Maricopa Association of Governments Active Transportation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
APPENDIX A Complete Corridor Identification and Evaluation Process This page intentionally left blank. Complete Corridor Identification and Evaluation Process The Maricopa Association of Government’s (MAG) Regional Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is focused on planning and promoting a system of high quality Figure 1: Active “complete corridors” as a regional framework for Transportation Network connecting and serving the highest demand areas of the region – in terms of walking and biking trips - and Development Process increasing the reach of regional transit and shared Step 1: Conduct a gravity demand use path (i.e., paved or unpaved trail, multiuse trail, analysis pathway) investments. This document provides an overview of the process used to develop the proposed • Calculate regional active active transportation network called the “AT Grid”. transportation demand Figure 1 provides a generalized outline of the active • Identify activity centers transportation network development process. • Calculate gravity scores Step 1: Gravity Demand Analysis Step 2: Identify complete corridor alignment alternatives to form Summary the AT Grid The active transportation network development process started by performing a gravity demand analysis for the Step 3: Evaluate complete corridor MAG region. The goal of the gravity demand analysis is alignment alternatives to develop an understanding of what trips are most in demand and likely to occur by bicycle, and to a lesser Present high-scoring alignment extent walking. The product of the analysis is a “gravity Next Steps: alternatives to stakeholders score”, which is a ratio between the amount of demand between two locations (origins and destinations) and the distance separating them. As the size of objects measured using employment data (number of jobs per increases-- in this case, the amount of demand at a employer), schools, universities, parks, crash data, transit location-- the gravitational pull increases. Conversely, stops, Strava data, and demographic data. See Table 1 as the distance between locations increases beyond a for a list of all the factors, variables, and weights used reasonable distance someone is willing to ride a bike, the in the demand analysis. These factors and variables are gravitational pull decreases. The result is a conceptual key indicators of demand for active transportation and network linking regional activity centers/destinations transit. The results of the demand analysis were used and showing the relative demand between these to identify areas in the MAG region where there is a high destinations. potential for bicycling, walking, and first- and last-mile connections to transit. Calculate Regional Active Transportation Demand The first step in conducting a gravity demand analysis is Identify Activity Centers to estimate active transportation demand for the region. Activity centers represent locations where there are a The demand for walking, bicycling, and transit use was high number of trips being attracted or generated (see 1 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PROCESS Table 1: Gravity Analysis Factors and Variables calculated. A distance decay function was applied to convert the Euclidean distance to a value that mimics Factor Variable Distance Weight peoples’ actual preference to make a trip by bike, the Pedestrian and Weighted crash kernel raw distance scores are calibrated to favor short trips 0.25 mile 10 Bicycle Crash History * density vs. long trips using the distance decay function1. Employment Density Proximity to employment 2 miles 20 (number of jobs)* and number of jobs The demand score for each activity center pair was summed to create a total demand score. This total School Proximity to schools 0.5 mile 10 demand score was then divided by the distance decay University Proximity to Universities 1 mile 15 value, resulting in a raw gravity score for each pair. Proximity to bus stops 0.25 mile 10 Raw Gravity Score = Total Demand/Distance Decay Value Proximity to light rail stops 0.50 mile 10 Existing Transit Proximity to transit stops bus 0.25 miles 10 The raw gravity scores are scaled using a 0 to 100-point with high ridership rail .050 mile scale to create a final gravity score for each pair. The Parks Proximity to parks .025 mile 10 highest gravity score received 100 points and the other High population density NA 20 pairs received a score relative to the top scoring pair. Scaling the gravity score makes it easier to understand High bike mode share NA 10 and compare origin and destination pairs. High walk mode share NA 10 High transit mode share NA 10 The results of the gravity demand analysis results can be viewed in Map 2. Lower scoring pairs (gravity score < 26) High percentage of low-in- NA 10 were removed from the map to reveal a clearer picture come households Demographics* of the top priority pairs. There are nearly 5,000 origin High percentage of older NA 10 and destination pairs, so removing low scoring pairs adult population (65+) is necessary to reveal potential active transportation High percentage of zero NA 10 corridors. vehicle households High percentage of school- NA 10 aged children (<19) Step 2: Identify Complete Annual Bicyclist Activity 0.5 mile 20 Strava Data* Corridors and “The AT Grid” Annual Pedestrian Activity 0.5 mile 20 We identified a series of “complete corridors” connecting * These factors use a tiered weighting method in which the variables are broken into top priority activity center pairs and high demand areas. quintiles and scored using a quintile scale. For example, a variable with a weight of 10 A “complete corridor” promotes multimodal travel with will apply a score of 10 to the highest quintile and the proceeding quintiles receive a score of 8, 6, 4, and the lowest quintile receiving a score of 0. high quality design that emphasizes safety, comfort (i.e. separation from motor vehicles), aesthetics, Map 1 for activity center locations). Activity centers were intuitiveness and efficiency. Complete corridors may identified by selecting key downtown areas, densely also be comprised of shared use paths or shared streets populated centers of municipalities, major employment that have low vehicle volumes and speeds. centers, major shopping centers, universities, and Individual mile-wide buffers were drawn on the map locations recommended by the MAG ATP Technical to connect two or more activity centers that had Advisory Committee (TAC). These activity centers served the “highest” or “high” demand scores. These mile- as the origins and destinations for the gravity analysis. wide buffers are to provide options for how complete Calculate Gravity Scores corridors may be implemented by local agencies. For example, within the mile-wide corridor there may be Each activity center in the region was paired with every one or more streets or shared use paths that create a other activity center with a line. The Euclidean (i.e. connection between two points. Since a goal of defining straight line) distance between each activity center was 1 Iacono, Michael, et al. Access to Destinations: How Close Is Close Enough? Estimating Accurate Distance Decay Functions for Multiple Modes and Different Purposes. (2008) 2 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PROCESS and promoting the complete corridor network is to have a few cases these conduits are within street rights-of- complete corridors provide the highest quality active way and may be on-street facilities. transportation access and mobility, this generally means that these corridors should be established on streets or See Map 3 to view the corridors with the Regional shared use paths that provide access to commercial Conduits and Map 4 for the identified alignment activity and destinations or on quieter streets (i.e., low alternatives. vehicle speeds and volumes) within a block or two of more commercially-oriented streets. Step 3: Evaluate Alignment Corridors are divided into two tiers. Tier 1 corridors Alternatives connect activity centers having a high level of demand/ propensity for active transportation while Tier 2 corridors Each alignment alternative was evaluated using the connect activity centers with a level of demand/ criteria summarized in Table 3 on the next page. The propensity lower than Tier 1. objective of the evaluation process is to rank each alternative based on how well it scores in relation to Within each corridor two or more2 alignment alternatives the other alternative for the complete corridor. The were identified and assessed based on their viability evaluation analysis used a ranked order scaling method for accommodating high quality active transportation to score each alignment alternative (see Table 4 for an facilities and using the criteria listed in Table 2. Not all example of ranked order scaling). For each variable, the of the alternatives meet all criteria, but the objective was highest ranked alternative receives 2 points, the second to identify alignments that met as many of these criteria highest rank receives 1 point, and all other alignments as possible. These alternatives were presented to the receive 0 points. This process is repeated for each TAC and members of the Safety, Active Transportation, variable. and Streets Committees in September 2018 and revised based on input received. The MAG ATP Corridor The final alignment alternative evaluation score is an Identification memo (Lee Engineering, January 2020) , aggregate score of criteria outlined in Table 2. Alignment included later in this Appendix, provides details from the alternatives are