Climatechangestudio vol2

PAYD Insurance

1 Reducing Emissions

VOL 2: TOWARDS A LOW CARBON PHILADELPHIAREDUCING EMISSIONS 30 PERCENT BY 2030 IN THE DVRPC REGION

University of PennsylvaniaMay 2014

Melissa Andrews, Libby Horwitz, Brynn Leopold, Dan Levin, Bobby Lu, Lucy Xu

Section Title

Reducing Emissions 2

Table of Contents

3 Reducing Emissions Reducing Emissions 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................5INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................6TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................12PARKING STRATEGIES ..........................................................................20PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE INSURANCE ...........................................................32ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES ...........................................................36RETROFITS .............................................................................................42APPENDICES ..........................................................................................54

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................54PARKING STRATEGIES ..................................................................................60PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE INSURANCE ..................................................................70ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES ......................................................................72RETROFITS .....................................................................................................76

Recommended Measures


Acknowledgements


In recognition of their efforts in supporting our studio this spring, the PennDesign Climate Change Studio 2014 would like to acknowledge the following:

» Our Instructor Gary Binger (FAICP) for his guidance and support » Rob Graff and Shawn Megill Legendre of DVRPC, our client representatives who took time to provide information, answer questions, and offer feedback to our group

» PennDesign faculty and staff including John Landis for developing the studio concept and Kate Daniel for her administrative support.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INTRODUCTION


30%

35%

40%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

parking

TOD

AFV

retrofits

PAYD

7.73%

7.4%

5.8%

0.8%0.27%


Backgroundat the request of the delaware Valley regional Planning commission (dVrPc), the university of Pennsylvania School of design climate change Studio developed recommendations for actions that the Metropolitan Planning organization can take, alone or in collaboration with other groups, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. This goal sets the dVrPc on track to meet its longer-term goals for greenhouse gas reduction, as outlined in connections 2040, for reducing emissions by 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. These emission reduction goals would apply to the dVrPc planning region, which includes Bucks, chester, delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties in Pennsylvania, and Burlington, camden, gloucester, and Mercer counties in new Jersey.

under the guidance of gary Binger, FaIcP, former Planning director of the association of Bay area governments and co-director of the center for a Sustainable california, the studio devoted the first half of the semester towards researching strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Focusing on the categories of compact development, buildings, and renewable fuels in power generation and transportation - categories that address the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the dVrPc region. The studio also researched greenhouse gas mitigation methods recognized as best practices in other metropolitan regions.

The studio researched 19 strategies in the three categories listed above.

Transportation and land use strategies included: » Transit-oriented development » Transfer of development rights » urban growth boundaries » Local compact development assistance » Public transit service expansion » Parking management » Vehicle pricing initiatives » Bicycle and pedestrian improvement programs » car and bike sharing

Building-related strategies included: » Building benchmarking » auditing and retrocommissioning to optimize energy performance » retrofitting » green buildings » university/business partnerships

Fuel source strategies included: » alternative fuel vehicles » district heating, cogeneration, and combined heat and power » Food waste and methane re-use » Solar production within the region

Introduction


» utility partnerships

calculated implementation of these strategies reached a total gHg reduction of 41%; however, this number was greatly flawed since many of the initiatives double-counted reductions, were based on infeasible assumptions, or contained calculations that did not accurately represent circumstances in the dVrPc region.

FIndIngS SuMMaryafter developing these findings, the studio focused on understanding how the region could reach the highest gHg emissions reduction feasible. This work included a literature review of other planning efforts, an examination of possible approaches necessary for reaching a 30% reduction by 2030, and an action plan for achieving a feasible 23% reduction by 2030.

ParT 1: aggreSSIVe PLannIng eFForTS In oTHer STaTeS and regIonSThe studio examined some of the most aggressive gHg reduction programs underway in the country. With the exception of San Francisco, these programs were not seeking more than a 25% gHg emissions reduction by 2030. Furthermore, while some of the most aggressive regional planning organizations have recommended ambitious levels of implementation, they currently are falling short of these goals. among our research, we noted:

» The Metropolitan Transportation commission (San Francisco) in its Plan Bay area aims to reduce per-capita co2 emissions by 15% per capita by 2035 in order to comply with state Senate Bill 375. Plan Bay area focuses on integrated transit and land use changes to achieve this level of reduction, and complements other plans, such as the Bay area air Quality Management district’s (BaaQMd’s) target of an 80% reduction to 2050 for the San Francisco Bay area. The division of planning goals occurs because each entity has different amounts of regulatory authority, and in different sectors. MTc intends to use advocacy and funding as an incentive for local governments to achieve the 15% reduction, as it cannot regulate local land use. The BaaQMd, conversely, can regulate factories and power plants and is focusing on those sectors. It would likely achieve its goals via a cap-and-trade system. overall, both MTc and BaaQMd are challenged to reduce gHgs in a “mature region” where most of the land is developed. It is easier for other metropolitan areas in california to achieve higher targets; greater Sacramento, for example, will have more growth over the next several decades, is smaller and thus easier to manage, and is already a gHg-intensive region. Thus, it is more reasonable for them to set and achieve a goal of 38% emissions reduction by 2030 and 83% by 2050.

» The commonwealth of Massachusetts has a 10% reduction requirement for 2020. governor deval Patrick’s administration is facing pressure, however, for only achieving a third of its goals. While the city of Boston has an 80% reduction target for municipal operations, the Boston MPo has no comparable plan.

» The Puget Sound regional council (Seattle) is following Washington State’s lead by establishing a 25% reduction target.

The targets laid out in these plans indicate that it is more difficult to achieve gHg emissions reductions in regions than in individual cities, particularly when a region crosses state lines. current conditions in metropolitan areas - from the nature of suburban built environments to often fragmented governance – severely hamper gHg

reduction efforts. The delaware Valley may be able to reach or surpass a 30% gHg emissions reduction by 2030, but only through implementing measures that currently may not be politically or financially feasible.

ParT 2: recoMMended STraTegIeS ultimately, the studio determined that a gHg reduction of 23% by 2030 was a feasible target within the dVrPc region. While our research indicates that achieving the 30% reduction target is not feasible without extremely aggressive measures, it should be noted that even the 23% reduction that we believe can be achieved by 2030 would put the dVrPc region among the nation’s leaders.

This report packages 4 strategies deemed to be of greatest feasibility - transit-oriented development, parking strategies, building retrofits (including solar installation), alternative fuel vehicles, and pay-as-you-drive (Payd) insurance - as an action plan for dVrPc. These strategies combine many of the approaches presented in Volume 1 to minimize double counting and to create efficient dVrPc programs that yield greater reductions with less investment.

each strategy includes a goal, measurable objectives, detailed greenhouse gas emissions reduction calculations, the cost of the program to the dVrPc, challenges to implementation, and recommendations for implementation. These implementation strategies are divided into 8 areas of dVrPc action, which are tied to dVrPc’s unique set of available tools.

(1) advocate(2) collect data(3) distribute Information(4) Fund(5) organize groups(6) Plan(7) Prioritize Implementation(8) Provide Technical assistance

The results of the studio’s detailed analysis, elaborated further in the body of the report, indicate that the dVrPc region could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 23% by 2030 in an optimistic but achievable scenario. The objectives include the following:

TransiT-orienTed developmenT:(1) Population shifts: accommodate 50% of the existing generation y cohort, 30% of existing retirees, and 75% of new population growth by 2030 within 1/2 mile of SePTa, PaTco, and new Jersey Transit commuter rail stops, and within 1/10 mile of SePTa and new Jersey Transit bus stops(2) Job shifts: accommodate 75% of job growth within 1/2 mile of commuter rail stops, and within 1/10 mile of SePTa and new Jersey Transit bus stops

parking sTraTegies:(1) Implement a Parking cash-out system across regional municipalities(2) Install real-Time Information Systems across the metro area(3) Increase parking fees in regional central business districts(4) establish a payment in-lieu of parking program across regional municipalities

reTrofiTs:(1) Implement retrofits to 25% of residential buildings by 2030(2) Implement retrofits to 20% of commercial and industrial buildings by 2030

alTernaTive fuel vehicles:(1) achieve a 50% annual growth rate of electric vehicles (eV), including both plug-in electric vehicles and all electric vehicles in the region(2) Facilitate the deployment of residential, as well as workplace and public electric vehicle



ACDFOPIT

Introduction

supply equipment (eVSe), including Level I, Level II, and dc fast charging stations in the regionpay-as-you-drive:(1) all auto insurance companies in the region provide Payd insurance as an option to light-duty vehicle owners.(2) achieve a 50% of adoption rate of Payd insurance of light-duty vehicles.

The expected greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 23% makes up the majority of dVrPc’s 30% goal, which reflects the many institutions in place, and ones that could relatively easily be added to the region, that contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We feel confident that our implementation strategy is well matched to the context of the dVrPc region.

ParT 3: STraTegIeS For reacHIng THe 30% LeVeL although likely infeasible to implement, given current conditions, measures exist that can help reach the target of 30% gHg emissions reductions by 2030. changing political attitudes, increased technology, and increased funding, would enable these strategies to become more feasible in the future. These actions could include the following:

TransiT-orienTed developmenT: Placing 90% each of new population growth, members of the generation y cohort, retirees, and new employment close to transit stations in the region would yield a gHg emission reduction of 9.2%.

parking sTraTegies: » enacting a land tax on all surface parking. It would incentivize alternative modes of

transport, increase density, and demolition of surface parking spaces. It could also have an ongoing effect of inducing more public transport and transit-oriented development.

» establishing aggressive parking maximums across all uses. rather than giving developers the option to cash out spaces, municipalities would establish a maximum allowable number of spaces per use and grant waivers only where the developer could make a convincing argument. aggressive parking maximums would again encourage more compact development along transit routes and within walkable communities.

reTrofiTs: » retrofitting 50% of residential buildings with optimal retrofitting measures, including solar

installation, would result in a 9.76% emissions reduction. These measures are further discussed in the retrofits chapter.

» retrofitting 40% of commercial buildings with 20% energy retrofits would result in a 1.72% gHg emissions reduction.

» retrofitting 20% of commercial buildings with 20% energy reduction retrofits, and 20% of commercial buildings with 40% energy reduction retrofits would yield a gHg emissions reduction of 2.58%.

alTernaTive fuel vehicles: » If dVrPc could help achieve a 55% annual growth rate in electric vehicles in the region,

the reduction of gHg emissions could be 12%.

solar: » Installing solar onto 1% of all land in the region would lead to an 8.79% gHg emissions

reduction. While this reduction is large, it should be noted that total available land is less than 100% due to shade, ownership, and slope concerns. The retrofit section


30%

35%

40%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

solar

TOD

AFV

retrofits 12.3%

12%

9.2%

8.9%

includes a recommendation to create a solar access map; once made, this map would help dVrPc to identify the best solar locations.

cap and Trade: » The dVrPc region might consider the possibility of a cap-and-trade system similar to

that slated for the San Francisco Bay area. new Jersey was a member of the regional greenhouse gas Initiative, which maintains a cap-and-trade program, before leaving during the christie administration. Because the State may ultimately rejoin rggI, new Jersey counties within the dVrPc region would further reduce their gHg emissions through this program. It is unlikely that Pennsylvania will engage in a regional cap-and-trade program, however, as it is economically tied to the production of natural gas.

other programs that have the potential to significantly reduce ghg emissions include: » urban growth boundaries » Mandated green building codes » Transfer of development rights programs » Significant expansion of the public transport network » Installing and purchasing wind technology outside of the region

Implementing all of these measures as calculated above would result in a total gHg emissions reduction of 42.3%. This figure accounts both for reducing gHg emissions by 30% from the current level emissions, as well as offsetting the projected additional 9% increase in the business-as-usual scenario. However, as mentioned above, the magnitude of these strategies remains infeasible in current conditions. The following section provides an obtainable action plan for dVrPc to implement to reach gHg emissions reductions.



References

REFERENCES1. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Board%20of%20direc-

tors/adopted%20resolutions/2013/2013-11.ashx?2. la=en and Stephanie Hom and david Vautin, telephone conver-

sation with authors, april 21, 2014.3. Stephanie Hom and david Vautin, telephone conversation with

authors, april 21, 2014.4. Ibid.5. Ibid.6. Ibid.7. Ibid.8. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/metropolitan/

mpo/boston_mpo/9. david abel, “commercial food waste to be banned,” The Boston

globe, May 4, 2012,10. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/arti-

cles/2012/05/04/state_to_propose_banning_commercial_food_

11. waste_from_landfills_by_2014/?page=2, 2.12. http://www.psrc.org/assets/3706/appendix_L_-_greenhouse_

gas_4-part_Strategy.pdf13. dVrPc regional energy analysis document.

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

GOALReduce GHG emissions produced by private automobiles by densifying development around transit nodes.

OBJECTIVES(1) Population shifts: Accommodate 50% of the existing Generation Y cohort, 30% of existing retirees, and 75% of new population growth by 2030 within 1/2 mile of SEPTA, PATCO, and New Jersey Transit commuter rail stops, and within 1/10 mile of SEPTA and New Jersey Transit bus stops.

(2) Job shifts: Accommodate 75% of job growth within 1/2 mile of commuter rail stops, and within 1/10 mile of SEPTA and New Jersey Transit bus stops.

GHG REDUCTIONSAggressive land use policies and transit-oriented development (TOD) measures have the potential to reduce GHG emissions 3.2% - 5.8% below the anticipated 87 million MT CO

2-eq

GHG emissions predicted for the DVRPC region in 2030. These reductions come from the combined reductions in VMT from new and existing regional populations moving into denser transit-oriented neighborhoods, and from employees commuting to jobs located within TOD (See Appendix 1.1).

COST The cost to DVRPC in assisting public and private entities to plan for and create TOD is approximately $7 million over the next 16 years, yielding a benefit-cost ratio (again, to DVRPC) of about 0.0014% GHG reductions for every $1,000 spent.

Cost breakdowns are as follows:Prioritization of communities for TOD: Minimal funding needed. Outreach: DVRPC funds to support staff time. This position might require 3 full-time equivalent employees per year, for a total cost of $100,000 per employee per year (salary plus benefits and taxes). This cost is up to $300,000 per year from DVRPC and/or partnering organization budgets, or $4.8 million over the next 16 years (until 2030).

Technical support for implementing TOD: DVRPC again funds through staffing. This position may require work from 2 additional full-time equivalent employees per year, for a total cost of $100,000 per employee per year (salary plus benefits and taxes). This cost is up to $200,000 per year from DVRPC and/or partnering organization budget, or $3.2 million over the next 16 years.

Development of TOD: This step is funded by communities and developers, so there is no cost to DVRPC. See the Financing section and Appendix 1.2 for more details.

CHALLENGESPrivate Automobiles are the Default: The region’s road network offers much more flexibility and often a faster travel time than the region’s rail network. Many destinations within the DVRPC region are only accessible by car, and others are much faster to reach by car. Most people as a default choose the flexibility that car travel offers if they can afford it.

Negative Perceptions of TOD: Residents and community leaders may be opposed to TOD, particularly out of the concern that the increased density of TOD will result in vehicle



30%

35%

40%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

Transit-Oriented Development

congestion and a burden on existing community infrastructure, including but not limited to parking, roads, and the school system. In some communities, particularly those in the suburbs, it will be difficult to alleviate these concerns.

Regulatory Limitations: Zoning ordinances in the region often do not permit densities that make TOD economically viable. These ordinances may also enforce separation of uses and emphasize the car over the pedestrian in areas around transit nodes, further reducing their capacity to be thriving community centers. Existing permitting and entitlements processes for developing TOD can be costly and time-consuming, which can reduce developer interest in pursuing TOD. Furthermore, some of these local land use laws may be challenging to alter.

Unproven Product: The DVRPC region experiences a “first-mover” problem in regards to TOD. Mixed-use TOD is a relatively unproven type of real estate product in many communities, and some developers may be reluctant to take the risks required to implement it. This problem is further compounded by the fact that potential lenders may not be comfortable with making loans for transit-oriented development or mixed-use projects.

Parcel Assembly and Costs: Assembling all of the parcels required to achieve needed GHG reductions will likely slow TOD implementation. The use of eminent domain to acquire land is politically unpopular, but without using this tool, land is only gathered incrementally. Many landowners with strong ties to the land may not want to sell, and others may raise their asking prices for their land in response to increased attention to TOD. Even if the land were purchased today, the development costs could reach into the tens of billions of dollars region-wide.

Environmental Remediation: Many of the parcels located closest to transit are former industrial sites with histories of contamination. Extensive cleanup would be required on some of the parcels in the region, with variations in cost and time needed depending on the extent of the contamination and the desired land use.

Project Isolation: TOD is not as effective in reducing GHG emissions in isolation. A string of successful projects along one transit line, and many passengers moving between them, increases their value to the region for reducing GHG emissions.

IMPLEMENTATIONWhile the acquisition, design, construction, and management of TOD is ultimately the responsibility of municipalities and developers, DVRPC can set the foundation for greater


Figure 2.2: Outside of the larger cities, neighborhoods around many of the train stations in the DVRPC region resemble this one in Cinnaminson, which contains a combination of former industrial land and single-family homes. Local ordinances are frequently responsible for this dispersed land use pattern.

Source: http://www.bing.com/maps.

Figure 2.1: Displays challenges to implementing transit oriented development by order of difficulty. The size of the bubble reflects the size of the challenge.

private automobiles

as the default

parcel assembly and costs

environmental remediation

regulatory limitations

negative perceptions

of TOD

project isolation

unproven product


regional uptake in TOD using its roles as a pass-through entity for financing, an advocator, and a convener of different and often separated areas of expertise. It can also support developer entities through planning and other technical assistance. In ideal circumstances, DVRPC’s participation will decrease as TOD successes in the region became more commonplace. However, DVRPC staff and allies in the public and private sector will likely have to conduct substantial effort towards initial outreach and development before the model is scaled up to the region.

