Least Cost Planning and Least Cost Planning and Least Cost Planning and Least Cost Planning and BackcastingBackcastingBackcastingBackcasting

Presented by Dave MayfieldPresented by Dave Mayfield

Cogan Owens CoganCogan Owens Cogang gg gAugust 2009August 2009

Why a New Planning Why a New Planning Why a New Planning Why a New Planning ApproachApproach

Traditional planning tools won’t Traditional planning tools won’t h l d f d lh l d f d lhelp us meet state and federal help us meet state and federal greenhouse gas reductiongreenhouse gas reductiongreenhouse gas reduction greenhouse gas reduction targets.targets.

New Planning Approach New Planning Approach g ppg ppAlso Addresses:Also Addresses:

Declining transportation dollarsDeclining transportation dollarsDeclining transportation dollarsDeclining transportation dollarsRising energy costsRising energy costsRising energy costsRising energy costsNew transportation technologiesNew transportation technologiesNew transportation technologiesNew transportation technologies

EPA: Climate Change Threatens EPA: Climate Change Threatens ggPublic Health and WelfarePublic Health and Welfare

More heat waves and intense storms More heat waves and intense storms I d d htI d d htIncreased droughtIncreased droughtRising sea levelsRising sea levelsHarm to Harm to

AgricultureAgricultureg cu tu eg cu tu eWater resources Water resources Wildlife and ecosystemsWildlife and ecosystemsWildlife and ecosystemsWildlife and ecosystems

Source: Federal Register 4/24/2009; IPPC

Oregon’s Goal for Oregon’s Goal for ggGreenhouse Gas ReductionGreenhouse Gas Reduction

A t th th f GHG i i dA t th th f GHG i i dArrest the growth of GHG emissions and Arrest the growth of GHG emissions and begin to reduce emissions by 2010begin to reduce emissions by 2010g yg yAchieve GHG levels 10% below 1990 Achieve GHG levels 10% below 1990 levels by 2020levels by 2020levels by 2020levels by 2020Achieve GHG levels at least 75% below Achieve GHG levels at least 75% below 1990 levels by 20501990 levels by 2050

ODOT’s GreenSTEP ModelODOT’s GreenSTEP ModelODOT’s GreenSTEP ModelODOT’s GreenSTEP Model

Tool for statewide strategy on Tool for statewide strategy on meeting GHG targetsmeeting GHG targetsmeeting GHG targets meeting GHG targets Shows that substantial Shows that substantial changes in mobility changes in mobility will be neededwill be needed 4.

5e+1

0

Annual CO2 Equivalent EmissionsDensity Scenarios

will be neededwill be neededin order to meet in order to meet 3.

5e+1

04.

0e+1

0

2 E

quiv

alen

ts

GHG goalsGHG goals2.

5e+1

03.

0e+1

0

Pou

nds

CO

2

Med Lt Veh EffMedLtVehEff &MoreDen

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

2.0e

+10

Year

Med Lt Veh Eff & More DenMed Lt Veh Eff, More Den & More PT

Source: Brian Gregor, ODOT, 2009

GreenSTEP ModelGreenSTEP ModelAnnual CO2 Equivalent Emissions

All Vehicle Efficiency &Fuels Scenarios

GreenSTEP ModelGreenSTEP Model4.

5e+1

0

All Vehicle Efficiency & Fuels Scenarios

104.

0e+1

0

lent

s

e+10

3.5e

+1

ds C

O2

Equ

ival

Blue Zone Indicates Compliance

2.5e

+10

3.0e

Pou

nd

Med Lt Veh EffHigh Lt Veh Eff

Blue Zone Indicates Compliance with Oregon’s GHG Goals

2.0e

+10

2 EV & High Lt Veh EffEV & High All Veh EffEV, High All Veh Eff & Low Carb Fuel

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Year

Source: Brian Gregor, ODOT, 2009

House Bill 2001 Least House Bill 2001 Least Cost PlanningCost PlanningDirects ODOT to create a least cost Directs ODOT to create a least cost planning model to submit to legislatureplanning model to submit to legislatureplanning model to submit to legislature planning model to submit to legislature prior to February 1, 2011.prior to February 1, 2011.Defines LCP as follows:Defines LCP as follows: ““a process ofa process ofDefines LCP as follows: Defines LCP as follows: a process of a process of comparing direct and indirect costs of comparing direct and indirect costs of demand and supply options to meet demand and supply options to meet pp y ppp y ptransportation goals, policies or both, transportation goals, policies or both, where the intent of the process is to identify where the intent of the process is to identify the most costthe most cost--effective mix of optionseffective mix of options.”.”

