marshall - cnu street network presentation
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Street Networks, Road Safety & Sustainability
Wesley Marshall, P.E.Norman W. Garrick, PhD
Center for Transportation & Urban Planning
University of Connecticut
Sustainable Transportation Networks Congress for the New Urbanism XVIIJune 13, 2009Denver, Colorado
![Page 2: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Road Safety…
in the United States
![Page 3: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Fatalities per million VMT
20
1925
15
10
01935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
5
![Page 4: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Fatalities: 8VMT: 2 million miles
Fatalities per million VMT = 4
Fatalities: 8VMT: 1 million miles
Fatalities per million VMT = 8
Population: 50,000Fatalities per 100k pop. = 16
Population: 100,000
Population per 100k pop. = 8
![Page 5: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Fatalities per million VMT
20
3,000
1925
VMT
(billions
)
15
10
0
2,000
1,000
0
Population
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
24 x
2.5 x5
0
![Page 6: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Average VMT (per capita per day)
![Page 7: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Total No. of Fatalities
Population
VMT
(billions
)
Fatalities per million VMT
20
1925
15
10
01935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
5
30
25
Fatalities per 100,000 population
Road Safety in the U.S.
![Page 8: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Road Fatalities per 100,000 Population by CountryUnited States
(Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD)
![Page 9: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
(Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD)
International Road Safety
Why is the U.S. falling behind the rest of the world when it
comes to safety in the transportation system?
![Page 10: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
When it comes to trying to make our roads safer…
The focus tends to be on finding the most
problematic locations and fixing them
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/01/03/ba_octavia28_009_rad.jpg
www.streetsblog.org
Road Safety
![Page 11: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
24 medium-sized California cities
Cities selected to represent a range of traffic safety levels
Geographically diverse with locally
generated traffic
California City Study
![Page 12: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
![Page 13: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
CALIFORNIA CITY COMPARISON
SaferCities
Less SafeCities
Population(average) 65,71959,845
Fatalities per100,000 pop.
(per year)
3.39.8
Road Fatalities(total over 11 years)
257771
Non-HW Fatalities per 100,000 pop.
(per year)
2.58.6
Non-HighwayRoad Fatalities
(total over 11 years)
200676
Relative Risk = 3.4
per city per year 1.95.8
Relative Risk = 3.0
per city per year 1.55.1
![Page 14: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Why are these places so different in terms of
safety outcomes?
![Page 15: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
CALIFORNIA CITY COMPARISON
Mode Share
Driving 84.1%95.8%
PopulationDensity 5,736 per sq. mi.2,673 per sq. mi.
Avg. Year ofIncorporation 18951932
Walking 5.4%1.7%
Biking 4.1%0.7%
Transit 6.6%1.7%
SaferCities
Less SafeCities
![Page 16: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Davis
1940195019601970198019902000
![Page 17: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Measuring Street Networks
![Page 19: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
How Do We Characterize Street Networks?
Connected
GriddedDense
Hierarchical
PatternsBlock Size
Link to Node Ratio
Road Density Intersection Density
![Page 20: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
There are 3 fundamental items of interest in characterizing a street network…
Street ConnectivityStreet Network DensityStreet Patterns
Characterizing Street Networks
i.ii.iii.
![Page 21: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
HIGH CONNECTIVITY ≠ A DENSE NETWORK
![Page 22: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Intersection Density
144 144 144
Link to Node Ratio
1.61 1.13 1.16
HIGH CONNECTIVITY ≠ A DENSE NETWORK
![Page 23: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Simplifying Street Patterns
![Page 24: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Citywide Macroscopic NetworkN
eig
hb
orh
ood M
icro
Netw
ork
LinearTree
GridTributary Radial
Gri
dTre
e
Adapted from Stephen Marshall, Streets & Patterns
![Page 25: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Carlsbad, California
![Page 26: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
LinearTree
GridTributary Radial
Gri
dTre
e
NETWORK COMPARISON
Avg. Year of Development 1965 1974 19661966
Avg. Year of Development 1950 Pre 1940 Pre 1940
![Page 27: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Crash Data
![Page 28: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Results
![Page 30: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
SaferCities
Less SafeCities
Intersection Density 106 per sq. mi. 63 per sq. mi.
