planning variable development and methodology

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 89106

February 2008

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

Acknowledgement The land use forecasting is the result of the collaborative efforts of the Land Use Work-ing 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 2035. 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 De-partment) 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.

2009 Planning Variables Page i


TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents.............................................................................................................ii List of Tables...................................................................................................................iii List of Maps.....................................................................................................................iv 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 2. DATA SOURCE HIGHLIGHTS FOR PV CREATION........................................... 2

2.1 Data Structure of PVs.................................................................................... 2

3. DEVELOPMENT OF POPULATION .................................................................... 4

3.1 Base Year Land Use and Population............................................................. 4 3.2 Future Year Land Use Forecast ..................................................................... 6 3.3 Future Year Population Development............. Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4 Benchmark ..................................................................................................... 8

4 DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYMENT ...................................................................... 9

4.1 Base Year Employment .................................................................................. 9 4.1.1 DETR Address Information & Address Matching ...................................... 10 4.1.2 Category Translation – DETR Industry Code to TDF Model Employment Category............................................................................................................. 11 4.1.3 Post Processes (Headquarter Issue)......................................................... 12 4.2 Future Year Employment.............................................................................. 13

5 QUALITY CONTROL AND VALIDATION OF DEVELOPMED PLANNING VARIABLES (POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT) .......................................................... 15

6. SPECIAL GENERATORS .................................................................................. 16 7. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT................................................................................... 17 8. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... 17

2009 Planning Variables Page ii


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 2006.............................. 6 Table 4 SNRPC/RTC Planned Land Use Categories...................................................... 7 Table 5 Forecast Developed Acreage for Year 2005 – Year 2035................................. 7 Table 6 Comparison with CBER Control Total ................................................................ 9 Table 7 Summary of Address Matched DETR 2005 2rd Quarter Employer Data.......... 10 Table 8 2005 CCSN Employment Data......................................................................... 12 Table 9 DETR 2005 2rd Quarter Employer Data........................................................... 14 Table 10 Summary of Address Matched DETR 2005 2rd Quarter Employer Data........ 14 Table 11 Acreage to Employment Factors .................................................................... 13 Table 12 Employment/Passengers of NAFB, MIA, IIA .................................................. 12 Table 13 UNLV and NSC Employment and Enrollment ................................................ 13 Table 14 CCSN Enrollment ........................................................................................... 17

2009 Planning Variables Page iii


LIST OF MAPS Map 1 -- RTC 1644 Traffic Analysis Zones and Jurisdictions for TDF Model ................ 21 Map 2 -- RTC Districts for TDF Model ........................................................................... 22 Map 3 -- RTC Year 2006 Land Use .............................................................................. 23 Map 4 – SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth 2006 - 2010............................................. 26 Map 5 – SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth 2010 - 2015............................................. 27 Map 6 – SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth 2015 - 2020............................................. 28 Map 7 – SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth 2020 -2025.............................................. 27 Map 8 – SNRPC Planned Land Use Growth 2025 - 2030............................................. 28 Map 9 -- 2006 Population in Traffic Analysis Zones ...................................................... 29 Map 10 – 2006-2010 Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones............................... 30 Map 11 -- 2010-2015 Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones .............................. 31 Map 12 -- 2015-2020 Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones .............................. 32 Map 13 -- 2020-2025 Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones ............................. 33 Map 14 -- 2025-2030 Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones ............................. 34 Map 15 -- 2006-2030 Population Total Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones...................... 35 Map 16 -- 2006 Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones ........................ 36 Map 17 -- 2010 Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones ........................ 37 Map 18 -- 2015 Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones ........................ 38 Map 19 -- 2020 Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones ........................ 39 Map 20 -- 2025 Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones ........................ 40 Map 21 -- 2030 Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones ...................... 41 Map 22 -- 2005 School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones........................... 42 Map 23 -- 2010 School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones .......................... 43 Map 24 -- 2015 School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones........................... 44 Map 25 -- 2020 School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones........................... 45 Map 26 -- 2025 School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones ..Error! Bookmark

not defined. Map 27 -- 2030 School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones........................... 47 Map 28 -- 2005 RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones......................................... 48 Map 29 -- 2010 RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones......................................... 49 Map 30 -- 2015 RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones......................................... 50 Map 31 -- 2020 RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones......................................... 51 Map 32 -- 2025 RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones......................................... 52 Map 33 -- 2030 RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones......................................... 53

2009 Planning Variables Page iv


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 dur-ing 2006 – 2007. 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) determin-ing 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 sig-nificant 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 re-quest 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 2003. Please refer to Appendix I for details. The group’s charge is to define planned land development in 5-year incre-ments 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 de-veloped 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 Re-gional 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.

