Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Measuring Connectivity with Route Directness Index & Evaluating Quality of Service<br />September2010<br />Powered by:<br />
What is Route Directness Index?<br />A<br />B<br />straight-line distance “A”<br />actual route distance “B”<br />RDI = A ...
RDI Applied - Neighborhood Example<br />RDI = 0.20<br />RDI = 0.83<br />shared-use path<br />shared-use path<br />
	Why Route Directness Index?<br />RDI<br />Other connectivity indices do not provide for parcel-level precision or land us...
ESRI Partner<br /><ul><li>GIS-based
Utilizes Network Analyst</li></ul>Basic Needs<br /><ul><li>Tax Parcel
Street centerline</li></ul>Other Inputs<br /><ul><li>Land use
Ped/Bike/Greenway
Demographics</li></li></ul><li>Sample City:  Variation in RDI<br />
Asheville – Smith Mill<br />Greenway Access Planning<br />
Asheville – Proposed Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Planned Urban Village<br />Planned Urban Village<br />
Asheville – Proposed Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />
Asheville – Proposed Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />
Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Louisiana Avenue<br /><ul><li>RDI Average: 0.62
Fair Connectivity, influenced by areas south of Patton
47% of parcels with RDI > 0.65</li></li></ul><li>Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Leicester Hwy<br />Patton Aven...
Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Louisiana Avenue<br /><ul><li>RDI Average: 0.64
Good/Fair Connectivity, influenced by new connections
53% of parcels with RDI > 0.65</li></li></ul><li>Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Lou...
Good/Fair Connectivity, influenced by new connections
53% of parcels with RDI > 0.65</li></li></ul><li>Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Leicester Hwy<br />Patton Aven...
Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Leicester Hwy<br />Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Louisiana Avenue<br /><ul><li>RDI...
Excellent Connectivity, influenced by new connections
64% of parcels with RDI > 0.65</li></ul>Patton<br />Louisiana<br />
Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Leicester Hwy<br />Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Louisiana Avenue<br /><ul><li>RDI...
Excellent Connectivity, influenced by new connections
64% of parcels with RDI > 0.65</li></ul>Patton<br />Louisiana<br />
Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />RDI After: 0.71<br />RDI Before: 0.62<br />
Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Leicester Hwy<br /><ul><li>1,092 total parcels
208 parcels (19%) had a minor change in RDI.
193 (18%) had a major change.</li></ul>Patton<br />Louisiana<br />
Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />					Parcels	     Total 		<br />Patton/Louisiana	RDI	> 0.65	    >0.65		Change<b...
Downtown Raleigh<br />Removing Transportation Linkages<br />
Raleigh High Speed Rail: CSX vs. NS Crossings<br /><ul><li> Debate over closure of Jones Street (NS), West Street (CSX) an...
  North-south connectivity vs. east-west connectivity </li></ul>Glenwood<br />Jones St.<br />
Raleigh High Speed Rail: CSX vs. NS Crossings<br /><ul><li> Overall, well-established connectivity in the area.
 Conducive to walking and bicycling.
Redevelopment potential of city-owned properties
Glenwood South District and access to downtown with few impedances</li></ul>Glenwood<br />Jones St.<br />
Raleigh HSR: CSX vs. NS Crossings<br />CSX Crossings:<br /><ul><li>Closure of West & Harringon.
Impacts east-west connectivity to areas northwest of downtown. </li></li></ul><li>Raleigh HSR: CSX vs. NS Crossings<br />N...
Example: Parcel to Station<br />Station 31<br />Station 15<br />Average RDI = 0.58<br />Average RDI = 0.75<br />
Fire Station<br />Before<br />After<br />Change<br />Parcel Impact<br />Route Directness Index<br />1,115<br />(increased ...
Lakewood Sounder<br />Access to Commuter Rail Station<br />
Improving Station Connections<br />Lakewood Example<br />
RDI Analysis<br />Before – without connections<br />versus <br />After – with connections<br />Non-motorized connection ac...
Rail Station<br />RDI Baseline<br />RDI  - Project Impact<br />
Rail Station<br />RDI Change<br /><ul><li>Shows affected parcels and relative impact
Impacted parcels can be numbered for project prioritization</li></li></ul><li>Land Use Density and RDI<br />Before<br />Af...
Rail Station<br />Before<br />After<br />Change<br />Parcel Impact<br />Route Directness Index<br />2,300<br />0.63<br />0...
Bellingham, wa<br />Multi-Criteria Quality of Service<br />
	Quality of Service through Connectivity<br />“Level of service” not representative of the real issue behind pedestrian & ...
Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
 Safety (SRTS)
 Transit
 Active Living
Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #9<br />
Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
Safety (SRTS)
 Transit
 Active Living
Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #9<br />
Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
 Safety (SRTS)
 Transit
 Active Living
Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #9<br />
Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
 Safety (SRTS)
 Transit
Active Living
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Case Studies -- Measuring Connectivity

926

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
926
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Brent
  • Don
  • Brent
  • RDI scores can be at the parcel level, which allows scores to be related to land use information. In other words, a transportation-land use nexus.
  • Don
  • Don
  • Don
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Brent’s Analysis
  • Don
  • Transcript of "Case Studies -- Measuring Connectivity"

    1. 1. Measuring Connectivity with Route Directness Index & Evaluating Quality of Service<br />September2010<br />Powered by:<br />
    2. 2. What is Route Directness Index?<br />A<br />B<br />straight-line distance “A”<br />actual route distance “B”<br />RDI = A / B<br />
    3. 3. RDI Applied - Neighborhood Example<br />RDI = 0.20<br />RDI = 0.83<br />shared-use path<br />shared-use path<br />
    4. 4. Why Route Directness Index?<br />RDI<br />Other connectivity indices do not provide for parcel-level precision or land use consideration<br />Focus only on transportation network instead of land use and its relationship to the system<br />Research shows stronger correlation; previously considered hard to measure.<br />Limited ability for other metrics to evaluate subtle changes in the connectivity of a system or to compare benefits of project alternatives.<br />More intuitive for broader public, agency staff and elected official understanding. <br />Intersection Density<br />
    5. 5. ESRI Partner<br /><ul><li>GIS-based
    6. 6. Utilizes Network Analyst</li></ul>Basic Needs<br /><ul><li>Tax Parcel
    7. 7. Street centerline</li></ul>Other Inputs<br /><ul><li>Land use
    8. 8. Ped/Bike/Greenway
    9. 9. Demographics</li></li></ul><li>Sample City: Variation in RDI<br />
    10. 10. Asheville – Smith Mill<br />Greenway Access Planning<br />
    11. 11. Asheville – Proposed Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Planned Urban Village<br />Planned Urban Village<br />
    12. 12. Asheville – Proposed Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />
    13. 13. Asheville – Proposed Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />
    14. 14. Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Louisiana Avenue<br /><ul><li>RDI Average: 0.62
    15. 15. Fair Connectivity, influenced by areas south of Patton
    16. 16. 47% of parcels with RDI > 0.65</li></li></ul><li>Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Leicester Hwy<br />Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Louisiana Avenue<br /><ul><li>Potential connections to West Asheville & Burton Street neighborhoods</li></ul>Patton<br />Louisiana<br />
    17. 17. Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Louisiana Avenue<br /><ul><li>RDI Average: 0.64
    18. 18. Good/Fair Connectivity, influenced by new connections
    19. 19. 53% of parcels with RDI > 0.65</li></li></ul><li>Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Louisiana Avenue<br /><ul><li>RDI Average: 0.64
    20. 20. Good/Fair Connectivity, influenced by new connections
    21. 21. 53% of parcels with RDI > 0.65</li></li></ul><li>Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Leicester Hwy<br />Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Louisiana Avenue<br /><ul><li>Crossing enhancements (not just crosswalks) at existing signalized intersections.</li></ul>Patton<br />Louisiana<br />
    22. 22. Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Leicester Hwy<br />Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Louisiana Avenue<br /><ul><li>RDI Average: 0.71
    23. 23. Excellent Connectivity, influenced by new connections
    24. 24. 64% of parcels with RDI > 0.65</li></ul>Patton<br />Louisiana<br />
    25. 25. Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Leicester Hwy<br />Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Louisiana Avenue<br /><ul><li>RDI Average: 0.71
    26. 26. Excellent Connectivity, influenced by new connections
    27. 27. 64% of parcels with RDI > 0.65</li></ul>Patton<br />Louisiana<br />
    28. 28. Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />RDI After: 0.71<br />RDI Before: 0.62<br />
    29. 29. Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br />Leicester Hwy<br /><ul><li>1,092 total parcels
    30. 30. 208 parcels (19%) had a minor change in RDI.
    31. 31. 193 (18%) had a major change.</li></ul>Patton<br />Louisiana<br />
    32. 32. Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway<br /> Parcels Total <br />Patton/Louisiana RDI > 0.65 >0.65 Change<br />- Baseline 0.62 47% 517 of 1092 N/A<br /> - Local 0.64 53% 582 + 6%<br /> Connectors<br /> - Crosswalks / 0.71 64% 704 + 17%<br /> Sidewalks +<br /> Connectors<br />
    33. 33. Downtown Raleigh<br />Removing Transportation Linkages<br />
    34. 34. Raleigh High Speed Rail: CSX vs. NS Crossings<br /><ul><li> Debate over closure of Jones Street (NS), West Street (CSX) and Harrington Street (CSX)
    35. 35. North-south connectivity vs. east-west connectivity </li></ul>Glenwood<br />Jones St.<br />
    36. 36. Raleigh High Speed Rail: CSX vs. NS Crossings<br /><ul><li> Overall, well-established connectivity in the area.