HB 2001 L t C t Pl iHB 2001 L t C t Pl iHB 2001 Least Cost PlanningHB 2001 Least Cost Planning

“ODOT shall, in consultation with local “ODOT shall, in consultation with local governments and metropolitan planning governments and metropolitan planning organizations, develop a leastorganizations, develop a least--cost cost g , pg , pplanning model for use as a decisionplanning model for use as a decision--making tool in the development of plansmaking tool in the development of plansmaking tool in the development of plans making tool in the development of plans and projects at both the state and and projects at both the state and regional level ”regional level ”regional level.”regional level.”

What is Least Cost What is Least Cost Planning?Planning?

ValuesValues--based:based: Seeks lowest cost to Seeks lowest cost to i t d i ti t d i tsociety and environmentsociety and environment

Alternatives development:Alternatives development: Weighs Weighs pp ggreducing demand equally with increasing reducing demand equally with increasing supplysupplysupplysupplyBenefitBenefit--cost analysis:cost analysis: Includes capital Includes capital costs, external costs and lifecosts, external costs and life--cycle costscycle costs

Does it Work? Experience Does it Work? Experience Does it Work? Experience Does it Work? Experience from the NW Power Industry:from the NW Power Industry:

Reducing demand for energyReducing demand for energyReducing demand for energy Reducing demand for energy Saved Saved more than more than $1.6 billion dollars $1.6 billion dollars in 2007in 2007D d l bD d l b i ii iDropped annual carbon Dropped annual carbon emissions emissions by up to by up to 14 million 14 million tonstonsy py p

Source: NW Power and Conservation Council press release 9/03/09

Least Cost PlanningLeast Cost PlanningLeast Cost PlanningLeast Cost Planning

Broadens range of alternativesBroadens range of alternativesEvaluates alternatives according toEvaluates alternatives according toEvaluates alternatives according to Evaluates alternatives according to stakeholder values stakeholder values Equally considers nonEqually considers non--construction and construction and construction optionsconstruction optionsconstruction optionsconstruction optionsAllows adaptive management and risk Allows adaptive management and risk

ttmanagementmanagementConsiders opportunity costsConsiders opportunity costsCo s de s oppo tu ty costsCo s de s oppo tu ty costs

Least Cost Based on Least Cost Based on What Stakeholders ValueWhat Stakeholders Value

Life cycle costs for Life cycle costs for I f t tI f t tInfrastructureInfrastructureOperation & maintenanceOperation & maintenance

External costs, e.g., External costs, e.g., Auto ownership, insuranceAuto ownership, insurancep,p,

Social and environmentalSocial and environmentalValue not necessarily translated toValue not necessarily translated toValue not necessarily translated to Value not necessarily translated to dollarsdollars

Examples of Mobility Cost Examples of Mobility Cost p yp yand Benefit Measuresand Benefit Measures

Per capitaPer capita Quantity of peopleQuantity of peoplePer capita Per capita VehicleVehicle--milemilePP ilil

Quantity of people Quantity of people servedservedSatisfaction with serviceSatisfaction with servicePassengerPassenger--milemile

Per tripPer trip

Satisfaction with serviceSatisfaction with serviceAccessibility to serviceAccessibility to service

Travel timeTravel timeExposure timeExposure time

Utilization of available Utilization of available capacitycapacityExposure timeExposure time

Selecting Optimal Selecting Optimal AlternativesAlternativesSelecting Optimal Selecting Optimal AlternativesAlternativesHigh Risk/Low CostHigh Risk/Low CostHigh Risk/Low CostHigh Risk/Low Cost

High Risk/High CostHigh Risk/High Cost

Ris

kR

isk

easi

ngea

sing

RR

L Ri k/M d t C tL Ri k/M d t C t

Incr

eIn

cre

Low Risk/Moderate CostLow Risk/Moderate Cost

Increasing CostIncreasing Cost

Existing Laws and Standards Existing Laws and Standards ggLimit LCP OptionsLimit LCP Options

Example: level of service standardsExample: level of service standardsLOS requirements limit lowLOS requirements limit low--cost options cost options Consider deviating from standards where Consider deviating from standards where ggcosts are high relative to benefits costs are high relative to benefits

Planners Study Alternative Planners Study Alternative R t U i LCPR t U i LCPRoutes Using LCPRoutes Using LCP

