Least Cost Planning and Backcasting


Published on

I am re-uploading this presentation because the original copy seems to be crashing. This presentation features applications of least cost planning and backcasting to advancing sustainable transportation planning. Oregon passed a law requiring LCP for State Transportation Planning.

Published in: Business, Technology, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Least Cost Planning and Backcasting

  1. 1. Least Cost Planning and Backcasting Presented by David Mayfield Sustainable Transportation Strategies August 2009
  2. 2. Why a New PlanningApproach Traditional planning tools won’t help us meet state and federal greenhouse gas reduction targets.
  3. 3. New Planning ApproachAlso Addresses:Declining transportation dollarsRising energy costsNew transportation technologies
  4. 4. EPA: Climate Change ThreatensPublic Health and WelfareMore heat waves and intense stormsIncreased droughtRising sea levelsHarm to Agriculture Water resources Wildlife and ecosystems Source: Federal Register 4/24/2009; IPPC
  5. 5. Oregon’s Goal forGreenhouse Gas Reduction Arrest the growth of GHG emissions and begin to reduce emissions by 2010 Achieve GHG levels 10% below 1990 levels by 2020 Achieve GHG levels at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2050
  6. 6. ODOT’s GreenSTEP ModelTool for statewide strategy onmeeting GHG targetsShows that substantialchanges in mobility Annual CO2 Equivalent Emissions Density Scenarios 4.5e+10will be needed 4.0e+10in order to meet Pounds CO2 Equivalents 3.5e+10 3.0e+10GHG goals 2.5e+10 Med Lt Veh Eff Med Lt Veh Eff & More Den 2.0e+10 Med Lt Veh Eff, More Den & More PTSource: Brian Gregor,ODOT, 2009 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Year
  7. 7. GreenSTEP Model Annual CO2 Equivalent Emissions All Vehicle Efficiency & Fuels Scenarios 4.5e+10 4.0e+10Pounds CO2 Equivalents 3.5e+10 3.0e+10 Blue Zone Indicates Compliance with Oregon’s GHG Goals 2.5e+10 Med Lt Veh Eff High Lt Veh Eff 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 Gregor, ODOT, 2009 Year
  8. 8. House Bill 2001 LeastCost 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 transportation goals, policies or both, where the intent of the process is to identify the most cost-effective mix of options.”
  9. 9. HB 2001 Least Cost Planning “ODOT shall, in consultation with local governments and metropolitan planning organizations, develop a least-cost planning model for use as a decision- making tool in the development of plans and projects at both the state and regional level.”
  10. 10. What is Least CostPlanning?Values-based: Seeks lowest cost to societyand environmentAlternatives development: Weighs reducingdemand equally with increasing supplyBenefit-cost analysis: Includes capital costs,external costs and life-cycle costs
  11. 11. Does it Work? Experiencefrom the NW Power Industry: Northwest energy demand saved more than $1.6 billion dollars in 2007 Reduced carbon emissions by up to 14 million tons per year Source: NW Power and Conservation Council press release 9/03/09
  12. 12. Least Cost Planning Broadens range of alternatives Evaluates alternatives according to stakeholder values Equally considers non-construction and construction options Allows adaptive management and risk management Considers opportunity costs
  13. 13. Least Cost Based onWhat Stakeholders Value Life cycle costs for Infrastructure Operation & maintenance External costs, e.g., Auto ownership, insurance Social and environmental Value not necessarily translated to dollars
  14. 14. Examples of Mobility Costand Benefit Measures Per capita Quantity of people Vehicle-mile served Passenger-mile Satisfaction with service Per trip Accessibility to service Travel time Utilization of available Exposure time capacity
  15. 15. Selecting Optimal Alternatives High Risk/High Cost Increasing Risk Low Risk/Moderate Cost Increasing Cost
  16. 16. Existing Laws and StandardsLimit LCP Options Example: level of service standards LOS requirements limit low-cost options Consider deviating from standards where costs are high relative to benefits
  17. 17. Planners Study AlternativeRoutes Using LCP Source: Quantm Pilot Study Review I-69 Corridor, URS, 2003
