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

▶
1
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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

Nov 25, 2022 349 likes •728 views

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

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/13370127374

THE CRITICAL INTERSECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SOCIAL EQUITY, AND PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING

Dave Vautin

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2014 – PORTLAND, OREGON

A CASE STUDY FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Smarter Target-Setting: Integrating Public Health and Social Equity

1 2 3

Why Project Evaluation Matters: Limitations of Scenario-Level Analysis Quantifying Benefits: Framework for Evaluating Hundreds of Projects

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

4

Linking Performance and Policy Decisions: High-Performers and Low-Performers

5

What’s Next: Leveraging New Tools in Health/Equity Planning

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Smarter Target-Setting: Integrating Public Health and Social Equity

1

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

CMAP

Chicago

NYMTC

New York

SPC

Pittsburgh

BMPO

Boston

DVRPC

Philadelphia

EWGCOG

  • St. Louis

NJTPA

Newark

MTC

San Francisco

SEMCOG

Detroit

ARC

Atlanta

6

74% 87% 87% 88% 89% 92% 94% 97% 97% 98%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

O&M Expansion

40% 50% 53% 55% 55% 57% 60% 70%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

O&M Expansion

MWCOG

Washington

SCAG

Los Angeles

PSRC

Seattle

SANDAG

San Diego

H-GAC

Houston

MAG

Phoenix

DRCOG

Denver

NCTCOG

Dallas

BMC

Baltimore

MC

Minneapolis

insufficient data provided by MPO insufficient data provided by MPO

TOP 20 MPOS: O&M VERSUS EXPANSION FUNDING

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Establish Performance Targets Assess Project Performance Assess Scenario Performance Assess Plan/EIR Performance Monitor Performance of Adopted Plan

A B C D E

LONG-RANGE PLANNING PROCESS

Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fritography/5162434063/sizes/l/

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

BRIEF HISTORY OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AT MTC

2005 2009 2013 2001

2001 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Year SCENARIO PLANNING Transportation investment packages Transportation investment packages Transportation investment packages Integrated transportation & land use scenarios PERFORMANCE TARGETS Transportation targets Transportation targets Transportation targets Integrated targets QUALITATIVE PROJECT ASSESSMENT None Goals-based Goals-based Targets-based QUANTITATIVE PROJECT ASSESSMENT None None Limited benefit- cost analysis Rigorous benefit- cost analysis NUMBER OF PROJECTS ANALYZED

400 700 900

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • First regional

plan to integrate transportation, land use, and housing

  • Sustainable

Communities Strategy initiated by California Senate Bill 375

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

A COLLABORATIVE TARGET-SETTING PROCESS

  • 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/

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/timerding/3468819493/

CHOOSING A PUBLIC HEALTH TARGET

Infrastructure- Oriented

PUBLIC HEALTH

Increase sidewalk- miles and bicycle lane-miles by X%

Customer- Oriented

PUBLIC HEALTH

Increase average daily time spent walking or biking by X%

Objective- Oriented

PUBLIC HEALTH

Decrease life-year impact of mortality or morbidity due to insufficient physical activity by X%

  • OR-
  • OR-

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/timerding/3468819493/

CHOOSING AN EQUITY TARGET

Infrastructure- Oriented

Invest X% of regional transportation dollars into disadvantaged communities

Customer- Oriented

Increase middle-class jobs within X minutes by transit by Y%

Objective- Oriented

Decrease housing and transportation costs as a share of low- income household budgets by X%

  • OR-
  • OR-

EQUITY EQUITY EQUITY

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/timerding/3468819493/

CHOOSING AN AIR QUALITY TARGET

Infrastructure- Oriented

CLEAN AIR

Increase the market share of zero- emission cars & trucks to X%

Customer- Oriented

CLEAN AIR

Reduce particulate emissions by X%

Objective- Oriented

CLEAN AIR

Reduce premature deaths from exposure to particulate emissions by X%

  • OR-
  • OR-

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

CLIMATE PROTECTION ADEQUATE HOUSING HEALTHY

AND SAFE

COMMUNITIES OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION EQUITABLE ACCESS ECONOMIC VITALITY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS

Reduce per-capita greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks House all of the region’s projected housing growth Reduce premature deaths from exposure to particulate emissions Reduce injuries and fatalities from collisions Increase average daily time spent walking or biking Direct all non- agricultural development within the urban footprint Decrease housing and transportation costs as a share of low-income household budgets Increase gross regional product Increase non-auto mode share and reduce VMT per capita Maintain the transportation system

ECONOMY ENVIRONMENT EQUITY

slide-13
SLIDE 13

EQUITY ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEASURES

COMPARING “COMMUNITIES OF CONCERN” WITH REMAINDER OF BAY AREA

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/clintsharp/11061059935

Housing + Transportation Affordability Displacement Risk Vehicle Miles Traveled Density Average Commute Travel Time Average Non-Commute Travel Time

1 2 3 4 5

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Impetus for Project-Level Assessment: Limitations of Scenario-Level Analysis

2

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

SCENARIO

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS LAND USE PATTERN

PLANNING FRAMEWORK

PROJECT-LEVEL TARGETS ASSESSMENT

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING FRAMEWORK

PROJECT-LEVEL EQUITY ASSESSMENT SCENARIO-LEVEL TARGETS ASSESSMENT SCENARIO-LEVEL EQUITY ASSESSMENT PROJECT-LEVEL BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

SCENARIO PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

Comparing Forecasted Outcomes to Regional Targets

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

SCENARIO PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

Comparing Forecasted Outcomes to Regional Targets

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

SCENARIO EQUITY ANALYSIS

Understanding Impacts to “Communities of Concern”

Measure Community 2010 2040 No Project 2040 Preferred Housing + Transportation Affordability Low-Income 72% 80% 74% Rest of Region 41% 44% 43% Displacement Risk COC n/a 21% 36% Rest of Region n/a 5% 8% VMT Density COC 9,737 11,447 11,693 Rest of Region 9,861 11,717 11,895 Commute Travel Time COC 25 26 26 Rest of Region 27 29 27 Non-Commute Travel Time COC 12 13 13 Rest of Region 13 13 13

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Quantifying Benefits: Framework for Evaluating Hundreds of Projects

3

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Number and cost of projects are approximated for simplicity.

