Analysis of Alternatives, Volume 5

The data presented here indicate that building highways does not solve suburban transportation problems. The analysis presented in this volume demonstrates that transit and pedestrian oriented urban design and infill development, and the retrofit of pedestrian improvements to automobile-oriented suburbs, can have significant effects on travel behavior sufficient to eliminate the need to build new ring freeways.

Analysis of Alternatives Volume 5 Prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas Major funding provided by The Energy Foundation The Nathan Cummings Foundation Federal Highway Administration United States Environmental Protection Agency May 1996 Making the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection Additional funding provided by ARCO Foundation David Evans & Associates, Inc. Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland The Joyce Foundation Key Bank of Oregon Kurt Koehler Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Metro National Endowment of the Arts The New- Land Foundation Pacific Development, Inc. Portland General Electric Company Surdna Foundation, Inc. Tri- County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon © 1996 1000 Friends of Oregon. Reprint by permission only. Analysis of Alternatives i Table of Contents Preface iii Summary 1 LUTRAQ and Volume 5: Analysis of Alternatives 1 Key Conclusions 1 Chapter 1: Description of Alternatives 5 Chapter 2: Transportation, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas & Energy Analyses 13 Auto Ownership 13 Mode Choice 14 Vehicle Trips Per Household 20 Vehicle Hours of Delay 21 Peak Vehicle Hours of Travel and Daily Miles of Travel 23 Air Quality - Carbon Monoxide and Ozone Precursors 24 Green House Gases and Energy Consumption 25 Conclusion 26 Appendix A: An Overview of the Modeling Process A- 1 Travel Demand Modeling A- 1 Air Quality Modeling A- 2 Greenhouse Gas and Energy Consumption Modeling A- 2 How Key Concepts In The LUTRAQ Alternative Were Included in the Modeling Process A- 3 Pricing A- 4 Appendix B: Integrated Land Use and Transportation Models B- 1 Update on the State of the Practice B- 1 Portland Modeling B- 3 Other Studies B- 4 Appendix C: Adjustments to Model Outputs for Walk/ Bike Trips C- 1 Under- Reporting of Walk/ Bike Trips in the Portland Travel Survey C- 1 Underestimation of Walk/ Bike Trips in the Portland Model C- 4 Adjustments to Mode Outputs for Walk/ Bike Trips C- 4 Appendix D: Acknowledgments D- 1 ii Analysis of Alternatives List of Figures Figure 1- 1: LUTRAQ Project Study Area 5 Figure 1- 2: The Highways Only Alternative 7 Figure 1- 3: The LUTRAQ Alternative 8 Figure 2- 1: Percentage of Work Trips by Mode 16 Figure 2- 2: Percentage of Non- Work Trips from Home by Mode 16 Figure 2- 3: Percentage of All Trips by Mode 16 Figure 2- 4: Vehicle Trips per Household 20 Figure 2- 5: Vehicle Hours of Delay ( P. M. Peak Hour) 22 List of Tables Table 1- 1: Description of Alternatives 10 Table 2- 1: Auto Ownership 13 Table 2- 2: Mode Choice 15 Table 2- 3: Effect of Pricing on Mode Choice 18 Table 2- 4: Mode Choice Adjusted to Compensate for Walk/ Bike Under- Reporting 19 Table 2- 5: Vehicle Trips per Household 20 Table 2- 6: Vehicle Hours of Delay 21 Table 2- 7: Accessibility to Population, Jobs, and Shopping 23 Table 2- 8: Vehicle Hours of Travel 24 Table 2- 9: Vehicle Miles Traveled 24 Table 2- 10: Air Pollutant Emissions 25 Table 2- 11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy Consumption 25 Table C- 1: Comparison of Portland and San Francisco Data C- 2 Analysis of Alternatives 5 Chapter 1: Description of Alternatives The analyses discussed in this report compare the behavioral consequences of five primary alternatives. All of the alternatives assign the same number of households and jobs to the study area. None of the alternatives contain changes in the metropolitan urban growth boundary. The non- LUTRAQ alternatives assume that development will occur as planned in current comprehensive plans. These plans place much of the expected growth in house-holds and jobs at the edge of the region, near the urban growth boundary and away from existing or proposed transit service. The LUTRAQ alternative reconfigures future growth to a pattern that reinforces the planned transit system. Net density in Washington County is not significantly altered under the LUTRAQ alternative. Instead, planned moderate and high density residential development is shifted to locations that are better served by tran-sit. Figure 1- 1: LUTRAQ Project Study Area* * With the exception of the outlying communities of Forest Grove/ Cornelius and Wilsonville, the study area for the LUTRAQ project includes all of the land inside the urban growth boundary in Washington County. Chapter 1: Description of Alternatives 6 Analysis of Alternatives A fundamental premise of the LUTRAQ alternative is to work within current real estate market trends and expectations. Thus, the alternative proposes residential densities, employment, and shopping opportunities that, given current market practices, could be built in the foreseeable future. In some cases residential product types are not presently used in Washington County, but recent demographic and regional price trends indicate viable near term demand. 