busesbipedsandbumpers-blog

[busesbipedsandbumpers-blog]

Introduction

Transportation is something we all interact with on a daily basis. It determines where we choose to live, where we choose to work, and whether or not we can choose these things in the first place. In Stanton’s collection of ethnographies, Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation, each ethnography examines a different topic of transportation with different themes, but an overarching one emerges. Each mode of transportation has attitudes and stigmas attached to it that impact who may choose or prefer certain forms of transportation (Stanton, Neville, pp. 623- 659). Social mobility additionally pertains to our physical mobility in that as we move within our society, we have to physically navigate the city. In this case, the city acts as both a physical, material world but also a more abstract cultural one. A place in which without physical mobility, one cannot have social mobility. At the same time, without the ability or desire to be socially mobile, physical mobility serves next-to-no practical purpose. In the context of the university, if a Bachelor’s degree is understood to be a way to gain social mobility, then understanding its’ relationship with the act of physically getting to campus is vital. Thus, the definition of mobility that Cities and Mobilities provides acts as critical touchstone, a means to understand why this research and transportation infrastructure as a whole is important (Cities and Mobility 2015). The social framework of transportation lead into discussion of how individuals perceive, experience, and engage with transportation.   

This relationship between transportation and choice is what we originally set out to find: How might UT students’ choices of transportation become influenced? Through our research and investigation of transportation choices, we began to notice commuters’ choices being impacted by four central themes: safety, time, interaction, and disruption & physical space. From our research, students’ experiences and perceptions of their safety, which are informed by the attitudes and stigmas of certain forms of transportation.  This would influence their decision making and how they navigate that decision, dependent on their identity and sense of control of the mode of transportation. We define time as both a quantitative and qualitative experience, and it can act as a restraint or an edge over other forms of transportation. Interaction of transportation pertains to the kinds of experiences students would have with other commuters and the very mode of transportation they choose. This, and the kind of agency students have with when they do interact with their mode of transportation.  Finally with disruption and physical space, we investigate the spatial relationships people have when commuting, as well the very literal disruptions of their mode of transportation from either the physical space or the social influences of this.

In this presentation, we will explore these four central themes through three subgroups: Bipeds, whose research deals with walking, biking, and other foot-driven means of transportation, Buses, whose research involves the city of Austin’s CAPMETRO bus system, and lastly Bumpers, whose research focuses on the use of cars by commuters into The University of Texas at Austin.

[busesbipedsandbumpers-blog]

Transportation Ethnography - Walking

By Petra Hsia

Among UT students, walking could be called the most common form of transportation when traveling to and from campus. It is convenient and requires nothing but your two legs. Through the years, more and more students have taken residence in North Campus, and many of them have chosen to walk to campus. According to Han Nguyen, a junior living in North Campus, the choice to walk and where to walk is determined mainly by time, safety, interaction, and disruptions in the physical environment. When asked which courses she prefers, Han replied, “It depends.”

Walking, for Han, is the most reliable way of transportation. In her opinion, taking other modes of transportation comes with reliability and time constraints. By biking, there is a possibility that your bike could get stolen or somebody blocks in your bike on the bike rack and you can’t get it out. This leads to you being late to class or to wherever you need to go. By taking a scooter, there could be technical difficulties when working the scooter itself or the app. In her personal experience, Han had an issue when she was trying to scan the scooter through an app to start riding, but the scan did not go through at all. She then wasted five minutes trying to figure out what was wrong with the app. In the end, she walked to class because there was only 5 minutes until class started and it wasn’t that far of a walk. By taking a bus, you have to factor in where the bus stop is, how long you have to take to walk there, the amount of time you have to wait for the bus to arrive, the bus ride itself, and how long it takes for you to walk from the bus stop you get off at to your classroom. With walking, you don’t have to rely on others or mechanisms to get you to class on time. All you have to rely on is yourself. Han explains that she can reliably count on herself to walk to class on time because she knows her own pace, speed, and familiarity with the areas she walks through. However, Han notes that if the distance between her and the destination is long, she will take other modes of transportation, but if the distance is short, she will walk.

Another aspect Han takes into consideration when deciding whether to walk or use other modes of transportation is accessibility. When she sprained her ankle in the beginning of the Fall 2019 semester, she had a hard time getting around. “UT claims to be handicap accessible, but it is very much so not,” explains Han, “It’s like why did you put the ramp all the way over here and the sidewalks here so that you have to go all the way around when you’re already on the sidewalk just to get to the ramp.” She had quite a struggle, because she had to go the extra mile to find a ramp or just to avoid stairs while she was on a wheelchair. There was just so much disruptions in the physical environment of UT that made it hard for her to get around. Han notes that on some sidewalks there are just some random bumps that you trip over that aren’t fixed. In addition, on the intersection between Whitis Avenue and 24th Street is a sidewalk that is slanted with hills. It’s an awkward area where if you don’t pay attention, you will trip. Han also expresses how cramped the sidewalks on campus are for her and her wheelchair due to the limited space for roads and proximity to buildings. Many times she would often block the entire sidewalk or get stuck during passing periods when there are a lot of people walking to class. Because of that, Han had to occasionally take an Uber or Lyft to get to class on time and not disrupt the foot traffic on campus. In addition, it made her life a lot easier as she did not have to push through crowds or go the extra mile to find a ramp for her wheelchair.

Safety is a main concern to Han, and it determines which route she takes when going to and from the UT Campus. There are two main routes to take when walking from North Campus onto the UT Campus: Guadalupe Street and Whitis Avenue.  In the daylight, Han enjoys taking Whitis Avenue to get to her classes. It is a more easygoing environment where pedestrians are favored. Starting from her apartment in North Campus, Han crosses 27th street to get onto Whitis Avenue. On the left is Duren Residence Hall and Whitis Court Residence Hall, two student dorms at UT. On the right is a church and Kinsolving Residence Hall. Beside these buildings are sidewalks lined on both sides with trees and streetside parking on the side of the road. When walking through Whitis, you can hear the rustling of trees as the wind blows by and the slight commotion of students who are also walking to class. The trees above act as an umbrella blocking the sun while the cars parked beside the sidewalk act as a barrier between the sidewalk and the street, protecting the pedestrians on the inside. In front of Kinsolving Residence Hall is a patio with picnic tables. Students sit around to eat lunch or catch up with friends. The physical and experiential aspects of Whitis Avenue is what gives this environment the perception of safety. It is a social space where pedestrians reign superior and cars are an afterthought. As she moves closer to Dean Keeton Street, the roaring of cars get louder, and it begins to sound and feel more and more like the tense, car-centric environment of Guadalupe Street. According to Han, Guadalupe Street in the daylight, on the other hand, is not as pedestrian friendly. She does not feel safe walking to class as cars zoom by her. After crossing 27th Street from her apartment in North Campus, Han is on the direct path through Guadalupe Street. On the left side of the sidewalk is a long concrete wall that goes all the way to Dean Keeton. On the right side of the sidewalk is the busy Guadalupe Street. Within a 30 minute timeframe, a total of 81 vehicles had passed by. Out of the total of 81 vehicles that passed by, 7 were buses, 4 were motorcycles/mopeds, 15 were trucks, and a shocking 55 were cars. The constant screeching of tires and whooshing of cars zooming past is overwhelming and loud. Exhaust smoke also constantly blows in your face after every passing vehicle.  In addition, there are no trees, so the entire walk down is directly under the sun. During the daylight, Guadalupe Street is definitely not a space where one can feel safe in, but in the nighttime, Han actually prefers to take Guadalupe Street over Whitis Avenue when going home from campus. At night, Whitis is darker as there is less streetlights and less foot traffic, while Guadalupe Street is the opposite. Even though it is nighttime, there is still a constant supply of vehicles passing by on Guadalupe Street. In addition, there are streetlights and lights from shops lining the side of the street. Therefore, in the dark, Han would rather walk on Guadalupe so that she is open to the public and won’t get attacked by people who could possibly be hiding in the dark alleyways of Whitis Avenue.

