Transportation leadership you can trus presented to presented to 11 11 th th TRB Transportation Planning TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference, May 2007, Daytona Applications Conference, May 2007, Daytona Beach Beach presented by presented by Robert G. Schiffer, AICP Robert G. Schiffer, AICP Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. May 7, 2007 May 7, 2007 Modeling of Alternatives During Long-Range Transportation Plan Development
25
Embed
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to 11 th TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference, May 2007, Daytona Beach presented by Robert.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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