Laminating with E-R Resin Presented by Ronnie N. Graves BOCPO, CO, LPO, CTP.
PRESENTED TO: CTP 2040 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRESENTED BY: RON WEST AND MICHELLE BINA...
-
Upload
emma-booth -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of PRESENTED TO: CTP 2040 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRESENTED BY: RON WEST AND MICHELLE BINA...
PRESENTED TO:CTP 2040 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PRESENTED BY:RON WEST AND MICHELLE BINA CAMBRIDGE
SYSTEMATICS
CTP 2040 Scenario Strategies and Analysis
Framework
July 24, 2014
2
Overview
Scenario strategies Transportation-based Changes to reduce GHG
emissions
Analysis framework California Statewide Travel Demand Model - or -
Other methods Distinct policy - or - Aspirational objective
3
CSTDM VERSUS OFF-MODELSPECIFIC POLICY OR ASPIRATIONAL
OBJECTIVE
Analysis Framework
4
Analysis Framework
Primary objective is to analyze impacts of all strategies using a common metric Reduction in vehicle miles travel
Year 2040 average weekday daily condition
Additional objective is for clear documentation Key input assumptions
Outcomes presented as apples-apples
5
Analysis Framework Matrix - Examples
Analysis Method:
Policy or Goal?
Specific PolicyAspirational
Objective
California Statewide Travel Demand Model
Road user charge None anticipated
Off-Model ITS elements Eco driving
6
PRICINGTRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
MODE SHIFTOPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY
Scenario Strategies
7
Pricing Strategies
Road user charge (RUC)
Gas tax
Congestion pricing
8
Pricing Strategies
Assessed in CSTDM as increased auto operating costs
Recommendation: Apply RUC Easiest to forecast
Applied to all facilities for all time periods
9
Pricing Strategies
Gas tax does not move the needle much 40 cent gas tax increase in 2040 only increases auto
operating costs by about 5%. Average fuel economy in 2040 is close to 40 mpg –
results in a 1 cent per mile increase in auto operating costs
Congestion pricing is complicated CSTDM does not handle variable congestion pricing
Limited: Specific congested facilities, during peak periods
Moves the needle somewhat Likely to result in illogical route choice diversions
10
Pricing – Road User Charge
CSTDM RUC sensitivity tests Year 2010 doubling of auto operating costs
22% VMT decrease (22 cent increase)
Year 2040 73% increase in auto operating costs
17% VMT decrease (16 cent increase)
36% and 9% auto operating costs are being investigated
11
Analysis Framework - Pricing
Analysis Method:
Policy or Goal?
Specific PolicyAspirational
Objective
California Statewide Travel Demand Model
• Road User Charge
Off-Model
12
Transportation Alternatives
Telecommute
Carpoolers
Carsharing
13
Transportation Alternatives
Assessed as off-model aspirational goals Increased levels for each strategy under analysis
ARB White Paper on Car Sharing concluded:
[C]arsharing appears to have reduced VMT overall by about a quarter to a third among those who have participated[.]
UC Berkeley Report noted that car sharing benefits would likely not apply to interregional travel
Additional analysis of these strategies is being conducted
14
Analysis Framework – Transportation Alts
Analysis Method:
Policy or Goal?
Specific PolicyAspirational
Objective
California Statewide Travel Demand Model
Off-Model
Increased: • Telecommute• Carpooling• Carsharing
15
Mode Shift
Transit improvements
Bicycle improvements
Pedestrian improvements
Carpool changes
16
Mode Shift - Transit
Analyze high-end 2040 transit alternative Double bus and train service Double operating speeds Reduced or free fares Convert x% of bus routes to BRT Timed transfers Reduced or free fares on high-speed rail
Will be forecasted using CSTDM Except BRT expansion – Off model
17
Mode Shift – Bicycle & Pedestrian
Calculate VMT reductions of statewide bike/ped investments How far will this move the needle?
Levels of investments and VMT impacts are being investigated
Will be calculated off-model
Second test to greatly increase bike/ped investments Double mode shares for both modes, relative to 2040
No-Project
18
Mode Shift - Carpools
Raise statewide HOV occupancy to 3+ VMT effects are unclear
HOV lane LOS likely to improve
Add HOV lanes Gap closures
Interregional connectors
VMT impacts may be relatively minor – but could potentially affect long-distance travel choices
19
Analysis Framework – Mode Shift
Analysis Method:
Policy or Goal?
Specific PolicyAspirational
Objective
California Statewide Travel Demand Model
• Most Transit Improvements
• Carpools/HOV
Off-Model
• BRT• Bicycling• Walking
20
Operational Efficiencies
Incident/Emergency management
Caltrans TMS Master Plan
Intelligent transportation systems
Eco driving
21
Operational Efficiencies
Off-model policies: Incident/Emergency Management
Caltrans TMS Master Plan
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Off-model aspirational objective: Eco-Driving
VMT effects of these strategies being investigated
22
Analysis Framework – Operational Efficiency
Analysis Method:
Policy or Goal?
Specific PolicyAspirational
Objective
California Statewide Travel Demand Model
Off-Model
• Incident/Emergency management
• Caltrans TMS Master Plan
• ITS
Eco driving
23
Next Steps
24
Next Steps
Complete literature review - off-model strategies
Discuss with key MPO modelers/planners SCS off-model or post-processing assumptions
Refinement and analysis of strategies Develop final CTP 2040 Scenario 2 in the fall
Presentations to upcoming PAC and TAC meetings