PLAN

(1) Prioritize “first mover” stations for TOD DVRPC can use its analytical capacity to prioritize transit areas that are most likely to be developed as TOD. These areas can be targeted most aggressively for initial outreach, advocacy, technical assistance, and funding in the short-term, in order to create TOD projects more rapidly

that serve as exemplars when reaching out later to more skeptical communities. Criteria for choosing these areas could include:

» Location within 1/2 mile of commuter transit or 1/10 mile of buses » Location within a “Center,” as designated in Connections 2040 » Projected population and economic growth by 2030 » Growth in demographics that would more likely live in a TOD (Generation Y, retirees,

single-family households, lower- and moderate-income residents) » TOD-supportive plans and ordinances, either existing or anticipated in the near future » Current political will and developer interest » Land close to a transit stop that is publicly owned or transit agency-owned, with no

Figure 2.3: The land that would be most eligible for TOD construction is within 1/2 mile of commuter rail and 1/10 mile of bus stops.

source: http://www.dvrpc.org/Mapping/data.htm


P

!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!! !! !!! !!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!! !!!!!! !!!!! !! !!!!! !!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!! !!!!!!! !!! !!!! ! !!! !! !!! !!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!! !! !!!! !!!!! !!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! !!!! !!!!!! !! !! !! !!!!! !!! !!!! !!!!!! !!! !! !!!! !!! !!! !!!! !!!!!!! !! !!! !! !!! !!! !!!!!! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !!!!! !!!!!! !!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!! !! !!!!!!! ! !!!!! !! !! !!!! !!! !!!!!!! !! !!!! !! !!!!! !! !! !!!!!!! !!!!! !!! !! !!!!! !!! !! !!! !!! !! !!! !!!! !!! !! !!! !!! ! !!! !!! !! !!! !!!! !! ! !!! !! !!! !!! !!!!!! !!! ! !!!! !! !! !!!! !!! !!!!!! !! !!! !! !!!!!!! !! !! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! !!!!!! !!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !!! !! !!!! !! ! !!!!! !! !!!! !! ! !! !!!! !! !!! !!! !! ! !! ! !!! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!! !! ! !! !!!!! !!! !!! !! !!! !!! !!! !! !!!! ! !! !! ! !!!! !!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!! ! !! !! !!! !!! !! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !!! !!! !! !!! !!!! !!! !! !! !!! ! !!!!! !! !! !! ! !! !!! !!!! ! !! !!!!!!! ! !!! !! !! !! !!!! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! !!! !!!! ! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !! !!!!! !! ! !! ! !!!!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! !! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!! ! !!!! !!!!! ! !!! !!! !! !!!!! !!!!!! !! !! !!!!!! ! !!! !!! !!! ! !!!!!!! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!! !!! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! !! ! !!!!!!! !! !! !! !!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!! !! !! ! !!! !!!! !!!!! !!! !!!!!!! !!! !!!!! ! ! !!!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !!!!!! !!!! ! !!! !! !!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!!! ! !!!!! ! !!!! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!! ! !!! !! !!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !! !! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!! !!!!! !! !!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! !! ! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!! !!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !! !! ! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!! !! !! ! !!!!!! !! !!!! ! !! !!! !!!! !!!! !! !!! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!! !!!!!! !! !!! !! !!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!! !!!!!! !!!! !!! !! !!!!!!! !! ! !! !! !!!!!! !!!!! !!! !! !! !! !!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! !!!! !! !! !!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !! !!!! !! !! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !! !!! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! !! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!! !!!!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !! !!! !! !!!! ! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!!! !! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !!! !!! !!! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!! !!! !!!! !!!!! !!! !!!!! !!! !!!!!! !! ! !!!!!!! !!! !! !! !!!!!! !! !!!! !!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!! !!! !!! !! !!!! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!! !!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !! !!!! !!!!! !! !! !!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !! !!! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !! !! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!! !! !! !!! !! !! !!!!! !! !!!! ! !!! !!!!!!!!! !!!! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!! !!! !!! !!! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!! !! ! !!!!! !!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!! !!! !!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!! !!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!! !!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! ! !!! !!!! !!!! !!!!! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!! !!! !!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! !! ! !!!!!!! !!!!! !! !!! !! !!! !! !!!!!! !!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! ! !! !! !!! !!! !!!!!!! !!! !! !!!!! !! ! !!!! !!!! !! !!! !! !! !! !! ! !! !!!! !!!!! !!!!!!! !!! !!!! !! !!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!! ! !!! !!!!! !! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!! !! ! !!! !!!!! !!! !! !! ! !!! !! !!! !! !! !!!!! !!! !!!! !!!! !! !!!!! !! ! !!!! !! !!! !!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!! ! !!!! ! !!! !!!! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!!!! !!!! !! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !!! !! ! !!!! !!!!! !! !! !!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !! !! !! ! !!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!! !!!! !! !!! !!! !!! !!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!! !!

!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!! !! !!! !! !!!!! !! !!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!! !! !!!!!!!! ! !!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !! !!!!!! !!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !! !!!!!!! !!! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!! !!! !! !!!! !!!! !! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !! !! !!!! !!!! !!! !!!!!! !! !! !!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! !!! !!!! !!! !!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!! !! !!!! !!!! !!!!! !!!! ! !!!!!! !!! !! !!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!! !! !!!!! ! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!! !! ! !!! !!! !!!! !!!!! !!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! !! !! ! !!! !!! !!! !!!! ! !! !! ! !! !! !!! !!!!! !! !! ! !! !! !!!! !!!!! !!! !! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! !!! !! !!!! !! !!! !!!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!! ! !! !!!! !!! !!! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! !!!! !!!! !!! ! !!! !!! !! ! !! !!!! !!! !!!! !!!! !!!!!! !! !!!!!! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! ! !! ! !!!!! !! !!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !! !!!! !! !!! !!!! !! !! !!!!! ! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!! ! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!

! !!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!! !!!!!!! !!!!!! ! !!! !!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!! !! !

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! !!!

!!!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!! !

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!!!

!! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!! ! !!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!! !

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

! !!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!! ! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!

! !

!!

!!!!

!

!!!!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

! ! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!!

!!!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!

!!!!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

! !!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!! !

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

! !

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

! ! !!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

! !

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!!

!!!

!

!!

!! !

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

! !!

!

!!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!!

!

!!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !!!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!

!! !!! ! !!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!! !!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! ! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !! !

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!! ! !! !! !! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!! !!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!!

!! !!! ! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!! !

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!!

! !

!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!!! !!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!! !

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !! !!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

! !

! !

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !!! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!! !!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

! !!!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! !!

!! !

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!! !

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!!!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !!

!

!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!! !

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!! !!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

! !!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!!!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! ! !

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!! !!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!! !!! !!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

! ! !!! !!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

! !!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

! !!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

! ! !

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

! !!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!! !!! !!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

! !!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!!!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!! !

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

! !

!

!

!!!!!!!!

!! ! ! !

!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

! ! !!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!! !

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

! !

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!! !

! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!

!!!!

!

!

!!!

! !

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

[

0 7.5 15

Miles

Public Transit Station Locations in DVRPC RegionPublic Transit Stations! Commuter Rail Stations! SEPTA Bus Stops!

!

!

NJTransit Bus StopsAreas Around TransitDVRPC Municipalities


encumbrances » Proximity to multiple additional modes of transportation

New Jersey Future conducted a similar assessment in 2012 for all of the commuter rail stops in the state.1 Although GHG emissions reduction was not their primary goal, some of their research overlaps with the research that could be conducted by DVRPC. Some of the municipalities that New Jersey Future prioritized might overlap with those recommended by DVRPC, including Camden, Cherry Hill Township, Lindenwold, Princeton, and Trenton.

ADvOCATE

(1) Communicate the benefits of TOD to skeptical audiences: DVRPC, along with other pro-TOD organizations, can address residents’ concerns on the potential impact of TOD through outreach initiatives. Major talking points could include the ability of increased transit ridership to reduce congestion, and the ability of TOD to support

local population and job growth, as well as create a walkable community center that is also a destination. As mentioned previously, another significant concern is increased density. DVRPC can respond by showing images of the often relatively low types of density that can support transit. Some residents are concerned about the addition of new families to a community and their potential stress on the school system, but studies indicate that residents who move into TOD frequently do not have children.2 DVRPC can take a different approach in discussing TOD with skeptical elected officials and other community leaders, and tie TOD to the future competitiveness of the municipality in relation to others. Demographic shifts - a growing population of retirees who cannot drive and people who live in single-person households, and a renewed interest in transit and walkable communities that offer places to work and play - indicate that TOD may be the preference of a larger population than would have been expected in the previous decade. Thus, TOD may be critical for attracting new residents and the businesses that follow them - and new income.

DVRPC can also facilitate education sessions between seasoned developers and lenders and those with limited familiarity with creating and financing TOD.

(2) Advocate for affordable housing within TOD: Lower-income households make up the majority of transit riders. A 2013 California Housing Partnership Corporation study determined that households earning less than $50,000 per year make up 47% of the United States population, but 69% of its transit riders, and concluded that gentrification and its associated higher housing costs threatened the GHG reduction potential of TOD.3 DVRPC can work with community development organizations, local leaders, and developers to advocate for policies at the municipal or county level that ensure the construction of sufficient affordable housing in TOD.

(3) Market TOD towards target occupants of TOD: DVRPC can take part in a campaign directed toward the types of people and businesses that would most likely lease or rent space within TOD, and share the ways in which TOD could benefit these parties. Priority audiences for housing include Generation Y residents, retirees, new residents in Pennsylvania, and single-family households. Priority audiences for office and retail have a wide range of scale and could include CEOs of regional white-collar offices as much as it could include owners of local, existing restaurants, apparel stores, or grocery stores. Owners of store types that fulfill basic community needs should be prioritized, but a thoughtful mixture of commercial and retail uses will support the overall success of the TOD.

(4) To further support development within TOD, DvRPC could recommend that counties and municipalities add incentives for businesses that relocate to or open within a TOD, such as density bonuses or expedited permitting: To further support the development of businesses within TOD, DVRPC could recommend that counties and municipalities restructure or add grant, loan, and tax incentives for businesses that relocate to or open within a TOD.


A

Figure 2.3: Public-private partnerships have formed between a developer, Amtrak, SEPTA, and local municipalities in order to support the reconstruction of Paoli Station in Chester County (below) and the development of large parcels surrounding the station (highlighted above). Amtrak sold this land to a developer to create a “town center”-styled neighborhood around the station.

Sources: http://mapservices.chesco.org/ches-coviews/Down.aspx, http://paolitransportation-center.com/.


ORGANIZE GROUPS

(1) Parcel assembly: DVRPC can bring together transit agencies, developers, major local landowning public entities, and any other potentially sympathetic landowners to discuss the possibility of donating land for TOD or selling or leasing it at a reduced cost. (2) Affordable housing partnerships: DVRPC can bring together

potential TOD developers, affordable housing developers, community development groups, local elected officials, and potential funders to determine how affordable housing near transit could be increased. These meetings would ideally yield the foundation for policies and laws supporting affordable housing within TOD.

PROvIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

(1) Plan for land use changes: In a manner similar to the actions currently being taken through TCDI, DVRPC can provide staff expertise to help local governments create new plans for transit areas, new zoning maps indicating their location, and ordinances supporting pedestrian-friendly, sufficiently dense, mixed-use TOD within them.

This work could include: » Rezoning areas around train stations, or creating a new zone, requiring of densities of at

least 12 dwelling units per acre, allowing a mixture of uses, reducing minimum parking standards, and adjusting design standards to enhance the pedestrian experience (for example, requiring fenestration on facades facing sidewalks or requiring zero setbacks for buildings).

» Creating a TOD overlay with similar rules as those listed above. » Creating a form-based code to regulate the physical characteristics of the neighborhood

surrounding the station. » Altering the permitting review process to expedite TOD projects and allow flexibility in

phasing.4

(2) Create and maintain a clearinghouse for TOD: DVRPC already maintains a TOD page on its website with a variety of resources, primarily pertaining to recent and pending TOD projects in the region, and regional and local TOD plans.5 DVRPC previously maintained a Municipal Resource Guide, which provided funding and technical resources for a wide variety of programs, organized by county, as of December 2011.7 The best aspects of these two concepts can be merged, yielding a much-needed regularly updated source for developers, municipalities, and other stakeholders on TOD financing and best practices specific to their county and region.

FUND

(1) Restructure and expand the TCDI program: DVRPC can pass about $11 million in federal funding from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) through to DVRPC municipalities, which can be used to support public transit improvements.8 DVRPC also provides funding from the Transportation

Alternatives Program (TAP), which is different for Pennsylvania and New Jersey applicants but can be used for historic preservation and the rehabilitation of transit facilities in both states.9 Projects in Pennsylvania have access to about $20.6 million in the FY 2014 MAP-21 allocation for TAP, while projects in New Jersey have access to about $15.6 million in funding.10 These funding sources are very competitive, and TOD projects are one of many different types of potentially funded projects. Furthermore, not all of the potential TOD projects in the DVRPC region require improvements to the transit facilities specifically.

To address these limitations, we propose that DVRPC restructure and expand another of its TOD-friendly funding programs, the Transportation and Community Development Initiative (TCDI), to solely be used for TOD over the next 16 years. Because TCDI operates at a more local level, it is more flexible. It can also be used to offset costs for aspects of TOD creation,


Technical Assistance ProgramChicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

One of the most successful ongoing technical assistance programs is the Local Technical Assistance Program run by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). This program relied on a large initial grant of $4.25 million from the HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program, which was then matched with commitments from a variety of public and private sources, including CMAP itself, the Chicago Community Trust, Center for Neighborhood Technology, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, Metropolitan Planning Council, Openlands, the Regional transportation Authority, and many other in-kind contributions.6 DVRPC might similarly apply for this grant and support it with a mixture of donations from local pro-TOD organizations. A portion of the TCDI program could be allocated to this program as well.

Figure 2.4: The TCDI program has formed a precedent of funding TOD planning studies, such as the Conshocken Train Station Vision Plan, shown rendered above.

Source: http://www.ksk1.com/#!conshohocken/zoom/cee5/image1dc9

F

T

O


like planning for TOD, that are not frequently targeted by larger funding sources. Currently, TCDI funds are used for a variety of different types of planning, but many of these types - attracting residents and businesses, and reducing congestion, are already relevant to TOD. Directing all of the funds toward TOD would therefore not be a major shift in goals, and could greatly boost the rate of local TOD creation.

DVRPC could also enhance its annual payout of approximately $1.24 million per year ($100,000 per project) by seeking additional sources of funding from the private sector (See Financing section, below, for some possible sources).11

(2) Restructure the TIP: In response to reduced state and federal funding of transportation infrastructure, DVRPC has emphasized a “fix it first” funding policy in its most recent (FY2014-2017) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). However, the TIP also includes $3.5 billion worth of projects slated for 2014-2017 involving road widening that could increase the number of cars on the road and contribute to further increases in GHG emissions.12 For future TIPs and in the current TIP where possible, we propose eliminating funding for road widening whenever those roads are redundant with existing or planned transit, and moving those funds towards TOD-related transit improvements. Not all of the $3.5 billion would be reallocated, as these funds are dedicated to other actions besides road widening. Nevertheless, this shift could help several TOD projects get needed gap financing.

FINANCING1) Prioritization of communities for TOD: Minimal funding needed.

(2) Outreach: Funded internally and through in-kind donations of staff time from other organizations.

DVRPC could partner with other organizations focused on the DVRPC region that typically promote TOD or would benefit from TOD in order to share the financial responsibility. Potential partners include:

» TOD and land use advocacy: New Jersey Future, NJTOD (collaboration between NJ Transit and the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University), PlanSmart NJ, New Jersey State League of Municipalities, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Pennsylvania Public Transportation Association, Delaware Valley Smart Growth Alliance, 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania.

» Transit authorities: SEPTA, New Jersey Transit, PATCO, Amtrak.

(3) Technical support for implementing TOD: Primarily funded internally and through foundation grants (see sidenote on previous page).

(4) Development of TOD: Federal, regional, state, local, and private sources (See Appendix 1.1).

CONCLUSIONCreating sufficient TOD in the region to offset GHG emissions by 5.8% is ambitious within the next 16 years, as the process is dependent on the coordination of local law, tenant interest, and developer capacity. However, this goal is feasible if DVRPC and its allies acknowledge that they need to address these restrictions. Figure 2.5 shows just how the 11 recommended actions meet the 7 challenges identified.They can prime the market through targeted advocacy and education regarding TOD, and then use technical assistance and aggressive redirected funding in order to facilitate the development of TOD. The first round of successful projects will likely be the most powerful motivator that encourages other developers to implement TOD within the region.




prioritize “first mover” stations for TODrestructure and expand the TCDI programrestructure the TIP

advertise the benefits of TOD to skeptical audiencesadvocate for affordable housing within TOD

plan for land use changes

advocate for business incentives

create and maintain a clearinghouse for TOD

organize parcel assembly partnershipsorganize affordable housing partnerships

First Steps

Second Steps

Third Steps

market TOD towards target tenants

Figure 2.6 Order and priority of implementation for recommended action. Recommendations are ordered by time of implementation (first, second, third steps), followed by priority of implementation (shown by shade).

Figure 2.5 Displays how the recommendations address the challenges as discussed above.

environmental remediation

negative perceptions

of TOD

project isolation

first mover stationsadvertise benefits of TOD

advocate for affordable housing market towards target tenants

advocate for incentivesparcel assembly partnerships

affordable housing partnershipsplan for land use changes

TOD clearinghouserestructure and expand TCDI

restructure TIP

unproven product

private automobiles

as the default

regulatory limitations

parcel assembly and costs



1. New Jersey Future, Targeting Transit: Assessing Development Opportunities Around New Jersey’s Transit Stations, September 2012.

2. DVRPC, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ), http://www.dvrpc.org/CMAQ/.

3. DVRPC, Pennsylvania Transportation Alternatives Program, http://www.dvrpc.org/TAP/PA.htm and New Jersey Transportation Alternatives Program, http://www.dvrpc.org/TAP/NJ.htm.

4. US Department of Transportation, Distribution of Fiscal Year 2014 Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Funds, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510772/n4510772_t2.cfm. Assumes that DVRPC region is considered an area of over 200K people and is thus eligible for that sub-allocated apportionment.

5. DVRPC, Transportation and Community Development Initiative (TCDI), http://www.dvrpc.org/TCDI/.

6. U.S. HUD, Chicago, Illinois GO TO 2040 Local Technical Assistance Program, 2010, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=ChiCaseSt2013_10_28.pdf.

7. U.S. HUD, Chicago, Illinois GO TO 2040 Local Technical Assistance Program, 2010, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=ChiCaseSt2013_10_28.pdf.

8. Urbanomics & Edison Exchange, What About Our Schools?, March 2008, 2.

9. California Housing Partnership Corporation, Working Paper: Building and Preserving Affordable Homes Near Transit: Affordable TOD as a Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Equity Strategy, January 2013.

10. DVRPC, Municipal Implementation Tool #1, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), August 2002.

11. DVRPC, Transit-Oriented Development, http://www.dvrpc.org/TOD/.

12. DVRPC, Municipal Resource Guide, http://www.dvrpc.org/asp/MCDResource/.

REFERENCES

PARKING POLICIES

GOALImplement parking policies in Connections 2040 “Center” communities.

OBJECTIVES(1) Implement Parking Cash-Out system across regional municipalities: Parking cash-out can take various forms; however, requiring employers currently providing employee parking to provide an alternative option of a paid annual public transit pass proves to be most effective. Where employees are provided parking spaces in paid garages, employers could offer a proportional benefit to their employees in cash plus transit passes.

(2) Install Real Time information systems across the metro area: Real Time Information (RTI) systems refer to any program or combination of programs that identify vacant parking spaces and direct drivers to those spaces. This includes but is not limited to electronic signage and mobile applications.

(3) Increase parking fees in regional central business districts: This action is defined as raising the price of existing metered parking spaces and/or applying fees to previously unpriced spaces

(4) Establish Payment In-Lieu of Parking (PILOP) program across regional municipalities: These are programs by which developers can pay a fee to a municipality instead of providing parking on-site. This fee varies based on local conditions, but ranges between $20-$30,000 per space. Cities implementing such a program collect these fees with the expectation that parking will be provided off-site in a centralized parking structure or lot.

GHG REDUCTIONSPARKING CASH OUTOf all the parking objectives, parking cash-out is most applicable across the DVRPC region. Parking fees within Center City Philadelphia, and other core central business districts, can be substantial to both employees who pay for their own parking, and employers who provide it. In a suburban setting, while many employees enjoy “free parking”, these spaces must be paid for by the employer, both in construction, maintenance, and ongoing storm water management fees. The total effectiveness of a parking cash-out program, however, depends on the level of acceptance by both employers and employees. In a growing number of states, employers are mandated to provide a cash-out option.

Assuming the most aggressive position of parking cash-out applied to all employers, a 20% reduction in mode share could reduce VMT by 2.84 billion miles annually, however, this scenario is highly improbable. A more likely scenario would involve a more limited scope, similar to the legislation of the Rhode Island example found in Appendix 3.1. With this scope, the DVRPC region would see a GHG reductions value of around 58,000 metric tons of CO2e annually from the private sector.

The public sector represents additional opportunity to reduce GHG emissions via parking cash out. Within the DVRPC region, an estimated 135,000 people work in Public Administration, at either the local, state, or federal level. Of the public sector, Philadelphia has the largest concentration of Federal and Local employees, while Mercer has the highest concentration of State employees. This represents a potential reduction of 30,000 metric tons of CO2e annually. For an in-depth explanation of calculations see Appendix 3.2.



30%

40%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Parking Policies

REAL-TIME INFRASTRUCTURECurrently, within the region, there is a real-time system at the Philadelphia Airport parking garages; however, the City of Philadelphia does not have a larger RTI network, such as Seattle’s ePark system. There may be additional RTI systems in individual garages across the metro area, however, it was not practical to investigate.

