Achieving the Core
Performance Objectives
The
performance of the system shown in Table 2 is dramatically different from that described in the
trend forecasts of Table 1. The difference
between these two outcomes must be recognized and underscored. An effective transportation system and a
healthy region requires innovation, a "customer" or
"client" focus, significant investment and a high level of
partnership and cooperation. It will
not occur without hard work.
Specifically, the following outcomes must result from explicit actions
and external events in order to attain the core performance objectives stated
in Table 2:
1. Overall,
increases in daily vehicle travel must be dampened from the trend forecast of 30%
(1996-2015) to approximately one-third to
one-half that level. This can be
accomplished through a combination of actions, including the substitution of
communication for travel, increased carpooling, increased non-auto travel,
shorter trip lengths (due to proximity of activities) and slowing of the
projected growth in the number of cars.
The physical actions in the plan will not be sufficient to accommodate
unconstrained travel while keeping travel times, exposure to congestion and per
capita resource consumption at current levels.
The
Travel Task Force has determined that traffic growth has slowed down and that
overall, year 2000 traffic levels are on target to meet the lower New Visions
travel growth goals, rather than the trend forecasts.[1]
2. The
vehicle fleet must be cleaner, smarter, more fuel efficient and safer than that
of today to complement transportation system actions and help absorb the
effects of the remaining travel increases.
Energy, air quality, safety and other goals depend on technological
improvements as well as the local actions contained in the plan.
If these
outcomes are obtained by the year 2015, the stated system goals can be achieved
for 2015 and maintained through 2021.
Table 2 compares future year 2015 conditions with 1996, and future year
2021 conditions with both 1996 and year 2000.
Note that with respect to a 1996 base year, congestion impacts are more
negative in 2021 than 2015, even with the plan implementation. This is because the expected growth in
travel from 2015 to 2021 will lead to an increase in congestion. However, when 2021 congestion is measured
against year 2000 congestion, the comparison is more favorable than comparing
congestion between 1996 and 2015. The
reason is that congestion has grown from 1996 to 2000.
Although
the performance measures are a mix of positive and negative, the greater
emphasis on community aspects, economic development, and quality of life more
than compensates for negative movement in the congestion measure between 2015
and 2021. Experience with
implementation of New Visions at the project level, and public comments
received have indicated a willingness of the public to make trade offs among
multiple objectives. In particular, the
public seems willing to accept congestion if improvements in other performance
measures can be achieved. For example,
although congestion has worsened between 1996 and 2000 in the Capital District,
surveys cited earlier in this document indicated that the public does not view
addressing congestion as the highest transportation priority.
Given
current assumptions, continuation of growth in travel and congestion can be
expected beyond 2021, even with full plan implementation. However, phase 2 of the plan update effort
will more closely examine the assumptions used in travel forecasting and
explore the possibility that emerging and expected changes in technology and
demographics will change future travel behavior and what the implications of
these changes should be for the plan.
CDTC's monetary transportation cost model indicates that these two outcomes allow the region to
accommodate increased population, vehicles, regional economic activity and
travel while lowering the per capita private, public and social cost of the
transportation system. At the same
time, we can lower pollution, save energy, and lower the total societal cost of
accidents (crashes) from 1996 levels.
A system-level estimate of the monetary costs of the Capital District
transportation system in 1996 and under the New
Visions plan in 2015 is shown in Table 3.
Table 3:
Annual Monetary Costs of the Capital
District Transportation System[2]
|
|
1996 Base |
2015 Plan Comparable Progress Steady-state
Budget |
2015 Plan Full Implementation |
|
Primary Users: vehicle ownership, vehicle operation, parking, user share of accident
costs, commercial time in travel, commercial congestion expense, fares,
tolls, and user taxes and fees for highway and transit infrastructure and
operations. |
$2,100 M |
$2,549 M |
$2,340 M |
|
Governmental expenses: general taxes to cover the government's share
of accident costs, general taxes for highway and transit infrastructure and
operations, transportation-related police, fire and criminal justice systems. |
$289 M |
$323 M |
$285 M |
|
Societal expenses: provision of parking for work trips and
commercial activity, societal share of accident costs, regional and global
air pollution, vibration damage, water quality damage, waste disposal and
costs related to energy supply security and trade balance effects. |
$596 M |
$656 M |
$580 M |
|
Total monetary costs |
$2,990 M |
$3,528 M |
$3,205 M |
|
Monetary cost per capita |
$3,730 |
$4,089 |
$3,715 |
All
costs shown in 1996 dollars.