Design Thinking : Reducing Single Occupancy Vehicles in Seattle

“With over 120,000 new residents and 100,000 new jobs anticipated over the next 20 years, we have our work cut out for us.” - Scott Kubly, Director SDOT

In September of 2018, Louis Quicksell, David Dai, and myself practiced an in depth design thinking process by considering one of our city’s toughest challenges: reducing single occupancy vehicles. Reducing these vehicles promises to improve the economic efficiency of the city and enhance the daily quality of life for a majority of citizens.

This design thinking process took form in eight distinct stages:

Process

• Identify Problem Space

• Secondary Research

• Field Study

• Survey

• Design Requirements

• User Scenarios / Brainstorming

• Prototyping

• UX/Usability Testing

The Problem Space

We reached our original design question after performing secondary research surrounding commuting behavior in Seattle.

As the top performing public transit city in U.S., the city has created a wealth of informative research and data. We began to realize the impact of reducing single occupancy vehicles in the city and it excited us.

We began to ask, how can we build upon these current solutions?

Employee Incentives

• Seattle employers provide incentives to reduce emissions.  Incentives include salary bonuses, company-paid transport alternatives, premier parking. [5]

• Example: CTR, University of New Hampshire

• Drawbacks: Not applicable to all employees/companies

• Unlimited Access (UA):

  • An approach where transit rides are charged to participating employers, who pay a reduced rate per ride, rather than to the individual users

  • Example: UW, Advance Transit

  • Drawbacks: Increased security + maintenance costs, overcrowding, uncomfortable for riders [6]

• Ridesharing

  • Driving with two or more persons in the vehicle

  • Example: King County Metro, Community Transit

We needed to discover some information for ourselves and began to form research questions around commuters, businesses, and the technology and systems the city has implemented. We began to ask:

• Why do people drive alone?

• What are urban Seattlites values around commuting

• and sustainability?

• Who does reducing SOV reward?

• How can improving the flow of the city reward it’s tenants economically?

• What promotes SOV use?

• What promotes transit use?

Secondary Research Reflection

While our secondary research was good, I will focus more on user behavior and motivations in the future. For us, this was the most insightful knowledge when designing our solution. This data helps tap into the utility needed for the user value proposition.

Field Study

To discover more about our users we designed a small field study and rode along with three urban Seattle commuters from their home to their workplaces.

This contextual inquiry revealed data we had not considered. Our field studies aimed to uncover more data regarding the distances, parking, vehicle types, conveniences, quality and nature of their commutes.  A short follow up survey was suggested to compliment the field study.

We organized our findings into post it notes and created buckets with affinity diagram technique.

Field Study Reflection

The field study presented a unique set of challenges. While our observations and interactions with users felt candid and authentic, there was a lot of room for bias and untruths. It would have been easy our subject to pretend they cared about Seattle traffic. Recording observations in our scenarios was tough while riding in the car. Some conversation did lead to interesting data, and we supplemented the field study with a very short questionnaire. In the future I’d like to record video in field studies.

Survey

Following our field study, we formulated a survey based on our refined design question and leads that raised more behavioral questions.

Check out the survey here:

https://goo.gl/forms/mAPYbsvzfKvbYNHx2

These are our survey insights:

1. 74% choose to drive for reasons of convenience and/or comfort

2. 63% said the bus/train is inconvenient

3. 48% or respondents list free/subsidized transit as a reason for not driving

4. 48% listed saving money as a top reason for not driving

5. 63% live within 2 blocks of public transit

6. SOV drivers consistently found their commute less enjoyable more frequently than other commuters

7. 74% of commuters listen to books/podcasts/music when not driving

8. 81.5% of respondents support a carbon offset tax

9. 52.5% estimated public transit takes less than a half hour more

Survey Relection

Once again, more user motivation and behavioral data would have been more useful than demographic information. We also narrowed the scope of our findings to people that commute within the city over two miles. It would be useful to know what everyone’s motivations and feelings are about transit and commuting.

Triangulated Insights

From here, we consolidated our data and prioritized our triangulated insights in three categories:

Users:

• Lack of comfort when taking public transit, particularly accessibility to seating was seen as a barrier to public transit.

• Convenience and the control that comes with driving is seen as one of the most important reasons for driving.  The agency that comes with driving allows users to have flexible schedules that aren’t allowed with public transit.

