Least Cost Planning and
Backcasting
Presented by Dave Mayfield
Cogan Owens Cogan
g g
August 2009

Why a New Planning
Approach
Traditional planning tools won’t
help
h l us meet state and f d l
d federal
greenhouse gas reduction
targets.

New Planning Approach
g pp
Also Addresses:
Declining transportation dollars
Rising energy costs
New transportation technologies

EPA: Climate Change Threatens
g
Public Health and Welfare
More heat waves and intense storms
Increased drought
I dd ht
Rising sea levels
Harm to
Agriculture
g cu tu e
Water resources
Wildlife and ecosystems
Source: Federal Register 4/24/2009; IPPC

Oregon’s Goal for
g
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Arrest the growth of GHG emissions and
A t th th f i i d
begin to reduce emissions by 2010
g y
Achieve GHG levels 10% below 1990
levels by 2020
Achieve GHG levels at least 75% below
1990 levels by 2050

ODOT’s GreenSTEP Model
Tool for statewide strategy on
meeting GHG targets
Shows that substantial
changes in mobility Annual CO2 Equivalent Emissions
Density Scenarios
4.5e+10
will be needed
4.0e+10
Pounds CO2 Equivalents
in order to meet
3.5e+10
2
GHG goals 3.0e+10
2.5e+10
Med Lt Veh Eff
Med Lt VehEff & More Den
Veh Eff
2.0e+10
Med Lt Veh Eff, More Den & More PT
Source: Brian
Gregor, ODOT, 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
2009 Year

GreenSTEP Model
Annual CO2 Equivalent Emissions
All Vehicle Efficiency & Fuels Scenarios
4.5e+10
4.0e+10
lents
10
3.5e+1
Pound CO2 Equival
e+10
ds
Blue Zone Indicates Compliance
3.0e
with Oregon’s GHG Goals
2.5e+10
Med Lt Veh Eff
High Lt Veh Eff
2
EV & High Lt Veh Eff
EV & High All Veh Eff
2.0e+10
EV, High All Veh Eff & Low Carb Fuel
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Source: Brian
Year Gregor, ODOT,
2009

House Bill 2001 Least
Cost Planning
Directs ODOT to create a least cost
planning model to submit to legislature
prior to February 1, 2011.
Defines LCP as follows: “a process of
comparing direct and indirect costs of
demand and supply options to meet
pp y p
transportation goals, policies or both,
where the intent of the process is to identify
the most cost-effective mix of options.”
cost- options.”

HB 2001 L
Least C t Pl
t Cost Planning
i
“ODOT shall, in consultation with local
governments and metropolitan planning
organizations, develop a least-cost
g , p least-
planning model for use as a decision-
decision-
making tool in the development of plans
and projects at both the state and
regional level ”
level.”

What is Least Cost
Planning?
Values-
Values-based: Seeks lowest cost to
society and environment
i t d i t
Alternatives development: Weighs
p g
reducing demand equally with increasing
supply
Benefit-
Benefit-cost analysis: Includes capital
costs, external costs and life-cycle costs
life-

Does it Work? Experience
from the NW Power Industry:
Reducing demand for energy
Saved more than $1.6 billion dollars
in 2007
Dropped annual carbon emissions
D d l b i i
by up to 14 million tons
y p
Source: NW Power and Conservation
Council press release 9/03/09

Least Cost Planning
Broadens range of alternatives
Evaluates alternatives according to
stakeholder values
Equally considers non-construction and
non-
construction options
Allows adaptive management and risk
management t
Considers oppo tu ty costs
Co s de s opportunity

Least Cost Based on
What Stakeholders Value
Life cycle costs for
Infrastructure
I f t t
Operation & maintenance
External costs, e.g.,
Auto ownership, insurance
p,
Social and environmental
Value not necessarily translated to
dollars

Examples of Mobility Cost
p y
and Benefit Measures
Per capita Quantity of people
Vehicle-
Vehicle-mile served
Passenger-mile
Passenger- il
P Satisfaction with service
Per trip Accessibility to service
Travel time Utilization of available
Exposure time capacity

Selecting Optimal Alternatives
High Risk/Low Cost
High Risk/High Cost
easing Risk
Incre R
Low Ri k/M d
L Risk/Moderate Cost
t C t
Increasing Cost

Existing Laws and Standards
g
Limit LCP Options
Example: level of service standards
LOS requirements limit low-cost options
low-
Consider deviating from standards where
g
costs are high relative to benefits

Planners Study Alternative
Routes Using LCP
R t U i
Source: Quantm
Pilot Study
Review I-69
Corridor, URS,
2003