Implementing real time parking infrastructure across all of the publicly owned priced spaces of Philadelphia would result in a net savings of 1,472 metric tons of GHG emissions. For an explanation of calculations see Appendix 3.2. However, it is important to note these reductions underestimate the wider application of a RTI system. Private landowners, such as King of Prussia or Cherry Hill Mall, or other large private parking garages across the region can make use of these systems. The amount of GHG reduction that a universal adoption would create is nearly impossible to measure; however, given that the King of Prussia Mall has over 13,000 parking spaces for example, the potential reduction for the private sector would be significant.1

INCREASING PARKING FEESWithin the DVRPC region there are a number of localities that charge for parking within central business districts, including but not limited to: Philadelphia, Media, Trenton, Camden, Ambler, Norristown, Lower Merion, Upper Darby, and West Chester. Of these, Philadelphia charges the most for on-street parking, at $2/hr.

Increasing parking fees will not be successful at reducing VMT without a viable alternative, be it public transit, cycling, or walking; a s just 14.2% of the region is within a ¼ mile of public transit, any increase in parking fees should be targeted at those places already well served by public transport. However, proximity to public transport does not always make increasing parking fees a viable option.

The total reductions across the DVRPC region, based on assumptions explained in Appendix 3.2, could be over 10,000 metric tons annually, or 0.01%.

PAYMENT IN-LIEUImplementing payment in-lieu of parking would result in a reduction of ~100,000 metric tons of CO2e, based off of calculations found in Appendix 3.2.

Adding together all of these individual measures GHG reduction potentials results in a possible GHG emissions reduction of 0.027%.

COSTPARKING CASH OUTOn a per-person basis parking cash-out has a net maximum value to the employee of approximately $4000. For employees who do not pay for parking, they would still see a benefit of that $985.

If DVRPC (or some other organizations) was to oversee the implementation of regional cash-out scheme, the cost would be approximately $75,000-$150,000 annually. This assumes 1-2 dedicated staff members and their wages, plus travel, marketing, and other administrative expenses required to keep the program going.

REAL-TIME INFRASTRUCTUREThe cost for Seattle’s ePark system has been $4m for 11 garages, representing 7,000+ parking spaces, or roughly a cost of $570/space. A comparable system across the PPA garages would cost approximately $3.3m. To implement a similar system across all the parking garages within the City of Philadelphia would cost many multiples of that.

San Francisco’s SF Park program is considerably more complex. SF Park not only identifies where spaces are available (both on and off street), but it adjusts the price to match the demand for those spaces. Briefly, sensors were installed in over 8,000 on street spaces and



12,250 garage spaces across the city, which relayed this information to drivers via a mobile phone app (see figure 3.1).2 This pilot program cost approximately $20m, over 80% of which was funded by the US DOT.3 Generally, the system costs $1000/per space to establish. A similar system is currently being tested in Boston.4 DVRPC may elect to fund a percentage of a system via grant dollars or other monies redirected from the TIP, but an exact cost to DVRPC would depend on the scale of the system.

INCREASING PARKING FEESNew parking meters accepting credit cards can cost over $500/space, plus training and management fees.5 Assuming a small downtown with 500 parking spaces, that would amount to cost to municipalities of over $250,000. However, this would be recouped via fees over time. Increasing the price of already priced space is free – minus the administrative costs. As noted though, for a community that does not have on-street parking capacity, the cost to revise the built form would be staggeringly prohibitive.

There are limited costs to DVRPC to implement increased parking fees, mostly related to outreach and education, as well as research/data collection. Given the political toxicity of increased parking fees, we do not expect DVRPC to spend a significant amount of money on this aspect, perhaps $25,000/year, mostly being the work of part-time staff and interns.

PAYMENT IN-LIEUSpecifically, the cost of PILOP fees would be borne directly by the developer. A developer would pay a fee to the municipality to provide less parking than is required by current zoning, with the expectation that the city would provide parking off-site at a later date. Costs borne by the city to administer the program are relatively low, mostly related to staff time. Providing parking off-site can cost into the tens of millions for a large garage, however since developers would have paid for at least a portion of this parking up front, the overall impact to the city is not as dramatic.

DVRPC would need to expend considerable resources to facilitate the implementation of a PILOP program across the region. At least two full-time dedicated staff to liaise with councils, research best practice programs determine legal constructs and provide recommendations to municipal governments, etc. This would cost at least $150,000, if not more, annually.


high supply of free parking

providing alt. transport

modes

scale of program

high cost of infrastructure

stakeholder opposition

public and political

opposition

municipal costs

land availability

Figure 3.1: Displays challenges to implementing parking management policies by order of difficulty. The size of the bubble reflects the size of the challenge.


CHALLENGESPARKING CASH OUT(1) High supply of free parking: The greatest challenge to parking cash-out is the significant supply of parking that exists in the region. Private suburban lots and garages provide “free” parking to hundreds of thousands of employees. For the businesses who control their adjacent lots or garages, there is little direct benefit to them to implement such a scheme, since it is unlikely these spaces can be re-purposed or otherwise used for revenue generating purposes.

(2) Providing alternative transportation modes: While a number of businesses do provide shuttle buses to and from regional rail stops, this is a service to employees who choose to take the train. Increasing this service would cost businesses more money, in addition to the expenses they already have to pay for parking lot maintenance.

(3) Scale of program: Other implementation issues would be related to the scale of the program, coordinating with unions (particularly in the public sector), and marketing/promoting the program.

REAL-TIME INFRASTRUCTURE(1) High cost: As noted, RTI systems are expensive to install. Depending on the level of complexity, implementation could be into the tens of millions of dollars.

(2) Perception of competition: Including private garages in a system that includes on-street parking would be extremely difficult – since it could be perceived that by directing drivers to cheaper “on-street” spots that the system was taking away business. As such, a system that sought to be all-encompassing would probably need to function similar to SF Park, where rates were raised to make garage parking more competitive. (3) Political opposition: Politically, a system that raises the price of parking could be viewed as elitist as the fees would be regressive in nature. Furthermore, there are examples where sensors have been used as a means of additional parking enforcement. The potential forsensors to make parking tickets more likely would be met with significant backlash. INCREASING PARKING FEES(1) Public distrust: Any increase in parking fees will generate backlash from the local community who worry the local government’s intentions are sourcing additional funds. Businesses will oppose new or increased parking rates as they believe it will make their location less attractive, compared to areas where parking is free.

(2) Costs to municipalities: Municipalities that previously did not have a metering program would need to hire and train new staff to collect fees and maintain the meters.

PAYMENT IN-LIEU(1) Stakeholder Push-Back: There may be push-back from residents and/or elected officials who are concerned with increased parking demand elsewhere in the community – which is why it is critical that a parking precinct plan (PPP) be done prior to the establishment of a PILOP program.

(2) Lack of land availability: Availability of land is a key problem, particularly in land-locked and fully developed municipalities. Acquiring land can be problematic and if eminent domain is needed, can be extraordinarily time consuming, costly, and politically challenging. Once land is acquired, the cost and process of building the facilities come with their own challenges, not including financing, existing debt obligations, and general construction and use risks. It is highly advisable that existing underutilized spaces be used for off-site provision at first, while money is collected to build any facility. No structure (or land acquisition for that matter) should

Figure 3.3: SFPark mobile application assists with directing drivers to open parking spaces.

Source:http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/08/29/sfpark_app_iphone_v04_vert-e22ad06fb2588e4267c1a6ba573baacf399e94c5-s6-c30.png

Parking Policies

figure 3.2: Conveniently located parking lots make parking cash out difficult in most suburban locations.

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnjoh/385027087/


be entirely fronted by bonds or other debt obligation.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONSDISTRIBUTE INFORMATION(1) PARKING CASH OUT. Develop a best practice manual or similar for distribution to both government and private businesses: Following on from the exploration of the best practices, DVRPC should compile a manual or similar that details how and why a cash out system should be implemented.

This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work. All publication should be done electronically to reduce costs. Graphic design and compilation may cost $500-$1000, depending on the complexity of the document.

(2) REAL-TIME INFRASTRUCTURE. Develop a best practice manual or similar for easy distribution to both government and private businesses: Following on from the exploration of the best practices, DVRPC should compile a manual that details how and why an RTI system should be implemented.


(3) INCREASING PARKING FEES. Distribute information as to the effectiveness of parking fees on reducing congestion and increasing public transportation mode choiceFollowing on from the exploration of the best practices, DVRPC should compile a manual or similar that details how and why parking pricing should be implemented.


(4) PAYMENT IN-LIEU. Distribute information and advocate to fast growing municipalities and prominent developers about the benefit of PILOP programs: Following on from the exploration of the best practices, DVRPC should compile a manual or similar that details how and why a PILOP program should be implemented.


ORGANIZE GROUPS(1) PARKING CASH OUT. Liaise with SEPTA, PATCO, and NJ Transit to help increase service levels in areas most likely to adopt parking cash-out programs: Employees who adopt parking cash-out are going to overwhelming take public transport to and from work, putting an additional burden on the public transport network. The public transport network will need to provide adequate service and comfort

levels to avoid having employees revert back to driving. This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work.

(2) PAYMENT IN-LIEU. Organize groups that would benefit from PILOP programs, including property developers, transit authorities, municipal, county, and state government officials, and planning consultants: As part of their development of a best practice manual, DVRPC would be wise to engage with organization that would have the most to benefit (as well as facilitate) from PILOP programs. These groups can not only advocate for such programs, but would also provide guidance as to what they would need in order to make such a program the most effective.


D

O


This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work. Costs would vary depending on the frequency of meetings, however $1000/meeting (in time costs) is a reasonable assumption.

ADVOCATE(1) PARKING CASH OUT. Advocate for parking cash-out legislation at the State level: Neither Pennsylvania nor New Jersey

have legislation that mandates parking cash-out be provided as an option to employees, leaving any system to be implemented voluntarily. Requiring employers to provide cash-out options would greatly increase the scope and effectiveness of any potential program. This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work.

(2) REAL-TIME INFRASTRUCTURE. Advocate that new developments with parking garages include RTI : Parking garages are the most appropriate location for RTI, due to the availability of ceilings to identify vacant spaces. Large parking garages are additionally unfamiliar for most visitors, increasing the amount of time someone would look for a parking space. Integrating RTI into new garages would help reduce VMT while providing amenity to drivers. This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work.

(3) REAL-TIME INFRASTRUCTURE. Advocate for existing spaces and structures (such as large regional shopping malls and public parking garages) to incorporate an RTI system: The rationale for this recommendation is as above. This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work.

(4) PARKING CASH OUT. Advocate for parking cash-out practices at the county and municipal government levels: Given that state governments are complicate bureaucracies, DVRPC may be more successful in working to convince county and municipal government to adopt local laws related to parking cash-out. While there is the potential for employers to move as a result, because the financial benefits to employers is high, it is highly unlikely this would occur.This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work.

PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE(1) PARKING CASH OUT. Provide technical assistance to those communities/businesses wishing to implement a cash-out program: Most smaller municipalities and businesses will lack the organizational expertise or capacity to be able to implement a cash-out program efficiently. DVRPC can help guide these groups that wish to establish a program.

This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work, however to ease staff burden may be contracted out to a consultant as necessary. DVRPC could support these consultant activities at a flat rate per job, say $5,000 per business ($50/hr @ 100hrs/job average), $10,000 per municipality – with variations based on scale and complexity. TCDI funding may be appropriate for funding these activities.

(2) INCREASING PARKING FEES. Provide technical assistance to those communities looking to implement new parking meters via preferred method of metering (i.e. pay and display, individual meters, etc), fee, and time limits: Generally, DVRPC should make itself aware of the best parking metering models for different types of locations (on-street vs off, commercial corridor vs residential area, etc.). This knowledge will help to implement the best system in a particular location for the greatest benefit.

This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work, however to ease staff burden may be contracted out to a consultant as necessary. The cost of time should not be more than $10,000 per job. Financing would come from TCDI funds or otherwise in house.

(3) PAYMENT IN-LIEU. Provide technical assistance in the adoption of PILOP ordinances: Most smaller municipalities will lack the organizational expertise or capacity to be able to implement a PILOP program efficiently. DVRPC can help guide these communities

Parking Policies

A

TFigure 3.4: Real-Time Infrastructure makes finding parking easier, which reduces driving, idling, and frustration.

Source:http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/03/30/con-gress-looking-at-high-tech-solutions-to-nations-infrastruc-ture-woes/


that wish to establish a program.

This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work; however, to ease staff burden may be contracted out to a consultant as necessary. The cost of time should not be more than $10,000 per job. Financing would come from TCDI funds or otherwise in house.

COLLECT DATA(1) PARKING CASH OUT. Research best practice methods: Parking cash-out programs occur in many places across the county, beyond the Rhode Island example. DVRPC should explore which programs have achieved the highest conversion rate and seek to implement a similar model.This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work.

(2) REAL-TIME INFRASTRUCTURE. Research best practice methods and systems of RTI: There are numerous examples of RTI, not including the SFPark model. DVRPC should explore which programs have been the most successful and seek to implement a similar model. This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work.

(3) INCREASING PARKING FEES. Collect data on areas where on-street parking already exists, or where on-street parking could be accommodated: Prior to increasing (or establishing parking fees), and inventory must be taken of how much spaces are available, restrictions and fees (if any), occupancy rate, and turnover. Without a baseline with which to measure, the impact of parking fees would be impossible to measure, and in fact may actually serve as a detriment to local areas.

This is an extremely time intensive activity and would either need to be dedicated to a few full time staff or given to a consultant. This is at least a $250,000 task for the private sector, however depending on the level of detail required could be in the millions.

(4) PAYMENT IN-LIEU. Collect data on those fastest growing municipalities (either employment, residential, or both): Payment in-lieu programs will be most effective in those places that are growing rapidly and have a high demand for new parking spaces. This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work.

(5) PAYMENT IN-LIEU. Collect data on best practice PILOP programs: There are numerous examples of PILOP programs across the country. DVRPC should explore which programs have been the most successful and seek to implement a similar model. This activity can be incorporated within existing staff work.

FUND(1) PARKING CASH OUT. Fund ride-share, corporate shuttle buses, and other programs that would support implementation of a parking cash-out program: Many employees may not elect to take public transport because they feel that the station is too far from their place of work or they don’t have a safe/reliable alternative to go to work. Supporting things like shuttle buses would help to convince employees that they do not need to drive their car on a daily basis.

DVRPC already partly engages in these activities as part of its Mobility Alternatives. Broadly, the costs would range into the tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the scale of annual funding – however as a benchmark we recommend no more than $100,000 annually across the region – with the priority for capital expenses. Funding for these programs may be eligible from the DOT’s TIGER grants ($27m in funding for planning has occurred over the past 5 years).5 Other funding opportunities could be CMAQ grants or other monies redirected from the state DOTs.

(2) REAL-TIME INFRASTRUCTURE. Fund RTI systems via re-directed TIP money, where reasonable: An RTI system, when implemented on scale, could provide significant improvements in congestion to go along with modest VMT and GHG emissions reductions. These systems can cost millions of dollars depending on complexity. As mentioned, SFPark


C

F


Parking Policies

Figure 3.4: Oak Avenue Parking Garage, Miami FL. paid for in part by PILOP fees.

Source: https://maps.google.com/

received the majority of its funding from a US DOT grant. Provided the program is considered successful, the US DOT would likely fund additional programs nationally. Should the DOT funds not be readily available, funding for RTI systems can come from established BIDs such as the Center City district, foundations, and other private contributors. TIP money may be appropriate for large-scale programs – however small grants may appropriate for those companies who need to “close the gap” in financing an RTI system.

(4) PAYMENT IN-LIEU. Fund creation of Parking Precinct Plans (PPP)7 via TCDI funds: PILOP programs cannot be implemented effectively without an overarching plan that identifies the existing and future supply and demand of parking and a method of how that future demand will be met. This include issues like accessibility to spaces as well as securing land for additional parking if necessary. TCDI funds would support the planning process behind PILOP programs, as PILOP programs are generally implemented as part of a larger compact development plan.

Similar to the parking studies recommended under “Parking Fees”, these studies can be extremely expensive depending on the scale of the area to be studied. A rough benchmark would be $30,000 for a small CBD, however the cost could be much greater for a city like Trenton or into the millions for Philadelphia. TCDI funds would cover the creation of most PPPs for smaller municipalities, but for those largest CBDs, TCDI funds would not be sufficient and additional funding would need to be sourced from available DOT funds, such as TIGER grants, as previously mentioned.

CONCLUSIONBroadly, actions related to parking are unlikely to “move the needle” significantly. While the region does have a fairly robust public transport network, the existing land-use patterns and significant supply of “free” parking spaces encourages high rates of car ownership. Continuing population expansion into further out suburban locations further complicates the effectiveness of these programs. That being said, we did not calculate (nor could we) the effects parking measures could have on reduced congestion, which would lead to fewer vehicles idling and thus additional GHG emissions reductions. As such, while the overall figure here is very low, more robust modelling may show a higher GHG reduction figure.

Additional considerations for the recommended strategies are as follows:PARKING CASH OUTOther than the physical barriers, the administrative barriers are reasonably low. As long as any legislation to implement parking cash-out is voluntary, it is highly unlikely that there would



be significant political opposition. Businesses would only be required to provide employees with the option of cashing out – they wouldn’t have to reduce their on-site parking or meet a quota. Any legislation would have to be cost-neutral or net-positive for employers offering a cash-out option or DVRPC could see significant backlash from the business community. From the employee perspective, challenges to take up would be related to the trade-offs of public transport, being time, flexibility of travel, and safety. Generally, public transport service in the suburbs is not as frequent or as fast as a car. Additionally, people who work in the evenings may not consider public transport as safe as their own car. These people will be unlikely to cash-out until service and safety levels improve – if ever.

INCREASING PARKING FEESCurrently due to land use challenges, increasing parking fees can only be implemented where there is a network of on-street parking – predominately (but not exclusively) limited to those inner-urban and suburban municipalities.

REAL-TIME INFRASTRUCTUREAs mentioned, reducing congestion is a significant benefit of RTI. The effects of reduced congestion increase as the program gains scale. Signage and mobile applications are critical to providing the service to the wider public. While potential reductions are fairly low, the

Figure 3.5: Displays how the recommendations address the challenges as discussed above.

high cost of infrastructure

providing alternative transport

modes

public and political

opposition

research best practice methodsbest practice manuals

parking cash-out legislation advocate parking cash-out practices

fund alternative transport modestransit expansion groups

parking cash-out assistanceadvocate for more RTI use

fund RTIon-street parking analysisparking meter installationdistribute parking fee info

collect data on growing municipalitiesadvocate PILOP benefits

fund parking precinct plans

high supply of free parking

PILOP ordinancesPILOP stakeholder groups

stakeholder opposition

municipal costs

land availability

scale of program


Parking Policies

research best-practice methodscollect data on on-street parking for increasing parking feescollect data on fast-growing municipalities for PILOP

advocate for parking cash-out legislation at the state level

distribute information on the benefits of parking strategies

advocate for parking cash-out practices at local levels

advocate to growing municipalities and developers about PILOP programs

provide cash-out technical assistanceprovide assistance with parking meter installation

First Steps

Second Steps

Third Steps

advocate for parking garages and lots to include RTI

organize groups that would benefit from PILOPorganize groups that facilitate parking cash out

provide assistance in adopting PILOP ordinancesfund alternative transit modes for parking cash-outfund RTI systems through redirected TIP moneyfund creation of Parking Precinct Plans through TCDI

Figure 3.6: Order and priority of implementation for recommended actions. Recommendations are ordered by time of implementation (first, second, third steps), followed by priority of implementation (shown by shade).

overall goodwill such infrastructure can generate (provided it isn’t used to raise parking fees) should not be underestimated.

