MEETING WILL BEGIN SHORTLY
Transcript of MEETING WILL BEGIN SHORTLY
1
MEETING WILL BEGIN SHORTLY
R E G I O N A L T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Metropolitan Planning SubcommitteeJuly 14, 2020
2
Item #1
CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD
FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
Item #2
DESIGNATE OFFICERS FOR 2020-2021
(FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)
3
Item #3 and #4
CONSENT AGENDA
Item #5
APPROVE THE SOUTHERN NEVADA
COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-
HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION
PLAN (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)
4
COORDINATEDPUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
July 14, 2020
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BACKGROUND
Organizations involved coordinate and
provide transportation services
Federal transit law requirement for Section
5310 project funding
5
PURPOSE
Improve mobility for seniors, people with disabilities, and low income individuals
PROCESS
STEP
1Needs
Assessment
STEP
2
Inventory
STEP
3Strategy
Concepts
STEP
4Coordination
Actions
STEP
5Prioritized Strategies
6
COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION GOALS
EXPAND MOBILITY OPTIONS
INCREASE AWARENESS
LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY
IMPROVE CONNECTIONS TO TRANSIT
EXPAND REGIONAL COLLABORATION
FEEDBACK
PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD
STAKEHOLDERS &
COMMITTEES
7
NEXT STEPS
✔ July 2020: RTC Committees
✔ August 2020: RTC Board
✔ Quarterly advisory committee implementation meetings
RTCSNV.COM/CTP
8
Item #6
APPROVE THE ON BOARD
REGIONAL MOBILITY PLAN
(FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)
METROPOLITAN PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEEJULY 14, 2020
9
The future ofSouthern NevadaTransportation and mobility is here.
AGENDA
Outreach and Engagement
Overview of the OnBoard Mobility Plan
Economic Impacts
Final Survey Results
Prioritization Exercise
Final Steps and Timeline
10
OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
19
RTC presence at 100s of events
100+ speaking engagements
80,000+ in person contacts
Hundreds of online & physical comments
3 Online Surveys; nearly 30,000 responses
TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP & COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
Technical Advisory Group meetings
TAG meetings (3/2017 – 2/2020):
18 meetings
1) 03/30/2017
2) 05/25/2017
3) 08/03/2017
4) 09/28/2017
5) 11/30/2017
6) 01/05/2018
7) 04/05/2018
8) 05/31/2018
9) 07/26/2018
10) 08/23/2018
11) 10/18/2018
12) 03/28/2019
13) 05/02/2019
14) 05/30/2019
15) 06/27/2019
16) 08/01/2019
17) 09/26/2019
18) 02/27/2020
Community Stakeholder meetings
Stakeholder meetings (7/2017 – 2/2020):
4 meetings
1) 07/26/2017
2) 02/07/2019
3) 04/30/2019
4) 02/12/2020
11
AGENDA
Outreach and Engagement
Overview of the OnBoard Mobility Plan
Economic Impacts
Final Survey Results
Prioritization Exercise
Final Steps and Timeline
ONBOARD MOBILITY PLAN
1: Build High Capacity Transit Plan
2: Expand Transit Service to Maximize Access to Jobs and Housing
3: Make All Travel Options Safer and More Secure
4: Make Short Trips Easier
5: Expand Service for Seniors, Veterans, and People with Disabilities
6: Improve Connections to Major Destinations
7: Provide Reliable Transit for Resort Corridor Employees
8: Leverage New Technology to Improve Mobility
8 Big Moves
64 Projects
12
BIG MOVE #1: HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT
23
Individual Projects and Strategies• Phase One Projects:
• Charleston (LRT or BRT)
• Cross-Valley Connector (BRT or LRT)
[Boulder Highway-Flamingo-Decatur]
• North 5th (BRT or LRT)
• 6 Rapid Bus (Rancho, Craig, Nellis,
