1. Utilizing Connected Travel Demand and Land Use Models in the Sacramento Region Gordon R. Garry Sacramento Area Council of Governments April 30, 2010

2. Why improve SACOG models? Models are tools to apply research in the most effective and comprehensive manner to address policy issues Research points to interrelated causes and consequences Policy issues are often, and more frequently, interrelated

3. MEPLAN - Land Economics to PECAS model SACSIM activity-based travel model I-PLACE 3 S - Land Use/Transportation Impacts Develop Better Information and Tools for Decision Making

4. PECAS and I-PLACE 3 S Differences –Economic forecast vs. vision development –Path dependent vs. horizon year Common elements –Parcel data –Development policy tools –Development costs and rents Partial overlap –Employment types, residential definitions

5. Conclusions on land use models Policy drives data and models Incremental improvement = continuity Model development is “pushed” by research advancements and “pulled” by policy needs Integrated cross-discipline planning and decision-making can be improved with good analysis

6. Overview of Regional Travel Model (SACSIM) Performance characteristics A regional analysis example A land use project analysis example

7. I-PLACE 3 S Uses Regional to Neighborhood-level applications

8. Regional Blueprint Land Use Scenarios

9. Regional Transportation Plan Public Workshops Edit roadway links or roadway projects Edit transit routes

10. Neighborhood Study Area Land Use Scenario Roseville Fairgrounds Changes from base case:  700 more employees  400 more dwelling units  - 7 % VMT 74 Acres

11. Local Land Use Plan Updates Two cities used I-PLACE 3 S to develop General Plan land use scenarios

12. “Place Types” are the Building Blocks User-Defined, includes: Inventoried allowed land uses Land uses that might not yet exist in codes (e.g. mixed use)

13. New Modules Developed Through King County WA Study Public health (outcomes: physical activity, BMI, walk and bike trips) Climate change and air quality (outcomes: CO 2, NOx, HC, and CO; vehicle trips and VMT)

14. Climate Change Module (Household Inputs) Household demographics –Working adults –Non-working adults –Children Household Income Access to transit Area intersection density Household area density Area mix of land uses

15. Physical Activity and BMI Module (Person Inputs) Demographics –Number of adults in household –Employment status –Number of children in household Ratio of adults to cars Household income Access to transit Intersection density Area housing density Area land use mix Park availability Area retail and fast food establishments

16. Demographic Variables

17. Density & Accessibility Measures

18. P roduction E xchange C onsumption A llocation S ystem

19. PECAS Framework Components Economic Interactions (Activity Allocation): Production to exchange to consumption location chains determined for all goods, services and labor Equilibrium markets for all commodities, with prices & clearing Consumer surplus and producer surplus considered Space Development (Land Use): Changes in space year-to-year based on allowable zoning and prices from Activity Allocation Links to: Travel model (trip-based or tour-based) Non-spatial economic model

20. Benefits Apply economic analysis to spatial/land use issues Simulate developer decisions in addition to government policies Land use impacts for travel and emissions Peak spreading of congestion Pricing policy analysis Improved impact assessment

21. Model comparison – Unit of Analysis SACMET = TAZ and Trip –TAZ is a geographic area with number of people, jobs, etc. –Trips are “disembodied” and treated as a “gravitational” event SACSIM = Persons and Tours –Population represents variety of people in a “real” way –Travel is an outgrowth of activities—a way of stringing activities together

22. Typical Household’s Travel

23. A Practical, Regional Planning Application Vehicle miles traveled as primary indicator –Defining area types by average VMT per household Land use characteristics of VMT-defined areas Drilling down to specifics in prototype areas Forecasting results

24. 2005 VMT Per Household

25. 2005 reg. average VMT/HH = +/-50 miles –Dark green = Group 1--Very Low VMT (< 25 miles) –Light green = Group 2--Low VMT (25 – 45 miles) –Yellow = Group 3--Average(45-55 miles) –Orange = Group 4--High (55-75 miles) –Red = Group 5--Very High (75+ miles)

26. Density in Prototype Areas Density = Jobs + housing per acre at place of residence Higher density = lower VMT

27. Transit Proximity in Prototype Areas Proximity = % of households within ¼ mile of nearest transit Higher proximity = lower VMT

28. Mix of Use (Diversity) in Prototype Areas Mix Index = 0 (homogeneous development) to 100 (balanced mix) More balanced mix = lower VMT

29. Bike/Walk Mode Share in Prototype Areas Regional Average = 7.5 % Higher share in lower VMT areas

30. Transit Mode Share in Prototype Areas Regional Average = 1.2 % Higher share in lower VMT areas

31. Curtis Park Village: A Development Project Example

32. Three Development Options Project Housing and Employment Information Total Housing UnitsMF UnitsSF Units Comm. Sq. Ft. Scenario Developer Option B Plan594416178170,000 Developer August 2009 Plan631337294249,000 SCNA Plan690446244153,500

33. Project Area Travel Metrics Year 2035 Weekday Travel Indicators for Curtis Park Village Developer Option B Developer Aug2009 PlanSCNA Plan Project Area Only Vehicle Miles Traveled12,83017,19815,343 VMT Per Person+Job6.77.37.4 Transit Trips156177202 Transit Mode Share3.8%3.5%4.3% Bike+Walk Trips474591560 Bike+Walk Mode Share11.7% 11.9% Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments, October 2009.

34. Project + Neighborhood Travel Metrics Year 2035 Weekday Travel Indicators for Curtis Park Village and Neighborhood Area Developer Option B Developer Aug2009 PlanSCNA Plan Expanded Project Area Vehicle Miles Traveled571,499575,327571,534 VMT Per Person+Job16.316.2 Transit Trips9,90910,4419,998 Transit Mode Share6.3%6.6%6.4% Bike+Walk Trips13,93014,13514,110 Bike+Walk Mode Share8.9%9.0% Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments, October 2009.

35. The Project’s Internal Capture Vehicle Miles vs. External Areas Year 2035 Weekday VMT To, From, and Within Expanded Project Area Developer Option B Developer Aug2009 Plan SCNA Plan VMT within Exp.Proj.Area11,88712,07711,960 Diff from Opt.BNa+190+72 VMT between Exp.Proj.Area and External Areas559,612563,250559,574 Diff from Opt.Bna+3,639-38 Total VMT571,499575,327571,534 Diff from Opt.Bna+3,828+35 Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments, October 2009.