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

Similar documents
Exhibit 1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM

Kevin Manaugh Department of Geography McGill School of Environment

APPENDIX E BIKEWAY PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY

92% COMMUTING IN THE METRO. Congested Roadways Mode Share. Roadway Congestion & Mode Share

Operationalizing Accessibility

2010 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Special Districts Study Update

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

NM-POLICY 1: Improve service levels, participation, and options for non-motorized transportation modes throughout the County.

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

San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Open House

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

Tulsa Metropolitan Area LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Bicycle Demand Forecasting for Bloomingdale Trail in Chicago

Bike Routes Assessment: 95 Ave, 106 St & 40 Ave. Replace with appropriate image in View > Master.

Webinar: Development of a Pedestrian Demand Estimation Tool

CONNECTING PEOPLE TO PLACES

Roadway Bicycle Compatibility, Livability, and Environmental Justice Performance Measures

June 3, Attention: David Hogan City of San Mateo 330 W. 2oth Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403

TRANSIT & NON-MOTORIZED PLAN DRAFT FINAL REPORT Butte County Association of Governments

Chapter 14 PARLIER RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANS AND POLICIES. Recommendations to Improve Pedestrian Safety in the City of Parlier (2014)

PRINCE GEORGE S PLAZA METRO AREA PEDESTRIAN PLAN

CITY OF BLOOMINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

Transportation Master Plan Advisory Task Force

Hennepin County Pedestrian Plan Public Comment Report

Introduction. Mode Choice and Urban Form. The Transportation Planner s Approach. The problem

BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEM: A PROPOSAL FOR SURAT CITY

Planning Guidance in the 2012 AASHTO Bike Guide

SANTA CLARA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE PLAN August 2008

Applying Bi-objective Shortest Path Methods to Model Cycle Route-choice

Identification of Bicycle Demand from Online Routing Requests

CPC Parking Lot Riverside Drive. Transportation Rationale

Sixth Line Development - Transit Facilities Plan

The previous chapters in this plan have established the value of this plan (Chapter 1), the

Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Study. Old Colony Planning Council

Memorandum. Drive alone

Madison Urban Area and Dane County. Bicycle Transportation Plan Summary. September Introduction. Bicycle Plan Scope and Planning Process

MAG Town of Cave Creek Bike Study Task 6 Executive Summary and Regional Significance Report

Public Meeting #1 January 30, 2018

Asking the Right Questions About Transportation and Land Use

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

NACTO Designing Cities Conference Project Evaluation: Tools for Measuring Success and Building Support. October 29, 2015

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Pedestrian Demand Modeling: Evaluating Pedestrian Risk Exposures

Regional Bicycle Barriers Study

Summary Report: Built Environment, Health and Obesity

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

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

NEWS-CFA: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Scoring for Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (Updated: March 15, 2011)

El Paso County 2040 Major Transportation Corridors Plan

21.07 TRANSPORT CONNECTIVITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Agenda. Overview PRINCE GEORGE S PLAZA METRO AREA PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Creating walkable, bikeable and transit-supportive communities in Halton

WHITE PAPER: TRANSIT SERVICE FOR SOUTH SHAGANAPPI

LEED Pilot Credit Library

A Traffic Operations Method for Assessing Automobile and Bicycle Shared Roadways

WILMAPCO Public Opinion Survey Summary of Results

El Centro Mobility Hub

REGIONAL HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY:

NASHUA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION REGIONAL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Connecting cyclists to work. Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council

We support several of Regional Municipality of Durham Transportation Master Plan Directions such as

COLUMBUS AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSPORTATION STUDY

TOWN OF PORTLAND, CONNECTICUT COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

Key objectives of the survey were to gain a better understanding of:

Transport attitudes, residential preferences, and urban form effects on cycling and car use.