Eastern, Sunset, Paradise)
• Phase Two Projects (10+ years):• Sahara (BRT)
• Craig Road (BRT)
• Eastern BRT
• 6 Rapid Bus (Jones/Rainbow,
Tropicana, Martin Luther King Blvd,
Nellis/Stephanie, North Las Vegas
Blvd, South Las Vegas Blvd)
• Resort Corridor Euro Tram
24
Individual Projects and Strategies
BIG MOVE #2: EXPAND TRANSIT SERVICE TO
MAXIMIZE ACCESS TO JOBS AND HOUSING
• Expand Transit Access and
Improve Service Quality
• Pilot/Develop New Service
Models for High Need, Low
Density Areas
• Offer Transit Service Buy-Up
Options
• Implement Transit Fare Capping
Program
• Reduced Fare Program for
Students, Seniors, and Veterans
13
25
Individual Projects and Strategies
BIG MOVE #3: MAKE ALL TRAVEL OPTIONS SAFER
AND MORE SECURE
• Traffic Crash Review and
Countermeasures Program
• Bus Stop Safety & Security
Improvements
• Utilize Established “Crime
Prevention Through
Environmental Design”
Strategies During Design of
Transit Facilities
• On-Bus Security Enhancements
& Presence
26
Individual Projects and Strategies
BIG MOVE #4: MAKE SHORT TRIPS EASIER
• Complete Streets Program
• Walkability Infrastructure and
Education Program
• Improve Amenities at Bus Stops
• Pedestrian Safety Investments
with Mid-Block Crossings,
Intersection Improvements
• Develop Regional and
Neighborhood Mobility Hubs
• Improve Wayfinding in High
Volume Pedestrian Locations
14
27
Individual Projects and Strategies
BIG MOVE #5: EXPAND SERVICE FOR OLDER
ADULTS, VETERANS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
• Increase Service for Older
Adults, Veterans and People
with Disabilities
• Provide App-Based
Reservations and Fare Payment
for Dedicated Services
• Provide App-Based Vehicle
Tracking for Dedicated Services
28
Individual Projects and Strategies
BIG MOVE #6: IMPROVE CONNECTIONS TO MAJOR
DESTINATIONS
• Improve Airport Service and
Connections (extend Strip Rapid
Bus, serve both terminals)
• Develop Airport Mobility Hub
• Improve Transit-Related Wayfinding
and Onsite Information
15
29
Individual Projects and Strategies
BIG MOVE #7: PROVIDE RELIABLE TRANSIT FOR
RESORT CORRIDOR EMPLOYEES
• Implement Express Routes to
Resort Corridor or Downtown
• Improve Commuter Facilities &
Services
• Develop Park and Ride Lots w/
Express Service Connections to
Major Destinations
30
Individual Projects and Strategies
BIG MOVE #8: LEVERAGE NEW TECHNOLOGY TO
IMPROVE MOBILITY
• Transit Passenger Technologies
(real-time information, fare
payment options, Mobility as a
Service)
• Electrification Strategies (transit
vehicles EV charging networks,
install solar arrays at RTC facilities)
• Expand Travel Demand
Management (TDM) Programs
• Implement “FAST OS” (FAST
Technology Roadmap)
• Advance Autonomous ad
Connected Vehicle Technologies
16
AGENDA
Outreach and Engagement
Overview of the OnBoard Mobility Plan
Economic Impacts
Final Survey Results
Prioritization Exercise
Final Steps and Timeline
BENEFITS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
32
Spending Impacts (Multipliers): Regional economic impact of $s spent on
building, operating, and maintaining the system
Performance Benefits and Impacts:
Societal Benefit: Any form of societal value delivered by transportation, monetized
based on either actual costs or willingness to pay
Economic Impact: Tracing how a subset of transportation performance
improvements produce changes in employment, income, business sales, or gross
regional product (changes in flow of $s)
Land Value and Local Development: Capitalization of transportation
performance improvements into local land value and new private investment to take
advantage of reduced travel costs and improved access.
• Highly dependent on both transportation performance gains AND on local real
estate market conditions and supportive investments.
