Ms architecture thesis presentation srasool

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