1. Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to 11 th TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference, May 2007, Daytona Beach presented by Robert G. Schiffer, AICP Cambridge Systematics, Inc. May 7, 2007 Modeling of Alternatives During Long-Range Transportation Plan Development

2. 1 Presentation Overview Typical LRTP Process LRTP Scenarios Scenario Evaluation Resulting LRTPs Conclusions

3. 2 Typical LRTP Process Model development and validation (might be separate contract) Plan update (see below) Public Workshops Public Hearing LRTP 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. 3 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 Pattern ExistingFocused 2030 Growth Forecast High (120 percent) High growth/existing pattern High growth/focused pattern Moderate (30 percent) Moderate growth/existing pattern Moderate growth/focused pattern

5. 4 LRTP Scenarios (continued) Modal examples Broward County, FL – Maximum highway versus maximum transit (polar opposites with minimal modal blending) First Coast MPO, FL – Highway versus transit emphasis (alternative blends with mode-based focal points) Existing versus new corridor/technology examples Capital Region, FL – Enhanced and existing systems versus new and future systems (relates both to highway and transit) Polk County, FL – Existing emphasis versus new emphasis (new highways versus investing in improving existing highways) Chattanooga, TN/GA – Emphasis on upgrades versus new location roadways; interstate widening versus HOV lanes (similar to Polk with subsets related to interstate projects)

6. 5 LRTP Scenarios (continued) CRTPA Existing and Enhanced Systems Alternative (Highway & Transit Maps) CRTPA New and Future Systems Alternative (Highway & Transit Maps)

7. 6 LRTP Scenarios (continued) Policy examples Atlanta, GA – Transit emphasis versus land use emphasis versus congestion pricing (research-based “sketch modeling”) Combined transportation/land use examples DeKalb County, GA (three network and four land use scenarios below) Growth/Development Assumptions Network Scenario Trends New Visions Comprehensive Moderate growth/existing pattern  (Alt. E)  (Alt. A) Moderate growth/focused pattern  (Alt. G)  (Alt. B) High growth/existing pattern  (Alt. F)  (Alt. C) High growth/focused pattern  (Alt. H)  (Alt. D)

8. 7 LRTP Scenarios (continued) End result is blended scenario Best performing projects from earlier scenarios Projects with best stakeholder response Equates to Draft Needs Plan/Needs Assessment Fine tuning of projects prior to adoption/concurrence Identify Future Year Congestion Areas Testing of Blended Scenario(s) Testing of Alternative Scenarios Development of Future Year Travel Demand Forecasts Fine-Tuning of Blended Scenario(s) Final Needs Plan

9. 8 Scenario Evaluation Identify performance measures Compare system performance Stakeholder input Scenario refinement Adoption/concurrence

10. 9 Scenario Evaluation (continued) Some typical performance measures Vehicle-miles traveled Vehicle-hours traveled Volume/capacity ratios Mode split Transit ridership Vehicle-trips by mode Congested speed Roadway level-of-service Vehicle-hours of delay Fuel consumption Average travel time

11. 10 Scenario Evaluation (continued) Performance measures by study area Study Area VMT VHT V/C LOS Mode Split Transit Ridership Vehicles by Mode Congested Speed Vehicle- Hours Delay Fuel Consumption Average Travel Time Atlanta Regional Commission XXX X Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale), FL XX X X XX Capital Region (Tallahassee), FL XX X XXX Chattanooga, TN- North Georgia XX X Collier County (Naples), FL XX XX DeKalb County (Decatur), GA XXX XXX X First Coast (Jacksonville), FL XX X X XX Polk County (Lakeland), FL XX X X XX LRTP Performance Measures

12. 11 Scenario Evaluation (continued) VMT and VHT by study area (highway versus transit emphasis) Study Area Base Year Future Year E+C Future Year Highway Future Year Transit VMTVHTVMTVHTVMTVHTVMTVHT Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale), FL 34.00.851.71.852.21.452.21.5 Capital Region (Tallahassee), FL 9.10.313.70.513.60.413.60.4 DeKalb County (Decatur), GA 19.10.524.31.024.00.724.10.8 First Coast (Jacksonville), FL 32.11.354.93.555.42.255.32.3 Note: Most highway and transit friendly scenarios selected for above comparison. VMT and VHT in Millions

