 30 years, but I think its recognition that the more that we can make walking and cycling an activity that you do every day, for going to school or for going to work that the changing cultural attitude will come easier� (Sustrans, 2015).
The desire lines of different ages were analysed in order to assess whether there was any correlation on whether age influenced the obedience of the script. However after processing the results no significant results stood out to suggest this, which is important to consider on further studies as although cycling improvements will take a long time the understanding of who, when and why do cyclists use space in ways other than prescribed is always important in the progression of planning practice. What was noticed about age however was how, from the data gathered there seems to be a greater number of 18-24 year old that cycle within Cardiff. This is seen not only within Woodville Road location that has a large university student housing occupancy level but also in the Cowbridge Road location that has a significantly older average age living within the area. The data reveals that almost a third of the cyclists at this location were 18- 24, which when combined with 25-34 age range made up more than two-thirds of the cyclists on the 30th September. This indicates a much more condensed majority cycling range than expected.
What was also, astonishing to find within the research was that there were very few under 17 cyclists on the road. With figures indicating that only 17, under 17 year old cyclists were recorded cycling out of 1,378 at both
58
locations. This statistic show that little is currently done to promote cycling to younger generations or that the younger generation feel generally unsafe to ride on the roads. Sustrans (2015), have suggested that they are trying to designing cycle lanes to accommodate 12 years and up, however until this becomes a reality we may carry on seeing very few under 17 cyclists on Cardiff roads in years to come.
5.3 How could we better accommodate cyclist movement in urban areas?
There is a strong link between how we can better accommodate cyclists and how we understand their movements as understanding will inevitable help accommodate. From the desire line data collected there seems to be evident desire lines that currently do not afford cyclists. This is in fact predominantly seen within the Woodville Pub location as seen at the top of the following page:
59
Fig: 18 ‘Desire Line Map 8.45-9.15pm Woodville Pub Pedestrian Junction 29th September 2015’
From these images here it is clear that the physical script does not afford the movement of the cyclists. The data shown above identifies lack of planning consideration that has been made for ‘directness’ of travel for cyclists. The intercept surveys conducted in this particular location reveled that half of the respondents specifically mentioned some sort of cycle path going across the current pedestrian crossing. This would not only afford cyclists but also resolve the current issue that persists which is pedestrian/cyclists conflict. Interviewee 9 for the Woodville Pub location revealed, “I see some people getting pushed to the side sometimes so maybe a more room for cyclists to go across” (Interviewee 9, 2015). A greater bottom-up approach that Intercept Survey seems to call for would ideally help achieve a more suitably planned space. This is an idea that Cardiff Council aim to achieve in the near future. As previously mentioned the Council calls for more individuals and groups to come forward to help “get a better idea of what people want in Cardiff” (Cardiff
60
Council Interview, 2015). This will help strengthen relations between citizens and government, but also help better accommodate cyclists’ movement, as currently it can be argued as based on the evidence of interviewees at the Cowbridge Road Jug Handle section that rather unnecessary infrastructure are in fact ignoring the affordances of cyclists.
Fig: 19 ‘Desire Line Map 7-8pm Cowbridge Road 30th September 2015’
The image above clearly shows cyclists using the Jug Handle Section at hand however the figures shows that out of the 21 cyclists that could have used the infrastructure provided 18 chose to ignore the jug handle and carried on across the junction. This suggests that the level of affordance for this infrastructure did not match the users’ requirements. In order to design cycling infrastructure there are a number of suggestions by academics and examples that could result in an urban infrastructure that could better accommodate cyclists.
61
Currently within Cardiff and many other urban cites have used some form of computerized master plans, which use modeling, traffic flow projections, data and statistics’. Sustrans (2015) suggest is the way forward in cycle and pedestrian planning with cities such as such as Seattle leading the way by releasing their new Bicycle Master Plan in April 2015. Colville-Andersen (2013) however believes this to be a ‘large waste of money and instead suggests a better way of planning is observational approach.’ Within an interview Colville-Andersen (2013) implies also that ‘temporary infrastructures allow analysis to take place to examine whether an infrastructure is being used as intended or not.’ A famous example of a temporary infrastructure succeeding is the pedestrianisation of Times Square emplaced by Sadik-Khan in 2009. This proved to be effective as it kept the cost to a minimum and allowed planners and designers to better accommodate before construction of the finished designs. In the case of the Jug handle on Cowbridge Road judging by the figures provided there could have been potential alternative that could have accommodated cyclists to a greater extent, such as adding a visible cycle lane to the junction before the addition of the Jug Handle, an idea that currently exists to allow vehicles to clearly see cycle lanes and give cyclists confidence when traveling across junctions as seen in Fig: 20.