• Public transit scheduling, and lack of route options were seen as barriers to public transit.

• The time commitment associated with public transit is perceived as a barrier to taking public transit.

• Sustainability and the desire to be more eco friendly is universal, even among those who are daily SOV.  

• Most users live 5-10 miles from their workplaces.

• Most people have access to a public transit station that is less than a half mile from their home.

• People who use public transit generally enjoy their commute, while SOV drivers don’t enjoy their commute.

• There is strong desire reduce traffic, both with SOV drivers and those who take public transit.

• Users would consider public transit options more heavily if traffic was avoided when traveling using those options (light rail).

• Seattle commuters use public transit with much greater frequency than most commuters nationally.  

Business:

• Saving money and subsidized transit are top reasons for not driving.

• Support for greater funding for public transit is widely held, with a carbon offset tax being the most favorable public funding option.

• There is a strong desire for greater development of public transit options.

Technology:

• The majority of commuters listen to some form of audio content while commuting.

• Most respondents uses electronic devices for entertainment during transit.

• Climate control in public transit options was seen as a priority, especially in terms of comfort.

With these new priorities, a new design question was conceived:

Design Requirements

• High Priority

[User] The solution should allow for a level of convenience and control over the user’s schedule.

Justification: Convenience is consistently ranked as one of the most important considerations when making commute decisions.

[User] The solution should provide for adequate seating for users to be comfortable.

Justification: Comfort was another one of the most highly rated considerations when making commute decisions.

[User]Solution requires all public transit be equipped with appropriate climate control.

Justification: Users require comfort to enjoy their commute daily.

[Business] Solution should decrease public transit travel times.

Justification: Public transit travel times are comparable to those of SOV.

[User] Solution should emphasize enjoyment of public transit commutes.

Justification:  Enjoyment of commute is a key factor in making commute decisions.

[User] Solution should reduce traffic.

Justification:  Reduction in traffic is a key desire of all users.

• Medium Priority

[Users] Solution should make users feel rewarded, appealing to/ affirming their environmental values.   

Justification:  Sustainability is a key consideration in making commute decisions.

[User] More dynamic, updating schedules will assure users of the timeliness and consistency of transit.

Justification:  Users complained about punctuality of transit experience.

[Business] A carbon offset tax is appealing for those who drive is important.

Justification:  Government is a critical stakeholder to this equation and our subjects showed an overwhelmingly positive response to the idea of a carbon offset tax.

[Business] Solution should appeal to desire for more public transit options.

Justification:  It is always easier and more efficient for us to augment the proposed act and try to build more upon it.

[User] Solution must retain current users.  

Justification:  With Seattle’s current growth, it cannot afford to slow the reduction of SOV drivers.

[User] The solution should target Seattle’s new and growing population to educate and inform them of Seattle’s public transit options.

Justification:  Seattle is a leader in public transit with a rapidly growing population that needs to be informed.

[User] The solution should emphasize the convenience of public transit nearby.

Justification: Public transit already exists near most urban Seattle places of departure and destination.

• Low Priority:

[Tech] We should consider using a platform for portable devices to deploy entertainment.

Justification: Utilizing existing behavior would be more natural for end users.

[Tech] We should consider using music to advertise while doing marketing.

Justification: Using the original user habit to do our marketing can be efficient and easy to pick up, music can make deeper impressions as well which makes it a good advertising medium.

Design Requirement Reflection

Creating these requirements was surprisingly easy once we had summarized the findings from our field study and survey. We really felt like we were on the right track at this point.

User Scenarios, Storyboards, and Brainstorming

Based on these user requirements, we began by sketching out three user scenarios:

Scenario 1

Who: Irregular Driver

What: Challenging to plan around schedule anomalies for bus transit

Where: Commutes to work daily / usually plans transit the night before

Problem space: Planning complex travel on bus transit is difficult. The subject's obligations change their schedule regularly, ie. pet/family, early meetings, after work events.  These outlier events are disruptive to a normal transit schedule and the default behavior is to drive alone out of convenience. All of this scheduling and location data currently exists in the subject’s calendar.  Scheduling complexity is the biggest factor in changing subject’s usual plans to take bust transit to/from work. Subject likes to save money, make low carbon footprint choices, and enjoys relaxing on the way to/from work while listening to podcasts, music, or audiobooks.

