Integrating the Land Use and Travel Model in San Francisco County Lisa Zorn

Similar documents
Coupling an urban simulation model with a travel model A first sensitivity test

Ideas + Action for a Better City learn more at SPUR.org. tweet about this #IsDrivingReallyFree?

Internet Appendix to. The Price of Street Friends: Social Networks, Informed Trading, and Shareholder Costs. Jie Cai Ralph A.

Economic Contributions of the Florida Citrus Industry in and for Reduced Production

Uniform Rules Update Final EIR APPENDIX 6 ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS USED FOR ESTIMATING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Transportation demand management in a deprived territory: A case study in the North of France

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BEER TOURISM IN KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN

STARBUCKS AND KAY JEWELERS: 6.25%

Economic Losses from Pollution Closure of Clam Harvesting Areas in Machias Bay

Online Appendix for. To Buy or Not to Buy: Consumer Constraints in the Housing Market

Internet Appendix. For. Birds of a feather: Value implications of political alignment between top management and directors

Measuring economic value of whale conservation

Coffee Price Volatility and Intra-household Labour Supply: Evidence from Vietnam

The Role of Calorie Content, Menu Items, and Health Beliefs on the School Lunch Perceived Health Rating

Looking Long: Demographic Change, Economic Crisis, and the Prospects for Reducing Poverty. La Conyuntura vs. the Long-run

THE IMPACT OF THE DEEPWATER HORIZON GULF OIL SPILL ON GULF COAST REAL ESTATE MARKETS

2016 STATUS SUMMARY VINEYARDS AND WINERIES OF MINNESOTA

Volume 30, Issue 1. Gender and firm-size: Evidence from Africa

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WINE AND WINE GRAPES ON THE STATE OF TEXAS 2015

PIZZA HUT & WINGSTREET

1. Continuing the development and validation of mobile sensors. 3. Identifying and establishing variable rate management field trials

Guatemala. 1. Guatemala: Change in food prices

Mobility tools and use: Accessibility s role in Switzerland

Bizualem Assefa. (M.Sc in ABVM)

forsale PROPERTYHIGHLIGHTS Great Views from 2nd Floor Patio Allen-Urrea Commercial Brokerage NWC Central Ave. & Washington St., Albuquerque New Mexico

ARE THERE SKILLS PAYOFFS IN LOW AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES?

Putting dollar value on whaling

Rail Haverhill Viability Study

Tomatoes. Adapted from: Hot as a Pepper, Cool as a Cucumber, Meredith Sayles Hughes, 1999.

Panel A: Treated firm matched to one control firm. t + 1 t + 2 t + 3 Total CFO Compensation 5.03% 0.84% 10.27% [0.384] [0.892] [0.

Appendix Table A1 Number of years since deregulation

Corral Hollow at Linne Rd.

Labor Supply of Married Couples in the Formal and Informal Sectors in Thailand

Dietary Diversity in Urban and Rural China: An Endogenous Variety Approach

Gender and Firm-size: Evidence from Africa

Meadows Market. Market & Gas Station Sun Country Drive Elizabeth, Colorado Sale Price $1,495,000

Letter of Determination

Appendix A. Table A.1: Logit Estimates for Elasticities

Meadows Market. Market & Gas Station Sun Country Drive Elizabeth, Colorado Sale Price $1,495,000

How Rest Area Commercialization Will Devastate the Economic Contributions of Interstate Businesses. Acknowledgements

SMOOTH BREW COFFEE E. MCDOWELL RD. PHOENIX, AZ Justin Horwitz Senior Advisor

Consumer Responses to Food Products Produced Near the Fukushima Nuclear Plant

I-25 Main Event Restaurant Pads

Availability of Nutritional Information in a National Sample of Fast Food Restaurants

Technical Memorandum: Economic Impact of the Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharoahs Exhibition

Iconic Woodinville Property

Climate change may alter human physical activity patterns

Protest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the U.S. South in the Early 1960s

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LEGALIZING RETAIL ALCOHOL SALES IN BENTON COUNTY. Produced for: Keep Dollars in Benton County

KATY TANG. Flexible Retail Legislation File

Ex-Ante Analysis of the Demand for new value added pulse products: A

What are the Driving Forces for Arts and Culture Related Activities in Japan?