62
Fig: 20 ‘Blue Cycle Lanes on junctions’ (Durning, 2007)
5.4 How can understanding movement contribute to a liveable city agenda?
Coming away from the concise view and looking at the broader picture, we ask ‘how this understanding we see in front of us can in fact contribute to a liveable city agenda.’ Relating back to literature review, it was revealed that the liveability index of liveability index of the UK was very poor. The understanding that we have gathered through the primary and secondary data
63
that the dissertation has addressed that liveability in terms travel is not driven by journey time, cost and distance but in fact how the journey makes us feel, the quality of journey. The understanding that we have gathered here will help hopefully rethink the way we plan cities, unlike the 1960s that is dubbed the ‘the era of radical concrete’ (Heyden, 2014) we are gradually entering an era where we start to want to not only accommodate the population but also to create an environment that is actually fit for habitation.
Intercept survey showed insight into how various factors alter our day-to-day journey experience. With a greater bottom-up approach in governance, Cardiff can start to build stronger relationships with its citizens and focus on areas that are in need of change rather than areas that are predicted to need improvement. As shown the data needed to make a decisive judgement can be collected through observational methods reinforced with interviews and intercepts surveys of all ages are vital to create a liveable environment for all to enjoy.
Interview with Cardiff Council and Sustrans revealed that the Council could do more to creating better infrastructure that affords the users. Currently there seems to be a lack of communication between Cardiff Council and Sustrans (who are sub-contracted in to collect data) on a number of key aspects that would create a better cycle journey. An example of one of these key difference was seen following the interviewers question of ‘when designing cycle lanes, routes and roads do you have any particular group of cyclist (skill
64
level, age and size) in mind or is it based on a standard measurement of bike? To which Cardiff Council responded by stating: “If you look at the active travel design guidance… [In Cardiff] we are trying to do the best for every type of cyclist… We certainly wouldn’t have had cargo bikes or recumbent cyclists in mind especially when designing the Jug Handle… were trying to build the best solution to fit the most amount of people” (Cardiff Council Interview, 2015).
This quote again shows little clarity for which users they are designing for or have in mind. As opposed to this vague statement, Sustrans seem to have a fixed idea by stating that they are actually designing for:
“Someone who is around 12 years of age to cycle independently… we bared in mind that when we we’re auditing that if you were a child going to school at the age of 11 is it suitable for you to walk and cycle? When it comes to a standard measurement of bike… we take in account adapted bikes with trailers and making sure it refers to the equalities act” (Sustrans Interview, 2015).
This underpins a key misunderstanding of whom the users are planners are in fact designing for. Inevitably this type of misunderstanding can lead to illdesigned structures that would negatively impact the creation of a liveable environment. In order to eliminate this a better understanding within government is in dire need along with transparency for the public to input their
65
suggestions in various schemes, which will help contribute towards a liveable city agenda. The desire line data revealed that the method is an ideal tool as the real life assessment allows the researcher to gather information that most possibly would not be available online. The Cowbridge Road Jug Handle location desire line data revealed that in some cases over engineering could in fact occur that in this case have little impact on cyclists, as seen in this location. A recent plan in London such as ‘Lord Foster’s SkyCycle’ has been criticised by Colville-Andersen (2014), who states that People are “not interested in ‘magpie architecture’ – trying to attract people to big, shiny things that dazzle but that have little functional value” (Colville-Andersen, 2014). This shows that when constructing infrastructure, sometimes the simplest solutions could end up affording cyclists to the greatest degree, as over complicated infrastructure, like the two mentioned often do not afford cyclists in the desired way. For all Desire Line Maps, Interviews and Intercept Surveys, see Appendices
66
Chapter 6: Conclusion
6.1 How can we understand cyclist movement in urban space?
The analysis brought up interesting discoveries to light in the way people travel within the urban environment and how the infrastructure created does not necessarily afford the intended users which helped answer the question, ‘how can we understand cyclist movement in urban space? The analysis of why users navigated across these junctions helped myself the researcher understand how various factors can alter the way in which user (the cyclists) decide to travel. Referring back to the ideas of Wang et al (2016), ‘their ideas of barriers (opportunity, safety, accessibility and distance and physical setting) summaries nicely what would supposedly create a better bikeabilty’ (p.4), however as assessed during this dissertation there currently is a vital gap in how steps are taken within transport planning especially due to the primary reason that there is a distinct lack of observational methods used in the assessment currently.
Although the current legal system, affords cyclists to a certain degree, in order to take transport planning to the next level it is recommended not only based upon this dissertation but from academics in various other European countries such as Gehl (2010) and Colville-Andersen (2013), that suggest that the only real means of understanding people’s movements is only achieved by observing them. However as mentioned 5.4, the fundamental floor of miscommunication between Sustrans and Cardiff Council could prove costly
67
as this acts as a barrier in development in achieving better transportation links for cyclists. Within the policy recommendations in 7.3, the need for better communication within Government and between Government and the general population is reiterated, as without this simple step moving forward becomes an increasingly hard role in the understanding of how cyclists move within urban environment.