Dead EndDensity
32 per sq. mi. 23 per sq mi.
% Dead Ends 23.2% 26.7%
Macro Node Density 7.5 per sq. mi. 4.9 per sq. mi.
% Major Nodes 7.1% 7.8%
Link to Node Ratio 1.34 1.29
Connected Node Ratio 0.76 0.73
STREET NETWORK COMPARISON
Connectivity Measures
-40.6%
-28.1%
-34.7%
-3.7%
-4.0%
Difference
![Page 31: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
SaferCities
Less SafeCities
Fatal Crashesper 100,000 pop. 3.3 per year 9.8 per year
Severe Crashesper 100,000 pop. 16.4 per year 18.4 per year
Severity Risk(% Fatal or Severe)
1.9% 3.2%
Macro Road Fatal or Severe per 100k pop. 16.4 per year 17.4 per year
Severity Risk(% Fatal or Severe) 1.9% 3.2%
Micro Road Fatal orSevere per 100k pop. 2.7 per year 4.6 per year
Severity Risk(% Fatal or Severe) 1.5% 3.1%
ROAD SAFETY COMPARISON
197.0%
12.2%
6.1%
70.4%
58.8%
Difference
68.4%
68.4%
![Page 32: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
SAFER CITIES – NETWORK DENSITY
NetworkDensity
Comparison
< 81
Risk of Injury
(non-highway)
41.0%
81-144
38.5%
144-225
39.1%
225+
37.7%
IntersectionDensity
9x9 12x12 15x15
Block Length 660’ 480’ 375’
1 Sq. MileGrid Size
81 144 225
Risk of Severe Inj.
(non-highway)
3.3% 1.9% 1.8% 1.5%
Risk of Fatality(non-highway)
0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%
![Page 33: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Statistical Analysis
![Page 34: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
What do we want to know?
How are street network measures associated
(correlated) with road safety outcomes?
Statistical Analysis
![Page 35: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Response Variables:
Model 1: Total No. of Crashes
Model 2: Total No. of Severe Injury Crashes
Model 3: Total No. of Fatal Crashes
Statistical Analysis
Built crash prediction models using a generalized linear regression
![Page 36: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Crash Model ResultsVariables
= Significant with Positive Association (More Crashes)
= Significant with Negative Association (Fewer Crashes)
= Not Significant
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables
Street Network MeasuresStreet Pattern Type (categorical)
Intersection Density
Macro-Intermediate Intersection Density
Dead End Node Density
Link to Node Ratio
Curvilinear (0, 1)
Street Level DataAvg. # of Lanes
Avg. Width of Outside Shoulder
Raised Median (0, 1)
Painted Median (0, 1)
% of Macro Road Length with On-Street Parking
% of Macro Road Length with Bike Lanes
% of Macro Road Length with Curbs
ExposureVMT
Proxy for Activity
MiscellaneousDistance from City Center
Avg. Income
Adjacent Limited Access Highway
Mixed Land Uses
Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal Crashes
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables
Street Network MeasuresStreet Pattern Type (categorical)
Intersection Density
Macro-Intermediate Intersection Density
Dead End Node Density
Link to Node Ratio
Curvilinear (0, 1)
