Public Transportation Division

Name of group:CTR Board

Date of meeting:January 26, 2018

Members present:Brian Lagerberg, Melissa Wideman,Kristina Walker, Veronica Jarvis, Karen Parkhurst, Amy Shumann, Ricardo Gotla, Jennifer Hass, Matt Hansen, NancyPritchett, TedHorobiowski.

Legislators present: Rep. Jake Fey, Sen. John Hobbs.

WSDOT staff present: Keith Cotton, Kathy Johnston, Stan Suchan, Susan Garber-Yonts, Gayla Reese-Walsh, Colin Pippin-Timco, Ian Wesley, Evan Olsen, Amber Nguyen, Debbie Ruggles, Jef Lucero.

Guests present: Mark Melnyk, Caryn Walline, LeAnn Yamamoto, Kim Keeling, Maggi Lubov and Sarah Spicer, Mimi West, Jan Bowers, Kate Johnson, Pamela Cook, Debbie Jaksich, Maggie Moore.

Topic of Discussion / Basic Ideas and Discussion by Group / Decisions Made / Action Needed and By Whom
Welcome, safety briefing, agenda review and revisions, introductions
Discussion with Legislators
Rep. Fey (27th District)
Sen. Hobbs (44th District) / Introduction of Rep. Fey – provided view from his role – from 27th District (Tacoma) – session has begun, supplemental budget year, not much money. Revenues of gas tax are down, other revenues are up. House –following the budget requests as they go along – meeting regularly. Not looked at multimodal request yet.
Sen. Hobbs – from the 44th District (Snohomish County) – Supports the CTR program and has some ideas for it. Has a bill to put the use of ORCA as a pilot project (SB6556). Excludes if businesses apply for tax credit. Sen. Hobbs wants carbon legislation to better spell out more multimodal supports. Pilot program – test first – can we get the results we want.
Sen. Hobbs – Suggestions for bringing visibility to CTR: Visit and talk about CTR, bring in business members, bring in people from own district – even better. Not just committee members. He questioned whether there are enough assets to meet the demand or potential demand.
Sen. Hobbs – chamber of commerce members – great program, talk with Rotary groups, etc. get to business community – handouts, etc.
Board members should be sitting on the Chamber boards, business community boards – rather than asking them to join us. / Meet with members, even if they aren’t on the transportation committees.
Invite members of chambers of commerce to also meet with members.
Hearing from the Board is important. Business community is important to the messaging. / Need to get language to Rep. Fey – proviso associated with state worksites/employees.
Sen Hobbs – asked Board to besupportive as he works through some of these issues – look at bill SB6556 – and provide language to strengthen the bill.
CTR Data Analytics work plan (Ian Wesley) / Ian shared statewide CTR Data and Analysis Work Plan with the group. Will work with CTR TAG.
Any ideas should be shared with Michael Wandler
Stan: Thepurpose of this work plan is starting engagement – data you think you have, may not be what you think it is. Encouraged Board to engage with the Data Analytics team and TAG to find out more. Be open to transformational change. Surveys are cumbersome to employers. Work plan to dig in further – need all of you to look through it and be engaged. / Read the work plan.
Provide feedback to Michael Wandler.
Volunteer for CTR Performance TAG if interested.
Melissa will send the Results WA information to the group.
Strategic Plan – Education survey results (Ian) / Ian presented information about the survey. Gathering information from legislators, policy makers, business leaders, and general public. Will review results and dive in further.
Strategic plan: Next steps and the flexibility options table / Reviewed table of flexibility options – diving in at workshop in February. Will have strategic partners at the workshop. Will begin to prioritize.
Strategic Plan: Jurisdiction panel on flexibility / Name participants: Kathy Johnston, facilitator;Maggi Lubov, Caryn Walline, LeAnn Yamamoto and Sarah Spicer, panelists.
Fishbowl –questions in italics:
What do you see as the most promising flexibility options so far?
Likes last one – GTEC and corridor projects – sees good benefit outside CTR worksites.
Sees flexibility working best with a strong core program, allowing jurisdictions to do what works best for their community/constituents. Allows to focus where need is. Refinements – work on core program to serve flexibility at local level.
Interesting to look at – having an unfunded GTEC, adopted by local jurisdiction – using planning funds. Used in so many ways. TDM/CTR became part of the language. Using CMAQ funds to support GTEC. Using corridor framework – able to work with policy makers with this. Allows for flexibility. Able to identify where needs might be.
Focus on local context – not one size fits all.
Alternate plan in county – better engagement and focus on where most need was. Lots more potential. Use resources better.
Did you change measurement methods?