6.2 Vehicle or pedestrian?
The other main research questions within this dissertation aimed to discover ‘whether cyclists therefore should be classed as a vehicle or a pedestrian within the legal framing system?’ The answer is not as simple as stating that cyclists should either is one or the other as Sustrans points out that:
“Cyclists should be seen as a separate mode. It’s not right to simulate them to either vehicles or pedestrians. When you’re cycling you are behaving in a different way and have different needs…although there are a lot of similarities between pedestrians and cyclists, there are some distinct differences as well.” (Sustrans Interview, 2015)
This view presented by Sustrans coincides with the data to large extent as the desire line maps clearly suggest that cyclists use both pedestrian and vehicle routes. However as mentioned previously it can be argued that this movement shown by cyclists simply replicates the ideas of Colville-Andersen (2013) who stated, “cyclists are just fast moving pedestrians”, this is shown to be true as
68
the lines taken by cyclists in most cases were either parallel to or on pedestrian pavements unless there was more direct routes that could be taken. As predicted by Spinney (2015), there was little evidence to support the how the current legal framing system is designed in which vehicles and bicyclists share the same space as cyclists based upon the research is shown to be more similar to pedestrians in their movement than vehicles.
In the researchers opinion, based upon this dissertation and the academic knowledge surrounding it, it has become very clear that cyclists are in fact describing the legal framing that binds them ultimately due to the fact that currently it does not afford them. Therefore it is somewhat clear that as Spinney (2015) suggests that we move away from binding cyclists from the title of ‘vehicle’ and look towards somehow creating separate routes entirely for cyclists or emerging them with pedestrians in a way that affords all.
69
7. Recommendation
7.1 Woodville Pub recommendations
The recommendation for the Woodville Pub location carries a rather complex approach as although from the data collected it clearly shows high cyclist usage, what the desire line maps don’t show is the number of pedestrians that also use the pedestrianized area in front of the Woodville Pub. Therefore there would also have to be considered for pedestrian as well as cyclists before any developments and recommendations can be made as well as considering the surroundings such as businesses in the area (in this case the Woodville Pub). Bearing this in mind a recommendation is shown below:
Fig: 21 ‘Pedestrian Island Recommendation’
70
The reason for the semi-circular shape to the pedestrian island is based upon the desire lines of cyclists. After reviewing the desire line maps created at the Woodville pub location it became apparent that a particular area was not used as much by cyclists as seen in on the 5.45pm-6.15pm desire line map.
Fig: 22 ‘Desire Line Map 5.45-6.15pm Woodville Pub Pedestrian Junction 29th September 2015’
The idea would be that this area would be free of trees and have a open feel to it which would allow the flow of pedestrians to become easier as currently the trees in the particular location pose as a barrier to cyclists and pedestrians alike. Using this pedestrian island a shared crossing combined with more frequent or longer crossing durations in essence would allow cyclists and pedestrians to cross with greater ease and reduce any potential accidents that will contribute to a liveable environment agenda. Alternatively the area could be simply used as a ‘shared space’ with a shared crossing, however
71
questions may arise on whether this would solve the issue on pedestrian/ cyclist conflict, which is mentioned within the intercept surveys.
Fig: 23 ‘Shared Space Concept’
Fig: 23 however does allow for a more open feel to the area that may increase journey satisfaction even if cyclists may need to slow down for pedestrians and other cyclists.
72
7.2 Cowbridge Road recommendation
Fig: 24 ‘Cycling blue line’
The Cowbridge Road Jug Handle has shown on the 30th September to be relatively ineffective for its intended use, as it simply does not afford cyclists and reduces the journey experience. As mentioned previously in section 5.3 and shown in Fig: 24, a trial basis for the blue cycle lane could be implemented to see whether this would not only afford cyclist movement but also have a degree of safety that the Jug Handle aimed to achieve, but giving cyclists legitimised space on the road. This simple yet effective solution that has been proven to work within other cities such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam and therefore could be an alternative solution ideal for this particular junction. The limitation of such solution is that, as blue cycle lines are not seen regularly within the UK it may at first cause issues for this reason the trial basis must be analysed in advance to see the effects of this individual soft infrastructure.
73
7.3 Policy Recommendation
As far as policy recommendations go there is some key policy change that have shown to be effective in increasing satisfaction of travel for cyclists. These are:
1) Greater use of observational methods rather than predictions for future developments that alter the way pedestrians and cyclists may travel. 2) Greater bottom-up approach and communication between government and contracted partners must be achieved that would enable cities to optimise satisfaction of cyclists and pedestrians as seen in other neighbouring European countries such as in Demark. 3) As analysed within this dissertation a consideration into how cyclists are classed should be readdressed due to the rather out-dated laws that still remain within the Highway Act (1835), which confine cyclists as second-class modes of travel on roads.
The researcher believes that these policies in essence help reinstate cycling along UK roads as they once did and subsequently lead to a healthier and happier population.
