Presentation to George Washington University Transit-Oriented Development Seminar

1

Presentation to George Washington University Transit-Oriented Development Seminar

Ronald Kirby, Director of Transportation PlanningMetropolitan Washington Council of Governments

September 30, 2008

Transportation/Land-Use Scenarios for the Washington

Region:

The Role of Transit-Oriented Development,

Value Capture, and Implications for Climate Change

2

Transportation Planning in the Washington Region

Approximately 3,000 square miles

Includes 5 million people and 3 million jobs

The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) prepares a financially constrained, 30-year transportation plan for the TPB planning area

3

Growth in the Region

4

Where is the growth occurring in the region?

Estimates based on Round 7.1 of the Cooperative Land Use Forecast

5Greatest Congestion in Inner SuburbsThe Most Dramatic Change is in Outer Suburbs

Urban core defined as The District, Arlington and Alexandria. Inner suburbs defined as Fairfax county in Virginia and Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. Outer Suburbs defined as Loudoun, Prince William, and Stafford counties in Virginia; Frederick, Calvert and Charles counties in Maryland.

6

Shifting Funding SourcesTotal CLRP Revenues 2007 – 2030: $4.5 Billion per year (2006 dollars)

7Most Transportation Dollars Are Needed for

Maintenance

30%

70%

New Roads and Transit*

Operations & Preservation*

* Based on region’s 2007 Constrained Long-Range Plan

8

Land Use and Population Issues

The region is growing at a rapid pace

People are living farther from their jobs

People on the eastern side of the region are commuting long distances to jobs in the west due to uneven development patterns

The land around transit stations is not being used as efficiently as we would like

9

1. More Households Scenario2. Households In Scenario3. Jobs Out Scenario4. Region Undivided Scenario5. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)

Scenario

5 Scenarios to address the issues:

TPB Regional Mobility and Accessibility Study, 2001-

2006

10

Impacts of the Scenarios: Congestion would decrease

Compared to baseline forecasts for 2030

Lane Miles of Severe AM Peak Period Congestion

-6.9%-6.4%

-1.4%

-2.7%

-4.6%

MoreHouseholds Households In Jobs Out

RegionUndivided

TransitOriented

Development

11

Successful Strategies From the Five Scenarios

Put jobs and households closer together

Encourage mixed-use development around transit

Provide more transit to support regional activity centers.

12

Yellow Stars: Interactive Program

Orange Stars: Study Briefing

Outreach Program Throughout Region

2004-2006

13

Recommendations from Outreach Program

– Need to ensure adequate transit capacity to support TOD

– Assist local jurisdictions to “do density right”

– Look at composite scenarios and localized impacts

– Consider broader quality of life factors– Explore ways to prioritize

transportation projects on a regional level

14

The TPB Transportation/Land Use Connections (TLC)

Program Initiated January 2007

TLC provides:

Information Sharing: Comprehensive website on transportation/land use techniques and experience

Technical Assistance: Consultants provide up to $20k in assistance to local jurisdictions.

Continuity: Program approved for next year with max assistance increased to $60k

To date: 22 projects initiated in 16 jurisdictions; 6 completed

15

3 Scenarios of Variably Priced Lanes (VPLs) looking at:

All Freeways

Arterials outside Beltway

Convert existing HOV lanes

Direct access ramps at key interchanges

Add high quality bus transit to VPLs

TPB Value Pricing StudyOctober 2006-February 2008

16

Comprehensive Cost-Benefit Comprehensive Cost-Benefit AnalysisAnalysisComprehensive Cost-Benefit Comprehensive Cost-Benefit AnalysisAnalysis• Practices and procedures firmly in place for

virtually all types of public infrastructure

• Transit the exception; assessment confined to ridership and related performance measures (transit user time savings)

• Ridership reflects mobility, but not other objectives and benefits of transit:• Congestion management • Environment• Safety• Economic development • Transit-oriented development

Dr. David Lewis, HDR|Decision EconomicsDr. David Lewis, HDR|Decision Economics

17

Why is Transit Treated Differently?Why is Transit Treated Differently?Why is Transit Treated Differently?Why is Transit Treated Differently?

