Lauren Lee Stuart Center for Energy Studies Louisiana State University

Similar documents
Center for Energy Studies. Lauren Lee Stuart. Louisiana State University

Transportation 2040: Plan Performance. Transportation Policy Board September 14, 2017

Philip Schaffner & Jason Junge Minnesota Department of Transportation

Parking Management Strategies

A fair deal for cars. Strategies for internalisation. Huib van Essen, 6 December 2012

Parking Pricing As a TDM Strategy

Implementation of Future Transportation Technologies: Getting Beyond the Low Hanging Fruit without Chopping Down the Tree

Transportation Demand Management Element

Mercer Island Town Center Parking Study Joint Commission Presentation March 16, 2016

May 23, 2011 APTA Bus & Paratransit Conference. Metro ExpressLanes

Facts and Figures. October 2006 List Release Special Edition BWC National Benefits and Related Facts October, 2006 (Previous Versions Obsolete)

Stakeholder Meeting #3. August 22, 2018

Transit Fares for Multi-modal Transportation Systems

2 VALUE PROPOSITION VALUE PROPOSITION DEVELOPMENT

Vanpool in Atlanta: Accommodating a 10% Mode Shift for Coca-Cola. Prepared for CEE 6625 by Calvin Clark Daejin Kim Yu Chen

The USDOT Congestion Pricing Program: A New Era for Congestion Management

The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix

Transportation: On the Road to Cleaner Air Did you know?

Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5.

Public Transportation. Economics 312 Martin Farnham

Rui Wang Assistant Professor, UCLA School of Public Affairs. IACP 2010, Shanghai June 20, 2010

Transit Oriented and City Center Development

QUALITY OF LIFE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT I O N S TAT I O N

Policy Note. Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost.

CLRP. Performance Analysis of The Draft 2014 CLRP. Long-Range Transportation Plan For the National Capital Region

Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI)

Georgia Department of Transportation 2006 Fact Sheet Lovejoy to Atlanta Rail Line visit the website at

Mobility on Demand, Mobility as a Service the new transport paradigm. Richard Harris, Xerox

Opportunities and Challenges of Implementing Low Carbon, High Volume Transport in Bangladesh

WASHINGTON STATE ROAD USAGE CHARGE ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 9. PARKING SUPPLY

Planning for Autonomous Vehicles. Stephen Buckley WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff KINETIC October 6, 2016

Valley Metro Overview. ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 6, 2014

car2go Toronto Proposal for on-street parking pilot project

What s New in Shared. Mayor s Innovation Project Jan 24, 2015

UC Santa Cruz TAPS 3-Year Fee & Fare Proposal, through

Bob Yuhnke Southwest Energy Efficiency Project Regional Air Quality Council 8/6/2010

MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DETAILED SUMMARY OF FINAL APPLICATIONS

USF Tampa Campus Percent Mode Share 2010

Incentives for Green Fleets

Call for Projects Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Emissions Formulas Technical Advisory Committee

Implementing Transport Demand Management Measures

Transport Sector Performance Indicators: Sri Lanka Existing Situation

Trip Generation and Parking Study New Californian Apartments, Berkeley

Policy considerations for reducing fuel use from passenger vehicles,

RUPOOL: A Social-Carpooling Application for Rutgers Students

Trip Generation and Parking Utilization Data Collection at Mini-Mart with Gas Station

[Author Name] [Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] Green Fleet Policy

3.17 Energy Resources

Treasure Island Mobility Management Program

VEHICLE TOLLING & MANAGEMENT. By: Julian Holtzman, Dan Moser, and Whitney Schroeder

DAILY TRAVEL AND CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM PASSENGER TRANSPORT: A COMPARISON OF GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES

Policy Options to Decarbonise Urban Passenger Transport

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Preferred citation style

CTR Employer Survey Report

DRAFT Evaluation Scores. Transit

Outline. Research Questions. Electric Scooters in Viet Nam and India: Factors Influencing (lack of) Adoption and Environmental Implications 11/4/2009

CTR Employer Survey Report

Proposal for September 2006 Start of Commuter Rail from Lovejoy on the Macon Line to Atlanta

2018 Long Range Development Plan Update Community Advisory Group- February 21, 2018

Feasibility Study. Community Meeting March, North-South Commuter Rail Feasibility Study

AND THAT Bylaw No , being Amendment No. 27 to Traffic Bylaw No. 8120, be forwarded for reading consideration.

