REGULACIÓNES PREVIA AL ENCENDIDO

schools in Stellenbosch, as well as a selection of SU students and staff, were introduced in Section 1.1.3.2. The purpose of the surveys, namely to identify the number of potential users for the theoretical bicycle-sharing scheme for Stellenbosch, i.e. the demand, and to identify station locations, was revealed as part of the research design in Section 3.3, and the survey content was also presented there. In this section, it is described how the surveys were distributed, and the methodologies for the potential-user and station-location calculations are given. All of the results are given with confidence

Page | 109 intervals, since proportions of the sample were applied to the total population and results can therefore, not be given with 100% confidence. The supplementary data that was collected from the surveys, i.e. data that was not required for these two calculations, are not mentioned in this section, but are reported on in Chapter 7 along with a summary of all the other survey results. The full set of survey responses is provided on the attached CD.

4.7.1.1 DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURVEYS TO THE SCHOOLS

A motive for including only the three high schools in Krigeville in this research project has also been shared. Only the distribution methodology for these three schools is provided here.

A letter addressed to the principals of the schools that provided an overview of the study, i.e. the objective and desired output, and requested the permission to distribute the online link to the research questionnaire, was drafted and personally delivered to the school secretaries (see Appendix D.1 for a copy of this letter). It was stated in the letter that the principals would be contacted shortly to schedule a meeting, which would allow them to obtain more detailed information concerning the survey and ask any questions they may have. A meeting was held with each of the principals shortly thereafter (in the case of Bloemhof Girls’ High School, it was the facility manager) during which permission to distribute the link was received. The schools assisted in this activity by sending an e-mail to all the school parents on behalf of the researchers via their internal e-mail distribution lists. The e-mail again comprised a letter (see Appendix D.2 ) that explained the research study, and of course the link to the online survey was included. Furthermore, an advertisement for the study was placed in the schools’ weekly newsletters. All the information on the research never mentioned bicycle-sharing. It was only stated that the researchers were investigating the characteristics of school travel, its contribution to the town’s recurrent congestion during morning peak hours and alternatives that could possibly improve this congestion in the future. The general questions made the data appropriate to use for other transportation studies, such as the feasibility studies of other solutions to traffic congestion.

4.7.1.2 POTENTIAL-USER CALCULATION FOR THE SCHOOLS

Before describing the potential-user calculation, it must be made clear that the calculation determines the potential users, i.e. the number of people who COULD take up cycling, not who WOULD take up cycling.

Feasibility studies for bicycle-sharing schemes that are to be employed for the general public, typically forecast demand by looking at factors such as population density, employment density, GDP, patterns of commuter traffic, mode share and cost per mode, proximity to attractions and landmarks, existing bicycle infrastructure - which links to a safer riding experience, topography, equity, as well as public comments, and assigning weights to these factors. However, since the potential users in this research project stem from two closed environments and the calculation was all about who could cycle, this form of demand forecasting was not necessitated.

The steps of the potential-user calculation for the school learners were as follows: 1. The number of respondents per school that specified their trip origin were counted. 2. For each origin in the south, the number of respondents per school were recorded.

- From this step forth, only the trips generated in the south, i.e. Paradyskloof, Jamestown, De Zalze, Technopark, Somerset West, Strand, Gordon’s Bay and Sir Lowry’s Pass, and arriving in Stellenbosch via the R44 corridor were considered in the analysis.

Page | 110 - Subtractions had to be made from the number of respondents from the south to attain the

actual total number of potential users. These subtractions were: (i) learners in the hostel/ boarding house, (ii) learners who make use of a mode of transportation other than the private motor vehicle, and (iii) learners whose parents specified that the private-motor-vehicle trip is

en route (mostly to work). A further subtraction was made for learners with siblings in

Stellenbosch primary schools (in grades other than grade 7). Because here a trip to school by private motor vehicle is made anyway, it is assumed that the convenience of this mode is preferred for and by the high school learners in this case. The parents were also asked whether their child/children would cycle / walk to school if there were no barriers. Whilst some did indicate “no”, a closer look into the responses made it clear that these answers were based on distance (too long) in almost all cases. As “child/children do not like walking / cycling” was the most uncommon barrier preventing active transportation (see Section 7.1.5 ), no subtractions were finally made to account for those learners.

4. The total potential users per school were calculated.

- The remaining total number of respondents per school was divided by the total number of respondents of each specific school (Step 1), and then multiplied by the total learner population of the respective schools to get the total potential users per school.

5. The potential users calculated per school were summed.

From the total number of potential users per school, the capacity of the bicycle docking stations could be established for every scenario.

It could not be said that the total number of potential users equals the total potential number of vehicle trips saved to school every morning, and from school every afternoon, as several of the potential users may currently be travelling together, either because they are siblings or because they are part of the same lift-club. At first, the total number of vehicle trips per school were determined, accounting only for siblings within the same school and lift-clubs composed of learners from the same school. The required information was found in the survey responses. The total number of vehicle trips per school were then summed, and it is from this total that subtractions were made for learners from two or three different schools that travel together. The difference was taken as the total number of potential trips saved every day. For the school learners, it was assumed that all vehicles turn right into Van Reede Rd at the R44 / Van Reede intersection, and that all the trip savings would thus apply to this route.