    37. 37. Conducive to walking and bicycling.
    38. 38. Redevelopment potential of city-owned properties
    39. 39. Glenwood South District and access to downtown with few impedances</li></ul>Glenwood<br />Jones St.<br />
    40. 40. Raleigh HSR: CSX vs. NS Crossings<br />CSX Crossings:<br /><ul><li>Closure of West & Harringon.
    41. 41. Impacts east-west connectivity to areas northwest of downtown. </li></li></ul><li>Raleigh HSR: CSX vs. NS Crossings<br />Norfolk Southern Crossing<br /><ul><li> Closure to vehicular traffic on Jones St., addition of pedestrian bridge.</li></li></ul><li>Raleigh HSR: CSX vs. NS Crossings<br /><ul><li>Parcel-based metrics</li></li></ul><li>Charlotte, NC<br />Fire Station Service Area Planning<br />
    42. 42. Example: Parcel to Station<br />Station 31<br />Station 15<br />Average RDI = 0.58<br />Average RDI = 0.75<br />
    43. 43. Fire Station<br />Before<br />After<br />Change<br />Parcel Impact<br />Route Directness Index<br />1,115<br />(increased Fire Station Service Area by 17%)<br />0.48<br />0.57<br />19%<br />Intersection<br />Density<br />56.0<br /><1%<br />--<br />55.9<br />Link-Node Ratio<br />--<br />1.09<br />1.10<br /><1%<br />
    44. 44. Lakewood Sounder<br />Access to Commuter Rail Station<br />
    45. 45. Improving Station Connections<br />Lakewood Example<br />
    46. 46. RDI Analysis<br />Before – without connections<br />versus <br />After – with connections<br />Non-motorized connection across tracks with supporting pathways<br />study area is 1.0 mile radius<br />
    47. 47. Rail Station<br />RDI Baseline<br />RDI - Project Impact<br />
    48. 48. Rail Station<br />RDI Change<br /><ul><li>Shows affected parcels and relative impact
    49. 49. Impacted parcels can be numbered for project prioritization</li></li></ul><li>Land Use Density and RDI<br />Before<br />After<br />Change<br />taller parcels = higher land use density (address points per acre)<br />
    50. 50. Rail Station<br />Before<br />After<br />Change<br />Parcel Impact<br />Route Directness Index<br />2,300<br />0.63<br />0.77<br />23%<br />Intersection<br />Density<br />146<br />1.4%<br />--<br />144<br />Link-Node Ratio<br />--<br />1.29<br />1.30<br />< 1%<br />Walk Score<br />--<br />--<br />--<br />89 of 100<br />
    51. 51. Bellingham, wa<br />Multi-Criteria Quality of Service<br />
    52. 52. Quality of Service through Connectivity<br />“Level of service” not representative of the real issue behind pedestrian & bicycle usage.<br />Not a capacity issue or delay issue.<br />Quality of Service<br />Quality of the network and route/facilities and attractors that generate non-motorized travel.<br />Emerging research on active living, VMT reduction<br />5 D’s: Density, Diversity, Design, Destination accessibility, Distance to transit<br />
    53. 53. Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
    54. 54. Safety (SRTS)
    55. 55. Transit
    56. 56. Active Living
    57. 57. Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #9<br />
    58. 58. Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
    59. 59. Safety (SRTS)
    60. 60. Transit
    61. 61. Active Living
    62. 62. Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #9<br />
    63. 63. Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
    64. 64. Safety (SRTS)
    65. 65. Transit
    66. 66. Active Living
    67. 67. Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #9<br />
    68. 68. Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
    69. 69. Safety (SRTS)
    70. 70. Transit
    71. 71. Active Living
    72. 72. Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #9<br />
    73. 73. Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
    74. 74. Safety (SRTS)
    75. 75. Transit
    76. 76. Active Living
    77. 77. Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #9<br />
    78. 78. Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
    79. 79. Safety (SRTS)
    80. 80. Transit
    81. 81. Active Living
    82. 82. Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #14<br />
    83. 83. Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
    84. 84. Safety (SRTS)
    85. 85. Transit
    86. 86. Active Living
    87. 87. Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #14<br />
    88. 88. Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