1 The five primary alternatives studied in this report are: The No Build alternative. This is the base case of present conditions and transportation projects for which full funding had been committed by 1988. This includes building one new light rail line part way into the county ( Westside Light Rail to 185th Avenue). The Highways Only alternative. This alternative is a supply side solution to future con-gestion that emphasizes the construction of highway, street, and intersection improve-ments, and some expansions to transit service. The alternative includes the construction of a new four- lane, limited access highway, commonly called the Western Bypass, between Interstate 5 and Highway 26, from Tualatin to Hillsboro. See Figure 1- 2. Highway 217 is expanded to three general purpose lanes in each direction with preferential treatment for high occupancy vehicles and transit. Also included are a series of roadway expansions that are currently included in existing jurisdictional and agency plans but not funded as of 1988. Transit improvements include extension of Westside Light Rail from 185th to downtown Hillsboro, expanded feeder bus service for the light rail, and express bus ser-vice on Highway 217 with feeder routes. The Highway/ Parking Pricing alternative. This is the Highways Only alternative plus parking pricing, subsidized transit passes, and demand responsive transit. The parking charge equals one- third the cost of parking in downtown Portland, about $ 3.00 per day, and applies only to persons who commute to work in the study area by driving alone. In other words, there is no charge for people who carpool ( 2 more/ car) to work or who make trips for non- work purposes. The income from the parking charges subsidizes the transit pass program, which provides a free pass to all people working in the study area. The demand responsive transit program provides transit service to riders when and where it is needed in areas not served by fixed- route transit. It includes types of dial- a- ride, shared ride, and shuttle services. The LUTRAQ alternative. This alternative rearranges the assignments of new house-holds and jobs in the study area. The majority of new development ( 65 percent of expected residential units and 78 percent of future jobs) is located in transit oriented devel-opments ( TODs). The TODs cluster jobs, residences, and shopping near transit lines to encourage transit use. Three types of TOD concepts are used. Mixed Use Centers are located in each community, with the largest center in Beaverton, and less intensive centers in Hillsboro, the Washington Square area of Tigard, the Barbur Boulevard/ Highway 217/ Interstate 5 triangle, downtown Tualatin, and downtown Sherwood. Urban TODs are located outside of Mixed Use Centers, primarily along light rail alignments, and include medium to high density housing and a commercial core area. Neighborhood TODs 1. See 1000 Friends of Oregon, Making the Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality Connection, Vol. 3A, Market Research ( Portland, Oregon, 1992). Analysis of Alternatives 7 Figure 1- 2: The Highways Only Alternative Chapter 1: Description of Alternatives 8 Analysis of Alternatives Figure 1- 3: The LUTRAQ Alternative Analysis of Alternatives 9 include medium density housing and convenience shopping facilities. Transit improvements in the alternative include the extension of Westside light rail to downtown Hillsboro and additional light rail lines along Highway 217, Barbur Boulevard, and Highway 43, with an extension to Tigard and Tualatin. Local feeder and express bus services support the expanded light rail system. This alternative also includes the parking pricing and transit pass programs and the demand responsive transit services included in the Highway/ Parking Pricing alternative. In addition, the LUTRAQ alternative incorpo-rates sidewalks and bikeways and traffic- control measures to allow safe crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists in all light rail corridors. This improves pedestrian and bicyclist access to transit throughout the study area. Selected roadway improvements include wid-ening portions of Highway 99W, Highway 217, Highway 26, Farmington Road, Tualatin Road, Gaarde Street and intersection improvements on the Tualatin Valley Highway. See Figure 1- 3.2 The LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing alternative. This is the LUTRAQ alternative plus a $ 0.15 per mile work trip charge for automobile trips. This adds peak period or congestion pricing to the land use/ demand management/ transportation package in the LUTRAQ alter-native. In addition, the alternative includes more street crossing and sidewalk improve-ments in bus corridors with frequent service. Also more growth is concentrated in the Mixed Use Center TODs. About 4,700 study area households and 3,300 study area jobs are reassigned from areas outside TODs to Mixed Use Centers. This boosts the proportion of study area households in TODs from 8.4 to 9.0 percent. Likewise, the proportion of study area jobs in TODs increases from 10.3 to 10.6 percent. Table 1- 1 summarizes the alternatives. 3 2. For more information about the LUTRAQ alternative, see ibid., Vol. 3, The LUTRAQ Alternative ( 1992). 3. The No Build, Highway/ Parking Pricing, and LUTRAQ alternatives are the same as alternatives included in a Major Investment Study analysis of the Western Bypass conducted by the Oregon Department of Transportation. The No Build and LUTRAQ alternatives have the same names in that report and the Highway/ Parking Pricing alternative is known as the Western Bypass alternative. See Oregon Department of Transportation, Western Bypass Study Alternatives Analysis ( Portland, Ore-gon, 1995). The Highways Only and LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing alternatives were not included in that study, but are included in this report to test a fuller range of options for solving transportation problems. Chapter 1: Description of Alternatives 10 Analysis of Alternatives The main emphasis of this report is a comparison of the LUTRAQ alternative with the No Build and Highways Only alternatives. In other words, the report highlights the differ-ences between continuing with current conditions, building numerous roadway improve-ments, and changing land uses to facilitate transit use and supporting those changes with pricing policies and transportation improvements. Results for Highway/ Parking Pricing and LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing are also presented in most of the tables and are dis-cussed when they differ significantly from other alternatives. In addition, two other alternatives- LUTRAQ/ No Pricing and