Urban Transportation in the United States: A Time for Leadership

Trip and Parking Generation Data Collection at Grocery Store with Gas Station and Auto Repair

Please visit the stations to provide your input: EV Charging Location Map EV Adoption ZEV Drivers Other Ideas

University of Vermont Transportation Research Center

Treasure Island Mobility Management Program

Keeping Seattle Moving Seattle City Council February 2013

Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Presented at the Sixth Regional Forum on Environmentally Sustainable Transport In Asia

UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018

Broward County Intermodal Center And People Mover. AASHTO Value Engineering Conference Presentation. September 1, 2009 San Diego, CA

5.6 ENERGY IMPACT DISCUSSION. No Build Alternative

PEACHTREE CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP. Current Status & Next Steps

UNIVERSITY of NEW HAMPSHIRE Campus Planning and Transportation Services

Metro Strategic Plan: Changing our relationship with the customer May 17, 2018

OPTIMAL POLICIES FOR TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE

2011 Saskatoon Transit Services Annual Report

The South Waterfront District and the Portland Aerial Tram

Winston-Salem State University

Road Map for Sustainable Transport Strategy for Colombo Metropolitan Region with Cleaner Air, through Experience

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND POLICY COMMITTEE MAY 5, 2016

Abstract. Background. Sustainability Initiatives:

Travel Time Savings Memorandum

CO 2 Emissions: A Campus Comparison

Ministry of Environment and Forests. Ministry of Communication

Electric vehicles and urban transport externalities is OSLO a good example?

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. William R. Spraul Chief Operating Officer, Transit Services

EXPERIENCE IN A COMPANY-WIDE LONG DISTANCE CARPOOL PROGRAM IN SOUTH KOREA

17.8 acres site 4.6 acres in floodplain & wetlands 3.5 acres of surface parking 9 acres of open space

The Environmental Benefits and Opportunity of Shared Mobility

Submission to Greater Cambridge City Deal

Mississauga Moves: A City in Transformation icity Symposium Hamish Campbell

Jeffrey Busby A/Director, Infrastructure Program Management TransLink Urban Sustainability Accelerator

The Health Benefits of Public Transport. Vince Hills Business Development Officer - Nexus

Congestion Charging - An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

CSE CONCLAVE. ENABLING CITY ACTION PLAN FOR CLEAN AIR India Habitat Centre, New Delhi April 19-20,

UCSB Campus Sustainability Plan Template

Parking Management Element

Energy Efficiency Transport Sector

Transcription:

Lauren Lee Stuart Center for Energy Studies Louisiana State University lstuar3@lsu.edu

Overview Transportation Economics Mobility Demand Management Definitions Examples Applications LSU Case Study Background Survey Results Supply and Demand Findings Mode Choice Forecasting Optimum Investment Allocations Energy and Environmental Impacts

Traffic Congestion: A Negative Externality? Engineers collect traffic counts to rate roads according to the Level of Service Economists can calculate Pareto Efficiency to estimate optimum level of vehicular activity

Transportation Economics PRINCIPLE ASSUMPTIONS Roads as Public Goods Operated as Monopoly Markets Consumer Prices:» Fuel, parking, tolls, vehicle ownership, fares, etc. Producer Costs:» Construction, maintenance, law enforcement, etc. Social Costs:» Congestion, accidents, emissions, etc. APPLICATIONS PUBLIC WORKS FINANCING ALTERNATIVE ASESSMENTS EMISSION MITIGATIONS

Mobility Demand Management System Intervention Market Based Policy Based Structural Example Gas tax, parking pricing, toll roads Commuter Services, ITS, Inspection& Maintenance Auto Restriction, Bike Paths, Parkand Ride, Transit Implementation Strategy Revenue neutral cost distribution Idling limitations, telecommuting Construction + Awareness Description Incorporate the price mechanism Influence decision making Offer mode choice

Examples Edmonton, Canada Deadweight loss of $1,300/day from emissions and congestion Road and parking pricing funded expansion of alternate modes Kamloops, British Columbia Road expenditures reduced from $120 million to $14 million Annual energy consumption decrease from 128 to 125 gigajoules per capita Carbon monoxide decrease from 116 to 111 kg/capita/year, and carbon dioxide from 7,200 to 7,000 kg/capita/year Stockholm, Sweden Congestion charge included expansion of transit and park and ride Significant NOx, CO, PM10, VOC, & CO2 emission reductions Atlanta, Georgia USA Carpool, vanpool, and transit saved 94,460,789 VMT/yr

Transportation Economics generalized cost Demand Average Public Costs Average Private Costs J A H C G F K L M B O E D flow of vehicles Presented by J.D. Hunt, et.al at the 11 th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference; Daytona Beach, FL; May 8, 2007

Louisiana State University LSU is located on more than 2,000 acres of land in the southern part of Baton Rouge, bordered on the west by the Mississippi River. ~30,000 students, an average of 92% commute in personal vehicle Traffic congestion and air quality serious problems in the area 2007 Road closure implemented, called Easy Streets Phase one of the Master Plan goal of a car free campus Parking permit prices increased incrementally (arbitrarily) Controversial, although stated impact was 62% reduction in number of cars on campus

LSU Mobility Case Study

Demand for Driving

Demand for Driving *Average = 92%

Demand for Driving $39 $39 $39 $39 $51 $63 $75 $87

Driving Demand is Price Inelastic E d (Commuters) =.11 E d (Total) =.22

Parking Supply

Producer Surplus Profit = Total Revenue Total Cost $565,431.36 / year Average Marginal Revenue = $54 Average Marginal Cost = $19 Deadweight Loss = ½x (MR=AC) x (MR=MC) $282,715.68 / year Traffic Congestion: Time, fuel, emissions, etc.

