statewide transportation strategy for ghg reduction · 9/25/2018  · are all electric or natural...

Tara Weidner, P.E.Transportation Planning Analysis Unit, Oregon DOT

VisionEval Peer Exchange, September 25, 2018

Statewide Transportation Strategy for GHG reduction

2018 Monitoring Report

Statewide Transportation Strategy (STS)

Required by Legislation to Reduce Transportation GHG What will it take by 2050? Ground, Freight, and Air

(SB1059, HB2001)

STS 2050 Visioning ProcessMovement of People on the Ground

(Light-Duty Vehicles)

ComboIncludes all assumptions

Urban UGB expansion Transit service (4x pop. growth)

TDM (65% PDX hh & 40% of employers)

Parking pricing (+30% pay to park)

30% mode shift (for trips of <6 mi.)

Tech 30% mode shift (for trips of <6 mi.)

PHEV & EV (+30%)

Renewable energy Fuel carbon intensity (-20%)

Light truck ownership (-29%-36%)

System Optimization Transit service (4x pop. growth)

Max System Ops & Mgmt. Fuel efficiency priority (80% hh)

Carsharing rates up: high density (1/2,500), medium density (1/5,000)

TDM (65% PDX hh & 45% employers; more telecom.)

Speed smoothing 30% mode shift (for trips of <6 mi.)

Pricing 100% PAYD insurance Parking pricing (+30% pay to park)

Pay for all external costs (+$0.06 per mi)

Congestion pricing ($.20/mi)

Enhanced Combo

40% mode shift from SOV trips of <6 mi (was 30%)

More pay for parking and at higher cost

Ave. vehicle age 7.8 yrs (was 10 yrs)

Increase in PHEV and EV (43%)

Increase in TDM

Commercial services vehicles are all electric or natural gas

Enhanced + Price

$0.15 per mile VMT Tax in addition to other taxes (~$0.06 per mile)

Enhanced + Tech

Cleaner power generation

Increase PHEV & EV (53%)

EVs have longer range (cars = 300 mi)

-49%

-46%

-43%

-45%

-63%

-69%-74%

-75%

2013 STS Report• Transportation is 30% of GHG in Oregon• STS Vision achieves, 60% fewer GHG

emissions than 1990 (~80% per capita)

4

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1990 2010 2050 CurrentTrends

2050 STS Vision 2050 Goal

Mill

ion

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e

Ground Passenger & Commercial Service Freight Air Passenger

Land Use

Vehicle and Fuels

Systems and Operations

Pricing

Transportation Options

Strategies

STS Implementation

ODOT Efforts2013 Vision 2018 Monitoring Report (5-yr frequency)

2014 Implementation Plan

August 2018 OTC amendmentincorporate STS into the Oregon Transportation Plan

Assist MPO Scenario Planning

Including:

Scenario Planning

Oregon efforts to date: Statewide: STS and modal plans Required: Metro, Central Lane Voluntary: CAMPO, RVMPO Climate Action Plans (Bend, others)

Tools: GreenSTEP created for STS, RSPM-metropolitan Federal versions (EERPAT state, RPAT metropolitan)

VisionEval Common software framework National 3-year Pooled Fund

Pooled FundFHWA-Volpe

DOTs MPOs OR Las Vegas MD Atlanta WA Houston Ohio NC CAVisioneval.org

VisionEvalStrategic Planning Tools

quick, what-if, no network

micro-simulate Households &Vehicles

ActivityBased model Integrated

model

Sketch modeltools occupy a niche between…

…balancing rapid computation &

accurate representation

economy, land use& feedback

VisionEvalStrategic Planning Tools

quick, what-if, no network

micro-simulate Households &Vehicles

ActivityBased model Integrated

model

Sketch modeltools occupy a niche between…

…balancing rapid computation &

accurate representation

economy, land use& feedback

What would it take?

How?

Details?

S-T-O-RM Analysis Toolkit

Strategic Models can help with long-term visioning/

policymaking/funding/resilience analysis, but sacrifice detail.

Tactical Models use fixed assumptions (e.g. a single economy, fixed fuel prices)

to work out how to best implement allotted funding.

Monitoring should reflect observed (not modeled)

behavior

Operational Models help with short-term implementation details (e.g. signal timing).

Meeting Expectations?

STRATEGIC

("What would it take?")

TACTICAL

("How?")

OPERATIONAL

(Details)

MO

NIT

ORI

NG

& R

EPO

RTIN

G

(Mee

ting

expe

ctat

ions

?)

Vehicles/Fuels Outputs

Activity Based Model

Strategic PlanningStrategic Planning Model

Travel Demand Model

Land Use Model

Vehicles/Fuels Model

How Tools Fit Together

GHG FactorsQuantity of Travel Data

Tactical Planning

Monitoring

Land Use Tool

Operational Planning

OperationsModels

GHG Factors

LegendTools Data

CoreOptionalGaps

What would it take?

How? Details?

Meeting Expectations?

