Dan Hardy attended the ITE Annual Meeting in Toronto this year and writes up his thoughts and impressions from the proceedings.
Viewing entries tagged
This year’s conference in Jacksonville, Florida will feature Renaissance’s Whit Blanton and Frank Kalpakis, presenting on topics within their areas of practice, as well as specific project experience in Florida. Whit will be hosting a break-out session: “Starting Out for Start-Ups- Setting the Framework for as High-tech Economy” on Thursday, September 4th. During this session he will explore approaches to successful economic growth, using the Mount Dora & Lake County Employment Center Master Plan – branded as the Wolf Branch Innovation District -as a prime example, and then comparing it to ongoing work to develop a vision and new redevelopment plan for Downtown Orlando. This talk will examine the need for creating great places with multimodal transportation accessibility as a prerequisite for start-up communities and the responsibility of planners to address changes in demographic and economic patterns accordingly.
In addition to this session, Whit will be joining others discussing Florida’s iconic great places by participating in an 8-minute Pecha Kucha (a fast-paced presentation) on some noteworthy public spaces titled: “Placemaking Express: Great Places in Florida,” where he will be discussing how 130 years of planning and development has shaped Park Avenue in Winter Park. This event kicks off APA Florida’s “Great Places in Florida” recognition program.
Frank Kalpakis will be contributing to a session on Friday, September 5th:“Freight, Florida, & the Future – What is the Value Proposition for Our State?” This topic will explore the value of the freight industry in the state of Florida and how it can be further propelled and integrated as an economic asset. Applying his extensive experience with FDOT, Frank will be presenting an overview of some of the key freight planning initiatives for FDOT District Seven including the Tampa Bay Regional Strategic Freight Plan, Comprehensive Freight Improvement Database, and Freight Roadway Design Considerations.
The 2014 APA Florida Annual Conference Brochure is available here.
TRB Publishes Renaissance Report on Estimating Bicycling and Walking for Planning and Project Development: A Guidebook
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has recently published Renaissance’s NCHRP Report 770: Estimating Bicycling and Walking for Planning and Project Development: A Guidebook. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) is a division of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Science, which sponsors peer-reviewed research on critical transportation planning and policy issues. This report represents a major step toward fulfilling a long-standing need for analytic methods that can effectively represent non-motorized transportation modes in the transportation and land use planning process. The guidebook provides a menu of best-practice methods that can be used by practitioners to estimate bicycle and pedestrian demand at various scales (regional, corridor, activity center, or project level) and to accommodate different analytic needs, skills and resources. Rich Kuzmyak of Renaissance was the project manager and principal author of the new guidebook.
The project team, which was led by Renaissance and included several recognized specialists in travel behavior and modelling from private consulting firms and a university. The resultant guidebook provides a menu of tools, including several pre-existing methods with particular value, plus three new tools developed by the NCHRP project team. These include an advanced tour-based mode choice procedure developed in Seattle, a strategically enhanced four-step modelling approach, and an innovative accessibility-based approach that relied almost exclusively on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data and tools. Renaissance was directly responsible for this third tool, through the efforts of Chris Sinclair, Alex Bell, and Nick Lepp, using data for Arlington County obtained from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Each of the new tools relies heavily on accessibility relationships to convey the key elements of the travel setting by jointly considering the prevailing land use along with the capability of the travel networks to provide access to those opportunities. Through such a structure, it is possible to identify the relative importance of the built environment (density, mix, design) independently of the connecting infrastructure. Thus, planners can identify the most cost-effective measures (land use and/or transportation) that will impact mode choice, vehicle trips, VMT and congestion. The tools should offer much needed support for planning smart growth communities, transit and transit-oriented development, and cost-effective non-motorized transportation network improvements.
Renaissance is currently testing application of the GIS accessibility approach in a complex, multi-modal corridor for a state department of transportation. The Department of Transportation (DOT) sees value in the approach for reviewing transportation plans and proposals in relation to local land use plans, project prioritization, and engaging local jurisdictions and other stakeholders in the planning and decision-making process.
TRB is hosting a webinar on this research on August 18th from 1:00pm to 3:00pm, in which Renaissance's Rich Kuzmyak, Alex Bell, along with Mark Bradley (Resource Systems Group, Inc.) and Kara Kockelman (University of Texas at Austin) will be introducing the guidebook and describing some of the methods and models.
This is an adaptation of the material I presented at the US Department of Transportation's Data Palooza event, part the Geospatial Transportation Mapping Association’s Annual Meeting in Arlington, Virginia. GTFS is the de facto open data standard for transit analyses. Carless in North Tampa
The year was 2004. I was an undergraduate student at the University of South Florida in Tampa, attending classes full time and working 30 to 35 hours per week. With rent, food, and transportation, I was just making ends meet. So I made a bold decision: I gave up my car. I determined to walk or ride my bike for short trips; and for my regional travel needs, there was always the bus….
