UP 430CEE417 Week 4

1
UP 430/CEE417 Week 4

• Transportation Impacts

2
Transportation Impacts

• I. Transportation Impacts due to Price Change
• 1. Limited Resources
• 2. Price Impact Elasticity
• II. Impacts Analysis
• 3. Braess Paradox
• 4. Land Use and Transportation
• III. Transportation and Air Quality
• 5. CAAA of 1990 Impact Measurements
• IV. ISTEA/TEA-21
• V. SAFETEA-LU
• VI. Environment Impact Statement
• VII. Episodic Transportation Controls for AQ

3
1. Limited Oil Resource An Example

• Proven Reserve 1,100 bb (2007)
• Annual Demand 30 bb (2007)
• Demand Increase 1.36 per year (2004-2030)
• D(n) 1.0136 D(n-1)
• By the year 200762 i.e. By 2069,
• Reserve 0

4
2. Price Impact Elasticity
-100/(-0.5)x(10.5)/2/(100200)/21
p
1.0
0.5
q
100
200
Unitary elastic
5
Price Impact Elasticity
-50/(-0.5)x(10.5)/2/(100150)/20.6
p
Inelastic example Work 0.09 Shopping 0.323
1.0
0.5
q
100
150
6
Price Impact Elasticity
elastic
-200/(-0.5)x(10.5)/2/(100300)/21.25
p
1.0
0.5
q
100
300
200
7
Elasticity
p1
p2
q1
q2
8
Elasticity An Example

• Elasticity of Transit Demand with respect to
  Transit Fare
• Work 0.09
• Shopping 3.323
• Elasticity of Automobile Trip Demand with
  respect to Gasoline Price
• Work ?
• Shopping ?

9
Elasticity An Example (2)

• Regression Results
• USA
• ?n (VMT) -5.45161.6358 ?n (population)-
  0.1558 ?n (price)
• (-2.16) (8.35) (-5.22)
• Adjusted R² .9633 Price Elasticity at the
  Mean -0.1558
• State of Illinois
• ?n (VMT) -36.84310.309 ?n (population)-
  0.1012 ?n (price)
• (-10.754) (12.365) (-4.466)
• Adjusted R² .9927 Price Elasticity at the
  Mean -0.1012
• The Chicago Region
• ?n (VMT) 1.341 ?n (population)- 0.2791 ?n
  (price)
• (90.04) (-10.146)
• Adjusted R² .9604 Price Elasticity at the
  Mean -0.2791

10
(No Transcript)
11

Annual per-capita fuel consumption (MJ)
Fuel price (US cents per litre)
Source Newman Kenworthy, 1989
12
Transportation Impacts

• I. Transportation Impacts due to Price Change
• 1. Limited Resources
• 2. Price Impact Elasticity
• II. Impacts Analysis
• 3. Braess Paradox
• 4. Land Use and Transportation
• III. Transportation and Air Quality
• 5. CAAA of 1990 Impact Measurements
• IV. ISTEA/TEA-21
• V. SAFETEA-LU
• VI. Environment Impact Statement
• VII. Episodic Transportation Controls for AQ

