Executive Summary of CTR Program Assessment Questionnaire Responses from Local and Regional

Executive Summary of CTR Program Assessment Questionnaire Responses from Local and Regional Governments

June 24, 2011

Clark County/RTC

Congestion determines if region is affected; region determines what cities are affected.
Expand focus to include worksites in congested areas and worksites with 50+.
Major issue – SB commute; need to capture those residents, further develop/support centers-based program, and program focused on congested arterial corridors.
State should not set same goal for every region; region should work with locals to set goals/targets.
Should be mechanism/parameters to exempt or include areas/worksites.
Tie CTR more to geography than employer.
Challenge – how to quantify performance.

Spokane County/SRTC

State should continue to require major employers to participate for consistency in base funding. Region should be responsible for who voluntarily participates.
State should determine which worksites are impacted.
GTEC and SmartTrips language should be included in program scope and attached to base funding if results are required.
Limitation – morning commute; need to expand window for major employers, add PM commute, allow more creative definition (capture students, shift workers).
State should adopt statewide targets.
CTR fits into congestion management plans; congested corridors outlined in MPO plans – potential funding source in congested corridor programming.
Would expand existing program to add students, smaller employers, residents, geographic focus but funding limits that now.

Thurston County/TRPC

State should determine at county level where to implement program based on congestion; set goals and requirements; and, leave it to region to set local and worksite goals and determine strategy with local jurisdictions.
Consider affecting schools and all trips rather than commute.
Barriers: timing and survey issues; narrowness of funding strategy which is based on number of state-affected worksites.
Might want to try a couple of pilot projects to test feasibility and credibility of other measurements such as air pollution or economic vitality.
Would like to deal with all trips and target program geographically in corridors or centers; include schools.
Challenge – monitoring and measuring other goals such as jobs, air pollution.

Yakima County/YVCOG

State should determine in what regions the program should be required to be implemented based on set standards; should be regional control over which jurisdictions are affected; implementation of program within region should be determined by affected region/jurisdiction.
State should set minimum standard (100+ employees) but leave it to jurisdictions to determine criteria for participation.
Haven’t taken advantage of flexibility because all employers face same challenges – limited transit, free parking, limited funding to add program elements, amenities, incentives.
Goals should be set at state level, should vary by region, and let regions/jurisdictions set goals for employers.
Should be mechanism for opt in/out.
Ideal program would include smaller employers, institutions of higher learning, examine reducing all trips.

Whatcom County/WCOG

Disagrees with focus on major employers; state funding would be better spent if focused on all trips.
Local implementers should determine where and how it’s implemented; cities should be able to determine which partnerships and nature of partnerships they form with employers.
Need to shift away from congestion and need positive indicators (such as mode share going up in walking, biking, transit).
State needs to develop measurement methodologies like household trip diaries to capture non-work trips.
Mode share targets should be tied to current baseline data and based on measured potential for a given urban area to increase bike, walk, transit (ridesharing not as durable).
WCOG would use funding to partner with employers, putting 100% toward employer services, eliminating worksite reporting and CTR surveys.

Tri-Cities/BFCOG

History of using resources to manage and track trip reduction options for a long time with great success.
Plan on continuing volunteer CTR/TDM activities as react to changing population issues at Hanford, respect for agriculture and other business perspectives, and increase in urban traffic growth.
Consider a program that has ability to opt-in or out depending on issues or concerns of community.
Would like a program developed around more than one spot of delay; using multiple spots of delay would be better indicator of program need and not add requirements to adjacent urban areas/businesses that don’t show a CTR program need.

PSRC/TDM Steering Committee

Board/WSDOT set general parameters to allow program implementation flexibility at local and regional levels. RTPOs could work with jurisdictions to tailor CTR program to meet goals and objectives identified in plans. Local jurisdictions could provide minimum LOS to major employers and program resources in targeted way to meet needs of community.
Board/WSDOT determines areas affected by program to meet legislative intent and program goals.
If the goal of the program assessment is to provide flexibility in implementation at local and regional level, state should not limit where resources can be programmed beyond broad geographies such as UGAs. Regions would collaborate with locals on regional strategy. Funding regional work would need to be addressed, and it should not be re-programmed from local implementation budgets.
Adopting tiered LOS guidelines for various employers may be needed to maintain support for all employers, but allow locals to redirect savings from reduced areas to other areas with targeted support (corridor or residential-based).
Congestion is appropriate as it ties to focus of program yet generally targets the program in broad geographic areas.
Changes to program that would provide local and regional flexibility would make program a more effective tool in achieving local and regional objectives while further mainstreaming TDM and reaching a broader audience.
If jurisdictions could invest fewer resources on non-productive worksites and targeted residential or employment centers, that would support the regional policy of focusing resources in, and connecting the densest areas of the region. Locally, CTR dollars could be invested in programs that directly support TMP policies.
Jurisdictions either are not aware of the flexibility in the base program or there aren’t sufficient resources to implement the options available in the law.
GTECs successful because the infusion of additional funds over the base program allocation allowed jurisdictions to try new things and reach new markets.
Most appropriate way to set goals is regional collaboration with jurisdictions and WSDOT regarding types of measures and performance benchmarks.
Goals selected should be relevant to each agency involved in CTR planning and implementation process.
Board could develop set of 3 or 4 criteria where an employer is required to meet 2 or 3 to be eligible for services if they aren’t a major employer, or jurisdictions could develop a tiered system targeting/ matching employers with services.
Consider a development of a regional policy allowing jurisdictions to focus on sites within a given land use type or corridor.
CTR is the backbone of most TDM; PSRC would like TDM mainstreamed in project planning process and targeted to new viable markets.
Law should be rewritten to allow varying levels of service and lay out options for eligible uses of saved CTR resources.

