Operationalizing Accessibility

Similar documents
Eric Sundquist Managing Director State Smart Transportation Initiative (SSTI) Urban Sustainability Accelerator

Introduction to Sugar Access. Sugar Access - Measuring Accessibility (Robert Kohler, Citilabs) Slide 1 of 21

Connecting Sacramento: A Trip-Making and Accessibility Study

October 29, Modern traffic mitigation for development in cities: Moving beyond LOS

I-105 Corridor Sustainability Study (CSS)

Performance measures for nonmotorized

The future of city streets: NACTO Urban Street Design Guide. November 19, 2013

Methodology. Reconnecting Milwaukee: A BikeAble Study of Opportunity, Equity and Connectivity

Measuring and Communicating Mobility:

Vision Public Workshop: Findings

Bicycle Master Plan Goals, Strategies, and Policies

Corridor Vision Workshop Summary James Madison Elementary February 22,2018

Perryville TOD and Greenway Plan

9/25/2018. Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Bianca Popescu, Transportation Planner

What Are The Benefits? How RIDERSHIP + Can Help You. Select RIDERSHIP + Projects

GIS Based Data Collection / Network Planning On a City Scale. Healthy Communities Active Transportation Workshop, Cleveland, Ohio May 10, 2011

City of Novi Non-Motorized Master Plan 2011 Executive Summary

Automobile Alternatives. S. Handy TTP282 Transportation Orientation Seminar 10/28/11

Stress Bikeway Network

complete streets design and construction standards public primer City of Edmonton

Regional Bicycle Barriers Study

Data Analysis February to March Identified safety needs from reported collisions and existing travel patterns.

Typical Rush Hour Commute. PennyforTransportation.com

Presentation Summary Why Use GIS for Ped Planning? What Tools are Most Useful? How Can They be Applied? Pedestrian GIS Tools What are they good for?

Rolling Out Measures of Non-Motorized Accessibility: What Can We Now Say? Kevin J. Krizek University of Colorado

Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility

City of Davenport CitiBus Public Transportation Study. April 2015

GIS Based Non-Motorized Transportation Planning APA Ohio Statewide Planning Conference. GIS Assisted Non-Motorized Transportation Planning

MN Green Step Cities December 7, Hannah Pritchard, PE PTOE

Pedestrian Activity Criteria. PSAC March 8, 2011

The Impact of Placemaking Attributes on Home Prices in the Midwest United States

DON MILLS-EGLINTON Mobility Hub Profile

There are traffic jams on Highway 1

Overview: Phase 3 Draft Development and Circulation Plans, White Bear Station

our pedestrian future Lance Schulte

DRAFT - CITY OF MEDFORD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Roadway Cross-Sections

WALK- AND bike-friendly TURLOCK

NEWMARKET CENTRE Mobility Hub Profile

What s Health Got to Do With It? Health and Land Use Planning

CITY OF ALPHARETTA DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN TRAFFIC EVALUATION

SETTINGS AND OPPORTUNITIES MOBILITY & ACCESS

Recommendations from Boston City Council Transportation Policy Briefing Series

Multimodal Analysis in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual

Regional Transportation Needs Within Southeastern Wisconsin

Public Works AGENDA ITEM D-2 STAFF REPORT

VISION ZERO: What will it take?

Hennepin Avenue Reconstruction Washington Avenue to 12 th Street

Dear City Council Members,

Complete Streets Workshop Follow-up. April 27, 2011 Rockledge City Hall

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study. Ave

DOWNTOWN MIAMI PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE

Gina M. M. Thomas. HDR, Transit Engineer Seattle, WA

METRO Light Rail: Changing Transit Markets in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area

Multimodal Transportation Plan

Appendix A-K Public Information Centre 2 Materials

ABOUT THIS STUDY The Tenderloin-Little Saigon Community-Based Transportation Plan

Intermodal Connections with Light Rail in Phoenix, AZ Wulf Grote, P.E. Director, Planning & Development

Agency Advisory Group Meeting #3 and Walk Audit Anchorage Non-Motorized Plan

WALKNBIKE DRAFT PLAN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

Bridgewater Complete Streets Prioritization Plan and Pedestrian Safety Assessment

Built Environment Childhood Obesity Forum September 15, 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Vision

City of Jacksonville Mobility Fee Update

As a part of the San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan update, Toole Design conducted a needs and demand analysis that included:

DON MILLS-SHEPPARD Mobility Hub Profile

ROADSOADS CONGESTION HAMPTON SYSTEMYSTEM MANAGEMENT. Part II Roadway Congestion Analysis Mitigation Strategies and Evaluation

Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations APPENDIX C TRANSIT STATION ACCESS PLANNING TOOL INSTRUCTIONS

Non-Motorized Transport (NMT) Development. Gerald Ollivier Transport Cluster Leader Transport Global Practice The World Bank

Is St. Louis Ready for a Bike Share System? May 14, 2014 Public Open House

TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY VISIONING MEETING. August 23 24, 2017

APPENDIX E BIKEWAY PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY

Magnolia Place. Traffic Impact Analysis. Prepared for: City of San Mateo. Prepared by: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

95 th Street Corridor Transportation Plan. Steering Committee Meeting

SoundCast Design Intro

NACTO Designing Cities 2014 Dongho Chang, City Traffic Engineer October 23, 2014

Speed Limits Study and Proposal. Public Input Session: 8/14/13

CONNECTING PEOPLE TO PLACES

Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee

SANTA CLARA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE PLAN August 2008

Sacramento Grid 2.0. The Downtown Transportation Study

North Shore Transportation Improvement Strategy

Appendix C 3. Bicycle / Pedestrian Planning

Project Team. Refined Pedestrian Crossing Toolbox. Problem Statement. Aerial of Study Corridor. Crossing Accommodations and Pedestrian Fatalities

Defining Purpose and Need

Attachment A: Columbus Area Metropolitan Transportation Plan Objectives, Performance Measures, and Targets

BUILDING THE CASE FOR TRAVEL OPTIONS IN WASHING TON COUNTY. Image: Steve Morgan. Image: Steve Morgan

BEAR CREEK PARK AND RIDE

PRELIMINARY DRAFT FIRST AMENDMENT TO VISION 2050: A REGIONAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN

5858 N COLLEGE, LLC N College Avenue Traffic Impact Study

This document may be reprinted or extracted without permission, provided credit to the City of Pasadena Department of Transportation

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study

Appendix F: Detailed Modeling Results

Measuring Success: Performance Metrics and Project Selection

PEDALING FORWARD. A Glance at the SFMTA s Bike Program for SFMTA.COM

Markham Sports, Entertainment and Cultural Centre Transportation Overview

Montford Drive Parking & Circulation Study

New Seward and 36 th Avenue Intersection Conceptual Design

Transforming Traffic Signals to Support Sustainability: Applications, Ideas, & Research

PERFECT WAVES ON DEMAND

Route 7 Corridor Study

Transcription:

Operationalizing Accessibility March 30, 2017 Chris McCahill State Smart Transportation Initiative Matt Pettit Citilabs

State Smart Transportation Initiative A network of reform-oriented state DOTs, founded in 2010 and housed at the University of Wisconsin. Executive-level Community of Practice Technical assistance Resource for the transportation community 1

Citilabs Citilabs is a global provider of mobility analytics for businesses and government agencies. 40-year history More than 2500 clients Across 70 countries worldwide 2

Intro to Accessibility Chris McCahill, SSTI 3

Why measure accessibility? Mobility measures Travel speed Level of service Vehicle throughout Person throughput 4

Why measure accessibility? Accessibility measures Origins Destinations Ability to travel between them 5

Access Score Calculations Accessibility: The ease (in travel time) by which travelers can reach destinations by various modes. Where do I need to travel to? What modes are available? How far am I willing to travel? What time of day am I traveling? What else affects my travel experience? 6

Where do I need to travel to? Access Score TM Work Access to jobs or a subset of jobs 20 percent of trips, 30 percent of VMT Unit is jobs Access Score TM Non-work Access to groceries, parks, banks, restaurants, and other non-work destinations 80 percent of trips, 70 percent of VMT Unit is a score up to 100 7

What modes are available? Auto Road network and travel speeds Transit Routes, stations, and headways Walking and biking Facilities and conditions 8

How far am I willing to travel? Cumulative measures Opportunities within a given travel time (e.g., 30 minutes) Decay-weighted measures Closer opportunities are more valuable Used in Access Score calculations 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 9 Exponential Decay Functions (Wisconsin) Walk (Work) Transit (Work) Auto (Work) Walk (Non-work) Transit (Non-work) Auto (Non-work) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Minutes

Applying Access Scores in decision-making Scan conditions Diagnose problems Assess solutions Engage stakeholders Track performance Predict outcomes 10

Sample applications in Madison, Wisconsin 11

Access Score Work by automobile (AM) Jobs accessible < 15 min 29,000 < 30 min 293,000 < 45 min 308,000 < 60 min 308,000 Access Score 212,000 12

Access Score Work by transit (AM) Jobs accessible < 15 min 250 < 30 min 24,000 < 45 min 33,000 < 60 min 122,000 Access Score 18,000 13

