HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Scenario Planning Update AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/3/2014
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Len Goodwin/DPW Staff Phone No: (541)726-3685
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE: SCENARIO PLANNING UPDATE
ACTION REQUESTED: This item is for information only.
ISSUE STATEMENT: Staff have been working with regional partners to implement the scenario planning requirement imposed by the State Legislative Assembly in the Jobs and
Transportation Act of 2009. That work has produced a reference case based on
current planning assumptions. Staff will review the results and discuss next steps with the Council.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum
2. Reference Case Report 3. Slide Presentation
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Staff, working with our regional partners, and with the support of Kristin Hull, of
CH2M Hill as project manager, have continued the work required to comply with the state’s legislative mandate to prepare alternative scenarios for future growth to meet greenhouse reduction targets. As Council knows, the Metropolitan Planning
Organization is required to conduct this work, and the cities of Springfield, Eugene, and Coburg, and Lane County are obliged to cooperatively select a preferred
scenario. At present, there is no obligation to implement any scenario. This work is
being funded by the Oregon Department of Transportation, as require by the Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009. Staff of the MPO have completed a first phase of
the work, which is an estimate of the effect of continuing current planning
assumptions (such as those contemplated by the draft Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and similar planning efforts by Eugene, Coburg and Lane
County). This reference case will serve as the baseline for further scenario planning efforts designed to create options which each jurisdiction may choose to incorporate into the cooperatively selected scenario.
Although that estimate documents a reduction in greenhouse gases, at this stage it does not appear to document a reduction large enough to permit the region to
conclude that it will meet the legislative requirement without additional action. Staff, accompanied by Ms. Hull, will review the results of the reference case. Staff
will also discuss the various alternatives for further conversations about reduction
methods, and the approach to assuring that there is effective public involvement as the process continues.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 3/3/2014
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
To: Gino Grimaldi
From: Len Goodwin, DPW Director
Kristin Hull, Project Manager
Subject: SCENARIO PLANNING UPDATE
ISSUE: Staff have been working with regional partners to implement the scenario
planning requirement imposed by the State Legislative Assembly in the Jobs and
Transportation Act of 2009. That work has produced a reference case based on current
planning assumptions. Staff will review the results and discuss next steps with the
Council.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Council Goals: Mandate
Springfield is required, under the provisions of the Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009
to engage, with its regional partners, in the cooperative selection of a preferred scenario
for addressing statutorily mandated reductions in certain emissions.
BACKGROUND:
Overview
In 2009, the Oregon Legislature passed the Jobs and Transportation Act. This legislation
directs the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to undertake
scenario planning and for the local governments in central Lane County to cooperatively
select a preferred land use and transportation scenario. The state set a greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions reduction target of 20% for the MPO; while this target must be
considered in the scenario planning process, the final selected scenario is not required to
meet this target. A project management team (PMT) consisting of representatives of all
the partner governments is providing oversight for the process. The PMT consists of
Carolyn Burke, Eugene; Len Goodwin, Springfield; Petra Schuetz, Coburg; Lydia
McKinney, Lane County; Paul Thompson; MPO; Savannah Crawford, ODOT; and Tom
Schwetz, LTD. LCOG and consultant staff are providing technical support for the
project.
What is scenario planning?
Over the next twenty years, our communities are likely to welcome more than 64,000
new residents. Plans like those currently being developed in the region – Envision
Eugene, Springfield 2030, and Coburg Crossroads – establish a local vision for how our
communities will accommodate new residents and jobs.
Scenario planning is a process for considering a range of plausible futures and allows us
to examine how different choices would affect our region. Scenario planning also lets us
Attachment 1 - 1
compare these various futures based on a wide range of community goals, from how
much each of us will drive, walk, bike, and take transit, to how clean our air will be, to
how much our households will spend on housing and transportation.
Participants
The cities of Coburg, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, the Lane Council of
Governments, and the Lane Transit District are all participating in the process.
Schedule
Phase 1 of the process will be complete in February 2014. Phase 2, which includes
scenario development, evaluation, and selection, will be complete by spring 2015.
