MEETING WILL BEGIN SHORTLY

1

MEETING WILL BEGIN SHORTLY

R E G I O N A L T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

Metropolitan Planning SubcommitteeJuly 14, 2020

2

Item #1

CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD

FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

[email protected]

Item #2

DESIGNATE OFFICERS FOR 2020-2021

(FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

3

Item #3 and #4

CONSENT AGENDA

Item #5

APPROVE THE SOUTHERN NEVADA

COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-

HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION

PLAN (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

4

COORDINATEDPUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

July 14, 2020

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

BACKGROUND

Organizations involved coordinate and

provide transportation services

Federal transit law requirement for Section

5310 project funding

5

PURPOSE

Improve mobility for seniors, people with disabilities, and low income individuals

PROCESS

STEP

1Needs

Assessment

STEP

2

Inventory

STEP

3Strategy

Concepts

STEP

4Coordination

Actions

STEP

5Prioritized Strategies

6

COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION GOALS

EXPAND MOBILITY OPTIONS

INCREASE AWARENESS

LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVE CONNECTIONS TO TRANSIT

EXPAND REGIONAL COLLABORATION

FEEDBACK

PUBLIC COMMENT

PERIOD

STAKEHOLDERS &

COMMITTEES

7

NEXT STEPS

✔ July 2020: RTC Committees

✔ August 2020: RTC Board

✔ Quarterly advisory committee implementation meetings

RTCSNV.COM/CTP

8

Item #6

APPROVE THE ON BOARD

REGIONAL MOBILITY PLAN


METROPOLITAN PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEEJULY 14, 2020

9

The future ofSouthern NevadaTransportation and mobility is here.

AGENDA

Outreach and Engagement

Overview of the OnBoard Mobility Plan

Economic Impacts

Final Survey Results

Prioritization Exercise

Final Steps and Timeline

10

OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

19

RTC presence at 100s of events

100+ speaking engagements

80,000+ in person contacts

Hundreds of online & physical comments

3 Online Surveys; nearly 30,000 responses

TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP & COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS

Technical Advisory Group meetings

TAG meetings (3/2017 – 2/2020):

18 meetings

1) 03/30/2017

2) 05/25/2017

3) 08/03/2017

4) 09/28/2017

5) 11/30/2017

6) 01/05/2018

7) 04/05/2018

8) 05/31/2018

9) 07/26/2018

10) 08/23/2018

11) 10/18/2018

12) 03/28/2019

13) 05/02/2019

14) 05/30/2019

15) 06/27/2019

16) 08/01/2019

17) 09/26/2019

18) 02/27/2020

Community Stakeholder meetings

Stakeholder meetings (7/2017 – 2/2020):

4 meetings

1) 07/26/2017

2) 02/07/2019

3) 04/30/2019

4) 02/12/2020

11

AGENDA



Economic Impacts




ONBOARD MOBILITY PLAN

1: Build High Capacity Transit Plan

2: Expand Transit Service to Maximize Access to Jobs and Housing

3: Make All Travel Options Safer and More Secure

4: Make Short Trips Easier

5: Expand Service for Seniors, Veterans, and People with Disabilities

6: Improve Connections to Major Destinations

7: Provide Reliable Transit for Resort Corridor Employees

8: Leverage New Technology to Improve Mobility

8 Big Moves

64 Projects

12

BIG MOVE #1: HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT

23

Individual Projects and Strategies• Phase One Projects:

• Charleston (LRT or BRT)

• Cross-Valley Connector (BRT or LRT)

[Boulder Highway-Flamingo-Decatur]

• North 5th (BRT or LRT)

• 6 Rapid Bus (Rancho, Craig, Nellis,

Eastern, Sunset, Paradise)

• Phase Two Projects (10+ years):• Sahara (BRT)

• Craig Road (BRT)

• Eastern BRT

• 6 Rapid Bus (Jones/Rainbow,

Tropicana, Martin Luther King Blvd,

Nellis/Stephanie, North Las Vegas

Blvd, South Las Vegas Blvd)

