DOCSLIB.ORG

A Methodology to Evaluate the Pedestrian Accessibility to Transit Stops Application and Analysis of Results from the Study Case of Nomentano District in Rome

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Methodology to Evaluate the Pedestrian Accessibility to Transit Stops Application and Analysis of Results from the Study Case of Nomentano District in Rome A methodology to evaluate the pedestrian accessibility to transit stops Application and analysis of results from the study case of Nomentano district in Rome Faculty of Civil and Industrial Engineering Master degree in Transport Systems Engineering Module: Transport Policies and Terminal Design Candidate Nicola Favaretto 1720786 Supervisor External Supervisor Prof. Maria Vittoria Corazza Prof. María Eugenia López-Lambas Prof. Belén Martín Ing. Javier Delso A/A 2016/2017 SUMMARY 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Rationale ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Key Concepts ................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Road Network in urban environment ............................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Transportation and Urban Planning ............................................................................. 8 2.1.2 Historical Review ............................................................................................................ 8 2.2 Walkability ........................................................................................................................ 11 2.2.1 Defining Walkability .................................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Values, Constraints and Criteria of The Walkable City ............................................. 11 2.2.3 Example of Walkability Index...................................................................................... 14 2.2.4 How Land Use Affects Transport Choice ................................................................... 14 2.3 Accessibility....................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.1 Defining accessibility .................................................................................................... 15 2.3.2 Perspectives ................................................................................................................... 17 2.3.2.1 Review of Accessibility Measures ....................................................................... 17 2.3.2.2 Conventional Form of Accessibility Measures ................................................... 18 2.3.2.3 Importance of Perspectives in Evaluating Accessibility .................................... 20 2.3.3 Factors ........................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.3.1 Transportation Demand and Activity ................................................................. 22 2.3.3.2 Mobility ................................................................................................................. 22 2.3.3.3 Transportation Modes .......................................................................................... 23 2.3.3.4 Information Provided to User ............................................................................. 23 2.3.3.5 Integration among Modes .................................................................................... 24 2.3.3.6 Land Use Factors .................................................................................................. 24 2.3.3.7 Connectivity .......................................................................................................... 24 2.4 Equity................................................................................................................................. 27 2.4.1 Definition....................................................................................................................... 27 2.4.2 Typologies ..................................................................................................................... 28 2.4.3 Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 29 2.5 Transit Oriented Development ........................................................................................ 31 2.5.1 Concept Delineation ..................................................................................................... 31 2.5.2 Service Area .................................................................................................................. 32 3. Thesis Purpose and Methodology ............................................................................................ 36 3.1 Aim of the Work ............................................................................................................... 36 3.2 Case Study: Nomentano District in Rome ....................................................................... 37 3.2.1 Brief Presentation of the Neighborhood...................................................................... 37 3.2.2 Description of the Analyzed Area ................................................................................... 39 3.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 42 3.3.1 Street Network Analysis .............................................................................................. 43 3.3.1.1 Street Classification .............................................................................................. 44 3.3.1.2 Intersection Density.............................................................................................. 45 3.3.1.3 Pedestrian Catchment Area and Network Connectivity ................................... 46 3.3.2 Transit Accessibility Index ........................................................................................... 47 3.3.2.1 Introduction to the Indicators .............................................................................. 48 3.3.3 Ideal Point Method ....................................................................................................... 50 3.3.4 Pairwise Comparison Method ..................................................................................... 52 3.3.5 Questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 54 4. Application: Case of Study ........................................................................................................ 55 4.1 Street Network Analysis ................................................................................................... 55 4.1.1 Road Classification ....................................................................................................... 