Street Level DataAvg. # of Lanes
Avg. Width of Outside Shoulder
Raised Median (0, 1)
Painted Median (0, 1)
% of Macro Road Length with On-Street Parking
% of Macro Road Length with Bike Lanes
% of Macro Road Length with Curbs
ExposureVMT
Proxy for Activity
MiscellaneousDistance from City Center
Avg. Income
Adjacent Limited Access Highway
Mixed Land Uses
Total CrashesSevere Injury
Crashes
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables
Street Network MeasuresStreet Pattern Type (categorical)
Intersection Density
Macro-Intermediate Intersection Density
Dead End Node Density
Link to Node Ratio
Curvilinear (0, 1)
Street Level DataAvg. # of Lanes
Avg. Width of Outside Shoulder
Raised Median (0, 1)
Painted Median (0, 1)
% of Macro Road Length with On-Street Parking
% of Macro Road Length with Bike Lanes
% of Macro Road Length with Curbs
ExposureVMT
Proxy for Activity
MiscellaneousDistance from City Center
Avg. Income
Adjacent Limited Access Highway
Mixed Land Uses
Total Crashes
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables
Street Network MeasuresStreet Pattern Type (categorical)
Intersection Density
Macro-Intermediate Intersection Density
Dead End Node Density
Link to Node Ratio
Curvilinear (0, 1)
Street Level DataAvg. # of Lanes
Avg. Width of Outside Shoulder
Raised Median (0, 1)
Painted Median (0, 1)
% of Macro Road Length with On-Street Parking
% of Macro Road Length with Bike Lanes
% of Macro Road Length with Curbs
ExposureVMT
Proxy for Activity
MiscellaneousDistance from City Center
Avg. Income
Adjacent Limited Access Highway
Mixed Land Uses
![Page 37: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Total Crashes (Model 1)
% Change % Change % Change
Intersection Density81 14.15% 20.05% 53.75%144 (reference value) - - -225 -15.64% -20.94% -42.48%324 -31.48% -40.67% -70.74%
Link to Node Ratio1.1 -14.29% -12.20% -28.21%1.25 (reference value) - - -1.4 16.67% 13.90% 39.29%1.55 36.13% 29.73% 94.02%
Total No. of Lanes on Macro Roads2 (reference value) - - -4 65.17% 33.96% 34.15%6 172.81% 79.46% 79.95%
Distance from City Center (miles)0 41.48% 23.71% -12.86%1 18.95% 11.23% -6.65%2 (reference value) - - -3 -15.93% -10.09% 7.12%4 -29.32% -19.17% 14.75%
% of Macro Road Length with On-Street Parking0% (reference value) - - -50% 18.26% 19.49% -100% 39.86% 42.79% -
% of Macro Road Length with Bike Lanes0% (reference value) - - -50% - - -14.29%100% - - -26.53%
Total Crashes (Model 1)
Severe Crashes (Model 2)
Total Fatal Crashes (Model 3)
% Change % Change % Change
Intersection Density81 14.15% 20.05% 53.75%144 (reference value) - - -225 -15.64% -20.94% -42.48%324 -31.48% -40.67% -70.74%
Link to Node Ratio1.1 -14.29% -12.20% -28.21%1.25 (reference value) - - -1.4 16.67% 13.90% 39.29%1.55 36.13% 29.73% 94.02%
Total No. of Lanes on Macro Roads2 (reference value) - - -4 65.17% 33.96% 34.15%6 172.81% 79.46% 79.95%
Distance from City Center (miles)0 41.48% 23.71% -12.86%1 18.95% 11.23% -6.65%2 (reference value) - - -3 -15.93% -10.09% 7.12%4 -29.32% -19.17% 14.75%
