Needs and Equity in Prioritizing Sidewalk

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Needs and Equity in Prioritizing Sidewalk"

Geoffrey Hoover
7 years ago
Views:

1 Needs and Equity in Prioritizing Sidewalk 2015 NCAMPO Conference Raleigh, NC April 30, 2015 Tyler Meyer, AICP Tram Truong

2 Overview Context Introduction Methodology Validation Conclusion

3 Context For decades sidewalk needs were ignored Greensboro Walkability Policy 2003 changed that Committed to ongoing actions including sidewalk construction targeted to high need locations Walkability Policy in City of Greensboro Greensboro City Council adopted the Policy in 2002 in recognition of the need to promote the development of a safe, convenient, and attractive system of pedestrian facilities throughout Greensboro.

4 Context Sidewalk installed in several ways: As a development ordinance requirement As an incidental feature in roadway projects Resulting from residential petitions Independent priority project

5 Context Since 2006, City built miles of sidewalk. Currently, there is miles of sidewalk throughout the City; 76.8 miles under design or construction Much of this is independent priority sidewalk

6 Context Why prioritize independent priority sidewalks? Much need & limited resources = prioritization is key Staff developed a manual prioritization method based on literature, field experience, city council guidance, and data Roadway type, volume, speed Land use multifamily, commercial, school, park and recreation center Demand transit stop, path worn Connectivity filling gap Distribution across city

7 Manual Method Sidewalk Projects

8 Context Manual method effective but time consuming Wanted an automated, GIS based tool to support & streamline the process Established to conceptually mirror the thought process of the manual method Needed to apply an equity adjustment to identify most needed sidewalks by district as well as Citywide

9 Introduction Introduce 2-step sidewalk prioritization: Address the needs & identify City-wide needs: Land use connection, transit, connectivity, socio-economic, safety, and street classification. Geographic equity adjustment to identify most needed projects by district Validation: compare the Citywide walk rankings (absolute result of Step 1) and geographic equity adjusted priorities (relative by district result of Step 2) with manual planned sidewalk projects

Input Data Input Criteria Scoring Prioritized Recommendation Land Use Connection Score Stakeholder Input Land Use Mixed Land Use Index Score Planners and managers review Transit User Top 50 Bus Stops

10 Input Data Input Criteria Scoring Prioritized Recommendation Land Use Connection Score Stakeholder Input Land Use Mixed Land Use Index Score Planners and managers review Transit User Top 50 Bus Stops by Ridership Score Transit Connection Score Prioritizing road segments with sidewalk needs using geographic equity into Tiers. Connectivity Trail Connection Score Sidewalk Gap Score Total Score Tier 1 has the highest score range and Tier 4 has the lowest score range. Selecting road segments with sidewalk needs Socioeconomic Safety Worker With No Vehicle Score Household Poverty Score Pedestrian Crash Score Tier 1: Short Term Tier 2: Middle Term Tier 3: Long Term Tier 4: Long Term (After Tier 3) Field data collection to collect current sidewalk presence and condition Street Classification Street Classification Score

11 Methodology Criteria Scoring 1. Needs-based criteria Scoring Prioritized Recommendation 2. Geographic equity Land Use Connection Score Land Use Mixed Land Use Index Score Transit User Top 50 Bus Stops by Ridership Score Transit Connection Score Prioritizing road segments with sidewalk needs using geographic equity into Tiers. Connectivity Socioeconomic Trail Connection Score Sidewalk Gap Score Worker With No Vehicle Score Household Poverty Score Total Score Total Score Tier 1 has the highest score range and Tier 4 has the lowest score range. Tier 1: Short Term Tier 2: Middle Term Safety Pedestrian Crash Score Tier 3: Long Term Tier 4: Long Term (After Tier 3) Street Classification Street Classification Score

