Mobility Management Toolbox

Transcription

1 Mobility Management Toolbox Regional Stakeholder Workshop November 7, 2018

2 Mobility Management Toolbox Project Purpose and Overview November 7, 2018

3 Project Team SANDAG Krystal Ayala, Antoinette Meier, Alex Estrella, Carolina Ilic Consultant ICF Jeff Ang-Olson, Devon Muto, Charlie Richmond VRPA Erik Ruehr Caltrans Barbara Valentine, Damon Davis 3

4 Project Purpose Develop a TDM and TSM Impact Analysis Toolbox that will provide a consistent regional framework for evaluating and quantifying TDM and TSM into the development review and transportation analysis process as required under CEQA. 4

5 Defining Mobility Management TDM Transportation Demand Management TSM Transportation System Management Infrastructure Improvements Parking Management Commuter Benefits Transit Improvements Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Shared Mobility Real-time Information 5

6 What is VMT? VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled Vs. 6

7 Project Scope & Schedule Regional Stakeholder Coordination Online Survey and interviews June-July 2018 Focus groups Sept.-Oct Joint-workshop November 2018 Literature and Case Studies Review Draft Summary October 2018 Final Summary November 2018 Mobility Management Toolbox TDM/TSM Assessment Framework January 2019 Toolbox Development (including Calculator) Draft-Feb. 2019, Final-Apr Recommendations for Application of Toolbox May 2019 Toolbox Training and Outreach June

8 Workshop Agenda Purpose Report on findings, present approach to toolbox development, solicit feedback on framework and content of toolbox Agenda Project Purpose and Overview Regulatory Drivers Needs Assessment Literature Review and Case Study Research Case Studies: San Francisco and San Jose Toolbox Framework 8

9 Mobility Management Toolbox Regulatory Drivers November 7, 2018

10 Why is VMT Important? CEQA, Climate Action Plans, Planning SB 743 (VMT replacing LOS) SB 375 and San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan SANDAG Intergovernmental Review 10

11 VMT Reduction Benefits Reduces GHG and other emissions More active/vibrant communities Public health improvements Emphasizes transit and active transportation Encourages TOD and infill development Reduces capital costs Addresses local and regional congestion Reduces parking demand 11

12 Current Applications of VMT in Planning GHG Reductions for CEQA GHG Reductions for CAPs General Plan and Community Plan Policies TDM and Parking Policies Transportation Analysis for CEQA 12

13 Overview of Senate Bill 743 California legislation passed in fall of 2013 Changes performance measure for CEQA transportation studies from level of service to vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for land development projects Purpose is to encourage smart growth and multimodal networks Currently in CEQA adoption process with target implementation date of July 1, 2020 Simple change but with potentially important consequences Local chapter of Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is working on guidelines for implementation 13

14 Mobility Management at the Regional Level SANDAG incorporates a variety of mobility management strategies (TDM and TSM) in the Regional Plan to assist in meeting Sustainable Communities Strategy GHG emission reduction targets per SB 375 SANDAG is designated the area-wide clearinghouse for the review of environmental documents and for projects 14

15 Questions?

16 Mobility Management Toolbox Needs Assessment November 7, 2018

17 Needs Assessment Process Local Jurisdiction Survey Planning and engineering staff Identified through consultation with SANTEC, TWG, and CTAC One-on-One Interviews Targeted follow-up interviews following survey County of San Diego, City of Vista, National City, City of Chula Vista, City of Santee, City of San Diego Focus Groups Local jurisdictions Developers TDM/TSM experts 17

18 Regional Stakeholder Survey transportation impacts mitigation What rules, regulations, or policies encourage or require the mitigation of project-related transportation impacts in your jurisdiction? General Plan Policies GHG reduction for CEQA compliance Climate Action Plan (CAP) and/or CAP checklist Cal Green Code (Title 24, Part 11) Intergovernmental Review (IGR) TDM ordinance Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 18

19 Regional Stakeholder Survey current practice 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Roadway and intersection improvements Parking management Outreach and employer-based commuter benefits Transit improvements Bike and pedestrian improvements Shared mobility and supporting amenities Commonly proposed in projects 19

20 Regional Stakeholder Survey current practice 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Roadway and intersection improvements Parking management Outreach and employer-based commuter benefits Transit improvements Bike and pedestrian improvements Shared mobility and supporting amenities Commonly proposed in projects Jurisdiction can evaluate 20

21 Regional Stakeholder Survey current practice 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Roadway and intersection improvements Parking management Outreach and employer-based commuter benefits Transit improvements Bike and pedestrian improvements Shared mobility and supporting amenities Commonly proposed in projects Jurisdiction can evaluate Jurisdiction would benefit from additional guidance 21

22 Regional Stakeholder Survey implementation challenges Cost Monitoring project success Lack of regulatory framework Political support Difficult to quantitatively justify mitigation Land restrictions Limited transit opportunities Coordination with neighboring jurisdictions Questionable effectiveness