Student Transportation Survey Factors: Convenience, Reliability, Safety Accessibility, Affordability Cost, Benefits

Supply and Demand Findings Price of Parking Demand = Marginal Revenue $87 $39 Average Revenue Marginal Costs 10,270 17, 477 21,359 Quantity of Commuters

Mode Choice Forecasting Enrollment Commuter Residential Walking Bike Bus Carpool Average 30234.1 21359.8 6506.0 900.0 663.1 639.5 165.8 2008 Actual 28194.0 17477.0 6459.0 1618.0 1192.2 1149.7 298.1 Equilibrium 30000.0 10270.8 4500.0 5843.8 4250.0 4072.9 1062.5 Percent Change 0.41 0.30 2.61 2.56 2.54 2.56

Optimum Investment Allocation Alternate Mode Share of Total Walk 38% Bike 28% Bus 27% Carpool 7%

Energy and Environmental Impacts 21,359 10,270 = 11,089 fewer vehicles 26 weeks/year x 5 days/week x 2 miles/day = 160 miles/year fewer (per vehicle) 1,774,240 VMT reduction 64,517 gallons of gasoline less ( @27.5 mpg) 1,251,645 lbs of CO 2 saved ( @ 19.4 lbs/gal)

Questions? Comments? Lauren Lee Stuart Center for Energy Studies Louisiana State University lstuar3@lsu.edu

Transportation, Energy, and Climate Change Mode Passengermile/Gallon CO2/passengermile Single Occupancy Vehicle 27.7 371 Transit Bus 32.5 299 2 Person Carpool 55.4 185 Van Pool 101.9 101

Monopoly Inefficiency Price Demand= Marginal Revenue Average Revenue Average Costs Equilibrium $39 $27 C A Costs to Driver Deadweight Loss $17 K L M B Costs to Producer O 13,612 27,865 Quantity of Drivers

Driving Demand Parking Permit Price Student Enrollment Student Permits Purchased Commuter Permits Purchased Residential Permits Students Purchasing Permits Students with Commuter Permits Students with Residential Permits Students without Permits Percent Change in Commuter Permits Purchased Percent Change in Price Price Elasticity of Demand 2001 $39 31402 28658 22455 6203 91.3% 71.5% 19.8% 8.7% n/a n/a 2002 $39 31582 29394 23157 6237 93.1% 73.3% 19.7% 6.9% 3.1% n/a 2003 $39 31234 29144 22059 7085 93.3% 70.6% 22.7% 6.7% 4.9% n/a 2004 $39 31561 29379 22442 6937 93.1% 71.1% 22.0% 6.9% 1.7% n/a 2005 $51 30564 28038 21193 6845 91.7% 69.3% 22.4% 8.3% 5.7% 26.67% 2006 $63 29317 27166 21033 6133 92.7% 71.7% 20.9% 7.3% 0.8% 21.05% 2007 $75 28019 27211 21062 6149 97.1% 75.2% 21.9% 2.9% 0.1% 17.39% 2008 $87 28,194 23936 17477 6459 84.9% 62.0% 22.9% 15.1% 18.6% 14.81% AVG $54 30234.125 27865.75 21359.75 6506 92.14% 70.60% 21.5% 7.9% 3.57% 19.98% 0.2146785 84 0.0359967 79 0.0079225 56 1.2558058 07 0.3746396 53

Parking Supply Parking Permit Price Student Permits Purchased Commuter Permits Purchased Total Revenue Revenue Commuter Expenditures Average Producer Costs Profit Average Profit 2001 $39 28658 22455 $1,117,662 $875,745.00 $572,233.00 $19.97 $545,429.00 $19.03 2002 $39 29394 23157 $1,146,366 $903,123.00 $737,079.00 $25.08 $409,287.00 $13.92 2003 $39 29144 22059 $1,136,616 $860,301.00 $310,576.00 $10.66 $826,040.00 $28.34 2004 $39 29379 22442 $1,145,781 $875,238.00 $384,415.00 $13.08 $761,366.00 $25.92 2005 $51 28038 21193 $1,429,938 $1,080,843.0 0 $666,915.00 $23.79 $763,023.00 $27.21 2006 $63 27166 21033 $1,711,458 2007 $75 27211 21062 $2,040,825 2008 $87 23936 17477 $2,082,432 $1,325,079.0 0 $463,565.00 $17.06 $1,579,650.0 0 $609,547.00 $22.40 $1,520,499.0 0 $1,247,893.0 0 $45.94 $1,431,278.0 0 $52.60 AVG $54 27,865.75 21359.75 $1,504,751 $1,153,426.5 0 $534,904.29 $18.86 $854,902.29 $30.42