Source: Quantm Pilot Study Review I-69 Corridor, URS, 2003

Case Study: Puget Sound Case Study: Puget Sound y gy gRegional Council Regional Council LCP StudyLCP Study

One common measure utilized:One common measure utilized:One common measure utilized: One common measure utilized: cost per passengercost per passenger--triptripUsed traditional approach to select Used traditional approach to select projectsprojectsprojectsprojectsRestricted study to new investments Restricted study to new investments to meet new demand; past investment to meet new demand; past investment decisions excludeddecisions excludeddecisions excludeddecisions excluded

Source: PSRC Destination 2030, May 2001

PSRC Measures of Cost PSRC Measures of Cost per New Passenger Tripper New Passenger Trip

Travel time (delay)Travel time (delay) EnvironmentalEnvironmentalPrivate costsPrivate costs

Auto ownershipAuto ownershipVehicle emissionsVehicle emissionsWater pollutionWater pollutionAuto ownership Auto ownership

and operationsand operationsCapitalCapital

ppNoiseNoise

AccidentsAccidentsCapital Capital constructionconstruction

AccidentsAccidents

Operations and Operations and maintenancemaintenancemaintenancemaintenance

PSRC 2030 PassengerPSRC 2030 Passenger--trip trip gg ppCost BreakdownCost Breakdown

Source: PSRC Destination 2030, May 2001

Analysis of PSRC’s 2001 Analysis of PSRC’s 2001 yyLeast Cost PlanLeast Cost Plan

Did not utilize full LCP processDid not utilize full LCP processDid not utilize full LCP processDid not utilize full LCP processBegan with assumption of large increase Began with assumption of large increase

ffin in future demandfuture demandNone of alternatives substantivelyNone of alternatives substantivelyNone of alternatives substantively None of alternatives substantively reduced demand: only 2% difference in reduced demand: only 2% difference in number of trips (above existing)number of trips (above existing)number of trips (above existing) number of trips (above existing)

LCP Le els of ApplicationLCP Le els of ApplicationLCP: Levels of ApplicationLCP: Levels of Application

FederalFederal StateState RegionalRegional&& CountyCounty

City City SubSub--AreaArea ProjectProject

Si l CSi l CSingle Cost Single Cost BCABCA

Life Cycle Life Cycle CostsCosts

Indirect CostsIndirect Costs

Range Range ForecastingForecasting

Adaptive Adaptive Infrastructure Infrastructure PlanningPlanning

Opportunity Opportunity C tC tCostsCosts

D L t C t S t i bl ? D L t C t S t i bl ? Does Least Cost = Sustainable? Does Least Cost = Sustainable?

Sustainable Mobility Using Sustainable Mobility Using y gy gBackcastingBackcasting

Adapted from Looking over the Horizon, Robin Hickman and David Bannister, 2006

ForecastingForecasting BackcastingBackcastingForecastingForecasting

M d l d

BackcastingBackcasting

D fi d i dModel and predict

Define desired outcome

Respond to trends

Make strategic decisions

Adapt, justify Proactively break trendsbreak trends

B k ti A hB k ti A hBackcasting ApproachBackcasting Approach

Define problemDefine problemSet desirable goalSet desirable goalBackcast from the goal to the presentBackcast from the goal to the presentBackcast from the goal to the present, Backcast from the goal to the present, identifying milestones identifying milestones Build scenarios including timing of Build scenarios including timing of actionsactionsDevelop a preferred action plan Develop a preferred action plan

Visioning and Backcasting for Visioning and Backcasting for Transportation (VIBAT) StudyTransportation (VIBAT) Study

Considered over 100 actions in 10 Considered over 100 actions in 10 categories to influence COcategories to influence CO22 emissions:emissions:categories to influence COcategories to influence CO22 emissions:emissions:

••Technical improvementsTechnical improvements ••Traffic managementTraffic management••Infrastructure investmentInfrastructure investment••Telecommunications/ITTelecommunications/IT

••Public informationPublic information••Behavioral patternsBehavioral patterns

••Urban planning Urban planning ••Pricing and taxationPricing and taxation

••Freight managementFreight management••Economic policiesEconomic policies

Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of Pl i U i it C ll f L dPlanning, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group

