PRESENTED TO:CTP 2040 POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

PRESENTED BY:RON WEST, CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS

CTP 2040 Scenario Strategies and Analysis

Framework

November 18, 2014

Overview

Analysis frameworkVMT reductions of each strategyEquity analysis of road user charge (RUC)

And RUC combined with transit improvements

• CSTDM VERSUS OFF-MODEL• SPECIFIC POLICY OR ASPIRATIONAL

OBJECTIVE

Analysis Framework

Analysis Framework

Analysis Method:

Policy or Goal?

Specific PolicyAspirational

Objective

CSTDM

Road User Charge Transit Improvements Carpool Occupancy to

3+ HOV/HOT lanes

Off-Model

Expanded BRT Expanded Ped /Bike

Infrastructure Incident Management Caltrans TMS Master

Plan ITS Elements

Increased Telecommuting

Increased Carpooling Increased Car Sharing Eco Driving Expanded Ped /Bike

Mode Shares

Analysis Framework

Analyze all strategies using one common metric Reduction in vehicle miles travel

Year 2040 average weekday daily condition

Clear documentation Key input assumptions

Outcomes presented as apples-apples

Off Model Data Sources

MPO Sustainable Community Strategies

ARB policy papers

CAPCOA

Moving Cooler

TCRP 118 (Bus rapid transit)

Data Sources converted to changes in VMT

• VMT REDUCTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL STRATEGIES

• DRAFT ALT 2: COMBINED VMT REDUCTIONS

CTP Strategies: Forecasts

Draft Alternative 2 VMT Changes

Strategy VMT Change Category Modeled Strategy    

Road User Charge (RUC) -17.0% Pricing

Transit Service Improvements -6.0% Mode Shift

Carpool Lane Requirements* -0.8% Mode Shift

HOV/HOT Lanes tbd Mode Shift

Off Model Strategies    

Telecommute/Work at Home -0.4% Transportation Alternatives

Carpoolers -2.9% Transportation Alternatives

Car Sharing -1.1% Transportation Alternatives

Bus Rapid Transit -0.1% Mode Shift

Expand Bike -0.4% Mode Shift

Expand Pedestrian -0.4% Mode Shift

Incident Management -1.0% Operational Efficiency

Caltrans' (TMS) Master Plan -1.2% Operational Efficiency

ITS/TSM -0.6% Operational Efficiency

Eco-driving -0.2% Operational Efficiency

Sub-Total Modeled (CSTDM) -23.8%  

Sub-Total Off-Model -8.4%  

Total -32.2%  

Road User Charge - Equity Analysis

Increased 2040 auto operating costs by 73%

Request at last PAC meeting: Examine impact on low income households Also analyzed: RUC combined with transit

improvements

Three Income Groups $0 - $25K, $25 - $100K, > $100K ($2010) Low Income = 14% of travelers (short distance) Medium Income = 53% of travelers High Income = 31% of travelers

2040 Mode Shares by Income Groups

  

Drive Alone HOV 2 HOV3+ Transit

Bike/ Walk

Low Income

Alt 1 25% 28% 19% 10% 19%

RUC 23% 27% 18% 11% 21%RUC + Transit 17% 26% 17% 17% 23%

Med Income

Alt 1 34% 30% 22% 5% 9%

RUC 33% 30% 22% 5% 10%RUC + Transit 28% 30% 21% 10% 11%

High Income

Alt 1 44% 28% 20% 3% 5%

RUC 43% 28% 20% 3% 6%RUC + Transit 38% 29% 20% 7% 6%

All

Alt 1 36% 29% 21% 5% 9%

RUC 34% 29% 21% 6% 10%RUC + Transit 29% 29% 20% 10% 11%

Mode Changes – Compared to Alt 1

  

Drive Alone HOV 2

HOV3+ Transit

Bike/ Walk

Low Income

RUC -8% -3% -4% 11% 9%

RUC + Transit -32% -11% -11% 65% 13%

Med Income

RUC -4% 0% -1% 11% 11%

RUC + Transit -20% -2% -3% 102% 19%

High Income

RUC -2% 1% 0% 10% 12%

RUC + Transit -14% 1% 0% 155% 23%

TotalRUC -4% 0% -1% 11% 11%

RUC + Transit -19% -2% -3% 100% 18%

Equity Analysis Preliminary Conclusions

Low income travelers more affected by RUC than other income groups RUC = stick (auto modes less attractive) Transit improvements = carrot

