Abstract
The objective of this study is to identify evaluation criteria for evaluating residential area road networks. To this end, existing studies regarding urban plan paradigms, neighborhood road network designs and road network evaluation criteria are reviewed, leading to the selection through first and second expert questionnaire surveys of 42 road network evaluation criteria. The road network evaluation criteria were divided into interregional road networks and regional road networks. To derive the evaluation criteria, the former were divided into motorways (main roads and auxiliary main roads) and public transportation, while the latter were divided into motorways (distributed roads, local roads), pedestrian ways and bicycle ways. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis of the weighted values of the evaluation criteria revealed the regional road networks to be more important than the interregional road networks, and the eco-friendly transportation networks such as pedestrian ways and bicycle ways to be more important than others. The road network evaluation criteria were divided into quantitative and qualitative indicators, and the methods for their scoring were presented by considering the characteristics of each evaluation criterion. Finally, the practicality of these evaluation criteria was investigated with a case study that examined a residential area redevelopment project of the “Jeonnong · dapshim-ri rearrangement promotion”. In the evaluation of the road networks before and after implementation of the development project, the evaluation scores of the interregional road networks did not show any significant differences, while the evaluation scores of regional road networks did. This result indicated that the conditions of the regional road networks, including motorways (distributed roads, local roads), were considerably improved by the case region development project.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
CAMPO (2009). CAMPO bicycle and pedestrian subcommittee meeting summary, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.
David, M., Len, A. S., and Goins, J. D. (2000). Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) guidelines, Division of Highways North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Eva, L., Stephen, P. C., Gary, W. H., Chester, C., and Sherry, R. (1992). “Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Design and Its Implications for Traffic Engineering.” ITE Journal Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 17–25.
Federal Highway Administration (2003). Accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel: A recommended approach,. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Federal Highway Administration (2008). Design guidance accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel: A recommended approach, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Haiyan, C., Beisi, J., and Lau, S. S. Y. (2008). “Sustainable urban form for Chinese compact cities: Challenges of a rapid urbanized economy.” Habitat International, Vol. 32,Issue 1, pp. 28–40.
James, E., Carolyn, C., and Philip, B. (2003). “Reliability and validity of two instruments designed to assess the walking and bicycling suitability of sidewalks and roads.” American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol 18, No. 1, pp. 38–46.
Jin, J. W. (1998). “A study on evaluation indices of transportation environment for the residential streets are interacted by vehicle and pedestrian traffic streams.” Korean Society of Transportation, Vol 16, No. 3, p. 169.
KDI (2008). Study to revise/supplement the standard guidelines for preliminary feasibility surveys in the areas of roads · railroads (5th edition), Korea Development Institute.
Larry, R. F. (1999). “New urbanism and theories of good city form.” Cities, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 247–257.
Lindsey, L., Mark, S., and Shinpei, T. (2008). How livable street design can bring economic, health and quality-of-life benefits to New York City, Transportation Alternatives.
Michael, B. (1995). “The compact city and transport energy consumption.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 81–101.
Michael, S. (2005). “Designing the Walkable City.” Journal of urban planning and development, Vol. 131, No. 4, pp. 246–257.
MLTM (2001). Korean highway capacity manual, Ministry of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs.
MLTM (2009). Regulations regarding the structures facilities of roads, Ministry of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs.
Peter Gorden and Harry W. Richardson (1997). “Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?.” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 95–106.
Robert, C. and Jennifer, D. (2008). “Suburbanization and transitoriented development in china.” Transport Policy, Vol. 15,Issue 5, pp. 315–323.
Ronni, D. (2006). “Mass rapid rail development in South Africa’s metropolitan core: Towards a new urban form.” Land Use Policy, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 344–352.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic hierarchy process, McGraw-Hill.
Scott, A., Washburn, K. R., and Douglas, S. M. (2004). “Quality-of-service perceptions by rural freeway travelers.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1883, pp. 132–139.
Sheila, S. (2003). Qualitative evaluation of comfort needs in urban walkways in major activity centers, TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM.
Steven, A. G., Jose, A. F., and Glenn, E. M. (2006). “A multiobjective optimization approach to smart growth in land development.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 40,Issue 3, pp. 212–248.
Susan, L. H. (1992). “Regional versus local accessibility: neo-traditional development and its implications for non-work travel.” Built Environment, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 253–267.
Todd, L., Robin, B., Bill, D., Nils, E., Anne, F., Danelle, L., Heath, M., and Katherine, F. (2009). Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Guide to Best Practices, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ha, O., Park, D., Lee, K. et al. Evaluation criteria for road networks in residential areas. KSCE J Civ Eng 15, 1273–1284 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-011-1278-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-011-1278-6