Strategies for re-orienting a TDM program from switching modes to reducing emissions of greenhouse...
-
Upload
emma-kirby -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Strategies for re-orienting a TDM program from switching modes to reducing emissions of greenhouse...
Strategies for re-orienting a TDM program from switching modes to
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases
Edward L. HillsmanWashington State DOT
Olympia, WA 98501 USA
For presentation at:ECOMM, London, June 4-6, 2008
Purpose
• Review changes in vehicle-kilometers traveled (VKT) in a TDM program that has not targeted VKT reductions
• Assess whether VKT reduction targets proposed for program participants are realistic
• Identify opportunities for reducing VKT
• Identify changes to realize opportunities
Background (1)
Background (2)
• State program works with ~570,000 employees in 9 most-populous counties– 25% of employment in these counties, 20% of
state’s employment– ~1,100 worksites 25% in Seattle, 25% in close
suburbs, 50% in other counties
• Targets for reducing drive-alone rate and VKT– Program has focused on drive-alone rate and
vehicle trips, not on VKT
Background (3)
• Revisions to program in 2006– Additional emphasis on congestion but
retained VKT– Goals to reduce VKT 13% between 2007 and
2011
• State set targets in 2006–7 to reduce GHG emissions– 6.7% overall by 2020– Possibly 15.7–24% for on-road transportation
What has happened at program worksites between 1993 and 2007?• The drive-alone rate decreased from
70.9% to 65.6% (a reduction of 8.2%)
• VKT per employee increased from 17.1 km to 17.2 km (an increase of 0.8%)
• But, the average length of the commute increased from 21.6 km to 24.6 km in 2005 (an increase of 13.8%)
Whole CTR program 1993
Mode split by distance percentile 1993program surveys for all sites
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
AltSched
DidOther
Teleworked
Walked
Biked
RodeTrain
RodeBus
Vanpooled
Carpooled
DroveAlone
56.3 km3.2 km 8 km 16.1 km 32.2 km
Whole CTR program 2005
Mode split by distance percentile 2005program surveys for all sites
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
DidNotWork
AltSched
DidOther
Teleworked
Walked
Biked
RodeTrain
RodeBus
Vanpooled
Carpooled
DroveAlone
62.8 km3.2 km 8 km 16.1 km 32.2 km
But some worksites and jurisdictions have done very well
• VKT per employee has decreased at 596 of the 1439 sites that had ever been in the program through 2006:– by at least 13% at 234 of these, at some time
following their baseline survey– by 7–12% (enough to meet the U.S. Kyoto
targets) at an additional 155– by smaller amounts at an additional 207
Jurisdiction
Number of sites in 2005
Number of employees in
2005
Avg daily 1-way VKT
per employee
Avg1-way
distance to work
City of Redmond 45 38617 -17.8% -1.3%
City of Shoreline 6 2683 -25.1% -20.2%
City of Buckley 2 939 -14.3% -2.0%
City of Arlington 7 2017 -17.4% -5.0%
City of Monroe 5 2054 -26.2% -19.6%
Unincorporated Spokane County 10 5465 -28.1% -19.2%
City of Medical Lake 4 1469 -15.0% 3.6%
City of Selah 3 846 -51.6% -34.0%
City of Moxee 2 204 -58.6% -29.2%
And 9 jurisdictions have seen VKT decrease by more than 13%
How did they do it?
• Review survey results for sites that have achieved the largest reductions
• Three examples follow
Case 1 (baseline)
Mode split by percentile 1995program surveys for Case 1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
DidNotWork
AltSched
DidOther
Teleworked
Biked
Walked
RodeTrain
RodeBus
Vanpooled
Carpooled
DroveAlone
1.6 km 8 km 16.1 km 32.2 km 40 km
Case 1 after 8 years
Mode split by percentile 2003program surveys for Case 1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
DidNotWork
AltSched
DidOther
Teleworked
Biked
Walked
RodeTrain
RodeBus
Vanpooled
Carpooled
DroveAlone
1.6 km 8 km 46.7 km16.1 km 32.2 km
Case 2 baseline
Mode split by percentile 2001program surveys for Case 2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
DidNotWork
AltSched
DidOther
Teleworked
Biked
Walked
RodeTrain
RodeBus
Vanpooled
Carpooled
DroveAlone
3.2 km 16.1 km 32.2 km 53.1 km8 km
Case 2 after 2 years
Mode split by percentile 2003program surveys for Case 2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
DidNotWork
AltSched
DidOther
Teleworked
Biked
Walked
RodeTrain
RodeBus
Vanpooled
Carpooled
DroveAlone
3.2 km 8km 32.2 km 56.3 km16.1 km
Case 3 baseline and 2 years
• VKT per employee decreased 15.7% from 2003 to 2005
• Drive-alone rate decreased only 2.2%
• No large changes in mode split
• One-way distance to work decreased by 12.8% (employees live closer to work)
So, what works?
