goals and targets for 2015-2020 ctr plans olympia, washington september 26, 2014
Post on 31-Dec-2015
33 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Goals and Targets for 2015-2020 CTR PlansOlympia, Washington
September 26, 2014
Lynn PetersonSecretary of Transportation
for 2015-2020 CTR plansRecommendations to the Commute Trip Reduction Board
Goals and Targets
Keith CottonPolicy and Analysis Manager
Today’s discussion and decisions092414KC
2
• Where are we in the process?
• Feedback from the TAG on goal options
• Decision on jurisdiction goals
• Discussion and decision on state targets
• Next steps
Where are we?
3
Document from July 25, 2014 board meeting
Where are we?
4
Decision from July 25, 2014 board meeting
Where are we?
5
Discussion from July 25, 2014 board meeting
6
Content slide option 3
Statewide Program Goals
Jurisdiction Goal Option 1
(statewide goals and targets)
Jurisdiction Goal Option 2
(statewide goals with locally set targets)
Jurisdiction Goal Option 3
(goals based on local programs needs)
Target 1: nDAR X percent
Target 2: VMT – 18 % reduction
Target 3: GHG – 18% reduction (based on
VMT)
Target 1, 2, 3: nDAR X %, VMT & GHG
18% reduction(statewide targets)
Target 1, 2, 3: nDAR X %, VMT & GHG X
% reductionWork with WSDOT to tailor these based on
local objectives
Targets developed by local government to support local goals
and objectivesWork with WSDOT
Board Decision 7/25/2014
Proposed for Board Decision9/26/2014
Proposed for Board Decision9/26/2014
To be drafted in local CTR plans for approval by CTR board
7
Content slide option 3
Jurisdiction Goal Option 1
(statewide goals and targets)
Jurisdiction Goal Option 2
(statewide goals with locally set targets)
Jurisdiction Goal Option 3
(goals based on local programs needs)
Proposed for Board Decision9/26/2014
Feedback from the TAG on goal options
8
• Support for decoupling the state and local goals and targets
• Strong support for Option 2 from local jurisdictions
• Some will go with Option 1 and some with Option 3
• Expressing goals as increases rather than decreases is preferred (nDAR vs. DAR)
CTR BoardDiscussion and Decision
9
10
Target 1: nDAR X percent
Target 2: VMT – 18 % reduction
Target 3: GHG – 18% reduction (based on
VMT)
Proposed for Board Decision9/26/2014
To start, some definitions
Proportion, percentage of
y1 / 100
27 / 100 = 27%
nDAR
Non drive alone rate(Percentage of travelers using
modes other than driving alone)
11
Change ofy2 - y1
33 - 27 = increase of 6
Percent change,percentage change((y2 - y1) / y1) * 100
((33-27) / 27) * 100 = 22.2% increase
Target 1: nDAR X percent
Executive Order 13-04 Results WA
12
Four options to set non Drive Alone Rate target:
Low Medium Aspirational
33% nDAR 42% nDAR 67% nDAR
Based on achieving the
same numerical increase of 6 percentage
points aligned with Results
WA, starting in 2007/2008
Based on achieving the
total percentage change of 23%
aligned with Results WA, starting in 2007/2008
Assumes that the CTR program worksites take on a goal to
achieve 33% nDAR goal for 40% of
commuters, rather than the current market of 20%)
Based on Executive Order 13-04 Results
WA
40% nDAR
Current C
TR
nDAR 36.4%
13
20152007 202020
40
60
50
30
26.9%27.8%
33%
Results WA
% nDAR
14
20152007 202020
40
60
50
30
26.9%27.8%
33%34.3% 33%
35.5%Same 33%
Results WA target applied to CTR
% nDAR
15
20152007 202020
40
60
50
30
26.9%27.8%
33%34.3% 33%
40%
35.5%
Increase of 6
Same 33%
Results WA change increase applied to CTR Baseline
% nDAR
Increase of 6
16
20152007 202020
40
60
50
30
26.9%27.8%
33%34.3% 33%
42%
40%
35.5%
Increase of 618% change
Same Percentage Change of 23%
Same 33%
Results WA percent change applied to CTR Baseline
% nDAR
Increase of 623% percent change
17
20152007 202020
40
60
50
30
26.9%27.8%
33%34.3% 33%
42%
40%
67%
35.5%
Double Proportion
Same Percentage
Change of 23%
Same 33%
Double the proportion of trips needed to meet the 33% target%
nDAR
Increase of 618% change
Increase of 623% percent change
18
Four options to set non Drive Alone Rate target:
Low Medium Aspirational
33% nDAR 42% nDAR 67% nDAR
Based on achieving the
same numerical increase of 6 percentage
points aligned with Results
WA, starting in 2007/2008
Based on achieving the
same percentage
change of 23% aligned with Results WA, starting in 2007/2008
Based on Executive Order 13-04 Results
WA
40% nDAR
Current C
TR
nDAR 36.4%
19
Assumes that the CTR program worksites take on a goal to achieve the 33%
nDAR goal for 40% of commuters, rather
than the current market of 20%
Target 2: VMT – 18 % Reduction
Reduce the state’s annual per capita vehicle miles traveled by 18 percent by 2020
(RCW 47.01.440 – state VMT goals)
VMT 2007/8 = 10.9 miles per person one-way to workVMT 2019/20 target = 8.9
20
Target 3: GHG – based on VMT
Reduce the state’s greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020
(RCW 70.235.020 – state GHG goals)
Reduce daily GHG (lbs) per employee by 18% (if tied to VMT)
(may need further exploration)
21
CTR BoardDiscussion and Decision
22
23
Content slide option 3
Statewide Program Goals
Jurisdiction Goal Option 1
(statewide goals)
Jurisdiction Goal Option 2
(statewide goals with locally set targets)
Jurisdiction Goal Option 3
(goals based on local programs needs)
Target 1: nDAR X percent
Target 2: VMT – 18 % reduction
Target 3: GHG – 18% reduction (based on
VMT)
Target 1, 2, 3: nDAR X %, VMT & GHG
18% reduction(statewide targets)
Target 1, 2, 3: nDAR X %, VMT & GHG X
% reductionWork with WSDOT to tailor these based on
local objectives
Targets developed by local government to support local goals
and objectivesWork with WSDOT
Board Decision 7/25/2014
Proposed for Board Decision9/26/2014
Proposed for Board Decision9/26/2014
To be drafted in local CTR plans for approval by CTR board
Board expectations for local targets
24
• Option 1 expectations
– Continued flexibility in individual employer target-setting
– Six percentage point increase or 23 percent increase? Will align with state target decision
• 20% baseline + 6 points = 26% target• 20% + 23% = 24.6% target• 50% + 6 points = 56% target• 50% + 23% = 61.5%
Board expectations for local targets
25
• Option 2 expectations for local target setting– Do no worse– Demonstrate integration with local plans and goals– Develop targets tied to local plans and goals– Work with WSDOT to develop local targets
• Option 3 principles– Demonstrate relevance to local plans and goals– Ensure that goals and targets can be measured– Work with WSDOT to develop local goals and targets
Next steps
26
• Do we really want to call it nDAR?– Non SOV rate?– Commute alternatives rate (CAR)?– Alternative mode share?– Efficient mode share?– Luke Skywalker mode share?
• WSDOT technical assistance for local target development
• CTR Board’s funding policy• Program measurement
top related