2005 Planning Variables Page 1


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 de-scribed 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 Re-habilitation (DETR) 2005 2nd Quarter employer data.

6) Population and Employment Control Totals: UNLV Center for Business and Eco-nomic 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 Manage-ment 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 aggre-gated 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, 2005 – 2035, 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



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 17. 3 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



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 em-ployment is processed from DETR 2005 2nd 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 work-ing 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 Inter-national 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 de-rive 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 ver-sion 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 geogra-phy 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 corre-sponding 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



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 residen-tial use and population for year 2006 by entities.

Table 2 GILIS Land Use Code GILIS LAND USE CODE

FROM TO LAND USE DESCRIPTION

110 190 Residential 195 195 Common Area 198 198 Residential 199 199 Residential - Other 210 211 Manufacturing (food, etc.), R&D (electronic, etc) 215 215 Industrial 220 220 Mining 230 230 Heavy Equipment 240 259 Storage - Warehouses & Outdoor, etc., Ind. Condos. 260 260 Industrial Condos 310 311 Hotel w/ Resort 312 321 Hotel&Motel 325 325 Casino 330 330 Laundromat, copying center, etc. 331 331 Hospital 335 335 Prof. & Business Services (medical, accountants, etc.) 336 336 Day Care 338 339 Financial (bank, etc.), Data Processing Center 340 341 Entertainment Facilities (theater, race track, etc.) 345 345 Indoor Recreation (pool parlors, athletic area, etc.) 346 349 Outdoor Recreation (Driving Range, Golf Course, etc.) 350 350 Regional Shopping Center 355 355 Neighborhood Shopping Center 358 358 Department Stores, etc. 359 359 Convenient Stores 360 360 Restaurants 365 365 Food & Beverage Business (Distributor) 370 370 Auto Dealship 371 371 Auto Rapair 372 372 Auto Wrecking Yard 375 375 Auto Service 378 378 Sale of building&construction supplies and services 380 380 RV Park 385 385 Commercial Condos 399 399 Other Commercial Activities, i.e. Race Track 410 410 School 411 411 Trade School 420 420 Church 430 430 Libraries, Post Offices, etc. 431 431 Cemetries 440 440 Parks 450 450 YMCA, Red Cross, United Way 451 451 Social, community organizations 460 460 Gov Facilities - Animal Control



GILIS LAND USE CODE FROM TO

LAND USE DESCRIPTION

461 461 Gov. offices 462 462 Gov. Support services 463 463 Police, fire stations 466 466 Military Facilities 470 470 Community centers 499 499 Gov. Offices 510 530 Agriculture, Ranching 610 610 Communication & Utility Office 611 611 Transmission Facilities 613 613 Print Communication 620 620 Shipping Terminals, Depots, Stops, Freight Docks, etc. 621 621 Parking lot, garage 630 631 Major Utility Facilities 710 730 Minor Improvements 900 900 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 62,504 202,520 Las Vegas 227,934 217,630 591,536 Unincorporated Clark County 345,452 329,049 862,208 Henderson 102,841 99,293 256,390 Total 740,916 708,476 1,912,654

3.2 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 2035. 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 jurisdic-tion.



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

2006 - 2010

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 2010 - 2015



Henderson 6,998 2,274 9,273 2015 - 2020



Henderson 2,145 2,475 4,620 2020 - 2025


N. Las Vegas 1,306 256 1,561 Unincorporated CC 1,949 2,442 4,392

Henderson 189 1,078 1,267 2025 - 2030

Subtotal 4,900 4,972 9,872



Year Entity Residential Non_Residential 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 0 0 0

2030 - 2035



Henderson 14,998 9,909 24,906 Total

Subtotal 65,355 68,865 134,220

3.3 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 Plan-ning (Refer to Regional Transportation Plan FY 2006-2030 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 esti-mated 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 esti-mates 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 pub-lished 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.



