SANDAG TRANSPORTATION MODEL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND … · 2011. 7. 31. · Draft 2050 RTP. The baseline scenario includes some network changes that will be considered in the Final

SANDAG TRANSPORTATION MODEL SENSITIVITY

ANALYSIS AND REPORT

July 2011

(REVISED – JULY 29, 2011)

SANDAG Transportation Model Sensitivity Analysis and Report 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

2. INTRODUCTION 4

3. THE SCENARIOS 5

3.1 BASELINE 5

3.2 AUTO OPERATING COST 5

OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 5

FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................... 5

AUTO OPERATING COST SUMMARY STATISTICS ................................................................................................ 6

TRAVEL BY SPEED BIN .................................................................................................................................. 6

AUTO OPERATING COSTS VMT BY FUNCTIONAL CLASS ...................................................................................... 7

AUTO OPERATING COSTS MODE SHARE .......................................................................................................... 8

3.3 PARKING COST 9

OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 9

FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................... 9

SUMMARY STATISTICS .................................................................................................................................. 9

MODE SHARE ........................................................................................................................................... 10

SPEEDS BY SELECTED FACILITY TYPES ............................................................................................................ 11

3.4 INCOME DISTRIBUTION 11

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 11

FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................. 12

SUMMARY STATISTICS ................................................................................................................................ 12

3.5 TRANSIT FARES 13

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 13

FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................. 13


MODE SHARE ........................................................................................................................................... 14

3.6 TRANSIT FREQUENCY 15

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 15

FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................. 15


MODE SHARE ........................................................................................................................................... 16

ROUTE RIDERSHIP...................................................................................................................................... 17

3.7 TRANSIT ACCESS – WAIT AND TRANSFER TIME 18

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 18

FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................. 18


MODE SHARE ........................................................................................................................................... 19

3.8 TRANSIT ACCESS – WALK FACTORS 20

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 20


FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................. 20


MODE SHARE ........................................................................................................................................... 21

3.9 NETWORK ASSIGNMENT SENSITIVITY 22

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 22

FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................. 22


VMT BY ROAD CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................................... 23

HIGHWAY TRAVEL BY SPEED ........................................................................................................................ 24

AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS ............................................................................................................................. 25

CORRIDOR TRAVEL TIMES (IN MINUTES) BY MODE ......................................................................................... 26

3.10 CAPACITY SCENARIOS 29

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 29

FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................. 29


VMT BY FUNCTIONAL CLASS: ...................................................................................................................... 30

TRAVEL BY SPEED BIN: ............................................................................................................................... 30

TRAVEL IN CONGESTION ............................................................................................................................. 31

MODE SHARE ........................................................................................................................................... 32

3.11 TRIP GENERATION DISCOUNTS 33

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 33

FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................. 33


VMT BY FUNCTIONAL CLASS: ...................................................................................................................... 34

MODE SHARE ........................................................................................................................................... 35

4. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS 36


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sensitivity tests evaluate the responsiveness of models to systematic changes in input values. The

measure referred to as “elasticity” is used to describe the sensitivity of model results to changes in

model inputs. Elasticity is defined as the ratio of the percentage change in an output to the

percentage change in a model input. Sensitivity testing provides confidence in the use of estimated,

calibrated, and validated travel demand models.

The objective of this report is to provide insight into the sensitivity and elasticity of the

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) four-step travel demand model (or, more simply,

the model) in terms of policy and operational adjustment. SANDAG has one of the most advanced

travel models in the country, and its model is in a state of constant evolution with new data,

procedures, and functions regularly added to the process. The traditional four steps of

transportation modeling include:1

• Trip Generation;

• Trip Distribution;

• Mode Choice; and

• Trip Assignment.

SANDAG is currently developing the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is expected to

be adopted in October 2011. All of the analysis conducted in this report is done in a model year

2035 projection. This aligns with the horizon year of Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg, 2008) and the

Draft 2050 RTP and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). More than 40 specific model

scenarios were run and tested for this report. Some of the measures tested in this report are policy

scenarios under consideration in the Draft 2050 RTP while others were not considered but are

potentially important policy variables in the future.

The report indicates the SANDAG model is sensitive to all of the input and parameter changes

analyzed. Transit ridership and vehicle miles traveled are most sensitive to changes in the cost of

travel whether in the form of changing fuel prices, transit fares, or disposable income. The analysis

indicates that while network improvements do affect travel times and mode choice, the impacts are

far less important than economic variables.

1 More information on the SANDAG four-step travel demand model can be found on the SANDAG website (http://www.sandag.org/models).


2. INTRODUCTION

Ten major groups of model parameters are covered in this report. Between one and four actual

model runs were performed for each group to provide the context for the sensitivity analysis.

The purpose of testing several alternatives within each group is to evaluate the range and

sensitivity of each isolated variable. Evaluating only one variable at a time provides sensitivity tests

that are better able to determine the model output changes (elasticity) attributed to that variable.

Each scenario in this sensitivity analysis is compared to the baseline and to the other scenarios

within its group. The baseline scenario is similar to the 2035 Revenue Constrained scenario in the

Draft 2050 RTP. The baseline scenario includes some network changes that will be considered in the

Final 2050 RTP, and it does not include Transportation Demand Management/Transportation System

Management (TDM/TSM) post-processing analysis. A complete list of performance metrics associated

with the baseline scenario is included in Appendix A.

The major sensitivity test groupings include:

� Baseline

� Auto Operating Costs

� Parking Costs

� Income Distribution

� Transit Fares

� Transit Frequency

� Transit Access – Wait Times and Transfers

� Transit Access – Walk Factors

� Network Assignment

� Roadway Capacity

� Trip Generation Discounts

The Draft 2050 RTP Performance Measures are used in most cases to evaluate the model sensitivity

to variables listed above. All of the performance measures for each alternative are presented in

Appendix A. These metrics are intended to provide insight into the model behavior at the

aggregate and disaggregate level. The corridors used for the “Corridor Travel Time” metric were

defined in the Draft 2050 RTP.

Mode choice metrics include analysis for the entire San Diego region as well as the urban areas. The

mode choice analysis focused on 24-hour mode shares for all trip purposes and peak period mode

shares for Home-Work (i.e., commute) trips.


3. THE SCENARIOS

3.1 Baseline

Each scenario in this sensitivity analysis is compared to the baseline and to the other scenarios

within its group. The baseline scenario is similar to the 2035 Revenue Constrained scenario in the

Draft 2050 RTP. The baseline scenario includes some network changes that will be considered in the

Final 2050 RTP, and it does not include TDM/TSM post-processing analysis. A complete list of

performance metrics associated with the baseline scenario is included in

Appendix A. The differences between the baseline scenario used in the Draft 2050 RTP and baseline

used in this report are not significant for purposes of the sensitivity analysis because model

sensitivity tests a variable’s impact in isolation. It is assumed that any shift of an input variable

regardless of the baseline, within reason, would have similar a similar effect on the model outputs.

3.2 Auto Operating Cost

Overview

The scenarios (50, 75, 125, and 150 percent of baseline) focus on testing sensitivity to “auto

operating costs” in the model which is the fuel component of costs associated with operating a

motorized vehicle.

The expectation is that lower auto operating costs will cause an increase in trip lengths, a decrease

in transit share, and a commensurate increase in auto trips. In addition, lower auto operating costs

should result in greater Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT), and more

congested facilities. Note that auto operating cost also affects the drive-to-transit modes, so transit

results may not always be intuitively obvious though the increase in use of drive-transit would be

offset by a shift to auto modes.

Findings

Based on the tables below, the model is sensitive to auto operating cost changes with significant

shifts in output metrics.

The auto operating cost scenarios show changes in VMT and mode shares over all four scenarios.

The VMT differences are directionally and symmetrically intuitive when compared to the baseline as

well as to each other. The 50 percent scenario shows an increase in regional VMT of 12.2 percent,

and the 150 percent scenario shows a decrease in regional VMT of 9.9 percent. Correspondingly, the

75 percent scenario increases regional VMT by 5.8 percent, and the 125 percent scenario shows a

decrease in region-wide VMT of 5.3 percent.

The differences in highway travel speed by speed bin follow the trend with fewer vehicles driving at

55 miles per hour (mph) or greater when the auto operating costs are lower and more vehicles

driving at 55 mph or greater when the auto operating costs are higher as a result of reduced

congestion. The model is not directly sensitive to fuel efficiency, so individual driving habits (e.g.,

slower driving to conserve fuel) in response to changing energy prices are not captured. The


average speed by functional classification follows the same trend with lower average speeds when

the auto operating costs are lower as compared to higher speeds with the higher auto operating

costs. All of the scenarios show significant changes to the travel in congestion metric with the same

trend as noted above.

The changes in mode share are dramatic for all scenarios with single occupant vehicle (SOV) and

high occupancy vehicle (HOV) trips competing with transit and walk/bike trips.