Walking can also be seen as a social enterprise that Han takes into consideration when choosing between Whitis Avenue and Guadalupe Street to get to and from campus. According to Han, she takes Guadalupe Street when she feels antisocial because there’s not much interaction there. It’s just cars to your right and then the wall to your left; whereas if you walk down Whitis Avenue, there’s a lot to see because you’re in the middle of all the dorms like Duren and Kinsolving. Especially in front of Kinsolving, there are those picnic tables where people usually sit and do their homework or chill in the morning. There is also the Kinsolving coffee shop where students go to socialize and grab a cup of coffee. In front of Duren, there is this half moon concrete block were students sit and socialize during the day in addition to a patio. There are just so many opportunities for socialization on Whitis Avenue in comparison to Guadalupe Street. You can see that during the day, Whitis Avenue if definitely crowded by students while Guadalupe is busier with traffic. So, when Han feels sociable, she definitely takes Whitis Avenue to class over Guadalupe Street.

While walking is the main form of transportation for UT student, Han Nguyen, certain circumstances determine which route she takes and which mode of transportation she uses when going to and from her apartment in North Campus to the UT Campus.

[busesbipedsandbumpers-blog]

The effects of construction on the walkability from 21st to campus

By Manie Phaxay

In recent years, the city of Austin has become one of the fastest-growing cities in America. With the need to accommodate the growing population, hundreds of infrastructure projects have appeared throughout the city. Specifically, in the past three years, west campus has been home to many housing development projects. Many of which are high rise student apartment buildings. On 21st street, these projects have disrupted the daily path that many students take to get to campus due to sidewalks and lanes being blocked off for the construction sites. Although these projects are constructing new sidewalks, there has not been any effort to repair the sidewalks on 21st street that are not functional anymore. Because of this, pedestrians risk getting injured and their overall experience walking on 21st street is has become unpleasant. 

For my interview, I interviewed a UT student that recently moved into 21 Rio after living in Riverside for two years. One of the main concerns that she voiced during the interview was the safety hazards from the sidewalks on 21st to campus. The walkability of sidewalks shapes our experience every day and also influences our decisions like the route we take to get to campus. In my interview, I asked about the difference between walking on 21st street in comparison to walking on campus. Areeka, my interviewee, mentioned multiple times throughout the interview how the sidewalks on 21st are not continuous. As shown in my photos, only certain sections of the sidewalks on 21st street are in good condition. Most of them being newly constructed sidewalks that were built along with high rise apartment buildings. While the other sections of the sidewalk are poorly maintained. Some issues such as, broken pieces, narrow sidewalks, and the lack of accessibility to those who have physical disabilities hinder students from walking from west campus to campus. Without functional sidewalks, students are unable to efficiently navigate west campus to campus which influences how and when students get to class.

Functional sidewalks are necessary as they provide pedestrians with safety, determine when and how UT students get to class and influence the overall experience of students getting to campus. In my interview, I asked about how the walkability of 21st street affects the time and experience a UT student has while commuting to campus. My interviewee mentioned how she prefers to take another route instead of walking down 21st street because some parts are poorly maintained which slows her down. As shown in my photos, some sections of the sidewalks are on a different elevation and contain stairs that are poorly maintained. Furthermore, they lack accessibility for those who have physical disabilities. In order to fix these issues, projects such as the first Bond Sidewalk Project in 2018 was issued to repair sidewalks that were in poor condition in East Austin. The rehabilitation project aims to “make sure sidewalks are functional, ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)…so all pedestrians can get around safely” in Austin (City of Austin 2019). Moving forward, in order to have functional sidewalks throughout the city of Austin, projects like the Bond Sidewalk Project of 2018 must become a priority to ensure the safety of pedestrians.

Many students who live in west campus have experience how construction disrupts their daily lives through their commute to campus or through the noises produced from various machines. For my field site, I wanted to explore the effects of construction on the walkability from 21st street to campus. In the past three years, there have been many new developments in west campus in a short amount of time. Due to the many construction projects happening simultaneously, many lanes and sidewalks have been blocked off to accommodate the construction sites. To gain insight into how construction has disrupted the daily lives of students, I asked my interviewee about her experience with construction in west campus. She mentioned how noise pollution has disrupted her sleep every day as construction starts early in the morning.  Along with the noise pollution, she also mentioned the inconvenience of the blocked off lanes and sidewalks on 21st street. Because of this, many students have to take an alternate route to campus. 

Currently, there is one construction project happening in front of my apartment building that has blocked off a lane and a section of the sidewalk to accommodate the construction site. In one of my photos, you can see a sign that says “sidewalk closed, use other side” placed at the end of the sidewalk in front of my apartment. Because of this, many students walking on that side of the sidewalk have to cross over to the other side of the street to get to campus. This can be dangerous as there are cars, bikes, and scooters rushing down the street. As a daily commuter myself, I have experienced a couple of times almost getting hit by bikes and scooters. 

Throughout the interview, my interviewee and I discussed the improvements that we would both like to see on the sidewalks on 21st street. One of the things that we discussed addressed the issue of nonfunctional stairs attached to the sidewalks. My interviewee mentioned how on the side of the sidewalk that is blocked off by construction had steps that barely fit the size of a shoe. Also, the steps were detached from the sidewalk. Because of this, she mentioned how she would avoid walking on that side of the street because the sidewalks were more poorly maintained. Even though it was more convenient for her to be on that side. This example shows how the walkability of a sidewalk creates preference - such as which side of the street a commuter may want to take. Pedestrians prefer to walk on sidewalks that a wide, smooth, and clean. Personally, I have taken longer routes to some of my classes because the sidewalks are more pleasant to walk on. 

As more people continue to move into Austin, the demand for housing will continue to increase. In order to feed the demand for housing, construction projects will continue to appear throughout the city. Which will disrupt the daily path of commuters by blocking off sidewalks and lanes in order to accommodate the construction sites. As these new construction projects give the city newly functional sidewalks, less priority is given to the sidewalks that need to be repaired. In order to ensure the safety of pedestrians throughout the city, city planners must prioritize repairing existing sidewalks and improving the design of sidewalks.

[busesbipedsandbumpers-blog]

Sabrina’s Final Ethnography

By Sabrina Benitez

The University of Texas at Austin is situated in the heart of the city. The university serves nearly 50,000 students. The largest student populations closest to campus either live to the west or north of the university. While bus routes do exist to bring these students to campus, most lines are usually crowded during peak times and also have to deal with Austin downtown traffic. For this reason, many students opt to either bike or walk to campus. Biking serves as a faster and seemingly more efficient mode of transportation. Different parts of campus experience varying levels of bicycle traffic. Bikes have become a part of the everyday experience for those moving through campus. Their sights and sounds are just another part of the university experience. Navigating with and around them becomes second nature to those making their way through campus. Through investigation of interpersonal interactions, spatial awareness, and safety on Speedway, the largest pedestrian walkway on campus, we find that the cyclist experience on campus is constrained by its interaction with bipeds and infrastructure. 

Interpersonal interaction is defined as the relationships between pedestrians and cyclists and how these two groups interact with each other in physical space. Down the center of the university, Speedway serves as the main artery for pedestrian and bike traffic through campus. When the classes let out, Speedway is flooded with students and faculty making their way to their next destination. Walking down this street during any passing period, you are subjected to the sounds of student conversations, birds calling, construction booming, and the sudden bike zooming past. Despite being subjected to a crowded commute, pedestrians and cyclists seem to pay no mind to each other. At first, the sound of a bike moving quickly inches from you may be startling, but after a few walks down Speedway, it becomes the norm. The bikes blend into the background for pedestrians, becoming another part of the Speedway soundscape. However, cyclists must be more aware of their movement through campus based on the presence or absence of pedestrians on Speedway. I interviewed a student cyclist for the investigation. They have been biking for four years at UT, saying that their main reason for choosing to bike is that “it’s definitely so much faster, I hate walking.” The student cyclist explained how cyclists change their behavior based on the presence of pedestrians by saying,  “if it’s really crowded the bikes go slow. If it’s not crowded the bikes go faster and they won’t hit people. It kind of self regulates.” This is consistent with what was observed on Speedway. During peak times, cyclists must deal with increased foot traffic. Although it may have been easier to step off their bikes and walk, most cyclists remained on their bikes and chose to maneuver around pedestrians. Ironically, some cyclists would dismount their bikes and walk them, moving at a much faster pace than the cyclists who chose to remain on their bikes in the crowd. Later in the day, as few people remained on campus, cyclists traveled very fast down Speedway. The choices that cyclists make are, therefore, situation dependent. 

