transportation leadership you can trust. presented to 11 th trb transportation planning applications...
TRANSCRIPT
Transportation leadership you can trust.
presented topresented to
1111thth TRB Transportation Planning Applications TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference, May 2007, Daytona BeachConference, May 2007, Daytona Beach
presented bypresented by
Robert G. Schiffer, AICPRobert G. Schiffer, AICPCambridge Systematics, Inc.Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
May 7, 2007 May 7, 2007
Modeling of Alternatives During Long-Range Transportation Plan Development
2
Presentation Overview
Typical LRTP Process
LRTP Scenarios
Scenario Evaluation
Resulting LRTPs
Conclusions
3
Typical LRTP Process
Model development and validation(might be separate contract)
Plan update (see below)
Public Public WorkshopsWorkshops
Public Public WorkshopsWorkshops
Public Public WorkshopsWorkshops
Public Public HearingHearing
LRTP Steering CommitteeLRTP Steering Committee
Set Goals, Objectives, Evaluation
Criteria
Develop Needs Plan
Alternatives
Develop Needs Plan
Determine Financial
Resources
Develop Cost Feasible Plan
Adopt and Document
LRTP
Forecast Future
Conditions
4
LRTP Scenarios
Transportation Needs Scenarios test alternate highway and transit strategies
Land Use Scenarios test alternative growth strategies
Transportation and Land Use Scenarios can be tested concurrently or integrated simultaneously
Cost Feasible Plan Scenarios can also be structured to look at the impacts of varying financing strategies
Development PatternDevelopment Pattern
ExistingExisting FocusedFocused
2030 Growth Forecast
HighHigh(120 percent)(120 percent) High growth/existing patternHigh growth/existing pattern High growth/focused patternHigh growth/focused pattern
Moderate Moderate (30 percent)(30 percent) Moderate growth/existing patternModerate growth/existing pattern Moderate growth/focused patternModerate growth/focused pattern
5
LRTP Scenarios (continued)
Modal examples• Broward County, FL – Maximum highway versus
maximum transit(polar opposites with minimal modal blending)
• First Coast MPO, FL – Highway versus transit emphasis (alternative blends with mode-based focal points)
Existing versus new corridor/technology examples• Capital Region, FL – Enhanced and existing systems versus
new and future systems (relates both to highway and transit)• Polk County, FL – Existing emphasis versus new emphasis (new
highways versus investing in improving existing highways)• Chattanooga, TN/GA – Emphasis on upgrades versus new
location roadways; interstate widening versus HOV lanes (similar to Polk with subsets related to interstate projects)
6
LRTP Scenarios (continued)
CRTPA Existing and Enhanced Systems Alternative (Highway & Transit Maps)
CRTPA New and Future Systems Alternative (Highway & Transit Maps)
7
LRTP Scenarios (continued)
Policy examples
• Atlanta, GA – Transit emphasis versus land use emphasis versus congestion pricing (research-based “sketch modeling”)
Combined transportation/land use examples
• DeKalb County, GA (three network and four land usescenarios below)
Growth/Development AssumptionsGrowth/Development Assumptions
Network ScenarioNetwork Scenario
TrendsTrends New VisionsNew Visions ComprehensiveComprehensive
Moderate growth/existing patternModerate growth/existing pattern (Alt. E)(Alt. E) (Alt. A)(Alt. A)
Moderate growth/focused patternModerate growth/focused pattern (Alt. G)(Alt. G) (Alt. B)(Alt. B)
High growth/existing patternHigh growth/existing pattern (Alt. F)(Alt. F) (Alt. C)(Alt. C)
High growth/focused patternHigh growth/focused pattern (Alt. H)(Alt. H) (Alt. D)(Alt. D)
8
LRTP Scenarios (continued)
End result is blendedscenario
• Best performing projects from earlier scenarios
• Projects with best stakeholder response
• Equates to Draft Needs Plan/Needs Assessment
• Fine tuning of projects prior to adoption/concurrence