Top 50 Bus Stops by Ridership Score Transit Connection Score Connectivity Trail

12 Methodology Step 1: Needs-based criteria 1. Land use Land Use Land Use Connection Score Mixed Land Use Index Score Transit User Top 50 Bus Stops by Ridership Score Transit Connection Score Connectivity Trail Connection Score Sidewalk Gap Score Socioeconomic Worker With No Vehicle Score Household Poverty Score Safety Pedestrian Crash Score

13 Methodology Step 1: Land Needs-based Use Connection Score Connectivity criteria Land Use 2. Transit User Land Use Transit User Transit User 3. Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity Mixed Land Use Index Score Land Use Connection Score Top 50 Bus Stops by Mixed Ridership Land Use Score Index Score Transit Top Connection 50 Bus Stops Score by Ridership Score Trail Connection Score Transit Connection Score Sidewalk Gap Score Trail Connection Score Worker With No Vehicle Sidewalk ScoreGap Score Transit User Transit User Connectivity 4. Socio-Economic Connectivity 5. Safety Socio- Socioeconomic Socioeconomic Safety Socioeconomic Safety Street Classification Safety Mixed Top Land 50 Bus Use Stops Index by Score Ridership Score Transit Connection Score Top 50 Bus Stops by Trail Transit Connection Ridership Connection Score Score Score Sidewalk Trail Connection Gap Score Score Transit Connection Score Worker Trail Sidewalk Connection With No Gap Vehicle Score Score Score Worker Sidewalk With Gap No Score Vehicle Household Poverty Score Score Worker With No Vehicle Pedestrian Household Score Crash Poverty Score Score Street Classification Score 6. Street Street Classification Classification Street Classification Household Pedestrian Poverty Crash Score Pedestrian Crash Score Street Classification Score Street Classification Score

14 Land Use Land Use Connection Score Mixed Land Use Index Score Transit User Top 50 Bus Stops by Ridership Score Transit Connection Score Connectivity Trail Connection Score Sidewalk Gap Score Total Score Tier 1: points Tier 2: points Tier 3: points Socioeconomic Worker With No Vehicle Score Household Poverty Score Tier 4: 9 16 points Safety Pedestrian Crash Score Street Classification Street Classification Score

16 Percentage of Sidewalk mileage overall Roadway mileage by Tier by District District Score District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Max/ Min Tier Tier Tier Tier Unrated

18 Number of short term planned sidewalk construction projects by tier by district District District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Total % Tier % Tier % Tier % Tier % Unrated %

19 Methodology Step 2: Geographic Equity Adjusted priorities based on geographic equity Identify most needed project by city council districts Ensure that projects are sufficiently distributed throughout the city Avoid funding conflicts Avoid spotty and unconnected sidewalk development

21 Validation Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Unrate d Percentage of Sidewalk mileage overall Roadway mileage by Tier by District Max/ District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Mean Min

23 Validation Number of short term planned sidewalk construction projects by tier by district Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Unrated District District District District District Total %

24 Validation Sidewalk mileage by tier by district Major roads Minor roads Collectors Local roads Tier Tier Tier Tier Unrated

25 Conclusion: How did we do? 1. Success: introduced 2-step prioritization method 2. Success: identify most needed projects in all five districts, minimize funding conflicts between the districts, and reduce spotty and unconnected sidewalk development throughout the city 3. Success: met an acceptable validation target: 85% of planned sidewalk projects are in tier 1

26 Big Picture Conclusions 1. GIS models can help a lot to implement conceptual models! 2. GIS models can identify high need locations that are reasonably consistent with manual methods 3. Thinking through the criteria and their weights is the most important part of any conceptual model- validation is important! 4. GIS models can largely replace manual methods: some manual interpretation & field work will always be necessary

27 THANK YOU! Contact: Tyler Meyer, AICP Tram Truong

Health Atlas and the Community Health and Equity Index:

Health Atlas and the Community Health and Equity Index: An Examination of Health Conditions in the City of Los Angeles Presented by Eric Yurkovich, Raimi + Associates March 13, 2014 Purpose Spatial analysis