PLANNING VARIABLE DEVELOPMENT AND METHODOLOGY

Transcription

1 PLANNING VARIABLE DEVELOPMENT AND METHODOLOGY Regional Transportation Commission Of Southern Nevada (RTC) Metropolitan Planning Organization 600 South Grand Central Parkway, Suite 350 Las Vegas, Nevada February 2008

2 Acknowledgement The land use forecasting is the result of the collaborative efforts of the Land Use Working Group and the RTC of Southern Nevada. RTC wishes to recognize and extend its appreciation to Land Use Working Group (LUWG), which includes the following organizations and individuals for their valuable assistance in the development of planning variables projections: Clark County (Comprehensive Planning Department) City of Las Vegas (Planning and Development Department) City of North Las Vegas (Planning and Development Department) City of Henderson (Community Development Department) These organizations have been instrumental in assisting defining the planned land use categories for the RTC's Travel Demand model socioeconomic data need. LUWG also set the initial residential densities or dwelling units for future population estimates prior to land development planning. Each LUWG member then developed its planned land use data in 5-year increment from 2006 through After the PV was developed, the members were involved in the quality control process. The principal points of contact from each organization were: John Wardlaw, Clark County (Comprehensive Planning Department) Richard Wassmuth, City of Las Vegas (Planning and Development Department) Johanna Murphy, City of North Las Vegas (Planning and Development Department) Andrew Powell and Sean Robertson, City of Henderson (Community Development Department) A special thanks to Jerry Sommerfeld of North Las Vegas Planning and Development Department and Brandon Bouier of Clark County Comprehensive Planning Department for their tremendous help Planning Variables Page i

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents...ii List of Tables...iii List of Maps...iv 1 INTRODUCTION DATA SOURCE HIGHLIGHTS FOR PV CREATION Data Structure of PVs DEVELOPMENT OF POPULATION Base Year Land Use and Population Future Year Land Use Forecast Future Year Population Development... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4 Benchmark DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYMENT Base Year Employment DETR Address Information & Address Matching Category Translation DETR Industry Code to TDF Model Employment Category Post Processes (Headquarter Issue) Future Year Employment QUALITY CONTROL AND VALIDATION OF DEVELOPMED PLANNING VARIABLES (POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT) SPECIAL GENERATORS SCHOOL ENROLLMENT CONCLUSION Planning Variables Page ii

4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Planning Variable Data Structure... 3 Table 2 GILIS Land Use Code... 5 Table 3 Summary of Residential Use and Population for Year Table 4 SNRPC/RTC Planned Land Use Categories... 7 Table 5 Forecast Developed Acreage for Year 2005 Year Table 6 Comparison with CBER Control Total... 9 Table 7 Summary of Address Matched DETR rd Quarter Employer Data Table CCSN Employment Data Table 9 DETR rd Quarter Employer Data Table 10 Summary of Address Matched DETR rd Quarter Employer Data Table 11 Acreage to Employment Factors Table 12 Employment/Passengers of NAFB, MIA, IIA Table 13 UNLV and NSC Employment and Enrollment Table 14 CCSN Enrollment Planning Variables Page iii

5 LIST OF MAPS Map 1 -- RTC 1644 Traffic Analysis Zones and Jurisdictions for TDF Model Map 2 -- RTC Districts for TDF Model Map 3 -- RTC Year 2006 Land Use Map 4 SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth Map 5 SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth Map 6 SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth Map 7 SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth Map 8 SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth Map Population in Traffic Analysis Zones Map Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones Map Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones Map Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones Map Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones Map Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones Map Population Total Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones Map Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones Map Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones Map Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones Map Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones Map Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones Map Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones Map School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones Map School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones Map School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones Map School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones Map School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones..Error! Bookmark not defined. Map School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones Map RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones Map RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones Map RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones Map RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones Map RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones Map RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones Planning Variables Page iv

6 1 INTRODUCTION This document provides the methodology and procedures used in the development of RTC Planning Variables (PV) for the RTC Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model during One of the most important TDF model inputs is socioeconomic/land use data. 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. It is widely acknowledged that land use forecasting is a complex process. All of the land use models currently in use in the United States, from the most sophisticated to the simplified, still appear to leave substantial uncertainty in their forecasts, requiring careful attention, the introduction of expert knowledge, and the expenditure of the significant amounts of time. (Making the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection, Appendix B, pg B-2) 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 Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson The SNRPC has provided consensus regarding the methodology for population and housing unit projections developed by LUWG in year Please refer to Appendix I for details. The group s charge is to define planned land development in 5-year increments using LUWG defined land use classifications which were specifically designed to address the data needs of PV development. The LUWG product is the land use forecast for the years of 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030 and 2035 as growth based on the vacant land for the Clark County Assessor s 2006 closed roll parcels (July 2006). The PV is developed based on the same source Assessor s 2006 parcel and LUWG August 2007 developed planned land uses. 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 governing 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 Planning Variables Page 1