1
2
3
4
17
BIG MOVE #1: HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT
33
Spending Impact supporting business
in SNV
1.5-1.6 Multiplier in
the Local Economy for Every $ Spent
Economic Growth from more efficient
transportation
>$2B Added business
output over 20 years of implementation
Societal Benefits monetized social
benefits
Land Value &
Development capitalization &
transformation
Benefits exceed costs within the first 20 years
+1-6% property value
increase in HCT
corridors, +10-15%for commercial office
rents. $1-4 x private
investment per public $
AGENDA
Outreach and Engagement
Overview of the OnBoard Mobility Plan
Economic Impacts
Final Survey Results
Prioritization Exercise
Final Steps and Timeline
18
SURVEY BACKGROUND
Live: January 2020
Closed: March 31, 2020
11,221 Total Responses
• 741 responses were
duplicate responses from
the same email
• Analysis is of remaining
10,480 responses
36
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.4
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
#1: Build High Capacity Transit System
#2: Expand Transit Service to Maximize Access
to Jobs and Housing
#3: Make All Travel Options Safer and More
Secure
#4: Make Short Walking Trips Easier
#5: Expand Dedicated Service for Seniors,
Veterans and People with Disabilities
#6: Improve Regional Connections to Major
Destinations
#7: Provide Reliable Transit for Resort Corridor
Employees
#8: Leverage New Technology to Improve
Mobility and Sustainability
Overall Ratings of Each Big Move (Sample size: 10,480)
**Does not include duplicate respondents.
19
37
Count of Ratings by Each Big Move (Sample size: 10,480)
**Does not include duplicate respondents.
336
293
214
305
250
220
363
299
282
365
270
399
289
238
439
370
956
1,219
896
1,295
992
887
1,470
1,243
2,015
1,995
1,586
1,895
1,545
1,695
2,042
1,930
6,890
6,608
7,514
6,586
7,404
7,439
6,165
6,636
- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
#1: Build High Capacity Transit System
#2: Expand Transit Service to Maximize
Access to Jobs and Housing
#3: Make All Travel Options Safer and
More Secure
#4: Make Short Walking Trips Easier
#5: Expand Dedicated Service for
Seniors, Veterans and People with…
#6: Improve Regional Connections to
Major Destinations
#7: Provide Reliable Transit for Resort
Corridor Employees
#8: Leverage New Technology to
Improve Mobility and Sustainability
1 Star 2 Stars 3 Stars 4 Stars 5 Stars
Big Move 1 Star 2 Stars 3 Stars 4 Stars 5 Stars
#1: Build High Capacity Transit System
336 282 956 2,015 6,890
#2: Expand Transit Service to Maximize Access to Jobs and Housing
293 365 1,219 1,995 6,608
#3: Make All Travel Options Safer and More Secure
214 270 896 1,586 7,514
#4: Make Short Walking Trips Easier 305 399 1,295 1,895 6,586 #5: Expand Dedicated Service for Seniors, Veterans and People with Disabilities
250 289 992 1,545 7,404
#6: Improve Regional Connections to Major Destinations
220 238 887 1,695 7,439
#7: Provide Reliable Transit for Resort Corridor Employees
363 439 1,470 2,042 6,165
#8: Leverage New Technology to Improve Mobility and Sustainability
299 370 1,243 1,930 6,636
38
Geographic Distribution of Responses
*Includes duplicate responses
20
39
Survey Responses by Income Group
**Does not include duplicate respondents.
Ratings of Respondents Earning Less than $35,000 Income (Sample size:
2,541)
Income Group Response
Count
% of Survey
Sample
% of Clark
County
Less than $20,000 1,144 13% 15%
$20,000 to $34,999 1,397 15% 14.5%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,387 15% 15.4%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,727 19% 17.9%
$75,000 to $99,999 1,259 14% 12.9%
$100,000 to $149,999 1,256 14% 13.9%
$150,000 to $199,999 490 5% 5.9%
$200,000 or more 387 4% 5.4%
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.4
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
#1: Build High Capacity Transit System
#2: Expand Transit Service to Maximize
Access to Jobs and Housing
#3: Make All Travel Options Safer and
More Secure
#4: Make Short Walking Trips Easier
#5: Expand Dedicated Service for
Seniors, Veterans and People with…
#6: Improve Regional Connections to
Major Destinations
#7: Provide Reliable Transit for Resort
Corridor Employees
#8: Leverage New Technology to
Improve Mobility and Sustainability
Low Income Overall Average
40
Survey Responses by Income Group
**Does not include duplicate respondents.
Ratings of Respondents Earning at Least $100,000 Income
(Sample size: 2,133)