Auto Operating Cost Summary Statistics

50% of Baseline Auto

Operating Costs


Operating Costs

Baseline


Operating Costs


Operating Cost

Total VMT 116,741,761 110,139,169 104,081,786 98,603,783 93,825,178

Total VHT 3,539,185 3,254,242 3,025,199 2,834,694 2,684,386

Commute Transit Share (Peak)

7.300% 7.947% 8.629% 9.307% 9.935%

All Trips Transit Share (Daily)

1.384% 1.517% 1.665% 1.820% 1.970%

Travel by Speed Bin

50% of Baseline Auto Operating

Costs


Costs

Baseline


Costs


Costs

Speeds between 0 and 35 mph

11.5% 8.2% 5.6% 3.7% 2.6%


13.8% 11.2% 9.1% 7.1% 5.6%

Speeds over 55 mph

74.7% 80.6% 85.3% 89.1% 91.7%


Auto Operating Costs VMT by Functional Class

CLASS

50% of Baseline Auto Operating Costs

75% of Baseline Auto Operating Costs

Baseline 125% of Baseline Auto

Operating Costs 150% of Baseline Auto

Operating Costs

VMT VMT DIF DIF PCT VMT VMT DIF DIF PCT VMT VMT VMT DIF DIF PCT VMT VMT DIF DIF PCT

FREEWAY 58,582,889 7,222,349 14.1% 54,871,488 3,510,948 6.8% 51,360,540 48,139,810 -3,220,730 -6.3% 45,261,505 -6,099,035 -11.9%

PRIME 9,601,514 940,162 10.9% 9,100,486 439,134 5.1% 8,661,352 8,288,087 -373,265 -4.3% 7,963,155 -698,197 -8.1%

MAJOR 20,800,412 2,116,827 11.3% 19,674,242 990,657 5.3% 18,683,585 17,803,321 -880,264 -4.7% 17,073,489 -1,610,096 -8.6%

COLLECTOR 7,390,716 780,770 11.8% 6,971,714 361,768 5.5% 6,609,946 6,280,986 -328,960 -5.0% 6,018,239 -591,707 -9.0%

LOCAL COLLECTOR 6,662,884 654,408 10.9% 6,310,510 302,034 5.0% 6,008,476 5,754,071 -254,405 -4.2% 5,552,656 -455,820 -7.6%

RURAL COLLECTOR 543,860 85,792 18.7% 493,548 35,480 7.7% 458,068 429,695 -28,373 -6.2% 412,595 -45,473 -9.9%

LOCAL 1,928,921 166,434 9.4% 1,838,188 75,701 4.3% 1,762,487 1,694,459 -68,028 -3.9% 1,632,855 -129,632 -7.4%

FWY-FWY RAMP 2,390,634 277,822 13.1% 2,250,042 137,230 6.5% 2,112,812 1,985,170 -127,642 -6.0% 1,865,781 -247,031 -11.7%

LOCAL RAMP 3,191,017 310,180 10.8% 3,034,221 153,384 5.3% 2,880,837 2,735,419 -145,418 -5.0% 2,598,956 -281,881 -9.8%

ACCESS 5,648,914 105,231 1.9% 5,594,730 51,047 0.9% 5,543,683 5,492,765 -50,918 -0.9% 5,445,946 -97,737 -1.8%

TOTAL 116,741,761 12,659,975 12.2% 110,139,169 6,057,383 5.8% 104,081,786 98,603,783 -5,478,003 -5.3% 93,825,177 -10,256,609 -9.9%


Auto Operating Costs Mode Share

50% of Baseline Auto Operating Cost

75% of Baseline Auto Operating Cost

Baseline 125% of Baseline Auto

Operating Cost 150% of Baseline Auto

Operating Cost

Trips Percentage Trips Percentage Trips Percentage Trips Percentage Trips Percentage

REGION-WIDE Peak Period COMMUTE Trips

SOV 1,012,534 79.3% 1,005,646 78.8% 997,905 78.3% 989,638 77.8% 980,119 77.2%

HOV 145,741 11.4% 141,883 11.1% 137,697 10.8% 133,479 10.5% 130,770 10.3%

Transit 93,187 7.3% 101,363 7.9% 109,911 8.6% 118,340 9.3% 126,078 9.9%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 25,139 2.0% 26,539 2.1% 28,175 2.2% 30,043 2.4% 32,033 2.5%

TOTAL 1,276,601 100.0% 1,275,431 100.0% 1,273,688 100.0% 1,271,500 100.0% 1,269,000 100.0%

REGION-WIDE

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 11,122,236 52.9% 11,098,261 52.8% 11,069,865 52.7% 11,038,014 52.5% 11,005,451 52.4%

HOV 8,970,488 42.7% 8,936,939 42.5% 8,905,753 42.4% 8,878,203 42.2% 8,853,660 42.1%

Transit 290,963 1.4% 318,828 1.5% 350,025 1.7% 382,531 1.8% 414,027 2.0%

School Bus 140,797 0.7% 134,020 0.6% 128,788 0.6% 124,724 0.6% 121,482 0.6%

Walk & Bike 494,902 2.4% 531,338 2.5% 564,954 2.7% 595,912 2.8% 624,765 3.0%

TOTAL 21,019,386 100.0% 21,019,386 100.0% 21,019,385 100.0% 21,019,384 100.0% 21,019,385 100.0%

URBAN-AREA Peak Period COMMUTE Trips

SOV 834,260 78.2% 827,773 77.7% 822,033 77.2% 813,126 76.5% 804,455 75.9%

HOV 120,212 11.3% 117,037 11.0% 114,066 10.7% 109,751 10.3% 107,430 10.1%

Transit 88,624 8.3% 96,178 9.0% 103,223 9.7% 111,842 10.5% 119,001 11.2%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 23,234 2.2% 24,472 2.3% 24,961 2.3% 27,597 2.6% 29,372 2.8%

TOTAL 1,066,330 100.0% 1,065,460 100.0% 1,064,283 100.0% 1,062,316 100.0% 1,060,258 100.0%

URBAN-AREA

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 9,174,588 53.0% 9,151,331 52.9% 9,134,787 52.8% 9,094,646 52.5% 9,064,405 52.4%

HOV 7,313,432 42.2% 7,283,881 42.1% 7,263,745 42.0% 7,231,788 41.8% 7,210,076 41.7%

Transit 277,858 1.6% 303,837 1.8% 328,328 1.9% 362,561 2.1% 391,414 2.3%

School Bus 102,929 0.6% 97,462 0.6% 93,252 0.5% 89,930 0.5% 87,284 0.5%

Walk & Bike 441,827 2.6% 474,127 2.7% 490,439 2.8% 531,513 3.1% 557,158 3.2%

TOTAL 17,310,634 100.0% 17,310,638 100.0% 17,310,551 100.0% 17,310,438 100.0% 17,310,337 100.0%

SANDAG Transportation Model Sensitivity Analysis and Report (Revised – July 29, 2011) 9

3.3 Parking Cost

Overview

These scenarios (50, 75, 125, and 150 percent of baseline parking costs) focus on the model response to

changes in parking cost. Parking costs are assumed for Centre City San Diego, Lindbergh Field, some

universities, and business districts in Escondido, Oceanside, La Jolla, La Mesa, and Hillcrest. These include

privately owned parking lots as well as on-street parking spaces with meters.

The expectation is that transit mode share will increase to areas with high parking costs although it will

be impacted by trips redistributing to areas with a lower travel cost. VMT and VHT will show modest

changes.

Findings

The model is sensitive to parking costs. The shift in mode share is similar with smaller magnitudes to the

shifts in the previous section related to auto operating costs. The smaller magnitude is attributed to the

limited number of trips that have any parking costs applied due to the limited geographic scope of paid

parking areas. As costs increase, auto mode shares decrease. Speeds are not affected regionally due to the

limited geographic scope of parking zones across the region.

Summary Statistics

50% of Baseline

Parking Costs

75% of Baseline

Parking Costs Baseline

125% of Baseline

Parking Costs

150% of Baseline

Parking Cost

Total VMT 104,086,133 104,081,529 104,081,786 104,071,237 104,057,815

Total VHT 3,027,966 3,027,033 3,025,199 3,023,314 3,020,277


8.393% 8.504% 8.629% 8.718% 8.816%


1.591% 1.631% 1.665% 1.694% 1.721%

SANDAG Transportation Model Sensitivity Analysis and Report (Revised – July 29, 2011) 10

Mode Share

50% of Baseline Parking Cost


Baseline 125% of Baseline Parking Cost




SOV 1,002,852 78.7% 999,882 78.5% 997,905 78.3% 995,674 78.2% 993,774 78.0%

HOV 138,087 10.8% 138,509 10.9% 137,697 10.8% 137,777 10.8% 137,327 10.8%

Transit 106,925 8.4% 108,334 8.5% 109,911 8.6% 111,029 8.7% 112,270 8.8%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 26,176 2.1% 27,173 2.1% 28,175 2.2% 29,128 2.3% 30,078 2.4%

TOTAL 1,274,040 100.0% 1,273,898 100.0% 1,273,688 100.0% 1,273,608 100.0% 1,273,449 100.0%

REGION-WIDE

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 11,097,377 52.8% 11,082,390 52.7% 11,069,865 52.7% 11,058,675 52.6% 11,047,981 52.6%