55 4.1.2 Intersection Intensity Analysis..................................................................................... 56 4.1.3 Pedestrian Catchment Area as Indicator of Urban Connectivity .............................. 60 4.2 Accessibility Index ............................................................................................................ 61 4.2.1 Number of Lines ........................................................................................................... 61 4.2.2 Frequency ...................................................................................................................... 63 4.2.3 Land Use Entropy ......................................................................................................... 64 4.2.4 Level of Service ............................................................................................................. 67 4.2.5 Pedestrian Catchment Area as Indicator of Bus Stop Accessibility ........................... 69 4.2.6 Inhabitants Served ........................................................................................................ 70 4.2.7 Level of Comfort ........................................................................................................... 73 5. Analysis of the Results ............................................................................................................... 74 5.1 Evidences from the Questionnaire ................................................................................... 74 5.2 Criterion Weighing ........................................................................................................... 76 5.3 Multicriteria Analysis ....................................................................................................... 78 5.4 Accessibility Evaluation........................................................................................................... 82 5.4.1 Best Results ........................................................................................................................ 84 5.4.2 Worst Results ..................................................................................................................... 86 5.5 Alternative Indicators .............................................................................................................. 87 5.5.1 Cost Distance Function ..................................................................................................... 88 5.5.2 Potential Accessibility Indicator ....................................................................................... 89 6. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ken Matthews: 1934-2019
    KEN MATTHEWS: 1934-2019 The world’s racewalking community was saddened in June 2019 to hear of the passing of Ken Matthews, Great Britain’s last surviving Olympic race walking Gold medallist. His death occurred on the evening of Sunday 2 nd June in Wrexham where he was a hospital in-patient. Kenneth ("Ken") Joseph Matthews was born on 21 June 1934 in Birmingham and started his race walk career as an 18- year-old, following in the footsteps of his father, Joe, who was a founding member of the now defunct Royal Sutton Coldfield Walking Club. Throughout his athletics career, Ken remained Midlands based, and remained a loyal member of Royal Sutton Coldfield Walking Club. An electrical maintenance engineer at a power station near his hometown of Sutton Coldfield, he became one of England's most successful ever racewalkers and dominated the world stage throughout the early 1960's. He won 17 national titles, as well as Olympic and European gold and, between 1964 to 1971 he held every British record from 5 miles to 2 hours, including a 10-mile world best of 69:40.6. Perhaps surprisingly, he did not dominate as a youngster and it was not until 1959, at age 25, that he won his first British titles – the RWA's 10 miles road title and the AAA's 2 miles and 7 miles track titles. 1 From then on, he was pretty much unbeatable in England, but the British race most people remember is, interestingly, a loss rather than a victory. In spectacle, excitement and sheer athleticism, the 1960 AAA 2 mile duel between Stan Vickers and Ken stands comparison with any of the great races in the history of the championships.
    [Show full text]
  • The ARTS Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update
    “The ARTS Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update envisions a seamless network of safe and inviting bicycling and walking paths, trails, and on-street facilities, between South Carolina, Georgia and the four member counties, that equitably supports economic development, active transportation, healthy lifestyles and improved quality of life for all citizens and visitors of the region.” Chapter V Two ision , Goa ls, and Objectives 1.1. Objective: Ensure that accommodations for Introduction bicyclists and pedestrians are provided on Based on goals and objectives of existing local all appropriate infrastructure projects where and regional planning documents, the input of pedestrians and bicyclists are permitted to the Project’s steering committee, the project travel. purpose, and relevant examples from around 1.2. Objective: Integrate bicycle and pedes- the country, vision, goals, and objectives are trian facilities in their projects, including, but listed below. The goals and objectives are not limited to, transit, development, public categorized by five of the six E’s associated works, infrastructure, and recreation facili- with bicycle- and walk-friendly community ties. designations. The five E’s are: Engineering, 1.3. Objective: Improve the level of service for Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Evaluation. Equity is considered a sixth E and the member counties. is interwoven within the goals and objectives 1.4. Objective: Increase the mileage of bicycle provided. Objectives 1.6, 1.7, and 3.3 give and pedestrian facilities by fifteen percent particular attention to equity, though it should in each of the region’s four counties within be addressed within the implementation of the next 5 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Temporary Traffic Control Zone Pedestrian Access Considerations