The multivariate piecewise linear growth model for ZHeight and zbmi can be expressed as:

KATY TANG. Flexible Retail Legislation File

Preferred citation style

How to Calculate Winery Emissions for CEQA

DETERMINANTS OF GROWTH

52,000 ADT. W. Madison Ave - 10,000 ADT

Annika Stensson. Director Research Communications National Restaurant Association Washington, D.C. Restaurant.org/Research.

IMPORTANCE OF LODI WINES IN THE RETAIL CHANNEL AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH. Curtis Mann Director of Wine & Beverage Raley s Family of Fine Stores

Method for the imputation of the earnings variable in the Belgian LFS

Coffee and climate change. Effectively guiding forward looking climate change adaptation of global coffee supply chains

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE FLORIDA CITRUS INDUSTRY IN

South Napa Century Center

AJAE Appendix: Testing Household-Specific Explanations for the Inverse Productivity Relationship

OFFERING. For Sale of Lease BUILDING, LAND, ASSETS, & LIQUOR PERMIT 9215 Dublin Rd Powell, OH Delaware County PARCEL #

Planning Research using InfoUSA/InfoGroup Data

Nogales: Donation Acceptance Program

Hybrid ARIMA-ANN Modelling for Forecasting the Price of Robusta Coffee in India

SHEA ROASTING IN A NUTSHELL. Brian Gylland (& Paul Means) Burn Design Lab ETHOS January 26-28, 2018

BORDEAUX WINE VINTAGE QUALITY AND THE WEATHER ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. ) Idaho Power Company ) Docket No. ER06- )

November K. J. Martijn Cremers Lubomir P. Litov Simone M. Sepe

Multiple Imputation for Missing Data in KLoSA

The Economic Contribution of the Colorado Wine Industry

CITY BREW COFFEE Harrison Ave - Butte, MT OFFERING MEMORANDUM OFFERED BY: BRIDGEWATER LLC

The Economic Impact of the Craft Brewing Industry in Maine. School of Economics Staff Paper SOE 630- February Andrew Crawley*^ and Sarah Welsh

±20,473 SF Parcel For Sale 3699 Sagunto St. Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Office Suites - Palm Gate Plaza 3951 N Haverhill Rd, West Palm Beach, FL 33417

Preferred citation style

Sample. TO: Prof. Hussain FROM: GROUP (Names of group members) DATE: October 09, 2003 RE: Final Project Proposal for Group Project

Perspective of the Labor Market for security guards in Israel in time of terror attacks

Demographic, Seasonal, and Housing Characteristics Associated with Residential Energy Consumption in Texas, 2010

The Elasticity of Substitution between Land and Capital: Evidence from Chicago, Berlin, and Pittsburgh

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

RESEARCH UPDATE from Texas Wine Marketing Research Institute by Natalia Kolyesnikova, PhD Tim Dodd, PhD THANK YOU SPONSORS

AIS Detectors & AIS Trackers

Gail E. Potter, Timo Smieszek, and Kerstin Sailer. April 24, 2015

Federal Milk Market Administrator U.S. Department of Agriculture. H. Paul Kyburz, Market Administrator

An application of cumulative prospect theory to travel time variability

Moving Beyond the Traditional Agriculture Model February 16, 2017

Credit Supply and Monetary Policy: Identifying the Bank Balance-Sheet Channel with Loan Applications. Web Appendix

Problem Set #3 Key. Forecasting

Effects of political-economic integration and trade liberalization on exports of Italian Quality Wines Produced in Determined Regions (QWPDR)

UPPER MIDWEST DAIRY NEWS

Maximizing the use of Batangas International Port

Healthy Food Procurement in the County of Los Angeles Public Health Alliance of Southern California Leadership Council May 31, 2013

Cherrybrook Village. cherrybrookvillage.com.au. Cherrybrook Village

Tourism and HSR in Spain. Does the AVE increase local visitors?

