APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1 

## APPENDIX 4.

TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL METHODOLOGY AND AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS

Contents Section 1 - Travel Demand Forecast Model Procedures and Assumptions Section 2 - Population and Employment Forecasts Section 3 - The Air Quality Conformity Process Section 4 - Transportation Analysis Zones, Network and Travel Demand Model Section 5 - Travel Demand Model Results and Regional Travel Section 6 - Carbon Monoxide Mobile Source Emissions Forecasts Section 7 - PM 10 Modeling Assumptions Section 8 - Ozone Modeling Assumptions Section 9 - Finding of Air Quality Conformity Section 10 - Transporta tion Control Measures Section 11 - Conformity Analysis Index Appendix 4-A - RTC 2004 Regional Travel Demand Model Package 2 –Transit Processing and Mode Choice Modeling Capabilities Appendix 4-B - NDOT’s Traffic Volume Projections for Externals.



### 1. Travel Demand Forecast Model Procedures and Assumptions

Background

The Las Vegas Regional Travel Demand Forecast Model follows established professional practice through the implementation of the conv entional “four step” travel demand forecasting process. The first step is known as Trip Generation, in which person trips produced in and attracted to each zone are calculated from the estimates of population, employment and ot her socio-economic variables discussed in Appendix 3.Regional Forecasts. In the second step known as trip distribution, these productions and attractions are associated with each other through algorithms that develop a pattern of zone-to-zone movements. In the third step, Mode Choi ce, the zone-to-zone person trip estimates are converted into auto tr ips based on average vehicle occupancy rate and person transit trips. In the final step, the demand for v ehicle travel is assigned to the street network to give estimates of traf fic flow and the demand for transit is assigned to the transit routes to give transit ridership estimates.

The Regional Transportation Commissi on Travel Demand Model (RTC Model) calculations are performed using the TRAN SCAD software package developed by the Caliper Corporation of Newton, Massachus etts. The RTC model was converted and has incorporated a series of improvements ov er years. Table1. below provides the current RTC 2004 Model chronology and component s, and the evolutions of the main input assumptions and the model procedures.2 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Table 1. Model Chronology Name of Model Developer Release Date Software Platform Calibration Year # of TAZs Features Utilized by RTC 2004 Model
Resort Corridor MIS Interim Mode Choice Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas 1995 Tranplan 1995 751 Model structure and mode choice model

Las Vegas Travel Demand Model Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas 2000 Tranplan 1995 1140 Visitor trip generation models; visitor distribution models; other trip matrix; Use of trip rates developed from the 1996 household travel survey, Improved estimation of visitor trips using data from the 1996 visitor and airport surveys, RTC Las Vegas Phase I Model Caliper Corporation 2002 TransCAD 4.0 2000 1140 Time of day distribution; highway skims; feedback looping, Locating and coding of over 800 traffic count locations and 40 screen lines for use in model calibration, RTC Las Vegas Phase I Model Update Caliper Corporation 2003 TransCAD 4.6 2000 1218 TAZ structure; employment planning variables; highway network; highway assignment; cold start flows and VMT
RTC Phase 1A Regional Travel Model Parsons Corporation 2003 TransCAD 4.6 2000 1218 Household planning variables; highway network classification; resident socioeconomic sub-models; resident trip generation models; resident trip distribution models; auto occupancy models

RTC 2004 Model (Update Package 1) Parsons Corporation 2006 TransCAD 4.7 2002/2003 1219 Updated planning variables; updated highway networks; updated link capacities; added special generators; initialized travel times; updated time of day distributions; updated transit share matrix

RTC 2004 Model (Update Package 2A) Parsons Corporation 2008 TransCAD 4.8 2002/2003 1645 Added additional and optional capabilities, including transit network and path-building processing, Mode Choice modeling, HOV procedures and transit assignment procedures. Added TAZs (1635 internal TAZs) to enlarge the modeling area, including Bounder City area; Updated planning variables; updated highway networks. Source: Regional Transportati on Commission of Southern NevadaAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3 RTC Regional Travel Demand Model (without Mode Choice Element) Flow Chart 1.4 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RTC Regional Travel Demand Model (without Mode Choice Element) Flow Chart 2.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 5 The major latest model and zone system updates include:

• Added additional and optional capabilities, including transit network and pathbuilding processing, Mode Choice m odeling, HOV procedures and transit assignment procedures.

• Enlarge and Refinement of the zone system to include Boulder City, Apex area for the City of North Las Vegas and some other areas; increase the number of zones from 1219 to 1645 (1635 internal zones plus 10 external zones),

• Addition of network links,

An important part of the m odel improvement process has been a regular program of inter-agency consultation among the RTC, lo cal entities and the Ne vada Department of Transportation (NDOT). This was accompli shed previously through the establishment of the Travel Demand Forecasting and Modeling Subcommittee (TDFMS) and later has been accomplished through the monthly Modelin g Working Group meetings. Many of the changes made have been discussed and refined through this process.

The latest version of the updated RTC model is named as RTC 2004 Model (Package 2A), it is employed in this TIP and RT P development and air quality conformity determinations. For the whole RTC model st ructure, refer to Appendix II B Travel Demand Model Documentati on, Regional Transportation Plan FY 2006-2030 October 2006, by Regional Transportation Co mmission. For documentation about the Mode Choice, HOV procedures and Transit Assignm ent procedures included in the RTC 2004 Pack 2A, see Appendix A RTC 2004 Regional Travel Demand Model Package 2 – Transit Processing and Mode C hoice Modeling Capabilities at the end of this document.



### 2. Population and Employment Forecasts

2.1 Background The key planning assumptions made as a foundation for the air quality emissions analysis and Conformity Finding relate to t he projection of future land use, population and employment. These projections are us ed to determine future travel demand and travel patterns and the effect these wil l have on mobile source emissions.

Recognizing the complexity of land use forecasting, the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) 1 formed a Land Use Working Group (LUWG) at the request of Regional Transportation Commissions of Southern Nevada (RTC). LUWG is responsible for providing forecasted land use activity for the RTC. The LUWG consists of planning staff from Clark County and the cities of La s Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson. In accordance with inter-local agreement and established practice, the population and employment proj ections used in this analysis are based upon those

1 In its 1997 session, the Nevada State Legislature enabled the formation of the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Authority (SNRPA). There are ten members in the Coalition membership and Board. Two elected officials are appointed by the governi ng body of each public entity (except Boulder City and the Clark County School District with one appoint member each). The SNRPC conducts some of its business through subcommittees.6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA developed by Clark County and local governm ent land use planning staff. The total projections then were matched to the total pr ojections by the Center for Business and Economic Research at the Univ ersity of Nevada, Las Vegas (CBER). For the detailed development of the Planning Va riable (Land use, Population, Employment, etc.), refer to Appendix 3 of this RTP.



### 2.2 Clark County and Regional Population and Employment Forecasts

The CBER forecasts are for Clark County as a whole. The TDF model covers the area generally known as the Las Vegas Valley, comprising the Cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Henderson as well as those par ts of unincorporated Clark County lying within the Bureau of Land M anagement Cooperative Land Sa le and Exchange Area as designated by the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 2002 displayed in Figure 1-4 as the BLM Disposal Boundary (2002) . The Las Vegas Non-Attainment Area is defined as Hydrographic Basin 212, which is centered on the Las Vegas Valley. It includes bordering upland and m ountain areas that are most ly uninhabited and that are held as open and recreational lands by va rious Federal and State agencies. The few settlements within these outlying areas have a total population of less than 2,000. In developing the CO SIP, it was agreed betwe en the local air planning agency and the US EPA that it was acceptable to use the modeled area as a basis for estimating the mobile source emissions to be used in setting t he mobile source emissions budget and in subsequent conformity determinations.

Most of the population in Clark County is c oncentrated in the Las Vegas Valley. Based upon analyses performed in the mid-1990s, it has been estimat ed that 95 percent of the population of the County lives within the valley. This percentage is embodied in a number of inter-local agreements by various agencies involved in planning activity, including Clark County’s Planning Departm ent, the School District, the RTC, the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition and the Southern Nevada Water Authority, and it is, therefore, used to ca lculate the population control total for the Las Vegas Valley in the travel demand fore casting and air quality conformity process.

The future year land use forecast was created through the work of Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) Land Use Workgroup (LUWG) with the members representing the cities of Las Vegas, No rth Las Vegas, Henderson, urbanized Clark County and the RTC. The Workgroup was formed to develop a consensus based process to define future land use develop ment plans for the RTC’s transportation planning process. Based on the available va cant land of the Assessor’s 2006 closed roll parcel, the group created GIS data of planned land development using the RTC/SNRPC planned land use development definition. This future land use is in 5-year increments by jurisdiction covering the years from 2005 thr ough 2035. Table 2 sets out the forecast developed acres for 2005 to 2030.

There are two parts to the development of the land use forecast: 1) determining the current and future land use development patterns and 2) converting the land use patterns to the planning variables (PV) that are inputs to the travel demand forecast model.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 7 Table 2. Forecast De veloped Acres, 2005-2030

Forecast Growth Acres Time Period Residential Non-Residential Total

2006-2010 15,558 16,214 31,771 2010-2015 16,212 15,092 31,304 2015-2020 16,565 15,664 32,229 2020-2025 9,900 9,900 19,800
2025-2030 4,900 4,972 9,872

Total 63,136 61,841 124,977 Non-Residential includes open space Source: Regional Transportation Commission, Planning Variable Development and Methodology , 2008.
Table 3. Summary of Pla nning Variables 2005 -2030

FIELD Year 2005 Year 2008 Year 2013 Year 2020 Year 2030 2013 % of 2008 2020 % of 2008 2030 % of 2008

POP 1,769,532 2,022,523 2,431,048 2,877,544 3,230,493 120% 142% 160%

DU 686,226 780,260 938,335 1,120,702 1,233,422 120% 144% 158%

ODU 656,743 746,472 896,869 1,069,077 1,172,324 120% 143% 157%
HH_SIZE 3,051 3,050 3,183 3,507 3,869 104% 115% 127%

TOTEMP 829,586 965,359 1,168,664 1,418,536 1,653,399 121% 147% 171%

HOTEL 249,561 285,419 338,519 384,933 406,583 119% 135% 142%
OFFICE 141,134 164,552 202,971 252,978 286,311 123% 154% 174%
INDUST 123,672 147,614 184,468 237,792 317,241 125% 161% 215%
OTHER_NON 167,735 195,641 231,207 290,612 364,429 118% 149% 186%

RETAIL 147,484 172,133 211,498 252,221 278,835 123% 147% 162%

NAFB 12,000 13,200 14,600 15,000 15,000 111% 114% 114%
MIA_EMP 16,569 18,250 21,222 21,117 21,117 116% 116% 116%
MIA_PASS 121,423 134,295 154,626 144,247 144,247 115% 107% 107%
IVPH_EMP 0 300 3,200 5,117 8,177 1067% 1706% 2726%
IVPH_PASS 0 0 0 42,059 67,213
UNLV_MAIN_EMP 2,570 2,807 3,299 3,521 3,521 118% 125% 125%
UNLV_MAIN_ENR 28,104 30,809 36,286 38,734 38,734 118% 126% 126%
UNLV_NLV_EMP 0 0 0 1,000 3,000
UNLV_NLV_ENR 0 0 0 10,000 30,000
NEV_ST_COLL_EMP 103 161 275 450 750 171% 279% 465%
NEV_ST_COLL_ENR 1,562 3,025 6,400 12,000 20,000 212% 397% 661%

F18 206,888 216,320 231,938 253,308 262,608 107% 117% 121%

F912 75,282 77,994 84,662 96,002 101,402 109% 123% 130%

F13 29,587 31,428 33,528 35,000 35,000 107% 111% 111%
MED_INC 60,755,187 60,755,187 60,755,187 60,755,187 60,755,187 100% 100% 100% Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff.
Table 3. is the summary of the key PVs for the TDF model. The first column has the variable names to be used in the model. Refer to the RTC travel demand model document for detailed planning variable defin itions. The green co lored columns show the variable totals for the modeling horizon years (2013, 2020 and 2030) for the RTP8 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA 2009-2030. The graph below shows the popu lation, occupied dawdling units (households) and total employment growths fo r the plan forecast horizon years.

Population, Households and Total Employment

2013 2020 2030 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000

1

RTP Horizon YearsEstimated Model Input

Year

POP

ODU

TOTEMP

Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff.

In addition to total population, households and employment, the m odel utilizes certain other socio-economic indicators. Thes e include average household income, school enrollment, and various classes of employment. The number of dwellings in each zone was estimated from land use data on the ext ent of residential land, using density and occupancy factors derived from the 2000 Census and local entity sources. Average household income and school enrollment were also developed from local sources. A detailed description of the met hodology is provided in Appendix III.


### 3. The Air Quality Conformity Process and Travel Demand Results

3.1. Introduction

This section describes the air quality conf ormity analysis conducted as part of the development of the Regional Transpor tation Plan 2009-2030 (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2009-2012 (TIP).

The Las Vegas region is in non-attainment for three pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter 10 microns in size or less (PM 10 ), and Ozone (O 3 ). Non-attainment is the term used to describe levels of these pollutants that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has desi gnated as not meeting the cl ean air standards for that pollutant as defined in the National Am bient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 9 Figure 1. shows Clark County Boundary, RT C TAZ and road networ k, and the study boundaries for each pollutant. Within Clark County, the area defined as Hydrographic Basin 212 is designated as a non-attainm ent area for two pollutants – CO and PM 10

. This area is roughly coincident al with the Las Vegas Valley . On September 15, 2004 the EPA designated about 60 perc ent of Clark County as non-attainment for O 3 . This area extends from the Las Vegas Valley south and east to the Colorado River.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) require that each non-attainment area and pollutant be addressed by a control plan , referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP), developed by the state air qualit y planning agency. The SIP sets out policies and actions to ensure that air quality meet s the NAAQS within a time frame determined under EPA regulations. In southern Nevada, re sponsibility for developing the SIP is delegated by the State of Nevada to Clark County. The Clar k County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM) is taske d with SIP development. Under the provisions of the CAAA, the RTC, as the MPO fo r the region, is the agency responsible for making the det ermination of conformity.

Much of these regulated pollutants is produced by automobiles and other road transportation, so are classified as “mobile source emissions”. Any RTP/TIP must include a determination that implementation will re sult in reduction of these pollutants to acceptable levels in ways that conform to th e SIP. The term “conformity” describes the determination of this acceptable result. Supporting the determination is a complex modeling process that is based on assu mptions about what happens if existing conditions are extended into the future and about what happe ns if the projects and programs in the RTP/TIP ar e implemented. A confo rming RTP/TIP model outcome projects that the regulated pollutants will be reduced to a cceptable levels within time frames that m eet the NAAQS.



### 3.2. Conformity Guidelines

This Section outlines the co mplex technical evaluation process involved in the conformity demonstration. Descr iptions of other aspects of the process are provided in the Appendices, including a list of the pr ojects included in the Travel Demand Model and details of the Air Quality and Transport ation Control Measures assumed in the Model.

RTC's Vision Statement is to provide “a safe, clean, effective regional transportation system that enhances mobility and air qua lity for our citizens and visitors” . To that end, the Commission has adopted the following goal for the transportation planning process:

“Implement transportation system s that improve air quality”10 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Figure 1. Clark County a nd RTC Non-attainment AreasAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 11 The specific procedures for reaching this g oal are those establis hed under Federal law for ensuring conformity between transportation plans and air quality improvement plans. This process of conformity is intended to ensure that the projects and programs proposed in the RTP, TIP and TIP amendments conform to t he purpose of the CAAA and the SIPs. This means “...conformity to the (imple mentation) plan’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the seve rity and number of violations of the national ambient air quality standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards...” . The provisions of the CAAA in relation to confor mity are amplified in the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Final Rule, 40 CF R Part 93, as amended September 15, 1997. The conformity determination described in this section was performed in accordance with US DOT and EPA guidance and procedures, and also in accordance with the Transportation Conformity SIP, “Transportation Conformity Plan for the Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area”, Cla rk County Board of Commissioners, 2008



### A. State Implementation Plans

The State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a federally required document that defines strategies to ensure the existing and future attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as defined by t he United States Envi ronmental Protection Agency (EPA). For metropolitan planning or ganizations, like the RTC of Southern Nevada, the SIP also establishes a mobile s ource emissions budget that is used in the evaluation of transportation plan conformity. A transportation plan is in conformance with the objectives of the SIP when the predicted tailpipe emissions from all travel, as defined in the long-range plan, is at or below the budget thresholds for all of the horizon years that comprise the RTP.

The Las Vegas area is in non-attainment for PM10, Carbon Monoxide, and ozone and has approved SIPs for PM10 and CO. On Ju ly, 9, 2004, the EPA granted approval of the PM10 SIP. In February of 2006, the Clark County De partment of Air Quality and Environmental Management submitted a CO SIP Revision to the EPA approved CO SIP (November 2004) to reflect changes in the EPA modeling process for defining tailpipe emission and to revise the mobile source emission budgets accordingly. The EPA approved the 2006 CO SIP revision on August 7, 2006, with an effective date (date as which the budgets can be used for Confo rmity) of September 6, 2006.

The DAQEM is in the process of developi ng an Early Progress Plan (EPP) for ozone and expects to submit the docum ent to the EPA in the fall of 2008. In the meantime, the RTC will utilize the EP A approved "Action versus No-Build " test for defining conformity for this pollutant, as there is currently no approved mobile source emission budget or SIP.



### B. Regional Emissions Anal y sis: Budgets for CO, PM 10 

### and Ozone

The principal step toward making a conformity determination is to demonstrate that the anticipated levels of atmospheric po llution which will result from planned and programmed transportation projec ts will be less than the rele vant budget defined in the State Implementation Plan.12 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA The CO SIP budgets for mobile source emissions are shown on Table 4.

