1

Monica Bansal and Michael EichlerDepartment of Transportation Planning

Presentation to the TPB Scenario Study Task Force

November 19, 2008

Progress on “CLRP Aspirations” & “What Would it Take?” Scenarios

TPB SCENARIO STUDY

2

CLRP Aspirations

Draws on past scenarios (5 transportation/land use scenarios and 2 value pricing scenarios) to provide an ambitious yet attainable vision of land use and transportation for the 2010 CLRP update.

Starts with CO2 goals (80% below 2005 levels in 2050 and 20% reduction by 2020) and assesses what scales and combinations of interventions will be necessary to achieve the goal.

What Would it Take?

The Two New Scenarios

3

Study Timeline

4

CLRP Aspirations: Land Use Component

5

6

Land Use Component: Households

7

Land Use Component: Employment

8

Comments Received

1. Planning Directors

2. TPB CAC

3. Scenario Study Task Force Member, Harriet Tregoning, Director, DC Office of Planning

RMAS assumptions are outdated

Tie the scenarios explicitly to the TPB Vision, using a more targeted approach for assigning land-use shifts among activity centers in both scenarios

Should all RMAS scenarios be included?

9

Based on Planning Director input, new goal oriented land use component

10

11

12

CLRP Aspirations: Transportation Component

13

How will the BRT network provide service to and through the core?-WMATA Priority Corridor Network Routes

What criteria do we use for including other non-BRT projects in the scenario? -Projects that provide access to activity centers not otherwise served by transit will be prioritized.

What are the details of the transit level of service on the BRT network? - Under development and refinement with Regional Bus Subcommittee

Where should the needed park-and-ride lots be located? - Non-Activity Center BRT stations outside the beltway will have parking facilities

Transportation ComponentQuestions considered by the task force:

14

Existing system of activity centers and high quality transit shows mis-match. Many transit stations without activity and may activity centers without high-quality transit.

Existing System

15

The transit projects in the CLRP work to address some of these concerns.

CLRP Projects

16

Additional projects evaluated under RMAS should be carried forward, with minor modification to provide transit service to additional activity centers.

Recommended RMAS Projects

17

A regional network of BRT operating mostly on priced lanes will provide high-quality transit service to nearly all activity centers in the region.

Recommended BRT Network

18

This network will provide another layer of high-quality transit on top of existing and proposed transit services.

Full Scenario Transit Network

19

• Include Purple Line as studied, from Silver Spring to New Carrollton• Shorten US-1 (VA) transitway, to run from Braddock Road to

Potomac Mills via Ft. Belvoir• Provide transit to Innovation and Gainesville via VRE extension• Shorten Georgia Ave. transitway, providing connection between

Glenmont and ICC BRT

Recommendations – Transit Network

• Downtown Connections: WMATA Priority Corridor Network: – Service to/through the core provided along H St NE/NW, 7th/9th Sts NW and Rhode Island

Ave-US 1 Corridor• Provide transit service to Ft. Detrick/Frederick via extended toll lanes or transitway• Transit service to White Oak Activity Center provided by WMATA Priority Corridor

Network transit service

RMAS Projects Recommended as Specified

Other Recommended Connections

20

What are the details of the transit level of service on the BRT network?

– Suggested LOS for the BRT network is as follows:• 12 minute headways during peak periods• 30 minute headways during mid-day off-peak and weekends.• 30 minute headways during PM off-peak

– Transit on toll lanes will assume 45 MPH travel speed.– Transit on mixed/priority lanes will assume 15 MPH travel

speed.– Assume off-board payment systems for entire network.– Assume all-door boarding at all transit stations.– Assume 60’ articulated vehicles, 5 sets of doors (2 on the left,

3 on the right). • Capacity: 80 passengers seated, total of 120 including standing

Recommendations – Level of Service

21

Solicit final feedback from the Task Force and Regional Bus Subcommittee

Begin network coding.

Next Steps

November 2008 – December 2008

December 2008

22

What Would it Take Scenario

23

Fuel EfficiencyFuel Carbon

Intensity

3 categories of strategies to reduce mobile CO2 emissions

Travel Efficiency

Reduce VMT through changes in land use, travel behavior, prices

Reduce congestion

Improve operational efficiency

Beyond CAFE standards [currently 35 mpg by 2020]

Alternative fuels (biofuels, hydrogen, electricity)

Vehicle technology (hybrid engine technology)

Goal: To reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, 20% and 80% below 2005 levels in 2012, 2020 and 2050 respectively

Setting up the WWIT Scenario

FLEET USE of FLEET

24

What can we do with the fleet?

25

Where are Transportation Emissions Coming From?

2010 Travel and CO2 Emissions

8-Hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area

 VMT (Billions) - Annual

% CO2 Emissions (Mil. Annual Tons)

%

Type I (LDGV,MC,LDDV)

19.06 47% 6.76 24%

TYPE II (LDGT1,2,3 & 4 and LDDT)

18.94 46% 15.38 56%

Type III (HDGV & HDDV)

2.94 7% 5.46 20%

Total

40.95 100% 27.60 100%

26

Characteristics of the Region’s Vehicle Fleet

27

28

Characteristics of the Region’s Vehicle Fleet

29

30

How do we use the fleet?(and how can this change)

31

How We Use the Region’s Vehicle Fleet

32

How We Use the Region’s Vehicle Fleet

33

How We Use the Region’s Vehicle Fleet

34

35

36

37