74
Chapter 8: References AA. 2015. History of motorways: Half a Century of AA Service on Motorways [Online]. Available at: http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/history-ofmotorways.html [Accessed Date: 7 November 2015].
Akrich, M. 1992. The De-Scription of Technical Objects edited by Bijker and Law. USA: Asco Trade Typesetting Ltd. pp.205-224.
Axinn, G. and Lisa, D. 2006. Mixed Method Data Collection Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bredenberg, A. 2012. Bicycle Superhighways -- Pathways to Less Congestion and Healthier Urban Lifestyles? [online]. Available at: http://news.thomasnet.com/imt/2012/01/30/bicycle-superhighways-pathwaysto-less-congestion-and-healthier-urban-lifestyles [Accessed Date: 17 November 2015]. Bryman, A. Social research methods 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cardiff Council. 2010. Keep Cardiff Moving [online]. Available at: http://www.keepingcardiffmoving.co.uk/uploads/documents/194/original/Cardif f2015.pdf?1438684614 [Accessed Date: 14 October 2015].
Cardiff Council. 2013. Cardiff Local Development Plan 2006-2026. Cardiff: Cardiff Council.
Cardiff Council Interview. 2015. Research Interview 14 October 2015. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
Christopher, R. 2010. Desiring Lines: The Path More Travelled [online]. Available at: http://roychristopher.com/a-line-made-by-walking [Accessed Date: 5 September 2015].
City of Copenhagen. 2012. Copenhagen Bicycle Account 2012. Copehagen: The Technical and Environmental Administration.
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). No Date. Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft [online]. Available at: https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial
75
industry/Aircraft/Unmanned-aircraft/Small-unmanned-aircraft/ [Accessed Date: 12 September 2015].
Hennink, M. et al. 2011. Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage. Clough, P. and Nutbrown, C. 2012. A Student’s Guide to Methodology 3rd edition: Justifying Enquiry. London: Sage.
Colville-Andersen, M. 2010. Manholes for Bicycles [online]. Available at: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010_01_01_archive.html [Accessed Date: 3 September 2015].
Colville-Andersen, M. 2013. The Copenhagenize Guide to Liveable Cities [online]. Available at: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013/10/thecopenhagenize-guide-to-liveable.html [Accessed Date: 15 October 2015].
Colville-Andersen. 2015. Oslo Reacts to News of a Better Future [online]. Available at: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2015_10_01_archive.html [Accessed Date: 3 November 2015].
Copenhagenize. 2015. Desire Line Analysis in Copenhagen's City Centre: Bremerholm Kanal, Copenhagen. Available at: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2015/01/desire-line-analysis-incopenhagens.html [Accessed Date: 15 November 2015].
Copenhagenize. 2013a. San Francisco launched its Bike Share [online]. Available at: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013_10_01_archive.html [Accessed Date: 12 November 2015].
Copenhagenize. 2013b. Episode 09 - Desire Lines - Top 10 Design Elements in Copenhagen's Bicycle Culture [online]. Available at: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013/09/episode-09-desire-lines-top-10design.html [Accessed Date: 11 May 2015]. Copenhagenize. 2013c. Islands Brygge - Application of the "Desire lines" [online]. Available at: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013/10/islands-bryggeapplication-of-desire_8.html [Accessed Date: 14 May 2015].
Copenhagenize. 2014. The desire lines of bicycle users in Amsterdam: July 2014. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
76
Creswell, J. 2014. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th edition. California: Sage Publications Inc.
Cross, V. et al. 2006. The Practice-Based Educator: A Reflective Tool for CPD and Accreditation. London: John Wiley and Sons. p.195.
Cycle Guide DK. 2010. Illegal Behaviors [online]. Available at: http://cycleguide.dk/2010/05/illegal-behaviors/ [Accessed Date: 7 October 2015].
Cycling Embassy of Great Britain (CEGB). 2015. Dictionary [online]. Available at: http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/dictionary/D [Accessed date: 3 September 2015].
Department for Transport (DfT). 2011. Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2011. UK: National Statistics.
Department for Transport (DfT). 2014. Reported Road Casualties Great Britain: 2013 Annual Report. UK: Department for Transport.
Durning, A. 2007. Blue Lanes, Cage Locks, and Cyclibrariers [online]. Available at: http://grist.org/article/more-of-what-bike-friendly-looks-like/ [Accessed Date: 30 November 2015].
Elder, J. 2008. Gaston Bachelard: “the poetics of space� and desire paths [online]. Available at: http://shape-and-colour.com/2008/02/29/gastonbachelard-the-poetics-of-space-desire-paths/ [Accessed Date: 14 August 2015].
Elliot, R. and Timulak, L. 2005. Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research. In: Miles, J. and Gilbert, P eds. A Handbook of research methods in clinical and health psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147-159.