Table 4. Mobile Source CO Emissi ons Budgets for the Las Vegas Valley

Year CO Emissions Budget (tons per day)
2006 623 2010 690 2015 768
2020 817 Source: Clark County DAQEM, Carbon M onoxide Modeling and SIP Update, August 2006

For PM 10 , the SIP budget established for 2003 to demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) towards attainment of the 24-hour standard, and t he budget established for the attainment year of 2006 apply to t he conformity determination and are set out in Table 5.

Table 5. Mobile Source PM10 Emissions Budgets for the Las Vegas Valley Year PM10 Emissions Bu dget (tons per day)
2003 155.77 (24-hour RFP) 2006 141.41 (24-hour standard) Source: Clark County DAQEM

As defined earlier in this document, the DA QEM will submit an Early Progress Plan (EPP) for O 3 to the EPA. The O 3 EPP will include a mobile source emission budget for conformity. Prior to approved budgets, marginal and below areas may choose between two measures of conformity:

• The “build-no-greater than no- build” test, a test shows that forecasts of the levels of O 3 resulting from the planned projec ts and programs will be no worse than doing nothing, and

• The “no greater than 2002” te st, a test shows that fore casts of the levels of O 3 will not be any worse than they were in 2002.



### 3.3. Regional Emissions Analysis

A. Consultation on Confor mity Procedures

The technical procedures used to det ermine the SIP budgets and to demonstrate conformity are developed in conjunction with local entities through the DAQEM Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).

DAQEM’s TAC reports to the Executive Advi sory Committee of the Clark County Board of Commissioners. This technical committee consists of staff r epresentatives from Clark County, the RTC, the Cities of Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, and the NDOT, as well as members from industry and from the public. The DAQEM website is at http://www.co .clark.nv.us/air_quality/index.htm.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 13 Consultation between local and Federal agencies is maintained through the inter-agency consultation procedures contai ned in the Transportation Conformity SIP, “Transportation Conformity Plan for the Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area”, Clark County Board of Commi ssioners, January 2008 . These procedures include periodic meetings of the Air Qualit y Conformity Working Group.

The Air Quality Conformity Working Group meets monthly and di scusses a variety of topics related to air quality issues. It cons ists of representatives from each of RTC’s member entities, in a ddition to representatives of t he Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the EPA. The main focus of these meetings is to avoid delay in the conformity process by coordinating air quality and conformity discussions.



### B. Horizon Analysis Years

Under Federal Regulations, conformity has to be determined for a series of “Horizon” years. These must include the designated attainment year, if applicable, and the last year of the Transportation Plan and they must be not more than 10 years apart. For this conformity determination, t he following horizon years are used: 2013, 2020 and 2030 for all three pollutants.

A second component of a conformity determinat ion is an assessment of the progress in implementing TCMs. These measures are intended to reduce emissions or concentrations of pollutants from transporta tion sources by reducing vehicle use or otherwise reducing vehicle emissions.

As part of the conformity proc ess, the RTC has to certify that TCMs identified in the SIPs are being implemented on schedule and that no federal funds are being diverted from these projects in such a way as to delay their timely implementation. The scope and status of TCMs is further discussed in Se ction 10 of this document with additional details.



### C. Conformity Determination Technical Methodology

The calculation of mobile source emissi ons for each horizon year involves several steps, and these are described in the remaini ng sections of this chapter, as follows:

• The underlying assumptions regarding population and employment change in the region are outlined in the previous section.

• All regionally significant transportation projects are included in the Travel Demand Forecast (TDF) model, which is t hen used to forecast vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and travel speeds in the region.

• The Mobile 6.2 emission model is then us ed to develop emission factors for CO, VOC and NOx (the later tw o pollutants are two major components of Ozone O 3 ), that indicate how much pollutant are produced for each vehicle mile of travel. These factors are applied to the foreca sts from the travel demand model to derive the modeled total of mobile source CO, VOC, NOx emissions.14 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA • The emission benefits from the TCMs are then subtract ed from the modeled vehicle emissions to produce a forecast of net mobile source emissions.

• The procedures for establishing PM 10 concentrations are described later.

The predicted net CO, PM 10 and O 3 emissions that result from these procedures are then compared with the mobile source emissions budgets described above. The results are set out in Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9.



### 4. Transportation Analysis Zones, N etwork and Travel Demand Model

4.1. Transportation Analysis Zones

As noted in sub-section 1.1 and 1.2., the socio-economic data used in the model is disaggregated into 1635 internal Transporta tion Analysis Zones (TAZs). There are 10 external zones. The total modeling area has been expanded to cover the core areas of the Bounder City, areas north and northwest to the City of North Las Vegas, industrial area northeast to the City of No rth Las Vegas, and areas around Ivanpah Airport. Most TAZs are bounded by highway or major streets. Railroads and natural barriers such as major washes are also used to define z one boundaries. Zones r ange from 0.25 to 0.5 sq. mile in most of the developed parts of the region and often 1 sq. mile in the suburbs.



### 4.2. Model Networks

The travel demand modeling process begins wit h the identification of the streets and highways to be included in the network. The model network includes all roads that are federally classified as collect ors or above, as well as st reets that are included in the consolidated Master Plan for Streets and High ways for the Las Vegas Valley. Each link in the network is defined by a number of attributes. The main attributes are:

• Link length

• Number of lanes (*)

• Posted speed limits (*)

• Roadway group

• Area type

• Free-flow speed

• Capacity and

• Speed-capacity equation coefficients.

The attributes denoted by an asterisk are co ded using a variety of sources, including geographic files maintained by the Clark County GIS Management Office (GISMO), survey photography, local entity records and field checking. Network roads are grouped into 11 facility types and four area types. Th ese classifications are used to enter default values for other roadway attributes such as free-flow speed and capacity and also to summarize system performance.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 15 Figure 2. Travel Demand Analysis Zones16 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA The roadway facility types are based on generalized descriptions of the type of facility. They include:

• Interstates

• Other freeways

• High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)lanes,

• Expressways / Beltways

• Two classes of arteri al roads (Major and Minor)

• Collectors

• Local roads

• Other roads used by transit

• Two classes of ramps (Ramp and System Ramp)

• Zone centroid connector links

• External connector links

The four area types are:

• Central Business District of the City of Las Vegas

• Resort Corridor

• Other areas characterized by urban density and land use, and

• Suburban areas.

The free-flow speeds and capacities are set to default values in look up tables for each facility type and area type. The values for free-flow speeds are set out in Table 6 and capacities in Table 7.

Table 6. Free-Flow Speeds Free-Flow Speeds by Area Type Functional Class CBD Resort Urban Suburban System Ramps 40 40 51 53 Minor Arterials 31 31 36 41 Major Arterials 31 33 39 43 Ramps 15 25 28 36 Interstates 53 53 56 60 Freeways 51 51 54 59 Expressways 50 50 50 50 Collectors 29 29 33 39 Other 25 25 25 25 HOV 55 55 60 65 Source: Regional Transportation Commission, Travel Demand Model, 2004 Pack 2A

The speed-capacity equation coefficients we re developed as a part of the model calibration process and reflect the observed char acteristics of different types of roadway in the area. They are used in the assignment process to control the relationship between traffic flow, capacity and congested time.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 17 Table 7. Free-Flow Capacities Free-Flow Capacity by Area Type Functional Class CBD Resort Urban Suburban System Ramps 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Minor Arterials 560 600 600 640 Major Arterials 700 750 750 800 Ramps 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 Interstates 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Freeways 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Expressways 925 925 925 925 Collectors 420 450 450 480 Other 416 416 416 416 HOV 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 Source: Regional Transportation Commission, Travel Demand Model, 2004 Pack 2A



### 4.3. Horizon Year Networks

The development of the future year networks begins with t he identification and selection of “regionally significant” capacity-adding trans portation projects th at are proposed for inclusion in the RTP and TIP. The definition of regional signifi cance is that contained in Section 2.2 of the RTCs “Policies and Procedures” , as amplified through the inter-agency consultative procedures laid down in the “Transportation Conformity Plan for the Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Ar ea”, Clark County Board of Commissioners, March 2005 , and in 40 CFR 93 S.93.101. All such pr ojects are included in the future build networks, irrespective of funding source.

Projects are categorized by ant icipated horizon year of comp letion, i.e., 2013, 2020 or 2030. Alignments, design scope and attribut es for new roads, and changes in the attributes of existing roads, are defined by NDOT and the local entit ies as part of the TIP process. Projects included in the model analysis are listed in Appendix I Capital Program Projects.

Table 8 summarizes the contents of the 2013 No build year model networks and future build networks. In total, the 2013 No build coded model network covers approximately 3638 link miles of roadway withi n the valley, as well as links representing the minor roads that connect zone centroid s to the network, and roads leading into and out of the region. The 2030 build network has 3,945 link miles and 11, 922 lane miles coded in the network. Table 9 shows the link miles and l ane miles changes from the previous build horizon year due to the projects included in the next build horizon year. Note that the changes to centroid connector links are se t to zero, because these changes are not necessarily caused by the projects, but by the reconfiguration, for c oding purposes only, of the zone connections to the future proj ects. Table 10 shows that all projects included in this RTP will result in 530 more link miles and 2,570 more lane miles for the Valley from year 2013 to year 2030.18 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Table 8. Network Link Miles and Lane Miles by Roadway Type

2013 No Build 2013 Build 2020 Build 2030 Build

Description Link Miles Lane Miles Link Miles Lane Miles Link Miles Lane Miles Link Miles Lane Miles
External Links 43.11 93.67 43.11 93.67 43.11 93.67 43.11 102.64 System to System Ramp 28.83 37.91 28.55 37.63 31.32 43.57 37.39 55.65 Minor Arterial 413.62 1,737.96 421.12 1,753.08 478.42 2,091.38 565.19 2,495.08 Major Arterial 465.14 2,271.36 466.56 2,285.55 512.23 2,579.74 549.59 2,775.17 Ramp 141.79 181.35 143.54 183.39 145.94 186.32 157.71 204.98 Interstate 205.49 623.21 205.49 622.91 205.52 643.43 205.52 779.89 Freeway 124.38 377.80 124.38 377.80 126.11 403.91 138.12 447.99 Expressway/Beltway 0.81 1.90 0.81 1.90 19.78 77.68 19.78 77.68 Collector 690.60 1,886.56 690.60 1,886.56 676.18 1,900.94 745.77 2,097.12 Centroid Connector 1,455.45 2,910.90 1,455.45 2,910.90 1,341.15 2,682.30 1,334.02 2,668.04 Local 21.80 49.86 21.80 49.86 21.80 49.86 27.59 61.44 HOV Lanes 20.89 20.89 20.89 20.89 28.53 28.53 95.93 106.35 Transit Link 18.75 37.34 18.75 37.34 18.75 37.34 18.75 37.34 Transit Access Link 5.93 11.86 5.93 11.86 6.07 12.14 6.07 12.14 TOTAL 3,637 10,243 3,647 10,273 3,655 10,831 3,945 11,922 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff
Table 9. Changes in Link Miles and Lane Miles over the Previous Horizon Year

2013 No Build 2013 Build 2020 Build 2030 Build

Description Link Miles Lane Miles Link Miles Lane Miles Link Miles Lane Miles Link Miles Lane Miles
External Links 0.00 2.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 8.97 System to System Ramp 10.64 12.89 -0.28 -0.28 2.77 5.94 6.07 12.08 Minor Arterial 51.37 303.61 7.50 15.12 57.30 338.3 86.77 403.70 Major Arterial 14.77 158.95 1.42 14.19 45.67 294.19 37.36 195.43 Ramp 10.00 17.99 1.75 2.04 2.40 2.93 11.77 18.66 Interstate -0.07 71.14 0.00 -0.31 0.03 20.525 0.00 136.46 Freeway 9.81 65.96 0.00 0.00 1.73 26.11 12.01 44.08 Expressway/Beltway 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 18.97 75.78 0.00 0.00 Collector -23.57 -25.48 0. 00 0.00 -14.42 14.38 69.59 196.18 Centroid Connector 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Local 0.88 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 5.79 11.58 HOV Lanes 14.36 14.36 0.00 0.00 7.64 7.64 67.40 77.82 Transit Link 10.01 19.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Transit Access Link 2.31 4. 62 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.28 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 101 649 10 31 122 786 297 1,105 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staffAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 19 Table 10. Total Changes in Link Miles and Lane Miles from 2008 Network to 2030 Build Total Changes from2008 to 2030

Description Link Miles Lane Miles
External Links 0.00 11.83 System to System Ramp 19.20 30.63 Minor Arterial 202.94 1060.73 Major Arterial 99.22 662.76 Ramp 25.92 41.62 Interstate -0.04 227.82 Freeway 23.55 136.15 Expressway/Beltway 18.97 75.78 Collector 31.60 185.08 Centroid Connector 0.00 0.00 Local 6.67 13.34 HOV Lanes 89.40 99.82 Transit Link 10.01 19.98 Transit Access Link 2.45 4.90 TOTAL 530 2,570 Sources: Regional Transp ortation Commission staff.



### 4.4. No-Build Versus Build Year Netw orks

As stated above, currently there is no approved Ozone (O 3 ) mobile source emission budget or SIP, therefore the RTC has to conduc t "Action versus No-Build Test” ( known also as Build Versus No-Bui ld Test) for defining conformi ty for Ozone pollutant. The NoBuild network is determined by taking out al l projects to be financed by the Federal funding from the Build network for the horizon year.

Tables 11 to 13 list all Federal funded projects included in the Build networks but not in the No Build networks for t he same horizon years.

Figure 3.presents a map that shows the coded road network and all Federal funded projects not in the Build but in the No-Bui ld networks. The projects are colored for different horizon years.

Table 11. Federal Funded Projects in 2013 Build But Not in 2013 No-Build (No Action)

ProjNo Sponsor Location From To Description

108 Clark County Cactus Ave. @ I-15 a new interchange @ I-15

843 Henderson SR564 Lake Mead Pkwy Boulder Hwy Lake Mead National Recreation Area Widen to 6 lanes and a grade sepaerated intersection at Lake Las Vegas Entrance enhancements

4150 DNOT I-15 S. SR 160 (Blue Diammond) Tropicana Av. Widen from 6 to 8 lanes, include HOV and auxiliary lanes Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff20 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Table 12. Federal Funded Projects in 2020 Build But Not in 2020 No-Build (No Action)

ProjNo Sponsor Location From To Description

110 Henderson I-15 @ Starr Construct Interchange

244 NDOT I-15 South Phase 4 Sloan Rd SR 160 (Blue Diamond) I-15 South Phase 2: widen from 6 to 8 lanes and add additional auxiliary lanes

894 Las Vegas Summerlin Pkwy. Beltway US 95 Widen to 8 lanes

4021 DoA Ivanpah Expresswa y Ivanpah Valley Airport I-15 New Alignment (Ivanpah Expressway)

4146 North Las Vegas Lake Mead Blvd. Losee Rd Las Vegas Blvd. Realign roadway and widen to 8 lanes, including dedicated right- and left-turn lanes, auxiliary lanes, and modification of freeway ramps associated with the I-15 interchange. (PE, ROW, Construction

4149 NDOT I-15 / US 95 (Spaghatti Bowl) Neon Phase 1 Construct a 4 lane system to system direct connect HOV ramps, including add/drop lanes at Oakey/Wyoming. Widen 1-15 to accommodate HOV ramps (PE,RW, Const.)

4242 Las Vegas Elkhorn @US 95 Construct HOV direct connect

4249 Las Vegas Oakey / Wyoming I-15 Mains Street Construct a grade separation at Oakey/Wyoming Source: Regional Transportation Commission staffAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 21 Table 13. Federal Funded Projects in 2030 Build But Not in 2030 No-Build (No Action)

ProjNo Sponsor Location From To Description

115 Henderson I-15 @Bermuda Rd Construct an interchange (PE, ROW, Const)

243 NDOT I-15 South CA State Line Sloan Rd Widen from 6 to 8 lanes (PE, ROW, Const)

245 NDOT I-15 (Phase 4) Sloan Rd SR 160 Blue Diamond Rd I-15 South Phase 4: Widen to 10 lanes and add additional auxiliary lanes

247 NDOT I-15 (Phase 3) SR 160 (Blue Diammond Rd) Tropicana Ave I-15 South Phase 3: Widen to 10 lanes and additional auxiliary lanes and operational improvements (PE, ROW, Const)

249 NDOT I-515 (Phase 2) Foothills Grade Separation Charlestion Blvd Widen to 10 lanes; to include HOV lanes and add new interchange @ Sahara Ave. (PE, ROW, Const)

250 NDOT I-515/US 95 (Phase 1) Charleston Blvd I-15/US 95 Interchange (Spaghetti Bowl) Widen to 10 lanes; to include HOV lanes and add new interchange @ Pecos Rd, F St, (PE, ROW, Const)

758 Henderson I-15 @Sloan Construct an interchange (PE, ROW, Const)

823 North Las Vegas I-15 @Washburn Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes and construct grade separation over I-15 on Washburn Rd. from Pecos Rd to Lamb Blvd

889 Las Vegas Sheep Mountain Pkwy @US95 & CC215 Western Beltway Construct system to system interchange

4144 NDOT I-15 I-215 I-15/US 95 (Spaghetti Bowl) Widen from 10 to 14 lanes to include HOV lanes (PE, ROW, Const)

4147 NDOT Martin L King Blvd/Industrial Rd Connector Neo Palomino Ln Wyoming Construct a 6-lane overpass with grade separation at Oakey/Wyoming (PE, ROW, Const)

4148 NDOT US 95 North (Package 2) Ann Rd Kyle Canyon Rd Ann to Centennial: widen from 6 to 8 lanes. Add auxiliary lanes. Centennial to Durango: widen from 4 to 8 lanes. Durango to Kyle Canyon: widen from 4 to 6 lanes. (PE, ROW, Const)

4153 NDOT I-15 @I-215 Southern Beltway (Interchange) System to system direct connector HOV ramps (PE, ROW, Const)

4161 NDOT I-15 Southbound NEON Phase 3 US 95 Sahara Ave Construct SB collector distributor roads with new bridges over Alta, Charleston, and Oakey/Wyoming (PE, ROW, Const)

4162 NDOT I-15 Northbound NEON Phase 4 US 95 Sahara Ave Construct SB collector distributor roads with new bridges over Sahara Ave., O akey/Wyoming. Charleston and northbound off ramps to Alta Dr. (PE, ROW, Const)

4167 NDOT SR 160 (Blue Diamond Rd) @ I-15 Construct a flyover ramp from EB SR 160 to NB I-15 (PE, ROW, Const)

4247 Clark Count y Tropicana Ave Decatur Blvd Polaris Construct a grade seperation over Dean Martin Drive (PE, ROW, Const)

4248 Clark County Tropicana Ave Polaris I-15 Construct a fourth westbound lane (including replacement of the UPRR Bridge over Tropicana Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff22 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Figure 3. Federal Funded Projects Included in the Build But Not In NO-Build Horizon Years

Sources: Regional Transportation Commission, Planning



### 4.5. Transit Network, HOV and Park-and-Ride

For the first time, and from this RTP, trans it network skims, mode choice and transit assignments are modeled for the Las Vegas Valley. In addition, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and Park –and Ride (PnR) fac ilities are also coded in the network, and the HOV and PnR trips can be modeled too.

