The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 04/10/2012 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNNING COMMISSION WITH BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2012 - 6:30 p.m. Beaverton City Library - 12375 SW Fifth Avenue; Conference Room AB, Beaverton, OR 97005 6:30 PM 1.STUDY SESSION MEETING A. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (MEETING LOCATION: BEAVERTON CITY LIBRARY, 12375 SW FIFTH AVENUE, CONFERENCE ROOM AB, BEAVERTON OR 97005) Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project Understanding Our Land Use and Transportation Choices PHASE 1 FINDINGS I JANUARY 12, 2012 2 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 C L A C K A M A S W A S H I N G T O N Y A M H I L L M A R I O N C L A C K A M A S W A S H I N G T O N W A S H I N G T O N C L A C K A M A S W A S H I N G T O N M U L T N O M A H C L A R K MU L TNO M A H Y A M H I L L MU L TNOMAH CLACKAMAS MU L TNOMAH CLACKAMAS St Johns Bethany T anasbourne Orenco Hollywood Sunset Rockwood Hillsdale Lents Pleasant V alley W est Portland Lake Grove Gateway W ashington Square St Johns Bethany T anasbourne Orenco Hollywood Sunset Rockwood Hillsdale Lents Pleasant V alley W est Portland Lake Grove Gateway W ashington Square 10 0 10 0 Miles 4 3 99 W 21 0 1 0 8 50 0 99 E 99E 4 7 3 0 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 22 4 21 7 212 1 4 1 4 2 0 5 2 0 5 2 0 5 8 4 8 4 5 5 5 P o r t l a n d P o r t l a n d V a n c o u v e r V a n c o u v e r F o r e s t G r o v e C a m a s T r o u t d a l e T i g a r d M i l w a u k i e L a k e O s w e g o T u a l a t i n S h e r w o o d G l a d s t o n e W e s t L i n n O r e g o n C i t y W i l s o n v i l l e C a n b y Newberg D a m a s c u s F o r e s t G r o v e C a m a s W ashougal W ashougal T r o u t d a l e T i g a r d M i l w a u k i e L a k e O s w e g o T u a l a t i n S h e r w o o d G l a d s t o n e W e s t L i n n O r e g o n C i t y W i l s o n v i l l e C a n b y Newberg D a m a s c u s H i l l s b o r o B e a v e r t o n G r e s h a m H i l l s b o r o B e a v e r t o n G r e s h a m C l a c k a m a s R i v e r B a n k s B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h P l a i n s C o r n e l i u s R o c k c r e e k O a k H i l l s C e d a r M i l l A l o h a G a s t o n C e d a r H i l l s M a y w o o d P a r k R a l e i g h H i l l s F a i r v i e w W o o d V i l l a g e K i n g C i t y D u r h a m H a p p y V a l l e y Canemah O a k G r o v e Sauvie ’s Island Sauvie ’s Island R i v e r g r o v e J o h n s o n C i t y C l a c k a m a s B o r i n g Barton Orient Eagle Creek Redland Willamette Carver Dundee Farmington W est Union Murray/Scholls Sta f ford S a n d y E s t a c a d a B a n k s B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h P l a i n s C o r n e l i u s R o c k c r e e k O a k H i l l s C e d a r M i l l P a r k r o s e P a r k r o s e A l o h a G a s t o n C e d a r H i l l s M a y w o o d P a r k R a l e i g h H i l l s F a i r v i e w W o o d V i l l a g e K i n g C i t y D u r h a m H a p p y V a l l e y Canemah O a k G r o v e R i v e r g r o v e J o h n s o n C i t y C l a c k a m a s B o r i n g Barton Orient Eagle Creek Barlow Redland Willamette Carver Dundee Farmington W est Union Murray/Scholls Sta f ford S a n d y E s t a c a d a C o l u m b i a R i v e r C o l u m b i a R i v e r W i l l a m e t t e R i v e r C l a c k a m a s R i v e r T u a l a t i n R i v e r C o l u m b i a R i v e r C o l u m b i a R i v e r W i l l a m e t t e R i v e r V a n co u v e r La k e T u a l a t i n R i v e r S a n d y R i v e r S a n d y R i v e r Urban g r owth boundary County boundary O REG O N W A SH ING T O N The Portland metropolitan region 3 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 The following pages summarize the purpose, scope and key findings from Phase 1 of the Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project. The region’s decision-makers will use this information to direct development of alternative scenarios in Phase 2. This information is for research purposes only and does not necessarily reflect current or future policy decisions of the Metro Council, MPAC or JPACT. Table of contents Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Why this work matters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A collaborative approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Oregon joins other states, regions and communities to lead the way . . .10 The challenge for our region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Principles to guide our approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Phase 1: methods and tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Phase 1: findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Bringing it all together: implications for Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Where we are headed in Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Phase 1: Supplemental Information Phase 1: 2010 base year and alternative scenario inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Our starting point is the Reference Case – current plans and policies . . . 24 Community Design – what we tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Community Design – considerations moving forward . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Pricing – what we tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Pricing – considerations moving forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Marketing and incentives – what we tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Marketing and incentives – considerations moving forward . . . . . 31 Roads – what we tested . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Roads – considerations moving forward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Fleet and technology – what we tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Fleet and technology – considerations moving forward. . . . . . . . . . . 35 Phase 1 at a glance: results from selected scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Acknowledgements Technical Work Group Tom Armstrong, City of Portland Kenny Asher, City of Milwaukie Andy Back, Washington County Chuck Beasley, Multnomah County Karen Buehrig, Clackamas County Lynda David, Regional Transportation Council Jennifer Donnelly, Department of Land Conservation and Development Denny Egner, City of Lake Oswego Jessica Engelmann, TriMet Brian Gregor, Oregon Department of Transportation Mara Gross, TPAC citizen member Jonathan Harker, City of Gresham Eric Hesse, TriMet Jon Holan, City of Forest Grove Katherine Kelly, City of Gresham Nancy Kraushaar, City of Oregon City Alan Lehto, TriMet Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon Mike McKillip, City of Tualatin Margaret Middleton, City of Beaverton Dan Rutzick, City of Hillsboro Tyler Ryerson, City of Beaverton Lainie Smith, Oregon Department of Transportation Metro Staff Janna Allgood, Communications Kim Ellis, Planning and Development Mike Hoglund, Research Center Nuin-Tara Key, Research Center Tom Kloster, Planning and Development Janice Larson, Communications John Mermin, Planning and Development Josh Naramore, Planning and Development Dylan Rivera, Communications Patty Unfred, Communications Ray Valone, Planning and Development Dennis Yee, Research Center Design Support Jeanne Galick, Graphic Designer For more information, visit www.oregonmetro.gov/climatescenarios 4 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Executive summary Making a great place Transportation choices Regional climate change leadership Vibrant communities Equity Clean air and water Economic prosperity The region’s six desired out - comes – endorsed by city and county elected officials and adopted by the Metro Coun - cil in December 2010. Over the years, the diverse communities of the Portland metro - politan region have taken a collaborative approach to planning and investment that has helped make our region one of the most livable in the country. We have set the region on a wise course – but times are challenging. A faltering economy, troubling jobless rates, rising energy, housing and transportation costs, climate change and other challenges demand continued leadership, inno - vation and collaboration to ensure this region remains a great place to live, work and play. Joining other states around the country, Oregon has been a leader in addressing climate change with ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all sources to 75 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. The Oregon Legis - lature, in 2009, passed the Jobs and Transportation Act (House Bill 2001). Section 37 of the Act requires Metro, the regional government of the Portland metropolitan area, to develop two or more alternative land use and transportation scenarios designed to accommodate planned population and job growth and reduce GHG emissions from light vehicles. Section 37 also requires Metro to adopt a preferred scenario after public review and consultation with local governments, and calls for local governments in the Portland metropolitan region to implement the adopted scenario. Adoption is anticipated in 2014, but Sec - tion 37 does not define a specific deadline. To guide Metro’s scenario planning work, the Land Conserva - tion and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted, in May 2011, the Metropolitan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Rule, OAR 660-044, also required by section 37. The rule iden - tifies GHG emissions reduction targets for each of Oregon’s six metropolitan areas. The targets identify the percentage reduc - tion in per capita GHG emissions from light vehicle travel that is needed to help Oregon meet its GHG emissions reduction goals. In 2005, the region’s roadway GHG emissions were 4.05 MT CO 2 e per capita. The adopted target for the region is the equivalent of 1.2 MT CO 2 e per capita by 2035. LCDC will review the state targets in 2015 and may identify adjustments in light of new information available at that time. The Portland metropolitan region is undertaking scenario plan - ning in three phases as part of the Climate Smart Communi - ties Scenarios Project to demonstrate climate change leadership and respond to the Jobs and Transportation Act. The Scenarios Project is building on the land use and transportation strate - gies contained in the 2040 Growth Concept, the long-range vision adopted by the region in 1995. Since its adoption, Metro and its partners have collaborated to help communities realize their local aspirations while moving the region toward its goals for making a great place: vibrant communities, economic pros - perity, transportation choices, equity, clean air and water, and regional climate change leadership. Local and regional efforts to implement the 2040 Growth Concept provide a good basis for the GHG scenario planning work required of the region. The region has completed the first of three phases of the Sce - narios Project – Understanding Choices. Phase 1 focused on understanding the region’s land use and transportation choices by conducting a review of published research and testing 144 regional scenarios. The analysis demonstrated the GHG emis - sions reduction potential of current plans and policies, as well as which combinations of more ambitious land use and transporta - tion strategies are needed to meet the state target. 5 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 1.2 MT CO 2 e The region’s per capita roadway GHG emissions target for 2035 This report was prepared by Metro staff in consultation with a technical work group, the Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee (TPAC), the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC), the Joint Policy Advisory Com - mittee (JPACT), the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) and the Metro Council. Phase 1 Scenarios Project Findings The work completed to date yielded the following findings: Finding 1: Current local and regional plans and policies are ambitious and provide a strong foundation for meeting the region’s GHG reduction target. Finding 2: The reduction target is achievable but will take additional effort and new strategic actions. Finding 3: Most of the strategies under consideration are already being imple - mented to varying degrees in the region to achieve the 2040 Growth Concept vision and other important economic, social and environmental goals. Finding 4: A range of policy choices exists to reduce GHG emissions; the best approach is a mix of strategies. Finding 5: Community design and pricing play a key role in how much and how far people drive each day and provide significant GHG emissions reductions. Finding 6: Fleet, technology and pricing strategies provide similar significant GHG emissions reductions, but no single strategy is enough to meet the region’s target. Finding 7: Road management and marketing strategies improve system and vehicle efficiency and reduce vehicle travel to provide similar, but modest, GHG emissions reductions. The assumptions used in Phase 1 are ambitious and were based on the need to create a starting point to test scenarios. The region’s decision-makers will use the Phase 1 research and sub - sequent stakeholder engagement to direct development and eval - uation of additional scenarios in Phases 2 and 3. The Scenarios Project will continue to build on the region’s long tradition of innovation, excellence in urban planning and con - servation and stewardship of our natural environment. People are already making personal choices that will help reduce the region’s GHG emissions – they carpool or take transit to work and walk to the store when possible. They support investments that are needed to create climate smart communities – thriving downtowns and main streets supported by transit, neighbor - hoods with safe and convenient sidewalks and bicycle connec - tions and proximity to jobs, parks and services, and more fuel- efficient vehicles. Future project phases will likely identify addi - tional policies and strategies needed to achieve the needed GHG emissions reductions while meeting other economic, social and environmental goals and supporting the individual needs and aspirations of communities throughout the region. All those involved in the Scenarios Project recognize that there are many unknowns. The region will need to be innovative and flexible as the work moves forward to respond to and take advantage of what is learned in each project phase. This can be achieved but will require strong partnerships and close collabo - ration with local, regional, and state partners as well as engag - ing a diversity of individual, community and business perspec - tives to help shape the region’s preferred strategy. 