Identify Future Year Congestion Areas
Testing of Blended Scenario(s)
Testing of Alternative Scenarios
Development of Future Year Travel Demand Forecasts
Fine-Tuning of Blended Scenario(s)
Final
Needs Plan
9
Scenario Evaluation
Identify performance measures
Compare system performance
Stakeholder input
Scenario refinement
Adoption/concurrence
10
Scenario Evaluation (continued)
Some typical performance measures
• Vehicle-miles traveled
• Vehicle-hours traveled
• Volume/capacity ratios
• Mode split
• Transit ridership
• Vehicle-trips by mode
• Congested speed
• Roadway level-of-service
• Vehicle-hours of delay
• Fuel consumption
• Average travel time
11
Scenario Evaluation (continued)
Performance measures by study area
Study Area
VMT
VHT
V/C
LOSModeSplit
TransitRidership
Vehiclesby Mode
CongestedSpeed
Vehicle-Hours Delay
FuelConsumption
Average TravelTime
Atlanta Regional Commission X X X X
Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale), FL X X X X X X
Capital Region (Tallahassee), FL X X X X X X
Chattanooga, TN-North Georgia X X X
Collier County (Naples), FL X X X X
DeKalb County (Decatur), GA X X X X X X X
First Coast (Jacksonville), FL X X X X X X
Polk County (Lakeland), FL X X X X X X
LRTP Performance Measures
12
Scenario Evaluation (continued)
VMT and VHT by study area(highway versus transit emphasis)
Study AreaStudy Area
Base YearBase Year Future Year E+CFuture Year E+CFuture Year Future Year
HighwayHighwayFuture Year Future Year
TransitTransit
VMTVMT VHTVHT VMTVMT VHTVHT VMTVMT VHTVHT VMTVMT VHTVHT
Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale), FLBroward County (Ft. Lauderdale), FL 34.034.0 0.80.8 51.751.7 1.81.8 52.252.2 1.41.4 52.252.2 1.51.5
Capital Region (Tallahassee), FLCapital Region (Tallahassee), FL 9.19.1 0.30.3 13.713.7 0.50.5 13.613.6 0.40.4 13.613.6 0.40.4
DeKalb County (Decatur), GADeKalb County (Decatur), GA 19.119.1 0.50.5 24.324.3 1.01.0 24.024.0 0.70.7 24.124.1 0.80.8
First Coast (Jacksonville), FLFirst Coast (Jacksonville), FL 32.132.1 1.31.3 54.954.9 3.53.5 55.455.4 2.22.2 55.355.3 2.32.3
Note: Most highway and transit friendly scenarios selected for above comparison.
VMT and VHT in Millions
13
Scenario Evaluation (continued)
VMT and VHT by study area(existing versus new highways)
Study Area
Base Year Future Year E+C Future Year Exist Future Year New
VMT VHT VMT VHT VMT VHT VMT VHT
Capital Region (Tallahassee), FL 9.1 0.3 13.7 0.5 13.6 0.4 13.6 0.4
Chattanooga, TN-North Georgia 10.8 0.3 17.0 0.6 16.9 0.6 17.1 0.5
Collier County (Naples), FL 17.4 0.5 42.1 2.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Polk County (Lakeland), FL 12.9 0.3 23.4 1.0 23.2 0.6 23.3 0.6
Note: Comparison between emphasis on existing versus new highways.
VMT and VHT in Millions
14
Scenario Evaluation (continued)
Study AreaStudy Area
2030 Needs Plan2030 Needs Plan 2030 Transit2030 Transit 2030 Land Use2030 Land Use 2030 Congestion Pricing2030 Congestion Pricing
VMTVMT VHTVHT VMTVMT VHTVHT VMTVMT VHTVHT VMTVMT VHTVHT
Atlanta Regional CommissionAtlanta Regional Commission 185.9185.9 8.68.6 178.0178.0 7.77.7 178.6178.6 7.97.9 183.1183.1 8.08.0
Note: Trip table adjustments made to reflect a) doubling transit, b) land use intensification, and c) parking fees.
VMT and VHT for ARC (sketch modeling scenarios)• Research conducted on potential trip reductions
• Adjustments applied to 2030 trip tables based on research− Transit – doubling transit in areas currently served by transit
− Land Use – short- and long-distance trips reduced with LU density
− Congestion Pricing – assumes shift in travel periods with pricing
VMT and VHT in Millions
15
Scenario Evaluation (continued)
Other example measures
• Transit ridershipBroward 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Transit RidershipBroward 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Transit Ridership