Figure 4. presents a map showing the 2030 Build transit network routes and the proposed future Park and Ride facilities.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 23 Figure 4. 2030 Build Transit Routes a nd Future Park and Ride Facilities (All transit routes = Green; All future Park and Ride Facilities = Red Dots)24 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA 

### 5. Travel Demand Model Result and Regional Travel

The RTC Travel Demand Model Package 2A, a full four step travel demand model with visitor model elements is used to develop the following model results. A full description of the each step of the RTC Tr avel Demand Model is contai ned in Appendix II B Travel Demand Model Documentati on, Regional Transportation Plan FY 2006-2030 October 2006, by Regional Transportation Commission. The model’s new capabilities included in Pack 2A, such as Transit Processing, Mode Choice Modeling, HOV and Transit Assignment Capabilities are described at the end of this document.

This section summarizes the modeling result s from the each step of the RTC Travel Demand Model Pack 2A.


### 5.1. Trip generation

Trip Generation is the proce ss of generating estimates of t he person trips produced in, or attracted to, each zone. Table 14 su mmarizes the total num ber of person trips generated by the trip generation step of the travel demand model.

Table 14. Person-Trips in the Las Vegas Valley, 2013-2030

2013 2020 2030
Home-Based Work 1,341,000 1,631,301 1,901,401 Home-Based School 624,633 738,044 860,949 Home-Based Shopping 747,698 880,765 1,019,160 Other Home-Based 3,152,269 3,696,292 4,246,291 Non-Home-Based 2,397,000 2,837,200 3,278,900 Residence Ai r 18,066 21,577 18,066 Total Resident Trips 8,280,666 9,805,179 11,324,767 Multi-Day Visitor Trips 645,982 758,839 809,912 Visitor Airport Based Trips 142,011 170,180 193,164 Total Visitor Trips 787,993 929,019 1,003,076 Total Person Trips 9,068,659 10,734,198 12,327,843 Trip Purpose A verage Weekday Person Trips

Source: Regional Transportation Commission staffAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 25 Figure 5. Average Weekday Person Trips by Purpose (Series 1=2013, Series 2=2020, Series 3=2030)

Average Weekday Person Trips by Purpose

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

Ho

me

-B

a se

d

Wo

r k

H

ome - B

as

e d

Sc

h oo

l

Ho

me

- B ased Shopping Other H o me-Based

No

n-Home-B a se

d Resi d en

c e Air

To

t a l Re

side n t Tr

ips

M

ulti-Day V i s i to

r Tr

i p s

Vi

s it o r A i rpo

r t Ba

s ed

Tr

ips

To

t a l Visitor Trips

To

t a l Pe

r s o n Tri p s

Trip PurposeTrips in Thousand Series1
Series2
Series3

Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff


### 5.2. Trip Distribution

The RTC model distributes trips using a conv entional gravity distri bution algorithm. In this, zonal trip productions for each purpose are matched with trip attractions based on a computed probability function em ploying the travel time between zones. One of the key elements in this process are the estimati on of travel times using the model network. Tables 15A through 15C below present the summaries of the average travel distance and average travel time by trip purpose and t he total trips in the trip distribution model runs. Table 15D shows that from 2013 to 2030, with more trips and more congestions in the future, both the average travel distance and average travel time for most trip type increase. The average distance and average ti me for airport trips, including visitor airport and residence airport trips, increase due to the opening of Ivanpah Airport in 2017, resulting in an increasi ng share of aviation demand being met by the Ivanpah Airport.26 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Table 15A. 2013 Trip Distribution Summary Average Total Trips within the TAZ Trip Purpose Distance Time Trips Trips Percent Home-Based Work Income Group 1 10.5 22.1 112,983 396 0.4% Home-Based Work Income Group 2 10.1 21.8 126,699 211 0.2% Home-Based Work Income Group 3 11.0 23.1 326,583 621 0.2% Home-Based Work Income Group 4 12.1 24.5 774,735 882 0.1% Home-Based School 4.5 11.8 624,633 34,010 5.4% Home-Based Shopping 5.1 13.1 747,698 19,770 2.6% Home-Based Other 7.3 17.1 3,152,269 34,856 1.1% Non-Home-Based 7.0 16.4 2,397,000 82,073 3.4% Hotel-Based Convention 3.8 13.4 56,493 973 1.7% Hotel-Based Business 6.7 17.9 17,174 80 0.5% Hotel-Based Gaming 4.2 14.0 175,199 2,747 1.6% Visitor Hotel-Based Other 4.4 14.2 184,476 2,786 1.5% Visitor Non-Hotel-Based Other 3.8 13.1 76,359 2,128 2.8% Non-Hotel Gaming 3.8 13.3 133,747 3,520 2.6% Visitor Airport 6.9 27.1 136,560 67 0.0% Resident Airport 13.3 32.8 18,066 0 0.0% Airport-Based Business 4.4 24.3 4,368 0 0.0% Airport-Based Other 6.9 27.1 1,083 1 0.0% Non-Airport-Based Business 6.3 16.2 1,661 28 1.7% Non-Airport-Based Other 4.2 13.8 873 20 2.3% Total Trips 9,068,659 185,167 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff Table 15B. 2020 Trip Distribution Summary Average Total Trips within the TAZ Trip Purpose Distance Time Trips Trips Percent Home-Based Work Income Group 1 12.8 25.9 150,061 450 0.3% Home-Based Work Income Group 2 10.3 23.1 154,663 263 0.2% Home-Based Work Income Group 3 11.4 24.7 391,332 693 0.2% Home-Based Work Income Group 4 12.4 26.0 935,245 1,095 0.1% Home-Based School 4.8 12.6 738,044 31,102 4.2% Home-Based Shopping 5.0 13.4 880,765 19,045 2.2% Home-Based Other 7.3 17.7 3,696,292 45,380 1.2% Non-Home-Based 7.8 18.3 2,837,200 74,535 2.6% Hotel-Based Convention 3.7 13.7 65,893 1,202 1.8% Hotel-Based Business 6.9 19.1 20,028 79 0.4% Hotel-Based Gaming 4.0 14.4 206,167 3,853 1.9% Visitor Hotel-Based Other 4.2 14.6 216,688 3,853 1.8% Visitor Non-Hotel-Based Other 3.6 13.4 89,312 3,147 3.5% Non-Hotel Gaming 3.7 13.6 158,219 4,801 3.0% Visitor Airport 14.5 54.1 164,729 69 0.0% Resident Airport 21.7 61.3 21,577 0 0.0% Airport-Based Business 13.7 53.8 4,368 0 0.0% Airport-Based Other 14.7 54.3 1,083 0 0.0% Non-Airport-Based Business 6.2 16.5 1,661 33 2.0% Non-Airport-Based Other 4.0 14.0 873 24 2.7% Total Trips 10,734,198 189,624 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staffAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 27 Table 15C. 2030 Trip Distribution Summary Average Total Trips within the TAZ Trip Purpose Distance Time Trips Trips Percent Home-Based Work Income Group 1 15.3 29.6 203,847 388 0.2% Home-Based Work Income Group 2 10.7 24.1 175,748 285 0.2% Home-Based Work Income Group 3 11.9 25.7 447,293 773 0.2% Home-Based Work Income Group 4 13.0 26.9 1,074,513 1,232 0.1% Home-Based School 4.7 12.3 860,949 32,937 3.8% Home-Based Shopping 5.2 13.5 1,019,160 20,924 2.1% Home-Based Other 7.7 18.2 4,246,291 51,434 1.2% Non-Home-Based 8.3 19.9 3,278,900 90,111 2.7% Hotel-Based Convention 3.6 13.7 69,863 1,324 1.9% Hotel-Based Business 7.1 19.5 21,227 70 0.3% Hotel-Based Gaming 4.0 14.4 220,346 4,000 1.8% Visitor Hotel-Based Other 4.2 14.7 231,161 4,000 1.7% Visitor Non-Hotel-Based Other 3.6 13.5 94,936 3,555 3.7% Non-Hotel Gaming 3.7 13.8 169,845 5,525 3.3% Visitor Airport 15.9 79.0 187,712 72 0.0% Resident Airport 23.1 86.8 23,747 0 0.0% Airport-Based Business 14.8 78.2 4,368 0 0.0% Airport-Based Other 15.9 79.0 1,083 0 0.0% Non-Airport-Based Business 6.4 16.7 1,661 32 1.9% Non-Airport-Based Other 4.0 14.2 873 26 3.0% Total Trips 12,333,524 216,687 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff Table 15D. Difference Trip Distribut ion Summaries Between 2013 and 2030
Average Total Trips within the TAZ Trip Purpose Distance Time Trips Trips Percent Home-Based Work Income Group 1 4.8 7.4 90,864 -8 -0.2% Home-Based Work Income Group 2 0.7 2.3 49,049 74 0.0% Home-Based Work Income Group 3 0.9 2.6 120,710 152 0.0% Home-Based Work Income Group 4 0.9 2.5 299,778 350 0.0% Home-Based School 0.2 0.5 236,316 -1,073 -1.6% Home-Based Shopping 0.1 0.4 271,462 1,154 -0.6% Home-Based Other 0.4 1.0 1,094,022 16,578 0.1% Non-Home-Based 1.3 3.5 881,900 8,038 -0.7% Hotel-Based Convention -0.2 0.3 13,370 350 0.2% Hotel-Based Business 0.4 1.6 4,053 -10 -0.1% Hotel-Based Gaming -0.2 0.4 45,147 1,252 0.2% Visitor Hotel-Based Other -0.2 0.5 46,685 1,213 0.2% Visitor Non-Hotel-Based Other -0.2 0.4 18,577 1,428 1.0% Non-Hotel Gaming -0.1 0.5 36,098 2,004 0.6% Visitor Airport 9.0 51.9 51,152 5 0.0% Resident Airport 9.8 54.1 5,681 0 0.0% Airport-Based Business 10.4 53.8 0 0 0.0% Airport-Based Other 9.0 51.9 0 0 0.0% Non-Airport-Based Business 0.1 0.5 0 5 0.3% Non-Airport-Based Other -0.2 0.4 0 7 0.7% Total Trips 3,264,865 31,520 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staffRegional Transportation Plan FY 2005-2030 Appendix 4 Page 28 

### 5.3. Mode Choice

The RTC 2004 Model Pack 2 includes additi onal and optional transit processing and mode Choice modeling capabilitie s. The basic procedur es include in the RTC 2004 Model Pack 2 are Transit network c oding procedures; Trans it path-building and skimming procedures; Mode choice procedur es; Transit assignment procedures; and HOV modeling procedures. These added pr ocedures greatly enhance the transit forecast and analysis capabilities of the RTC m odel. It is the firs t time that the RTC model is able to forecast the transit ridership and HOV vo lumes for the future horizon years. The model choice uses a nested logi t model to estimate the zone-to-zone person trips that travel in autos and that use transit services. Table 16 shows a summary of total person trips by model as the results of the mode choice model.

Table 16. DAILY - TOTAL PERSON TRIPS BY MODE (i ncluding visitor trips) Description 2013 2020 2030 % Change 2013-2030 TOTAL DAILY PERSON - DRIVE-ALONE 3,979,728 4,705,216 5,418,704 36.2% TOTAL DAILY PERSON - SHARED RIDE 4,363,426 5,182,533 6,025,382 38.1% TOTAL DAILY PERSON - DRIVE - TRANSIT 2,698 9,003 15,120 460.4% TOTAL DAILY PERSON - LOCAL - TRANSIT 180,833 196,565 198,073 9.5% TOTAL DAILY PERSON - PREMIUM - TRANSIT 38,641 62,139 64,081 65.8% TOTAL DAILY PERSON - TAXI 183,640 199,141 206,364 12.4% TOTAL DAILY PERSON - TOUR_SHUTTLEBUS 45,070 45,923 47,021 4.3% TOTAL DAILY PERSON - OTHER - WALK 274,623 333,680 358,779 30.6% DAILY_TOTAL PERSON - VEHCILE 6,235,281 7,355,511 8,464,294 35.7% DAILY_TOTAL PERSON - TRANSIT 222,172 267,706 277,274 24.8% Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff

A. Auto Trips The person trips traveling in autos are then tu rned into an estimate of auto trips through the application of vehicle occupancy rates de rived from an earlier household survey. The rates set out in Table 17 are held constant for all forecast horizon years. Note that the term “auto” in this cont ext includes light trucks and vans used for personal travel as well as passenger cars.

Table 17. Vehicle Occupancy Rates

Travel Purpose Average Vehicle Occupancy (Persons per Vehicle) Home-Based Work 1.06 Home-Based School 1.23 Home-Based Shopping 1.43 Other Home-Based 1.70 Non-Home-Based 1.53 Overall Average 1.39 Source: Regional Transportation Commission, Travel Demand Model, 2004 Pack 2A.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 29 The Vehicle Occupancy Rates are used to c onvert person travel trips made entirely inside the region into vehicle trips. Vehicle trips not included are ones into and out of the region and through trips that cross the region. Projections of total vehicle travel include these and commercial trips made by trucks, buses.

The model network includes ten cordon st ations on roads crossing the regional boundary which are connected to t he rest of the network by external connector links. Projections of external trips and the distributi on of the local end of those trips have been developed jointly with NDOT through the inter-agency consultative process.

Commercial vehicle trips, including light deliv ery and service trips as well as truck trips, are separately forecasted and distributed. These projections are added to the number of auto trips to give total vehicle trips su mmarized in Table 13. Figure 4.5 shows the percentage changes in trips by vehicle type from 2013 to 2030. The higher percentage changes in external trips reflect all fa st growths surrounding the modeling area, including areas outside Clark County, and adjacent states.

Table 18. Vehicle Trips in th e Las Vegas Valley, 2013-2030 Average Weekday Vehicle Trips % Changes 2013 2020 2030 2013- 2030 Drive Alone 4,334,553 5,126,732 5,908,730 36.3% Shared Drive 1,900,728 2,228,779 2,555,564 34.5%

Auto Trips 6,235,281 7,355,511 8,464,294 35.7% External Trips 133,689 159,334 195,685 46.4%

Truck Trips 221,136 262,182 294,340 33.1% Taxi Trips 177,153 187,399 191,742 8.2% Total Vehicle Trips 6,767,259 7,964,427 9,146,062 35.2% Tri p Pur p ose

Source: Regional Transportation Commission, Travel Demand Model, 2004 Pack 2A.
Figure 6. Percent Changes in Vehicl e Trips by Type from 2013 to 2030

Percent Changes in Vehicle Trips from 2013 to 2030

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Drive Alone Shared
Drive Auto Trips External Trips Truck Trips Taxi Trips Total Vehicle

Trips
Vehicle Trip TypePercent Increase

% Changes 2013- 2030

Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff30 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA 

### 5.4. Assignments

A. Time-of-Day Auto Trip Analysis

Before the estimates of average daily vehicle trips for each trip purpose are assigned to the road links of the networks, these vehicle trips are grouped into seven time periods. These periods were defin ed through the inter-agency consultative process and are based on the observed distri bution of traffic flow as shown by continuous traffic counts . The periods are:

• From midnight to 7 a.m. (7 hours),

• From 7 to 9 a. m. (2 hours),

• From 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. (5 hours),

• From 2 to 4 p. m. (2 hours),

• From 4 to 6 p. m. (2 hours),

• From 6 to 8 p.m. (2 hours) and

• From 8 p.m. to midnight (4 hours).

The vehicle trips for each travel purpose ar e grouped according to the proportion of daily trips that start or return in each ti me period. Then an equilibrium highway assignment process is used to load the time of day zone-to-zone vehicle trips onto the road network. The trips are assigned to road links based on computed travel times that take into account the relationships among tr affic flow, free-flow speed, roadway capacity and congested (or “loaded”) speed and travel time. The formula used is a modification of the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) formula for computing the decrease in speed as roads approach congested volumes. The coefficients in the formula have been developed from the Highway Capacity Manual and modified through the model calibration process to reflect local conditions.

