Density and Walkable Communities Reid Ewing Professor & Chair City and Metropolitan Planning University of Utah ewing@arch.utah.edu Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
MRC Research at 5 Geographic Scales Region Neighborhood MXD TOD Block Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Elasticities Convenient Way of Summarizing Relationships Dimensionless So Perhaps Transferable
NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
5Ds of Compact Development Density Mobility Diversity Design Accessibility Distance to Transit Destination Accessibility Livability Sustainability
Fairview Village
Southern Village
Metro Square
Meta-Analysis
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
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 0.4
15 Region Database
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
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
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
MXD SCALE Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Sample selection Household travel survey Regional household survey with XY coordinates; Parcel level land-use data; Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
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. Expert-based process Gateway district, Salt Lake City: dining, entertainment, retail, residential, office Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
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
Total share of walk, bike and transit for external trips to/from MXDs Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Elasticities of Internal Capture Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Elasticities of External Walking Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
TOD SCALE Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
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 use Pedestrianfriendly Adjacent to transit Built after transit Fully developed or nearly so Self-contained parking Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Redmond TOD, Seattle Rhode Island Row, Washington D.C. Wilshire/Vermont, Los Angeles Fruitvale Village, San Francisco Englewood TOD, Denver
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
BLOCK SCALE Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
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)
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
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
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
Transparency Proportion first floor with windows Proportion active uses Proportion street wall same side 254 S Main St
Complexity Buildings (number) Dominant building colors (number) Accent colors (number) Outdoor dining (yes/no) Public art (number) 262 S Main St
High Value of All 5 Qualities 169 S Main St
Low Value of All 5 Qualities 230 W N Temple St
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
Results Density Most Important at the Regional Scale 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