1 / 29

Community Connectivity Analysis to Support Active Living

This report summarizes the findings from the BMPO Joint Policy Board/TAC Meeting held on November 9, 2011, led by Brent Turley. It emphasizes the importance of connectivity for active living, identifying barriers that limit pedestrian and bicycle access. The meeting presented various metrics for evaluating connectivity, including point-to-point GIS routing and the ViaCity score. Analysis highlighted problem areas around downtown, local schools, and parks, aiming to enhance pedestrian networks and provide better access for active living initiatives.

ura
Télécharger la présentation

Community Connectivity Analysis to Support Active Living

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CommunityConnectivity Analysisto Support Active Living Brent Turley, PE BMPO Joint Policy Board/TAC Meeting November 9, 2011

  2. The Nexus? • Connectivity: The quality of a network to facilitate travel between two points. • Good connectivity means removed barriers to travel • Good pedestrian and bicycle connectivity means greater opportunity for active living trips • Connectivity can be a performance or priority metric • Connectivity can be one of several metrics to evaluate active living policies over time

  3. Point-to-point GIS routing? Thedirect measure of connectivity

  4. B A/B Route Directness Index Distance Decay Score A 91 71 B ViaCity Score 81

  5. Example With Connectivity Projects Existing

  6. Other connectivity metrics?

  7. BMPO Analysis Local Examples

  8. Study Locations • Downtown • Schools (2) • Parks (2)

  9. Are these destinations well connected to surrounding areas? Analysis Process • Select parcels/building within 0.5 mile buffer around site • Enhance street network to create pedestrian network • Assign pedestrian quality to each network link • Calculate connectivity metric (ViaCity score) • Review results, run/compare scenarios

  10. Downtown • Good sidewalk coverage • Barriers: • River • Railroad • Yellowstone Hwy • S Boulevard

  11. Downtown • Scores: • Average = 65 • Over 60 = 73% • Problem areas: • Northeast • South • Southwest

  12. Tautphaus Park • Few sidewalks near park • Barriers: • Rollandet Ave • S Boulevard • Park access points • On-site network

  13. Tautphaus Park • Scores: • Average = 53 • Over 60 = 29% • Problem areas: • Points west • Southeast • Adjacent streets

  14. Sand Creek Middle School • Set back from arterials • Barriers: • Canal • Paved connections to west • Arterials

  15. Sand Creek Middle School • Scores: • Average = 54 • Over 60 = 32% • Problem areas: • North (canal) • West (multi-family)

  16. Iona City Park • Recent pathways • Barriers: • Some arterials sections • No defined routes

  17. Iona City Park • Scores: • Average = 63 • Over 60 = 56% • Problem areas: • Defined routes

  18. Eagle Rock Jr High School • No sidewalk along collectors or arterials • Barriers: • Broadway St • Skyline Dr • PancheriDr

  19. Eagle Rock Jr High School • Scores: • Average = 54 • Over 60 = 49% • Problem areas: • Crossing Broadway • Crossing Skyline

  20. Eagle Rock Jr High School Link Ranking • Another metric • Aggregation of shortest paths from each parcel • Potential high priority links

  21. Summary Statistics

  22. Examples Before & After

  23. Eagle Rock Before • Scores: • Average = 54 • Over 60 = 49%

  24. Eagle Rock After • Scores: • Average = 57 • Over 60 = 49% • Project: • Crossing Skyline

  25. Eagle Rock Change • Parcels impacted: • Change > 5 = 163 • Change > 20 = 132

  26. Sand Creek Before • Scores: • Average = 54 • Over 60 = 32%

  27. Sand Creek After • Scores: • Average = 56 • Over 60 = 35% • Project: • Yard crossing

  28. Sand Creek Change • Parcels impacted: • Change > 5 = 113 • Change > 20 = 66

  29. Questions? Brent Turley, PE brent.turley@transpogroup.com 208-377-2345 Ross Racine

More Related