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.1
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.4
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
#1: Build High Capacity Transit System
#2: Expand Transit Service to Maximize
Access to Jobs and Housing
#3: Make All Travel Options Safer and
More Secure
#4: Make Short Walking Trips Easier
#5: Expand Dedicated Service for
Seniors, Veterans and People with…
#6: Improve Regional Connections to
Major Destinations
#7: Provide Reliable Transit for Resort
Corridor Employees
#8: Leverage New Technology to
Improve Mobility and Sustainability
High Income Overall Average
21
41
Survey Responses by Race/Ethnicity
**Does not include duplicate respondents.
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.4
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
#1: Build High Capacity Transit System
#2: Expand Transit Service to Maximize
Access to Jobs and Housing
#3: Make All Travel Options Safer and
More Secure
#4: Make Short Walking Trips Easier
#5: Expand Dedicated Service for
Seniors, Veterans and People with…
#6: Improve Regional Connections to
Major Destinations
#7: Provide Reliable Transit for Resort
Corridor Employees
#8: Leverage New Technology to
Improve Mobility and Sustainability
Minority Overall Average
Ratings of Racial and Ethnic Minority Respondents
(Sample size: 3,824)
Race/Ethnicity Group Response
Count
% of Survey
Sample
% of Clark
County
White 5,931 57% 42%
African American/Black 827 8% 11%
American Indian/Native 105 1% 0.5%
Asian 486 4.7% 10%
Hispanic/Latin American 1,382 13% 31%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. 161 1.6% 1%
Two or more races 740 5.8% 4%
Other 123 1.2% 0.5%
42
Big Move High-Income Low-IncomeRacial/Ethnic
Minorities
Low Income
MinoritiesWomen Men
Age 29 and
under
Age 60 and
older#1: Build High Capacity Transit
System 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.3
#2: Expand Transit Service to
Maximize Access to Jobs and
Housing4.2 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.3
#3: Make All Travel Options
Safer and More Secure 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.5
#4: Make Short Walking Trips
Easier 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.3
#5: Expand Dedicated Service
for Seniors, Veterans and
People with Disabilities4.3 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.6
#6: Improve Regional
Connections to Major
Destinations4.5 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
#7: Provide Reliable Transit for
Resort Corridor Employees4.1 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.2
#8: Leverage New Technology
to Improve Mobility and
Sustainability
4.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.3
22
AGENDA
Outreach and Engagement
Overview of the OnBoard Mobility Plan
Economic Impacts
Final Survey Results
Prioritization Exercise
Final Steps and Timeline
PRIORITIZATION EXERCISE
44
23
AGENDA
Outreach and Engagement
Overview of the OnBoard Mobility Plan
Economic Impacts
Final Survey Results
Prioritization Exercise
Final Steps and Timeline
NEXT STEPS
• Consultant Contract Ends (6/30)
• Local Agency Meetings (6/30– 7/14)
• TAG Webex meetings (7/8, 7/9, and 7/13)
• Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee (7/14)
• Executive Advisory Committee (7/30)
• RTC Board (Update 8/13)
• Costs and funding estimates developed (June – Oct)
• RTC Board (Approve w/Costs – Oct)
• Implementation begins – TBD
46
24
Item #7
RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE
REGIONAL PLANNING WORK
PROGRAM (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)
25
Regional Work Program Update
Metropolitan PlanningSubcommittee
July 2020
• Regional Plan Core Administration
• Regional Plan Update
• Indicator Tracking & Mapping
• Community Planning Academy
• Outreach and Communication
• Annual Report
Regional Policy Plan Administration
26
• Future Housing Inventory and Needs
• Extreme Heat Events Coordinated Response
• Inventory of Regional Sustainability Planning Tools and Techniques
• Tree Canopy Social Equity Impacts
Regional Planning & Research
• Forecast regional housing surplus or shortfall
• Estimate demand by affordability
Future Housing Inventory and Needs
Futu
re in
ven
tory Long-range housing
units forecasts
Population and employment forecasts
Historic housing production
Historic housing affordability
27
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Po
pu
lati
on
New
Re
sid
en
tial
Ho
usi
ng
Pe
