travel demand management programsmedia.planning.org/media/npc13/presentations/s667.pdf · programs...

Travel Demand Management Programs Shaping Land Use Development Through Effective Coordination and Mobility Management

American Planning Association 2013 National Conference April 17, 2013

Session 667

Defining Travel Demand Management

Increase

Transportation

System Efficiency

Applying/Prioritizing

the Right Tools

Implementation/

Re-Evaluation

Presentation Outline & Panel

Travel

Demand

Management

metroplanning.org @metroplanners

S667 Travel Demand Management

Programs

MPC’s Commute Options Program

Timothy Grzesiakowski

APA’s 2013 National Planning Conference

Chicago, IL April 17, 2013


Today’s Presentation

• Current state of Chicago Transportation Demand

Management (TDM)

• The Metropolitan Planning Council’s (MPC)

Commute Options Pilot

• The future of Chicago TDM


Metropolitan Planning Council

Since 1934, the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) has been dedicated to shaping a more sustainable and prosperous greater Chicago region. MPC forges innovative, pragmatic policy solutions-bringing together government, business, and community leaders to achieve a competitive and livable Chicago region.

Policy Research & Development

Policy Advocacy Policy

Implementation


Why Commute Options?

• Congestion costs $7.3 billion annually

• Housing and transportation two biggest

household expenses

• More people driving alone

• Provide “one-stop” commuter information

• Employers a good conduit of information


How the Chicago area gets to work

Drive Alone; 69%

Carpooling; 9%

Transit; 12%

Bicycle; 1% Other;

9%

Source: US Census Data

2008-2010


Project history

• Chicago Climate Action Plan initiative

• Boston Consulting Group and Civic Consulting

Alliance research options

• MPC began pilot in late 2010


Challenges with Chicago TDM

• Some components already exist

• No “one-stop shop” for all options

• Many gaps in service outreach


Commute Options Pilot

• 16 participating employers

• Survey of commuting habits/needs

• Customize recommendations and alternatives

• Follow-up survey-Phase 2

• No cost to employer


Partners and providers

Local Government

Transit

Civic Organizations

12


Participating Employers


Newell

Rubbermaid 300

Chicago

Public

Schools

(Central

Office) 1,000

McDonalds

Corporation 3,000

Grainger 2,590

Goose

Island 100

Underwriters

Laboratories 1,800

Illinois

Tool

Works 540

Labelmaster

180

Shedd

Aquarium 500

Burke

Engin-

eering 170

Loyola

University 1,790

Moraine

Valley C.C. 1,710

Al

Raby 60

Lincoln

Elem.

37

Webb

deVla

m

27

Robinson

Engin-

eering

100

Participation across industry groups

Champro

Sports

70

Education,

Civic Food

Services

Manufacturing,

Wholesale Engineering,

Testing,

Design

Field

Museum 500


PILOT RESULTS

Phase 1


Commute Options Survey

• Over 6200 respondents

• High response rate

• Comprehensive look at Chicago area

commuting patterns


Commute Patterns: Survey Respondents

Drive Alone; 68%

Transit; 16%

Rideshare; 4% Other; 12%

Source: Commute Options surveys


Many live far from work

31% 28%

23%

13%

5%

10%

19%

28%

36%

7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0-5 miles 6-10 miles 11-20 miles 21-40 miles More than 40miles

Chicago Employers Suburban Employers

Over a third of

suburban

employees

travel more than

20 miles to

work.



Pre-tax benefits not well-known

Yes 36%

No 20%

Do not know 44%

Does your company have a pre-tax benefits program?



Why respondents drive alone?

