WORKING GROUP MEETING August 13, 2020 Phase 2 Status Report - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
WORKING GROUP MEETING August 13, 2020 Phase 2 Status Report Scenario Planning Awaiting Working Group determination on whether adequate differentiation has been achieved Preparing to populate dashboard as model runs are completed
achieved
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Potential futures organized into alternative Land Use Scenarios
Urban
Planning in the context of future uncertainty Transportation Alternatives tested against each Scenario Gives the Ability to make Informed Decisions based on Testing Results
Results for each Transportation Alternative
Suburban Water
Scenario Narratives Control Totals Land Use Modeling Travel Demand Modeling Economic Modeling Vision, Goals & Objectives
Where we are in the Scenario Planning Process
Testing Transportation Alternatives
10
Economic, Lifestyle/Demographic, Technology, Environment Drivers organized into three Greater Growth Scenarios with an equal amount of additional employment and population growth in each. Control totals, and assumptions about the drivers, translated through “Levers” in the land use and travel demand models. Performance Measures, based on the study Goals and Objectives and produced by the land use, travel demand, and economic models
11
Growth in water-oriented activity. Port of Virginia becomes even more competitive with freight more multimodal. More dispersed housing locations. Moderate assumptions for CAV adoption and network adaptation.
Significant economic
requirements per job. Large role for “digital port.” New professionals prefer to live/work in urban settings. High level of CV adoption and low auto
Growth is suburban/ exurban, but growth includes walkable mixed-use centers. Port of Virginia becomes even more
additional jobs. Housing is more
adoption and network adaptation.
NOTE: Sea Level Rise assumed as 3 ft. in all Scenarios
Test greater cross-harbor travel in particular. Test more urban and multimodal travel patterns. Test more overall regional travel.
W H A T T H E S E W I L L H E L P U S T E S T
12
2015 2015 2045 2045 Baseline Forecast Baseline Forecast Greater Growth Forecast Greater Growth Forecast
Regional Population/ Employment Regional Population/ Employment
Baseline & Greater Growth Forecast Concept Baseline & Greater Growth Forecast Concept
2015 2045 Baseline Forecast Greater Growth Forecast
Regional Population/ Employment
Baseline & Greater Growth Forecast Concept
Greater Growth Allocation Greater Growth Allocation
Growth Rates Employment Population 2015-2045 7.90% 17.29% Greater Growth 7.51% 5.48%
13
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Support regional growth and productivity Support efficient freight movement Support accessibility for tourism
SUSTAINABILITY: EQUITY, COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENTAL
Improve the sustainability of communities through increased housing choice and reduced auto- dependency Ensure that mobility benefits positively affect low income residents Minimize the environmental impact of future growth and transportation
CONNECTIVITY & ACCESSIBILITY
Improve connectivity and reliability between the Peninsula and Southside Improve connectivity and access for all Reduce delay and improve travel efficiency
SAFETY, RESILIENCY & INNOVATION
Improve safety through a more adaptive transportation network Make investments that improve flood resiliency Consider the impacts of technology on system demand and performance
LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT Percent of population in multi-family housing Percent of growth near key destinations Percent of growth near transit stops Percent of growth in urban place types Percent of growth on formerly undeveloped land (per 2016 Land Cover Data) Percent of growth near flood-prone areas (Change in) cost of emissions Ratio of user costs for low income travelers to all user costs (ratio of savings) ECONOMIC (Change in) Lost productivity from delay (Economic impact of change in) Labor market accessibility Performance on the freight network - total delay + spatial results (Change in) Percent of freight traffic on secondary streets - total + spatial TRANSPORTATION NETWORK (Change in) Delay on cross-harbor trips [time and dollar value] (Change in) Circuity of cross-harbor trips (Change in) Reliability for cross-harbor trips [time and dollar value] (Change in) Cross-harbor accessibility (Change in) Regional delay [total + spatial] System reliability (Change in) User cost Cost of forecasted crashes (Change in) Transportation network impact from flood-prone conditions [e.g., delay, trip length, and/or circuity] ACCESSIBILITY & TRAVEL MODE (Change in) Multimodal accessibility to jobs (Change in) Accessibility index by mode Performance of the transit-serving roadway network [i.e., average speed] (Change in) Mode share index (Change in) Accessibility to major tourist attractions (Change in) Transit ridership Percent of jobs/pop within (15 min) drive time to airport or Amtrak station Low income household access to employment TECHNOLOGY Percent of trips by automated vehicles (Change in) Percent of travel using facilities with adaptive technologies [e.g., V2I, ITS] Reliability enhancement from technology Induced trip demand from technology
