Miami-Dade Accessibility Based Needs Assessment Meeting No. 2 presentation by Atkins and Renaissance Planning on June 14, 2017.

1. MIAMI-DADE ACCESSIBILITY
BASED NEEDS ASSESSMENT
June 14, 2017

2. 1
3
4
5
2
1 RECAP ON ACCESSIBILITY OVERVIEW
GEOGRAPHICAL UNIT & INPUT DATA
BASE YEAR ACCESSIBILITY RESULTS
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
2
TEST PROJECT RESULTS
NEXT STEPS

3. 1
A New Frame of Reference
RECAP ON ACCESSIBILITY OVERVIEW1

4. SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Accessibility is a simple but powerful concept that merges land
use, transportation, and demographics to provides insight into
travel behavior, transportation systems, and land development

5. HOW IS ACCESSIBILITY MEASURED?
INTRODUCTION
Accessibility is
measured as the
number
of destinations
reachable by a
set of origins in
a given
travel time.

6. Accessibility analysis needs only origins, destinations,
and the networks that connect them.
But the more detail exists about those 3 things,
the more valuable the analysis
SUMMARY

7.  New metric that encompasses land use, network connectivity,
performance
 Direct measure of what matters – access to opportunities
 Measures across all travel modes (multimodal planning)
 Shifts focus to moving people & goods rather than “solving”
congestion
 Encourages greater coordination between land use and
transportation decisions (integrated planning tool)
 Measures disparities for differing groups across differing purposes
and modes (ladders of opportunity)
ACCESSIBILITY IS A POWERFUL PLANNING CONCEPT AND TOOL
INTRODUCTION7

8. MODEL DEVELOPMENT
ACCESSIBILITY SCORE CALCULATION
8
Accessibility =
∑
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 ∗𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫
Where:
OPPORTUNITIES = Number of
Jobs (HBW) or Number of
Retail/Service Establishments
(HBNW)
TRAVEL TIME = Time to reach
opportunity over actual network
(Network Analyst)
DECAY = Factor reflecting
decrease in value of opportunity
that are farther away
Auto Transit Bike Walk
Modal Activity
Ranges (defined by
speeds)
Starting
Point
Travel Time
Decay Curve
Accessibility Score =
Σ time-decayed
opportunities

9.  Where is accessibility high, low, other, in terms of # of
accessible opportunities (heat maps)
 How do scores relate across County (percentile)
 Land use vs. Connectivity vs. Mobility diagnostics (heat maps &
numbers)
 Accessibility score deltas (heat maps & numbers)
WHAT DO RESULTS LOOK LIKE?
INTRODUCTION9
Note: Results depicted here are an approximation of accessibility and do
not represent actual accessibility simulation.

10.  Generate existing accessibility scores by mode
 Define up to 50 scenarios composed of packages of
investments to test 2040 LRTP projects
 Define up to 25 additional custom scenarios to test specific
concerns/issues/land use scenarios
 Summarize results in map and table format for comparison and
assessment of 2040 plan
 Identify additional needs based on results
NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROCESS
INTRODUCTION10
Note: Results depicted here are an approximation of accessibility and do
not represent actual accessibility simulation.

11. RELATIONSHIP TO 2040 LRTP GOALS
INTRODUCTION11
 Goal 1 Improve System & Travel: Mobility – direct
relationship between accessibility and travel time/mobility
 Goal 2 Increase Safety – improved multimodal
accessibility by creating safe pedestrian environment
 Goal 4 Support Economic Vitality – access to jobs one
of the central metrics in accessibility analysis
 Goal 5 Environment/Quality of Life – improved livability
through high multimodal accessibility, environment through
mode shift
 Goal 6 Enhance Connectivity – direct relationship
between accessibility and network connectivity
 Goal 8 Preserve Existing System – minimized need for
capacity improvements through targeted network
improvements and land use strategies

12. 2
Technical Nuts and Bolts
GEOGRAPHICAL UNIT & INPUT DATA

13. MODEL DEVELOPMENT
 Micro Analysis Zones (MAZ) vs Census Blocks
 29,718 Census Blocks in County
 5,345 MAZs in County
 Benefits of using Census Blocks
 More precise location of activity
 Better representation of multimodal activity
 Benefits of using MAZs
 More efficient computationally
 Less forecasting error
GEOGRAPHICAL UNITS
13