Spatial awareness deals with the sensory experience of pedestrians and cyclists on Speedway and their interaction with infrastructure. It is immediately evident that there are no bike lanes on Speedway or anywhere else on the university’s campus. The university has yet to give  cyclists a designated space to navigate their way through the campus efficiently and safely. After much effort from cycling activists, the university did add bike lanes to some streets coming into campus, but none for the heavily congested walkways in the center of campus (“University of Texas, City of Austin Add First Official Bike Lanes to Campus Road” 2019). Because of this, people that chose biking as their mode of transportation must navigate within infrastructure not optimized for bikes. Whether the cyclists choose to walk their bike or remain mounted, they must still deal with infrastructure not conducive to their preferred mode of transportation.

The comfort for both the pedestrian and the cyclist is compromised as their respective spaces are infringed upon by one another during the commute. Although the weather is cooler right now, the uncomfortable factor would only increase with the Texas heat. The only “division” on Speedway is a metal grate down the middle that serves as a median. Besides that, the space must be evenly shared at the discretion of those who occupy it. Even from far away, you can hear the bikes roar down Speedway on those metal grates. The sound is obviously louder for those walking alongside the cyclists, who don’t always ring a bell to signal their incoming. 

Although sharing space with pedestrians makes the commute uncomfortable, the absence of vehicles influences the choice of cyclists to commute on campus. When I asked the cyclist what the main differences are in biking on and off campus, they responded that they are less afraid to bike on campus “because when you’re driving on campus you know that there’s a bunch of people walking around or biking so you’re just going slow. But on the road, there’s people going like forty miles per hour next to me.” In this case, the cyclist feels a sense of power when cycling on campus versus on a city street. From the cyclist’s perspective, the worst that may happen is bumping into another person, not getting into an accident. This provides a better sense of safety when choosing to bike through campus versus anywhere else where infrastructure may also not favor that decision. 

When asked whether or not they followed safety regulations on campus, the student cyclist simply replied, “I don’t.” They report not wearing a helmet because they feel that it is not necessary. This seems to be the case for most cyclists on campus. During observation, very few of the cyclists on Speedway wore helmets, perhaps since commuting on campus may not seem that dangerous because there are no large vehicles. Along Speedway, there are no signs that indicate any speed limit for bikes or instruction to step down and walk their bikes. When asked about bike regulations on campus, the cyclist responded with “they’re not enforced, they’re pointless.” It’s odd that electric scooters, which were deemed as unsafe on campus, now have a speed limit when being used on campus, but cyclists are not held to the same standards. 

Along with structural safety issues such as no bike lanes and no apparent warning or caution signs, pedestrians and cyclists both seemed at risk for harm. In one passing period, at least 50 bikes were observed. Out of that number, only a very small portion were using helmets. Both young and old cyclists were without helmets. Technology use also seemed to pose a threat to safety. Most of the pedestrians were looking down at their cell phones, not fully aware of the bikes zooming around them. Both pedestrians and cyclists were often seen using headphones. By avoiding interaction with one another in this way, they may be prompting an even larger encounter if there were to be collisions. During observation, not once did I hear a bell ring to signal to the person ahead that a bike was moving in. 

Within these three themes I have found overlap. I found it interesting how there is an unspoken code amongst cyclists to not follow safety regulations. If one cyclist is not following the speed limit, then all cyclysits won’t follow the speed limit. Although not all cyclists may be part of a “cycling community” that directly communicates with one another, this is an example of how interpersonal interactions between cyclists and safety intersect. Spatial awareness affects safety concerns as well. If pedestrians are not aware of their surroundings, the potential for collisions with cyclists inevitably increases. This is not helped by the crowdedness of Speedway and the need for all commuters to share the space. The cyclist has to be the most aware of surroundings, both human and infrastructural. The way a cyclist chooses to ride a certain day down Speedway, or any road, depends on the presence of a bike lane, presence of vehicles, and the presence of pedestrians. All of these factors lead cyclists to their decisions on how they use bikes as a mode of transportation to and through campus. 

Speedway is a medium for movement of people, whether on bikes, on foot, or on a scooter. Although there may not be much obvious interaction between pedestrians and cyclists, there is more to be found in what cannot be immediately seen. These themes highlight the more nuanced ways that pedestrians and cyclists interact with each other and infrastructure. As members of this university, we have become accustomed to the sounds of walking down Speedway. From the birds in the trees, to the side conversations and construction, all these sounds blend together into the familiar sound experience of walking down Speedway. Bikes, with the sounds they make and the spaces they occupy, are an integral part of that experience.

[busesbipedsandbumpers-blog]

Identity, Decision Making and Commute

By Alex H. De la Cruz Ramírez

The Triangle Southbound Bus Station exists within a mixed development community area, and it is the hub of both student workers and young professionals.  For the buses of this particular area, buses 801 MetroRapid, UT Bus Shuttle 656 - Intramural Fields, 1 North Lamar and Congress, 990 Manor/Elgin Expressway stops are found here, and therefore this location attracts a variety of passengers from the North Austin area.  As these bus routes parallel and stop at this one of many hubs of transit, they each carry their own attitudes and experiences imposed on them from students, in which students find themselves more comfortable in certain types of buses.  As these attitudes are made from students, there are then are impressions formed on which bus is preferred.  Creating this question for why certain buses are chosen over others, and then how students navigate that type of transit.

Beginning with those impressions and attitudes, what manifests in the ‘how and why to navigate’ vary from the convenience and timing of students’ schedules.  Particularly, when some of the things considered range from proximity to destination, to perception of safety and concerns with ridership, the reliability of both the bus and the bus driver and finally, how the time of day impacts the preference for certain buses.  With those factors all considered, and how they interact with identity, these then motivate on the processes that go into the ‘why and how to navigate’ at the Triangle Southbound Bus Station.

Freudendal-Pedersen, Cities and Mobilities speaks about the literal mobility of public transportation while also analyzing the social mobility that exists within these spaces of transportation (Freudendal-Pedersen).  Freudendal-Pedersen then argues that for social mobility to exist, city mobility must exist as well, for both cannot be without the other.  This is to suggest that the hierarchies within societies are then reflected in the infrastructure of public transit.  As such, this is important because this idea relates to how students make the decision to broad which bus and which not to, especially on how gender is a factor in the findings of this ethnographic research.

There is so much that occurs within this act of choice and boarding and exploring how these decisions are influenced and why these are the precautions students take is important to acknowledge at this stop.  For this research, there is a need to explore those processes, and why this is a place that demonstrates students’ decision-making and agency within this specific form of public transit.  Finally, this is done to investigate if the findings are generalizable to other bus stops, and if students share the same reasoning.  Therefore, the following themes were found from this ethnographic research indicate the experiential of bus transit and identity, while providing insight on the thoughts of navigating this space.

The Act of Boarding: The Environment, Wait and Interaction

The walk to catch the 801 was cold, and I, among many students, begin our morning commute to the University of Texas at Austin.  The bus terminal at the top of the bus station signals me the times of the first and second 801 MetroRapid arrival time.  The benches aligned perpendicular to the bus station, and students begin to line up and wait for their bus.  A few students look at their phone, and some rarely sit on the benches, but most stare into the direction of the buses coming.  These students remain patient and pass the time as best as they can.

As they wait, what surrounds them are the upcoming traffic from drivers commuting from the North to downtown, the construction and the laborers diligently working on erecting new office buildings and parking garages, the noise of the crosswalk blaring loudly to alert folks to move across the street.  There is so much active motion within this area, yet students are focused on the direction of the buses they seek to board - rarely do they check the monitor, only to see if there’s a delay for the 801.

When the 801 Bus finally arrives, students line up and board mostly within the front and middle entrance of the bus.  They crowd around the proximity of these entrances, and some rarely make the effort to board at the furthest entrance at the end -- even if it’s the least crowded.  Waiting stagnant behind the 801 is the bus 1: patient to find a space to pull over and allow passengers on.  Once all the passengers boarded, the number 1 signals if anyone wants to arrive, and soon immediately leaves after students don’t respond.  As for those who remain, these students wait until UT Shuttle Bus 656 Intramural Fields arrives, and the students have to line up, and they begin their interaction with the bus driver.  Some students are seen running late, and they are rushing to catch the bus before it leaves.  The bus waits and receives what is left of the students at the Triangle Bus Station.

Time and Compromise: The Gender of Space

As the day draws closer to 9 am and traffic grows from people’s commutes, the buses coming fuller and fuller.  Each carry greater number of passengers, and the bus stop begins to be overgrown with commuters patient to board.  People don’t pay any attention to the benches here, and few only do when the benches act as a rest for their backpacks and bags.