Well, sort of.
At the time, there was no Google Transit or any other trip-planning application. Plotting my bus trips involved staring at a tangle of lines on a map and poring over schedules, and in many cases it was often quite difficult to work out how to get from A to B using the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) system. In many cases, trips were impossible or at least felt impossible.
And so it was difficult to meet my travel needs – I often had to bum a ride or just miss out on things. Of course, some of that was to be expected, but I often complained that surely, in a metro of 2.5 million people, I should be able to count on transit to get me and my fellow citizens to more places. In all my ranting on this subject, I never had any quantitative means for articulating the poverty of my circumstances as a transit-dependent person.
The Information is Flowing, Even if the Buses Aren’t
Fast forward to today – things look different. Oh, sure, the trips I could make by transit from my former home adjacent to that sprawling campus set in the auto-oriented wilderness of Tampa's northside neighborhoods are probably not vastly improved, but the information about that setting is.
In the first place, HART now offers a Google Transit trip planning application that makes transit trip-making more intelligible than ever before. Moreover, they openly share the GTFS files that power the application and inform several emerging data products that essentially analyze the maps and timetables to describe the characteristics of transit service in a particular place in ways that were previously unknowable.
One such data product is the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Access to Jobs and Workers Via Transit dataset (AVT). This dataset is a supplement to the Smart Location Database and is built upon the same data, providing the same level of geographic resolution (census block groups – sometimes referred to as the ‘neighborhood’ scale). The AVT provides information about how much activity of a given type (jobs, population, housing, low income residents, and low or medium income residents) are reachable by transit from a given place. These values are then compared to regional totals to articulate what share of a region’s activity is reachable from a specific location within that region by transit.
The AVT map above provides a lot of information about the place I lived when I took the plunge into the autoless lifestyle. For example, it tells me that I could only reach about seven percent of the jobs in the Tampa bay region by bus (another layer tells me I could reach about six percent of the area’s population). Given that I worked across town and had friends in all corners of the city, it was bound to be difficult for me to make this adjustment.
Then I thought, maybe I just lived in a particularly inaccessible area? Sadly, that was not the case. The average value for the entire Tampa-St Petersburg-Clearwater region is about eight percent for jobs (and just four percent for population), so my conditions were pretty close to the mean.
What about my complaint that, for a region of its size, transit in Tampa was underperforming? I queried the AVT and found that of the 25 CBSAs having populations over two million and sharing at least some GTFS data, Tampa-St Pete ranked 21st in average access to population, 18th in average share of population accessible by transit, 22nd in average access to jobs, and 16th in average share of jobs accessible by transit. As I thought, Tampa is on the low end of transit accessibility for a region its size.
A Few Notes on Interpretation
Despite the statistics cited above, there are some reasons to withhold judgment for the region. The metro level data available in the AVT are difficult to compare across regions due to certain elements of its construction, listed below:
Travel time radius is constant, metro size is variable
In the AVT, activities are considered ‘accessible’ if they are within 45 minutes travel time from the origin. In a small region, that radius is probably enough to get to a large proportion of the region’s activities, but in a larger area, the urban fabric is just too extensive for a 45 minute trip to cover much of that area. So we have to take care in interpreting these values, especially looking across different metros areas.
In some places, transit serves multiple CBSAs
According to the AVT, from my current home in Durham, NC, I can reach about 23 percent of the jobs in the Durham-Chapel Hill CBSA. However, that number includes employment in the adjacent Raleigh CBSA. This is because these regions are linked by Triangle Transit’s express bus service. So the numerator for my home block group isn’t consistent with the denominator, and this is something to bear in mind when working in an area that abuts another region having overlapping transit service.
GTFS data is not universally available
Finally, not every agency is using GTFS, and a large number of those that do use it are not sharing that information on the GTFS data exchange. If the data was not being shared at the time the SLD and AVT were being developed, the accessibility attributes of a region will be incomplete.
The point of this post is not to disparage the regional transit providers in Tampa, but to walk through some of the analytical possibilities available through the AVT as well as issue some basic warnings about what to watch for when using that data. It was neat for me to look at these numbers and relate them to my own experiences, past and present. Of course, the data can do more than support my anecdotes.
When used properly, the AVT allows us to directly compare the transit accessibility characteristics of various locations in the same region at a glance. For the reasons noted above, it’s difficult to compare across regions, though it may be possible and useful in some cases. Beyond this, one of the most exciting prospects for the AVT is analyzing how accessibility characteristics influence travel behaviors and/or land development trends in a region, teasing out new relationships that can help us better understand the value of effective transit service.