6 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Making a Great Place Over the years, the diverse communities of the Portland metropolitan region have taken a collaborative approach to planning and investment that has helped make our region one of the most livable in the country. We have set the region on a wise course – but times are challenging. A faltering economy, troubling jobless rates, rising energy, housing and transportation costs, climate change and other challenges demand continued leadership, innovation and collaboration to ensure this region remains a great place to live, work and play. Purpose and scope In 2009, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2001, the Jobs and Transportation Act.1 Section 37 of the JTA directs Metro to “develop two or more alternative land use and transportation scenarios” by January 2012 that are designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light-duty vehicles. The Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, and this report, respond to HB 2001 and subsequent GHG emissions reduction targets adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in May 2011. During Phase 1, more than 140 regional scenarios were tested to learn the GHG emissions reduction potential of current plans and policies, as well as which combinations of more ambitious land use and transportation strategies are needed to meet the state GHG targets. A review of published research complemented the scenarios analysis. This report summarizes key findings from Phase 1 and implications for future project phases. Metro staff conducted the research with the assistance of a technical work group of members from the Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee (TPAC) and the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC), consistent with policy direction from the Joint Policy Advisory Committee (JPACT) and the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC). Introduction Marketing and incentives Technology Pricing Roads Community design Fleet Policy areas tested in Phase 1 1 http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2001.en.pdf 7 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Responding to climate change by making a great place More than a decade ago, the region set a course for growth with the adoption of the 2040 Growth Concept. Over the years, Metro and its partners have collaborated to help communities realize their unique aspirations while moving the region toward its goals to make the Portland metropolitan area a great place to live, work and play. Responding to climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time. Mounting scientific evidence shows Oregon’s cli - mate is changing. Oregon has been a national leader in address - ing climate change with ambitious goals to reduce GHG emis - sions. Now it’s time for regional and local leaders to focus and act on the investments and actions needed to collaboratively realize local aspirations and shared regional goals, as well as address state climate goals. The Scenarios Project is intended to do just that. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is important to the health of the region and the planet. The Scenarios Project will demon - strate that the region can progress toward the GHG reduction goals set by the state within the context of achieving outcomes of equal importance to residents: a healthy economy; clean air and water; and access to good jobs, affordable housing, trans - portation options, nature, trails and recreational opportunities. The Scenarios Project is not only addressing climate change for the sake of state mandates. Through this effort, the region will build on a long tradition of innovation, excellence in urban planning, and conservation and stewardship of our natural envi - ronment. The bold decisions made decades ago mean we drive much less than other regions our size – giving Portland metro - politan area a head start over other cities and regions across the country. In this context, the Scenarios Project will consider poli - cies, investments and actions needed by 2035 to tackle the cli - mate challenge. The Project will show that solutions are at hand that will turn the challenge of climate change into opportunities to enhance the region’s resilience, prosperity and quality of life, now and for generations to come. For now, the Scenarios Project will focus on developing a regional strategy for reducing GHG emissions from cars, small trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) – as required by the Jobs and Transportation Act. Preparation for and adaptation to a changing climate will be addressed in future phases and through other efforts already underway in the region and state. Why this work matters Climate smart strategies can bring many benefits to the region – including significant savings in fuel costs, less time spent in traffic as well as other benefits to the environment, public health and the economy. 48% Materials (goods and food) 27% Energy 10% Other passenger transport < .01% T ransit 1% Local f r eight 14% Passenger cars and trucks Regionalgreenhouse gas emissions sources (2006) Source: Metro 8 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 1 0 9 9 W 2 1 7 2 1 0 2 1 7 1 0 8 8 2 6 8 4 7 4 7 8 6 4 7 6 6 4 7 2 6 3 0 3 0 3 0 2 6 9 9 E 9 9 E 5 5 2 0 5 2 0 5 2 0 5 2 0 5 2 0 5 2 0 5 S h e r w o o d 4 3 2 2 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 1 2 2 6 2 6 3 0 8 4 8 4 8 4 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 9 9 E 9 9 E 9 9 W 4 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 9 9 E 2 1 9 2 1 9 2 1 9 9 9 W 9 9 W 4 7 4 7 4 7 9 9 W 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 4 0 2 1 0 2 1 9 8 5 0 0 1 4 1 4 1 4 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 3 W a s h .O r e . 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 5 2 6 2 6 2 2 4 2 1 0 A m i t y A u r o r a B a n k s B a r l o w C a n b y C a r l t o n D a y t o n D o n a l d D u n d e e E s t a c a d a G a s t o n G e r v a i s H u b b a r d L a f a y e t t e M c M i n n v i l l e M o l a l l a N e w b e r g N o r t h P l a i n s S a n d y S c a p p o o s e S t . P a u l W o o d b u r n Y a m h i l l P o r t l a n d G a t e w a y H i l l s b o r o G r e s h a m B e a v e r t o n W a s h i n g t o n S q u a r e C l a c k a m a s O r e g o n C i t y S t . J o h n s B e t h a n y O r e n c o T r o u t d a l e H o l l y w o o d C e d a r M i l l F o r e s t G r o v e S u n s e t T r a n s i t R o c k w o o d A l o h a R a l e i g h H i l l s H i l l s d a l e L e n t s P l e a s a n t V a l l e y W e s t P o r t l a n d M i l w a u k i e M u r r a y S c h o l l s L a k e O s w e g o L a k e G r o v e D a m a s c u s K i n g C i t y T u a l a t i n G l a d s t o n e W e s t L i n n W i l s o n v i l l e T i g a r d H a p p y V a l l e y T a n a s b o u r n e A m b e r G l e n C o r n e l i u s F a i r v i e w W o o d V i l l a g e V a n c o u v e r O r c h a r d s M i l l P l a i n C a m a s W a s h o u g a l S a l m o n C r e e k B a t t l e G r o u n d N E S r -5 0 0 P a c i f i c P a c i f i c A v e N E 1 8 1 s t A v e N E 8 2 n d A v e S W B e a v e r t o n H i l l s d a l e H w y S W P a c i f i c H w y N L o m b a r d S t N E S a n d y B l v d N W C o r n e l l R d N E 1 2 2 n d A v e S r 5 0 0 S E P o w e l l B l v d N W L o v e j o y S t S W S c h o l l s F e r r y R d S E S r -1 4 N W 1 8 5 t h A v e N W 2 5 7 t h A v e S E H a w t h o r n e B l v d N M a r i n e D r S E G r a n d A v e S W W i l s o n v i l l e R d N D e n v e r A v e S W E l l i g s e n R d S E D i v i s i o n S t S E S u n n y s i d e R d N C o l u m b i a B l v d N E K i l l i n g s w o r t h S t B o r l a n d R d S M a i n S t S E F o s t e r R d S E M c l o u g h l i n B l v d K r u s e W a y E B u r n s i d e S t S W B a r n e s R d S W C a n y o n R d N W I -5 B S t F r o n t S t M a i n S t N W N i c o l a i S t N W M a r i n e D r S E 8 2 n d A v e N W 6 t h A v e B a s e l i n e S t S E I - 2 0 5 S u n s e t H w y S E I -5 S W F a r m i n g t o n R d N S t a t e S t S t a f f o r d R d S W M u r r a y B l v d N E L o m b a r d S t N I n t e r s t a t e A v e W B u r n s i d e S t S E S r -1 4 N W B a r n e s R d W P o w e l l B l v d N W B r i d g e A v e N E S r 5 0 2 S W T u a l a t i n S h e r w o o d R d N E S r 5 0 3 7 t h S t B o o n e s F e r r y R d S W W a t s o n A v e S W T u a l a t i n V a l l e y H w y S W D u r h a m R d E B u r n s i d e S t N E D i v i s i o n S t B e a v e r c r e e k R d S W O a k S t S W S p r i n g H i l l R d N E A r n d t R d 1 9 t h A v e N 1 s t A v e S E 1 s t A v e S E T a c o m a S t N W C o r n e l l R d S W 2 5 7 t h A v e S E 8 2 n d A v e S W G a s t o n R d G a l e s C r e e k R d C o u n t r y C l u b R d S B a r l o w R d S H a y d e n R d S I v y S t S W S t a f f o r d R d S W 1 8 5 t h A v e S W S u n s e t H w y T u a l a t i n V a l l e y H w y N E P o r t l a n d H w y S r -5 0 3 N A d a i r S t N W D i v i s i o n S t N P o r t l a n d R d S E 2 4 2 n d A v e B l u f f R d N E C o r n e l l R d S E 2 2 2 n d D r N E S r -5 0 0 S E S r -1 4 E C o l u m b i a R i v e r H w y W i l l a m e t t e F a l l s D r S W L a u r e l w o o d R d W i l s o n R i v e r H w y S R e d l a n d R d N E S r -5 0 3 S W B a l d P e a k R d S S p r i n g w a t e r R d S E B l u f f R d S r -1 4 S C l a c k a m a s R i v e r D r S W P a t t o n V a l l e y R d N E M a r i n e D r N W G a l e s C r e e k R d S u n s e t H w y M c l o u g h l i n B l v d W i l l a m e t t e D r S W N a i t o P k w y N E I -2 0 5 S W B r o a d w a y A v e S W H a l l B l v d S E S t a r k S t N W C o r n e l i u s P a s s R d N E M a r t i n L u t h e r K i n g B l v d S W M a c a d a m A v e S W T e r w i l l i g e r B l v d S W H i l l s b o r o H w y N E I -5 S E S r -5 0 0 S W B a r b u r B l v d S E 1 2 2 n d A v e N H o l l y S t S W 6 5 t h A v e N E A i r p o r t W a y S B e a v e r c r e e k R d S E K a n e D r S E 1 8 2 n d A v e S E 3 9 t h A v e S H e n r i c i R d P a c i f i c H w y M o l a l l a A v e N W S t H e l e n s R d N W S t H e l e n s R d S E R i v e r R d S W T u a l a t i n V a l l e y H w y S E O r i e n t D r S W R i v e r R d S W U n g e r R d N W G l e n c o e R d N E S r -5 0 0 N W N e h a l e m H w y 2 0 4 0 G r o w t h C o n c e p t M a p D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 1 W a s h i n g t o n C o . M u l t n o m a h C o . C o l u m b i a C o . M u l t n o m a h C o . C l a r k C o .S k a m a n i a M u l t n o m a h C o . C l a c k a m a s C o . C l a c k a m a s C o . M a r i o n C o . W a s h i n g t o n C o . C l a c k a m a s C o . Y a m h i l l C o . W a s h i n g t o n C o . Y a m h i l l C o . S a n d y R . C o l u m b i a R i v e r W i l l a m e t t e R . T u a l a t i n R . H a g g L a k e S t u r g e o n L a k e V a n c o u v e r L a k e C l a c k a m a s R . T h e i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h i s m a p w a s d e r i v e d f r o m d i g i t a l d a t a b a s e s o n M e t r o 's G I S . C a r e w a s t a k e n i n t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h i s m a p . M e t r o c a n n o t a c c e p t a n y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e r r o r s , o m i s s i o n s , o r p o s i t i o n a l a c c u r a c y . T h e r e a r e n o w a r r a n t i e s , e x p r e s s e d o r i m p l i e d , i n c l u d i n g t h e w a r r a n t y o f m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y o r f i t n e s s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e , a c c o m p a n y i n g t h i s p r o d u c t . H o w e v e r , n o t i f i c a t i o n o f a n y e r r o r s a r e a p p r e c i a t e d . W i l l a m e t t e R . 0 2 4 1 m i l e s 0 3 6 1 .5 K i l o m e t e r s M a k i n g a g r e a t p l a c e C e n t r a l c i t y R e g i o n a l c e n t e r T o w n c e n t e r P r o p o s e d h i g h c a p a c i t y t r a n s i t t i e r 1 T h e M e t r o 2 0 4 0 G r o w t h C o n c e p t d e f i n e s t h e f o r m o f r e g i o n a l g r o w t h a n d d e v e l o p m e n t f o r t h e P o r t l a n d m e t r o p o l i t a n r e g i o n .T h e G r o w t h C o n c e p t w a s a d o p t e d i n D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 5 t h r o u g h t h e R e g i o n 2 0 4 0 p l a n n i n g a n d p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t p r o c e s s . T h i s c o n c e p t i s i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e l o n g -t e r m g r o w t h m a n a g e m e n t o f t h e r e g i o n . T h e m a p h i g h l i g h t s e l e m e n t s o f p a r a l l e l p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s i n c l u d i n g : t h e 2 0 3 5 R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n t h a t o u t l i n e s i n v e s t m e n t s i n m u l t i p l e m o d e s o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , a n d a c o m m i t m e n t t o l o c a l p o l i c i e s a n d i n v e s t m e n t s t h a t w i l l h e l p t h e r e g i o n b e t t e r a c c o m m o d a t e g r o w t h w i t h i n i t s c e n t e r s , c o r r i d o r s a n d e m p l o y m e n t a r e a s . F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e s e i n i t i a t i v e s , v i s i t h t t p ://w w w .o r e g o n m e t r o .g o v /2 0 4 0 A r e a s a d d e d t o t h e U G B ,e f f e c t i v e 0 1 /1 8 /1 2 N e i g h b o r h o o d U r b a n r e s e r v e U r b a n g r o w t h b o u n d a r i e s R u r a l r e s e r v e P a r k s a n d n a t u r a l a r e a s E m p l o y m e n t l a n d I n t e r c i t y r a i l t e r m i n a l A i r p o r t s N e i g h b o r c i t i e s H i g h s p e e d r a i l M a i n l i n e f r e i g h t M a i n s t r e e t s C o r r i d o r s S t a t i o n c o m m u n i t i e s C o u n t y b o u n d a r i e s P l a n n e d h i g h c a p a c i t y t r a n s i t E x i s t i n g h i g h c a p a c i t y t r a n s i t 9 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Building on community aspirations and the 2040 Growth Concept to achieve state climate goals Adopted in 1995, the 2040 Growth Concept is the region’s blue - print for the future, guiding growth and development based on a shared vision to create livable, prosperous and equitable com - munities. The growth concept encourages development in cen - ters, corridors and employment areas to support environmental, social and economic objectives. How we get there The Scenarios Project is a multi-year collaborative effort designed to help communities realize their aspirations for growth and development and maximize achievement of the region’s six desired outcomes and state climate goals. Phase 1 (January to December 2011) Understanding choices by testing policy options In 2011, the region used scenario planning and other research to understand the choices for meeting the state GHG emissions reduction target. The analysis included development of a Strat - egy Toolbox report synthesizing published research on different strategies in terms of their GHG reduction potential, benefits to communities, synergies, and implementation opportunities and challenges to be addressed in Phase 2. In addition, Metro in collaboration with state and local part - ners, developed and analyzed 144 alternative scenarios. The sce - narios will be used to identify potential policy options for poli - cymakers to discuss during 2012. The regional policy discussion will shape potential strategies recommended for further evalua - tion in Phase 2. Phase 2 (January to December 2012) Shaping the direction by turning policy options into a draft regional strategy In 2012, the region will design and evaluate more customized alternative scenarios, applying the findings from Phase 1 and incorporating strategies identified in local and regional plan - ning efforts that are underway. This phase will also evaluate the benefits, impacts, costs and savings associated with differ - ent strategies across environmental, economic and equity goals. Case studies will be developed to illustrate potential commu - nity effects. This phase will result in development of alternative scenarios that will be subject to further analysis and review in Phase 3. Phase 3 (January 2013 to June 2014) Building the strategy and implementation In 2013 and 2014, the region will collaboratively build and select a preferred scenario after public review and consultation with local governments. This phase will define policies, invest - ments and actions needed to implement the preferred scenario. This work will also include development of a finance strategy. Effective implementation of the preferred strategy will likely require the participation and cooperation of government agen - cies, the private sector and community organizations. A collaborative approach 2011 Phase 1 2012 Phase 2 2013 – 14 Phase 3 Understanding choices Shaping the direction Building the strategy Jan 2012 Accept ﬁndings Fall 2012 Direction on alternative scenarios to be tested June 2014 Adopt preferred strategy; begin implementation We are here Climate smart communities scenarios project timeline 2013 Release hybrid alternative scenario For more information, visit the project website at www.oregonmetro. gov/climatescenarios 10 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Oregon joins other states, regions and communities to lead the way For years, states and metropolitan regions have been taking action to address climate change in the absence of federal legis - lation. A wide range of policies have been adopted at the state and regional levels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, develop clean energy resources and promote more energy-efficient vehi - cles, buildings and appliances. More information on these efforts can be found at www.c2es.org. Although climate change will ultimately require national and international responses, the actions taken by states and regions will continue to play an important role by developing and test - ing innovative solutions, demonstrating successful programs, and laying the groundwork for broader action. Many states have completed or are in the process of revising or developing comprehensive Climate Action Plans. They view policies that address climate change as an economic opportu - nity, not as a burden on commerce. These states are trying to position themselves as leaders in new markets related to cli - mate action: producing and selling alternative fuels, ramping up renewable energy exports and attracting high-tech business. Economic issues are just one motivator for state policies that address climate change. Policies to improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and develop domestic, clean energy supplies can all have climate benefits. Thus states are discovering that climate policies often bring about benefits in these other areas as well. Like many other states, Washington, Oregon and California have significant state laws on climate change, with specific and varied provisions focusing on reducing transportation-related GHG emissions. 