HOV 8,923,350 42.5% 8,914,419 42.4% 8,905,753 42.4% 8,899,273 42.3% 8,892,921 42.3%

Transit 334,348 1.6% 342,840 1.6% 350,025 1.7% 356,135 1.7% 361,824 1.7%

School Bus 128,821 0.6% 128,854 0.6% 128,788 0.6% 128,904 0.6% 128,915 0.6%

Walk & Bike 535,490 2.5% 550,883 2.6% 564,954 2.7% 576,399 2.7% 587,745 2.8%

TOTAL 21,019,386 100.0% 21,019,386 100.0% 21,019,385 100.0% 21,019,386 100.0% 21,019,386 100.0%


SOV 825,623 77.6% 822,684 77.3% 822,033 77.2% 818,440 76.9% 816,511 76.8%

HOV 113,817 10.7% 114,205 10.7% 114,066 10.7% 113,477 10.7% 113,051 10.6%

Transit 101,050 9.5% 102,468 9.6% 103,223 9.7% 105,187 9.9% 106,439 10.0%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 23,929 2.2% 24,926 2.3% 24,961 2.3% 26,882 2.5% 27,833 2.6%

TOTAL 1,064,419 100.0% 1,064,283 100.0% 1,064,283 100.0% 1,063,986 100.0% 1,063,834 100.0%

URBAN-AREA

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 9,151,795 52.9% 9,136,890 52.8% 9,134,787 52.8% 9,113,164 52.6% 9,102,459 52.6%

HOV 7,273,917 42.0% 7,264,947 42.0% 7,263,745 42.0% 7,249,822 41.9% 7,243,468 41.8%

Transit 317,004 1.8% 325,493 1.9% 328,328 1.9% 338,786 2.0% 344,478 2.0%

School Bus 93,219 0.5% 93,252 0.5% 93,252 0.5% 93,304 0.5% 93,318 0.5%

Walk & Bike 474,581 2.7% 489,967 2.8% 490,439 2.8% 515,482 3.0% 526,822 3.0%

TOTAL 17,310,516 100.0% 17,310,549 100.0% 17,310,551 100.0% 17,310,558 100.0% 17,310,545 100.0%


Speeds by Selected Facility Types

50% of Baseline

Parking Cost

75% of Baseline

Parking Cost Baseline

125% of Baseline

Parking Cost

150% of Baseline

Parking Cost

Highway 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.9 56.9

Prime Arterial 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8

Regional Average

34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.5

3.4 Income Distribution

Overview

The income distribution scenarios focus on altering the income range breakpoints. Income is used to

set parameters on how people react to (their sensitivity to) cost factors in the model such as auto

operating, tolls, parking, and transit fares. The regional growth forecast produces data for a total of

ten income groups. The transportation model condenses those ten groups into high, middle, and

low income groups. The baseline scenario uses the regional growth forecast and falls between the

middle income and high income scenario.

Household Income Distribution by Scenario

Scenario Households $0-$29,999 $30,000-$59,999 $60,000 or more

Baseline 1,357,100 233,400 349,200 774,500

Very Low 1,357,100 947,400 143,100 266,600

Low 1,357,100 582,600 507,900 266,600

Middle 1,357,100 87,200 1,003,300 266,600

High 1,357,100 87,200 146,200 1,123,700

Incomes Basis 1999 Dollars

Source: SANDAG, 2050 Regional Growth Forecast (data extracted on: 06/2011)

The model results should be similar to the auto operating costs examined in Section 3.2. In the

scenarios where average income is higher, driving should become more dominant due to larger

disposable incomes. In scenarios where incomes are lower, transit and non-motorized modes should

gain more mode share.2 Increases in people choosing transit and non-motorized versus auto will

cause VMT and VHT to decrease.

2 Pratt, R. H., & Park, G. (2000). TCRP Project B-12: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, Transit Cooperative Research Program.


Findings

The model is sensitive to changes in income classification. The income distribution scenarios show

significant changes in VMT and mode shares over all four scenarios. Transit mode shares more than

double in the extreme low-income scale scenario and drop nearly 50 percent in the high-income

scale scenario.

The percent change in travel by speed and the travel speeds by facility type mimic the trend with

the VMT noted above. Travel in congestion is virtually the same between the two low-income

scenarios and the increases in the high-income scenarios fall in line with the overall trend.

The corridor travel times by mode changes are intuitive by mode and by weighted average with the

low-income scale scenarios showing increases in travel time despite the trend. This can be attributed

to the large increases in transit mode share in the low-income scale scenarios.

The mode share changes also make sense when looking at all modes in combination. The transit

and non-motorized shares increase significantly in the low-income scale scenarios with the majority

of the shift coming from the SOV mode. The shift in HOV mode is minimal.

Summary Statistics

Very Low Income Scale

Low Income Scale

Middle Income Scale

Baseline High Income

Scale

Total VMT 77,491,872 87,513,631 99,544,227 104,081,786 112,030,063

Total VHT 2,187,871 2,483,082 2,874,260 3,025,199 3,343,041


19.574% 15.312% 10.970% 8.629% 5.539%


4.137% 3.079% 1.881% 1.665% 1.007%


3.5 Transit Fares

Overview

These scenarios (50, 75, 125, and 150 percent of baseline transit fares) focus on changing the

standard transit fares. These scenarios measure elasticity of transit demand with respect to fare

changes and cross-elasticity of non-transit modes with respect to transit fares. Because the COASTER

uses a different fare structure, the fares for the COASTER were not changed in any of these

scenarios due to the complexities of defining a new zone-fare structure in the model.

The model should increase transit mode shares as a result of lower fares resulting in decreases in

VMT and VHT.

Findings

The model is sensitive to transit fare changes as reflected by changes in VMT and transit mode share

in the summary tables below.

Changes in VMT by facility type change directionally as expected across all scenarios. VMT decreases

for all facility types when the transit fares drop, and the VMT increases for all facility types when

transit fares increase.

Mode share changes between the scenarios are nearly symmetrical. The transit share increases with

lower fares and the transit share decreases with higher fares. These changes are offset by smaller

shifts in all of the other travel modes.

Summary Statistics

50% of Baseline

Transit Fares

75% of Baseline

Transit Fares Baseline

125% of Baseline

Transit Fares

150% of Baseline

Transit Fares

Total VMT 103,524,625 103,816,144 104,081,786 104,294,979 104,493,991

Total VHT 2,999,030 3,011,396 3,025,199 3,034,174 3,043,296


10.130% 9.336% 8.629% 8.059% 7.518%


2.905% 1.864% 1.665% 1.509% 1.398%


Mode Share

50% of Baseline Transit Fares


Baseline 125% of Baseline Transit Fares



REGION-WIDE

Peak COMMUTE Trips

SOV 983,446 77.1% 990,829 77.7% 997,905 78.3% 1,003,708 78.7% 1,008,355 79.1%

HOV 134,763 10.6% 136,665 10.8% 137,697 10.8% 138,448 11.0% 140,311 11.0%

Transit 129,032 10.2% 118,917 9.3% 109,911 8.6% 102,647 8.0% 95,756 7.5%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 26,482 2.1% 27,347 2.1% 28,175 2.2% 28,951 2.3% 29,327 2.3%

TOTAL 1,273,723 100.0% 1,273,758 100.0% 1,273,688 100.0% 1,273,754 100.0% 1,273,749 100.0%

REGION-WIDE

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 11,019,392 52.4% 11,046,403 52.5% 11,069,865 52.7% 11,088,403 52.7% 11,102,251 52.8%

HOV 8,877,437 42.2% 8,893,217 42.3% 8,905,753 42.4% 8,915,251 42.4% 8,922,954 42.5%

Transit 440,545 2.1% 391,713 1.9% 350,025 1.7% 317,257 1.5% 293,832 1.4%

School Bus 128,811 0.6% 128,818 0.6% 128,788 0.6% 128,814 0.6% 128,812 0.6%

Walk & Bike 553,200 2.6% 559,235 2.7% 564,954 2.7% 569,660 2.7% 571,537 2.7%

TOTAL 21,019,385 100.0% 21,019,386 100.0% 21,019,385 100.0% 21,019,385 100.0% 21,019,386 100.0%

URBAN-AREA

Peak COMMUTE Trips

SOV 807,234 75.7% 814,112 76.5% 822,033 77.2% 826,073 77.5% 830,422 78.0%

HOV 110,707 10.5% 112,465 10.6% 114,066 10.7% 114,110 10.8% 115,847 10.9%

Transit 121,893 11.5% 112,450 10.6% 103,223 9.7% 97,275 9.1% 90,824 8.5%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 24,288 2.3% 25,126 2.4% 24,961 2.3% 26,685 2.5% 27,047 2.5%

TOTAL 1,064,122 100.0% 1,064,153 100.0% 1,064,283 100.0% 1,064,143 100.0% 1,064,140 100.0%

URBAN-AREA

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 9,077,033 52.4% 9,102,377 52.6% 9,134,787 52.8% 9,141,733 52.8% 9,154,789 52.9%

HOV 7,229,692 41.8% 7,244,492 41.9% 7,263,745 42.0% 7,265,212 42.0% 7,272,423 42.0%

Transit 418,105 2.4% 372,041 2.1% 328,328 1.9% 301,719 1.7% 279,607 1.6%

School Bus 93,251 0.5% 93,256 0.5% 93,252 0.5% 93,253 0.5% 93,251 0.5%

Walk & Bike 492,461 2.8% 498,380 2.9% 490,439 2.8% 508,629 2.9% 510,467 2.9%

TOTAL 17,310,542 100.0% 17,310,546 100.0% 17,310,551 100.0% 17,310,546 100.0% 17,310,537 100.0%


3.6 Transit Frequency

Overview

These scenarios focus on transit frequency for the COASTER (North County Transit District

Route 398) and Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Route 7. The COASTER and Route 7 were

chosen due to their regional significance. The COASTER is the only commuter rail service in

the region, and Route 7 is one of the busiest local bus routes in the region. The changes

include increasing and decreasing the frequency of these routes by 50 percent.