13. 12 Scenario Evaluation (continued) VMT and VHT by study area (existing versus new highways) Study Area Base YearFuture Year E+CFuture Year ExistFuture Year New VMTVHTVMTVHTVMTVHTVMTVHT Capital Region (Tallahassee), FL9.10.313.70.513.60.413.60.4 Chattanooga, TN-North Georgia10.80.317.00.616.90.617.10.5 Collier County (Naples), FL17.40.542.12.4n/a Polk County (Lakeland), FL12.90.323.41.023.20.623.30.6 Note: Comparison between emphasis on existing versus new highways. VMT and VHT in Millions

14. 13 Scenario Evaluation (continued) Study Area 2030 Needs Plan 2030 Transit 2030 Land Use 2030 Congestion Pricing VMTVHTVMTVHTVMTVHTVMTVHT Atlanta Regional Commission 185.98.6178.07.7178.67.9183.18.0 Note: Trip table adjustments made to reflect a) doubling transit, b) land use intensification, and c) parking fees. VMT and VHT for ARC (sketch modeling scenarios) Research conducted on potential trip reductions Adjustments applied to 2030 trip tables based on research −Transit – doubling transit in areas currently served by transit −Land Use – short- and long-distance trips reduced with LU density −Congestion Pricing – assumes shift in travel periods with pricing VMT and VHT in Millions

15. 14 Scenario Evaluation (continued) Other example measures Transit ridership Broward 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Transit Ridership 115,475 80,005 93,658 104,880 83,087 74,444 60,748 0102030405060708090100110120130 2030 Cost Feasible Plan 2030 Transit Land Use Alt. 2030 Needs Plan 2030 Max Transit 2030 Max Highway 2030 E+C Base Year-2000 Model Year Transit Trips (in Thousands) FCMPO 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Transit Ridership Model Year 43,730 86,239 85,871 80,850 53,382 19,342 42,065 30,206 17,550 20,823 0102030405060708090100 2030 Cost Feasible 2030 Adopted Needs 2030 Alternative Land Use Needs 2030 Transit Emphasis 2030 Highway Emphasis 2030 E+C 2025 2015 2005 Base Year-2000 Transit Trips (in Thousands)

16. 15 Scenario Evaluation (continued) Other example measures Transit ridership (First Coast alternative land use scenario – intensified land use densities along proposed rapid transit corridors)

17. 16 Scenario Evaluation (continued) Other example measures Congested speed Broward 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Congested Speeds 33.75 34.21 35.22 34.05 35.27 31.94 37.8 25303540 2030 Cost Feasible Plan 2030 Transit Land Use Alt. 2030 Needs Plan 2030 Max Transit 2030 Max Highway 2030 E+C Base Year-2000 Model Year Miles per Hour FCMPO 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Congested Speeds 25.39 27.53 27.56 25.97 26.67 20.22 25.29 26.03 25.70 28.03 051015202530 2030 Cost Feasible 2030 Adopted Needs 2030 Alternative Land Use Needs 2030 Transit Emphasis 2030 Highway Emphasis 2030 E+C 2025 2015 2005 Base Year-2000 Model Year Miles per Hour

18. 17 Scenario Evaluation (continued) Other example measures Vehicle-hours delay Broward 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Vehicle-Hours Delay 456 403 356 416 362 697 110 0100200300400500600700800 2030 Cost Feasible Plan 2030 Transit Land Use Alt. 2030 Needs Plan 2030 Max Transit 2030 Max Highway 2030 E+C Base Year-2000 Model Year Vehicle-Hours Delay (in Thousands) FCMPO 2030 LRTP Comparisons of Vehicle-Hours Delay 961 679 683 836 753 2,043 937 778 781 476 02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002,200 2030 Cost Feasible 2030 Adopted Needs 2030 Alternative Land Use Needs 2030 Transit Emphasis 2030 Highway Emphasis 2030 E+C 2025 2015 2005 Base Year-2000 Model Year Vehicle-Hours Delay (in Thousands)

19. 18 Scenario Evaluation (Continued) Other example measures: Roadway LOS

20. 19 Resulting LRTPs 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. 20 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. 21 Resulting LRTPs (continued) First Coast MPO 2030 Multi-Modal Cost Feasible Plan

23. 22 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 slightly more effective than transit-focused alternatives) VMT can be impacted more significantly by substantially reducing the number of auto trips over other scenarios

24. 23 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

25. 24 Questions and Comments