PAYMENT IN-LIEUPILOP ordinances, when not mandated, are easier to implement than other regulatory approaches, such as parking maximums or lowering parking minimums. Because PILOP is an optional program, developers have the choice to cash out these spaces or provide the required amount. More market-based approaches are going to be more generally well received.


References

1. “Visit Philadelphia – King of Prussia Mall,” accessed March 2014, http://www.visitphilly.com/shopping/philadelphia/king-of-prussia-mall/.

2. “SFPark – The Basics,” accessed March 2014, http://sfpark.org/about-the-project/faq/the-basics/.

3. Ibid.4. “Parking sensors to tell Boston drivers’ smartphones where to

find a spot,” last updated Dec. 10, 2013, http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/south_boston/2013/12/parking_sensors_to_tell_boston_drivers_smartphones_where_to.html.

5. “New Smart Parking Meters are now Installed in Downtown Lincoln,” last updated Nov. 2013, http://parkandgo.org/about/news/article/new-parking-meter-information/.

6. US DOT, “About Tiger Grants,” accessed April 2014, http://www.dot.gov/tiger/about.

7. A well drafted PPP would identify the existing supply and demand for parking, expected future demand, identify land for future supply, and plans to either acquire or develop land specifically for off-site or shared parking facilities.

REFERENCES


References

Pay-as-you-drive (Payd) insurance



Goal Reduce GHG emissions through VMT reduction by implementing PaYD insurance policy across the region.

objecTiVes1. Have auto insurance companies in the region provide PaYD insurance as an option to light-duty vehicle owners.2. achieve a 50% adoption rate of PaYD insurance for light-duty vehicles.

GHG ReDucTionscurrently, state law in Pennsylvania and new jersey allows insurance companies to provide auto insurance based on mileage.1 However, only two insurance companies, Progressive and allstate, offer the option of PaYD insurance within the DVRPc region. although the effectiveness of PaYD insurance on reducing GHGs emissions is limited it is an important strategy that could also benefit insurance companies, car owners, and local governments.

studies estimate that VMT would drop between 8% and 20% if all fixed auto insurance costs were converted to usage-based, with more recent estimates on the lower end of this range.2 based on the result of a PaYD insurance Pilot Program in Texas, we assume that 50% light-duty vehicle owners will switch to PaYD insurance in this region, and that the potential VMT reduction for them could reach 10%. under these assumptions, the projected reduction in GHGs is 0.87 MMTco

2e in the region, totaling around 0.8% of the 2030 emission projection.

For further explanation on calculations, see appendix 3.

cHallenGesThe two main challenges of implementing PaYD insurance are: (1) A limited number of insurance companies offering the option of PAYD insurance in the region(2) Only a limited number of consumers are aware of the option of PAYD insurance.

lack of insurance companies offering

PAYD

lack of consumer awareness about PAYD

cosTTo reach the objective we have identified, we propose three additional strategies based on practices of other regional planning agencies. The cost incurred for DVRPc to implement these recommendations includes staff salaries, promotional materials, and is calculated to be $72,000 per year.

Figure 3: Displays challenges to implementing PaYD insurnace policy across the region.

30%

35%

40%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

PAYD Insurance


PAY-As-YOu-Drive insurAnce PilOt PrOgrAmNorth Central Texas Council of

Governments (NCTCOG)

From 2006 to 2008, a two-step approach for conducting a PaYD insurance Pilot Program was devised from regional input and thorough research of literature and previous case studies of mileage-based insurance programs by ncTcoG.3 ncTcoG partnered with Progressive insurance to provide PaYD insurance to around 3,000 participants. eventually, the program saw a 5% reduction in VMT of all the participants.

iMPleMenTaTion

ADvOcAte(1) Advocate PAYD insurance programs to local auto insurance companies: building on the study results of the PaYD pilot program in Dallas-Fort Worth, DVRPc could distribute information of successful pilot programs and benefits of PaYD insurance to all local auto insurance companies through emails, newsletters, and brochures, and advocate PaYD programs to those companies. The cost for printing promotional materials

is estimated to be around $500 per year, and DVRPc could hire an additional staff to oversee the research and implementation of PaYD policy with a $70,000 salary per year.

(2) Advocate for state legislation change: DVRPc should advocate for a legislation that would require all auto insurance companies in the region to provide PaYD insurance as an option for all car owners. The newly hired staff mentioned in the previous implementation strategy will be in charge of the advocacy effort. The cost will be financed internally.

DistriBute inFOrmAtiOn(1) educate vehicle owners about the benefits of PAYD insurance programs: The education effort should be included in any community outreach activities organized by DVRPc. DVRPc should distribute general information about the potential of a pilot program, and benefits of PaYD insurance, to community residents through community meetings and emails, etc. The cost for printing promotional materials is estimated to be around $1,500 per year.

conclusionalthough the adoption of PaYD insurance is largely determined by the market itself, DVPRc should help increase the public awareness of this program by advocating to multiple audiences as well as distributing information to local residents. The recommended implementation steps proposed here are designed to address the challenges associated with the adoption of PaYD insurance policy. We believe that PaYD insurance policy could help reduce VMT and GHG emissions in a cost-effective way.

A

D

lack of consumer

awareness of PAYD

advocate PAYD to insurance companiesadvocate for state legislation change

educate car owners about PAYD

lack of insurance companies

offering PAYD

advocate PAYD insurance to local auto insurance companies

educate vehicle owners about the benefits of PAYD insurance programs

advocate for state legislation change

First Steps

Second Step

References

REFERENCES

Reducing Emissions 34Reducing Emissions 34


1. http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot-availability/ Progressive--an auto insurance company offers PaYD insurance in both states.

2. allen Greenberg, Pay-as-you-drive-and-you-save insurance: Potential benefits and issues.

3. north central Texas council of Governments, Pay-as-You-Drive insurance Pilot Program, http://www.nctcog.org/TRans/air/programs/payd/index.asp.

References

35 Reducing Emissions 35 Reducing Emissions

References

AlternAtive Fuel vehicles



GoalReduce GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles by accelerating the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles.

objectives 1. to realize a 50% annual growth rate of electric vehicles (ev), including both plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and all electric vehicles in the region2. to facilitate the deployment of residential, as well as workplace and public electric vehicle supply equipment (evse), including level 1, level 2, and Dc fast charging stations in the region

GHG ReDuctionsWe consider both the full lifecycle impacts of different fuels and types and the market feasibility of aFv, and we recommend procurement different vehicle users of the following types of aFv in the DvRPc region: all electric vehicles(aev), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHev), and e85 hybrid electric vehicles.1 appendix 4.1 includes a detailed explanation of our recommendation of aFv types.

assuming implementation of the recommended types of alternative fuel vehicles, we developed the reduction projections of GHGs emissions for the Philadelphia 5-county region based on the DvRPc estimated ev sales number in 2014. the calculated total GHG emission reduction is estimated to be 5.74 MMtco

2e by the year of 2030 in bucks, chester, Delaware, Montgomery

and Philadelphia county, or 5.3 % of total emissions. GHG reduction for new jersey counties within DvRPc’s boundary is projected to be 2.32 MMtco

2e, or 2.1 % of the region’s emissions.

therefore, the total reduction in GHGs emission from ev deployment in the DvRPc region is projected at 8.05 MMtco

2e, or 7.4% of projected 2030 emissions. a detailed explanation of

calculations is included in appendix 4.2.

costto reach the goal of a 50% annual increase in electric vehicles, we propose eight additional strategies to the recommendations proposed in DvRPc’s Ready to Roll! report. the cost incurred for DvRPc to implement these recommendations includes staff salaries, promotional materials, and meetings, and is calculated to be $142,700 per year.

cHallenGesin addition to the barriers identified by DvRPc in Ready to Roll ! volume i, such as lack of regulatory framework to facilitate ev and evse delpoyment, lack of ev and evse signage, we highlight another two challenges here:

High upfront costs of EVs and EVSEs: currently, electric vehicles often cost more than conventional gasoline vehicles even with federal and state incentives. Meanwhile, the installation costs for evse are high. For example, a level 1 evse ranges from $3,800 to $11,000, $5,000 to $14,000 for a level 2 evse, and $17,000 to $42,000 for a Dc fast charging station.1 although there are federal and state tax credit incentives for purchase of ev and installation of evse, the subsidies would only cover a little of the installation costs.2 additionally, with limited funding, DvRPc would be unable to finance installation of charging stations.

Difficulty to establish a charging network: it is very difficult to establish an efficient network for residential, workspace and public charging across the region that could meet the dynamic needs of ev charging. lack of parking space for designated charging stations near multi-family buildings is one of the barriers.

30%

35%

40%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

Alternative Fuel Vehicles


iMPleMentationWe recommend eight actions, building upon DvRPc’s recommendations laid out in Ready to Roll! volume i.

COLLECT DATA(1) Continue the current planning effort for EVSE deployment: DvRPc should continue to collect traffic data, research, and analyze the best locations of evse to maximize the effectiveness of evse investment in the region. the previous series of Ready to Roll reports have already included the five counties in Pennsylvania. the future ev readiness plans should also include the four counties in new jersey. because DvRPc staff has been working on this topic, no extra staff will be needed.

(2) Collect EV-specific data: DvRPc should add ev-specific questions in the periodic household travel survey to collect more accurate current ev adoption rate and ev owners’ travel behavior data. currently no such question is asked, and questions relating to a vehicle’s make and model does not provide enough information. Minimal funding is needed.

PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE(1) Provide technical assistance to local municipalities for EV planning: DvRPc should assign staff to provide technical assistance for the ev planning activities in local municipalities, as proposed in Ready to Roll! volume i. For example, DvRPc could help local municipalities develop streamline permitting guidance for local residents and developers to simplify the permitting process. DvRPc should incur no extra cost other than allocating staff hours. therefore, no extra funding is needed in

this step of implementation.

(2) Encourage EV procurement and replacement in carsharing organizations, car rental companies, and taxi fleets: DvRPc should provide local carsharing organizations, car rental companies, and taxi fleets with technical assistance to apply for grants and funds to cover the vehicle incremental costs or infrastructure installation in carsharing organizations. For example, the Pennsylvania alternative Fuels incentive Grant (aFiG), funded by the Pennsylvania Department of environmental Protection, is available for corporations in Pennsylvania to apply for new alternative fuel vehicle purchase or vehicle retrofit.3 eligible parties include school districts, municipal authorities, political subdivisions, incorporated non-profit entities, corporations, and limited liability companies or partnerships registered to do business in Pennsylvania.4

DvRPc should incur no extra cost other than allocating staff hours. therefore, no extra funding is needed in this step of implementation. the costs for carsharing organizations, car rental companies, and taxi fleets vary depending on the scale of procurement and replacement.

Figure 4.2: the nissan leaf, a compact all electric vechi-cle that produces no tail-pipe GHG emissions at the point of operation.

source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152793767157796&set=a.10150129438332796.335311.141137487795&type=1&theater.

Figure 4.3: transportation and climate initiative (tci) has published a number of planning reports and research documents about ev and evse. this is an example doc-ument of ev-ready codes that may be helpful for planning organizations and local municipalities.

source: http://www.transportationandclimate.org/ev-ready-codes-built-environment

Figure 4.1: Displays challenges to implementing alternative fuel vehicles by order of difficulty. the size of the bubble reflects the size of the challenge.

C

T

high upfront costs of EV and

EVSE

difficult to establish a charging network

lack of regulatory framework

lack of signage standard

burden on electricity

grid



Figure 4.4: DvRPc has mapped out potential areas for public and workplace charging.

source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152793767157796&set=a.10150129438332796.335311.141137487795&type=1&theater

DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION(1) Expand community outreach efforts through the RideECO program: DvRPc should take advantage of its current partnership with enterprise carshare in the Rideeco program,5 and distribute informational materials of ev to members of Rideeco to increase awareness of and market interest in ev through emails.

ORGANIZE GROUPS(1) Coordinate the current activities of agencies and authorities in the region already promoting EV and EVSE by establishing a regional EV working group: Many agencies, programs, and organizations are already active in promoting ev and evse in the DvRPc region (see appendix 4.3 for information on current organizations). However, the current efforts are not well coordinated. DvRPc should coordinate different agencies and organizations to increase effectiveness of these

current efforts.

creating a regional ev working group would increase the efficiency of planning and implementation efforts, and generate increased regional participation and advocacy of ev. the members of the regional working group in the DvRPc region could include representatives from agencies and organizations currently active in promoting ev adoption and evse deployment in the region. DvRPc should initiate the establishment of the working group, and invite interested parties to join the group.

the regional ev working group should collect and disseminate information and data of ev, and hold regular meetings to share the most current ev information and technology, keep track of

DOREGIONAL EV COUNCIL

Washington Metro Area

Metropolitan Washington council of Governments (coG, the MPo of Metropolitan Washington) and the Greater Washington Region clean cities coalition established a regional, stakeholder-driven, electric vehicle Planning initiative to identity issues for regional ev deployment and to make recommendations for local jurisdictions to plan for ev adoption.6 the initiative also designated the six electric vehicle Planning Workgroups to address specific issues of ev deployment in the region, such as infrastructure siting, regulatory barriers, ev use in fleets, outreach and education, etc.



planning and installation progress, and identify funding opportunities across states and counties in the region.

Potential members of the working group could include DvRPc, new jersey clean cities coalition, Greater Philadelphia clean cities coalition, transportation & climate initiative of the northeast and Mid-atlantic states (tci), local transportation departments, utilities companies (Peco, veolia, etc.), ev manufacturers (toyota, nissan, chevrolet, etc.), evse companies (chargePoint, semaconnect, etc.), auto insurance companies, roadside assistance groups, and ev enthusiasts.

FUND PROGRAMS(1) Allocate TIP funding for the procurement and installation of EV and EVSE projects: currently, DvRPc does not allocate any funding to light-duty ev projects in the Pennsylvania tiP (FY2013-2016) or the new jersey tiP (FY2014-2017). Redirecting tiP funding directly connects the federal and state transportation funding for MPos to the long-term goal found in connections 2040 of reducing GHG emissions. this implementation would require DvRPc to gradually increase the allocation

of funding in each tiP by 2030, based on the growth of ev adoption.

(2) Place EV in local government fleets: Government fleet procurement has the potential to stimulate the market for a given type of vehicle or fuel. DvRPc could provide tiP funding to local governments to replace vehicles reaching the end of their operational life with ev. the financing source could come from congestion Mitigation and air Quality (cMaQ) improvement Program in the Pennsylvania tiP and the new jersey tiP.

FFigure 4.5: EV charging stations in front of San Francisco City Hall. Note that one of the electric vehicles in the photo is a fleet vechile of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charg-ing_stations_in_SF_City_Hall_02_2009_01.jpg.

difficult to establish a charging network

lack of regulatory framework

lack of signage standard

burdon on electricity

grid

continue planningcollect EV data

tech assistance to local gov tech assistance to private sectors

outreach thru RideECOEV working group

TIP reallocationfund govt fleet conversion

high upfront cost of EV and EVSE



conclusionthe recommendations proposed for DvRPc is designed to help overcome the challenges of ev adoption and evse deployment based on DvRPc’s capacities. DvRPc’s roles in implementation plans include planning and collecting data, providing technical assistance to public and private sectors, distributing information about ev, organizing and coordianting groups, and funding ev and evse projects. carsharing organizations and car rental companies are important for the promotion of ev because carsharing and car rental employ charging stations in central facilities, addressing the challenges of ev range limitations and the region’s current limited charging infrastructure. therefore, DvRPc’s public-private partnerships with carsharing organizations and car rental companies are important to help overcome the “first-mover” barriers.

except for the last two recommendations that involve substantial amount of funding from DvRPc, the first six recommendations of implementation do not require much extra costs, making them very feasible.

continue the current planning effort for EVSE deployment

expand community outreach efforts through the RideECO programprovide techinical assistance to local municipalities for EV planning

establish a regional EV working group

expand community outreach efforts through RideECO encourage EV procurement and replacement in private sectors

First Steps

Second Steps

allocate TIP funding for EV and EVSE projectsThird Steps

place EV in local government fleets

collect EV-specific data in the household travel surveys



1. DvRPc, Ready to Roll! volume ii: technology overview, De-tailed analyses, and apendices, 76, june 2013.

2. DvRPc, Ready to Roll! volume ii: technology overview, De-tailed analyses, and apendices, 43, june 2013.

3. Pennsylvania Department of environmental Protection, Penn-sylvania alternative Fuels incentive Grant (aFiG), http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-99079/0120-Fs-DeP4411.pdf.

4. Pennsylvania Department of environmental Protection, Pennsylvania alternative Fuels incentive Grant (aFiG),http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/alternative_fuels_incentive_grant-move_to_grants/10492vv.

5. Delaware county transportation Management association, Rideeco and enterprise carshare offering exclusive Discounts to Members, http://www.dctma.org/2013/07/17/new-ways-to-save-on-your-commute-and-travel/.

6. Metropolitan Washington council of Governments, electric vehicles in Metropolitan Washington: understanding the Region’s current ev Readiness and options for expanding their use, october 2012, http://electricdrive.org/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumentaction/id/33320.

REFERENCES

Recommended Actions


RETROFITS

GOALReduce GHG emissions from stationary buildings through implementing retrofits within the DVRPC region

OBJECTIVES(1) Implement retrofits to 25% of residential buildings by 2030(2) Implement retrofits to 20% of commercial and industrial buildings by 2030

GHG REDUCTIONS Residential: As discussed earlier in the report, there are a variety of retrofit measures. We explored 23 (Figure 6.2) common retrofitting options in the categories of:

» Roofing » Sealing and Insulation » Water Heating » Lighting » Space Heating and Cooling » Appliances

If applied to all single family homes within the DVRPC region, these twenty-three measures have a GHG reduction potential of around 15.49% from projected 2030 emissions. Figure 6.1 shows the estimated reductions per retrofit measure; the methodology for these calculations can be found in Appendix 6.1. Although combined these values sum to greater than 15.5%, many of their impacts are redundant, due to the possibility that implementing one precludes another (such as in the case of roofing), or overlapping impacts (more efficient heating systems will be less effective if the home loses less energy due to better insulation). Therefore, the total reductions potential for is lower than the sum of each measure. For a discussion on the methodology behind these values please refer to Appendix 6.1.

Performing retrofits on multifamily housing has a lower overall reduction potential than single-family homes, at around 0.18% for the goal of 25% of housing retrofits.1 This value does not include solar potential for multifamily housing which will be discussed later in the commercial section. The greenhouse gas reduction potential by 2030, assuming the goal of 25% residential retrofit conversions, would be around 5%.

Commercial: Less information is available for individual commercial retrofit measures’ potentials, however, overall possible energy reductions can be from 10% to 90% depending on the level of retrofit. Figure 6.3 shows levels of retrofitting projects for commercial buildings, their potential GHG reductions, payback period, and cost per square foot. Retro-commissioning projects show the greatest financial return to commercial entities, and therefore provide the most politically feasible retrofit option for the DVRPC region. Retrofitting 20% of commercial buildings with retro-commissioning would lead to a minimal GHG reduction.

Including solar capacity for commercial and multi-family housing, the total GHG reduction potential of the above stated goals is a 7.73% reduction.

COSTTo reach the goals of completing retrofits on 25% of residential buildings and 20% of commercial and industrial buildings, we recommend a total of 16 strategies, discussed in depth below. Appendix 6.2 displays the estimated items and costs for these initiatives to DVRPC and municipalities, for a total cost of $267,500 per year. Assuming these costs, DVRPC would see a 0.028% reduction per $1,000 spent.