• Resort Corridor Euro Tram

24

Individual Projects and Strategies

BIG MOVE #2: EXPAND TRANSIT SERVICE TO

MAXIMIZE ACCESS TO JOBS AND HOUSING

• Expand Transit Access and

Improve Service Quality

• Pilot/Develop New Service

Models for High Need, Low

Density Areas

• Offer Transit Service Buy-Up

Options

• Implement Transit Fare Capping

Program

• Reduced Fare Program for

Students, Seniors, and Veterans

13

25


BIG MOVE #3: MAKE ALL TRAVEL OPTIONS SAFER

AND MORE SECURE

• Traffic Crash Review and

Countermeasures Program

• Bus Stop Safety & Security

Improvements

• Utilize Established “Crime

Prevention Through

Environmental Design”

Strategies During Design of

Transit Facilities

• On-Bus Security Enhancements

& Presence

26


BIG MOVE #4: MAKE SHORT TRIPS EASIER

• Complete Streets Program

• Walkability Infrastructure and

Education Program

• Improve Amenities at Bus Stops

• Pedestrian Safety Investments

with Mid-Block Crossings,

Intersection Improvements

• Develop Regional and

Neighborhood Mobility Hubs

• Improve Wayfinding in High

Volume Pedestrian Locations

14

27


BIG MOVE #5: EXPAND SERVICE FOR OLDER

ADULTS, VETERANS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

• Increase Service for Older

Adults, Veterans and People

with Disabilities

• Provide App-Based

Reservations and Fare Payment

for Dedicated Services

• Provide App-Based Vehicle

Tracking for Dedicated Services

28


BIG MOVE #6: IMPROVE CONNECTIONS TO MAJOR

DESTINATIONS

• Improve Airport Service and

Connections (extend Strip Rapid

Bus, serve both terminals)

• Develop Airport Mobility Hub

• Improve Transit-Related Wayfinding

and Onsite Information

15

29


BIG MOVE #7: PROVIDE RELIABLE TRANSIT FOR

RESORT CORRIDOR EMPLOYEES

• Implement Express Routes to

Resort Corridor or Downtown

• Improve Commuter Facilities &

Services

• Develop Park and Ride Lots w/

Express Service Connections to

Major Destinations

30


BIG MOVE #8: LEVERAGE NEW TECHNOLOGY TO

IMPROVE MOBILITY

• Transit Passenger Technologies

(real-time information, fare

payment options, Mobility as a

Service)

• Electrification Strategies (transit

vehicles EV charging networks,

install solar arrays at RTC facilities)

• Expand Travel Demand

Management (TDM) Programs

• Implement “FAST OS” (FAST

Technology Roadmap)

• Advance Autonomous ad

Connected Vehicle Technologies

16

AGENDA



Economic Impacts




BENEFITS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

32

Spending Impacts (Multipliers): Regional economic impact of $s spent on

building, operating, and maintaining the system

Performance Benefits and Impacts:

Societal Benefit: Any form of societal value delivered by transportation, monetized

based on either actual costs or willingness to pay

Economic Impact: Tracing how a subset of transportation performance

improvements produce changes in employment, income, business sales, or gross

regional product (changes in flow of $s)

Land Value and Local Development: Capitalization of transportation

performance improvements into local land value and new private investment to take

advantage of reduced travel costs and improved access.

• Highly dependent on both transportation performance gains AND on local real

estate market conditions and supportive investments.

1

2

3

4

17

BIG MOVE #1: HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT

33

Spending Impact supporting business

in SNV

1.5-1.6 Multiplier in

the Local Economy for Every $ Spent

Economic Growth from more efficient

transportation

>$2B Added business

output over 20 years of implementation

Societal Benefits monetized social

benefits

Land Value &

Development capitalization &

transformation

Benefits exceed costs within the first 20 years

+1-6% property value

increase in HCT

corridors, +10-15%for commercial office

rents. $1-4 x private

investment per public $

AGENDA



Economic Impacts




18

SURVEY BACKGROUND

Live: January 2020

Closed: March 31, 2020

11,221 Total Responses

• 741 responses were

duplicate responses from

the same email

• Analysis is of remaining

10,480 responses

36

4.4

4.4

4.5

4.3

4.5

4.5

4.3

4.4

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

#1: Build High Capacity Transit System

#2: Expand Transit Service to Maximize Access

to Jobs and Housing

#3: Make All Travel Options Safer and More

Secure

#4: Make Short Walking Trips Easier

#5: Expand Dedicated Service for Seniors,

Veterans and People with Disabilities

#6: Improve Regional Connections to Major

Destinations

#7: Provide Reliable Transit for Resort Corridor

Employees

#8: Leverage New Technology to Improve

Mobility and Sustainability

Overall Ratings of Each Big Move (Sample size: 10,480)