13
3. Braess Paradox
1. The time it takes a car to travel each road
here is related to the number of other cars on
the road, written in the equations next to the
road as F. One car will take (10x1)(151)61
minutes, no matter which route it takes.
14
3. Braess Paradox
2. Adding an extra expressway going from the west
side to the east side across the park shorten the
trip for one car. That car can now make the
journey from downtown to uptown in (10x1)
(110) (10x1) 31 minutes.
15
3. Braess Paradox
3. With six cars going from downtown to uptown,
and no Cross Park Expressway, the commute is
slower. The best drivers can do in (10x3)
(350) 83. No one can switch routes without
making the trip even longer.
16
3. Braess Paradox
4. But adding that expressway just makes matters
worse. With six cars taking each of the three
available routes, the former shortcut takes
(10x4) (210) (10x4) 92 minutes-longer than
it did before the expressway existed.
17
Hottelings Location Game
2 mile long beach
A
B
Initial Stage
B
A
2nd Stage
A
B
Market Solution
A
B
Planning Solution
18
A Typical Development Pattern of an Urban Area
Sub-Ctr
Sub-Ctr
W/R
W/R
CBD
R
W/R
R
Raw Materials
R
Manuf.
Manuf.
Manuf.
W/R
Manuf.
R
R
Sub-Ctr
19
Urban Land Model Sociologists ViewConcentric
Zone by Burgess and Parker
Service
Whole/Retail
Housing
20
Transportation in an Agricultural Land Rent Model
?(d) pA - w - tAd
?(d)
?(d) Land Rent at d distance from Market
Bean
P Unit Price of Ag Products, if 100
w Labor wages, if 50
t Unit Transportation Cost, if 0.1
Bean at 5 mi, ?(5) 100-50-2525, if p1
at 10 mi, ?(10) 100-50-500, if p1
?(5)
Corn
?(10)
5 mi
10 mi
d
Market
21
Transportation in an Urban Land Rent Model
R(d)
Rent (d)Rev - t.cost - other costs R(d) pA -
tAd- w
Service
Whole Sale
Manufacturing
Residential
d
CBD
Whole Sale zone
Residential zone
Service zone
Manufacturing zone
22
Land Use - Transportation Cycle
Land Use
Trips
Land Value
Transport Needs
T. Facility
Accessibility
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
Land-Use Impacts on Transport (2)
Annual per-capita fuel consumption (MJ)
Net density (residents per hectare)
Source Newman Kenworthy, 1989
27
New and Old Ideas Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) - Light-Rail-Transit (LRT) - Bus feeder
network - Concentration of jobs, services and
residences at transit stops - Mixed-use
centers - Urban TODs - Neighborhood TODs
28
New and Old Ideas Smart Growth - Urban growth
boundaries - Parks and open spaces - Transit-orien
ted development (TOD) - "Highway-Dollars" for
walking and cycling - Taxation of sprawl - User
fees for new infrastructure - Urban
renewal - Ecological reservations Source Sierra
Club (2001)
29
New and Old Ideas New Urbanism - Regional
co-operation - Polycentric articulated
settlements - Rural-urban linkages - Infill
development - New towns and villages - Historical
heritage - Economic and social diversity -
Regional revenue sharing ... Source Charter of
the New Urbanism (2000)
30
Portland Regional Growth Concept 2040 The
elements transit-oriented development, urban
growth boundary and landscape protection.
31
Portland Regional Growth Concept
2040 Hierarchical settlement structure Regional
Centers, Town Centers und Village/TOD Centers.
32
Portland Regional City In 1979, Portland Metro
was established by popular vote. Metro comprises
parts of three counties with 24 municipalities
and 1.3 million people. The main responsibility
of Metro is regional land-use and transport
planning.
33
Portland Orenco Town Centre
34
An Important Debate Opponents of the New
Urbanism claim that - urban growth boundaries
increase land and house prices and distort the
evolution of regional settlement hierarchies, -
urban rail developments distract money more
effectively spent on buses and run counter to
prevailing settlement trends. - commuting
distances in US cities have declined due to
decentralisation of jobs and hence automobility
is sustainable. Source Richardson Gordon
(2000), Rubin et al. (1999)
35
Transportation Impacts

• I. Transportation Impacts due to Price Change
• 1. Limited Resources
• 2. Price Impact Elasticity
• II. Impacts Analysis
• 3. Braess Paradox
• 4. Land Use and Transportation
• III. Transportation and Air Quality
• 5. CAAA of 1990 Impact Measurements
• IV. ISTEA/TEA-21
• V. FAFETY-LU
• VI. Environment Impact Statement
• VII. Episodic Transportation Controls for AQ

36
Transportation System Impacts with particular
aspect on Air Quality

• Transportation system impacts cover a broad
  spectrum, all the way from the destruction of
  historic landmarks to the economic development of
  the entire urban area. We will consider the
  specific matters of energy consumption, air
  pollution, noise, land values and visual impacts.
  Particular attention will be given to the
  impacts of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment
  (CAAA) and its mandates on emission reduction.

37
(No Transcript)
38
CAAA of 1990

• Most Significant Feature
• Compliance Requirements for Urban Areas that did
  not meet the National Ambient Air Quality
  Standards (NAAQS).
• CAAA of 1977
• Nationwide Mandate to meet a 1987 Deadline for
  Attainment of the NAAQS.
• 1987 96 Areas of Ozone (O3) Standard Violations
• 41 Areas of CO Standard Violations
• 58 Areas of PM-10 Standard Violations
• CAAA of 1990
• 6 Classifications for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
• Marginal..Moderate, Serious, Severe,
  Extreme

