Miami-Dade Accessibility Based Needs Assessment presentation

MIAMI-DADE ACCESSIBILITY BASED NEEDS ASSESSMENT

March 29, 2017

1

2

3

4

1 WHAT IS ACCESSIBILITY?

2 TECHNICAL NUTS AND BOLTS

3 APPLICATIONS

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

2

NEXT STEPS

1

A New Frame of Reference

WHAT IS ACCESSIBILITY?1

▪ Accessibility is a direct measure of fundamental question:

“WHAT OPPORTUNITES ARE AVAILABLE TO ME?”

▪ As accessibility increases, so too do opportunities

▪ Accessibility increases through improvements to activity

patterns and transportation networks

INTRODUCTION

STEPS TOWARD A NEW TOOL SET

4

▪ Walking, biking and transit central to today’s planning

context

▪ Federal planning emphasis areas

▪ Ladders of Opportunity: Access to Essential Services

▪ Transition to Performance-Based Planning and

Programming

▪ Models of Regional Planning Cooperation

▪ Tools not able to answer questions

INTRODUCTION

NEW CONTEXT, OLD TOOLS

5

INTRODUCTION

ACCESSIBILITY IS INFLUENCED BY TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE

6

• Highway level of service

measures the impact of

congestion on speed

(travel time)

• Key assumption is: as

speed drops, so does

accessibility

• Given the influence of

proximity, is that always

true?

Yet, transportation planning has focused on mobility to estimate

accessibility impacts

The elegance of accessibility measures

▪ New metric that encompasses land use, network connectivity, performance

▪ Direct measure of what matters – access to opportunities (easy to explain)

▪ Measures across all travel modes (multimodal planning)

▪ Shifts focus to moving people & goods rather than “solving” congestion

▪ Encourages greater coordination between land use and transportation decisions (integrated planning tool)

▪ Measures disparities for differing groups across differing purposes and modes (ladders of opportunity)

ACCESSIBILITY IS A POWERFUL PLANNING CONCEPT AND TOOL

INTRODUCTION7

A SIMPLE BUT POWERFUL FRAMEWORK

INTRODUCTION8

ACCESSIBILITY =

Land Use

Transportation

Network

Opportunities

• Number

• Variety

• Proximity

Travel Time

• Connectivity

• Directness

• Safety

• Performance

❖Alternate tool to supplement use of SERPM

❖Mobility Needs Assessment Tool (MNAT) rethink

❖Value added to LRTP needs assessment process

▪ Multimodal considerations

▪ Integrated planning approach facilitates scenario planning

▪ Simple, elegant portrayal of system performance

▪ New comprehensive performance metric

▪ Streamlined approach to assist in project prioritization

MIAMI-DADE APPLICATION

INTRODUCTION9

▪ Where is accessibility high, low, other, in terms of # of accessible opportunities (heat maps)

▪ How do scores relate to peer areas (numbers)

▪ Land use vs. Connectivity vs. Mobility diagnostics (heat maps & numbers)

▪ Accessibility score deltas (heat maps & numbers)

▪ IN FUTURE APPLICATION, mode splits (numbers)

WHAT DO RESULTS LOOK LIKE?

INTRODUCTION10

Note: Results depicted here are an approximation of accessibility and do not represent actual accessibility simulation.

▪ Baseline or future conditions accessibility results

▪ Travel desires based on perfect grid or uncongested analysis

▪ Provides diagnostic capability to assess needs in addition to confirmed needs

WHAT DO RESULTS LOOK LIKE?

INTRODUCTION11


▪ Generate existing accessibility scores by mode

▪ Define up to 50 scenarios composed of packages of investments to test 2040 Cost Feasible projects

▪ Define up to 25 additional custom scenarios to test specific concerns/issues/land use scenarios

▪ Summarize results in map and table format for comparison and assessment of 2040 plan

▪ Identify additional needs based on results

NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROCESSS

INTRODUCTION12


1

Technical Nuts and Bolts

MODEL DEVELOPMENT2

MODEL DEVELOPMENT

▪ Purpose: Develop responsive tools for estimating bike/walk demand

▪ Major Needs/Concerns:

▪ Effect of Land Use

▪ Role of Facilities

▪ Impact on motorized travel

▪ Response:

▪ Need finer geographic resolution

▪ Major role for new data/tools

NCHRP 8-78 / REPORT 770

14

▪ MULTIMODAL ACCESSIBILITY

▪ Recognizes limitations on the amount of time we have to travel

▪ Applies those limitations to what we can reasonably get to by mode (decay function)

