Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
measuring Transportation Connectivity by Route Directness Index   using *  *  Trademarks provided under license from ESRI....
Background Policy Issues <ul><li>Complete Streets Policy </li></ul><ul><li>Concurrency Program Refinements </li></ul><ul><...
Testing Connectivity Metrics <ul><li>Link / Node Ratio </li></ul><ul><li>Intersection Density </li></ul><ul><li>% 4-Way In...
Achieving VMT per Capita Reduction - 4 % - 2 % - 5% Measures of connectivity help indicate transportation-efficient land u...
Intersection Density Intersection Density 4-Way Intersection Density GIS mapping techniques can illustrate city-wide measu...
Composite Accessibility Indices Can help identify and prioritize plans, but miss the important measure of system connectiv...
Defining RDI <ul><li>Define Route Directness Index </li></ul><ul><li>The  Route Directness   Index  (RDI) can be used to q...
RDI Credits <ul><li>Jennifer Dill, Portland State University </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research – Connectivity Metrics </li></...
RDI Example:  Pre Neighborhood Connector Route Directness Index can better illustrate “before-and-after” Plan improvements...
RDI Example:  Post Neighborhood Connector Route Directness Index can better illustrate “before-and-after” Plan improvement...
RDI – GIS Focal Exam Testing RDI on a larger, city-wide scale is the challenge Poor Good
Examples Using RDI Desktop TM <ul><li>Access to Commuter Rail Station </li></ul><ul><li>Bike Access to LRT Station </li></...
Growth Management:  Non-Motorized Concurrency and Quality of Service <ul><li>Using  RDI Desktop  to demonstrate functional...
Planned Neighborhood <ul><li>Neighborhood design: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mixture of villa plot size </li></ul></ul><ul><ul>...
Neighborhood RDI Score <ul><li>Measured  without   Pedestrian  connections </li></ul><ul><li>Fair RDI scores </li></ul>Poo...
Neighborhood RDI Score <ul><li>Measured  with   Pedestrian  connections </li></ul><ul><li>Good-Excellent  RDI scores </li>...
Comparative RDI Scoring <ul><li>RDI Score Difference:  With  and  Without   Pedestrian  connections </li></ul>Parcel RDI D...
Intersection Density Scoring <ul><li>Intersection Density Score  Without   SUPs </li></ul>Poor Fair Excellent Average Dens...
Intersection Density Scoring <ul><li>Intersection Density Score  With   SUPs </li></ul>Fair Average Density Score: Good 14...
Link-Node Scoring <ul><li>Node-Link Score  Without   SUPs </li></ul>Link-Node Ratio: 1.66
Link-Node Scoring <ul><li>Node-Link Score  With   SUPs </li></ul>Link-Node Ratio: 1.67
Seattle’s Mt. Baker  Link LRT Station  Example <ul><li>RDI Measure: Pedestrian Access to LRT Station </li></ul>
Establish GIS Database <ul><li>Study area </li></ul><ul><li>Light rail line </li></ul><ul><li>Street centerline </li></ul>...
Create Pedestrian Network <ul><li>Create Pedestrian Network </li></ul><ul><li>Illustrate Importance of “Hanford Steps” </l...
Calculate Base Year RDI <ul><li>Study Parcels (2,000 foot radius buffer from LRT station) </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian  RD...
Calculate PMP RDI <ul><li>Pedestrian  RDI to Mt. Baker Station </li></ul><ul><li>RDI Impact of Hanford Steps </li></ul>Poo...
Estimate RDI Enhancement <ul><li>Pedestrian  RDI to Mt. Baker Station </li></ul><ul><li>Difference between Baseline RDI an...
Intersection Density <ul><li>Without link </li></ul><ul><li>Average: 296 intersections per mi 2 </li></ul>Poor Good Averag...
Intersection Density <ul><li>With project </li></ul><ul><li>Average: 302 intersections per mi 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Marginal...
Seattle’s Beacon Hill  Link LRT Station  Example <ul><li>RDI Measure:  Bike Access to LRT Station </li></ul>
Import GIS Database <ul><li>Study area </li></ul><ul><li>Light rail line </li></ul><ul><li>Street centerline </li></ul><ul...
Create Bicycle Network <ul><li>Create bike network </li></ul><ul><li>Bicycle Master Plan – existing conditions (2004) </li...
