PRESENTED TO: CTP 2040 POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRESENTED BY: RON WEST AND MICHELLE BINA CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS CTP 2040 Scenario Strategies and Analysis.

PRESENTED TO:CTP 2040 POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

PRESENTED BY:RON WEST AND MICHELLE BINA CAMBRIDGE

SYSTEMATICS

CTP 2040 Scenario Strategies and Analysis

Framework

August 19, 2014

Overview

California Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM)

Scenario strategies Transportation-based changes to reduce GHG

emissions

Analysis framework CSTDM - or - Other methods Distinct policy - or - Aspirational objective

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

CSTDM VERSUS OFF-MODELSPECIFIC POLICY OR ASPIRATIONAL

OBJECTIVE

Analysis Framework

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

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

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

PRICINGTRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES

MODE SHIFTOPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Scenario Strategies

Pricing Strategies

Road user charge (RUC)

Gas tax

Congestion pricing

Expressed as auto operating costs Function of fuel costs and vehicle efficiency

Pricing – Road User Charge

CSTDM RUC sensitivity tests Year 2010 doubling of auto operating costs

23% VMT decrease (22 cent increase in auto operating costs)

Year 2040 73% increase

17% VMT decrease (16 cent increase)

Year 2040 9% increase

3% VMT decrease (2 cent increase)

Analysis Framework - Pricing

Analysis Method:

Policy or Goal?

Specific PolicyAspirational

Objective

California Statewide Travel Demand Model

• Road User Charge

Off-Model

Transportation Alternatives

Telecommute

Carpoolers

Carsharing

Assessed off-model // aspirational goals

Transportation Alternatives

Carsharing MTC: 1.3% reduction in VMT given 5% increase in

carsharing adoption rates Applied to short distance personal travel model

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 Under Analysis

Analysis Framework – Transportation Alts

Analysis Method:

Policy or Goal?

Specific PolicyAspirational

Objective

California Statewide Travel Demand Model

Off-Model

Increased: • Telecommute• Carpooling• Carsharing

Mode Shift

Transit improvements

Bicycle improvements

Pedestrian improvements

Carpool changes

Transit and carpool assessed with CSTDM

Bike and walk assessed off-model

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 fares on high-speed rail

Will be forecasted using CSTDM Except BRT expansion – Off model

Mode Shift – Bicycle & Pedestrian

Low end Calculate VMT reductions based on value of

investments

High end Assume mode shares are doubled for bike and walk

50% of trips come from auto modes

Average trip lengths: Bike 3.0 miles; Walk 0.25 miles

Results in 0.4% VMT reduction for bike; 0.2% for walk

Mode Shift - Carpools

Raise statewide HOV occupancy to 3+ Draft model result shows 2% reduction in VMT

Additional analysis needed

Add HOV lanes Gap closures

Interregional connectors

Mode run not completed yet

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

Operational Efficiencies

Incident/Emergency management

Caltrans TMS Master Plan

ITS/TSM

Eco-driving

All assessed as off-model policies Except Eco-Driving (off-model aspirational goal)

Operational Efficiencies

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

Other Measures TBD

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/TSM

Eco driving

Next Steps

Next Steps

Complete literature review - off-model strategies

Continued vetting of assumptions

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

Presentations to upcoming PAC and TAC meetings