    Guidance Sheet - Temporary Traffic Control Zone Maintaining Pedestrian Pathways in TTC Zones If a project allows pedestrian access through part of the TTC zone, the pathway should be properly Pedestrian Access Considerations maintained. Note that tape, rope, or a plastic chain strung between devices is not detectable; their use does not comply with the design standards in the ADA or the MUTCD, and these items should not be used as a control for pedestrian movements. When implemented, the following recommendations should improve When developing temporary traffic control (TTC) plans, the importance of pedestrian access in and around safety and convenience: the work zone is often overlooked or underestimated. A basic requirement of work zone traffic control, as provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), is that the needs of pedestrians, v Inspect pathways regularly, and keep them clear of debris and well-maintained. including those with disabilities, must be addressed in the TTC process. Pedestrians should be provided with reasonably safe, convenient, and accessible paths that replicate as nearly as practical the most v Treat surfaces with non-slip materials for inclement weather. desirable characteristics of the existing sidewalks or footpaths. It is essential to recognize that pedestrians are reluctant to retrace their steps to a prior intersection for a crossing, or to add distance or out-of-the-way v Replace walkway surfaces with holes, cracks, or vertical separation. travel to a destination. This guidance sheet serves to remind TTC designers and construction personnel of v Inspect detour pathways regularly for adequacy of signal timing, signs, and potential traffic the importance of pedestrian access, to stress the need for pedestrian safety, and to offer suggestions that will improve the visibility of pedestrian access.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations
    Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION STUDIES Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations June 2014 Published By Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) Web: www.lrrb.org MnDOT Office of Maintenance MnDOT Research Services Section MS 330, 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Phone: 651-366-3780 Fax: 651-366-3789 E-mail: [email protected] Acknowledgements The financial and logistical support provided by the Minnesota Local DATA COLLECTION Road Research Board, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the Minnesota Local Technical Assistance Program John Hourdos and Stephen Zitzow, University of Minnesota (LTAP) at the Center for Transportation Studies (CTS), University of PRODUCTION Minnesota for this work is greatly acknowledged. Research, Development, and Writing: Bryan Nemeth, Ross Tillman, The procedures presented in this report were developed based on infor- Jeremy Melquist, and Ashley Hudson, Bolton & Menk, Inc. mation from previously published research studies and reports and newly collected field data. Editing: Christine Anderson, CTS The authors would also like to thank the following individuals and orga- Graphic Design: Abbey Kleinert and Cadie Wright Adikhary, CTS, and nizations for their contributions to this document. David Breiter, Bolton & Menk, Inc. TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS Tony Winiecki , Scott County Pete Lemke, Hennepin County Kate Miner, Carver County Tim Plath, City of Eagan Mitch Rasmussen, Scott County Jason Pieper, Hennepin County Mitch Bartelt, MnDOT This material was developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc., in coordination with the Minne- Melissa Barnes, MnDOT sota Local Road Research Board for use by practitioners. Under no circumstances shall Tim Mitchell, MnDOT this guidebook be sold by third parties for profit.
    [Show full text]
  • PLANNING and DESIGNING for PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents
    PLANNING AND DESIGNING FOR PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................1 1.1 Scope of Guidelines.............................................................................. 2 1.2 How the Pedestrian-Oriented Design Guidelines Can be Used........ 5 1.3 How to Use the Chapters and Who Should Use Them ...................... 6 2. Pedestrian Primer ...................................................................9 2.1 What is Pedestrian-Oriented Design? ................................................. 9 2.2 Link Between Land Use and Transportation Decisions .................. 10 2.3 Elements of a Walkable Environment ............................................... 11 2.4 What Kind of Street Do You Have and What Kind Do You Want?... 12 2.4.1 "Linear" and "Nodal" Structures .......................................................................... 12 2.4.2 Interconnected or Isolated Streets ....................................................................... 14 2.4.3 Street Rhythm......................................................................................................... 15 2.4.4 "Seams" and "Dividers" ........................................................................................ 16 3. Community Structure and Transportation Planning.........17 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 17 3.2 Land Use Types and Organization..................................................... 18
    [Show full text]
  • Crossing Guard Manuals As References
    KANSAS GUIDELINES FOR SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS PRODUCED BY THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KDOT) AND THE KANSAS SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD COMMITTEE Summer 2006 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere appreciation is expressed to the following persons who where instrumental in preparing this document, "Kansas Guidelines for School Crossing Guards." Kansas School Crossing Guard Committee David A. Church, Bureau Chief Bureau of Traffic Engineering Kansas Department of Transportation Cheryl Hendrixson, Traffic Engineer Bureau of Traffic Engineering Kansas Department of Transportation Larry E. Bluthardt, Supervisor School Bus Safety Education Unit Kansas Department of Education David Schwartz, Highway Safety Engineer Bureau of Traffic Safety Kansas Department of Transportation Paul Ahlenius, Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Bureau of Transportation Planning Kansas Department of Transportation Vicky Johnson, Attorney IV Office of Chief Counsel Kansas Department of Transportation Adam Pritchard, Traffic Engineer Bureau of Traffic Engineering Kansas Department of Transportation Additional copies of these guidelines can be obtained by calling or writing: Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Engineering Eisenhower State Office Building 700 SW Harrison, 6th floor Topeka, KS 66603-3754 Telephone: 785-296-8593 FAX: 785 296-3619 Electronic copies are also available at the following website: http://www.ksdot.org/burTrafficEng/sztoolbox/default.asp 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Won't Crosswalks Make It Safer to Cross Streets?