Scenario planning outcomes
At the end of the process, the local government partners will cooperatively select a
preferred transportation and land use scenario. The preferred scenario will likely contain
a range of policies and strategies that reduce GHG emissions and also produce a range
of “co-benefits” – benefits like improved public health and greater economic prosperity
– that would result from the preferred scenario policies. Each jurisdiction will select
either individual or regional actions which will combine to make up the preferred
scenario. The local government partners are not required to implement the preferred
scenario.
•Understand existing policies
•Develop evaluation measures
•Determine baseline for comparison
Step 1:
Understand
•Develop alternative scenarios
•Evaluate and compare Step 2:
Test and learn
•Refine scenarios
•Tailor individual choices for each jurisdiction
•Cooperatively select a preferred
scenario
Step 3: Refine
and select
Fa
l
l
20
1
3
Wi
n
t
e
r
/
s
p
r
i
n
g
20
1
4
Su
m
m
e
r
/
f
a
l
l
20
1
4
Attachment 1 - 2
Work accomplished to date (phase 1)
- Reference scenario – a baseline for comparison: the project team developed
and tested a “reference scenario” which provides a baseline against which
alternative scenarios can be compared. The reference scenario approximates the
future if current plans and policies are carried out.
- Evaluation criteria: the project team developed a set of criteria that will be
used to evaluate alternative scenarios. Evaluation criteria categories include
Economy and Prosperity, Air Quality, Feasibility, and others.
- Scenario development methodology: the team prepared a method, described
below, for developing and evaluating scenarios that will be used in the next
phase of work.
- Equity framework: an important project goal is to ensure that communities of
concern – people who are elderly, disabled, low-income, or are members of a
minority community – are engaged in the development, evaluation and
refinement of scenarios. An Equity Technical Advisory Committee spent two
sessions defining how equity considerations can be incorporated into the scenario
planning process.
- Model testing: staff at LCOG used the state’s Metropolitan GreenSTEP, a
strategic analysis model, to quickly test the effects of transportation and land use
scenarios on greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, the
GreenSTEP model produces more than 70 indicators that can be used to evaluate
other benefits and impacts associated with scenarios including vehicle miles
traveled by bike, household fuel costs, and local gas tax revenues.
This work sets the stage for developing, evaluating, and selecting a preferred scenario in
phase 2 of the project.
Scenario development, evaluation and selection (phase 2)
The scenario planning process will include three more major steps: develop and evaluate
scenarios, refine a single scenario and select a preferred scenario. The final step of the
scenario planning process will be for the local governments in the Eugene-Springfield
area to cooperatively select a preferred scenario. While the local governments are
required to cooperatively select a preferred scenario, they are not required to implement
it.
At each step, the Project Management Team (PMT) will, based on direction from the
elected officials, make decisions about how to move forward. Most immediately in
Springfield, staff will ask the Council to review the reference case assumptions in
Attachment 2, Pages 1-3, and direct staff as to which of those staff should prepare
alternative assumptions. Many of the opportunities are straightforward. For example,
Council could direct staff to develop alternative assumptions for the level of the local
fuel tax or the cost of local parking. Similarly Council could direct staff to explore the
impact of changed assumptions about any of the marketing and incentive assumptions,
Attachment 1 - 3
or could ask staff to explore the impact of transit or pedestrian oriented Systems
Development Charge incentives. Some of these changed assumptions could lead to
further study of the impact of these incentives on assumptions about the transportation
system. More complex assumptions could involve exploring changes to the various
assumptions about land use. Council may also wish staff to explore assumptions which
are not presently used in the reference case. (The assumption about SDC incentives is
one such idea).
In examining the reference case assumptions, it is important to keep in mind that the
assumptions have been normalized to a regional level where appropriate. For example,
council will note that the reference case assumption for local fuel taxes is 4 cents. This
represents a mathematical weighted average of the local fuels taxes imposed separately
by Springfield and Eugene. Where council to direct staff to explore the impact of a local
fuel tax in Springfield the result would be state as the result of constructing a new
average tax based upon the direction from Springfield, Eugene, and, perhaps, Coburg.
In evaluating new assumptions, or changes to existing assumptions, staff will do
sensitivity testing to determine the impact that the level of change in the assumptions
have on the results, and provide that information so that Council can provide direction
on the level of change that should be considered. It is very likely the case that some
changes in the assumptions may produce insignificant changes in the results while other
changes may have larger impacts.
