Density and Walkable Communities
Reid Ewing Professor & Chair City and Metropolitan Planning University of Utah [email protected]
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com MRC Research at 5 Geographic Scales
• Region • Neighborhood • MXD • TOD • Block
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Elasticities
Convenient Way of Summarizing Relationships
Dimensionless So Perhaps Transferable
www.company.com NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com 5Ds of Compact Development
Density Mobility
Design Diversity Accessibility
Livability Destination Distance Accessibility to Transit Sustainability
www.company.com Fairview Village
www.company.com Southern Village
www.company.com Metro Square
www.company.com Meta-Analysis
www.company.com Rich Literature
• More than 200 Empirical Studies
• Collectively Relate All Aspects of Travel to All Aspects of Built Environment
• Vast Majority Control for Sociodemographic Differences
• Vast Majority Use Statistical Methods
• A Few Come Close to the Normative Model
www.company.com Weighted average elasticities of walking
Distance to nearest transit stop
Job within one mile
Percentage of 4-way intersection
Intersection/street density
Distance to a store
Jobs-housing balance
Land use mix (entropy index)
Commercial floor area ratio
Job density
Household/population density
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4www.company.com 15 Region Database
www.company.com Households and trips
Survey Date Surveyed Households Surveyed Trips Atlanta 2011 9,575 93,681 Austin 2005 1,450 14,249 Boston 2011 7,826 86,915 Denver 2010 5,551 67,764 Detroit 2005 939 14,690 Eugene 2011 1,679 16,563 Houston 2008 5,276 59,552 Kansas City 2004 3,022 31,779 Minneapolis-St. Paul 2010 8,234 79,236 Portland 2011 4,513 47,551 Provo-Orem 2012 1,464 19,255 Sacramento 2000 3,520 33,519 Salt Lake City 2012 3,491 44,576 San Antonio 2007 1,563 14,952 Seattle 2006 3,908 40,450 Total 62,011 664,732
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Road network buffer were established around household geocode location at three scales: 0.25 mile, 0.5 mile, 1 mile. Built environmental variables were computed for each household and all three buffer scales.
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Elasticity: number of household walk trips (for households with any walk trips)
Regional compactness
Transit stop density within 1/2 mile
Land use entropy within 1/2 mile
Intersection density within 1/4 mile
Activity density within 1/4 mile
Accessibility to employment within 30 mins by transit
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
www.company.com MXD SCALE
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Sample selection Household travel survey
• Regional household survey with XY coordinates; • Parcel level land-use data;
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com MXDs selection
• A mixed-use development or district consists of two or more land uses between which trips can be made using local streets, without having to use major streets. The uses may include residential, retail, office, and/or entertainment. There may be walk trips between the uses. Gateway district, Salt Lake • Expert-based process City: dining, entertainment, retail, residential, office
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com www.company.com Internal capture rates of trips by MXDs
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Atlanta Austin Boston Denver Eugene Houston Kansas City Minneapolis-St. Paul Portland Sacramento Salt Lake City San Antonio Seattle Overall average
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Total share of walk, bike and transit for external trips to/from MXDs
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Elasticities of Internal Capture
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Elasticities of External Walking
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com TOD SCALE
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com TOD Definition
TODs are widely defined as compact, mixed-use developments with high-quality walking environments near transit facilities (ITE 2004, pp. 5- 7; Jacobson & Forsyth 2008; Renne 2009). For our purposes, TODs are developed by a single developer under a master development plan, and can also include a clustering of development projects near transit facilities that are developed by one or more developers pursuant to a master development plan.
Dense Mixed Pedestrian- Adjacent use friendly to transit
Built after Fully developed Self-contained transit or nearly so parking
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Redmond TOD, Seattle
Rhode Island Row, Washington D.C.
Wilshire/Vermont, Los Angeles
Fruitvale Village, Englewood TOD, San Francisco Denver
www.company.com Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com Active TOD Projects
• Sandy Civic Center Station (10000 South Sandy LRT) • Jordan Valley Station (LRT, Red Line) • South Jordan Frontrunner Station (South Jordan Station) • 3900 South Meadowbrook Station (LRT) • Clearfield Station (Commuter Rail) • Provo Intermodal Center (Commuter Rail) • Salt Lake Central (Commuter Rail and Light Rail) • North Temple Station (500 W North Temple) (Commuter Rail and Light Rail) • Ogden Intermodal Center (Commuter Rail) • Farmington Station (Commuter Rail) • 1300 South Ballpark (Light Rail)
www.company.com BLOCK SCALE
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah www.company.com www.company.com www.company.com Outcome variable: Pedestrian activity
The number of people encountered over a 30 minutes time period for a given block face during peak hours for a ‘typical’ weekday (September and October of 2012)
www.company.com Imageability Proportion of historic buildings Courtyards/plazas/parks (number) Outdoor dining (yes/no) Buildings with nonrectangular silhouettes (number) Noise level (rating) Major landscape features (number) Buildings with identifiers (number) 262 S Main St
www.company.com Enclosure
Proportion street wall – same side Proportion street walk – opposite side Proportion sky across Long sight lines (number) Proportion sky ahead
311 S Main St www.company.com Human Scale
Long sight lines (number) All street furniture and other street items (number) Proportion first floor with windows Building height – same side Small planters (number)
2 E Broadway
www.company.com Transparency
Proportion first floor with windows Proportion active uses Proportion street wall – same side
254 S Main St
www.company.com Complexity
Buildings (number) Dominant building colors (number) Accent colors (number) Outdoor dining (yes/no) Public art (number)
262 S Main St
www.company.com High Value of All 5 Qualities
169 S Main St
www.company.com Low Value of All 5 Qualities
230 W N Temple St
www.company.com Elasticity: pedestrian counts
Transparency
Imageability
Block length
Distance to transit
Land use entropy
Population density
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
www.company.com Results
• Density Less Important than Other Ds at Neighborhood Scale • Density as Important as other Ds at MXD Scale • Density and Other Ds Produce High Walk and Transit Mode Shares at TOD Scale • Density Less Important than Urban Design Qualities at Block Scale
www.company.com