Transcription:

Integrating the Land Use and Travel Model in San Francisco County Lisa Zorn Event 180: Meeting Planning Needs with Integrated Urban Models Jan 23, 2011 TRB 90th Annual Meeting SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

What is LUCI? Land Use + CHAMP Integrated SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2

What is LUCI? brought to you by UrbanSim! Land Use + CHAMP Integrated SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2

Why LUCI? Systematically develop land use forecast Identify areas where growth may be over/ under planned Justify transportation mitigations Show the implications of policies SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 3

What is LUCI? What is SF CHAMP? Plan B Land Use Road Network Network SF-CHAMP Trips Loaded Networks Travel Times SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 4

What is LUCI? What is SF CHAMP? Plan B Land Use Road Network Network SF-CHAMP Trips Loaded Networks Travel Times SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 4

What is UrbanSim? Travel Times ABAG HH & Job Totals Planning Pipeline UrbanSim Real Estate Prices Buildings Land Use SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 5

Travel Times ABAG HH & Job Totals Planning Pipeline Together: UrbanSim LUCI Real Estate Prices Buildings Land Use Road Network Network SF-CHAMP Loaded Trips ABAG HH & Planning Networks Travel Times Job Totals Pipeline UrbanSim Real Estate Prices Buildings Land Use Road Network Network SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 6

Travel Times ABAG HH & Job Totals UrbanSim Planning Pipeline 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 Together: LUCI Real Estate Prices Buildings Land Use Road Network Network 2015 SF-CHAMP Loaded Trips ABAG HH & Planning Networks Travel Times Job Totals Pipeline UrbanSim 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 Real Estate Prices Buildings Land Use Road Network Network 2020 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 6 etc...

Model Development Base Year Data Parcels Buildings Households Businesses Model Estimation, Calibration, Validation SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 7

Modeled Scenarios Scenario Name Land Use LUCI? Plan B (Best Guess) Plan B CHAMP only UrbanSim UrbanSim UrbanSim only LUCI Baseline UrbanSim yes LUCI + Projects UrbanSim yes SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 8

How does UrbanSim compare to our Best Guess? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment UrbanSim - Plan B 3,163-5,623 1,001-3,162 563-1,000 317-562 179-316 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179-562 - -317-1,000 - -563-3,162 - -1,001-5,623 - -3,163 UrbanSim > Plan B UrbanSim < Plan B SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 9

How does UrbanSim compare to our Best Guess? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment UrbanSim - Plan B 3,163-5,623 1,001-3,162 563-1,000 317-562 179-316 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179-562 - -317-1,000 - -563-3,162 - -1,001-5,623 - -3,163 UrbanSim > Plan B UrbanSim < Plan B SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 9

How does UrbanSim compare to our Best Guess? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment UrbanSim - Plan B 3,163-5,623 1,001-3,162 563-1,000 317-562 179-316 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179-562 - -317-1,000 - -563-3,162 - -1,001-5,623 - -3,163 UrbanSim > Plan B UrbanSim < Plan B SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 9

How does UrbanSim compare to our Best Guess? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment Plan B UrbanSim -562 - -317-1,000 - -563 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179 317-562 179-316 1,000-1,778 563-1,000 1,779-3,162 5,624-10,000 3,163-5,623 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 10

How does UrbanSim compare to our Best Guess? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 UrbanSim - Plan B 21,545-46,416 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-10,000 - -4,643-21,544 - -10,001 UrbanSim > Plan B UrbanSim < Plan B SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 11

How does UrbanSim compare to our Best Guess? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 UrbanSim - Plan B 21,545-46,416 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-10,000 - -4,643-21,544 - -10,001 UrbanSim > Plan B UrbanSim < Plan B SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 11