One of the more fascinating moments come when the bus begins to emerge, and people position themselves for an advantage to board quick before it gets any more crowded than it already is.  Here is when spatiality and compromise begin to emerge.  The beginning did not merit this need for positioning, but the further it comes to 9 am, people are more inclined to make sure they have a space on the bus.  When the 801 finally pulls over, the windows reveal the large number of passengers standing, holding on to the plastic grips dangling from the ceiling rails.

Once the doors open, people begin to board quickly, and soon the bus is overcrowded.  From here, the decision to board becomes a matter of gender.  The women students decided to not attempt to board the bus, and the men attempted to have a place on the bus for their commute.  From this bus’ emergence and exit, a good portion of the people were able to board.  Of those remaining, the women waited for the next bus to emerge, and a few men were left.  From here, this observation becomes a point of investigation.  Why did they decide to no longer board?

Safety and Identity

A friend shares an experience she had on the MetroRapid.  The bus was crowded, and there was a man standing next to her.  She didn’t assume much, and when it came for this man to exit, he bent down to appear as if he was tying his shoe.  Immediately, he reached over and touched her inner thigh and immediately left before she could process anything.  The story was meant to show the kind of harassment she expects to feel to commute.  She doesn’t add more, but she was upset that this happened on her morning commute to classes and that there wasn’t a form of accountability for this man who exited.

Another friend shares the concerns she shares with commuting the bus at certain times, and how going alone shifts the kinds of ways she navigates the bus.  Earphones that remain silent help to keep her aware of her surroundings and to give the impression that she doesn’t want to be bothered.  The 801 acts as her best commute because the 1 isn’t reliable and has mixed impressions of that bus in particular.

The bus at day versus at night are two different experiences, and harassment becomes a concern for passengers who are more likely to experience this kind of aggression.  On the Triangle Bus Station, this phenomenon is acknowledged.  There exists a sign about bystander intervention and harassment.  A person is in the picture, and her face suggests discomfort, and her being is meant to be read as a woman.  The sign urges passengers to consider their environment and to intervene when they witness harassment.  The sign is meant to draw awareness of the kinds of harassment commuters experience, and this seeks to encourage a mindset of collective safety for all commuters.  Yet, awareness appears to not be enough if certain students are preparing themselves for their commutes expecting this kind of harassment, or if students are more likely to ride share to their destination because of the sociological processes that go into public transit.

For the men, there isn’t a concern for safety, or rather harassment is not something they consider for this bus stop and the time surrounding it.  The compromise of safety doesn’t play a role, and so they are more comfortable positioning themselves through the doors.  For the women, there is another level of decision-making that is stratified with how their perception of their own gender plays a role in what kinds of experiences to expect within this space -- which is then another form of public space.  There are commonalities for decision-making that exist that don’t carry such a significant role on identity (proximity to destination, the quality of ride, for example), but there exists decision making based on gender, adding a crucial component of safety.  This builds upon the literature surrounding public transit and women’s experiences.

[busesbipedsandbumpers-blog]

Wait Watchers: The Impact of Waiting and Sociality on UT Austin’s Student Usage of the Bus

By Ellen Marshall

In two hours of observing the bus stop at the intersection of East 21st Street and San Jacinto Boulevard, I observed one interaction between two people who did not know each other. One, a person dressed in punk attire, who looked to be in late high school, asked a UT student on the bench whether a water bottle next to him belonged to him.

It did not. 

Hearing this, one would assume that waiting at the bus stop is an asocial experience, one almost entirely devoid of human interaction. However, I believe that would be a false assumption. While it is true that social interaction here is significantly and markedly different, it is still very much present. It is simply dictated by the busses, their schedules, and the act of waiting. As such, waiting at bus stops, and the social experience associated with that activity, is directly linked to a cyclical, scheduled time, both in relationship to the bus schedule and the personal schedules of the riders. This raises two truths that were reflected in my research: Waiting for the bus is a part of transportation just as much as walking, biking, driving, or even riding the bus itself. This act of waiting plays host to an interesting, overlooked social dimension that is defined by multiple facets of time and the physical space of the bus stop, and is also an extension of transportation. When combined, these truths allow for a better understanding of why riders choose to take the bus. In order to reach that understanding, however, we must understand the different concepts of time and non-verbal interactions anthropologically.

CYCLICAL TIME & SCHEDULES

When looking at anything related to bus stops, the logical first place to look is the bus schedules. This is an important starting point, as schedules determine much of how the stop works and exists in various contexts, and I labelled “cycles” of buses in my original field notes marked by the length of time between another bus of the same line arriving. On the smallest scale, I found that there is a cycle of “booms and busts,” in the bus stops’ population on campus. In the fifteen minutes following the release of classes, large swaths of waiters will arrive all at once. The bus stop will swell with waiters until either the 7 or the 10 bus lines arrives. The closer to around 5:00 or 6:00 PM it gets, I found, the larger the number of people who will accumulate at the bus stop before leaving. People will board other buses and people will come to the bus stop between these mass arrivals and mass departures, of course, but the population of the bus stop swells and grows in a predictable way based off this.

Predictability is not always a constant in schedules, however. I interviewed a student and former daily bus rider who I will refer to as Jay. Jay has recently transitioned to using electronic scooter rentals for the bulk of his transportation needs, and now relies on the bus only “three times a month.” Despite Cap Metro’s best efforts—including releasing an app that allows for real-time tracking of the buses in the city in 2015 (Theis 2015)—predictability of the buses and their wait time remains inconsistent at best, hence why Jay now relies on the bus only a few times a month. This is due largely in part, he explains, to the act of waiting at the bus stop. As a bus rider, Jay had to plan his day around waiting for the bus. But as a scooter rider he is more flexible and able to get places more quickly than with the bus. And so, waiting becomes transformed into an extension of the bus system and thus an extension of public transportation.

So, while the bus schedules are a good starting point, they are not the only factor at play. It is also important to understand the act of waiting more thoroughly in order to understand this situation ethnographically. Waiting has been defined anthropologically as a means to allow us to examine human actions, thoughts, and social relationships and how they shift, or are entirely removed, through different times and different situations. It has been further divided into two types of waiting: passive waiting, in which the outcome of the wait is relatively certain, patience is high, and little thought is given to the wait, and active waiting, which happens the moment the outcome becomes less than certain. Patience suddenly becomes tested, and anxiety over the outcome may arise. (Janeja and Bandak 2018) While these definitions were intended for researching larger-scale events taking place over years, its relevancy is maintained for short-term waits, with a few caveats that change how waiters perceive and interact while waiting. Most significantly, it is easier to see how time can be cyclical in the short-term in comparison to reoccurring events taking place over centuries or longer. In addition, these short-term schedules are generally more planned and purposeful. With these caveats, we are closer to anthropologically understanding waiting in the short-term, but we need to also understand scheduled time.

The schedule of the bus stop, however, is not the only schedule at play here. For example, the boom and bust cycle was determined by class schedules. Rush hour, while not officially scheduled by any organization, also plays a role in determining how long people wait for the bus. Weekends, late nights, and holidays change the bus routes available, while University game-days and musical festivals re-route buses. The schedules repeat: every half-hour, hourly, daily, weekly, and yearly, determining what wait to expect, what options are available, and thus, who is at the bus stop. This intersection of formal/informal schedules, the physical space of a bus stop, and social experiences creates a space where time is functionally looped, and it is the foundation for understanding how the bus stop is a socially unique space, whose sociality is just as much an aspect of transportation as vehicles or roads.

SOCIAL/ASOCIAL EXPERIENCE

This viewing the bus stop as a socially transportive space requires us to look at social experiences outside of the obvious spoken dialogue. Rather, we must define these experiences to encompass non-verbal forms of communication and new, technological forms. Furthermore, we must investigate how this form of the wider social experience is informed by and defined by the concept of waiting, repeated scheduled time, and the act of transportation.

Firstly: there is, indeed, verbal interaction at the bus stop. It is just by far the least common means of sociality. As mentioned in my introduction, I only once saw two strangers speak to each other in my two hours of observation. This finding was consistent with what the bus rider I interviewed had to say. He explained that, while he personally was willing to carry on a conversation with a stranger at a bus stop, the norm was to find that uncomfortable. The expected behavior was to be friendly, but self-contained socially and not converse with other waiters or riders. People who arrive at the stop talking with friends will not cease their conversations immediately, although I did notice a trend for waiters arriving in groups to eventually stop talking or at least lower their volume considerably. In addition, a number of waiters took phone calls at the stop, including the rider I interviewed, who stated that he used his phone 3 out of every 10 times at the stop.