% of Macro Road Length with On-Street Parking0% (reference value) - - -50% 18.26% 19.49% -100% 39.86% 42.79% -
% of Macro Road Length with Bike Lanes0% (reference value) - - -50% - - -14.29%100% - - -26.53%
% Change % Change % Change
Intersection Density81 14.15% 20.05% 53.75%144 (reference value) - - -225 -15.64% -20.94% -42.48%324 -31.48% -40.67% -70.74%
Link to Node Ratio1.1 -14.29% -12.20% -28.21%1.25 (reference value) - - -1.4 16.67% 13.90% 39.29%1.55 36.13% 29.73% 94.02%
Total No. of Lanes on Macro Roads2 (reference value) - - -4 65.17% 33.96% 34.15%6 172.81% 79.46% 79.95%
Distance from City Center (miles)0 41.48% 23.71% -12.86%1 18.95% 11.23% -6.65%2 (reference value) - - -3 -15.93% -10.09% 7.12%4 -29.32% -19.17% 14.75%
% of Macro Road Length with On-Street Parking0% (reference value) - - -50% 18.26% 19.49% -100% 39.86% 42.79% -
% of Macro Road Length with Bike Lanes0% (reference value) - - -50% - - -14.29%100% - - -26.53%
Total Crashes (Model 1)
Severe Crashes (Model 2)
% Change % Change % Change
Intersection Density81 14.15% 20.05% 53.75%144 (reference value) - - -225 -15.64% -20.94% -42.48%324 -31.48% -40.67% -70.74%
Link to Node Ratio1.1 -14.29% -12.20% -28.21%1.25 (reference value) - - -1.4 16.67% 13.90% 39.29%1.55 36.13% 29.73% 94.02%
Total No. of Lanes on Macro Roads2 (reference value) - - -4 65.17% 33.96% 34.15%6 172.81% 79.46% 79.95%
Distance from City Center (miles)0 41.48% 23.71% -12.86%1 18.95% 11.23% -6.65%2 (reference value) - - -3 -15.93% -10.09% 7.12%4 -29.32% -19.17% 14.75%
% of Macro Road Length with On-Street Parking0% (reference value) - - -50% 18.26% 19.49% -100% 39.86% 42.79% -
% of Macro Road Length with Bike Lanes0% (reference value) - - -50% - - -14.29%100% - - -26.53%
Severe Crashes (Model 2)
Total Fatal Crashes (Model 3)
% Change % Change % Change
Intersection Density81 14.15% 20.05% 53.75%144 (reference value) - - -225 -15.64% -20.94% -42.48%324 -31.48% -40.67% -70.74%
Link to Node Ratio1.1 -14.29% -12.20% -28.21%1.25 (reference value) - - -1.4 16.67% 13.90% 39.29%1.55 36.13% 29.73% 94.02%
Total No. of Lanes on Macro Roads2 (reference value) - - -4 65.17% 33.96% 34.15%6 172.81% 79.46% 79.95%
Distance from City Center (miles)0 41.48% 23.71% -12.86%1 18.95% 11.23% -6.65%2 (reference value) - - -3 -15.93% -10.09% 7.12%4 -29.32% -19.17% 14.75%
% of Macro Road Length with On-Street Parking0% (reference value) - - -50% 18.26% 19.49% -100% 39.86% 42.79% -
% of Macro Road Length with Bike Lanes0% (reference value) - - -50% - - -14.29%100% - - -26.53%
FULL NETWORK CRASH MODELS
![Page 38: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Total Crashes (Model 4)
Severe Crashes (Model 5)
Total Fatal Crashes (Model 6)
% Change % Change % Change
Intersection Density81 7.85% 13.43% 39.52%144 (reference value) - - -225 -9.26% -14.96% -34.83%324 -19.43% -30.23% -61.38%
Link to Node Ratio1.1 - - -24.30%1.25 (reference value) - - -1.4 - - 32.10%1.55 - - 74.50%
