PRESENTED TO:CTP 2040 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

PRESENTED BY:RON WEST AND MICHELLE BINA CAMBRIDGE

SYSTEMATICS

CTP 2040 Scenario Strategies and Analysis

Framework

July 24, 2014

2

Overview

Scenario strategies Transportation-based Changes to reduce GHG

emissions

Analysis framework California Statewide Travel Demand Model - or -

Other methods Distinct policy - or - Aspirational objective

3

CSTDM VERSUS OFF-MODELSPECIFIC POLICY OR ASPIRATIONAL

OBJECTIVE

Analysis Framework

4

Analysis Framework

Primary objective is to analyze impacts of all strategies using a common metric Reduction in vehicle miles travel

Year 2040 average weekday daily condition

Additional objective is for clear documentation Key input assumptions

Outcomes presented as apples-apples

5

Analysis Framework Matrix - Examples

Analysis Method:

Policy or Goal?

Specific PolicyAspirational

Objective

California Statewide Travel Demand Model

Road user charge None anticipated

Off-Model ITS elements Eco driving

6

PRICINGTRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES

MODE SHIFTOPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Scenario Strategies

7

Pricing Strategies

Road user charge (RUC)

Gas tax

Congestion pricing

8

Pricing Strategies

Assessed in CSTDM as increased auto operating costs

Recommendation: Apply RUC Easiest to forecast

Applied to all facilities for all time periods

9

Pricing Strategies

Gas tax does not move the needle much 40 cent gas tax increase in 2040 only increases auto

operating costs by about 5%. Average fuel economy in 2040 is close to 40 mpg –

results in a 1 cent per mile increase in auto operating costs

Congestion pricing is complicated CSTDM does not handle variable congestion pricing

Limited: Specific congested facilities, during peak periods

Moves the needle somewhat Likely to result in illogical route choice diversions

10

Pricing – Road User Charge

CSTDM RUC sensitivity tests Year 2010 doubling of auto operating costs

22% VMT decrease (22 cent increase)

Year 2040 73% increase in auto operating costs

17% VMT decrease (16 cent increase)

36% and 9% auto operating costs are being investigated

11

Analysis Framework - Pricing

Analysis Method:

Policy or Goal?

Specific PolicyAspirational

Objective

California Statewide Travel Demand Model

• Road User Charge

Off-Model

12

Transportation Alternatives

Telecommute

Carpoolers

Carsharing

13

Transportation Alternatives

Assessed as off-model aspirational goals Increased levels for each strategy under analysis

ARB White Paper on Car Sharing concluded:

[C]arsharing appears to have reduced VMT overall by about a quarter to a third among those who have participated[.]

UC Berkeley Report noted that car sharing benefits would likely not apply to interregional travel

Additional analysis of these strategies is being conducted

14

Analysis Framework – Transportation Alts

Analysis Method:

Policy or Goal?

Specific PolicyAspirational

Objective

California Statewide Travel Demand Model

Off-Model

Increased: • Telecommute• Carpooling• Carsharing

15

Mode Shift

Transit improvements

Bicycle improvements

Pedestrian improvements

Carpool changes

16

Mode Shift - Transit

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

Will be forecasted using CSTDM Except BRT expansion – Off model

17

Mode Shift – Bicycle & Pedestrian

Calculate VMT reductions of statewide bike/ped investments How far will this move the needle?

Levels of investments and VMT impacts are being investigated

Will be calculated off-model

Second test to greatly increase bike/ped investments Double mode shares for both modes, relative to 2040

No-Project

18

Mode Shift - Carpools

Raise statewide HOV occupancy to 3+ VMT effects are unclear

HOV lane LOS likely to improve

Add HOV lanes Gap closures

Interregional connectors

VMT impacts may be relatively minor – but could potentially affect long-distance travel choices

19

Analysis Framework – Mode Shift

Analysis Method:

Policy or Goal?

Specific PolicyAspirational

Objective

California Statewide Travel Demand Model

• Most Transit Improvements

• Carpools/HOV

Off-Model

• BRT• Bicycling• Walking

20

Operational Efficiencies

Incident/Emergency management

Caltrans TMS Master Plan

Intelligent transportation systems

Eco driving

21

Operational Efficiencies

Off-model policies: Incident/Emergency Management

Caltrans TMS Master Plan

Intelligent Transportation Systems

Off-model aspirational objective: Eco-Driving

VMT effects of these strategies being investigated

22

Analysis Framework – Operational Efficiency

Analysis Method:

Policy or Goal?

Specific PolicyAspirational

Objective

California Statewide Travel Demand Model

Off-Model

• Incident/Emergency management

• Caltrans TMS Master Plan

• ITS

Eco driving

23

Next Steps

24

Next Steps

Complete literature review - off-model strategies

Discuss with key MPO modelers/planners SCS off-model or post-processing assumptions

Refinement and analysis of strategies Develop final CTP 2040 Scenario 2 in the fall

Presentations to upcoming PAC and TAC meetings