Aalborg Universitet Bike Infrastructures Report Silva, Victor ... - VBN

Figure 3.3.6: Copenhagen Bicycle Network
Figure 3.3.7: The four bridges of Copenhagen Harbour.
Figure 3.3.8: Bryggebro opening on the 14th of September.
Figure 3.3.9: Image of Bryggebro from Islands Brygge side of the harbour.
Figure 3.3.10: View of Havneholmen from Bryggebro
Figure 3.3.11: Access to Bryggebro from Havneholmen
Figure 3.3.12: View of Bryggerbro from Island Brygge the Havneholmen side
Figure 3.3.13: Havneholmen and Bryggebro in the background
Figure 3.3.14: Bryggebro in the foreground and Islands Brygge in the background
Figure 3.3.15: Plan and Section of Bryggebro
Figure 3.3.16: Elevation of the bridge seen from the side and Cross section of the bridge. The pedestrian
side on the left and cyclist on the right separated by a 60cm high 1.2 metres wide girder.
Figure 3.3.17: Bryggebro section
Figure 3.3.18: Bryggebro plan
Figure 3.3.19: Access to Bryggebro from Islands Brygge
Figure 3.3.20: Access to Bryggebro from Islands Brygge side
Figure 3.3.21: Islands Brygge promenade
Figure 3.3.22: Access to Bryggebro Havneholmen
Figure 3.3.23: Access to Bryggebro from Havneholmen side
Figure 3.3.24: Hierarchy between transport modes
Figure 3.3.25: Bryggebro plan and representation of transport mode conflicts
Figure 3.3.26: Joggers and cyclists crossing
Figure 3.3.27: Cyclists riding fast out of the exit of the bridge
Figure 3.3.28: Walkers have to pay attention from fast moving cyclists exiting
Figure 3.3.29: A stray bike parked nearby the bridge
Figure 3.3.30: Bikes parked under stairs
Figure 3.3.31: Bryggebro illumination
Figure 3.3.32: Bryggebro illumination
Figure 3.3.33: Lamp post
Figure 3.3.34: Bridge exit the night
Figure 3.3.35: Cyclist has wrongly entered into the pedestrian lane.
Figure 3.3.36: Access from Islands Brygge side
Figure 3.3.37: Bryggebro access from Havneholmen
Figure 3.3.38: Damaged sign
Figure 3.3.39: Graffiti at Bryggebro
Figure 3.3.40: Graffiti at Bryggebro
Figure 3.3.41: Love padlocks
Figure 3.3.42: Love padlocks
Figure 3.3.43: Love padlocks
Figure 3.3.44: Love padlocks
Figure 3.3.45: Love padlocks
Figure 3.3.46: Intersection at Islands Brygge.
Figure 3.3.47: Intersection at Havneholmen.
Figure 3.3.48: Bryggebro’s access at Islands Brygge side.
Figure 3.3.49: Bryggebro’s access at Islands Brygge side.
Figure 3.3.50: Bryggebro’s access at Islands Brygge side.
Figure 3.3.51: Cyclists on the smooth paved lanes.
Figure 3.3.52: Pavement detail fron Islands Brygge side.
Figure 3.3.53: Privately owned parking lot.
Figure 3.3.54: Bike route linking to the staircases.
Figure 3.3.55: Longer bike route avoiding staircases.
116
117
119
119
120
120
120
120
121
122
123
124
124
125
125
125
125
125
126
126
127
127
127
128
128
129
129
129
129
130
130
130
130
131
131
132
132
132
132
133
134
134
135
135
135
136
136
136
137
137
Figure 3.3.56: Bryggebro entering from the Havneholmen si
Figure 3.3.57: Foot bridge to make the trip shorter.
Figure 3.3.58: Cyclists pushing their bikes up the stairs.
Figure 3.3.59: Built environment surrounding Bryggebro on the Islands Brygge side.
Figure 3.3.60: Cyclist countings.
Figure 3.3.61: Spatial distribution of the respondents according to their residential location – 5km
map.
Figure 3.3.62: Spatial distribution of the respondents according to their residential location – 20km
Figure 3.3.63: Distribution of the respondents by age groups.
Figure 3.3.64: Distribution of the respondents by gender.
Figure 3.3.65: Distribution of the respondents by educational level.
Figure 3.3.66: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they ride a bicycle at Bryggebro
Figure 3.3.67: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they walk at Bryggebro.
Figure 3.3.68: Distribution of the respondents by main trip purpose when riding a bike in Bryggebro.
Figure 3.3.69: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they ride a bike in Bryggebro for the
main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.3.68 after Bryggebro’s opening.
Figure 3.3.70: Distribution of the respondents by the level of satisfaction with Bryggebro’s design.
Figure 3.3.71: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s
design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect.
Figure 3.3.72: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s
design fulfilled the fast connectivity.
Figure 3.3.73: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s
design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect.
Figure 3.3.74: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic illegal
parking of bicycles is at Bryggebro.
Figure 3.3.75: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic is the
conflict between different transport modes at Bryggebro’s accesses.
Figure 3.3.76: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic is the
existence of obstacles against cyclists at Bryggebro.
Figure 3.3.77: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic is the
pavement at Bryggebro.
Figure 3.3.78: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic the
existence of cracks in ramps and intersections is at Bryggebro.
Figure 3.3.79: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic is the
lack of awareness of pedestrians for people riding a bike at Bryggebro.
Figure 3.3.80: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic is
signposting and its interpretation at Bryggebro.
Figure 3.3.81: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic is the
scenic at Bryggebro.
Figure 3.3.82: Distribution of the respondents based on starting to ride a bike more often, or not, after
the opening of Bryggebro.
Figure 3.3.83: Among the respondents that said yes in the previous question (Figure 3.3.82), what
qualities has influenced their choice to ride a bike more often after the opening of Bryggebro. The
respondents could choice more than one option.
Figure 3.3.84: Distribution of respondents according to their opinion about the importance of street
design (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) in the decision to ride a bike.
Figure 3.3.85: Distribution of respondents according to their opinion about the street design solutions
(lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Bryggebro.
138
138
138
139
140
144
145
146
146
146
146
147
147
147
147
148
148
148
148
149
149
149
149
150
150
150
150
151
151
151
184 185