How does UrbanSim compare to our Best Guess? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 Plan B UrbanSim -2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-215 - -101 216-464 101-215 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 2,155-4,642 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 21,545-46,416 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 12

How Does CHAMP affect UrbanSim? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment LUCI Baseline - UrbanSim 3,163-5,623 1,001-3,162 563-1,000 317-562 179-316 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179-562 - -317-1,000 - -563-3,162 - -1,001-5,623 - -3,163 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 13

How Does CHAMP affect UrbanSim? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment LUCI Baseline - UrbanSim 3,163-5,623 1,001-3,162 563-1,000 317-562 179-316 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179-562 - -317-1,000 - -563-3,162 - -1,001-5,623 - -3,163 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 13

How Does CHAMP affect UrbanSim? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment LUCI Baseline - UrbanSim 3,163-5,623 1,001-3,162 563-1,000 317-562 179-316 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179-562 - -317-1,000 - -563-3,162 - -1,001-5,623 - -3,163 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 13

How Does CHAMP affect UrbanSim? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment UrbanSim LUCI Baseline -562 - -317-1,000 - -563 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179 317-562 179-316 1,000-1,778 563-1,000 1,779-3,162 5,624-10,000 3,163-5,623 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 14

How Does CHAMP affect UrbanSim? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 LUCI Baseline - UrbanSim 21,545-46,416 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-10,000 - -4,643-21,544 - -10,001 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 15

How Does CHAMP affect UrbanSim? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 LUCI Baseline - UrbanSim 21,545-46,416 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-10,000 - -4,643-21,544 - -10,001 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 15

How Does CHAMP affect UrbanSim? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 LUCI Baseline - UrbanSim 21,545-46,416 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-10,000 - -4,643-21,544 - -10,001 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 15

How Does CHAMP affect UrbanSim? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 UrbanSim LUCI Baseline -2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-215 - -101 216-464 101-215 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 2,155-4,642 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 21,545-46,416 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 16

How does LUCI compare to our Best Guess? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment LUCI Baseline - Plan B 3,163-5,623 1,001-3,162 563-1,000 317-562 179-316 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179-562 - -317-1,000 - -563-3,162 - -1,001-5,623 - -3,163 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 17

How does LUCI compare to our Best Guess? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment LUCI Baseline - Plan B 3,163-5,623 1,001-3,162 563-1,000 317-562 179-316 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179-562 - -317-1,000 - -563-3,162 - -1,001-5,623 - -3,163 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 17

How does LUCI compare to our Best Guess? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment LUCI Baseline - Plan B 3,163-5,623 1,001-3,162 563-1,000 317-562 179-316 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179-562 - -317-1,000 - -563-3,162 - -1,001-5,623 - -3,163 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 17

How does LUCI compare to our Best Guess? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment Plan B LUCI Baseline SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 18

How does LUCI compare to our Best Guess? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 LUCI Baseline - Plan B 21,545-46,416 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-10,000 - -4,643-21,544 - -10,001 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 19

How does LUCI compare to our Best Guess? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 LUCI Baseline - Plan B 21,545-46,416 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-10,000 - -4,643-21,544 - -10,001 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 19

How does LUCI compare to our Best Guess? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 LUCI Baseline - Plan B 21,545-46,416 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-10,000 - -4,643-21,544 - -10,001 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 19

How does LUCI compare to our Best Guess? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 Plan B LUCI Baseline -2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-215 - -101 216-464 101-215 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 2,155-4,642 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 21,545-46,416 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 20

How does LUCI compare to our Best Guess? Households Employment AM Volumes 2035 LUCI Baseline - Plan B 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-2,155 - -4,642-10,000 - -4,643 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 21

How does LUCI compare to our Best Guess? Households Employment AM Volumes 2035 LUCI Baseline - Plan B 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-2,155 - -4,642-10,000 - -4,643-21,554 - -10,001 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 22

