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