23 Regional Stakeholder Survey looking ahead What mobility management measures will developers use more frequently in the future? Shuttle passes or service Transit passes or subsidies Carshare Transit priority or new service Reduced parking Rideshare 23

24 Regional Stakeholder Survey and Interviews: Key Findings Some effective TDM measures not commonly used e.g., shuttles, parking pricing or unbundling, transit subsidy, bikeshare, carshare Most cities want additional guidance and tools for nearly all measures Even if VMT quantification is not available, cities want information on available research and generalized impacts Consider opportunities for regional coordination and solutions (e.g., coordinated calculation tools; regional TDM programs) 24

25 Focus Groups Conducted 3 focus groups with different expertise and perspectives National TDM and TSM Experts (Sept 28) Developers in San Diego Region (Oct 2) San Diego Public Agencies (Oct 3) Objectives included: Understand current practices and latest research for evaluating VMT impacts of TDM and TSM measures Understand challenges and gaps for implementing and evaluating VMT mitigation measures Clarify needs that can be addressed with toolbox resources 25

26 Focus Group 1: TDM and TSM Experts Participants: FHWA, Caltrans, UC Berkeley, City of Pasadena, Metropolitan Washington COG, Mobility Lab, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, consultants Encourage identifying the most effective TDM measures rather than easiest to implement Reminder to consider local context and impact on VMT reductions (e.g., proximity to transit, urban/rural) Suggest looking at impacts of combined strategies, which are not necessarily additive; impacts could be more or less effective in combination No TSM measures identified for reducing VMT Suggest using ranges for defensibility of estimates 26

27 Focus Group 2: Developer Perspective Participants Circulate San Diego, the Building Industry Association, Urban Land Institute, UCSD, four private developers, developer attorney Oppose new fees in addition to existing impact fees; suggest adapt existing fee programs to prioritize VMT-reducing projects Want to see connection between fees and benefits to the development project Encourage consistent implementation of SB 743 across the region Interested in knowing costs and benefits of the mitigation strategies 27

28 Focus Group 3: Public Agency Perspective Participants Caltrans, San Diego County, City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of Solana Beach, and City of San Marcos Interested in consistent implementation of SB 743 across region, including a regional standard for mitigation Support fee programs to implement TDM and TSM improvements Support estimating VMT reduction as a range rather than single value Suggest having reductions vary depending on land use types and local context Emphasize importance of monitoring particularly for programmatic measures Propose developing a regional monitoring program; limited resources available for monitoring at the local level 28

29 Questions?

30 Mobility Management Toolbox Literature Review and Case Study Research November 7, 2018

31 Purpose and Methodology Purpose: Document existing methods and tools for quantifying VMT-reduction benefits of TDM and TSM strategies Methodology: Review available research Compilations and meta-analyses Strategy-specific studies Existing calculator tools Review current practices for implementation of TDM and TSM as mitigation strategies and SB 743 implementation 31

32 Key Resources Compilations and Meta-Analyses 32

33 Key Resources Strategy-specific studies and reports Journal articles (JAPA, TRR, Transportation Research, etc.) TCRP Report 95 Evaluation studies (Portland, King County, MTC, etc.) Calculator Tools Trip Reduction Impacts of Mobility Management Strategies (TRIMMS) model PSRC CMAQ Evaluation Tool Center for Clean Air Policy Transportation Emissions Calculator SANDAG Smart Growth Trip Generation Spreadsheet Tool 33

34 Mobility Management Strategies with some Information on Transportation Impacts Reduced parking Shared parking Active parking management Unbundled parking Parking pricing Parking cash-out Bicycle infrastructure Pedestrian infrastructure Bike parking Land use density Land use mix Destination accessibility Commute reduction program Rideshare program Transit subsidy On-site amenities Alternative work schedule Outreach Rideshare preferential benefit School pool program Carshare Bikeshare Shuttle service or microtransit Transit fare reduction Passenger pickup/drop-off Facilities to support transit use Rideshare subsidy Transportation coordinator Transit expansion Transit frequency BRT Smart signals Road pricing Cordon pricing Park & ride Wayfinding signage 34

35 Challenges with Mobility Management Strategy Research Reported impacts assume strategy is combined with other strategies Uncertain origin of research Cross-sectional studies Many variables influence travel behavior Correlation vs. causation Model fit Scale of measurement and application of results 35

36 TDM Strategies with Defensible VMT Reduction Estimates Land Use and Location Land use density Mixed land uses Destination accessibility Occupant-Based Programs Commute trip reduction program Rideshare program Transit subsidy Telecommute program Vanpool program Non-Motorized Infrastructure Street connectivity Sidewalk coverage Bike lane density Parking Parking pricing Parking cash-out Parking supply limits Transit Transit network coverage Transit frequency Transit speed, reliability Transit fares Microtransit/shuttle service Other Carshare program Bikeshare program Personalized travel planning Trip caps Road pricing, cordon pricing 36

