In both cases, the trend is clear:

"Economic outcomes improve as a transportation system becomes more multimodal and efficient"

Full report here:
www.vtpi.org/ITED_paradox...

I'll definitely be citing this work going forward.

Also interesting but with a slightly lower R2 (explanatory usefulness) value is this plot of VMT per capita vs GDP per capita.

@hthonet @drewveysey does this consider the new proposed guidance from IRS that charger credits will be awarded by the ~port~ rather than by the ~station~?

I suspect that new discount could be a significant tie breaker

Disclaimer: today's live tweets were sent while traveling for an urbanism conference in Italy, so I blame any omissions on the complimentary event spritz

And no, sadly EV's still aren't prevalent enough to put a dent in this (~2% veh stock in 2024).

End rant, do better, have a nice day!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country

...meaning that pollution in 2024 is way higher than what's forecast here and likely increasing.

@MnDOT should correct this trendline to bake in the emissions from post pandemic driving.

Gee - please don't let them set targets around that forecast TAC!

Anyone in the biz could tell you @MnDOT is lowballing the BAU forecast with that 2020 trend line

Why? Per @USCBO, national VMT (and thus pollution) rebounded almost immediately to pre-demic levels in 2021

Folks who've driven in the 3 yrs since know that traffic has only grown..

BONUS RANT: This GRAPH that MnDOT presented

Spot the bizarr-o assumption!

Ok that's a wrap! Coming up next time:
1) 18 pages of glorious guidance on how to assess highway VMT/GHG!
2) brand spanking new regional target allocations (Duluth MnDOT's coming for ya!)
3) a hybrid forecast system that weighs SHIFT(!) and TDFM outputs! @CaltransHQ u listening?

This conversation was informed by some awesome sensitivity analysis from @ICF comparing TDFM's and SHIFT in real world settings, leading them to the conclusion to recommend SHIFT adherence in all urban settings.

TAC members - if you're listening - please consider requiring forecast validation with SHIFT as a firm part of the analysis process!

Its right and its free! It doesn't get any better than that.

As an @RockyMtnInst analyst, I can tell you that the SHIFT very robustly captures new tailpipe pollution from expansion based on real observed outcomes.

Requiring forecasts to be even somewhat near SHIFT entirely blows up the junk idea that expansions can decrease GHG

Fortunately, @ICF had this flow chart of how MnDOT would like to handle modeling to better address junk input.

Most welcomely, the slides suggested comparing TFDM results to @RockyMtnInst's peer-reviewed SHIFT Calculator to see if forecasts are "reasonable"

This is HUGE!!!!