Table 6 Comparison with CBER Control Total

Year Clark County CBER Difference

2006 1,912,655 1,912,655 0 2010 2,286,019 2,288,942 2,923 2015 2,725,139 2,735,996 10,857 2020 3,056,026 3,059,584 3,558 2025 3,305,369 3,306,947 1,578 2030 3,511,888 3,516,688 4,800 2035 3,708,692 3,718,932 10,240

Chart 1 Population Projection by LUWG and CBER

1,900,0002,100,0002,300,0002,500,0002,700,0002,900,0003,100,0003,300,0003,500,0003,700,0003,900,000

2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

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 2005 2nd 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.



4.1.1 DETR Address Information & Address Matching There are total of 41,505 establishments in the DETR 2005 2nd quarter employer data-base. 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 2005 2nd Quarter Employer Data Address Match Summary by Employment Range

Clark County TAZ 1644 domain (Address Matched) Employ-ment

Range AVG EMP

Estab-lishment PCT EMP PCT


Zero; no employment 0 6423 15.48% 0 0.00% 5212 14.35% 0 0.00% 1 to 4 em-ployees 3 16482 39.71% 49446 5.55% 14054 38.68% 42162 5.06% 5 to 9 em-ployees 7 7078 17.05% 49546 5.56% 6422 17.68% 44954 5.40% 10 to 19 em-ployees 15 5196 12.52% 77940 8.75% 4739 13.04% 71085 8.54% 20 to 29 em-ployees 25 2037 4.91% 50925 5.72% 1855 5.11% 46375 5.57% 30 to 39 em-ployees 35 1099 2.65% 38465 4.32% 1008 2.77% 35280 4.24% 40 to 49 em-ployees 45 686 1.65% 30870 3.47% 638 1.76% 28710 3.45% 50 to 59 em-ployees 55 427 1.03% 23485 2.64% 412 1.13% 22660 2.72% 60 to 69 em-ployees 65 314 0.76% 20410 2.29% 303 0.83% 19695 2.37% 70 to 79 em-ployees 75 249 0.60% 18675 2.10% 245 0.67% 18375 2.21% 80 to 89 em-ployees 85 185 0.45% 15725 1.77% 175 0.48% 14875 1.79% 90 to 99 em-ployees 95 154 0.37% 14630 1.64% 148 0.41% 14060 1.69% 100 to 199 employees 150 660 1.59% 99000 11.12% 634 1.75% 95100 11.42% 200 to 299 employees 250 198 0.48% 49500 5.56% 191 0.53% 47750 5.74%



Clark County TAZ 1644 domain (Address Matched) Employ-ment Range

AVG EMP



300 to 399 employees 350 73 0.18% 25550 2.87% 70 0.19% 24500 2.94% 400 to 499 employees 450 52 0.13% 23400 2.63% 49 0.13% 22050 2.65% 500 to 599 employees 550 33 0.08% 18150 2.04% 32 0.09% 17600 2.11% 600 to 699 employees 650 24 0.06% 15600 1.75% 24 0.07% 15600 1.87% 700 to 799 employees 750 22 0.05% 16500 1.85% 19 0.05% 14250 1.71% 800 to 899 employees 850 16 0.04% 13600 1.53% 15 0.04% 12750 1.53% 900 to 999 employees 950 12 0.03% 11400 1.28% 10 0.03% 9500 1.14% 1000 to 1499 employees 1250 30 0.07% 37500 4.21% 23 0.06% 28750 3.45% 1500 to 1999 employees 1750 15 0.04% 26250 2.95% 13 0.04% 22750 2.73% 2000 to 2499 employees 2250 9 0.02% 20250 2.27% 9 0.02% 20250 2.43% 2500 to 2999 employees 2750 8 0.02% 22000 2.47% 8 0.02% 22000 2.64% 3000 to 3499 employees 3250 6 0.01% 19500 2.19% 6 0.02% 19500 2.34% 3500 to 3999 employees 3750 6 0.01% 22500 2.53% 6 0.02% 22500 2.70% 4500 to 4999 employees 4750 4 0.01% 19000 2.13% 4 0.01% 19000 2.28% 5500 to 5999 employees 5750 1 0.00% 5750 0.65% 1 0.00% 5750 0.69% 8000 to 8499 employees 8250 2 0.00% 16500 1.85% 2 0.01% 16500 1.98% 9000 to 9499 employees 9250 2 0.00% 18500 2.08% 2 0.01% 18500 2.22% 9500 to 9999 employees 9750 1 0.00% 9750 1.10% 1 0.00% 9750 1.17% 10000 plus employees 10000 1 0.00% 10000 1.12% 1 0.00% 10000 1.20%