4.7.1.3 STATION-LOCATION CALCULATION FOR THE SCHOOLS

Again, since the school learners are part of a closed environment for which the trip patterns are known, no complex calculation was required for determining the site location of the bicycle docking stations for the research case study.

The decision on where in the study area to position the Drop-and-Go zone was based on three factors 1. literature on average acceptable cycling distances - as described in Section 2.4.1.9,

2. topography,

3. the point on the R44 corridor where the traffic congestion changes from bad to worse, and 4. the availability of open land.

The same Drop-and-Go zone is to be used by all three schools.

The destination of all the learners (in the mornings) is their respective school. Bicycle docking stations are thus to be located at each of the three schools.

Page | 111

4.7.1.4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURVEYS TO THE UNIVERSITY

The survey prepared for the SU students and staff, was distributed in a different manner to the one for the school learners. At the time when the survey for the school learners was compiled, the study area for this research project was not yet known, and hence all the parents were surveyed. When it was time to compile the survey for the SU students and staff, however, the study area was already decided on, based on the results of the school survey. Although the initial plan was slightly different, a survey was sent out only to those students and staff members residing in the southern suburbs / towns of / to Stellenbosch. Along with a formal application for ethical clearance, institutional permission had to be applied for in order to obtain the e-mail addresses for these students and staff members. Both of the applications were approved and hence ethical clearance as well as institutional permission (on a few conditions) was granted (see Appendices B.2 and B.3 ). One of the conditions for the institutional permission was that the e-mail addresses could not be provided directly to the researcher, but that they would be inserted into the survey tool (SUrvey) by an authorised person from the SU IT office. Once this was done, the link to the online questionnaire was sent out as part of an e- mail along with an information sheet of the research (see Appendix D.3 ).

The initial plan was to simply add questions to the survey the Department of Logistics and Facilities Management developed as part of a mobility study for the Stellenbosch University, and use it to obtain the results for this research project. This proved not to be possible for two reasons: (1) the distribution date of the survey was set to be the end of September at the earliest, which was a problem since this research project was due in November; and more importantly, (2) the survey was very detailed and long, and was to call for personal interviews with each respondent, since it came with a trip diary and mobile application that needed to be carefully explained. This is a tedious process and would only have allowed for a small sample size to be surveyed. There was no guarantee that any students or staff from the study area of this research project would be questioned, or at least that any statistically significant results to this research could be obtained. A separate survey was therefore called for.

4.7.1.5 POTENTIAL-USER CALCULATION FOR THE UNIVERSITY

The potential-user calculation for the SU students and staff straightway began with the subtraction of non-potential users. That is after deleting the responses from the few respondents who indicated that their daily trip to the SU campus does not entail travelling along the R44 from the direction Somerset West. The calculations for the US students and staff were kept separate. It was at least the intention to keep the two datasets separate, but the person who compiled the confidential e-mail lists forgot to do so. The student was quite fortunate though that an error occurred when the survey was distributed for the first time. 458 e-mails failed to send. It was soon realised that the error was due to the fact that whilst many staff members have student numbers, their e-mail addresses do not contain these student numbers, as is the case for students. The survey asks whether a respondent is a student or staff member. After the first distribution of the survey, only a handful of staff members responded; almost all responses came from students (see full survey response sheets on the attached CD). Then, once the e-mail addresses had been corrected, and the survey was distributed to these e-mail addresses only, this time predominately staff members responded. It was only after a reminder was sent out to everyone, that students responded again. It was thus concluded that all of the 458 failed e-mails belonged to staff members, and that all other e-mail addresses belonged to students.

The criteria for non-potential users were as follows:

Page | 112 2. respondents who use the private motor vehicle as their mode of transportation, but do so by

sharing a lift with at least two other people;

3. commute to campus after 8am on at least two days of the week;

4. respondents who commute to campus in private motor vehicles, but as passengers and where it was indicated that the trip is en route to the driver and not destined to campus; and 5. respondents who gave valid personal reasons, such as health issues, to why they do not and /

or cannot cycle to campus.

All the other respondents were taken to be potential users. The proportion of potential users was then calculated for the sample (for students and staff separately), and that proportion was then multiplied by the total number of students and staff residing in the southern suburbs / towns of / to Stellenbosch, respectively, to determine the total number of potential users.

The total number of potential vehicle trips saved was calculated by looking at the number of students and staff that are in a lift club with one other person. Again, a proportion of the sample was calculated and multiplied by the total number of students and staff residing in the southern suburbs / towns of / to Stellenbosch. The two numbers (students and staff) were then divided by two and subtracted from the total number of potential users. The difference was taken as the as the total number of potential trips saved every day. The respondents were asked which way they go once they reach the intersection of the R44 and Van Reede Rd. This information was important, because it could then be determined how many trips are saved on each route on a daily basis.

4.7.1.6 STATION-LOCATION CALCULATION FOR THE UNIVERSITY

The station-location calculation for the university was done much the same way as for the schools (see Section 4.7.1.3 ). The decision on where in the study area to position the Park-and-Ride was based on the same three factors, except that the average acceptable cycling distance, specified by the respondents, was also considered. In the survey, the participants were asked what their field of study is. The answer was used to determine the destination of the respondents. The bicycle docking stations were located on campus so that the trip-end walking distance is limited to a maximum of 300m. The required capacity of these stations was calculated from the number of potential users destined to each of the stations.