Yes, went away from survey. Positives – more dynamic use of the data, could see month to month, quarterly, yearly trends. Noticed people tracking less – do survey this year to compare.
Use of calendaring system – have all worksites using it. ETCs use to manage their program. CMAQ grant – driving behavior change. Data collected is used all the time.
Survey is just a snapshot every 2 years – not always as useful. Using data is important, so finding ways to gather it more real time is important.
Emphasis – data quality and use of it, ease of collecting. Use for program messaging, local context, local engagement, decision making. Depends on your base. Need to figure out goals for data. Excited for data analysis strategy being proposed.
What if you had great data at census tract level? Would you use that instead of worksite data?
Decision makers like that because it is their constituents – would use in conjunction rather than instead. Doesn’t allow for snapshot at worksite; could give you opportunity and limitation information.
Do you share data with public works?
Have shared with lots of departments, not necessarily with public works. Outreach based on information about projects happening.
Yes – trying to work with Public Works more – sees the ties to CTR. New mayor trying to pull things upward. Hopefully will see shift in infrastructure/TDM ties.
What data do you use and share?
All of it – state, citywide, local data – TDM ties not always seen. We’re moving away from CTR to TDM language.
Do any of you have thoughts about opt-in or opt-out options?
Have employers who opt-in (voluntary). Opt-out is a no-go; worries about availability of funds since it is limited already for either. Have to go to vision – have to point to performance- based congestion mitigation program – point to congestion you’re trying to fix.
Forced opt-in – looking at parking places, make some of these changes. 6-9 not really the peak anymore – missing many companies. Worksites starting earlier.
Small jurisdictions – outlying. Contribute to congestion. Wouldn’t be best for opt-out option. Core program supports their participation – if giving them opt-out option, they would.
Air quality is an issue – use information and data on how much is reduced due to program data. Reference of clean air act.
How do you balance your data collection with employer privacy concerns?
Have data collection policy to address this. Have conversations with employers, assurances. Never name the employer – roll up data to not identify employer.
Does WSDOT and Board determine what a GTEC is?
In the code, pretty defined. If we’re talking about flexibility, let it be more flexible based on corridor.
Would you support an employer opt-out if the jurisdiction manages the process?
Not really – worry about the slippery slope. Could they pay for something to feed the program? Time and resource issue – how much do we spend on non-participants vs. participants. Use of state law as teeth. Payment to opt-out would be
Just give us more money. Thankful for all the grants, but hard to manage the program when there is more need, with state and local growth. Economic development.
Need better performance, not just status quo. Flexibility in funding allows for broader options locally. Incentives are limited based on restrictions of funding; affects local participation. Encouraging innovation while maintaining core program. Partner and grow.
Why do employers need to meet 70% response rate and do jurisdictions really care?
Yes, jurisdictions care. Higher participation is better for quality and validity. Number to shoot for which encourages participation in the survey.
What challenges would flexibility bring to your community?
Depends on flexibility – doesn’t want it to change the message, have to re-explain the program, don’t want to restart whole program – consistency is key. May be issue for WSDOT and Board when trying to roll up data that may be variable from local flexibility of program delivery.
Would a GTEC approach work and co-exist with a mandate?
Yes – clear roles and responsibilities defined to support the mandate, but allow for local responsiveness.
Little tweaks can save on administrative burden. App based survey? User friendly. Real time. Gains would add up.
Calendaring on mycommute.com – what is the difference? Not as complex as rideshareonline.com. Have profile, log trips, pull data – use both if used by participants. Share with employer. Helps with local management. Can use to populate maps to show where employees are located. Still need – did in 1993! Shared in a compelling way.
Strategic plan: Employer panel on flexibility / Celebrity interviews with employers –
Karen Parkhurst, facilitator; Mark Melnyk, Mike Ennis and Kristina Walker, panelists.
