Least Cost Planning and Least Cost Planning and Backcasting Backcasting Presented by David Mayfield Presented by David Mayfield Sustainable Transportation Strategies Sustainable Transportation Strategies August 2009 August 2009
I am re-uploading this presentation because the original copy seems to be crashing. This presentation features applications of least cost planning and backcasting to advancing sustainable transportation planning. Oregon passed a law requiring LCP for State Transportation Planning.
Citation preview
1. Least Cost Planning and Backcasting Presented by David
Mayfield Sustainable Transportation Strategies August 2009
2. Why a New PlanningApproach Traditional planning tools wont
help us meet state and federal greenhouse gas reduction
targets.
3. New Planning ApproachAlso Addresses:Declining transportation
dollarsRising energy costsNew transportation technologies
4. EPA: Climate Change ThreatensPublic Health and WelfareMore
heat waves and intense stormsIncreased droughtRising sea levelsHarm
to Agriculture Water resources Wildlife and ecosystems Source:
Federal Register 4/24/2009; IPPC
5. Oregons Goal forGreenhouse Gas Reduction Arrest the growth
of GHG emissions and begin to reduce emissions by 2010 Achieve GHG
levels 10% below 1990 levels by 2020 Achieve GHG levels at least
75% below 1990 levels by 2050
6. ODOTs GreenSTEP ModelTool for statewide strategy onmeeting
GHG targetsShows that substantialchanges in mobility Annual CO2
Equivalent Emissions Density Scenarios 4.5e+10will be needed
4.0e+10in order to meet Pounds CO2 Equivalents 3.5e+10 3.0e+10GHG
goals 2.5e+10 Med Lt Veh Eff Med Lt Veh Eff & More Den 2.0e+10
Med Lt Veh Eff, More Den & More PTSource: Brian Gregor,ODOT,
2009 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Year
7. GreenSTEP Model Annual CO2 Equivalent Emissions All Vehicle
Efficiency & Fuels Scenarios 4.5e+10 4.0e+10Pounds CO2
Equivalents 3.5e+10 3.0e+10 Blue Zone Indicates Compliance with
Oregons GHG Goals 2.5e+10 Med Lt Veh Eff High Lt Veh Eff EV &
High Lt Veh Eff EV & High All Veh Eff 2.0e+10 EV, High All Veh
Eff & Low Carb Fuel 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Source: Brian
Gregor, ODOT, 2009 Year
8. House Bill 2001 LeastCost Planning Directs ODOT to create a
least cost planning model to submit to legislature prior to
February 1, 2011. Defines LCP as follows: a process of comparing
direct and indirect costs of demand and supply options to meet
transportation goals, policies or both, where the intent of the
process is to identify the most cost-effective mix of options.
9. HB 2001 Least Cost Planning ODOT shall, in consultation with
local governments and metropolitan planning organizations, develop
a least-cost planning model for use as a decision- making tool in
the development of plans and projects at both the state and
regional level.
