Modeling of Alternatives During Long-Range Transportation Plan Development

1. Modeling of Alternatives During Long-Range Transportation Plan Development Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to11th TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference, May 2007, Daytona Beach presented byRobert G. Schiffer, AICPCambridge Systematics, Inc. May 7, 2007

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) Set Goals, Objectives, Evaluation Criteria Forecast Future Conditions Develop Needs PlanAlternatives Develop Needs Plan Determine Financial Resources Develop Cost Feasible Plan Adopt and Document LRTP Public Workshops Public Workshops Public Workshops Public Hearing LRTP Steering Committee

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

5. LRTP Scenarios (continued) • Modal examples • Broward County, FL – Maximum highway versusmaximum 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. CRTPA Existing and Enhanced Systems Alternative (Highway & Transit Maps) CRTPA New and Future Systems Alternative (Highway & Transit Maps) LRTP Scenarios (continued)

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)

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 Development of Future Year Travel Demand Forecasts Identify Future Year Congestion Areas Testing of Alternative Scenarios Testing of Blended Scenario(s) 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 LRTP Performance Measures

12. Scenario Evaluation (continued) • VMT and VHT by study area(highway versus transit emphasis) VMT and VHT in Millions Note: Most highway and transit friendly scenarios selected for above comparison.

13. Scenario Evaluation (continued) • VMT and VHT by study area(existing versus new highways) VMT and VHT in Millions Note: Comparison between emphasis on existing versus new highways.

14. Scenario Evaluation (continued) • 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 Note: Trip table adjustments made to reflect a) doubling transit, b) land use intensification, and c) parking fees.

15. Scenario Evaluation (continued) • Other example measures • Transit ridership Broward 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Transit Ridership Model Year Base Year-2000 60,748 74,444 2030 E+C 83,087 2030 Max Highway 104,880 2030 Max Transit 2030 Needs Plan 93,658 80,005 2030 Transit Land Use Alt. 2030 Cost Feasible Plan 115,475 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Transit Trips (in Thousands) FCMPO 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Transit Ridership Model Year 20,823 Base Year-2000 2005 17,550 2015 30,206 42,065 2025 19,342 2030 E+C 2030 Highway Emphasis 53,382 2030 Transit Emphasis 80,850 85,871 2030 Alternative Land Use Needs 2030 Adopted Needs 86,239 2030 Cost Feasible 43,730 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 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 Speeds Model Year Base Year-2000 37.8 2030 E+C 31.94 2030 Max Highway 35.27 2030 Max Transit 34.05 2030 Needs Plan 35.22 2030 Transit Land Use Alt. 34.21 2030 Cost Feasible Plan 33.75 25 30 35 40 Miles per Hour FCMPO 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Congested Speeds Model Year 28.03 Base Year-2000 25.70 2005 26.03 2015 25.29 2025 20.22 2030 E+C 26.67 2030 Highway Emphasis 25.97 2030 Transit Emphasis 27.56 2030 Alternative Land Use Needs 27.53 2030 Adopted Needs 25.39 2030 Cost Feasible 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Miles per Hour

18. Scenario Evaluation (continued) • Other example measures • Vehicle-hours delay Broward 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Vehicle-Hours Delay Model Year 110 Base Year-2000 697 2030 E+C 362 2030 Max Highway 2030 Max Transit 416 356 2030 Needs Plan 403 2030 Transit Land Use Alt. 2030 Cost Feasible Plan 456 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Vehicle-Hours Delay (in Thousands) FCMPO 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Vehicle-Hours Delay Model Year 476 Base Year-2000 2005 781 2015 778 2025 937 2030 E+C 2,043 2030 Highway Emphasis 753 2030 Transit Emphasis 836 2030 Alternative Land Use Needs 683 2030 Adopted Needs 679 2030 Cost Feasible 961 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 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