    About Cross Walks: Won’t Crosswalks make it safer to cross streets? A crosswalk is that area of a roadway where pedestrians have the right of way. Crosswalks may be “marked” or “unmarked”. A “marked crosswalk” is any crosswalk which is delineated by painted markings placed on the pavement. All other crosswalk locations are therefore “unmarked”. Under the Arizona Law, crosswalks exist at all intersections, extending across the street from the corner curbs, or on other parts of the street designated as pedestrian crossing locations by the painted lines, unless signed otherwise. Arizona State law states the following in ARS 28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway. B. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of- way to all vehicles on the roadway. C. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. Q: Are marked crosswalks safer than unmarked crosswalks? A: The City of San Diego conducted a study on the issue in the 1970's, and the report conclusions are often cited as the first comprehensive study of crosswalk safety. Investigators in San Diego observed over 400 intersections during a five-year study period. The results demonstrated that during the five- year period, 177 pedestrians were hit in 400 marked crosswalks compared to 31 pedestrians hit in 400 corresponding unmarked crosswalks.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Streets and Alleyways – White Paper
    City of Ashland, Ashland Transportation System Plan Shared Streets and Alleyways – White Paper To: Jim Olson, City of Ashland Cc: Project Management Team From: Adrian Witte and Drew Meisel, Alta Planning + Design Date: February 2, 2011 Re: Task 7.1.O White Paper: “Shared Streets and Alleyways” - DRAFT Direction to the Planning Commission and Transportation Commission Five sets of white papers are being produced to present information on tools, opportunities, and potential strategies that could help Ashland become a nationwide leader as a green transportation community. Each white paper will present general information regarding a topic and then provide ideas on where and how that tool, strategy, and/or policy could be used within Ashland. You will have the opportunity to review the content of each white paper and share your thoughts, concerns, questions, and ideas in a joint Planning Commission/Transportation Commission meeting. Based on discussions at the meeting, the material in the white paper will be: 1) Revised and incorporated into the alternatives analysis for the draft TSP; or 2) Eliminated from consideration and excluded from the alternatives analysis. The overall intent of the white paper series is to explore opportunities and discuss the many possibilities for Ashland. Shared Streets Introduction Shared Streets aim to provide a better balance of the needs of all road users to improve safety, comfort, and livability. They are similar to European concepts such as the Dutch based ‘Woonerf’ and the United Kingdom’s ‘Home Zone’, with some distinct differences. This balance is accomplished through integration rather than segregation of users. By eschewing many of the traditional roadway treatments such as curbs, signs, and pavement markings, the distinction between modes is blurred.
    [Show full text]
  • Walking, Crossing Streets and Choosing Pedestrian Routes: a Survey of Recent Insights from the Social/Behavioral Sciences Michael R
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Sociology Department, Faculty Publications Sociology, Department of 1984 Walking, Crossing Streets and Choosing Pedestrian Routes: A Survey of Recent Insights from the Social/Behavioral Sciences Michael R. Hill University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, and the Social Psychology and Interaction Commons Hill, Michael R., "Walking, Crossing Streets and Choosing Pedestrian Routes: A Survey of Recent Insights from the Social/Behavioral Sciences" (1984). Sociology Department, Faculty Publications. 462. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub/462 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Department, Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Hill, Michael R. 1984. Walking, Crossing Streets and Choosing Pedestrian Routes: A Survey of Recent Insights from the Social/Behavioral Sciences, by Michael R. Hill. (University of Nebraska Studies, No. 66). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska. Walking, Crossing Streets, and Choosing Pedestrian Routes The llniversity ofNebraska The Board ofRegents KERMIT R. HANSEN MARGARET ROBINSON chairman EDWARD SCHWARTZKOPF NANCY HOCH vice chairman ROBERT R. KOEFOOT, M.D. ROBERT G. SIMMONS, JR. JAMES H. MOYLAN WILLIAM F. SWANSON JOHN W. PAYNE corporation secretary President RONALD W. ROSKENS Chancellor, University ofNebraska-Lincoln MARTIN A. MASSENGALE Committee on Scholarly Publications J. MICHAEL DALY HENRY F. HOLTZCLAW, JR. DAVID H. GILBERT ex officio executive secretary DAVID M. NICHOLAS ex officio YEN-CHING PAO E.