How Do Transportation Projects Affect LUCI? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment (LUCI+ Projects) - (LUCI Baseline) 3,163-5,623 1,001-3,162 563-1,000 317-562 179-316 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179-562 - -317-1,000 - -563-3,162 - -1,001-5,623 - -3,163 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 23

How Do Transportation Projects Affect LUCI? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment (LUCI+ Projects) - (LUCI Baseline) 3,163-5,623 1,001-3,162 563-1,000 317-562 179-316 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179-562 - -317-1,000 - -563-3,162 - -1,001-5,623 - -3,163 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 23

How Do Transportation Projects Affect LUCI? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment (LUCI+ Projects) - (LUCI Baseline) 3,163-5,623 1,001-3,162 563-1,000 317-562 179-316 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179-562 - -317-1,000 - -563-3,162 - -1,001-5,623 - -3,163 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 23

How Do Transportation Projects Affect LUCI? Household Growth 2010 to 2035 Employment LUCI Baseline LUCI+ Projects -562 - -317-1,000 - -563 101-178 -178 - -101-316 - -179 317-562 179-316 1,000-1,778 563-1,000 1,779-3,162 5,624-10,000 3,163-5,623 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 24

How Do Transportation Projects Affect LUCI? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 (LUCI+ Projects) - (LUCI Baseline) 21,545-46,416 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-10,000 - -4,643-21,544 - -10,001 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 25

How Do Transportation Projects Affect LUCI? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 (LUCI+ Projects) - (LUCI Baseline) 21,545-46,416 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-10,000 - -4,643-21,544 - -10,001 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 25

How Do Transportation Projects Affect LUCI? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 (LUCI+ Projects) - (LUCI Baseline) 21,545-46,416 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-10,000 - -4,643-21,544 - -10,001 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 25

How Do Transportation Projects Affect LUCI? Households Employment* Growth 2010 to 2035 LUCI Baseline LUCI+ Projects -2,154 - -1,001-4,642 - -2,155-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-215 - -101 216-464 101-215 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 2,155-4,642 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 21,545-46,416 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 26

How Do Transportation Projects Affect LUCI? Households Employment AM Volumes 2035 (LUCI+ Projects) - (LUCI Baseline) 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-2,155 - -4,642-10,000 - -4,643 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 27

How Do Transportation Projects Affect LUCI? Households Employment AM Volumes 2035 (LUCI+ Projects) - (LUCI Baseline) 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-2,155 - -4,642-10,000 - -4,643 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 27

How Do Transportation Projects Affect LUCI? Households Employment AM Volumes 2035 (LUCI+ Projects) - (LUCI Baseline) 10,001-21,544 4,643-10,000 2,155-4,642 1,001-2,154 465-1,000 216-464 101-215 -215 - -101-464 - -216-1,000 - -465-2,154 - -1,001-2,155 - -4,642-10,000 - -4,643-21,554 - -10,001 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 28

VMT in San Francisco 0% Compared to Plan B -2% -4% -6% -8% -10% LUCI Baseline -5% LUCI+ Projects -8% SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 29

Lessons Learned Process Data Needs: quality and management Not evolutionary (hh ages, incomes, and sizes; businesses) Validation What are good questions for LUCI? SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 30

Future Improvements Base year Data Income, household size, businesses Better Popsyn Development Accessibility logsums (cost & time) rather than travel time Travel costs (especially wrt Congestion Pricing!!) Zoning Restrictions Vacancy rates affecting RE Prices Policy Inclusionary Zoning Zoning for higher capacity nodes and corridors Congestion Pricing SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 31

Acknowledgements Aksel Olsen, SF Planning Paul Waddell, UC Berkeley Liming Wang, UC Berkeley Zabe Bent, SFCTA Jeff Hood, former SFCTA Intern Nico Linesch, former SFCTA Intern SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 32