Technology as a whole plays an incredibly large role at the bus stop. When most people arrive alone, their first action at the stop is to pull out their phones, with many putting on or already having in earbuds on top of that. Waiters will utilize their phones for social media, my interviewee making note of Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, and texting in particular. As such, the most common and most direct form of communication here is also transportive, in the sense that it is centered around communicating with others far from the bus stop and taking the waiter away from the stop socially.

In that sense, technology serves as a tool to lengthen passive waiting. If the waiter does not expect board the bus quickly and begin their physical transportation, they will delve into their phone and allow themselves to be, mentally at least, transported away. I found that many—including Jay—used some form of ear buds to listen to music as they waited, while others would even watch movies or stream TV shows as they waited. Interestingly, Jay stated that he found people watching media on their phone without earbuds to be rude. This signifies the importance that this mental transportation be private.

But why is technology the preferred means of social and mental transportation? And why is it important that each waiter keeps this transportation self-contained and not impede on another waiter? If people were solely concerned with transporting themselves away mentally, then idle chit-chat or making friends at the stop would serve this purpose, as would allowing themselves to “tag along” with someone else’s experience. However, this need to extend passive waiting through mental transportation is only half the story.

The other answer is related to a personal scheduled time. For most people, waiting at this particular bus stop marks the end of their day on campus. As such, it takes place as the end-point of a day of working on campus, where they (theoretically, at least) have been largely away from social media. On paper, a bus stop seems like a good spot to meet new friends and talk to strangers. After all, many of these waiters will be at this stop every day at the same time as you, or even take the same bus at the same time. You may see them every day. But this ignores the chronological positions of the bus stop. Waiting at the bus stop is the end of several hours of working on campus, and waiters are thus tired. While waiters may hope to mentally transport themselves to make the wait feel shorter and maintain patience, they need to do so in a way that is low-effort and relaxing to them personally. For that reason, pre-existing social connections are preferable to creating new ones, as existent connections take less effort than forging new ones.

The bus stop acts as a rest spot, as waiters either prepare to enjoy their evening of free time or work away from campus. Regardless, its’ position at the end of a significant part of the day makes it a perfect opportunity to relax through the act of mental transportation and immersion. In social terms, exclusively online, screen-based interactions have the benefit of being one-sided. You generally can choose when to engage in a conversation and can still choose to partake as an observer. In-person or phone-based communication, while requiring more instantaneous responses, are still ways to reconnect with people you have not seen in the day and re-cap how yours has gone.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rules and people who break these norms. Waiters are not a monolithic, rule following group. Notably, Jay mentioned that he would often take his laptop out to do work while at the bus stop. I did not observe that once in my dedicated observation time, nor have I noticed it in the many times I take the bus outside of observing. Indeed, I began my observations by taking written notes in a journal, but quickly swapped to taking electronic notes on my phone due to the stares and odd glances I received. After swapping to my phone, the stares stopped. We also must question the role of active waiting in the sociality of waiting at the bus stop. When does the passive wait become active? And how are norms regulated? Both of these answers are provided by examining the role of physical actions in sociality.

Norms are managed non-verbally via eye-contact and staring, which limit how effectively they can be enforced; some people are simply oblivious to stares, or just do not care about them. When I broke the norms by working at the bus stop, a place supposed to be dedicated to resting, I fell back into place due to the number of stares I received. Jay, while he continues to work, also alters his social behavior in response. “If I’m reading, I guess I’ll kinda step out of the group, just so I’m not in anyone’s way,” he explains. In my sonic ethnography, I attempted to simulate the activity of scanning the bus stop for future buses, and in doing so, noted a girl vaping, who received a stare for doing so. Her vaping intruded into the rest of the waiters’, and so she stopped. Notably, she stopped vaping after that.

The second purpose of physical actions concerns the most common activity: watching for the bus. The bus stop (pictured below) sits at the end of a bend in the road. At the other side of the bend sits another bus stop, and many buses stop at both. As such, we could hear the bus around the bend and see it before it was close enough to make the route number legible. When a bus sat at that stop, people would stop and stare at it until they made out the route number, and then either moved to board it or went back to their phones. This, however, is not the only instance of watching the bend. The longer it has been between a scheduled “wave” of buses, or if a very large number of people are waiting at the stop, the more people will crane their necks to watch, even if no bus sits at the other end. This is representative of a collective transformation from passive waiting to active waiting. People suddenly become worried that perhaps their bus is running significantly late, or if it has been long enough, cancelled or rerouted altogether. While technological and verbal interactions are used for social purposes, these physical actions are used for more practical purposes: to share concern over another waiter’s actions, or to share concern that a bus has not come in a while.

CONCLUSION

Waiting is an unavoidable aspect of riding the bus, and thus exists as an extension of it. The bus stop is ultimately dictated by schedules and time, and as such so is the social realm around it. This leads to the creation of two norms in the social space: the need for relaxation after working, and the need to be mentally transported to alleviate the wait for physical transportation. These norms combined leads to a social space in which new interactions between strangers is unexpected and strange, but one where sociality is far from dead. Rather than being used to communicate with new people, it is used here to improve the bus stop. The social rules differ here in order to cope with the personal and bus schedule, while also allowing passive waiting to be stretched longer. Shared physical actions are used in this social space in order to maintain these norms and to cope with moments in which passive waiting gives way to active. The bus would not be able to compete with less wait-intensive modes of transportation without this social experience, and as such, to understand the bus, you must understand the wait. And to understand the wait, you must understand bus sociality.

[busesbipedsandbumpers-blog]

Inbound to Crossing Place: UT’s Reach on Riverside

By Emily Prines

While waiting for the 670 Capital Metro bus to Crossing Place from the UT campus, students were quickly accumulating as rush hour crept forward. Each student contributed to the collective silence and asociality of the stop by avoiding eye contact, maintaining personal space, and interacting only with electronics and books. As the bus made its arrival, the students were cued to gather their possessions and find their student ID to board the bus. Once on the bus, a few more students climbed on before we departed for East Riverside. We swiftly left the UT campus and approached Interstate 35, which was dense with traffic and lit red with brake lights. As we inched down the interstate, the commute amounted to a 30-minute trip to reach Riverside Drive. As we traveled down the road, the area became a village of apartments that led to Crossing Place street, here, the bus stopped for the first time since leaving campus. There were three stops, each branded with the Longhorn emblem, equipped with a Daily Texan newspaper dispenser, and covered with other UT related postings (see Exhibit A).

The last stop in front of the University Village Apartments emptied the bus, and finally the students broke the silence to thank the bus driver. As I waited for the next bus to arrive outbound to UT, a few students gathered around the benches, each on their phone, avoiding interaction. The next 670 bus pulled up and as we boarded, the only thing filling the silence were sounds of a humming engine and screeches of student IDs being scanned. Again, we were met with traffic and brake lights on our way back to the university. 

This experience riding the 670 bus to and from East Riverside is a typical encounter any student passenger would have with this route. My investigation of public transit was fueled through fieldwork over the 670 route, which sparked questions regarding social and environmental factors that may have influenced riders to choose this form of transportation. In addition, my investigation was grounded in the interdisciplinary debates of whether forms of transportation are stigmatized and if our choices are influenced based on our socio-demographics. These debates are exemplified in Vania Ceccato’s and Andrew Newton’s Safety and Security in Transit Environments, in which they find that perceptions and experiences of “transportation facilities affect the way in which [we] engage in travel” (2015).  In consideration of these theories and questions, I explored the connection of UT with the Riverside route, the availability of transportation in Riverside, the interactions and experiences of the 670 bus’s passengers, and other elements that determine who, how, and why individuals interact with this system. The creation, engagement, and utilization of the 670 route addresses the broader concepts of ridership, and public transit experiences that reinforce our choices of transportation. 

While waiting for and riding the 670 bus, I noticed all the passengers were UT students based upon an estimation of their ages and their sporting of a backpack or bookbag. Capital Metro and the university established this route to provide a transportation option for students living along Crossing Place street. Within an interview of a UT student living in Riverside who utilizes the 670 bus system, stated, “it is mainly college students out here in Riverside, at least in the apartment I live in. You do get the occasional non-UT riders.” The interviewee’s statement and quantitative data from Capital Metro’s “Services and Systems Evaluation 2016 Report” confirms that due to the bus’s status as a UT Shuttle, the ridership of the bus is primarily composed of UT students, however, the system is not exclusive to student usage (see Exhibit B). In addition to the 670 bus system’s association with UT, ridership stems from a variety of other social and environmental factors.