Facebook. 2015. Cardiff Cycle City [online]. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/Cardiff-Cycle-City-1410337935899132/?fref=ts [Accessed Date: 3 January 2015]. Fallan, K. De-scribing Design: Appropriating Script Analysis to Design History. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Design Issues: Volume 24, Number 4. pp. 61-75.
77
Festinger et al. 1956.When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. p.138.
Fullerton, B.1975. The Development of British Transport Networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gehl, J. 2010. Cities for People. Washington: Island Press.
Gibson, J. 1986. The Theory of Affordances. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Goldberg, D., Corcoran, M. and Picard, R. 2013. Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems and Journalism. Opportunities and Challenges of Drones in New Gathering. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the study of Journalism.
Hamilton-Baillie, B. 2008. Shared Space: Reconciling people, place and traffic. Built Environment, 2008, Vol.34 (2), pp.161-181.
Hammond, V. and Musselwhite, C. 2013. The Attitudes, Perceptions and Concerns of Pedestrians and Vulnerable Road Users to Shared Space: A Case Study from the UK. Journal of Urban Design, Vol.18 (1). pp. 78-97.
Highway Act. 1835. Rules for Cycling. Chapter 50 (5).
Holdsworth, K. 2015a. Evaluating the vision for a walking and cycling focused urban transport system. Undergraduate Paper, Cardiff University.
Holdsworth, K. 2015b. Based upon transformations currently occurring in Copenhagen, evaluate the role of different forms of evidence in the governance of liveable urban spaces. Undergraduate Paper, Cardiff University.
Kimmel, A. 1988. Ethics and values in applied social research. London: Sage. Kumar, R. 2009. Walkability of Neighbourhoods: A Critical Analysis of Zoning Codes. Masters Paper, University of Cincinnati.
78
London Cycle Campaign (LCC). 2013. City of London shows boroughs the benefits of returning minor one-way streets to two-way cycling [online]. Available at: http://lcc.org.uk/articles/city-of-london-shows-boroughs-thebenefits-of-returning-minor-one-way-streets-to-two-way-cycling [Accessed Date: 12 November 2015].
London Cycle Campaign (LCC). 2015. Cycling: Porterlight Possibilities Talk 20th August 2015. London.
Malone, E. and Crumlish, C. no date. Pave the Cowpaths [online]. Available at: http://designingsocialinterfaces.com/patterns/Pave_the_Cowpaths [Accessed Date: 3 September 2015]. Mead, N. 2015. Should cyclists be allowed to run through red lights? [online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/oct/27/cyclists-run-redlights-paris-london-san-francisco [Accessed Date: 1 November 2015].
Mohun, A. 2001. Designed for Thrills and Safety Amusement Parks and the Commodification of Risk, 1880-1929. Journal of Design History Vol. 14 (4). pp. 291-306.
Norman, D. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books. O’ Grady, 2015. Urban Design Company proposes bicycle desire paths, helmets for car drivers [online]. Available at: http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2015/06/urban-design-company-proposesbicycle-desire-paths-helmets-for-car-drivers/ [Accessed Date: 3 November 2015].
Pooley, C et al. 2013. Policies for promoting walking and cycling in England: A view from the street. Transport Policy (27). pp. 66-72.
Robson, C. 2007. How to do a research project: a guide for undergraduate students. Oxford: Blackwell Publications.
Schaller, B. 2005. On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques: A Synthesis of Transit Practice. Brooklyn: Transit Cooperative Research Program.
Simmons, C. 2011. Just Design: Socially Conscious Design for Critical Causes. Ohio: How books. p.117.
79
Silverman, D. 2011 Qualitative Research 3rd edition. London: Sage. p.153. Smale, W. 2016. Pedal Power – The unstoppable growth of cycling [online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35101252 [Accessed Date: 4 January 2016].
Southworth, M. 2005. Designing the Walkable City. Journal of Urban Planning Division. Volume 131, Number 4. pp. 246-257.
Spinney, J. 2008. Cycling the City: movement, meaning and practice. PhD Thesis, Royal Holloway.
Sustrans. 2015. Bike Life Cardiff Report 2015. Cardiff: Cardiff Council.
Sustrans Interview. 2015. Research Interview: 30 November 2015. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
TfL. 2014. London Cycling Design Standards Draft for Consultation June 2014. London: Trasport for London.
The Economist. 2015. The world’s most ‘liveable cities [online]. Available at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/daily-chart-5 [Accessed Date: 6 November 2015]. The National Cycling Charity (CTC). 2015. CTC Cycling Statistics [online]. Available at: http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/ctc-cycling-statistics [Accessed Date: 29 October 2015].
Tight, M et al. 2011. Visions for a walking and cycling focused urban transport system. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (6), pp. 1580–1589. Tjandra, N. and Darnton. G. 2011. The Proceedings of the 10th eurpoean Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies edited by Marie Ashwin. Frace: Academic Conference Limited. p. 524.