rmit
s
HOUSING PERMITS & POPULATION GROWTHIN SOUTHERN NEAVDA
Housing Permits Population
Future Housing Inventory and Needs
Affordability Type/StockBalance
Assess how much housing the region needs to add at
different price points to ensure housing is affordable
across income levels
Use population and housing forecasts to assess whether
our region is expected to maintain a healthy balance of
jobs and housing units
Use preference surveys to estimate future demand by
housing type
28
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
HO
USI
NG
UN
ITS
HOUSING UNITS IN SOUTHERN NEVADA
Housing Needed Housing (1.25:1) Needed Housing (1.5:1)
• Vulnerability to extreme heat
• Threat of increasing local temperatures
• Targeted, coordinated response
Extreme Heat Vulnerability
Sensitivity
•Health Conditions
•Physiological Considerations
Adaptive Capacity
•Socio-economic Factors
•Demographics
Exposure
•Surface Temperature
•Land Cover (Vegetation, impervious surfaces)
29
exposure sensitivity
adaptive • Ambient temperature
• Vegetated land cover
• Developed land
• Elevation
• Disability
• Educational attainment
• Isolated older adults
• Limited English proficiency
• Poverty
• Unsheltered homeless
• Race
• Households with a vehicle
• Older adults
• Young children
• Diabetes
• Cardiovascular disease
capacity
Extreme Heat Vulnerability
ExposureComposite score
• Ambient temperature
• Vegetated land cover
• Developed land
• Elevation
30
Inventory of Regional Sustainability Planning Tools
Regional Work Program Update
Metropolitan PlanningSubcommittee
July 2020
31
Item #8
RECEIVE A FINAL REPORT ON THE
SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION STUDY
(FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)
32
Project Overview• Objectives
• Existing Studies
• Stakeholder Outreach
• Site Selection
• Data Collection
• Data Analysis
• On-site Queuing
• Other Observations
• Findings/Recommendations
64
Existing Studies
• ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition
65
33
Existing Studies
66
School Name Jurisdiction Total Students On-site Queuing
Ratio (vehicles per student released)
Pinecrest Academy Henderson 900 0.15
500 Student Charter School* Las Vegas 500 0.2
Henderson International Henderson 343 0.17
Somerset Academy - Centennial North Las Vegas 750 0.14
Doral Academy – Cactus Campus Clark County 935 0.08
Average 0.15
• Local Southern Nevada Charter School Queuing Studies
Stakeholder Outreach
67
• Technical Advisory Committee• Identified schools for study
• Approved data collections plans
• School Administrators• Coordinated data collection
• Provided arrival/departure operations
34
Site Selection
68
13
19
9
5
4
15
8
11
6
1
7
17
20
16
12
14
2
18
10
13
19
9
5
3
4
15
8
Southern Nevada School Trip Generation Study
´Legend
Charter
Elementary School
Middle School
Henderson
Las Vegas
North Las Vegas 0 2.5 5 7.5 101.25
Miles
Clark County SchoolsLas Vegas Valley
Preliminary Sites
3
• 20 Schools in LVV• 8 Charter
•6 Public Elementary
•6 Public Middle
Data Collection Plan
69
• 2018-2019 School Year• Vehicles trips
• Vehicles entering/exiting the school site
• Vehicles parking off-site
• On-site queuing
• School buses, pedestrians, bicycles
• Parking lot occupancy
• School pick-up and drop-off procedures
• Illegal behaviors
35
Data Collection Plan
70
Data Analysis
71
• Independent Variables• ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition
• Students, Employees, Building Size
• Regression Analysis• ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition• “Best Fit” Curve• Fitted Curve Equation
• Significance of Independent Variables• Correlation Matrices
• Charter Schools (All, K-8, K-12 and Multiple Bell Times)• Public Elementary Schools• Public Middle Schools
36
Data Analysis
72
• Sample Data Plot - Charter Schools (All)
Trip Generation Rate Comparison
73
• Students
Trip Generation Rate Sources
AM PM
Rate (Trips per Student)
% Difference from ITE
Rate (Trips per Student)
% Difference from ITE
ITE Land Use Code 537 Charter Elementary School 1.14 0.69
SNV Charter School (All) 1.00 13% 0.77 11%
SNV Charter Schools (K-8) 1.04 9% 0.80 14%
SNV Charter Schools (K-12) 0.95 18% 0.74 6%
ITE Land Use Code 520 Elementary School 0.65 0.34
SNV Elementary Schools 0.83 24% 0.71 71%
ITE Land Use Code 522 Middle/Junior High School 0.70 0.35
SNV Middle Schools 0.75 7% 0.43 20%
Note: Trip generation rates higher than reported by ITE are bold.
37
On-site Queuing
74
School
Max
imu
m Q
ueu
e (v
eh.)
