The Growing Role of Accessibility In Transportation and Land Use - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Growing Role of Accessibility In Transportation and Land Use Planning J. Richard Kuzmyak Transportation Consultant December 6, 2018

– Analytic tools (models) are not meant to replace people in the decision-making process – Purpose is to provide greater insight on complicated relationships to support more informed decisions [My] – Accessibility is the Lens we should be using for Guiding this complex relationship – NOT: how fast can I get to a given destination by Principles car (“mobility”) – BUT: the number/richness of opportunities I can reach by all modes in a given travel time – Accessibility tells us how well our land use and transportation plans have been synchronized

1. Key planning and policy needs that accessibility helps address 2. How is it calculated, what do the measures look like, how can we use them? 3. Share examples: Discussion – State DOT multimodal corridor planning – Bicycle/pedestrian planning Outline – Transit planning – Equity analysis – Scenario planning & VMT/GHG reduction 4. Application opportunities discussion

– Understanding the interactive roles of land use and transportation infrastructure on travel behavior, including: – Non-motorized travel demand – Transit performance and success Planning – Impacts on auto use and congestion Needs – Providing an alternative to Level of Service as the Addressed by basis for establishing development standards in activity centers and corridors Accessibility* – Planning more sustainable and livable (including equity) communities and transportation systems – Identifying the most effective projects and programs for funding * Things you can’t do with conventional travel models

– Purpose : Develop responsive NCHRP tools for estimating bike/walk demand Project 08-78: – Goal: Account for Effects of : Key Turning – Land Use Point in Seeing – Facilities – Impact on motorized travel Broader – Key Outcomes : Analytic Role – Bringing non-motorized modes into for the planning conversation – Discovering the value GIS and Accessibility Accessibility as key building blocks

Calculating Accessibility

Accessibility is Opportunities • Number Land Use Literally the • Variety • Proximity Relationship ACCESSIBILITY = Between Land Use and the Travel Time Transportation • Connectivity Transportation • Network Directness • Safety Network 8

GIS Mapping and Tools Enables Layers to Talk to Each Other We know where the opportunities are And we know how to get there Land Use Transportation Networks

We Calculate Accessibility as “Scores”: Like “Walk Score” -- But More Exacting Reference point Scores are calculated for each mode: Relevant opportunities • Auto • Transit • Walk Find shortest (quickest) path • Bicycle over the actual network For work and non-work travel Discount each opportunity by At origin and destination its travel time and sum into a “Score”

How do we use the scores?

We Can Map the Scores to Show Patterns Walk Access to Jobs Auto Access to Jobs Transit Access to Jobs

We Can Use the Scores to Create Predictive Models Mode Share for Work Trips: • Auto Auto Score • Transit (drive access) • Transit (walk access) • Walk Mode Choice Transit Score Model Mode Share for Non-Work Trips: • Auto Driver Walk Score • Auto Passenger • Transit Trips from Regional • Walk Travel Survey

10.7% 5.0% 45.9% Can use those 8.7% 6.9% 35.6% models to 73.8% estimate mode 2.1% shares in any 6.8% location at 12.1% census block 5.4% level 67.8% 4.2% 11.1% 6.9% 77.7% 14

Equity Applications

RATING OF SUITABILITY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING BASED ON PUSH/PULL FACTORS Develop guidelines for optimal location of affordable housing based on push/pull factors: Identifying – Multimodal transportation (walk, Optimal bike, transit) access to key opportunities Locations for – Jobs Affordable – Schools Housing – Fresh food retailers – Health care & services – Parks & open space (MWCOG Healthy – Limit exposure to: Communities) – Environmental hazards – Liquor stores

To Assess Impacts of New Transit Service on Disadvantaged Communities – North Ave., Baltimore § Dedicated transit lanes: 1 min/ mile time savings § Compute accessibility to mid-skill jobs in region for corridor residents (block level) § Relate before/after changes to residential geography, demographics § 4.8% average increase in jobs accessibility for minorities in corridor § Assessment helped MDOT Transit Admin win TIGER grant