Example of Example of ppPolicyPolicy--Related ActionRelated Action

Name: Name: Hybrid Technology VehicleHybrid Technology VehicleType:Type: Technological and EconomicalTechnological and EconomicalType: Type: Technological and EconomicalTechnological and EconomicalPreconditions: Preconditions: NoneNoneRelated to Goal:Related to Goal: Reduce total vehicle fleet emissionReduce total vehicle fleet emissionRelated to Goal: Related to Goal: Reduce total vehicle fleet emission Reduce total vehicle fleet emission

and use hybridsand use hybridsEffectiveness:Effectiveness: HighHighEffectiveness: Effectiveness: HighHighUncertainty: Uncertainty: LowLowTimescale of Implementation:Timescale of Implementation: LongLongTimescale of Implementation: Timescale of Implementation: LongLongCost: Cost: MediumMediumRisk Level:Risk Level: LowLow

Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett S h l f Pl i U i itRisk Level: Risk Level: LowLow School of Planning, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group

Actions Proposed under Actions Proposed under Infrastructure InvestmentInfrastructure Investment

Transit improvementsTransit improvementsFare integration andFare integration and

Cycle parking Cycle parking Shuttle servicesShuttle servicesFare integration and Fare integration and

schedule coordinationschedule coordinationIntermodal connectionsIntermodal connections

Shuttle servicesShuttle servicesDemandDemand--responsive responsive servicesservices

Park and ridePark and rideImproved bike/pedestrianImproved bike/pedestrian

Taxi servicesTaxi servicesTraveler informationTraveler informationImproved bike/pedestrian Improved bike/pedestrian

facilitiesfacilitiesCycle/transit integrationCycle/transit integration

Traveler informationTraveler informationImproved rail freightImproved rail freightHigh speed railHigh speed raily gy g High speed railHigh speed rail

Adapted from: VIBAT Bartlett School ofAdapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of Planning, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group

Actions Proposed under Actions Proposed under Behavioral PatternsBehavioral PatternsAlternative work Alternative work schedulesschedules

FlextimeFlextimeChanged travelChanged travelschedulesschedules

Home locationHome locationJ b l tiJ b l ti

Changed travel Changed travel pattern/lifestylepattern/lifestyleG t d idG t d idJob locationJob location

Promotion of local Promotion of local Guaranteed ride Guaranteed ride homehome

destinations and destinations and activity patternsactivity patterns

Telecommuting Telecommuting OnOn--line servicesline services

Locally sourced Locally sourced retailingretailing

Car sharingCar sharinggg

Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of Planning, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group

Backcasting: ScenarioBackcasting: Scenario--BuildingBuildingIdentify Desired Outcome

D ib P t C ditiDescribe Present Conditions

Specify Assumptions

Identify Potential Actions• Policies• Demand Management• Projects

Determine Relationships Between Actions•• Synergies

Timing• Timing • Effectiveness• Accompanying Impacts

Combine Actions into Alternative Scenarios

Determine Relationships Determine Relationships ppof Actions and Pathsof Actions and Paths

Objective: Reduce CarReduce Car Emissions

Increase Car Efficiency

Decrease Car Use

Mix

Car Efficiency Car Use

MixMix

Public Transportation

Electric Vehicle

Lighter Material

Mixed Use Urban Form

MixMix

Least Cost/Backcasting Least Cost/Backcasting ggProcessProcess1.1. Engage stakeholders Engage stakeholders 2.2. Define the desired outcome and Define the desired outcome and potential potential

actionsactions3.3. Establish the system boundariesEstablish the system boundaries44 C ll I f iC ll I f i4.4. Collect InformationCollect Information5.5. Determine relationships of potential actions Determine relationships of potential actions

and buildand build scenariosscenariosand build and build scenariosscenarios6.6. Evaluate the costs and benefitsEvaluate the costs and benefits77 Rank scenariosRank scenarios7.7. Rank scenariosRank scenarios8.8. Evaluate and choose a package of actions to Evaluate and choose a package of actions to

implement and monitorimplement and monitorimplement and monitorimplement and monitor9.9. Adjust implementation based on monitoringAdjust implementation based on monitoring

Barriers to Barriers to ImplementationImplementation

Agreement on sustainable transportationAgreement on sustainable transportationAgreement on sustainable transportation Agreement on sustainable transportation goalsgoalsC t t t d f diC t t t d f diCurrent agency structures and funding Current agency structures and funding Federal and State policy and proceduresFederal and State policy and proceduresp y pp y pMeeting consumer satisfactionMeeting consumer satisfactionI ffi i t t l d hi b tI ffi i t t l d hi b tInsufficient government leadership about Insufficient government leadership about global warming impacts and mitigationglobal warming impacts and mitigation

Contact InformationContact Information

Dave MayfieldCogan Owens Cogang g

dave.mayfield@coganowens.com503 225-0192503 225-0192

Cell Phone: 503-919-0304