Least Cost Planning and Least Cost Planning and Least Cost Planning and Least Cost Planning and BackcastingBackcastingBackcastingBackcasting
Presented by Dave MayfieldPresented by Dave Mayfield
Cogan Owens CoganCogan Owens Cogang gg gAugust 2009August 2009
Why a New Planning Why a New Planning Why a New Planning Why a New Planning ApproachApproach
Traditional planning tools won’t Traditional planning tools won’t h l d f d lh l d f d lhelp us meet state and federal help us meet state and federal greenhouse gas reductiongreenhouse gas reductiongreenhouse gas reduction greenhouse gas reduction targets.targets.
New Planning Approach New Planning Approach g ppg ppAlso Addresses:Also Addresses:
Declining transportation dollarsDeclining transportation dollarsDeclining transportation dollarsDeclining transportation dollarsRising energy costsRising energy costsRising energy costsRising energy costsNew transportation technologiesNew transportation technologiesNew transportation technologiesNew transportation technologies
EPA: Climate Change Threatens EPA: Climate Change Threatens ggPublic Health and WelfarePublic Health and Welfare
More heat waves and intense storms More heat waves and intense storms I d d htI d d htIncreased droughtIncreased droughtRising sea levelsRising sea levelsHarm to Harm to
AgricultureAgricultureg cu tu eg cu tu eWater resources Water resources Wildlife and ecosystemsWildlife and ecosystemsWildlife and ecosystemsWildlife and ecosystems
Source: Federal Register 4/24/2009; IPPC
Oregon’s Goal for Oregon’s Goal for ggGreenhouse Gas ReductionGreenhouse Gas Reduction
A t th th f GHG i i dA t th th f GHG i i dArrest the growth of GHG emissions and Arrest the growth of GHG emissions and begin to reduce emissions by 2010begin to reduce emissions by 2010g yg yAchieve GHG levels 10% below 1990 Achieve GHG levels 10% below 1990 levels by 2020levels by 2020levels by 2020levels by 2020Achieve GHG levels at least 75% below Achieve GHG levels at least 75% below 1990 levels by 20501990 levels by 2050
ODOT’s GreenSTEP ModelODOT’s GreenSTEP ModelODOT’s GreenSTEP ModelODOT’s GreenSTEP Model
Tool for statewide strategy on Tool for statewide strategy on meeting GHG targetsmeeting GHG targetsmeeting GHG targets meeting GHG targets Shows that substantial Shows that substantial changes in mobility changes in mobility will be neededwill be needed 4.
5e+1
0
Annual CO2 Equivalent EmissionsDensity Scenarios
will be neededwill be neededin order to meet in order to meet 3.
5e+1
04.
0e+1
0
2 E
quiv
alen
ts
GHG goalsGHG goals2.
5e+1
03.
0e+1
0
Pou
nds
CO
2
Med Lt Veh EffMedLtVehEff &MoreDen
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
2.0e
+10
Year
Med Lt Veh Eff & More DenMed Lt Veh Eff, More Den & More PT
Source: Brian Gregor, ODOT, 2009
GreenSTEP ModelGreenSTEP ModelAnnual CO2 Equivalent Emissions
All Vehicle Efficiency &Fuels Scenarios
GreenSTEP ModelGreenSTEP Model4.
5e+1
0
All Vehicle Efficiency & Fuels Scenarios
104.
0e+1
0
lent
s
e+10
3.5e
+1
ds C
O2
Equ
ival
Blue Zone Indicates Compliance
2.5e
+10
3.0e
Pou
nd
Med Lt Veh EffHigh Lt Veh Eff
Blue Zone Indicates Compliance with Oregon’s GHG Goals
2.0e
+10
2 EV & High Lt Veh EffEV & High All Veh EffEV, High All Veh Eff & Low Carb Fuel
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Year
Source: Brian Gregor, ODOT, 2009
House Bill 2001 Least House Bill 2001 Least Cost PlanningCost PlanningDirects ODOT to create a least cost Directs ODOT to create a least cost planning model to submit to legislatureplanning model to submit to legislatureplanning model to submit to legislature planning model to submit to legislature prior to February 1, 2011.prior to February 1, 2011.Defines LCP as follows:Defines LCP as follows: ““a process ofa process ofDefines LCP as follows: Defines LCP as follows: a process of a process of comparing direct and indirect costs of comparing direct and indirect costs of demand and supply options to meet demand and supply options to meet pp y ppp y ptransportation goals, policies or both, transportation goals, policies or both, where the intent of the process is to identify where the intent of the process is to identify the most costthe most cost--effective mix of optionseffective mix of options.”.”
