1
play

1 Smarter Target-Setting: Integrating Public Health and Social - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 25, 2022 •349 likes •726 views

T HE C RITICAL I NTERSECTION OF P UBLIC H EALTH , S OCIAL E QUITY , AND P ERFORMANCE -B ASED P LANNING A C ASE S TUDY FROM THE S AN F RANCISCO B AY A REA Dave Vautin M ETROPOLITAN T RANSPORTATION C OMMISSION D ECEMBER 3, 2014 P ORTLAND , O

  1. T HE C RITICAL I NTERSECTION OF P UBLIC H EALTH , S OCIAL E QUITY , AND P ERFORMANCE -B ASED P LANNING A C ASE S TUDY FROM THE S AN F RANCISCO B AY A REA Dave Vautin M ETROPOLITAN T RANSPORTATION C OMMISSION D ECEMBER 3, 2014 – P ORTLAND , O REGON Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/13370127374

  2. 2 1 Smarter Target-Setting: Integrating Public Health and Social Equity 2 Why Project Evaluation Matters: Limitations of Scenario-Level Analysis 3 Quantifying Benefits: Framework for Evaluating Hundreds of Projects 4 Linking Performance and Policy Decisions: High-Performers and Low-Performers 5 What’s Next: Leveraging New Tools in Health/Equity Planning Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

  3. 3 1 Smarter Target-Setting: Integrating Public Health and Social Equity Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

  4. T OP 20 MPO S : O&M VERSUS E XPANSION F UNDING 4 CMAP MWCOG 98% 70% Chicago Washington NYMTC SCAG 97% 60% New York Los Angeles SPC PSRC 97% 57% Pittsburgh Seattle BMPO SANDAG 94% 55% Boston San Diego DVRPC H-GAC 92% 55% Philadelphia Houston EWGCOG MAG 89% 53% St. Louis Phoenix NJTPA DRCOG 88% 50% Newark Denver MTC NCTCOG 87% 40% San Francisco Dallas SEMCOG BMC 87% insufficient data provided by MPO Detroit Baltimore ARC MC 74% insufficient data provided by MPO Atlanta Minneapolis 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 6 O&M Expansion O&M Expansion

  5. 5 A Establish Performance Targets B Assess Project Performance C Assess Scenario Performance L ONG -R ANGE P LANNING P ROCESS D Assess Plan/EIR Performance E Monitor Performance of Adopted Plan Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fritography/5162434063/sizes/l/

  6. 6 B RIEF H ISTORY OF P ERFORMANCE A SSESSMENT AT MTC 2001 2005 2009 2013 Year 2001 R EGIONAL T RANSPORTATION P LAN Transportation Transportation Transportation Integrated S CENARIO investment investment investment transportation & P LANNING packages packages packages land use scenarios P ERFORMANCE Transportation Transportation Transportation Integrated targets T ARGETS targets targets targets Q UALITATIVE P ROJECT None Goals-based Goals-based Targets-based A SSESSMENT Q UANTITATIVE Limited benefit- Rigorous benefit- P ROJECT None None cost analysis cost analysis A SSESSMENT N UMBER OF 0 400 700 900 P ROJECTS A NALYZED

  7. 7 • First regional plan to integrate transportation, land use, and housing • Sustainable Communities Strategy initiated by California Senate Bill 375

  8. 8 A C OLLABORATIVE T ARGET -S ETTING P ROCESS Engaged stakeholders from the region’s 9 counties , 101 cities , • 26 transit operators , and numerous advocacy organizations • 6-month process to define performance measures & targets 8-month process to establish project evaluation framework • Result: broad support for rigorous performance assessment from • key stakeholders, executive leadership, and policymakers Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tq2cute/4407502443/sizes/o/

  9. 9 C HOOSING A P UBLIC H EALTH T ARGET Increase sidewalk- Infrastructure- miles and bicycle Oriented lane-miles by X% P UBLIC H EALTH - OR- Increase average daily time spent Customer- Oriented walking or biking by X% P UBLIC H EALTH - OR- Decrease life-year impact of mortality or Objective- morbidity due to Oriented insufficient physical activity by X% P UBLIC H EALTH Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/timerding/3468819493/

  10. 10 C HOOSING AN E QUITY T ARGET Invest X% of regional transportation dollars Infrastructure- Oriented into disadvantaged communities E QUITY - OR- Increase middle-class Customer- jobs within X minutes Oriented by transit by Y% E QUITY - OR- Decrease housing and transportation costs Objective- as a share of low- Oriented income household E QUITY budgets by X% Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/timerding/3468819493/

  11. 11 C HOOSING AN A IR Q UALITY T ARGET Increase the market share of zero- Infrastructure- Oriented emission cars & trucks to X% C LEAN A IR - OR- Reduce particulate Customer- Oriented emissions by X% C LEAN A IR - OR- Reduce premature deaths from exposure Objective- Oriented to particulate emissions by X% C LEAN A IR Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/timerding/3468819493/