Scenario:  It’s the night before Sam’s soccer game and Pat needs to go to the field after work to see the game and pick Sam up.  Pat’s first impulse is to drive the next day, however, if Pat took the time to plan the public transit better, Pat would not take much more time to travel to the field and home by bus.

Scenario 2

Who: Irregular Driver who has strong incentive to be eco friendly

What: Has to be SOV to go to work since he has to drop his son’s homework to school and he is guilty about not being eco-friendly.

Where: from his house to his son’s school, then to work.

Scenario: It is 8 in the morning, Joe woke up and got a text message from his son saying that he forgot his homework at home and needs Joe to bring them to the school as soon as possible. He quickly finished his breakfast, grabbed his son’s homework and hopped into his car. As an eco-friendly person, he felt guilty about himself not able to take public transit and also he felt heartbroken thinking of he has to pay for his petrol, 10 dollar tolls and the parking fee for a whole day. He is seeking for a good way to do carpool, yet it is still costly and inconvenient, furthermore, no one would recognize him for using carpool and being eco-friendly. He is sad about it and feel not motivated to do carpool.

Scenario 3

Who: Irregular Driver, employee subsidized bus pass, uncomfortable while taking bus

What: Bus seating

Where: On bus heading to work in the morning

Scenario: Sally usually drives to work, but since her work provides a subsidized bus pass, she decides to try out the bus.  She plans out her route using Google Maps, and walks to the bus stop on Monday morning. She is surprised by the number of people waiting at the bus stop.  Her bus arrives after about 5 minutes, and about twenty people waiting move toward the entrance. She notices how full the bus is, even before anyone gets on.  Only a few passengers get off the bus, and as soon as she enters/swipes her bus card, she is stressed by the lack of room. All of the seating is taken. The only standing room available is nearby the side exit of the bus, within the designated “exit space”, where passengers are prohibited from standing.  She has to push through people to get to that space, as there are people behind her trying to board the bus. During her ride, she has to continuously move to get out the way of departing passengers, with very little personal space.

I explored scenario one and argued to create the app focused on assisting commuters with planning their commutes and calendars.

Scenario 1 (Storyboard):

1. 6:00pm, night before soccer game

2. Notification pops up with suggested bus travel plan

3. Notification reads: GAME TOMORROW AFTER WORK...SEE TRAVEL OPTIONS...

4. Next day at work

5. Message is pushed to computer to reroute due to traffic and reads: TRAFFIC HAS CHANGED. SEE THE FASTEST ROUT TO THE SOCCER GAME...

6. Soccer game

7. Getting on the bus after game

8. On the bus

9. Home in time for dinner after the game suggest expedited travel

Strengths:

Automates planning to help user achieve main goals of taking bus transit, saving money, saving time, and punctuality.  Comfort also increases due to peace of mind.

Weakness:

User must manage and utilize and calendar and be open to push notifications.  If they can be diligent about calendar management, it could work efficiently. Otherwise, this will fail.

Later in our brainstorm, we listed out four main ideas:

1. B2B solution that utilizes existing metrics / surveillance to manage rider head counts and deploy more “floater busses” to areas with high rider occupancy or bus routes that fall off schedule.

2. A calendar plugin can suggest bus transit options to users based on locations of events in calendar, and push a notification previous to the time of travel.  This solution will target “anomaly events”, and automate travel planning for the user. They will get a comparison estimation of travel time vs. car and bus, with a final update prior to travel time

3. Create a government sanctioned mileage plan which incentivizes use of bus for commuting. Lack of the mileage may incur taxes to single headed vehicle(SOV) driver. Taxes from the lack of mileage would be used to improve the quality of the interior of busses and route infrastructure. Would incorporate eco-friendly score system which would act similar to FICO score, and benefit user in other areas like personal loans, mortgages or usage of variety of public services, it would also include different categories for different mileage tiers.

4. City owned self driving van fleet can transport up to 5 riders.  Software calculates rideshares shortest distances. Rides are comfortable, clean, wifi equipped, and have a guaranteed arrival and duration calculation that is optimized and efficient.

Scenarios Reflection

I was surprised how much unconsidered detail we fleshed out in this stage. By creating an extended story, There were stages and features that revealed themselves.

Brainstorming

Our brainstorm session explored four scenarios. Takeaways included:

1. B2B solution that utilizes existing metrics / surveillance to manage rider headcounts and deploy more “floater busses” to areas with high rider occupancy or bus routes that fall off schedule.

