Environment Emissions Greenhouse gases Regional pollutants Energy use Transportation energy Building...

1

Environment

• Emissions• Greenhouse gases• Regional pollutants

• Energy use• Transportation energy • Building energy

• Water • Water use• Runoff – flooding• Runoff – pollution

• Consumption of open space• Sensitive habitat• Agricultural land

Health

• Collisions• Physical activity• Emissions

• Greenhouse gases• Regional pollutants

• Mental health

Cost

• Increased costs to state and local government

• Roads• Other infrastructure• Schools• Services

• Increased private transportation cost

• Increased building costs (due to parking costs)

• Reduced productivity per acre due to parking

• Housing supply/demand mismatch future blight

Implications of High VMT Development

June 2015

2

SpeakersNat Bottigheimer and Matthew RidgwayJune 2015

Lessons Learned from California’s Environmental Review Process

Action Committee for Transit

June 9, 2015

3May 2015

Planning Context….County Growth to 2030

4June 2015

Planning Context….Conditions Today

5June 2015

Switching Horses….

…in Mid-Stream

6June 2015

The Planning Process Today

• Overview of the planning process today

7June 2015

The Planning Process Today

• Land Use Plan Example

8June 2015

The Planning Process Today

• Transportation Plan Example

9

Punishes last-in, inhibits infill, pushes development outward“Solves” local congestion, exacerbates regional congestion

June 2015

Problems with LOS as a Measure of Transportation Impact

10

Analysis of infill development using LOS

Relatively little vehicle travel loaded onto the network

Chris Ganson, CA OPRJune 2015

11

Analysis of infill development using LOS

Relatively little vehicle travel loaded onto the network

…but numerous LOS impacts

June 2015

12

Analysis of greenfield development using LOS

Typically three to four times the vehicle travel loaded onto the network relative to infill development

…but relatively few LOS impacts

Traffic generated by the project is disperse enough by the time it reaches congested areas that it doesn’t trigger LOS thresholds, even though it contributes broadly to regional congestion.

June 2015

13

Inhibits transit

Inhibits active transport

June 2015

Problems with LOS as a Measure of Transportation Impact

1 person

40 people

1 person2 people

14

Measures congestion; shows failure when we succeedMeasures mobility poorly; fails to optimize network

June 2015

Problems with LOS as a Measure of Transportation Impact

15

Forces more road construction than we can afford to maintain

June 2015

Problems with LOS as a Measure of Transportation Impact

16June 2015

Problems with LOS as a Measure of Transportation Impact

Leads to costly, unhelpful solutions

17

1. Punishes last-in, inhibits infill, pushes development outward2. “Solves” local congestion, exacerbates regional congestion3. Inhibits transit4. Inhibits active transport5. Measures congestion, not access; shows failure when we succeed 6. Measures mobility poorly; fails to optimize network even for autos7. Forces more road construction than we can afford to maintain8. Hard to calculate and inaccurate9. Leads to costly, unhelpful solutions

June 2015

Problems with LOS as a Measure of Transportation Impact

18June 2015

California Policy Context

• Regulatory and Technical Evolution

SB 375

AB 32

SB 97

SB 226

SB 743

AB 1358

AB 2245AB 417

Executive Order S-3-05

California Policy Context

June 2015 19

20

Executive Order B-30-15• 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030

June 2015

California Policy Context

21

Senate Bill 743• Align with State Policy• Replace LOS with new criteria

in the CEQA Guidelines • Auto delay ≠ environmental

impact• Safety• Officially precludes parking as

an environmental impact

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Implementing SB 743

June 2015

22

Preliminary Discussion Draft• VMT is primary metric

– Land Use– Transportation

• Safety • Methodology• Mitigation Measures• Applicability• Appendices and Explanatory

Materials

CEQA Guidelines Implementing SB 743

June 2015

23June 2015

The New Planning Process

24

Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

Removes barriers to infill

June 2015

25

Old: LOS on local intersections and highway segments

New: VMT loaded onto the roadway network(could be area based)

June 2015

Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

Removes barriers to infill

26

Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

Easier to model

Already used (e.g. for Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis)

June 2015

27

• Trip-based calculation– Residential: VMT/capita– Office: VMT/employee– Other: VMT/trip– Alternative: VMT/person-trip

