1. UrbanSim Model and Data Development John Britting Wasatch Front Regional Council

2. Background Local application under development for 7 years Local application under development for 7 years Lawsuit settlement agreement increased our focus with respect to application Lawsuit settlement agreement increased our focus with respect to application Need to determine whether suitable for use locally by January 2004; with peer review Need to determine whether suitable for use locally by January 2004; with peer review  Learned a lot  modeling system operational  not suitable for use yet

3. What we want from UrbanSim Tool for scenario comparisons Interrelationships between infrastructure policies & land-use  Can (potentially) inform planning process w.r.t. secondary/cumulative impacts

4. Outcome of Peer Review Move ahead… Move ahead… Should be useful in short- term Should be useful in short- term Refine to meet WFRC’s needs Refine to meet WFRC’s needs Reasonable results for significant policies Reasonable results for significant policies (Eventually) Superior to current process (Eventually) Superior to current process Commitment to better planning Commitment to better planning However… Add’l tuning is required for immediate use Needs a more timely and improved dataset Difficult to interpret the impacts of less significant policies Not ready for corridor studies

5. WFRC Resolution on UrbanSim The Council finds that additional testing of UrbanSim is needed…, (including) research into model refinement, data, policy implications, estimation of resources needed, and an outreach program to familiarize planning staffs in the region on the appropriate and useful applications of UrbanSim…

6. Good News Reasonable response to large-scale policy changes Reasonable response to large-scale policy changes The model is operational The model is operational Initial outreach efforts were useful Initial outreach efforts were useful

7. Not Good News Little/no sensitivity to less significant policies Database needs to be improved Randomness 0% or 100% residential vacancy rates Price inflation Still discovering bugs

8. Technical Work Plan Data Development Data Development Refine representation of land policies and existing land-use Refine representation of land policies and existing land-use Model Development Model Development Re-estimate and validate all models Re-estimate and validate all models Improve logic Improve logic Application Utilities Application Utilities Make implementation smoother and more effective (and working correctly) Make implementation smoother and more effective (and working correctly) Overcome randomness Overcome randomness Summarize and present key indicators quickly (utilize SQL and GIS effectively to save time) Summarize and present key indicators quickly (utilize SQL and GIS effectively to save time)

9. Need for Data Development Residential Capacity Non-Residential Capacity Dark blue is NYC dense

10. Key Models in UrbanSim Land Price Model Land Price Model Developer Models Developer Models Residential Location Choice Model Residential Location Choice Model Employment Location Choice Models Employment Location Choice Models

11. Land Price Model Development Goals Goals Reasonable relationships that will hold over time Reasonable relationships that will hold over time Thorough validation effort Thorough validation effort Account for variation in value by type of use Account for variation in value by type of use  Redevelopment analysis Appropriate sensitivity to transportation accessibility Appropriate sensitivity to transportation accessibility  Transportation/Land-use interaction

12. Preliminary Results Distance from highway Distance from highway Residential/commercial (+, then -); Industrial (-) Residential/commercial (+, then -); Industrial (-) Land price of neighborhood (+) Land price of neighborhood (+) Access. to employment (Residential +) Access. to employment (Residential +) Access. to population (Non-residential +) Access. to population (Non-residential +) Consistency between Zoning/Use (+) Consistency between Zoning/Use (+) Environmental factors (slope, open, roads, etc.) Environmental factors (slope, open, roads, etc.) Residential (+, then -); Non-residential (-) Residential (+, then -); Non-residential (-)

13. Defining Accessibility Regional measure was initially used – function of logsum and activity at destination Regional measure was initially used – function of logsum and activity at destination Local measure was also used in location choice models (walking distance) Local measure was also used in location choice models (walking distance) We have three urban areas We have three urban areas  Regional, sub-regional and local accessibility likely to be important

14. Regional vs. Sub-regional Access Regional on left Both measures have merit Sub-regional shows logical patterns around 3 big urban cores

15. Land Price Model Validation Initial review suggests patterns are similar Initial review suggests patterns are similar More to do to validate More to do to validate Categorical in application Categorical in application

16. Dealing with Inflation Average land price increases substantially over 33 year simulation (4% per year) Average land price increases substantially over 33 year simulation (4% per year)  Accessibility/pop/emp are the culprits Average income stays in year 2000 dollars Average income stays in year 2000 dollars Options: Options: Use a different accessibility measure Use a different accessibility measure Inflate income or deflate price Inflate income or deflate price Use categorical price variables Use categorical price variables

17. Additional Model Development Need to use predicted land price in estimation Need to use predicted land price in estimation Need to make implied behavior more consistent with theoretical understanding Need to make implied behavior more consistent with theoretical understanding Existing models: Existing models: (HH/Dev) higher price is always more attractive (HH/Dev) higher price is always more attractive (HH) closer proximity to highways is preferred (HH) closer proximity to highways is preferred Tricky to quantify residential character of neighborhoods Tricky to quantify residential character of neighborhoods A lot of multi-collinearity that clouds transparency A lot of multi-collinearity that clouds transparency Careful validation is necessary Careful validation is necessary

18. Residential Location Segmented by income quartile Segmented by income quartile Logical sensitivities to price by income segments (non-linear) Logical sensitivities to price by income segments (non-linear) Larger households prefer lower density; smaller households prefer higher density (non-linear) Larger households prefer lower density; smaller households prefer higher density (non-linear) All income groups tend to cluster All income groups tend to cluster Wrestling with accessibility measures Wrestling with accessibility measures

19. Model Development Challenges Not a lot of experience in practice with these models Not a lot of experience in practice with these models Many non-linear relationships (e.g. price, density, accessibility) Many non-linear relationships (e.g. price, density, accessibility) 0-car vs. 1-car vs. 2-car accessibility parameters – what is a reasonable relationship? 0-car vs. 1-car vs. 2-car accessibility parameters – what is a reasonable relationship? Behavior vs. Patterns in data Behavior vs. Patterns in data KISS KISS

20. Sensitivity to Accessibility How much is appropriate? How much is appropriate? Use sensitivity testing to understand model response (Right direction? How much change is needed to get a response?) Use sensitivity testing to understand model response (Right direction? How much change is needed to get a response?) Quantify average contribution to choice probabilities & price Quantify average contribution to choice probabilities & price Utilize year-built data and TDM to do historical validation (quantify changes in accessibility and development from 1992-2002) Utilize year-built data and TDM to do historical validation (quantify changes in accessibility and development from 1992-2002)

21. Randomness

22. Schedule/Milestones LRP is due in 28 months LRP is due in 28 months Expect the work-plan coming out of the peer review to be complete in 1 year Expect the work-plan coming out of the peer review to be complete in 1 year Experimentation is on-going Experimentation is on-going Land-use plan refinements will be completed within 2 months Land-use plan refinements will be completed within 2 months Land price and residential location models will be completed within 1 month Land price and residential location models will be completed within 1 month