HB 2001 L t C t Pl iHB 2001 L t C t Pl iHB 2001 Least Cost PlanningHB 2001 Least Cost Planning
“ODOT shall, in consultation with local “ODOT shall, in consultation with local governments and metropolitan planning governments and metropolitan planning organizations, develop a leastorganizations, develop a least--cost cost g , pg , pplanning model for use as a decisionplanning model for use as a decision--making tool in the development of plansmaking tool in the development of plansmaking tool in the development of plans making tool in the development of plans and projects at both the state and and projects at both the state and regional level ”regional level ”regional level.”regional level.”
What is Least Cost What is Least Cost Planning?Planning?
ValuesValues--based:based: Seeks lowest cost to Seeks lowest cost to i t d i ti t d i tsociety and environmentsociety and environment
Alternatives development:Alternatives development: Weighs Weighs pp ggreducing demand equally with increasing reducing demand equally with increasing supplysupplysupplysupplyBenefitBenefit--cost analysis:cost analysis: Includes capital Includes capital costs, external costs and lifecosts, external costs and life--cycle costscycle costs
Does it Work? Experience Does it Work? Experience Does it Work? Experience Does it Work? Experience from the NW Power Industry:from the NW Power Industry:
Reducing demand for energyReducing demand for energyReducing demand for energy Reducing demand for energy Saved Saved more than more than $1.6 billion dollars $1.6 billion dollars in 2007in 2007D d l bD d l b i ii iDropped annual carbon Dropped annual carbon emissions emissions by up to by up to 14 million 14 million tonstonsy py p
Source: NW Power and Conservation Council press release 9/03/09
Least Cost PlanningLeast Cost PlanningLeast Cost PlanningLeast Cost Planning
Broadens range of alternativesBroadens range of alternativesEvaluates alternatives according toEvaluates alternatives according toEvaluates alternatives according to Evaluates alternatives according to stakeholder values stakeholder values Equally considers nonEqually considers non--construction and construction and construction optionsconstruction optionsconstruction optionsconstruction optionsAllows adaptive management and risk Allows adaptive management and risk
ttmanagementmanagementConsiders opportunity costsConsiders opportunity costsCo s de s oppo tu ty costsCo s de s oppo tu ty costs
Least Cost Based on Least Cost Based on What Stakeholders ValueWhat Stakeholders Value
Life cycle costs for Life cycle costs for I f t tI f t tInfrastructureInfrastructureOperation & maintenanceOperation & maintenance
External costs, e.g., External costs, e.g., Auto ownership, insuranceAuto ownership, insurancep,p,
Social and environmentalSocial and environmentalValue not necessarily translated toValue not necessarily translated toValue not necessarily translated to Value not necessarily translated to dollarsdollars
Examples of Mobility Cost Examples of Mobility Cost p yp yand Benefit Measuresand Benefit Measures
Per capitaPer capita Quantity of peopleQuantity of peoplePer capita Per capita VehicleVehicle--milemilePP ilil
Quantity of people Quantity of people servedservedSatisfaction with serviceSatisfaction with servicePassengerPassenger--milemile
Per tripPer trip
Satisfaction with serviceSatisfaction with serviceAccessibility to serviceAccessibility to service
Travel timeTravel timeExposure timeExposure time
Utilization of available Utilization of available capacitycapacityExposure timeExposure time
Selecting Optimal Selecting Optimal AlternativesAlternativesSelecting Optimal Selecting Optimal AlternativesAlternativesHigh Risk/Low CostHigh Risk/Low CostHigh Risk/Low CostHigh Risk/Low Cost
High Risk/High CostHigh Risk/High Cost
Ris
kR
isk
easi
ngea
sing
RR
L Ri k/M d t C tL Ri k/M d t C t
Incr
eIn
cre
Low Risk/Moderate CostLow Risk/Moderate Cost
Increasing CostIncreasing Cost
Existing Laws and Standards Existing Laws and Standards ggLimit LCP OptionsLimit LCP Options
Example: level of service standardsExample: level of service standardsLOS requirements limit lowLOS requirements limit low--cost options cost options Consider deviating from standards where Consider deviating from standards where ggcosts are high relative to benefits costs are high relative to benefits
Planners Study Alternative Planners Study Alternative R t U i LCPR t U i LCPRoutes Using LCPRoutes Using LCP
Source: Quantm Pilot Study Review I-69 Corridor, URS, 2003
Case Study: Puget Sound Case Study: Puget Sound y gy gRegional Council Regional Council LCP StudyLCP Study