Total 41505 100% 890317 100% 36331 100% 832581 100%

4.1.2 Category Translation – DETR Industry Code to TDF Model Em-ployment Category An equivalency table to convert DETR employer industry code to TDF model employ-ment 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.



Refer to RTC’s Regional Transportation Plan FY 2006-2030 October 2006, Appendix VII for the original equivalency table.

4.1.3 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 2005-2006 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 8 2005 CCSN Employment Data

Campus Address City Employment TAZ Charleston 6375 W Charleston Blvd Las Vegas 450 544Cheyenne 3200 E Cheyenne Ave North Las Vegas 324 240Henderson 700 College Dr Henderson 111 1101Total 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 in-formation 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.



Table 9 DETR 2005 2nd Quarter Employer Data Employment Assigned to Headquarter Address

Agency Name Address City Zip EMP

EMP As-signed to MAIN Ad-

dress

TAZ

Clark County School District 2832 E Flamingo Rd LV 89121 10,000 212 701

Clark County 500 S Grand Central Pkwy LV 89106 9,250 1,750 528

Las Vegas Metropolitan Po-lice 400 Stewart Ave LV 89101 4,750 252 468

University Medical Ctr of S. NV 1800 W Charleston Blvd LV 89102 3,750 3,800 526

City of Las Vegas 416 N 7th St LV 89101 3,250 482 479

City of Henderson 240 Water St COH 89015 2,750 640 942

U S Postal Service 1001 Circus Circus Dr LV 89109 2,750 1,011 608

City of N. Las Vegas 2200 Civic Ctr Dr NLV 89030 1,750 650 329

Community College of S. NV 3200 E Cheyenne Ave NLV 89030 1,750 324 240

Transportation Security Administration 5757 Wayne Newton Blvd LV 89111 1,250 973 845

Veterans Administration 1703 W Charleston Blvd LV 89102 950 171 556

L V Valley Water District 1001 Valley View LV 89153 850 1,365 525

LV Convention & Visitors Authority 3150 Paradise Rd LV 89109 750 928 616

Total 43,800 12,558

4.2 Future Year Employment Compared to population forecasts, the development of an employment planning vari-able forecast is very challenging. While population data can be tracked in a relatively straightforward manner using dwelling unit count data from the Clark County Compre-hensive Planning and Assessor offices, the forecast of employment planning variables has to consider several factors, including:



Table 10 Summary of Address Matched DETR 2005 2nd Quarter Employer Data

By Employment Category in TAZ domain Category Establishment PCT Employment PCT

Hotel 3,558 9.8% 249,561 30.5% Regional Retail 5,354 14.7% 100,828 12.3% Community Retail 1,323 3.6% 24,181 3.0% Neighborhood Retail 1,888 5.2% 22,475 2.7% Office 13,646 37.6% 129,991 15.9% Industrial 4,078 11.2% 123,672 15.1% Other 6,484 17.8% 167,735 20.5% Total 36,331 100.0% 818,443 100.0%

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 em-ployees and address. Employment factors based on acreage were developed previ-ously 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 2006-2030 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



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 Acre

Gross to Net

1 Hotel Hotel (Resort Corridor) Hotel 100 0.802 Hotel_N Hotel (Not on Resort Corridor) Hotel 40 0.803 RRet Retail - Regional R_Shop 22 0.804 CRet Retail - Community C_Shop 22 0.805 NRet Retail - Neighborhood Other_Ret 22 0.806 Other_Non Land use not in any other categories Other_Non 20 0.807 Office Office Office 50 0.808 School School Other_Non 15 0.809 Hospital Hospital Other_Non 70 0.80

10 Ind Industrial Indust 12 0.8011 OS Open Space Other_Non 0.5 0.80

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, transporta-tion, 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.