7 2. DATA SOURCE HIGHLIGHTS FOR PV CREATION The PV tables are developed using the sources listed below. 1) Base Year Land Use: Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning s 2006 Geographically Integrated Land Use Information System (GILIS) Data (July 1, 2006 as cut-off date); 2) Future Year Land Use: SNRPC LUWG August 2007 developed land use growth plans in 5-year increment from year 2010 through year 2035, which is briefly described in the future land use forecast section; 3) Land Use Classification: Current Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning s 2006 Geographically Integrated Land Use Information System (GILIS) table (table 2); 4) Land Use Classification: Future LUWG defined planned land use category (table 4); 5) Employment Data: Nevada State Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) nd Quarter employer data. 6) Population and Employment Control Totals: UNLV Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) 2 7) Data from various agencies/institutions staff and web sites, including Nellis Air Force Base (NAFB), McCarran International Airport (MIA), University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV), Nevada State College (NSC), Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN), Clark County School District (CCSD); 8) Aerial photographs from Clark County Geographic Information System Management Office (GISMO). 2.1 Data Structure of PVs PVs are the land use input for Travel Demand Forecast (TDF) model. The RTC s TDF model requirements dictate inputs identified in the PV structure. The PVs are aggregated to the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) which were developed for travel demand forecasting purpose. Table 1 lists the current required structure. 2 Population Forecasts: Long-Term Projections for Clark County, Nevada, , Prepared by Bengte Evenson, Ph.D. and R. Keith Schwer Ph.D. July 27, 2005, The Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Nevada, Las Vegas 2009 Planning Variables Page 2

8 Table 1 Planning Variable Data Structure # FIELD DESCRIPTION 1 TAZ Unique Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) number 2 DISTRICT District number the TAZ falls in. Currently ranging from 1 through POP Population 4 DU Dwelling units 5 OCCDU Occupied dwelling units 6 HH_SIZE Household size 7 INC Household medium income quartile 8 TOTEMP Total employment excluding Special Generators (Nellis AFB, McCarran Int'l Airport, Ivanpah Int'l Airport, UNLV (Main & NLV campus), Nevada State College) 9 HOTEL Hotel employment 10 OFFICE Office employment 11 INDUST Industrial employment 12 R_SHOP Regional retail employment 13 C_SHOP Community retail employment 14 OTHER_RET Other (neighborhood) retail employment 15 OTHER_NON Employment not in any other employment categories 16 RETAIL Sum of R_Shop, C_Shop and Other_Ret) 17 NAFB Nellis Air Force Base employment (special generator and hard coded) 18 MIA_EMP McCarran Int'l Airport employment (special generator and hard coded) 19 MIA_PASS McCarran Int'l Airport average daily passengers (special generator and hard coded) 20 IVPH_EMP Ivanpah Int'l Airport employment (special generator and hard coded) 21 IVPH_PASS Ivanpah Int'l Airport average daily passengers (special generator and hard coded) 22 UNLV_MAIN_EMP UNLV main campus employment (special generator and hard coded) 23 UNLV_MAIN_ENR UNLV main campus student enrollment 24 UNLV_NLV_EMP UNLV NLV campus employment (special generator and hard coded) 25 UNLV_NLV_ENR UNLV NLV campus student enrollment 26 NEV_ST_COLL_EMP Nevada State College employment (special generator and hard coded) 27 NEV_ST_COLL_ENR Nevada State College student enrollment 28 F18 Student enrollment in 1st through 8th grades 29 F912 Student enrollment in 9th through 12th grades 30 F13 Student enrollment in higher education (practically Community College of Southern Nevada only) 31 DU2 Duplicates of field DU 32 CONV_SPACE Square feet of convention space 33 LOCATION Location Code: 1 = CBD, 2 = Resort Corridor, 3 = Urban, 4 = Suburban 34 CBD CBD Code: 1 = CBD, 0 = None CBD 35 STRIP Strip Code: 1 = Strip, 0 = None Strip 36 MED_INC Household medium income 37 JURIS_ID Jurisdiction IDs: 1=Lower Kyle Canyon, 2=Lone Mountain, 3=Las Vegas, 4=North Las Vegas, 5=Sunrise Manor, 6=NAFB, 7=Summerlin South, 8=Spring Valley,9=Winchester, 10=Paradise, 11=Whitney, 12=Enterprise, 13=Henderson, 14=Unincorporated 2009 Planning Variables Page 3

