1. PRESENTED TO: CTP 2040 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRESENTED BY: RON WEST, CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS CTP 2040 Scenario Strategies and Analysis Framework October 23, 2014

2. Overview Scenario strategies  Transportation-based changes to reduce GHG emissions Analysis framework  CSTDM - or - Other methods  Distinct policy - or - Aspirational objective

3. CSTDM VERSUS OFF-MODEL SPECIFIC POLICY OR ASPIRATIONAL OBJECTIVE Analysis Framework

4. 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 Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Road user chargeNone anticipated Off-ModelITS elementsEco driving

6. Off Model Data Sources MPO Sustainable Community Strategies ARB policy papers CAPCOA Moving Cooler TCRP 118 (Bus rapid transit) Data Sources converted to changes in VMT

7. PRICING TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES MODE SHIFT OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY Scenario Strategies

8. Analysis Framework - Pricing Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Road User Charge Off-Model

9. Pricing – Road User Charge CSTDM RUC Strategy  Year 2040 73% increase  17% VMT decrease (16 cent/mile increase in auto operating costs)  Other Tests included  Year 2010 100% increase (22 cents/miles) – 23% VMT decreases  Year 2040 36% increase (8 cents/mile) – 11% VMT decrease  Year 2040 9% increase (2 cents/mile) - 3% VMT decrease 

10. Pricing – Road User Charge Further analysis is being conducted  Equity Analysis – VMT Changes by Income Group  Not ready for presentation – will be presented at November PAC Meeting

11. Analysis Framework – Transportation Alts Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Off-Model Increased: Telecommute Carpooling Carsharing

12. Transportation Alternatives Telecommute Carpoolers Carsharing Assessed off-model // aspirational goals

13. Transportation Alternatives Carsharing  MTC: -1.3% VMT given +5% in carsharing adoption rates  Applied only to short distance personal travel  Converts to 1.1% reduction in total VMT  SACOG: Lower rate of VMT reduction – 0.12% Telecommuting  SACOG: VMT reduction between 0.13% & 0.39% Carpooling  MTC: -2.9% VMT given +5% in carpooling  Applied to short and long distance personal travel.

14. Analysis Framework – Mode Shift Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Most Transit Improvements Carpools/HOV Off-Model BRT Bicycling Walking

15. Mode Shift Transit improvements Bicycle improvements Pedestrian improvements Carpool changes Transit and carpool assessed with CSTDM Bike and walk assessed off-model

16. Mode Shift - Transit Analyze high-end 2040 transit alternative  Double bus and train service  Double operating speeds  Reduced or free fares  Convert 20% of local bus routes to BRT  Timed transfers  Reduced fares on high-speed rail Resulted in 6.0% reduction in VMT  BRT expansion: -0.07% VMT reduction

17. Mode Shift – Bicycle & Pedestrian Lower end  Calculate VMT reductions based on value of investments Higher end  Assume mode shares are doubled for bike and walk  Also assumed that 50% of trips come from auto modes  Average trip lengths: Bike 3.03 miles; Walk 0.55 miles*  0.41% VMT reduction for bike; 0.43% for walk * Source: 2012/2013 CHTS

18. Mode Shift - Carpools Raise statewide HOV occupancy to 3+  -0.8% reduction in VMT Add HOV lanes  Gap closures  Interregional connectors  Mode run not completed yet

19. Analysis Framework – Operational Efficiency Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Off-Model Incident/Emergency management Caltrans TMS Master Plan ITS/TSM Eco driving

20. Operational Efficiencies Incident/Emergency management Caltrans TMS Master Plan ITS/TSM Eco-driving VMT quantified off-model  Assessed as specific policies  Except eco-driving (off-model aspirational goal)

21. Operational Efficiencies ITS/TSM  SACOG: 0.19% to 0.62% reduction in VMT Caltrans TMS Master Plan  ARB: -1.2% reduction in VMT ITS/TSM  SACOG: Range of VMT reductions from -0.09% to 0.62% Eco Driving  ARB: 0.23% reduction in VMT  Assumes 10% adoption rate.

22. Next Steps

23. Test run of Alternative 2  Under way Equity analysis of road user charge Test HOV lanes strategy Continued review and vetting of assumptions Presentations to upcoming PAC meeting Refinement and analysis of strategies  Develop final CTP 2040 Scenario 2 in the fall

25. UPDATE ON CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE TRAVEL ANALYSIS MODEL CSTDM

26. CSTDM Update CSTDM Update is now complete  2010 base year (plus Year 2010 backcast)  Year 2015, 2020, 2035, 2040 and 2050 horizon years

27. CSTDM System Models Travel Modes Short Distance Personal Long Distance Personal Short Distance Truck Long Distance Truck External Travel Auto Single Occupant √√√ Auto 2 persons √√√ Auto 3+ persons √√√ Transit (bus & urban rail) √ Bicycle √ Walk √ Air √ Intercity Rail √ Trucks (3 classes) √√√

28. CSTDM Zones and Network (Current Model) 92,000+ nodes 250,000+ links Multi-modal 5454 internal zones 53 external zones

29. Contributions to Statewide Travel PersonalTruck ExternalTotal Short DistLong DistShort DistLong Dist Total Person Trips93%0.20%7%0.06%0.34%100% Total Vehicle Trips88%0.15%12%0.11%0.30%100% Total VMT (Auto/Truck ) 79%10%3%2%6%100%