37 TDM Strategies with Little/No Defensible VMT Reduction Estimates Orient project toward bike/ped/transit Locate project near bike lane Site-level pedestrian improvements Traffic calming Preferential parking for carpools Park-and-ride lots Bike parking Bikeway signage Bicycle loop detectors On-site showers Dockless bikeshare Scooter share Enhanced transit waiting areas Transit access improvements Real-time transit information Wayfinding signage Ride-hailing curb space Smart parking 37

38 TSM Strategies Traveler Information En-Route Traveler Information Pre-Trip Traveler Information Traffic Signal Systems Preset Timing Traffic Actuated Timing Central Control Transit Signal Priority Smart Signals/Adaptive Signal Control Traffic Incident Management Ramp Metering Central Control Traffic Actuated Preset Timing Active Traffic Management Variable Speed Limits Part-Time Shoulder Use Road Weather Management Work Zone Management 38

39 Format for Expression of VMT Impacts % change in VMT = constant % change in VMT = (% change in variable X) * (elasticity) % change in mode share or ridership = (% change in variable X) * (elasticity) % change in VMT = (% change in ridership) * (mode shift factor) * (trip length) 39

40 Current Local Government Practices California San Francisco (coming next) San Jose (coming next) Pasadena First city to establish CEQA guidelines for VMT Oakland Established VMT thresholds of significance Developed factors to adjust ITE trip generation rates to account for transit proximity and density Los Angeles Beta testing a VMT calculator tool, similar to San Jose City of Pasadena CEQA Thresholds of Significance for Transportation Metrics 40

41 Current Local Government Practices Other States Boulder, CO Aggressive VMT reduction goals; annual transit pass (EcoPass) Buffalo, NY TDM plans required for new development over 5,000 sq. ft. Developments required to reduce vehicle trips 10% (or 20% if ¼ mile from rail) Arlington County, VA TDM plans required for most new developments Site visits and performance reporting to ensure compliance Fairfax County, VA TDM plans required for most new developments Required monitoring using surveys and trip counts Seattle, WA Employers (100+) must offer from a menu of TDM strategies and conduct monitoring Transportation Management Programs for new buildings required TDM amenities 41

42 Live demo of VMT Calculator Tools was rescheduled as a webinar on 12/6/18. Webinar is available at: Live Demo of VMT Calculator Tools Audrey Harris, TDM Performance Manager, City of San Francisco audrey.harris@sfgov.org Wilson Tam, San Jose Department of Transportation wilson.tam@sanjoseca.gov

43 Mobility Management Toolbox Workshop Preliminary Toolbox Framework November 7, 2018

44 Objectives for Toolbox Identify effective mobility management strategies for developers and city staff Provide estimates of percent reduction in VMT for certain mobility management strategies Provide additional resources regarding TDM and TSM strategy implementation 44

45 Toolbox: Scales of Strategy Application Occupant-Based Programs (employers, site-specific) Land Use/Location (building/parcel level) Parking (parcel/site level) Non-motorized Infrastructure (neighborhood level) Transit (neighborhood/area level) TSM (neighborhood/area level)

46 Toolbox Strategies Occupant-Based Programs, Site-specific Occupant- Based Programs Commute trip reduction program Rideshare program Transit subsidy Telecommute program Vanpool program

47 Toolbox Strategies Land Use/Location, Building/parcel level Land Use/ Location Land use density Mixed land uses Destination accessibility

48 Toolbox Strategies Parking, Parcel/site level Parking, parcel/site level strategies Parking pricing Parking cash-out Parking supply limits Trip caps

49 Toolbox Strategies Non-motorized Infrastructure, Neighborhood level Non-motorized Infrastructure, neighborhood level strategies Street connectivity Sidewalk coverage Bike lane density Personalized travel planning + TSM strategies

50 Toolbox Strategies Transit, Neighborhood/area level Transit Neighborhood/ area level strategies Transit network coverage Transit frequency Transit speed, reliability Transit fares Shared mobility (microtransit/shuttle service, carshare, bikeshare) + TSM strategies

51 Toolbox User Inputs and Results (example) Employer Programs Total Category VMT Reduction % Strategy 1 Description Multiplicative dampening (strategy impacts not additive) Subject to category-wide maximum User Inputs Formula % VMT Reduction = % VMT reduction effectiveness * % of employees eligible Strategy VMT Reduction % References Could be range or point estimate Strategy 2 Description User Inputs Formula % VMT Reduction = % change in variable * elasticity Strategy VMT Reduction % References 51

52 Toolbox User Inputs and Results (example) Land Use / Location Total Category VMT Reduction % Strategy 1 Description User Inputs Formula % VMT Reduction = % change in variable * elasticity Strategy VMT Reduction % References Populated with area default values Strategy 2 Description User Inputs Formula % VMT Reduction = % change in variable * elasticity Strategy VMT Reduction % References 52

53 Toolbox Architecture Main Page Region-wide Factors City or Planning Area Factors Employer Programs Land Use/Location Strategies Parking Strategies Non-Motorized Infrastructure References Other Resources Transit Strategies TSM 53

54 Thank you! Krystal Ayala, Regional Planner Jeffrey Ang-Olson, Vice President