200 100 100 700

Committed

Number of Projects

Quantitative & qualitative

30 150 20 10

Committed

Cost of Projects (in billions of $)

Quantitative & qualitative Qualitative

  • nly

Qualitative

  • nly (by

project type) Qualitative

  • nly

Qualitative only (by project type)

DETERMINING HOW TO EVALUATE PROJECTS –

AND WHICH PROJECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

TARGETS ASSESSMENT

Compare benefits & costs Analyzed most significant projects (approximately 100 in total) Determine impact on targets adopted by MTC and ABAG Analyzed all 900 uncommitted projects

BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT PRIMARY ELEMENTS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Targets Assessment

Benefit-Cost Assessment

BENEFITS

  • Travel time (including recurring & non-recurring delay)
  • Travel cost (auto operating/ownership, parking)
  • Emissions (CO2, PM2.5, ROG, NOx)
  • Collisions (fatalities, injuries, property damage)
  • Health impacts due to active transport
  • Noise

COSTS

  • Capital costs
  • Net operating and

maintenance (O&M) costs Assessed qualitatively using target scores (max score of +10). Assessed quantitatively using MTC Travel Model One.

1. Climate Protection 2. Adequate Housing 3. Particulate Matter 4. Collisions 5. Active Transportation 6. Open Space 7. Equitable Access 8. Economic Vitality 9. Non-Auto Mode Share/VMT

  • 10. State of Good Repair

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

BENEFITS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC HEALTH – AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS

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

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Example Project Equity Map: San Francisco County

27

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Linking Performance and Policy Decisions: High-Performers and Low-Performers

4

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION

SAMPLE HIGH- PERFORMING PROJECTS

PRIORITIZED FOR REGIONAL FUNDING

BART METRO URBAN BRT SYSTEMS FREEWAY

PERFORMANCE

INITIATIVE SMART EXPANSION

DUMBARTON

RAIL FREEWAY WIDENING

(US-101 & SR-239)

SAMPLE LOW- PERFORMING PROJECTS

REQUIRED COMPELLING CASE FOR INCLUSION IN PLAN

SAMPLE MODERATE- PERFORMING PROJECTS

“NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG”

URBAN BUS

FREQUENCY

IMPROVEMENTS EXPRESS LANE

NETWORK

21 29

slide-30
SLIDE 30

COMPELLING CASE CRITERIA

Category 1: Modeling Limitations must prove limitations directly resulted in a B/C ratio less than 1

  • 1. Interregional or recreational corridor
  • 2. Access to international airports
  • 3. Benefit accrual from non-modelable effects such as weaving

reduction, transit crowding reduction, etc.

  • 4. Synergies with other fully funded investments

Category 2: Federal Requirements

  • 1. Cost-effective in reducing CO2, PM, or ozone precursors
  • 2. Improves mobility or air quality in communities of concern

Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonholmberg/8436363059/sizes/o/

30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

13 1 8 12

Projects re-scoped:

(7) Environmental phase only (5) Sponsor agreed to fully fund project locally (1) Down-scoped to achieve B/C ratio greater than 1

Projects withdrawn by sponsors Compelling cases approved:

(6) Communities of Concern (1) Air quality (1) Recreational trips

Case slated for rejection; “settled

  • ut of court”

IMPLICATIONS OF COMPELLING CASE REQUIREMENT

FOR LOW-PERFORMING PROJECTS

Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fritography/5162434063/sizes/l/

31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

What’s Next: Leveraging New Tools in Health/Equity Planning

5

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

32

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Image Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Capitol_at_Dusk_2.jpg

Expectations for performance assessment have grown significantly in the past decade. Yet there remains no national mandate to incorporate health & equity measures. It is up to MPOs and state DOTs to lead the way.

33

slide-34
SLIDE 34

INTEGRATED TRANSPORT AND HEALTH IMPACTS MODEL (ITHIM)

  • 2000
  • 1000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Active Transport Strategy Low Emission Vehicles Strategy

Change in Disability-Adjusted Life-Years per Million

Policy Strategy Analysis Example

Physical Activity Air Pollution Injuries

  • Developed in 2011;

now being leveraged by MPOs across California

  • Calculates health

impacts (mortality and morbidity) related to air quality, physical activity, and collisions

  • Integrates with travel

demand model & GIS databases (Excel- based tool)

34

slide-35
SLIDE 35
  • Integrating health and equity measures into regional and state

performance frameworks is a critical step to support livability and sustainability objectives.

  • Focusing on outcomes – rather than proxies – leads to more

meaningful results that support smarter policy decisions.

  • It is essential to move beyond scenarios to quantify a suite of

project-level benefits in the long-range planning process.

  • New tools and methodologies make incorporating health

benefits easier than in years past.

Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rao_anirudh/8732828358/sizes/o/

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

35

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Questions?

Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9702212@N03/3794015390/sizes/o/

Dave Vautin

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION dvautin@mtc.ca.gov

36