Max
imu
m Q
ueu
e (f
t)
To
tal S
tud
ents
On
-sit
e Q
ueu
ing
Rat
io
(veh
icle
s p
er s
tud
ent
rele
ased
)
2 Lyal Burkholder Middle School 24 600 652 0.04
3 Pinecrest Academy Inspirada 82 2,050 1,103 0.07
4 Pinecrest Academy of Nevada (St Rose Campus)* 69 1,725 982 0.07
5 Pinecrest Academy of Nevada (Cadence Campus) 148 3,700 1,650 0.09
7 Dell H. Robison Middle School 17 425 1,290 0.01
8 Democracy Prep at the Agassi Campus 130 3250 970 0.01
9 Imagine School at Mountain View* 142 3,550
706 0.20
75 1,875 0.11
13 Freedom Classical Academy* 32 800 1,021 0.03
15 Somerset Academy (Losee Campus) 96 2,400 1,940 0.05
19 Doral Academy Las Vegas (Cactus Campus)* 98 2,450 992 0.10
On-site Queuing
75
38
Other Observations
76
• Observed Legal Behaviors• U-turns in the school zone (prohibited by NRS
484B.363.3)
• Pedestrians walking outside of designated crossing areas
• Imagine School at Mountain View Queues• Queue onto Grand Montecito Parkway and Doe Brook
Trail
• Parking in surrounding neighborhoods
• Dell Robison Middle School had the highest number of pedestrians
Findings
77
• Charter
• Students may be more reliable
• Lower trip generation rate in AM Peak compared to ITE Higher trip generation rate in PM Peak compared to ITE
• Public Elementary
• Public elementary school trip generation rates are higher than ITE.
• Public Middle
• Public middle school trip generation rates are higher than ITE.
39
Study Recommendations
78
• Determine Trip Generation Rates for SNV
• On-site Queuing• Estimate 0.15 vehicles/student for on-site circulation
• Utilize one-way circulation
• Prevent U-turns in the School Zone• Schools to consider installing median barriers
• Increase law enforcement presence during drop-off and pick-up
• Designate and Promote Safe Routes to School
• Submit Study Results to ITE
• Report school data collected in the future to RTC to be add to the dataset
Item #9
RECEIVE A REPORT ON PLANNING
VARIABLES FOR THE REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLAN (FOR
POSSIBLE ACTION)
40
PLANNING
VARIABLESFOR THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
MPS Meeting July 14, 2020
80
Contents
• land Use Working Group Activities-Coordination and Collaboration
Introduction
81
41
Contents
• land Use Working Group (LUWG) Activities
five LUWG Meetings (4/2/2019, 8/14/2019, 4/9/2020, 4/30/2020,7/9/2020)
one on one meetings with some entities.
correspondence by email and conference calls.
• Discussions and Work on:
Data requirements for future projection
Future projection methods
Redevelopment topics
Review, analysis and validation on the future projections
LUWG consensus on the final future projections
Coordination and Collaboration
82
Contents
Data source: GILIS2019 from Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning - for
base year population and households.
Planned land use by entities – for Future year projection
Based on approved plans by each entity by July 1,2019.
In 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050.
Parcel based and 9 land use categories:- Residential: Single Family, Multi-Family, - Non-Residential: Industrial, Hotel, Retail, Office, Schools, Open
Space, Other.
Base Year and Future Year Population
83
42
Projected Land Use Acreage by Entity for 2020 -2050
Entity Residential Industrial Hotel RetailNon Retail
OtherSchool Office Open Space
Unincorporated CC 7,226 4,352 2,146 1,732 288 0 390 7,129
Las Vegas 9,922 209 6 693 13 311 332 1,227
N. Las Vegas 6,386 16,334 153 1,367 3,098 236 310 2,096
Henderson 11,925 1,399 83 708 0 909 748 3,660
Total 35,459 22,294 2,388 4,500 3,399 1,456 1,780 14,113
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Unincorporated CC
Las Vegas
N. Las Vegas
Henderson
84
85
43
1. Growth Calculation:
Dwelling unit (DU)=Planned Acreage x Density
Occupied Dwelling unit ( OCHU)= DU x Occupancy Rate
Population = OCHU x Household Size
2. Match CBER population projection
3. Population adjustment:
Increasing Occupancy rate: start with low Occupancy rate area.