9 3. DEVELOPMENT OF POPULATION The RTC s PV development converts base year parcel land use data (year 2006) and SNRPC planned future land use to PVs (see table 1 for details) for base and future years respectively with the exception of base year employment. The base year employment is processed from DETR nd quarter employer data. The RTC s PV creation process includes following activities: 1) obtain and prepare base year population from GILIS 2006 parcel data provided by Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning; 2) obtain and prepare future land use forecasts through working with SNRPC LUWG; 3) establish jobs/acreage conversion method and factors; 4) develop PV; and 5) validate PVs. Post processes such as control total benchmark and LUWG review/quality control were performed as necessary. The part of PV information which is not land use-based is acquired through other means and integrated into the final PV product. Nellis Air Force Base (NAFB), McCarran International Airport (MIA), Ivanpah International Airport (IIA), University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV) - the main campus and North Las Vegas campus, and Nevada State College (NSC), are treated as special generators in TDF model. Their employments are not included in the employment categories in PV creation process. The method to derive special generators relevant employment and passengers is described in the next section. The school enrollment is discussed in the section entitled SCHOOL ENROLLMENT. Methodology and procedures of developing population, and employment are presented below. 3.1 Base Year Land Use and Population Every year in June the Assessor s office defines an official version (closed roll) of parcel geography along with AoExt (the parcel attributes database), etc. for the year. The version is submitted to and certified by the State of Nevada. The current base year land use is the Assessor s 2006 closed roll parcel. It contains two parts: the parcel geography and AoExt. AoExt is the parcel attribute database which includes land use. The copy of AoExt, called GILIS database, is maintained by Clark County Comprehensive Planning Department. It contains verified and corrected Assessor s parcel information and additional information for planning purpose. The GILIS 2006 data is developed by keeping the Assessor s parcel geography and some attributes. The parcel geography is linked with AoExt data through parcel number. During the GILIS data creation process, information such as zip code and census tract are added to the parcel attributes table. The units for condominium (an example of the one-to-many relationship among parcel geography and GILIS database) are calculated by assigning total units to the corresponding single parcel s capacity in parcel geography. The RTC base year PVs are developed using the GILIS 2006 data. Each parcel in the parcel geography is assigned to a TAZ. The parcel capacity in GILIS data is the number of dwelling units in the case of residential uses. The dwelling units, occupied dwelling 2009 Planning Variables Page 4

10 units and population are obtained based on GILIS land use code and are aggregated to TAZ level. Table 2 lists the GILIS land use code and definition. Table 3 is the summary of residential use and population for year 2006 by entities. Table 2 GILIS Land Use Code GILIS LAND USE CODE LAND USE DESCRIPTION FROM TO Residential Common Area Residential Residential - Other Manufacturing (food, etc.), R&D (electronic, etc) Industrial Mining Heavy Equipment Storage - Warehouses & Outdoor, etc., Ind. Condos Industrial Condos Hotel w/ Resort Hotel&Motel Casino Laundromat, copying center, etc Hospital Prof. & Business Services (medical, accountants, etc.) Day Care Financial (bank, etc.), Data Processing Center Entertainment Facilities (theater, race track, etc.) Indoor Recreation (pool parlors, athletic area, etc.) Outdoor Recreation (Driving Range, Golf Course, etc.) Regional Shopping Center Neighborhood Shopping Center Department Stores, etc Convenient Stores Restaurants Food & Beverage Business (Distributor) Auto Dealship Auto Rapair Auto Wrecking Yard Auto Service Sale of building&construction supplies and services RV Park Commercial Condos Other Commercial Activities, i.e. Race Track School Trade School Church Libraries, Post Offices, etc Cemetries Parks YMCA, Red Cross, United Way Social, community organizations Gov Facilities - Animal Control 2009 Planning Variables Page 5

11 GILIS LAND USE CODE FROM TO LAND USE DESCRIPTION Gov. offices Gov. Support services Police, fire stations Military Facilities Community centers Gov. Offices Agriculture, Ranching Communication & Utility Office Transmission Facilities Print Communication Shipping Terminals, Depots, Stops, Freight Docks, etc Parking lot, garage Major Utility Facilities Minor Improvements Right of Way 0 0 Vacant Table 3 Summary of Residential Use and Population for Year 2006 Entities Dwelling Units Occupied Dwelling Units Population N.Las Vegas 64,689 62, ,520 Las Vegas 227, , ,536 Unincorporated Clark County 345, , ,208 Henderson 102,841 99, ,390 Total 740, ,476 1,912, Future Year Land Use Forecast The future year land use forecast was created through the work of the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) Land Use Workgroup (LUWG) with the members representing the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Clark County and the RTC. The workgroup was formed to develop a consensus based process to define future land use development plans for the RTC s transportation planning process. Based on the available vacant land of the Assessor s 2006 closed roll parcel, the group created GIS data of planned land development using the SNRPC/RTC planned land use development definition. This future land use is in 5-year increments by jurisdiction covering the years from 2010 through It contains acreage and residential density or dwelling units for each development. Table 4 provides the LUWG defined planned land use categories. Table 5 is the summary of planned land use acreage by jurisdiction Planning Variables Page 6