The assignment is performed for each of the seven time periods. Results are then aggregated to produce daily traffic flows on each link in the network. The following tables present summaries of the unadjusted modeled forecasts for the Valley. It should be noted that the road types changes for some links in the future over years due to the projects to be built. The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are calculated by the trips assigned to the model network links and the link lengths of the network.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 31 Table 19A. 2013 Trip Assignment Summary Road Type Daily VMT Daily Flow Average Daily Speed

External Links 267,023 151,688 25.0 System to System Ramps 429,929 2,051,297 43.2 Minor Roads 5,789,031 31,420,075 31.9 Major Roads 16,091,321 92,805,264 32.7 Ramps 1,289,615 7,785,191 26.5 Interstates 11,103,747 28,240,866 48.1 Freeways 5,072,947 18,441,884 50.7 Expressways 442 3,482 50.0 Collectors 3,279,469 15,261,459 30.4 Centroid Connectors 3,536,622 12,022,323 25.0 Local Roads 52,935 343,230 28.4 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) 270,241 1,342,648 51.4 Total 46,913,082 208,526,762 Source: Regional Transportation Commission

Table 19B. 2020Trip Assignment Summary Road Type Daily VMT Daily Flow Average Daily Speed

External Links 316,079 180,649 25.0 System to System Ramps 490,081 2,298,662 41.9 Minor Roads 7,941,243 41,314,145 31.4 Major Roads 18,789,717 106,121,042 31.6 Ramps 1,543,606 9,492,261 26.7 Interstates 14,566,624 38,071,585 45.5 Freeways 6,857,699 23,022,393 49.7 Expressways 1,062 8,979 49.7 Collectors 3,735,466 17,050,606 29.8 Centroid Connectors 4,355,423 14,232,600 25.0 Local Roads 60,318 382,196 27.7 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) 358,128 1,723,573 49.8 Total 58,657,318 252,175,117 Source: Regional Transportation Commission

Table 19C. 2030 Trip Assignment Summary Road Type Daily VMT Daily Flow Average Daily Speed

External Links 392,087 221,999 25.0 System to System Ramps 665,298 4,069,275 40.6 Minor Roads 9,415,217 47,709,671 31.8 Major Roads 20,600,457 114,260,574 31.3 Ramps 1,726,555 10,842,809 26.8 Interstates 18,047,187 48,133,295 45.8 Freeways 8,128,180 26,901,345 49.0 Expressways 863,808 230,357 21.6 Collectors 4,465,254 18,847,960 30.0 Centroid Connectors 4,844,743 16,367,002 25.0 Local Roads 89,631 455,483 27.0 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) 1,667,233 4,620,960 44.5 Total 69,238,417 288,039,769 Source: Regional Transportation Commission32 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Table 19D. Changes in Trips Assignments from 2013 to 2030

Road Type % Changes in Daily VMT % Changes in Daily Flow Changes in Average Daily Speed

External Links 46.8% 46.4% 0.0 System to System Ramps 54.7% 98.4% -2.6 Minor Roads 62.6% 51.8% -0.1 Major Roads 28.0% 23.1% -1.4 Ramps 33.9% 39.3% 0.3 Interstates 62.5% 70.4% -2.4 Freeways 60.2% 45.9% -1.7 Expressways 195428.8% 6515.3% -28.4 Collectors 36.2% 23.5% -0.4 Centroid Connectors 37.0% 36.1% 0.0 Local Roads 69.3% 32.7% -1.4 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) 516.9% 244.2% -6.9 Total 47.6% 38.1% Source: Regional Transportation Commission

One element of travel not included in the network assi gnment. These are intra-zonal trips. The intra-zonal trips are computed by applying an intra-zonal trip length to the intra-zonal trips tabulated in the trip table but not assigned to the network. Since TRANSCAD does not have a procedure for calcul ating this length, a default length of one mile has been used, based on the fact that nearly all zones in the model are no more than one square mile in area.

B. Transit Assignment Results

The other element is transit v ehicle trips that is included in the network modeling for this RTP and is summarized in Table 20. In the t able, total modeled daily transit trips, total daily boarding, total Transit Person Mile s Traveled (PMT) and Transit Person Hours Traveled (PHT) are summarized. Transit tr ips increase by over 20% in the year of 2020 from the year of 2013, this changes ar e mainly caused by the proposed increase and the improvement in transit services for year 2020. The transit service supplies for year 2030 basically remain the same for the year of 2020, and the s light 4% increase in the transit trips will be due to the net increase from the regional growth.

Table 20. Modeled Daily Transit Trips, Person Miles Traveled and Person Time Traveled.
Year % Increase from Descriptions 2013 2020 2030 2013-2030 Total Transit Trips 222,172 267,706 277,274 24.8% Person Miles Traveled (PMT) 1,199,032 1,554,870 1,680,600 40.2% Person Hours Traveled (PHT) 139,271 167,737 175,920 26.3% Total Daily Boarding 359,748 435,413 449,588 25.0% % change in Transit Trips 20% 4% % change in PMT 30% 8% % change in PHT 20% 5% % change in Daily Boarding 21% 3% Source: Regional Transportation CommissionAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 33 Figure 7A. Modeled 2013 Horizon Year Auto Time From All TAZs to TAZ 528 (County Building is located in TAZ 528)

Figure 7B. Modeled 2030 Horizon Year Auto Time From All TAZs to TAZ 528 (County Building is located in TAZ 528)34 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Figure 8A. Modeled 2013 Horizon Year Auto Time From All TAZs to TAZ 687 (Las Vegas @ Flammingo)

Figure 8B. Modeled 2030 Horizon Year Auto Time From All TAZs to TAZ 687 (Las Vegas @ Flammingo)APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 35 Figure 9. 2008 (Top) and 2030 (Bo ttom) Modeled Daily Volumes36 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Figure 10. 2008 (Top) and 2030 (Bottom) Modeled PM PK Congestions (V/C Ratio)APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 37 

### 5.5. Model Travel Fore cast Corrections

A series of corrections and adjustments are made to the modeled VMT before they are used as a basis for estimating mobile source emissions.

The first set of adjustments involves compar ing modeled volumes with traffic counts and correcting errors in assigned traffic volu mes. NDOT and the local entities have an extensive program of traffi c counts and over 1,000 count lo cations are coded into the Master Highway network. These counts ar e aggregated by roadway group. When this RTP analysis was performed, the updated NDO T traffic counts available were NDOT 2007 traffic counts. In order to compare appl es to apples, the model was run with 2007 roadway network and the 2007 model input file, then assi gned traffic volumes were compared with the NDOT 2007 tr affic counts. The aggregate modeled volume at count locations in each facility type is compar ed with the corresponding counts to produce an overall percentage error for count locations in t hat facility type. This error is expressed as a correction factor that is then applied to the VMT for all li nks in that group. Table 21 lists these comparisons and correction factors.

Table 21. Correction to 2007 Year Ground Counts

Facility Type Number of Count Stations Aggregate Model Flow Aggregate Count Flow Conversion Factor

External Links 6 71,122 70,345 0.98908 System Ramps 30 458,561 470,005 1.02496
Minor Arterials 261 3,799,773 4,127,135 1.08615 Major Arterials 425 14,441,395 13,190,104 0.91335 Ramps 251 2,153,535 2,125,360 0.98692
Interstates 122 8,899,227 8,090,475 0.90912 Freeways 39 2,426,553 2,033,770 1.05241 Expressways/Beltways 3 48,761 76,203 1.56279
Collectors 247 1,438,071 1,589,457 1.10527 Source: Regional Transportation Commission.

Note that in Table 21, the direct initia l correction factor for Freeways was 0.83813, which was recalculated to 1.05241. Becaus e some existing Expressways/Beltways are re-classified as Freeways in the future horizon years (see Figure 11 that shows a roadway functional class for di fferent horizon years), the in itial and directly calculated conversion factor needs to be adjusted, such as follows: Freeway factor = (freeway counts + expressway counts)/(model freeway flows + model expressw ay flows)+ 0.2. See the map showing the functional class of t he highways. This step results in link volumes and VMT that are corrected to observed volumes.38 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Figure 11. Current and Fut ure Roadway Functional Class

In accordance with Federal guidance, this corrected model VMT is then benchmarked against the base year VMT from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). At the time when this document is prepared, the most resent HPMS data is the total VMT by county in 2006 Annual Traffic Report published by Nevada Department of Transportation.

The system-wide correction fa ctor used to control the corrected model VMT to the HPMS total is calculated in the following steps. First, the NDOT HPMS (2006 Annual VMT (AVMT)) for the Clark County Urbanized Area is converted into Annual Average Weekday VMT (AAWDVMT); Second, the 2006 AAWDVMT was factored up to 2007 AAWDVMT by an average growth rate in the HPMS from years of 2004 to 2006. The third step is to match the RTC modeling area to the NDOT defined Urbanized Area. See Figure 12 for the NDOT defined Urbani zed Area. The RTC modeling area is basically the same as t he 2004 NDOT defined Urba nized Area, except for the newly expanded modeling areas for Boulder City, Ivanpah Airport, and Apex Industrial areas. See Figure 13. The VMT on these roads was subtracted from the total modeled WDVMT. Then, for the same specifi ed Urbanized Area, t he 2007 AAWDVMT was compared with the corrected model WDVMT to develop an adjustment factor. This factor is applied to the entire system in the model to derive corrected and benchmarked base year VMT.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 39 Figure 12. NDOT Defi ned Urbanized Area40 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Figure 13. The Links (in Re d) for which the VMT Was S ubtracted From the Total Modeled VMT.

The process is summarized as follows.

• Year 2006 HPMS Annual VMT for the Urbanized Area: 12,701,427,381

• Year 2006 HPMS Annual Average W eekday VMT for the Urbanized Area: 34,798,431

• Year 2007 HPMS Annual Average W eekday VMT for the Urbanized Area: 37,024,418.

• Year 2007 Model AAWDVMT for the Las Vegas Valley: 36,969,095

• Year 2007 Model AAWDVMT lin k corrected to: 35,960,657

• After Subtracted Model AAWDVMT outside Urban Area: 33,675,538.

• Year 2007 HPMS correction factor: 1.099

The correction and HPMS factor are applied to all future horizon years, so that the emissions for each year are calculated us ing the modeled growth in VMT based upon a corrected and HPMS adjusted 2007 base.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 41 

### 5.6. Travel Forecast Seas onal Adjustments The corrected and HPMS adjusted AAWDVMT is then adjusted to reflect the winter and summer conditions that are characte ristic of peak CO emissions and O 3 emissions respectively. This involves two factors. The first is a seasonal adjustment from AAWDVMT to December average weekday VM T. 2004 NDOT continuous traffic counts are employed to calculate this factor (0.969). The summer seasonal adjustment factors are calculated using the average of June, July and August ADT. Table 22 shows the factors. There are no significa nt differences in seasonal traffic patterns across the various roadway functional classes, so the sa me factor is applied equally to all modeled VMT. The 2004 seasonal adjustment factor is also held constant for all future horizon years. Table 22. Seasonal Adjustment Factors Summer adjustment factor 1.021711371

Winter adjustment factor 0.969123638 Source: NDOT, Hourly Counts, 2004 RTP 2006-2030



### 5.7. Vehicle Miles Traveled Outside Modeling Area But Inside Ozone Nonattainment Area

A. Introduction
The 8-hour Ozone Non-attainment Area is la rger than Las Vegas Regional Travel Demand modeling domain. This section describes how the VMT is developed for the traffic outside the modeling boundary but within the Ozone No n-attainment Area. Two elements are involved in this development, one is the tra ffic on the corridors such asState Route or Interstate outside the modeling network but within the Ozone Nonattainment Area; the other element is traffics generated in small communities outside the modeling area but within the Ozone Non-attainment Area. The following will describe each of these separately.



### B. The VMT on the roadway corridors

The VMT outside the modeling ar ea are calculated using available NDOT traffic counts. First, the corridors inside the Ozone Non-atta inment boundary but outside of the RTC TDF model boundary are identified. Table 23A presents a list of roadway corridors identified. This table incl udes corridor endpoints, length, total lanes, and posted speed. Note that due to the TAZ expansion in this RTP, the number of co rridors or the lengths of some of the corridors have been updat ed (reduced) from the RTP 2006-2030. In Table 23A, the average speeds are listed, where the aver age speeds equals the posted speed if it is constant for the corridor, w here the posted speed varies for a corridor, the speed monitoring data is not available, the average travel speeds have been estimated by the information from the NDOT’s Annual Speed Monitoring R eport. This dataset assumes that the average trav el speed will not c hange on a segment during the 2013 to 2030 period.42 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Table 23A. List of Roadway Co rridors Outside Modeling Network

Corridor Endpoints Length (mi) Lanes (both dir.) Posted Speed Average Speed

I-15 North TDF Model Boundary and Moapa/Glendale 24 4 75 75 US 95 South CA Stateline and US 93 Interchange 60 2 to 4 70 70 US 93 North I-15 Interchange and Ozone Boundary 11 2 70 70
US 93 South AZ Stateline and Boulder Beach 5 2 Varies 50

US 93/95 US 95/93 Interchange and TDF Model Boundary 2.5 4 65 65

SR 160 TDF Model Boundary and Ozone Boundary 12 2 70 70 SR 159 SR 160 and TDF Model Boundary 14 2 Varies 55

SR 157 US 95 and end of road at Mt. Charleston 19 2 Varies 55
SR 158 SR 157 and SR 156 7 2 Varies 45

SR 156 US 95 and end of road at Mt. Charleston 18 2 Varies 55
SR 163 US 95 and AZ Stateline 26 2 to 4 Varies 55 Casino Drive Needles Highway and SR 163 13 2 to 4 Varies 35 Bruce Woodbury Drive Needles Highway and Casino Drive 8 2 Varies 40
Davis Dam Road SR 163 and Davis Dam 7 2 Varies 45 Needles Highway CA Stateline and SR 163 13 2 to 4 Varies 60

SR 147 TDF Model Boundary and Ozone Boundary 2 2 65 65 SR 168 Ozone Boundary near Glendale 6 2 Varies 45 Valley of Fire Road I-15 Interchange and Ozone Boundary 15 2 65 65
SR 161 I-15 Interchange and Ozone Boundary 12 2 70 70
SR 164 I-15 Interchange and Searchlight 20 2 70 70 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff

Next, the future traffic volumes are project ed for these corridors. Forecast for future AADTs are based on the data fr om two sources. The NDOT has projected the traffic volumes for the RTC modeling network exter nal connectors (see Appendix B at the end of this document), Therefore the NDOT’s projections are us ed where the data is available. In Table 16B, the NDOT’s estima tes are highlighted with yellow color. The traffic volume projects for the remainin g corridors are developed by applying average annual growth from the histor ical NDOT’s traffic counts AADT at stations on these corridors. Table 23B also provides the esti mated VMT that is calc ulated by multiplying the volume estimates and t he corridor length.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 43 Table 23B. Traffic Volume and VMT Estimates for the Outside Corridors

Corridor 2013 Volume 2020 Volume 2030 Volume 2013 VMT 2020 VMT 2030 VMT

I-15 North 28,160 34,000 42,000 675,840 816,000 1,008,000 US 95 South 14,800 19,000 24,000 888,000 1,140,000 1,440,000 US 93 North 1,710 1,850 2,200 18,810 20,350 24,200 US 93 South 19,200 22,000 25,000 96,000 110,000 125,000 US 93/95 19,200 22,000 25,000 48,000 55,000 62,500

SR 160 13,800 17,000 21,000 165,600 204,000 252,000 SR 159 7,360 9,800 13,000 103,040 137,200 182,000 SR 157 3,920 4,700 6,500 74,480 89,300 123,500 SR 158 750 802 1,125 5,250 5,614 7,875 SR 156 680 762 915 12,240 13,716 16,470 SR 163 8,000 8,000 10,600 208,000 208,000 275,600 Casino Drive 8,000 9,860 11, 700 104,000 128,180 152,100 Bruce Woodbury Drive 11,000 11,900 13,500 88,000 95,200 108,000 Davis Dam Road 400 400 400 2,800 2,800 2,800 Needles Highway 13,000 15,800 17,015 169,000 205,400 221,195
SR 147 3,920 4,700 6,500 7,840 9,400 13,000 SR 168 1,400 1,600 1,820 8,400 9,600 10,920 Valley of Fire Road 760 870 1,060 11,400 13,050 15,900 SR 161 3,200 3,640 4,470 38,400 43,680 53,640 SR 164 1,100 1,300 1,560 22,000 26,000 31,200 Source: Regional Transportation Commission

C. The VMT on Minor Arteri als, Collectors and Locals

In addition to the VMT and speed estimates for the roadways listed in the above two tables, estimates of VMT and speed were made for travel on minor arterials, collectors and local streets in the cities of Laughlin, Searchlight, Blue Diamond , Cal-Nev-Ari, and Goodsprings. Estimates were based on VMT per person. Using the same approach from the 2004 Urban M obility Report (http://mobility.tamu .edu/ums) to assist in the development of VMT per person for the cities listed above. It was assumed that all travel on interstates, freewa ys, expressways, and major ar terials was captured in the itemized estimates summarized in Table 16B . Therefore, the estimates summarized following only cover travel on roadways classi fied as minor arterials, collectors, and locals. Table 24A and 24B summarize the population forecasts and the VMT per capita estimates.

According to Flexibility in Highway Design

, Chapter 3, Functional Classification (http://fhwa.dot.gov/environment/f lex/ch03.htm), travel on minor arterials, collectors, and44 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA local roads account for 46.7 per cent of average daily travel on US roadways. These VMTs were then disaggregated to minor arteri als, collectors, and locals using factors listed in Table 24C which were derived from Flexibility in Highway Design and the RTC TDF Model. The data in Table 24C wa s then used to develop the VMT by average speed values in Table 24D.