Case Study: Puget Sound
y g
Regional Council LCP Study
One common measure utilized:
cost per passenger-trip
passenger-
Used traditional approach to select
projects
Restricted study to new investments
to meet new demand; past investment
decisions excluded Source: PSRC Destination
2030, May 2001

PSRC Measures of Cost
per New Passenger Trip
Travel time (delay) Environmental
Private costs Vehicle emissions
Auto ownership Water pollution
p
and operations Noise
Capital Accidents
construction
Operations and
maintenance

PSRC 2030 Passenger-trip
Passenger- p
g
Cost Breakdown
Source: PSRC Destination
2030, May 2001

Analysis of PSRC’s 2001
y
Least Cost Plan
Did not utilize full LCP process
Began with assumption of large increase
in f
future demand
None of alternatives substantively
reduced demand: only 2% difference in
number of trips (above existing)

LCP: Levels of Application
LCP Le els
Federal State Regional City Sub-Area
Sub- Project
& County
Single Cost
Si l C
BCA
Life Cycle
Costs
Indirect Costs
Range
Forecasting
Adaptive
Infrastructure
Planning
Opportunity
Costs
C t

Does Least C t = S t i bl ?
D L t Cost Sustainable?

Sustainable Mobility Using
y g
Backcasting
Adapted from Looking over the Horizon, Robin
Hickman and David Bannister, 2006

Forecasting Backcasting
Model d
M d l and Define desired
D fi d i d
predict outcome
Respond to Make strategic
trends decisions
Adapt, justify Proactively
break trends

Backcasting Approach
B k ti A h
Define problem
Set desirable goal
Backcast from the goal to the present
present,
identifying milestones
Build scenarios including timing of
actions
Develop a preferred action plan

Visioning and Backcasting for
Transportation (VIBAT) Study
Considered over 100 actions in 10
categories to influence CO2 emissions:
•Technical improvements •Traffic management
•Infrastructure investment •Public information
•Telecommunications/IT •Behavioral patterns
•Urban planning •Freight management
•Pricing and taxation •Economic policies
Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of
Planning, U i
Pl i University C ll
it College of L d
f London,
and the Halcrow Group

Example of
p
Policy-
Policy-Related Action
Name: Hybrid Technology Vehicle
Type: Technological and Economical
Preconditions: None
Related to Goal: Reduce total vehicle fleet emission
and use hybrids
Effectiveness: High
Uncertainty: Low
Timescale of Implementation: Long
Cost: Medium
Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett
Risk Level: Low School f Planning, U i
S h l of Pl i University
it
College of London, and the
Halcrow Group

Actions Proposed under
Infrastructure Investment
Transit improvements Cycle parking
Fare integration and Shuttle services
schedule coordination Demand-
Demand-responsive
Intermodal connections services
Park and ride Taxi services
Improved bike/pedestrian Traveler information
facilities Improved rail freight
Cycle/transit integration
y g High speed rail
Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of
VIBAT
Planning, University College of London,
and the Halcrow Group

Actions Proposed under
Behavioral Patterns
Alternative work Flextime
schedules Changed travel
Home location pattern/lifestyle
Job location
J bl ti Guaranteed ride
G t d id
Promotion of local home
destinations and Telecommuting
activity patterns On-
On-line services
Locally sourced Car sharing
g
retailing
Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of
Planning, University College of London,
and the Halcrow Group

Backcasting: Scenario-Building
Scenario-
Identify Desired Outcome
Describe Present Conditions
D ib P t C diti
Specify Assumptions
Identify Potential Actions
• Policies
• Demand Management
• Projects
Determine Relationships Between Actions
• Synergies
• Timing
• Effectiveness
• Accompanying Impacts
Combine Actions into Alternative Scenarios

Determine Relationships
p
of Actions and Paths
Objective:
Reduce Car
Emissions
Mix
Increase Decrease
Car Efficiency Car Use
Mix Mix
Electric Lighter Public Mixed Use
Vehicle Material Transportation Urban Form

Least Cost/Backcasting
g
Process
1. Engage stakeholders
2. Define the desired outcome and potential
actions
3. Establish the system boundaries
4. Collect I f
4 C ll Information
i
5. Determine relationships of potential actions
and build scenarios
6. Evaluate the costs and benefits
7.
7 Rank scenarios
8. Evaluate and choose a package of actions to
implement and monitor
9. Adjust implementation based on monitoring

Barriers to
Implementation
Agreement on sustainable transportation
goals
Current agency structures and funding
C t t t d f di
Federal and State policy and p
p y procedures
Meeting consumer satisfaction
Insufficient government leadership about
I ffi i t t l d hi b t
global warming impacts and mitigation

Contact Information
Dave Mayfield
Cogan Owens Cogan
g g
dave.mayfield@coganowens.com
503 225-0192
Cell Phone: 503-919-0304