**Does not include duplicate respondents.

19

37

Count of Ratings by Each Big Move (Sample size: 10,480)


336

293

214

305

250

220

363

299

282

365

270

399

289

238

439

370

956

1,219

896

1,295

992

887

1,470

1,243

2,015

1,995

1,586

1,895

1,545

1,695

2,042

1,930

6,890

6,608

7,514

6,586

7,404

7,439

6,165

6,636

- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000


#2: Expand Transit Service to Maximize

Access to Jobs and Housing

#3: Make All Travel Options Safer and

More Secure


#5: Expand Dedicated Service for

Seniors, Veterans and People with…

#6: Improve Regional Connections to

Major Destinations

#7: Provide Reliable Transit for Resort

Corridor Employees

#8: Leverage New Technology to

Improve Mobility and Sustainability

1 Star 2 Stars 3 Stars 4 Stars 5 Stars

Big Move 1 Star 2 Stars 3 Stars 4 Stars 5 Stars


336 282 956 2,015 6,890

#2: Expand Transit Service to Maximize Access to Jobs and Housing

293 365 1,219 1,995 6,608

#3: Make All Travel Options Safer and More Secure

214 270 896 1,586 7,514

#4: Make Short Walking Trips Easier 305 399 1,295 1,895 6,586 #5: Expand Dedicated Service for Seniors, Veterans and People with Disabilities

250 289 992 1,545 7,404

#6: Improve Regional Connections to Major Destinations

220 238 887 1,695 7,439

#7: Provide Reliable Transit for Resort Corridor Employees

363 439 1,470 2,042 6,165

#8: Leverage New Technology to Improve Mobility and Sustainability

299 370 1,243 1,930 6,636

38

Geographic Distribution of Responses

*Includes duplicate responses

20

39

Survey Responses by Income Group


Ratings of Respondents Earning Less than $35,000 Income (Sample size:

2,541)

Income Group Response

Count

% of Survey

Sample

% of Clark

County

Less than $20,000 1,144 13% 15%

$20,000 to $34,999 1,397 15% 14.5%

$35,000 to $49,999 1,387 15% 15.4%

$50,000 to $74,999 1,727 19% 17.9%

$75,000 to $99,999 1,259 14% 12.9%

$100,000 to $149,999 1,256 14% 13.9%

$150,000 to $199,999 490 5% 5.9%

$200,000 or more 387 4% 5.4%

4.5

4.6

4.6

4.5

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.5

4.4

4.4

4.5

4.3

4.5

4.5

4.3

4.4

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0





More Secure





Major Destinations


Corridor Employees



Low Income Overall Average

40

Survey Responses by Income Group


Ratings of Respondents Earning at Least $100,000 Income

(Sample size: 2,133)

4.4

4.2

4.4

4.2

4.3

4.5

4.1

4.3

4.4

4.4

4.5

4.3

4.5

4.5

4.3

4.4

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0





More Secure





Major Destinations


Corridor Employees



High Income Overall Average

21

41

Survey Responses by Race/Ethnicity


4.5

4.5

4.6

4.5

4.6

4.6

4.4

4.5

4.4

4.4

4.5

4.3

4.5

4.5

4.3

4.4

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0





More Secure





Major Destinations


Corridor Employees



Minority Overall Average

Ratings of Racial and Ethnic Minority Respondents

(Sample size: 3,824)

Race/Ethnicity Group Response

Count

% of Survey

Sample

% of Clark

County

White 5,931 57% 42%

African American/Black 827 8% 11%

American Indian/Native 105 1% 0.5%

Asian 486 4.7% 10%

Hispanic/Latin American 1,382 13% 31%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. 161 1.6% 1%

