DOES URBAN DESIGN EVEN MATTER? Joshua Brooks, Jialu Tan, Gonzalo Ortega GIS Workshop | DUSP MIT 2017
Boston is the ‘walking capital’ of the U.S. Are certain streets safer than others for people + bikes? What are the urban design patterns?
How do we reach Vision Zero?
By determining which neighborhoods have higher rates of accidents per person we can equitablly prioritize capitol improvement dollars across the city and determine the types of interventions that will yield positive results.
This process can be replicated in others cities.
Smaller. Smaller. Smaller.
Bigger. Bigger. Bigger.
WORK-FLOW
Processing Spatial Data in Arc Map
Parcels / Buildings / Open Space Base Maps READING
DFORD
WAKEFIELD
BURLINGTON
Street Center Lines Intersections Sidewalk Width Street Width Row Width Ratios Between Elements READING
PEABODY
BEDFORD
SALEM
STONEHAM
MELROSE
MALDEN
SOMERVILLE
BOSTON
NEWTON
BROOKLINE
ELLESLEY
WELLESLEY
BOSTON
NEEDHAM
NEEDHAM
G
GG G
BOSTON
G G GG G G G GG G G G G GG G GG G G GGG GGG G G GG G GG GG G GG GG G G G G GG GG G GG G G G G G GGGG G GG GG GG G G GG G G G G G GG GG G GGG G G GGG G G G GG G G GG G GGGG G G G GGG G G G G GGG G GG G GGG G G G GG G G GG G GG G G GG G G G G G G G G G G GG G G G G G GGG GG G G G G G G G GGG G G G GG G G GG GG GG G G GG GGG GG G GG G GG G GG G G G GG G G G G G G G G G G G GG G G G GG G G G G G G G G G G BROOKLINE G G G GG GG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG GG G G G GG GG G G GGG G G G GGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G BOSTON G G G GGG G HULL GG G G G G GG G GG G G G G G G G G G G G G GG G HULL G G G GG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG G
WINTHROP
WINTHROP
CAMBRIDGE BOSTON
WINTHROP
WATERTOWN
G
WINTHROP
MILTON
G
HINGHAM
G
CAMBRIDGE
Bike Counts Interpolated Bike Density
WESTWOOD WEYMOUTH BRAINTREE
G GG GG GG G GG G GG G GGG GGGG GGGGG G GGG G G G G G G GG GGG G GGG GGG GGG GG G G G G G GGG G G G G GG G G GG G G G GG G G G G G G G G G G GG GG G G G G G G G GG G GG G GG G GG G GG GG G G GG G G GGGG G G GG GG G GGG GGGG GGGG G GGGGG GG G GGG GG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GGG G G G GG GG G G G G G GGG G G G G G GG GGG GG G GG G G G G GG G GG G G GG G GG GGGGGGGG G G GGGG G GGG G GGGG GGGG GGG G G GG G G G G G G G G G G G GG G G GGGG G GGG GGG GG G G G GG GG G GG G GG GG GG G G G GGGGG G G GGG G G G GG G G GG G GG G GG GG GG G G GG G G G G G G GG GGG GG GG G G G G G G G GG G GG GGG G G GG G G G BROOKLINE G G GG GGG GG G GG G G G G GG G G G G G GG G G G G G G G GG G G G GG G G G G G G G GGGG G G GGG G G GG G G GG G G G G G G G GG GG G GGG G G G G G G G G G GG G GG GG G G GG G G G G G GG G G GG G BOSTON G G G GG GG G GG GG HULL GG G G GG G GG G GG G GG G G GG GG GG GG G G G G G G G G GG G G G G G G G G G G G GG G G G G G GG G G HULL G GGG G G G G G G G GG G G G G GG G G G GG G GG G G GG G GGG G G G G G GGG G G GG G G G G GG G G G G G G G G G G GG G G G GG G GG G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG G G G G GGG G GG G G G G G G G G G G G G GGG G GG
NEWTON
NEWTON
BROOKLINE
WELLESLEY
WELLESLEY
HULL
BOSTON
HULL NEEDHAM
NEEDHAM
QUINCY DOVER
QUINCY DOVER
DEDHAM
MILTON
HINGHAM
[
CANTON
NORWOOD
RANDOLPH WALPOLE
Bike Accidents Rate of Accidents
WESTWOOD
NORWOOD 0.4 0.8 1.6
2.4
Miles 3.2
G
QUINCY HINGHAM GG
Pedestrian Density Interpolated Pedestrian Density
[
RANDOLPH WALPOLE
WESTWOOD
CANTON
NORWOOD 0.4 0.8 1.6
2.4
Miles 3.2
RANDOLPH WALPOLE
G
MILTON
HINGHAM
Pedestrian Accidents Rate of Accidents
WEYMOUTH
BRAINTREE
0
HULL
HULL
DEDHAM
MILTON
WEYMOUTH BRAINTREE
CANTON
0
G G GG GG G G G G GG G G WINTHROP G G G G G G BOSTON G WINTHROP G G GG G G G
Datasets Sources: City of Boston GIS, Vision Zero (Boston EMS), Anthony Vanke
G
G
WESTWOOD
G G G G G GG G
WATERTOWN
GG
DEDHAM
G
GG G G
G G QUINCY DOVER
DEDHAM
CHELSEA SOMERVILLE
WALTHAM
G
G
CAMBRIDGE
G
OVER
ALPOLE
G G
WATERTOWN
REVERE
BELMONT
SOMERVILLE
WALTHAM
GG G G GG
WINTHROP
NAHANT
MEDFORD
EVERETT
CHELSEA
BELMONT
G
SOMERVILLE
WINTHROP
CAMBRIDGE
MALDEN NAHANT ARLINGTON
REVERE
EVERETT
CHELSEA
BELMONT WALTHAM
WATERTOWN
NEWTON
MALDEN MEDFORD
ARLINGTON
REVERE
EVERETT
CHELSEA
BELMONT WALTHAM
MELROSE WINCHESTER
NAHANT
MEDFORD
EVERETT
Density of Street Trees
LEXINGTON
MALDEN NAHANT
STONEHAM
WINCHESTER
ARLINGTON
REVERE
Street Light Coverage
SWAMPSCOTT
LYNN SAUGUS
LEXINGTON
MEDFORD ARLINGTON
WAKEFIELD
MELROSE
WINCHESTER
Trees
SALEM
SWAMPSCOTT WOBURN
SAUGUS
LEXINGTON
Street Lights
PEABODY
Regulated intersections Y/N
BURLINGTON
STONEHAM
MELROSE
WINCHESTER
READING
SALEM
LYNN
SAUGUS
LEXINGTON
Traffic Lights
PEABODY
BEDFORD
SWAMPSCOTT WOBURN
LYNN
STONEHAM
SAUGUS
READING
WAKEFIELD
BURLINGTON
SWAMPSCOTT WOBURN
LYNN
Existing Bike Network Bike Network Categories SALEM
WAKEFIELD
BURLINGTON
WOBURN
PEABODY
BEDFORD
[
CANTON
0
NORWOOD 0.4 0.8 1.6
2.4
Miles 3.2
RANDOLPH
WEYMOUTH BRAINTREE
[
0
0.4 0.8
1.6
2.4
Miles 3.2
WORK-FLOW
Processing Spatial Data in Arc Map
WORK-FLOW
Processing Spatial Data in Arc Map Set Boundary Public Realm. Remove Private Land.
Spatial Data Street Center Lines Bike Network Traffic Lights Street Lights Trees
G
*
G G
Accidents Pedestrian Bike
G
BO
G
ST ON BO
G
ST
ON
* G
[ 0 0.0
G
050.0
[
1 0.0
2 0.0
BO
BO
m_
PE
D_
0.0
AC
00
0.0 01
00
77
10
1-
00
09
0.0 25
01
77
0.0 66
09
68
26
0-
- 4.0
0.0
66
67
00
2 0.0
3
0.0 Miles 4
User Density Pedestrian (Grid) Bike Counts (IDW Interpolation)
7.0 96
Cyclist /Points [
ST ON
1.4
7.5
98
.81
19
33
00
80
82
69
29
99
13
65
99
93
- 96
- 15
- 23
- 30
8.7
1.4
70
7.5
98
41
.81
19
33
80
82
99
98
30
12
41
68
54
63
67 81
/IDW interpolation
3.1
0.4
72
7.6
73
30
4.7
25
26
23
8.7
21
67
67
70
55
15
41
77
64
6.2
3.1
86
- 41
- 54
- 67
- 81
- 98
0.4
72
37
7.6
73
30
4.7
25
26
21
67
050.0
1 0.0
0.0 Miles 4
76 98 1,1 1,4 1,6 1,9
0 0.0
2
55
14
66
22
7
[
1
ST ON
<V AL UE >
15
3
0.0
0
9
23
0.0
1
BO
0-
0.0
0.0
0.0
050.0
/ Co un t
0.0
050.0
0 0.0
0.0 Miles 4
ST ON
Su
0 0.0
3
2 0.0
3
07
49
.67
04
.04
71
85
.58
39
25
6.2
.93
08
46
86
84
12
37
71
78
59
07
.20
- 1,1
- 1,4
- 1,6
- 1,9
- 2,1
49
.67
89
04
.04
71
85
.93
.58
39
08
84
77
11
2,1
45
2,4
24
2,7
84
3,2
0.0 Miles 4
3,7 4,6
70
29
.12
26
.85
15
81
.34
05
83
29
.04
22
87
59
.53
90
86
.20
90
73
89
64
36
70
.99
85
29
.12
95
- 2,4
- 2,7
- 3,2
- 3,7
- 4,6
- 5,8
26
.85
15
12
81
.34
05
82
29
.04
22
.53
90
90
Spatial Standard 50m X 50m Grid
63
72
85
86
[ 0 0.0
050.0
1 0.0
2 0.0
3
0.0 Miles 4
City Wide Analysis Average Sidewalk Width Average Street Width Average ROW Width Average Block Size Street Tree Density Street Lights Density Traffic Light Density Bike Lane Type
RATE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS Compared to ROW Width 0.050%
Rate of Accidents
0.040% 0.030%
Relational Analysis Accident Rates Spatial Relationship
0.020% 0.010% 0.000% 30.0
50.0
70.0
90.0 ROW Width
110.0
130.0
150.0
SO, WHAT DID WE LEARN?
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
Accidents
Pedestrian Accidents in Boston
=
Pedestrian Density
:
Area with Higher Rate of Pedestrian Accidents 0
Accident Rates
1
2 Miles
Std. Dev. Accident Rates
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
Pedestrian Accidents in Boston
Accident Rates
Std. Dev. Accident Rates
0
1
2 Miles
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
Accidents
Bike Accidents in Boston
=
Cyclist Density
:
Area with Higher Rate of Bike Accidents
Accident Rates
Std. Dev. Accident Rates 0
1
2 Miles
CHANGING PATTERNS
Average Street Width RATE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS Compared to Average Street Width 0.050%
Rate of Accidents
0.040% 0.030% 0.020% 0.010% 0.000%
18.0
23.0
28.0
33.0
38.0
43.0
48.0
Average Street Width Per Cell
RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Avergae Street Width 0.300% 0.250%
Rate of Accidents
0.200% 0.150% 0.100% 0.050% 0.000%
18.0
28.0
38.0
48.0
58.0
68.0
Average Street Width
0
1
2 Miles
Average Street Width
CHANGING PATTERNS
Average Right-of-Way Width RATE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS Compared to ROW Width 0.050%
Rate of Accidents
0.040% 0.030% 0.020% 0.010% 0.000%
30.0
50.0
70.0
90.0
110.0
130.0
150.0
ROW Width
RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Average ROW Width 0.300%
Rate of Accidents
0.250% 0.200% 0.150% 0.100% 0.050% 0.000%
30.0
50.0
70.0
90.0
110.0
130.0
150.0
Average ROW Width
0
1
2 Miles
Average ROW Width
CHANGING PATTERNS
Street Width to ROW Width Ratio ‘Public Realm’
RATE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS Street Width to ROW Ratio
ROW Width Sidewalk
0.050%
Road Width
Sidewalk
0.030%
0.020%
0.010%
0.000% 10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
80.00%
70.00%
Street Width to ROW Ratio
RATE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS Sidewalk to Street Width Ratio
RATE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS Sidewalk With ROW Ratio 0.050%
0.050%
0.040%
0.040%
0.030%
0.030%
Rate of Axis
Rate of Accidents
Rate of Accidents
0.040%
0.020%
0.010%
0.010% 0.000% 10.00%
0.020%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
Sidewalk Width to ROW Ratio
50.00%
60.00%
0.000% 10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Sidewalk to Street Width Ratio
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
CHANGING PATTERNS
Sidewalk Width RATE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS Compared to Sidewalk Width 0.050%
Rate of Accidents
0.040%
0.030%
0.020%
0.010%
0.000%
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Sidewalk Width
RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Average Side Walk Width
RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Average Side Walk Width
0.300%
0.300% 0.250%
0.200%
Rate of Accidents
Rate of Accidents
0.250%
0.150% 0.100% 0.050% 0.000%
0.200% 0.150% 0.100% 0.050%
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Average Sidewalk Width
25.0
30.0
0.000%
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Average Sidewalk Width
0
1
2 Miles
Average Sidewalk Width
30.0
CHANGING PATTERNS
Street Tree Coverage RATE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS Compare to Number of Street Trees
RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Number of Street Trees
0.050%
0.800% 0.700% 0.600%
Rate of Accidents
Rate of Accidents
0.040%
0.030%
0.020%
0.500% 0.400% 0.300% 0.200%
0.010%
0.100% 0.000%
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
0.000%
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Number of Street Trees Per Cell
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Number of Street Trees Per Cell
RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Number of Street Trees 0.800% 0.700%
Rate of Accidents
0.600% 0.500% 0.400% 0.300% 0.200% 0.100% 0.000%
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
Number of Street Trees Per Cell
0
1
2 Miles
Total Street Tree Count
20.0
CHANGING PATTERNS
Street Light Coverage RATE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS Compared to Street Light Density
RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Street Light Density
0.050%
0.300% 0.250%
Rate of Accidents
Rate of Accidents
0.040%
0.030%
0.020%
0.200% 0.150% 0.100%
0.010%
0.050%
0.000%
0.000% 0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Number of Street Lights Per Cell
Number of Street LIghts Per Cell
RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Street Light Density 0.300%
Rate of Accidents
0.250% 0.200% 0.150% 0.100% 0.050% 0.000%
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Number of Street Lights Per Cell
0
1
2 Miles
Total Street Light Count
CHANGING PATTERNS
Traffic Signal Coverage RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Traffic Signal Density
0.050%
0.300%
0.040%
0.250%
Rate of Accidents
Rate of Accidents
RATE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS Compared to Traffic Signal Density
0.030%
0.020%
0.010%
0.000%
0.200% 0.150% 0.100% 0.050%
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0.000%
0.0
1.0
2.0
Number of Traffic Signals Per Cell
3.0
Number of Traffic Signals Per Cell
RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Traffic Signal Density 0.300%
Rate of Accidents
0.250% 0.200% 0.150% 0.100% 0.050% 0.000%
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Number of Traffic Signals Per Cell
Total Traffic Light Count 0
1
2 Miles
4.0
CHANGING PATTERNS
Intersection Density (Block Size) RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Density of Intersections
0.050%
0.300%
0.040%
0.250%
Rate of Accidents
Rate of Accidents
RATE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS compared to Density of Intersections
0.030%
0.020%
0.010%
0.000%
0.200% 0.150% 0.100% 0.050% 0.000%
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Number of Intersections Per Cell
Number of Intersections Per Cell
RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Density of Intersections 0.300%
Rate of Accidents
0.250% 0.200% 0.150% 0.100% 0.050% 0.000%
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Number of Intersections Per Cell
0
1
2 Miles
Total Intersection Count
25.0
CHANGING PATTERNS
Bike Facility Type RATE OF BIKE ACCIDENTS Compared to Facility Type 0.300%
Rate of Accidents
0.250% 0.200% 0.150% 0.100% 0.050% 0.000%
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Bike Facility Type
Bike Lane Type
0
1
2 Miles
SO, WHAT DID WE LEARN?
There is a Strong Relationship between the Rates of Pedestrian Accidents and the Urban Design Patterns that we Studied. Bikes... Not So Much.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
Accidents
Pedestrian Accidents in Boston
Pedestrian Density
:
=
Area with Higher Rate of Pedestrian Accidents
Accident Rates
0
1
2 Miles
Std. Dev. Accident Rates
So What Does this Look Like?
So What Does this Look Like? Mattapan | Average Street Width
South End | Average Street Width
Mattapan | Average Sidewalk Width
South End | Average Sidewalk Width
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
So What Does this Look Like?
TAKE AWAY
Urban Design Does Matter Narrower streets that have a smaller foot print for vehicular traffic are safer for pedestrians than wider street. The wider sidewalks and smaller block sizes significantly decrease the rates of accidents per person. Higher concentrations of street trees led to fewer pedestrian and bike accidents. Wider ROW widths do not make safer streets. Presence of street lights increase pedestrian safety.
Limitations 1) We only had access to a sampling of pedestrian and bike density and therefore had to interpolate across the city. 2) The built environment is massivley complex and we only analyzed eight overall patterns. 3) We did not run a regression model to develope correlations 4) No accounting for social or economic factors within this research 5) Limited field verification
Next Steps 1) Build a more robust spatial data set including 3-Dimensional qualities 2) Obtain more accurate bike count information 3) Run a statistical regression model 4) Accounting for difference in Socio-economic conditions throughout the various neighborhoods 5) Field verification of high rate cells
URBAN DESIGN DOES
MATTER
THANK YOU!