LUTRAQ/ Parking Pric-ing- are also discussed to show the relative impact of the several elements in the LUTRAQ alternatives, and to underscore the importance of pursuing a " package approach" with a number of complementary actions, rather than single facilities or poli-cies. The LUTRAQ/ No Pricing alternative. Only the transit- oriented land use plan and new light rail lines are included in this alternative. No other elements of the LUTRAQ alterna-tive are included. The LUTRAQ/ Parking Pricing alternative. This alternative adds to the previous alter-native the $ 3.00 parking charge/ free transit pass package discussed in other alternatives. This alternative, however, does not include the demand responsive transit, selected high- Table 1- 1: Description of Alternatives No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing Land Use Existing plans Existing plans Existing plans Transit- oriented development Same as " LUTRAQ" Transit Westside LRT to 185th w/ feeder buses " No Build" + LRT to Hills-boro; express bus on Hwy 217 " Highways Only" + demand responsive transit " Highways/ Parking Pricing" + LRT on Hwy 217, Barbur Blvd & Hwy 43; express bus to Forest Grove, Sher-wood, Bethany & Scholls Ferry Same as " LUTRAQ" Roads Only fully funded projects Western Bypass & 48 other improvements Same as " High-ways Only" Selected improve-ments; no Bypass Same as " LUTRAQ" Walk/ Bike Facilities Existing Existing Existing Existing + improve-ments in transit oriented develop-ments & LRT corridors Same as " LUTRAQ" + improvements in bus corridors Demand Management None None Parking charges/ transit passes for workers Same as " Highways/ Parking Pricing" Same as " LUTRAQ" Road Pricing None None None None Peak period charge of $ 0.15/ mile for work trips Analysis of Alternatives 11 way improvements, or enhancement of the pedestrian environment included in the LUTRAQ alternative. These last two alternatives were modeled using a different study area, and, hence, cannot be directly compared with the five primary alternatives. 4 The alternatives studied in this report are designed to compare, contrast, and combine three elements of congestion management programs: enhancements to transportation infrastructure; land use development policies to support walking, bicycling, and transit use; and demand management policies- including pricing of parking and peak period road use- to reduce automobile use. The simulations were conducted on Metro's model-ing system, as enhanced by the LUTRAQ consulting team. The enhancements introduce new variables into the models that increase their sensitivity to the role that land use plays in affecting auto ownership, mode choice, and destination choice. 5 4. Because of the differences in study areas, the LUTRAQ/ No Pricing and LUTRAQ/ Parking Pricing alternatives contain 4.5% more households and .5% fewer jobs than the five primary alternatives. These differences significantly affect daily vehicle miles of travel and other composite measures, making comparisons across all seven alternatives impossible. 5. For more information about the LUTRAQ model enhancements, see Appendix A of this report and Vol. 4, Model Modifications. Chapter 1: Description of Alternatives 12 Analysis of Alternatives Auto Ownership Analysis of Alternatives 13 Chapter 2: Transportation, Air Quality, Green-house Gas & Energy Analyses This chapter presents the results of simulating each of the alternatives described in the pre-vious chapter through the year 2010. The analyses show that by focusing land uses in moderately dense, mixed use, pedestrian designed locations served by transit and sup-ported by demand management policies, the LUTRAQ alternative makes a substantial dif-ference in travel behavior and air quality. The LUTRAQ alternative significantly reduces the need to own multiple vehicles, or even any vehicle at all. The alternative also reduces vehicle miles traveled and increases walking, bicycling, and transit use. Air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy consumption are also reduced. Auto Ownership The LUTRAQ study area today is more auto dependent than the region as a whole. Only 1.2 percent of person trips in the study area are by transit, compared to 3.4 percent of the person trips in the region. This is at least partially a result of the social and economic characteristics of study area residents, who are more affluent than residents in much of region. In addition, these residents are less well served by transit and live in developments that are lower in density and less pedestrian friendly than more centrally located portions of the region. Thus, it is significant that the LUTRAQ alternative reduces auto ownership rates in the year 2010 over what they would be without changes in land use policies or transportation investments. Table 2- 1 shows the estimated percentage of households that would own various numbers of autos under each of the alternatives. The Highways Only alternative would not change auto ownership rates, but the LUTRAQ alternative would reduce the average number of autos per household by five percent compared to the No Build alternative. The number of households with only one car, or no car at all, would increase with the LUTRAQ alterna-tive. Table 2- 1: Auto Ownership Percentage of Homes Owning: No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ ( TOD Only) LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing ( TOD Only) 0 Auto 2.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 9.1 5.6 9.7 1 Auto 26.5 26.8 26.8 29.2 35 30.2 35.6 2 Autos 47.6 47.7 47.7 44.8 40.1 43.7 39.6 3 Autos 23 22.5 22.5 21.1 15.8 20.4 15 Average Autos/ Household 1.91 1.9 1.9 1.82 1.63 1.79 1.6 Chapter 2: Transportation, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas & Energy Analyses 14 Analysis of Alternatives The main reason for these changes in auto ownership can be seen in the TOD columns of Table 2- 1 that show the auto ownership levels in the transit oriented development ( TOD) areas of the LUTRAQ alternatives. About 35 percent of TOD households would choose to own only one car, and over 9 percent would choose not to own a car at all. Only 55 per-cent of households in the TODs would own two or more cars compared to 70 percent in the study area with the No Build or Highways Only alternatives. 