Lack of information

about alternatives

1% Public transit

not safe 2%

Biking or walking

impractical 4%

Telework impractical or unsupported

12%

Public transit inconvenient

40%

Flexibility (emergencies,

errands) 41%



Challenges

• 33% of employees > 20 miles from work

• 53% drive alone daily

• Scattered, long suburban commutes

• Low awareness of pre-tax transit benefits

• Demand for flexibility (errands, emergencies)

• Public transit inconvenient



Survey Conclusions

• 80% concerned by commute time

• 66% concerned about commute costs

• 40% willing to consider alternatives if challenges

are addressed



Options in place

• Labelmaster: Bus tracker

• Champro: Pre-tax benefits

• Grainger: Dedicated shuttle to Metra

• Labelmaster: Emergency ride home

• McDonald’s: Bike awareness


Employers taking action

• Support the

concept of

Chicago

TDM

• Investigate

solutions to

commuting

challenges


COMMUTE OPTIONS PILOT

Phase 2


Next steps

• Transition pilot into a sustainable plan: Chicago-area Transportation Demand Management (TDM) – Create awareness and media coverage

– Chicago TDM Strategic Plan

– Complete Phase 2 with employers

– Produce report on program metrics

• Possible Structure – New nonprofit organization?

– Private operator (consulting firm)?

– Hybrid group?

– Housed at RTA, CMAP, IDOT, another organization?

– MPC’s role • continued employer engagement?

• broader management opportunity


Thank you

Tim Grzesiakowski

Metropolitan Planning Council

metroplanning.org/co

Transit-Supportive TDM Measures Paul Supawanich, AICP

@tweetsupa

Associate Project Planner

2013 American Planning Association Conference | CHICAGO, IL

What?

Transit’s Role in Transportation

Capacity for what?

30

Transit’s Role in Transportation

Transit Trends: Users

Existing incentives

– Increasing fuel prices

– Interest in urban living

– Lower VMT in 2013 than previous 10 years

• For 14-34 Year Olds, VMT declined 23% from 2001-2009

– In 2012, transit ridership hit second highest level since 1957

Transit Trends: Providers

Previous metric of focus: Ridership

– Park and Ride

– Planning extent: The stop + station

– Criteria? Get folks in seats

New metrics: Ridership + Access

– Reducing barriers and increasing incentives

– Transit-oriented development

– Station pedestrian and bicycle access plans

Maintaining Quality of Life, Work, and Sanity

Theoretical Capacity Additional growth

“Do what you can, with what you have,

where you are” –Theodore Roosevelt

So remind me, what’s the connection between

TDM and transit?


TDM and transit?

TDM measures Incent and Enable Transit Access


TDM and transit?

TDM Measures Incent and Enable Transit Access

Essentially: TDM enables transit to work better

Key Transit Barriers

Physical

Folding Bikes on Transit Bikes on Transit combine bicycling and transit to provide a high

level of mobility by leveraging strengths of both modes.

Benefits

– Bridges the first/last mile gap

– Extends the service area of transit stations

– Eliminates transfers between transit lines

– Reduces VMT

In Practice

– LA Metro studied potential to subsidize folding bike program to enhance transit ridership

– Policies that enable folding bicycles at any time • BART

• NYC MTA Long Island Railroad

• DC Metrorail

• San Francisco MTA

Circulator Shuttles

41

Google Shuttle -- Photo Credit: Flickr User Tuxmann

Circulator shuttles provide a last-mile connection to/from major

transit nodes are highly effective at reducing vehicle trips.

Benefits

– Bridges the first/last mile gap

– Typically replaces a much longer VMT trip

– Can replace need for company parking expansion

In Practice

– Some cities are developing “shuttle policies” to ensure convenient curb space is available near transit stations

– When a critical mass of duplicative services form, a Transportation Management Association (TMA) may be appropriate to provide consolidated service

Flexibility

Guaranteed Ride Home

43

Credit: Roosbeh Rokni

Guaranteed Ride Home Programs: provide a free ride home for

“encouraged” modes when emergency situations arise.