Tolley. R. 2008. Ubiquitous, Everyday Walking and Cycling: The Acid Test of a Sustainable Transport Policy. A New Deal for Transport? Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp.178-197.
80
UCLTI. 2014. Briefing note, March 2014 Liveable Cities A transport perspective. London: UCL Transport Institute, pp. 1-4. Wang, Y. et al. 2016. A review on the effects of physical built environment attributes on enhancing walking and cycling activity levels within residential neighborhoods. Cities (50). pp. 1-15.
Woodcock, G. 2009. Measuring up?: assessing the Liveability of Australian Cities. Queensland: Griffith University.
81
Chapter 9: Appendices
Intercept Survey at Woodville Pub location Questions Asked
•
What (estimated) age?
• •
What type of bike? Why did you decide/ not decide to go across the pavement? How would you like to see it improved?
• Responses
Interviewee 1
• • •
Interviewee 2
•
18-24 Road Bike Did not – Would if it were a short cut to where I need to get to Bike pathway
• • • •
18-24 Hybrid Bike Did - Trying to catch up with friends Dangerous at the moment would like to see some sort of solution such as pathway to go across
• • • •
25-34 City Bike Did - Save Time Pedestrian problem, segregation from cyclists and pedestrians
• • • •
18-24 Mountain Bike Did - Easier to cross than to go around More slanted curb to help cyclists and anything else that require a ramp
• • • •
18-24 Mountain Bike Did - Save Time Maybe more clearance, so much glass left on the pavement
•
35-49
Interviewee 3
Interviewee 4
Interviewee 5
Interviewee 6
82
• • •
Hybrid Bike Did - To go the pub (Woodville Pub) Some sort of clear cycle pathway so that cyclists don’t have to dismount to cross the paved area
• • • •
18-24 Road Bike Did - Short cut to go home Clear the trees
• • •
18-24 Hybrid Bike Did - It gets really congested sometimes so I go round the block but I went across today just to save time Widen the paved area and clear it so it’s nicer
Interviewee 7
Interviewee 8
Interviewee 9
• • • • •
18-24 Hybrid Bike Did - To save time I see some people getting pushed to the side sometimes so maybe a more room for cyclists to go across
• • •
50+ Hybrid with child seat attachment Did not - I would normally cut across (on his mountain bike) but with this bike I find it more comfortable to go on the road Definitely pathways for bikes and maybe a general clear up in the area, there’s always litter around here
Interviewee 10
•
Appendix: 1 ‘Intercept Survey responses at the Woodville Pub location’
Intercept Survey at Cowbridge Road location Questions Asked
• • • •
What age? What type of bike? Why did you go decide to use/not use the jug handle section? How would you like to see it improved?
83
Responses
Interviewee 1
• • •
• Interviewee 2
• • • •
Interviewee 3
• • • •
Interviewee 4
• • •
•
25-34 Mountain Bike Used the Jug Handle section – I was confused about this bit. I’ve never been here before. (Researchers note: He later explained that he didn’t really know which way he was going therefore he decided to take the jug handle section) Its good how it is, more crossings maybe 18-24 Mountain Bike Did not use the Jug Handle section – Easier to go straight Would like to see improvements, as it’s unnatural to cycle that way (for adults) 25-34 Hybrid Bike Did use the Jug Handle section - It’s a lot safer to go around the Jug Handle A lot of time waiting for those lights to change, would like to see them change quicker 35-49 Road Bike Did not use the Jug Handle section – I would say I’m an experienced cyclist, I’ve never used this kind of cycle path and I don’t intend to any time soon There’s a lot of traffic around here that’s the only issue for me really
Interviewee 5
• • • •
18-24 Road Bike Did not use the Jug Handle section – I can understand the appeal but it’s not for me Wider cycle lanes
Appendix: 2 ‘‘Intercept Survey responses at the Cowbridge Road location’
84
Cardiff Council Interview 14/10/15 Interviewer: In the upgrade or creation of new routes around Cardiff are cyclist expected to conform to what cars do or are they seen more as pedestrian? Interviewee: I think we try to create routes that are useful for cyclists and what we’ve done in the last few years is create a Strategic Network Plan. This identified core routes for cyclists across the city and then that work identified different schemes to provide facilities for cyclists. The evidence base for that plan included some social market research, which identified segments of the population where there may be people (higher concentrations of people) that social marketing data would tell you that have a higher propensity to ride a bike as a lifestyle choice. This informed route planning where we identified some of the routes and from that more detailed identification of schemes to put things right, create facilities such as improving junctions and different ways of creating different connective routes and stitching together a whole network.
So in the context of that question. I suppose we’re trying to reengineer or rearrange by in large what we do on the carriageway and making changes for cyclists. We are looking to tip things in favour of the cyclist and to do this, we are making positive provisions for cyclists so that essentially car drivers that use the same space are giving greater respect to cyclists and that cyclists have a greater degree of formally designated space and I think also symbolically it conveys a certain level of entitlement. There is some phycology going on with that. It’s not a perfect solution.
