1. 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 2 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-MODEL SPECIFIC POLICY OR ASPIRATIONAL OBJECTIVE 3 Analysis Framework

4. 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 5 Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Road user chargeNone anticipated Off-ModelITS elementsEco driving

6. PRICING TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES MODE SHIFT OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 6 Scenario Strategies

7. Pricing Strategies 7 Road user charge (RUC) Gas tax Congestion pricing

8. Pricing Strategies 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Road User Charge Off-Model

12. Transportation Alternatives 12 Telecommute Carpoolers Carsharing

13. Transportation Alternatives 13 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 14 Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Off-Model Increased: Telecommute Carpooling Carsharing

15. Mode Shift 15 Transit improvements Bicycle improvements Pedestrian improvements Carpool changes

16. Mode Shift - Transit 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Most Transit Improvements Carpools/HOV Off-Model BRT Bicycling Walking

20. Operational Efficiencies 20 Incident/Emergency management Caltrans TMS Master Plan Intelligent transportation systems Eco driving

21. Operational Efficiencies 21 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 22 Analysis Method: Policy or Goal? Specific Policy Aspirational Objective California Statewide Travel Demand Model Off-Model Incident/Emergency management Caltrans TMS Master Plan ITS Eco driving

23. 23 Next Steps

24. 24 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