1 Mode Choice Mode choice is also strongly influenced by the alternatives. The No Build and Highways Only alternatives would continue the auto orientation of the study area while the LUTRAQ alternative would shift many trips to non- automotive modes. Table 2- 2 dis-plays the projected mode shares for 2010 by trip purpose. Figures 2- 1 to 2- 3 show the results graphically. It is important to note that the Highways Only alternative would actually decrease auto mode shares slightly as compared to the No Build alternative, especially for work trips. This is most likely the result of including some transit capital improvements in the alterna-tive. With the LUTRAQ alternative, residents of the study area make more than twice as many work trips by transit than with the No Build or Highways Only alternatives. Carpooling also increases substantially with the LUTRAQ alternative while it declines with the High-ways Only alternative. This shift away from the automobile under the LUTRAQ alternative is primarily the result of two factors. One factor is the TOD development pattern. The share of works trips by walk/ bike and transit would be much higher in the TOD areas in the LUTRAQ alternative than in the study area as a whole, as shown in Table 2- 2. The significant improvements in transit accessibility and the pedestrian environment, as well as the density and mixture of uses in the TODs, would encourage much greater use of alternatives to the automobile. In the TOD areas, walk, bike, and transit would account for about 30 percent of all home-based trips and 33 to 38 percent of all work trips. These figures, while substantially higher than those in the rest of the study area, are similar to measures of current travel behavior in the pedestrian friendly areas of the City of Portland. This success in reducing auto travel implies that organizing future development beyond 2010 according to transit- oriented development principles could further reduce automobile reliance county wide. 1. TODs are designed with 57.5 percent of housing in multi- family units compared with 37 percent in all of Washington County in 2010. Apartments and condominiums are smaller and attract different house-holds than single family homes. Thus, part of the benefit of TODs is to concentrate smaller households that are likely to own fewer cars near transit stations. In all, the effects of applying the principles of good planning ( by locating transit- oriented households near transit) are as important as the effect of applying principles of good design ( mixed uses and pedestrian orientation). See 1000 Friends of Ore-gon, Making the Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality Connection, Vol. 6, Implementation ( Portland, Oregon, 1995), Appendix D. Mode Choice Analysis of Alternatives 15 Table 2- 2: Mode Choice ( by percentage of trips) No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ ( TOD Only) LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing ( TOD Only) HOME BASED TRIPS Home Based Work Trips Walk/ Bike 2.8 2.5 2.5 3.5 5 4 5.7 Auto 89.7 88.7 82.2 78.3 66.7 74.9 62.1 Drive Alone 75.8 75.1 61.7 58.2 49.6 55.3 45.7 Carpool 14 13.6 20.4 20.1 17.2 19.6 16.4 Transit 7.5 8.8 15.3 18.2 28.2 21.1 32.1 Home Based Non- Work Trips Home Based Other Trips Walk/ Bike 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.9 6 4.4 7 Auto 95.6 95.8 95.4 94 90 93.3 88.9 Transit 1.1 1.1 1.5 2.1 4 2.3 4.2 Home Based School Trips Walk/ Bike 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 Auto 29.6 29.7 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 Transit/ School Bus 51 50.9 51 51 51 51 51 Home Based College Trips Walk/ Bike 3.2 3.2 3.1 6 4.3 7.1 4.8 Auto 80.9 80.1 85.2 78.4 77.4 77.8 76.3 Transit 15.9 16.7 11.7 17.3 16.6 17.4 16.6 Total Home Based Non- Work Trips Walk/ Bike 6 5.8 5.8 6.5 9.9 6.9 10.4 Auto 84 84.2 84.1 82.6 71.1 82 71.8 Transit 10 10 10.1 10.9 18.9 11.1 17.9 Total Home Based Trips Walk/ Bike 5.1 4.9 4.9 5.6 8.7 6.1 9.2 Auto 85.6 85.4 83.6 81.4 70.1 80 69.3 Transit 9.3 9.7 11.5 12.9 21.2 13.9 21.5 NON- HOME BASED TRIPS Non- Home Based Work Trips Walk/ Bike 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.7 1.1 2 Auto 98.9 98.9 98.9 98.1 96.5 97.7 96.2 Transit 0.7 0.7 0.7 1 1.8 1.1 1.8 Non- Home Based Non- Work Trips Walk/ Bike 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.9 Auto 99.1 99 99.1 98.7 98 98.5 97.9 Transit 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.9 1.2 Total Non- Home Based Trips Walk/ Bike 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.2 0.8 1.4 Auto 99 99 99.1 98.5 97.4 98.2 97.1 Transit 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.4 1 1.5 TOTAL ALL TRIPS Walk/ Bike 3.8 3.7 3.7 4.3 6.8 4.7 6.9 Auto 89.1 89 87.7 86 77.2 84.8 77.4 Transit 7 7.3 8.6 9.7 16 10.5 15.7 Chapter 2: Transportation, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas & Energy Analyses 16 Analysis of Alternatives No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ ( TODs Only) LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing ( TODs Only) Walk/ Bike Transit Carpool Drive Alone No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ ( TODs Only) LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing ( TODs Only) Walk/ Bike Transit Auto Figure 2- 2: Percentage of Non- Work Trips from Home by Mode Figure 2- 1: Percentage of Work Trips by Mode Figure 2- 3: Percentage of All Trips by Mode No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ ( TODs Only) LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing ( TODs Only) Walk/ Bike Transit Auto Mode Choice Analysis of Alternatives 17 The other factor influencing the LUTRAQ alternative's performance is the effect of the parking charges