39
CAAA of 1990

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Urban Areas
• Mobile Sources comprise up to
• 50 of NOx
• 80 - 90 of CO
• 40 - 50 of HC, and
• NOx combined with HC form O3
• CAAA of 1990 mandates implementation of
• Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
• Alternative Fuel Programs, e.g. Reformulated
  Gasoline
• California Air Resources Board (CARB)
• From Low Emission Vehicles (LEVs) to ZEVs.
• From 1988, 3,750 Electric Cars to be sold by
  Carmakers Annually by 2003,
• By 2003, 10 of carmakers sale to be ZEVs

40
REQUIREMENT OF THE 1990 CAA
MPOS FOR SERIOUS, SEVERE, EXTREME
OZONE NON-ATTAINMENT AREA USE OF NETWORK
MODEL MPOS FOR SERIOUS OR WORSE CO
NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS USE OF NETWORK BASED MODEL
41
Transportation Impacts

• I. Transportation Impacts due to Price Change
• 1. Limited Resources
• 2. Price Impact Elasticity
• II. Impacts Analysis
• 3. Braess Paradox
• 4. Land Use and Transportation
• III. Transportation and Air Quality
• 5. CAAA of 1990 Impact Measurements
• IV. ISTEA/TEA-21
• V. SAFETEA-LU
• VI. Environment Impact Statement
• VII. Episodic Transportation Controls for AQ

42
TEA-21 (1)

• On June 9, 1998, President Clinton signed into
  law a new federal transportation bill called
  TEA-21, The Transportation Equity Act for the
  21st Century.
• It is in every sense a direct successor to the
  1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
  ActISTEA.
• In spite of TEA-21's complexity and the many
  disagreements it provoked during almost two years
  of debate, this new law both leaves the
  groundbreaking reforms of ISTEA intact and
  provides new opportunities for innovation.
• Now that TEA-21 is here, the transformation of
  our 1950s-era highway building program into a
  flexible transportation program achieved in 1991
  can no longer be called an aberration.
• ISTEA was created by a Democratic Congress
  dominated by Northeasterners and a Republican
  President, and its reforms have been continued by
  a Republican Congress led by Southerners and a
  Democratic President. ISTEA, and all it
  represents, is here to stay.

43
TEA-21 (2)

• TEA-21 authorizes 217 billion in funding over
  six years, 40 percent more than ISTEA.
• Actual funding flowing to the states is unlikely
  to go up by 40 percent. In most states funding
  will be higher, but the difference will be
  incremental rather that revolutionary.
• The amount of highway money available in future
  years will depend on how much money flows into
  the Highway Trust Fund.
• TEA-21 creates some new tools for using
  transportation to revitalize communities and
  create alternatives to driving.

44
TEA-21 Funding

• Category Total 6-year funding (billions)
• 1. Total Amount Authorized 216.3
• Total Amount Authorized, Highways 173.1
• Total Amount Authorized, Transit 41.0
• 2. Total Contract Authority 209.3
• Total Contract Authority, Highways 171.7
• Total Contract Authority, Transit 36.0
• 3. Total Amount Guaranteed 198.7
• Total Amount Guaranteed, Highways 162.7
• Total Amount Guaranteed, Transit 36.0

45
New Rules for the Federal Budget

• The budget rules that apply to transportation
  have changed. Cuts in transportation spending can
  no longer be used to boost spending on other
  programs.
• Highway spending can exceed the "guaranteed"
  floor if revenue flowing to the highway trust
  fund exceeds expectations, or if Congress
  appropriates "non-guaranteed" funds . This means
  that state-by-state funding projections are only
  estimates, and actual amounts may differ from
  initial projections.
• The funding guarantee for transit is set at a
  fixed amount of 36.0 billion, and will not vary
  over time as revenues rise and fall.

46
Job Access--Helping People Get to Jobs using
Transit

• As jobs have moved to the suburbs, many
  low-income city residents have no reasonable way
  to get to these jobs.
• TEA-21's Access To Jobs program will provide
  discretionary grants to transit service providers
  to help bridge this gap.
• Some funds are set aside for "reverse commute"
  projects. There is no requirement that these
  funds be targeted to low-income individuals.
• Not all of the program's funding is guaranteed
  250 million of the 750 million authorization
  must be fought for.
• TEA-21 Reference Section 3037.

• TEA-21 creates some new tools for using
  transportation to revitalize communities and
  create alternatives to driving. This chapter
  reviews the most important of these new
  opportunities.

