1. 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

2. 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

3. UPDATE ON CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE TRAVEL ANALYSIS MODEL CSTDM

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

5. CSTDM System Models Travel Modes Short 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) √√√

6. CSTDM Zones and Network (Current Model) 92,000+ nodes 250,000+ links Multi-modal 5454 internal zones 53 external zones

7. Contributions to Statewide Travel PersonalTruck ExternalTotal Short DistLong DistShort DistLong Dist Total Person Trips93%0.20%7%0.06%0.34%100% Total Vehicle Trips88%0.15%12%0.11%0.30%100% Total VMT (Auto/Truck ) 79%10%3%2%6%100%

8. CSTDM VERSUS OFF-MODEL SPECIFIC POLICY OR ASPIRATIONAL OBJECTIVE Analysis Framework

9. 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

10. Analysis Framework Matrix - Examples Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Road user chargeNone anticipated Off-ModelITS elementsEco driving

11. 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

12. PRICING TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES MODE SHIFT OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY Scenario Strategies

13. Pricing Strategies Road user charge (RUC) Gas tax Congestion pricing Expressed as auto operating costs  Function of fuel costs and vehicle efficiency

14. 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) 

15. Analysis Framework - Pricing Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Road User Charge Off-Model

16. Transportation Alternatives Telecommute Carpoolers Carsharing Assessed off-model // aspirational goals

17. 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

18. Analysis Framework – Transportation Alts Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Off-Model Increased: Telecommute Carpooling Carsharing

19. Mode Shift Transit improvements Bicycle improvements Pedestrian improvements Carpool changes Transit and carpool assessed with CSTDM Bike and walk assessed off-model

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Analysis Framework – Mode Shift Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Most Transit Improvements Carpools/HOV Off-Model BRT Bicycling Walking

24. 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)

25. Operational Efficiencies ITS/TSM  SACOG: 0.19% to 0.62% reduction in VMT Other Measures  TBD

26. Analysis Framework – Operational Efficiency Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Off-Model Incident/Emergency management Caltrans TMS Master Plan ITS/TSM Eco driving

27. Next Steps

28. 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