If mandate changed to voluntary – would you as an employer stay engaged/participate? If tax credit was still available – yes. If not, maybe, maybe not. See it as a benefit to their employees. May still offer. Absolutely would have employers drop off. Some employers would do less – no to survey, or other options. Pick and choose pieces that work for them. Link to recruit and retention. If mandate goes away for the administrative pieces it would depend on who stays and who goes.
Flexibility options. How might these play out with Employers?
Businesses don’t care how you get there –if it helps get to solutions, helps bottom line, that’s fine with them. If it’s scalable, voluntary – works for them. We’re all using the same roads – goods and services in the same area, how to get tradeoff in areas of congestion. All responsible for congestion. Motivation to measure for program and business sense. Has to be meaningful data for both. Likes language about being more effective in measuring. Businesses care more about how employees are effected. Worried more about employees and customers, not the big picture (except PR people). Link to saving money (health costs?) Wants something easy to communicate to employees, community, bottom line, customers and clients.
Recognition – does this matter?
Hard to get CEOs there – more programmatic representation. Yes for more recognition. Do something like PSE – show comparison to most efficient neighbor – helps to motivate.
Committing staff resources – how do we sell that?
Impact on ETC – if business values, they’ll dedicate staff and resources to it. Sharing ETC’s – worth talking about. Dangerous area – doesn’t allow for shown investment, track own progress.
Management impact – do these move us more to management engagement or not?
Depends on how you share information and what you share – be substantive and focus on bottom line. Dollars translates across various levels of management. Flexibility is not really the thing we want to use with management. Having the management sign off is one piece of the picture. Have to show how it layers on to larger system – show linkages and infrastructure needed. Allowing a company to choose is positive – but there are differences dependent on the industry. For example – if state agencies don’t want to participate, what does that message send? What is the consequence for not participating? Do as I say, not as I do?
What about other options? Telework, vanpools, etc.
Vanpools are really effective. Telework – federal government views this as a mode. Should invest in this. Made the decision not to focus on telework as trying to get people downtown, so walking/biking is more of focus. Employers locally determine focus.
Investments in ETC/CTR – seen as benefit by employers.
What would make it easier, simpler for employers? Survey – onerous, time consuming. Easy to check the boxes for the minimum.
Health benefits – is this a good carrot for employers?
If it translates directly to reduced health premium costs, yes. Link to wellness coordinator having a shared goal with transportation coordinator.Listening to employees – Swedish example – tailored to worksite. Carpool and vanpool for a hospital on a hill.
Saving money at worksite is important – is clean air a compelling reason?
Not so much. Hearing more and more about health and wellness – mental health. How this plays out for the culture and the worksite and employee needs.
When we want to have funding for this program, marketing is not considered important by legislature. How do we talk about using funding for education and outreach?
Important to have as part of the program. LNI and DOR send out flyers, information regularly, why is this not the same?
Swedish is very happy to be a participant. 
Meeting outcomes, next steps, adjourn / Three vacancies on the CTR Board – if anyone knows of possible members to recruit, let Keith know.
Next meeting will be in Seattle (City of Seattle to host) on Feb. 23. Focus on strategic planning process – we will do a deeper dive on flexibility and education. Think about employers and others to participate. Send names to Susan Garber-Yonts.
Announcement: For those who have not seen the post to the TDM list serve – something came out this morning recognizing the Capitol Hill In Motion program - it got national attention. / Actions from the day:
Rep Fey proviso language – to strengthen state agency role
Sen Hobbs – 6556 – needs support with that bill – language for his bill and testimony
Melissa – send out link to Results WA information.
Michael – join performance committee; review performance work plan
Ricardo – volunteer to develop one pager/help from Matt
Send possible names for the February workshop to Susan.
Send possible Board member names and contact information to Keith.
SB 6556 / Board testimony for SB 6556 – who will testify. / Need to put together a panel for this. / Ricardo will think about who to testify put together a panel.

Minutes by:D. Ruggles