Slide 1

Second Round Scenario Technical ResultsRegional Modeling Working GroupDecember 7, 20111Five Scenarios

Initial Vision Transportation 2035Core Concentration Core Transit CapacityFocused Growth Core Transit CapacityConstrained Core Concen. Core Transit CapacityOutward Growth Transportation 20352Examples of Significant Projects Tested

RoadwayRegional Express Lanes NetworkFreeway Performance InitiativeSan Mateo and Santa Clara ITSFremont-Union City East-West ConnectorI-680/Rt 4 Interchange Impvts. + SR-4 WideningMarin-Sonoma Narrows Stage 2Jameson Canyon Impvts. Phase 2SR-29 HOV Lanes + BRT New SR-152 AlignmentI-80 Auxiliary Lanes (Airbase to I-680)

TransitAC Transit Grand Mac-Arthur BRTIrvington BART Infill StationAlameda-Oakland BRT + Transit Access Impvts.AC Transit East Bay BRTI-680 Express Bus Frequency Impvts.Caltrain 6-Train Service + Electrification (SF to Tamien)Van Ness Ave. BRTSMART (San Rafael-Larkspur)BART Extension from Berryessa to San Jose/Santa ClaraFairfield/Vacaville Capitol Corridor Station

Transportation 2035 Network3Starts with the 2010 transit and roadway network

Keeps investment levels for maintenance, transit and roadway expansion, and bike/pedestrian at roughly same levels as in T2035

Tests T2035 projects proposed to be carried over into Plan Bay Area

Considers project performance assessment results

Examples of Significant Projects Tested(includes most T2035 Network projects)

RoadwaySR-84/I-680 Interchange Impvts + SR-84 WideningBay Bridge Contraflow LaneUS-101 HOV Lanes (Whipple Ave to Cesar Chavez St)

TransitBART Metro ProgramDumbarton Corridor Express BusBART Bay Fair ConnectionBART to Livermore Phase 1Golden Gate Ferry Service Frequency Impvts.SFMTA Transit EffectivenessBetter Market StreetGeneva Ave BRT and Southern Intermodal TerminalParkmerced Light Rail CorridorOakdale Caltrain StationSamTrans El Camino BRTVTA El Camino BRTService Frequency Impvts. on AC Transit, Muni, ferries, BART, and Caltrain

PricingCongestion Pricing Pilot (NE Quadrant)Treasure Island Congestion Pricing

Core Capacity Transit Network4Starts with the 2010 transit and roadway network

Keeps T2035 investment levels for maintenance and bike/pedestrian, but reduces roadway expansion and boosts core capacity transit service

Tests most T2035 Network projects and includes a 46 percent increase in transit frequency impvts. from 2010 network (at a total 28-year operating and capital cost of $53 billion)

Not financially constrained due to cost of transit frequency impvts. exceeding available revenueOnly $15 billion of the needed $53 billion is available ($10 billion in operating efficiencies per TSP and $5 billion in new revenue)Considers project performance assessment results

5General purpose lanes converted to transit-only lanesT-2035 in Scenarios 1 & 5; Core Capacity in Scenarios 2 4Devlin Road Extension; Route 221 to Route 29 flyover

650 percent increase in transit service in Core CapacityT-2035 in Scenarios 1 & 5; Core Capacity in Scenarios 2 4Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Air Resources Board designated the SB 375 quantity of interest to be the per capita reduction in passenger vehicle and light-duty truck emissions relative to a year 2005 baseline (ignoring improvements resulting from vehicle or fuel regulations)Bay Areas target for 2020 is a 7 percent reductionBay Areas target for 2035 is a 15 percent reduction

Presentation approach: present numbers first and then explicate results via a series of questions.

78

Question: How do these results compare to the first round of analysis presented in the spring?

9First round of scenario analysisYear 2035, Current Regional Plans: -10.6 percentYear 2035, Initial Vision Scenario: -11.6 percent

And now Year 2035, Current Regional PlansYear 2035, Initial Vision Scenario: -8.2 percent Model version 0.1 instead of version 0.0 (~2 pct points)Additional 100,000 employed residents (~1 pct point)Transit network built from 2010 rather than 2005 (~ pct point)No headway improvements made to transit network (~ pct point)Minor differences in roadway and transit capital projects 10Question: Why is there so little variation across the five scenarios?

1112ScenarioPopulationHouseholdsEmployed ResidentsJobsYear 20107,150,0002,610,0003,150,0003,270,000(1) Year 2035, Initial Vision9,430,0003,570,0004,310,0004,490,000(2) Year 2035, Core Concentration9,180,0003,470,0004,270,0004,490,000(3) Year 2035, Focused Growth8,980,0003,280,0003,860,0004,100,000(4) Year 2035, Constrained Core Concentration8,980,0003,280,0003,860,0004,100,000(5) Year 2035, Outward Growth8,980,0003,280,0003,860,0004,100,000

13A higher share of the population in Scenarios 1 & 2 works full time because full time workers travel more, the per capita GHG emissions increase.Note the increase in retirees across each of the five scenarios.14

15Scenarios 1 & 2 significantly outperform Scenarios 3, 4, & 5 in GHG reduction per worker

Workers travel more than non-workers. Because a larger share of the population works in scenarios 1 & 2, the GHG per capita number is misleadingly low relative to scenarios 3, 4, & 5. The GHG per worker metric attempts to put the scenarios on a more level playing field. Question: What is the impact of the transportation projects?

16

17T-2035 network performs slightly worse on GHG relative to the no buildCore capacity network performs slightly better on GHG relative to the no buildGenerally speaking, the greenhouse gas emissions subject to this analysis are a function of the amount of passenger vehicle travel; and, the speed of the traveling vehicles.

1819

Generally speaking, vehicles perform optimally at around 45 mph and perform well between 30 and 60 mph.20

Here, we take a closer look at Scenarios 3 and 5, comparing the VMT speed distribution with the build network to the speed distribution with the no build networkThe transportation projects relieve congestion, reducing the amount of VMT traveled at slow speeds which is good for GHG.But the projects also allow vehicles to travel faster than 60 mph, which is bad for GHG.Question: How do travelers respond to the 50 percent increase in transit service included in the Core Capacity network?

21

22In Scenario 2, transit boardings increase by over 100 percent relative to 2005. 23

24BART system capacity improvements alleviate crowding in Scenarios 2, 3, & 4.

25Cordon pricing increases crowding at key Muni Metro locations in Scenarios 2, 3, & 4.

26But transit, along with the other non-automobile travel modes, are still expected to be utilized for less than 20 percent of all trips. Question: What about the Year 2020 results?

27

28Each of the five scenarios exceeds the target. 29

Question: What about the Year 2040 results?

30The California Air Resources Board set GHG targets for 2020 and 2035.Plan/Bay Area will extend through 2040; the analysis for the EIR will extend through 2040.We do not expect the spirit of the 2035 results to differ from the 2040 results.

31Question: What about policies that are not well captured by the regional travel model?

32Question: What about the other performance targets?

33Next Steps

Public outreach Jan/FebHow do we meet the target?Better understand & model the relationship between land use policy and land development patterns

34Thank you. Additional questions?35