Two or more races 740 5.8% 4%

Other 123 1.2% 0.5%

42

Big Move High-Income Low-IncomeRacial/Ethnic

Minorities

Low Income

MinoritiesWomen Men

Age 29 and

under

Age 60 and

older#1: Build High Capacity Transit

System 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.3

#2: Expand Transit Service to

Maximize Access to Jobs and

Housing4.2 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.3

#3: Make All Travel Options

Safer and More Secure 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.5

#4: Make Short Walking Trips

Easier 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.3

#5: Expand Dedicated Service

for Seniors, Veterans and

People with Disabilities4.3 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.6

#6: Improve Regional

Connections to Major

Destinations4.5 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

#7: Provide Reliable Transit for

Resort Corridor Employees4.1 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.2

#8: Leverage New Technology

to Improve Mobility and

Sustainability

4.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.3

22

AGENDA



Economic Impacts




PRIORITIZATION EXERCISE

44

23

AGENDA



Economic Impacts




NEXT STEPS

• Consultant Contract Ends (6/30)

• Local Agency Meetings (6/30– 7/14)

• TAG Webex meetings (7/8, 7/9, and 7/13)

• Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee (7/14)

• Executive Advisory Committee (7/30)

• RTC Board (Update 8/13)

• Costs and funding estimates developed (June – Oct)

• RTC Board (Approve w/Costs – Oct)

• Implementation begins – TBD

46

24

Item #7

RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE

REGIONAL PLANNING WORK

PROGRAM (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

25

Regional Work Program Update

Metropolitan PlanningSubcommittee

July 2020

• Regional Plan Core Administration

• Regional Plan Update

• Indicator Tracking & Mapping

• Community Planning Academy

• Outreach and Communication

• Annual Report

Regional Policy Plan Administration

26

• Future Housing Inventory and Needs

• Extreme Heat Events Coordinated Response

• Inventory of Regional Sustainability Planning Tools and Techniques

• Tree Canopy Social Equity Impacts

Regional Planning & Research

• Forecast regional housing surplus or shortfall

• Estimate demand by affordability

Future Housing Inventory and Needs

Futu

re in

ven

tory Long-range housing

units forecasts

Population and employment forecasts

Historic housing production

Historic housing affordability

27

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Po

pu

lati

on

New

Re

sid

en

tial

Ho

usi

ng

Pe

rmit

s

HOUSING PERMITS & POPULATION GROWTHIN SOUTHERN NEAVDA

Housing Permits Population

Future Housing Inventory and Needs

Affordability Type/StockBalance

Assess how much housing the region needs to add at

different price points to ensure housing is affordable

across income levels

Use population and housing forecasts to assess whether

our region is expected to maintain a healthy balance of

jobs and housing units

Use preference surveys to estimate future demand by

housing type

28

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

HO

USI

NG

UN

ITS

HOUSING UNITS IN SOUTHERN NEVADA

Housing Needed Housing (1.25:1) Needed Housing (1.5:1)

• Vulnerability to extreme heat

• Threat of increasing local temperatures

• Targeted, coordinated response

Extreme Heat Vulnerability

Sensitivity

•Health Conditions

•Physiological Considerations

Adaptive Capacity

•Socio-economic Factors

•Demographics

Exposure

•Surface Temperature

•Land Cover (Vegetation, impervious surfaces)

29

exposure sensitivity

adaptive • Ambient temperature

• Vegetated land cover

• Developed land

• Elevation

• Disability

• Educational attainment

• Isolated older adults

• Limited English proficiency

• Poverty

• Unsheltered homeless

• Race

• Households with a vehicle

• Older adults

• Young children

• Diabetes

• Cardiovascular disease

capacity

Extreme Heat Vulnerability

ExposureComposite score

• Ambient temperature

• Vegetated land cover

• Developed land

• Elevation

30

Inventory of Regional Sustainability Planning Tools

Regional Work Program Update

Metropolitan PlanningSubcommittee

July 2020

31

Item #8

RECEIVE A FINAL REPORT ON THE

SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION STUDY


32

Project Overview• Objectives

• Existing Studies

• Stakeholder Outreach

• Site Selection

• Data Collection

• Data Analysis

• On-site Queuing

• Other Observations

• Findings/Recommendations

64

Existing Studies

• ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition

65

33

Existing Studies

66

School Name Jurisdiction Total Students On-site Queuing

Ratio (vehicles per student released)