and subsidized transit passes included in the alternative. This effect can be seen by comparing the Highways Only and the Highway/ Pricing alternatives, as the pricing alternative contains the same parking charges and transit pass subsidies as the LUTRAQ alternative. Adding parking pricing and transit passes to highway building nearly doubles transit usage for work trips and increases carpooling about 50 percent. The relative effects of land use and pricing policies can also be seen by comparing the mode shares for two earlier versions of the LUTRAQ package. Table 2- 3 shows mode shares for the LUTRAQ/ No Pricing and LUTRAQ/ Parking Pricing alternatives, and the Base Case to which they can be compared. The LUTRAQ/ No Pricing alternative contains only LUTRAQ's transit oriented land use plan and expansions to the light rail system. This package increases the use of transit for the work trip by 30 percent in the study area, but has minimal impact on carpooling. The LUTRAQ/ Parking Pricing alternative adds the parking charge/ transit pass component to the land use/ transit package and boosts tran-sit ridership an additional 36 percent. In addition, the LUTRAQ/ Parking Pricing alterna-tive has 50 percent more carpooling trips than the Base Case. In both these alternatives the rates of transit use are highest in the TODs. In all, the analysis indicates that 48 percent of the increase in non- automobile mode shares for work trips is attributable to the pricing measures, while the balance ( 52%) is due to the land use/ transit changes. Hence, according to the model, the effect of land use/ transit is slightly greater than the impact of pricing. On the ground, however, both sets of measures are likely to have a synergistic effect that the model is unable to predict. In other words, under actual conditions, the sum of land use/ transit plus pricing is likely to be greater than the parts. During the analysis of the LUTRAQ alternative, it became apparent that the model was predicting lower walk and bike mode shares than expected. Upon further investigation, it was determined that the data used to calibrate the Metro model- a 1985 travel survey of the Portland area- under reported walk/ bike trips, particularly for non- work and non-home based trips in pedestrian friendly areas. Walk/ bike shares in the San Francisco Bay area, for example, are significantly higher than those reported in the Portland survey. This problem implies that the Portland travel model does not include all walk/ bike trips. While the numbers of auto and transit trips are correct, the estimated number of total non- motor-ized trips is probably too low. To correct for this under reporting problem, a set of adjustments to the model's walk/ bike trip outputs were developed. This increased walk/ bike shares for the LUTRAQ alterna-tives and correspondingly decreased auto and transit shares, as shown in Table 2- 4. It is important to note that these adjustments are made solely to provide more realistic esti-mates of the walk/ bike mode shares. The estimates of the number of auto and transit trips, as well as figures computed from these trips- such as traffic volumes, vehicles miles of travel, etc.- are not affected. Details of the walk/ bike share adjustments are described in Appendix C. Chapter 2: Transportation, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas & Energy Analyses 18 Analysis of Alternatives Table 2- 3: Effect of Pricing on Mode Choice ( by percentage of trips) Base Case LUTRAQ/ No Pricing LUTRAQ/ No Pricing ( TOD Only) LUTRAQ/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ/ Parking Pricing ( TOD Only) Home Based Trips Home Based Work Walk/ Bike 2.8 3.5 5.4 3.5 5.4 Auto 89.5 86.5 80.6 83.6 74.4 SOV 76 72.7 67.5 63.9 56.5 Carpool 13.5 13.8 13.1 19.7 17.8 Transit 7.7 10 14 12.8 20.2 Home Based Non- Work Home Based Other Walk/ Bike 3.3 3.9 6.4 3.9 6.4 Auto 95.7 94.6 90.3 94.6 90.3 Transit 1 1.5 3.3 1.5 3.3 Home Based School Walk/ Bike 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 Auto 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 Transit/ School Bus 50.9 50.9 50.9 50.9 50.9 Home Based College Walk/ Bike 3.2 4.3 6 4.3 6 Auto 80.1 82 80.6 82 80.6 Transit 16.7 13.7 13.4 13.7 13.4 Total Home Based Non- Work Walk/ Bike 6 6.5 8 6.5 8 Auto 84.1 83.3 82.1 83.3 82.1 Transit 9.9 10.2 9.8 10.2 9.8 Total Home Based Walk/ Bike 5.1 5.7 7.3 5.7 7.3 Auto 85.6 84.2 81.7 83.4 80 Transit 9.3 10.2 11 10.9 12.7 Non- Home Based Trips Non- Home Based Work Walk/ Bike 0.4 0.6 2 0.6 2 Auto 98.8 98.5 96.1 98.5 96.1 Transit 0.8 0.9 1.9 0.9 1.9 Non- Home Based Non- Work Walk/ Bike 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.8 Auto 99 98.9 97.9 98.9 97.9 Transit 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.7 1.3 Total Non- Home Based Walk/ Bike 0.3 0.5 1.2 0.5 1.2 Auto 98.9 98.8 97.2 98.8 97.2 Transit 0.7 0.8 1.5 0.8 1.5 Total All Trips Walk/ Bike 3.8 4.5 5.7 4.5 5.7 Auto 89.1 87.6 85.8 87 84.5 Transit 7 8 8.5 8.6 9.8 Mode Choice Analysis of Alternatives 19 Table 2- 4: Mode Choice Adjusted to Compensate for Walk/ Bike Under- Reporting ( by percentage of trips) No Build LUTRAQ Adjusted LUTRAQ LUTRAQ ( TOD Only) Adjusted LUTRAQ ( TOD Only) LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing Adjusted LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing ( TOD Only) Adjusted LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing ( TOD Only) Home Based Trips Home Based Work Walk/ Bike 2.8 3.5 4.6 5 6.1 4 5.1 5.7 6.8 Auto 89.7 78.3 77.4 66.7 66 74.9 74.1 62.1 61.4 SOV 75.8 58.2 57.5 49.6 49 55.3 54.6 45.7 45.2 Carpool 14 20.1 19.9 17.2 17 19.6 19.4 16.4 16.2 Transit 7.5 18.2 18 28.2 27.9 21.1 20.8 32.1 31.8 Home Based Non- Work Home Based Other Walk/ Bike 3.3 3.9 9.3 6 12.8 4.4 9.8 7 13.8 Auto 95.6 94 88.7 90 83.5 93.3 88 88.9 82.4 Transit 1.1 2.1 2 4 3.7 2.3 2.2 4.2 3.9 Home Based School Walk/ Bike 19.4 19.4 26.1 19.4 42.7 19.4 26.1 19.4 42.7 Auto 29.6 29.6 27.2 29.6 21.2 29.6 27.2 29.6 21.2 Transit/ School Bus 51 51 46.7 51 36.1 