2007 Similar to many other states, the Oregon Legislature established statewide GHG emissions reduc - tion goals in 2007. The goals apply to all emission sectors – energy pro - duction, buildings, solid waste and transportation – and direct Oregon to: • stop increases in GHG emissions by 2010 • reduce GHG emissions to 10 per - cent below 1990 levels by 2020 • reduce GHG emissions to at least 75 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2007 Oregon Legislature also established the Oregon Global Warming Commission (OGWC) – a 25-member commission charged with helping coordinate state - wide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and guide the state toward its climate goals. The com - mission was charged with helping the state, local governments, busi - nesses and residents prepare for the effects of climate change. More information about the OGWC can be found at www.keeporegoncool.org/ States with adopted climate action plans Source: Center for Climate & Energy Solutions In progress Completed States with adopted GHG emissions reduction targets Source: Center for Climate & Energy Solutions West Coast MPOs Portland Seattle San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles San Diego The largest West Coast metro - politan planning organizations have been engaged in scenario planning and climate action plan - ning to meet state GHG emissions reduction targets . 11 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 20% 17% 21% 20% 18% 19% Portland Metro 2 Salem-Keizer Corvallis Eugene-Springfield 3 Bend Rogue Valley Metropolitan area Adopted target 1 2035 GHG targets for Oregon metropolitan areas per capita light vehicle GHG emissions reduction 1 Adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in May 2011 2 Required scenario planning and adoption 3 Required scenario planning 45-minute travelshed extent MPO boundary 2009 The Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2001, directing Metro to “develop two or more alternative land use and trans - portation scenarios” by January 2012 that are designed to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles. The legislation also mandates: 1) adoption of a preferred scenario after public review and con - sultation with local government 2) local government implementation through comprehensive plans and land use regulations that are consistent with the adopted regional scenario. 2010 In 2010, the OGWC developed an Interim Roadmap to 2020 that includes recommendations in all sectors of the state’s econ - omy – energy, transportation and land use, materials manage - ment, forestry, agriculture, and industrial use – to meet state climate goals. The first Oregon-specific assessment of climate change impacts was released by the Oregon Climate Change Research Insti - tute (OCCRI) in December 2010. The OCCRI Oregon Climate Assessment Report is the work of over 100 researchers across the Oregon University System with input from the OGWC. The report documents likely impacts to Oregon’s weather patterns, water supplies, agricultural production, forest health, fish and wildlife species and ecosystems, public health, transportation infrastructure and coastal communities. In addition, state agencies collaborated with the OGWC, the OCCRI and each other to produce the first comprehensive Oregon policy framework for climate change adaptation plan - ning in December 2010. The Oregon Climate Change Adapta - tion Framework identifies near term, low cost and high benefit actions Oregon can take. These actions will help Oregonians minimize the impacts of climate change to their communities and livelihoods, and to the environmental values we hold dear in this state. 2011 The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) are leading the state response relative to the transportation sec - tor through the Oregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative (OSTI). As part of this effort, the Land Conservation and Devel - opment Commission (LCDC) adopted per capita roadway GHG emissions reduction targets for light-duty vehicles for all six met - ropolitan areas within Oregon on May 19, 2011.1 While there is no legislative direction to reduce GHG emissions beyond the transportation sector, the Interim Roadmap to 2020 and other state efforts provide a comprehensive framework and starting point for considering how best to address climate change in Oregon. 1 http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/rulemaking/trac/660_044.pdf 12 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 While the overall state GHG emissions reduction goals call for reductions from 1990 emissions levels by 2050, state agencies were tasked with estimating a 2005 baseline and an intermedi - ate GHG emissions reduction goal for the year 2035 to inform the Scenarios Project. LCDC adopted the Metropolitan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Rule (OAR 660-044) in May 2011.1 The rule identifies GHG emissions reduction targets for Oregon’s six metropoli - tan areas. The targets identify the percentage reduction in GHG emissions from light vehicle travel that is needed to help Oregon meet its long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 75 per - cent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. The LCDC target-setting process assumed changes to the vehi - cle fleet mix, improved fuel economy, and the use of improved vehicle technologies and fuels that would reduce 2005 emissions levels from 4.05 to 1.51 MT CO 2 e per capita by the year 2035.2 The adopted target for the Portland metropolitan area calls for a 20 percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from light vehicle travel by the year 2035. This target reduction is in addition to the reduction expected from changes to the fleet and technology sectors as identified in the Agencies’ Technical Report. Therefore, to meet the target, per capita roadway GHG emissions must be reduced by an additional 20 percent below the 1.51 MT CO 2 e per capita by the year 2035 – to 1.2 MT CO 2 e per capita. The challenge for our region The region’s 20 percent per capita reduction is anticipated to come from a combination of community design, pricing, mar - keting/incentives and road policies. If the fleet and technology improvements assumed in OAR 660-044 are not achieved, then greater reductions may be needed through these other policies. LCDC will review the state targets in 2015 and may identify adjustments at that time in light of new information available at that time. R e g i o n ’s t a rg e t = 1 .2 M T C O 2 e R e g i o n ’s 2 0 3 5 G H G e m i s s i o n s r e d u c t i o n t a rg e t i n p e r c a p i t a t e r m s 2 0 % r e d u c t i o n F l e e t a n d t e c h n o l o g y = 1 .5 M T C O 2 e C o m m u n i t y d e s i g n P r i c i n g M a r k e t i ng & i n c e n t i v e s R o a d s 2 0 05 2 0 3 5 2 050 The adopted target for the region is the equivalent of 1.2 MT CO 2 e per capita. While the target is based on 2005 emissions values, it has been calibrated to 1990 emissions levels, and if achieved by the year 2035 ensures the region is on track to meet the overall state 2050 GHG emissions reduction goal. MT CO 2 e stands for metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. Measured and stored at standard atmospheric pres - sures, one metric ton of CO 2 occupies a cube approxi - mately the size of a 3-story building (27 x 27 x 27 feet). It is equivalent to 112 gallons of gasoline. 1.2 MT CO 2 e 1 http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/rulemaking/trac/660_044.pdf 2 See Agencies’ Technical Report at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/ TP/docs/OSTI/TechRpt.pdf. The region’s per capita road - way GHG emissions target for 2035 13 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Regional and local leaders agree that the Portland region must provide leadership in addressing climate change. The Scenarios Project supports this goal by supplementing state actions with a collaborative regional effort that will also advance local aspira - tions and the implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept. In this spirit, the Metro Council and the region’s transportation and land use policy committees agreed upon six principles to guide this scenario planning effort. Phase 1 of the Scenarios Project focused on understanding the region’s choices for reducing light vehicle GHG emissions. Test - ing broad-level, regional scenarios revealed the potential of cur - rent plans and policies as well as what combinations of land use and transportation strategies (grouped under six policy areas) are needed to meet the state GHG targets. Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project guiding principles 1. Focus on outcomes and benefits The strategies that are needed to reduce GHG emissions can help save individuals, local governments and the private sector money, grow local businesses, create jobs and build healthy, livable communities. These multiple benefits should be emphasized and central to the evaluation and communication of the results. 2. Build on existing efforts and aspirations Start with existing local and regional plans that include strategies to achieve the six desired outcomes for a successful region, illustrated at right. 3. Show cause and effect Provide sufficient clarity to discern cause and effect relationships between strategies tested. 4. Be bold, yet plausible and well-grounded Explore a range of futures that may be difficult to achieve but are possible in terms of market feasibility, public acceptance and consistency with local aspirations. 5. Be fact-based and make information relevant, understandable and tangible Develop and organize information so decision-makers and stakeholders can understand the choices, consequences (intended and unintended) and tradeoffs. Use case studies, visualization and illustration tools to communicate results and make the choices real. 6. Meet state climate goals Demonstrate what is required to meet the state GHG emissions reduction target for cars, small trucks and SUVs, recognizing reductions from other emissions sources must also be addressed in a comprehensive manner. The Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) endorsed the six principles on June 8 and June 9, 2011 respectively, to guide all Scenarios Project phases. Principles to guide our approach Successful centers like downtown Hillsboro are dynamic, walkable places that have a concentration of businesses, shops and entertainment, and strong transit service. They combine offices, retail and housing with quality streetscapes, parks and plazas, fountains or other urban amenities. Making a great place Transportation choices Regional climate change leadership Vibrant communities Equity Clean air and water Economic prosperity The region’s six desired outcomes – endorsed by city and county elected officials and adopted by the Metro Council in December 2010. 14 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 In May 2011, a work group of members from TPAC and MTAC was charged with helping Metro staff develop the Phase 1 sce - narios assumptions, consistent with the guiding principles and evaluation framework endorsed by the Metro Council, JPACT and MPAC in June 2011. The technical work group defined the scenario assumptions to be tested while Metro and ODOT staff developed tools to sup - port the analysis in summer 2011. The model development work concluded in September 2011, and the initial model runs were completed in October. Metro staff used a regionally tailored version of ODOT’s Greenhouse Gas State Transportation Emissions Planning (GreenSTEP) model to conduct the analysis. Using GreenSTEP – the same model used to set the region’s GHG emissions reduc - tion target – ensures compatibility with state’s planning efforts and provides a common GHG emissions reporting tool across the state. The U.S. Department of Transportation has made GreenSTEP available to other states and regions as part of the Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool (EERPAT). EERPAT was developed to assist with analyzing greenhouse gas reduc - tion scenarios and alternatives for use in the transportation planning process, scenario planning efforts and to measure the reduction potential of various transportation strategies to meet state greenhouse gas reduction goals and targets. The Tool uses GreenSTEP, developed by the Oregon State DOT, as its founda - tion, and is expected to have regular enhancements.1 The foundation of this work is the development of a Base Case – the existing conditions for 2010 – and a Reference Case – a fore - cast of how the region will perform in 2035 based on projected population and demographic trends. The Reference Case assumes the realization of existing plans and policies, and represents the Level 1 assumptions for each policy area. The remaining 143 scenarios test plausible com - binations of land use and transportation strategies that could affect GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles. Strategies were organized into six policy areas: n Community design n Pricing n Marketing and incentives n Roads n Fleet n Technology Each of these policy areas include individual strategies that have been shown to affect GHG emissions (see page 15). While some strategies are new, many of the strategies tested are already being implemented to varying degrees to realize the 2040 Growth Concept and the aspirations of communities across the region. A summary of the strategies tested is provided on pages 22 to 35. Including the Reference Case, a total of 144 scenarios have been analyzed at a preliminary level for their GHG emissions reduc - tion potential. In addition to the scenarios analysis, staff com - pleted the Strategy Toolbox report. The Strategy Toolbox report summarizes published local, national and international research on strategies that can help reduce transportation-related GHG emissions and meet other policy objectives. The report docu - ments benefits of different strategies to a community, synergies between strategies, and implementation opportunities and chal - lenges to be addressed in Phase 2. Key findings from Phase 1 will be used to refine scenario inputs to develop customized alternative scenarios for further analyses in Phase 2 and Phase 3. Phase 