Measure Reductions

Solar Panels 8.34%

White Roofs 0.17%

Green Roofs 0.11%

Drill & Fill 1.10%

Attic Insulation 1.03%

ENERGY Star Window 0.92%

Standard Window 0.85%

8 Foot Basement Insulation 0.68%

Seal & Insulate Ducts 0.58%

Max Air Seal 0.41%

4 Foot Basement Insulation 0.35%

Solar Water Heater 0.79%

Tankless Water Heater 0.29%

Tank Water Heater 0.16%

55% CFL Lighting 0.01%

44% CFL Lighting 0.07%

92.5 AFUE Furnace 0.64%

SEER 16 AC 0.41%

Programable Thermostat 0.31%

SEER 13 AC 0.41%

ENERGY Star Refrigerator 0.08%

ENERGY Star Clothes

Washer

0.19%

Total 17.64%

Total Without Overlap 15.49%

Figure 6.1: Energy retrofit measures and their energy reductino potential

Retrofits


DRILL & FILL

GREEN ROOFSRoofs covered with vegetation

DRILL & FILLDrilling holes in outside walls and filling with insulation

STANDARD WINDOWReplacing current windows with non-Energy Star rated windows

FURNACEFurnace with Anual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of 92.5

AIR CONDITIONINGAir conditioners with seasonal energy efficiency ratios of 13 and 16 were explored

CFL LIGHTINGReplacement to light-bulbs with CFL ratings of 44 and 55% were explored

ENERGY STAR WASHEREnergy Star rated washer

ENERGY STAR REFRIGERATOREnergy Star rated refrigerator

PROGRAMABLE THERMOSTATThermostat which can be pre-set to vary temperature

TANKLESS WATER HEATERWater heater which heats water as needed

TANK WATER HEATERWater heater which heats and stores water

SOLAR WATER HEATERUses solar power to heat water

SEAL & INSULATE DUCTSMethod of sealing air leaks through sealing ducts

ATTIC INSULATIONSealing drafts and adding insulation to attics

MAX AIR SEALSealing holes to decrease air leakage

ENERGY STAR WINDOWReplacing current windows with Energy Star rated windows

BASEMENT INSULATIONBoth 4 and 8 foot insulation were explored

WHITE ROOFSRoofs covered with white reflective surface to decrease heat

SOLAR PANELSPhotovoltaic instalation on top of roofs to generate electricity

ROO

FIN

GW

ATE

RTE

MP

LIG

HTI

NG

APP

LIA

NC

ESE

ALI

NG

& IN

SULA

TIO

N

Figure 2: Provides a brief explanation of retrofit mea-sures applicable to the DVRPC region.

CHALLENGESHigh upfront costs: Major retrofit projects commonly cost thousands of dollars. Typical prices for the 23 measures studied can be found in Appendix 6.2. Local municipal permitting fees also add to overall project costs.

Insufficient knowledge: Insufficient knowledge of possible retrofit options increases the cost of transactions by making individual property-owners navigate a confounding variety of measures, financial instruments, and project contractors. Insufficient knowledge of possible returns leads to capital unavailability from lenders. Currently, there is a lack of successful examples in the marketplace.2 Retrofit measures are an unfamiliar source of revenue for traditional lenders as energy savings cannot be directly measured, only inferred from future projections. The lack of information about costs versus savings, increased rental income, increased property values, and increased tenant demand in commercial building, has hindered the adoption of underwriting standards. Without standard underwriting guidelines, financial service providers can not assess risk, and therefore charge higher interest rates.

On-balance sheet debt limits: Many property owners’ building portfolios are fully mortgaged for the value of the building, preventing additional on-balance sheet debt for financing improvements.3 Creative financing approaches are necessary to provide off-balance sheet upfront funds without reaching credit limits.

Long payback periods: Property owners often fear that they may sell before they see a return on their investment, particularly with deep energy retrofits that include major structural work, and especially true for residential retrofits.

Split incentives: Often the customer responsible for paying energy bills differs from the end-user consumer, or the investment decision maker for a property. “For example, owners of apartment buildings have little incentive to improve the efficiency of the building or individual apartments if the tenants are the ones paying the bills and benefitting from future energy savings. Similarly, builders or developers have little incentive to design or construct new buildings to be more efficient because they will never pay the bills for energy consumption.”4

Competing interests: In today’s economic climate there is a premium on flexible cash flow, meaning competing investments and reserves held for emergencies limit energy investments. Moreover, commercial real estate holdings are often held in multi-party or limited liability ownership, making capital expenditure decisions controversial and difficult to coordinate.5

Lack of returns to agency: Although retrofits provide cost savings to individuals and GHG emission reductions to regions, benefits are not directly seen by agencies who assist and provide funding for retrofit projects. Often projects have implementation costs which will not be regained by agencies.

Lack of government support: State governments, especially Pennsylvania, depend on energy for a thriving economy, and therefore have little desire to invest in alternative energy or energy reduction measures.6 Energy and GHG reductions are low priorities for these as well as local governments.7

Recommended Actions


Type of Energy Retrofit Energy Savings Payback Period Cost per SqFtRetro-Commisioning 10% - 20% 4 months - 2.4 years $0.30ESCO 2% - 40% 3 - 10 years $2.50Integrated Design 30% - 60% 7 - 12 years $2.50Net Zero Energy 50% - 90% 8 - 20 years $10

Figure 6.3: Energy Retrofit Types and their associated impactsSource: Levin Noch and Clint Weelock, Executive Summary: Energy Efficiency Retrofits for Commercial and Public Buildings Energy Savings Potential, Retrofit Business Cases, Financing Structures, Policy and Regulatory Factors, Demand Drivers by Segment, and Market Forecasts, Pike Research, 2010

30%

35%

40%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

Retrofits

Low cost of energy: The energy cost in PA and NJ remains relatively low, lowering incentives for retrofitting buildings for cost efficiency.8

IMPLEMENTATION

PRIORITIzE

(1) Target retrofit programs to areas where amount paid per energy bill is high compared to income for residential retrofits: Where retrofits will have their greatest potential for energy costs savings, and therefore financial attractiveness, will be where energy consumption and cost are high compared to income. These areas have the most to gain by improving energy efficiency. Additionally, areas with older

homes have older materials and equipment and would see greater GHG emissions reductions per dollar spent. Therefore, targeting areas with a concentration of “retrofit ready” homes, as defined by the Real Estate Roundtable, will find homes with the greatest opportunity to realize efficiency gains. Working with local CDCs, religious organizations, non-profits, and other community organizations would assist DVRPC to reach these areas.

Targeting these areas serves as a framing mechanism for all other recommendations, and therefore would not require additional funding.

(2) Prioritize retro-commissioning projects which save 10% to 20% of energy savings for commercial buildings: Although deeper retrofit initiatives provide higher GHG emissions reductions, 10% to 20% savings projects show the greatest financial return for commercial and public buildings.9 This would enable DVRPC to facilitate more retrofits, therefore having higher GHG emissions reductions.

This step frames other DVRPC commercial retrofit work and therefore does not require extra funding.

Figure 6.4: Displays challenges to implementing retrofits by order of difficulty. The size of the bubble reflects the size of the challenge.

high upfront

costsinsufficient knowledge

long payback periods

lack of government

support

split incentives

competinginterests

on-balance sheet debt

limits

low energy

cost

Challenges to Implementation


I


[

0 7.5 15

Miles

Total Residential Energy Expenditures by MunicipalityResidential Energy Expenditures Compared to Median Household Income

Municipality Priority Level

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

[

0 7.5 15

Miles

Total Residential Energy Expenditures by Municipality"Retrofit Ready" DVRPC Region Census Tracts

Number of Homes Built Before 1990 (quantiles)0 - 675

676 - 955

956 - 1070

1071 - 1216

1217 - 1354

1355 - 1464

1465 - 1633

1634 - 1800

1801 - 2233

2234 - 3103

Recommended Actions

Figures 6.5: Areas with high numbers of “retrofit ready” homes, meaning that they were built at least 20 years ago.

Figures 6.6: Areas with high energy costs and low median income are scored high on the pri-ority leve index

COLLECT DaTa

(1) Undergo solar access analysis in arcGIS for the entire DVRPC region beyond Philadelphia county: Solar potential varies due to sun days per year, topography, sun angle, and shade. Creating a map tool to visualize the solar potential of the region would allow both for DVRPC and municipalities to understand where to target investment in solar, as

well as to prioritize assistance to municipalities with permitting processes. Figure 6.7 depicts the result of a simplified process to estimate the solar potential per building in Philadelphia based on topography and building height.

This analysis requires special knowledge and time in collecting new GIS data and executing the modeling procedure. This would require additional staff for DVRPC, salary for this position is estimate at $73,000, and municipalities to hire data collectors at a salary of around $65,000 based on similar positions, including benefits and taxes. These costs would be internally funded.

(2) Undergo in depth analysis to understand optimal mixture of retrofit measures for Philadelphia commercial and industrial sector: The data for residential retrofit measures came from a report of a model to find retrofit measures with the best returns. This is done by comparing study buildings implementing different measures to understand their cost savings to energy reduction potential. this information is then used to create a package of priority measures. The study did not include commercial buildings, and DVRPC should perform this analysis as well as contact retrofit contractors to understand cost to reduction ratios.

This study would require a new staff member and a salary costs around $25,000, which would be internally funded.

DISTRIbUTE InFORMaTIOn

(1) Develop partnerships with utilities and energy service companies (ESCOs) to create prototype contracts and financing agreements that individuals and businesses can use to pay for retrofit measures: Because a major constraint to undergoing retrofit projects is the availability of upfront capital, several innovative yet complicated financing models

have been created to work around this hurdle. Individuals can partner in different ways with investors, utilities, and/or ESCOs to retrofit their homes with little upfront cost. Drafting prototype contract agreements and developing relationships with local utilities and ESCOs will reduce the knowledge gap and streamline the project administration, giving people fewer reasons to decide against retrofit projects. The variety of these financing models are detailed in Appendix 6.3.

DVRPC would have low to no costs due to current staff ability to meet with municipalities, energy service companies, and utilities to advocate for streamlined programs and agreements. DVRPC would convene periodic meetings much like its Circuit Rider for Energy Efficiency in Local Government Operations series, but the majority of the costs would be in legal consulting fees to help negotiate and draft sample contracts.

(2) Distribute information on financing for residential and commercial retrofits to municipalities: The same complicated financing models that can be applied to residential retrofits can be done for commercial properties. Property managers with a large portfolio may have a better ability to enter into contract agreements with utilities and energy service companies and realize financial return on energy efficiency. Drafting prototype contract agreements and developing relationships with local utilities and companies will reduce the knowledge gap and streamline the project administration. The variety of these financing models are detailed in Appendix 6.3.

Similar to earlier recommendations, this recommendation would require only an optional $2,000 in promotional materials.


Retrofits

nEW YORk CITY SOLaR aMERICa CITY PaRTnERSHIPNew York City, NY

The NYC Solar America City Partnership created a web-based platform for users to search by neighborhood or address to estimate the solar potential and financial payback of solar PV systems on buildings. The NYC Solar Map website details the assumptions, data sources, and GIS methodology used in the calculations and can be replicated and amended to suit the DVRPC region.

C

DEnERGY SERVICE COMPanY

An energy service company is a commercial business or non-profit organization devoted to providing and implementing energy solutions including retrofits, energy conservation strategies, energy infrastructure outsourcing, distributed power generation, risk management, and energy budget counseling.

(3) Create a green building benchmarking program: A building benchmarking program would serve two purposes to increase the number of retrofits. First, if public disclosure is required, it would signal to property managers and tenants which buildings perform the best to reduce energy costs. This information could then be incorporated into location decisions as a competitive feature. Second, gathering data on costs versus savings, rental income, property values, and tenant demand in commercial buildings will help inform underwriting standards.

Although EPA provides a Portfolio Manager for free, that is used by all 9 cities with benchmarking laws in place, depending on the minimum size building required to disclose energy use (we suggest starting with large properties greater than 50,000 square feet of commercial space), the costs to DVRPC may be considerable in data analysis and program management across all municipalities in the region, a likely minimum of two staff members at $50,000 per year. A grant should be secured to fund this program.

(4) Facilitate free and reduced cost audits for homeowners and make audit results available to homeowners through mapping: Home audits have proven to be highly successful in encouraging retrofits. In a NYSERDA project in New York City, 35% of homeowners who completed energy audits went on to complete retrofits.10 Programs in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey exist to supply homeowners with reduced cost audits, and DVRPC should work to


Recommended Actions

[0 250 500

Feet

Solar Potential for Buildings near Independence Mall

Solar Potential

Low

High

Figure 6.7: This map shows the solar potential of buildings near the DVRPC offices in Phila-delphia based on topography, sunny days per year, and building heights. Additional informa-tion about building footprints and heights is necessary to expand the analysis to the entire region.

Figure 6.8: EPA’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager software is used by the City of Philadelphia in their benchmarking and disclosure legislation.


Retrofits

distribute this information to consumers and municipalities (see Appendix 6.4 for available audit programs). DVRPC should also work with local contractors and developers to facilitate reduced cost retrofitting in return for DVRPC support. This support could include advertisements, or distributing these contractors names to muncipal governments for use when promoting retrofits. While audits inspire high amounts of retrofits, these audits are often not cost efficient for individual building owners. As buildings in similar areas have similar energy usage profiles;11 sharing information to homeowners of energy profiles for nearby buildings could reduce the need for individual retrofits.

As DVRPC staff already connect with municipalities through the Circuit Rider program, and mapping would require only small amounts of time, no additional staffing would be needed for these activities. A possible budget for handouts to municipal governments could be necessary, and is estimated at $3,000. Staffing and meeting space could be provided by current municipal governments, making these costs negligible. Costs of obtaining retrofit data could require hiring part time workers, costing municipalities around $10,000.These costs would be internally funded.

(5) Develop and lead a business partnership competition: As discussed in the business partnership competition section in volume one, cities such as Pittsburgh and New York City have implemented competitions as a low cost option for lowering GHG emissions. DVRPC should implement a new retrofit business competition program. All businesses should be able to participate, entering into different categories depending on size. Similar to the Pittsburgh model, organizations should gain points for lowering emissions as well as undergoing retrofit measures. DVRPC should award higher points to businesses based on defined best practice measures to reach the highest return. The yearly winners of the competition should be awarded cash prizes, recognition of participation and progress should also be posted with businesses’ consent.

Implementation of this program would require new staffing to communicate with and recruit businesses for participation, costing around $25,000. Cash prizes for the winner would be started at $5,000. Promotional materials would cost around $5,000. DVRPC should consider grant funding for this program.

aDVOCaTE

(1) advocate for state allocation of funds to retrofit item financing: While tax credits and some grants exist, many have ended, and what still exists do not provide enough to truly enable retrofit projects at a large scale. DVRPC should partner with other organizations to advocate at the state level for increased retrofit financing. Example partnering

organizations include Urban Land Institute (ULI), DVGBC, and the EEB Hub. Financing could come in the form of grants, rebates, loans, abatements, and tax credits.12

DVRPC would best reach this goal by convening other organizations working towards implementing retrofits to hire lobbyists, as advocating falls largely outside of DVRPC’s role. Costs would be in meetings and would be negligible.

(2) advocate for regulatory change at the municipal level to reduce restrictions on solar installation: Currently, high fees and zoning restrictions limit the expansion of solar retrofits in much of the DVRPC region. Home-owner associations (HOAs) often restrict solar adoption through bylaws meant to maintain aesthetics.13 DVRPC has the ability to advocate for reducing restrictions through changing ordinances in municipalities. Appendix 6.5 contains a collection of model ordinances to promote solar use in retrofits, both implemented and recommended from various sources. DVRPC should use these ordinances as a baseline for advocacy for permit, fee, and ordinance change within municipalities.

DVRPC would have low to no costs due to current staff ability to meet with municipalities and advocate for change. Costs to municipalities would be around $20,000 due to public meeting (estimated $14,000) and lawyer fees (estimated $6,000).14 These costs would be internally funded.

A

Recommended Actions


(3) advocate for municipal and institutional entities to undergo retrofits.Municipalities should work to be examples of retrofit benefits to businesses throughout the region. Additionally, special funding mechanisms (see Appendix 6.3) exist that aid government entity retrofitting.

This initiative would cost DVRPC very little, with costs only in materials at around $2,000. Municipality cost would vary depending on the retrofit need.

FUnD

(1) Create free programmable thermostat program. In this program DVRPC would either directly administer or work with municipalities to administer a program which would provide free programmable thermostats in return for participants attending an

information session on general retrofits, use of the thermostat, and installation of the thermostat.

Previous programs such as the City of Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) have seen success with similar programs in reaching goals. DVRPC should work with energy suppliers as well as thermostat companies to gain reduced priced thermostats in return for including these companies’ names in publications.

DVRPC would hire two new part time staff at salaries of around $15,000 and purchase thermostats. Programmable thermostats are available at as little as $25.00, and assuming 500 participants per year would lead to a cost of $12,500. Space costs would be negligible if DVRPC partnered with organizations to receive space. DVRPC should consider grant funding for this program.

(2) Expand the Energy Coordinating agency’s (ECa) reach by encouraging additional neighborhood Energy Centers outside of the City of Philadelphia.

ECA is a non-profit organization founded in 1984 that provides energy conservation counseling and education as well as equipment repair and replacement services to low-income Philadelphians through its network of fourteen Neighborhood Energy Centers (NECs). The ECA designates and assists community based organizations to become Centers that can provide the comprehensive energy services that ECA offers.17 During 2013, ECA weatherized over 3,000 homes, performed over 1,000 home energy audits, repaired over 3,300 heaters, held workshops attended by over 1,700 people, and more.18 Since its inception, ECA’s actions have saved $241 million for low-income families and avoided 70,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.19 Although political hurdles must be overcome to expand funding outside of the City, DVRPC can encourage ECA to designate additional Centers or provide technical assistance to similar organizations in the other eight counties in the region.

Based on the original request for proposals in 2010, the City of Philadelphia’s Office of Housing and Community Development provided roughly $46,000 of funds per NEC over a three year period. Additional funding came through Community Development Block Grants. Additional NEC locations could be identified through priority areas found in energy cost, income, and “retrofit ready homes” mapping efforts. DVRPC should secure grants to pass through to potential NECs.

CONCLUSIONDespite their challenges, retrofits are not a politically controversial topic. The ability of retrofits to lower GHG emissions, as well as lower costs for homeowners, municipalities, organizations, and businesses creates high buy-in; nevertheless, financing retrofits remains a challenge. The above recommendations work to decrease this challenge while remaining within DVRPC’s role and financing ability. For these reasons, many of the recommendations center around data collection, advocacy, and information distribution -- which decreases costs to DVRPC and to municipalities-- and ensures high feasibility of implementation.

PHILaDELPHIa WaTER DEPaRTMEnT RaIn baRREL PROGRaMPhiladelphia, PA

Participants are given a free rain barrel in return for attending a class on stormwater management and use of the barrel.15 The program to date has distributed 3,500 barrels with a production of an additional 2,500 in the next two years.16 This program could serve as a model for implementation for DVRPC.

One significant difference between the rain barrel program and the proposed thermostat program are returns to the agency. The Rain Barrel program provides returns to PWD in the form of decreased stormwater management costs. DVRPC would not see similar benefits, and therefore should overcome this challnge by securing a grant for the program. Additionally, these programs often suffer by placing full liability of the free objects onto the participants, barring many from choosing to participate.

F

Retrofits


insufficient knowledge

high upfront

costs

lack of government

support

split incentives

competinginterests

on-balance sheet debt

limits

low energy

cost

priority areasgive information

solar access analysis audits

ordinanceplannersutilities

thermostatscenters

state advocacyoptimal mixture

retro-commissioningbusiness competition

municipal retrofitsfinancing information

long payback periods

Figure 6.8: Displays how the recommendations address the challenges as discussed above.

Figure 6.9 displays an optimal order of implementation for the above recommendations. A exact timeline is not provided, as the order of implementation holds more importance than the exact date. The recommended order of implementation is first steps high priority, then first steps mid-priority with initial work for second steps high priority. This ensures work necessary for later steps is completed and each recommendation has a full time period to be implemented.