12 Table 4 SNRPC/RTC Planned Land Use Categories # SNRPC/RTC Planned Land Use Category Description 1 SF Residential - Single Family 2 MF Residential - Multi Family 3 Hotel Hotel 4 RRet Retail Regional 5 CRet Retail Community 6 NRet Retail Neighborhood 7 Office Office 8 School School 9 OS Open Space 10 Ind Industrial 11 Other_Non Everything Else Table 5 Forecast Developed Acreage for Year 2006 Year 2035 Year Entity Residential Non_Residential Total Las Vegas 3,002 2,243 5,245 N. Las Vegas 2,523 1,591 4,114 Unincorporated CC 7,387 10,529 17,916 Henderson 2,646 1,851 4,497 Subtotal 15,558 16,214 31,771 Las Vegas 2,472 3,402 5,874 N. Las Vegas 1,872 2,663 4,536 Unincorporated CC 8,849 6,796 15,645 Henderson 3,019 2,231 5,250 Subtotal 16,212 15,092 31,304 Las Vegas 2,839 3,141 5,979 N. Las Vegas 2,411 3,442 5,853 Unincorporated CC 4,317 6,807 11,124 Henderson 6,998 2,274 9,273 Subtotal 16,565 15,664 32,229 Las Vegas 2,315 2,470 4,785 N. Las Vegas 2,538 1,154 3,691 Unincorporated CC 2,903 3,801 6,704 Henderson 2,145 2,475 4,620 Subtotal 9,900 9,900 19,800 Las Vegas 1,457 1,196 2,653 N. Las Vegas 1, ,561 Unincorporated CC 1,949 2,442 4,392 Henderson 189 1,078 1,267 Subtotal 4,900 4,972 9, Planning Variables Page 7

13 Year Entity Residential Non_Residential Total Total Las Vegas 669 1,248 1,917 N. Las Vegas 0 3,945 3,945 Unincorporated CC 1,550 1,832 3,382 Henderson Subtotal 2,219 7,024 9,243 Las Vegas 12,753 13,700 26,453 N. Las Vegas 10,649 13,050 23,699 Unincorporated CC 26,955 32,206 59,161 Henderson 14,998 9,909 24,906 Subtotal 65,355 68, , Future Year Population Development Given the acreage and units, the planned land use development had to be converted into population by multiplying occupancy rate and household size. The occupancy rate is provided by Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning (Refer to Regional Transportation Plan FY Appendix IV for Occupancy Survey and Household Size Survey), and the household size is based on the year 2000 census data. The occupancy rate is estimated by postal ZIP code geography and by dwelling type (single family, multi family and mobile home). The household size is estimated by census tract geography and by dwelling type (single family, multi family and mobile home). By applying the following formula, information such as dwelling units, occupied dwelling units, and population was obtained on parcel level. Occupied Dwelling Units = Dwelling Units * Occupancy Rate Population = Occupied Dwelling Units * Household Size The parcel level data are then processed with GIS to get the data for each of the 1635 internal Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). The population is divided by the occupied household in each TAZ to obtain the average household size for each perspective TAZ. 3.4 Benchmark It was decided by the LUWG that the Clark County 2006 through 2035 population estimates published by UNLV CBER in August 2007 were used as benchmarks or control totals. Therefore the population numbers projected from the land-use planning process described in the above section were adjusted by a factor to match the CBER s published control totals. Please note that benchmark process may cause small population changes at TAZ level while the occupied dwelling units remain unchanged. Table 6 and chart 1show the projections by LUWG and CBER Planning Variables Page 8

14 Table 6 Comparison with CBER Control Total Year Clark County CBER Difference ,912,655 1,912, ,286,019 2,288,942 2, ,725,139 2,735,996 10, ,056,026 3,059,584 3, ,305,369 3,306,947 1, ,511,888 3,516,688 4, ,708,692 3,718,932 10,240 Chart 1 Population Projection by LUWG and CBER 3,900,000 3,700,000 3,500,000 3,300,000 3,100,000 2,900,000 2,700,000 2,500,000 2,300,000 2,100,000 1,900, Clark County CBER 4. DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYMENT 4.1 Base Year Employment The base year employment is not acreage factored but developed from Nevada State Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) employer data. The DETR nd quarter employer data are used to generate the year 2005 employment data for modeling purpose. The process consists of: 1) address matching with GISMO street center line; 2) translating DETR employer code to TDF modeling categories; 3) aggregating the employment to TAZ by category; and 4) post processing. The details are described in the following sections Planning Variables Page 9

