second round scenario technical results regional modeling working group december 7, 2011
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Second Round Scenario Technical Results
Regional Modeling Working Group
December 7, 2011
![Page 2: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Five Scenarios
1. Initial Vision Transportation 2035
2. Core Concentration Core Transit Capacity
3. Focused Growth Core Transit Capacity
4. Constrained Core Concen. Core Transit Capacity
5. Outward Growth Transportation 2035
![Page 3: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Examples of Significant Projects Tested
Roadway Regional Express Lanes Network Freeway Performance Initiative San Mateo and Santa Clara ITS Fremont-Union City East-West Connector I-680/Rt 4 Interchange Impvts. + SR-4
Widening Marin-Sonoma Narrows Stage 2 Jameson Canyon Impvts. Phase 2 SR-29 HOV Lanes + BRT New SR-152 Alignment I-80 Auxiliary Lanes (Airbase to I-680)
Transit AC Transit Grand Mac-Arthur BRT Irvington BART Infill Station Alameda-Oakland BRT + Transit Access
Impvts. AC Transit East Bay BRT I-680 Express Bus Frequency Impvts. Caltrain 6-Train Service + Electrification
(SF to Tamien) Van Ness Ave. BRT SMART (San Rafael-Larkspur) BART Extension from Berryessa to San
Jose/Santa Clara Fairfield/Vacaville Capitol Corridor Station
Transportation 2035 Network
3
Starts with the 2010 transit and roadway network
Keeps investment levels for maintenance, transit and roadway expansion, and bike/pedestrian at roughly same levels as in T2035
Tests T2035 projects proposed to be carried over into Plan Bay Area
Considers project performance assessment results
![Page 4: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Examples of Significant Projects Tested(includes most T2035 Network projects)
Roadway SR-84/I-680 Interchange Impvts + SR-84
Widening Bay Bridge Contraflow Lane US-101 HOV Lanes (Whipple Ave to Cesar
Chavez St)
Transit BART Metro Program Dumbarton Corridor Express Bus BART Bay Fair Connection BART to Livermore Phase 1 Golden Gate Ferry Service Frequency
Impvts. SFMTA Transit Effectiveness Better Market Street Geneva Ave BRT and Southern Intermodal
Terminal Parkmerced Light Rail Corridor Oakdale Caltrain Station SamTrans El Camino BRT VTA El Camino BRT Service Frequency Impvts. on AC Transit,
Muni, ferries, BART, and Caltrain
Pricing Congestion Pricing Pilot (NE Quadrant) Treasure Island Congestion Pricing
Core Capacity Transit Network
4
Starts with the 2010 transit and roadway network
Keeps T2035 investment levels for maintenance and bike/pedestrian, but reduces roadway expansion and boosts core capacity transit service
Tests most T2035 Network projects and includes a 46 percent increase in transit frequency impvts. from 2010 network (at a total 28-year operating and capital cost of $53 billion)
Not financially constrained due to cost of transit frequency impvts. exceeding available revenue
Only $15 billion of the needed $53 billion is available ($10 billion in operating efficiencies per TSP and $5 billion in new revenue)
Considers project performance assessment results
![Page 5: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
General purpose lanes converted to transit-only lanes
T-2035 in Scenarios 1 & 5; Core Capacity in Scenarios 2 – 4
Devlin Road Extension; Route 221 to Route 29 flyover
![Page 6: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
650 percent increase in transit service in Core Capacity
T-2035 in Scenarios 1 & 5; Core Capacity in Scenarios 2 – 4
![Page 7: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Air Resources Board designated the SB 375 quantity of interest to be the per capita reduction in passenger vehicle and light-duty truck emissions relative to a year 2005 baseline (ignoring improvements resulting from vehicle or fuel regulations)
Bay Area’s target for 2020 is a 7 percent reduction Bay Area’s target for 2035 is a 15 percent reduction
Presentation approach: present numbers first and then explicate results via a series of questions.
![Page 8: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
![Page 9: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Question: How do these results compare to the first round of analysis presented in the spring?