Interviewer: Before upgrading new roads, is there primary data collection methods used such as desire lines in order to understand where cyclists are travelling better? Interviewee: Yes, we do, do that. Interviewer: Desire Lines as well? Interviewee: Yes. We will undertake surveys to establish where we need to take highway space and reallocate it to cyclists or we need to change the staging on traffic signals to fit in a cycle or pedestrian crossing. Then we would need to assess the impact on the junction, which would be done with modelling to show what the impact would be on the changes such as impacts on traffic queuing which is not necessarily a problem and whilst doing this we would be making note of what the traffic flows are along that section of carriageway and not in all cases but in some look at cycle and pedestrian counts as well. Either for the purposes of the scheme or we might use fairly recent counts that have been done which are still up to date enough to inform the design work.
85
We would do this to inform our own thinking, such as when asking a question like ‘How would we get cyclists from A to B here?’, ‘How can we get cyclists across this junction and onto the other side of the road?’. We might have our own ideas of how cyclists should do that but we’re not always the experts, so in addition to data gathering we try and consult with cycling groups and the public at large to get their view on the matter. Generally we have a cycling liaison group, where we have different cycling bodies that are represented. They’re generally keen cyclists, so a lot of them like the details of the scheme and are very keen to comment on them and very often that information is useful, as it will result in us making changes to something we may have overlooked. This might be a pattern of use that our own observations simply hasn’t picked up and there may be the way someone uses their driveway or there’s a car that regularly parked somewhere that may cause problems down the line, so its these kind of local things we look out for. However, generally we are informed by empirical data. Interviewer: When it comes to prioritization of various vehicle types within areas such as Cathays, does the general population (age/type of employment/ education/ gender) living in the area affect the way routes are planned? Interviewee: Are you aware of Cardiff Cycling City? Interviewer: Not at all. Interviewee: It’s not a constituted body, it’s sort of a Facebook Group that has set itself up as a umbrella body for cycling interests and in certain aspects it wants to be a lot broader than other organisations such as Cardiff Cycling Campaign, that does represent a very narrow small constituency; whereas Cardiff Cycling City is trying to represent the whole spectrum of cycling interests. They produced a 10-point cycling manifesto that they would like to see and one of the points was a cycling hub. So they are very keen on that and they are also keen on street cycle hire. We need the public to fill in our surveys so we get a better idea of what people want in Cardiff. Interviewer: When designing cycle lanes, routes and roads do you have any particular group of cyclist (skill level, age and size) in mind or is it based on a standard measurement of bike? Interviewee: Who do we design for? If you look at the active travel design guidance, it does define the cyclists they design for. In Cardiff, what we are trying to do is try and achieve the best possible solution within the highway environment. I think generally we are trying to do the best for every type of cyclist. Interviewer: The roads aren’t designed for recumbent cyclists or cargo bikes though are they?
86
Interviewee: No. Definitely not. We certainly wouldn’t have had cargo bikes or recumbent cyclists in mind especially when designing the Jug Handle. This illustrates the point when you’re trying to retrofit infrastructure into an existing historic environment. Historic in the sense it’s long established; there are pretty well established users and uses, which were trying to build the best solution to fit the most amount of people. With Cathays Terrace/ Column Road, were trying to make those streets more comfortable for the cyclists who are sufficiently confident and already riding on those roads and make it more pleasant. Instead of riding once or twice a week they may ride five days a week now, but it also makes other cyclists take their baby steps and cycle more as it’s a lot better than it used to be. The same goes for Column Road and Cowbridge Road to a certain degree. Is it perfect? No. What is perfect is where you have segregation, so that you’re not delayed and taking long detours and you don’t feel nervous and feel that you can get on and cycle without the worry or inconvenience. So no, with this network there are no uniform solutions and all the corridors are different with their different issues. Therefore we try and achieve the best possible solution; on road or off-road. In the case or either or, if we can provide a on road solution to a high standard as an off-road shared solution could result in conflict and reduce commuter time we won’t. It is a case, of looking at each case, focusing on its merits and looking at the localized conditions and constraints. [Interviewee Phone call interruption] Recumbent Bikes, generally they don’t come into our thinking. We try and do our best for the broadest spectrum really. Baring in mind you wouldn’t want your 12 year old on certain streets in Cardiff even if you have fairly wide cycle lanes. I guess parents perceive it to be dangerous; I’m a real strong advocate for cycling, I try and cycle every day. I have a 8 year old, who rides a bike really well. I’m scared to escort him onto the roads. I want him to have cycle training; which we do provide through primary schools. Generally there is a cut of point, it ends suddenly, so either you’ve picked it up or you don’t, which is where a lot of girls fall through, which is an issue. I think probably we could do a lot more, in terms of doing more intensive cycle training through school, but obviously it will cost a lot of money. Appendix: 3 ‘key extracts from the Cardiff Council Interview conducted on 14/10/15’