14. MODEL DEVELOPMENT
 Testing indicates reasonable
level of multimodal “simulation”
at MAZ geography for systems
planning
 Average walk accessibility
in MAZ’s is 2 to 5% higher than
in Blocks
 MAZ: 3,790
(4,850 in Title VI areas)
 Block: 3,570
(4,730 in Title VI areas)
GEOGRAPHICAL UNITS
14
MAZ
Block

15.  NETWORKS
 HERE roadway network – local roads, base year travel times
 GTFS transit network – transit network, schedule
 SERPM – future year travel times
 SOCIOECONOMIC DATA
 2010 and 2040 MAZ data for pop, emp data
 Sugar Access points of interest data for non-work destinations
 DECAY CURVES
 Maryland decay curves estimated from household survey data
 Southeast Florida Household Survey for potential updates
ACCESSIBILITY MODEL INPUTS
MODEL DEVELOPMENT15

16. 3
Access to Jobs results
BASE YEAR ACCESSIBILITY RESULTS

17.  Walk score: 4,128
*Scores represent average number of jobs accessible at zonal
level, weighted by number of workers residing in zone
BASE YEAR ACCESSIBILITY
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK17
DRAFT

18.  Walk score: 4,128
 Bike score: 35,066
*Scores represent average number of jobs accessible at zonal
level, weighted by number of workers residing in zone
BASE YEAR ACCESSIBILITY
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK18
DRAFT

19.  Walk score: 4,128
 Bike score: 35,066
 Transit score (walk access only): 158,941
*Scores represent average number of jobs accessible at zonal
level, weighted by number of workers residing in zone
BASE YEAR ACCESSIBILITY
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK19
DRAFT

20.  Walk score: 4,128
 Bike score: 35,066
 Transit score (walk access only): 158,941
 Transit score (auto, walk access): 205,879
*Scores represent average number of jobs accessible at zonal
level, weighted by number of workers residing in zone
BASE YEAR ACCESSIBILITY
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK20
DRAFT

21.  Walk score: 4,128
 Bike score: 35,066
 Transit score (walk access only): 158,941
 Transit score (auto, walk access): 205,879
 Auto score: 918,687
BASE YEAR ACCESSIBILITY
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK21
DRAFT

22.  Impact of Auto congestion - Peak / Off peak ratio
(% jobs accessible by auto in peak vs off peak
conditions)
 Peak score: 918,687
 Off Peak score: 1,106,904
 Difference: 188,217 (82%)
BASE YEAR ACCESSIBILITY RESULTS
(diagnostic testing)
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK22
DRAFT

23. BASE YEAR ACCESSIBILITY RESULTS
(diagnostic testing)
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK23
 Impact of Auto connectivity – Actual / Crowfly ratio
(% jobs accessible in perfectly connected vs actual
network)
 Actual network auto score: 918,687
 Crowfly score: 1,283,951
 Difference: 365,264 (72%)

24.  Other analyses in addition to jobs accessibility include access
to non-work destinations
 Essential destinations represent baseline non-work trip making
 Access to health care
 Access to food stores
 Access to government offices
 Access to educational institutions
 Access to cultural/recreational facilities
 Access to shopping centers
 Access to…
 Customized scenarios can be set up to focus on specific travel
markets, goals/objectives
 Set targets – e.g. minimum level of accessibility within
disadvantaged areas – walk access to 1 health care facility
BASE YEAR ACCESSIBILITY RESULTS
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK24

25. 4
Sample Projects
TEST PROJECT RESULTS

26.  Up to 50 project bundles/scenarios to
be tested
 Begin with MNAT corridors
 Add NW 27th Ave Corridor
 Split Corridor 8 at downtown
 Define project bundles for each
corridor
CORRIDORS
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK26

27. CORRIDOR PROJECT BUNDLES
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK27
Corridor 1 Corridor 2 Corridor N…
Bike/Ped Transit Auto Bike/Ped Transit Auto Bike/Ped Transit Auto
Premium Transit
with bike/ped access imp.
Premium Transit
with auto, bike/ped access imp.
Limited Access/Express Lanes
with express bus imp.
Arterial/Collector
with bike/ped imp.
 Project bundle dimensions: Corridor, Mode/sub-mode, Facility type