51 46.7 51 36.1 Home Based College Walk/ Bike 3.2 6 6 4.3 4.8 7.1 7.1 4.8 7.1 Auto 80.9 78.4 78.4 77.4 77.4 77.8 77.8 76.3 76.3 Transit 15.9 17.3 17.3 16.6 16.6 17.4 17.4 16.6 16.6 Total Home Based Non- Work Walk/ Bike 6 6.5 11.8 9.9 20.7 6.9 12.2 10.4 20.8 Auto 84 82.6 78.5 71.1 65.5 82 77.9 71.8 66.1 Transit 10 10.9 9.7 18.9 13.8 11.1 9.9 17.9 13.1 Total Home Based Walk/ Bike 5.1 5.6 9.9 8.7 17.2 6.1 10.3 9.2 17.4 Auto 85.6 81.4 78.2 70.1 65.6 80 76.9 69.3 64.9 Transit 9.3 12.9 12 21.2 17.2 13.9 12.9 21.5 17.7 Non- Home Based Trips Non- Home Based Work Walk/ Bike 0.4 0.9 7.8 1.7 13.1 1.1 10 2 15.9 Auto 98.9 98.1 91.3 96.5 85.4 97.7 89 96.2 82.5 Transit 0.7 1 1 1.8 1.6 1.1 1 1.8 1.6 Non- Home Based Non- Work Walk/ Bike 0.3 0.5 3.2 0.9 10.2 0.7 4.5 0.9 9.6 Auto 99.1 98.7 96.1 98 88.8 98.5 94.6 97.9 89.3 Transit 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.1 Total Non- Home Based Walk/ Bike 0.3 0.7 4.8 1.2 11.4 0.8 6.6 1.4 12.3 Auto 99 98.5 94.4 97.4 87.3 98.2 92.5 97.1 86.4 Transit 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.3 1 0.9 1.5 1.3 Total All Trips Walk/ Bike 3.8 4.3 8.5 6.8 15.6 4.7 9.3 6.9 15.8 Auto 89.1 86 82.5 77.2 71.6 84.8 81 77.4 71.5 Transit 7 9.7 9 16 12.8 10.5 9.7 15.7 12.7 Chapter 2: Transportation, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas & Energy Analyses 20 Analysis of Alternatives Vehicle Trips Per Household The shift of work trips to non- auto modes for the LUTRAQ alternatives translates into fewer vehicle trips per household, as shown in Table 2- 5 and Figure 2- 4. Table 2- 5: Vehicle Trips per Household No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ ( TOD Only) LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing ( TOD Only) HOME BASED TRIPS Work 1.67 1.63 1.42 1.38 1 1.32 0.92 Other 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.5 2.62 3.47 2.59 School 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.13 0.2 0.13 College 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.16 0.13 Total Home Based 5.59 5.56 5.35 5.24 3.88 5.15 3.77 NON- HOME BASED TRIPS Work 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.75 0.74 Non- work 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.16 Total Non- Home Based 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.93 1.91 1.92 1.9 TOTAL TRIPS 7.53 7.5 7.29 7.17 5.79 7.07 5.67 Figure 2- 4: Vehicle Trips per Household No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ ( TOD Only) LUTRAQ/ Cong. Pricing LUTRAQ/ Cong. Pricing ( TOD Only) Home to Work Home to College Home to Other Non- Home/ Work Home to School Non- Home/ Non- Work 7.53 7.5 7.29 7.17 5.79 7.07 5.67 Vehicle Hours of Delay Analysis of Alternatives 21 The number of vehicle trips per household would decrease by 5 percent with the LUTRAQ alternative, compared to the No Build or Highways Only alternatives. Most of the changes are in trips to and from work. Within the TOD areas, vehicle trips per house-hold are 25 percent lower for LUTRAQ and 32 percent lower for LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing than in the study area for the other alternatives. This is likely because residents of TODs make a larger percentage of trips by walking, biking, and transit for both work and other purposes like shopping and recreation, and because their household characteristics dispose them to use autos less. 2 Vehicle Hours of Delay All of the alternatives reduce congestion, as measured in vehicle hours of delay, over the No Build alternative. As Table 2- 6 and Figure 2- 5 show, the LUTRAQ alternative reduces congestion 53.2 percent, 10 percentage points more than the Highways Only alter-native. The LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing alternative has an even greater impact because of the per mile charge for work trips, which occurs at the most congested times of day. This is the only measure of transportation behavior on which a highway alternative per-forms better than the LUTRAQ alternative. The Highway/ Parking Pricing alternative has 160 hours, or 12 percent, fewer hours of delay than the LUTRAQ alternative. The combi-nation of expanded highway capacity and reduced demand, especially for work trips, reduces congestion. Enhanced highway capacity ( as seen in Highways Only) reduces delay by 1,260 hours or 43 percent compared to the No Build alternative. Adding parking charges and free transit passes reduces hours of delay another 300 hours, or an additional 10 percent. The LUTRAQ alternative contains the same demand management program as the Highway/ Parking Pricing alternative, but does not add nearly as much highway capac-ity. Although a number of people shift to non- automotive modes, this is not enough to reduce congestion to the levels of the Highway/ Parking Pricing alternative. 2. N. B.: The LUTRAQ alternative assumes household characteristics in 2010 that are consistent with the continuation of current economic, social, and political trends. If these trends were to vary dramatically during the study period, significant shifts in housing choices and travel behavior would be expected. For example, if household income growth were to stagnate, or if current financial incentives for home ownership were trimmed, one would expect to see a stronger multi- family housing market, and a wider range of household types choosing multi- family housing products, than was assumed for the LUTRAQ alternative. 