23
Making Connectivity a Part of Your Smart Growth Washington Chapter APA October 2010 WM10

Connectivity Intro

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Connectivity Intro

Making Connectivity a Part of Your Smart Growth

Washington Chapter APA

October 2010

WM10

Page 2: Connectivity Intro

CONNECTIVITY’SGREATEST

HITS

Page 3: Connectivity Intro
Page 4: Connectivity Intro
Page 5: Connectivity Intro
Page 6: Connectivity Intro
Page 7: Connectivity Intro

Love Thy Neighbor

Page 8: Connectivity Intro

Ro

ss R

aci

ne

Page 9: Connectivity Intro

Ro

ss R

aci

ne

Page 10: Connectivity Intro
Page 11: Connectivity Intro

Driving & the Built Environment – the 5 D’s

Density Population & employment by geographic unit (e.g., per square mile, per developed acre).

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).

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.

Destination accessibility 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.

Distance to transit Ease of access to transit from home/work (e.g., bus/rail stop within ¼ to ½ mile).

Ewing & Cervero, JAPA, Summer 2010 | TRB Report #298

Page 12: Connectivity Intro

DOT – HUD – EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities

• Livability PrinciplesImprove access to affordable

housingMore transportation optionsLower transportation costs

while protecting environment• Partnership Agreement

Develop livability measures and tools

Undertake joint research & data collection

Page 13: Connectivity Intro

Connectivity & Active Living

• International Journal of Health Geographics– Berrigan, Pickle, Dill

• Los Angeles and San Diego Counties• Applied 9 measures of street

connectivity• Identified positive correlation

between connected street system and the propensity and duration of leisure walking and cycling

Page 14: Connectivity Intro

Draft FTA Policy – Connectivity Nexus

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.

(Proposed FTA Policy Statement on the Eligibility of Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Under Federal Transit Law. November 6, 2009)

Page 15: Connectivity Intro

Current Planning Guides for Connectivity

SourceLink-Node

Intersection Density RDI

ITE Context Sensitive Solutions x x x

APA Smart Growth Street Design x

TCRP Report 100 x

LEED ND x

Page 16: Connectivity Intro

Route Directness Index

Before After Change

IntersectionDensity

Link-Node Ratio

144

146

0.63 0.77 23%

1.29 1.30

Walk Score 89 of 100

1.4%

< 1%

2,300

--

--

Parcel Impact

------

Rail Station Connectivity –Comparing Metrics

Page 17: Connectivity Intro

LEED Certification

Page 18: Connectivity Intro

Basic RDI Calculation

straight-line distance “A”

actual route distance “B”

B

RDI = A / B

A

Page 19: Connectivity Intro

RDI Example: Pre Neighborhood Connector

Existing Shared-Use Path

Route Directness Index

Crow Flight

Walk Distance

1850 ft

1850 ft

RDI

RDI: .20

.20

/

=

375 ft

375 ft

Page 20: Connectivity Intro

RDI Example: Post Neighborhood Connector

Existing Shared-Use Path

Route Directness Index

Crow Flight

Walk Distance

RDI=

375 ft

375 ft

RDI: .83

.83

New Neighborhood

Connectors

450 ft

450 ft

/

Page 21: Connectivity Intro

Ellensburg: Variation in RDI

Page 22: Connectivity Intro

Connectivity & Smart Growth Panel

Dan Penrose, AICP City of Lakewood

Sophie Stimson City of Olympia

Thera Black Thurston Regional Planning Council

Chris Comeau, AICP City of Bellingham

Page 23: Connectivity Intro

Active Living Index

Plan Impact

Baseline

2007

1969

12%

50%

Percent Children Walk-To-School

Conceptual Citywide Model

Dependant VariableZ # Students – Walk-To-School

New Data Collection

Independent VariablesZ S.F. DU’s within 1/2-mile of schools

by Household Income and Auto Ownership

Z M.F. DU’s within 15-minute walk-to-school, by Household Income and Auto Ownership

Z Parcel-Measured RDI to SchoolZ School EnrollmentZ Sidewalk Coverage (if available)

Students 3 x more likely to walk when route passes SR2S improvement

Applied Model

# Students Walk-To-School

DU

’s w

ith

in 1

5-m

inu

te

Wal

k-To

-Sch

oo

l

Plan Progress ReportingSchool: Bayside Elementary

Annual

StudentsInfrastructure Baseline 240 124 29 3263

San Mateo Plan 240 136 50 5,625 2,362

Program Education 15 1,688 1,688 Social Marketing 23 2,588 2,588

Total 4,276

Student Walkers

Annual Defered

VMTVMT

Reduction

DU within 15-Minute

Walk

CA 2007 Report