Transcript TPB SCENARIO STUDY Progress on “CLRP Aspirations” & “What Would it Take?” Scenarios Monica Bansal and Michael Eichler Department of Transportation Planning Presentation to the.

1
TPB SCENARIO STUDY
Progress on “CLRP Aspirations” &
“What Would it Take?” Scenarios
Monica Bansal and Michael Eichler
Department of Transportation Planning
Presentation to the TPB Technical Committee
December 5, 2008
2
The Two New Scenarios
CLRP Aspirations
What Would it Take?
Draws on past studies and
public outreach to provide an
ambitious yet attainable vision
of land use and transportation
for the 2010 CLRP update and
to eventually serve as an
unconstrained long range plan.
Starts with COG regional CO2
goals and assesses what scales
and combinations of
interventions will be necessary
to achieve the goal for the
transportation sector.
3
Study Timeline
4
The Two New Scenarios
CLRP Aspirations
What Would it Take?
Draws on past scenarios (5
transportation/land use
scenarios and 2 value pricing
scenarios) to provide an
ambitious yet attainable vision
of land use and transportation
for the 2010 CLRP update.
Starts with CO2 goals (80%
below 2005 levels in 2050 and
20% reduction by 2020) and
assesses what scales and
combinations of interventions
will be necessary to achieve the
goal.
5
The Starting Point
Baseline
1. Round 7.1 Cooperative Forecast
2. 2008 CLRP
RMAS Land Use/Transportation Scenarios
1. More Households Scenario
2. Households In Scenario
3. Jobs Out Scenario
4. Region Undivided Scenario
5. Transit-Oriented Development Scenario
Value Pricing Scenarios
1. “DC and Parkways Restrained”
Public Outreach/Feedback on Previous Scenarios
6
Building the Scenario
Goal: To move jobs and housing closer together to create highly accessible
and developed areas, and achieve more efficient transportation systems
Land Use
Decisions
Pricing
Options
• Concentrating
projected growth in
activity centers and
existing/planned
transit stations
• Address
congestion through
pricing of new
and/or existing
lanes
• Consistent review
and refinement by
planning directors
• Provide
alternatives through
enhanced transit
Supportive
Transit
• Use menu of
transit options
from past
scenarios
• Connect activity
centers
• Review by
Regional Bus
Subcommittee
7
Scenario Criteria
“Within Reach”
1. Land use shifts should be within reach for
inclusion in the COG Cooperative Forecast
2. Transportation projects should be financially
within reach through tax revenues, developer
contributions, or pricing.
8
CLRP Aspirations: Land Use Component
9
10
11
12
CLRP Aspirations: Transportation Component
13
Existing System
Existing system of
activity centers
and high quality
transit shows mismatch. Many
transit stations
without activity
and many activity
centers without
high-quality transit.
14
CLRP Projects
The transit
projects in the
CLRP work to
address some of
these concerns.
Bi-County
Transitway
Corridor Cities
Transitway
Dulles Metrorail
Columbia Pike
Streetcar
Anacostia Streetcar
Crystal City/Potomac
Yard Transitway
15
Recommended RMAS Projects
Additional projects
evaluated under
RMAS should be
carried forward,
with minor
modification to
provide transit
service to
additional activity
centers.
Georgia Ave
Transitway
Extend Purple Line
to New Carrollton
VRE Extension to
Haymarket
US 1 Transitway
16
Studied Network of Variably Priced Lanes
A value pricing study
completed by the TPB
in February of 2008
evaluated a regional
network of variably
priced lanes, made up
of new capacity and
selected existing
facilities.
17
BRT Network Recommended for Scenario Study
A regional network
of BRT operating
mostly on the
priced lanes will
provide highquality transit
service to nearly
all activity centers
in the region.
18
BRT to Provide Rail-Like Level of Service
BRT stations will provide many features
to decrease boarding time:
• All-door, level boarding
• Off-board payment
• Room for 60’ articulated multi-door
buses
Other Operating Details:
• 12 minute peak headways
• 30 minute off-peak headways
• 45 MPH on priced lanes
• 15 MPH on priority corridor network
• Circulator service in activity centers
The Shirlington Transit Station in
Arlington, VA.
19
Full Scenario Transit Network
This network will
provide another
layer of highquality transit on
top of existing and
proposed transit
services.
20
Transportation Component of the CLRP Aspirations Scenario
Summary
• Evaluates a regional network of priced lanes that serves as the rightof-way for a high-quality Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network.