Total No. of Lanes on Macro Roads2 -45.82% -30.54% -23.08%4 (reference value) - - -6 84.56% 43.96% 30.01%
Distance from City Center (miles)0 51.26% 35.28% -12.88%1 22.99% 16.31% -6.66%2 (reference value) - - -3 -18.69% -14.02% 7.14%4 -33.89% -26.08% 14.78%
% of Macro Road Length with On-Street Parking0% -18.12% -15.10% 19.93%50% (reference value) - - -100% 22.13% 17.78% -16.62%
% of Macro Road Length with Bike Lanes0% - - 20.42%50% (reference value) - - -
CITYWIDE MACRO CRASH MODELS
![Page 39: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
LT GT
Intersection Density
Link to Node Ratio
90
1.09
140
1.15
130
1.18
160
1.24
Expected Total Crashes
Expected Fatal Crashes
290
1.2
202
0.9
275
1.1
213
1.0
Intersection Density
Link to Node Ratio
-
-
225
1.34
289
1.37
265
1.40
Expected Total Crashes
Expected Severe Injury Crashes
-
-
191
3.1
211
3.3
209
3.1
(Non-HW Crashes)
RTTT
LG GGRGTG
Expected Severe Injury Crashes 5.5 3.8 4.1 5.2
Expected Fatal Crashes - 0.8 0.6 0.7
![Page 40: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
LT GT
% Walking
% Biking
2.9%
1.6%
3.5%
2.5%
1.9%
0.9%
2.9%
1.7%
% Public Transit
% Driving
3.3%
92.2%
4.3%
89.7%
2.1%
95.1%
2.9%
92.5%
% Walking
% Biking
N/A
N/A
4.8%
3.3%
4.0%
4.2%
9.5%
4.6%
% Public Transit
% Driving
N/A
N/A
4.3%
87.6%
10.2%
81.6%
10.9%
75.0%
RTTT
LG GGRGTG
MODE CHOICE
![Page 41: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
MODE CHOICE MODEL
Variables
BASELINE BY STREET PATTERN TYPE 3.66% 2.28% 1.71% 92.35% 4.18% 3.93% 3.39% 88.51% 9.00% 8.79% 4.09% 78.13%Intersection Density
81 3.81% 1.94% 1.29% 92.96% 5.94% 4.69% 2.72% 86.64% 8.93% 5.08% 2.84% 83.15%144 3.65% 2.30% 1.74% 92.31% 5.10% 4.35% 3.00% 87.55% 8.98% 6.14% 3.23% 81.65%225 3.44% 2.85% 2.56% 91.15% 4.19% 3.93% 3.38% 88.50% 9.01% 7.81% 3.79% 79.39%324 3.18% 3.69% 4.06% 89.07% 3.27% 3.47% 3.91% 89.35% 8.96% 10.40% 4.56% 76.08%
Link to Node Ratio1.1 3.42% 2.40% 1.74% 92.44% 2.58% 2.87% 1.59% 92.95% 8.40% 9.93% 3.21% 78.47%1.25 4.17% 2.05% 1.65% 92.13% 3.49% 3.50% 2.55% 90.46% 8.69% 9.35% 3.62% 78.34%1.4 5.06% 1.75% 1.55% 91.63% 4.67% 4.22% 4.05% 87.06% 8.99% 8.80% 4.08% 78.13%1.55 6.14% 1.50% 1.46% 90.91% 6.16% 5.01% 6.32% 82.52% 9.29% 8.28% 4.59% 77.85%
Total No. of Lanes on Macro Roads2 4.48% 2.34% 1.72% 91.46% 7.15% 6.38% 3.80% 82.66% 8.28% 8.57% 3.45% 79.70%4 2.80% 2.19% 1.68% 93.32% 2.10% 2.10% 2.85% 92.95% 10.16% 9.09% 5.27% 75.48%6 1.74% 2.05% 1.63% 94.58% 0.57% 0.64% 1.97% 96.82% 12.26% 9.48% 7.93% 70.33%
Distance from City Center (miles)0 3.30% 4.03% 3.18% 89.49% 3.88% 5.47% 4.86% 85.79% 8.39% 11.10% 5.28% 75.23%1 3.48% 3.06% 2.36% 91.11% 4.12% 4.19% 3.63% 88.06% 9.04% 8.62% 4.00% 78.33%2 3.65% 2.31% 1.74% 92.30% 4.35% 3.18% 2.69% 89.77% 9.65% 6.62% 3.00% 80.72%3 3.82% 1.74% 1.27% 93.17% 4.57% 2.41% 1.99% 91.04% 10.22% 5.05% 2.23% 82.50%4 3.98% 1.31% 0.93% 93.78% 4.78% 1.81% 1.46% 91.95% 10.75% 3.82% 1.65% 83.78%
MODE CHOICE MODEL Transit Mode Share