One common measure utilized:One common measure utilized:One common measure utilized: One common measure utilized: cost per passengercost per passenger--triptripUsed traditional approach to select Used traditional approach to select projectsprojectsprojectsprojectsRestricted study to new investments Restricted study to new investments to meet new demand; past investment to meet new demand; past investment decisions excludeddecisions excludeddecisions excludeddecisions excluded
Source: PSRC Destination 2030, May 2001
PSRC Measures of Cost PSRC Measures of Cost per New Passenger Tripper New Passenger Trip
Travel time (delay)Travel time (delay) EnvironmentalEnvironmentalPrivate costsPrivate costs
Auto ownershipAuto ownershipVehicle emissionsVehicle emissionsWater pollutionWater pollutionAuto ownership Auto ownership
and operationsand operationsCapitalCapital
ppNoiseNoise
AccidentsAccidentsCapital Capital constructionconstruction
AccidentsAccidents
Operations and Operations and maintenancemaintenancemaintenancemaintenance
PSRC 2030 PassengerPSRC 2030 Passenger--trip trip gg ppCost BreakdownCost Breakdown
Source: PSRC Destination 2030, May 2001
Analysis of PSRC’s 2001 Analysis of PSRC’s 2001 yyLeast Cost PlanLeast Cost Plan
Did not utilize full LCP processDid not utilize full LCP processDid not utilize full LCP processDid not utilize full LCP processBegan with assumption of large increase Began with assumption of large increase
ffin in future demandfuture demandNone of alternatives substantivelyNone of alternatives substantivelyNone of alternatives substantively None of alternatives substantively reduced demand: only 2% difference in reduced demand: only 2% difference in number of trips (above existing)number of trips (above existing)number of trips (above existing) number of trips (above existing)
LCP Le els of ApplicationLCP Le els of ApplicationLCP: Levels of ApplicationLCP: Levels of Application
FederalFederal StateState RegionalRegional&& CountyCounty
City City SubSub--AreaArea ProjectProject
Si l CSi l CSingle Cost Single Cost BCABCA
Life Cycle Life Cycle CostsCosts
Indirect CostsIndirect Costs
Range Range ForecastingForecasting
Adaptive Adaptive Infrastructure Infrastructure PlanningPlanning
Opportunity Opportunity C tC tCostsCosts
D L t C t S t i bl ? D L t C t S t i bl ? Does Least Cost = Sustainable? Does Least Cost = Sustainable?
Sustainable Mobility Using Sustainable Mobility Using y gy gBackcastingBackcasting
Adapted from Looking over the Horizon, Robin Hickman and David Bannister, 2006
ForecastingForecasting BackcastingBackcastingForecastingForecasting
M d l d
BackcastingBackcasting
D fi d i dModel and predict
Define desired outcome
Respond to trends
Make strategic decisions
Adapt, justify Proactively break trendsbreak trends
B k ti A hB k ti A hBackcasting ApproachBackcasting Approach
Define problemDefine problemSet desirable goalSet desirable goalBackcast from the goal to the presentBackcast from the goal to the presentBackcast from the goal to the present, Backcast from the goal to the present, identifying milestones identifying milestones Build scenarios including timing of Build scenarios including timing of actionsactionsDevelop a preferred action plan Develop a preferred action plan
Visioning and Backcasting for Visioning and Backcasting for Transportation (VIBAT) StudyTransportation (VIBAT) Study
Considered over 100 actions in 10 Considered over 100 actions in 10 categories to influence COcategories to influence CO22 emissions:emissions:categories to influence COcategories to influence CO22 emissions:emissions:
••Technical improvementsTechnical improvements ••Traffic managementTraffic management••Infrastructure investmentInfrastructure investment••Telecommunications/ITTelecommunications/IT
••Public informationPublic information••Behavioral patternsBehavioral patterns
••Urban planning Urban planning ••Pricing and taxationPricing and taxation
••Freight managementFreight management••Economic policiesEconomic policies
Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of Pl i U i it C ll f L dPlanning, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group
Example of Example of ppPolicyPolicy--Related ActionRelated Action
Name: Name: Hybrid Technology VehicleHybrid Technology VehicleType:Type: Technological and EconomicalTechnological and EconomicalType: Type: Technological and EconomicalTechnological and EconomicalPreconditions: Preconditions: NoneNoneRelated to Goal:Related to Goal: Reduce total vehicle fleet emissionReduce total vehicle fleet emissionRelated to Goal: Related to Goal: Reduce total vehicle fleet emission Reduce total vehicle fleet emission