▪ DECAY FUNCTION IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT

▪ Gravity model is based on friction factors

▪ Decay by mode is new (gravity model distributes based on auto access)

▪ POWER OF GIS

▪ Enables a fine grain analysis (critical for short walk trips)

▪ Seamless data set

▪ RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHAT PEOPLE CAN GET TO BY MODE WITH WHAT & HOW PEOPLE TRAVEL ARE VERY STRONG

STEPS TOWARD A NEW TOOL SET

MODEL DEVELOPMENT15

MODEL DEVELOPMENT

ACCESSIBILITY SCORE CALCULATION

Accessibility =

σ𝑂𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠

𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 ∗𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒚

Where:

OPPORTUNITIES = Number of

Jobs (HBW) or Number of

Retail/Service Establishments

(HBNW)

TRAVEL TIME = Time to reach

opportunity over actual network

(Network Analyst)

DECAY = Factor reflecting

decrease in value of opportunity

that are farther away

16

Auto Transit Bike Walk

Modal Activity

Ranges (defined by

speeds)

Starting

Point

Travel Time

Decay Curve

Accessibility Score =

Σ time-decayed

opportunities

▪ Land Use: InfoUSA

▪ Employment & number of establishments by NAICs

▪ Exact x,y location

▪ Travel Networks: NAVTEQ, GTFS

▪ All streets, enhanced to include walk/bike facilities

▪ Detailed operations specific transit network

▪ Path selection – CUBE Sugar

▪ Travel Behavior:

▪ Regional HH Travel Survey

▪ Streetlight data (Big Data provider)

DATA AND TOOLS

MODEL DEVELOPMENT 17

HOUSEHOLDTRAVEL SURVEY

▪ Richmond region

▪ The most accessible

places are in and around

downtown, while the

highway network to the

east allows for better

accessibility for eastern

suburbs than other

suburban areas

MODEL DEVELOPMENT

EXAMPLE OUTPUT – ACCESS TO JOBS

18

413,032

jobs accessible219,387

jobs accessible

USING MODEL TO ESTIMATE WALK TRIP FLOWS*

MODEL DEVELOPMENT19

*WALC model available in NCHRP Report 770

IDENTIFYING UNMET WALK OPPORTUNITIES

MODEL DEVELOPMENT20

Major

Attractions

Major

Productions

“No-Man’s”

Land

Step 1 Step 2

Added

Link

Increases

Walk Trips

1

Lessons Learned So Far

APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK3

▪ Asheville, NC - Multimodal Accessibility Analysis in Support of Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning & Programming (sub-area)

▪ MDOT/Montgomery County 355 Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Analysis (corridor)

▪ VDOT Multimodal Accessibility as a Statewide Performance Measure (system)

REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS



▪ 1,100 acre area adjacent to downtown Asheville

▪ Large proportion of disadvantaged communities

▪ Study focused on land use, multimodal connectivity, safety

▪ Accessibility analysis conducted broadly AND to analyze specific issues

MULTIMODAL SUBAREA PLAN

Asheville Multimodal Network

APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK

▪ Land use impacts on accessibility

▪ Results represented as number of jobs accessible to the area

▪ Orange = high accessibility

▪ Purple = low accessibility

WALK TO EMPLOYMENT – TESTING LAND USE

24


Existing network, Future land useExisting network, Existing land use


▪ Improved sidewalk connections

▪ New roadways connecting planned developments

▪ Trail improvements

▪ Fill sidewalk gaps and bike lanes


TESTED A NEW NETWORK OF MULTIMODAL FACILITIES VERSUS EXISTING

25

ASHEVILLE



▪ Network + land use impacts on accessibility

WALK TO EMPLOYMENT – TESTING NETWORK AND LAND USE

26


Future network, Future land useExisting network, Future land use


▪ Walk to food markets existing

▪ Discrete locations

▪ Conclusion -disadvantaged populations were disadvantaged in terms of accessibility

TESTED WALK ACCESS TO FOOD MARKETS

27



▪ New food market demonstrates expansion of accessibility

IF ONLY WE HAD A NEW MARKET

28


▪ Viable model for detailed analysis at the sub-area level

▪ Measurable impact on accessibility based on land use and network interventions

▪ Scale of land use data and detail of network data yielded differentiating results

▪ Approach can be used to measure total change in accessibility for a number of purposes