University of Victoria Campus Cycling Plan Terms of Reference. 1.0 Project Description

Property Owner Survey Results

Chapter 2. Bellingham Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Policies and Actions

Measuring and Communicating Mobility:

Temporal and Spatial Variation in Non-motorized Traffic in Minneapolis: Some Preliminary Analyses

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis

Preliminary Transportation Analysis

Do New Bike Share Stations Increase Member Use?: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Proposed. City of Grand Junction Complete Streets Policy. Exhibit 10

Categorizing Cyclists: What Do We Know? Insights from Portland, OR

Hamilton Transportation Master Plan Public Consultation. Public Information Centre One Summary

Gardiner East. Gardiner Expressway & Lake Shore Boulevard Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment & Urban Design Study

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY/NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD OF A DRAFT EIR/EIS/EIS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND HEARINGS

THE 2010 MSP REGION TRAVEL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (TBI) REPORT HOME INTERVIEW SURVEY. A Summary of Resident Travel in the Twin Cities Region

Traffic Safety Barriers to Walking and Bicycling Analysis of CA Add-On Responses to the 2009 NHTS

RESOLUTION NO ?? A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH ADOPTING A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

Appendix C. Corridor Spacing Research

Strategic Plan for Active Mobility Phase I: Bicycle Mobility

Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan

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

Anne Arundel County BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, TRANSIT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

Engagement Summary: Round 1

Mumford Terminal Replacement Opportunities Neighbourhood Open House. we are here. PHASE 2 Identifying and Evaluating Candidate Sites

Chapter 9: Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Living Streets Policy

A New Approach in the GIS Bikeshed Analysis Considering of Topography, Street Connectivity, and Energy Consumption

Rochester Downtown Bicycle Study 2009

Gordon Proctor Director Policy on Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel on ODOT Owned or Maintained Facilities

WHEREAS, the New Jersey Department of Transportation' s Complete Streets

Goodlettsville Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Executive Summary

The best indicator of an individual s and expanding access to parks and open space.

Proposed White Flint Separated Bike Lane Network September 2015

Cityworks FC Moves Paul Sizemore 1

Defining Purpose and Need

Transcription:

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

Acknowledgements Mike Iacono Ahmed El-Geneidy Chen-Fu Liao

Outline I ) Why important? II) What measures of accessibility can offer? III) What we did (walking, cycling, transit) IV) What some measures show

Measurement / Evaluation Criteria: Focus on Urban Areas Performance measures (how are we doing?) Captures pressing needs Transportation (being one of them).don t we have such already?

TTI Congestion Index

Why Mobility Matters (to personal life and in the context of transportation planning) It provides: - potential for movement, - ability to get from one place to another - ability to move around Measures: - level-of-service - higher volume-to-capacity ratios Predominant Policy Solutions

Measurement / Evaluation Criteria: Focus on Urban Areas Performance measures (how are we doing?) Captures pressing needs Transportation & Land Use? Synergistically addresses: opportunities demand function behavior

Accessibility: Ease by which destinations can be reached j A im = O j f (C ijm ) A im = accessibility at i by mode m 1. O j = opportunities at j 2. C = measure of travel cost 3. ij m = measure of the ease or attractiveness of travel between i & j Knowing travel times Knowing behaviors

Accessibility opens additional policy prescriptions 1a. Build Infrastructure 1b. Enhance service &/or infrastructure 2a. Intensify land use 2b. Change land use

Source: League of American Bicyclists

Source: League of American Bicyclists

Source: League of American Bicyclists

Source: Don Shoup

Source: Don Shoup

Accessibility opens additional policy prescriptions 1a. Build Infrastructure 1b. Enhance service &/or infrastructure 2a. Intensify land use 2b. Change land use

1995 Jobs Schools Parks Shopping Automobile 2000Transit Jobs Schools Parks Shopping Automobile Bicycling Transit Walking 2005 Jobs Schools Parks Shopping Automobile Bicycling Transit Walking Bicycling Walking

Distance Decay: Walking 40% 30% Work Shopping Restaurant Entertainment Expon. (Work) Expon. (Entertainment) Expon. (Shopping) Expon. (Restaurant) Percent of Trips 20% 10% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Distance (km)