47
Taxes and Commuter Choice

• Through changes in federal tax law, employers are
  now free to offer a range of commute fringe
  benefits without fear of tax consequences.
• These benefits can either be offered in addition
  to an employee's base salary, or the employer can
  offer the benefit "in lieu of compensation."
• Providing a portion of an employee's income in
  the form of a transit voucher cuts taxes for both
  the employer (less FICA tax) and the employee
  (less income tax).
• Commuters will not benefit from the new rules
  until employers know about them and begin
  offering a choice of fringe benefits. Making
  employers aware of the new rules is the most
  important action people can take to make
  "commuter choice" a reality.
• TEA-21 ReferenceSection 9010.

48
Wrestling With Land Use and Transportation

• Building a transportation system that provides
  for economic growth, preserves quality of life,
  and minimizes environmental impacts will require
  strong coordination between land use and
  transportation decisions.
• The TCSP program, authorized at 120 million over
  six years, will fund projects that link
  transportation and land use decisions with
  community quality of life.
• The program contains a strong bias toward project
  teams that include non-traditional partners like
  community groups, non-profit organizations and
  business groups.
• FHWA has placed implementation guidance and a
  request for letters of intent from potential
  grantees for TEA-21's Transportation and
  Community and System Preservation Pilot Program
  (TCSP). 
• TEA-21 Reference Section 1221.

49
Building New Rail Systems (1)

• Many fast growing cities are realizing that rail
  transit has much to offer. As a result, demand
  for New Starts funding has exploded since ISTEA.
• Although a majority of New Starts money falls
  within TEA-21's funding guarantee, some does not.
  Full funding will only be achieved if supporters
  of new start projects push for it.
• The best new start projects integrate the transit
  system with transit-supportive land use. This
  attracts economic development, boosts ridership
  and builds better communities.
• TEA-21 Reference Sections 3009 and 3030.

50
Building New Rail Systems (2)

• Transit is being considered in some unlikely
  places. Cities where new rail investments have
  been authorized in TEA-21 include
• Albuquerque, New Mexico Atlanta, GeorgiaAustin,
  Texas Charlotte, North CarolinaDallas,
  Texas Denver, ColoradoFt. Laud/W. P. Beach,
  FL
• Galveston, Texas Kansas City, KN/MOLas Vegas,
  Nevada Little Rock, ArkansasLouisville,
  Kentucky Miami, FloridaMemphis,
  Tennessee Nashville, TennesseeNorfolk/Va Beach,
  VA Orlando, FloridaPhoenix, Arizona Raleigh/Durh
  am, NCSacramento, California San Jose,
  CaliforniaStockton, California Tampa Bay,
  FloridaMinneapolis/St. Paul, MN Spokane,
  Washington

51
Bikes Belong!

• ISTEA required the consideration of bicycling and
  walking as transportation plans are assembled,
  and slowly this has begun to happen. TEA-21
  continues and expands these requirements.
• TEA-21 continues ISTEA's policy innovations and
  increases funding for the CMAQ and Transportation
  Enhancements programs, which fund most bicycle
  and pedestrian projects.
• New provisionssuch as eligibility for safety
  funds and development of design guidancewill
  help ensure that the needs of bicyclists and
  pedestrians are addressed.
• TEA-21 References Sections 1202, 1203, 1204, and
  1401.

52
More Toll Roads Or Better Leverage for Transit

• The innovative finance programs represent a lot
  of moneytoo much to ignore.
• Applicability to mass transit could open doors.
  For example, a transit agency that wants to
  extend rail service could pledge revenues from
  selling pre-paid transit passes to repay debt
  undertaken to build a line extension.
• TEA-21's innovative finance programs are very
  flexiblethe lines of credit or secured loans can
  be used for a wide variety of purposes.
• Like all loans, the money must be repaid.
• TEA-21 Reference Sections 1501 through 1511.

53
Clean Fuels for Transit

• In many areas, emissions from diesel engines are
  becoming a larger piece of the overall pollution
  problem. The clean fuels grant program provides
  an opportunity to start reducing pollution from
  the transit bus fleet.
• Only one-half of the 200 million per year
  authorized for this program is guaranteed. The
  remainder must compete for funding in the annual
  appropriations process.
• Only those who apply can receive funds.
• TEA-21 Reference Section 3007.

54
The New MoneyA Recipe for Sprawl or a Chance
for Wise Investment?

• TEA-21 represents a large increase in federal
  funds for transportation.
• In general, areas with high population and
  economic growth will receive the most new money,
  and this money may end up fueling more sprawl.
• Under ISTEA, the share of federal funds going to
  new roads began to decline, and this trend can
  continue. Most of the new money provided by
  TEA-21 will go into categories that cannot fund
  new roads.