1: methods and tools www.oregonmetro.gov/climatescenarios Strategy Toolbox for the Portland metropolitan region Review of the latest research on greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies and the benefits they bring to the region Climate Smart Communities: Scenarios Project October 2011 1 http://www.planning.dot.gov/FHWA_tool 15 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Putting stakes in the ground to create a starting point The assumptions used Phase 1 are ambitious and were based on the need to cre - ate a starting point to test scenarios. Each level of effort tests different implementa - tion levels for each of the policy areas. In Phase 2, the level of imple - mentation of these strategies as well as their timing and sequencing will be explored and further refined to devel - op alternative scenarios that will be subject to analysis and further review in Phase 3. Community design Pricing Marketing/ incentives Roads Fleet Technology Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 2 3 3 Phase 1: building blocks for regional scenarios Testing combinations of plausible strategies L E V E L 3 MOST AMBITIOUS L E V E L 2 MORE AMBITIOUS L E V E L 1 CURRENT POLICIES 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Strategies tested n Community design: Complete neighborhoods and mixed-use areas, urban growth boundary, transit service, bike travel, parking n Pricing: Pay-as-you-drive insurance, gas tax, road use fee, carbon fee n Marketing and incentives: Eco-driving, individualized marketing programs, employer commute programs, car-sharing n Roads: Freeway and arterial capacity, traffic management n Fleet: Fleet mix and age n Technology: Fuel economy, carbon intensity of fuels, electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle market share 16 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Phase 1: findings Community design Marketing/ incentives Roads Fleet Technology Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Current plans and policies provide a strong foundation but do not meet target 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Pricing 1.8 MT CO 2 e 2 1 1.2 MT CO 2 e Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Targets are achievable but will take additional effort and new strategic actions 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 MT CO 2 e (20% below 2005) 2 .91 MT CO 2 e (40% below 2005) .72 MT CO 2 e (53% below 2005) Community design Marketing/ incentives Roads Fleet Technology Pricing Phase 1 of the Scenarios Project has focused on understanding the region’s choices by conducting a review of published research and testing 144 regional scenarios. Phase 1 was designed to accomplish two things: 1) to understand the GHG emissions reduction potential of current plans and policies and 2) to understand the combinations of plausible land use and transportation strategies that reduce GHG emissions from light duty vehicles to 1.2 MT CO 2 e per capita by 2035. The region’s decision-makers will use this information to direct development of alternative scenarios in Phase 2. What we learned from the Phase 1 Scenarios The work completed to date yielded the following findings: Overall findings Finding 1: Current local and regional plans and policies are ambitious and provide a strong foundation for meeting the region’s GHG target. If realized, they will result in substantial per capita GHG emissions reductions from 2005 levels. How - ever, a continued shift in consumer preferences and significant investment, commitment and leadership are needed to realize these aspirations. Finding 2: The reduction target is achievable but will take additional effort and new strategic actions. Ninety-three of 144 scenarios tested meet the 20 percent per capita GHG emissions reduction target. Various combinations of policies achieved GHG emissions reductions ranging from 20 percent to 53 percent below 2005 levels. Finding 3: Most of the strategies under consideration are already being implemented to varying degrees in the region to achieve the 2040 Growth Concept vision and other important economic, social and environmental goals. Driving less conserves energy, reduces fuel consumption and keeps money in the region that consumers and businesses can spend on other things to help stimulate the region’s economy. Supporting investments such as bike lanes, sidewalks, new transit service, and electric vehicle charging stations will help expand travel options for everyone. Finding 4: A range of policy choices exists to reduce GHG emissions; the best approach is a mix of strategies . Light- duty vehicle emissions are a function of vehicle efficiency, tech - nology, fuel content and vehicle travel. While improving vehicle and fuel efficiency achieves significant reductions in GHG emis - sions, per capita vehicle travel must be reduced to meet the target. 1.2 MT CO 2 e The region’s per capita roadway GHG emissions target for 2035 17 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Community design Community design Pricing Pricing Marketing and incentives Roads Fleet Technology 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 18% 36% 13% 14% 4% 2% 11% 14% Policy area Level Estimated percent reduction from 1.8 MTCO 2 e* *MT CO 2 e percent change from 2035 Reference Case (current plans and policies) Comparison of Phase 1 policy areas Estimated reductions in roadway GHG emissions from current plans and policies Policy area findings Finding 5: Community design and pricing play a key role in how much and how far people drive each day and provide significant GHG emissions reductions. The analysis revealed that community design or pricing strategies must be more ambi - tious than current policies to meet the target. However, pricing and community design together yield the largest GHG emissions reduction per capita. Finding 6: Fleet, technology and pricing strategies provide similar significant GHG emissions reductions but no single strategy is enough to meet the region’s target . Pricing, when combined with the most ambitious fleet and technology strategies, meets the target. Finding 7: Road management and marketing strategies improve system and vehicle efficiency and reduce vehicle travel to provide similar, but modest GHG emissions reduc - tions. Combining these strategies with community design pro - vides additional emissions reduction that can help meet the region’s GHG target.The analysis used the Metropolitan GreenStep model to test six different policy areas and their ability to reduce light vehicle GHG emissions. The table above demonstrates the effect of applying each policy area at each level of implementation beyond the Reference Case (Level 1). The estimated percent reduction represents the average reduction in roadway GHG emissions for each policy area, while considering all possible combinations of policy areas. It should be noted that these reduction estimates do NOT assess the relative effect of changes to individual strategies, but rather the reductions attrib - utable to each policy area. In addition, the reduction estimates are NOT additive. 18 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 The results reflect the underlying model assumptions used in Phase 1 Scenarios analysis, and provide a starting point for Phase 2. The assumptions used in Phase 1 are ambitious and were based on the need to create a starting point to test scenarios. The assumptions and scenarios tested do not repre - sent specific policy decisions of the Metro Council, MPAC or JPACT. The Phase 1 Scenarios were intended to show whether it is possible for the region to reduce GHG emissions enough to meet the region’s target. During Phase 2, the level of implemen - tation of these strategies as well as their timing and sequenc - ing will be explored and further refined to develop alternative scenarios that will be subject to further analysis and review in Phase 3. Each strategy presents its own opportunities and chal - lenges. The cost, level of effort and type of actions needed will vary by policy and strategy. The process of defining a pre - ferred approach must be inclusive and engage stakeholders from diverse backgrounds to allow for a variety of perspectives to be shared and considered. Effects on the economy, equity, the environment, costs, savings, public acceptance, and actions needed to implement a particular strategy must be considered. Existing governance structures require that scenario plan - ning be a collaborative effort between the state, Metro, cities and counties. While Metro is responsible for coordinat - ing regional land use and transportation planning and imple - mentation, scenario planning involves evaluation of policies and strategies that are the responsibility of all levels of government. A collaborative planning and decision-making model allows agreement to be reached at each level. Metro, cities, counties and the state will need to be flexible and innovative to be successful. Existing staff are fully subscribed with current planning responsibilities. Addi - tional financial and technical support will be needed. It will Bringing it all together: implications for Phase 2 Marketing and incentives Technology Pricing Roads Community design Fleet also be important for Metro and local governments to integrate GHG scenario planning with existing Metro, county and city planning processes. Leadership, partnerships and coordination are keys to suc - cess. Strategies under consideration have a mix of “sponsors” and funding sources. Metro and local governments cannot achieve the targets alone; it will take leadership, collaboration and coordinated action at the local, regional, state and federal levels. New governance structures and funding mechanisms may be needed to implement the strategies. Selecting strategies will involve policy decisions that could have political, economic, environmental, equity, commu - nity and lifestyle implications. By framing the policy choices that decision-makers will consider throughout the process, Phase 1 research serves as a basis for continuing a regional dia - logue on how best to reach our GHG reduction target while advancing local and regional efforts to build livable, prosper - ous and equitable communities. The region’s approach must also advance realization of the region’s six desired outcomes, and support the individual needs and aspirations of each com - munity in the region. 19 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 The primary objective of the Phase 1 analysis is to estimate the GHG emissions reduction potential of current policies and that of alternative combinations of strategies. Phase 2 (January to December 2012) will build on this work and consider: Cost effectiveness: Cost-effectiveness will be important in the selection and implementation of GHG emissions reduction strat - egies. Further research is needed to estimate cost-effectiveness, including accounting for the benefits and cost impacts of differ - ent strategies. The evaluation will consider the costs and bene - fits across environmental, economic and equity goals from mul - tiple perspectives – business, individual, household, community and region. The evaluation will illustrate the political, commu - nity, social equity and economic implications of different strat - egies, as well as public and private costs and savings and the potential costs of inaction. Fiscal considerations: The evaluation will assess how rev - enues generated from parking management and other strate - gies could be funding sources for community investments, such as expanded transit service, implementing system and demand management programs, building sidewalks, fixing bottlenecks and providing electric vehicle infrastructure. Economic considerations: The feasibility of implementing dif - ferent strategies, potential financing strategies and the time - frame required will be assessed to inform next steps and recom - mendations. Recommended solutions should not put the state, region or local governments at an economic disadvantage, but rather boost economic competitiveness and provide greater eco - nomic opportunity for everyone. Equity considerations: The evaluation will meaningfully con - sider equity. This should include assessing the impacts to com - munities without well-connected street systems, transit, side - walks, and bicycle facilities, or households of modest means that may lack access to lower carbon vehicle options or afford - able housing options. Moving forward: policy questions to be addressed Together, we must answer pivotal policy questions to iden - tify the right mix of land use and transportation investments and strategies: • Which actions are local and regional leaders currently tak- ing and which of the possible new actions are most con - sistent with existing efforts? • Which strategies are most cost-effective and efficient? Which strategies are easiest to implement, both techni - cally and politically? How do we overcome obstacles to the most effective actions that are difficult or expensive to implement? • What are the benefits and impacts of these strategies to individuals, businesses, the region’s economy and other desired outcomes communities and the region are trying to achieve? • How do we ensure the region’s strategy is inclusive and equitable, reflects the diversity of needs and interests in the region and does not perpetuate disparities or leave any community behind, especially households of modest means and people of color? • How do we ensure the region’s strategy creates good jobs, provides greater economic opportunity for everyone and boosts economic development and competitiveness? Where we are headed in Phase 2 20 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Regional climate activities The Scenarios Project is one element of a larger set of climate-related initiatives at Metro collectively known as Climate Smart Communities: Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory: In 2010, Metro completed a regional GHG emissions inventory for the year 2006. The inventory establishes a snapshot of the region’s carbon footprint to focus planning and monitoring efforts to achieve long-term GHG reductions. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Toolkit: Metro developed a regional GHG Emissions Assessment Toolkit that establishes a framework for regional climate impact assess - ments and provides consistent guidance on analysis methods, reporting, and evaluation of Metro projects, programs and policies. Climate Leadership Initiative: Metro participated in the Cli - mate Leadership Initiative, completed in January 2010, which engaged local experts and stakeholders on how to prepare the lower Willamette Valley River Basin for climate change impacts. Climate Prosperity Strategy: Metro worked with local gov - ernments, businesses, educational institutions, and the Port - land Oregon Sustainability Institute to develop the 2011 Port - land Metro Climate Prosperity Strategy – a “greenprint” for integrating climate change policy and economic development into a single strategy. Other local and regional climate initiatives Local climate initiatives Communities around the Portland metropolitan region are already taking steps to address climate change. • In 2006, the City of West Linn developed a strategic plan that recommends specific actions to achieve sustainability, includ - ing reducing GHG emissions. • The cities of Beaverton, Forest Grove, Gladstone, Gresham, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Milwaukie, Oregon City, and Port - land , which together currently represent 66 percent of the region’s population, committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions as a signatory to the 2007 U.S. Conference of May - ors Climate Protection Agreement. • In 2008, the Clackamas County developed an action plan that calls for reductions in GHG emissions and specific actions to support meeting the plan’s reduction goals. • In 2008, Washington County completed an inventory of GHG emissions from agency operations. • In 2009, the City of Portland and Multnomah County adopted a Climate Action Plan to guide policies and programs to achieve reductions in GHG emissions. The plan builds on previous plans adopted in 1993 and 2001. • In 2010, the City of Hillsboro completed an inventory of GHG emissions from local government operations. The inven - tory provides a baseline for tracking reductions in GHG emis - sions called for in the city’s 2010 Sustainability Plan. • In 2011, the City of Gresham prepared a sustainability plan for the city’s operations and facilities that includes specific goals for reducing GHG emissions. • The City of Lake Oswego is developing a community-based GHG inventory. The inventory will provide a baseline for tracking reductions in GHG emissions from all sources and is a component of the city’s comprehensive plan update. • The City of Beaverton has conducted GHG inventories for its operations and the community. Beaverton is now finalizing its Sustainability Strategy with goals that support the regional and state objectives. Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project Phase 1: Supplemental Information 22 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Phase 1: 2010 base year and alternative scenario inputs This table summarizes the inputs for the 2010 Base Year and 144 alternative scenarios that reflect different levels of implementation for each category of policies. The inputs were developed by Metro staff in consultation with a technical work group of MTAC and TPAC members. Documentation of the inputs and rationale behind each input can be found 2010 UGB 2% 2010 service level 13% / 8% $5.00 7,680 acres 2% 2035 RTP service level 13% / 8% $5.00 7,680 acres 12.5% 2.5 times RTP service level 30% / 30% $5.00 No expansion 30% 4 times RTP service level 30% / 30% $7.25 Base Year Reflects existing conditions Level 1 Reflects current plans and policies Level 2 Reflects more ambitious policy changes Level 3 Reflects even more ambitious policy changes Households living in mixed-use areas and complete neighborhoods (percent) Urban growth boundary expansion (acres) Bicycle mode share 1 (percent) Transit service level Workers/non-work trips paying for parking (percent) Average daily parking fee ($2005) Pay-as-you-drive insurance (percent of households participating and cost) Gas tax (cost per gallon $2005) Road use fee (cost per mile $2005) Carbon emissions fee (cost per ton) 0% $0.42 $0 $0 0% $0.48 $0 $0 100% at $0.06/mile $0.18 $0.03 $0 Co m m u n i t y d e s i g n Pr i c i n g GreenSTEP calculates No change from Level 2 2035 2010 Strategy 1 Percent of all tours less than 6 miles roundtrip. $50 in the Phase 1 Metropolitan GreenSTEP Scenarios Technical Documentation report (January 2012). This information is for research purposes only and does not necessarily reflect current or future policy decisions of the Metro Council, MPAC or JPACT. Reference case The input assumptions are for research purposes only and do not neces - sarily reflect current or future policy decisions of the Metro Council, MPAC or JPACT. 23 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 0% 9% 20% Participation rate of 1 member/100 people Participation rate of 1 member/200 people Households participating in eco-driving Households participating in individualized marketing programs (percent) Workers participating in employer-based commuter programs (percent) Car-sharing in high density areas (target participation rate) Car-sharing in medium density areas (target participation rate) Freeway and arterial expansion Delay reduced by traffic management strategies (percent) 2010 system 10% Ma r k e t i n g a n d i n c e n t i v e s Ro a d s Fleet mix (proportion of autos to light trucks and SUVs) Fleet turnover rate (age) Fuel economy (miles per gallon) Carbon intensity of fuels Light-duty vehicles that are electric or plug-in electric vehicles (percent) Fl e e t Te c h n o l o g y auto: 57% light truck/SUV: 43% 10 years auto: 29.2 mpg light truck/SUV: 20.9 mpg 90 g CO 2 e/megajoule auto: 0% light truck/SUV: 0% 0% 9% 20% Participation rate of 1 member/100 people Participation rate of 1 member/200 people 2035 financially constrained system 10% auto: 56% light truck/SUV: 44% 10 years auto: 59.7 mpg light truck/SUV: 41 mpg 81 g CO 2 e/megajoule auto: 4% light truck/SUV: 1% 40% 65% 40% Double participation to 2 members/100 people Double participation to 2 members/200 people No expansion 35% auto: 71% light truck/SUV: 29% 8 years auto: 68.5 mpg light truck/SUV: 47.7 mpg 72 g CO 2 e/megajoule auto: 8% light truck/SUV: 2% No Level 3 Strategy Base Year Reflects existing conditions Level 1 Reflects current plans and policies Level 2 Reflects more ambitious policy changes Level 3 Reflects even more ambitious policy changes 2035 2010 Reference case 24 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Key population and household assumptions • Between the years 2010 and 2035, the population within the Metro urban growth boundary is forecast to increase by more than 625,000 residents. This assumption is based on Metro’s draft Beta forecast and represents the lower end of the middle-third of the population growth forecast range. This range value is consistent with Metro Council’s recent adoption of an ordinance (in October 2011), which focused its growth management decision on the lower end of the middle-third of the population growth forecast range. • Metropolitan GreenSTEP travel behavior estimates are made irrespective of housing choice or supply. Therefore, there is no assumption about the type of housing assumed to be built in the future. • The following housing supply growth characteristics are presented for context purposes only. Recently, approximately 40 percent of new housing units constructed in the region are multi-family (MF), and 60 percent is single-family (SF). The draft Beta forecast reflected a marginal growth split of 78 percent MF and 22 percent SF by 2035, which would result in a total housing stock split of 34 percent MF and 66 percent SF by 2035. However, Metro in coordination with regional partners, have refined these assumptions resulting in a draft Gamma forecast. The Gamma forecast demonstrates that over the next 25 years approximately 59 percent of new housing units in the region will be MF, and 41 percent will be SF. This growth split results in a total housing stock split of 35 percent MF and 65 percent SF. Our starting point is the Reference Case – current plans and policies Key pricing assumptions • The federal gas tax is 18 cents per gallon – the same as today. • State gas tax is 30 cents per gallon – the same as today. • The average daily cost of parking is $5 per day – the same as in 2005. • Locations with paid parking are limited to downtown Port - land, the Oregon Health Science University campus and the Lloyd District, representing approximately 13 percent of the region’s workers and 8 percent of other trips made each day – the same as in 2005. • Zero households participate in pay-as-your-drive insurance. Key marketing and incentives assumptions • 9 percent of households participate in individualized market - ing – the same as today. • 20 percent of workforce participates in employer-based com - mute programs – the same as today. • Participation in carsharing programs remains the same as today: one member for every 100 people in higher-density areas like the Pearl District in Portland and one member for every 200 people in medium-density areas like inner eastside Portland neighborhoods. Key fleet and technology assumptions • The region’s fleet mix stays nearly the same as today – 56 percent of the fleet is passenger cars and the remaining 44 percent is small trucks and sport utility vehicles. • The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (as proposed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) is adopted; carbon intensity of fuels will decline by 10 percent below today’s average. • Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards calling for a fleet average of 50 miles per gallon for model years 2017-2025 are achieved. This fleet average represents a fuel economy of 59.7 mpg for passenger cars and 41 mpg for light-trucks. • Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles represent 4 percent of the total passenger vehicle fleet and 1 percent of the light-truck fleet. 25 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Key transportation system assumptions • The 2035 Financially-Constrained Regional Transportation Plan includes $13.6 billion of investments, reflecting the amount of revenue reasonably expected to be available in the Metro region from 2007 to 2035. • The 2035 RTP financial strategy assumes existing federal, state and local funding plus new revenues that are not part of the Phase 1 modeled pricing assumptions. Significant increases in transportation revenue are likely to be needed if anticipated improvements in vehicle fuel economy are realized. Key road assumptions • The 2035 Regional Transportation Plan financially con - strained system of highway and investments is implemented. • Future delay on the highway and arterial network is reduced by 10 percent through traffic management, such as clearing crashes and breakdowns more quickly, traffic signal timing and other strategies. Targeted highway investments • I-5 / Columbia River Crossing (CRC) Project is completed. • Interchanges in the OR 217, US 26, I-205 corridors and at the junction of I-5/I-84 are improved. • The Sunrise Project connection from I-205 to 172nd Avenue is built. • US 26 West is widened to six through lanes to Cornelius Pass Road. Regional transit investments • Milwaukie light rail and Columbia River Crossing light rail are constructed. • Lake Oswego streetcar, Portland streetcar loop, and Burnside/Couch streetcar to Hollywood Transit Center are constructed. • Frequent bus service is expanded in key transit corridors. 44% Local $6 B 31% Federal $4.2 B 25% State $3.4 B 2035 RTP Funding Sources Other multi-modal investments • On-street bicycle and pedestrian projects, such as bicycle lanes, cycle tracks, bicycle boulevards, sidewalks and crossing improvements are constructed. • Off-street regional trail projects are constructed, such as the Lake Oswego to Portland trail, Fanno Creek (Red Electric) trail, Beaverton Creek Trail, Westside trail, Tonquin trail, Columbia Slough trail, Scouter’s Mountain trail, E. Buttes Loop trail, and the Gresham-Fairview trail. • New street connections that build out the regional street grid are constructed. • Freight rail and street extensions and expansions focused on serving industrial areas are constructed. • Major streets are widened or retrofitted with sidewalks, bicycle facilities and other multi-modal designs. Investment type Sidewalks, bike facilities and trails Freight rail and road access to industrial areas Traffic management, signal timing and other ITS projects Regional programs • Regional Travel Options • Regional Transportation System Management and Operations • Regional Transit-Oriented Development Multi-modal roads and bridges Highway widening and fixing bottlenecks Public transit Total (costs have been rounded) Cost $948 M $623 M $ 19 M $196 M $4.3 B $4.0 B $3.5 B $13.6 B Percent of total RTP cost 7% 5% <1% 1% 32% 29% 25% 100% 2035 RTP by investment type and share of total cost Source: 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (approved June 10, 2010) Source: 2035 Regional Transporta - tion Plan (approved June 10, 2010) 26 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Community design – what we tested Community design Marketing and incentives Technology Pricing Roads Fleet 1 Percent of all tours less than 6 miles roundtrip. 2010 UGB 2% 2010 service level 13% / 8% $5.00 7,680 acres 2% 2035 RTP service level 13% / 8% $5.00 7,680 acres 12.5% 2.5 times RTP service level 30% / 30% $5.00 No expansion 30% 4 times RTP service level 30% / 30% $7.25 Base Year Reflects existing conditions Level 1 Reference case Reflects current plans and policies Level 2 Reflects more ambitious policy changes Level 3 Reflects even more ambitious policy changes Households living in mixed-use areas and complete neighborhoods (percent) Urban growth boundary expansion (acres) Bicycle mode share 1 (percent) Transit service level Workers/non-work trips paying for parking (percent) Average daily parking fee ($2005) Co m m u n i t y d e s i g n GreenSTEP calculates 2035 2010 Strategy Households living in mixed-use areas: GreenSTEP estimates the probability that a household lives in a mixed-use area or complete neighborhood based on Census tract population density. In Phase 1, GreenSTEP internally calculated the following values: 2010 Base year: 24% 2035 Level 1: 33% 2035 Level 2: 33% 2035 Level 3: 34% In future project phases these values can be adjusted to reflect land use policies aimed at changing the amount and type of mixed-use development. Urban growth boundary: Input tests the effect of urban growth boundary expansion. 2010 Base Year captures the existing land area with the UGB. 2035 Level 1 assumes one-quarter of the adopted urban reserves areas come into the UGB by 2035. 2035 Level 2 assumes the same level of expansion as Level 1. 2035 Level 3 tests the effect of a no-expansion policy. Bicycle mode share: Input reflects the share of all trips less than 6 miles round trip in length are made by bicycle. 2010 Base Year reflects the estimated regional bike mode share, as reflected in the 2035 RTP. 2035 Level 1 assumes no change from 2010 in the share of regional bike travel, an estimate consistent with the 2035 RTP. 2035 Level 2 assumes the same share of bicycle travel as Level 3 of the first round of Statewide Transportation Strategy scenarios. 2035 Level 3 assumes regional bike mode share grows to 30 percent. Transit service level: Input reflects per capita transit service growth. 2010 Base Year reflects current TriMet service levels for light-rail, streetcar and bus service growth. This ratio represents the equiva - lent of 29 revenue miles per capita. 2035 Level 1 assumes the per capita service rate in the 2035 RTP. 2035 Level 2 assumes transit service levels grow significantly – the equivalent of 69 revenue miles per capita, roughly comparable to the service levels of Chicago and Washington D.C., or 2.5 times the 2035 RTP service level. 2035 Level 3 assumes even more substantial growth, the equivalent of 115 revenue miles per capita, roughly comparable to New York City service levels, or 4 times the 2035 RTP service level. Workers/non-work trips paying for parking: GreenSTEP con - siders parking pricing as a trip-based cost. There are two types of parking costs addressed in GreenSTEP: (1) parking costs at places of employment and (2) non-work parking costs. 2010 Base Year reflects the current estimate of areas with work and non-work parking fees – this includes downtown Portland, OHSU and the Lloyd District. 2035 Level 1 assumes no change from 2010 parking areas. 2035 Level 2 assumes new areas charge parking fees, based on the 2035 RTP. This is the only community design input where Level 2 reflects adopted policy, not Level 1. 