Benefits

– Eliminates fear of being “stuck at work”

– Leverages existing transportation resources

– Low cost program to encourage transit and other modes

In Practice

– Alameda County (Oakland, CA) estimates program reduced 405,496 one-way car trips in 2012

– Equivalent to 3,330 tons of CO2

Sunk Cost

Car-sharing (traditional)

Car-sharing allows on-demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an

as-needed basis. Monetizes the true costs of vehicle operation (often less than

owning a vehicle in cities)

Benefits

– Reduces the need for businesses or households to own their own vehicles

– Reduces personal transportation costs and VMT

– 11%-26% of car-sharing participants sold a personal vehicle

– Eliminates need for vehicle at work for mid-day trips

In Practice

– Accommodation of carsharing pods at transit stations and in residential developments, even airports

Car-sharing (peer-to-peer)

Peer-to-Peer Car-sharing has become increasingly popular and has

reduced barriers for accessing car-share vehicles. Enables individuals to

share cars with eachother.

Benefits

– Leverages existing vehicles to reduce need for personal auto ownership

– Enables carsharing to existing in unique markets

In Practice

– Growing marketplace with several nationwide networks

“Touchscreen” Transportation

Incentives

Transit Pass Programs

Transit Pass (Ecopass) Programs provide a deep discount for transit

passes which provide unlimited ride for participants.

Benefits

– Highly effective at incentivizing transit use

– Reduces need for parking and traffic mitigations

In Practice

– Often bundled with residential “move-in” or company benefits

– College campuses have been doing this for years

50

76%

81%

46%

33%

60%

57%

42%

24%

11% 13%

20%

8%

21%

27%

18%

25%

13%

36%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Santa Clara (VTA) [1] Bellevue, Washington[2] Ann Arbor, Michigan[3] UCLA[4] (faculty and staff) Univ. of Washington,Seattle[5]

Drove Before Pass Drove After Pass

Transit Before Pass Transit After Pass

AC Transit EasyPass

AC Transit’s Transbay Pass, which is equivalent to EasyPass, costs $1,590 a year per person.

Then there are “sticks”

X

Commuter Benefits Ordinance

San Francisco

Who?

• Businesses in San Francisco

• 20 or more employees nationwide

What (Requirements)

• Pre-tax benefits: up to $245/month for transit/vanpool expenses

• Employer-Paid transportation benefits: Monthly subsidy for transportation expenses equivalent to the price of a monthly transit pass

• Employer-provided transportation: Company funded bus or van service between employee homes

Commute Trip Reduction Law (CTR)

Seattle, WA

Who?

• Statewide for major employers

(100+ employees)

• Applied through ordinance at local level

What (Requirements)

• Local Transportation Coordinator: individual

responsible for locally administering CTR program

• Implementation of at minimum two of “menu” of TDM

options

Paul Supawanich, AICP Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 500

San Francisco, CA

415-284-1544

[email protected]

@tweetsupa

NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2013

APA Presentation

April 17, 2013

Daniel McCoy, Genentech

Parking, People and Planet: How TDM can positively impact all three at once

APA Presentation| Slide 57 | April 17, 2013

Genentech At A Glance

• Genentech became a member of the

Roche Group in March 2009

• Genentech’s South San Francisco

Campus is the headquarters for all

Roche pharmaceutical operations in the

United States.

Founded more than 35 years ago, Genentech is

a leading biotechnology company that discovers,

develops, manufactures and commercializes

medicines to treat patients with serious or life-

threatening medical conditions.


Genentech is….

• Our South San Francisco site is approximately 200 acres and 10,000 employees.

• Our employees live and commute from throughout the entire San Francisco Bay Area.