Pinecrest Academy Henderson 900 0.15

500 Student Charter School* Las Vegas 500 0.2

Henderson International Henderson 343 0.17

Somerset Academy - Centennial North Las Vegas 750 0.14

Doral Academy – Cactus Campus Clark County 935 0.08

Average 0.15

• Local Southern Nevada Charter School Queuing Studies

Stakeholder Outreach

67

• Technical Advisory Committee• Identified schools for study

• Approved data collections plans

• School Administrators• Coordinated data collection

• Provided arrival/departure operations

34

Site Selection

68

13

19

9

5

4

15

8

11

6

1

7

17

20

16

12

14

2

18

10

13

19

9

5

3

4

15

8

Southern Nevada School Trip Generation Study

´Legend

Charter

Elementary School

Middle School

Henderson

Las Vegas

North Las Vegas 0 2.5 5 7.5 101.25

Miles

Clark County SchoolsLas Vegas Valley

Preliminary Sites

3

• 20 Schools in LVV• 8 Charter

•6 Public Elementary

•6 Public Middle

Data Collection Plan

69

• 2018-2019 School Year• Vehicles trips

• Vehicles entering/exiting the school site

• Vehicles parking off-site

• On-site queuing

• School buses, pedestrians, bicycles

• Parking lot occupancy

• School pick-up and drop-off procedures

• Illegal behaviors

35

Data Collection Plan

70

Data Analysis

71

• Independent Variables• ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition

• Students, Employees, Building Size

• Regression Analysis• ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition• “Best Fit” Curve• Fitted Curve Equation

• Significance of Independent Variables• Correlation Matrices

• Charter Schools (All, K-8, K-12 and Multiple Bell Times)• Public Elementary Schools• Public Middle Schools

36

Data Analysis

72

• Sample Data Plot - Charter Schools (All)

Trip Generation Rate Comparison

73

• Students

Trip Generation Rate Sources

AM PM

Rate (Trips per Student)

% Difference from ITE

Rate (Trips per Student)

% Difference from ITE

ITE Land Use Code 537 Charter Elementary School 1.14 0.69

SNV Charter School (All) 1.00 13% 0.77 11%

SNV Charter Schools (K-8) 1.04 9% 0.80 14%

SNV Charter Schools (K-12) 0.95 18% 0.74 6%

ITE Land Use Code 520 Elementary School 0.65 0.34

SNV Elementary Schools 0.83 24% 0.71 71%

ITE Land Use Code 522 Middle/Junior High School 0.70 0.35

SNV Middle Schools 0.75 7% 0.43 20%

Note: Trip generation rates higher than reported by ITE are bold.

37

On-site Queuing

74

School

Max

imu

m Q

ueu

e (v

eh.)

Max

imu

m Q

ueu

e (f

t)

To

tal S

tud

ents

On

-sit

e Q

ueu

ing

Rat

io

(veh

icle

s p

er s

tud

ent

rele

ased

)

2 Lyal Burkholder Middle School 24 600 652 0.04

3 Pinecrest Academy Inspirada 82 2,050 1,103 0.07

4 Pinecrest Academy of Nevada (St Rose Campus)* 69 1,725 982 0.07

5 Pinecrest Academy of Nevada (Cadence Campus) 148 3,700 1,650 0.09

7 Dell H. Robison Middle School 17 425 1,290 0.01

8 Democracy Prep at the Agassi Campus 130 3250 970 0.01

9 Imagine School at Mountain View* 142 3,550

706 0.20

75 1,875 0.11

13 Freedom Classical Academy* 32 800 1,021 0.03

15 Somerset Academy (Losee Campus) 96 2,400 1,940 0.05

19 Doral Academy Las Vegas (Cactus Campus)* 98 2,450 992 0.10

On-site Queuing

75

38

Other Observations

76

• Observed Legal Behaviors• U-turns in the school zone (prohibited by NRS

484B.363.3)