The PMT will consult with elected officials and the public in making interim decisions
to direct the scenario planning process. This can mean that the Council will have
opportunities to revisit assumption changes on a number of occasions. The Eugene City
Council, Springfield City Council, Coburg City Council, and Lane County Board of
Commissioners will be ultimately responsible for selecting the elements which make up
the preferred scenario.
The public will be invited to participate at each step of the process. The project team
will host four public workshops at key milestones, regularly update a project website
(www.clscenarioplanning.org), and create factsheets to inform and engage the
community in the development and evaluation of scenarios.
Develop and evaluate scenarios
In every step of this process, the project team will act based upon direction received
from the governing bodies of each of the jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction will make its
own decision as to the level of direct involvement by the governing body. To develop
scenarios, the team will first agree on distinct scenario themes. Examples of themes are
shown in the slide presentation and include marketing and incentive programs, pricing,
and community design. Next, the team will populate those themes with specific policies
that are likely to meet the greenhouse gas reduction target as well as meeting health,
equity and economic development goals. Based on direction from the governing bodies,
the PMT will choose a set of actions combined into a scenario to advance to the next
Attachment 1 - 4
step using information from GreenSTEP and other evaluation tools.
Refine scenario
PMT will define realistic implementing actions, refine policies where necessary, and
adjust the set of actions comprising the scenario as needed, based on input from the
governing bodies. Using additional evaluation, the PMT will move toward
recommendation of a set of individual and regional actions comprising a preferred
scenario.
Select a preferred scenario
Once the PMT identifies a recommended preferred scenario the technical team will
complete a final evaluation of that scenario to support documentation of the expected
impacts and benefits associated with the preferred scenario. This scenario will be
presented to the Springfield City Council, Eugene City Council, Coburg City Council
and the Lane County Board of Commissioners to meet the legislative mandate to
cooperatively select a preferred scenario. The local governments are only required to
select a preferred scenario; they are not required to implement it.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required at this time. However, Council
may choose to discuss the assumptions and give staff direction, particularly with respect
to assumptions it does not wished to see changed in evaluating new scenarios, or
directed staff to return with sensitivity data on some or all of the existing assumptions,
or any new assumptions Council wishes evaluate. Example, staff would recommend that
Council direct staff to evaluate the impact of SDC transit, bicycle and pedestrian
incentives, increases in local fuel taxes, imposition of a street transportation system
maintenance fee, and increases in the cost of parking. In the absence of contrary
direction, staff will perform sensitivity testing on all of these alternatives and on the
marketing incentives described in Attachment 2 and return to Council to review that
analysis and solicit further direction from council on which alternatives to continue to
explore. At any time, Council should feel free to suggest further alternatives for staff to
explore.
Attachment 1 - 5
February 27, 2014 (updated)
CENTRAL LANE SCENARIO PLANNING
Reference Case Results and Assumptions
Kristin Hull, CH2M HILL
Josh Roll, Central Lane MPO
Introduction
In 2009, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2001, the Jobs and Transportation Act (JTA).
Section 38a of the JTA directs the Central Lane MPO to undertake scenario planning, and for the
local governments in Central Lane MPO boundary to cooperatively select a preferred land use
and transportation scenario. The local governments – the cities of Springfield, Eugene and
Coburg, Lane County and the Lane Transit District – are working together to develop and
evaluate scenarios to fulfill this requirement while testing strategies to address local economic
development, public health and equity goals.
As an early step in the scenario planning process, the local governments have established a 2035
reference scenario. The reference scenario is the baseline to which alternative scenarios are
compared; it approximates the future if current policy direction is carried out without significant
changes. The reference case represents our best assumptions about how current policy
direction could be implemented over the next 25 years. This memo outlines the assumptions
that underlie the reference scenario and document the Metropolitan GreenSTEP outputs for the
reference scenario. This work forms the baseline against which alternative future scenarios will
be compared.
2035 reference scenario assumptions
Land use assumptions
• Envision Eugene and Springfield 2030 are adopted and implemented without major
changes.
• 2010 Coburg Urbanization Study is implemented without major changes.
