Problem

University of Washington bus stops in the U-district are often crowded, especially in Seattle's rainy weather, leaving commuters, mainly UW students and staff, seeking shelter while awaiting buses. This project conducts discovery research to improve the functionality of these bus stops, ensuring efficient and comfortable experiences for commuters during peak hours.

Field Observations 🔎

Fieldwork involved thorough note-taking, recording all observed details, and later categorizing data. Observations focused on individuals at the University of Washington Nano Engineering building bus station, predominantly students, with additional participants potentially faculty, visitors, or local residents. Positioned within the NanoEngineering building, observations honed in on movement and positioning to discern participants' thoughts and emotions. Data was initially recorded in Google Sheets and later refined and categorized in Miro Board for streamlined analysis into nine sections.

To spearhead this fieldwork, I created a set of questions to answer through the observation sessions.

Research questions to be answered by Field Observations

Next, in preparation for note-taking during field observations, I created another table with focal points during note-taking. Since field observations are fast-paced, this ensures that I can focus on 8 key observation points rather than frantically writing observations that may hold lesser weight than others. This tactic also organizes my data for ease of analysis post-field observation.

*priority focal points

Analysis

Using Miro Board, I collected my notes and pasted them on sticky notes to group and categorize my findings. After reviewing the groups, I then found that many of the smaller groups can be categorized together as “Interactions with built enviroments.”

Findings

1. Not staying in place: Some bus waiters shifted weight or paced, while others remained still.

2. Waiting location: Participants often lined up by the light pole, with the covered area of the bus stop underused.

3. Interactions with the built environment: Commonly touched elements included the sidewalk curb and bus station walls, repurposed for seating or leaning

Reflection

Through 3 hours of observation, I was surprised that I only came out with 3 key findings. However, 3 hours of observing a bus stop also emphasized the fact that the main goal of a stop is to pass time while waiting for a bus to come by. The insights gained from the field observation were subtle but helpful. If I were to repeat this process with a larger scope, I would be interested in observing other bus stations to see how their built environments affect people’s behavior.

Interviews 🎙️

Interview Details

Total: 3

Duration: 30 min each

Tools: Otter AI (Audio transcription app)

Method: The setting each interview was conducted was one of the main libraries on campus. This is a place where the participant and I were familiar, providing a comfortable space for the two of us to converse naturally with the guidance of my prepared questions. It is important to note that although these 3 participants have valuable insight, they do no represent all commuters in the U-District area.

Results

1. Flawed Covered Area: Interviews revealed dissatisfaction with the covered area at the bus station due to water dripping issues and lack of visibility.

2. Validating a Route: Commuters expressed frustration with unclear signage and infrequent bus schedules, resorting to map applications on their phones for route validation.

3. Personal Space: Concerns about personal space were highlighted, with commuters maintaining a distance of approximately three feet from others while waiting at the station. Note: Covid-19 epidemic may have been a large contributor to this observation

Recommendations

1. Redesign the hood to direct water away, providing additional coverage by standing slightly in front of the hood, and improving the transparency of the walls to enhance safety and efficiency.

2. Implement digital boards displaying bus arrival times and destinations to enhance the waiting experience.

3. Incorporate visual cues such as cement tiles to suggest standing locations and promote personal space awareness.

Reflection

The interviews went well, they were natural in conversation, and I received valuable insights. I made sure to ask my questions but also open up the floor for the participants to bring up any points of their own. If I were to repeat this step, I would try to find participants who are staff or faculty to interview since they represent the second-largest majority of commuters in the area.

Surveys 📊

Before conducting the surveys, I refined my research question based off of the findings from the interview process.

Research Question: How can we make the experience of standing or sitting to wait for a bus at the University of Washington more intuitive and comfortable for commuters?

Analysis

The individual results from each question provided valuable findings, however, by making correlations between multiple questions, I was able to find even more notable insights.

First, I took my raw data and paired separate questions together to discover correlations and answer questions I had post interview

Key findings

• The duration of how long commuters wait for the bus does not correlate to their experience

• Lesser wait time = more positive experience

• The cover is used more when it is rainy, but not significantly. From the survey and interviews, we can gather that the shelter area does not provide enough room for all who yearn for it

• There is no correlation between those who bus frequently and those who use the seating under the covered area, but many people do express desire for the covered area

From free response questions:

• A commuter’s experience is more dependent on the total time they spend waiting for the bus as opposed to knowledge of the time they will have to wait

• Many expressed affinity to larger covered areas

Recommendations

• Expand the covered area so it encompasses more people

• Provide more covered areas that are separate from the bus station covered area. For example, structures that serve an aesthetic appeal and additional coverage from the rain.

Reflection

The survey process was enlightening, especially when forming different correlations using the results. I found it most interesting when the correlations I made did not match up to previous findings. I wonder if it is because I had a smaller pool of responses than if I waited longer, or dealt out the survey to more communities. If I conducted the survey process again, I would try to acquire more participants to achieve a larger representation of the commuters.