Recommended Actions


target areas with high energy bills compared to incomeprioritize retro-commissioning projectsdistribute information on measures & financing

analysis of best practice commercial measuresordinance & regulation change

audit programs

business partnership competition

utility partnerships

municipal retrofitssolar access analysis

expand energy coordinating agencythermostat program

First Steps

Second Steps

Third Steps

state funding

Figure 6.9: Order and priority of implementation for recommended action. Recommendations are ordered by time of implementation (first, second, third steps), followed by priority of implementation (shown by shade).

REFERENCES

References


1. Steven Winter Associates, Recognizing the Benefits of Energy Efficiency in Multifamily Underwriting, Deutsch Bank, January 2012

2. EEB Hub, Finance and Real Estate Platform Launch: Advanced Energy Retrofit Financing Strategies that Work and Why, June 12, 2013

3. Patrick Hughes, Jump Starting Energy Efficiency in the Com-mercial Building Sector: A New Model for Retrofitting Com-mercial Buildings in America’s Cities, Energy Future Coalition, 2012 <http://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2012/data/pa-pers/0193-000115.pdf>

4. Institute for Sustainable Communities, Scaling Up Building Energy Retrofitting in U.S. Cities: A Resource Guide for Lo-cal Leaders <http://www.iscvt.org/who_we_are/publications/Green_Boot_Camp_Resource_Guide.pdf>

5. Anthony J. Buonicore, Energy Efficiency Retrofit Financing Op-tions for the Commercial Real Estate Market, Buonicore Part-ners, February 2012 <http://www.srmnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/Whitepaper_EE_Financing_Options_Final_02-15-12.pdf>

6. Tom Corbett, Energy = Jobs, Pennsylvania State Energy Plan, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, January 2014



9. Levin Noch and Clint Weelock, Executive Summary: Energy Ef-ficiency Retrofits for Commercial and Public Buildings Energy Savings Potential, Retrofit Business Cases, Financing Struc-tures, Policy and Regulatory Factors, Demand Drivers by Seg-ment, and Market Forecasts, Pike Research, 2010

10. New York State Energy Research Development Authority, Green Jobs-Green New York 2013 Annual Report, New York State Energy Research Development Authority, October 2013

11. Pratt Center for Community Development, Retrofit Standardiza-tion Interim Report: A Promising New Approach To Expanding Retrofit Efficiency, Spring 2014


13. Hannah Muller, Solar Acces: Recommendations for the City and County of Denver, U.S. Department of Energy Solar En-ergy Technologies Program, March 2009, http://my.solarroad-map.com/userfiles/Solar-Access-Recommendations-Denver.pdf

14. Rocket Lawyer, How Much Do Lawyers Cost?, http://www.rock-etlawyer.com/article/how-much-do-lawyers-cost.rl

15. Philadelphia Water Department, Rain Barrel Workshops, 2014 <http://www.phillywatersheds.org/whats_in_it_for_you/resi-dents/rainbarrel>

16. Personal Correspondence17. Energy Coordinating Agency, Become a Neighborhood Energy

Center, http://ecasavesenergy.org/content/become-neighbor-hood-energy-center

18. Energy Coordinating Agency, About, http://ecasavesenergy.org/about

19. Id



Because GHG reductions for TOD depend to a great extent on consumers’ individual preferences, GHG emissions were calculated to accommodate a range of possible scenarios, from TOD absorbing 20% of different population and job growth to accommodating 75% of that growth. These sectors included ones more likely to move into TOD: new residents, members of Generation Y, retirees, and new businesses.

New residents and employees were chosen because it would be logistically easier to place them in a TOD rather than relocate existing residents and employees.

Members of Generation Y (the highlighted ages 25-44 cohorts in the chart below) were chosen because they have been surveyed as valuing walkable neighborhods with amenities that are close at hand. It is assumed that at least a portion of this population will continue to maintain and act on these values even as they age.

Retirees (the highlighted ages 65+ cohorts in the chart below) were chosen because many of them, as they age, will become less willing or able to drive cars, and mixed-use TOD will allow them to maintain a high quality of life without vehicles.Although these groups of people may be more likely to live in TOD, with the exception of a smaller portion of retirees, it is assumed that residents will still drive private vehicles about 50 percent of the time, on average, and that no more than 50 percent of workers will consistently take transit to work. These are conservative estimates, and actual GHG emissions reductions could be higher if TOD residents and workers ultimately use transit more often than is anticipated in this model.

A cohort survival model was used to predict Generation Y and retiree age cohort populations in 2030. 2010 population counts from the 2010 Census by county were projected using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Wonder Compressed Mortality File data, listed in the “10-Year Survival Rate” column.

The projections for regionwide population and economic growth were taken from DVRPC’s Data Navigator site, which compiles data pertaining to the DVRPC region.

The model assumes that national vehicle emissions data, average work trip length, and vehicles per capita are representative of local conditions. It also assumes, per 2011 projections by Howden and Meyer (Age and Sex Composition 2010: 2010 Census Briefs) that 20% of people over age 65 do not drive and that the remaining people living and working in TOD will drive for 50% of trips. Results at the municipal level may vary substantially from these norms, but if average drivers in the DVRPC region drive using more efficient vehicles, drive fewer miles to work, and have fewer vehicles per captia, predicted GHG emissions reduction by 2030 will be lower than is predicted here.

The calculations in the chart to the right yield the following conclusions: » The incorporation of between 25% and 75% of new regional population growth into

TOD could reduce GHG emissions by between 236,111 and 708,634 MT CO2-eq GHG.

» The movement of between 20% and 40% of current Generation Y residents into TOD could reduce GHG emissions by between 208,056 and 710,140 MT CO2-eq GHG.

» The movement of between 20% and 40% of existing Generation Y residents and 2030 retirees into TOD could reduce GHG emissions by between 2,743,594 and 4,262,409 MT CO2-eq GHG.

Appendix 2.1: TOD, GHG Calculations

Appendix 2.1


Table 1.1 Supporting calculations determining population targeted for lining in TOD

» The construction of between 25% and 75% of new jobs in the region could reduce GHG emissions by between 44,100 and 330,750 MT CO2-eq GHG, assuming that between 20% and 50% of commuters take transit.

Total savings are therefore between 2,750,181 and 5,030,361 MT CO2-eq GHG, which is between 3.2% and 5.8% of the total GHG emissions predicted by 2030.

TOD, GHG Calculations

Age Cohort2010

Population

10-year Survival

Rate

10-year Survivors

(2020)

10-year Survival

Rate

10-year Survivors

(2030)Total 5,626,186Under 5 years 345,891 0.9825037 - 0.98250 - 5 to 9 years 354,142 0.9829082 - 0.98291 - 10 to 14 years 368,833 0.9993224 339,839 0.99932 - 15 to 17 years 239,054 0.9981192 348,089 0.99812 - 18 to 24 years 566,782 0.9963362 368,583 0.99634 338,594 25 to 34 years 728,471 0.99399 238,604 0.99399 345,997 35 to 44 years 744,630 0.9889492 564,705 0.98895 364,510 45 to 54 years 859,721 0.9847289 724,093 0.98473 234,961 55 to 64 years 667,845 0.9481261 736,401 0.94813 535,412 65 and 74 years 380,863 0.8579205 846,592 0.85792 621,214 75 to 84 years 253,657 0.7442773 633,201 0.74428 548,087 85+ years 116,297 0.3211801 552,894 0.32118 652,859


Appendix 2.1

# tr

ansit

-orie

nted

acr

es:

196,

708

DV

RPC,

Geo

spat

ial D

ata

MT

CO2-

eq G

HG p

er v

ehic

le p

er y

ear:

4.75

U

S EP

A, E

mis

sion

s &

Gen

erat

ion

Reso

urce

Inte

grat

ed D

atab

ase

MT

CO2-

eq G

HG p

er m

ile:

4.20

E-04

US

EPA,

Em

issi

ons

& G

ener

atio

n Re

sour

ce In

tegr

ated

Dat

abas

eAv

erag

e ve

hicl

e tr

ip le

ngth

, to

wor

k (m

i):12

.6U

S DO

E, F

act #

615:

Mar

ch 2

2, 2

010,

Ave

rage

Veh

icle

Trip

Len

gth

Vehi

cles

per

cap

ita0.

84U

S DO

E, F

act #

617:

Apr

il 5,

201

0, C

hang

es in

Veh

icle

s pe

r Cap

ita a

roun

d th

e W

orld

Acco

mm

odat

e a

port

ion

of n

ew p

opul

atio

n gr

owth

with

in tr

ansit

nod

es

Tota

l Cou

nty

Popu

latio

n Gr

owth

2010

2030

pro

ject

ion

Diff

eren

ce25

% o

f gro

wth

50%

of g

row

th75

% o

f gro

wth

MIN

MAX

5,62

6,18

66,

098,

853

472,

667

118,

167

23

6,33

4

35

4,50

0

GH

G re

duct

ion

(Car

s for

1/2

of t

rips)

- -

236,

211

472,

423

708,

634

236,

211

708,

634

Acco

mm

odat

e a

port

ion

of e

xist

ing

Gen

Y an

d ag

ing-

in-p

lace

retir

ees (

65+)

with

in tr

ansit

nod

es 20%

30%

40%

50%

Proj

ecte

d Ge

n Y

(Age

d 25

-44)

710,

507

14

2,10

1

21

3,15

2

284,

203

355,

253

GHG

redu

ctio

n fo

r tho

se w

ho d

rive

cars

1/2

of t

ime

- 28

4,05

6

42

6,08

4

56

8,11

2

71

0,14

0

28

4,05

6

71

0,14

0

Proj

ecte

d Re

tiree

s (65

+)1,

822,

159

364,

432

546,

648

91

1,08

0

91

1,08

0

GH

G re

duct

ion

for 1

/5 re

tiree

s in

TOD

not u

sing

cars

- 1,

456,

974

-

- -

1,45

6,97

4

1,45

6,97

4

GH

G re

duct

ion

for a

ddtl

retir

ees i

n TO

D (c

ars f

or 1

/2 o

f trip

s) -

728,

487

1,09

2,73

1

1,82

1,21

8

- 72

8,48

7

1,

821,

218

Acco

mm

odat

e a

port

ion

of jo

b gr

owth

with

in tr

ansit

nod

esEc

onom

ic G

row

th (N

umbe

r of J

obs)

2010

2030

pro

ject

ion

Diff

eren

ce2,

950,

000

3,19

0,00

0

24

0,00

0

25

% o

f gro

wth

50%

of g

row

th75

% o

f gro

wth

60,0

00

120,

000

180,

000

GHG

emiss

ions

redu

ctio

n w

hen

20%

tak

e tr

ansit

44,4

53

88,9

06

133,

358

GHG

emiss

ions

redu

ctio

n w

hen

30%

tak

e tr

ansit

66,6

79

133,

358

200,

038

GHG

emiss

ions

redu

ctio

n w

hen

40%

tak

e tr

ansit

88,9

06

177,

811

266,

717

GHG

emiss

ions

redu

ctio

n w

hen

50%

tak

e tr

ansit

111,

132

222,

264

333,

396

SUM

(GHG

in 2

030)

2,75

0,18

1

5,03

0,36

1

Fr

actio

n of

pro

ject

ed3.

2%5.

8%

RAN

GE

44,4

53

333,

396

Tabl

e 1.

2: G

HG

em

issi

ons

redu

ctio

ns fr

om p

opul

atio

ns a

nd e

mpl

oym

ent m

ovin

g in

to T

OD


TOD, Development Finance

As mentioned previously, DVRPC would not be involved in the step of financing development. However, it can assist the entities undertaking the development with finding funding sources. Few sources of funding cover all aspects of the process of developing TOD, and thus funding will have to be gathered somewhat piecemeal. Nevertheless, there are options available from a variety of sources, a snapshot of which is as follows.

FEDERALUS EPA, Assessment Grant Program: Grants for up to $200,000 to inventory, assess, and plan for contaminated sites; coalitions of 3 or more entities are eligible for up to $1 million.

US EPA, Cleanup Grant Program: Grants of up to $200,000 for cleanup activities at brownfields sites. Requires a 20% cost share.

US DOT, TOD Planning Pilot Program: $10 million was allocated for FY2014 but funding was not available for this program in FY2013 and a federal notice of funding availability (NOFA) has not occurred recently.20

US DOT, TIGER Discretionary Grant Program: In 2014, $600 million was available in total through 2016; individual grants are between $10 and $200 million. It generally funds several Pennsylvania or New Jersey projects per year relating to planning and implementation. Public transportation projects are eligible for funding.21

US HUD, Community Development Block Grants: For projects benefiting low- and moderate-income residents and addressing community development needs. In 2014, DVRPC region received $49.6 million.22

REGIONAL The regional funder is DVRPC, which receieved pass-through funding from the federal government. See the Implementation section of the TOD section.

STATEPEnnSylvAnIATRIDs (Transit Revitalization Investment Districts): Capture value in property tax revenue increases in a designated area around a transit station.In practice they cannot pay for the entire TOD project.23

Keystone Communities ProgramKeystone Main Streets: Grant funding for existing buildings, towards community’s downtown revitalization.Keystone Elm Streets: Grant funding for planning, acquisition, construction towards community revitalization and economic development in neighborhood residential and mixed use areas that are proximate to a central business district.

Infrastructure Development Program: Grant and low-interest loan financing for infrastructure improvements. Loans and grants up to $1.25 million, loan for up to 15 years. Private matching funds: $2 for every $1 of award. Job creation requirement.

Appendix 2.2: TOD, Development Finance


Appendix 2.2

Growing Greener II, Main Street and Downtown Redevelopment Grants: For acquisition and physical improvements of existing buildings. Typical grants average between $250,000 and $500,000; matching should be demonstrated.

PennDOT, Pennsylvania Infrastructure Bank: Low-interest loans for railroad track, equipment and signals, and public transportation capital facilities and purchases.

PennDOT, Capital Assistance Program: Grants to public transportation systems for the purchase of vehicles, equipment, and facilities.

nEw JERSEynJDOT, new Jersey Transit village Initiative: Municipalities are designated as transit villages, making them eligible for state assistance in the form of a $1 million planning grant.

nJ Transit, Transit-Friendly Planning Program: Includes the Smart Commute Initiative - helps prospective homebuyers qualify for a mortgage near transit.

nJ Economic Development Authority (EDA), Brownfields and Contaminated Site Remediation Program: Developer can recover up to 75% of cost of remediation.

nJ EDA, Fund for Community Economic Development: Up to $1.25 million in loans, up to $50,000 in grants for financing gaps, feasibility studies, alternatives to traditional financing.For community economic development organizations or developers in urban and smart growth locations.

nJ EDA, Grow nJ Assistance Program: Tax credits of up to $35 million for Garden State Growth Zones (4 NJ cities with lowest area median income). Tax credits of up to $10 million for urban transit hub municipalities. Job creation requirement - bonuses in funding for additional jobs created.

LOCALlocal governments, SEPTA, or other public or public-serving agency can offer land near transit stations for free or at a reduced cost.

local governments can float municipal bonds for the construction of TOD. This has been done at the state level to support TOD in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Mexico, but may be more politically feasible within the DVRPC region at the local level.

Local governments can also offer tax incentives to developers to build TOD, in the form of abatements, deferments, or reductions.24

PRIVATECritical private sources of funding come from developers, their lending agencies and other funders, and any entities with which they may engage in joint development of TOD. The transit authorities listed above may be significant partners in many joint ventures.

Business Improvement District (BID): If all businesses surrounding a transit stop agree to this measure, they can pay an additional tax or fee into a fund for specific TOD improvements.

Foundations: The following organizations have a history of funding TOD projects and are more nationally oriented:

» living Cities - Regional TOD Grant Portfolio25

» Enterprise - grants and loans for low- and moderate-income housing and the communities that support it.26

» UlI - Urban Innovation Grants27 » Ford Foundation - Metropolitan Opportunity funding28 » Surdna Foundation - Sustainable Transportation Networks funding29


TOD, Development Finance

PARKING CASH-OUTParking Cash-Out, is not an out-of-pocket expense, but a net gain for employees and employers. Within Center City Philadelphia, the average monthly parking garage fee is approximately $250;38 annualized, that equates to $3000 per year. The following table displays the difference between the cost of parking and the annual cost of a SEPTA pass, based on the origin zone of the employee.

If we assume that the average person commutes 25.2 miles each day (total), for 230 working days a year, then the average person would commute 6174 miles per year.39 Based on a typical fuel efficiency of approximately 25mpg, the average commuter uses 247 gallons of gas per year.

Not all employers provide garage parking for their employees; where, employees drive to dense parking areas, they must pay for parking out of pocket. However, employers pay for this parking as well through higher wages. Still, even if we assume that employers pay no wage premium, the direct cost to employers would be no more than $2,300 per employee. At the current price of $3.50/gallon, an individual would save over $985 each year in fuel expenses, plus the $3000 in garage fees.

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Expired Notices of Funding Availability, http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants/13077_12795.html and U.S. Department of Transportation, Fact Sheet: Transit-Oriented Development Planning Pilot, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP-21_Fact_Sheet_-_Transit-Oriented_Development_Planning_Pilot.pdf.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, TIGER Grants: Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.dot.gov/tiger/faq.

3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Planning and Development Program Formula Allocations for FY 2014, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/about/budget/budget14.

4. Anthony Campisi, “Why aren’t TRIDs working?,” PlanPhilly, January 20, 2011, http://planphilly.com/articles/2011/01/20/why-arent-trids-working.

5. DVRPC, Municipal Implementation Tool #1, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), August 2002.

6. Living Cities, Transit-Oriented Development, http://www.livingcities.org/research/tod/.

7. Enterprise, Financing & Development, http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/financing-and-development.

8. ULI, Urban Innovation Grants, http://uli.org/programs/urban-innovation-grants/.

9. Ford Foundation, Metropolitan Opportunity, http://www.fordfoundation.org/issues/metropolitan-opportunity.

10. Surdna Foundation, Sustainable Environments, http://www.surdna.org/what-we-fund/sustainable-environments.html.


Rhode Island State Law 37-5-7.1 “requires certain employers who provide subsidized parking for their employees to offer a free RIPTA transit pass in lieu of a parking space.”1 This law applies to employers who meet all of the following conditions:

» Located within 1/4 of a mile of a RIPTA bus line » Have 50 or more employees » Have leased parking » Subsidize employee parking by paying the cost and allowing the employee free or

reduced-rate parking » Can reduce the number of parking spaces leased without penalty

PARKING CASH OUTAccording to a 2007 US Environmental Protection Agency report, “parking cash-out often reduces driving to work by 20% or more.”2 Within the DVRPC region, an estimated 2,018,800 people (82.4%) drove to work in 2009.3

Within the DVRPC region, as of 2011 there were nearly 8000 firms that are larger than 50 employees, which account for more than 1.3 million jobs (see Table 3.1).

Further, according to our calculations, 14.2% of land in the DVRPC region is within ¼ mile of public transport.

Some counties, such as Philadelphia, have a greater percentage of their employee base closer to public transport, simply by virtue of existing land use patterns. Table 3.1 details the percentage of land in each county that is within ¼ mile of public transport. That percentage was then multiplied by the amount of employees in each county, to derive a number of employees that would likely be affected by a cash-out system.

As noted earlier, when provided a cash-out option, there is a 20% reduction in driving to work. If we assume that this ratio hold across the region, approximately 84,000 people would switch to public transport or some other method of getting to work. At an average commute distance of 25.2 miles per day,4 there would be reduction of nearly 2.1m VMT daily, or 550m VMT annually. This equates to a savings of nearly 231,000 metric tons of CO

2-eq.

