Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
