Evolving The CTR Program:

CTR Board Meeting Olympia, WA. April 25, 2014

Kathy Johnston, CTR Program Manager

Presentation ApproachLooking Back – Learning from the past

Moving Forward – Building for the future

Engaging Partners

Creating an integrated, sustainable, multi-modal transportation system

2

CTR Program – Looking Back Legislative intent: reduce congestion, save

energy, cut pollution Created as major employer-based program Local responsibility to support participating

employers Highly structured top down, narrowly

focused approach – not well integrated or connected to other local efforts or objectives

Politically calculated goals

3

Original Program—Structure/Implementation State (CTR Board)

Rules for: Program structure Geography (the where) Implementation structure Participation

Funding Local ordinances and government administration Employer engagement Employee decisions

4

CTR Program Today 2006 Efficiency Act shifted the focus of the

program From counties to urban growth areas From employers to local governments With new role for regional transportation planning

organizations By connecting the goals more closely with local

needs

5

Program Has Evolved As Intended• The CTR Program has expanded and evolved,

becoming more flexible and locally-driven. • The new law:

• Built upon established employer role • Expanded responsibility for program success

to local jurisdictions • Connected local plans with regional plans • Created linkages between land use decisions

and transportation investments

6

7

The Legend of GTECs GTECs created enhanced community-

focused implementation of CTR in urban centers

Expanded partnerships (external: small employers, residents, students; internal: planning, public works)

Connected transportation goals with job growth and economic development

Created new energy, innovative initiatives, enhanced performance

8

Lessons Learned The existing program model does not work

for everyone Local jurisdictions need the ability to define

their own success There is a lot of interest in individualized

marketing and community-based approaches

The legends of GTECs/TRPP live on, helped shape pilot program, and continue to inform future program work

9

2013 Legislative Update Attempt Strategically minimizing changes to

existing law, the Board developed the following recommendations for the 2013 legislature to consider: Expand Trip Reduction from Work

Commutes to All Trips Update the CTR Program

Update Program Data Methodology Extend and Amend CTR Tax Credit

10

Moving Forward with Current Law The CTR Tax Credit was extended for

one year only The Board must move forward with the

current law and address several required elements in the next four year cycle (2015-2019) Determine affected jurisdictions Set goals Update local, regional, and state plans

11

Discuss recommended affected areas and goals

12

ALPACA

13

Building the Future Program The Board now has time to reevaluate

the current law and consider other changes in program purpose, structure, and performance

The Board will continue to advocate for the legislative changes necessary to update and expand the program

And now, a new program

14

1. Clearly articulate program purpose2. Develop general program structure and implementation

plan Identify opportunities and issues associate with achieving

the purpose

3. Identify performance measures that support the goals and are affected by implementation (next meeting)

4. Establish measurement approach5. Develop measurement methodology6. Find, adapt, or develop measurement tools7. Implement!8. Analyze data, evaluate program, reassess goals

New Program—PurposeThe first questionWhat are we trying to accomplish? Leverage funds Support economic development Effective and efficient use of transportation investments Respond to climate change

Reduce vehicle trips Reduce emissions

Create a multimodal, integrated system Test whether a decentralized program will be as effective

as centralized CTR Improve the safety of the transportation system

15

Emerging Purpose “Theories”From Growth and Transportation Efficiency Centers

Development of new Partnerships(A new level of engagement)

Facilitate land use changes Align perspectives of various organizations

From Pilot Projects Test new ideas emerging from local initiative Establish new partnerships/new partners Align program with local values and vision

From WSDOT mission: Create multimodal, integrated, sustainable Support community, economy, environment

16

And from the agenda Support the principles of Moving Washington Strengthen and grow public-private partnerships Help meet state and local economic, environmental and

community objectives Focus resources where they have the most impact Cultivate and reward local innovation and accountability Incentivize integration of transportation and land use

policies, plans and decisions Keep existing successful TDM infrastructure relatively intact Maintain consistent, efficient measurement as much as

possible Simplify requirements Lean from new approaches

17

The second question—Structure

Local control and decision making Local definition of objectives Local definition of market

At least partially through a competitive grant

Program focus: Base CTR Community Corridor

18

Is this already answered?