15 4.1.1 DETR Address Information & Address Matching There are total of 41,505 establishments in the DETR nd quarter employer database. Of those, 39,037 (94%) of them are reported with address information, and 2,468 (6%) establishments are without address information. Some establishments reported the employment to a single address. Of the 39,037 addressed establishments, 36,331 (93%) are within our Travel Demand Forecast (TDF) modeling domain and successfully address matched. The addresses in the database are examined and standardized to the addresses with matching issues. For example, those streets that have address match problems caused by their names in the DETR database need to be standardized before the address match process: Las Vegas Blvd., Casino Center Blvd., and Casino Dr. Warm Springs, Sunset, and Russell addresses are re-matched with ZIP codes for the reason that these street names are used by both the Clark County and the City of Henderson. The matching results that have 80 % less matching score and employment is more than 50 are manually checked with map from mapquest.com and aerial photo. The adjustments are made in TAZ level. Table 7 lists the address match summary by employment range of DETR employer data. Table 7 DETR nd Quarter Employer Data Address Match Summary by Employment Range Employment Clark County TAZ 1644 domain (Address Matched) AVG Estab- Estab- Range EMP lishment PCT EMP PCT lishment PCT EMP PCT Zero; no employment % % % % 1 to 4 employees % % % % 5 to 9 employees % % % % 10 to 19 employees % % % % 20 to 29 employees % % % % 30 to 39 employees % % % % 40 to 49 employees % % % % 50 to 59 employees % % % % 60 to 69 employees % % % % 70 to 79 employees % % % % 80 to 89 employees % % % % 90 to 99 employees % % % % 100 to 199 employees % % % % 200 to 299 employees % % % % 2009 Planning Variables Page 10

16 AVG EMP Clark County Employment Range Establishment PCT EMP PCT TAZ 1644 domain (Address Matched) Establishment PCT EMP PCT 300 to 399 employees % % % % 400 to 499 employees % % % % 500 to 599 employees % % % % 600 to 699 employees % % % % 700 to 799 employees % % % % 800 to 899 employees % % % % 900 to 999 employees % % % % 1000 to 1499 employees % % % % 1500 to 1999 employees % % % % 2000 to 2499 employees % % % % 2500 to 2999 employees % % % % 3000 to 3499 employees % % % % 3500 to 3999 employees % % % % 4500 to 4999 employees % % % % 5500 to 5999 employees % % % % 8000 to 8499 employees % % % % 9000 to 9499 employees % % % % 9500 to 9999 employees % % % % plus employees % % % % Total % % % % Category Translation DETR Industry Code to TDF Model Employment Category An equivalency table to convert DETR employer industry code to TDF model employment category was created by assigning each of the 800 plus employment categories in the DETR employer database to the appropriate TDF modeling employment category. The RTC staff previously developed the equivalency table which was later modified by Parsons Transportation Group (PTG). This equivalency look up table was used in the employment data conversion process. In the case where a category was missing in the PTG-modified table, the proper category in the original RTC equivalency table is used Planning Variables Page 11

17 Refer to RTC s Regional Transportation Plan FY October 2006, Appendix VII for the original equivalency table Post Processes (Headquarter Issue) Clark County School District Employment (CCSD) -- CCSD reported all employment at the district office address and actually only 212 people are working at this address. The number of employees working at each school site in school year is provided by CCSD. The process for assigning school employment is completed by geocoding the school address, assigning the address to a TAZ and then allocating school jobs to Other_Non employment category in the TAZ. CCSN Employment -- DETR data shows 1,750 employees at Cheyenne campus. The number received from CCSN is 1044 in total. 885 employees are working at three main campuses (Cheyenne, Charleston and Henderson). See table 8. Table CCSN Employment Data Campus Address City Employment TAZ Charleston 6375 W Charleston Blvd Las Vegas Cheyenne 3200 E Cheyenne Ave North Las Vegas Henderson 700 College Dr Henderson Total 885 Local Governments -- The local governments, including the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson and Clark County, reported all employment at a single address respectively. The employment number at each agency s main location is corrected by getting specific information from the agency. Table 9 lists the total employment number with the number assigned to the main address for each agency. The remaining are left out in this process due to lack of the specific location and employment distribution information except CCSD and CCSN which are handled as previously described. The left out numbers are not substantial compared to the regional total employment. Table 10 summarizes processed data by the TDF model employment category Planning Variables Page 12