28.  North Corridor
 Premium transit with bike/ped access improvements
 Premium transit with both bike/ped AND PnR improvements
 Transit and Non-motorized accessibility analysis
 Gratigny Expressway west extension
 New limited access roadway
 Auto accessibility analysis
TEST PROJECTS
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK28

29.  Average access to employment, weighted by # of workers
 Transit: 27th Ave premium transit Broward Co to MLK station
NORTH CORRIDOR
(premium transit + bike/ped projects)
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK29
DRAFT Ped
County-
wide
Before 4,128
After 4,129
Change 1
North
Planning
Area
Before 3,667
After 3,669
Change 2
Title VI
Areas
Before
TBD
After
Change
DRAFT
 Ped improvements:
• NW 103 St from 28 Ave to 24 Ave
• NW 167 St from 32 Ave to 17 Ave
• NW 129 St from 22 Ave to 17 Ave
• NW 37 Ave from 71 St to 79 St
• NW 71 St from 32 Ave to 27 Ave
• NW 17 Ave from 157 St to 167 St
• NW 80 St from 36 Ave to 37 Ave
• SR9 Frontage Rd from 27 Ave to
SR9 Ext

30. NORTH CORRIDOR
(premium transit + bike/ped projects)
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK30
 Average access to employment, weighted by # of workers
 Transit: 27th Ave premium transit Broward Co to MLK station
DRAFT Ped Bike
County-
wide
Before 4,128 35,066
After 4,129 35,084
Change 1 18
North
Planning
Area
Before 3,667 38,612
After 3,669 38,681
Change 2 69
Title VI
Areas
Before
TBD
After
Change
DRAFT
 Bike improvements:
• NW 22 Ave from 183
St to 38 St
• NW 22 Ave from SW 22
St to SR112

31. NORTH CORRIDOR
(premium transit + bike/ped projects)
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK31
 Average access to employment, weighted by # of workers
 Transit: 27th Ave premium transit Broward Co to MLK station
*Future year tests will reflect highway benefit from mode shift
DRAFT Ped Bike Transit*
County-
wide
Before 4,128 35,066 158,941
After 4,129 35,084 162,912
Change 1 18 4,971
North
Planning
Area
Before 3,667 38,612 198,771
After 3,669 38,681 210,725
Change 2 69 11,954
Title VI
Areas
Before
TBD
After
Change
DRAFT

32. NORTH CORRIDOR
(premium transit + bike/ped projects)
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK32
 Average access to employment, weighted by # of workers
 Transit: 27th Ave premium transit Broward Co to MLK station
*Future year tests will reflect highway benefit from mode shift
DRAFT Ped Bike Transit* Transit (w PnR)*
County-
wide
Before 4,128 35,066 158,941 205,879
After 4,129 35,084 162,912 209,914
Change 1 18 4,971 4,035
North
Planning
Area
Before 3,667 38,612 198,771 279,025
After 3,669 38,681 210,725 287,490
Change 2 69 11,954 8,465
Title VI
Areas
Before
TBD
After
Change
DRAFT

33. GRATIGNY EXPRESSWAY
(west extension)
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK33
 Impact of Gratigny west extension
(average number of jobs accessible weighted by
number of workers)
DRAFT
DRAFT Auto
County-
wide
Before 918,687
After 920,921
Change 2,234
Title VI
Areas
Before
TBD
After
Change

34. 5
Moving Forward
NEXT STEPS

35. Data Preparation
 Complete HERE/SERPM network equivalency for future year
input data
 Define project bundles for 50 scenarios
 Run Non-work accessibility in base condition
Run Tool
 Generate preliminary future year scenario results
Results Analysis Framework
 Define potential custom scenarios
NEXT STEPS
MOVING FORWARD35

36. SCHEDULE
MOVING FORWARD36
Task Month
1
(Mar)
2
(Apr)
3
(May)
4
(Jun)
5
(Jul)
6
(Aug)
7
(Sep)
8
(Oct)
9
(Nov)
Data Preparation (networks, SE data)
Generate Base Scenario Results
Define Future Year Scenarios
Generate Future Year Scenario Results
Results Analysis – Assess Needs
Technical Memorandum
PAT Meetings
Current Status

37. Carlos Roa
croa@miamidadempo.org
305.375.1833
Jack Schnettler
Jack.Schnettler@atkinsglobal.com
305.514.3369
Franco Saraceno
fsaraceno@citiesthatwork.com
813.254.7741 Ext. 208
QUESTIONS???
???37