Table 24A: Population Forecasts
City 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Laughlin 8629 15084 25807 34295 50276 54773 Searchlight 780 1459 1707 1987 1987 1987 Blue Diamond 439 524 2129 3802 4070 5918 Cal-Nev-Ari 248 316 316 350 350 350 Goodsprings 257 257 296 476 476 476 Source: Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning and Regional Transportation Commission. (Year 2006 data came from CCDCP.)
Table 24B: Estimate of VMT Per Capita

VMT City Per capita 2013 2020 2030 Laughlin 5 100,234 160,660 252,750 Searchlight 2 2,740 3,288 3,324 Blue Diamond 2 1,249 1,380 1,390 Cal-Nev-Ari 2 597 648 650 Goodsprings 2 561 956 966 VMP Per Capita Index Source: Texas Transpor tation Institute, Urban Mobility Study

Table 24C: Summary of Percent VMT and Average Speed for Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roadways
Roadway Type Percent VMT Speed (mph)

Minor Arterial 39 35
Collector 33 30

Local 28 36APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 45 Table 24D: Summary of Forecast VMT by Average Speed on Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roadways

VMT Place/Roadway Type 2013 2020 2030 Laughlin Minor Arterials (35 mph) 39,091 62,657 98,573 Collectors (30 mph) 33,077 53,018 83,408 Locals (25 mph) 28,066 44,985 70,770 Searchlight Minor Arterials (35 mph) 1,068 1,282 1,296 Collectors (30 mph) 904 1,085 1,097 Locals (25 mph) 767 921 931 Blue Diamond Minor Arterials (35 mph) 487 538 542 Collectors (30 mph) 412 455 459 Locals (25 mph) 350 386 389 Cal-Nev-Ari Minor Arterials (35 mph) 233 253 254 Collectors (30 mph) 197 214 215 Locals (25 mph) 167 181 182 Goodsprings Minor Arterials (35 mph) 219 373 377 Collectors (30 mph) 185 315 319 Locals (25 mph) 157 268 270 Total Minor Arterials (35 mph) 41,098 65,103 101,041 Collectors (30 mph) 34,776 55,088 85,496 Locals (25 mph) 29,507 46,741 72,542 Source: Regional Transportation Commission



### 6. Carbon Monoxide Mobile Source Emissions Forecasts

6.1. Introduction

Mobile source emissions for CO are calc ulated by using emission factors developed through the Mobile6.2 emissions model. These emission factors are the average emissions per vehicle-mile for a particular speed of travel, as determined by the EPA. The settings used in the Mobile6.2 model were developed in cooperation with the Clark County Department of Air Q uality Management, and are simila r to those used in the development of the CO SIP.

The Mobile6.2 model takes into consideration the effects of the different emissions from various vehicle types, such as passeng er vehicle, light truck, heavy truck and motorcycle, as well as the effect of the mix of gasoline-powered and diesel-powered vehicles.46 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Specific input settings define the following factors for each fo recast horizon year:

• Fleet mix composition,

• Mileage accumulation rates by vehicle type and age,

• Vehicle registration rates by vehicle type and age,

• Impact of inspection/maintenance programs,

• Impact of anti-tampering programs,

• Impact of refueling controls,

• Reid vapor pressure of fuel,

• Daily minimum, maximum and ambient temperatures,

• Oxygen content of fuel and

• Vehicle speed.

The basic calculation steps are: The link-sp ecific emissions calculation is performed based on the procedure outlined in the 2005 CO SIP; Adjust the daily volumes to hourly volumes; Adjust the link speeds using the hour ly volume to capacity ratio in the BPR curve; Calculate the hourly link VMT as the hourly volume ti mes the link length; Calculate the link emissions as the link VM T times the MOBILE6.2 composite emission factor for the link roadway type, hour, and adjusted link speed; Adjust the emissions to average December day, by HPMS factor, count -to-model volume factor, growth factor and transit factor. The emissions for each facility type are then summed to give the modeled mobile source emissions for each year, as shown in Table 25.

Table 25: 2010-2030 CO Emissions Summary

Total CO Emissions (tons/day) Facility Type 2007 2010 2013 2015 2020 2030 External 2.15 2.08 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.35 System-to-system Ramp 4.77 4.64 4.51 4.45 4.41 5.56 Minor Arterial 45.03 47.25 49.47 52.78 57.75 65.02 Major Arterial 122.77 118.89 115.00 114. 15 113.59 118.28 Ramp 14.34 13.68 13.02 13.17 13.40 13.89 Interstate 92.26 88.96 85.65 89. 77 95.96 114.16 Freeway 37.72 41.35 44.99 47.85 52.14 59.51 Expressway 5.62 2.81 0.01 0.01 0.01 9.76 Collector 27.90 27.93 27.96 27.33 26.91 30.95 Centroid 29.20 29.43 29.67 30.44 31.59 33.72 Local 0.53 0.49 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.63 HOV 0.00 0.95 1.90 2.00 2.16 9.30 TOTAL 382 378 375 384 400 463 Budgets 623 690 690 768 817 817
Source: The budgets were from Clark County Carbon Monoxide Modeling and SIP, October, 2005, DAQEM, Emission Calculations are from the Regional Transportation Commission staff.
The horizon analysis years for this RTP ar e 2013, 2020 and 2030. However, to meet the Transportation Conformity Rule, in addition to including the attainment year and the last year of the transportation plan, the analysis must include any years which the SIPAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 47 establishes MVEB that are withi n the timeframe of the transpor tation plan. For CO, that means that the analysis years 2010 and 2015 must be included. Note that the emissions analysis, for compar ison to the years when MVEBs are established, may be determined by interpolating between the years for which t he full regional emissions analysis is performed. Therefore, if r egional emissions were established by a full network run for 2013 and 2020, emissions for 2015 could be interpolated for comparison to the MVEB. In Table 25, t he emissions for year 2010 were interpolated from the emissions between years 2007 and 2013, and the emissions for year 2015 were interpolated from the emissi ons between years 2013 and 2020.

Modeled mobile source CO emissions can be reduced through the appl ication of credits for the various Transportation Control Measur es as defined in the State Implementation Plan. The first of these measures - techni cian training - is related to the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program , and the effect of this pr ogram is included in the emissions modeling process th rough the application of the re levant Mobile 6.2 input settings. The other TCM’s have the effect of reducing emissions below the level predicted through the modeling process. Based on the information supplied by the DAQEM, reduction factors are included in the CO input setup file for the Mobile 6.2 modeling of the travel output from the RTC’ travel demand mo del. Table 26.shows that the net CO Emissions are the same as the To tal emissions listed in Table 25. As the future CO Emissions are below the budgets with big marg ins, this analysis will not extend to extensive and detailed discu ssions about the control measures.

Table 26. Net CO Emissions Emissions in Tons Per Day

2007 2010 2013* 2015 2020 2030
Modeled CO Emissions 382 378 375 384 400 463
TCM’s Credited in Model n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net CO Emissions 382 378 375 384 400 463 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff



### 7. PM10 Modeling Assumptions

7.1. Transportation Activities Contribution to PM 10 

### Emissions According to the 2001 PM 10 SIP, over 37 percent of the Las Vegas Valley’s dust emissions are related to transportati on activities; 26 percent of the PM 10 emissions are linked to travel on paved roads and 9 percent can be attributed to travel on unpaved roads. While the inventory process has corre ctly characterized the problem, it is beneficial to review the primary sources of PM 10 to understand how control regulations for construction will reduce future emissions and help to demonstrat e positive air quality conformity.

The paved roadway network itself is not dire ctly responsible for emissions. Rather, fugitive dust originating from construction activities and di sturbed vacant land are the primary contributors. Wind and construction “track out” deposit dust on roads and the48 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA movement of vehicles traveling over the pavement re-entrains the dust into the air, which contributes to the regional PM 10 emission problem. Pav ed road emissions also include a category of streets where the paved surface does not exceed 28 feet in width and are classified as streets with “unpaved shoulders”. The idea is that, due to the narrow paved width, vehicles often travel onto the shoulders and track dust back onto the paved surface, contributing to the regional PM 10 emissions.

On the other hand, when vehicles travel over unpaved roads they directly disturb the surface and create PM 10 emissions, which also cont ribute to the regional PM 10 problem at a rate of about 9 percent of the total. By the end of June 2003, Clark County and other local governments had pav ed all unpaved roads in t he PM10 nonattainment area with an ADT of 150 or more. By March 2004, the local governments had paved all unpaved roads with an ADT of 100 or more. Th is fully implements the road paving contingency measure set forth in Section 4.6. 3 of the PM10 SIP. These actions were documented in the Clark County PM 10 State Implementation Plan Milestone Achievement Report dated June 2007 and submitted to EPA Region 9 by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection on October 3, 2007. In addition to PM 10 emissions linked to travel on paved and unpaved roads, there are several other PM 10 emission sources that must be accounted for within the transportation conformity process. These include:

• Vehicular exhaust,

• Vehicular brake wear,

• Vehicular tire wear and

• Road construction. 2

Table 27. Roadway Silt Loading Factors

Paved Roads Roadway Category 2006

Ext. Connector 0.470 Freeway Ramps 0.620
Minor Arterial 0.470 Major Arterial 0.490 Ramps 0.620

Interstate 0.020 Freeway 0.020 Expressway 0.020
Collector 0.620

Local 1.720 Inter-Zonal Trips 1.720
Public Transit 0.014

2 Note that road construction is treated the same wa y that general construction is treated - all applicable dust control regulations are applied to the site during construction activity to ensure emission reductions.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 49 

### 7.2. PM 10 

### Emission Budgets for the An nual and the 24 Hour NAAQS and PM 10 

### Emissions For Paved Roads The SIP budgets provide a stepped appr oach to achieving the NAAQS for PM 10 , with a 2006 budget for the 24-hour standard. The reduction in the mobile source emission budget between the years 2003 and 2006 reflects the effectiveness of the control strategies for both construction activities and the stabilization of disturbed lands as defined within the 2001 PM 10 SIP; see pages 5.33 - 5.36 of the 2001 PM 10 SIP. Table 27. identifies the PM 10 roadway silt loading rates devel oped from the most recent silt sampling data.



### 7.2.1. VMT and Silt Loading The silt loading factors in Table 27 are based on silt samp ling that occurred in 2003, 2004 and 2005 as part of Clark County’s 2001 SIP commitments. A number of silt sampling sites were kept constant during the 2000 through 2005 samp ling periods. As a result, several of the sampling sites were impacted by construction activity track-out during the 2003 through 2005 sampling period. This data reflects current actual silt loadings on Las Vegas Valley roadways, including roads impacted by construction activity track-out. As shown in Table 27, there is a bi g difference between the dust emissions from the various r oadway facility types, from 0.1 grams per vehicle-mile on Interstates to over 1 gram per vehicle-m ile on local roads. However, there is no differentiation between the factors that apply in different parts of the valley.



### 7.2.2. Unimproved Shoulder Calculation: SIP Control Implem entation Schedule Calculations for roadways with unimprov ed shoulders come directly from data developed by Clark County in support of the PM10 SIP. Ba sed on the programming of CMAQ funds to reduce/elim inate roadways with less than 28' of paving, the SIP roadway remediation schedule is as follows:

• 50 percent in 2004

• 25 percent in 2005

• 25 percent in 2006

It is assumed there will be no signifi cant area of unpaved shoulders remaining after 2006

.


### 7.3. PM 10 

### Roadway Emissions Calculation
Table 28 shows the calculation of PM 10 emissions from paved roadways based on these current silt loading factors and average vehicle fleet weight. Clark County DAQEM conducted an assessment of average fleet vehi cle weight using Ne vada Department of Motor Vehicles data through 2005. Based on this assessment, it was determined that the 2006 average vehicle fleet weight for Clark County was 2.29 tons. The results were published in a report titled Average Vehicle Fleet Weight in Clark County, Nevada

, dated January, 2006. The find ings were presented to the Clark County Technical Advisory Committee for comment and reviewed by EPA Region 9 staff.50 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA 

### 7.4. PM 10 

### Emissions from Vehicles
The SIP emission rates for on-road mobile sour ces, including actual vehicle emission calculations for Vehicular Sulfate Particulate Matter, Tire We ar, Brake Wear and Exhaust Particles are set out in Table 29.

For this conformity analysis, the DAQEM advi ses that, in view of the minimal difference between the rates for the various facility types, it is acceptable to use a single rate for all VMT in each horizon year ana lysis. The rate for 2006 is 0.072 grams per vehicle-mile. The rate for 2006 is used for all subsequent years, as shown in Table 30.



### 7.5. Roadway Construction PM 10 

### Emissions
A series of PM 10 inventories were conducted during the 1999-2000 peri od in support of the SIP development. The following identifi es the assumptions for the purpose of estimating PM 10 from highway construction.



### 7.6. Roadway Construction PM 10 

### Emissions
A series of PM 10 inventories were conducted during the 1999-2000 peri od in support of the SIP development. The following identifi es the assumptions for the purpose of estimating PM 10 from highway construction.

CONSTRUCTION : Highway Construction PM 10 Emission Rates

• Calculate total number of months for analysis period

• Convert the Lane Miles of Project to Acres 5280 x 12 (average lane width) = 63,360 square feet in a lane mile 63,360/43,560 (number of square feet in an acre) = 1.45 acres per lane mile Factor: 1.45 x total project lane mile = number of acres under construction

• Apply SIP emission factor = .42 tons/month = 840 pounds/acre/month

• Apply Best Management Practice re duction factor to total acres under construction = Product - (product x .68)

• Convert to Average Day Emissions: di vide by 30.5 (annual average days in month) and divided by total numbe r of month for analysis period

WIND EROSION : Highway Constructi on Emission Calculations for PM 10

• Define Project Acres Obtain acre calculation for analysis peri od from Step 1 of Highway Construction.

• Apply PM 10 Wind Erosion Rates Per Day to Acre Calculation 35% of Acres x 7.60 x 10 -4 tons 65% of acres x 1.98 x 10 -2 tons

• Define Total Daily Wind Erosion Add products from Step 2

• Apply Sections 90 through 94 Regulations Reduce by 71%

These rates are applied to the estimated acreage covered by highway construction projects, and the results are set out in T able 30. For the years 2003 through 2005, acreages have been calculated based on projects identified in the TIP. The average of these three years is used as a basis for 2006 and subsequent yearsAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 51 Table 28. PM 10 Roadway Analysis for Horizon Years
2006 2013 2020 2030

Facility Type Adjusted 2013 AAWDVMT Adjusted 2020 AAWDVMT Adjusted 2030 AAWDVMT PM10 Emission Factors (g/v-m) Paved Road Emissions (kg/day) Paved Road Emissions (kg/day) Paved Road Emissions (kg/day) External connectors 290,372 343,717 426,371 1.85 537 636 789 System Ramps 484,480 552,264 749,713 2.215 1,073 1,223 1,661 Minor Arterials 6,913,064 9,483,163 11,243,333 1.85 12,789 17,544 20,800 Major Arterials 16,158,628 18,868,310 20,686,624 1.901 30,718 35,869 39,325 Ramps 1,399,312 1,674,907 1,873,418 2.215 3,099 3,710 4,150 Interstates 11,098,518 14,559,764 18,038,688 0.238 2,641 3,465 4,293 Freeways 5,869,720 7,934,791 9,404,817 0.238 1,397 1,888 2,238 Beltway 759 1,824 1,484,200 0.238 0 0 353 Collectors 3,985,159 4,539,278 5,426,105 2.215 8,827 10,055 12,019 Centroid connectors 3,888,323 4,788,550 5,326,531 1.901 7,392 9,103 10,126 Other Local Roads 58,200 66,316 98,544 4.299 250 285 424 HOV Lanes 297,116 393,743 1,833,031 0.238 71 94 436 Public Transit Bus 56,686 68,023 68,023 4.299 244 292 292 Intra-zonal 185,167 189,624 216,687 4.299 796 815 932 DAILY TOTALS 50,685,502 63,464,276 76,876,086 69,835 84,980 97,838 Convert to US tons per day 0.001102 0.001102 0.001102 PM10 Emissions (Tons per day) 77.0 93.6 107.8 2006 Mobile Source PM10 Emissions Budgets for the Las Vegas Valley 141.41 141.41 141.41 AAWDVMT=Average Annual Week Day Vehicle Miles Traveled

. Transit Daily Miles was provided by the RTC Transit Department 8- 13-2008. Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff Table 29. Mobile Source PM 10 Emission Factors (Grams per Vehicle-Mile) Roadway Category 2013 2020 2030
Ext. Connector 0.0275 0.026 0.0257 Freeway Ramps 0.0275 0.026 0.0257 Minor Arterial 0.0275 0.026 0.0257 Major Arterial 0.0275 0.026 0.0257 Ramps 0.0275 0.026 0.0257 Interstate 0.0275 0.026 0.0257 Freeway 0.0275 0.026 0.0257 Expressway 0.0275 0.026 0.0257 Collector 0.0275 0.026 0.0257 Local 0.0275 0.026 0.0257 Inter-Zonal Trips 0.0275 0.026 0.0257 Public Transit 0.0275 0.026 0.0257
Source: DAQEM Table 30. PM 10 Vehicle Emissions

2013 2020 2030

AAWDVMT 44,793,987 56,020,120 67,921,978 Vehicle Emissions Factor (gm/v-m) 0.0275 0.026 0.0257
PM10 Vehicle Emissions (kg/day) 1,232 1,457 1,746 PM10 Vehicle Emissions (tons/day) 1.36 1.61 1.92
Source: DAQEM52 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Table 30. PM 10 Emissions from Highway Construction and Wind Erosion

2013 2020 2030
SOURCE Link Lane Link Lane Link Lane
CONSTRUCTION Construction Miles 110.9 679.4 122.2 786.1 296.8 1105.0 Horizon Year Total Projects 144 104 58 Number of months in Horizon Year 60 84 24 Estimated Acreage 985 1140 1602 Emissions Factors (tons/acre/mon) 0.42 0.42 0.42 PM10 Vehicle Emission (tons/day) 0.2261 0.1869 0.9193 Best Practices Reduction (%) 68% 68% 68% Net PM 10 Emissions (tons/day) 0.07235 0.0598 0.2942 WIND EROSION Estimated Acreage 985 1140 1602 Erosion Rate (tons/acre/day) 35% of site 0.00076 0.0008 0.0008 65% of site 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 PM10 Emissions (tons/day) 0.27 0.31 0.4544 Sections 90-94 Reduction (%) 71% 71% 71% Net PM 10 Emissions (tons/day) 0.19097 0.2193 0.3226 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff.