• Pedestrians walking outside of designated crossing areas

• Imagine School at Mountain View Queues• Queue onto Grand Montecito Parkway and Doe Brook

Trail

• Parking in surrounding neighborhoods

• Dell Robison Middle School had the highest number of pedestrians

Findings

77

• Charter

• Students may be more reliable

• Lower trip generation rate in AM Peak compared to ITE Higher trip generation rate in PM Peak compared to ITE

• Public Elementary

• Public elementary school trip generation rates are higher than ITE.

• Public Middle

• Public middle school trip generation rates are higher than ITE.

39

Study Recommendations

78

• Determine Trip Generation Rates for SNV

• On-site Queuing• Estimate 0.15 vehicles/student for on-site circulation

• Utilize one-way circulation

• Prevent U-turns in the School Zone• Schools to consider installing median barriers

• Increase law enforcement presence during drop-off and pick-up

• Designate and Promote Safe Routes to School

• Submit Study Results to ITE

• Report school data collected in the future to RTC to be add to the dataset

Item #9

RECEIVE A REPORT ON PLANNING

VARIABLES FOR THE REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION PLAN (FOR

POSSIBLE ACTION)

40

PLANNING

VARIABLESFOR THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MPS Meeting July 14, 2020

80

Contents

• land Use Working Group Activities-Coordination and Collaboration

Introduction

81

41

Contents

• land Use Working Group (LUWG) Activities

five LUWG Meetings (4/2/2019, 8/14/2019, 4/9/2020, 4/30/2020,7/9/2020)

one on one meetings with some entities.

correspondence by email and conference calls.

• Discussions and Work on:

Data requirements for future projection

Future projection methods

Redevelopment topics

Review, analysis and validation on the future projections

LUWG consensus on the final future projections

Coordination and Collaboration

82

Contents

Data source: GILIS2019 from Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning - for

base year population and households.

Planned land use by entities – for Future year projection

Based on approved plans by each entity by July 1,2019.

In 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050.

Parcel based and 9 land use categories:- Residential: Single Family, Multi-Family, - Non-Residential: Industrial, Hotel, Retail, Office, Schools, Open

Space, Other.

Base Year and Future Year Population

83

42

Projected Land Use Acreage by Entity for 2020 -2050

Entity Residential Industrial Hotel RetailNon Retail

OtherSchool Office Open Space

Unincorporated CC 7,226 4,352 2,146 1,732 288 0 390 7,129

Las Vegas 9,922 209 6 693 13 311 332 1,227

N. Las Vegas 6,386 16,334 153 1,367 3,098 236 310 2,096

Henderson 11,925 1,399 83 708 0 909 748 3,660

Total 35,459 22,294 2,388 4,500 3,399 1,456 1,780 14,113

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Unincorporated CC

Las Vegas

N. Las Vegas

Henderson

84

85

43

1. Growth Calculation:

Dwelling unit (DU)=Planned Acreage x Density

Occupied Dwelling unit ( OCHU)= DU x Occupancy Rate

Population = OCHU x Household Size

2. Match CBER population projection

3. Population adjustment:

Increasing Occupancy rate: start with low Occupancy rate area.