Route Choice Analyses <ul><li>Route Directness Index </li></ul><ul><li>Weighted Distance based on bicycle network characte...
Calculate Base Year RDI <ul><li>Study parcels (one-mile link distance) </li></ul><ul><li>Routes from parcels to Beacon Hil...
Calculate BMP RDI <ul><li>Added Bike Lanes noted in Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) </li></ul>Poor Good
Estimate RDI Enhancement <ul><li>Difference between Existing RDI and BMP RDI </li></ul>
Alternatives Analysis <ul><li>Testing new Bicycle Boulevard project to improve E-W connectivity </li></ul>Poor Good BMP or...
RDI Comparison <ul><li>Difference between BMP RDI and RDI with added  Bike Boulevard  project </li></ul>
Connectivity to LRT Baseline Measure: Bicycle Master Plan Plan Refinement: New Bicycle Boulevard Bicycle System Connectivi...
Non-motorized System Plan  Evaluation <ul><li>RDI Measure: Pedestrian Network Connectivity </li></ul>
Existing Conditions Shared-Use Path Connections Average RDI Score: Poor / Fair .58
New Shared-Use Paths Shared-Use Path Connections Average RDI Score: Fair / Good .66 14 % improvement
RDI – “Before & After” Shared-Use Path Connections Sensitive to Block Length Sensitive to Cul-de-Sac Length 305 ft 330ft R...
RDI – “Before & After” Delta Shared-Use Path Connections
Link-Node:  Before Link-Node Ratio: 1.45 Nodes 74 Links 107 Ratio 1.45 Shared-Use Path Connections
Link-Node:  After Shared-Use Path Connections Link-Node Ratio: 1.53 5.5 % improvement Nodes 92 Links 141 Ratio 1.53
Lakewood  Sounder Commuter Rail Station  Example <ul><li>RDI Measure: Access to Commuter Rail Station </li></ul>
Lakewood’s NMTP New Pedestrian-Bicycle  Connections RR Over-crossing I-5 Over-crossing
RDI - Baseline <ul><li>Testing RDI:  Land Use – to  Sounder Station </li></ul><ul><li>Land Use (building structures) withi...
RDI – After I-5 Crossing <ul><li>Impact of I-5 Over-Crossing Improvements </li></ul><ul><li>Addition of Sidewalks and Bike...
RDI – After RR Crossing <ul><li>Impact of New Railroad Over-Crossing </li></ul><ul><li>Exclusive Non-Motorized Facility </...
Why Use Route Directness Index <ul><li>RDI metric can enumerate important quality of connectedness, a primary factor (alon...
Route Choice Modeling <ul><li>Non-motorized system quality, or levels and types of obstacles (impedances) are important fa...
How Can RDI Desktop TM  Help? <ul><li>Street Design Policy Implementation  – measurable guidelines </li></ul><ul><li>Estab...
Contact <ul><li>Andy Mortensen  </li></ul><ul><li>               WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE </li></ul><ul><li>[email_addre...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

CNU Summit 2009 RDI

932 views

Published on

CNU Summit 2009 RDI

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

CNU Summit 2009 RDI

  1. 1. measuring Transportation Connectivity by Route Directness Index using * * Trademarks provided under license from ESRI. 2009 Transportation Summit – Portland, Oregon
  2. 2. Background Policy Issues <ul><li>Complete Streets Policy </li></ul><ul><li>Concurrency Program Refinements </li></ul><ul><li>VMT and GHG per Capita Reduction </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-Modal Level-of-Service (LOS) </li></ul><ul><li>Street Connectivity Policies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Connectivity between new/existing developed lands </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-motorized public accessways and limiting cul-de-sacs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Grid-based standards for streets (500 feet ) and Non-motorized (330 feet) – emphasis on smaller block lengths </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Developing connectivity metrics </li></ul></ul>Cities are looking at a host of transportation, land use, energy, environmental and sustainability policy issues and considering new measurement techniques:
  3. 3. Testing Connectivity Metrics <ul><li>Link / Node Ratio </li></ul><ul><li>Intersection Density </li></ul><ul><li>% 4-Way Intersections </li></ul><ul><li>Route Directness Ratio </li></ul>1990’s Hierarchical Network 1990’s Hierarchical Network 1950’s Grid Network A B C D A B C D 261 / 146 = 1.79 107 40 % .74 158 / 143 = 1.10 93 20 % .44 (Miles on Perimeter Arterial) 0.4 2.7 Connectivity measurements in small subareas are straight-forward; but what about city-wide?