Pedestrian Mode Share
Biking Mode Share
Automobile Mode Share
(all other variables held at mean)
(all other variables held at mean)
(all other variables held at mean)
(all other variables held at mean)
Variables
BASELINE BY STREET PATTERN TYPE 3.66% 2.28% 1.71% 92.35% 4.18% 3.93% 3.39% 88.51% 9.00% 8.79% 4.09% 78.13%Intersection Density
81 3.81% 1.94% 1.29% 92.96% 5.94% 4.69% 2.72% 86.64% 8.93% 5.08% 2.84% 83.15%144 3.65% 2.30% 1.74% 92.31% 5.10% 4.35% 3.00% 87.55% 8.98% 6.14% 3.23% 81.65%225 3.44% 2.85% 2.56% 91.15% 4.19% 3.93% 3.38% 88.50% 9.01% 7.81% 3.79% 79.39%324 3.18% 3.69% 4.06% 89.07% 3.27% 3.47% 3.91% 89.35% 8.96% 10.40% 4.56% 76.08%
Link to Node Ratio1.1 3.42% 2.40% 1.74% 92.44% 2.58% 2.87% 1.59% 92.95% 8.40% 9.93% 3.21% 78.47%1.25 4.17% 2.05% 1.65% 92.13% 3.49% 3.50% 2.55% 90.46% 8.69% 9.35% 3.62% 78.34%1.4 5.06% 1.75% 1.55% 91.63% 4.67% 4.22% 4.05% 87.06% 8.99% 8.80% 4.08% 78.13%1.55 6.14% 1.50% 1.46% 90.91% 6.16% 5.01% 6.32% 82.52% 9.29% 8.28% 4.59% 77.85%
Total No. of Lanes on Macro Roads2 4.48% 2.34% 1.72% 91.46% 7.15% 6.38% 3.80% 82.66% 8.28% 8.57% 3.45% 79.70%4 2.80% 2.19% 1.68% 93.32% 2.10% 2.10% 2.85% 92.95% 10.16% 9.09% 5.27% 75.48%6 1.74% 2.05% 1.63% 94.58% 0.57% 0.64% 1.97% 96.82% 12.26% 9.48% 7.93% 70.33%
Distance from City Center (miles)0 3.30% 4.03% 3.18% 89.49% 3.88% 5.47% 4.86% 85.79% 8.39% 11.10% 5.28% 75.23%1 3.48% 3.06% 2.36% 91.11% 4.12% 4.19% 3.63% 88.06% 9.04% 8.62% 4.00% 78.33%2 3.65% 2.31% 1.74% 92.30% 4.35% 3.18% 2.69% 89.77% 9.65% 6.62% 3.00% 80.72%3 3.82% 1.74% 1.27% 93.17% 4.57% 2.41% 1.99% 91.04% 10.22% 5.05% 2.23% 82.50%4 3.98% 1.31% 0.93% 93.78% 4.78% 1.81% 1.46% 91.95% 10.75% 3.82% 1.65% 83.78%
TT
![Page 42: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
MODE CHOICE MODEL Transit Mode Share
Pedestrian Mode Share
Biking Mode Share
Automobile Mode Share
(all other variables held at mean)
(all other variables held at mean)
(all other variables held at mean)
(all other variables held at mean)
Variables
BASELINE BY STREET PATTERN TYPE 3.66% 2.28% 1.71% 92.35% 4.18% 3.93% 3.39% 88.51% 9.00% 8.79% 4.09% 78.13%Intersection Density
81 3.81% 1.94% 1.29% 92.96% 5.94% 4.69% 2.72% 86.64% 8.93% 5.08% 2.84% 83.15%144 3.65% 2.30% 1.74% 92.31% 5.10% 4.35% 3.00% 87.55% 8.98% 6.14% 3.23% 81.65%225 3.44% 2.85% 2.56% 91.15% 4.19% 3.93% 3.38% 88.50% 9.01% 7.81% 3.79% 79.39%324 3.18% 3.69% 4.06% 89.07% 3.27% 3.47% 3.91% 89.35% 8.96% 10.40% 4.56% 76.08%
Link to Node Ratio1.1 3.42% 2.40% 1.74% 92.44% 2.58% 2.87% 1.59% 92.95% 8.40% 9.93% 3.21% 78.47%1.25 4.17% 2.05% 1.65% 92.13% 3.49% 3.50% 2.55% 90.46% 8.69% 9.35% 3.62% 78.34%1.4 5.06% 1.75% 1.55% 91.63% 4.67% 4.22% 4.05% 87.06% 8.99% 8.80% 4.08% 78.13%1.55 6.14% 1.50% 1.46% 90.91% 6.16% 5.01% 6.32% 82.52% 9.29% 8.28% 4.59% 77.85%
Total No. of Lanes on Macro Roads2 4.48% 2.34% 1.72% 91.46% 7.15% 6.38% 3.80% 82.66% 8.28% 8.57% 3.45% 79.70%4 2.80% 2.19% 1.68% 93.32% 2.10% 2.10% 2.85% 92.95% 10.16% 9.09% 5.27% 75.48%6 1.74% 2.05% 1.63% 94.58% 0.57% 0.64% 1.97% 96.82% 12.26% 9.48% 7.93% 70.33%