Distance Decay: Bicycling 50% 40% 30% Work Shopping School Entertainment Trail Expon. (Work) Expon. (Shopping) Expon. (School) Expon. (Entertainment) Expon. (Trail) Percent of Trips 20% 10% 0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Distance (km)

Impedance Functions Distance Time Work Walk y =.486e -1.683x y =.511e -.106x Bike y =.402e -.203x y =.146e -.040x Transit y =.667e -.093x y = e -.1*t_min Shopping W y =.469e -2.106x y =.368e -.094x B y =.343e -.514x y =.434e -.107x T y =.346e -.092x y = e -.1*t_min School W y = e -.1*t_dist y =.524e -.106x B y =.458e -.122x y =.424e -.100x T y =.406e -.116x y = e -.1*t_min Restaurant W y =.388e -1.397x y =.373e -.093x B y = e -.1*t_min T y = e -.1*t_min Recreation W y =.327e -.769x y =.556e -.100x B y =.367e -.375x y =.293e -.071x T y = e -.1*t_min

1995 Restaurant Accessibility by Bicycle

2000 Restaurant Accessibility by Bicycle

2005 Restaurant Accessibility by Bicycle

1995 Retail Accessibility by Walking

2000 Retail Accessibility by Walking

2005 Retail Accessibility by Walking

2000 Restaurant Accessibility by Bicycle 2000 Restaurant Accessibility by Bicycle

2005 Restaurant Accessibility by Bicycle

1995 Retail Accessibility by Transit (bw 4:00 4:15) 1995 Retail Accessibility by Transit

2000 Retail Accessibility by Transit (bw 4:00 4:15) 2000 Retail Accessibility by Transit

2005 Retail Accessibility by Transit (bw 4:00 4:15) 2005 Retail Accessibility by Transit

2000 retail opportunity

2005 retail opportunity

1995 Employment Accessibility by Transit 1995 employ transit

2000 Employment Accessibility by Transit 2000 employ transit

2005 Employment Accessibility by Transit 20055 employ transit

What we now can understand? Robust measures for measuring the performance of urban areas Measures can account for: Mode Destinations Demand Understand performance vis-à-vis array of policy prescriptions

Kevin J. Krizek University of Colorado www.kevinjkrizek.org

Employment (# of employees) Retail (overall annual sales of establishment) Restaurant (same) Public park access (sqm of park) Elementary (MCA test scores)

Questions How many block groups? What does the impedance function mean What is the significance of if/how/when they are measured differently? 6 am to 9pm (in 15 min increments) 60 intervals What was the bicycling cut off? What was the walking cut off? Transit restrictions?

Simplifying Dealing with 120 min bicycle cut off 5 mile walking cut off 1 transit transfer Using some decay functions

1995 Employment Accessibility by Transit (bw 4:00 4:15)

2000 Employment Accessibility by Transit (bw 4:00 4:15)

2005 Employment Accessibility by Transit (bw 4:00 4:15)

a L O T of D A T A Census blocks 42,240 of them Assumptions Transit frequency Cyclist distance Walking distance

Units are in minutes

What destinations? Mode Shopping Neighborhood retail Employment Recreatio n/ Parks Education -University -Primary Entertainme nt (includes bars) Gym/Heal th Club Airport Restaurant Walk Bicycle Transit Auto

Data Sources for Land use Database Metropolitan Council Land use Parcel points and polygons Dunn & Bradstreet Business locations and types (2005) Records for 135,928 Metro area businesses Detailed business data includes: Location Industry classification (NAICS and SICS) Sales Employees

General Destination Categories Shopping Food, Groceries, and Restaurants Fitness and Recreation Entertainment Education Health Care Parks Post Offices Financial Services Other Personal Services Professional Services Airports Transportation Other Based on North American Industrial Classification System codes and land use classification