Do you see measures emerging from purpose?Meaningful measures that inform about the achievement of goals and are affected by implementation.

Local funding Land use changes Multimodal, integrated Change in drive alone rate? VMT? Number of partners Injuries Gross sales, jobs Developments meeting concurrency requirements

19

Make sure

we answer

this:

Do we still need to measure progress?

Do we still need to demonstrate that employer-based programs work?

What is the new program’s purpose? Support a more efficient transportation system Congestion, fuel, air pollution Reduce vehicle trips (greater efficiency) Integrate and infiltrate (not just one category) Problem to solve People, planet, prosperity Energy-efficient transportation system Performance efficient, fuel efficient,

economically efficient RCW 36.70A.108

20

21

Defining Transportation System Efficiency There are several ways to define

transportation efficiency What problem is the program trying to

solve? The way a problem is defined

determines optimal solutions, drives strategies, and sets up an evaluation framework

22

Problem Statement The transportation system is auto-centric,

resource intensive, contributes to environmental degradation, and unsustainable

How do we move people and goods most efficiently in an energy, budget, time, and space-constrained world?

We need a paradigm shift to transform transportation, support investment choices, and enhance decision-making

23

Existing paradigm Assumes transportation means mobility Considers a limited set of objectives,

impacts, and options Perpetrates conventional solutions and

approaches Is not sustainable Does not help create the future system

24

A New Paradigm is Needed to: Redefine system efficiency Recognize the ultimate goal of

transportation is accessibility Expand the range of objectives, impacts,

and options considered Address many of the existing systemic

problems Create an integrated, sustainable, multi-

modal 21st century transportation system

25

Planning for Accessibility Creates the ability to address a broader

spectrum of goals and initiatives, including transportation-land use integration

Shifts the focus to people, places, choices Addresses needs of all travelers and supports

development of multi-modal systems Impacts policies and investments chosen

26

Discuss and Decide on a Program Purpose

What is the new program’s structure? Board structure continues—evaluation requirement Local plans (policy) and ordinances State mandate Local determination of objectives Basic parameters (including outcome, definition of market), local

determination of how they are going to get there MPO & RTPO designated role Integration and infiltration (overall system) Measurement expectation Where would we go for implementation (planning, TMA)? With our

limited resources, where are we most effective to have impact? How do we engage divergent markets State funding

27

28

What do each of these elements mean?

What are the new performance measures? Efficiency (energy, economic and performance) The need to parallel this with what is measured elsewhere Performance measures are locally defined but include

energy, economic and performance What existing measurement can we align with and tie back

to the local program (Results WA) Sustainable and clean energy Reduced energy consumption VMT SOV Where will we have the greatest impact on the system Supply or demand of options

29

30

Challenges and Opportunities Accessibility is harder to define and

measure It requires new approaches, skills, tools,

and data This is a time of great change.

Transitioning systems at every level of government, creating new approaches, and moving forward will be an iterative process

31

MAP-21 Impacts Renewed focus on transportation planning Proposed regulations pending Establishes set of national goals, including

environmental sustainability MPOs/State DOTs encouraged to collaborate on

Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs): Transition to performance based planning and

programming (PBPP) Cooperation and coordination across boundaries –

regional approach Access/Connectivity/Gaps

32

PBPP Defined Application of performance

management principles within agencies’ planning and programming processes to achieve desired performance goals and outcomes for the multimodal transportation system

33

PBPP Applied FHWA Report: A Performance-Based

Approach to Addressing GHG Emissions through Transportation Planning

Keep It Simple

34

What is the structure?

35