2035 Level 3 assumes no change from Level 2. Average daily parking fee: Input provides the opportunity to evaluate the effects of adjusting work and non-work parking fee amounts (2005 $): 2010 Base Year: $5.00 2035 Level 1: $5.00 2035 Level 2: $5.00 2035 Level 3: $7.25 27 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Other potential benefits from the Strategy Toolbox Community benefits Increased physical activity Enhanced public safety; reduced risk of traffic injuries and fatalities Improved air quality and fewer air toxics emissions Environmental benefits Less pollution Less energy use Natural areas, farm and forest protection Economic benefits Job opportunities Improved access to jobs, goods and services Consumer and municipal savings Leverage private investment, increased local tax revenues Increased property values Reduced fuel consumption Community design – considerations moving forward Most of the community design strategies are focused on changes to the built environment. With modest UGB expansion from today, a greater number of residents live in mixed-use areas and “complete neighborhoods,” thereby making walking, biking, personal elec - tric vehicles, and transit more feasible and likely. Expanding tran - sit service and managing the supply and cost of parking in targeted mixed-use areas provide additional GHG reduction benefits. While these strategies combined provide significant GHG emis - sions, there are a number of implications that have not yet been assessed. The following are some of the implications to be accounted for and further analyzed during Phases 2 and 3: Housing supply, capacity and affordability: Metropolitan GreenSTEP does not consider any housing supply assumptions and travel behavior estimates are made irrespective of housing choice. The model only considers the demand forecast components – household size, income and age – and does not relate any changes in travel behavior to housing preference or existing housing supply. Therefore, there is no Phase 1 assumption about the type of hous - ing to be built in the future. For Phase 2 of the Scenarios Project, Metro staff is developing a model – compatible with Metropolitan GreenSTEP – that will incorporate housing preference, supply and capacity consider - Complete neighborhoods and mixed-use areas Urban growth boundary Transit service Bicycle travel Parking Federal State Regional Local Community design Strategy lead ations. The result of this work is an innovative model that intro - duces explicit modeling of household size, age, and income to dis - tinguish housing type choice (e.g., single-family or multi-family) and willingness to pay in a sketch-planning tool. This Project will provide new tools needed to evaluate changes in housing assump - tions and implications on housing affordability as part of the process. Market feasibility, consumer preferences and infrastruc - ture needs: Research reviewed in the Strategy Toolbox Report showed growing consumer demand for walkable neighborhoods and mixed-use development served by transit. The research also showed that while compact, mixed-use development can reduce public costs and provide benefits, it can be more complicated and have significantly higher upfront costs than traditional single-use development. Today, individual communities have varying capac - ity and desire to support redevelopment of existing areas or new mixed-use development. Investment in transit, street connectivity, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, urban parks and other assets is needed to support mixed-use development to result in shorter trips, and more walking, bicycling and use of transit in a community. In Phase 2, the Scenarios Project will need to further evalu - ate the effectiveness of mixed-use development, parking man - agement and transit service. Phase 2 will consider the market feasibility, investment needs and implications on affordability throughout the region. In addition, more research is needed on changing consumer preferences in the region to better under - stand how changes in demographics and housing demand may affect housing need, supply and costs. All of these consider - ations influence the timing and sequencing of implementing community design strategies. Thus, the full GHG emissions reduction potential of this policy area is constrained to some degree by local market conditions, consumer preferences, public incentives, financial feasibility, and public acceptance. 28 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Pricing – what we tested Community design Marketing and incentives Technology Pricing Roads Fleet Base Year Reflects existing conditions Level 1 Reference case Reflects current plans and policies Level 2 Reflects more ambitious policy changes Level 3 Reflects even more ambitious policy changes Pay-as-you-drive insurance (percent of households participating and cost) Gas tax (cost per gallon $2005) Road use fee (cost per mile $2005) Carbon emissions fee (cost per ton) 0% $0.42 $0 $0 0% $0.48 $0 $0 100% at $0.06/mile $0.18 $0.03 $0 $50 Pr i c i n g No change from Level 2 2035 2010 Strategy Pay-as-you-drive-insurance 2010 Base Year reflects current program options with no pay- as-you-drive insurance options available to consumers. 2035 Level 1 assumes no change in program options from 2010. 2035 Level 2 reflects a 100 percent transition to pay-as-you- drive insurance. This assumption reflects the State’s most ambi - tious assumption for the first round of STS scenarios. 2035 Level 3 assumes no change from Level 2. Gas tax 2010 Base Year reflects the 2010 state and federal gas tax levels. 2035 Level 1 reflects the state gas tax increase resulting from HB 2001. 2035 Level 2 assumes no change in the federal gas tax and reflects a shift of the state gas tax to an equivalent road use fee (see road use fee Level 2). 2035 Level 3 assumes no change from Level 2. Road use fee 2010 Base Year reflects the current policy status of no light-duty vehicle mileage-based road use fee. 2035 Level 1 assumes no change from 2010 (no implementation of a light-duty vehicle road use fee). 2035 Level 2 assumes a transition of the 2011 State gas tax (HB 2001 increased the state gas tax to 30 cents per gallon) to an equivalent cost per mile road use fee. The total road use fee also includes the equivalent of an annual increase of $.01 per year state gas tax increase. The state gas tax increase was assumed in the 2035 RTP strategy to address maintenance and operation of the transportation system. 2035 Level 3 assumes no change from Level 2. Carbon emissions fee 2010 Base Year reflects the current policy status of no carbon emissions fees in place. 2035 Level 1 assumes no change from 2010 (no implementation of a carbon emissions fee). 2035 Level 2 assumes no change from Level 1. 2035 Level 3 assumes implementation of a carbon emissions fee that represents an estimated value of the external cost of trans - portation GHG emissions. Pay-as-you-drive insurance Gas tax Road use fee Carbon fee Federal State Regional Local Pricing Strategy lead 29 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Other potential benefits from the Strategy Toolbox Community benefits Reduced number of uninsured motorists Improved air quality and fewer air toxics emissions Environmental benefits Less pollution Economic benefits New and more stable revenue sources Consumer savings Reduced fuel consumption Pricing – considerations moving forward .Pricing strategies charge users directly for using transportation facilities, affecting mode choice, timing and distance of travel. Pricing can result in more efficient use of the transportation system by shifting demand to make the most of past and future invest - ments and limited sources of revenue. The scenarios analysis shows these strategies offer potentially significant GHG emissions reduc - tions. Other potential benefits identified in the Strategy Toolbox include the potential to be a significant source of revenue for com - munity investments, congestion relief and inducing improvements in fuel economy and the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles. In order to avoid pricing becoming a punitive strategy, it should be implemented in combination with expanding travel choices, and marketing and incentives programs. While the pricing strategies tested in Phase 1 of the Scenarios Proj - ect provided significant GHG emissions reductions. The Scenarios Project needs to be realistic about pricing as a strategy given the lack of public acceptance and current economic climate. Public acceptance, communications, evaluation of benefits, costs, equity, and use of revenues generated pose specific issues and chal - lenges that have not yet been assessed. The following are some of the implications to be accounted for and further analyzed during Phases 2 and 3: Equity considerations: The fairness of a given type of pricing mechanism depends on how it is structured, what transporta - tion choices are provided to users and which aspects of equity are most relevant and important to consider. It will be important to more fully understand the potential issues, impacts and tradeoffs between benefits and costs of different pricing strategies. As pric - ing strategies are considered, it is important to evaluate their effect on other parts of the region’s transportation system and equity to ensure any unintended consequences are identified and addressed. Stable and sustainable funding considerations: Federal and state funding for infrastructure investments are not keeping pace with needs, particularly for operations, maintenance and preser - vation of existing public assets but also needed expansion of the system. Local revenue sources are being used to fund the majority of RTP investments. State and local government purchasing power has steadily declined. Operating funds for the regional transit sys - tem are also declining, making it difficult to maintain existing service levels and replace older bus fleets. Financing mechanisms to support land development and other community infrastructure needs are also limited. Current transportation pricing strategies reflect declining revenues sources as improvements in fuel efficiency and inflation reduce the purchasing power of existing gas tax revenues. For example, the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan finance strategy assumes an increase in the state gas tax by $.01 per year, a price increase that the state is not currently implementing. In addition, there is no indication that current federal and state gas tax levels will be adjusted to account for inflation or improvements in fuel efficiency. Without addressing these issues (either through new or existing pricing mechanisms) the region will not have the revenues needed to implement existing plans and investment priorities, let alone consider more ambitious strategies such as doubling transit service levels or accommodating more growth in downtowns and other designated centers and employment areas. While there is concern that increases in household and business transportation costs may negatively affect the economic health of the region, there may be opportunities to transition existing pric - ing mechanisms to more stable revenue sources without drasti - cally increasing the cost to drive. For example, the Phase 1 find - ings demonstrate that applying a carbon tax of $50 per ton had little impact on household travel behavior.1 However, transition - ing the existing state gas tax, which is negatively impacted by both fuel efficiency and inflation, to a road use fee or carbon tax could provide a more stable funding mechanism. It should be noted that a carbon fee is also affected by changes in fuel efficiency, which needs to be further explored. 1 The per capita costs of apply - ing a carbon tax of $50 per ton to a scenario that exactly meets the region’s GHG emis - sions reduction target (per capita roadway emissions of 1.2MT CO2e per year), is $120 per year. The Phase 1 scenario results indicate that this cost increase by 2035 did not signif - icantly affect travel behavior. 30 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Marketing and incentives – what we tested Community design Marketing and incentives Fleet and technology Pricing Roads 0% 9% 20% Participation rate of 1 member/100 people Participation rate of 1 member/200 people Households participating in eco-driving Households participating in individualized marketing programs (percent) Workers participating in employer-based commuter programs (percent) Car-sharing in high density areas (target participation rate) Car-sharing in medium density areas Ma r k e t i n g a n d i n c e n t i v e s 0% 9% 20% Participation rate of 1 member/100 people Participation rate of 1 member/200 people 40% 65% 40% Double participation to 2 members/100 people Double participation to 2 members/200 people No Level 3 Base Year Reflects existing conditions Level 1 Reference case Reflects current plans and policies Level 2 Reflects more ambitious policy changes Level 3 Reflects even more ambitious policy changes 2035 2010 Strategy Households participating in eco-driving Eco-driving involves educating motorists on how to drive in order to reduce fuel consumption and cut emissions. Examples of eco-driving practices include avoiding rapid starts and stops, matching driving speeds to synchronized traffic signals, and avoiding idling. 2010 Base Year reflects the current status of no existing eco-driving marketing programs. There is also no supporting data to indicate the proportion of households that follow eco-driving practices. 2035 Level 1 assumes no change from 2010 (no eco-driving marketing programs). 2035 Level 2 reflects an adoption of and participation in eco- driving marketing programs. The participation rate for this marketing program reflects the state’s Level 2 input assumption for the first round of STS scenarios. Household participating in individualized marketing programs Individualized marketing (IM) programs are travel demand management programs focused on individual households. 2010 Base Year is an estimate of current participation rates. 2035 Level 1 assumes no change from 2010 (continuation of existing participation levels). 2035 Level 2 assumes a significant increase in participation rates, which reflects the percent of households with proximity to high capacity transit and frequent bus service, as reflected in the 2035 RTP. Workers participating in employer-based commuter programs Employee commute options (ECO) programs are work-based travel demand management programs, which can include, employer-sub - sidized transit passes, bicycle parking, education and promo - tion, carpool and vanpool programs, etc. 2010 Base Year is an estimate of current participation rates. 2035 Level 1 assumes no change from 2010 (continuation of existing participation levels). 2035 Level 2 assumes a doubling of participation rates, which could reasonably be accomplished with increased programmatic resources/funding and would not require a legislative change to the State ECO Rule. Car-sharing in high density areas Because car-sharing is a relatively new phenomenon, Green - STEP models the approximate effects of car-sharing on vehicle travel and vehicle ownership. 2010 Base Year is an estimate of current participation rates. 2035 Level 1 assumes no change from 2010 (continuation of existing participation rates). 2035 Level 2 assumes a doubling of participation rates. Car-sharing in medium density areas Because car-sharing is a relatively new phenomenon, Green - STEP models the approximate effects of car-sharing on vehicle travel and vehicle ownership. 2010 Base Year is an estimate of current participation rates. 2035 Level 1 assumes no change from 2010 (continuation of existing participation rates). 2035 Level 2 assumes a doubling of participation rates. 