These scenarios should result in changes in ridership on the route tested in the direction of

service frequency. An increase in frequency should result in an increase in ridership.

Changes in VMT should be limited to the scale of VMT on competing facilities.

Findings

The model is sensitive to changes in transit route frequency. The overall route ridership

change is consistent with the direction of the frequency change. COASTER frequency

changes result in larger transit mode share changes for peak period commute trips than

Route 7.

Changes in route frequency have a direct impact on route ridership, but isolated frequency

changes do not significantly impact overall transit ridership.

Summary Statistics

Decrease COASTER Frequency

Increase COASTER Frequency

Baseline Decrease Route 7

Frequency

Increase Route 7

Frequency

Total VMT 104,111,608 104,068,051 104,081,786 104,076,808 104,078,393

Total VHT 3,026,059 3,024,544 3,025,199 3,024,858 3,024,527


8.556% 8.712% 8.629% 8.626% 8.632%


1.659% 1.674% 1.665% 1.665% 1.667%


Mode Share




Frequency Increase Route 7

Frequency


REGION-WIDE

Peak COMMUTE Trips

SOV 998,873 78.4% 996,729 78.2% 997,905 78.3% 997,949 78.3% 997,845 78.3%

HOV 137,770 10.8% 137,950 10.8% 137,697 10.8% 137,786 10.8% 137,825 10.8%

Transit 108,983 8.6% 110,970 8.7% 109,911 8.6% 109,869 8.6% 109,956 8.6%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 28,173 2.2% 28,145 2.2% 28,175 2.2% 28,161 2.2% 28,163 2.2%

TOTAL 1,273,799 100.0% 1,273,794 100.0% 1,273,688 100.0% 1,273,765 100.0% 1,273,789 100.0%

REGION-WIDE

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 11,071,210 52.7% 11,068,269 52.7% 11,069,865 52.7% 11,069,963 52.7% 11,069,886 52.7%

HOV 8,905,981 42.4% 8,905,774 42.4% 8,905,753 42.4% 8,905,900 42.4% 8,905,891 42.4%

Transit 348,733 1.7% 351,937 1.7% 350,025 1.7% 350,058 1.7% 350,085 1.7%

School Bus 128,889 0.6% 128,890 0.6% 128,788 0.6% 128,891 0.6% 128,886 0.6%

Walk & Bike 564,573 2.7% 564,516 2.7% 564,954 2.7% 564,572 2.7% 564,639 2.7%

TOTAL 21,019,386 100.0% 21,019,386 100.0% 21,019,385 100.0% 21,019,384 100.0% 21,019,387 100.0%

URBAN-AREA

Peak COMMUTE Trips

SOV 821,603 77.2% 819,566 77.0% 822,033 77.2% 820,716 77.1% 820,635 77.1%

HOV 113,497 10.7% 113,627 10.7% 114,066 10.7% 113,506 10.7% 113,523 10.7%

Transit 103,153 9.7% 105,085 9.9% 103,223 9.7% 104,014 9.8% 104,097 9.8%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 25,926 2.4% 25,899 2.4% 24,961 2.3% 25,914 2.4% 25,917 2.4%

TOTAL 1,064,179 100.0% 1,064,177 100.0% 1,064,283 100.0% 1,064,150 100.0% 1,064,172 100.0%

URBAN-AREA

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 9,125,627 52.7% 9,122,832 52.7% 9,134,787 52.8% 9,124,445 52.7% 9,124,372 52.7%

HOV 7,256,554 41.9% 7,256,291 41.9% 7,263,745 42.0% 7,256,448 41.9% 7,256,432 41.9%

Transit 331,420 1.9% 334,531 1.9% 328,328 1.9% 332,706 1.9% 332,725 1.9%

School Bus 93,289 0.5% 93,289 0.5% 93,252 0.5% 93,289 0.5% 93,285 0.5%

Walk & Bike 503,657 2.9% 503,601 2.9% 490,439 2.8% 503,657 2.9% 503,723 2.9%

TOTAL 17,310,547 100.0% 17,310,544 100.0% 17,310,551 100.0% 17,310,545 100.0% 17,310,537 100.0%


Route Ridership

ROUTE MODE




Frequency Increase Route 7

Frequency

Peak Off Peak Daily Peak

Off Peak Daily Peak

Off Peak Daily Peak

Off Peak Daily Peak

Off Peak Daily

398 COASTER 2,380 234 2,615 8,020 2,684 10,704 5,001 1,198 6,199 5,007 1,202 6,209 5,012 1,203 6,215

7 Local Bus 2,809 3,175 5,983 2,796 3,172 5,969 2,807 3,176 5,982 1,227 1,353 2,580 4,431 6,754 11,185


3.7 Transit Access – Wait and Transfer Time

Overview

These scenarios focus on adjusting wait and transfer times up or down by 50 percent.

The model should result in lower VMT and higher transit mode shares when the wait and transfer

time is reduced, and in higher VMT and lower transit mode shares when the time is increased.

Findings

The model is sensitive to changes in transit access wait and transfer time. Regional mode shares and

VMT change as expected. When the wait and transfer times are reduced, the VMT drops and the

peak period transit commute share increases by 2 percent with all other modes reduced

proportionally. Conversely when the wait and transfer time are increased, the VMT increases and

the peak period transit commute share decreases by 1.5 percent.

Summary Statistics

Reduce Wait and Transfer Times

Baseline Increase Wait and Transfer Times

Total VMT 103,397,441 104,081,786 104,506,243

Total VHT 2,993,525 3,025,199 3,043,513


10.649% 8.629% 7.186%


1.984% 1.665% 1.433%


Mode Share

Reduce Wait and Transfer Times

Baseline Increase Wait and Transfer Times

Trips Percentage Trips Percentage Trips Percentage

REGION-WIDE

Peak Period COMMUTE Trips

SOV 975,935 76.6% 997,905 78.3% 1,012,241 79.5%

HOV 134,847 10.6% 137,697 10.8% 141,230 11.1%

Transit 135,646 10.6% 109,911 8.6% 91,536 7.2%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 27,369 2.1% 28,175 2.2% 28,795 2.3%

TOTAL 1,273,797 100.0% 1,273,688 100.0% 1,273,802 100.0%

REGION-WIDE

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 11,021,339 52.4% 11,069,865 52.7% 11,102,985 52.8%

HOV 8,890,344 42.3% 8,905,753 42.4% 8,919,494 42.4%

Transit 417,056 2.0% 350,025 1.7% 301,162 1.4%

School Bus 128,892 0.6% 128,788 0.6% 128,883 0.6%

Walk & Bike 561,755 2.7% 564,954 2.7% 566,862 2.7%

TOTAL 21,019,386 100.0% 21,019,385 100.0% 21,019,386 100.0%

URBAN-AREA

Peak Period COMMUTE Trips

SOV 800,454 75.2% 822,033 77.2% 833,982 78.4%

HOV 110,777 10.4% 114,066 10.7% 116,633 11.0%

Transit 127,789 12.0% 103,223 9.7% 87,045 8.2%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 25,156 2.4% 24,961 2.3% 26,524 2.5%

TOTAL 1,064,176 100.0% 1,064,283 100.0% 1,064,184 100.0%

URBAN-AREA

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 9,079,823 52.5% 9,134,787 52.8% 9,155,012 52.9%

HOV 7,242,211 41.8% 7,263,745 42.0% 7,268,756 42.0%

Transit 394,280 2.3% 328,328 1.9% 287,637 1.7%

School Bus 93,292 0.5% 93,252 0.5% 93,283 0.5%

Walk & Bike 500,945 2.9% 490,439 2.8% 505,864 2.9%

TOTAL 17,310,551 100.0% 17,310,551 100.0% 17,310,552 100.0%


3.8 Transit Access – Walk Factors

Overview

These scenarios focus on adjusting the urban and suburban walk factors in the mode choice model.

Walk factors are applied to the walk-to-transit mode and are different between urban and

suburban to account for urban form. The urban walk factors assume a grid street pattern while the

suburban walk factors do not. Since distance to transit is calculated as a straight line, the model

adds time surcharges to access transit to account for the street network people walk to access

transit. The time surcharge in urban areas is a factor of 1.1 while in suburban and rural areas it is a

factor of 1.3.

Since much of the region is considered suburban, the model should result in lower VMT and a

higher transit mode share with urban walk factors only, because the average time surcharge for

walk to transit will decrease. Higher VMT and a lower transit mode share with suburban walk

factors only.