18 Table 9 DETR nd Quarter Employer Data Employment Assigned to Headquarter Address Agency Name Address City Zip EMP EMP Assigned to MAIN Address TAZ Clark County School District 2832 E Flamingo Rd LV , Clark County 500 S Grand Central Pkwy LV ,250 1, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police University Medical Ctr of S. NV 400 Stewart Ave LV , W Charleston Blvd LV ,750 3, City of Las Vegas 416 N 7th St LV , City of Henderson 240 Water St COH , U S Postal Service 1001 Circus Circus Dr LV ,750 1, City of N. Las Vegas 2200 Civic Ctr Dr NLV , Community College of S. NV Transportation Security Administration 3200 E Cheyenne Ave NLV , Wayne Newton Blvd LV , Veterans Administration 1703 W Charleston Blvd LV L V Valley Water District 1001 Valley View LV , LV Convention & Visitors Authority 3150 Paradise Rd LV Total 43,800 12, Future Year Employment Compared to population forecasts, the development of an employment planning variable forecast is very challenging. While population data can be tracked in a relatively straightforward manner using dwelling unit count data from the Clark County Comprehensive Planning and Assessor offices, the forecast of employment planning variables has to consider several factors, including: 2009 Planning Variables Page 13

19 Table 10 Summary of Address Matched DETR nd Quarter Employer Data By Employment Category in TAZ domain Category Establishment PCT Employment PCT Hotel 3, % 249, % Regional Retail 5, % 100, % Community Retail 1, % 24, % Neighborhood Retail 1, % 22, % Office 13, % 129, % Industrial 4, % 123, % Other 6, % 167, % Total 36, % 818, % 1. Number and type of employees per acre or square feet of building space, 2. Conversion factors relating property acreage and square feet of building space, 3. Location of employees compared with office address, for example, a residential construction company may have its main office at Valley View and Russell but have hundreds of employees working at construction sites in Mountain s Edge and Aliante, 4. Variability of employment types such as hotel, retail, office, and industrial. 5. Last but not the least, there are much more uncertainty in terms of where and what type of employment will occur in future. In order to project initial employment distributions, non-residential acreage is converted into employment using factors derived from the analysis of data from the Clark County Assessor, Clark County Comprehensive Planning, and the DETR. The base year parcel data contains the information about parcel acreage, land use type and industry address. The DETR data provides the information of employer s industry code, number of employees and address. Employment factors based on acreage were developed previously by combining the DETR data, with the industry codes interpreted into relevant land use types, and a base year parcel data. Table11 summarizes these factors. For samples and methods in developing the factors, refer to Regional Transportation Plan FY Appendix V. The future year employment growth then was projected by applying the employment factors to the projected future non-residential acreages of different land use types. The general formula is as follows: Emp Growth = [AcG * GtN * Emp per Ac]] Where: AcG Employment s corresponding land use acreage growth 2009 Planning Variables Page 14

20 GtN Land use s corresponding gross to net ratio Emp per Ac Land use s corresponding employee per acre Employment of an employment category is the total of all the land use categories (Table 4) falls into the employment category (Table 11) Table 11 Acreage to Employment Factors LAND USE EMPLOYMENT IDX LU DESCRIPTION CATEGORY Per Gross to Acre Net 1 Hotel Hotel (Resort Corridor) Hotel Hotel_N Hotel (Not on Resort Corridor) Hotel RRet Retail - Regional R_Shop CRet Retail - Community C_Shop NRet Retail - Neighborhood Other_Ret Other_Non Land use not in any other categories Other_Non Office Office Office School School Other_Non Hospital Hospital Other_Non Ind Industrial Indust OS Open Space Other_Non Note: The Land Use is for the purpose of corresponding to the LUWG planned land use category. The Employment category is corresponding to TDF model s employment category. The gross to net ratio is for the purpose of reducing the land needed for public facility such as ROW. As stated already, the factors in Table 11 serve only at a starting point to project initial employment information that may be adjusted during validation steps. 5 QUALITY CONTROL AND VALIDATION OF DEVELOPMED PLANNING VARIABLES (POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT) The PV was validated on a TAZ by TAZ basis using aerial photographs from the Clark County GISMO. The intent here was to look for reasonableness in terms of how many acres were being developed between 2005 and 2030 and the estimated population and employment totals. In particular, developing employment totals for industrial, transportation, utility facilities and areas with a lot of open space are challenging and need to be carefully reviewed. The employment data was further validated by Parsons Transportation Group (PTG), see Attachments (1 to 4) from PTG at the end of this document Planning Variables Page 15