55
(No Transcript)
56
Funding Indicators ISTEA vs TEA-21
57
CMAQ Dollars in Billion
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Program
58
Some notable changes in funding emphasis in TEA-21

• A 54 percent decrease in the share of total
  funding dedicated to the construction of new
  highways, from 8.2 percent of total funds to 3.7
  percent.
• A modest increase in the portion of funding
  devoted to repair and preservation of the
  existing road system, from 23.8 percent of total
  funding to 24.9 percent.
• A slight increase in the share of total funds
  likely to go to transit.
• http//www.istea.org/guide/sm.htm

59
Planning Is Still A Powerful Tool

• TEA- 21 introduces comprehensive, integrated
  planning goals, rather than the more specific
  planning factors of ISTEA.
• Accountability, local control, and fiscal
  constraint remain, and are still excellent tools.
  
• Current MIS requirements apply until new
  regulations are issued by USDOT. The integration
  of MIS requirements with planning and NEPA, if
  done properly, will preserve the strengths of MIS
  process substantive analysis of alternatives to
  major transportation investments early in the
  process.
• TEA-21 Reference
• Sections 1203, 1204, and 1308.

60
Transportation Impacts

• I. Transportation Impacts due to Price Change
• 1. Limited Resources
• 2. Price Impact Elasticity
• II. Impacts Analysis
• 3. Braess Paradox
• 4. Land Use and Transportation
• III. Transportation and Air Quality
• 5. CAAA of 1990 Impact Measurements
• IV. ISTEA/TEA-21
• V. SAFETEA-LU
• VI. Environment Impact Statement
• VII. Episodic Transportation Controls for AQ

61
SAFETEA - LU

• Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
  Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users
• Authorizes the Federal Surface transportation
  Programs for highways, highway safety, and
  transit for the 5-year period 2005 2009
• Highway (New Core Imperovment Program HSIP)
• SAFETEA-LU Doubles TEA-21 Safety Apportionment
• Strategic Highway Safety Plans
• Set asides
• Reporting

62
SAFETEA - LU

• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• New Core Program
• 5.06 Billion over 4 years (FY06 FY09)
• FY 2006 1,236 M
• FY 2007 1,256 M
• FY 2008 1,276 M
• FY 2009 1,296 M
• Set Asides
• Railway Highway Crossings - 220 Million/Year
• High Risk Rural Roads - 90 Million/Year

63
Pedestrian and BicycleImprovements

• Construct improvements that enhance pedestrian or
  bicyclist safety or safety of the disabled
• Construct a traffic calming feature
• Install and maintain signs (including
  fluorescent, yellow-green signs) at
  pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones

64
Transportation Impacts

• I. Transportation Impacts due to Price Change
• 1. Limited Resources
• 2. Price Impact Elasticity
• II. Impacts Analysis
• 3. Braess Paradox
• 4. Land Use and Transportation
• III. Transportation and Air Quality
• 5. CAAA of 1990 Impact Measurements
• IV. ISTEA/TEA-21
• V. FAFETY-LU
• VI. Environment Impact Statement
• VII. Episodic Transportation Controls for AQ

65
V. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) Sec 102 (2) (C) requires agencies to
prepare a detailed statement of environmental
impacts for major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment. NEPA applies to projects and
federal decisions on programs such as permits,
grants, and loans. The NEPA Process
Significant impact
EA
EIS
FONSI
No significant impact
EA Environmental Assessment FONSI Finding of No
Significant Impact
66
Elements of EIS Preparation
Forecast all environmental impacts of the
proposed action. Impact is defined as the
difference between the future state of the
environment if the action took place and the
state if no action occurred. Identification of
any Adverse Environmental Effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposed action be
implemented. The relationship between local
short-term uses of the environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity (trade-off). Identification of any
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources. Alternatives to the proposed action
(the heart of the EIS). Identification of
mitigation measures Evaluation of alternative
actions from economic, environmental and
engineering viewpoints
67
Problems with NEPAs EIS Implementation
EIS Process often has Limited Influence on
Decisions EISs are often not done for Programs
and Policies Cumulative Impacts are often not
assessed Minimal Requirements to mitigate and
monitor Adverse Effects Insufficient Attention to
Risk Assessment