Population Projection Procedure

86

Population Projection and CBER Matching

Before adjustment After adjustment

Year CBER PopulationRTC Projected

PopulationDifference

2019 2,330,000 2,325,798 4,202

2020 2,382,000 2,353,481 28,519

2025 2,583,000 2,469,576 113,424

2030 2,719,000 2,594,636 124,364

2035 2,817,000 2,688,107 128,893

2040 2,888,000 2,775,966 112,034

2045 2,940,000 2,853,080 86,920

2050 2,986,000 2,933,717 52,283

2,300,000

2,400,000

2,500,000

2,600,000

2,700,000

2,800,000

2,900,000

3,000,000

3,100,000

2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

CBER Population RTC Projected Population

Year CBER PopulationRTC Projected

PopulationDifference

2019 2,330,000 2,325,798 4,202

2020 2,382,000 2,376,936 5,064

2025 2,583,000 2,528,204 54,796

2030 2,719,000 2,655,228 63,772

2035 2,817,000 2,751,131 65,869

2040 2,888,000 2,843,972 44,028

2045 2,940,000 2,928,169 11,831

2050 2,986,000 3,014,913 -28,913

2,300,000

2,400,000

2,500,000

2,600,000

2,700,000

2,800,000

2,900,000

3,000,000

3,100,000

2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

CBER Population RTC Projected Population 87

44

Projected Dwelling Unit Growth

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Total

Boulder City 36 180 185 190 194 199 204 1,188

CC Unincorporated 2,143 11,082 9,617 5,109 2,510 15 13 30,490

Las Vegas 5,483 11,285 13,019 10,612 10,884 9,492 9,283 70,058

N. Las Vegas 538 8,458 9,109 5,893 6,277 8,321 8,851 47,446

Henderson 2,806 12,106 14,296 13,370 14,533 13,095 12,567 82,774

Total 11,006 43,111 46,227 35,174 34,398 31,122 30,919 231,957

Projected Population Growth

Entity 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Total

Boulder City 80 406 416 426 437 448 459 2,672

CC Unincorporated 21,259 45,319 25,814 13,636 6,622 39 32 112,721

Las Vegas 20,122 39,945 36,747 29,391 29,809 26,150 25,556 207,720

N. Las Vegas 1,551 28,365 26,960 17,915 18,517 24,785 26,429 144,524

Henderson 8,127 35,703 35,460 32,805 35,615 30,817 32,186 210,713

Total 51,138 149,737 125,397 94,173 91,001 82,240 84,662 678,350

88

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Projected Dwelling Unit Growth

CC Unincorporated

Las Vegas

N. Las Vegas

Henderson

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Projected Population Growth

CC Unincorporated

Las Vegas

N. Las Vegas

Henderson

89

45

Projected Dwelling Units

2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Boulder City 7,107 7,143 7,323 7,5087,697 7,892 8,091 8,295

CC Unincorporated 414,428 416,571 427,653 437,271 442,380 444,889 444,905 444,918

Las Vegas 249,658 255,141 266,427 279,445 290,057 300,942 310,434 319,716

N. Las Vegas 83,849 84,387 92,844 101,953 107,847 114,123 122,444 131,295

Henderson 131,208 134,014 146,120 160,416 173,786 188,320 201,415 213,982

Total 886,250 897,256 940,367 986,593 1,021,768 1,056,166 1,087,288 1,118,207

Projected Population

Entity 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Boulder City 16,398 16,478 16,884 17,300 17,726 18,163 18,611 19,071

CC Unincorporated 1,074,179 1,095,438 1,140,756 1,166,570 1,180,206 1,186,829 1,186,868 1,186,900

Las Vegas 656,909 677,031 716,976 753,723 783,114 812,923 839,073 864,629

N. Las Vegas 257,677 259,228 287,593 314,554 332,469 350,986 375,772 402,201

Henderson 320,634 328,761 364,464 399,925 432,729 468,344 499,162 531,347

Total 2,325,798 2,376,936 2,526,674 2,652,071 2,746,244 2,837,245 2,919,485 3,004,148

90

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Projected Dwelling Units

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Projected PopulationCC Unincorporated

Las Vegas

N. Las Vegas

Henderson

91

46

Base and Future Year Employment

Data source:

2019 database from DETR – base year employment.

Future employment:

Based on planned land use , CBER growth rates, population growth, near and long term industry plans, specific projections from local entities and redevelopment plans.