Documentation for the AVT is available here. In a follow up post I hope to describe some of the other datasets, tools and reports that are leveraging GTFS data to introduce entirely new ways to articulate what transit accomplishes in our communities and how it is performing.
–Alex Bell, Cities That Work Blog
[For regular news and updates, be sure to follow Renaissance on Twitter @CitiesThatWork]
Ah, spring, when a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of glove. And bat, and ball. And a place to get together with thirty or forty thousand of your closest friends and root, root, root for the home team. But where should that place be? And how does that choice, and its ripple effects on other land use and transportation system elements, affect the sustainability of a community or a region?
The Good Old Days Are Now
The best cities seem to be those that have a mix of public and private sector investments, and while there’s plenty of room for debate about the wisdom of subsidizing private sector entertainment, there’s definitely a historic synergy between an urban ballpark and its environs. The oldest two surviving examples, venerable Wrigley Field and Fenway Park, were transit accessibile from the get-go, but that was practically a necessity in those days to connect them to the rest of their cities. On Wrigley Field’s (then Weeghman Park) opening day, Chicago Tribune columnist Ring Lardner, noting the park’s location just south of the end of the line at Wilson, wrote wryly that “many of our citizens will today visit the North Side for the first time”. And Fenway Park, while closer to town, was built on drained swampland (the fabled fens; seems the practice of naming something new for what’s no longer there anymore is also a long standing practice).
Ebbets Field, although smack in the geographic center of Brooklyn, was also at the periphery of the borough’s developed area when it was built and included the site of a garbage dump called Pigtown. And the fact that the local club was known as the (Trolley) Dodgers demonstrates that today’s concern for safe, multimodal, complete streets is really also nothing new. (Amazing how transportation infiltrates sports names: Trailblazers, Spurs, Mariners, Pistons, Flyers, Jets, Supersonics, and arguably the Pacers and Colts as well just among the big four major leagues.)
The Dodgers’ move from Ebbets Field to Los Angeles in 1958 was a symbol of the transportation revolution engendered by the jet age, shattering the outer limits that had been marked by that famous southwestern outpost called Saint Louis. The new Dodger Stadium also marked the beginning of the movement of stadiums from downtown (or at least arguably urban) neighborhoods to sprawling complexes where the parking and noise associated with special events wouldn’t be thought of as so annoying to the neighbors.
But times change. Los Angeles is now known less as the kingdom of sprawl and more for its high population density (even when considering population-weighted density as opposed to average metro area density). And Dodger Stadium is now part of baseball’s old guard; the third oldest Major League Baseball (MLB) park after Fenway and Wrigley.
Not all the cookie-cutter stadiums of the ‘60s and ‘70s were out in the ‘burbs, but even those with an in-town address like Fulton County, Veterans, and Riverfront, really only boasted a skyline view – and that was only from the parking lot or the topmost row. Then the pendulum swung back to retro stadiums with a placemaking element beginning with Camden Yards in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor. Many of the new stadiums are built adjacent to their predecessors, but are nonetheless viewed as a redevelopment anchor. But Coors Field, AT&T Field, Target Field, Petco Park, and Nationals Park are all examples where baseball was introduced within an urban fabric in or near the city center. And hopefully the linkage between baseball and transportation planning has been strengthened by the relocation of the United States Department of Transportation to their New Jersey Avenue headquarters a couple blocks to the east of the Nats’ ballpark.
Do You Have to Park at the Park?
Our oldest ballparks are still located along their legacy transit lines. For the newer parks, it’s a pretty mixed bag. Not surprisingly, if you want to attract fans to use transit, it helps to be centrally located in a major metro area. In 2007, Dan Boyle and Tom Larsen examined transit access and use at the 30 MLB parks. At that time, the championship went to the brand new Nationals (36 percent), with strong showing from other teams in centrally-located homes, including the Yankees and Mets (both at 27 percent), the Cubs, Red Sox, A’s and Giants (all at or above 20 percent), and the Cards, Jays, Padres and Twins (above 14 percent). About a third (12 out of 30) of the teams have less than 1 percent transit mode share.
But being near downtown and near transit may not be enough. In Atlanta, the decision of the Braves to abandon their second stadium near downtown since moving from Milwaukee fifty years ago has generated a wide range of reactions; with even commentators sympathetic to the business decisions faced by team ownership lamenting the abandonment of a central location and the apparent public/private consensus that a stadium lifespan may now be considered only 20 years long. In this case, a big question for Atlanta is whether or not the departure of the Braves will create a revitalization opportunity in the Summerhill neighborhood that the stadium site (and its demand for parking) never catalyzed.
One of the Braves’ stated reasons for the move is to get closer to their suburban fan base, indicated by a dot map of season ticket holders. This map has served as an interesting Rorschach test; one can arguably suggest that the new stadium site would reduce total vehicle miles of travel, which is a key goal of balancing land use and transportation. But it raises the interesting question of whether an improved geographic match between a product and its customer base is better for society when fiscal and social considerations are included.