• Stems from FTA “New Starts Process”

• FTA process designed to rate applicant projects for pool of federal funds

• FTA process not designed to guide local infrastructure investment choices and trade-offs

• FTA process not designed to enable comparisons of value among infrastructure alternatives (highway options; congestion pricing options; technology options)


18Need Comprehensive Need Comprehensive Recognition Recognition

of Transit Benefitsof Transit Benefits

Need Comprehensive Need Comprehensive Recognition Recognition

of Transit Benefitsof Transit Benefits

• Mobility

• Congestion Management

• Community Economic Development


19

MobilityMobility

• Time savings to transit users

• Cash savings to low income households for reallocation to housing, nutrition, child care …

• Cross-sector benefits: reduced financial burden on social services


20

Congestion ManagementCongestion Management

• Reduced delay

• Improved reliability, predictability and productivity

• Reduced environmental emissions

• Lower vehicle operating costs

• Safety (lives, injuries, property)


21

Community Economic Community Economic DevelopmentDevelopment

Location Efficiency

Measurement

• High density economic activity• Less demand for motorized trips• Reduced auto-ownership requirements,

dependence• Higher density life-style

• Development benefits measured as increased economic growth

• land value


22

CASE: Streetcar InvestmentCASE: Streetcar Investment(Cincinnati, Ohio)(Cincinnati, Ohio)

Millions of Constant Dollars (Present Value)

Congestion Management

$16.4

Mobility $35.2

Economic Development

$378.9

Total Costs $115.8

Focus on ridership benefits alone can miss financing opportunities and lead to the mistaken conclusion that a project is not economically worthwhile


23

Value of Cost-Benefit Value of Cost-Benefit AnalysisAnalysis

• Enables quantitative understanding of significance of transit investment for economic well-being of region

• Facilitates understanding of development-basedfinancing capacity of transit investment

• Facilitates community understanding, deliberation and consensus

• Allows comparative ranking of alternative scenarios for the region, including transit, highways, pricing and other policy options


24

CLRP AspirationsDraws on past scenarios (5 transportation/land use scenarios and 3 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.

What Would it Take?

Two New Scenarios

25

Land Use Changes Based on Previous Scenarios:

New Scenario Growth Shifts from 2010-2030

Households Employment

26

Proposed BRT Network on Variably Priced Lanes

Bus stations are Bus stations are located in located in activity centers, activity centers, park and ride park and ride lots and existing lots and existing Metrorail Metrorail stations via stations via dedicated dedicated access rampsaccess ramps

27

Addressing New Issues: Climate Change

2002 2030 % Change

Employment 2,893,646 4,162,621 44%

Households 1,742,117 2,463,893 41%

Annual VMT (000,000’s)

39,212 53,726 37%

NOx (tons/day)

259.232 34.899 -87%

VOC (tons/day)

101.117 39.41 -61%

CO2 (tons/year)

23,273,168 34,450,922 48%

Changes in Travel Demand, Mobile Emissions and Demographics

(for the 8-Hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area)

28

Goal: To reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, 20% and 80% below 2005 levels in 2012, 2020 and 2050 respectively

Responding to Climate Change

CO2 Emissions from Cars, Trucks, and BusesAll figures are Annual Tons of CO2 Emissions (in Millions) in the

8-hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area

2005 2020 2030

Baseline Emissions (prior to 2007 CAFE) 24.89 31.02 34.45

% Change from 2005 levels --- 24.6% 38.4%

Emissions With 2007 CAFE (35 mpg by 2020) 24.89 26.83 26.91

% Change from 2005 levels --- 7.8% 8.1%

CCSC Proposed Regional Goal 24.89 19.91 14.93

% Change from 2005 levels --- -20.0% -40.0%

Emissions with Enhanced CAFE (55 mpg by 2020)

24.89 23.63 20.86

% Change from 2005 levels --- -5.1% -16.2%

29

Fuel EfficiencyFuel Carbon

Intensity

3 categories of strategies to reduce mobile CO2 emissions

Travel Efficiency

Reduce VMT through changes in land use, travel behavior, prices

Reduce congestion

Improve operational efficiency

Beyond CAFE standards [currently 35 mpg by 2020]

Alternative fuels (biofuels, hydrogen, electricity)

Vehicle technology (hybrid engine technology)

Reducing Mobile GHG Emissions

30Key Strategies for the Future

Keep making the case for increased federal and state funding

Consider a wide variety of other funding sources, including tolls and local proffers, impact fees and bonding

In the short-run, address localized choke-points; manage demand; and improve operations and incident management

In the longer-run, do a better job of integrating land use and transportation

Documents

Presentation to George Washington University Transit-Oriented Development Seminar