  18. 18. Case Study: Puget SoundRegional Council Least CostPlanning Study of 2001One common measure utilized:cost per passenger-tripUsed traditional approach to selectprojectsRestricted study to new investmentsto meet new demand; past investmentdecisions excluded Source: PSRC Destination 2030, May 2001
  19. 19. PSRC Measures of Costper New Passenger Trip Travel time (delay) Environmental Private costs Vehicle emissions Auto ownership Water pollution and operations Noise Capital Accidents construction Operations and maintenance
  20. 20. PSRC 2030 Passenger-tripCost Breakdown Source: PSRC Destination 2030, May 2001
  21. 21. Analysis of PSRC’s 2001Least Cost Plan Did not utilize full LCP process Began with assumption of large increase in demand None of alternatives substantively reduced demand: only 2% difference in number of trips (above existing)
  22. 22. LCP: Levels of Application Federal State Regional City Sub-Area Project & County Single Cost BCA Life Cycle Costs Indirect Costs Range Forecasting Adaptive Infrastructure Planning Opportunity Costs
  23. 23. Does Least Cost = Sustainable?
  24. 24. Sustainable Mobility UsingBackcasting Adapted from Looking over the Horizon, Robin Hickman and David Bannister, 2006
  25. 25. Forecasting Backcasting Model and Define desired predict outcome Respond to Make strategic trends decisions Adapt, justify Proactively break trends
  26. 26. Backcasting Approach Define problem Set desirable goal Backcast from the goal to the present, identifying milestones Build scenarios including timing of actions Develop a preferred action plan
  27. 27. Visioning and Backcasting forTransportation (VIBAT) StudyConsidered over 100 actions in 10categories 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, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group
  28. 28. Actions Proposed underInfrastructure Investment Transit improvements Cycle parking Fare integration and Shuttle services schedule coordination Demand-responsive Intermodal connections services Park and ride Taxi services Improved bike/pedestrian Traveler information facilities Improved rail freight Cycle/transit integration High speed rail Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of Planning, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group
  29. 29. Actions Proposed underBehavioral Patterns Alternative work Flextime schedules Changed travel Home location pattern/lifestyle Job location Guaranteed ride Promotion of local home destinations and Telecommuting activity patterns On-line services Locally sourced Car sharing retailing Adapted from: VIBAT, Bartlett School of Planning, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group
  30. 30. Backcasting: Scenario-Building Identify Desired Outcome Describe Present Conditions Specify Assumptions Identify Potential Actions • Policies • Demand Management • Projects Determine Relationships Between Actions • Synergies • Timing • Effectiveness • Accompanying Impacts Combine Actions into Alternative Scenarios
  31. 31. Determine Relationshipsof 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
  32. 32. Example ofPolicy-Related ActionName: Hybrid Technology VehicleType: Technological and EconomicalPreconditions: NoneRelated to Goal: Reduce total vehicle fleet emission and use hybridsEffectiveness: HighUncertainty: LowTimescale of Implementation: LongCost: Medium Adapted from: VIBAT, BartlettRisk Level: Low School of Planning, University College of London, and the Halcrow Group
  33. 33. Least Cost/BackcastingProcess 1. Engage stakeholders 2. Define the desired outcome and evaluation measures 3. Establish the system boundaries 4. Collect Information 5. Consider range of scenarios 6. Evaluate the costs and benefits 7. Rank scenarios 8. Evaluate and choose a package of actions to implement and monitor 9. Adjust implementation based on monitoring
  34. 34. Barriers toImplementation Agreement on sustainable transportation goals Current agency structures and funding Federal and State policy and procedures Meeting consumer satisfaction Insufficient government leadership about global warming impacts and mitigation
  35. 35. Contact Information David Mayfield, PrincipalSustainable Transportation Strategies david.mayfield@comcast.net (503) 701-0142