RUC by itself has a bigger impact on VMT Transit improvements have a greater impact on mode

choice Higher transit share changes for middle and high income

groups

More analysis will be conducted Examine how changes affect individual household

travel behaviors Change in cost of travel

VMT x CTP Alternative (Daily VMT x 1000)

2010 2020 Alt 1 2020 Alt 2 2040 Alt 1 2040 Alt 20

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Draft forecasts

• CATEGORIES:• Pricing• Mode shift• Transportation alternatives• Operational efficiencies

Strategies

Pricing – Road User Charge

CSTDM RUC Strategy Year 2040 73% increase

17% VMT decrease (16 cent/mile increase in auto operating costs)

Other Tests included

Year 2010 100% increase (22 cents/miles): 23% VMT decrease

Year 2040 36% increase (8 cents/mile): 11% VMT decrease

Year 2040 9% increase (2 cents/mile): 3% VMT decrease

Mode Shift - Transit

Analyze high-end 2040 transit alternative Double bus and train service Double operating speeds Reduced or free fares Convert 20% of local bus routes to BRT Timed transfers Reduced fares on high-speed rail

Resulted in 6.0% reduction in VMT BRT expansion: 0.07% VMT reduction

Mode Shift – Bicycle & Pedestrian

Lower end Calculate VMT reductions based on value of

investments

Higher end Assume mode shares are doubled for bike and walk

Also assumed that 50% of trips come from auto modes

Average trip lengths: Bike 3.03 miles; Walk 0.55 miles*

0.41% VMT reduction for bike; 0.43% for walk* Source: 2012/2013 CHTS

Mode Shift - Carpools

Raise statewide HOV occupancy to 3+ 0.8% reduction in VMT

Add HOV lanes Gap closures

Interregional connectors

Will be tested during final analysis of Alt 2

Transportation Alternatives

Carsharing MTC: -1.3% VMT given +5% in carsharing adoption

rates Applied only to short distance personal travel

Converts to 1.1% reduction in total VMT

SACOG: Lower rate of VMT reduction: -0.12%

Telecommuting SACOG: VMT reduction between 0.13% & 0.39%

Carpooling MTC: -2.9% VMT given +5% in carpooling

Applied to short and long distance personal travel.

Operational Efficiencies

ITS/TSM SACOG: 0.19% to 0.62% reduction in VMT

Caltrans TMS Master Plan ARB: 1.2% reduction in VMT

ITS/TSM SACOG: Range of VMT reductions from 0.09% to

0.62%

Eco Driving ARB: 0.23% reduction in VMT

Assumes 10% adoption rate for short distance personal travel.

UPDATE ON CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE TRAVEL ANALYSIS MODEL

CSTDM

CSTDM Update

CSTDM Update is now complete 2010 base year (plus Year 2010 backcast) Year 2015, 2020, 2035, 2040 and 2050 horizon years

CSTDM System

Models

Travel ModesShort

Distance Personal

Long Distance Personal

Short Distance

Truck

Long Distance

Truck

External Travel

Auto Single Occupant √ √ √

Auto 2 persons √ √ √

Auto 3+ persons √ √ √

Transit (bus & urban rail) √

Bicycle √

Walk √

Air √

Intercity Rail √

Trucks (3 classes) √ √ √

CSTDM Zones and Network (Current Model)

92,000+ nodes

250,000+ links

Multi-modal

5454 internal zones

53 external zones

Contributions to Statewide Travel

Personal TruckExternal TotalShort

DistLong Dist

Short Dist

Long Dist

Total Person Trips 93% 0.20% 7% 0.06% 0.34% 100%

Total Vehicle Trips 88% 0.15% 12% 0.11% 0.30% 100%

Total VMT (Auto/Truck )

79% 10% 3% 2% 6% 100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Person Trips Total Vehicle Trips Total VMT