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 Interna-tional Airport (IIA), University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV, including the main cam-pus 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)

Passengers Passengers YEAR

Employees Employees Annual Daily

Employees Annual Daily

2005 12,000 16,569 42,484,609 116,396 2010 14,000 19,371 48,149,192 131,916 500 2015 15,000 22,457 55,023,340 150,749 5,000 2020 15,000 21,117 52,650,000 144,247 3,410 10,228,892 28,024 2025 15,000 21,117 52,650,000 144,247 6,402 19,205,962 52,619 2030 15,000 21,117 52,650,000 144,247 9,815 29,444,682 80,670 2035 15,000 21,117 52,650,000 144,247 13,714 41,142,313 112,719

Table 13 UNLV and NSC Employment and Enrollment

UNLV Main

UNLV NLV

Nevada State College

(TAZ 748)

(TAZ 77)

(TAZ 1110)

YEAR

Employment Enrollment Employment Enrollment Employment Enrollment2005 2570 28,104 103 1,562 2010 2965 32,613 200 4,000 2015 3521 38,734 325 8,000 2020 3521 38,734 1,000 10,000 450 12,000 2025 3521 38,734 2,897 28,973 600 16,000 2030 3521 38,734 3,000 30,000 750 20,000 2035 3521 38,734 3,000 30,000 900 24,000



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 Ne-vada (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 2005-2006 school year enrollment data and employment data from CCSD are ad-dress 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 2005-2006 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 as-sumption by CCSD is 950, 1700, and 2700 for elementary, middle and high schools re-spectively. The average number of employment is given to different level of schools. Based on the 2005-2006 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 Hender-son) 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.

Table 14 CCSN Enrollment

Campus Charleston Cheyenne HendersonTAZ 544 240 1101 Total

2005 14,000 10,812 4,775 29,587 2010 15,000 12,656 5,000 32,656 2015 15,000 14,110 5,000 34,110 2020 15,000 15,000 5,000 35,000 2025 15,000 15,000 5,000 35,000 2030 15,000 15,000 5,000 35,000 2035 15,000 15,000 5,000 35,000

8 CONCLUSION 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.



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, 2005. 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 Vari-able 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 re-cords 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 2007. RTC used con-version 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 2005.

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 Compre-hensive Planning, and the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Re-habilitation (DETR). The parcel data contains the information about parcel acre-age, land use type and address. The DETR data provide the information of em-ployer’s industry code, number of employees and address. The industry code is in-terpreted 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.



Acreage to Employment Factors

LAND USE EMPLOYMENT IDX LU DESCRIPTION CATEGORY Per

Acre Gross to

Net 1 Hotel Hotel (Resort Corridor) Hotel 100 0.80 2 Hotel_N Hotel (Not on Resort Corridor) Hotel 40 0.80 3 RRet Retail - Region R_Shop 22 0.80 4 CRet Retail – Community C_Shop 22 0.80 5 NRet Retail – Neighborhood Other_Ret 22 0.80

6 Other_Non Land use not in any other catego-ries Other_Non 20 0.80

7 Office Office Office 50 0.80 8 School School Other_Non 15 0.80 9 Hospital Hospital Other_Non 70 0.80

10 Ind Industrial Indust 12 0.80 11 OS Open Space Other_Non 0.5 0.80

Note: The Land Use is for the purpose of corresponding to the LUWG planned land use category. The Employ-ment 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 2007–2035 released by the Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) in August 2007. RTC has his-torically 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.




Las Vegas Valley Employment Growth (2005–2030) Employment

Type Initial Revised

Office 171,939 145,177 Industrial 108,521 193,569 Retail 276,412 131,350 Non-retail 124,646 196,694 Hotel 157,022 157,022

Total 838,540 823,812

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 At-tachments 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 of-fice 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 4.



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 2006 – 2010



Map 9 – 2006 Population in Traffic Analysis Zones



Map 10 – 2006-2010 Population Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones



Map 15 – 2006-2030 Population Total Growth in Traffic Analysis Zones



Map 16 – 2006 Population Density (Pop/Ac) in Traffic Analysis Zones



Map 22 -- 2005 School Enrollment (CCSD) in Traffic Analysis Zones



Map 28 -- 2005 RTC Employment in Traffic Analysis Zones

planning variable development and methodology

Documents