• Uses previously studied transportation facilities as starting points
– 2008 CLRP Baseline
– Regional network of variably priced lanes
– RMAS transit
• Focuses accessibility improvements on regional activity centers
–
–
–
–
Direct access ramps from priced lanes to activity centers
BRT stations serve activity centers, Metro stations, park-and-ride lots
Include RMAS projects that provide access to activity centers
New activity centers proposed: Fort Detrick, Wheaton, Westphalia and
Fort Belvoir
• Makes use of WMATA Priority Corridor Network (PCN) to provide
service to the urban core.
21
The Two New Scenarios
CLRP Aspirations
What Would it Take?
Draws on past scenarios (5
transportation/land use
scenarios and 2 value pricing
scenarios) to provide an
ambitious yet attainable vision
of land use and transportation
for the 2010 CLRP update.
Starts with CO2 goals (80%
below 2005 levels in 2050 and
20% reduction by 2020) and
assesses what scales and
combinations of interventions
will be necessary to achieve the
goal.
22
Setting up the WWIT Scenario
Goal: To reduce CO2 emissions by 10% in 2012, and 20% and 80% below
2005 levels in 2012, 2020 and 2050 respectively
3 categories of strategies to reduce mobile CO2 emissions
USE of FLEET
FLEET
Fuel Efficiency
Beyond CAFE
standards
[currently 35 mpg by
2020]
Fuel Carbon
Intensity
Travel Efficiency
Alternative fuels
(biofuels, hydrogen,
electricity)
Reduce VMT through
changes in land use,
travel behavior, prices
Reduce congestion
Improve operational
efficiency
23
Analyzing the WWIT Scenario
3 categories of analysis for each strategy
1. Effectiveness
2. Cost-effectiveness
3. Timeframe for Implementation
24
What can we do with the fleet?
Fuel Efficiency
Beyond CAFE
standards
[currently 35 mpg by
2020]
Fuel Carbon
Intensity
Travel Efficiency
Alternative fuels
(biofuels, hydrogen,
electricity)
Reduce VMT through
changes in land use,
travel behavior, prices
Reduce congestion
Improve operational
efficiency
25
What can we get with CAFE?
2010 Travel and CO2 Emissions
8-Hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area
VMT (Billions) %
- Annual
CO2 Emissions (Mil. %
Annual Tons)
Passenger Cars
19.06
47%
6.76
24%
Light Duty Trucks
(SUVs, etc)
18.94
46%
15.38
56%
Heavy Duty (Trucks,
Buses, etc)
2.94
7%
5.46
20%
Total
40.95
100%
27.60
100%
Characteristics of the Region’s Vehicle Fleet
26
27
What can we do with the fleet?
Fuel Efficiency
Beyond CAFE
standards
[currently 35 mpg by
2020]
Fuel Carbon
Intensity
Travel Efficiency
Alternative fuels
(biofuels, hydrogen,
electricity)
Reduce VMT through
changes in land use,
travel behavior, prices
Reduce congestion
Improve operational
efficiency
28
Forecast Characteristics of the Region’s Vehicle Fleet
29
How do we use the fleet?
(and how can this change)
Fuel Efficiency
Beyond CAFE
standards
[currently 35 mpg by
2020]
Fuel Carbon
Intensity
Travel Efficiency
Alternative fuels
(biofuels, hydrogen,
electricity)
Reduce VMT through
changes in land use,
travel behavior, prices
Reduce congestion
Improve operational
efficiency
30
How We Use the Fleet, An Example
31
32
Analyzing the WWIT Scenario
3 categories of analysis for each strategy
1. Effectiveness
2. Cost-effectiveness
3. Timeframe for Implementation
33
Cost-effectiveness
How can we begin to prioritize strategies?
Initial analysis of cost-effectiveness of Transportation
Emissions Reduction Measures ($ per ton of CO2 reduced)
Number
Category Description
CO2 Cost
Effectiveness
Range *
1
Telecommute Programs
$10 to $40
2
Signal Optimization
$30 to $50
3
Park & Ride Lots (Transit and HOV)
$100 to $500
4
Transit Service improvements
$100 to $800
34
Analyzing the WWIT Scenario
3 categories of analysis for each strategy
1. Effectiveness
2. Cost-effectiveness
3. Timeframe for Implementation
35
Timeframe for Implementation
Early action is essential to meet the goals
Example Reductions for Measures
While all 3 example
measures reduce 100
units of CO2 in 2020, the
cumulative emissions
reductions from 20112020 differ based on the
time required for
implementation and
realization of benefits.
36
Products
“Sliders” metaphor
Different
combinations of
interventions can
be assessed for
cost-effectiveness
and feasibility.
37
38
39