Evaluation criteria for road networks in residential areas

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.