See Also Waddell, Paul, Liming Wang and Billy Charlton. Integration of Parcel-Level Land Use Model and Activity-Based Travel Model. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 13-17, 2008. Waddell, Paul, Liming Wang, Billy Charlton and Aksel Olson. Microsimulating parcel-level land use and activity-based travel: Development of a prototype application in San Francisco. Journal of Transport and Land Use Vol. 3 No. 2 (Summer 2010): 65-84. doi:10.5198/ jtlu.v3i2.124 Questions? lisa.zorn@sfcta.org 415.593.1660 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 33

Household Location Choice 1 Person Households Coefficient estimate std error t-stat apartment 1.09 0.01 89.69 condo -0.70 0.02-38.69 ln_avg_building_sf_per_unit -0.29 0.01-52.00 ln_avg_income_in_zone -0.78 0.03-28.11 ln_emp_30_lrt 0.01 0.01 1.91 ln_hholds_per_acre_in_zone2 0.02 0.00 104.21 ln_inc_avg_inc 0.70 0.03 24.74 ln_inc_minus_cost 0.07 0.00 33.86 ln_jobs_per_acre_in_zone2 0.01 0.00 56.90 single_family -1.95 0.01-134.93 Adj. likelihood ratio index: 0.419 Number of observations: 66,509 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 34

Household Location Choice 2 Person Households Coefficient estimate std error t-stat apartment 1.07 0.01 78.14 condo -0.81 0.02-38.33 ln_avg_building_sf_per_unit -0.27 0.01-42.95 ln_avg_income_in_zone -0.93 0.06-15.16 ln_hholds_per_acre_in_zone2 0.01 0.00 77.55 ln_inc_avg_inc 0.90 0.06 14.42 ln_inc_minus_cost 0.06 0.00 21.89 ln_jobs_per_acre_in_zone2 0.01 0.00 26.99 single_family -1.73 0.01-123.48 Adj. likelihood ratio index: 0.298 Number of observations: 49,851 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 35

Household Location Choice 3+ Person Households Coefficient estimate std error t-stat apartment 0.92 0.02 62.95 condo -1.18 0.03-46.89 ln_avg_building_sf_per_unit -0.23 0.01-36.07 ln_avg_income_in_zone -1.62 0.06-25.52 ln_hholds_per_acre_in_zone2 0.01 0.00 33.01 ln_inc_avg_inc 1.17 0.06 18.26 ln_inc_minus_cost 0.05 0.00 18.89 ln_jobs_per_acre_in_zone2-0.00 0.00-8.27 single_family -1.52 0.01-115.86 Adj. likelihood ratio index: 0.165 Number of observations: 48,133 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 36

Business Location Choice Management, Information and Professional Services (MIPS) Coefficient estimate std error t-stat age -0.02 0.00-0.77 bfar 0.15 0.00 4.08 ln_avg_income_in_zone 0.13 0.06 2.14 ln_emp_activity_3_win_10_min_hwy 0.29 0.10 3.02 ln_jobs_per_acre_in_zone -0.33 0.06-5.81 lrt_weighted_access_to_population 0.00 0.00 0.07 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 37

Business Location Choice Production, Distribution & Repair (PDR) Coefficient estimate std error t-stat bfar 0.03 0.00 22.58 ln_avg_income_in_zone 1.11 0.03 42.46 ln_emp_activity_4_win_10_min_hwy -0.44 0.02-21.17 ln_hholds_per_acre_in_zone -0.54 0.01-43.82 ln_jobs_per_acre_in_zone -0.15 0.01-11.18 lrt_weighted_access_to_population 0.00 0.00 49.25 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 38

Business Location Choice Retail Coefficient estimate std error t-stat age 0.00 0.00 0.54 bfar 0.01 0.00 1.69 ln_avg_income_in_zone 0.32 0.03 10.02 ln_emp_activity_5_win_10_min_hwy 0.07 0.03 2.53 ln_hholds_per_acre_in_zone -0.26 0.01-18.20 ln_jobs_per_acre_in_zone -0.21 0.02-11.76 lrt_weighted_access_to_population 0.00 0.00 10.25 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 39