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