Transport Planning For Travel Survey Of Cyclists

Survey Administration

Discuss about the Transport Planning for Travel Survey of Cyclists.

This report follows surveys done on cyclists who are presumably relevant to the University of Pleasantville. Intercept surveys were carried out on select locations to provide the requisite information which should help bring the team to conclusive or considerably definitive results. Different teams were sent out in groups of three to carry out the surveys. The surveys were carried out at the designated time which was 6 am to 8.30 am. This period covers the time that individuals commute to the university (Blair, Czaja and Blair 2013). 

In-depth account of the survey administrations is necessary in understanding transport planning. This report describes the outcomes of the surveys that were carried out on different areas in the campus. The report displays the aspects that were part and process of administration of the surveys by our team. It proceeds to report on and describe the issues that were experienced by the survey team and how some of the mentioned problems could impact the results of the survey. This report covers the areas of survey in succession before the section concludes with general issues that are relevant in the administration of these surveys. 

The survey outcomes had distinct outcomes after the research was completed. The first site presented our team with a difficult situation to sufficiently carry out the survey. The team consisted of three individuals. The weather conditions were not suitable enough to perform the survey adequately. Windy conditions were consistent throughout the period of survey and the rain was substantial. Needless to say, these conditions disrupted the process of surveying people. It is clear that at this site the weather managed to alter routines of cyclists. Some of the persons that were at the site noted that the population of cyclists was significantly low which helped us make this conclusion. Weather conditions do play a major role in transport planning (Vigar 2013, 5). 

The team managed only two intercept surveys over the course of period. The rainy conditions were very impactful. This essentially distorted the results of the survey. Survey materials were also compromised due to the conditions. Survey sheets got wet in the rain which reduces validity of the data collected. Furthermore, the surveyor admitted to making a myriad of mistakes. The major implication is that the survey has unreliable or rather incomplete data that can be used as basis for the research. Rain limits the movement of people which means that some cyclists utilized the site of survey after the period had elapsed. This, in addition to shifting of transport plans in relation to the weather, make the survey done at the inconclusive. Moreover, the conditions are not conducive for individuals to take time and respond to the survey. In uncomfortable situations, people are less motivated to give ample response (Leaman, Stevenson and Bordass 2010, 567). 

Survey Outcomes

The second survey site featured two members of the survey team. The weather was much better in this location which was great for the survey. The team members were able to carry out many intercept surveys. The numbers of cyclists were quite significant. The site could have used more people to survey cyclists but our team did a splendid job nonetheless. This is a good representation of the riding community in University of Pleasantville. The data form this site depicts the extent of cycling in the campus, at least at this locale. These details can be used in generalized terms to some extent as mostly the same individuals in the university tend to traverse the whole campus. The survey outcome at this point can be utilized to understand transport planning in other locations such as site 1 on a good day or the whole campus in general. 

The survey was not without issues at the site, however. It is not uncommon to experience uncooperativeness or emotions in carrying out surveys (Fowler Jr 2013). One individual had an outburst directed towards the team with concerns of an existing pothole. Granted, this was not part of the survey or the team’s responsibilities. The issue concerning the condition of the road does not affect the travel survey of cyclists. A single pothole does not have significant effects on those cycling therefore it is irrelevant and inconsequential. Team members also do not have the scope to address the issue but they acted professionally in the circumstance to quell the matter. Appropriate control of rowdiness ensures that data collected is accurate and less time wasted on the undue occurrence. Proper administration of surveys requires that those surveying people are able to relate well with those being surveyed. Good relations translate to accuracy information (Fowler Jr 2013). 

Surveys are beneficial as they are relatively easy to administer and swiftly too. This makes it possible to survey numerous persons within short timeframes. This means more accuracy and more data for adequate analysis (Rea and Parker 2014; Zikmund et al 2013). This made it fitting for the occasion.

The time period of the survey is a constraint that limits the extent of data that can be collected. The travel behavior of individuals extends across most of the day therefore more time allocation could be in line. The survey is generalizable but only for the period of carrying out the research. The rest of the day cannot be gauged from the data collected. Thus, the data does not take into account the figures of those arriving at the campus later as not all individuals have business or classes to attend to at the specified timeframe. 