  4. 4. Achieving VMT per Capita Reduction - 4 % - 2 % - 5% Measures of connectivity help indicate transportation-efficient land uses that yield lower VMT and GHG per capita Research conducted in Seattle area by C. Lee and Anne Moudon (University of Washington), 2006: Quantifying Land Use and Urban Form Correlates of Walking
  5. 5. Intersection Density Intersection Density 4-Way Intersection Density GIS mapping techniques can illustrate city-wide measures of intersection density but have difficulty illustrating “Plan” benefits Link-Node, Intersection Density and Walkscore Measures are only Proxies for connectivity – RDI is a direct measure of connectivity
  6. 6. Composite Accessibility Indices Can help identify and prioritize plans, but miss the important measure of system connectivity and notable gaps.
  7. 7. Defining RDI <ul><li>Define Route Directness Index </li></ul><ul><li>The Route Directness Index (RDI) can be used to quantify how well a street network connects destinations. </li></ul><ul><li>The RDI can be measured separately for motorized and non-motorized travel, taking into account non-motorized shortcuts, such as paths that connect cul-de-sacs, and barriers such as highways and streets that lack sidewalks. </li></ul><ul><li>The RDI is calculated by dividing direct travel distances by actual travel distances. For example, if streets are connected, have good sidewalks, and blocks are relatively small, people can travel nearly directly to destinations, resulting in a high index. If the street network has many unconnected dead-ends and blocks are large, people must travel farther to reach destinations, resulting in a low index. </li></ul>
  8. 8. RDI Credits <ul><li>Jennifer Dill, Portland State University </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research – Connectivity Metrics </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Victoria Transport Policy Institute </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Policy – Connectivity Metrics </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Charlier & Associates & Otak Intl. – CNU </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Practice </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Others </li></ul>
  9. 9. RDI Example: Pre Neighborhood Connector Route Directness Index can better illustrate “before-and-after” Plan improvements Existing Shared-Use Path Route Directness Index Crow Flight Walk Distance RDI / = 1850 ft 1850 ft RDI: .20 .20 375 ft 375 ft
  10. 10. RDI Example: Post Neighborhood Connector Route Directness Index can better illustrate “before-and-after” Plan improvements Existing Shared-Use Path Route Directness Index Crow Flight Walk Distance RDI = New Neighborhood Connectors / 375 ft 375 ft RDI: .83 .83 450 ft 450 ft
  11. 11. RDI – GIS Focal Exam Testing RDI on a larger, city-wide scale is the challenge Poor Good
  12. 12. Examples Using RDI Desktop TM <ul><li>Access to Commuter Rail Station </li></ul><ul><li>Bike Access to LRT Station </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Access to LRT Station </li></ul><ul><li>Neighborhood Design / Growth Management </li></ul><ul><li>Non-Motorized Concurrency and Quality of Service </li></ul>
  13. 13. Growth Management: Non-Motorized Concurrency and Quality of Service <ul><li>Using RDI Desktop to demonstrate functional implementation of a Master Plan area: </li></ul><ul><li>Measuring connectivity with & without exclusive pedestrian routes </li></ul><ul><li>RDI Measure: Neighborhood Connectivity </li></ul>1
  14. 14. Planned Neighborhood <ul><li>Neighborhood design: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mixture of villa plot size </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Neighborhood centers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Maximized public realm for non-motorized connectivity through: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality street pedestrian zone </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Connecting exclusive pedestrian routes, and park/open spaces </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Neighborhood RDI Score <ul><li>Measured without Pedestrian connections </li></ul><ul><li>Fair RDI scores </li></ul>Poor Fair Excellent Parcel RDI Desktop TM Metric Parcel Average RDI Score: Fair .65