and use hybridsand use hybridsEffectiveness:Effectiveness: HighHighEffectiveness: Effectiveness: HighHighUncertainty: Uncertainty: LowLowTimescale of Implementation:Timescale of Implementation: LongLongTimescale of Implementation: Timescale of Implementation: LongLongCost: Cost: MediumMediumRisk Level:Risk Level: LowLow
Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett S h l f Pl i U i itRisk Level: Risk Level: LowLow School of Planning, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group
Actions Proposed under Actions Proposed under Infrastructure InvestmentInfrastructure Investment
Transit improvementsTransit improvementsFare integration andFare integration and
Cycle parking Cycle parking Shuttle servicesShuttle servicesFare integration and Fare integration and
schedule coordinationschedule coordinationIntermodal connectionsIntermodal connections
Shuttle servicesShuttle servicesDemandDemand--responsive responsive servicesservices
Park and ridePark and rideImproved bike/pedestrianImproved bike/pedestrian
Taxi servicesTaxi servicesTraveler informationTraveler informationImproved bike/pedestrian Improved bike/pedestrian
facilitiesfacilitiesCycle/transit integrationCycle/transit integration
Traveler informationTraveler informationImproved rail freightImproved rail freightHigh speed railHigh speed raily gy g High speed railHigh speed rail
Adapted from: VIBAT Bartlett School ofAdapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of Planning, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group
Actions Proposed under Actions Proposed under Behavioral PatternsBehavioral PatternsAlternative work Alternative work schedulesschedules
FlextimeFlextimeChanged travelChanged travelschedulesschedules
Home locationHome locationJ b l tiJ b l ti
Changed travel Changed travel pattern/lifestylepattern/lifestyleG t d idG t d idJob locationJob location
Promotion of local Promotion of local Guaranteed ride Guaranteed ride homehome
destinations and destinations and activity patternsactivity patterns
Telecommuting Telecommuting OnOn--line servicesline services
Locally sourced Locally sourced retailingretailing
Car sharingCar sharinggg
Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of Planning, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group
Backcasting: ScenarioBackcasting: Scenario--BuildingBuildingIdentify Desired Outcome
D ib P t C ditiDescribe Present Conditions
Specify Assumptions
Identify Potential Actions• Policies• Demand Management• Projects
Determine Relationships Between Actions•• Synergies
Timing• Timing • Effectiveness• Accompanying Impacts
Combine Actions into Alternative Scenarios
Determine Relationships Determine Relationships ppof Actions and Pathsof Actions and Paths
Objective: Reduce CarReduce Car Emissions
Increase Car Efficiency
Decrease Car Use
Mix
Car Efficiency Car Use
MixMix
Public Transportation
Electric Vehicle
Lighter Material
Mixed Use Urban Form
MixMix
Least Cost/Backcasting Least Cost/Backcasting ggProcessProcess1.1. Engage stakeholders Engage stakeholders 2.2. Define the desired outcome and Define the desired outcome and potential potential
actionsactions3.3. Establish the system boundariesEstablish the system boundaries44 C ll I f iC ll I f i4.4. Collect InformationCollect Information5.5. Determine relationships of potential actions Determine relationships of potential actions
and buildand build scenariosscenariosand build and build scenariosscenarios6.6. Evaluate the costs and benefitsEvaluate the costs and benefits77 Rank scenariosRank scenarios7.7. Rank scenariosRank scenarios8.8. Evaluate and choose a package of actions to Evaluate and choose a package of actions to
implement and monitorimplement and monitorimplement and monitorimplement and monitor9.9. Adjust implementation based on monitoringAdjust implementation based on monitoring
Barriers to Barriers to ImplementationImplementation
Agreement on sustainable transportationAgreement on sustainable transportationAgreement on sustainable transportation Agreement on sustainable transportation goalsgoalsC t t t d f diC t t t d f diCurrent agency structures and funding Current agency structures and funding Federal and State policy and proceduresFederal and State policy and proceduresp y pp y pMeeting consumer satisfactionMeeting consumer satisfactionI ffi i t t l d hi b tI ffi i t t l d hi b tInsufficient government leadership about Insufficient government leadership about global warming impacts and mitigationglobal warming impacts and mitigation
Contact InformationContact Information
Dave MayfieldCogan Owens Cogang g
[email protected] 225-0192503 225-0192
Cell Phone: 503-919-0304