Issues Faced During Survey

The standard number of people per team on survey site was three but the second site lacked an additional member which put more weight on those present. Being overstretched can lead to mistakes or misjudgments in surveys (Litman 2017, 12). This might have contributed to the discrepancies observed on one of the team members. A colleague was able to pick up the slack which ensured accuracy of the entries.

The bicycle parking spaces and complimentary facilities in the development are as indicated in this illustration. This represents specifications that meet the standards set according to schedules of parking requirements and the necessary additional facilities. This computation is based on all the buildings or establishments that are part of the development. The rationale of the calculations follows the requirements of each of the buildings and the premises within the towers in the whole development. Each establishment has its own requirements according to schedule 1. These are calculated separately and the sum total computed thereafter. The columns in the illustration display the values of parking requirements based on the described details of the buildings in the proposed development in relation to the bicycle parking requirements in schedule 1. Subsequent arguments for variations are made on the basis of city council planning scheme.

We can make some cases for reduction of the total number of facilities provided in the development. These are cut back to levels that still meet the expected performance outcomes. The total number computed covers showers and change rooms in different capacities. In some of the locations, the changing rooms and showers will be combined in one and at the same time this will address the acceptable outcomes (Banister 2008, 75).

In all of the buildings, there will be establishment of showers and change rooms in the premises. These facilities can serve both cyclists and other users. In a significant number of circumstances, the cyclists are residents or workers in the buildings thus they are able to use facilities that are not necessarily set aside for cyclists. This is vital in reducing costs. The usage of the facilities also varies across different premises. Businesses and residential buildings do not need to use paring at the same time. Some of the parking will be shared for more efficiency.

Depending on the setting of the buildings, the parking spots and complimentary facilities will be reevaluated to ensure they meet all the requirements. The locations of these establishments should portray convenience, security and efficiency. The buildings that feature the highest density of individuals coexisting within them will have priority in accomplishing the final specs of the development (Gupta 2011; Altschuld and Lepicki 2010, 781).

Benefit of Surveys

The level of service is determined through consideration of the towers closest to the paths. The trips that will be generated by the development on paths 1 and 2 will serve the buildings adjacent to the paths. The towers that are relevant to the selected paths are Tower C and buildings D and F. We therefore utilize schedule 3 to determine the total number of trips that will be generated on the paths by the proposed development. Following the determination of trips, schedule 2 illustration helps derive the level of service for the paths. (Dowling et al 2008, 3; Reddy et al 2010, 1817; Fishman, Washington and Haworth 2013, 160).

Path 1 and path 2 share the number of trips equally which gives each an estimate of 32 trips in the peak hour if they share equally. The directions on the two courses thus have 16 trips each as they carry equal load. Path 1 has 20 riders per hour each direction during peak time. Path 2 covers 40 riders each direction per hour at the same time. This means that the paths are able to adequately accommodate the traffic that will be generated by the development. The Level of Service at which the paths are maintained is level A for path 1 and B for path 2. The development will therefore be sufficiently covered by the size and specifications of the paths. More changes might be necessary with more progress made.

References

Altschuld, J.W. and Lepicki, T.L., 2010. Needs assessment  p. 771-791. John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

Banister, D., 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport policy, 15(2), pp.73-80.

Blair, J., Czaja, R.F. and Blair, E.A., 2013. Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures. Sage Publications.

Dowling, R., Flannery, A., Landis, B., Petritsch, T., Rouphail, N. and Ryus, P. (2008). Multimodal level of service for urban streets. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, p.1-7.

Fishman, E., Washington, S. and Haworth, N. (2013). Bike share: a synthesis of the literature. Transport reviews, 33(2), p.148-165.

Fowler Jr, F.J., 2013. Survey research methods. Sage publications.

Gupta, K. (2011). A practical guide to needs assessment. John Wiley & Sons.

Leaman, A., Stevenson, F. and Bordass, B. (2010). Building evaluation: practice and principles. Building Research & Information, 38(5), p.564-577.

Litman, T. (2017). Evaluating accessibility for transport planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

Rea, L.M. and Parker, R.A. (2014). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide. John Wiley & Sons.

Reddy, S., Shilton, K., Denisov, G., Cenizal, C., Estrin, D. and Srivastava, M. (2010). Biketastic: sensing and mapping for better biking. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 1817-1820 ACM

Vigar, G. (2013). The politics of mobility: Transport planning, the environment and public policy. Routledge.

Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. and Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods. Cengage Learning.