New version page

Berkeley CYPLAN C241 - Summary of Student Research Projects

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4-30-31-32-33-34-61-62-63-64 out of 64 pages.

View Full Document
View Full Document

End of preview. Want to read all 64 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a GradeBuddy member to access this document.

View Full Document
Unformatted text preview:

CP/LA C241 Research Methods in Environmental Design Summary of Student Research Projects College of Environmental Design University of California, Berkeley Instructor: Peter Bosselmann Elizabeth Macdonald Sungjin Park Jennifer Avery Clark Wilson Ghazal Saadat-Lajevardi Sam Zimmerman-Bergman Neil Hrushowy Karen Mauney-Brodek Hyungkyoo Kim Last update: August 2011CP 241: Research Methods in Environmental Design Summary of Student Research Projects 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS BART/MUNI...................................................................................................................................................................2 COMFORT ......................................................................................................................................................................5 DENSITY .........................................................................................................................................................................8 NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS & SOCIAL INTERACTION .....................................................................15 PARKS ............................................................................................................................................................................27 PLAZAS ..........................................................................................................................................................................32 SAFETY .........................................................................................................................................................................36 STREETS .......................................................................................................................................................................38 TIME ...............................................................................................................................................................................57 TREES .........................................................................................................................................................................58 VIEWS ............................................................................................................................................................................60CP 241: Research Methods in Environmental Design Summary of Student Research Projects 2BART/MUNI Ashby BART Station Study, (2 copies) 1984 BART 1 Marsha Gale, Amy Rakley This group analyzes the effect of the Ashby BART station site on the surrounding neighborhood (both in terms of social as well as spatial patterns). Does this station create a void? The findings indicated that the Ashby BART is indeed a void in relation to its surroundings. The residents avoid using the space and see it as having significant negative impacts on their neighborhood. Analysis of Three BART Stations: A Look at Choice, Connectivity, and Social Interaction, (currently missing) 1995 BART 2 Heather Hood, Michael Rios, David Winslow This study explores the relationship between open spaces adjacent to BART stations and social interaction. Social interaction is hypothesized to be positively related to the degree of connectivity and choice in the open spaces adjacent to stations. The group looked at 24th Street, Powell Street, and 12th Street Oakland. The results suggest evidence in support of the hypothesis, but differences in socio-demographic variables made comparing stations largely inappropriate. BART Station Integration and Pedestrian Activity, 1999 BART 3 Joon Bhang, Autumn Buss, Kevin Dwarka, Richard Walkling This hypothesis of this study was that BART stations that are integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods are more likely to create successful transit-supportive environments. The group studied three BART stations: 24th Street Mission, Rockridge, and Pleasant Hill. The study analyzed physical factors of the areas surrounding BART stations, including mix of uses, pedestrian amenities, and views of the station, and correlated these factors with observed activity and survey results. The group found their hypothesis was supported by their research. In addition, they found that proximity of uses to transit alone will not create vibrant pedestrian environments A Study of the Pedestrian Environments at Two Suburban BART Stations, 2003 BART 4 Thomas Miller, Pooja Singh, Todd Vogel Making suburban rail stations more pedestrian friendly has become an increasingly important issue for planners. The goals of creating transit villages and encouraging transit-oriented development rest on our ability to make the walking environment around rail stations more attractive places for those within easy walking distance. This paper presents the results of research aimed at uncovering the importance of design issues in encouraging people to walk between a suburban downtown and its adjacent commuter rail station. Case studies were conducted in two San Francisco Bay Area cities, Concord and Walnut Creek, to explore the relationship between urban design elements and pedestrian behavior. While the research did reveal some correlation between “well designed” walking environments and pedestrian activity, further study would be required to separate out other influencing factors, such as land use, before a more definitive relationship could be shown. Pedestrian Paths between Suburban Transit Station and Downtown, 2003 BART 4-1 Pooja singh (supplementary to BART 4) Bus and Rail: Appeal and Mode Preference in San Francisco, 2001 BART 5 Matt Haynes, Doug JohnsonCP 241: Research Methods in Environmental Design Summary of Student Research Projects 3(No abstract available; excerpted by GSI from final document) The main physical difference between the train and the bus is the presence of rails. We expect these rails to offer a smoother, more comfortable ride than the bus. Buses must deal with potholes and steeper grades than rail service. Trains are typically grade-separated, meaning other modes [cars, trucks, bikes, pedestrians, etc.] do not share their route (i.e. tunnel under downtown). Grade separation increases travel speeds with these inter-modal conflicts eliminated. Given these major differences between bus and light rail, we developed the following hypothesis


View Full Document
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Summary of Student Research Projects and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Summary of Student Research Projects and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?