It is noted however that the Rhode Island legislation applies to those employers who have leased parking – something not common in most suburban settings. Most often, any “leased” parking is part of a package lease on the building and land itself and is not separate. As such, it is appropriate to reduce the figure of 231,000 metric tons. The number of employers bundling parking within their lease, is unknown; therefore any reduction is speculation. However if we assume that leased parking applies to just 25% of employees in the region, parking cash out could still deliver savings of nearly

Appendix 3.1: Parking, Rhode Island Example

Appendix 3.1

Appendix 3.2: Parking, GHG Reductions Explanations


Appendix 3.2

County 50-99 100-249 250-499 500-999 1000+ Assumed employee totalBucks 509 301 50 18 6 127,850 Chester 463 235 62 30 12 132,050 Delaware 344 205 44 22 18 111,575 Montgomery 869 511 134 55 35 277,750 Philadelphia 882 536 159 66 49 314,100 Burlington 326 209 51 14 12 101,375 Camden 344 193 41 15 5 90,175 Gloucester 190 110 23 3 2 45,800 Mercer 321 189 54 16 14 102,050 TOTAL 4248 2489 618 239 153 1,302,725

% of land within 1/4 mi of Public Transport

Assumed Employee Total

Bucks 7.04% 9,001 Chester 4.07% 5,374 Delaware 36.90% 41,171 Montgomery 17.37% 48,245 Philadelphia 82.49% 259,101 Burlington 5.03% 5,099 Camden 30.41% 27,422 Gloucester 12.04% 5,514 Mercer 19.16% 19,553 Total 420,481

No. of establishments by employment size

Table 3.1. GHG reductions calculations for parking cash-out: employees within 1/4 mile of public transport.

County Federal State Local County Federal State LocalBucks 149 356 4,675 Bucks 15 36 468 Chester 102 223 4,198 Chester 10 22 420 Delaware 1,095 689 5,418 Delaware 110 69 542 Montgomery 1,065 1,775 7,660 Montgomery 107 178 766 Philadelphia 22,104 1,033 26,523 Philadelphia 17,683 103 6,631 Burlington 3,801 1,340 4,243 Burlington 380 134 424 Camden 576 1,562 6,050 Camden 58 156 605 Gloucester 31 246 4,124 Gloucester 3 25 412 Mercer 850 30,735 4,724 Mercer 85 24,588 472 Total 29,773 37,959 67,615 Total 18,450 25,310 10,740

Eligible Ratio

Table 3.2. GHG reductions calculations for parking cash-out:Number of regional Public Administration employees (left) and ratio of employees eligible for a cash-out program (right)


58,000 metric tons of CO2e annually from the private sector.

Table 3.2 above illustrates the number of employees in Public Administration, by county.

It is noted that the state of New Jersey only provides parking for 62% of its employees, however up to 80% have permit parking in Trenton, indicating that at least 80% of its Mercer county workforce would be ideal candidates for a parking cash-out program – if not more. Additionally, with much of Philadelphia’s Federal and local government administration employees working in a dense urban environment, they too would be ideal for a cash-out scheme. Other local and state government offices may be suited; however it significantly depends on their location. For the purposes of calculations, we have assumed that no more than 10% of the government positions in the other counties would be appropriate for a cash-out scheme. We have assumed a similar 80% for Philadelphia’s Federal sector. Given Philadelphia’s residency requirement for civil service and generally good access to public transport, we assume that no more than 25% of City employees would consider a cash-out program.

Based on this ratio – approximately 54,500 people across the region in the public sector would be appropriate for a cash-out program. If we assume the 20% take up rate as noted, this would result in approximately 11,000 people taking up the program. Again, at an average commute of 25.2 miles daily, this equates to 277,000 VMT daily, or 72.1 million VMT annually (See Table 3.2).

REAL-TIME INFRASTRUCTUREA South African (OR Tambo Airport - Johannesburg) study of a similar parking system to that at the Philadelphia Airport found that there was a 70% reduction in vehicle emissions and the system cut the average time to find a parking space from eight minutes to two and a half.5 However, it is noted that this study was also of airport parking, where parking locations are clearly marked and drivers directed. As such, in an urban environment, where drivers are looking for appropriate parking locations (either on or off-street), an integrated RTI system may be even more effective. Conversely, SFPark has not yet released its evaluation (due later this year) – however any reductions it identifies carries the variable pricing as a caveat. It will be impossible to separate the effectiveness of the application notifying drivers of parking locations from the variable pricing, as parking vacancy is a product of pricing.

Regardless, for the purposes of this report, we have assumed that the City of Philadelphia had established a system with the same reach as SFPark – which would address all of the metered on-street locations and structured spaces owned by the PPA.

A Los Angeles study by Donald Shoup identified on-street turnover at 17 cars/space/day.6 Los Angeles is a significantly larger and more car-dominant region than Philadelphia. As such, we have used Shoup’s base number of 10 car/space/day for on street parking – or about 70000 cars per day. Cruising distance for on street parking is roughly ½ mile per car, which then translates to 35000 VMT for on street parking, per day, just for on-street. A Portland study found that turnover in its garages ranged from 1.4 to 2.7 cars/space/day in their commercial garages.7 As such, we estimate turnover in Philadelphia parking garages to be about to 2 cars/space/day on average. For PPA garages, that would amount to 11760 cars per day. While the OT Tambo study found an average parking search of 8 minutes (before infrastructure improvements), a 12,000 car airport garage is not an adequate comparison to smaller structures that are heavily utilized by regular patrons on a daily basis. As such, it is more reasonable to assume that the average driver would spend closer to 3 minutes – in line with on-street parking. With garage speeds at about 10mph, this too results in about ½ mile/car. An estimated 11760 cars travelling ½ mile on average for parking equates to 5580 VMT

Appendix 3.2


per day. Altogether, within Philadelphia alone we calculate that the act of parking on a daily basis accounts for over 40,000 VMT, per weekday, or 10.4m VMT per year – not including weekends.

Again, it is unfortunate that the SFPark system has not released its findings. However, if we assume that such a system could reduce the time spent looking for parking from three minutes to two minutes, VMT from parking searches would fall by 1/3rd.

INCREASING PARKING FEESFor the potential of reduced VMT we have used a case study of the Lloyd District in Portland. The Lloyd district is a high-density commercial and residential district located about two miles from Downtown Portland, and contains a light rail line to the downtown area. While the Lloyd District is considerably larger (both in population and area) than the Baltimore Avenue area and located closer to the Central Business District (CBD), it is adequate for broad comparisons. In 1997, the City of Portland installed two-hour meters on most streets within the District at a rate of $0.75 per hour, which was 20 to 30% less than the pricing of meters in the CBD. Long-term (five-hour) meters were installed at the outer fringes of the district, and until 10 a.m. were reserved for carpoolers (who must display a carpool permit costing $30 per month). Thereafter, the cost for other drivers was $0.35 per hour.8 It is noted that there was no metering of spaces along key commercial thoroughfares of Broadway and Weidler, however Broadway has since adopted metering.

While these parking meters were part of a larger plan to reduce single occupancy vehicle traffic, the study generally found that the meters were directly responsible for a 7% reduction in driving alone to the area by area employees. Of particular interest was that the percentage of people who would drive alone to work dropped from 68.5% if they paid nothing to park, to 40% if they

Parking, GHG Reductions Explanations

Trenton On Street Spaces 530Assumed regular commuters 90%Total number of daily commuters 477Average trip miles (daily) 12,164 Annual VMT 3,162,510 Assumed reduction in VMT from price increase 1,581,255 GHG Reduced 664

Philadelphia Metered Spaces 7,000 % Assumed commuters 10%Total number daily commuters 700 Average Daily Trip miles 17,640 Annual VMT 4,586,400 Remaining Spaces 6,300 Daily turnover 63,000 Convertible trips 15,750 Average Daily Trip miles 157,500 Annual VMT 40,950,000 Total Reduction 19,111

Table 3.3. GHG reductions calculations for increasing parking fees:Effect of increased fees in Trenton and Philadelphia


had to pay more than $0.50/hr to park. Transit mode shares similarly jumped, from 8.1% to 26.7%

In 2000, according to DVRPC, 77.4% of commuters who work in Trenton drove alone, while another 13.5% carpooled (See Table 3.3). Though significantly dated, it is unlikely this mode share has shifted more than 5% from driving alone. Trenton is well served by public transport and has a downtown where on-street parking is currently priced at $1/hr within “Business Zone A”. There are 530 metered spaces in Trenton – plus an additional 20,000+ off street spaces. The State of New Jersey only provides free parking to 62% of its employees, however state agencies are allowed to rent additional parking, meaning that the overall percentage of NJ state employees with permit parking is over 80%. A 2008 survey of Trenton’s on street parking observed that the occupancy rate at metered spaces was over 90%. Ignoring the various problems it has with parking enforcement, Trenton is an ideal candidate to use parking fees to change mode-share.

It is reasonably safe to assume, based on observations, that those who park on the street are regular visitors or employees in the Trenton CBD. At $1/hr, there is a 90% occupancy rate, meaning that drivers are (at least in theory) willing to pay up to $8 per day to park. Based on the Portland example, an increase in price of $0.50/hr (from nothing) led to a 28.5% reduction in driving alone, indicating a price elasticity of .57% for each cent a person has to pay to park hourly. If we set the baseline for Trenton at say, 80% (assume 10% are visitors) for $1/hr parking, then it could be assumed that an increase to $2/hr would potentially cut driving rates to 23%. This however seems like a rather extreme decrease. It is probably more reasonable to assume a doubling of price would lead to a halving of driving – and so we postulate that maybe 40% of drivers would continue to drive and park on-street on a daily basis.

Based on these assumptions, Trenton could see a reduction in GHG emissions, just from on street parking, of approximately 664 metric tons annually. Notwithstanding Trenton’s unique standing in the region as a state capitol, if such reductions were applied to other 56 identified “Town Centers” in the region (at an expected 166 metric tons – 25% of Trenton’s total), there would be a regional reduction of ~9,200 metric tons CO

2eq.

Calculations for Philadelphia are considerably more difficult, due to the high availability of parking garages (See Table 3.3). Meters in locations like Center City, though $2/hr, are unlikely to highly utilized by regular commuters. Though 8 hour parking would only be $16 – cheap compared to a daily garage fee – the inconvenience of constantly having to run out every two hours to feed a meter would likely deter commuters from doing that activity every day for years on end – not to mention the hassle of looking for an on-street spot daily. As such, we assume that no more than 10% of the city’s 7000 spots are used by annual commuters. As mentioned, turnover per space has been assumed to be about 10 cars/space per day for Philadelphia. We have assumed that 25% of this turnover would convert to public transport with a doubling of parking fees in Philadelphia. Following assumptions for work trip and regular trip miles, increasing parking fees could reduce GHG emissions by over 19,000 metric tons annually.

PAYMENT IN-LIEUPILOP fees (and other regulatory approaches, such as parking maximums) are only as effective as the growth that induces them. In a city where no growth is occurring, there will be no increased demand for parking (or at least parking spaces). Additionally, the type of development matters as well. Developers are not going to cash-out a parking space on a single family detached dwelling in an outer suburban area; they would however consider paying a fee to not have to build 1000 parking spaces for a 50 story office building. So assumptions about what type of development would occur are just as important.

Appendix 3.2


County Employment Growth % Drive solo to work Estimated private vehicle tripsPhiladelphia 31,238 50.7% 15,838 Mercer 14,488 70.8% 10,258 Montgomery 50,357 79.5% 40,034 Chester 55,566 81.3% 45,175 Bucks 31,507 82.5% 25,993 Burlington 18,175 82.2% 14,940 Camden 8,670 75.9% 6,581 Gloucester 24,905 83.6% 20,821 Delaware 4,225 75.2% 3,177 Total 239,131 182,816

County Estimated private vehicle trips % likely to take up PILOP Relocated parking spaces Reduced tripsPhiladelphia 15,838 50.0% 7,919 3,168 Mercer 10,258 25.0% 2,564 1,026 Montgomery 40,034 25.0% 10,008 4,003 Chester 45,175 5.0% 2,259 904 Bucks 25,993 5.0% 1,300 520 Burlington 14,940 5.0% 747 299 Camden 6,581 25.0% 1,645 658 Gloucester 20,821 5.0% 1,041 416 Delaware 3,177 25.0% 794 318 Total 182,816 28,278 11,311 Table 3.4. GHG reductions calculations for payment in lieu of parking:Estimated reduced trips from employees commuting by private vehicle who subscribe to PILOP.

County Population Growth Average HH Size No.new HHs No. Cars/HH Parking DemandPhiladelphia 73,430 2.45 29,971 0.95 28,473 Mercer 17,796 2.61 6,818 1.61 10,978 Montgomery 73,487 2.53 29,046 1.75 50,831 Chester 108,521 2.65 40,951 1.87 76,579 Bucks 67,191 2.63 25,548 1.85 47,264 Burlington 37,607 2.62 14,354 1.81 25,980 Camden 11,974 2.65 4,518 1.59 7,184 Gloucester 71,808 2.72 26,400 1.72 45,408 Delaware 8,997 2.57 3,501 1.58 5,531 Total 470,811

County Average Number of trips PILOP Take up Number of spaces reduced Residential take up trip miles reducedPhiladelphia 2.28 50% 14,236.43 10,677 243,442.93 Mercer 2.28 25% 2,744.40 2,058 46,929.28 Montgomery 2.28 25% 12,707.73 9,531 217,302.22 Chester 2.28 10% 7,657.90 5,743 130,950.04 Bucks 2.28 10% 4,726.36 3,545 80,820.81 Burlington 2.28 10% 2,598.04 1,949 44,426.50 Camden 2.28 25% 1,796.10 1,347 30,713.31 Gloucester 2.28 10% 4,540.80 3,406 77,647.68 Delaware 2.28 25% 1,382.81 1,037 23,646.01 Total 895,879

Table 3.5. GHG calculations for payment in lieu of parking: Estimated reduced trips from residential partici-pation in PILOP

Parking, GHG Reductions Explanations


Based on previous trip generation rates noted in this report, if an individual doesn’t have a dedicated parking space and instead has to pay for that parking, they are up to 60% less likely to drive. Of course, residential parking has a different set of tolerances than does office parking – plus residents can get street permits at a considerably reduced rate than garage parking. As such, we have assumed that where residential parking would be provided off site, those individuals would still have a car 75% of the time – or a 25% reduction.

According to DVRPC, the region is expected to add about 240,000 workers in the region by 2030, with most of the growth occurring in suburban counties. While statistics on PILOP fee uptake are not available, it is reasonable to assume that uptake would be greater in areas that have the highest cost of parking provision – namely Philadelphia, and to a lesser extent, Camden and Mercer counties. Philadelphia has revised its zoning code to eliminate a parking requirement for office uses in certain zones. As such – the issue in central Philadelphia is not employment parking. With much of the employment growth expected to take place within the central core and University City, we expect no more than 50% of the employment growth in the city would even have parking requirements. Further, with so much vacant land existing in Philadelphia already, it is quite possible that very little parking would need to be constructed to accommodate such growth.

Table 3.4 above outlines the amount of expected employment growth by county, the % of commuters in those counties who drive solo to work, and an assumption of how many future trips would be generated by the employment growth.

As mentioned, Philadelphia is generally unlikely to have much use for PILOP fees (or other regulatory approaches) for employment growth. Other denser counties, like Mercer, Camden, Delaware, and Montgomery may see greater participation rates. The following table assumes a percentage of vehicles that would be part of a PILOP program (that is, provided off-site) multiplied by that 40% reduction observed earlier.

Again, at 25.2 miles per trip the trip reduction equates to 285,000 miles per day, or 74.1m miles/year – accounting for a reduction of 31,100 metric tons of CO2e.

A similar calculation has been done for the residential growth (See Table 3.5). However, for Philadelphia, the likelihood of taking up a PILOP scheme is far greater due to the excessive costs of providing parking (and general risk to developers to do so). The table below demonstrates the reductions as required:

The math explanations are as follows:

We took the expected population growth by county between 2010-2030 and divided that by the average household size in 2010 to give us the number of projected new households. We then calculated the average number of cars per household, by county based on census data. We multiplied the number of cars per household by the number of projected households to arrive at our parking demand.

We then made assumptions as to how many units developers would take up as part of a PILOP scheme, based on the factors mentioned. This gave us the number of reduced spaces. We then multiplied that figure by 75%, our assumption as to the number of new residents who would pay for an off-site parking space to give us the total number of new cars.

Because it is impossible to determine the type of housing (detached, apartment, condo, etc) that would house the new households, we used an average number of trips generated across all units, as determined by the ITE. For example, single family detached generates 10 private vehicle trips per day, condos generate five. These were

Appendix 3.2


averaged together, less 4 trips per housing type to avoid double counting of employment trips (assumes two people per household are working).

We took the average number of trips, times the average trip length as observed by the US DOT (about 10 miles), times the number of parking spaces that would be demanded normally, times the number of weekdays in a year (260). This give us the baseline miles column. We did the same calculation for the ‘reduced’ parking spaces. Subtracting the two columns, we arrived at the sum total difference of 5.9m miles per year. Based on calculations, a PILOP takeup as noted would result in a GHG reduction to 2030 of 644,000 metric tons CO2e.

PARKING CASH-OUTParking Cash-Out, is not an out-of-pocket expense, but a net gain for employees and employers. Within Center City Philadelphia, the average monthly parking garage fee is approximately $250;9 annualized, that equates to $3000 per year. The following table displays the difference between the cost of parking and the annual cost of a SEPTA pass, based on the origin zone of the employee.

If we assume that the average person commutes 25.2 miles each day (total), for 230 working days a year, then the average person would commute 6174 miles per year. Based on a typical fuel efficiency of approximately 25mpg, the average commuter uses 247 gallons of gas per year.

Not all employers provide garage parking for their employees; where, employees drive to dense parking areas, they must pay for parking out of pocket. However, employers pay for this parking as well through higher wages. Still, even if we assume that employers pay no wage premium, the direct cost to employers would be no more than $2,300 per employee. At the current price of $3.50/gallon, an individual would save over $985 each year in fuel expenses, plus the $3000 in garage fees.

Appendix 3.3: Parking, Cost Explanations

DifferenceAnnual Average Garage Fees 3,036$ NAAnnual SEPTA Zone 1 1,308$ 1,728$ Zone 2 1,620$ 1,416$ Zone 3 1,956$ 1,080$ Zone 4 (anywhere) 2,292$ 744$

Table 3.6. Cost calculations for parking cash-out: Comparison between annual garage fees in Center City and annual SEPTA pass costs.

Appendix 3.3


References

1. “Parking Cash Out,” accessed March 2014, http://www.ripta.com/parking-cash-out-1

2. “Parking Cash Out: Implementing Commuter Benefits as One of the Nation’s Best Workplaces for Commuters” United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation. March 2005.

3. DVRPC, “Are Fewer People Driving to Work Alone?” Excerpt, Connections 2040 http://www.dvrpc.org/LongRangePlan/RegionalIndicators/pdf/Commute_Modeshare.pdf

4. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw615.html.

5. “Intelligent parking guidance relieves congestion, reduces costs,” first published in ITS International Sept-Oct 2009, http://www.itsinternational.com/sections/cost-benefit-analysis/features/intelligent-parking-guidance-relieves-congestion-reduces-costs/.

6. Shoup, Donald “Cruising for Parking” Access. No. 30, Spring 2007, pp.16-22.

7. “Center City Parking Analysis,” Prepared by Kittelson & Assoc. for City of Portland Office of Transportation. Nov. 2008.

8. Bianco, Martha J. “Effective Transportation Demand Management: The Results of Combining Parking Pricing, Transit Incentives, and Transportation Management in a Commercial District Bordering the Central Business District of Portland, Oregon” Presented at Transportation Research Board annual meeting, Jan. 10, 2000.

9. Calculated.

REFERENCES


References


Appendix 4: PAYD, GHG Reduction Explantions

Appendix

According to the result of a PAYD pilot program done by North Central Texas Council of Governments (the MPO of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area) from 2006 to 2008, the study saw a 5% decrease in VMT of the participants. Based on this result, we assume that for the 50% light-duty vehicle owners who will switch to PAYD insurance in this region, the potential VMT reduction could reach 10%. According to PennDOT, there are 2,467,457 light-duty vehicles in the Philadelphia five-county region, and based on DVRPC, the 2010 average annual VMT per vehicle is 11,895 in the region. Under our assumptions, the total VMT reduction in 2030 will be around 1.5 billion miles.