The reference scenario generally reflects current policy direction. Since Eugene, Springfield and
Coburg are in the process of developing new land use plans, the reference scenario reflects
current policy direction contained in those emerging plans.
Population and household assumptions
Attacment 2 - 1
• Between 2010 and 2035, the population within the Central Lane MPO boundary is
forecast to increase by nearly 64,000 residents. This assumption is based on state
population forecasts and is provided to the region by state officials.
• Housing and land area supply is based on current policy direction. For 2035, households
are matched to dwelling unit types based on reasonable assumptions about socio-
demographic characteristics.
• Metropolitan GreenSTEP travel behavior estimates do not rely explicitly on the location
of new employment areas, but the location of employment does affect population
density and land uses. Land use assumptions are based on current policy direction.
• Household size is assumed to be the same as in 2010.
Pricing assumptions
• Federal gas tax is 18 cents per gallon – the same as today.
• State gas tax per gallon is 24 cents in 2005 and 2010, and 30 cents in 2035.
• Local gas tax is 4 cents per gallon.
• The average daily cost of parking is approximately $3.00 in 2035, slightly lower than in
2005.
• Locations with paid parking are limited to downtown Eugene and the University of
Oregon in 2005 but expand to Springfield in 2035. The cost for parking in downtown
Springfield is assumed to be half the cost to park in downtown Eugene.
• Zero households participate in pay-as-you-drive insurance, and the state does not have a
vehicle miles traveled tax or carbon tax.
Marketing and incentive assumptions
• Participation in employer-based commute options programs stays the same as it is in
2005
• Participation in individualized trip reduction marketing increases slightly in Eugene,
Springfield, and Coburg.
• Participation in individualized car sharing stays the same as it is today.
Fleet and technology assumptions1
• The region’s auto and light truck fleet mix changes, with more people driving passenger
cars and fewer driving light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) than today.
1 Reference case is consistent with assumptions included in OAR 660-044.
Attacment 2 - 2
• The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (as proposed by the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality) is adopted; carbon intensity of fuels will decline by 20 percent below today’s
average.
• For model year 2035, autos with internal combustion engines (ICE) reach fuel efficiency
of 68 mpg while light trucks and SUVs reach 48 mpg.
• For model year 2035, plug in hybrid electric (PHEV) or electric vehicles (EV) comprise 8%
of all autos and 2% of light trucks and SUVs. Of those vehicles, 26% of autos and 26% of
light trucks and SUVs are electric vehicles (EV).
Transportation system assumptions
• The roadway system is relatively similar to today with minor increases in lane miles for
freeways and arterials in Coburg and Springfield. Because the Eugene TSP is still in
progress, the results do not reflect any changes in lane miles in Eugene. The
Metropolitan GreenSTEP model is not detailed enough to capture changes to
intersections, collector streets or pedestrian and bicycle network improvements.
• The transit system expands to include 5 bus rapid transit lines as detailed in the
Regionally Adopted Transportation Plan. These lines include the West Eugene, River
Road, Highway 99W, Main Street/McVay, and Lane Community College lines. In total,
transit service grows from 12 revenue miles per capita to 18 revenue miles per capita
with a total of more than 5.4 million revenue miles in the region in 2035.
• Twice as many miles travel by bike in the region as compared to today.
2035 reference scenario outputs
The Central Lane MPO analyzed the changes expected between 2010 and the 2035 reference
scenario using Metropolitan GreenSTEP. The results are presented below.
Category Measure 2010 2035 2035
(% change compared
to 2010)
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Per capita greenhouse gas
emissions from light vehicles
including reductions from fleet
changes (metric tons) 3.47
1.32 -62%
Fuel
Consumption
Annual per capita fuel
consumption (gallons) 339
150 -56%
Travel and
System
Performance
Daily vehicles miles traveled per
capita 21.7
22.2 3%
Annual vehicle delay per capita
(hours) 30
37 23%
Transit revenue miles per capita 12.8 17.9 40%
Active Travel
Per capita annual walk trips 120 123 3%
Daily miles traveled by bicycle
per capita 0.27
0.53 153%
Attacment 2 - 3
Category Measure 2010 2035 2035
(% change compared
to 2010)
Land Use and
Natural
Resources
UGB area (acres) 49,737 52,858 6%
Households living in mixed use
areas (%) 12.9%
14.4% 12%
Per capita water use (gallons) 256 219 -14%
Taxes, Fees and
Expenses
Annual household fuel costs
(per capita) $1,863
$1,866 0%
Annual household vehicle
operating costs (fuel, taxes,
parking) $2,383
$2,208 -7%
Annual vehicle ownership and
maintenance expenses $5,521
$6,485 17%
Annual local gas tax revenue $4.18 million
$2.38
million -43%
Public Health
Clean Air Act criteria pollutants
(Metric Tons) 61
25 -59%
See active travel for additional public health indicators.
