1 Smarter Target-Setting: Integrating Public Health and Social - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

T HE C RITICAL I NTERSECTION OF P UBLIC H EALTH , S OCIAL E QUITY , AND P ERFORMANCE -B ASED P LANNING A C ASE S TUDY FROM THE S AN F RANCISCO B AY A REA Dave Vautin M ETROPOLITAN T RANSPORTATION C OMMISSION D ECEMBER 3, 2014 – P ORTLAND , O REGON Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/13370127374

2 1 Smarter Target-Setting: Integrating Public Health and Social Equity 2 Why Project Evaluation Matters: Limitations of Scenario-Level Analysis 3 Quantifying Benefits: Framework for Evaluating Hundreds of Projects 4 Linking Performance and Policy Decisions: High-Performers and Low-Performers 5 What’s Next: Leveraging New Tools in Health/Equity Planning Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

3 1 Smarter Target-Setting: Integrating Public Health and Social Equity Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

T OP 20 MPO S : O&M VERSUS E XPANSION F UNDING 4 CMAP MWCOG 98% 70% Chicago Washington NYMTC SCAG 97% 60% New York Los Angeles SPC PSRC 97% 57% Pittsburgh Seattle BMPO SANDAG 94% 55% Boston San Diego DVRPC H-GAC 92% 55% Philadelphia Houston EWGCOG MAG 89% 53% St. Louis Phoenix NJTPA DRCOG 88% 50% Newark Denver MTC NCTCOG 87% 40% San Francisco Dallas SEMCOG BMC 87% insufficient data provided by MPO Detroit Baltimore ARC MC 74% insufficient data provided by MPO Atlanta Minneapolis 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 6 O&M Expansion O&M Expansion

5 A Establish Performance Targets B Assess Project Performance C Assess Scenario Performance L ONG -R ANGE P LANNING P ROCESS D Assess Plan/EIR Performance E Monitor Performance of Adopted Plan Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fritography/5162434063/sizes/l/

6 B RIEF H ISTORY OF P ERFORMANCE A SSESSMENT AT MTC 2001 2005 2009 2013 Year 2001 R EGIONAL T RANSPORTATION P LAN Transportation Transportation Transportation Integrated S CENARIO investment investment investment transportation & P LANNING packages packages packages land use scenarios P ERFORMANCE Transportation Transportation Transportation Integrated targets T ARGETS targets targets targets Q UALITATIVE P ROJECT None Goals-based Goals-based Targets-based A SSESSMENT Q UANTITATIVE Limited benefit- Rigorous benefit- P ROJECT None None cost analysis cost analysis A SSESSMENT N UMBER OF 0 400 700 900 P ROJECTS A NALYZED

7 • First regional plan to integrate transportation, land use, and housing • Sustainable Communities Strategy initiated by California Senate Bill 375

8 A C OLLABORATIVE T ARGET -S ETTING P ROCESS Engaged stakeholders from the region’s 9 counties , 101 cities , • 26 transit operators , and numerous advocacy organizations • 6-month process to define performance measures & targets 8-month process to establish project evaluation framework • Result: broad support for rigorous performance assessment from • key stakeholders, executive leadership, and policymakers Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tq2cute/4407502443/sizes/o/

9 C HOOSING A P UBLIC H EALTH T ARGET Increase sidewalk- Infrastructure- miles and bicycle Oriented lane-miles by X% P UBLIC H EALTH - OR- Increase average daily time spent Customer- Oriented walking or biking by X% P UBLIC H EALTH - OR- Decrease life-year impact of mortality or Objective- morbidity due to Oriented insufficient physical activity by X% P UBLIC H EALTH Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/timerding/3468819493/

10 C HOOSING AN E QUITY T ARGET Invest X% of regional transportation dollars Infrastructure- Oriented into disadvantaged communities E QUITY - OR- Increase middle-class Customer- jobs within X minutes Oriented by transit by Y% E QUITY - OR- Decrease housing and transportation costs Objective- as a share of low- Oriented income household E QUITY budgets by X% Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/timerding/3468819493/

11 C HOOSING AN A IR Q UALITY T ARGET Increase the market share of zero- Infrastructure- Oriented emission cars & trucks to X% C LEAN A IR - OR- Reduce particulate Customer- Oriented emissions by X% C LEAN A IR - OR- Reduce premature deaths from exposure Objective- Oriented to particulate emissions by X% C LEAN A IR Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/timerding/3468819493/