![Page 10: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
First round of scenario analysis… Year 2035, Current Regional Plans: -10.6 percent Year 2035, Initial Vision Scenario: -11.6 percent
And now … Year 2035, Current Regional Plans Year 2035, Initial Vision Scenario: -8.2 percent
Model version 0.1 instead of version 0.0 (~2 pct points) Additional 100,000 employed residents (~1 pct point) Transit network built from 2010 rather than 2005 (~¼ pct point) No headway improvements made to transit network (~¼ pct point) Minor differences in roadway and transit capital projects
10
![Page 11: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Question: Why is there so little variation across the five scenarios?
![Page 12: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Scenario Population HouseholdsEmployed Residents
Jobs
Year 2010 7,150,000 2,610,000 3,150,000 3,270,000
(1) Year 2035, Initial Vision 9,430,000 3,570,000 4,310,000 4,490,000
(2) Year 2035, Core Concentration 9,180,000 3,470,000 4,270,000 4,490,000
(3) Year 2035, Focused Growth 8,980,000 3,280,000 3,860,000 4,100,000
(4) Year 2035, Constrained Core Concentration
8,980,000 3,280,000 3,860,000 4,100,000
(5) Year 2035, Outward Growth 8,980,000 3,280,000 3,860,000 4,100,000
![Page 13: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
A higher share of the population in Scenarios 1 & 2 works full time – because full time workers travel more, the per capita GHG emissions increase.
Note the increase in retirees across each of the five scenarios.
![Page 14: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
![Page 15: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Scenarios 1 & 2 significantly outperform Scenarios 3, 4, & 5 in GHG reduction per worker
Workers travel more than non-workers. Because a larger share of the population works in scenarios 1 & 2, the GHG per capita number is misleadingly low relative to scenarios 3, 4, & 5. The GHG per worker metric attempts to put the scenarios on a more level playing field.
![Page 16: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Question: What is the impact of the transportation projects?
![Page 17: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
T-2035 network performs slightly worse on GHG relative to the no build
Core capacity network performs slightly better on GHG relative to the no build
![Page 18: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Generally speaking, the greenhouse gas emissions subject to this analysis are a function of …
1. … the amount of passenger vehicle travel; and,
2. … the speed of the traveling vehicles.
18
![Page 19: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Generally speaking, vehicles perform optimally at around 45 mph and perform well between 30 and 60 mph.
![Page 20: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Here, we take a closer look at Scenarios 3 and 5, comparing the VMT speed distribution with the build network to the speed distribution with the no build network
The transportation projects relieve congestion, reducing the amount of VMT traveled at slow speeds – which is good for GHG.
But the projects also allow vehicles to travel faster than 60 mph, which is bad for GHG.
![Page 21: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Question: How do travelers respond to the 50 percent increase in transit service included in the Core Capacity network?
![Page 22: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
In Scenario 2, transit boardings increase by over 100 percent relative to 2005.
![Page 23: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
![Page 24: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
BART system capacity improvements alleviate crowding in Scenarios 2, 3, & 4.
![Page 25: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Cordon pricing increases crowding at key Muni Metro locations in Scenarios 2, 3, & 4.
![Page 26: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
But transit, along with the other non-automobile travel modes, are still expected to be utilized for less than 20 percent of all trips.
![Page 27: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Question: What about the Year 2020 results?
![Page 28: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Each of the five scenarios exceeds the target.
![Page 29: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
![Page 30: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Question: What about the Year 2040 results?
![Page 31: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
The California Air Resources Board set GHG targets for 2020 and 2035.
Plan/Bay Area will extend through 2040; the analysis for the EIR will extend through 2040.
We do not expect the spirit of the 2035 results to differ from the 2040 results.
31
![Page 32: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Question: What about policies that are not well captured by the regional travel model?
![Page 33: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Question: What about the other performance targets?
![Page 34: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Next Steps
Public outreach Jan/Feb How do we meet the target? Better understand & model the
relationship between land use policy and land development patterns
34
![Page 35: Second Round Scenario Technical Results Regional Modeling Working Group December 7, 2011](https://reader038.vdocuments.mx/reader038/viewer/2022110304/5519bd635503466f578b4a45/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Thank you.
Additional questions?
35