  12. Increase non-auto ECONOMY mode share and Increase gross reduce VMT per capita regional product T RANSPORTATION Maintain the E CONOMIC S YSTEM E FFECTIVENESS transportation system V ITALITY Reduce per-capita Reduce premature deaths greenhouse gas ENVIRONMENT from exposure to emissions from cars and particulate emissions C LIMATE light-duty trucks P ROTECTION Reduce injuries and Direct all non- fatalities from collisions H EALTHY agricultural AND S AFE development C OMMUNITIES Increase average daily time O PEN S PACE AND within the urban spent walking or biking A GRICULTURAL footprint P RESERVATION Decrease housing EQUITY and transportation House all of the costs as a share of region’s projected low-income housing growth A DEQUATE E QUITABLE A CCESS household budgets H OUSING

  13. 13 E QUITY A NALYSIS T ECHNICAL M EASURES C OMPARING “C OMMUNITIES OF C ONCERN ” WITH R EMAINDER OF B AY A REA 1 Housing + Transportation Affordability 2 Displacement Risk 3 Vehicle Miles Traveled Density 4 Average Commute Travel Time 5 Average Non-Commute Travel Time Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/clintsharp/11061059935

  14. 14 2 Impetus for Project-Level Assessment: Limitations of Scenario-Level Analysis Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

  15. 15 P ERFORMANCE -B ASED P LANNING F RAMEWORK PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK ASSESSMENT SCENARIO-LEVEL SCENARIO TARGETS ASSESSMENT SCENARIO-LEVEL EQUITY ASSESSMENT PROJECT-LEVEL TARGETS ASSESSMENT PROJECT-LEVEL BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT PROJECT-LEVEL TRANSPORTATION LAND USE EQUITY ASSESSMENT PROJECTS PATTERN

  16. 16 S CENARIO P ERFORMANCE A SSESSMENT Comparing Forecasted Outcomes to Regional Targets

  17. 17 S CENARIO P ERFORMANCE A SSESSMENT Comparing Forecasted Outcomes to Regional Targets

  18. 18 S CENARIO E QUITY A NALYSIS Understanding Impacts to “Communities of Concern” 2040 No Measure Community 2010 2040 Preferred Project Housing + Low-Income 72% 80% 74% Transportation Rest of Region 41% 44% 43% Affordability COC n/a 21% 36% Displacement Risk Rest of Region n/a 5% 8% COC 9,737 11,447 11,693 VMT Density Rest of Region 9,861 11,717 11,895 COC 25 26 26 Commute Travel Time Rest of Region 27 29 27 COC 12 13 13 Non-Commute Travel Time Rest of Region 13 13 13

  19. 19 3 Quantifying Benefits: Framework for Evaluating Hundreds of Projects Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

  20. Number and cost of projects are approximated for simplicity. 20 D ETERMINING H OW TO E VALUATE P ROJECTS – AND W HICH P ROJECTS S HOULD B E E VALUATED Number of Projects Cost of Projects (in billions of $) Qualitative only (by project type) Qualitative Qualitative Committed only (by Committed only 20 10 30 200 project type) 700 Quantitative 100 & qualitative 100 Qualitative 150 only Quantitative & qualitative

  21. 21 P RIMARY E LEMENTS OF P ROJECT P ERFORMANCE A SSESSMENT TARGETS BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT Determine impact on targets Compare benefits & costs adopted by MTC and ABAG Analyzed most significant projects Analyzed all 900 uncommitted (approximately 100 in total) projects

  22. 22 Targets Assessment Assessed qualitatively using target scores (max score of +10). 1. Climate Protection 6. Open Space 2. Adequate Housing 7. Equitable Access 3. Particulate Matter 8. Economic Vitality 4. Collisions 9. Non-Auto Mode Share/VMT 5. Active Transportation 10. State of Good Repair Benefit-Cost Assessment Assessed quantitatively using MTC Travel Model One. BENEFITS COSTS • Travel time (including recurring & non-recurring delay) Capital costs • • Travel cost (auto operating/ownership, parking) • Net operating and • Emissions (CO 2 , PM 2.5 , ROG, NO x ) maintenance (O&M) costs • Collisions (fatalities, injuries, property damage) • Health impacts due to active transport • Noise

  23. 23

  24. 24

  25. 25

  26. 26 B ENEFITS S PECIFIC TO P UBLIC H EALTH – AND C OST -E FFECTIVENESS Top 3 Most Cost-Effective Projects for Active Transportation Project Name Annual Project Cost ∆ Active Individuals Cost-Effectiveness ( ∆/$) BART Metro Program -$18.5 million 2,735 people infinite Cordon Pricing $5.1 million 11,899 people 2,338 Treasure Island Pricing $1.2 million 2,483 people 2,108 Top 3 Least Cost-Effective Projects for Active Transportation Project Name Annual Project Cost ∆ Active Individuals Cost-Effectiveness ( ∆/$) Muni TEP $7.8 million -3,811 people -486 I-80 Auxiliary Lanes $3.5 million -399 people -112 Alameda-Oakland BRT $2.1 million -200 people -96 Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dpworks/6277280935

  27. 27 Example Project Equity Map: San Francisco County

  28. 28 4 Linking Performance and Policy Decisions: High-Performers and Low-Performers Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/14681108615

Recommend

More recommend