Rebalancing the Books
Switching from backstops to backboards, major league sports are also moving the ball forward regarding the evolution of transportation and land use planning in California. The amendment to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) implemented by SB 743 allows jurisdictions to rethink the definition of transportation impact in transit-oriented or infill development. SB 743 was passed with the intent of streamlining the development of a new downtown arena for the Sacramento Kings. In this case, an analysis of the Kings’ fan base indicating that the new downtown site would result in a 20 percent reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) was a key element in helping win public support.
Professional sports is big. It’s big business, big politics, and a big part of regional pride. The big issues associated with developing a sports venue aren’t really new, although the details keep evolving. In fifty years, we’ll have a new perspective on baseball in Atlanta and basketball in Sacramento. What do you think we’ll be thinking then?
–Dan Hardy, Cities That Work Blog
This quote from a recent guidebook on scenario planning highlights one of my major problems with scenario planning. Despite attempts to standardize it, the field not only lacks a central methodological basis, it also lacks a common language and even a consistent terminology. I find this problem most acute when people talk about what scenarios are. The answers can range from, “what will likely happen in the future?” to “what could happen in the future?” to “what do we want to happen in the future?” Sometimes, scenarios only deal with “how will we adapt to the future?” We don’t have a consistent terminology or typology to describe these different ways of looking at what scenarios are and these different approaches to scenarios planning.
With the passage of MAP-21, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has given even more impetus to scenario planning as used in transportation planning, thus giving new life to the practice. A spate of recent studies in scenario planning, however, has failed to address a fundamental issue having to do with the overall framework or “typology” of scenario planning. Even the standard FHWA guidebook on scenario planning doesn’t really address this broader issue of framework. Under “Types of Scenarios,” the Guidebook says simply, “There are many types of scenarios. Some scenarios focus on telling a story about the future as a way of visioning possible changes. Others do not involve narratives but rather sets of assumptions that examine future possibilities.” While not inaccurate, this is hardly a definitive typology of scenario planning.
What Others Have Attempted
A few researchers have tackled the task of developing a typology of scenario planning but little consensus on such a typology exists. In 2002, Ged Davis, working for Shell Oil developed a fourfold typology based on key questions one could ask of the scenario planning process.
A later attempt to develop a typology of scenario planning by the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm was also based on a series of questions that can be asked about the future:
Most recently, FHWA, in its guidance for MAP-21, has loosely defined a typology of scenario planning through a discussion of the ways in which scenarios might be used in the transportation planning process:
All of these are useful ways of looking at types of scenarios. However, they are hardly consistent and this professional confusion about the broader framework of scenario planning highlights a need to unify our terminology, to develop a common language for a basic typology of scenario planning.
Towards a New Typology
In this brief blog post, I would like to suggest at least one possible direction to explore in the development of such a typology. The “cheat sheet” chart below, while relying heavily on the Royal Institute of Technology study cited above, expands this structure into a series of four key questions about the nature of a scenario planning effort.
Through this potential framework, one can first classify scenario planning based on the fundamental question of what they are seeking to know about the future – do they look at the likely future, at all possible futures, or at a desired future? From this starting point, the scenarios can be further classified by the factors that affect that future – external ones, such as the cost of energy or demographic changes; or internal ones, such as policy direction or investment and funding actions. Finally, for those types of “aspirational” scenario planning efforts that specifically explore responses to change, these responses can be further classified into “do nothing” responses that shows what the outcome will be if no actions are taken; and “drive change” responses that show how purposeful policies and actions may influence the future.
This last issue – how different policy responses may influence the future – can be roughly modeled as shown below. The chart shows the relationship between policy choices and how they may influence future trends. It shows, in red, a “likely” trend and, in green, a “desired” or aspirational trend, along with additional potential trends in blue. Two possible policy responses to these futures are shown as dashed lines. The dashed red line shows the probable outcome if “no change” policies are pursued. This outcome is more or less in line with the “likely” future that was previously modeled. However, the green dashed line shows the probable outcome if “drive change” policies are pursued, an outcome much closer to the “desired” trend that was previously modeled.
If our profession is to address our self-imposed challenge, that of bringing some standardization to the scenario planning process, it will take a lot more than a “cheat sheet” for scenario planning. The Cheat Sheet above only points to one potential exploration for a typology. However, it will take a very robust research effort that looks both in breadth and depth at the state of the practice and state of research into scenario planning, to bring some manner of consistency to the terminology and typology of scenario planning. This challenge is perhaps more pressing than any potential technological or methodological refinement in the field that may emerge in the coming years.
–Vlad Gavrilovic, Cities That Work Blog