    89. 89. Safety (SRTS)
    90. 90. Transit
    91. 91. Active Living
    92. 92. Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #14<br />
    93. 93. Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
    94. 94. Safety (SRTS)
    95. 95. Transit
    96. 96. Active Living
    97. 97. Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #14<br />
    98. 98. Bellingham, WAConcurrency<br />Quality of Service Metrics<br /><ul><li> Smart Growth
    99. 99. Safety (SRTS)
    100. 100. Transit
    101. 101. Active Living
    102. 102. Weighted Average</li></ul>Service Area #14<br />
    103. 103. Parcel Statistics: Service Area 14<br />
    104. 104. Seattle Northgate<br />Light Rail Station Planning<br />
    105. 105. Seattle LINK – Northgate Station Example (Before)<br />Walk Time<br />RDI<br />I-5<br />I-5<br />
    106. 106. Seattle LINK – Northgate Station Example (After)<br />Walk Time<br />RDI<br />I-5<br />I-5<br />
    107. 107. Seattle LINK – Northgate Station Example<br />Composite<br />RDI<br />I-5<br />Walk Time<br />
    108. 108. Measuring Connectivity with Route Directness Index & Evaluating Quality of Service<br />September2010<br />Powered by:<br />
    109. 109. Cassia park, boise, ID<br />Neighborhood Access to Parks<br />
    110. 110. Cassia Park Case Study<br />Composite connectivity score for neighborhood planning<br />School walk routes<br />Elementary Schools<br />South Junior High<br />Borah High School<br />Library<br />
    111. 111. Cassia Park Case Study<br />Input to answer improvement priority questions:<br />Who is benefiting from the Camas Sidewalk improvement?<br />Where should we add a crosswalk along Orchard, Cassia or Camas?<br />
    112. 112. Scenarios<br />Baseline<br />With Camas Sidewalk<br />With Sidewalk, With Cassia Crosswalk<br />With Sidewalk, With Camas Crosswalk<br />
    113. 113. Methodology – Routes & Destinations<br />Franklin Rd<br />Orchard St<br />Roosevelt St<br />Owyhee St<br />Cassia Park<br />Curtis Rd<br />Kootenai St<br />Overland Rd<br />
    114. 114. Methodology - Projects<br />Cassia St <br />Crosswalk<br />Camas St <br />Crosswalk<br />Camas St <br />Sidewalk<br />
    115. 115. Area Pictures<br />
    116. 116. Area Pictures<br />
    117. 117. Methodology – Study Parcels<br />Jefferson <br />Catchment Area<br />Grace Jordan <br />Catchment Area<br />Monroe <br />Catchment Area<br />
    118. 118. Baseline RDI<br />
    119. 119. Baseline RDI – Cassia Park<br />
    120. 120. Baseline RDI - Library<br />
    121. 121. Baseline RDI - Elementary<br />
    122. 122. Scenario Results<br />Cassia Park Only RDI<br />
    123. 123. Baseline RDI<br />
    124. 124. With Camas Sidewalk<br />
    125. 125. With Cassia Crosswalk<br />
    126. 126. With Camas Crosswalk<br />
    127. 127. Difference (Camas Sidewalk)<br />
    128. 128. Difference (Cassia Crosswalk) <br />
    129. 129. Difference (Camas Crosswalk)<br />
    130. 130. Scenario Results<br />Parcel-Based Statistics<br />
    131. 131. Case Study Statistics<br />
    132. 132. Composite Metric<br />RDI and Route Distance<br />
    133. 133. RDI Only - Elementary<br />
    134. 134. Composite Score – Route Distance<br />
    135. 135. Parcel Statistics<br />Service Area 14<br />Service Area 9<br />
    136. 136. Raleigh HSR: CSX vs. NS Crossings<br />
    137. 137. Other ViaCity Applications<br />System Access Program<br />Station Area, Programming Connectivity Projects & Connectivity Policy Thresholds<br />Growth Management - Concurrency<br />Charlotte, NC<br />Sound Transit<br />Olympia, WA<br />
    138. 138. City-Wide RDI Scoring: Olympia, WA<br /><ul><li>Pre-Planning Gap Analysis to
    139. 139. Efficiently focus expensive data collection
    140. 140. Begin community involvement process
    141. 141. Establish Concurrency Quality of Service Thresholds and Policy to Guide Site Planning
    142. 142. Gauge success of non-motorized projects and program (Plan) impacts on connectivity</li></li></ul><li>San mateo, Ca<br />Quality of Service – Project Evaluation<br />
    143. 143. Quality of Service: Smart Growth<br />
    144. 144. Quality of Service: Access<br />
    145. 145. Quality of Service: Safety<br />
    146. 146. Quality of Service: Active Living<br />Walk Access to Parks<br />
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×