21 The final PV was made available to members of LUWG for quality and reality review. The questions, comments, and suggestions from the review have been addressed and incorporated into the final adjustments 6 SPECIAL GENERATORS Nellis Air Force Base (NAFB), McCarran International Airport (MIA), Ivanpah International Airport (IIA), University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV, including the main campus and North Las Vegas campus), and Nevada State College (NSC) are treated as special generators in TDF model. Thus, their employments are not included in the other employment categories in the PV process. The current and future special generator relevant data is obtained/derived from relevant agencies, departments, and institutions. Sources include their planning staff and web sites. Table 12 lists the employment and passenger data for NAFB, MIA, and Ivanpah Airport. Table 13 lists the employment and student enrollments for UNLV and NSC. Table 12 Employment/Passengers of NAFB, MIA, and IIA Nellis AFB McCarran Int'l Airport Ivanpah Airport (TAZ 220) (TAZ 798) (TAZ 1219) YEAR Passengers Passengers Employees Employees Employees Annual Daily Annual Daily ,000 16,569 42,484, , ,000 19,371 48,149, , ,000 22,457 55,023, ,749 5, ,000 21,117 52,650, ,247 3,410 10,228,892 28, ,000 21,117 52,650, ,247 6,402 19,205,962 52, ,000 21,117 52,650, ,247 9,815 29,444,682 80, ,000 21,117 52,650, ,247 13,714 41,142, ,719 Table 13 UNLV and NSC Employment and Enrollment UNLV Main UNLV NLV Nevada State College YEAR (TAZ 748) (TAZ 77) (TAZ 1110) Employment Enrollment Employment Enrollment Employment Enrollment , , , , , , ,734 1,000 10, , ,734 2,897 28, , ,734 3,000 30, , ,734 3,000 30, , Planning Variables Page 16

22 7 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT The school enrollment number was developed with various methods. The F18, F912 and F13 in PV table represent the student enrollment numbers for the following type of schools: Clark County School District (CCSD), and Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN). F18, F912 and F13 correlate accordingly to grades 1 through 8, grades 9 through 12, and grade 13 (CCSN only in this instance) and above respectively. The school year enrollment data and employment data from CCSD are address matched and aggregated to TAZs. The employment data in TAZ level is under other_non employment category. The future schools that plan to open after the school year are defined through the LUWG land use. The school capacity is used as future school enrollment. We assumed that the school would fill up quickly after school opened. The capacity assumption by CCSD is 950, 1700, and 2700 for elementary, middle and high schools respectively. The average number of employment is given to different level of schools. Based on the school year employment data, we utilize 73, 100 and 167 as for future elementary, middle and high school employment respectively. The CCSN 2005 enrollment at three campuses (Cheyenne, Charleston, and Henderson) was obtained from CCSN, and the CCSN staff agreed a 2-4% annual growth be used for the future growth until reaching the capacity. Table 14 lists the processed result for CCSN enrollment. 8 CONCLUSION Table 14 CCSN Enrollment Campus Charleston Cheyenne Henderson TAZ Total ,000 10,812 4,775 29, ,000 12,656 5,000 32, ,000 14,110 5,000 34, ,000 15,000 5,000 35, ,000 15,000 5,000 35, ,000 15,000 5,000 35, ,000 15,000 5,000 35,000 The land use forecasting is both a complex and continuous process. Though great care and efforts were taken during the process, there are various areas within the process that could be improved upon. It is very difficult to estimate employment data for a large and very fast growth area such as the Las Vegas Valley. Given the continuous nature of the land use planning, more fine-tuning will occur in each of the subsequent land use updates Planning Variables Page 17

23 ATTACHMENT 1. PARSONS MEMO ON EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES The employment forecasts for the Las Vegas Valley were developed based on the methodology reported by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) in its Planning Variable Development and Methodology report dated October 2005, adopted by the RTC on December 8, Information was updated to reflect August 2007 Clark County population estimates from CBER, and updated allocations of land utilization obtained from the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) Land Use Working Group. This memorandum updates information contained in the October 2005 Planning Variable Development and Methodology report. The following methodology was adhered to in order to establish employment forecasts for Clark County and the Las Vegas Valley model region. Step 1. Base Year Employment Base year employment was established by RTC staff based on geocoded employer records obtained from the Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation (DETR). June 2005 DETR records were used for this analysis. Attachment 1 includes a listing of employment industries categorized by RTC 2004 Regional Travel Demand Model employment type. This equivalency table was utilized for Model Update Package 1, Update Package 2 (Mode Choice Model) and this base year employment update. Step 2. Initial Employment Forecasts RTC received land use forecasts from its member entities during RTC used conversion factors to translate these forecasts of developed acreage to employment, using the RTC 2004 Model categories of employment. This process is documented in the Planning Variable Development and Methodology report dated October As documented in that report: Non-residential acreage was converted into employment using factors derived from the analysis of data from the Clark County Assessor, Clark County Comprehensive Planning, and the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR). The parcel data contains the information about parcel acreage, land use type and address. The DETR data provide the information of employer s industry code, number of employees and address. The industry code is interpreted into a relevant land use type. The addresses from the two data sets were matched and analyzed. [The table below] summarizes these factors. As stated in various sections of this document, the factors listed in [the] table serve as a starting point and may be adjusted during the validation step Planning Variables Page 18