• Area-wide calculation– Change in VMT over the entire

area

June 2015

Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

28June 2015

Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

29June 2015

Modeling Example

• MainStreet/MXD+

http://asap.fehrandpeers.com/mainstreet/

The Problem

The 7 DsThat Influence Trip Generation

DensityDistanceto TransitDestinationsDiversity Design Demographics

DevelopmentScale

Independent Validation Sites

15

California

6

Florida

2Texas

2Georgia

2South Carolina

2Utah

MainStreet Application – Advanced Approach

External Vehicle Trip Estimates – Incremental Project Trips

Method Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

ITE Trip Generation 517 37 43

ITE Handbook 517 35 42

MainStreet 233 10 17

MainStreet Application – Advanced Approach

35

Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

More accurate

June 2015

36

Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

Sees the big picture

June 2015

37

Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

Mitigation doesn’t undo itself by inducing more car travel

June 2015

Cervero, Hansen, 2001

Hansen, Huang, 1997

Hansen, Huang, 1997

Marshall, 1996

Rodier, et.al., 2001

Strathman, et.al., 2000

Cervero, 2001

Fulton, et.al., 2000

Hansen et.al., 1993

Noland, 2001

Noland, 2001

Noland, Cowart, 2000

Cervero, 2002

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Chart 2 - Long-Term Elasticity for All Improvement Types

Elasticity Values

Au

tho

rs, Y

ear

38

Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

Mitigation reduces long run maintenance burden

June 2015

39

Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

Mitigation forwards other environmental and human health factors

June 2015Building Better Budgets by Smart Growth America, 2013

38%

10%

10x

Potential reduction in upfront infrastructure costs

Potential reduction in police, ambulance, and fire service costs

Potential increase in tax revenue generation

Compact Urban Development versus Conventional Suburban Development

40

Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

1. Removes barriers to infill

2. Easier to model

3. Already used (e.g. for Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis)

4. More accurate

5. Sees the big picture

6. Mitigation doesn’t undo itself by inducing more car travel

7. Mitigation reduces long run maintenance burden

8. Mitigation forwards other environmental and human health factors

June 2015

41June 2015

Statewide Implementation

Urban• Streamline infill• Streamline transit and active transportation projects• Lots of mitigation options, greatest percent VMT reduction

Suburban• Problems with LOS, benefits of VMT apply here too• Many mitigation options; greatest absolute VMT reduction

Rural• Again, problems with LOS, benefits of VMT apply here too• Some mitigation options at the plan level, some at the project level• VMT mitigation limits growth of small towns

All: Benefits to environment, health, public cost, private expenditures

42

Use Ad-hoc, LOS-triggered mitigation (highly problematic)

Use LOS to plan roadway capacity; use number of units or square footage to estimate project impact (not ideal)

Use LOS to plan roadway capacity; use VMT to estimate project impact (okay)

Use accessibility/connectivity metric to plan network; use VMT to estimate project impact (ideal)

June 2015

What might LOS’s role be post-SB 743?

Bad G

ood

43

Impacts of High VMT Development

Environment

• Emissions• Greenhouse gases• Regional pollutants

• Energy use• Transportation energy • Building energy

• Water • Water use• Runoff – flooding• Runoff – pollution

• Consumption of open space• Sensitive habitat• Agricultural land

Health

• Collisions• Physical activity• Emissions

• Greenhouse gases• Regional pollutants

• Mental health

Cost

• Increased costs to state and local government

• Roads• Other infrastructure• Schools• Services

• Increased private transportation cost

• Increased building costs (due to parking costs)

• Reduced productivity per acre due to parking

• Housing supply/demand mismatch future blight

June 2015

44

Roadway expansion reduces travel time, which leads to:

1. Longer trips (↑ VMT)2. Mode shift toward automobile (↑ VMT)3. Newly generated trips (↑ VMT)4. Route changes (can ↑ or ↓ or VMT)5. More disperse land use development (↑ VMT)

We would expect each of these effects as a result of basic supply and demand.

Induced Travel Causes

May 2015

45

Outcome:• Congestion relief fails to persist• Benefit of investment lost

Results:• Fiscal waste• Increase transportation costs• Harm to environment• Harm to health

Induced Travel Implications

May 2015

46

Old: LOS impacts at nearby intersections from rerouted/induced vehicle travel+ Induced VMT analysis required for GHG calculation

New: Induced (or reduced) VMT

VMT from Roadway Expansion Projects - Overview

May 2015