Distance from City Center (miles)0 3.30% 4.03% 3.18% 89.49% 3.88% 5.47% 4.86% 85.79% 8.39% 11.10% 5.28% 75.23%1 3.48% 3.06% 2.36% 91.11% 4.12% 4.19% 3.63% 88.06% 9.04% 8.62% 4.00% 78.33%2 3.65% 2.31% 1.74% 92.30% 4.35% 3.18% 2.69% 89.77% 9.65% 6.62% 3.00% 80.72%3 3.82% 1.74% 1.27% 93.17% 4.57% 2.41% 1.99% 91.04% 10.22% 5.05% 2.23% 82.50%4 3.98% 1.31% 0.93% 93.78% 4.78% 1.81% 1.46% 91.95% 10.75% 3.82% 1.65% 83.78%
MODE CHOICE MODEL Transit Mode Share
(all other variables held at mean)
Variables
BASELINE BY STREET PATTERN TYPE 3.66% 2.28% 1.71% 92.35% 4.18% 3.93% 3.39% 88.51% 9.00% 8.79% 4.09% 78.13%Intersection Density
81 3.81% 1.94% 1.29% 92.96% 5.94% 4.69% 2.72% 86.64% 8.93% 5.08% 2.84% 83.15%144 3.65% 2.30% 1.74% 92.31% 5.10% 4.35% 3.00% 87.55% 8.98% 6.14% 3.23% 81.65%225 3.44% 2.85% 2.56% 91.15% 4.19% 3.93% 3.38% 88.50% 9.01% 7.81% 3.79% 79.39%324 3.18% 3.69% 4.06% 89.07% 3.27% 3.47% 3.91% 89.35% 8.96% 10.40% 4.56% 76.08%
Link to Node Ratio1.1 3.42% 2.40% 1.74% 92.44% 2.58% 2.87% 1.59% 92.95% 8.40% 9.93% 3.21% 78.47%1.25 4.17% 2.05% 1.65% 92.13% 3.49% 3.50% 2.55% 90.46% 8.69% 9.35% 3.62% 78.34%1.4 5.06% 1.75% 1.55% 91.63% 4.67% 4.22% 4.05% 87.06% 8.99% 8.80% 4.08% 78.13%1.55 6.14% 1.50% 1.46% 90.91% 6.16% 5.01% 6.32% 82.52% 9.29% 8.28% 4.59% 77.85%
Total No. of Lanes on Macro Roads2 4.48% 2.34% 1.72% 91.46% 7.15% 6.38% 3.80% 82.66% 8.28% 8.57% 3.45% 79.70%4 2.80% 2.19% 1.68% 93.32% 2.10% 2.10% 2.85% 92.95% 10.16% 9.09% 5.27% 75.48%6 1.74% 2.05% 1.63% 94.58% 0.57% 0.64% 1.97% 96.82% 12.26% 9.48% 7.93% 70.33%
Distance from City Center (miles)0 3.30% 4.03% 3.18% 89.49% 3.88% 5.47% 4.86% 85.79% 8.39% 11.10% 5.28% 75.23%1 3.48% 3.06% 2.36% 91.11% 4.12% 4.19% 3.63% 88.06% 9.04% 8.62% 4.00% 78.33%2 3.65% 2.31% 1.74% 92.30% 4.35% 3.18% 2.69% 89.77% 9.65% 6.62% 3.00% 80.72%3 3.82% 1.74% 1.27% 93.17% 4.57% 2.41% 1.99% 91.04% 10.22% 5.05% 2.23% 82.50%4 3.98% 1.31% 0.93% 93.78% 4.78% 1.81% 1.46% 91.95% 10.75% 3.82% 1.65% 83.78%
GG
![Page 43: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
LT GTRTTT
LG GGRGTG
VMT in Block Group per capita per day 66 28 27 51
VMT in Block Group per capita per day - 21 23 24
VMT
![Page 44: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
24 x
1925VM
T (b
illions
)
Population
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
2.5 x
Effect on VMT?
8 x
![Page 45: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
![Page 46: Marshall - CNU Street Network Presentation](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110114/547789aeb4af9fa9638b45c9/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Street DesignCommunity DesignStreet ConnectivityMore Sustainable Places
Safer &
Alternative Modes
Road Safety & Mode Choice
Getting things right requires a more comprehensive approach that considers:
Redefining the Problem
Street Network Density
Street Patterns
All of which will help inform our efforts toward creating: