UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER 3 rd International Conference on Roundabouts...

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONTTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER

3rd International Conference on Roundabouts

NATHAN P. BELZ, M.S., E.I. University of Vermont, Transportation Research CenterBurlington, VT 05405-1757Phone: (802) 656-5539Email: [email protected]

LISA AULTMAN-HALL, Ph.D.University of Vermont, Transportation Research CenterBurlington, VT 05405-1757Phone: (802) 656-1312Email: [email protected]

Paper #IRC-0034 May 18, 2011

ROUNDABOUT OPPOSITION AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENTExploring Trends in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont


2BACKGROUND

Roundabouts have many benefits over conventional intersections, yet public and political challenges to implementation still exist in the United States

Right-of-way

Cost

Accommodation(safety vehicles)

Technical Constraint

s

Public Opposition

?


3BACKGROUND

Negative experiences with traffic circles

Inability to discern between traffic circles,

rotaries and roundabouts

Stigma surrounding roundabouts

OPPOSITION Lack of exposure

Loss of a familiar landscape

Hesitance towards change


4BACKGROUND

How do we deal with the issue of public acceptance? (Elephant in the room… )

Need a better understanding of

1. Factors contributing opposition2. Community types


5BACKGROUND

Behaviors and attitudes of individuals within a local area have a strong influence on the types of changes that occur within their neighborhoods.

There exists a relationship between design and behavior which will dictate the future environment of that neighborhood.

Neighborhood Design Residents’ Behavior

Large body of research on how urban form affects transportation use.


6BACKGROUND

A LOT of questions:

1. Why do some things take off and others do not? (social construction component)

2. Why are some states building numerous roundabouts and not others?

3. Why do some communities embrace the conversion of standard intersections to roundabouts and others do not?

Transportation System

Neighborhood Characteristics

Differential Success

Space Time


7OBJECTIVES

Explore spatial relationships between rejected roundabouts and the following factors:

DEMOGRAPHICS

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

PUBLIC ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR

TRANSPORTATION


8REASEARCH QUESTIONS

Research Questions:

1. Which variables affect the probability of roundabout rejection

2. What role do certain attitudes and landscape patterns play in roundabout rejections

A better understanding of the types of communities where roundabouts have been well received is essential in order to

a) Better allocate resources and efforts for public education and outreachb) Select new sites for roundabouts that are likely to have minimal opposition


9DATA

DATA

1. Built environment and transportation variablesa. National Land Cover Database (NLCD)b. Nielson Database of Business Locationsc. Road Link Network

i. AADTii. Intersection Densityiii. Average Block Length

2. Demographic variablesa. US Census Bureau Block Group Data

i. Population Density (SF1)ii. Housing Density (SF1)iii. Income (SF3)iv. Education (SF3)v. Age (SF1)


10DATA

DATA (cont.)

3. Public attitudes, perceptions and behavioral variablesa. New England Transportation Institute Survey

i. Importance of a walkable neighborhoodii. Feel that their own neighborhood is walkableiii. Own emissions contribute to climate changeiv. Feel biking is dangerousv. Self-reported residential location

4. Roundabout/traffic circle location and attributes


11METHODS

AUGUSTABURLINGTON

MANCHESTER

MONTPELIER

CONCORD


12METHODS

New England Transportation Survey Points

(N= 3557)

Business Points(N=187216)

BURLINGTON

MONTPELIER AUGUSTA

CONCORD


13METHODS

GIS generation of spatial variables for regression model

Demographics

Attitudes and Perceptions

Transportation

Roundabouts

Land Use


14METHODS

By Point:

1. Attitudes2. Demographics

By Service Area:

3. Transportation4. Land use


METHODS 15

Emissions Attitude Biking AttitudeWalkability Attitude

Kriging NETS data


METHODS 16

Area Type

Kriging NETS data

Moran’s I = 0.637


17DATA

TABLE 1 General roundabout variables

Variable Description Unitsrndtb_acc Dummy variable for accepted roundabout binary (0, 1)rndtb_rej Dummy variable for rejected roundabout binary (0, 1)

state_me Dummy variable for roundabout in State of Maine binary (0, 1)state_nh Dummy variable for roundabout in State of New Hampshire binary (0, 1)state_vt Dummy variable for roundabout in State of Vermont binary (0, 1)

owner_priv Dummy variable for privately owned roundabout binary (0, 1)owner_city Dummy variable for city owned roundabout binary (0, 1)owner_state Dummy variable for state owned roundabout binary (0, 1)

num_years Elapsed time since first roundabout in state # of yearsnum_lanes Number of lanes in the roundabout # of lanescirc_dist Distance to nearest traffic circle miles