Findings

The model is sensitive to changes in walk factors. In the urban walk factor scenario, transit mode

shares increase more than in the decrease in the suburban walk factor scenario transit share

decrease. In the model, a significant portion of the region uses the suburban walk factors meaning

the weighted average walk factor in the baseline is much closer to the suburban walk factor

scenario.

Summary Statistics

Urban Walk Factors Only

Baseline Suburban Walk Factors

Only

Total VMT 103,730,052 104,081,786 104,148,533

Total VHT 3,009,130 3,025,199 3,027,421

Commute Transit Share (Peak) 9.675% 8.629% 8.357%

All Trips Transit Share (Daily) 1.861% 1.665% 1.610%


Mode Share

Urban Walk Factors Only

Baseline Suburban Walk Factors

Only



SOV 986,570 77.1% 997,905 78.3% 1,000,664 78.2%

HOV 136,161 10.6% 137,697 10.8% 138,068 10.9%

Transit 123,238 10.1% 109,911 8.6% 106,443 8.7%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 27,773 2.2% 28,175 2.2% 28,570 2.2%

TOTAL 1,273,742 100.0% 1,273,688 100.0% 1,273,745 100.0%

REGION-WIDE

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 11,041,639 52.5% 11,069,865 52.7% 11,077,107 52.6%

HOV 8,894,518 42.3% 8,905,753 42.4% 8,908,508 42.4%

Transit 391,112 2.0% 350,025 1.7% 338,501 1.7%

School Bus 128,760 0.6% 128,788 0.6% 128,760 0.6%

Walk & Bike 563,347 2.7% 564,954 2.7% 566,508 2.7%

TOTAL 21,019,376 100.0% 21,019,385 100.0% 21,019,384 100.0%


SOV 811,040 75.8% 822,033 77.2% 823,330 77.0%

HOV 112,149 10.5% 114,066 10.7% 113,773 10.7%

Transit 115,387 11.3% 103,223 9.7% 100,725 9.9%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 25,566 2.4% 24,961 2.3% 26,317 2.4%

TOTAL 1,064,142 100.0% 1,064,283 100.0% 1,064,145 100.0%

URBAN-AREA

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 9,099,800 52.5% 9,134,787 52.8% 9,131,361 52.7%

HOV 7,246,437 41.8% 7,263,745 42.0% 7,258,940 41.9%

Transit 368,572 2.3% 328,328 1.9% 321,526 2.0%

School Bus 93,203 0.5% 93,252 0.5% 93,203 0.5%

Walk & Bike 502,535 2.9% 490,439 2.8% 505,519 2.9%

TOTAL 17,310,547 100.0% 17,310,551 100.0% 17,310,549 100.0%


3.9 Network Assignment Sensitivity

Overview

These scenarios focus on the model assignment algorithm and redistribution of trips due to network

changes. The networks were modified by deleting an arterial or freeway link, and trip flows were

analyzed before and after its removal.

The first scenario removed a section of El Camino Real from Marron Road to Carlsbad Village Drive

in the North County. The second scenario removed the Interstate (I)-805 overpass (Mission Valley

viaduct) over Mission Valley while leaving the affiliated interchanges to I-8. The bus routes on I-805

were allowed to continue to use Mission Valley viaduct. These two particular routes were selected

because they represent an important path for many trips and help connect the region.

The expectation in both scenarios is a redistribution of trips to closer destinations due to reduced

accessibility and a redistribution of auto trips onto the road network surrounding the deleted road.

Longer travel diversions around the deleted road should not fully offset the reduction in travel from

trip distribution changes, resulting in VMT reductions. In areas along I-805, some trips may switch

modes to competitive transit routes along the I-805 corridor when the Mission Valley viaduct is

removed. Even though I-805 is a major transportation corridor, the impacts of these changes should

be localized due to trip redistribution.

Findings

The model is sensitive to network link deletions.

Removing the I-805 Mission Valley viaduct scenario shows a reduction of more than 600,000 VMT on

the highways alone highlighting the regional significance of this highway project. The total

regional VMT decrease is more than 400,000 daily miles as some of the freeway VMT reduction is

redistributed to other facilities across Mission Valley. The remaining highway VMT reduction is a

result of shorter trips and mode shift to transit. In the I-805 viaduct scenario, only corridor 9 (Otay

Ranch to UTC) and corridor 4 (Mid-City to UTC) shows a difference in travel times when compared

to the baseline since corridor 9 uses I-805 and corridor would be affected by rerouted traffic onto I-

15 and SR 163.

The removal of El Camino Real results in little net change in VMT by facility due to rerouting onto

comparable alternative routes in the region such as Monroe Street, Carlsbad Boulevard, and College

Boulevard to the east with increased traffic on SR 78 to reach the alternative north-south routes.

While El Camino Real is a prime arterial and major thoroughfare in the North County, its removal

results in mostly localized changes. Regional speed distributions, mode shares, and trip lengths are

not affected.


Summary Statistics

Delete El Camino Real

Baseline Delete I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct

Total VMT 104,079,386 104,081,786

103,639,718

Total VHT 3,025,046 3,025,199

3,047,566


8.629% 8.629%

8.699%


1.667% 1.665%

1.674%

VMT by Road Classification

CLASS Delete El Camino Real Baseline Delete I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct

VMT VMT DIF DIF PCT VMT VMT VMT DIF DIF PCT

FREEWAY 51,382,099 21,559 0.0% 51,360,540 50,749,833 -610,707 -1.2%

PRIME 8,610,915 -50,437 -0.6% 8,661,352 8,684,262 22,910 0.3%

MAJOR 18,682,686 -899 0.0% 18,683,585 18,727,622 44,037 0.2%

COLLECTOR 6,632,934 22,988 0.3% 6,609,946 6,614,968 5,022 0.1%

LOCAL COLLECTOR 6,006,207 -2,269 0.0% 6,008,476 6,023,205 14,729 0.2%

RURAL COLLECTOR 455,700 -2,368 -0.5% 458,068 457,584 -484 0.0%

LOCAL 1,766,935 4,448 0.3% 1,762,487 1,762,918 431 0.0%

FWY-FWY RAMP 2,115,305 2,493 0.1% 2,112,812 2,212,741 99,929 4.7%

LOCAL RAMP 2,883,565 2,728 0.1% 2,880,837 2,864,243 -16,594 -0.6%

ACCESS 5,543,041 -642 0.0% 5,543,683 5,542,342 -1,341 0.0%

TOTAL 104,079,387 -2,399 0.0% 104,081,786 103,639,718 -442,068 -0.4%


Highway Travel by Speed


Baseline Delete I-805

Mission Valley Viaduct


5.7% 5.6% 6.9%


9.2% 9.1% 8.9%

Speeds over 55 mph 85.2% 85.3% 84.2%


Average Trip Lengths


Baseline Delete I-805 Mission

Valley Viaduct

Minutes Miles Minutes Miles Minutes Miles


SOV 26.04 13.16 26.04 13.15 26.25 13.13

HOV2 26.85 14.10 26.85 14.08 27.18 14.08

HOV3+ 28.36 15.15 28.39 15.16 28.59 15.13

Transit 53.72 11.18 53.72 11.17 53.73 11.25

Walk 16.51 0.72 16.51 0.72 16.52 0.72

Bike 17.94 3.52 17.94 3.52 17.91 3.52

TOTAL 28.34 12.86 28.34 12.85 28.56 12.83

REGION-WIDE

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 14.90 7.25 14.90 7.24 14.97 7.21

HOV2 13.03 6.13 13.03 6.13 13.09 6.10

HOV3+ 12.62 5.90 12.61 5.90 12.66 5.87

Transit 48.30 8.83 48.30 8.83 48.27 8.87

Walk 17.34 0.78 17.32 0.78 17.33 0.78

Bike 15.37 3.00 15.36 3.00 15.36 3.00

TOTAL 14.66 6.59 14.66 6.58 14.72 6.56


SOV 25.07 12.37 25.03 12.36 25.30 12.33

HOV2 25.80 13.30 25.79 13.27 26.15 13.27

HOV3+ 26.91 14.00 26.95 14.02 27.19 14.02

Transit 53.11 11.09 53.11 11.08 53.13 11.16

Walk 15.91 0.70 15.91 0.70 15.92 0.70

Bike 17.72 3.50 17.72 3.50 17.69 3.49

TOTAL 27.71 12.10 27.71 12.08 27.94 12.07

URBAN-AREA

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 12.96 6.44 13.81 6.44 13.88 6.41

HOV2 12.04 5.37 12.03 5.37 12.10 5.34

HOV3+ 11.66 5.16 11.65 5.15 11.70 5.13

Transit 47.45 8.68 47.45 8.67 47.42 8.71

Walk 16.62 0.76 16.61 0.76 16.62 0.76

Bike 15.14 2.97 15.13 2.97 15.12 2.97

TOTAL 13.73 5.83 13.72 5.83 13.79 5.80


Corridor Travel Times (in minutes) By Mode


Baseline Delete I-805 Mission Valley

Viaduct

4 Mid-City – UTC

Auto 29 28 31

Walk to Transit 42 42 43

Drive to Transit 44 44 45

Carpool 26 26 30

Corridor Weighted Average 31 30 34

9 Otay Ranch - UTC Auto 52 52 56

Walk to Transit 55 55 53

Drive to Transit 53 53 51

Carpool 51 51 55

Corridor Weighted Average 52 52 55


Figure 1: Localized ADT Changes around El Camino Real

99.9 Baseline ADT (Thousands)

99.9 Scenario ADT (Thousands)


Figure 3: Localized ADT changes around the I-805 / I-8 interchange (2035rc6)

99.9 Baseline ADT (Thousands)

99.9 2035rc6 ADT (Thousands)


3.10 Capacity Scenarios

Overview

The scenarios focus on network alternatives with the number of lanes doubled up to a maximum of

eight lanes per direction on highway or arterials compared to the baseline network.

