Capital District                                                                                                      March 2, 2004

Transportation Committee

 

 

Expanded Mission Statement for Working Group A:

Effects of Alternative Growth and Development Scenarios

 

 

Basic Charge

 

The charge is to guide the preparation of a technical report, “Effects of Alternative Growth and Development Scenarios”.  The technical work will involve building from CDRPC’s 2040 projections, showing alternative higher and lower growth levels and differing development patterns and articulating both quantitative and qualitative issues.  This will primarily be a “what if” exercise.  Some modeling of user costs, social /environmental costs, etc. will be involved.  Efforts will be made to coordinate the Center for Economic Growth’s intended development modeling effort with Working Group A’s activities.

 

Work to Date

 

In cooperation with the CDTC, CDRPC is completing baseline forecasts of households and population by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) through the year 2040.  The Quality Region Task Force has reviewed and discussed some of this material.  These forecasts represent CDRPC’s best calculation regarding natural population change, net migration and the impacts of an aging society.  A key feature of the CDRPC forecasts is that they are relatively more optimistic about the economic prospects for this region than most national forecasts, such as those prepared by Cornell University.  They also are relatively more optimistic about the ability of the region’s older cities to retain population and economic activity than trends would indicate.  They can be viewed as a middle-ground baseline for examining changes to transportation service and quality of life concerns between now and 2030.

 

In a separate study completed in 1999, CDRPC documented the location, quantity and form of new suburban growth in the region. The analysis was based on a computerized (GIS) comparison of Landsat satellite imagery from 1986 to 1997. In addition to the mapped data, numerous digital photos of the new development were captured.

 

New Work Proposed 

 

The working group will assist CDRPC and CDTC staff in constructing alternative, defensible scenarios related to economic growth and settlement patterns in the Capital Region.  To keep the work manageable, four scenarios are proposed for consideration as alternative futures to the baseline forecast.  They are represented in terms of their growth characteristics (either high or low) and settlement patterns (either traditional or trend).

 

High growth might represent the successful fruition of state, regional and local economic development efforts in the high tech area, coupled with growth in tourism and preservation of existing core industries in the region.  Net in migration would be significant.  Low growth would represent minimal success in those efforts coupled with continued erosion in traditional industry sectors.  Outmigration would be reflected in this setting.  The baseline economic forecast lies between these two alternative economic forecasts.

 

Traditional settlement patterns would be characterized by success with urban reinvestment and increased community structure in suburban areas.  Trend patterns would be characterized by spotty success with reinvestment and considerably greater prevalence of disconnected site development than structured growth in suburbs.  The baseline settlement pattern lies between these two alternative settlement patterns.

 

Discussion of the impacts (good and bad) of the four alternative scenarios (low traditional, low trend, high traditional and high trend) will reference the expected performance of the baseline scenario for comparison.

 

The four alternative scenarios can be viewed as follows, relative to the baseline future.  The scenarios will be created by using “what if” assumptions.  The high economic growth scenarios may also lend themselves to refinement through the use of commercially-available economic policy models (such as REMI Policy Insight), if time and resources permit.[1]  A model would enhance the credibility of a scenario’s representation of economic multiplier effects and “economies of agglomeration” (the tendency for like firms to locate in proximity to each other) resulting from high tech investment.  Use of a model would not increase the accuracy of forecasts or affect the evaluation of the transportation and quality of life impacts, however.

 

Figure 1.

Alternative Future Scenarios

 

 

 

 

 


Policy Model (optional)
 

 

 


High economic growth and trend settlement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Evaluation of Impacts

 

Description and evaluation of the impacts of the scenarios will be both written and tabular, quantitative and qualitative.  The primary criteria will be the established New Visions performance measures, with supplemental measures and discussions as appropriate.  Measures listed in red in the performance measures list (Figure 2) have been added to or modified from the measures used in preparing the 1997 New Visions plan.

 

Quantification will be possible for many of the measures listed in Figure 2 using CDTC’s established methodology.  Qualitative discussion will be used where quantification is not feasible.

 

Presentation of Conclusions

 

In addition to providing technical evaluation of the scenarios, the product of the exercise will be a presentation of conclusions.  Following the New Visions practice, this will include a discussion of principles and actions that the working group believes to represent a likely regional consensus.  It will also identify major policy questions facing the region for which the working group cannot assume to state a likely regional consensus position.

 

 

Schedule

 

 

The five working groups are on a tight schedule to provide technical and policy input to the New Visions 2030 process.  The suggested schedule for Working Group A is shown below.

 

March – April 2004                            Establish working group, agree on work program

April – May 2004                               Agree on general values for scenarios

May – June 2004                                 Flesh out scenarios at regional, local level

June – September 2004                       Evaluate and document performance of scenarios

September – October 2004                 Complete documentation of conclusions for broader review and dialogue.