2. A calendar plugin can suggest bus transit options to users based on locations of events in calendar, and push a notification previous to the time of travel.  This solution will target “anomaly events”, and automate travel planning for the user. They will get a comparison estimation of travel time vs. car and bus, with a final update prior to travel time

3. Create a government sanctioned mileage plan which incentivizes use of bus for commuting. Lack of the mileage may incur taxes to single headed vehicle(SOV) driver. Taxes from the lack of mileage would be used to improve the quality of the interior of busses and route infrastructure. Would incorporate eco-friendly score system which would act similar to FICO score, and benefit user in other areas like personal loans, mortgages or usage of variety of public services, it would also include different categories for different mileage tiers.

4. City owned self driving van fleet can transport up to 5 riders.  Software calculates rideshares shortest distances. Rides are comfortable, clean, wifi equipped, and have a guaranteed arrival and duration calculation that is optimized and efficient.

Brainstorming Reflection

This was tough because we had to do it remotely. One of our better ideas (self driving van fleet) didn’t happen until late in the session and we didn’t flesh out a full scenario for it. It would have been one of the more timely and innovative strategies that targeted for 2021-2023. This one really fit our data, so we were sad not to explore more.

Prototyping

Ultimately, we chose as a team to create EcoCoin, a rewards system to help users track and invest in eco friendly behavior. I originally argued to create the calendar notification system, but am happy we decided to create a rewards system. In hindsight, I believe EcoCoin is the most innovative solution and that we could easily integrate a calendar helper system to the app, similar to scenario 1.

We chose to create EcoCoin for these main reasons:

• A high majority of users surveyed indicated their use of mobile devices for entertainment

• A cryptocurency could be an exciting and buzzworthy extrinsic reward system

• The notion that people could invest in their own carbon offset and a currency that supports eco friendly behavior is an interesting thought experiement

• We wanted to focus on rewarding bus transit

Our prototype consisted of a mobile application, implemented with a high level of fidelity and graphic quality.  Given that all user interaction of our solution takes place within the EcoCoin mobile application, we believed we could best evaluate the usability and design of the platform through developing a high fidelity prototype.  Monetary transactions require trust and confidence and we hoped to understand this potential user experience early on in prototyping. Initially, we considered implementing a prototype with lower graphic quality. However, we concluded that we could rapidly implement a prototype with high level graphical quality without sacrificing interactive fidelity.

I built the app prototype with Adobe XD and utilized elements from Google’s material design package and also Adobe

Technical specs:

EcoCoin CryptoCurrency System

• Ethereum-based blockchain token with record keeping

• Can Use MetaMask by integrate wallet with client(mileage) App.

• App logs bus transit usage to build up mineable EcoPoints

• EcoPoints can be purchased by contributing money to carbon offset fund

• Integrated in the backend system and the client connect to the server located in public transit area and do the mining on the go

• A public score of EcoPoints drive social value (pulled from blockchain)

• Connect your Amazon or other spending accounts to receive points for environmentally friendly spending

• Receive points at grocery store for bringing your own bags and choosing low waste packaging options

Protoyping Reflection

Creating this prototype was one of my favorite parts. I mocked up the graphics in AdobeXD with wireframes from Adobe and Google Material. Designing the app flowed really well and we had a strong idea of exactly what we wanted. This turned into one of my favorite parts of the process and was thrilled with how quickly we could make a high fidelity graphical and interaction prototype in AdobeXD.

Usability Testing

Now that we had a functional prototype, it was time to test it and see how our application met users. First, we developed some testing metrics so that we could prioritize the work of our findings:

1. Not an issue

2. Minor issue with aesthetics or graphical layout of application.  Issue has potentially large scope, but little severity. Low fixing priority.

3. Usability issue such as broken link, confusing interaction.  Issue impedes prototype usability, detracts from user experience. Medium fixing priority.

4. Major issue with aesthetics, broken feature, repulsive design flaw.  Issue makes prototype unusable, drives users away. High fixing priority

There were many takeaways and changes noted for future work. These included:

1. Users found the lack of labels on the price ticker, the current EcoCoin price, current EcoCoin balance, and EcoCoin being earned for the current trip being tracked unclear.

   1. Metric ranking: 2 - Confusing design issue

   2. Changes: Include labels throughout the platform which clarify what is the current EcoCoin price, balance, and amount being earned.