• From these and other examples:– Switch modes not just from drive-alone but
also from carpooling to higher-occupancy modes, or from any motorized mode to non-motorized modes (including telework and alternative schedules)
– Concentrate switching among longer-distance commuters
– Reduce distance from home to work (including errands)
What does this mean for running a statewide program?
• Switch from mass marketing to targeted marketing
• Promote greater coordination among jurisdictions, transit agencies, planning agencies
• Encourage employees to live closer to work
Targeted marketing
• Focus on more-distant commuters• Focus on switching from drive-alone and
from carpooling• Use spatial detail with employer data on
employee addresses to identify areas where alternatives compete well
• Track frequency of use and work with low-frequency users
• Coordinate with construction mitigation
How have we been marketing?
• Mass marketing to all employees at a site or group of sites– Encourage all employees who are driving alone to try
an alternative – Print, e-mail, “bus sides”, radio– Focus on recruiting new users, not on increasing use
by present users• Targeted marketing has been largely mode-
specific– Bicycle commuter contests/bike-to-work days– Bus or bicycle mentoring– Vanpooling to fill out a van
Marketing strategies reflect a focus on reducing the drive-alone rate
– Target those who are driving alone– Get them to try something else (we don’t care what)– Hope they like it enough (perhaps with incentives)
that they will keep doing it– If we get them out of their car (and keep them there),
we’ve succeeded• Should pay more attention to increasing frequency of use
– Onward to the next customer– VKT reduction is a byproduct of switching modes
trips-person commute all of # totalalone drivingby made trips-person commute of #
Targeting VKT gives us more levers to work with
• Vehicle occupancy matters
• Mode type matters
• Distance matters (A LOT!)
employees ofnumber
*distance typeefor vehicloccupancy vehicle
typeby vehicle made trips-person commute of #
Mode type matters (1)
• If it doesn’t use a vehicle, it doesn’t contribute VKT
• So, 50 person-trips by walking, cycling, telework, or compressed workweek*10 km=0 RT VKT per day
• If we are focused on reducing VKT, it makes a big difference whether someone is carpooling or teleworking
Mode type matters (2)
• We may not want to try to shift people directly from driving alone into any specific mode
• But we may want to monitor use of various motorized alternatives and look for ways to encourage shifting to lower-VKT/employee modes
Drive Alone Carpool
Bus
Distance matters (A LOT!)
• Switching 10 1-km drive-alone trips per week to telework (or walking) saves 20 RT VKT
• Switching 1 50-km drive-alone trip per week to telework (walking not realistic) saves 100 RT VKT
• The closest 10% of employees contribute roughly 1% of the VKT
• The most distant 10% of employees contribute roughly 28% of the VKT
• This has been true since the CTR program began• If you only have money to market to 10% of your
employees, target the more distant
Barriers to targeted marketing
• This may not be easy for jurisdictions and transit agencies to do directly– Privacy concerns– Data assembly– Peak-period service is just one of several
competing interests
• Develop tools for employers to use• Consider this kind of marketing activity
during travel plan review
Coordination (1)
Coordination (1a)
• Local/transit partners—example– Increasing number of people live in Thurston County
and commute north along I-5 (long trips)– First part of the trip is through Ft. Lewis (no alternative
routes)– Develop park-and-ride lots and supporting
transit/vanpool services south of Ft. Lewis, and promote to this market
– If they park and ride north of Ft. Lewis, they’ve incurred a lot of VKT
– Pierce and King County jurisdictions have an interest in Thurston County park-and-rides
Coordination (2)
• Employers, jurisdictions, and other program partners can advocate for state policies to support VKT reduction– Base automobile insurance premiums on
distance driven– Shift road revenue source from fuel tax to
charge for distance driven– Increasing the gasoline tax– Probably other things
Reducing the distance from home to workplace (1)
• Employers– Structure commute incentives to favor living
closer to work– Consider commute distance in relocation
assistance planning for new employers
Reducing the distance from home to workplace (2)
• Local governments, transit agencies, planning agencies– Getting employees to live closer to work (or
slowing the trend toward living farther away• Land use, growth boundaries• Development (mixed-use, transit-oriented)• Affordable housing
– Tax commute distance– Longer time frame– Changing the perception of what “a house” is
Conclusions
• The VKT targets are achievable
• We know this because some sites and jurisdictions have seen equivalent changes
• Some jurisdictions and sites can probably meet them without focusing on them
• But getting smart about them would probably increase prospects for success
Getting smart probably means:
• Targeted marketing and provision of commute services
• More market research– To figure out how to do this most effectively
• More cooperation among jurisdictions and other partners– Long commutes are much more likely to
traverse jurisdictions
Getting smart also means
• Some short-term inefficiencies while we develop expertise with reducing VKT equivalent to that for the drive-alone rate– We’ve had 14 years to learn how to focus on
drive-alone; it will take time to learn how to do VKT well