Increase non-auto ECONOMY mode share and Increase gross reduce VMT per capita regional product T RANSPORTATION Maintain the E CONOMIC S YSTEM E FFECTIVENESS transportation system V ITALITY Reduce per-capita Reduce premature deaths greenhouse gas ENVIRONMENT from exposure to emissions from cars and particulate emissions C LIMATE light-duty trucks P ROTECTION Reduce injuries and Direct all non- fatalities from collisions H EALTHY agricultural AND S AFE development C OMMUNITIES Increase average daily time O PEN S PACE AND within the urban spent walking or biking A GRICULTURAL footprint P RESERVATION Decrease housing EQUITY and transportation House all of the costs as a share of region’s projected low-income housing growth A DEQUATE E QUITABLE A CCESS household budgets H OUSING

13 E QUITY A NALYSIS T ECHNICAL M EASURES C OMPARING “C OMMUNITIES OF C ONCERN ” WITH R EMAINDER OF B AY A REA 1 Housing + Transportation Affordability 2 Displacement Risk 3 Vehicle Miles Traveled Density 4 Average Commute Travel Time 5 Average Non-Commute Travel Time Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/clintsharp/11061059935

14 2 Impetus for Project-Level Assessment: Limitations of Scenario-Level Analysis Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

15 P ERFORMANCE -B ASED P LANNING F RAMEWORK PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK ASSESSMENT SCENARIO-LEVEL SCENARIO TARGETS ASSESSMENT SCENARIO-LEVEL EQUITY ASSESSMENT PROJECT-LEVEL TARGETS ASSESSMENT PROJECT-LEVEL BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT PROJECT-LEVEL TRANSPORTATION LAND USE EQUITY ASSESSMENT PROJECTS PATTERN

16 S CENARIO P ERFORMANCE A SSESSMENT Comparing Forecasted Outcomes to Regional Targets

17 S CENARIO P ERFORMANCE A SSESSMENT Comparing Forecasted Outcomes to Regional Targets

18 S CENARIO E QUITY A NALYSIS Understanding Impacts to “Communities of Concern” 2040 No Measure Community 2010 2040 Preferred Project Housing + Low-Income 72% 80% 74% Transportation Rest of Region 41% 44% 43% Affordability COC n/a 21% 36% Displacement Risk Rest of Region n/a 5% 8% COC 9,737 11,447 11,693 VMT Density Rest of Region 9,861 11,717 11,895 COC 25 26 26 Commute Travel Time Rest of Region 27 29 27 COC 12 13 13 Non-Commute Travel Time Rest of Region 13 13 13

19 3 Quantifying Benefits: Framework for Evaluating Hundreds of Projects Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

Number and cost of projects are approximated for simplicity. 20 D ETERMINING H OW TO E VALUATE P ROJECTS – AND W HICH P ROJECTS S HOULD B E E VALUATED Number of Projects Cost of Projects (in billions of $) Qualitative only (by project type) Qualitative Qualitative Committed only (by Committed only 20 10 30 200 project type) 700 Quantitative 100 & qualitative 100 Qualitative 150 only Quantitative & qualitative

21 P RIMARY E LEMENTS OF P ROJECT P ERFORMANCE A SSESSMENT TARGETS BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT Determine impact on targets Compare benefits & costs adopted by MTC and ABAG Analyzed most significant projects Analyzed all 900 uncommitted (approximately 100 in total) projects

22 Targets Assessment Assessed qualitatively using target scores (max score of +10). 1. Climate Protection 6. Open Space 2. Adequate Housing 7. Equitable Access 3. Particulate Matter 8. Economic Vitality 4. Collisions 9. Non-Auto Mode Share/VMT 5. Active Transportation 10. State of Good Repair Benefit-Cost Assessment Assessed quantitatively using MTC Travel Model One. BENEFITS COSTS • Travel time (including recurring & non-recurring delay) Capital costs • • Travel cost (auto operating/ownership, parking) • Net operating and • Emissions (CO 2 , PM 2.5 , ROG, NO x ) maintenance (O&M) costs • Collisions (fatalities, injuries, property damage) • Health impacts due to active transport • Noise

23

24

25

26 B ENEFITS S PECIFIC TO P UBLIC H EALTH – AND C OST -E FFECTIVENESS Top 3 Most Cost-Effective Projects for Active Transportation Project Name Annual Project Cost ∆ Active Individuals Cost-Effectiveness ( ∆/$) BART Metro Program -$18.5 million 2,735 people infinite Cordon Pricing $5.1 million 11,899 people 2,338 Treasure Island Pricing $1.2 million 2,483 people 2,108 Top 3 Least Cost-Effective Projects for Active Transportation Project Name Annual Project Cost ∆ Active Individuals Cost-Effectiveness ( ∆/$) Muni TEP $7.8 million -3,811 people -486 I-80 Auxiliary Lanes $3.5 million -399 people -112 Alameda-Oakland BRT $2.1 million -200 people -96 Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dpworks/6277280935

27 Example Project Equity Map: San Francisco County

28 4 Linking Performance and Policy Decisions: High-Performers and Low-Performers Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615