10. What is Least CostPlanning?Values-based: Seeks lowest cost
to societyand environmentAlternatives development: Weighs
reducingdemand equally with increasing supplyBenefit-cost analysis:
Includes capital costs,external costs and life-cycle costs
11. Does it Work? Experiencefrom the NW Power Industry:
Northwest energy demand saved more than $1.6 billion dollars in
2007 Reduced carbon emissions by up to 14 million tons per year
Source: NW Power and Conservation Council press release
9/03/09
12. Least Cost Planning Broadens range of alternatives
Evaluates alternatives according to stakeholder values Equally
considers non-construction and construction options Allows adaptive
management and risk management Considers opportunity costs
13. Least Cost Based onWhat Stakeholders Value Life cycle costs
for Infrastructure Operation & maintenance External costs,
e.g., Auto ownership, insurance Social and environmental Value not
necessarily translated to dollars
14. Examples of Mobility Costand Benefit Measures Per capita
Quantity of people Vehicle-mile served Passenger-mile Satisfaction
with service Per trip Accessibility to service Travel time
Utilization of available Exposure time capacity
16. Existing Laws and StandardsLimit LCP Options Example: level
of service standards LOS requirements limit low-cost options
Consider deviating from standards where costs are high relative to
benefits
17. Planners Study AlternativeRoutes Using LCP Source: Quantm
Pilot Study Review I-69 Corridor, URS, 2003
18. Case Study: Puget SoundRegional Council Least CostPlanning
Study of 2001One common measure utilized:cost per
passenger-tripUsed traditional approach to selectprojectsRestricted
study to new investmentsto meet new demand; past
investmentdecisions excluded Source: PSRC Destination 2030, May
2001
19. PSRC Measures of Costper New Passenger Trip Travel time
(delay) Environmental Private costs Vehicle emissions Auto
ownership Water pollution and operations Noise Capital Accidents
construction Operations and maintenance
21. Analysis of PSRCs 2001Least Cost Plan Did not utilize full
LCP process Began with assumption of large increase in demand None
of alternatives substantively reduced demand: only 2% difference in
number of trips (above existing)
22. LCP: Levels of Application Federal State Regional City
Sub-Area Project & County Single Cost BCA Life Cycle Costs
Indirect Costs Range Forecasting Adaptive Infrastructure Planning
Opportunity Costs
23. Does Least Cost = Sustainable?
24. Sustainable Mobility UsingBackcasting Adapted from Looking
over the Horizon, Robin Hickman and David Bannister, 2006
25. Forecasting Backcasting Model and Define desired predict
outcome Respond to Make strategic trends decisions Adapt, justify
Proactively break trends
26. Backcasting Approach Define problem Set desirable goal
Backcast from the goal to the present, identifying milestones Build
scenarios including timing of actions Develop a preferred action
plan
27. Visioning and Backcasting forTransportation (VIBAT)
StudyConsidered over 100 actions in 10categories to influence CO2
emissions: Technical improvements Traffic management Infrastructure
investment Public information Telecommunications/IT Behavioral
patterns Urban planning Freight management Pricing and taxation
Economic policies Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of Planning,
University College of London, and the Halcrow Group
28. Actions Proposed underInfrastructure Investment Transit
improvements Cycle parking Fare integration and Shuttle services
schedule coordination Demand-responsive Intermodal connections
services Park and ride Taxi services Improved bike/pedestrian
Traveler information facilities Improved rail freight Cycle/transit
integration High speed rail Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of
Planning, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group
29. Actions Proposed underBehavioral Patterns Alternative work
Flextime schedules Changed travel Home location pattern/lifestyle
Job location Guaranteed ride Promotion of local home destinations
and Telecommuting activity patterns On-line services Locally
sourced Car sharing retailing Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School
of Planning, University College of London, and the Halcrow
Group
31. Determine Relationshipsof Actions and Paths Objective:
Reduce Car Emissions Mix Increase Decrease Car Efficiency Car Use
Mix Mix Electric Lighter Public Mixed Use Vehicle Material
Transportation Urban Form
32. Example ofPolicy-Related ActionName: Hybrid Technology
VehicleType: Technological and EconomicalPreconditions: NoneRelated
to Goal: Reduce total vehicle fleet emission and use
hybridsEffectiveness: HighUncertainty: LowTimescale of
Implementation: LongCost: Medium Adapted from: VIBAT, BartlettRisk
Level: Low School of Planning, University College of London, and
the Halcrow Group
33. Least Cost/BackcastingProcess 1. Engage stakeholders 2.
Define the desired outcome and evaluation measures 3. Establish the
system boundaries 4. Collect Information 5. Consider range of
scenarios 6. Evaluate the costs and benefits 7. Rank scenarios 8.
Evaluate and choose a package of actions to implement and monitor
9. Adjust implementation based on monitoring
34. Barriers toImplementation Agreement on sustainable
transportation goals Current agency structures and funding Federal
and State policy and procedures Meeting consumer satisfaction
Insufficient government leadership about global warming impacts and
mitigation
35. Contact Information David Mayfield, PrincipalSustainable
Transportation Strategies [email protected] (503)
701-0142