### 7.6.1. More about Particulate Matter (PM 10 

### ) Analysis Methodology

Year 2007 serves as the “base” and form the basis for each later scenario, The horizon years 2013 and 2020, serve as intermediate analysis points. The long-range horizon year of the transportation plan's forecast period, the year 2030, shall be the final emissions analysis year.

The PM 10 emissions predicted by the horizon year scenarios, defi ned in above, shall be less than the mobile s ource emission budget established in the 2001 PM 10 SIP. The approved PM 10 mobile source emissions budget is 141.41 tons per day for 2006 and successive planning horizon years.

The Table 31 summarizes the calculation of total PM 10 mobile source emissions for each of the horizon analysis years.

Table 31. Total PM 10 Mobile Source Emissions Per Day for Horizon Years

SOURCE 2013 2020 2030
Paved Road Dust 76.96 93.65 107.82 Vehicle Emissions 1.53 1.81 2.17 Highway Construction 0.07 0.06 0.29 Windblown Construction Dust 0.19 0.22 0.32

PM 10 Mobile Source Emissions 78.75 95.74 110.60
BUDGET 141.4 141.4 141.4
Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 53 

### 8. Ozone Modeling Assumptions

Currently, there is no Ozone O 3 budget for the RTC modeling area. The EPA gave nonattainment areas until 2008 to develop a new SI P and mobile source budget for O 3 . In the absence of an emission budg et, the RTC will compare the “Action” scenario versus the “No Build” scenario as defined in 40 CFR Part 93. The regulatory prescribed comparison is structured as follows.

Travel demand (VMT) and the associated emission estimate s are generated for future travel under two scenarios. For the “Action” scenario all travel is loaded onto the “anticipated” built network as defined in th e project listing that comprises the 2013-2030 project list in the RTP. The emission estima tes are calculated for the “Action” scenario by required horizon years, i.e., 2013, 2020 and 2030. The emission output for the “Action” scenario is compared against the “No Build” scenar io for each of the horizon years. If the “Action” scenario emission es timates are less than the “No Build” for each of the horizon years, the region is determined to be in positiv e transportation conformity for O 3

.

The “No Build” scenario is defin ed as: 1) the in-place roadway network as of RTP’s start year of 2009, 2) assumption of the continuation of all ongoing travel demand management and/or transportation system managem ent activities, 3) the continued application of any SIP mandated control measures, and 4) inclusion and assumption of completion for all “ongoing” roadway constr uction projects. Except for the model networks are coded as No Build or Action scenar ios, the same travel demand input files based on the same land use information were applied into the model for the “Action” scenario and the “No Buil d” scenario for each of the horizon years.



### 8.1. Estimating Regional Trav el for Ozone Conformi ty

The RTC estimates travel by horizon years for CO and PM 10 utilizing the regional travel demand model, which encompasses the Las Ve gas urban area. The non-attainment area for O 3 is larger than the extent of the travel model domain the RTC maintains. Therefore, the RTC estimate s regional travel for the r oadway network outside of the urban area. Working with NDOT, RTC esti mated VMT and travel speeds for the roadway network outside of the urban area. This included segments of I-15, US 93, US 95, State Route (SR) 157, SR 158, SR 159, SR 160, SR 161, SR 163, SR 164, SR 167, SR 168 and roadways in Laughlin. VMT esti mates were based on regression analysis data provided by NDOT. Travel speed esti mates were based on data published in NDOT’s Annual Speed Monitoring Report Details.



### 8.2. Ozone Roadway Emissions Calculation

Tables 32A through 32C display the re sults of air quality modeling for O 3 . The modeling process uses levels of nitrous oxides (NO x ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), precursors of O 3 , to forecast the effectiveness of the RTP/TIP on levels of O 3 . Mobile54 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA 6.2 was run to obtain the NO x and VOC emission factors fo r urbanized areas and these factors were applied to the corre cted, adjusted and modeled VMT.

Mobile 6.2 was run separatel y to obtain the emission parameters for Rural Areas and these emission factors were applied to the VMT outside the modeling areas. As Tables 33 – 34 show that emissions from outside m odeling areas are constant for the same horizon years regardless of Buil d or No Build. The Total NO x and VOC emissions should include all emissions outside the modeling area but within the Ozone Non – attainment boundary, but this inclusion does not change t he results of the Build versus No-Build tests for the analysis on Ozone pollut ants. Table 35 shows the total NO x and VOC emissions including the emissions withi n the modeling area, and the areas outside modeling area but within the boundaries of the Ozone Nonattainment Areas for all horizon years.

Table 32A. 2013 Horizon Year VOC and NO x Emissions for TDF Modeling Area
NO x (tons/day) VOC (tons/day) Build vs. No Build

ROAD TYPE Build No Build Build No Build NO x VOC

External 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.00 System-to-system Ramp 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.28 -0.01 -0.01 Minor Arterial 3.47 3.47 4.75 4.80 -0.01 -0.06 Major Arterial 8.68 8.69 13.51 13.61 -0.01 -0.10 Ramp 0.69 0.69 0.78 0.79 0.00 -0.01 Interstate 5.91 6.01 8.52 9.33 -0.10 -0.81 Freeway 2.90 2.91 3.40 3.48 0.00 -0.08 Expressway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Collector 2.01 2.01 2.87 2.90 0.00 -0.03 Centroid 2.13 2.13 3.59 3.59 0.00 0.00 Local 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 HOV 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.00 TOTAL EMISSIONS 26.30 26.44 38.04 39.13 -0.14 -1.09 Source: Regional Transportation Commissi on staff. Same for Tables 32B and 32C.

Table 32B. 2020 Horizon Year VOC and NO x Emissions for TDF Modeling Area
NO x (tons/day) VOC (tons/day) Build vs. No Build

ROAD TYPE Build No Build Build No Build NO x VOC

External 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 System-to-system Ramp 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00 Minor Arterial 2.49 2.49 4.52 4.50 0.00 0.02 Major Arterial 5.39 5.39 10.74 10.69 0.00 0.05 Ramp 0.42 0.42 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.00 Interstate 4.12 4.13 8.36 8.46 -0.01 -0.10 Freeway 2.02 2.05 3.11 3.26 -0.03 -0.15 Expressway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Collector 1.17 1.18 2.08 2.11 -0.01 -0.03 Centroid 1.35 1.35 2.88 2.88 0.00 0.00 Local 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 HOV 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.10 0.01 0.01 TOTAL EMISSIONS 17.27 17.31 32.73 32.92 -0.04 -0.18APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 55 Table 32C. 2030 Horizon Year VOC and NO x Emissions for TDF Modeling Area
NO x (tons/day) VOC (tons/day) Build vs. No Build

ROAD TYPE Build No Build Build No Build NO x VOC

External 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 System-to-system Ra mp 0.13 0.11 0.20 0.17 0.02 0.03 Minor Arterial 2.14 2.33 4.52 5.13 -0.19 -0.61 Major Arterial 4.43 4.72 10.75 11.91 -0.29 -1.16 Ramp 0.34 0.33 0.50 0.49 0.01 0.01 Interstate 3.76 3.73 10.43 11.69 0.03 -1.25 Freeway 1.74 1.68 3.37 3.14 0.06 0.23 Expressway 0.59 0.58 3.72 3.65 0.01 0.06 Collector 1.01 1.11 2.18 2.33 -0.10 -0.15 Centroid 1.07 1.08 2.72 2.73 0.00 -0.01 Local 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 HOV 0.27 0.08 0.48 0.12 0.19 0.35 TOTAL EMISSIONS 15.57 15.84 39.05 41.55 -0.26 -2.49

Table 33A. Interstate and Major Road NO x Emissions Outside TDF Modeling Area VMT and Emission Factors

Outside Corridor Horizon Year VMT Emission Factors VMT Ave 2013 2020 2030 2013 2020 2030 Speed NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC 104,000 128,180 152,100 35 0. 849 0.538 0.42 0.38 0.292 0.318

88,000 95,200 108,000 40 0.864 0.517 0.43 0.36 0.296 0.303

5,250 5,614 7,875 45 0.897 0.5 0.44 0.35 0.304 0.29 2,800 2,800 2,800 45 0.897 0.5 0.44 0.35 0.304 0.29 8,400 9,600 10,920 45 0.897 0.5 0.44 0.35 0.304 0.29 96,000 110,000 125,000 50 0.951 0.486 0.46 0.34 0.316 0.28 103,040 137,200 182,000 55 1. 031 0.474 0.49 0.33 0.334 0.273

74,480 89,300 123,500 55 1.031 0.474 0.49 0.33 0.334 0.273 12,240 13,716 16,470 55 1.031 0. 474 0.49 0.33 0.334 0.273 208,000 208,000 275,600 55 1. 031 0.474 0.49 0.33 0.334 0.273 169,000 205,400 221,195 60 2. 055 0.432 0.83 0.31 0.488 0.263

48,000 55,000 62,500 65 2.102 0. 432 0.851 0.309 0.497 0.263

7,840 9,400 13,000 65 2.102 0. 432 0.851 0.309 0.497 0.263 11,400 13,050 15,900 65 2.102 0. 432 0.851 0.309 0.497 0.263 888,000 1,140,000 1,440,000 70 2.102 0.432 0.851 0.309 0.497 0.263

18,810 20,350 24,200 70 2.102 0. 432 0.851 0.309 0.497 0.263 165,600 204,000 252,000 70 2. 102 0.432 0.851 0.309 0.497 0.263

38,400 43,680 53,640 70 2.102 0. 432 0.851 0.309 0.497 0.263 22,000 26,000 31,200 70 2.102 0. 432 0.851 0.309 0.497 0.263 675,840 816,000 1,008,000 75 2. 102 0.432 0.851 0.309 0.497 0.263

Source: Emission factors from Mobile 6 Rural Run results. VMT from Regional Transportation Commission staff. See tables in previous section.56 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Table 33B. NOX and VOC Emissions From Interstate, Highways and Major Arterials Outside Modeling Area

Outside Corridor VMT 2013 Emissions 2020 Emissions 2030 Emissions

2013 VMT 2020 VMT 2030 VMT NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC
104,000 128,180 152,100 88,296 55,952 53,707 48,068 44,413 48,368

88,000 95,200 108,000 76,032 45,496 40,460 34,177 31,968 32,724

5,250 5,614 7,875 4,709 2,625 2,465 1,942 2,394 2,284 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,512 1,400 1,229 969 851 812 8,400 9,600 10,920 7,535 4,200 4,214 3,322 3,320 3,167 96,000 110,000 125,000 91,296 46,656 50,710 36,850 39,500 35,000 103,040 137,200 182,000 106,234 48,841 67,640 45,002 60,788 49,686

74,480 89,300 123,500 76,789 35,304 44,025 29,290 41,249 33,716 12,240 13,716 16,470 12,619 5,802 6,762 4,499 5,501 4,496 208,000 208,000 275,600 214,448 98,592 102,544 68,224 92,050 75,239 169,000 205,400 221,195 347,295 73,008 171,304 63,469 107,943 58,174

48,000 55,000 62,500 100,896 20,736 46,805 16,995 31,063 16,438

7,840 9,400 13,000 16,480 3,387 7,999 2,905 6,461 3,419 11,400 13,050 15,900 23,963 4,925 11,106 4,032 7,902 4,182 888,000 1,140,000 1,440,000 1,866,576 383,616 970,140 352,260 715,680 378,720

18,810 20,350 24,200 39,539 8,126 17,318 6,288 12,027 6,365 165,600 204,000 252,000 348,091 71,539 173,604 63,036 125,244 66,276

38,400 43,680 53,640 80,717 16,589 37,172 13,497 26,659 14,107 22,000 26,000 31,200 46,244 9,504 22,126 8,034 15,506 8,206 675,840 816,000 1,008,000 1,420,616 291,963 694,416 252,144 500,976 265,104 Convert to US Tons Per Day (Kg/day by /1000, tons by * 0.001102) 0.00000110 TOTAL

2,747,100 3,332,490 4,125,900 5.48 1.35 2.78 1.16 2.06 1.22 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff. Table 34A. 2013 Minor VOC Emissions Outside TDF Modeling Area

Speed VOC emission factor NOX emission factor Total VMT VOC emissions NOX emissions
Minor Arterials 35 0.538 0.849 41,098 22,111 34,893 Collectors 30 0.57 0.862 34,776 19,822 29,977 Other Local Roads 25 0.898 0.61 29,507 26,497 17,999 Convert to US Tons Per Day (Kg/day by /1000, tons by * 0.001102) 0.00000110 TOTAL 105,380 0.08 0.09 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff. Table 34B. 2020 Minor Year NO x Emissions Outside TDF Modeling Area

Speed VOC emission factor NOX emission factor Total VMT VOC emissions NOX emissions
Minor Arterials 35 0.375 0.419 65,103 24,414 27,278 Collectors 30 0.399 0.427 55,088 21,980 23,522 Other Local Roads 25 0.447 0.43 46,741 20,893 20,099 Convert to US Tons Per Day (Kg/day by /1000, tons by * 0.001102) 0.00000110 TOTAL 166,932 0.07 0.08 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 57 Table 34C. 2030 Minor VOC Emissions Outside TDF Modeling Area

Speed VOC emission factor NOX emission factor Total VMT VOC emissions NOX emissions
Minor Arterials 35 0.318 0.292 101,041 32,131 29,504 Collectors 30 0.341 0.299 85,496 29,154 25,563 Other Local Roads 25 0.37 0.314 72,542 26,841 22,778 Convert to US Tons Per Day (Kg/day by /1000, tons by * 0.001102) 0.00000110 TOTAL 259,080 0.10 0.09 Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff.

Table 35. TOTAL NO x and VOC Emissions for Horizon Years

2013 2020 2030

TYPE Build No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build No Build Modeled Emission 26.30 26.44 38.04 39.13 17.27 17.31 32.73 32.92 15.57 15.84 39.05 41.55 Highway Emission Outside Model Area 5.48 5.48 1.35 1.35 2.78 2.78 1.16 1.16 2.06 2.06 1.22 1.22 Local Emission Outside Model Area 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 TOTAL 31.85 31.99 39.49 40.58 20.13 20.17 33.97 34.16 17.73 18.00 40.36 42.85 NO x ( tons/da y) VOC ( tons/da y) NO x ( tons/da y) VOC ( tons/da y) NO x ( tons/da y) VOC ( tons/da y)

Source: Regional Transportation Commission staff.



### 9. Finding of Conformity It is a requirement of Feder al and State Conformity Regu lations that the projected mobile source emissions for the Non-attain ment Area for the pollutants should be lower than the Budgets contained in t he State Implementation Plans.

For CO, the projected net mobile source emissions are compar ed with the Mobile Source Emissions Budgets set out in t he September 6, 2006 amendment to the “Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan for t he Las Vegas Valley No nattainment Area” Clark County Board of Commissioners, August 2000 . For PM 10 , the projected emissions resulting from the process descr ibed in Section 5.6 are compared with the Mobile Source Emissions Budgets set out the “PM 10 State Implementation Plan for Clark County, Nevada” . For O 3 , the projected emissions re sulting from the process described in Section 8 are compared with the “No Build” scenario as defined in 40 CFR Part 93.

As shown in Table 36, these tests of conf ormity are satisfied for all pollutants.58 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Table 36. Conformity Test Summary

CO (tons/day) PM10 (tons/day)

Year Emissions Emissions Budget Conformity Requirement Emissions Emissions Budget Conformity Requirement

2010 378 690 Satisfied
2013 375 690 Satisfied 78.75 141.44 Satisfied
2015 384 768 Satisfied
2020 400 817 Satisfied 95.74 141.44 Satisfied
2030 463 817 Satisfied 110.60 141.44 Satisfied NOx (tons/day) VOC (tons/day) Year Build No Build Conformity Requirement Build No Build Conformity Requirement

2013 31.85 31.99 Satisfied 39.49 40.58 Satisfied
2020 20.13 20.17 Satisfied 33.97 34.16 Satisfied
2030 17.73 18.00 Satisfied 40.36 42.85 Satisfied

Based on the foregoing analysis, the pr ojects and programs contained in the Regional Transportation Plan FY 2009-2030 f ound to be in conformity with the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the relevant sections of the Final Conformity Rule 40 CFR Part 93 and the procedures set forth in the Clark County Transportation Conformity Plan.



### 9.1. Transportation Control Measures A second component of conformity determina tion is an assessment of the progress in implementing TCMs. These measures are intended to reduce emissions or concentrations of pollutants from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or otherwise reducing vehicle emissions.

As part of the conformity process, the RTC mu st certify that TCMs identified in the SIPs are either programmed or are being implemented on schedul e and that no Federal funds are being diverted from t hese projects in such a way as to delay their timely implementation. Due to the l ength of the text and the level of detail associated with the control measures discussion for both CO and PM 10 , this analysis will not extend further discussion here.