The model should move traffic from one facility type to the larger facility type as capacity is made

available. This would be a regional shift that should result in lower congestion levels and faster

speeds overall. Increasing road capacity should reduce transit mode shares.

Findings

Based on the comparison tables below, the model is sensitive to capacity changes.

Both capacity scenarios show significant changes in the output metrics, especially the increased

freeway capacity scenario. The increased arterial capacity shows an increase of 109,000 VMT with

large decreases on freeways and ramps being offset by increases on local streets and roads. The

increased freeway capacity shows an increase of more than 3 million VMT with the freeways

themselves increasing by nearly 4 million VMT with remainder offset by lower volumes on local

streets and roads.

The differences in highway travel speed by speed bin are modest for the increased arterial capacity

scenario, and dramatic for the increased freeway capacity scenario with almost 98 percent of the

vehicles traveling at 55 mph or greater.

Both scenarios show changes to the travel in congestion metric with the increased freeway capacity

being most dramatic where less than 1 percent of travel occurs in congested conditions.

The travel times by mode figures improve or are the same for all 11 corridors for both scenarios (see

Appendix A). The changes in mode share are minimal for all categories with small increases in SOVs

in both scenarios.

Summary Statistics

Increased Freeway Capacity

Baseline Increased Arterial

Capacity

Total VMT 107,132,110 104,081,786 104,182,715

Total VHT 2,950,096 3,025,199 2,996,798

Commute Transit Share (Peak) 8.453% 8.629% 8.619% All Trips Transit Share (Daily) 1.658% 1.665% 1.665%


VMT by Functional Class:

CLASS Increase Freeway Capacity Baseline Increase Arterial Capacity


FREEWAY 55,294,626 3,978,869 7.7% 51,360,540 50,971,836 -388,704 -0.8%

PRIME 8,488,267 -168,111 -1.9% 8,661,352 8,760,258 98,906 1.4%

MAJOR 18,147,537 -543,604 -2.9% 18,683,585 18,936,071 252,486 1.4%

COLLECTOR 6,426,370 -186,605 -2.8% 6,609,946 6,743,739 133,793 2.0%

LOCAL COLLECTOR 5,814,835 -194,077 -3.2% 6,008,476 6,063,998 55,522 0.9% RURAL COLLECTOR 461,483 680 0.1% 458,068 466,062 7,994 1.7%

LOCAL 1,715,399 -45,215 -2.6% 1,762,487 1,752,172 -10,315 -0.6%

FWY-FWY RAMP 2,222,632 107,898 5.1% 2,112,812 2,090,541 -22,271 -1.1%

LOCAL RAMP 3,013,911 131,336 4.6% 2,880,837 2,857,776 -23,061 -0.8%

ACCESS 5,547,051 1,771 0.0% 5,543,683 5,540,263 -3,420 -0.1%

TOTAL 107,132,111 3,082,942 3.0% 104,081,786 104,182,716 100,930 0.1%

Travel by Speed Bin:

Increase Freeway Capacity Baseline Increase Arterial Capacity

Speeds between 0 and 35 mph 0.4% 5.6% 5.4%

Speeds between 35 and 55 mph 2.0% 9.1% 8.7%

Speeds over 55 mph 97.6% 85.3% 85.9%


Travel in Congestion

Increase Freeway Capacity Baseline Increase Arterial Capacity

Travel in LOS F Conditions

Peak Period ALL Trips 1% 6% 5%

Daily ALL Trips 1% 3% 3%

Peak Period FREEWAY Trips

0% 9% 8%

Daily FREEWAY Trips 0% 5% 4%


Mode Share

Increased Freeway Capacity

Baseline Increased Arterial

Capacity



SOV 1,006,064 78.8% 997,905 78.3% 998,766 78.4%

HOV 135,516 10.6% 137,697 10.8% 137,367 10.8%

Transit 107,912 8.5% 109,911 8.6% 109,804 8.6%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 27,141 2.1% 28,175 2.2% 28,069 2.2%

TOTAL 1,276,633 100.0% 1,273,688 100.0% 1,274,006 100.0%

REGION-WIDE

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 11,080,071 52.7% 11,069,865 52.7% 11,071,169 52.7%

HOV 8,901,728 42.4% 8,905,753 42.4% 8,905,228 42.4%

Transit 348,425 1.7% 350,025 1.7% 349,991 1.7%

School Bus 129,192 0.6% 128,788 0.6% 128,944 0.6%

Walk & Bike 559,970 2.7% 564,954 2.7% 564,053 2.7%

TOTAL 21,019,386 100.0% 21,019,385 100.0% 21,019,385 100.0%


SOV 828,100 77.6% 822,033 77.2% 821,410 77.2%

HOV 111,587 10.5% 114,066 10.7% 113,144 10.6%

Transit 102,078 9.6% 103,223 9.7% 103,949 9.8%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 24,948 2.3% 24,961 2.3% 25,837 2.4%

TOTAL 1,066,713 100.0% 1,064,283 100.0% 1,064,340 100.0%

URBAN-AREA ,

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 9,133,528 52.8% 9,134,787 52.8% 9,125,461 52.7%

HOV 7,253,272 41.9% 7,263,745 42.0% 7,255,874 41.9%

Transit 331,007 1.9% 328,328 1.9% 332,644 1.9%

School Bus 93,592 0.5% 93,252 0.5% 93,338 0.5%

Walk & Bike 499,282 2.9% 490,439 2.8% 503,222 2.9%

TOTAL 17,310,681 100.0% 17,310,551 100.0% 17,310,539 100.0%


3.11 Trip Generation Discounts

Overview

These scenarios focus on removing or doubling the trip generation discounts applied to commute

trips for office workers and shoppers. Trip generation discounts are factors that reduce or increase

trip production and attraction rates in the model. Trip generation rate discounts are used to

evaluate telecommuting and e-commerce.

In both scenarios, the model should produce more VMT when trip discounts are removed and less

VMT when trip discounts are doubled. Transit mode share should rise slightly when the trip

discounts are removed due to marginal increases in network congestion.

Findings

Based on the tables below, the model is sensitive to trip generation discount changes. VMT and

transit mode shares increase when the trip generation discount is removed, and VMT and transit

mode shares decrease when trip generation rate discounts are expanded. The travel in congestion

gets slightly worse when the discount is removed, and gets slightly better when the discount is

doubled.

The corridor travel times increase slightly when the discount is removed, and decreases slightly

when the discount is doubled.

Summary Statistics

Remove Trip Generation Discount

Baseline Double Trip Generation

Discount

Total VMT 104,573,076 104,081,786 103,595,561

Total VHT 3,046,659 3,025,199 3,001,931

Commute Transit Share (Peak) 8.669% 8.629% 8.588%

All Trips Transit Share (Daily) 1.682% 1.665% 1.649%


VMT by Functional Class:

CLASS


Baseline Double Trip Generation Discount


FREEWAY 51,553,670 193,130 0.4% 51,360,540 51,146,913 -213,627 -0.4%

PRIME 8,720,267 58,915 0.7% 8,661,352 8,623,943 -37,409 -0.4%

MAJOR 18,789,010 105,425 0.6% 18,683,585 18,579,438 -104,147 -0.6%

COLLECTOR 6,652,914 42,968 0.7% 6,609,946 6,573,258 -36,688 -0.6%

LOCAL COLLECTOR 6,044,535 36,059 0.6% 6,008,476 5,977,215 -31,261 -0.5%

RURAL COLLECTOR 457,391 -677 -0.1% 458,068 453,365 -4,703 -1.0%

LOCAL 1,774,126 11,639 0.7% 1,762,487 1,750,857 -11,630 -0.7%

FWY-FWY RAMP 2,121,090 8,278 0.3% 2,112,812 2,102,893 -9,919 -0.5%

LOCAL RAMP 2,893,373 12,536 0.4% 2,880,837 2,868,906 -11,931 -0.4%

ACCESS 5,566,700 23,017 0.4% 5,543,683 5,518,773 -24,910 -0.4%

TOTAL 104,573,076 491,290 0.5% 104,081,786 103,595,561 -468,225 -0.5%


Mode Share


Baseline Double Trip Generation

Discount


REGION-WIDE Peak COMMUTE Trips

SOV 1,019,326 78.3% 997,905 78.3% 976,263 78.4%

HOV 141,142 10.8% 137,697 10.8% 134,648 10.8%

Transit 112,896 8.7% 109,911 8.6% 106,945 8.6%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 28,895 2.2% 28,175 2.2% 27,436 2.2%