    [Show full text]
  • Rome: a New Planning Strategy
    a selected chapter from Rome: A New Planning Strategy by Franco Archibugi draft of a forthcoming book to be published by Gordon and Breach, New York an overview of this book CHAPTER 5: THE NEW STRATEGY FOR ROME 1. The "Catchment Areas" of the New "Urban Centres" 2. The Spatial Distribution of the Catchment Areas Table 2 - Catchment Areas of the Roman Metropolitan System (by thousands of inhabitants) 3. What decentralization of services for the new "urban centres"? 4. What "City Architecture"? 5. What Strategy for "Urban Greenery"? 6. Programmed Mobility 7. A "Metropolitan" Residentiality Notes References Further Reading THE NEW STRATEGY FOR ROME Authentic "polycentrism", therefore, is founded first of all on an evaluation of the "catchment areas" of the services that define it. The location of the centers and infrastructures of such services is a subsequent question (we would say "secondary" if with this adjective is meant not inferiority in importance, but rather a temporal and conceptual subordination). The polycentrism supported here in Rome means, first of all, a theoretical assignation of the potentiality of the catchment area of the Roman system to respective "units" of service that locationally assume the 1 role of realizing the objectives, reasserted by everybody numerous times of: integrating functions, improving accessibility, distances, traveling times, not exceeding the thresholds that have been indicated as "overloading". The locational problem of the new strategy therefore, is posed as a problem of not letting all the users participate in any function in any part of the system (the 2,8 million Roman citizens plus the by now recognized other 700 thousand citizens of the Roman "system"); but to functionally distribute the services in such a way as to not render "indifferent" (but on the contrary very..
    [Show full text]
  • Creating a Pedestrian Level-Of-Service Index for Transit
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Master's Theses University of Connecticut Graduate School 5-5-2012 Creating a Pedestrian Level-of-Service Index for Transit Stops: Evidence from Denver’s Light Rail System Patrick Gallagher University of Connecticut, [email protected] Recommended Citation Gallagher, Patrick, "Creating a Pedestrian Level-of-Service Index for Transit Stops: Evidence from Denver’s Light Rail System" (2012). Master's Theses. 268. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/gs_theses/268 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Connecticut Graduate School at OpenCommons@UConn. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of OpenCommons@UConn. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Creating a Pedestrian Level-of-Service Index for Transit Stops: Evidence from Denver’s Light Rail System Patrick James Gallagher B.A., State University of New York, College at Geneseo, 2010 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of the Arts At the University of Connecticut 2012 i APPROVAL PAGE Master of Arts Thesis Creating a Pedestrian Level-of-Service Index for Transit Stops: Evidence from Denver’s Light Rail System Present by Patrick J. Gallagher, B.A. Major Advisor _________________________________________________________________ Carol Atkinson-Palombo, Ph.D. Associate Advisor ______________________________________________________________ Robert Cromley, Ph.D. Associate Advisor ______________________________________________________________ Norman Garrick, Ph.D. University of Connecticut 2012 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Foremost I would like to thank my advisor Carol Atkinson-Palombo who spent countless hours giving me feedback and guidance over the last year. I would also like to thank my associate advisors Robert Cromley and Norman Garrick for their insightful comments and suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Territorial Question of the Roma Capitale Region1
    Unofficial English version provided by the author of the Italian paper published in: BOLLETTINO DELLA SOCIETÀ GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA ROMA - Serie XIII, vol. IX (2016), pp. 151-161 MARCO BROGNA - FRANCESCO MARIA OLIVIERI THE TERRITORIAL QUESTION OF THE ROMA CAPITALE REGION1 1. Roma Capitale territorial issues. - The topic about the Rome Capital City role arouses keen interest and it is a subject of extensive debate; the theme is even more relevant in relation to the recent establishment of the Roma Capitale Municipality. The 2000th anniversary of August is certainly the right time to reflect about Italian regionalization; according to this process, ambiguity and uncertainty pervade the Executive and Legislative power actions in past 25 years, with particular reference to the institution of metropolitan cities and the future of Italian provinces. The issue necessarily assumes a trans-disciplinary character; anyway, the contribution of territorial approach emerges strongly to the Italian regional organization and State Capital territory. The theme has its roots in the late nineteenth century debate over Italian territory, by a regional perspective, and it keeps on with the state control - federal government dichotomy, highlighting the different conceptions of insider region (functionalism, legal and administrative). In light of the current global economic and political environment of Roma and Lazio, the status of Capital City needs of a further reflection, not only from a legal point of view, but also with regard to regulatory functions already assigned and new ones to be added in a short time, mostly respect to the local community’s needs. The issue has characterized by a strong territorial dichotomy Regione-Città and by dissatisfaction with the current structure, without considering Provincia di Roma, which no longer exists.
    [Show full text]