### 9.1.1. Statement of TCM Progress As required by 23 CFR, Part 450.324, n(3) , in non-attainment areas, the TIP must describe the progress in implementing any required TCMs, including any reasons for significant delays in the planned implement ation and strategies for ensuring their advancement at the earliest possible time. The following table provides the existing status of TCMs fr om both the CO and PM 10 SIPs.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 59 

### 9.1.2. Transportation Control Measure Certification
The RTC of Southern Nevada cert ifies that TCMs identified in the both the 2000 CO SIP and the 2001 PM 10 SIP are being implemented on schedule and that no Federal funds are being diverted from these projects in such a way as to delay their timely implementation. Table 37 lists some of the adopted mobile source TCMs.

Table 37. Status of Adopt ed Mobile Source Transportation Control Measures
Carbon Monoxide
Control Measures from 2000 CO SIP Emission Reduction Status

Voluntary Transportation Control Measure/TDM 0.08% Ongoing; the RTC's TDM program is described in detail in Section 4 Alternative Fuels Program for Government Fleets 0.12% Ongoing; local government committed to alternative fuels program Previously Adopted Enforceable Control Measure Adoption Date Status

Motor Vehicle Inspection & Maintenance Program 1978 Ongoing

Fleet Over 1967 Ongoing Particulate Matter 10 Microns or Less (PM10) Control Measures from 2001 PM10 SIP Status

Paving of Unpaved Roads Ongoing contracts with member entities for paving; funds programmed into the TIP. Stabilize Narrow Roadway Shoulders Approved and programmed into the TIP.

Transportation Construction - Rules 90-94 Ongoing; all transportation construction projects must conform. All transportation construction contracts, regardless of funds source, include the requirement to conform to Rules 90-94.60 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADAAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 61 

# APPENDIX 4-A:

RTC 2004 Regional Travel Demand Model Package 2 for 2009-2030 RTP Travel Demand Model

Transit Processing and Mode Choice Modeling Capabilities

Prepared for:



### Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada62 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA 

# 2009-2030 RTP Travel Demand Model - RTC 2004 Regional Travel Demand Model Package 2

Transit Processing and Mode Choice Modeling Capabilities - Basic Procedures

Introduction

The RTC 2004 Regional Travel Demand Model Package 2 A (hereafter short for The RTC 2004 Model Pack 2) will be used for the 2009-2030 RTP. The RTC 2004 Model Pack 2 adds transit processing and mode choice modeling capabilities to the RTC 2004 Regional Travel Demand Model (hereafter s hort for The RTC 2004 Model) that was used in the 2006-2030 RTP.

The RTC 2004 Model represents an evolution of travel fore casting models and model components specifically developed for the Las Vegas Valley portion of Clark County. Model components for trip generation, trip distribution, and auto occupancy models were re-estimated based on the 1996 regional tr avel survey. In addition, 2000 Census data were used to update socioeconomic s ub-models for trip generation and to reexpand the 1996 travel survey data. (for model details, refer to RTC 2004 Regional Travel Demand Model) . The RTC 2004 Model has been updated to the RTC 2004 Model Pack 2 by including additional and opti onal transit processing and mode Choice modeling capabilities. This document provides a description of the basic procedures included in the RTC 2004 Model Pack 2:

• Transit network coding procedures

• Transit path-buildi ng and skimming procedures

• Mode choice procedures

• Transit assignment procedures

The simplified mode split procedure in t he RTC 2004 Model continues to be used for forecasts not requiring detailed mode choice processing. Results from the detailed procedures described in this document can be aggregated and summarized at the district level to provide input for the simp lified mode split procedures. If the proposed changes are sufficiently large (e.g. the wideni ng of an interstate freeway), it might be reasonable to use the simplifie d mode split for initial planning forecasts and then use the detailed transit modeling an d mode choice procedures described in this chapter for final alternative testing.


### Transit Network Description

For the base year or currently, the Citiz ens Area Transit (CAT) provided public transportation services for the Las Vegas Valley. Fixed-route local bus service provideAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 63 the bulk of the existing transit system wit h limited stop service and express service being. Most bus routes provided 30 minute headways throughout the day; several routes offered 24-hour service but with 45 minute or 60 minute headways during the “owl” service. In 2004, the monorail servi ng the Las Vegas Strip and the MAX bus rapid transit (BRT) demonstration project on Nort h Las Vegas Boulevard were opened. The transit routes, including local bus, limited bus , express bus and premium services for the base year and future years were coded into the TransCAD network fo r the model. The following Figure1 shows the transit system t hat existed in 2002-20 03 as an example.

YEAR 2000 - T RANSIT ROUTES

Figure 1: 2002-2003 CAT Bus Routes

Para-transit services are also provided in the region. CAT provides a several fixed routes that serve retirement communiti es, shopping areas, and establishments which provide services to seniors. The routes offer limited services two days each week. These routes are not c onsidered part of the m odeled transportation system.

While all current transit services provide relatively balanced services throughout the day, both peak and off-peak transit networks ar e coded for the modeling process. This64 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA approach provides the capability to analyze future alternatives that vary service by timeof-day.

Transit speeds have been coded to reflect th e schedule nature of transit service but also taking into consideration prevailing roadway speeds for mixed flow operations. Scheduled time points for the tr ansit service were recorded on the coded transit network for the morning peak, afternoon peak, and off- peak periods. The travel times on links between time points were estimated by prorat ing the scheduled travel times over those links on a route-by-route basis. The re sulting average speeds on links were summarized by facility type, area type, and time-of-day for each route. Modeled congested speeds are updated within the modeling process by running several iterations of the ent ire modeling process until final a ssigned roadway speeds reasonably match the roadway network speeds used fo r trip distribution and mode choice.

Transit speeds for premium transit services will be estimated for each alternative based on the operating characteristics of the alter native, station spaci ng, and station dwell times. In general, transit speeds for prem ium transit services will be unaffected by changes in modeled congested speeds on roadways.


### Transit Access Coding

Walk Access

Substantial effort was expended to determine appropriate walk access coding conventions for the RTC 2004 Pack 2. Si nce walk access distance data were not recorded for the 2002 on-board survey, the “ best” walk access coding distance was determined through multiple assignments of t he observed trip tables derived from the 2002 survey data to the 2002 network. The re sulting modeled boardings by line were compared to observed boardings by line. This effort was part of the determination of transit path-building parameters.

The best results were obtained when walk a ccess was coded to all transit within 1.25 miles of a TAZ. Walk access distances were varied by trip purpose and income group being modeled. The variation in walk access distances reflec t the fact that lowe r income groups are more likely to be captive and, thus, more likel y to walk longer distances to access transit than higher income groups. About 80 percent of the linked trans it trips summarized from the 2002 CAT on-board survey were made by travelers reporting low or lowermiddle incomes. The walk access distances al so reflect that resident s do not walk long distances to transit for non-home-based trips and, likewise, that visitors do not walk long distances to transit.

Two different transit networks (peak and o ff-peak) are each used for path-building. Value-of-time is also varied for the path-building process. Two di fferent value-of-time assumptions are used for the visito r paths. In total, five diffe rent sets of walk access to transit skims are built. Table 1 shows the wa lk distances for transit path-building for different trip purposes and different income groups.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 65 Table 1: Walk Distances for Transit Path-Building

Trip Purpose Income Group Network Used Maximum Walk Access Distance

(Miles) Maximum Walk Transfer Distance

(Miles) Walk Speed (MPH)

Home-Based Work Low & Lower Middle Peak 1.25 0.25 3 Home-Based Work Upper-Middle & High Peak 0.5 0.25 3 Home-Based Non-Work All Off-Peak 0.5 0.25 3 Non-Home-Based All Off-Peak 0.5 0.25 3 All Visitor All Off-Peak 0.5 0.25 3

Walk access is allowed to occur over t he coded roadway network provided the network link is not part of a limited access facility (i nterstate, freeway, expressway, system ramp or ramp). In all cases, transfer walk times are limited to one-quarter mile (five minutes). All walk access and walk transfer are assu med to occur at a three mile per hour average walking speed.

Drive Access

While there is very little forma l park-and-ride facilities and ex isting auto access to transit in the Valley, park-and-ride might be a very im portant component of future alternatives. The recently opened (2003/2004) South Strip Tr ansit Terminal provides parking along with facilitating transfers between CAT fixed routes and bus lines. For future alternatives, drive access will be allowed to premium transit stations with proposed formal park-and-ride lots. Bicycl e, drop off and other access will also be considered as “walk” access.



### Transit Path-Building

Impedances for path-building consider fare s and weighted travel times. Since relationships between fares, in-vehicle time, wait-time, and walk time vary by trip purpose (and income group for home-based work trips), maintaining complete consistency between path-buildi ng and mode choice parameters would require runs of transit path-builder for trip purpose and income group for which the mode choice model has been calibrated. This would imply building 13 different sets of transit paths for walk access to bus, alone. For the RTC 2004 Pa ck 2, some simplification has been assumed so that only five sets of walk a ccess to bus transit paths need to be built.

Since transit path-building c onsiders transit fare s paid, the current CAT system fare policy must be understood. That fare policy (a s obtained from the RTC web-site) is as follows:

Full Fare, Reduced Fare, Full and Reduced Passes, and Transfers.

Based on an analysis of 2003 revenue and boardi ng information, the average fare for local bus service taking into account of discounts and passes was calculated; the66 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA average fare paid for express buses were calculated too. The modeled fares are probably more consistent with the auto operat ing costs represented to the model. The “full fare” method has been used for path-building and modeling purposes. For the mode choice model application, fa res are expressed in 1995 dollars.

Value-of-time can be determined from the mode choice model. Again, for simplification, values-of-time have been combined for a number of trip purposes. All weighted time values were converted to monetary term s and combined with fares for path-building purposes.

Improved model results were obtained if the added transfer penalties were also included in the mode choice models. Through calibr ations, an added transfer penalty of seven minutes per transfer was found to produce reasonable results.

The path-building weights will be used for tr ansit path-building and transit assignment along with the trip purposes that will be mode led using each set of transit impedances. The transit assignments show that ther e is a high correlation between the modeled boardings by line and the obser ved boardings by line. See Table 2 as an example.

Table 2: 2002 Transit Assignment Summary

Measure Observed (Summarized from 2002 CAT On-Board Survey) Assigned Observed Trip Tables Number of Linked Trips 109,282 109,282 Total Boardings 142,744 150,360 Boardings per Linked Trip 1.31 1.38 Boardings by Type of Service Local Bus 139,836 147,412 Limited Bus 2,320 2,642 Express Bus 588 306 Coefficient of Determination (R 2 ) 0.96 Root Mean Squared Error on Boardings 837 Percent Root Mean Squared Error 26%APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 67 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Observed BoardingsModeled Boardings

Local

Limited
Express

Figure 2: Assignment of Ob served 2002 Linked Trips vs. Observed Boardings by Route



### Mode Choice

Resident Trip Purposes

Resources were not available for the full development of mode choice models for the Las Vegas Valley. Thus, the decision was m ade to transfer a model to the region and update the model constants to reproduce obser ved transit ridership for the region. Several donor models were considered. The Las Vegas Travel Demand Model was prepared by PBQ&D in 2001. This mode c hoice model was estimated based on the spring 1996 household survey supplement ed with data from an on-board transit passenger travel survey performed in Oct ober and November 1995. Since the PBQ&D model offers the benefit of being estimated using local data, the use of the PBQ&D mode choice model as the donor model was reasonable. Figure 3 shows the structure of the PBQ&D model.

The following changes were made to the PBQ& D model structure shown in Figure 3:

• The 2004 RTC Model is a trip -based model that models a ll trips made in motorized vehicles. Trips made using non-moto rized modes are not modeled.

• Premium transit services such as the monorail and MAX BRT system are being planned and implemented in the Las Vegas r egion. Some of the service will offer multiple transit options within a corridor. For example, both the monorail and buses provide transit service on the Strip. Thus , a local / premium nest under the walk to transit access mode has been added to the mode choice model. Since park-and-68 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA ride lots are normally associated with premiu m transit services offered to outlying areas, there is little need to provide a lo cal / premium nest under the drive access mode.

Choice

Motorized

Auto Transit

Drive Alone Shared Ride

2 Person 3+ Person Walk Access Drive Access

Local Bus Park-andRide Kiss-andRide Walk/Bike

Figure 3: PBQ&D Mode Choice Model Structure

The analysis of toll roads is an increasing re quirement in many regions, especially in fast growing areas like Las Vegas. A nesti ng structure for the testing of toll road alternatives could be added to the model under the drive alone, shared ride 2, and share ride 3+ nests. The toll road nest w ould need to be adapted from work performed elsewhere (e.g. Southern California).

Since the average wage rates for each income group were known, the coefficients of cost for the home-based work mode choice m odel could be varied by income group to be more consistent with FTA guidelines. It’s interesting to note that the $6.12 per hour rate is within the FTA guidelines. Severa l changes were made to the original PBQ&D mode choice models for consistency with FTA guidelines or to enhance consistency with transit path-build ing procedures. Figure 4 show s the general mode choice model structure used for the 2004 RTC Park 2. The st ructure shown in Figure 4 is used for all resident trip purposes.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 69 Choice

Auto Transit

Drive Alone Shared Ride Walk Access Drive Access

2 Persons 3+ Persons Local Service Premium Service Drive Alone Drive Access

Figure 4 : 2004 RTC Mode Choice Model Structure

Visitor Trip Purposes

The PBQ&D visitor models were adapted for use with the 2004 RTC Pack 2 with Mode Choice Analysis. The mode choice model structures and param eters for the three general types of visitor models were transfe rred for the 2004 RTC Pack 2. The generic multinomial mode choice structures for t he three types of visitor models (multi-day visitors, single day visitors, and airport related trips) are shown in Fi gure 5 and Figure 6. Unlike, the models for residents of the region, the visitor models forecast all person trips, not just person trips m ade in motorized vehicles. T hus, walk skims are required for the mode choice model impl ementation. The walk skims are built over the coded roadway network links except freeway or ra mp links. Several other “exotic” modes are included in the visitor mode c hoice models: taxi, shuttle bus, and tour bus. And, private auto must consider both autos privately owned by visitors and those rented by visitors.

Choice

Walk Taxi Public Bus Shuttle Bus Premium Transit Private Auto

Figure 5: 2004 RTC Pack 2 Mode Choice Model Structure – Multi-day & Single Day Visitor Trips70 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Choice

Private Auto Taxi Public Bus Shuttle Bus Tour Bus Premium Transit

Figure 6: 2004 RTC Pack 2 Mode Choi ce Model Structure – Airport Trips

The originally transferred visitor models incl uded 12 trip purposes. Several of the trip purposes were combined for mode choice m odeling purposes. However, efforts were made to combine only those purposes that were relatively similar both in terms of the type of trip being modeled and in terms of model coeffici ents. Table 3 shows the original trip purposes and the combined purposes.

As with the resident-based mode choice models, a coefficient on the number of transfers was added to the visitor and airport models. The coefficient for each transfer was set to be equivalent to seven mi nutes of in-vehicle travel time.

Mode choice model parameters and mode spec ific constants for the visitor and airport models are shown in Table 4. No te that the taxi base fare is fixed and could effectively be incorporated into the taxi mode constant. However, incorporating the fixed values as input constants allows for the considerati on of policy changes such as a cutting the frequency of shuttle service if fixed guidewa y transit to the air port is provided or changing the “drop fare” for taxi service.

Table 3: Combination of Visito r Trip Purposes for Mode Choice Original Trip Purpose Combined Trip Purpose Hotel-Based Convention Hotel-Based Business Hotel-Based Convention / Business
Hotel-Based Gaming Hotel-Based Gaming Hotel-Based Other Hotel-Based Other Non-Hotel-Based Gaming Non-Hotel-Based Other Single-Day Non-Airport-Based Business Single-Day Non-Airport-Based Other Non-Hotel-Based

Resident Airport Resident Airport Visitor Airport Airport-Based Business Airport-Based Other Vistor Airport

Two distinct types of visitor travel or trav elers can be identified based on the values-oftime: travelers with very high values-of-time and travelers with “nor mal” values-of-time. The low value-of-time suggests that the trips are made at a more leisurely pace with travelers being less willing to substitute higher cost and fast modes for lower cost and slower mode. The airport trips are also a ssociated with low values-of-time for severalAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 71 reasons, such as the value-of-t ime for airport trips is in t he range for noted for residentbased trips.



### Mode Choice and Transit Assignment Validation Results

Table 4 summarizes the observed and model ed linked transit trips and transit mode shares by trip purpose. The observed link ed transit trips by purpose were estimated from the expanded 2001/2002 on-board transit travel surv ey data. Table 4 simply shows that the calibration process was succe ssful in reproducing the observed targets.

Table 5 summarizes the observed and m odeled boardings by the path-building techniques defined previously. The modeled boar dings per linked trip are higher than the observed boardings per linke d trip. As discussed in the section describing pathbuilding parameters, the boardings per linked trip could be reduced by increasing the maximum walk access distances. When new on-board survey data are collected for the Las Vegas region, a concerted effort shoul d be made to obtain good data on walk access and egress distances since reliable obs erved data could lead to improvements to the modeling process.