▪ Localized impact

▪ Access to particular destinations

▪ Benefits to certain groups

▪ Project prioritization

▪ Performance measurement

LESSONS AND OBSERVATIONS

APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK 29


MULTIMODAL / PERFORMANCE PLANNING


MDOT 355 Corridor BRT

▪ 26 miles

▪ BRT proposed in 355 corridor

▪ Early look at viability of investment

▪ Tested transit and land use scenarios

▪ Focused on mode shift as performance measure

▪ MODEL DEVELOPMENT

TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITIES: WORK & NON WORK (TAZ)


MODE SHARES BY MMA TIER: HOME BASED WORK


Transit (walk

or feeder

access)

Drive

Alone

Auto

Passenger

Transit

(auto

access) Walk Bicycle Other

Tier 1 <67k 8.0% 77.5% 2.8% 10.0% 0.8% 0.8% 249

Tier 2 67k-102k 10.5% 76.8% 2.2% 9.4% 0.6% 0.6% 181

Tier 3 103k-151k 12.6% 71.3% 4.8% 6.5% 1.7% 2.2% 0.9% 230

Tier 4 152k-228k 27.3% 55.1% 6.3% 3.9% 5.4% 1.0% 1.0% 205

Tier 5 >228k 45.8% 41.3% 1.7% 1.7% 7.3% 2.2% 179

19.7% 65.4% 3.6% 6.5% 2.7% 1.3% 0.7% 1044

Transit (walk

or feeder

access)

Drive

Alone

Auto

Passenger

Transit

(auto

access) Walk Bicycle Other

Tier 1 <329 9.4% 74.8% 4.4% 8.9% 0.6% 1.7% 0.3% 361

Tier 2 329-1513 13.8% 73.3% 2.4% 6.7% 0.5% 1.4% 1.9% 210

Tier 3 1514-3577 16.7% 65.6% 4.4% 8.9% 2.2% 1.1% 1.1% 180

Tier 4 3578-7607 29.1% 55.7% 5.1% 3.2% 7.0% 158

Tier 5 >7607 45.0% 43.6% 1.3% 1.3% 6.7% 2.0% 149

19.5% 65.7% 3.7% 6.5% 2.6% 1.3% 0.7% 1058

All

Walk MMA Tier

Percent of Trips by Mode

Trip

Sample

Size

All

Transit MMA Tier

Percent of Trips by Mode

Trip

Sample

Size


▪ Focus on station areas:

▪ Gude Drive

▪ Montgomery College

▪ Edmonston Lane

▪ Pooks Hill

LAND USE AND NETWORK ENHANCEMENTS

33



▪ Inner circle – existing

▪ Middle circle – BRT improvement only

▪ Outer circle – BRT and enhanced transit oriented development

EFFECT OF SCENARIOS ON WORK MODE SHARES

34



MAPPING ACCESSIBILITY AT STATEWIDE SCALE

35

VDOT OIPI Statewide Performance Measures

▪ 60% of score – change in cumulative job accessibility (within 45 minutes by auto, 60 minutes by transit)

▪ 20% of score – change in cumulative job accessibility for disadvantaged populations (within 45 minutes by auto, 60 minutes by transit)

▪ 20% of score – assessment of the project support for connections between modes and promotion of multiple transportation choices


MAPPING ACCESSIBILITY AT STATEWIDE SCALE

VDOT OIPI Statewide Performance Measures

▪ Access to specific job types

▪ Access to non-job locations (schools, recreation facilities)

▪ Access for disadvantaged populations

▪ Peak hour access vs. uncongested access

▪ Population-weighted access (i.e. how many people can take advantage of the access)

▪ Current research study for FHWA to look at data needs to support multimodal performance measures

OTHER POTENTIAL ANALYSES


3

1ST Steps and Schedule

NEXT STEPS

Data Preparation

▪ Assemble and process input data

▪ Test SERPM Micro Analysis Zones (MAZ) vs Census Block geographies

Run Tool

▪ Generate baseline accessibility results

Results Analysis Framework

▪ Research peer areas for accessibility comparisons

NEXT STEPS

MOVING FORWARD39

SCHEDULE

MOVING FORWARD40

Task Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Data Preparation (networks, SE data)

Generate Base Scenario Results

Define Future Year Scenarios

Generate Future Year Scenario Results

Results Analysis – Assess Needs

Technical Memorandum

PAT Meetings

Carlos Roa

[email protected]

305.375.1833

Jack Schnettler

[email protected]

305.514.3369

Franco Saraceno

[email protected]

813.254.7741 Ext. 208

QUESTIONS???

???41

mailto:[email protected]



Government & Nonprofit

Miami-Dade Accessibility Based Needs Assessment presentation