Other External social costs per capita2 $446 $327 -27%
Note: All dollar values use $2005 dollars.
Because of uncertainties about future land use plans in the region, several minor variations in
land use were tested to confirm that outputs were consistent. Through this work, it has been
confirmed that using Metropolitan GreenSTEP, a strategic analysis model, these minor variations
in UGB expansion or local development patterns do not significantly change overall light vehicle
travel or derived emissions at the regional level.
Greenhouse gas reduction targets
In May 2011, The Land Conservation and Development Commission (DLCD) adopted a per capita
roadway greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for light-duty vehicles for all six
metropolitan areas3. The target for the Central Lane MPO area is 20% reduction over 2005
levels. This 20% target should be considered without accounting for fleet and technology
changes. The region is not required to meet this target through scenario planning, but is
required to consider it.
When fleet and vehicle changes are excluded, the reference scenario shows a 3% decrease in
greenhouse gas emissions as compared to 2005. This forecast of greenhouse gas emissions
includes both commercial and household light duty vehicles. Because of the method of
2 External costs include, air pollution, other environmental resources, safety, noise, climate change, energy
security. Source: White paper: Costs of Motor vehicle Travel – Cambridge Systematics. 3 http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/rulemaking/trac/660_044.pdf
Attacment 2 - 4
calculation, this scenario cannot be directly compared to the reference scenario described
above.
Lessons learned
The Metropolitan GreenSTEP outputs show that the region is making progress in many areas
based on current policy direction. Under current policy direction, the region’s greenhouse gas
emissions from light vehicles decreases by 3% from 2005 levels when fleet and technology
changes are not included. If fleet and technology changes are included, the reduction is more
than 60%.
Under the reference case, biking and walking increase, and air pollution and fuel consumption
decrease. While vehicle ownership and maintenance costs increase, vehicle operations costs for
households decrease. Per capita vehicle miles traveled and delay increase on the transportation
system.
Based on input from the TAC and PMT, the project team will test variations of the reference case
to better understand how different inputs affect the Metropolitan GreenSTEP indicators. This
sensitivity testing will answer questions about how changing individual and bundled inputs
affects key indicators and will influence the development of alternative scenarios. During this
sensitivity testing step, the project team will explore what inputs are contributing to the
performance on individual indicators like greenhouse gas emission reduction.
Attacment 2 - 5
GreenSTEP Inputs and Results Review
Marketing and Incentives:
Individualized Marketing (IM) Program
Individualized marketing (IM) programs are travel demand management
programs focused on individual households. IM programs involve
individualized outreach to households that identify household travel needs
and ways to meet those needs with less vehicle travel.
Individual marketing program target goal
(percent) by District Base Year - 2005 Base Year - 2010 2035 Reference case - Level
1
Coburg 0% 0% 1%
Eugene 0.2% 0.8% 1%
Springfield 0% 0% 1%
VMT Reduction from IM Program
GreenSTEP * 9%
2005 ODOT
Administered
Program 7%
*Cambridge Systematics, “Moving Cooler”, Urban Land Institute,
Washington, D.C., 2009, Technical Appendix, Table 5.13, p. B-54.
