co-creation of bicycle parking infrastructure · survey on local mobility satisfaction and habits...

Andre Landwehr & Kim Tatum - HafenCity University Hamburg - CRB 2nd Annual Meeting - 30th October, 2019

This project has received

funding from the

European Union’s

Horizon 2020 research

and innovation

programme under grant

agreement No 723194

Co-creation of bicycle parking infrastructure:Experiences and results from the Altona Mobility Lab

Kimberly Tatum and Andre Landwehr, HafenCity University HamburgCycling Research Board 2nd Annual Meeting, 30th October, 2019


➔The Case: Altona Mobility Lab➔Methodology➔Evaluation of Bike Parking Pilot➔Discussion and Conclusions

2

Andre Landwehr & Kim Tatum - HafenCity University Hamburg - CRB 2nd Annual Meeting - 30th October, 2019 3

● Horizon 2020-funded project

● 2017-2020

● 5 focus areas tackle local

mobility challenges with

Living Labs

● 3 pilot projects per focus area

launched this year


Urban Living Labs

“...a design research methodology aimed at co-creating innovation through the

involvement of aware users in a real-life setting…” - (Dell’Era & Landoni 2014)

● Adopted in various urban planning and transportation contexts

● Support stakeholder interaction and exchange

4


Altona Mobility Lab

5

● Prototyping workshop

to design pilot concept

implementation

● Online siting survey

● Installation: July 2019

● Survey on local

mobility satisfaction

and habits

● Expert Interviews

● Challenge Workshop

Concept Co-Design and Implementation

Winter 2018 - Summer 2019

Challenge IdentificationFall 2017 - Winter 2018

● 8 Lab Workshops to

develop and prioritize

ideas

● Online discussion of

ideas

Ideation and Co-CreationSpring 2018 - Fall 2018


Altona Mobility Lab

Mobility Community’s Challenges:

● Conflicts in use of public space

● Low quality or lacking bike

infrastructure

● Poor accessibility for mobility

impaired

6

Framework Limitations:

● Low/no implementation budget

● Short and hard deadlines

● Therefore, consistent

transparency about realistic

options for implementation


Installation Locations: 65 racks at 7 sites

Where have the racks been installed?

7


Does the bike racks project meet the community’s expectations and goals?

8


Methodology: Technical Setup

○ 2 at implementation sites for bike racks

○ 2 at similar control sites

○ Camera setup after the installation of the bike-racks

○ Preliminary analysis on observations at the

implementation sites

9

● 4 cameras were installed during 3 weeks in August and September 2019


Methodology: Evaluation Metrics

10

Mobility Challenges Evaluation Metric Community Feedback

Public space use

conflict

➔ Bike parking in the

place of car parking

+ Pleased with reduction in illegally parked cars

+ Pleased with increased parking options near shopping areas

Poor or lacking

cycling infrastructure

➔ High quality bike

parking offer

- Cars parking too close to bike racks discourage use

- Racks adjacent to high speed road feel unsafe at times

Poor accessibility for

mobility impaired

➔ Reduction in bikes

blocking sidewalks

+ Noticed reduction in bikes parked on nearby railings or against walls


Methodology: Technical Setup

Waterproof Camera

hardware based on

Raspberry Pi

11

Automated picture

anonymization using open

source face detection

Image classification and

annotation

Exporting of classified

objects


Site - Are racks on car parking spaces?

● 7 Implementation Sites

○ 1 replaced a legal

parking space

○ 2 in places used illegally

to park cars

○ 3 on sidewalk or

pedestrian areas (no car

access)

○ 1 partially in car space

and partially on sidewalk

(½ car space removed)

12


Site - Are racks on car parking spaces?

379 sites suggested in the

community siting survey by 209

respondents

● Both at prototyping and in

survey alternative criteria

such as high demand

location more important than

car parking site

13

Type of space % of sites suggested

Car parking space or other space citing parked cars 25.3%

Greenspace 6.3%

Other 36.1%

No Response 32.2%


Quality - Do people avoid parking close to cars?

● Recognition of parking instances and their exact location○ Grounded in community feedback

○ Analyzing pictures one by one

○ Verifying parking actions over a time-frame of 10mins

○ Bicycles might be blocked from camera view through vehicles

○ Once verified, export of parking location (car adjacent / not car adjacent)

14


Quality - Do people avoid parking close to cars?

● Users at location 1 prefer to park on the wall side

of the racks○ Expectation if equal = 50% car side and 50% wall side

○ Actual use:

■ 29% car side

■ 71% wall side

● Users at location 2 have a slight preference

towards parking at the exterior bike racks○ Expectation if equal = 33.3% car (exterior) sides and 66% interior spots

○ Actual use:

■ 39.9% exterior

■ 60.1% interior

■ If all racks are empty, users more likely to park at one of the

exterior spots than at an interior spot

15


Accessibility

16

● Recognition of improperly parked bikes○ Detecting center of bounding box of classified bike

○ Export bikes parked directly on the wall

○ Location specific observations

● Results○ Only 4 incidents of improperly parked bikes at location 1

■ (397 proper parking incidents)

○ Only 1 incident of improperly parked bike at location 2

■ (286 proper parking incidents)

○ Community confirming strong positive effect on accessibility


Conclusions

● The ULL method led to valuable results for the community ○ Active co-creation of bicycle infrastructure investments

○ Successful mitigation of core challenges to the community

● The ULL method led to valuable results for the planners○ Community identified relevant challenges and mitigation strategies

○ Community identified relevant potential installation locations for bike racks

○ Community feedback on quality is valuable to future installations

○ Efficient use of investment resources

● Camera based evaluation is more work-intense than expected○ Technical setup needs to be location specific (filming angles, lights, ..)

○ Limitations on potential camera installation locations (power, WIFI, community commitment)

○ Data processing is labour intensive

17


This project has received

funding from the

European Union’s

Horizon 2020 research

and innovation

programme under grant

agreement No 723194

Thank you!

18

Andre Landwehr: [email protected]

Kimberly Tatum: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Bibliography

Ballon, P. and Schuurman, D., Living labs: concepts, tools and cases, info, 17 (4), 2015.

Dell’Era C. and Landoni P., Living Lab: A Methodology between User - Centred Design and Participatory Design, Creativity and Innovation Management, 23 (2), 137-154, 2014.

Franz, Y., Tausz, K., and Thiel, S., Contextuality and Co-Creation Matter: A Qualitative Case Study Comparison of Living Lab Concepts in Urban Research, Technology Innovation

Management Review, 5 (12), 48–55, 2015.

Ross Girshick, Ilija Radosavovic, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, and Kaiming He. 2018. Detectron. https://github.com/facebookresearch/detectron.

Scholl, C., de Kraker, J., Hoeflehner, T., Wlasak, P., Drage, T., and Eriksen, M., Transitioning Urban Experiments. Reflections on Doing Action Research with Urban Labs, GAIA, 27 (1),

78 – 84, 2018.

Steen, K. and Van Bueren, E., The Defining Characteristics of Urban Living Labs, Technology Innovation Management Review, 7 (7), 2017.

19

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/author/Ballon%2C+Pieter

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/author/Schuurman%2C+Dimitri

https://github.com/facebookresearch/detectron


Limitations

- Lightning conditions change

during the day

- Shadows might be classified

as false positives

- Objects block the view

- Tweaks needed for reliable

recognition

20

co-creation of bicycle parking infrastructure · survey on local mobility satisfaction and habits...

Documents