1 / 30

Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Considerations in RTP Modeling Jerry Walters, Fehr & Peers

CTC Work Group Meeting on RTP Guidelines June 28, 2007. Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Considerations in RTP Modeling Jerry Walters, Fehr & Peers. Land Use Transportation Nets Built Environment TDM. Vehicle Miles Vehicle Trips Vehicle Speeds. CO 2 Emissions Other GHG. Global Warming.

fayola
Download Presentation

Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Considerations in RTP Modeling Jerry Walters, Fehr & Peers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CTC Work Group Meeting on RTP Guidelines June 28, 2007 • Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Considerations in RTP Modeling • Jerry Walters, Fehr & Peers

  2. Land Use Transportation Nets Built Environment TDM Vehicle Miles Vehicle Trips Vehicle Speeds CO2 Emissions Other GHG Global Warming • Linkages between RTP and GHG Land Use and Transportation Policies

  3. Built Environment Vehicle Miles Vehicle Trips CO2 Emissions • Linkage 1. 4D Relationships between Travel and Built Environment Land Use and Transportation Policies

  4. Land Use Vehicle Miles Vehicle Trips CO2 Emissions • Linkage 2: • Induced Investment, Development, Travel Land Use and Transportation Policies

  5. Transportation Nets TDM Vehicle Miles Vehicle Trips Vehicle Speeds CO2 Emissions • Linkage 3: Mobility Return on Investment Land Use and Transportation Policies

  6. Linkage 1: 4D Relationships between Travel and Built Environment

  7. Variation in VMT compared to Trend Scenario

  8. Trip generation is directly related to D’s: • Densitydwellings, jobs per acre • Diversitymix of housing, jobs, retail • Designnetwork connectivity • Destinations regional accessibility • Distance to Transit rail proximity

  9. Density (jobs and dwellings per acre) • Shortens trip lengths • More walking/biking • Supports quality transit

  10. Diversity (mix of housing, jobs, retail) • Links trips, shortens distances • More walking/ biking • Allows shared parking

  11. Design (connectivity, walkability)

  12. Destinations (accessibility to regional activities) Development at infill or close-in locations reduces vehicle trips and miles

  13. Distance to Transit • Transit shares higher within ¼ mile and ½ mile of station

  14. 4D Elasticity Ranges Sources: National Syntheses, Twin Cities, Sacramento, Holtzclaw

  15. Land Use Clustering, Mixing, Traditional Neighborhood Design – All Reduce Travel • Why it matters: 55% to 65% of trips are less than 3 miles. Up to 80% are less than 5 miles.

  16. Shortcomings of Conventional Travel Models in Assessing Smart Growth • Primary use is to forecast long-distance auto travel on freeways and major roads • Secondary use is to forecast system-level transit use • Short-distance travel, local roads, non-motorized travel modes are not addressed in model validation

  17. Typical Model “Blind Spots” • Abstract consideration of distances between land uses within a given TAZ or among neighboring TAZ’s • Limited or no consideration intra-zonal or neighbor-zone transit connections Network in Model Network in Field

  18. Typical Model “Blind Spots” • Sidewalk completeness, route directness, block size generally not considered.

  19. Typical Model “Blind Spots” • Little consideration is given to spatial relationship between land uses within a given TAZ (density) • Interactions between different non-residential land uses (e.g. offices and restaurants) not well represented

  20. Potential Sources of Solutions • Assessment of Local Models and Tools for Analyzing Smart-Growth Strategies (Caltrans) • Urban Development, VMT and CO2 Emissions, (Smart Growth America) • Smart Growth INDEX(EPA) • Travel Characteristics of TOD in California(Caltrans/ Lund, Cervero, Willson)

  21. Caltrans Study Conclusions • Assessment of Local Models and Tools for Analyzing Smart-Growth Strategies

  22. Caltrans Study Recommendation • Assessment of Local Models and Tools for Analyzing Smart-Growth Strategies Use 4D’s to compensate for any lack of sensitivity in presiding model.

  23. 2 Induced Investment Development, Travel

  24. Average VMT Elasticities to Added Capacity

  25. Integrated Land Use/ Transportation Models • PECAS Users: Sacramento SACOG, Caltrans, SANDAG (considering), Ohio DOT, Baltimore MPO • URBANSIM Users: Salt Lake, Seattle, Houston, Honolulu, Detroit • UPLAN Users: Merced, Wilmington • What-If Users: Fresno

  26. Cautionary Notes on PECAS, URBANSIM • Both are data intensive • Both require significant staff and/or consultant support to implement, use, maintain • Both require calibration and extensive model development • Validation experience very limited

  27. 3 Mobility ROI

  28. Investment in System Continuity

  29. Q&A

More Related