  16. 16. Neighborhood RDI Score <ul><li>Measured with Pedestrian connections </li></ul><ul><li>Good-Excellent RDI scores </li></ul>Poor Fair Excellent Parcel RDI Desktop TM Metric Parcel Average RDI Score: Good .73 RDI scoring can be used to establish non-motorized concurrency measures and thresholds, used to evaluate future land development plans for policy compliance
  17. 17. Comparative RDI Scoring <ul><li>RDI Score Difference: With and Without Pedestrian connections </li></ul>Parcel RDI Desktop TM Metric Parcel Plots that benefit significantly by Pedestrian connectivity
  18. 18. Intersection Density Scoring <ul><li>Intersection Density Score Without SUPs </li></ul>Poor Fair Excellent Average Density Score: Poor 68
  19. 19. Intersection Density Scoring <ul><li>Intersection Density Score With SUPs </li></ul>Fair Average Density Score: Good 142 Poor Excellent
  20. 20. Link-Node Scoring <ul><li>Node-Link Score Without SUPs </li></ul>Link-Node Ratio: 1.66
  21. 21. Link-Node Scoring <ul><li>Node-Link Score With SUPs </li></ul>Link-Node Ratio: 1.67
  22. 22. Seattle’s Mt. Baker Link LRT Station Example <ul><li>RDI Measure: Pedestrian Access to LRT Station </li></ul>
  23. 23. Establish GIS Database <ul><li>Study area </li></ul><ul><li>Light rail line </li></ul><ul><li>Street centerline </li></ul><ul><li>Parcel data </li></ul>
  24. 24. Create Pedestrian Network <ul><li>Create Pedestrian Network </li></ul><ul><li>Illustrate Importance of “Hanford Steps” </li></ul>
  25. 25. Calculate Base Year RDI <ul><li>Study Parcels (2,000 foot radius buffer from LRT station) </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian RDI to Mt. Baker Station </li></ul><ul><li>Baseline Conditions (assumes no Hanford Steps) </li></ul><ul><li>RDI Average = 0.67 </li></ul>Parcel RDI Desktop TM Metric Station Average RDI Score: Fair .67 Poor Good
  26. 26. Calculate PMP RDI <ul><li>Pedestrian RDI to Mt. Baker Station </li></ul><ul><li>RDI Impact of Hanford Steps </li></ul>Poor Good Parcel RDI Desktop TM Metric Station Average RDI Score: Good .72
  27. 27. Estimate RDI Enhancement <ul><li>Pedestrian RDI to Mt. Baker Station </li></ul><ul><li>Difference between Baseline RDI and Hanford Steps RDI </li></ul><ul><li>Baseline: 58% of parcels above RDI 0.65 threshold. </li></ul><ul><li>Steps RDI: 73% of parcels above threshold. </li></ul><ul><li>Additional 40 more parcels. </li></ul>RDI scoring can be used to sharpen plan priorities, particularly as federal and state funding becomes more competitive
  28. 28. Intersection Density <ul><li>Without link </li></ul><ul><li>Average: 296 intersections per mi 2 </li></ul>Poor Good Average Density Score: Fair 296
  29. 29. Intersection Density <ul><li>With project </li></ul><ul><li>Average: 302 intersections per mi 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Marginal increase </li></ul>Average Density Score: Fair 302 Poor Good
  30. 30. Seattle’s Beacon Hill Link LRT Station Example <ul><li>RDI Measure: Bike Access to LRT Station </li></ul>
  31. 31. Import GIS Database <ul><li>Study area </li></ul><ul><li>Light rail line </li></ul><ul><li>Street centerline </li></ul><ul><li>Parcel data </li></ul>
  32. 32. Create Bicycle Network <ul><li>Create bike network </li></ul><ul><li>Bicycle Master Plan – existing conditions (2004) </li></ul>
  33. 33. Route Choice Analyses <ul><li>Route Directness Index </li></ul><ul><li>Weighted Distance based on bicycle network characteristics </li></ul>
  34. 34. Calculate Base Year RDI <ul><li>Study parcels (one-mile link distance) </li></ul><ul><li>Routes from parcels to Beacon Hill Station </li></ul><ul><li>Existing Conditions (2004) </li></ul>Poor Good
  35. 35. Calculate BMP RDI <ul><li>Added Bike Lanes noted in Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) </li></ul>Poor Good
  36. 36. Estimate RDI Enhancement <ul><li>Difference between Existing RDI and BMP RDI </li></ul>
  37. 37. Alternatives Analysis <ul><li>Testing new Bicycle Boulevard project to improve E-W connectivity </li></ul>Poor Good BMP oriented mostly north-south (arterials)… … instead of to LRT sta. RDI scoring can be used to identify supplemental master plans, using detailed route-choice analyses that integrate walkability and bicycle compatibility indices
  38. 38. RDI Comparison <ul><li>Difference between BMP RDI and RDI with added Bike Boulevard project </li></ul>
  39. 39. Connectivity to LRT Baseline Measure: Bicycle Master Plan Plan Refinement: New Bicycle Boulevard Bicycle System Connectivity Scores Project Impact: Improved Connectivity Poor Good Poor Good
