The Built Environment & Transit Users’ Experience at
Semi-outdoor Emerald Express bus rapid transit stations MS in Architecture - Thesis Presentation By Sundas M. Rasool
Thesis Committee Dr. Mark L Gillem (Chairperson)
| Jeff A. Kline (Member ) | Marc Schlossberg (Member)
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS CONTEXT QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONCLUSIONS RESEARCH ABSTRACT
This research studied the relationship between transit users’ travel experience and the built environment bus rapid transit (BRT) stations. The study recorded attributes of the built environment and user perceptions at eight Emerald Express stations between Eugene and Springfield, Oregon as case studies. It found that of the attributes studied, transit users’ satisfactions of pedestrian accessibility had strong correlations with their preference of using EmX over a car. It also found that users perceived stations in built environments with spare street shading and commercial land-uses as less safe, and were also less satisfied with weather protection at stations with low street shading. The study found Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) and Predicted Mean Votes (PMV) to mostly identify the same categories of thermal stress. The study developed a rating system to evaluate station performance based on quantitative attributes and suggests short and long term improvements to improve semi-outdoor bus stations.
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS CONTEXT QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS CONTEXT QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
628 KM 2016 (BRTDATA.ORG)
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS CONTEXT QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS CONTEXT QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
(https://commons.wikimedia.org)
KNOWLEDGE GAP FRAMEWORK LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS CONTEXT QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND Research Area Transit Use & Built Environment around transit stations
Thermal Comfort at semi-outdoor transit stations / transitional spaces
Authors Schlossberg et al. (2013); Ewing and Cervero (2010); Handy et al. (2002)
Matzarakis et al. (2006); Nakano et al. (2006); Cook et al. (2003); Spagnolo et al. (2003); Hui et al. (2014); Ghaddar et al. (2011); Potvin (2000); Chun et al. (2005); Chun and Tamura (2004); Goshayeshi et al. (2013); Bryan (2001); Matzarakis et al. (1997); Nikolopoulou et al. (2001); Thorsson et al. (2004). Iseki et al. 2007
User Perceptions at Transit Stations
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND Research Area
Authors Schlossberg et al. (2013); Ewing and
Transit Use & Built Environment around transit stations
Thermal Comfort at semi-outdoor transit stations / transitional spaces
Cervero (2010); Handy et al. (2002)
Matzarakis et al. (2006); Nakano et al. (2006); Cook et al. (2003); Spagnolo et al. (2003); Hui et al. (2014); Ghaddar et al. (2011); Potvin (2000); Chun et al. (2005); Chun and Tamura (2004); Goshayeshi et al. (2013); Bryan (2001); Matzarakis et al. (1997); Nikolopoulou et al. (2001); Thorsson et al. (2004).
The Built Environment & Transit Users’ Experience
Iseki et al. 2007
User Perceptions at Transit Stations
Attributes of Built Environment
User Perceptions
(QUANTITATIVE)
(QUALITATIVE)
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
CASE STUDY SITES
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND EmX STATION TYPES
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
WHAT? 1. User Satisfaction & Preference of EmX 2. Attributes of the Built Environment & User Satisfactions at stations 3. Identify attributes that need improvement at stations 4. User thermal comfort at stations (Seasonal) 5. Add to existing research
WHO CARES? Transit Agencies, Architects, Urban Planners, Designers and Researchers
LIMITATIONS OBJECTIVES DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
• Attributes of the Built Environment studied : 1. Accessibility 2. Diversity 3. Density 4. Design (Ewing & Cervero, 2010) • User Perceptions studied related to attributes : 1. Accessibility 2. Weather Protection 3. Safety (Iseki et al., 2007) 4. Amenities
LIMITATIONS OBJECTIVES DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
• Attributes of the Built Environment studied : 1. Accessibility 2. Diversity 3. Density 4. Design (Ewing & Cervero, 2010) • User Perceptions studied related to attributes : 1. Accessibility 2. Weather Protection 3. Safety (Iseki et al., 2007) 4. Amenities • Survey Response Rates • Thermal Comfort Comparisons
QUESTIONS LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
RESEARCH CONCERNS
1. How do users’ satisfaction with accessibility, safety, weather protection and amenities at the stations
correlate to their preference of EmX?