1. Compared to the No Build alternative. Table 2- 6: Vehicle Hours of Delay ( P. M. Peak Hour) No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing VHD VHD Difference1 VHD Difference VHD Difference VHD Difference Freeways 1140 470 - 58.8% 370 - 67.5% 390 - 65.8% 200 - 82.5% Principal/ Major Arterials 960 660 - 31.3% 470 - 51% 520 - 45.8% 430 - 55.2% Minor/ Other Arterials 830 540 - 34.9% 370 - 55.4% 460 - 44.6% 370 - 55.4% Total All Classes 2930 1670 - 43% 1210 - 58.7% 1370 - 53.2% 1000 - 65.9% Chapter 2: Transportation, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas & Energy Analyses 22 Analysis of Alternatives The higher speeds of the Highway/ Parking Pricing alternative may, however, be only a temporary phenomena. The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment of Great Britain3 surveyed the evidence on whether road capacity influences the amount of traffic. They concluded " that about half the time saved through speed increases might be used for additional travel. We interpret this as a short- term effect. The longer- term effect is likely to be greater, with a higher proportion ( perhaps all) of the time saved being used for further travel ( p. 47)." The LUTRAQ alternative puts more emphasis on transit improvements and changing the environment around transit than on highways. The result is slightly higher levels of vehi-cle delay in exchange for much higher rates of transit ridership and walk/ bike travel and lower levels of vehicle miles of travel. Also balanced against LUTRAQ's higher congestion levels is the substantially greater degree of accessibility to jobs afforded by the LUTRAQ alternative. Under LUTRAQ, the percentage of the study area within 30 minutes travel of 500,000 jobs is 67.5%, a 25.8% increase over the No Build alternative. By contrast, only 55.7% of the area would have the same degree of access under the Highways Only alternative ( a 13.9% increase over the No Build alternative). In other words, the LUTRAQ alternative trades a slight decrease in mobility ( as measured by vehicle hours of delay) for a substantial increase in accessibility. See Table 2- 7. 3. Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic ( London: HMSO, 1994). No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ/ Cong. Pricing Freeways Principal/ Major Arterials Minor/ Other Arterials Figure 2- 5: Vehicle Hours of Delay ( P. M. Peak Hour) Peak Vehicle Hours of Travel and Daily Miles of Travel Analysis of Alternatives 23 Adding peak period pricing to the LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing alternative shifts a larger number of commuters from driving to other modes. This reduces the amount of delay dur-ing rush hour by 210 hours from the Highway/ Parking Pricing level. 4 Compared to the No Build alternative, the LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing alternative would reduce vehicle hours of delay by 83 percent on freeways and 55 percent on all types of arterials. Com-pared to the Highway/ Parking Pricing alternative, the LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing alter-native has 46 percent fewer hours of delay on freeways, and 9 percent fewer on primary and minor arterials. Peak Vehicle Hours of Travel and Daily Miles of Travel All of the alternatives would reduce peak period vehicle hours of travel within the study area over the No Build alternative. The improved speeds on highways, however, would result in increased vehicle miles of travel in the Highways Only alternative. The LUTRAQ alternative would reduce both vehicle hours and vehicle miles of travel. Table 2- 8 shows the changes in vehicle hours of travel. The Highways Only alternative would improve speeds on freeways resulting in fewer hours of travel in the peak period, but it would increase travel hours on principal/ major arterials. The alternative includes many improvements to principal arterials, and this enhanced capacity would result in greater use of these routes. The transit oriented development pattern of the LUTRAQ alternatives would reduce travel times on all types of facilities. With the LUTRAQ alter-native, overall vehicle use would decline by about 16 percent compared to the No Build alternative with the greatest improvements on the more local streets, followed by principal arterials, and then freeways. Adding congestion pricing would reduce vehicle hours fur-ther on all types of facilities, but especially on freeways. 1. Compared to the No Build alternative. 4. Some trips would probably shift to other times of day when there would be no charge, but the Metro model, in its current form, cannot consider this change in behavior. Table 2- 7: Accessibility to Population, Jobs, and Shopping No Build Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ Difference1 Difference % of Study Area w/ i 30 Mins. of 800,000 Population 40.7 70.6 23.9% 64.4 23.7% % of Study Area w/ i 30 Mins. of 500,000 Jobs 41.8 55.7 13.9% 67.5 25.8% % of Study Area w/ i 15 Mins of 25,000 Retail Jobs 74.2 78.9 4.6% 78.1 3.9% Table 2- 8: Vehicle Hours of Travel ( P. M. Peak Hour) No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing VHT VHT Difference1 VHT Difference VHT Difference VHT Difference Chapter 2: Transportation, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas & Energy Analyses 24 Analysis of Alternatives Table 2- 9 shows the estimated daily vehicle miles of travel for each alternative. The Highways Only alternative demonstrates that building additional highway capacity with-out programs to reduce demand, would increase the total miles of vehicle travel in the region even though the hours of travel decline. The LUTRAQ alternative would reduce the amount of vehicle travel by shifting more trips to non- automotive modes. The transit oriented development pattern of the LUTRAQ alternative reduces vehicle miles of travel in the study area by about 6 percent compared to the No Build alternative. Adding peak hour pricing to this alternative more than doubles the reduction in vehicle miles of travel to 13 percent. Air Quality - Carbon Monoxide and Ozone Precursors Changes in travel behavior also produce changes in the emissions of pollutants. As Table 2- 10 shows, the LUTRAQ alternative would reduce emissions for all three types of pollut-ants- hydrocarbons ( HC), nitrogen oxides ( NOx), and carbon monoxide ( CO). Reduc-tions in congestion and delay times generally reduce emissions, but NOx emissions increase with higher average speeds, and speeds would increase with the highway alterna-tives, as previously discussed. Table 2- 10 shows that for the Highways Only alternative, NOx emissions would increase by almost 7 percent, while reductions in HC and CO would be negligible. In contrast, the LUTRAQ alternative reduces NOx by three percent and HC and CO by 6.2 percent and 6.7 percent respectively. Because the LUTRAQ/ Con-gestion Pricing alternative would induce more shifts to non- motorized means of travel than the LUTRAQ alternative, it reduces pollutants the most. The LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing alternative is more effective because it not only shifts people to other modes, but it 1. Compared to the No Build alternative. 