Population Projection Procedure
86
Population Projection and CBER Matching
Before adjustment After adjustment
Year CBER PopulationRTC Projected
PopulationDifference
2019 2,330,000 2,325,798 4,202
2020 2,382,000 2,353,481 28,519
2025 2,583,000 2,469,576 113,424
2030 2,719,000 2,594,636 124,364
2035 2,817,000 2,688,107 128,893
2040 2,888,000 2,775,966 112,034
2045 2,940,000 2,853,080 86,920
2050 2,986,000 2,933,717 52,283
2,300,000
2,400,000
2,500,000
2,600,000
2,700,000
2,800,000
2,900,000
3,000,000
3,100,000
2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CBER Population RTC Projected Population
Year CBER PopulationRTC Projected
PopulationDifference
2019 2,330,000 2,325,798 4,202
2020 2,382,000 2,376,936 5,064
2025 2,583,000 2,528,204 54,796
2030 2,719,000 2,655,228 63,772
2035 2,817,000 2,751,131 65,869
2040 2,888,000 2,843,972 44,028
2045 2,940,000 2,928,169 11,831
2050 2,986,000 3,014,913 -28,913
2,300,000
2,400,000
2,500,000
2,600,000
2,700,000
2,800,000
2,900,000
3,000,000
3,100,000
2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CBER Population RTC Projected Population 87
44
Projected Dwelling Unit Growth
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Total
Boulder City 36 180 185 190 194 199 204 1,188
CC Unincorporated 2,143 11,082 9,617 5,109 2,510 15 13 30,490
Las Vegas 5,483 11,285 13,019 10,612 10,884 9,492 9,283 70,058
N. Las Vegas 538 8,458 9,109 5,893 6,277 8,321 8,851 47,446
Henderson 2,806 12,106 14,296 13,370 14,533 13,095 12,567 82,774
Total 11,006 43,111 46,227 35,174 34,398 31,122 30,919 231,957
Projected Population Growth
Entity 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Total
Boulder City 80 406 416 426 437 448 459 2,672
CC Unincorporated 21,259 45,319 25,814 13,636 6,622 39 32 112,721
Las Vegas 20,122 39,945 36,747 29,391 29,809 26,150 25,556 207,720
N. Las Vegas 1,551 28,365 26,960 17,915 18,517 24,785 26,429 144,524
Henderson 8,127 35,703 35,460 32,805 35,615 30,817 32,186 210,713
Total 51,138 149,737 125,397 94,173 91,001 82,240 84,662 678,350
88
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Dwelling Unit Growth
CC Unincorporated
Las Vegas
N. Las Vegas
Henderson
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Population Growth
CC Unincorporated
Las Vegas
N. Las Vegas
Henderson
89
45
Projected Dwelling Units
2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Boulder City 7,107 7,143 7,323 7,5087,697 7,892 8,091 8,295
CC Unincorporated 414,428 416,571 427,653 437,271 442,380 444,889 444,905 444,918
Las Vegas 249,658 255,141 266,427 279,445 290,057 300,942 310,434 319,716
N. Las Vegas 83,849 84,387 92,844 101,953 107,847 114,123 122,444 131,295
Henderson 131,208 134,014 146,120 160,416 173,786 188,320 201,415 213,982
Total 886,250 897,256 940,367 986,593 1,021,768 1,056,166 1,087,288 1,118,207
Projected Population
Entity 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Boulder City 16,398 16,478 16,884 17,300 17,726 18,163 18,611 19,071
CC Unincorporated 1,074,179 1,095,438 1,140,756 1,166,570 1,180,206 1,186,829 1,186,868 1,186,900
Las Vegas 656,909 677,031 716,976 753,723 783,114 812,923 839,073 864,629
N. Las Vegas 257,677 259,228 287,593 314,554 332,469 350,986 375,772 402,201
Henderson 320,634 328,761 364,464 399,925 432,729 468,344 499,162 531,347
Total 2,325,798 2,376,936 2,526,674 2,652,071 2,746,244 2,837,245 2,919,485 3,004,148
90
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Dwelling Units
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected PopulationCC Unincorporated
Las Vegas
N. Las Vegas
Henderson
91
46
Base and Future Year Employment
Data source:
2019 database from DETR – base year employment.
Future employment:
Based on planned land use , CBER growth rates, population growth, near and long term industry plans, specific projections from local entities and redevelopment plans.
