Case Studies -- Measuring Connectivity

Powered by:

Measuring Connectivity with Route Directness Index &

Evaluating Quality of Service

September 2010

What is Route Directness Index?

straight-line distance “A”

B

RDI = A / B

Aactual route distance “B”

shared-use path

RDI = 0.20 RDI = 0.83

shared-use path

RDI Applied - Neighborhood Example

Why Route Directness Index?• Other connectivity indices do not provide for

parcel-level precision or land use consideration• Focus only on transportation network instead of

land use and its relationship to the system• Research shows stronger correlation; previously

considered hard to measure.

• Limited ability for other metrics to evaluate subtle changes in the connectivity of a system or to compare benefits of project alternatives.

• More intuitive for broader public, agency staff and elected official understanding.

RDI

Intersection Density

ESRI Partner GIS-based Utilizes Network Analyst

Basic Needs Tax Parcel Street centerline

Other Inputs Land use Ped/Bike/Greenway Demographics

Sample City: Variation in RDI

ASHEVILLE – SMITH MILLGreenway Access Planning

Asheville – Proposed Smith Mill Creek Greenway

Planned Urban Village

Planned Urban Village

Asheville – Proposed Smith Mill Creek Greenway

Asheville – Smith Mill Creek Greenway

Patton Avenue (US 23/74) @ Louisiana Avenue

RDI Average: 0.62Fair Connectivity, influenced by areas south of Patton47% of parcels with RDI > 0.65



Potential connections to West Asheville & Burton Street neighborhoods

Patton

Lo

uisian

a

Leicester Hwy



RDI Average: 0.64Good/Fair Connectivity, influenced by new connections53% of parcels with RDI > 0.65



Crossing enhancements (not just crosswalks) at existing signalized intersections.

Patton

Lo

uisian

a

Leicester Hwy



RDI Average: 0.71Excellent Connectivity, influenced by new connections64% of parcels with RDI > 0.65

Patton

Lo

uisian

a

Leicester Hwy


RDI Before: 0.62

RDI After: 0.71


•1,092 total parcels

•208 parcels (19%) had a minor change in RDI.

•193 (18%) had a major change.

Patton

Lo

uisian

a

Leicester Hwy


Parcels Total

Patton/Louisiana RDI > 0.65 >0.65Change

- Baseline 0.62 47% 517 of 1092 N/A

- Local 0.64 53% 582 + 6%

Connectors

- Crosswalks / 0.71 64% 704+ 17%

Sidewalks +

Connectors

DOWNTOWN RALEIGHRemoving Transportation Linkages

Raleigh High Speed Rail: CSX vs. NS Crossings

• Debate over closure of Jones Street (NS), West Street (CSX) and Harrington Street (CSX)

• North-south connectivity vs. east-west connectivity

Jones St.

Gle

nw

oo

d

• 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

Raleigh High Speed Rail: CSX vs. NS Crossings

Jones St.

Gle

nw

oo

d

Raleigh HSR: CSX vs. NS CrossingsCSX Crossings:•Closure of West & Harringon.

•Impacts east-west connectivity to areas northwest of downtown.

Raleigh HSR: CSX vs. NS CrossingsNorfolk Southern Crossing

• Closure to vehicular traffic on Jones St., addition of pedestrian bridge.

Raleigh HSR: CSX vs. NS Crossings

•Parcel-based metrics

CHARLOTTE, NCFire Station Service Area Planning

Station 31 Station 15Average RDI = 0.58 Average RDI = 0.75

Example: Parcel to Station

Route Directness Index

Before After Change

IntersectionDensity

Link-Node Ratio

55.9

56.0

0.48 0.57 19%

1.09 1.10

<1%

<1%

1,115(increased Fire

Station Service Area by 17%)

--

--

Parcel ImpactFire Station

LAKEWOOD SOUNDERAccess to Commuter Rail Station

Lakewood Example

Shared-Use Path

Bike Lanes & Sidewalks

Non-Motorized Railroad Overpass

I-5 Overpass Retrofit / Bike Lanes and Sidewalks

Option A

Option B

Sounder Commuter Rail

St Claire Hospital

115th Street

47

th A

ve

nu

e

Non-Motorized Improvement Options

"Sharrow" - Shared-Lane

112th Street

111th Street

La

ke

vie

w A

ve

.