Within the interview, the interviewee established how essential the bus system is for UT students in East Riverside. The accessible design of the route is a straight shot from UT to a high-density area of UT students residing on Crossing Place. UT and Capital Metro have created three convenient stops for Crossing Place residents, which provides UT students easy and free transportation. As the interviewee stated, “it’s free for UT students, and it allows me to...get started with my day and I don’t have to worry about traffic.” The accessibility of the stop highlights the limitations of other modes of transportation to the campus, such as driving, biking, and walking. These alternate transportation choices are not desirable and difficult to utilize because of the distance from Riverside to UT, the high volume of I-35’s traffic, and the expensive and unguaranteed parking UT offers. Students can be considered low-income, which creates economic constraints, especially with transportation. Since the bus is free with a student ID, students are apt to utilize this system. In addition, the bus offers a means of getting to campus without wasting gas in traffic or having to purchasing a parking pass ranging from $200 to $800 a year. Furthermore, the environmental and social factors of location, economic standing, and status has made the 670 bus system a primary and desirable mode of transportation for UT students living in Riverside. 

Previous experiences with transportation inform our choices of travel. Aside from the 670 bus route’s accessibility, the route proved to be the best transportation choice for UT students in Riverside based on their experiences with other modes of transportation and transportation infrastructure. The increasing levels of traffic within Austin and around the campus has created challenges for commuters, and made the bus system a prime choice for traveling in central Austin. As stated by the interviewee, “since moving to Riverside, I’ve learned to really appreciate the bus system and I’ve learned to really appreciate that UT provides the bus system for us, it makes it a lot better, safer and easier commute to classes.” Rather than students in Riverside battling for on-campus parking or enduring dense traffic on I-35, the bus system enables students to get to campus with less limitations. 

Additionally, the safety of the 670 bus system contributes to the high number of student riders. My interviewee felt safe on the 670 bus system, which has opened her “eyes to public transportation.” While riding the 670 bus, I had not experienced an unsafe situation that would deter me from riding again. Another notable experience of utilizing the bus system is waiting and engaging with the culture of waiting. Waiting for and riding the 670 bus can become a daily event filled with checking bus schedules and extended periods of standing by without social interaction (see Exhibit C).

Within Capital Metro’s “Service and Systems Evaluation 2016 Report,” the 670 bus is reported to have a 10 to 15 minute wait interval, however, more accurate wait times can reach 20 minutes during periods of rush hour. The culture of waiting can deter potential passengers, however, in the situation of the 670 bus, the high volume of traffic and unpredictable parking has made waiting tolerable and a common experience for 670 bus riders.

Engaging with transportation infrastructure is a daily aspect of our lives, whether that be with roads, sidewalks, parking garages, bicycles, or public transit. Accompanied by every interaction with transportation is a choice on our mode of travel, route, and schedule. Our choices of transportation are influenced by a multitude of variables including location, community, accessibility, limitations, and experiences. For public transit, ridership and transportation experiences are encompassing concepts that grapple with passengers’ decision making, while providing insight into broader discussions of infrastructure. Rooted in fieldwork over the 670 bus system, influential factors in determining modes of transportation revealed the importance of social and environmental factors. 

Ridership of the 670 bus is deeply related to both environmental and social influencers. Environmentally, the location of Riverside, the placement of the bus stops, and I-35 traffic were instrumental factors in students choosing this form of transportation. Socially, the passengers’ status as students and residents in Crossing Place, and their economic backgrounds are persuading variables in choosing the 670 bus. In addition, transportation experiences can deter or invite individuals to embrace certain forms of transportation. Riverside UT students’ experiences with 670 bus system were safe, convenient, and positive in relation to other modes of transit. When choosing transportation, experience are compared in order to definitively choose the correct transportation for the situation. Overall, our choices of transportation are not binary, but rather are deliberate and comprehensive of internal and external factors imposed on ourselves and transportation infrastructure.

[busesbipedsandbumpers-blog]

Final Ethnography

By Grishma Bhetuwal

UT has scattered C parking all around the campus. There are altogether thirteen C parking lots and currently other three C parking lots are under construction. Most of the parking spaces were occupied by students’ vehicles. There were a lot of cars moving around in parking lots to find parking spaces, especially in lots near the main campus than the other side of I-35. It was really difficult to get out from lot 70 since it was under construction and direction was not as clear as other lots. It took me around more than half an hour to look around all the C parking spaces. But at the end, I decided to observe the Comal street bus stop where I could observe C parking as well as longhorn parking lots in walking distance. And also, students have to either choose to walk from Comal street or take bus from the same bus stand to campus. There was an equal distribution of student who were taking the bus and walk from lots to campus. It takes around fifteen to twenty minutes’ walk to main campus.

I discovered many things during my field notes, interviews, archival and also with media/sensory data. I have categorized my observation of UT parking problems for commuters into four subgroups, which are time consuming, safety, money oriented, and lack of organization. It takes more time for commuters spends on finding a better parking spot. There are not enough and better security measures for the commuters who stay late for any activities in the campus. There is no security while crossing roads at night. It is also a long route with limited transport route to parking space. It causes nervousness to stay late for group study and other school activities. PTS is into gains because they give a lot of parking tickets without any kind of instruction to park. It is comparatively expensive and if we analyze space available with money spent on buying a permit. Also, there are lots of construction with less space which can lead to the parking citation. PTS has lack of organization because they don’t sell permits one on one basis of space available. There are limited transportation routes from the main campus to parking spaces whereas most of the parking lots are across I-35. It is almost impossible to come to campus at a time of home game even though assistant director that I interviewed told me during an interview there is enough space available at a time of home game. Even if we found one it is really far away from the campus, so it is not designed to encourage for commuters to come on campus at a time of game.

Money Oriented:

Parking permits are really expensive at a same time it's not managed well. It cost more than $150 for a parking space, even it is not sold on one on one basis. If we want one on one basis parking spaces, then we should be willing to spend more than three hundred dollars per semester, but not everyone qualifies to get the garage permit. There are limited parking spaces near the main campus and if anyone wants to get a better parking spot, then we should be on campus really early. C parking is not designed to facilitate for commuters, but it is designed to get more money out of citations and without consideration of situation of commuters. Also, it is so easy to get a parking ticket if anyone decided to do back parking and it is not instructed at a time of purchase of parking permits. PTS should stop fining every single time with parking tickets, but only warn specially for new parking holders who do not have any clue about UT parking rules. Most of the times C parking spaces are under construction and it is almost impossible to get a better parking spot to park and it can lead to frustration. PTS are only selling permits for their profits but not providing services to the commuters. Even though there is not enough space to make parking lots near the main campus there are a lot of things they could improve such as not focusing on selling more garage permits. Even though, they can make money out of it and minimizing the rate of garage permits, providing enough garage permits not based on lottery of getting garage permits can be a better option for commuters.

Lack of Organization:

In the Daily Texan, “UT-Austin Parking Permits Don't Guarantee Spots”, Dunning paints the picture of parking at UT by describing the difficulties created by the system for those that live off campus and the struggle to find parking close to campus. Not only is there a monetary hurdle, the article highlights how the UT Parking and Transportation services sells more permits than parking spaces creating a secondary obstacle to finding a parking spot. UT-Austin Parking Permits Don't Guarantee Spots 2018) Especially at a time of home game, it’s almost impossible to get a parking spot even though PTS claim that they have enough space at a time of home game. A parking spot at a time of home game is really far away from the main campus. There is not proper transportation service linking parking lot to campus, which makes impossible to come and study on campus. I was also able to see the frustration of finding a better parking spot at a time of my media sensory. Since it was 8:30 AM but there was not any parking space available besides LBJ, which is considerably near to main campus. Most of the commuters were angry at me because I was taking video and also occupying a parking space. I was able to see the anger and frustration towards limited parking space even though I was unable to capture it in the camera.

Time consuming:

Finding parking spaces is really time consuming and also frustrating in UT. It requires a lot of time and also in order get better parking spot commuters must be willing to get in the campus before 8 AM or if not, it is impossible to get a better parking space. Commuters should reconsider a lot of times before staying on campus till late night because there is no better transportation service from the main campus to the parking lot and usually it is really far away from the campus which can lead to many crimes and incidents. Most of the C parking is already filled by 9 to 10 AM so commuters should park their car in the longhorn space which are basically filled at a time of games, but not regular time, but it is really far away from main campus which has less street light and also can be seen a lot of homeless people. As mentioned by PTS most of the open space parking lots are available for the C parking spots are across I-35. So, it takes more than fifteen to twenty minutes from the main campus to parking lots.