Table 4: 2002 Observed and Modeled Transit Trips by Purpose Trips Mode Shares Trip Purpose Observed Modeled Observed Modeled Home-Based Work Low Income 17,920 17,896 29.8% 29.8% Lower Middle Income 12,377 12,376 16.9% 16.9% Upper Middle Income 5,303 5,303 2.9% 2.9% High Income 3,599 3,599 0.8% 0.8% Total Home-Based Work 39,199 39,174 5.2% 5.2%
Home-Based School 2,471 2,464 0.7% 0.7% Home-Based Shop 9,304 9,275 2.1% 2.1% Home-Based Other 33, 820 33,810 1.8% 1.8% Non-Home-Based 11,558 11,486 0.9% 0.9% Total Resident Trips 96,352 96,209 2.1% 2.1%
Hotel-Based Convention / Business 257 257 0.4% 0.4% Hotel-Based Gaming 5,994 5,948 4.1% 4.1% Hotel-Based Other 3, 343 3,338 2.2% 2.2% Non-Hotel-Based 3,308 3,302 1.9% 1.9% Airport-Based Resident 0 51 0% 0.4% Airport-Based Visitor 85 85 0.1% 0.1% Total Visitor Trips 1 12,987 12,981 2.1% 2.1% Total Trips 109,339 109,190 2.1% 2.1%
1 Includes resident-based airport trips.72 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Table 5: 2002 Observed and Modeled Transit Boardings by Path Set Boardings Boardings / Trip Trip Purposes Path-Set Observed Modeled Observed Modeled Home-Based Work Low & Lower Middle Income 1 41,833 51,300 1.39 1.69 Upper Middle & High Income 2 11,673 16,521 1.32 1.86 Home-Based Non-Work 1 3 59,331 71,336 1.31 1.57 Non-Home-Based & Visitor – Low Value-of-Time 2 4 18,608 23,344 1.25 1.56 Visitor – High Value-of-Time 3 5 11,299 13,692 1.19 1.43 Total Boardings 142,744 176,194 1.31 1.61
1 Includes home-based school, home-based shop, and home-based, other trips.
2 Includes hotel-based other, airport-based resident and airport-based visitor trips.
3 Includes hotel-based convention/busine ss, hotel-based gaming, and non-hotel-based trips.

. 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Observed BoardingsModeled Boardings

Local

Limited
Express

Figure 7: Assignment of Modeled 2002 Transit Trips vs. Observed Boardings by RouteAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 73 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Boardings from Assigned Observed TripsModeled Boardings

Local

Limited

Express

Figure 8: Assignment of Modeled 2002 Linked Trips vs. Assignment of Observed 2002 Linked Trips by Route

Figures 7 and 8 compare the modeled and obs erved boardings on a route-by-route basis. Figure 7 compares the assignment of the modeled trip tables with the observed boarding counts from 2002. Figure 8 compar es the assignments of the modeled trip tables to the assigned observed trip tables summarized from the 2002 on-board survey. The information in the above tables and the fo llowing figures suggest that the modeling process is reasonably reproducing observed travel

Table 6 summarizes assignment statistics co mparing the observed boardings with the assignment of the observed trip tables su mmarized from the 2002 on-board survey and the assignment of the modeled trip tables.

Table 6: Transit Assignment Summary
Trip Tables Assigned Measure Observed Boardings Observed Modeled Number of Linked Trips 109,339 109,339 109,190 Total Boardings 142,744 150,360 176,194 Boardings per Linked Trip 1.31 1.38 1.61 Boardings by Type of Service Local Bus 139,836 147,412 170,743 Limited Bus 2,320 2,642 3,878 Express Bus 588 306 1,57274 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA 

## MODELING PREMIUM TRANSIT AND DRIVE ACCESS TO TRANSIT

Premium Service Descriptions

Two new transit services were initiated in the Las Vegas region in 2004: The MAX service connecting the Downtown Transit Cent er with Nellis Air Force Base via North Las Vegas Boulevard was opened on June 30, 2004. The Strip Monorail service was opened between the MGM Grand Hotel and Casi no on Tropicana and the Sahara Hotel and Casino on July 15, 2004. These two new services provided a unique opportunity to test the ability of the trans it processing procedures and ca librated mode choice models to properly model new transit services.

Premium Service Calibration Process

Since detailed transit trip purpose or origin- destination data were not available for the services, the specification of the correct nesting structure and alternative specific constant was developed by running the fo llowing tests and comparing the resulting boardings to observed boardings for the la te-2004 through early-2005 time period:

• Both services were coded and modeled as local transit services with no special treatment other than correctly spec ifying speeds, headways, and fares.

• Both services were coded as above but we re modeled as premium transit services, including separate transit path-building and mode choice ; the “local service” alternative specific constants were used.

• Both services were coded as above but we re modeled as premium transit services, including separate transit path-building and m ode choice; “premium service” alternative specific constants were spec ified via trial and error to best match boardings.

Premium Service Path-Build ing and Modeling Procedures

The same basic path-building parameters fo r local transit paths were used. Fare weights for local bus use were used when pr emium paths were built. Fares for local buses were set as $5.00 boarding fares with additional $5.00 transfer fares between local buses. In contrast, boarding fares fo r premium transit modes were set to the proper values (i.e. $0.99 in 1995 dollars fo r the MAX and $2.39 in 1995 dollars for the monorail). Transfers to or fr om premium transit routes were free. Premium transit fares were also adjusted after the premium path-build ing to remove the artificially high local bus boarding and transfer fees. Also, the skims from the premium-only paths are compared to the skims using premium and local service and the “best” im pedances are used for mode choice.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 75 Premium Service Calibration Results

The modeling of MAX and monora il as premium transit services was determined to be the desirable approach. A numbe r of iterations of the ca libration process were made with different values for the premium alte rnative specific cons tants and with the pathbuilding procedures. A reas onable calibration was obtai ned for the MAX boardings with no difference between the values of the cons tants used for local and premium service.

The alternative specific constants for walk to local and walk to premium transit show that there is no difference between the local and premium constants for each trip purpose.

Figure 9 and Table 7 compare the modeled and observed boardings on a route-by-route basis for 2004/2005. The validation to the 2004/2005 provides two benefits:

• Validation of the prem ium transit modeling

• Validation for a year other than th e year used for model calibration

Figure 9 can be compared to Figure 7 for a qualitative comparison of the match between modeled and observed tr ansit boardings by route fo r the original 2002 and the 2004/2005 validations. With the exception of the underestimati on of the Monorail, the two figures show simila r patterns for the modeled versus observed trips.

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Observed 2005 BoardingsModeled Boardings

Local

Limited Express

Premium

Figure 9: Assignment of Modeled 2004/2005 Transit Trip s vs. Observed Boardings by Route76 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA The match between the modeled and observed rider ship in two corridors is important in the determination of the validit y of the models. Specifica lly, the reproduction of the transit ridership in the North Las Vegas Bo ulevard corridor demonstr ates the ability of the model to estimate ridership on premiu m services while the reproduction of transit ridership in the Strip Corridor is crucial in showing the reproduction of ridership resulting from the visitor market. In to tal, observed transit ridership in the corridor is quite reasonably reproduced.

In December 2005, ridership on the Deuce was just under 50,000 boardings per day and stabilized around 35,000 to 40,000 per day in early 2006. The ridership on the Deuce demonstrates the volatility of transit ridership in the Strip corridor. The model results suggest the need for a premium transit alternative specific constant representing substantial travel time savings.

The results obtained for the MAX, the St rip Corridor, and the Monorail were all considered in making decisions regarding the final “validated” model for the region. While the MAX ridership was overestimated with no equivalent travel time savings for premium transit, ridership on the Monorail was substantially underestimated. It is very unlikely that Monorail will be considered in any of the alternatives to be considered for New Starts so the estimation of Monora il ridership becomes less important.

Table 7 summarizes assignment statisti cs comparing the observed and modeled boardings. Results from the 2002 validation are also shown for a direct comparison of the model validation results for the two year s. Table 8 summarizes the modeled transit trips and transit mode shares for 2002 and 2 004/2005. The results shown in Table 8 coupled with the validation results summariz ed in Table 7 suggest that the model is reasonably sensitive to changes in socioec onomic characteristics and transportation supply.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 77 Table 7: 2004/2005 Transit Assignment Summary
2004/5 Results 2002 Results 3 Measure Observed Modeled Observed Modeled Number of Linked Trips 1,2 112,791 112,791 109,339 109,190 Total Boardings 1,2 154,902 183,309 142,744 176,194 Boardings per Linked Trip 1,2 1.37 1.62 1.31 1.61 Boardings by Type of Service Local Bus 142,503 170,676 139,836 170,743 Limited Bus 6,139 5,443 2,320 3,878 Express Bus 600 1,597 588 1,572 MAX 5,660 5,593 – – Strip Monorail 22,000 2,285 – – Coefficient of Determination (R 2 ) 2 0.89 0.96 Root Mean Squared Error on Boardings 2 2,170 1,671 Percent Root Mean Squared Error 2 62% 50%
1 Actual number of linked transit trips for 2004/2005 is unknown. The modeled number of transit trips was assumed to be correct.
2 The value excludes 2,285 assumed monorail trips (one trip per Monorail boarding) since Monorail ridership was estimated from information included in a press release rather than being based on actual passenger counts. The Monorail Company does not publish actual ridership data.
3 Source: Table 10-18.

Table 8: 2002 and 2004/2005 Mode led Transit Trips by Purpose Modeled Trips Mode Shares Trip Purpose 2002 2004/2005 2002 2004/2005 Home-Based Work Low Income 17,896 18,519 29.8% 28.6% Lower Middle Income 12,376 12,448 16.9% 15.8% Upper Middle Income 5,303 5,026 2.9% 2.5% High Income 3,599 3,271 0.8% 0.7% Total Home-Based Work 39,174 39,264 5.2% 4.9%
Home-Based School 2,464 2,477 0.7% 0.6% Home-Based Shop 9,275 9,631 2.1% 1.9% Home-Based Other 33, 810 35,886 1.8% 1.7% Non-Home-Based 11,486 11,993 0.9% 0.8% Total Resident Trips 96,209 99,250 2.1% 1.9%
Hotel-Based Convention / Business 257 461 0.4% 0.7% Hotel-Based Gaming 5,948 6,925 4.1% 4.2% Hotel-Based Other 3, 338 4,116 2.2% 2.4% Non-Hotel-Based 3,302 4,054 1.9% 2.1% Airport-Based Resident 51 108 0.4% 0.8% Airport-Based Visitor 85 163 0.1% 0.2% Total Visitor Trips 1 12,981 15,826 2.1% 2.3% Total Trips 109,190 115,076 2.1% 1.9%
1 Includes resident-based airport trips.

Drive Access to Transit

Since there has been very little use of the fa cility for park-and-ride access to transit, as for the 2002 calibration year, drive access to transit could not be calibrated based on 2004-2005 model results. Nevertheless, since future transit alternatives might make78 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA use of park-and-ride access to attract choice riders, modeling procedures must be specified. The following summarizes modeling assumpti ons regarding the coding and modeling of drive access to transit:

• Drive access will be coded only to formal park-and-ride lots.

• Maximum drive access distances will be five miles to all park-and-ride lots except for end-of-line stations; at end-of- line stations, drive access of up to fifteen miles will be allowed.

• Drive access distances and times will be determined from the coded roadway network.

• For mode choice, drive access cost will be determined using the same cost per mile as for the auto mode.

• Drive access will be modeled for all home-based trip purposes using the nesting structure shown in Figure 10- 5; drive access will not be forecast for non-home-based trips.

• Drive access to transit will not be fore cast for non-resident trip purposes.

• Drive access time will be considered as out-o f-vehicle travel time for mode choice; for the home-based work purposes , the out-of-vehicle time coefficient is 2.0 times the in-vehicle time coefficient and for the home-based non-work trip purposes, the out-of-vehicle time coefficient is 3.0 times the in-vehicle time coefficient.

The drive access to transit alternative s pecific constants have been estimated. The proposed regional fixed gui deway system, including park-and-ride lots, was coded for the 2005 network. Two sets of forecasts were made:

• A forecast allowing only walk access to transit was performed to provide estimates of transit ridership without park-and-ride.

• A second set of forecasts allowing par k-and-ride was performed. Park-and-ride constants were varied so that approximat ely 15 to 30 percent of the total premium transit ridership for each purpose was by auto access.

Table 9 shows the target percentages of auto access by trip purpose along with the “calibrated” constants to achieve those per centages in the 2005 se nsitivity test. The percentages shown in Table 9 should result in about 25 percent of all premium transit home-based work trips and about 15 percent of all premium trans it home-based nonwork trips being made by auto access. In co mparison, in the Denver region which has a very well developed park-and-ride system, approximately 45 perc ent of the total systemwide home-based work trips are made using auto access and about 30 percent of the home-based non-work trip s are made by auto access.APPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 79 Table 9: Target Drive Access Percentages by Trip Purpose

Trip Purpose Target Drive Access Percent “Calibrated” Constant Equivalent Minutes of In-Vehicle Travel Time (Compared to Walk Access to Transit) Home-Based Work Low Income 15% -0.65066 -104.4 Lower Middle Income 20% -1.15773 -97.7 Upper Middle Income 25% -2.55443 -89.6 High Income 30% -3.38720 -85.1 Home-Based School 10% -4.05754 -153.1 Home-Based Shop 15% -2.40336 -140.1 Home-Based Other 15% -2.17282 -127.0



## MODELING HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES

Modeling Issues

By design, the mode choice model includes the capability to estimate shared ride auto use by group size. Model constants were calibrated to reproduce observed two-person and three or more person shared ride auto use by trip purpose for 2002. The estimates of the observed two-person and three or mo re person shared ride auto use were based on the 1996 household survey data.

Future highway alternatives might inclu de the provision of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Experience elsewhere has show n that HOV lane users value the travel time saved through the use of HOV lanes more highly than the simple difference between travel time on the HOV lanes and on general purpose la nes. If HOV lane traffic volumes increase to the point wher e HOV lanes are exper iencing congestion, modification of the minimum ca rpool size allowed to use the HOV lanes can be made to reduce the HOV lane delay caused by congestion.

The original mode choice model included coeffi cients for HOV travel time savings. The HOV time savings variable, as specified, is applied to any HOV time savings in excess of five minutes. But the coe fficients could not be rigorously calibrated since HOV lanes were non-existent in the regi on in 1996 (when the data were co llected). As a result, the model coefficients were specified based on models developed in other regions.

The problem with forecasting HOV lane us e is similar to that encountered with forecasting drive access to transit. The FTA suggested that sensitivit y testing of results is important whenever drive access to transit is modeled. The same advice is applicable to the forecasting of HOV lane use. Table 10 summarizes the results of such testing for the region. The travel model was used to forecast HOV shares and HOV lane use for 2030 for the following scenarios:

• A no-build scenario where no HOV lanes we re assumed to exist in the region.

• The build scenario where an extensive HOV lane system was implemented for the region.80 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA • The build scenario was modeled as above with the exception t hat the HOV time savings coefficient was applied to all in crements of time saved, not just the increment in excess of five minutes. This was the most generous modeling approach for forecasting HOV travel.

• The build scenario was modeled as above with the exception t hat the HOV time savings coefficient not used. This was t he most restrictive m odeling approach for forecasting HOV travel.

The results summarized in Table 10 provide an i dea of the sensitivity of the travel model to the HOV time savings coefficient. Si nce the coefficient cannot be rigorously calibrated, the sensitivity analysis as out lined above should be considered whenever planning and analysis of HOV lane alternativ es is performed. In cases where HOV lanes are assumed to be in ex istence and an unrelated transit or roadway alternative is being analyzed, the model coefficient can be used as specified in Table 10.

Table 10: HOV Time Savings Co efficient Sensitivity Testing
TRIPS BY MODE NOBUILD BUILD DIFFERENCE % CHANGE drive alone 5,197,452 5,197,383 (69) 0.0% shared ride 2 3,140,653 3,142,550 1,897 0.1% shared ride 3+ 2,754,531 2,755,983 1,452 0.1% walk to local transit 211,198 208,097 (3,100) -1.5% walk to premium transit 31,348 31,490 142 0.5% drive to transit 4,704 4,382 (322) -6.8% Total 11,339,885 11,339,885 (0) 0%
T:\BETH\RTP 09-30\DOC\Model Methodology-Mode Choice Sections 2006-05-05 Pk2_v1.docAPPENDIX 4 to the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 81 

# APPENDIX 4- B

NDOT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS FOR THE RTC MODEL EXTERNAL TAZS

Clark County External AADT's 2000-2030

Source: NDOT Staff

TAZ # Description 2000 AADT (total) 2005 AADT (total) 2006 AADT (total) 2010 AADT (total) 2015 AADT (total) 2020 AADT (total) 2025 AADT (total) 2030 AADT (total)

1 US95, 5.9 mi N of SR156 (0030374) 5,200 5,450 5,550 6,250 7,000 7,700 8,500 9,300

2 US93, at MP LN-25 S of Alamo (0170001) 1,600 1,500 1,550 1,650 1,750 1,850 2,000 2,200

3 IR15, 2 mi S of Valley of Fire Intch (0030730) 17,000 21,700 22,100 25,400 30, 000 34,000 38,000 42,000

4 SR157, .2 mi W of US95 (0030368) 2,750 2,700 2,750 3,500 4,200 4,700 5,800 6,500

5 SR147, .4 mi E of Los Feliz St (0030734) 3,000 2,600 2,750 3,500 4,200 4,700 5,800 6,500

6 SR159, .1 mi E of rd to Red Rock Canyon (0030358) 2,850 4,550 5,300 6,400 8,000 9,800 11,500 13,000

7 SR564, 1.7 mi E of Las Vegas Pkwy (0033200) 3,200 2,900 2,900 3,700 4,400 4,900 6,000 6,500

8 SR160, E of SR159 (0030361) 8,750 9,550 9,750 12,000 15,000 17,000 19,000 21,000

9 US93, .3 mi E of Boulder Beach Hwy (0035220) 12,900 13,000 13,000 18,000 20, 000 22,000 23,500 25,000

10 US95, .1 mi S of RxR Pass Intch (0031014) 7,600 12,300 12,700 13,000 16, 000 19,000 21,000 24,000

11 IR15, at the NV/CA line (0031110) 35,000 39,500 40,500 45,000 50, 000 55,000 60,000 66,00082 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Source: Regional Transportation Commission Staff