1. Compared to the No Build alternative. Freeways 6,270 5,900 - 5.9% 5,610 - 10.5% 5,590 - 10.8% 4,930 - 21.4% Principal/ Major Arterials 6,220 6,890 10.8% 6,250 0.5% 5,360 - 13.8% 4,990 - 19.8% Minor/ Other Arterials 8,620 7,130 - 17.3% 6,380 - 26% 6,840 - 20.6% 6,230 - 27.7% Total All Classes 21,110 19,920 - 5.6% 18,240 - 13.6% 17,790 - 15.7% 16,150 - 23.5% Table 2- 9: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pric-ing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ/ Congesition Pricing VMT VMT Difference1 VMT Difference VMT Difference VMT Difference 6,883,955 6,995,986 1.6% 6,856,447 - 0.4% 6,442,348 - 6.4% 5,976,191 - 13.2% Table 2- 8: Vehicle Hours of Travel ( P. M. Peak Hour) Green House Gases and Energy Consumption Analysis of Alternatives 25 also reduces congestion so that traffic moves more smoothly. Green House Gases and Energy Consumption The estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption are directly related to the differences in vehicle miles of travel with each alternative. Table 2- 11 shows that, compared to the No Build alternative, the Highways Only alternative increases emissions of methane ( CH 4 ), nitrous oxide ( N 2 O), and carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ), and energy consump-tion by about 1.6 percent. In contrast, the LUTRAQ and LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing alternatives reduce emissions and energy consumption by 6.4 and 13.2 percent, respec-tively. The LUTRAQ/ Congestion Pricing alternative has the greater impact because the charge for work trips reinforces the other measures that reduce travel. 1. Compared to the No Build alternative. 1. Compared to the No Build alternative. Table 2- 10: Air Pollutant Emissions ( kg/ day) No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pric-ing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ/ Congesition Pricing Difference1 Difference Difference Difference HC 9,988 9,965 - 0.2% 9,626 - 3.6% 9,366 - 6.2% 8,840 - 11.5% NOx 14,104 15,054 6.7% 14,620 3.6% 13,744 - 2.6% 12,914 - 8.4% CO 94,605 94,057 - 0.6% 90,813 - 4% 88,262 - 6.7% 83,296 - 12% Table 2- 11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ( kg/ day) & Energy Consumption ( millions of BTUs) No Build Highways Only Highways/ Parking Pricing LUTRAQ LUTRAQ/ Congesition Pricing Difference1 Difference Difference Difference CH4 786 799 1.6% 783 - 0.4% 736 - 6.4% 683 - 13.2% N20 526 534 1.6% 524 - 0.4% 492 - 6.4% 457 - 13.2% CO2 4,814,705 4,893,061 1.6% 4,795,466 - 0.4% 4,505,841 - 6.4% 4,179,806 - 13.2% Energy Consumption 35,089 35,660 1.6% 34,949 - 0.4% 32,838 - 6.4% 30,462 - 13.2 Chapter 2: Transportation, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas & Energy Analyses 26 Analysis of Alternatives Conclusion The data presented here clearly indicate that building highways does not solve suburban transportation problems. Compared to other build options, such a " solution" in the LUTRAQ study area would result in increased driving, low transit ridership, dirtier air, more greenhouse gases, and higher energy consumption. In contrast, a combined approach of reorganizing land uses, providing high quality transit service, and instituting demand management measures provides an effective short- term and long- term suburban transportation strategy. For the LUTRAQ study area, implementation of these policies would lead to substantially lower dependence on the automobile, higher transit ridership, cleaner air, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and less energy consumption. Although the LUTRAQ alternative represents a marked shift from the status quo, it does not attempt to modify urban design patterns in the entire study area, but only in selected neighborhoods near transit lines. The alternative's assumptions for the composition and mix of building types for development are also constrained by a market demand forecast that assumes the housing preferences of recent decades for different demographic seg-ments will persist into the future. This implies continued tax subsidies for housing and automobile transportation, rising real household incomes, and continued high levels of consumer and public debt to finance housing and transportation consumption. In addition, despite experience in cities such as Davis, California and Copenhagen, Denmark showing that the development of comprehensive cycling networks can have a profound effect in diverting car trips to the bicycle and to transit, such improvements were not included in the alternative because the model used to evaluate the alternative was unable to quantify them. Notwithstanding these limitations, the analysis presented in this volume demonstrates that transit and pedestrian oriented urban design and infill development, and the retrofit of pedestrian improvements to automobile- oriented suburbs, can have significant effects on travel behavior sufficient to eliminate the need to build new ring freeways, particularly when reinforced by sensible economic and pricing incentives, such as modest parking charges and reduced transit fares that begin to level the playing field between travel modes. One would expect even greater effects on travel behavior when these measures are combined with bicycle improvements, stronger economic incentives, more effective parking management, introduction of neighborhood vehicles, and further shifts in land use policies to favor infill housing and commercial development.