Example of Specific Destinations Food, Groceries, and Restaurants Supermarkets and Grocery Stores (Retail, 5-digit) Convenience Stores (Retail, 5-digit) Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters (Retail, 5-digit) Specialty Food Stores (Retail, Manufacturing, 6-digit) Full-Service Restaurant (Accommodation & Food Service, 6-digit) Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars (i.e. coffee shops) (Accommodation & Food Service, 6-digit) Other Food Service (Accommodation & Food Service, 4-digit) Bars/Nightclubs (Accommodation & Food Service, 4-digit) (NAICS industries and level of disaggregation used in parenthesis)

Data Cleaning Fixed Records - Many misspellings & abbreviations - Assign street address to mall businesses Removed Records - 815 P.O. Boxes - 8,377 Not in 7-County Metro Area - 7,000 Bad / Missing Address Data (no zip code, street name, building number, etc.)

Understanding Measures of Accessibility they are: Relative to Mode specific Destination specific

Matching Summary

Detailed Land Use Data

but is Accessibility all about supply? NO! A hypothetical Ideally, accessibility measures should incorporate BOTH supply AND demand.

Estimating Decay Functions Fitting decay curves Modes: Auto, transit, bike, walk Purposes: Work, shopping, school, restaurant, recreation, trail access (bicycling)

Functional Form Types of decay functions Negative power: f(c) = c (-β) Negative exponential: f(c) = e (-βc) Combined: f(c) = c (α) e (-βc) We focus on the negative exponential function Definition of impedance Time vs. network distance

Flexible Forms

Impedance: Distance vs. Time Both have limitations as impedance measures Distance Cannot validate route choice, shortest path Difficult to validate speeds Time Duration data are self-reported, subject to perception error

Data Sources 4 Data sources used for analysis in Twin Cities: Met Council TBI HIS files Met Council transit on-board survey Hennepin County trail use survey Non-Motorized Pilot Project (NMPP) survey

Work Shopping School Distance Time Distance Time Distance Time Walk y =.486e -1.683x y =.511e -.106x y =.469e -2.106x y =.368e -.094x y =.524e -.106x Bike y =.402e -.203x y =.146e -.040x y =.343e -.514x y =.434e -.107x y =.458e -.122x y =.424e -.100x Transit y =.667e -.093x y =.346e -.092x y =.406e -.116x Drive Alone y =.504e -.088x y =.379e -.117x y =.371e -.122x Shared Ride y =.237e -.076x y =.381e -.130x y =.160e -.096x Notes: 1) For impedance functions where distance is the measure of separation, kilometers are the relevant units. Where time is the measure of separation, units are in minutes. 2) The dependent variable (y) measures the fraction of trips covering a given distance. 3) All grayed cells represent impedance functions that could not be estimated due to limited data. 4) Cells shaded blue can be calculated given available data, but have not been needed thus far. 5) Cells shaded red represent the recently acquired health care data. An impedance function can be calculated with these data, but the mode cannot be specified. Restaurant Recreation Trail Access Health Care Distance Time Distance Time Distance Time Distance Time y =.388e -1.397x y =.373e -.093x y =.327e -.769x y =.556e -.100x y =.367e -.375x y =.293e -.071x y =.119e -.333x y =.318e -.119x y =.426e -.140x y =.336e -.103x y =.333e -.093x

Impedance Functions e -0.1*dist_m e -0.1*t_min e -0.1*t_min e -0.1*t_min e -0.1*t_min e -0.1*t_min e -0.1*t_min

How we proceeded New networks GIS street layer; assumptions about speeds New zones Census block level Detailed land use/activity data Parcel-level land use merged with: Establishment level (D & B) business data Contains location, sales, employment, industrial classification

What s unique about measuring access for Transit, Walking, Cycling? Peculiarities: -Scale of analysis -Availability of data Balance: Useful measures w/ policy relevance Robust & reliable science

Accessibility: a HOT topic in policy circles has the potential to radically inform how we think about the structure of metropolitan areas loosely throw around terms and concepts without further refinement, however, run the risk of focusing on a topic w/o much meaning