Bri

dg

ep

ort

Wa

y

Bike Lanes

Improving Station Connections

RDI Analysis

Before – without connections

versus

After – with connections

study area is 1.0 mile radius

Non-motorized connection across tracks with supporting pathways

Rail StationRDI Baseline RDI - Project Impact

Shows affected parcels and relative impact

Impacted parcels can be numbered for project prioritization

RDI ChangeRail Station

taller parcels = higher land use density (address points per acre)

Before After Change

Land Use Density and RDI

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

BELLINGHAM, WAMulti-Criteria Quality of Service

Quality of Service through Connectivity• “Level of service” not representative of the

real issue behind pedestrian & bicycle usage.• Not a capacity issue or delay issue.

• Quality of Service• Quality of the network and route/facilities and

attractors that generate non-motorized travel.• Emerging research on active living, VMT

reduction• 5 D’s: Density, Diversity, Design, Destination

accessibility, Distance to transit

Bellingham, WAConcurrencyQuality of Service Metrics• Smart Growth• Safety (SRTS)• Transit• Active Living•Weighted Average

Service Area #9

Bellingham, WAConcurrencyQuality of Service Metrics• Smart Growth• Safety (SRTS)• Transit• Active Living• Weighted Average

Service Area #9

Bellingham, WAConcurrencyQuality of Service Metrics• Smart Growth• Safety (SRTS)• Transit• Active Living•Weighted Average

Service Area #14

Bellingham, WAConcurrencyQuality of Service Metrics• Smart Growth• Safety (SRTS)• Transit• Active Living• Weighted Average

Service Area #14

SEATTLE NORTHGATELight Rail Station Planning

Seattle LINK – Northgate Station Example (Before)

RDI Walk Time

I-5 I-5

Seattle LINK – Northgate Station Example (After)

RDI Walk Time

I-5 I-5

RDI

Walk Time

CompositeSeattle LINK – Northgate

Station Example

I-5

Powered by:

Measuring Connectivity with Route Directness Index &

Evaluating Quality of Service

September 2010

CASSIA PARK, BOISE, IDNeighborhood Access to Parks

Cassia Park Case Study• Composite connectivity

score for neighborhood planning

• School walk routes• Elementary Schools• South Junior High• Borah High School

• Library

Cassia Park Case Study• Input to answer improvement

priority questions:• Who is benefiting from the

Camas Sidewalk improvement?

• Where should we add a crosswalk along Orchard, Cassia or Camas?

With Camas Sidewalk

With Cassia Crosswalk

With Camas Crosswalk

Difference (Cassia Crosswalk)

Difference (Camas Crosswalk)

SCENARIO RESULTSParcel-Based Statistics

Case Study StatisticsBaseline

With Camas Sidewalk

With SW & Cassia Xwalk

With SW & Camas Xwalk

Park Only Average RDI 63.4 68.4 72.6 71.7# Parcels RDI > 65 1,541 1,768 2,136 2,118% Parcels RDI > 65 54% 62% 75% 74%# Parcels RDI Change > 5 x 1,417 486 431

Project Cost ($) $150,000 $45,000 $45,000 Cost / Parcels Impacted ($) $106 $93 $104

Composite Average RDI 72.0 73.8 75.9 75.4# Parcels RDI > 65 2,636 2,695 2,756 2,732% Parcels RDI > 65 92% 94% 96% 95%# Parcels RDI Change > 5 x 97 386 328

Project Cost ($) $150,000 $45,000 $45,000 Cost / Parcels Impacted ($) $1,546 $117 $137

Parcel Statistics

Bus School Trail RDI0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

< 45

45 to 55

55 to 65

65 to 75

> 75

Bus School Trail RDI0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

< 45

45 to 55

55 to 65

65 to 75

> 75

Service Area 14Service Area 9

Other ViaCity Applications

Charlotte, NC Sound Transit

System Access ProgramStation Area, Programming

Connectivity Projects & Connectivity Policy Thresholds

Olympia, WA

Growth Management - Concurrency

City-Wide RDI Scoring: Olympia, WA

• Pre-Planning Gap Analysis to• Efficiently focus expensive data

collection

• Begin community involvement process

• Establish Concurrency Quality of Service Thresholds and Policy to Guide Site Planning

• Gauge success of non-motorized projects and program (Plan) impacts on connectivity

SAN MATEO, CAQuality of Service – Project Evaluation

Quality of Service: Smart Growth

Quality of Service: Access

Quality of Service: Safety

Quality of Service: Active Living

Walk Access to Parks

Case Studies -- Measuring Connectivity

Documents

Transcript of Case Studies -- Measuring Connectivity