Bellevue

Traditional CTR works well. State should determine where to implement program. Employers/city leaders understand/support requirements of base program; support may be undermined without state mandated program requirements.
No interest in changing it or spending extra staff time on regional process to figure out how to do it differently. Regional role should be focused on coordination within the region to support plan and program implementation.
Objective statewide criteria should determine worksite eligibility; should be process for jurisdictions to submit alternative proposals (including changing which employers would be affected) and get state approval if that approach/methodology would result in greater trip reduction.
Current CTR structure allows some flexibility; individual jurisdictions should be allowed to propose using an alternative approach or methodology. Board approval - contingent on whether alternative is more effective than traditional CTR and would not create negative impact on multi-jurisdictional employers.

King County Metro Representing Auburn, Burien, Des Moines, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Shoreline, Woodinville, Unincorporated King County

State should determine which areas are affected by law. RTPO should determine what geographic or jurisdictional areas are affected to focus limited resources/align with regional transportation and land management goals.

If RTPO decides area had density, congestion, infrastructure to warrant efforts in that city, should be mechanism to include smaller employers that neighbor major employers.
This is not the time for total rewrite of law and change “affected” definition, but need flexibility to focus resources on employers likely to achieve trip reduction.
Jurisdictions are unclear about what flexibility they currently have; have not taken advantage of it due to equity concerns and need for consistency. Suggest establishing a tiered system to focus limited resources/match services based on congestion, density, major employers, potential for trip reduction.
Consider expanding or removing AM peak window, or adding PM peak.
Need to be able to spend CTR dollars on marketing/promotions to the sites.
Barriers: just enough CTR dollars to cover basic legal requirements, state funding allocation based on site count, current definition of a CTR employer.
Look at relaxing/reducing reporting and surveying requirements for high achieving or outlying sites.
State should set goals/targets for regions; regions could set goals/targets for cities, corridors, and areas based on congestion, current and future land use, and investment in transportation infrastructure. CTR should be implemented with land use goal, parking policies, and transportation infrastructure.
Cities and jurisdictions need help exempting sites in areas with less congestion.
Ideal program would include smaller employers and residential neighborhoods associated with congested corridors. In cities would be on most congested corridors; if cities near congested corridors don’t have many large employers, CTR focus would be changed to residential, small businesses, or business parks. Would encourage neighboring cities to work together on shared congested corridors. Out cities would be ones with 1 or 2 major employers not in proximity to other major employers.

Redmond

State should set standard for where program should be implemented. Approach provides consistency/level playing field (in expectations, requirements, implementation, and funding) for jurisdictions and employers.
CTR program is a state mandate connected with transportation, environmental, economic goals; state has provided valuable leadership and resources demonstrating the effectiveness and value of the program.
Regional processes to address enhancements above and beyond the base program (GTECs) are welcome and desirable, but would need additional resources.
Current program highly successful and effective; don’t want to erode it.
Need to demonstrate the effectiveness and cost-benefit of enhancements such as adding residential areas, schools, employer worksites with 50+ employees.
To enhance flexibility while maintaining state wide consistency, consider this alternate approach: maintain requirement and funding allocation for CTR- affected employers to implement a CTR program, but allow local jurisdiction to experiment with resources that were provided to administer the program for large, CTR-affected employers. Each employer would still be required to develop and implement a basic level of plan.
Congestion should continue to be key criterion.
Changes to scope to help meet local objectives: strengthen connection with parking, provide option to reduce reporting requirements of employers who require individual employees to pay for parking or choose an alternative; look at extending AM peak; examine formula for funding distribution
City has streamlined level of administration that occurs with CTR program, provides proactive outreach, supplement with local incentives and grant opportunities.
TAG could discuss ways to incorporate flexibility within current framework and available funding.
Areas and worksites should not be completely exempted.
Need to educate more planners and transportation engineers on how CTR can and is an effective means to implement land use goals. Incorporate it more explicitly in growth management and transportation processes.
For enhancements, new funding should have requirements matched with local funding.
Approach maintains efforts to reduce congestion by providing clear mandate, framework for action, and the biggest return on investment for the level of effort and resources provided.
Tolling and high gas prices increase pressure on large employers to do something to alleviate financial impacts that emerge; large employers have opportunity to be thought and business leaders that help frame the way forward in an era of diminished resources to address mobility needs while maintaining healthy economic growth.