FRAMEWORK The Built Environment & Transit Users’ Experience
User Perceptions Attributes
Satisfaction
of the Built Environment Modal Preference
QUESTIONS LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
RESEARCH CONCERNS
FRAMEWORK The Built Environment & Transit Users’ Experience
2. How do users’ satisfaction with station attributes correlate to the attributes of built environment at semi-outdoor EmX BRT stations? a. Safety Attributes of the Built Environment (Expand later)
b. Weather Protection c. Accessibility
Attributes of the Built Environment
User Perceptions
QUESTIONS LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
RESEARCH CONCERNS
FRAMEWORK The Built Environment & Transit Users’ Experience
3. How do users’ perceptions of importance and satisfaction identify the priority and need for improvement among station attributes?
User Perceptions Attributes
Satisfaction
Importance
of the Built Environment
Improvement Need
QUESTIONS LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
RESEARCH CONCERNS
FRAMEWORK The Built Environment & Transit Users’ Experience
4. How do the thermal assessment indices Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) and Predicted Mean Votes (PMV) identify categories of users’ thermal stress across semi-outdoor EmX BRT stations?
Attributes
UTCI & PMV
Thermal Comfort
User Perceptions
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
The Built Environment & Transit users’ experience
Attributes Accessibility
Diversity
Attributes Density Design (Ewing & Cervero, 2010)
User Perceptions
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY
PEDESTRIAN CATCHMENT ZONE RATIOS
(Schlossberg et al. 2013)
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND DIVERSITY
LAND-USE
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND DENSITY
POPULATION DENSITY
- 10805
- 1474
- 21002
- 4024
- 64478
- 6673
- 98933
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND DESIGN SKY VIEW FACTOR (SVF)
STREET GEOMETRY
CANOPY SHADE
Dads’ Gates Station High Street Station
64 % 17
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND DESIGN PARAMETER D,E
B
C
THERMAL ENVIRONMENT UNITS
INSTRUMENT
Air Velocity (Va)
m/s
REED SD-4214 Thermo-anemometer Data logger
Air Temperature (Ta)
o
Relativ e Humidity (RH)
%
HOBO U12 data logger weather protected in a solar radiation shield
Globe Temperature (Tg) Mean Radiant Temperature (Tmrt)
oC
Globe thermometer attached to a HOBO U12 data logger
C
đ?‘‡đ?‘šđ?‘&#x;đ?‘Ą =
�� + 273.15
4
1.1 Ă— 108 đ?‘‰đ?‘Ž0.6 + Ă— đ?‘‡đ?‘” − đ?‘‡đ?‘Ž đ?œ€đ??ˇ0.4
1Τ 4
− 273.15
(Lai et al., 2014; Thorsson et al., 2007; Kuehn et al.1970)
Metabolic Activity (met)
1.2 met Standing, relaxed person (ASHRAE HANDBOOK)
Clothing Lev el (Clo)
Seasonal (ASHRAE HANDBOOK)
Portable Weather Station
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND QUESTIONS DESIGN
THERMAL COMFORT
PREDICTED MEAN VOTES (PMV)
High Street Station
RayMan
Summer June July Aug 0.74
0.78
-0.48
Sep
Fall Oct
Nov
-1.64
-1.56
-2.54
Dec
Winter Jan
Feb
Spring March
-1.91
-1.85
-1.42
-1.55
Feb
Spring March
7.66
15.71
(Matzarakis et al. 2000)
UNIVERSAL THERMAL CLIMATE INDEX (UTCI) Summer June July High Street Station
25.16
25.16
BioKlima (Blazejczyk,
Aug
Sep
Fall Oct
20.85
14.58
14.53
Jendritzky, and Brรถde 2013)
Nov
Dec
Winter Jan
10.59
6.21
7.01
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
The Built Environment & Transit users’ experience
User Perceptions Accessibility
Attributes
User Weather Perceptions Protection Safety Amenities (Iseki et al., 2007)
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND PERCEPTIONS
SURVEY TOOL
Trip Frequency
Trip mode
Demography
Amenity Weather Protection
Satisfaction & Importance
Safety Accessibility (Iseki et al., 2007)
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND PERCEPTIONS
SURVEY RESPONSES
High Street Station Hilyard Station
Dads’ Gates Station Agate Station Walnut Station
Glenwood Station Lexington Station McVay Station
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND IMPORTANCE - SATISFACTION ANALYSIS
PERCEPTIONS
Importance Satisfaction Analysis at High Street Station
90%
Very Good
100% 1- WELL SATISFIED
2- PRIORITIZE MAINTENANCE
80%
WEATHER PROTECTION
Less Important
Very Important
60%
SAFETY
50% 40%
Seating Lighting AMENITIES Information
30% 20% 4- LOW PRIORITY
3- IMPROVE
10%
ACCESS
Poor
Satisfaction Rating
70%
0% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50% Importance Rating
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND 1.