92
Base Year Employment
Summary of Address Matched DETR 2019 2nd Quarter Employer Data
By Employment Category in TAZ Domain
Category Employment Percentage
Construction 69,121 7%
Food Services and Drinking Places 106,494 10%
Good Producing 30,478 3%
Hotel with Gaming 142,434 14%
Hotel without Gaming 14,595 1%
Medical 69,697 7%
Office_Government 23,970 2%
Office_Private 170,258 17%
Other 147,759 15%
Retail 121,935 12%
School 37,631 4%
Warehouse,Wholesale 33,638 3%
Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters 8,039 1%
Special Generator 40,026 4%
Total 1,016,073 100%
7%
10%
3%
14%
1%
7%
2%17%
15%
12%
4%3%
1%
4%
Construction
Food Services and DrinkingPlaces
Good Producing
Hotel with Gaming
Hotel without Gaming
Medical
Office_Government
Office_Private
Other
Retail
School
Warehouse,Wholesale
Warehouse Clubs andSupercenters
Special Generator
93
47
Procedure:1. Calculate growth rates from CBER employment projection.
2. Calculate future employment by applying CBER growth rates based on population growth pattern to DETR 2019 employment.
3. Calculate future employment from land use provided by entities.
4: Add redevelopment employment and specific employment projections by local entities.
2020-2050 Employment Projection
94
Total Employment Projection
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CC Unincorporateded Las Vegas North Las Vegas Henderson95
Entity 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Boulder City 4,570 4,570 4,570 4,570 4,570 4,570 4,601 4,629
CC Unincorporated 598,980 620,882 651,223 680,440 703,432 729,554 749,779 770,171
Las Vegas 232,582 238,099 241,627 248,041 257,820 262,252 265,062 266,898
North Las Vegas 78,483 79,251 92,905 108,891 123,788 137,771 150,999 159,506
Henderson 101,969 105,991 113,886 120,123 127,326 133,353 141,956 159,440
Total 1,016,583 1,048,792 1,104,210 1,162,065 1,216,937 1,267,500 1,312,398 1,360,643
48
96
97
49
98
99
50
Item #10
RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE
STADIUM DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION
PLAN (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)
CLARK COUNTY & REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA
STADIUM DISTRICT PLAN
MPS MEETING
July 14, 2020
51
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT
• Two stakeholder and public surveys and two TAC meetings have been conducted. These activities focused on generating information about:
• What the district should look like• Development of land use scenarios• Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)
of the land use scenarios• Vision and goals for the Stadium District
• Developed street typologies and cross-sections
PROGRESS IN STUDY
52
Creating a dynamic District with a comprehensive mix
of uses that supports the continuation of current
businesses while providing opportunities to transition
into a thriving destination for entertainment,
hospitality, business, and sports.
VISION FOR THE STADIUM DISTRICT
• Goal 1: Enhance quality of life by creating a vibrant District
• Goal 2: Promote a vibrant economy in the District
• Goal 3: Promote flexibility within the District
• Goal 4: Provide connectivity and access to and throughout
the District to improve mobility by encouraging the use of
alternative modes of transportation
GOALS FOR THE STADIUM DISTRICT
53
• Assist with the transition of the area surrounding the
stadium
• Promote cohesive development around the
stadium area.
• Form the foundation for possible development code
changes in the future for the area
LAND USE PLAN
LAND USE COMBINED SCENARIO
54
ELEMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The District presently lacks human scale
• Street lighting not designed for pedestrian activity
• Parking locations
• Driveway frequency
• Sidewalks and accessibility
• Pedestrian crossings
EXISTING CHALLENGES IN DISTRICT
55
CREATING A GRID STREET SYSTEM
- Connect the current street network to form 660’ long blocks as parcels shift to other uses.
Benefits to connecting the grid include:
- Shorter walking distances- Providing better connectivity to network- Improving access to major arterials- Improving visibility and safety for pedestrians- Improving access to properties- Reducing vehicle speeds
SUGGESTED STREET TYPOLOGIES
56
NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS TYPOLOGY
MULTIMODAL STREET TYPOLOGY
57
A transportation charrette will be held with the
stakeholders this summer.
This will assist with the development of the draft plan
and later final plan, which will subsequently go out to
the public and decision makers for their review.
What’s Next?
QUESTIONS?
58
Item #11
REGIONAL STAFF UPDATES
Item #12
CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD
FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
59
MEETING HAS ENDED