31 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Other potential benefits from the Strategy Toolbox Community benefits Increased physical activity Enhanced public safety; reduced risk of traffic injuries and fatalities Improved air quality and fewer air toxics emissions Environmental benefits Less pollution Less energy use Economic benefits Job opportunities Improved access to jobs, goods and services Consumer savings Reduced fuel consumption Increased cost effectiveness of transit investments through improved ridership Marketing and incentives – considerations moving forward Eco-driving Individualized marketing Employer commute programs Car-sharing Federal State Regional Local Marketing and incentives Strategy lead Public education, marketing and incentives programs include teaching motorists to drive and maintain vehicles to operate more efficiently and building awareness of travel choices for personal and commute travel. Public education and market - ing are often less costly than building new infrastructure and are supported by the public. These strategies can be tailored to a diversity of perspectives and needs and provide the necessary platform from which to encourage eco-driving among the gen - eral public and employees. In addition to encouraging eco-driv - ing, public education and marketing can raise public awareness about the benefits of driving less and riding transit, carpooling, ridesharing, telecommuting, biking, and walking – a focus of the region’s Drive Less Save More campaign. The Phase 1 scenarios analysis shows these strategies provide moderate GHG emissions reductions. However, combining mar - keting and incentives with other strategies, especially commu - nity design, provides additional emissions reductions that can help meet the region’s target. Other potential benefits identi - fied in the Strategy Toolbox report include increased physical activity from walking and biking, leading to additional positive health outcomes; improved air quality; increased access to jobs, goods and services; and consumer savings. The implications outlined below will be further explored during Phases 2 and 3 of the project: Application and timing: These strategies are relatively easy and inexpensive to implement, likely making them ideal near- term options for GHG emissions reduction. Marketing and incentive programs are often successful when targeting neigh - borhoods with good access to transportation options or planned transportation investments, such as the opening of new high capacity transit or frequent bus service. Because individualized marketing and employee commute option programs provide information and incentives for a variety of travel options, it is critical that these programs be linked to transit investments and other community design strategies to realize their full potential. Not only are these programs more successful at reducing the amount people drive and, therefore, GHG emissions, they can also increase the effectiveness of transit investments through improved ridership. Individualized marketing programs are also effective when implemented with new transportation projects. Employer-based commute programs: The Employee Com - mute Options (ECO) Rule directs employers in the Portland met - ropolitan region with more than 100 employees at a given worksite to show a good faith effort towards reducing drive-alone commute trips by 10 percent from an established baseline.1 Businesses affected by the ECO rule must survey their employ - ees every two years to measure prog - ress towards the goal, and create a plan that identifies the steps they will take in pursuit of the 10 percent reduction. The most recent estimates for the region assume a roughly 20 percent par - ticipation rate for ECO programs. However, Level 2 demonstrates a doubling of this participation rate, which could reasonably be accomplished with increased programmatic resources and fund - ing and would not require a legislative change to the state ECO rule. It is possible that any further participation rate increases beyond Level 2 could require changes to the state ECO rule. 1 The Employee Commute Options Program (Oregon Administrative Rule 340- 242) is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environ - mental Quality Commission under OAR 340-200. 32 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Roads – what we tested Community design Marketing and incentives Technology Pricing Roads Fleet Freeway and arterial expansion Delay reduced by traffic management strategies (percent) 2010 system 10%Ro a d s 2035 financially constrained system 10% No expansion 35% No Level 3 Base Year Reflects existing conditions Level 1 Reference case Reflects current plans and policies Level 2 Reflects more ambitious policy changes Level 3 Reflects even more ambitious policy changes 2035 2010 Strategy Freeway and arterial expansion The road capacity input in GreenSTEP only models the affect of roadway expansion relative to population growth and does not distinguish between the impact of new connections and projects that widen existing roads. 2010 Base Year reflects current freeway and arterial system. 2035 Level 1 assumes implementation of the 2035 financially constrained RTP road system. 2035 Level 2 assumes no roadway expansion beyond the 2010 base year, and relies only on system management. Delay reduced by traffic management GreenSTEP provides a mechanism to evaluate the effects of sys - tem management programs on GHG emissions. System man - agement includes clearing vehicle breakdowns and crashes more quickly, traffic signal timing and other Intelligent Transporta - tion System strategies that improve traffic flow and reduce delay. 2010 Base Year assumes delay reduction as assumed in the state’s first round of STS Scenarios. 2035 Level 1 assumes no change from 2010 (no change in delay reduction). 2035 Level 2 assumes a tripling of delay reduction as assumed in the state’s first round of STS Scenarios. Freeways allow people and goods to connect to major destinations across the region, accommodating longer-distance regional and state-wide travel and providing important access to the region’s major activity centers, such as downtown Portland, and freight access to industrial areas and freight intermodal facilities. 33 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Other potential benefits from the Strategy Toolbox Community benefits Increased physical activity Enhanced public safety; reduced risk of traffic injuries and fatalities Improved air quality and fewer air toxics emissions Environmental benefits Less pollution Less energy use Economic benefits Job opportunities Improved access to jobs, goods and services Consumer and business savings Reduced fuel consumption Roads – considerations moving forward Freeway and arterial capacity Traffic management Federal State Regional Local Roads Strategy lead Though our region has changed dramatically over the past cen - tury, the shape of the major street network serving the region has changed little. Most of the region’s arterial streets were once farm-to-market roads, many established along Donation Land Claim boundaries at half-mile or one-mile spacing. The region’s highway system evolved from the mid-1930s, when the first highway was built from Portland to Milwaukie, to the comple - tion of I-205 in the early 1980s. Most of the highway system was built along the same donation land claim grid that shapes the major street system, with most throughways following older farm-to-market routes or replacing arterial streets. The roads policy area focused on managing existing road capac - ity to improve traffic operations through a variety of strate - gies and expanding the existing road system as planned for in the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan to support all modes of travel. When compared to traditional capital investments such as new transit service, roads or additional lanes, traffic man - agement solutions offer a number of benefits for a compara - tively low cost, and can delay or remove the need for additional capital-intensive infrastructure. In addition to replacing some expensive capital projects, management solutions can also com - plement new capital projects as well as education and marketing strategies. The scenarios analysis shows this policy area provided more modest GHG emissions reductions compared to the other policy areas. The following implications will be accounted for and fur - ther analyzed during Phases 2 and 3 of the Scenarios Project: Declining transportation revenues: As described in the pric - ing strategies section, the purchasing power of transportation revenues is in decline and infrastructure investments are not keeping pace with needs. This decline is anticipated to worsen as the vehicle fleet shifts to alternative fuels and light vehicle fuel economy continues to improve. The 2035 RTP finance strategy assumes existing federal, state and local funding for the region’s road system, plus other new revenues that were not part of the Phase 1 pricing assumptions, including increases in vehi - cle registration fees and tolling of the Columbia River Crossing bridge to fund planned improvements in that corridor. Changes to existing funding mechanisms are needed to implement exist - ing plans and investment priorities. Improving safety and system reliability for commuters and freight: Traffic management and other targeted capacity and arterial connectivity investments that improve safety and access to jobs and provide freight access to industrial areas are criti - cal investments to support the out - comes the region is trying to achieve – particularly when combined with other strategies that serve to expand transportation choices. Together these coordinated efforts provide for mobility and accessibility in a way that supports all modes of travel and the region’s role as an international gateway and domestic freight hub. This in turn helps businesses and industry remain competitive. 34 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Fleet and technology – what we tested Community design Marketing and incentives Technology Pricing Roads Fleet Fleet mix (proportion of autos to light trucks and SUVs) Fleet turnover rate (age) Fuel economy (miles per gallon) Carbon intensity of fuels Light-duty vehicles that are electric or plug-in hybrid electric Fl e e t Te c h n o l o g y auto: 57% light truck/SUV: 43% 10 years auto: 29.2 mpg light truck/SUV: 20.9 mpg 90 g CO 2 e/megajoule auto: 0% light truck/SUV: 0% auto: 56% light truck/SUV: 44% 10 years auto: 59.7 mpg light truck/SUV: 41 mpg 81 g CO 2 e/megajoule auto: 4% light truck/SUV: 1% auto: 71% light truck/SUV: 29% 8 years auto: 68.5 mpg light truck/SUV: 47.7 mpg 72 g CO 2 e/megajoule auto: 8% light truck/SUV: 2% No Level 3 Base Year Reflects existing conditions Level 1 Reference case Reflects current plans and policies Level 2 Reflects more ambitious policy changes Level 3 Reflects even more ambitious policy changes 2035 2010 Strategy Fleet mix The vehicle type model in GreenSTEP calculates the likelihood that a vehicle is a light truck, which in western states tend to be higher than the national average. 2010 Base Year is an estimate of existing conditions. 2035 Level 1 assumes a relatively constant ratio between light trucks and autos compared to the 2010 base year. 2035 Level 2 assumes a significant shift in fleet mix with a growth in auto ownership relative to light truck ownership. Fleet turnover rate Fleet turnover reflects the rate at which new vehicles will replace existing vehicles. Since newer vehicles are typically more fuel efficient than older vehicles, newer fleets will yield greater GHG reductions. 2010 Base Year is an estimate of existing conditions. 2035 Level 1 maintains the current fleet turnover rate of 10 years. 2035 Level 2 increases the rate vehicle replacement to 8 years. Fuel economy The fuel economy values reflect anticipated improvements in light vehicle fuel efficiency for 2035 model year vehicles. 2010 Base Year is an estimate of existing conditions. 2035 Level 1 assumes a significant increase in fuel efficiency; on average it reflects a doubling of fuel efficiency by model year 2035. 2035 Level 2 assumes a slight increase from the Level 1 assumptions. Carbon intensity of fuels 2010 Base Year is an estimate of existing conditions (see page 18 for a detailed description). 2035 Level 1 assumes that the carbon intensity of vehicle fuels will be 10 percent below the current average by 2035, consistent with the adopted low carbon fuel standard. 2035 Level 2 assumes that vehicle fuel carbon intensity will be 20 percent below the current average by 2035, which reflects a doubling of the proposed low carbon fuel standard. Plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles 2010 Base Year is an estimate of existing conditions (see page 24 for a detailed description). 2035 Level 1 assumes the the mid - point between the Base Year and Level 2 and is the only technology input that varies from the assump - tions in the state Agencies’ Techni - cal Report (http://www.oregon.gov/ ODOT/TD/TP/docs/OSTI/TechRpt. pdf). 2035 Level 2 is a general estimate of percent of light-duty vehi - cles that are plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles, as reflected in the state Agencies Technical Report. All fleet and technology assumptions reflect the values defined in the State Agencies‘ Technical report (3/1/11). Level 2 relects the assump - tions recommended in the Metropolitan GHG Reduction Target Rule adopted by LCDC in May 2011 (http://www.oregon.gov/ LCD/docs/ rulemaking/trac/ 660_044.pdf). 35 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Other potential benefits from the Strategy Toolbox Community benefits Improved air quality and fewer air toxics emissions Environmental benefits Less pollution Less energy use Economic benefits Job opportunities Consumer and business savings Municipal savings Leverage private investment Reduced fuel consumption Fleet and technology – considerations moving forward The proportion of vehicles on the road with improved fuel tech - nology is a major determinant of GHG emissions per mile of travel. Other potential benefits of fleet and technology improve - ments, identified in the Strategy Toolbox, include improved air quality; consumer and business savings; and reduced fuel con - sumption. The Phase 1 scenarios analysis demonstrates these strategies provide significant GHG emissions reduction poten - tial. Much work is being done at the state and federal levels to expand the number of vehicles with higher fuel efficiency and lower emissions, and to reduce the carbon content of fuels. However, there is uncertainty about whether or not the tech - nology and fleet assumptions recommended through the LCDC Target Rulemaking process will be achieved by 2035. This uncertainty, and the implications outlined below, will be further explored during Phases 2 and 3 of the project. The role of Level 1 fleet and technology: While the region’s Reference Case is consistent with the state’s scenario work, it should be noted that some of the technology assumptions reflect considerable efficiency improvements, the certainty of which are unknown. Specifically, the carbon intensity and fuel econ - omy improvements in the Reference Case reflect considerable advancements that more closely reflect Level 2 levels than cur - rent conditions. Uncertainty around fleet and technology assumptions: The region’s target represents an additional reduction after account - ing for anticipated fleet and technology improvements. After estimating the reduction potential of these fleet and technology improvements, the region’s 20 percent per capita reduction is anticipated to come from a combination of community design, pricing, marketing incentives and road policies. However, if the fleet and technology improvements assumed in OAR 660- 044 are not achieved, then greater reductions may be needed through these other policies. LCDC will review the state targets in 2015 and may identify adjustments at that time in light of new information. To meet technology and fleet assumptions, actions are needed across multiple sectors and all levels of govern - ment: Both Levels 1 and 2 of the fleet and technology policy areas will take considerable effort to implement. For example, the Phase 1 Reference Case assumes a doubling in fuel efficiency for model year 2035 vehicles from 2010. This technology improvement will require signifi - cant financial investments and policy actions across multiple sectors and scales, including funding for research and partnerships with businesses and educational institutions. In addition, state and local policy changes can be made to encourage acceptance of low-carbon fuels and electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid technology. For example, the carbon inten - sity of fuels for the Reference Case (Level 1) is anticipated to decrease 10 percent from 2010 levels by 2035, reflecting imple - mentation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) – a stan - dard that has not yet been implemented and without legislative action will sunset in 2015.1, 2 The existence of a LCFS program would likely increase the incentive to expand the EV market share. A sunset of the LCFS in 2015 could undermine existing efforts to improve fuel efficiency. 