14
Land Use Indicators Transportation Indicators Economic Indicators
Land Use Model Travel Demand Model TREDIS Model
STUDY DASHBOARD
15
16
Virtual Present (2015) Virtual Future (2045)
17
18
locations) was validated by localities (based
scenario was achieved through:
growth spatially
were developed based on each scenario narrative
GROWTH ALLOCATOR
19
GROWTH ALLOCATOR
CAPACITY SUITABILITY
Suitability acts as a magnet for growth
Amount of growth in the 2045 Baseline Additional capacity for growth Total Capacity in the Place Type Growth Allocator
Sutability Factor Method Weight Sutability Factor Method Weight Tourism Distance Tourism Distance Military Presence Overlap Military Presence Distance Major Roadways Distance Major Roadways (-) Distance Urbanized Waterfront Overlap Active Transportation Distance Shipbuilding Distance Shoreline OVerlap IPA Placetype Distance Utilities Overlap IPA Placetype Overlap Utilities Overlap
Jobs Population
Sutability Factor Method Weight Sutability Factor Method Weight Shipbuilding Distance Utility Service Overlap Urbanized Waterfront Distance Active Transportation Distance Utility Service Overlap Employment Accessibility Distance
Distance Transit Proximity Distance Employment Accessibility Distance
Distance Transit Proximity Distance Redevelopment Potential Distance City Center Proximity Distance Higher Education Facilities Distance Redevelopment Potential Distance MCR Placetype Distance Higher Education Facilities Distance 2045 Employment Density Distance MCR Placetype Distance 2045 Population Density Distance MCI Placetype Distance RLD PT Distance VFEMP Density Distance RHD PT Distance RMD PT Distance
Jobs Population
Sutability Factor Method Weight Sutability Factor Method Weight Active Transportation OVerlap Active Transportation Distance Vacant Land Availability Distance Major Roadways (-) Distance Large Developable Sites Distance Vacant Land Availability Distance Existing Warehouse Facilities Distance MCR Placetype Distance MCR Placetype Distance Utility Service Overlap MCI Placetype Distance CR Placetype Distance Utilities Overlap ELU IH Distance IP Distance City Centers Overlap
Jobs Population
20
21
Water Suburban Urban
POPULATION EMPLOYMENT POPULATION EMPLOYMENT
SUITABILITY ALLOCATION
22
Note that these outputs represent only the land use modeling output portions of the Dashboard results
26,077 32,714 26,444
Water Urban Suburban
Population in multifamily housing
55,839 69,011 56,088
Water Urban Suburban
Population in urban place types
29,046 36,821 29,894
Water Urban Suburban
Population near key destinations
30,572 33,281 26,721
Water Urban Suburban
Jobs near key destinations
23
Note that these outputs represent only the land use modeling output portions of the Dashboard results
18,324 11,038 20,884
Water Urban Suburban
Population on generally undeveloped land (per 2016 Land Cover Data)
33,925 40,676 35,440
Water Urban Suburban
Jobs near transit stops
33,475 43,595 33,424
Water Urban Suburban
Population near transit stops
24
25
Persons 7,674,155 8,125,764 5.9% Latent demand for home-based discretionary travel for households with access to AVs. Trucks – Internal 59,357 59,357 0.0% No induced demand specified. Trucks – External 27,595 28,277 2.5% Input parameter specifies +30% for through truck traffic only. Passenger Vehicles - Internal 5,699,137 6,431,416 12.8% Latent demand for home-based discretionary travel and introduction of zero-occupant vehicles. Passenger Vehicles - External 238,868 298,587 25.0% Input parameter specifies +25%
26
Private Conventional Auto 74.0% 54.7% Model estimate of MaaS reflects weighted average of input parameters specifying 10% for work trips and 20-30% for non-work trips. MaaS (Conventional) 25.0% 18.8% Private AV
Model estimate of 25.4% AVs reflects average of input parameters that range from 20% - 30%. Note that AVs account for approximately ¼ of the total MaaS share in accordance with input parameters. MaaS (AV)
Bus 0.88% 0.86% Transit shares decrease slightly reflecting competition from new AV modes. Light Rail 0.14% 0.13%
27
Vehicle-Miles Traveled 43,150,459 41,570,058
46,623,754 12.2% Vehicle-Hours Traveled 1,201,853 1,667,684 38.8% 1,871,093 12.2% Delay (Hours) 244,459 738,973 202.2% 824,517 11.6% Average Free-flow Speed (mph) 45.1 44.8
44.5
Average Congested Speed (mph) 35.9 24.9
24.9 0.0%
28
WATER URBAN SUBURBAN
X.X% - difference from 2045 Baseline w/ Tech
29
30 WATER URBAN SUBURBAN
X.X% - difference from 2045 Baseline w/ Tech
WATER URBAN SUBURBAN
X.XX – average trip length 1 - includes zero-passenger vehicles and trucks; 2 - verses 2045 Baseline w/Tech
31
32
Vehicle-Miles Traveled 50,179,522 7.6% 47,069,198 1.0% 49,629,880 6.4% Vehicle-Hours Traveled 2,014,533 7.7% 1,885,958 0.8% 1,989,374 6.3% Delay (Hours) 886,352 7.5% 826,051 0.2% 876,143 6.3% Average Free-flow Speed (mph) 44.5 0.0% 44.4
44.6 0.2% Average Congested Speed (mph) 24.9 0.0% 25.0 0.4% 24.9 0.0%
33
WATER URBAN SUBURBAN
X,XXX – daily delay in hours. * verses 2045 Baseline w/Tech
34
35
36
increased delay at 14% compared with 7-8% for other scenarios.
52%.
at 7% and is the lowest of all scenarios.
person trips at 11% and is the greatest of all scenarios.
37
38