115,475115,475
80,00580,005
93,65893,658
104,880104,880
83,08783,087
74,44474,444
60,74860,748
00 1010 2020 3030 4040 5050 6060 7070 8080 9090 100100 110110 120120 130130
2030 Cost Feasible Plan2030 Cost Feasible Plan
2030 Transit Land Use Alt.2030 Transit Land Use Alt.
2030 Needs Plan2030 Needs Plan
2030 Max Transit2030 Max Transit
2030 Max Highway2030 Max Highway
2030 E+C2030 E+C
Base Year-2000Base Year-2000
Model YearModel Year
Transit Trips (in Thousands)Transit Trips (in Thousands)
FCMPO 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Transit RidershipFCMPO 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Transit Ridership
Model YearModel Year
43,73043,73086,23986,23985,87185,871
80,85080,85053,38253,382
19,34219,34242,06542,065
30,20630,20617,55017,550
20,82320,823
00 1010 2020 3030 4040 5050 6060 7070 8080 9090 100100
2030 Cost Feasible2030 Cost Feasible2030 Adopted Needs2030 Adopted Needs
2030 Alternative Land Use Needs2030 Alternative Land Use Needs2030 Transit Emphasis2030 Transit Emphasis
2030 Highway Emphasis2030 Highway Emphasis2030 E+C2030 E+C
202520252015201520052005
Base Year-2000Base Year-2000
Transit Trips (in Thousands)Transit Trips (in Thousands)
16
Scenario Evaluation (continued)
Other example measures
• Transit ridership (First Coast alternative land use scenario – intensified land use densities along proposed rapid transit corridors)
17
Scenario Evaluation (continued)
Other example measures
• Congested speed
Broward 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Congested SpeedsBroward 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Congested Speeds
33.7533.75
34.2134.21
35.2235.22
34.0534.05
35.2735.27
31.9431.94
37.837.8
2525 3030 3535 4040
2030 Cost Feasible Plan2030 Cost Feasible Plan
2030 Transit Land Use Alt.2030 Transit Land Use Alt.
2030 Needs Plan2030 Needs Plan
2030 Max Transit2030 Max Transit
2030 Max Highway2030 Max Highway
2030 E+C2030 E+C
Base Year-2000Base Year-2000
Model YearModel Year
Miles per HourMiles per Hour
FCMPO 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Congested SpeedsFCMPO 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Congested Speeds
25.3925.39
27.5327.53
27.5627.56
25.9725.97
26.6726.67
20.2220.22
25.2925.29
26.0326.03
25.7025.70
28.0328.03
00 55 1010 1515 2020 2525 3030
2030 Cost Feasible2030 Cost Feasible2030 Adopted Needs2030 Adopted Needs
2030 Alternative Land Use Needs2030 Alternative Land Use Needs
2030 Transit Emphasis2030 Transit Emphasis
2030 Highway Emphasis2030 Highway Emphasis
2030 E+C2030 E+C
20252025
20152015
20052005
Base Year-2000Base Year-2000
Model YearModel Year
Miles per HourMiles per Hour
18
Scenario Evaluation (continued)
Other example measures
• Vehicle-hours delayBroward 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Vehicle-Hours Delay
456
403
356
416
362
697
110
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
2030 Cost Feasible Plan
2030 Transit Land Use Alt.
2030 Needs Plan
2030 Max Transit
2030 Max Highway
2030 E+C
Base Year-2000
Model Year
Vehicle-Hours Delay (in Thousands)
FCMPO 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Vehicle-Hours Delay
961
679
683
836
753
2,043
937
778
781
476
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200
2030 Cost Feasible
2030 Adopted Needs
2030 Alternative Land Use Needs
2030 Transit Emphasis
2030 Highway Emphasis
2030 E+C
2025
2015
2005
Base Year-2000
Model Year
Vehicle-Hours Delay (in Thousands)
19
Scenario Evaluation (Continued)
Other example measures:
• Roadway LOS
20
Resulting LRTPs
Scenario testing impacted blend of projects in both Needs Plans and Cost Feasible Plans (6 examples)• Broward County
− LRTP focused largely on transit BRT grid− County is nearing buildout and is looking to redevelopment− Most significant highway projects have huge price tags
• Capital Region− LRTP proposes to significantly improve transit headways− North-south and east-west BRT systems partially funded− Connecting highways to surrounding areas also funded
• Chattanooga Region− LRTP includes special use lanes (HOV/truck) on interstates− Outer beltway also included for further study− Focus on continued successful redevelopment of CBD area
21
Resulting LRTPs (continued)
Scenario testing impacted blend of projects in both Needs Plans and Cost Feasible Plans (6 examples)• DeKalb County
− CTP recommends land use pattern focused on activity centers− CTP similar to comprehensive network (most projects remain);
Some transit projects added and roadway projects deleted
• First Coast− LRTP includes partial funding of planned rapid transit system− Significant investment to interstate enhancements (freight)− Planned outer beltway with possible Turnpike funding
• Polk County− LRTP includes transit ITS corridor demonstration project− Funding focused more on existing corridors and other modes− Several proposed new corridors to be evaluated for toll potential
22
Resulting LRTPs (continued)
First Coast MPO 2030 Multi-Modal Cost Feasible Plan
23
Conclusions
VMT and VHT will grow dramatically through the year 2030
Future year changes to VMT are generally impervious to transportation system improvements (only about 1 percent increase or reduction when compared with E+C scenarios)
VHT can be significantly reduced with transportation system improvements (highway alternatives slightlymore effective than transit-focused alternatives)
VMT can be impacted more significantly by substantially reducing the number of auto trips over other scenarios
24
Conclusions (Cont’d)
Alternative model scenarios should reflect clearly distinctive strategies
In particular, land use scenarios must be very different to affect a significant change in transportation needs
Model sensitivity tests using carefully selected packages of transportation and land use strategies increase transit ridership and congested speeds, and reduce delay
These case studies support the recommendation of balanced multimodal LRTPs
25
Questions and Comments