Connectivity Intro

797 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
797
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
114
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Circle Drive
  • Fractal Acres
  • Fairmeadow Estates: Palo Alto
  • Connectivity Intro

    1. 1. WM10<br />Making Connectivity a Part of Your Smart Growth<br />Washington Chapter APA<br />October 2010<br />
    2. 2. CONNECTIVITY’S<br />GREATEST <br />HITS<br />
    3. 3.
    4. 4.
    5. 5.
    6. 6.
    7. 7. Love Thy Neighbor<br />
    8. 8. Ross Racine<br />
    9. 9. Ross Racine<br />
    10. 10.
    11. 11. Driving & the Built Environment – the 5 D’s<br />Density Population & employment by geographic unit (e.g., per square mile, per developed acre).<br />Diversity Mix of land uses, typically residential and commercial development, and the degree to which they are balanced in an area (e.g., jobs–housing balance).<br />Design Neighborhood layout and street characteristics, particularly connectivity, presence of sidewalks, and other design features (e.g., shade, scenery, presence of attractive homes and stores) that enhance the pedestrian- and bicycle-friendliness of an area.<br />Destination accessibility<br /> Ease or convenience of trip destinations from point of origin, often measured at the zonal level in terms of distance from the central business district or other major centers.<br />Distance to transit<br /> Ease of access to transit from home/work (e.g., bus/rail stop within ¼ to ½ mile).<br />Ewing & Cervero, JAPA, Summer 2010 | TRB Report #298<br />
    12. 12. DOT – HUD – EPA <br />Partnership for Sustainable Communities<br /><ul><li>Livability Principles
    13. 13. Improve access to affordable housing
    14. 14. More transportation options
    15. 15. Lower transportation costs while protecting environment
    16. 16. Partnership Agreement
    17. 17. Develop livability measures and tools
    18. 18. Undertake joint research & data collection</li></li></ul><li>Connectivity & Active Living<br /><ul><li>International Journal of Health Geographics– Berrigan, Pickle, Dill
    19. 19. Los Angeles and San Diego Counties
    20. 20. Applied 9 measures of street connectivity
    21. 21. Identified positive correlation between connected street system and the propensity and duration of leisure walking and cycling</li></li></ul><li> “ <br /> “ <br />Draft FTA Policy – Connectivity Nexus<br />FTA encourages the use of its funds for the type of well-designed pedestrian and bicycle amenities that attract new public transportation riders by expanding the catchment area and utility of public transportation stations.<br />(Proposed FTA Policy Statement on the Eligibility of Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Under Federal Transit Law. November 6, 2009) <br />
    22. 22. Current Planning Guides for Connectivity<br />
    23. 23. Rail Station Connectivity –Comparing Metrics<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 />
    24. 24. LEED Certification<br />
    25. 25. Basic RDI Calculation<br />A<br />B<br />straight-line distance “A”<br />actual route distance “B”<br />RDI = A / B<br />
    26. 26. RDI Example: Pre Neighborhood Connector<br />375 ft<br />1850 ft<br />RDI: .20<br />1850 ft<br />.20<br />375 ft<br />Route Directness Index<br />Crow Flight<br />/<br />Walk Distance<br />=<br />RDI<br />Existing Shared-Use Path<br />
    27. 27. RDI Example: Post Neighborhood Connector<br />375 ft<br />RDI: .83<br />450 ft<br />.83<br />375 ft<br />450 ft<br />Route Directness Index<br />Crow Flight<br />/<br />Walk Distance<br />New Neighborhood Connectors<br />=<br />RDI<br />Existing Shared-Use Path<br />
    28. 28. Ellensburg: Variation in RDI<br />
    29. 29. Connectivity & Smart Growth Panel<br />Dan Penrose, AICP City of Lakewood<br />Sophie Stimson City of Olympia<br />Thera Black Thurston Regional Planning Council<br />Chris Comeau, AICP City of Bellingham<br />
    30. 30. Active Living Index<br />Applied Model<br /> DU’s within 15-minute Walk-To-School<br />Baseline<br />Conceptual Citywide Model<br />Independent Variables<br /><ul><li>S.F. DU’s within 1/2-mile of schools by Household Income and Auto Ownership
    31. 31. M.F. DU’s within 15-minute walk-to-school, by Household Income and Auto Ownership
    32. 32. Parcel-Measured RDI to School
    33. 33. School Enrollment
    34. 34. Sidewalk Coverage (if available)</li></ul># Students Walk-To-School<br />Plan Progress Reporting<br />Plan Impact<br />Dependant Variable<br /><ul><li># Students – Walk-To-School</li></ul>New Data Collection<br />Students 3 x more likely to walk when route passes SR2S improvement<br />CA 2007 Report<br />

    ×