Year City Neighborhood
Number of
Hhs
Hhs Receiving
IMP Forms
Participating
Hhs
Participation
Rate
Total Hh
Participation Rate
(GS Input)
2005 Eugene NA 76,100 1,200 150 12.5% 0.2%
2010 Eugene Harlow 79,671 5,200 652 12.5% 0.8%
2035 Region NA 136,715 NA 1,367 NA 1%
Marketing and Incentives:
Individualized Marketing (IM) Program
Marketing and Incentives:
Employee Commute Options (ECO) programs
Employee commute options (ECO) programs are work-based travel demand
management programs. They may include transportation coordinators,
employer-subsidized transit passes, bicycle parking, showers for bicycling
commuters, education and promotion, carpool and vanpool programs, etc.
*From Lockwood Research 2008 Group Pass Survey Report "Over one-
fourth of the sample (28%) rode the bus for their average work commute
in 2008" - Assume linear growth from 2003 to 2008 at roughly 1% a year
**Cambridge Systematics, “Moving Cooler”, Urban Land Institute,
Washington, D.C., 2009, Technical Appendix, Table 5.13, p. B-54.
VMT Reduction from ECO
Program
GreenSTEP ** 5.4%
Year Utilization rate
Number of
Passes
Group Pass
Estimated Usage
Total Employees in
Region Participation Rate
2006 26% 14,495
3,769 126,469 3.0%
2010 28% 10,260
2,873 116,561 2.5%
2035 28% 17,642
4,940
164,654 3.0%
Pricing:
Parking
Parking pricing is a trip-based cost, commonly paid for at one or both ends of a
trip, and sometimes paid for on a monthly basis. The standard practice for
handling parking pricing in urban travel models is to include it in the trip costs
for auto travel. That is what is done in the GreenSTEP model system, but in a
more general way. Average daily parking costs are calculated for each
household and added with other variable costs.
Average Daily Parking Price
Year Average Daily Price 2005 $$
2005 $ 2.93
2010 $ 3.19
2035 $ 2.74
Proportion of Trips by Purpose by Destination
Work Non-Work
Destination 2011 2035 2011 2035
Eugene CBD 4.7% 4.1% 2.7% 2.7%
Eugene UO TAZs 2.4% 2.2% 2.1% 2.3%
Springfield CBD 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2%
Regional 7.5% 6.7% 5.0% 5.2%
Total Trips 279,864 356,783 528,817 660,298
Average Daily Cost by Destination by Trip Purpose (2005$$)
2005 2010 2035
Destination Work Non-work Work Non-work Work Non-work
Eugene CBD $ 2.15 $ 5.54 $ 2.07 $ 5.34 $1.93 $ 4.98
Eugene UO TAZs $ 0.93 $ 0.93 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $1.65 $ 1.65
Springfield CBD $ - $ - $ - $ - $0.97 $ 2.49
Community Design:
Mixed Use
Mixed use areas typically have more neighborhood-level mixing of different
uses, a grid-based street system with greater connectivity, greater
pedestrian accessibility and sidewalk orientation of land uses, and greater
transit accessibility.
Community Design:
Mixed Use
Community Design:
Transit Revenue Miles
Transit revenue miles impact both the vehicle ownership and daily travel
components of GreenSTEP. Only transit revenue miles within the MPO
boundary (urban transit miles) are considered.
*Vehicle ownership and daily travel are calculated based on a number of inputs including household
income, size, age of householders, mixed use designation, freeway and arterial lane supply, population
density, and others.
Transit Revenue Miles
•2 scenarios
•No new BRT
•BRT Expansion of fiscally constrained RTP plans
•West Eugene
•River Road
•Highway 99W
•Main Street McVay
•Lane Community College
*Vehicle ownership and daily travel are calculated based on a number of inputs including household
income, size, age of householders, mixed use designation, freeway and arterial lane supply, population
density, and others.
Scenario 2005 2035-Ref1 2035-Ref2
Revenue Miles Input 2,838,695 4,312,670 5,400,000
BRT Miles Franklin/Gateway Franklin/Gateway 1,087,330
Population 236,454 308,826 308,826
Revenue Miles Per Capita 12 14 18
Per Capita GHG Emissions 3.61 1.34 1.32
Per Capita GHG Emissions Reduction % NA -1% -3%
Alternative Results
2035 Policy Only Results Relative to
Year
Pe
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
M
T
C
O
2
e
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2% Increas
3% Increase
3% Decrea20% Decrease (Rule Target)
Reference
No Transit
No Transit, 2010 Bike Levels
Target