Security:          

PTS are not considering the situation of the commuters. As the assistant director told me bus 641 is operated by UT PTS for students’ security. Then 641 buses should available till 3 AM as commuters can park till 3 AM in the morning. Commuters should not feel terrified and frustrated to get a better parking spot in the morning and feel safe to get parking lots from the campus. There is only one bus, 641 available from the main campus to across I-35 which stops running after 10 PM. So, there is no option for commuters to stay on campus for any curriculum after 10 PM. There is no security while crossing roads at night. It is also a long route with limited transport route to parking space. By the time of 9 PM there won’t be any cars and people walking around these areas which makes commuters uneasy and unwilling to stay after 6 PM in the campus. It causes nervousness to stay late for group study and other school activities.

As a commuter I prefer to feel safe if I decide to stay late on campus. I think PTS is misusing the power and giving citation over unnecessary reason should be stopped. PTS should focus on providing organized parking spaces rather than frustrated and construction plot for the parking permits. If they are getting money out of it, then they should at least provide managed and proper parking space for commuters. Of course, managing parking space with limited space and unlimited demand is difficult. But it seems like PTS are not trying their best for commuters, also at a time of interviewing Paul Muscato, assistant director of PTS was constantly referring that C parking is not something they care about much and if commuters want to have guaranteed space then garage parking is ideal. But garage parking is difficult to get and only few garage permit holders are selected, and every commuter should be eligible for garage permit. PTS has ridiculous rules and regulation to be eligible to get different kind of permit and they are not obliviously to help commuters or those who are only paying a few bucks to maintain their department but focusing on those who are paying thousands on the dollar. So, UT PTS disappoints me with their lack of organization, not be able to provide enough security and focusing on more money also creating frustration to commuters with limited space.

[busesbipedsandbumpers-blog]

Final Ethnography

By Bryan Torres

Transportation is an interaction that is unavoidable and that we come across on the daily. It doesn’t matter what the destination is or where it is at or even where you’re coming from. You will always need some sort of transportation to get there. No matter which transport method is chosen, there’s always some sort of attitude that directly impacts why that certain method of transportation was chosen. Neville Stanton’s collection of ethnographies, Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation, examines the various common methods of transportation that are used and finds that they all do indeed have a theme in common. They all have stigmas and attitudes attached to the choice of transportation. (Stanton pp.623-659) This in hand rose the question, how might UT students’ choices of transportation become influenced?

The University of Texas at Austin has an average of 52,000 students, that’s both undergraduate and graduate, as well as an additional 3,000 teaching faculty, all needing to get to campus in some sort of way or manner. Add to that the people or alumni who come to campus to visit. The most common transportation methods are walking, biking, driving, or taking the city bus. That’s a lot of movement both in and outside campus, all while having the rest of the Austin population to co-exist with. The area that interested me the most was the driving transportation method due to having to commute on the daily to campus from a nearby city called San Marcos. San Marcos is typically 30 miles away from Austin and if you’re going 70 miles per hour that means you should be arriving within 30 minutes. That isn’t the case for me though. It usually takes me an hour to an hour and 30 minutes to get to campus from my house. There are multiple reasons as to why it takes me so long to arrive, a few of them being because of traffic or construction, while it could also depend on the time of the day as well as the weather. It interested me to see if I faced the same struggles and challenges as other commuters at UT or if I have gone through the same experiences as them. This ties back to the original question of how might UT students’ choices of transportation become influenced?

To further look into situations such as these, I searched up various scholarly articles alongside articles that can be considered as primary. One of the articles used was one that was titled, New and Unique Aspects of University Campus Transportation Data to Improve Planning Methods, by Christopher R. Cherry. The article focuses on three case studies that were performed at three different universities within the United States: The University of Tennessee (Knoxville), San Diego State University, and California Polytechnic State University (San Luis Obispo). The case studies focused on where the current students resided and what transportation method they have been using to get to campus. Another article that was very helpful in my research was one that was titled, Student, Professors Share Tips on How to Navigate Austin Transportation, published on The Daily Texan. This article described very briefly about the student experiences on Austin’s public transportation and notes that students feel that the infrastructure placed is “inconsistent.” The professors however feel that the fact that UT pays so that its students can use the city bus, CapMetro, for free is quite the advantage. One of the students interviewed, Gerard Apruzzese, says he doesn’t park on campus due to the high cost of a parking permit and chooses to instead park in a friend’s garage and then walk. He says, “It doesn’t make sense that UT would make the prices so expensive knowing that the people who need it are more likely to be economically disadvantaged.” (Daily Texan 6) I chose to use these sources because they can be tied to not only UT students but anybody using transportation in Austin. Cherry’s article can be compared and contrasted to UT student’s numerous transportation methods meanwhile the article from The Daily Texan was important because it shares direct experiences that students within the university have gone through and can be analyzed.

In order to conduct a better investigation, I personally interviewed a student that is a commuter, Brandon Alvarado, as well as doing participant observation and taking note of events that happened while driving to campus. To keep the interview ethical, I let the student being interviewed know what the purpose of the interview was and that I just needed someone else’s perception and experiences of commuting. His answers were quite interesting due to them being similar to my experiences and feelings. One of the answers that he gave me that I found to be interesting was whenever I asked him, “do you try to avoid IH-35 completely? Why or why not?” and he answered with, “I think in Austin it’s really hard to avoid IH-35 because it pretty much runs right through the middle of the city so most of the time I just get on the highway. It’s the fastest route. Would I like to avoid IH-35? Yeah that’d be great because of all that traffic, but you pretty much can’t.” It interested me because he has a valid point. Transportation in Austin is very dependent on IH-35, for the most part. It’s what drives the city in terms of growth and transportation. I witnessed this firsthand whenever I did my participant observation while driving. In order to capture everything and not miss a single thing, I pulled out my phone and started recording (while keeping my eyes on the road) and I found this to be very helpful as I was able to see things that I wouldn’t normally catch such as peoples reaction to certain events happening. 

After analyzing all of my data collected from the interview, the media/sensory captured, and the fieldnotes I was able to come up with an answer for the question stated at the beginning: how might UT students’ choices of transportation become influenced? Students at the University of Texas at Austin choice of transportation gets heavily influenced by various factors. These include time wasted in traffic, cost of parking, choice of housing, and the distance from campus. 

We can see that transportation is an interaction that is unavoidable and that it’s something we come across on the daily and just as Stanton says in his collection of ethnographies, there’s attitudes and stigmas attached to the method of transportation chosen. Whether that’s because of where they live within the city (or perhaps out of it) or even something as to not wanting to pay for the parking in campus. The research done has helped me learn that although commuters that drive to campus may seem disconnected from the rest of the students, we may also share things in common such as the experiences and feelings we have gotten through commuting.

[busesbipedsandbumpers-blog]

Getting Around the Neighborhood

By Lina Barakat

Introduction

The roads were empty for five oclock in the afternoon. As I turned off the main road and left the sense of movement around the entrance of the neighborhood, a quiet came over the landscape. I drove past houses grouped together behind entrance signs and gates. Large spans of greenway and trees sat between the clusters, creating respites in the scenery. I’m the only car on the road for a while with only a few people walking on the sidewalk as company. After rounding past an elementary school, I notice two small signs pointing to a building tucked behind trees with the words “Public Meeting” printed on them. I pull into the parking lot which sits at the bottom of a hill. A white stone building with a pool in the back emerges as I park my car in front. It’s quiet as I step out of my car and walked towards the wall of windows at the entrance of the building. 

Circle C Ranch, like many master planned communities, was designed with specific accessibility ideas in mind that create a certain transportation landscape. Built in the 1980’s, the neighborhood encompasses more than 6,000 homes, a golf course, four pools, several parks and schools, and more than 15,000 people in a 7.2 square mile area. Predominantly accessible by car, the area has a few bike lanes connecting it to surrounding neighborhoods away from the major roads and limited bus access. There have been various proposed changes to the transportation infrastructure in and around the community over the past few years, each revealing a new facet of how the different ways to get around fit into people’s everyday lives. These propositions surface questions surrounding community interest and values and highlight the weight an infrastructure project can carry.    