 

FIGURE 2.

 

CORE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES

 

Transportation Service

 

Access:                                What travel alternatives exist?  (Measure:  Pct. of person trips within a defined non-auto (walk, bike, transit) to auto difference[i]; pct. of person trips with a travel time advantage for non-drive-alone modes (including carpools); number or percentage of major freight movements with modal alternatives[ii])

 

Accessibility:                     How much time does travel take?  (Measures:  travel time between representative locations, including major intermodal facilities; peak vs. non-peak, by quickest mode)

 

Congestion:                        What is the level of exposure to traffic congestion?  (Measures:  hours of excess delay: recurring, non-recurring by mode [auto, transit, freight, bike, pedestrian] per unit of travel [iii])

 

Flexibility:                          Can the system respond to unexpected conditions?  (Measures:  reserve capacity on system[iv]; pct. of person trips that could be accommodated by modes other than auto in an emergency[v]; number of corridors with reasonable alternatives during closure or disruption[vi]; amount of risk associated with fixed capacity investment[vii])

 

Resource Requirements

 

Safety:                                 What are the safety costs associated with transportation?  (Measure: estimated societal cost of transport. accidents)

 

Energy:                                How much energy is consumed and greenhouse gas emissions produced in providing, maintaining and using the transportation system?  (Measure:  equivalent BTUs/day, tons of CO2 emissions for transp. capital, maintenance, operation and use)

 

Economic Cost:                 How much does the transportation system and its use cost, in addition to safety and energy costs?  (Measures: annualized capital, maintenance, operating and [monetary] user costs for transp. system; value of commercial time in travel)

 

External Effects

 

Air Quality:                         What is the effect of the transportation system and settlement pattern on air quality?  (Measures:  daily emission levels (HC and NOx); air quality attainment status)

 

Land Use:                            How does the transportation system and settlement pattern affect land consumption and community life?  (Measures:  amount of land consumption, amount of remaining open space; dislocation of existing residences and businesses; land use - transportation compatibility index[viii]; community character[ix])

 

Environmental:                   How does the transportation system and settlement pattern affect key environmental features?  (Measures:  impacts on sensitive areas [wetlands, parklands, historic areas, archaeological sites, etc.); noise exposure [x]])

 

Economic:                          How does the transportation system and settlement pattern support the economic health of the region? (Measures:  narrative discussion of economic-activity supporting or constraining features of transportation system and quality of life).

 

Social                                  How does the transportation system and settlement pattern affect civil right? (Measures:  disparity in the impact of benefits and disbenefits of the transportation system; access to opportunity.

 

 


[1]   The Center for Economic Growth has proposed the development or acquisition of a regional economic model for quantification of the growth potential from high tech investment.  The CEG effort could be integrated with the work of working group A, or could be a further refinement of the products of working group A, depending on timing.


FIGURE 2 (cont.)

Footnotes

 

[i]       Maximum acceptable time difference is 15 minutes; up to 20 minutes for longer trips;  values may be summarized by sub-region (central cities, inner suburbs, outer suburbs, small cities and villages, rural areas).

 

[ii]      While choice of mode for freight movement is largely decided by cost factors, availability of alternative modes is a measure of access.

 

[iii]     Person hours used for all values except for truck traffic, for which vehicle hours is more relevant.

 

[iv]     Reserve capacity is defined by corridor and is modally-weighted.

 

[v]      Maximum value derived from access value (see footnote 1), further constrained by non-auto system capacity (bus capacity, etc.).

 

[vi]     Reasonable alternatives for personal travel during closure or disruption of a highway facility would include transit (if on a separate right-of-way) or parallel highway facilities; reasonable alternatives for freight primarily include parallel highway facilities within a few miles' distance.  Modal alternatives for freight are best captured under access measures (see footnote 1.)

 

[vii]    Risk is defined as the "opportunity cost" of over-investing or under-investing in a capital project if projections of conditions prove incorrect.  Examples would include loss of rights-of-way that become needed in the future; construction of fixed highway or transit capacity predicated on future demand that does not materialize; construction of facilities at conservative scales that turn out to be under-sized.

 

[viii]    Index is primarily based on levels of traffic or other transportation intrusion in residential areas, defined as daily traffic divided by average residential driveway spacing.  Also includes a measure of compatibility between arterial function and local access function, defined as daily traffic divided by average commercial driveway spacing.

 

[ix]      Community character is a quantitative and qualitative measure of consistency between future levels of activity in and character of a community and the general levels of activity and type of character desired by the community.  That is, a degradation of activity in the city of Schenectady would represent a decline in the "community character index".

 

[x]      Measure is primarily based on  dBa and number of households in areas in which dBa exceeds accepted thresholds.