• Majority of employees live in San Mateo and San Francisco Counties


Why TDM? It achieves multiple objectives

For employers and developers

• Improved recruitment, retention and productivity

• Reduced parking costs

• More efficient land use

For employees

• Quality of life

• Commute costs savings

For society

• Pollution and congestion reduction

• Cost effective solution compared to infrastructure / supply side

investments


$25,000

$25,000

$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000

$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000

$25,000

$25,000 $25,000

$25,000

$25,000 $25,000 $25,000

$25,000 $25,000

$25,000


Negotiated Parking Ratios

Office Lab Mfg/Other Warehouse

2006 Ratio 1.6 per 1,000

Required Parking Ratio 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Negotiated Parking Ratios 2.75 1.40 0.90 0.50

Building Type

Parking Ratios

1 Source: Nelson Nygaard February 2006 M ode Split Survey


Outcome of Master Plan

• City of South San Francisco Requirements

- Continue to provide all basic TDM programs

- Use some sort of incentive or parking cash-out

program

• At the end of the first 3 year period achieve a

minimum of a 30% mode shift

• Independent survey to be conducted every 3

years

• Monetary fines for not meeting 30% mode shift

at end of each 3 year review period


gRide Program Strategies

• GenenBus – Direct bus service from 57 communities throughout

the Bay Area plus BART/Caltrain “last mile” shuttle service

• DNA Shuttle – Four intra-campus routes facilitate face to face

meetings and promote “faster than driving” productivity

• $4/day cash “Reward” for using a non-drive alone mode

• $4/passenger/day Driver “Reward” (Max. $32/day)

• $120/month transit and vanpool “Subsidy”

• Preferred parking – for carpool and vanpool drivers

• Guaranteed Ride Home – for emergency travel home

• Bicycle parking/shower/locker/towel services

• Bikeshare program – for travel around campus


gRide Today

• Meeting 10-year Master Plan goal

• Currently at 41% alternative commute mode share

• Over 3,000 employees submit their gRide Rewards commute

calendar each month

• Award winning program and recognized innovator among peer

companies and public agencies

• Over 1.3 million riders in 2012

• Approaching 115 million miles

eliminated from Bay Area

roadways

• Reduces over 14 million lbs. of

CO2 each year


GenenBus

• Focused on communities with

• No viable public transit

alternatives

• Longer, more arduous

and costly commutes

• high density SF

neighborhoods

• 38 GenenBuses serving 27

commuter routes with over

3,500 riders per day


gRide Outreach

Employees can contact gRide for help with programs, personalized commute planning, or any other questions they might have.

• Robust web presence

• gRide Hotline: 6:00AM to 7:30PM

• Simple Email address

• gRide iPhone App with schedules

• SMS Text Alerts

• gRide FAQs, discussion forum, gRide Blog


Commute Mode Shift from 2006 to 2012

22.3%

25.8%

25.4%

28.9%29.6%

33.8%

30.9%

33.8%32.8%

34.7% 35.0% 35.1%

40.1%

77.4%

74.0%

74.4%

70.8%

70.1%

65.9%

68.8%

65.6%66.7%

64.7% 64.4% 64.4%

58.8%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Feb '06 Nov '06 Jan '07 Oct '07 Apr '08 Oct '08 Apr '09 Oct '09 Apr '10 Oct '10 April '11 Oct '11 Oct '12

gRide Modes

Drive Alone

Linear (gRide Modes)

Linear (Drive Alone)


GHG Reduction Impacts by Year

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

2006(Nov)

2007(Jan)

2007(Oct)

2008(Apr)

2008(Oct)

2009 (Apr)

2009(Oct)

2010(Apr)

2010(Oct)

2011(Apr)

2011(Oct)

2012(Oct)

Emis

sio

ns/

em

plo

yee

(m

etr

ic t

on

s)

Nu

mb

er

of

em

plo

yee

s/To

tal

em

issi

on

s (m

etr

ic t

on

s)

YearTotal Emissions (metric tons) Number of employees Emissions per employee (metric tons)


What’s Next

• Why do more?: The gRide program has exceeded its 30% Alternative Commute Mode usage goal per the 10 Year Master Plan

• Renegotiate Parking Ratios: Given that Genentech is currently out performing the Master Plan goal, there may be an opportunity to negotiate parking ratios even lower, thereby reducing the amount and cost of parking even further.