Seattle

CTR is state program so Board and WSDOT should set general program parameters, including identifying regions, counties, cities, and cities that must implement CTR plans. Counties and cities should be able to decide how to use limited CTR funding to target affected employers with the goal of aligning and leveraging CTR resources with other local transportation and land use demand management goals and investments.
PSRC does not need to be involved in direct implementation, but should continue to ensure that it is a recognized strategy in T2040, and they could assist in identifying additional strategies and resources to implement CTR plans at the regional level.
WSDOT should maintain its commitment to the base program. Minimum standards/thresholds provide clarity to employers about effect of law and their responsibilities and establish basis by which funds are distributed at local level.
Flexibility to invest CTR resources to leverage other local investments and strategies would lead to greater ROI.
Congestion is reasonable criteria for implementation of a commute trip based law.
Meeting basic requirements exhausts current funding, with not resources left for innovative programming or leveraging with other mobility alternative strategies.
Need guidance model for how to take advantage of flexibility currently offered.
Jurisdictions should be able to use funds on centers or corridors with greatest potential to affect mode share changes.
Right-size minimum site-specific requirements based on employer’s ability to affect changes towards goals given its site location and availability of transportation options.
Consider streamlining existing survey and reporting requirements and allow more local flexibility to support locally crafted implementation strategies.
Improved database and reporting system could lead to more automated functions. Need ability to mine data.
Look for opportunities to condense/improve program reports
Allow jurisdictions to determine which employers have potential for further reductions and how to collaborate with them.
Include outreach to affected employers as element of program assessment.
At this time, big changes for program are not warranted.
Create incentive-based partnerships where jurisdictions implementing aggressive parking policies and/or making capital/operational investments in transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities/programs that support shifts in commute trip mode share could qualify for additional CTR resources.
Limit application of law to employers located in designated urban centers or mobility corridors where options to driving alone are available during commute times.
Disconnect between local and state regulations that result in duplicity for affected employers and dilution of resources (local regulatory structures that support CTR such as parking regulations, TMPs, major institution requirements).
Would fully integrate CTR with other city investments and strategies aimed at reducing SOVs, promoting alternatives, addressing congestion.
Would establish goals for CTR-affected employers by geography, not at worksite level.
City would focus some resources on seeking opportunity to engage businesses to educate them about value of program as corporate asset.
New approach would focus on employers located in investment centers or corridors, be more connected to comprehensive plan and transportation plan.

Tukwila

WSDOT and Board should continue determining general program boundaries; local programs should reflect RTPO plans; gives CTR credibility to have umbrellas helping determine appropriate direction. PSRC gives good recognition and clout which helps garner more recognition of the issues and help with local planning processes.
Cities should have flexibility for determining affected status.
Congestion is logical trigger.
AM peak window is confining – eliminate or look at PM peak. Need to change that to encourage employers to participate, but funding is inadequate. If law was less restrictive on this, center/corridor approach could encourage all employers within boundary
Changes to scope to help with local objectives: ability to target monies to support policies defined in regional transportation plans.
Have not taken advantage of current flexibility - difficult to implement changes with limited resources.
Suggest the program allow jurisdictions to cross boundaries and work collaboratively regionally. With additional funding, PSRC could work to help develop implementation programs within the framework of adopted and planned regional policies, and they could work to help set the goals and targets based on congestion.
City likes goals tied to congestion and land use. City feels strongly about better connectivity by the local transit agency to hubs.
Makes sense that RTPO look at areas best suited for targeted investment in trip reduction based n congestion indicators. Exempting areas/worksites requires clear method that needs to come from the top, such as Board. Rather than exempting sites, develop criteria that encourage participation for decrease of GHG emissions.
Program should be aligned and implemented with land use goals, parking policies, and transportation infrastructure. Sound Transit – examine connectivity from state and work jurisdictions in process of improvements for walking, bicycling, and transit connections from rail to central points.
Work hard to make TDM part of the planning process and tie to permitting and development.
Ideally, program would look at congestion issues, focus on connectivity with emphasis on all employers regardless of size.
Cities that opt out would be in outlying areas; would like to identify employers beyond the definition of the AM window and focus on all employees commuting.
RTPOs could work with cities to decide on employers that fall within congested corridors.
Barriers: window definition of CTR employers, lack of sufficient funding.

Pierce County/Pierce Transit