TOTAL 1,302,259 100.0% 1,273,688 100.0% 1,245,292 100.0%

REGION-WIDE

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 11,129,116 52.7% 11,069,865 52.7% 11,010,406 52.6%

HOV 8,927,054 42.3% 8,905,753 42.4% 8,884,924 42.4%

Transit 355,106 1.7% 350,025 1.7% 345,254 1.6%

School Bus 128,873 0.6% 128,788 0.6% 128,898 0.6%

Walk & Bike 566,916 2.7% 564,954 2.7% 562,228 2.7%

TOTAL 21,107,065 100.0% 21,019,385 100.0% 20,931,710 100.0%

URBAN-AREA Peak COMMUTE Trips

SOV 840,272 77.1% 822,033 77.2% 800,846 77.2%

HOV 116,564 10.7% 114,066 10.7% 110,654 10.7%

Transit 106,959 9.8% 103,223 9.7% 101,166 9.7%

School Bus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Walk & Bike 26,608 2.4% 24,961 2.3% 25,230 2.4%

TOTAL 1,090,403 100.0% 1,064,283 100.0% 1,037,896 100.0%

URBAN-AREA

Daily ALL Trips

SOV 9,178,602 52.8% 9,134,787 52.8% 9,069,963 52.6%

HOV 7,275,742 41.8% 7,263,745 42.0% 7,237,354 42.0%

Transit 337,623 1.9% 328,328 1.9% 328,011 1.9%

School Bus 93,275 0.5% 93,252 0.5% 93,297 0.5%

Walk & Bike 505,887 2.9% 490,439 2.8% 501,418 2.9%

TOTAL 17,391,129 100.0% 17,310,551 100.0% 17,230,043 100.0%


4. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS

ADT Average Daily Traffic

Elasticity The responsiveness of a dependent variable to changes in influencing model

input variables

HOV High Occupancy Vehicle

LOS Level of Service

MTS Metropolitan Transit System

NCTD North County Transit District

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments

SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle

VHT Vehicle Hours of Travel

VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel

Appendix A

SANDAG Transportaion Model Sensitivity Report Performance Measures

Section 3.2 - Auto Operating Cost

Goals and Performance Measures

50% of

Baseline Auto

Operating

Costs

75% of

Baseline Auto

Operating

Costs Baseline

125% of

Baseline Auto

Operating

Costs

150% of

Baseline Auto

Operating Cost

SYSTEM PRESERVATION AND SAFETY

1 Annual projected number of vehicle injury/fatal collisions per capita 7.74 7.30 6.90 6.54 6.23

2

Annual projected number of bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal collisions per 1,000

persons (w/o Post Processor) 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61

MOBILITY

5 Average peak work trip travel time (in minutes) 30.6 29.4 28.3 27.5 26.8

Drive alone 28.9 27.5 26.0 24.8 23.8

Carpool 31.3 29.1 27.1 25.6 24.5

Transit 51.2 52.6 53.7 54.4 54.6

6 Average work trip travel speed by mode (in m.p.h.)

Drive alone 28.2 29.3 30.3 31.0 31.4

Carpool 29.4 30.6 31.6 32.3 32.7

Transit 12.2 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.5

7

Percent of work and higher education trips accessible in 30 minutes in peak periods

by mode

Drive alone 64% 67% 70% 74% 76%

Carpool 66% 69% 72% 76% 79%

Transit 12% 13% 13% 14% 15%

8 Percent of non work-related trips accessible in 15 minutes by modeDrive alone 62% 65% 68% 71% 73%Carpool 63% 66% 69% 72% 74%

Transit 7% 8% 8% 9% 9%

9 Out-of-pocket user costs per trip $2.45 $2.31 $2.19 $2.08 $1.99

RELIABILITY

15 Congested vehicle miles of travel (VMT)

Peak Period Percent of ALL auto travel at LOS E or F 22% 18% 14% 11% 9%

Daily Percent of ALL auto travel at LOS E or F 14% 10% 8% 6% 4%

Peak Period Percent of FREEWAY auto travel at LOS E or F 35% 29% 23% 17% 13%

Daily Percent of FREEWAY auto travel at LOS E or F 22% 17% 12% 9% 7%

Peak Period Percent of ALL auto travel at LOS F 10% 8% 6% 4% 3%

Daily Percent of ALL auto travel at LOS F 6% 4% 3% 2% 2%

Peak Period Percent of FREEWAY auto travel at LOS F 17% 14% 9% 6% 4%

Daily Percent of FREEWAY auto travel at LOS F 10% 7% 5% 3% 2%

16 Daily vehicle delay per capita (minutes) 6.5 4.8 3.63 2.8 2.4

17 Daily truck hours of delay 17,273 13,266 10,582 8,687 7,552

18 Percent of VMT by travel speed by mode

Drive alone

Percent of VMT traveling from 0 to 35 mph 12% 9% 6% 4% 3%


Percent of VMT traveling greater than 55 mph 74% 80% 85% 89% 91%

Carpool




Truck




HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

22 Systemwide VMT (all day) per capita 29.00 27.36 25.85 24.49 23.30

23 Transit passenger miles (all day) per capita 0.55 0.65 0.77 0.88 0.99

24 Percent of peak-period trips within 1/2 mile of a transit stop 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%

25 Percent of daily trips within 1/2 mile of transit stop 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%

26 Work trip mode share (peak periods)* (w/o Post Processing)

Drive alone 79.3% 78.8% 78.3% 77.8% 77.2%

Carpool 11.4% 11.1% 10.8% 10.5% 10.3%

Transit 7.3% 7.9% 8.6% 9.3% 9.9%

Bike/Walk 2.0% 2.1% 2.2% 2.4% 2.5%

3.2 - Auto Operating Cost - 1 7/29/2011

Appendix A




50% of

Baseline Auto

Operating

Costs

75% of

Baseline Auto

Operating

Costs Baseline

125% of

Baseline Auto

Operating

Costs

150% of

Baseline Auto

Operating Cost

HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

27 Daily Commute mode share (w/o Post Processing)

Drive alone 79.7% 79.3% 78.9% 78.3% 77.7%

Carpool 11.2% 10.8% 10.5% 10.3% 10.1%

Transit 6.9% 7.5% 8.2% 8.8% 9.4%

Bike/Walk 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.6% 2.8%

28 Non work trip mode share (peak periods)* (w/o Post Processing)

Drive alone 46.4% 46.2% 46.1% 45.9% 45.7%

Carpool 50.2% 50.0% 49.9% 49.8% 49.7%

Transit 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.1%

Bike/Walk 2.8% 3.0% 3.2% 3.4% 3.5%

29 Non work trip mode share (all day)* (w/o Post Processing)

Drive alone 50.1% 50.0% 49.9% 49.8% 49.7%

Carpool 46.8% 46.6% 46.5% 46.4% 46.2%

Transit 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.1%

Bike/Walk 2.4% 2.6% 2.7% 2.9% 3.0%

30 Total bike and walk trips (w/o Post Processing) 494,902 531,338 564,954 595,912 624,765

SOCIAL EQUITY

32 Average travel time per person trip (in minutes)

Low-income population 18.5 17.3 16.4 15.7 15.2

Non low-income population 18.4 17.3 16.3 15.6 15.1

Minority population 18.1 17.0 16.1 15.4 14.9

Non minority population 18.4 17.3 16.3 15.6 15.1

Mobility population 19.0 17.8 16.9 16.1 15.6

Non mobility population 18.3 17.2 16.2 15.5 15.0

Community engagement population 18.4 17.3 16.3 15.6 15.0

Non community engagement population 18.5 17.4 16.4 15.7 15.2

33 Percent of work trips accessible in 30 minutes in peak periods by mode

Low-income population 60% 63% 66% 68% 70%

Drive alone 68% 71% 75% 79% 82%

Carpool 69% 73% 77% 81% 84%

Transit 20% 21% 22% 23% 24%

Non low-income population 60% 62% 65% 67% 70%

SOV/Drive alone 63% 66% 69% 72% 75%

Carpool 65% 68% 71% 74% 77%

Transit 10% 10% 11% 11% 12%

Minority population 60% 62% 65% 68% 70%

SOV/Drive alone 66% 69% 72% 76% 79%

Carpool 67% 70% 74% 78% 81%

Transit 15% 15% 16% 17% 18%

Non minority population 60% 62% 65% 68% 70%

SOV/Drive alone 63% 66% 69% 72% 75%

Carpool 65% 68% 71% 74% 77%

Transit 10% 11% 11% 12% 12%

Mobility population

SOV/Drive alone 68% 72% 75% 78% 81%

Carpool 70% 73% 77% 80% 83%

Transit 17% 18% 19% 20% 20%


Appendix A




50% of

Baseline Auto

Operating

Costs

75% of

Baseline Auto

Operating

Costs Baseline

125% of

Baseline Auto

Operating

Costs

150% of

Baseline Auto

Operating Cost

SOCIAL EQUITY

33 Percent of work trips accessible in 30 minutes in peak periods by mode (cont.)

Non mobility population

SOV/Drive alone 63% 66% 69% 72% 75%

Carpool 64% 68% 71% 74% 77%

Transit 11% 11% 12% 12% 13%

Community engagement population

SOV/Drive alone 66% 69% 73% 77% 80%

Carpool 67% 71% 75% 79% 82%

Transit 18% 19% 19% 20% 21%

Non community engagement population

SOV/Drive alone 63% 66% 69% 72% 75%

Carpool 65% 68% 71% 74% 77%

Transit 10% 11% 11% 11% 12%

34 Percent of homes within 1/2 mile of a transit stop





Mobility population 74% 74% 74% 74% 74%

Non mobility population 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%

Community engagement population 89% 89% 89% 89% 89%

Non community engagement population 61% 61% 61% 61% 61%

PEAK PERIOD AVERAGE TRAVEL TIMES BY CORRIDOR

Oceanside - Downtown San Diego

1a By auto 70 63 58 55 521b By transit (walk access) 96 96 96 96 961c By transit (park and ride access) 88 88 88 88 881d By carpool 69 62 57 53 511e Corridor Weighted Average 75 71 67 66 64