How do users’ satisfaction with accessibility, safety, weather protection and amenities at EmX stations correlate to their preference of EmX? The Built Environment & Transit Users’ Experience
User Perceptions Satisfaction
Attributes
User Perceptions Modal Preference
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND CORRELATIONS
SATISFACTION
MODAL PREFERENCE
3.
WEATHER PROTECTION
R2 = 0.86
Preference of EmX
2. SAFETY
Satisfaction Ratings of Accessibility
Preference of EmX
4. AMENITIES
R2 = 0.43
Satisfaction Ratings of Weather Protection
R2 = 0.50
Av . Satisfaction Ratings of Safety
Preference of EmX
1. PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY
Preference of EmX
Satisfaction & Modal Preference
R2 = 0.26
Satisfaction Ratings of Amenities
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND 2.
How do transit users’ out of vehicle experience correlate to the built environment at semi-outdoor EmX BRT stations? The Built Environment & Transit users’ experience
Attributes Design Diversity Accessibility
c.
User Perceptions Accessibility
b.
a.
Weather Protection Safety
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND CORRELATIONS
a.
DESIGN
SAFETY
Day
NIGHT
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND CORRELATIONS
a.
DIVERSITY
SAFETY
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
b.
WEATHER PROTECTION
DESIGN
Sky View Factor & Satisfaction of Weather Protection 120%
110% 100%
Satisfaction Ratings of Weather Protection
CORRELATIONS
90% 80%
70% 60%
Hilyard
Dads' Gates
50%
Agate
High Street
40%
Walnut
y = -1.014x + 0.7977 R² = 0.9388
30%
Glenwood
20%
Lexington
10%
0% 0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
Sky View Factor Satisfaction of Weather Protection
Linear (Satisfaction of Weather Protection )
0.6
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
b.
WEATHER PROTECTION
DESIGN
Canopy Shade & Satisfaction of Weather Protection 120% 110% 100%
Satisfaction Ratings of Weather Protection
CORRELATIONS
90% 80% 70%
60% Dads' Gates
Hilyard
High Street
Agate
50%
Walnut
40%
y = 0.3751x + 0.2592 R² = 0.2542
30%
Glenwood Lexington
20% 10% 0% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Percentage of Canopy Shade at Stations Satisfaction of Weather Protection
Linear (Satisfaction of Weather Protection )
100%
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND CORRELATIONS
c.
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY
ACCESSIBILITY
R2 = 0.17
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND 3. How do users’ perception of importance and satisfaction identify the priority and need for improvement among station attributes? The Built Environment & Transit Users’ Experience
User Perceptions Satisfaction
Attributes
Importance
Improvement Need
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND IMPROVEMENT NEED FOR STATIONS STATIONS
SYMBOL
ATTRIBUTES
1. HIGH STREET STATION
NONE
2. HILYARD STATION
NONE
3. DAD’S GATE STATION
NONE
4. AGATE STATION
NONE
5. WALNUT STATION
SAFETY PROTECTION FROM RAIN
6. GLENWOOD STATION
SAFETY RAIN WIND
7. LEXINGTON STATION
RAIN, WIND Against COLD temperatures
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND 4. How do the thermal assessment indices Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) and Predicted Mean Votes (PMV) identify categories of users’ thermal stress across semi-outdoor EmX BRT The Built Environment stations? & Transit Users’ Experience
Attributes
UTCI & PMV
Thermal Comfort
User Perceptions
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND THERMAL COMFORT
Comparisons between
PMV
UTCI
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND THERMAL COMFORT
Comparisons between
PMV
UTCI
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND STRENGTH OF RELATIONSHIP
USER PERCEPTIONS OF SATISFACTION 0.0 PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY
MODAL PREFERENCE
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY
PCZ RATIOS
SAFETY
SKY VIEW FACTOR COMMERCIAL LAND-USE
WEATHER PROTECTION
SKY VIEW FACTOR
CANOPY SHADE
0.5
1.0
LIMITATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESULTS/ANALYSIS QUESTIONS OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY FUTURE WORK RESEARCH FRAMEWORK KNOWLEDGE GAP CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS BACKGROUND
• Limited attributes studied
• Sample Size • Comparison of Climate Data • Thermal Comfort Surveys
THE END