Access Score Work by transit & poverty Scan for equity issues Set policy goals Percent of households with minimum level of access Evaluate proposals Transit improvements Affordable housing sites Track progress 14

Transit project evaluation Total impact 1.03 million household-jobs Jobs accessible Before After < 15 min 270 280 < 30 min 1,400 8,800 < 45 min 3,100 34,800 < 60 min 7,700 82,800 Access Score 1,200 8,500 Average impact 5 jobs Across 200,000 households 15

Access Score Non-Work Destination Types Target Weight Restaurants, coffee shops, bars, pubs, wineries, and night life 8 40% General retail, book stores, and department stores 4 15% Groceries 2 15% Errands: Banks, pharmacies, and hardware stores 3 10% Parks, recreational areas, campgrounds, and golf courses 2 10% Schools 2 5% Cultural attractions, entertainment, and museums 1 5% Access to bins of destinations Access to particular destinations Grocery stores (food deserts) Non-work access score in development in Virginia. 16

Land use project evaluation Existing residential development 17

Land use project evaluation Improved accessibility with mixed-use development 18

Last-mile connections in Sacramento, California 19

Station utility Based on walk time to nearest station 20

Station area improvements 21

Walk access (pedestrian bridge) Total impact (3-mile radius) 500,000 householdjobs Average Before: 4,785 jobs After: 4,794 jobs Change: 9 jobs 22

Walk access (bridge + freeway crossing) Total impact (3-mile radius) 2.7 million household-jobs Average Before: 4,785 jobs After: 4,832 jobs Change: 47 jobs 23

Transit access (bridge + freeway crossing) Total impact 29 million household-jobs Average Before: 85,180 jobs After: 85,230 jobs Change: 50 jobs 24

Applying Access Scores in decision-making Scan conditions Engage stakeholders Diagnose problems Predict mode share Estimate transit ridership Estimate travel demand / VMT Estimate transportation costs Track performance Assess solutions Predict outcomes 25

26

Introduction to Sugar Access http://www.citilabs.com/sugaraccess

Easily create and test accessibility analysis scenarios 1. Select a destination category Jobs Grocery Stores Hospitals Parks and Recreation 2. Choose a time of day 3. Choose modes of travel Single Mode Walk, Bike, Drive, Transit, All

Access Score Calculations Accessibility: The ease (in travel time) by which travelers can reach destinations by various modes. Where do I need to travel to? What modes are available? How far am I willing to travel? What time of day am I traveling? What else affects my travel experience? 29

Where do I need to travel to? Destination Information Jobs information LODES Data Local MPO/DOT Projections Points of Interest (Non-Work Destinations) - Here Schools, Restaurants, Parks, etc Local Data 30

What modes are available? Auto All-Streets roadway network from Here Real drive times throughout day Ped Pedestrian network defined within Here network Bike Defined along both Auto and Ped network (See Bike LTS) Transit Developed from local GTFS files (headways, stops, travel times) 31

What time of day am I traveling? AM Peak Midday PM Peak Evening 12:00 AM 3:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM 12:00 AM Example Transit Frequency 10 Minutes 20 Minutes 10 Minutes 60 Minutes Example Roadway Speed 26 mph 40 mph 36 mph 45 mph 32

What time of day am I traveling? AM Peak Midday PM Peak Off- Peak 12:00 AM 3:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM 12:00 AM Jobs Accessible AM Peak Job Access Off-Peak Job Access

What else affects my travel experience? VS. Cyclists and Pedestrians travel based on the level of traffic stress Neighborhood Street vs. Arterial Street 25 mph vs. 45 mph 2 lane road vs. 6 lane road Protected bike lane vs. Mixed traffic biking 34

Sugar Access Access to Stations Before Sugar Access Understand accessibility issues at a local level Benefit of new pedestrian tunnel? 25 Minutes?

Sugar Access Access to Stations After Sugar Access Network Editing Capabilities Add Pedestrian or Roadway link Analyze before and after scenario 10 Minutes 36

Access Score Calculations Accessibility: The ease (in travel time) by which travelers can reach destinations by various modes. Where do I need to travel to? What modes are available? How far am I willing to travel? What time of day am I traveling? What else affects my travel experience? 37

Upcoming Webinar April 18, 2017 1:00 pm Central (2:00 pm ET/Noon MT/11:00 am PT) Accessibility and Smart Scale: Using Access Scores to Prioritize Projects 38

Thank you! A recording of this webinar will be on the SSTI website tomorrow. mccahill@ssti.us www.ssti.us @SmartTransp mpettit@citilabs.com www.citilabs.com @Citilabs_HQ 39