24 Acreage to Employment Factors LAND USE EMPLOYMENT IDX LU DESCRIPTION CATEGORY Per Gross to Acre Net 1 Hotel Hotel (Resort Corridor) Hotel Hotel_N Hotel (Not on Resort Corridor) Hotel RRet Retail - Region R_Shop CRet Retail Community C_Shop NRet Retail Neighborhood Other_Ret Other_Non Land use not in any other categories Other_Non Office Office Office School School Other_Non Hospital Hospital Other_Non Ind Industrial Indust OS Open Space Other_Non Note: The Land Use is for the purpose of corresponding to the LUWG planned land use category. The Employment category is corresponding to TDF model s employment category. The gross to net ratio is for the purpose of reducing the land needed for public facility such as ROW. Step 3. Employment Control Totals Estimates of employment by model category were developed based on Population Forecasts: Long-Term Projections for Clark County, Nevada released by the Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) in August RTC has historically utilized these population forecasts as the control totals used for transportation planning purposes. The process used to establish the updated control totals for employment (by type) are reported in Attachment 2 and compared with the initial employment estimates derived from the SNRPC land based forecasts in Attachment 3. The SNRPC Land Use Working Group and RTC generally agree with the employment forecasting approach described in Attachment 2. Step 4. Allocate Employment Growth to TAZs With the exception of hotel employment, job growth was allocated to TAZs based on SNRPC estimates of developed acreage, converted to jobs by RTC. The table below compares the growth in employment forecast from 2005 to 2030 for the Las Vegas Valley portion of Clark County which is covered by the RTC Regional Travel Demand Model Planning Variables Page 19

25 Las Vegas Valley Employment Growth ( ) Employment Type Initial Revised Office 171, ,177 Industrial 108, ,569 Retail 276, ,350 Non-retail 124, ,694 Hotel 157, ,022 Total 838, ,812 The table illustrates differences in the employment totals by type of employment. In the case of office and industrial jobs, the initial TAZ level forecasts were factored up or down to more closely match the employment by industry control targets listed in Attachments 2 and 3. TAZ specific adjustments were made to reflect specific development plans or entitlements for the Las Vegas 61-acre redevelopment area, Summerlin, and West Henderson, for example. In the case of retail and non-retail jobs, the initial TAZ level forecast of retail jobs was much higher than needed for the target forecast, while non-retail jobs were much lower than needed. As the type of land development (building/parking) and employment per acre (20 to 25) was similar for the two categories, the job growth was pooled, with the overflow of retail jobs allocated to non-retail on a proportional to size basis. As with office and industrial, TAZ specific adjustments were made to reflect specific development plans or entitlements. Insofar as hotels and the hospitality industry, current development plans or entitlements were used across the board for all hotel job growth. Specific hotel projects, identified through research documented separately, are listed in Attachment Planning Variables Page 20

26 Map 1 -- RTC 1644 Traffic Analysis Zones and Jurisdictions for TDF Model 2005 Planning Variables Page 21

27 Map 2 -- RTC Districts for TDF Model 2009 Planning Variables Page 22

28 Map 3 RTC Year 2006 Land Use 2009 Planning Variables Page 23

29 Map 4 -- SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth Planning Variables Page 24

30 Map 5 -- SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth Planning Variables Page 25

31 Map 6 -- SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth Planning Variables Page 26

32 Map 7 -- SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth Planning Variables Page 27

33 Map 8 -- SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth Planning Variables Page 28

34 Map Population in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 29

35 Map Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 30

36 Map Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 31

37 Map Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 32

38 Map Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 33

39 Map Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 34

40 Map Population Total Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 35

41 Map Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 36

42 Map Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 37

43 Map Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 38

44 Map Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 39

45 Map Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 40

46 Map Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 41

47 Map School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 42

48 Map School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 43

49 Map School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 44

50 Map School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 45

51 Map School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 46

52 Map School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 47

53 Map RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 48

54 Map RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 49

55 Map RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 50

56 Map RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 51

57 Map RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 52

58 Map RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones 2009 Planning Variables Page 53