• Short and Mid-Distance Commutes: The majority of Genentech employees live within 20 miles of South San Francisco. Providing a viable alternative commute option for employees with short commutes is challenging given the disadvantage that TDM modes have compared to the drive alone vehicle.

• Efficiency: Managing program growth in the most efficient manner possible is challenging given customer expectations linked to the GenenBus brand relative to other, lower cost service/mode options such as carpooling and vanpooling.

• Carbon Footprint Impacts: Evaluating CO2 reductions from reducing solo trips versus other emissions reduction strategies.

• Benchmark Programs: GNE now takes great pride in being one of the best TDM programs in the region and will continue to look for ways to improve the program and its results.


A Great Place to Work

Awards and Recognitions

FORTUNE Magazine

• In 2013, Genentech named one of the “100 Best

Companies to Work For” for the 15th consecutive year.

San Francisco Business Times

• In 2012, Genentech named on the list of the “Best Places

to Work in the Bay Area” for the 9th time.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

• Co-Recipient of MTC’s Merit Award for Outstanding

Commute Program

70


THANK YOU

[email protected]

Co-Benefits TDMs Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gases

Lesley Lowe, AICP CTP

APA’s 2013 National Planning Conference

Chicago, IL April 17, 2013

S667 Travel Demand Management Programs

Transportation Emissions

In 2010, the transportation sector accounted for

about 27% of total U.S. GHG emissions.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010, Table

ES-7, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html


Nearly 95% of transportation GHG emissions

came through direct combustion of fossil fuels.

Source: U.S. Department of Energy. Transportation Energy Data Book, Table 2.5, 2011. http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml


1. Reduce carbon content of fuel

2. Create “greener” vehicles

3. Reduce VMT

Three ways to reduce transportation emissions:

Vs.

Transportation Emissions Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Transportation Energy Data Book, Table 3.7, 2012. http://www-

cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter3.shtml

http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter3.shtml



GHG Reductions from TDM How far can TDM take us?

Car Sharing

Effectiveness

Studies cited by FHWA, found that in the US and

Canada have found that emissions declined on

average between 0.8 and 1.2 MTCO2 annually per

member.

The average change in emissions is -0.58 t GHG per

household per year for the observed impact.

CAPCOA: 0.4-0.7 percent

Telecommuting


Effectiveness

Teleworker expense at home:

0.5 MTCO2 per teleworker annually

Teleworker save by not driving:

0.5 MTCO2 per teleworker annually

Employer Shuttles

Effectiveness

Direct reduction in VMT to GHG.

Low implementation/small employer

2% * 20% *0.67 = 3% reduction

High implementation/larger employer

20% * 100% * 0.67 = 13.4%


Ridesharing

CAPCOA: 1-15 percent

Effectiveness

2005 Washington DC Study found that ride sharing

reduced 146,000 VMT per day.

Assuming an average fleet fuel economy of 20.7

mpg, that a reduction of 62 MTCO2 per day.

Subsidized or Discounted Transit

Programs


Effectiveness

How effective these programs are at reducing VMT

(and thus GHG) are tied to three key factors.

Information used to calculate reduction includes:

1. Number of people eligible

2. Transit subsidy amount

3. Location of site (CBD, Suburb)

TDM Programs and GHG Reduction Circling back to those co-benefits of TDM Programs

1. Healthy selves

2. Healthy air and reduced GHG

3. Healthy land use patterns

4. Healthy budgets

Thank you.

ESA is where

solutions and

service meet.

Lesley Lowe, AICP CTP [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Q & A Peter Costa, AICP, PTP [email protected]

Tim Grzesiakowski [email protected]

Paul Supawanich, AICP [email protected]

Dan McCoy

[email protected]

Lesley Lowe, AICP CTP [email protected]






travel demand management programsmedia.planning.org/media/npc13/presentations/s667.pdf · programs...

Documents