1 Pursuant to HB 2186, the authority to implement a Low Carbon Fuel Standard in Oregon will sunset on December 31, 2015 unless that sunset is lifted by the Oregon Legislature. 2 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Low Carbon Fuel Standards Advisory Committee Process and Program Design, January 25, 2011. Fleet mix Fleet turnover Fuel economy Carbon intensity of fuel Electric and plug-in hybrid market share Federal State Regional Local Fleet and technology Strategy lead 36 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Phase 1 at a glance: results from selected scenarios C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 1 – 2035 Reference Case Current policies 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.8 MT CO 2 e C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 2 Boost ﬂeet and technology 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.3 MT CO 2 e C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 3 Boost system efﬁciency 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.7 MT CO 2 e C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 4 Boost ﬂeet, technology and system efﬁciency 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.3 MT CO 2 e How far do current policies get us? Findings: Current plans and policies are on the right track and provide substantial per cap - ita GHG emissions reductions but do not meet the target. Community design or pricing must be more ambitious than current policies to meet the target. C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 5 Boost all policies but pricing and technology 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.2 MT CO 2 e – 20% C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 6 Boost all policies but pricing 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.0 MT CO 2 e – 32% C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 7 Boost all policies to level 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: .9 MT CO 2 e – 40% What is the range of possible reductions? Findings: Ninety-three out of 144 scenarios meet or exceed the target. The reductions ranged from 20 to 53 percent below 2005 levels on a per capita basis. C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 8 Boost all policies to their most ambitious level 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: .72 MT CO 2 e – 53% LEGEND Region’s per capita target = Policy areas: C Community design P Pricing M Marketing and incentives R Roads F Fleet T Technology Results: 1.8 MT CO 2 e do es not meet target 1.2 MT CO 2 e meets target % Percent reduction in G HG emissions from 2005 1.2 MT CO 2 e The scenarios tested are for research pur - poses only and do not necessarily reflect current or future policy decisions of the Metro Council, MPAC or JPACT. 37 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 9 Boost community design and system efﬁciency 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.4 MT CO 2 e C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 10 Boost community design and marketing 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.4 MT CO 2 e C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 11 Boost community design even more 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.1 MT CO 2 e – 29% C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 12 Boost ﬂeet and technology 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.1 MT CO 2 e – 31% What is the effect of the built environment? Findings: Similar reductions are possible through the most ambitious community design and fleet/technology scenarios. Combining more ambitious community design with the most ambitious system efficiency policies is not enough to meet target. C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 13 Boost pricing alone 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.5 MT CO 2 e C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 14 Boost pricing, ﬂeet and technology 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.2 MT CO 2 e – 22% C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy areas 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 15 Boost most ambitious pricing alone 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.5 MT CO 2 e What is the effect of pricing? Findings: Pricing when com - bined with the most ambitious fleet and technology strategies meets the target. C M R F T Le v e l s o f a m b i t i o n Policy levers 2 2 2 3 3 Scenario 16 Most ambitious pricing, ﬂeet and technology 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 P 2 1 Result: 1.2 MT CO 2 e – 22% 38 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 Glossary Fleet mix: The percentage of vehicles classified as automobiles compared to the percentage classified as light trucks (weighing less than 10,000 lbs.); light trucks make up 43 percent of the light-duty fleet today. Fleet turnover: The rate of vehicle replacement or the turnover of older vehicles to newer vehicles; the current turnover rate in Oregon is 10 years. Greenhouse gas emissions: Accord - ing to the Environmental Protection Agency, gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases emissions. Greenhouse gases that are created and emitted through human activities include carbon dioxide (emitted through the burning of fossil fuels), methane, nitrous oxide and flu - orinated gases. For more information see www.epa.gov/climatechange/emis - sions/index.html. GreenSTEP: GreenSTEP is a new model developed to estimate GHG emissions at the individual house - hold level. It estimates greenhouse gas emissions associated with vehi - cle ownership, vehicle travel, and fuel consumption, and is designed to oper - ate in a way that allows it to show the potential effects of different policies and other factors on vehicle travel and emissions. Metropolitan GreenSTEP travel behav - ior estimates are made irrespective of housing choice or supply; the model only considers the demand forecast components – household size, income and age – and the policy areas con - sidered in this analysis. Therefore, there is no Phase 1 assumption about the type of housing assumed to be built in the future. For Phase 2 of the Scenarios Project, Metro staff are developing a model – compatible with Metropolitan GreenSTEP – that will incorporate housing preference, supply and capacity considerations. This will provide the tools needed to evaluate changes in housing assump - tions as part of the decision-making process. House Bill 2001 (Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act): Passed by the Legislature in 2009, this legislation provided specific directions to the Portland metropolitan area to under - take scenario planning and develop two or more land use and transpor - tation scenarios by 2012 that accom - modate planned population and employment growth while achiev - ing the GHG emissions reduction tar - gets approved by LCDC in May 2011. Then Metro, after public review and consultation with local governments, is to select a preferred scenario. Fol - lowing selection of a preferred sce - nario, the local governments within the Metro jurisdiction are to amend their comprehensive plans and land use regulations to be consistent with the preferred scenario. For more infor - mation go to: http://www.leg.state. or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/ hb2001.en.pdf. Individualized marketing: Travel demand management programs focused on individual households. IM programs involve individualized out - reach to households that identify house - hold travel needs and ways to meet those needs with less vehicle travel. Light vehicles: Vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less, and include cars, light trucks, sport utility vehicles, motorcycles and small delivery trucks. Low Carbon Fuel Standard: In 2009, the Oregon legislature autho - rized the Environmental Quality Com - mission to develop low carbon fuel standards (LCFS) for Oregon. Each type of transportation fuel (gaso - line, diesel, natural gas, etc.) contains carbon in various amounts. When the fuel is burned, that carbon turns into carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), which is a greenhouse gases. The goal is to reduce the average carbon intensity of Oregon’s transportation fuels by Car-sharing: A model similar to a car rental where a member user rents cars for short periods of time, often by the hour. Such programs are attractive to customers who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehi - cle of a different type than they use day-to-day. The organization renting the cars may be a commercial business or the users may be organized as a company, public agency, cooperative, or peer-to-peer. The Portland region has Zipcar – http://www.zipcar.com/ Eco-driving: A combination of pub - lic education and driving practices that result in more efficient vehicle opera - tion and reduced fuel consumption and emissions. Examples of eco-driv - ing practices include avoiding rapid starts and stops, matching driving speeds to synchronized traffic signals, and avoiding idling. Employer-based commute pro - grams: Work-based travel demand management programs that can include transportation coordinators, employer-subsidized transit pass pro - grams, ride-matching, carpool and vanpool programs, telecommuting, compressed or flexible work weeks and bicycle parking and showers for bicycle commuters. 39 Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, Phase 1 Findings, January 2012 10 percent below 2010 levels by 2022 and applies to the entire mix of fuel available in Oregon. Carbon intensity refers to the emissions per unit of fuel; it is not a cap on total emissions or a limit on the amount of fuel that can be burned. The lower the carbon con - tent of a fuel, the fewer greenhouse gas emissions it produces. Pay-as-you-drive insurance (PAYD): This pricing strategy converts a por - tion of liability and collision insurance from dollars-per-year to cents-per-mile to charge insurance premiums based on the total amount of miles driven per vehicle on an annual basis and other important rating factors, such as the driver’s safety record. If a vehi - cle is driven more, the crash risk con - sequently increases. PAYD insurance charges policyholders according to their crash risk. Oregon Sustainable Transporta - tion Initiative (OSTI): An integrated statewide effort to reduce GHG emis - sions from the transportation sector by integrating land use and transpor - tation. Guided by stakeholder input, the initiative has built collaborative partnerships among local govern - ments and the state’s six Metropoli - tan Planning Organizations to help meet Oregon’s goals to reduce GHG emissions. The effort includes five main areas: Statewide Transportation Strategy development, GHG emission reduction targets for metropolitan areas, land use and transportation sce - nario planning guidelines, tools that support MPOs and local governments and public outreach. For more infor - mation, go to www.oregon.gov/odot/ td/osti Policy areas: Categories of land use and transportation strategies used in GreenSTEP to show how the applica - tion of different policies may impact GHG emissions. A policy area can be adjusted at different levels of imple - mentation in the model, for example, changes in fuel economy standards. Scenario: A term that is used to describe a possible future, represent - ing a hypothetical set of strategies or sequence of events. Scenario planning: A process that tests different actions and policies to see their affect on GHG emissions reduction and other quality of life indicators. Statewide Transportation Strat - egy: The strategy, as part of OSTI, will define a vision for Oregon to reduce its GHG emissions from transportation systems, vehicle and fuel technologies and urban form by 2050. Upon com - pletion, the strategy will be adopted by the Oregon Transportation Com - mission. For more information go to: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/ OSTI/STS.shtml. System efficiency: Strategies that optimize the use of the existing transportation system, including traffic management, employer-based commute programs, individualized marketing and car-sharing. Traffic incident management: A coordinated process to detect, respond to, and remove traffic inci - dents from the roadway as safely and quickly as possible, reducing non- recurring roadway congestion. Traffic management: Strategies that improve transportation system opera - tions and efficiency, including ramp metering, active traffic management, traffic signal coordination and real- time traveler information regarding traffic conditions, incidents, delays, travel times, alternate routes, weather conditions, construction, or special events. About Metro Clean air and clean water do not stop at city limits or county lines. Neither does the need for jobs, a thriving economy, and sustainable transportation and living choices for people and businesses in the region. Voters have asked Metro to help with the challenges and opportunities that affect the 25 cities and three counties in the Portland metropolitan area. A regional approach simply makes sense when it comes to pro - viding services, operating venues and making decisions about how the region grows. Metro works with communities to sup - port a resilient economy, keep nature close by and respond to a changing climate. Together we’re making a great place, now and for generations to come. www.oregonmetro.gov Metro Council President Tom Hughes Metro Councilors Shirley Craddick, District 1 Carlotta Collette, District 2 Carl Hosticka, District 3 Kathryn Harrington, District 4 Rex Burkholder, District 5 Barbara Roberts, District 6 Auditor Suzanne Flynn Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) Jerry Willey, City of Hillsboro, MPAC Chair Loretta Smith, Multnomah County, First Vice-Chair Jody Carson, City of West Linn, Second Vice-Chair Charlotte Lehan, Clackamas County Shane Bemis, City of Gresham Norm Thomas, City of Troutdale Sam Adams, City of Portland Amanda Fritz, City of Portland Jack Hoffman, City of Lake Oswego William Wild, Oak Lodge Sanitary District Andy Duyck, Washington County Keith Mays, City of Sherwood Marilyn McWilliams, Tualatin Valley Water District Steve Clark, TriMet Board of Directors Nathalie Darcy, Washington Co. Citizen Wilda Parks, Clackamas Co. Citizen Matt Berkow, Multnomah Co. Citizen Jim Rue, Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation & Development, Steve Stuart, Clark County Laura Hudson, City of Vancouver Carl Hosticka, Metro Council Barbara Roberts, Metro Council Kathryn Harrington, Metro Council Annette Mattson, David Douglas School Board Doug Neeley, City of Oregon City Denny Doyle, City of Beaverton Ken Allen, Oregon AFSCME Council 75 Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) Carlotta Collette, Metro Council, JPACT Chair Rex Burkholder, Metro Council, JPACT Vice-Chair Shirley Craddick, Metro Council Ann Lininger, Clackamas County Deborah Kafoury, Multnomah County Roy Rogers, Washington County Sam Adams, City of Portland Donna Jordan, City of Lake Oswego Shane Bemis, City of Gresham Craig Dirksen, City of Tigard Neil McFarlane, TriMet Jason Tell, ODOT Nina DeConcini, DEQ Don Wagner, Washington State DOT Bill Wyatt, Port of Portland Jack Burkman, City of Vancouver Steve Stuart, Clark County This report contains information that is intended for research purposes only and does not necessarily reflect current or future policy decisions of the Metro Council, MPAC or JPACT. The preparation of this report was financed in part by the Oregon Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Oregon Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration . For more information, visit www. oregonmetro.gov/ climatescenarios 12147jg