18DATA

TABLE 2 Transportation and built environment variables

Variable Description Unitsbus_dens Business density in the roundabout service

area# of businesses per acre

dev_low Amount of low intensity development in the roundabout service area

percent of total service area

dev_med Amount of medium intensity development in roundabout service area


dev_high Amount of high intensity development in roundabout service area


int_dens Intersection density in the roundabout service area

# of intersections per square-mi

avg_block Average block length in the roundabout service area

miles

avg_AADT Average AADT within the service area (for road links with AADT data)

# of vehicles per day


19DATA

TABLE 3 Demographic variables

Variable Description Unitspop_dens Population density of the block group in

which roundabout is located# of persons per square-mile

pop_var Variation (standard deviation) in population density of block group in which roundabout is located

# of persons per square-mile

inc_avg Average household income of group in which roundabout is located

dollars (in thousands)

educ_hs High school education level of block group in which roundabout is located

percent complete

educ_bach College education level of block group in which roundabout is located

percent complete

age_avg Average age of residents of block group in which roundabout is located

years

age_var Age variation (standard deviation) of residents of block group in which roundabout is located

years


20DATA

TABLE 4 Transportation and built environment variables

Variable Description Unitswalk_imp Importance of a walkable neighborhood importance scale: 1 to 7

walk_percep Perceived walkability of neighborhood agreement scale: 1 to 7

emiss_percep Perceived emissions contribution to climate change from personal vehicle

agreement scale: 1 to 7

bike_percep Perceived safety of biking


car_user Perception of whether respondent deems his/herself a dedicated car user


loc_percep Perceived residential location type city (1) to rural (5)


RESULTS 21

Variable Mean Std. Deviation t-stat sig.

Emissions Attitude3.3 0.002Existing 5.6 0.36

Rejected 5.2 0.49

Biking Attitude3.9 0.000Existing 3.8 0.39

Rejected 3.3 0.47

Walkability Attitude3.5 0.001Existing 6.3 0.37

Rejected 6.0 0.40

Area Type Perception-2.3 0.012Existing 3.3 0.79

Rejected 3.7 0.66

Business Density (half-mile)2.4 0.020Existing 419.6 231.3

Rejected 260.2 293.9

Intersection Density (quarter-mile)*-2.5 0.015Existing 144.7 125.5

Rejected 235.1 160.2

Average Block Length (one-mile)*-2.3 0.021Existing 392.6 103.4

Rejected 455.4 111.2N(exist) = 42, N(rej) = 28

* Indicates significant correlation


RESULTS 22

-2 Log Likelihood = 39.667MODEL 1


RESULTS 23

-2 Log Likelihood = 43.291MODEL 2


CONCLUSIONS 24

a. areas where biking is felt to be (more) dangerousb. areas more aware of emissions contributionsc. areas that are perceived to be more walkable

Lower intersection density and rural

areas are more likely to be opposed to

roundabouts

Higher business densities indicate

acceptance of roundabout is more

likely

Small changes in attitude result in large changes in

likelihood of roundabout rejection

ATTITUDES (a. b. c.)

CHANGE


FUTURE and CONTINUING WORK 25

Model Refinement

Development of “Opposition Index”

“Big Picture” Policy Take-Away


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 26

Collaboration with: Dr. Brian LeeAssistant Professor, UVM SoE

James Sullivan, P.E.Research Engineer, UVM TRC

Data and Information from: Vermont Agency of TransportationMaine Department of TransportationNew Hampshire Department of TransportationNew England Transportation Institute

Several RPCs and MPOs

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER 3 rd International Conference on Roundabouts...

Documents

Transcript of UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER 3 rd International Conference on Roundabouts...