87
Sustrans Interview 30/11/15 Interviewer: In the upgrade or creation of new routes around Cardiff do you believe cyclist should be expected to conform to what cars do or should they be seen more as pedestrian? Interviewee: Basically, cyclists should be seen as a separate mode. It’s not right to simulate them to either vehicles or pedestrians. When you’re cycling you are behaving in a different way and have different needs, which is what the active travel design guide highlights and advises those who are involved in the designing of routes. Although there are a lot of similarities between pedestrians and cyclists, there are some distinct differences as well so it’s important that you recognize that when you are designing or creating new routes. Interviewer: When analyzing the creation of new cycle routes what primary data collection methods should be used order to understand cyclist movement? Interviewee: I think there is some interesting being work done by Cardiff University looking at cycling modelling, which is carried out in the same way that you measure flows and volumes of traffic and where cyclists are travelling and I think it’s really exciting because I think it appeals to engineers as well as they like that kind of empirical data but also it also gives a real understanding of how cyclists are traveling which we haven’t necessarily got at the moment. Interviewer: I saw within the Bike Life report that many people suggesting they would like to cycle but haven’t, how is that number going to decrease? Interviewee: I think that has been one of the key statistics to come out of the document as to have almost a third of the population in Cardiff wanting to cycle but not feeling they can currently. I think there’s a recognition that is largely due to safety and so hopefully, what we hope the council will be thinking is that through their network planning for their integrated network map and their new cycle strategy. Through that they will focus particularly on safety and how to address that because it’s quite well known that the perception of safety is different to the actual risks so it’s differentiating between what is perception and what is actually the reality and what people expect. I think people have said things like, they prefer traffic free paths or segregated paths as opposed to being on road but obviously there’s a challenge in an urban environment where your trying to retro-fit the opportunities for traffic free or segregated are harder so it’s a balancing act. I guess our thing to the local authority would be that they should go out and gage with those groups who are not cycling, they’ve got good relationship with Sustrans, Cardiff Cycling City, there’s also Cardiff Cycle Campaign and other groups, but they need to find those groups who aren’t cycling, to talk to and find out what their concerns are. Interviewer: It would be also interesting to find out the attitudes of car users as well, it will be a long process maybe not a 10-year process more like a 30 year one.
88
Interviewee: Well hopefully it will not take 30 years, but I think its recognition that the more that we can make walking and cycling an activity that you do every day, for going to school or for going to work that the changing cultural attitude will come easier than if walking and cycling is promoted as a leisure activity that you do in your spare time. There is a lot of understanding around cyclist behaviour and why they do the things they do, you often have pedestrians say you can’t have cyclists cycling on the pavement, however you can in certain situations it’s been made legal. Similarly you get drivers who say why they can’t just be on pavements and even though when you have cycle routes alongside of a road, you have road cyclists who would call themselves road cyclists. It will take a long time, but if we can make it an everyday activity then that will ease that. Interviewer: In the designing stage of cycle lanes, routes and roads do you have any particular group of cyclist (skill level, age and size) in mind or should it be based on a standard measurement of bike? Interviewee: When we talk about cyclists there is a whole range of different cyclists, even in this office we’re all slightly different when we’re on our bikes but when we designed the national cycle network there is a general understanding that your designing it for someone who is around 12 years of age to cycle independently. So when we were doing some work around the active travel act, the local authorities commissioned us to work with them, we bared in mind that when we we’re auditing that if you were a child going to school at the age of 11 is it suitable for you to walk and cycle? When it comes to a standard measurement of bike, again the Active Travel Act talks about user needs, we take in account adapted bikes with trailers and making sure you inclusively so it refers to the equalities act. We’ve also had strong policy against putting in barriers as they kind of are the last resort and we’ve developed a framework where we assess what the problem is and apply an appropriate solution. Whereas what usually happens is that you get a particular resident or a group of residents who think strongly about an issue that may exaggerate an issue leading to a barrier being emplaced where one or two motorcyclists may have caused the issue where many people may have been legitimately been using that route with no harm. Therefore it’s making sure the remedy is appropriate to problem and similarly those two things go hand in hand. The local authority sees it as a conflict but it’s really about understanding who the users are and designing for them, rather than designing to exclude people. Appendix: 4 ‘key extracts from the Sustrans Interview conducted on 30/11/15’
89
90
91
92
93
Complete Desire Line Data Maps Location: (Cowbridge Road East/ Wellington Street/ Neville Street) Jug Handle Junction, next to CF11 9BN – 30th September 2015 And (Cathays Terrace/ Corbett Road/ Senghennydd Road/ Woodville Road) Pedestrian Junction, next to CF24 4DW – 29th September 2015
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112