Berry Klynn2

Randomly Selected Examples of Community Impact Assessment Methods I Thought You Might Care to Know: 

Randomly Selected Examples of Community Impact Assessment Methods I Thought You Might Care to Know K. Lynn Berry FHWA Resource Center Environment Technical Service Team Federal Highway Administration Environmental Conference June 28-30, 2004 in Alexandria, Virginia

K. Lynn Berry: 

K. Lynn Berry FHWA Resource Center at Atlanta Environmental Program Specialist Consulting & State DOT experience BA Anthropology, Notre Dame and MA Anthropology, U of Denver 404-562-3618 klynn.berry@fhwa.dot.gov

The Randomly Selected Methods: 

The Randomly Selected Methods Bicycle Safety Effects Pedestrian Safety Effects Barrier Effects Access Management Effects

System User vs. Non-Users: 

System User vs. Non-Users Generally, improvements to roadways will be BENEFICIAL to users PROVIDED, of course, facility investments/upgrades are made uniformly But for non-users, we need to consider changes in pedestrian and bicycle safety Road crossings, barrier effects Bicycle compatibility

Transportation Choice And Factors Affecting It.: 

Transportation Choice And Factors Affecting It. Four reasons individuals and communities may value having choices among transportation modes: To help achieve equity goals. To serve as a back-up option for those who can drive. To increase transportation system efficiency. To increase livability. Upgrading roads can increase vehicular traffic More likely to be dangerous, difficult to traverse, and unpleasant for bike/ped Street widening can create barriers Projects can displace or disrupt bike/ped facilities

Bicycle Safety Index: 

Bicycle Safety Index BSI=[AADT/(Lx3100)]+{(S/48)x[(4.25-W)x1.635])}+PF+LF Wait! Don’t panic! C = (D + V + F) > R Change happens when Desire + Vision + First Steps are greater than Resistance

References: 

References Developed by: Davis, J. 1987. Bicycle Safety Evaluation. Chattanooga, TN: Auburn University, City of Chattanooga, and Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission Modified by: Epperson, Bruce. 1994. “Evaluating Suitability of Roadways for Bicycle Use: Toward a Cycling Level of Service Standard.” Transportation Research Record 1438. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, pp. 9-16. Summarized in : Sheeley, J., Forkenbrock, D. and M. Boarnet. DRAFT Nov. 2003. NCHRP Project 8-41 “Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment”

Pedestrian Street Crossings: 

Pedestrian Street Crossings LOS rating Intersection performance most important Ped./vehicle conflict most likely there Pedestrian Delay . . . Too long, and pedestrians will not comply with signals or yield to traffic. Reduce delays at intersections, then: Will encourage more short trips on foot Greater safety for those crossing

Pedestrian Road Crossing LOSValues are average delays in seconds per pedestrian crossing: 

Pedestrian Road Crossing LOS Values are average delays in seconds per pedestrian crossing Forkenbrock and Weisbrod. 2001.NCHRP Report 456 “Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects”

Barrier Effect Analysis: 

Barrier Effect Analysis Calculate Barrier Size AADT, correction factor for trucks, flow speed Calculate Crossing Potential (the demand for road crossings) Look up table, based on experimental data, taking into account number of residential, commercial, recreational and municipal destinations

Barrier Effect Analysis, cont.: 

Barrier Effect Analysis, cont. Calculate Disruption (amount of exposure of peds and cyclists to traffic) Barrier Size and Crossing Potential combined, with adjustments for controlled crossings and weighting by age Rintoul, Donald. 1995. Social Cost of Transverse Barrier Effects. Planning Services Branch. Victoria, B.C.: British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Highways. ( Summarized in NCHRP Report 456 “Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects”)

Pass-by traffic effectCol. E = [Col. B x (1 + Col. C) x (1 – Col. D)] – [Col. B]: 

Pass-by traffic effect Col. E = [Col. B x (1 + Col. C) x (1 – Col. D)] – [Col. B]

Reference: 

Reference Weisbrod, Glen and R. Neuwirth. 1998. “Economic Effects of Restricting Left Turns.” NCHRP Research Results Digest No. 231. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.

Slide14: 

http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+25-04

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ACCESS MANAGEMENT: 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ACCESS MANAGEMENT Studies generally indicate that median projects have little overall adverse impact on business activity Destination type businesses, such as certain restaurants and specialty stores, appear less sensitive to access changes Businesses that rely primarily on pass-by traffic, such as gas stations or convenience stores: more sensitive . Kristine M. Williams, AICP, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, January 28, 2000

Study Methods: 

Study Methods “Before” and “After” aerial photography Historical land uses and property values for parcels (appraisals, CDs) Surveys/prearranged on-site interviews did not ask for sales details General perceptions: better/worse/same Field investigations Public Involvement: address perceptions and anxiety

Texas DOT: 

Texas DOT Perception worse than reality Business owners reported no change in pass-by traffic after median installations Restaurants and specialty retail reported increases in sales Gas stations and repair shops reported decreases Most impacts during construction

Iowa DOT: 

Iowa DOT Corridors with completed access management projects performed better in terms of retail sales than the surrounding communities Business failure rates at or below the statewide average for Iowa. Eighty percent of businesses reported sales at least as high after the project was in place.