Use for Pedestrian Planning and Neighborhood Walkability NCHRP Report 770

Use to Analyze Walking Potentials (NCHRP REPORT 770) Shirlington, Virginia

Serving Unmet Walk Opportunities Through Network Improvements Major attractions “No-man’s” land Major New link results in productions 500 new walk trips

Study of New BRT Service in MD-355 Corridor Maryland DOT

To Assess Viability of New BRT Service Context : • New mode along arterial currently served by rail transit and bus • Reserved lane operation • 16 stations (7 shared w/ Metrorail) • No parking planned Key Questions: • Ridership potential • Competition with Metro • Adequate land use and walkability to succeed without P&R

BRT Existing Conditions --Total POP & EMP at Station Areas MD-355 BRT (A = 0.25 mile inner ring; B = 0.5 mi outer ring)* 18,000 Assessment 16,000 POP EMP 14,000 12,000 Step 1 –Assess 10,000 existing activity 8,000 levels within ¼ and ½ mile radius of 6,000 station 4,000 2,000 0 A B A A A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B B B A B A B A B A B A B , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , a a m r r r r s s r r l l t t e e n n k k n n e e e e e e e m e e a o o l l n n d e a l l a a l v v d s s o o o o o o l g g v v l l l a a t t d d i i m i o o l s s m M M i s o o t i i e i i o o H H l l s t v v e r n n e F r e e h h e F r s s r r p p r r k l l D D r e h h t k l l n n e C C t b n n G G h h s s t t e m m b o t e n n c c o C C t n n t e e k k n n o o e e t a a t o o C C t o o y y e e t t o i o o m m d l o i i i i i d l r r l l h h M w w R R d B l l a a F M h y y d B o o t t F h u u e e c c W W d d a a S S T T r r h h P P e T T G G i i e e h - E E e h d d - C C r t r t m m S S e e o i i o h h M o M n n o W W e e g g v t t v n n s s o o o o r r M M G G * Note: Station area buffers modified to eliminate overlap; Area B activity does not include Area A totals

Step 2 –Assess existing land use patterns and walk networks at stations (Gude Drive station)

Current Revised Step 4 – Enhance Land Use and Walkability (Gude Drive station)

Mode Share Changes: Step 5: Calculate Work Travel Accessibilities Existing + BRT + Land Use + Walk Net and compute Transit-walk 11.4% 12.2% 14.5% 15.9% mode choice for Transit-Drive 8.5% 8.3% 7.9% 7.8% each scenario Auto 77.5% 76.7% 74.6% 73.6% Walk 2.7% 2.8% 3.1% 2.7% Results: Show Mode Share Changes: importance of Non-work Travel land use and Existing + BRT + Land Use + Walk Net Transit 2.2% 2.4% 2.9% 4.0% walkability Auto-Drive 60.1% 59.9% 57.1% 56.0% measures Auto-Pass 27.6% 27.5% 26.4% 25.0% Walk 10.1% 10.2% 11.7% 15.0% (Gude Drive Station)

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Study Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (2015)

– Look for GHG reductions in Washington DC region, across all sectors (power gen, buildings, TR & LU) – Our focus -- land use and transportation strategies: Effect of directing different amounts of future Multi-Sector population and employment growth into transit-served Greenhouse activity centers to reduce VMT – Developed a household VMT model based on Gas Reduction accessibility scores, household size, income and Study vehicles – Computed accessibility scores for 2015, 2040, 2050 with and without movement of future growth

APPROACH & FINDINGS • Carved region into rings and corridors • Delineate TODs & Activity Centers by TAZ • Reallocate new jobs & HHs to TODs and ACs • Recalculated accessibility scores • Used VMT model to estimate rates for each place type Result: u Estimate 14% reduction in 2050 VMT u Trigger dialogue on land use and transportation priorities

How do We Make Best Use of these Tools and Concepts? Discussion