   3. Justification: All three of our participants, Ben, Geoff, and Rutuja, communicated their confusion with the EcoCoin price and balance data points displayed throughout the platform

2. Dashboard items (items on home page) are not clearly associated to the user.  Meaning, it is not intuitive that these are “their” stats being shown.

   1. Metric ranking: 1 - Minor user experience issue

   2. Changes: Change page and trip metric labels so that they are phrased like “myData” or “myAccount” or “myCoin”.

   3. Justification: One of our users described confusion about the metrics on the home screen.  They were not sure if the coin/mileage amounts being shown were “their” data.  

3. There was little background information about EcoCoin (mission, technology, creators, contact info, etc) in the application.

   1. Metric ranking: 2

   2. Changes: Question mark for contact with messaging built in

   3. Justification: Important for customer support

4. Users expressed some concern about the EcoCoin purchasing process, specifically they desired more certainty when the purchase successfully executed.

   1. Metric ranking: 2 - User experience issue

   2. Changes: Include total EcoCoin amount, equal dollar amount, and payment option summary in the purchase confirmation notification and also get back to main menu when user click cancel.

   3. Justification: Trust/legitimacy in the payment transaction process is a high priority. Two of the users we studied mentioned some uncertainty in this process.

5. Landing screen was not fully logical.  We created a context where the user logs in and a bus ride begins tracking to test interruptive notifications.  Feedback showed that taking the user to the home screen first would have been helpful.

   1. Metric ranking: 2 - Confusing design issue

   2. Changes: Change login landing to home screen.

   3. Justification: Most user have the intuitive for modern UI and our app should follow that user habit.

6. More personalized home screen is needed with ability to edit information ie. banking info

   1. Metric ranking: 3 - Critical design issue

   2. Changes: Create profile button, consolidate other data

   3. Justification: Editing payment/bank info is essential to the application.

7. Text cues for text input fields are too dark.

   1. Metric ranking: 2 - Confusing design issue

   2. Changes: Make the text cues more transparent.

   3. Justification: Strengthen user intuition to input data here.

8. Start screen training for first time app use.

   1. Metric ranking: 2 - Confusing design issue

   2. Changes: Create training screens for first time login

Justification: Ramp user knowledge to make most of app’s potential instantly.

Usability Test Reflection

Our usability test went well. I did expect some features to be less intuitive to myself (the designer) and felt like we discover lots of little bugs, which was really helpful. I was able to screen cap with Android’s AirMirror software and we took video of each subject with a mirrorless Sony camera. I certainly look forward to these tests again in the future.

Overall Reflection

I’m extremely grateful for this entire process. With the guidance of our instructor, Sarah Zuberic, and TAs Bonnie Chinh and Bhakti Bathia, we were able to explore a variety of user centered functional design methods. Their prompts and feedback were excellent and I really appreciate the outcome of the course and experience of completing an exploration into design thinking. The sequence helped answer each consecutive stage in a clear manner and it made sense. I truly look forward to applying these techniques in my next product.

CITATIONS

1. Page 8, Seattle Traffic Report: https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/Reports/2017_Traffic_Report.pdf

2. Page 7, 2017 Center City Commuter Mode Split Survey, EMC Research, https://commuteseattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-Commuter-Mode-Split-Survey-Report.pdf

3. Page 1, 2015 Report to the Legislature, Washington State CTR Board, https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/transportation/CommuteSolutions/images/CTR_Report_to_the_Legislature_2015_file.ashx?la=en

4. Page 4, 2015 Report to the Legislature, Washington State CTR Board, https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/transportation/CommuteSolutions/images/CTR_Report_to_the_Legislature_2015_file.ashx?la=en

5. Page 9-20, Reducing Single-Occupancy Vehicle Use in Northern New England; Unlimited Access, Employee Incentives and Ridesharing, University of Vermont Transportation Research Center,  http://www.uvm.edu/~transctr/research/trc_reports/UVM-TRC-13-010.pdf

6. Page 2, Advantages and Disadvantages of Fare-Free Transit Policy, Center for Urban Transportation Research, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.504.198&rep=rep1&type=pdf

7. Page 45, Opportunities and barriers of ride-sharing in work commuting – a case study in Sweden, David Bauer and the Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1110033/FULLTEXT01.pdf