  40. 40. Non-motorized System Plan Evaluation <ul><li>RDI Measure: Pedestrian Network Connectivity </li></ul>
  41. 41. Existing Conditions Shared-Use Path Connections Average RDI Score: Poor / Fair .58
  42. 42. New Shared-Use Paths Shared-Use Path Connections Average RDI Score: Fair / Good .66 14 % improvement
  43. 43. RDI – “Before & After” Shared-Use Path Connections Sensitive to Block Length Sensitive to Cul-de-Sac Length 305 ft 330ft RDI scoring is sensitive to urban design principles – because it directly measures connectivity
  44. 44. RDI – “Before & After” Delta Shared-Use Path Connections
  45. 45. Link-Node: Before Link-Node Ratio: 1.45 Nodes 74 Links 107 Ratio 1.45 Shared-Use Path Connections
  46. 46. Link-Node: After Shared-Use Path Connections Link-Node Ratio: 1.53 5.5 % improvement Nodes 92 Links 141 Ratio 1.53
  47. 47. Lakewood Sounder Commuter Rail Station Example <ul><li>RDI Measure: Access to Commuter Rail Station </li></ul>
  48. 48. Lakewood’s NMTP New Pedestrian-Bicycle Connections RR Over-crossing I-5 Over-crossing
  49. 49. RDI - Baseline <ul><li>Testing RDI: Land Use – to Sounder Station </li></ul><ul><li>Land Use (building structures) within One-Mile Radius </li></ul><ul><li>“ Baseline” = Existing Pedestrian System Connectivity </li></ul>Poor Fair Good
  50. 50. RDI – After I-5 Crossing <ul><li>Impact of I-5 Over-Crossing Improvements </li></ul><ul><li>Addition of Sidewalks and Bike Lanes </li></ul>Poor Fair Good
  51. 51. RDI – After RR Crossing <ul><li>Impact of New Railroad Over-Crossing </li></ul><ul><li>Exclusive Non-Motorized Facility </li></ul>Poor Fair Good
  52. 52. Why Use Route Directness Index <ul><li>RDI metric can enumerate important quality of connectedness, a primary factor (along with land mix and density) in urban transportation sustainability by: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Directly measuring street / pathway connections, rather than proxy measures, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mapping spatial variation in land use connectivity </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RDI calculates numerical metrics to evaluate the quality of a connection between an origin location and one or more destinations. These metrics can be mapped thematically at the origin location to highlight areas of connectivity quality (range, good-bad). </li></ul><ul><li>Using these metrics, before and after analyses can be performed to quantify and locate the impacts of improved connections (especially non-motorized connections), establishing Comparative RDI Benefit to Existing Land Use </li></ul>
  53. 53. Route Choice Modeling <ul><li>Non-motorized system quality, or levels and types of obstacles (impedances) are important factors to consider in walking and cycling route choice sub-models </li></ul>
  54. 54. How Can RDI Desktop TM Help? <ul><li>Street Design Policy Implementation – measurable guidelines </li></ul><ul><li>Establish Non-motorized Neighborhood Connectivity Standards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Design guide thresholds for neighborhood planning site plan review – non-motorized concurrency </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Non-Motorized Plan Strategic Prioritization </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Measure current networks - target critical non-motorized connections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimizing expensive and unnecessary data collection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Help expedite Draft Non-motorized Plan project identification and priorities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consistently evaluate and rank multi-modal projects for federal Transportation Enhancement Program grant applications </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Critical Plan Priority Analysis and Ranking – consistent and robust technique (with other sub-models) to measure important: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Neighborhood Connectors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transit Access Connectors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Urban Boulevard Crossings </li></ul></ul>
  55. 55. Contact <ul><li>Andy Mortensen  </li></ul><ul><li>               WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>503.313.6946 </li></ul><ul><li>www.transpogroup.com </li></ul><ul><li>Abu Dhabi | Kirkland | Seattle | Boise </li></ul>* Trademarks provided under license from ESRI. *

×