92

Base Year Employment

Summary of Address Matched DETR 2019 2nd Quarter Employer Data

By Employment Category in TAZ Domain

Category Employment Percentage

Construction 69,121 7%

Food Services and Drinking Places 106,494 10%

Good Producing 30,478 3%

Hotel with Gaming 142,434 14%

Hotel without Gaming 14,595 1%

Medical 69,697 7%

Office_Government 23,970 2%

Office_Private 170,258 17%

Other 147,759 15%

Retail 121,935 12%

School 37,631 4%

Warehouse,Wholesale 33,638 3%

Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters 8,039 1%

Special Generator 40,026 4%

Total 1,016,073 100%

7%

10%

3%

14%

1%

7%

2%17%

15%

12%

4%3%

1%

4%

Construction

Food Services and DrinkingPlaces

Good Producing

Hotel with Gaming

Hotel without Gaming

Medical

Office_Government

Office_Private

Other

Retail

School

Warehouse,Wholesale

Warehouse Clubs andSupercenters

Special Generator

93

47

Procedure:1. Calculate growth rates from CBER employment projection.

2. Calculate future employment by applying CBER growth rates based on population growth pattern to DETR 2019 employment.

3. Calculate future employment from land use provided by entities.

4: Add redevelopment employment and specific employment projections by local entities.

2020-2050 Employment Projection

94

Total Employment Projection

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

CC Unincorporateded Las Vegas North Las Vegas Henderson95

Entity 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Boulder City 4,570 4,570 4,570 4,570 4,570 4,570 4,601 4,629

CC Unincorporated 598,980 620,882 651,223 680,440 703,432 729,554 749,779 770,171

Las Vegas 232,582 238,099 241,627 248,041 257,820 262,252 265,062 266,898

North Las Vegas 78,483 79,251 92,905 108,891 123,788 137,771 150,999 159,506

Henderson 101,969 105,991 113,886 120,123 127,326 133,353 141,956 159,440

Total 1,016,583 1,048,792 1,104,210 1,162,065 1,216,937 1,267,500 1,312,398 1,360,643

48

96

97

49

98

99

50

Item #10

RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE

STADIUM DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION

PLAN (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

CLARK COUNTY & REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA

STADIUM DISTRICT PLAN

MPS MEETING

July 14, 2020

51

OVERVIEW OF PROJECT

• Two stakeholder and public surveys and two TAC meetings have been conducted. These activities focused on generating information about:

• What the district should look like• Development of land use scenarios• Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)

of the land use scenarios• Vision and goals for the Stadium District

• Developed street typologies and cross-sections

PROGRESS IN STUDY

52

Creating a dynamic District with a comprehensive mix

of uses that supports the continuation of current

businesses while providing opportunities to transition

into a thriving destination for entertainment,

hospitality, business, and sports.

VISION FOR THE STADIUM DISTRICT

• Goal 1: Enhance quality of life by creating a vibrant District

• Goal 2: Promote a vibrant economy in the District

• Goal 3: Promote flexibility within the District

• Goal 4: Provide connectivity and access to and throughout

the District to improve mobility by encouraging the use of

alternative modes of transportation

GOALS FOR THE STADIUM DISTRICT

53

• Assist with the transition of the area surrounding the

stadium

• Promote cohesive development around the

stadium area.

• Form the foundation for possible development code

changes in the future for the area

LAND USE PLAN

LAND USE COMBINED SCENARIO

54

ELEMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The District presently lacks human scale

• Street lighting not designed for pedestrian activity

• Parking locations

• Driveway frequency

• Sidewalks and accessibility

• Pedestrian crossings

EXISTING CHALLENGES IN DISTRICT

55

CREATING A GRID STREET SYSTEM

- Connect the current street network to form 660’ long blocks as parcels shift to other uses.

Benefits to connecting the grid include:

- Shorter walking distances- Providing better connectivity to network- Improving access to major arterials- Improving visibility and safety for pedestrians- Improving access to properties- Reducing vehicle speeds

SUGGESTED STREET TYPOLOGIES

56

NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS TYPOLOGY

MULTIMODAL STREET TYPOLOGY

57

A transportation charrette will be held with the

stakeholders this summer.

This will assist with the development of the draft plan

and later final plan, which will subsequently go out to

the public and decision makers for their review.

What’s Next?

QUESTIONS?

58

Item #11

REGIONAL STAFF UPDATES

Item #12

CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD

FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

[email protected]

59

MEETING HAS ENDED

MEETING WILL BEGIN SHORTLY

Documents

Transcript of MEETING WILL BEGIN SHORTLY