Validation Across Tools

57.9

50.1 48.2

42.0

MOVES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

LDV

"STo

ck"

MPG

LDV "Stock" MPG - Tool Comparison

GreenSTEP

LT Revenue Fcst

SR Revenue Fcst

DRAFT

Overall Progress Towards the STS Vision

Projected GHG Emissions

Light Duty Vehicle CO2e Percent Change from 1990

Percent Change in GHG Emissions from 1990

13

Potential range

UncertaintyResilience to outside forces

PopulationIncome Growth

Fuel Price Forecast Global Forces Population Economy/income Fuel price

Policy UncertaintyIndividual choices Vehicle purchases Enabling policies (e.g., bike/ped infr)

Emerging Technologies PHEV battery range, light truck option Shared mobility options

Program Effectiveness Low/Zero-emission vehicle programs Clean Fuels Program (CFP) EcoDrive programs

2015 Status: Restraining Forces

Lower gas pricesTighter budgets(2005$)

Plans & Trends vs. STS Vision Near Term Restraining Forces

2010 Future$4

$2

$0

2015 Status: Restraining Forces

Older cars15 yrs

10 yrs

5 yrs

More SUVs and trucks

2010 Future

Few no/low carbon vehicles yet

Plans & Trends vs. STS Vision Near Term Restraining Forces

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

Mill

ions

All Vehicles

Sales and Age impact on Vehicle MixPlans & Trends Scenario

Vehicle Sales Mix (Federal CAFÉ, ZEV/LEV)

ZEV

STS Scenario8-year Average Age12 year Average Age

87%

22%7%

70%

70%

10%

6%

14%

9%

9%

81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045Model Year of Vehicle Production

LDV-Auto-EVLDV-Auto-PHEVLDV-Auto-HEVLDV-Auto-ICE

1a. Sales Fleet Mix-STSHH Auto

2015 Status: Driving ForcesPlans & Trends vs. STS Vision

Near Term Driving Forces

Other Actions: Mostly on-track in near term, local adopted plans, HB2017, etc.

City/ County

ODOT

Other State Agencies

Market Forces

Population and Economic Growth

Ability to influence Transportation GHG EmissionsMixed Authorities

19

Parking $Land Use

Public TransportationBiking and Walking

Systems and OperationsCongestion Pricing

Clean FuelsVehicle Purchase Incentives

Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) programEV/alt fuel technology and price

Shared mobility optionsFuel price

Household characteristicsPopulation size

Income

Powerful Supports other actionsFunding for quality options

Urban(impact less trips)(often only enabling)

Direct(impacts every mile of emissions)

Road Cost Recovery (Gas Taxes, VMT fee)Social Cost Recovery (Carbon pricing)Congestion PricingPay-as-you-drive insurance

Transit serviceBiking Walking, personal electricsCar Sharing

Intelligent Transportation SystemsDemand Management programsDriving Efficiency educationParking coverage and feesRoad Growth

FuelsCommercial Fleets

Vehicle MixVehicle Fuel Economy (MPG)

UGB GrowthPopulation in Mixed Use areas

Gaps to reach STS VisionRelative Impact of remaining STS Strategies on Emissions (LDV) Reduction

PricingTransportation

Options

SystemOperations

Fuels

Vehicles

On Track

WorkersNonWork Trips

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

% C

over

ed b

y Pa

rkin

g Fe

e

Parking Coverage

Long Term vs. STS Vision Good News!Right track to 2020 and beyond, continue to monitor.

Example:LDV Fuel

Electricity

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

% C

over

ed b

y Pa

rkin

g Fe

eFuel Carbon Intensity

Vehicle-FuelsEV adoption (still small)EV Battery Range & CostElectric Carbon Intensity

State-Local ActionsLand Use

Mixed Use

Local ActionsRoad Growth

Parking Coverage

Plans & TrendSTS Vision

STS Monitoring Report Forecast

Long Term vs. STS Vision Capture Headwinds..Right track to 2020 and beyond, if trends continue.

Example:

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Car S

hare

Veh

icle

s

Car ShareLocal Actions

Car share TNCsBike/Ped Electrics

Car Manufacturer Actions:• Standard features

(dashboards, tires, etc.)• Adaptive Speed Control• Stop/Start Technology

(congestion)• CV/AV

Plans & TrendSTS Vision

STS Monitoring Report Forecast

Long Term vs. STS Vision More Effort Needed…Slightly off track in 2020, significant effort needed by 2050.

Example:Funding

Transit Service/BusesTravel Demand Programs

ITS Programs

Legislative ActionExtend Fed CAFÉ standards

ZEV ZEV IIClean Fuels CFP II

True Cost Pricing PAYD, OreGO

Carbon PricingCongestion Pricing

Parking Fees

Consumer ChoicesVehicle type, size, age

Home-basedWork-based

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

% P

artic

ipat

ion

Demand Management

Plans & TrendSTS Vision

STS Monitoring Report Forecast

Other ongoing GHG efforts

• Cities: – GHG ordinances– GHG Inventories– Climate Action Plans

• Multi-Sectors:– DOE/DEQ multi-sector GHG inventories– DOE Biennial Energy Report (Nov 2018)– Oregon Global Warming Commission reports

• Potential Funding: Oregon Carbon Pricing Billswould require lifecycle of tools

Questions?

2018 STS-Monitoring report:https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/STS-2018-Monitoring-Report.pdf

April OTC presentation: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Get-Involved/Pages/April-OTC-Materials.aspx

August OMUG presentation: https://www.oregonmodels.org/library