Physical Space & Isolation

Circle C is surrounded on two sides by largely empty land, Mopac on another, and other middle to middle-upper class neighborhoods on the last side. Connections for cars exist throughout all of these areas, whereas bike lanes only exist in the direction of the other neighborhoods and there is only one bus route down Escarpment that comes 4 times a day (Bike Lane Routes 2019, Figure 1) (CapMetro System Map 2016).

  This hinders anyone outside the neighborhood from accessing the restaurants, shops, and parks by bike or bus creating a physical hurdle for other modes of transportation in the area. A quick drive through Circle C reveals further the degree to which the transportation desert is very much a designed aspect. The two of the main arteries of the neighborhood are narrow winding roads that at points become single lane streets, leaving no room for a bike lane or a bus to drive through without causing major disruption (Figures 2 and 3).

At certain points, the bike lane will abruptly converge with the car lane, creating a potentially dangerous situation since these occurs most often around schools (Figure 4).

This landscape allows for certain movements in certain places. The bike lanes are clearly meant more for recreational biking within the neighborhood and surrounding areas, not as a main means of transportation. This creates the foundation upon which the lack of interest of community members in embracing other types of transportation builds. With no real means for people outside the neighborhood to physically enter the community, there seems to be no reason for residents to be particularly invested in bikes or buses.  

In 2015, the Texas Department of Transportation proposed major improvements to MoPac from North of Slaughter Lane to South of La Cross Avenue, impacting Circle C Ranch and the surrounding area. While a  majority of people supported the construction citing improvements in traffic congestion, one of the proposed additions was the improvement of pedestrian walkways and bike lanes for safety reasons at this major intersection. Out of 409 comments received at the public hearing for the proposition, only a handful cited safety for cyclists and pedestrians as a reason for wanting to approve the project (Public Hearing Summary 2015). The concerns raised about congestion clearly garnered more weight since the project moved forward with no real improvements made for other modes of transportation. A map of Austin’s bike routes only has a “helpful sidewalk” along W Slaughter Lane and a low comfort bike lane along the highway listed as alternative transportation options for an area that acts as the main entrance for the neighborhood (Bike Lane Routes 2019)(Figure 1).  This illustrates how achieving and maintaining a certain comfort level for cars and drivers is a priority for the area. It also introduces a recurring paradox of wanting to improve roadways to relieve congestion but little interest put toward bike and bus transportation options which in turn leaves more cars on the road. The physical place of the community at the edge of the southwest Austin area allows it to separate itself and create and maintain its own transportation landscape with little to no attention paid to those outside it.

Selective Interest

The public meeting in the community center was the first Project Connect Community Event I attended as part of my research. The poster presentation given by the hosts provided a comprehensive look at the changes the city and CapMetro plan on implementing through bus route expansions, but it became increasingly difficult to ignore the constant flow of people moving towards the pool and hearing the continuous stream of distant chatter that never seemed to get close enough. A sense of apprehension could soon be felt in the room as the hosts walked around aimlessly and made small talk after the presentation. The large expanses of quiet with only the hum of the air conditioning audible filled the better part of two hours. The few people that did walk through the door had little to comment about the plan, saying that they would still use their car and have little interest in using the bus, quickly leaving thereafter. For these families, spending time interacting with the hosts and looking at the posters did not seem like a priority, whereas the hosts saw those residents as important parts of the community with useful information about the proposed changes to the transportation landscape. While it may not be vehement opposition to the plan in expanding bus routes, the lack of interest in spending time providing feedback speaks to a certain sense of privilege that comes with not having to think about public transit and the future of transportation in the city.  

Earlier this year, the City of Austin rolled out their Austin Strategic Mobility Plan, a comprehensive plan tackling the transportation problems faced by the city because of a growing population and aging infrastructure system. The goal of the plan is to “build connections, improve our current systems, increase accountability, and plan for our city’s long-term transportation future,” through a variety of new processes and carefully track progress (Austin Strategic Mobility Plan, 2019).  The Circle C Ranch HOA “decided to aggressively address segments of the plan that negatively affect the overall quality of life and value of our already master planned community,” like rejecting extensions of roads on the periphery of the neighborhood that would connect it with MoPac at more points and changing the requirements for expanding roads within the community (Circle C Ranch Homeowners Association 2019). The emphasis placed on preserving the transportation infrastructure of the neighborhood within the framework of a project meant to integrate the city in more robust ways does indicate a certain want to remain selectively isolated from surrounding areas. While there may not be an interest in supporting or opposing changes made to bus routes or bike lanes, there is a very strong interest in ensuring cars move through the neighborhood a certain way.  

Conclusion   

According to a local neighborhood council member, there is no decent public transportation in southwest Austin and whatever is in place does very little in helping people get out of their cars. He mentioned that there is a heightened demand for a more integrated transportation landscape in the areas around Circle C, making the neighborhood and its goals markedly different from those around it. In looking at master-planned communities such as Circle C Ranch, isolation and lack of interest surrounding transportation are not surprising. The fact that the neighborhood is predominantly accessible through cars makes it isolated from other means of transportation and therefore isolated from other groups of people. The lack of interest could be considered both a symptom and a driver of this isolation. Looking at the larger infrastructure projects in the area like Project Connect and the MoPac Construction Plan, public meetings are attended in low numbers meaning the conversations about transportation miss the majority of people within the neighborhood. These ideas certainly confirm the question of whether the transportation landscape was purposefully created and continually maintained by the community and additionally speak to broader conceptual themes of privilege and feelings of belonging.  Transportation seems to be one of the main means of seeing these themes both in the physical construction of the neighborhood but also in the mindset of its residents.

[busesbipedsandbumpers-blog]

Conclusion

While our ethnographies cover a multitude of topics, they convene over our four overarching and overlapping themes: safety, time, interaction, and disruption and physical space. These themes determine what choices people make or are allowed to make in regards to their form of transportation. Walking and the foot-based transportation of Bipeds is constrained by time and safety and defined by physical environment. If it would take too long, or if the walker or biker feels unsafe in their physical space, this choice would be impractical and, thus, a non-starter. While they largely maintain agency over their route, they remain constrained by the physical space, which determines the route people can choose to take. Bikers, for example, are limited by where bike lanes are and where pedestrians are not, while walkers (especially those with physical disabilities) must choose based on where sidewalks are placed, and then again based on how well-maintained each sidewalk is. The biped group, in general, interacts very directly with their infrastructure and other people. They make physical contact with the roads and sidewalks they take, and have the most interaction with people outside of the transportation infrastructure. They pass people not in the act of transportation without being insulated inside a vehicle, and can more readily stop in order to interact with people not involved in transportation.

Meanwhile, the decisions of buses and bus riders were constrained by time and disruption, especially through waiting and traffic, respectively. Still, questions of bus rider safety and interaction were key elements. How were populations at higher risk of violence (people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, women, etc.) able to interact with safety on the bus? When riders lost control of agency over the direction of the route and were more confined with others, safety once again became important. Interaction was also a major question. How do riders interact with each other on the bus? Waiting for the bus? Ultimately, this interaction was more distant to other riders, but closer to existing friends via technology.

Lastly, while the drivers of the Bumper were largely more autonomous physically moving through the city, the decisions surrounding interaction, physical space, and time became central. Whether its living in an area where a car is the only option as a means of getting to school, navigating the complex world of parking lots at UT, or choosing which highway to use, the considerations that come with being able to control certain aspects of transportation comes at the price of making these other decisions. Time spent in traffic and the subsequent culture created by it has only increased as the city continues to grow past its limits. Physical space, whether that's road conditions or the available parking spaces in a lot, becomes a limiting factor because without a road or place to park, the use of a car is rendered useless. One of the more important aspects of the physicality of driving is the cost, especially in regards to parking and the exploitation of the physical limits of the UT parking system as a means of generating revenue. While cars may not inherently be interactive to people driving, interacting with other cars, pedestrians, cyclists, and buses does make this a vital point of study. Understanding the role cars play in an increasingly complex transportation landscape becomes key when looking at the physical and social framework within which they exist. 

Through these various means of transportation and different themes, we were able to find that transportation impacts our daily choices in ways that are not always obvious. By understanding the ways we physically move through a city, we are then able to understand the social and cultural elements that are influencing those experiences. In a city like Austin that is growing rapidly, these experiences will continue to evolve as the transportation infrastructure is pushed beyond its limits and encompasses an increasingly widespread population. The problems faced today will move fluidly from the city to large scale institutions like the university, all the way down to neighborhoods, making change a difficult undertaking but nonetheless an important one to tackle.