Integrated Transportation and Land Use Models (2018)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

21 An online survey (included in Appendix A) was conducted to screen agencies that do inte- grated land use/transport modeling. The survey was designed in November 2016 and pre-tested with the panel members of this report in December 2016. To avoid conflict with the Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board in the first half of January, the screening survey was sent out on January 26, 2017, to the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning, the State Departments of Transportation, and the Canadian Provincial Ministries of Transportation. The FHWA supported the dissemination of this survey by forwarding a request to participate in this survey to 405 MPOs on February 6, 2017. A total of 74 agencies opened the survey and 63 of these completed the survey. The survey was designed to (1) identify potential case studies to investigate more closely and (2) get a general sense of the state of practice in integrated land use/transport modeling in the United States and Canada. The survey was not designed to be representative of all MPOs in the United States. Out of the 405 U.S. MPOs asked to participate, 48 (12%) responded. Eighteen State DOTs (36% of all states) filled out the survey (see Figure 3-1). First, agencies were asked whether they conducted any integrated land use/transport model- ing or whether they were planning to do so in the future (Figure 3-2). Thirty-five percent of the agencies answered that they neither operate an integrated land use/ transport model nor plan to develop one in the future. However, 49% responded that they either already have or plan to have an integrated land use/transport model in the future. This does not mean that more than half of all planning agencies in the United States and Canada were working on such models. Rather, agencies that operate or plan to operate an integrated land use/ transport model were more likely to respond to this survey than respondents not interested in this topic. Of the 18 State DOTs that responded, 11 (61%) do not plan to use an integrated land use/ transport model today or in the future. Of the 48 MPOs that responded, 16 (33%) do not plan to use such models today or in the future. Although land use modeling exists at the statewide level, it appears to be more common at the MPO level. There is no theoretical evidence why integrated land use/transport modeling was more relevant at the urban level. Nevertheless, such models seem to be more accepted at the urban than the regional level. A survey respondent from a U.S. state agency and another respondent from a Canadian provincial agency commented that land use decisions are made at the level of local jurisdictions. Modeling land use at the state level may be perceived as overreaching in terms of responsibilities. States that do model land use argue that they want to know about the likely effects of transport projects on land use, even if these states are not authorized to regulate land use. NCHRP Synthesis 514 (Donnelly and Moeckel 2017) identified three states (Maryland, Ohio, and Oregon) that have operational land use models. No comparable statistics are known for urban land use models. C H A P T E R 3 Screening Survey

22 Integrated Transportation and Land Use Models CUBE Land was the most frequently mentioned land use model in the survey (compare Figure 3-3)—this relatively new model was used by 11 survey respondents. CUBE Land was closely followed by CommunityViz with 10 agencies mentioning this model in the survey. UrbanSim was mentioned seven times, and PECAS four times. These four most frequently cited models cover almost 60% of all responses and will each be discussed in detail in Chap- ters 4, 5, and 6. All other models were mentioned three or fewer times and will not be dis- cussed at the same level of detail. Figure 3-1. Respondents to screening survey by agency type. 10% 12% 10% 17% 35% 16% Figure 3-2. Responses to question “Does your agency operate an integrated land use/transport model?”

Screening Survey 23 Table 3-1 presents the models reported in the survey classified into the three model types identified in Section 1.2. The survey also asked which scenarios are analyzed with the integrated land use/transport model. Road infrastructure scenarios were mentioned most frequently, followed by transit infrastructure scenarios (Figure 3-4). These scenarios also are the most common scenarios for pure transport models, indicating that the full potential of adding a land use model has not been explored widely yet. At least 5 agencies explore zoning scenarios, which is a classical application of land use models, with another 18 agencies planning to test zoning scenarios in the future. The final question of the screening survey was different for those who do and those who do not conduct integrated land use/transport modeling. Figure 3-5 shows the main concerns about integrated land use/transport modeling by agencies who use or plan to use such models. For agencies that do not conduct integrated land use/transport modeling, Figure 3-6 indicates why these agencies stay away from such models. Concern about having staff who can operate integrated land use/transport models was the largest issue for both groups. Staff need training to run these models. Those who use integrated land use/transport models mentioned data issues 15 times as one major concern. Validation issues constitute another concern—data for valida- tion, which have not been used in model development, are highly limited. CUBE Land CommunityViz UrbanSim PECASEnvision Tomorrow TELUM DRAM/EMPAL U-PLAN ESRI G-LUM LEAM In-house development SEAM/SLUM Figure 3-3. Frequency of land use models [multiple answers possible]. Model Name Model Type CUBE Land Spatial Input-Output Model CommunityViz Sketch Planning Model UrbanSim Microsimulation Discrete Choice Model PECAS Spatial Input-Output Model Envision Tomorrow Sketch Planning Model TELUM Spatial Interaction Model* DRAM/EMPAL Spatial Interaction Model* UPlan Sketch Planning Model ESRI Cellular Automata Model* G-LUM Spatial Interaction Model* LEAM Cellular Automata Model* SEAM/SLUM Spatial Input-Output Model [*Model type is not further considered in this report] Table 3-1. Classification of models of the screening survey.

24 Integrated Transportation and Land Use Models 3 3 4 4 5 8 14 15 22 11 17 18 23 25 Equity analysis Freight scenarios Pricing studies Environmental impact analysis Zoning scenarios Transit infrastructure scenarios Road infrastructure scenarios Current scenario Planned scenario Figure 3-4. Scenarios currently analyzed and scenarios planned to be implemented in the future [multiple answers possible]. 17% 17% 21% 24% 21% 8% 13% 30% Figure 3-5. Main concerns regarding integrated land use/transport models [multiple answers possible].

Screening Survey 25 Costs to build and maintain an integrated land use/transport model were mentioned 11 times (29%) by those who operate models and 9 times (36%) by those who do not. Relatively high costs may be caused in part by limited experiences with land use model implementation. As use of such models becomes more widespread, costs both to build and maintain these models should decrease. Although not representative for integrated land use/transport modeling in the United States and Canada, the screening survey showed that such models are fairly widespread, with several additional agencies intending to implement such models in the future. This synthesis report is intended to serve as a supporting document to choose the appropriate model and prepare staff at agencies that plan to implement integrated land use/transport models. 10% 14% 14% 6% 25% 55% Figure 3-6. Reasons not to pursue an integrated land use/transport model [multiple answers possible].