Escondido - Downtown San Diego


El Cajon - Kearny Mesa


Mid-City - UTC


Western Chula Vista - Mission Valley


Carlsbad - Sorrento Mesa


Oceanside - Escondido


San Ysidro - Downtown San Diego



Appendix A




50% of

Baseline Auto

Operating

Costs

75% of

Baseline Auto

Operating

Costs Baseline

125% of

Baseline Auto

Operating

Costs

150% of

Baseline Auto

Operating Cost


Otay Ranch - UTC


Pala/Pauma - Oceanside Transit Center


SR 67 (Ramona) - Downtown San Diego

11a By auto 68 65 63 61 5911b By transit (walk access) 114 113 113 113 11211c By transit (park and ride access) 103 102 102 101 10011d By carpool 65 63 63 61 59

11e Corridor Weighted Average 78 77 77 77 77

Total Population 4,026,131 4,026,131 4,026,131 4,026,131 4,026,131


Appendix A


Section 3.3 - Parking Cost


50% of

Baseline

Parking Costs

75% of

Baseline


125% of

Baseline

Parking Costs

150% of

Baseline

Parking Cost

SYSTEM PRESERVATION AND SAFETY

1 Annual projected number of vehicle injury/fatal collisions per capita 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90

2

Annual projected number of bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal collisions per 1,000

persons (w/o Post Processor) 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57

MOBILITY

5 Average peak work trip travel time (in minutes) 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.4

Drive alone 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.1

Carpool 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.2

Transit 54.0 53.9 53.7 53.5 53.4

6 Average work trip travel speed by mode (in m.p.h.)

Drive alone 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.4 30.3

Carpool 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.6

Transit 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5

7

Percent of work and higher education trips accessible in 30 minutes in peak periods

by mode

Drive alone 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

Carpool 73% 72% 72% 72% 72%

Transit 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%

8 Percent of non work-related trips accessible in 15 minutes by modeDrive alone 68% 68% 68% 68% 68%Carpool 69% 69% 69% 69% 69%

Transit 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%

9 Out-of-pocket user costs per trip $2.15 $2.17 $2.19 $2.21 $2.22

RELIABILITY

15 Congested vehicle miles of travel (VMT)

Peak Period Percent of ALL auto travel at LOS E or F 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%

Daily Percent of ALL auto travel at LOS E or F 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%

Peak Period Percent of FREEWAY auto travel at LOS E or F 23% 23% 23% 23% 23%

Daily Percent of FREEWAY auto travel at LOS E or F 12% 13% 12% 12% 12%

Peak Period Percent of ALL auto travel at LOS F 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%

Daily Percent of ALL auto travel at LOS F 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Peak Period Percent of FREEWAY auto travel at LOS F 9% 9% 9% 10% 9%

Daily Percent of FREEWAY auto travel at LOS F 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

16 Daily vehicle delay per capita (minutes) 3.6 3.6 3.63 3.6 3.6

17 Daily truck hours of delay 10,578 10,628 10,582 10,604 10,549

18 Percent of VMT by travel speed by mode

Drive alone




Carpool




Truck




HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

22 Systemwide VMT (all day) per capita 25.85 25.85 25.85 25.85 25.85

23 Transit passenger miles (all day) per capita 0.74 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.78

24 Percent of peak-period trips within 1/2 mile of a transit stop 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%

25 Percent of daily trips within 1/2 mile of transit stop 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%

26 Work trip mode share (peak periods)* (w/o Post Processing)

Drive alone 78.7% 78.5% 78.3% 78.2% 78.0%

Carpool 10.8% 10.9% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8%

Transit 8.4% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 8.8%

Bike/Walk 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4%

3.3 - Parking Cost - 1 7/29/2011

Appendix A




50% of

Baseline

Parking Costs

75% of

Baseline


125% of

Baseline

Parking Costs

150% of

Baseline

Parking Cost

HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

Drive alone 79.2% 79.0% 78.9% 78.7% 78.5%

Carpool 10.6% 10.6% 10.5% 10.5% 10.5%

Transit 7.9% 8.1% 8.2% 8.3% 8.4%

Bike/Walk 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% 2.5% 2.6%

28 Non work trip mode share (peak periods)* (w/o Post Processing)

Drive alone 46.1% 46.1% 46.1% 46.1% 46.0%

Carpool 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.8% 49.8%

Transit 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%

Bike/Walk 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3%

29 Non work trip mode share (all day)* (w/o Post Processing)

Drive alone 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Carpool 47% 47% 47% 47% 46%

Transit 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Bike/Walk 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

30 Total bike and walk trips (w/o Post Processing) 535,490 550,882 564,954 576,399 587,745

SOCIAL EQUITY

32 Average travel time per person trip (in minutes)

Low-income population 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4

Non low-income population 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.4 16.4

Minority population 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1

Non minority population 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.4 16.4

Mobility population 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9

Non mobility population 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.3

Community engagement population 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3

Non community engagement population 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.5

33 Percent of work trips accessible in 30 minutes in peak periods by mode


Drive alone 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%

Carpool 77% 77% 77% 77% 77%

Transit 22% 22% 22% 22% 22%


SOV/Drive alone 69% 69% 69% 69% 69%

Carpool 71% 71% 71% 71% 71%

Transit 11% 11% 11% 11% 11%


SOV/Drive alone 72% 72% 72% 72% 72%

Carpool 74% 74% 74% 74% 74%

Transit 16% 16% 16% 16% 16%


SOV/Drive alone 69% 69% 69% 69% 69%

Carpool 71% 71% 71% 71% 71%

Transit 11% 11% 11% 11% 11%

Mobility population

SOV/Drive alone 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%

Carpool 77% 77% 77% 77% 77%

Transit 18% 18% 19% 19% 19%

3.3 - Parking Cost - 2 7/29/2011

Appendix A




50% of

Baseline

Parking Costs

75% of

Baseline


125% of

Baseline

Parking Costs

150% of

Baseline

Parking Cost

SOCIAL EQUITY

33 Percent of work trips accessible in 30 minutes in peak periods by mode (cont.)

Non mobility population

SOV/Drive alone 69% 69% 69% 69% 69%

Carpool 71% 71% 71% 71% 71%

Transit 12% 12% 12% 12% 12%

Community engagement population

SOV/Drive alone 73% 73% 73% 73% 73%

Carpool 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%

Transit 19% 19% 19% 19% 20%

Non community engagement population

SOV/Drive alone 69% 69% 69% 69% 69%

Carpool 72% 71% 71% 71% 71%

Transit 11% 11% 11% 11% 11%

34 Percent of homes within 1/2 mile of a transit stop





Mobility population 74% 74% 74% 74% 74%

Non mobility population 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%

Community engagement population 89% 89% 89% 89% 89%

Non community engagement population 61% 61% 61% 61% 61%


Oceanside - Downtown San Diego


Escondido - Downtown San Diego


El Cajon - Kearny Mesa


Mid-City - UTC


Western Chula Vista - Mission Valley


Carlsbad - Sorrento Mesa


Oceanside - Escondido


San Ysidro - Downtown San Diego


3.3 - Parking Cost - 3 7/29/2011

Appendix A




50% of

Baseline

Parking Costs

75% of

Baseline


125% of

Baseline

Parking Costs

150% of

Baseline

Parking Cost


Otay Ranch - UTC


Pala/Pauma - Oceanside Transit Center


SR 67 (Ramona) - Downtown San Diego

11a By auto 63 63 63 63 6311b By transit (walk access) 113 113 113 113 11311c By transit (park and ride access) 101 101 102 102 10211d By carpool 63 63 63 63 63

11e Corridor Weighted Average 75 76 77 79 79

Total Population 4,026,131 4,026,131 4,026,131 4,026,131 4,026,131

3.3 - Parking Cost - 4 7/29/2011

Appendix A


Section 3.4 - Income Distribution

Goals and Performance MeasuresVery Low

Income Scale

Low Income

Scale

Middle Income

Scale Baseline

High Income

Scale

Documents

SANDAG TRANSPORTATION MODEL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND … · 2011. 7. 31. · Draft 2050 RTP. The baseline scenario includes some network changes that will be considered in the Final