By using the GHG emission per mile per vehicle number, 0.0004.2 MTCO2e per mile,1

from EPA, we also assumed that the fuel economy of vehicles in 2030 will be 21.4 MPG, which is lower than the 2025 fuel economy standard of 54.5 mpg developed by the EPA.2 As a result, the GHG reduction will be 0.62 MMTCO

2e.

Because the number of vehicles is only available in the five counties in Pennsylvania in the DVRPC region, we calculated the reduction projection for the other four New Jersey counties using GHGs emission per capita reduction. It could be illustrated by the following formula:

GHG reductions NJ= projected 2030 population NJ * projected per capita GHG reductions PA

The projected reduction in GHG emissions in the four New Jersey counties is calculated to be 0.25 MMTCO

2e, which makes the total reduction in DVRPC region around 0.87

MMTCO2e, around 1% of the 2030 projected GHG emissions.


References

REFERENCES

1. US EPA, Clean Energy, Calculations and References. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html.

2. US EPA, Office of Transportation and Air uality, “EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improvement Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017-2025 Cars and Light Trucks”, August 2012.


Appendix 5.1

We consider both the full lifecycle impacts of different fuels and types and the market feasibility of AFV. The term “lifecycle GHG emissions” means “the aggregate quantity of greenhouse gas emission”, “including all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution, from feedstock generation or extraction through the distribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel to the ultimate consumer, where the mass values for all greenhouse gases are adjusted to account for their relative global warming potential”.1 We recommend procurement of the following types of AFV in the DVRPC region:

ALL ELECTRIC VEHICLES (AEV) (Ex. NISSAN LEAF) A 2013 synthesis study found usage of low-carbon electricity to charge battery electric vehicles to be the lowest-emitting vehicle-fuel pathway, a consistent conclusion of the majority of recent research.2

PLuG-IN HybRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES (PHEV) (Ex. CHEVRoLET VoLT)PHEV are low-emitting when operating on a low-carbon electricity grid and low-carbon liquid fuel.3 An MIT report found that PHEV can reduce GHG emissions significantly, even when charging from high-carbon grids or using gasoline.4

E85 HybRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES (Ex. ToyoTA PRIuS)The 2013 synthesis study concluded that hybrid electric vehicles, which are fueled by 85 percent cellulosic ethanol, are the lowest emitting vehicles.5 The refueling time for ethanol is comparable to diesel and gasoline.6

The following AFV types are not recommended in the region:

Compressed natural gas (Cng) vehiCles Although CNG vehicles have notable GHG reductions, the amount of methane released during production, transmission, and distribution is unknown, and may offset the climate benefits of using methane in vehicles.7 In addition, the accurate leakage rate of natural gas during extraction and transportation is unknown.8

Fuel Cell vehiCles (hydrogen vehiCles)The 2013 synthesis study concluded that fuel cell vehicles utilizeing low-carbon hydrogen are among the lowest emitting vehicle-fuel pathways from any studies.9 However, the energy density of hydrogen fuel is very low, and production of hydrogen is very expensive.10 These two disadvantages of fuel cell vehicles, make it infeasible for consumers to adopt Fuel cell vehicles in large quantities in the region.

Appendix 5.1: AFV, Recommended AFV Types


Appendix 5.2

According to DVRPC, in the Philadelphia five-county region, there will be 622 new PHEV and 85 AEV sold in 2014. If this five-county region is able to reach the objective of an EV growth rate of 50%, by the end of year 2030, there will be over 1.2 million PHEV and over 0.16 million AEV, totaling around 1.39 million EV on road.

Additionally, we assume that PHEV owners will use their vehicles in all electric mode 80% of the time. We use the GHG emission per mile per vehicle number, which is 0.0004.2 MTCo

2Eq per mile, from EPA. We also assume that the fuel economy of

vehicles in 2030 will be 21.4 MPG, which is lower than the 2025 fuel economy standard of 54.5 mpg developed by the EPA.11 According to DVRPC, the 2010 average annual VMT per vehicle is 11,895 in the region.12 Therefore, a 21.4 MPG conventional gasoline vehicle would emit 5.0 MTCo

2e GHG annually, and a 21.4 MPG plug-in electric vehicle

used in gasoline mode 20% of the time would produce 0.1 MTCo2e GHGs. because

all-electric vehicle produce zero tailpipe emissions, the GHG emissions saved for the Philadelphia five-county region will be 5.74 MMTCo

2e in the year of 2030.

because of lack of EV projection data for the four counties in New Jersey, we calculated the estimated reduction of GHG emissions for these counties through multiplying the 2030 projected population13 in these four counties by the projected per capita reduction of GHG emission in the five Pennsylvania counties. It could be illustrated by the following formula:

GHG reductions NJ = projected 2030 pop NJ * projected per capita GHG reductions PA

Therefore, the projected reduction in GHG emissions in the four New Jersey counties will be 2.32 MMTCo

2e, making the total GHG emission reductions in DVRPC region

around 8.05 MMTCo2e.

Appendix 5.2: AFV, GHG Reduction Explanations

figure 4.5: Projection of PHEV & AEV numbers in the Philadelphia region 2014 - 2030


Appendix 5.3

NEW JERSEy CLEAN CITIES CoALITIoN The New Jersey Clean Cities Coalition (NJCCC) is a non-profit organization sponsored by the u.S. Department of Energy (DoE) that works with vehicle fleets, fuel providers, and community leaders to reduce the use of petroleum and increase the use of alternative fuels in transportation in the region.14 In the past, NJCCC has hosted workshops about alternative fuels and available vehicles. However, many of its activities are more related to CNG vehicles rather than to electric vehicles.15

GREATER PHILADELPHIA CLEAN CITIESThe Greater Philadelphia Clean Cities, Inc. (GPCC) is a coalition of public-private stakeholders that is sponsored by the u.S. DoE to reduce petroleum consumption in the transportation sector.16 The organization has been working on promoting the use of alternative fuels and AFV by working with partners, such as DVRPC, PECo, and the City of Philadelphia, to plan for public charging stations and to streamline the installation process for private chargers.

THE TRANSPoRTATIoN & CLIMATE INITIATIVE oF THE NoRTH-EAST AND MID-ATLANTIC STATESThe Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) is a regional collaboration of 12 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic jurisdictions that seeks to develop the clean energy economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector.17 both Pennsylvania and New Jersey are the membering jurisdictions of the collaboration. TCI has established the “Clean Vehicles and Fuels” work group, and the work group has launched the “Northeast Electric Vehicle Network” and works extensively with the region’s Clean Cities Coalitions and an array of public- and private-sector partners, helping the deployment of electric vehicles in the region.

TCI has published many research documents and planning reports about EV and EVSE deployment, which should provide useful information for electric vehicle owners, planning organizations, local municipalities, and other interested groups.18

Appendix 5.3: AFV, EV Promotion Groups


References

REFERENCES

1. EPA Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Renewable Fuels, 2010.

2. Nick Nigro and Shelley Jiang, “Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Different Light-Duty Vehicle and Fuel Pathways: A Synthesis of Recent Research”, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2013.

3. Ibid.4. Massachusettes Institute of Technology, “on the Road in

2035: Reducing Transportation’s Petroleum Consumption and GHG Emissions”, July 2008, https://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/on%20the%20Road%20in%202035_MIT_July%202008.pdf.


6. DVRPC, Ready to Roll?: overview of Challenges and opportunities for Alternative Fuel Vehicles in the Delaware Valley, 2011.


8. Ibid.9. Ibid.10. DVRPC, Ready to Roll?: overview of Challenges and

opportunities for Alternative Fuel Vehicles in the Delaware Valley, 2011.

11. u.S. EPA, Clean Energy, Calculatios and References, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html

12. DVRPC, http://www.dvrpc.org/TrackingProgress/pdf/TR_VMT.pdf

13. DVRPC, http://www.dvrpc.org/ourRegion/14. New Jersey Clean Cities Coalition, http://www.njcleancities.org/

index.html.15. New Jersey Clean Cities Coalition, Achievements, http://www.

njcleancities.org/successes.html.16. Greater Philadelphia Clean Cities, http://phillycleancities.org/.17. Transportation and Climate Initiative, Clean Vehicles and

Fuels, http://www.transportationandclimate.org/content/clean-vehicles-and-fuels

18. Transportation and Climate Initiative, Northeast Electric Vehicle Network Documents, http://www.transportationandclimate.org/northeast-electric-vehicle-network-documents.


Calculations for GHG reductions for single family attached and detached houses for all measures (with the exception of roofing and combined heat and power) were based off of energy savings data for individual measures in the Washington D.C area from the U.S Department of Energy’s A Method for Determining Optimal Residential Energy Efficiency Retrofit Packages” report. These figures were then multiplied by the total number of single family attached and detached houses in the DVRPC region sourced from U.S Census data. The percent of reduction was then inputted in the DVRPC’s Regional Energy Analysis Document in the residential energy use other section to find total energy.

Green, white, and black roofing values were based off of a report titled Economic Comparison of White, Green, and Black Flat Roofs in the United States. To find the GHG reductions potential values from this report were multiplied by the average building footprint for the region, obtained from U.S Census data. That figure was then multiplied by total housing numbers for single family attached and detached houses in the region.

Solar capacity data was found by taking the average house footprint for the region from U.S Census data (2139 sqft) assuming that only 1/3 of that space would be usable for solar due to shade and slope, thus dividing that value by three, to get an average house footprint of 713sqft. This number was then multiplied by the total number of single family detached and attached houses in the region, with the exception of Philadelphia, which was assumed to have a smaller building footprint than the region. This provided a result of 19.30% production capability of total residential and commercial and industrial energy usage. The same process was used to find values of Philadelphia, using an average house size of 875 sqft, found from a presentation from Interface Studios. This process yielded a value of 2.85% of the region’s total residential and commercial and industrial energy use. The total regional capacity for solar was therefore 22.15%.

This value was multiplied by the total energy use value to obtain the amount of energy produced, dividing this number by the total residential energy use yielded 59.06%, the total percent of residential energy solar could produce on single family attached and detached houses. Combined heat and power values were found from the U.S EPA figures of CHP having an efficiency of 51% compared to 75%. 1

For multifamily houses, an average savings value of 7% average energy reduction was used to calculate GHG emissions reductions values based on figures from the Deutsche Bank’s Recognizing the Benefits of Energy Efficiency in Multifamily Underwriting report. This value was multiplied by the total number of multi-family housing units found from U.S Census data, then multiplied by .25 to find the figure for 25% of housing.

Values for commercial retrofits were based on a 20% energy savings per building (multiplied by 0.20 to match the 20% goal), and then placed into DVRPC’s Regional Energy Analysis document. Solar potential for multi-family units, and commercial units was found by subtracting the assumed total footprint of single family houses in Philadelphia (average house size multiplied by total number of single family attached and detached housing) subtracting this value from total Philadelphia footprint then dividing the remaining number by 3 based on assumed area available for solar after considering shade and slope, then multiplied by .25 to get the value based on stated goals. A similar ratio of single family to multifamily and commercial homes was assumed for all other counties.

Appendix 6.1: Calculation Methodology

Appendix 6.1


Calculation Methodology

Residential Retrofit Measures Cost To ConsumerMeasure Cost Number SourceSolar Pannels $375 for highly efficient panel http://solarenergy-usa.com/solar-info/solar-costs/White Roofs $6.71 per sqft, average of

$14,305 per houseJulian Sproul, Man Pun Wan, Benjamin H. Mandel, Arthur H. Rosen-feld, Economic Comparison of White, Green and Black Flat Roofs in the United States

Green Roofs $16 per sqftDrill and Fill $2,545 U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-

dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011Attic Insulation $2,075 U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-

dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011ENERGY Star Window $22-$35 per sqft for single pane U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-

dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011Standard Window NA8 Food Basement Insullation $2,765 U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-

dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011Seal and Insulate Ducts $1,800 U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-

dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011Max Air Seal $2,880 U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-

dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 20114 Foot Basement Insulation $700 U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-

dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011Solar Water Heater $1,000 - $2,400 U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-

dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011Tankless Water Heater (gas) Energy Star

$1,825 U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011

Tank Water Heater (gas) Energy Star

$1,500 U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011

Lighting 55% CFL CFL=$0.17 per W U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011

Lighting 44% CFL CFL= $0.17 per W U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011

92.5 AFUE Furnace $1,980 U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011

Seer 16 AC $8,820 U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011

Programable Thermostat $55-140 Google SearchSEER 13 AC NA U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-

dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011Combined Heat and Power NA U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-

dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011ENERGY Star Refrigerator $850-$3000 Google SearchEnergy Star Clothes Washer $648 U.S. Department of Energy, A Method for Determining Optimal Resi-

dential Energy Retrofit Packages, April 2011


Appendix 6.1

Solar Calculations - Single FamilyValue Unit Item100 sf Area of a 1 kW PV array -- Crystalline PV1206 kWh/yr Estimated production in practice of a 1 kW array in Philadelphia, per pvwatts

(4824 kWh per 4.0 kW system)1,439,899 acres Area of DVRPC Region43,560 sf/acre Definition106,282,000,440 sf Calculation1,281,760,925,306 kWh/yr Estimated production in practice of a 1 kW array in Philadelphia4.6% Portion of DVRPC egion that would need to be covered in PV to meet 2010

electricity demand54,931,257,626 kWh/yr Total 2010 residential, commercial, industrial energy consumption in DVRPC

region1206 kWh/yr Estimated production in practice of a 1 kW array in Philadelphia45,548,306 Electricity generation needed to meet regional demand (2010)100 sf Area of a 1 kW PV array4,554,830,649 sf Area of PV required to produce the amount of electricity used in DVRPC region2,439,899 acres Area of DVRPC Region43,560 sf/acre Definition106,282,000,440 sf Area of DVRPC Region4.29% Portion of DVRPC Region that would need to be covered in PV to meet 2010

electricity demand2139 sf Average house footprint (non-Philadelphia)713 sf Average assumed space (accounting for sunlight and tilt - non-Philadelphia)1232805 Number of houses in region878989965 sf Total available area of houses in region (non-Philadelphia)19.30% Percent of residential, commercial, and industrial electricity use met by houses

(non-Philadelphia)445269 Total Philadelphia houses875 sf Average size of Philadelphia house291.66 sf Average assumed space (accounting for sunlight and tilt -Philadelphia)129870125 sf Total available area of houses (Philadelphia)2.85% Percent of residential, commercial, and industrial electricity use met by houses

(Philadelphia)22.15% Percent of residential, commercial, and industrial electricity use met by houses

(total)12166852685 Energy produced total20601437742 Residential energy use59.06% Percent of residential energy8.34% GHG emissions reductions


Residential Retrofit Recommendations CostsRecommendation DVRPC Cost Municipal Cost(1) Target retrofit programs to areas where amount paid per energy bill is high compared to income

Staffing: $0.00Materials: $0.00Space: $0.00Meetings: $0.00Consulting: $0.00

TOTAL: $0.00


TOTAL: $0.00(2) Define and disseminate information on priority mea-sures to homeowners through municipalities

Staffing: $0.00Materials: $2,000.00Space: $0.00Meetings: $0.00Consulting: $0.00

TOTAL: $2,000.00


TOTAL: $0.00(3) Undergo solar access analysis in ArcGIS for the entire DVRPC region beyond Philadelphia county

Staffing: $73,000.00Materials: $0.00Space: $0.00Meetings: $0.00Consulting: $0.00

TOTAL: $73,000.00


TOTAL: $65,000.00

Calculation Methodology

Solar Calculations - Multi Family and CommercialValue Unit Item1133282065.62241 sf Philadelphia building footprints389610375 sf Assumed total single familyPhiladelphia space743671690 sf Non-single family buildings247890563 sf Avilable building space5.44% Total Philadelphia energy use non-single family buildings could provide2989560196 kWh Total energy above figure would produce14.51% Percent of residential energy2.05% Total GHG emissions reductions

CHP CalculationsValue Unit Item20601437742 kWh Residential Energy Use4944345058 kWh Energy savings1236086264 kWh Energy savings for 25% goal6% Residential energy savings0.85% Total GHG reductions

Appendix 6.2

Residential Retrofit Recommendations CostsRecommendation DVRPC Cost Municipal Cost(4) Facilitate free and reduced cost audits for home-owners and make audit results available to homeown-ers through mapping


TOTAL: $3,000.00


TOTAL: $10,000.00(5) Advocate for ordinance and regulation change at the municipal level to reduce restrictions on solar installation


TOTAL: $0.00

Staffing: $0.00Materials: $0.00Space: $0.00Meetings: $6,000.00Consulting: $14,000.00

TOTAL: $20,000.00(6) Develop partnerships with utilities and energy service companies to create prototype contracts and financing agreements that individuals and businesses can use to pay for retrofit measures


TOTAL: $0.00


TOTAL: $0.00(7) Create free programmable thermostat program Staffing: $30,000.00

Materials: $12,500.00Space: $0.00Meetings: $0.00Consulting: $0.00

TOTAL: $42,500.00


TOTAL: $135,000.00(8) Expand the Energy Coordinating Agency’s reach by encouraging additional Neighborhood Energy Centers outside of the City of Philadelphia


TOTAL: $0.00


TOTAL: $0.00(9) Advocate for state allocation of funds to retrofit item financing


TOTAL: $0.00


TOTAL: $0.00


Recommendation Costs


Yearly Commercial / Industrial Retrofit Recommendations CostsRecommendation DVRPC Cost Municipal Cost(1) Undergo in depth analysis to understand optimal mixture of components for Philadelphia commercial and industrial sector

Staffing: $25,000. 00Materials: $0.00Space: $0.00Meetings: $0.00Consulting: $0.00

TOTAL: $25,000.00


TOTAL: $0.00(2) Prioritize retro-commissioning projects which save 10% to 20% of energy savings


TOTAL: $0.00


TOTAL: $0.00(3) Develop and lead a business partnership competi-tion

Staffing: $25,000.00Materials: $15,000.00Space: $0.00Meetings: $0.00Consulting: $0.00

TOTAL: $40,000.00


TOTAL: $0.00(5) Create green building benchmarking program Staffing: $80,000.00

Materials: $0.00Space: $0.00Meetings: $0.00Consulting: $0.00

TOTAL: $80,000.00


TOTAL: $0.00(6) Advocate for municipal and government entities to undergo retrofits


TOTAL: $2,000.00

Staffing: $0.00Materials: $0.00Space: $0.00Meetings: $0.00Consulting: $14,000.00

TOTAL: $0.00(7) Distribute information on financing for commercial retrofits to municipalities


TOTAL: $0.00


TOTAL: $0.00


Appendix 6.3

The following financing models include some of those that have been established to help incentivize building energy efficiency retrofits and solar installations. While all are possible, they have been implemented to different scales.

Internal financing: Many retrofits are completed by reallocating internal capital or operating budget funds to energy efficiency projects.

Traditional debt financing: Banks or other types of lenders can provide on-balance sheet short-term financing to commercial properties and consumer loans to residential homeowners to pay for improvements.

On-Bill Utility financing: The DVRPC region gets its electricity from five public electricity providers, four public gas providers, and one public electricity and gas provider. Both New Jersey and Pennsylvania also have numerous private providers of both conventional and alternative energy sources. The public utilities companies are the main supporters of programs that help businesses and residents reduce their energy consumption. The precise nature of the programs varies by utility, and has changed over time, but the programs are likely to include not only on-bill financing but small rebates or incentives of less than $1,000 for energy-efficient appliances, net metering capacity for people who wish to produce their own alternative energy, demand management programs for air conditioning units in the summer, and retrofit assistance for low-income households.

Utilities or another third-party financier could provide the upfront capital for retrofit measures and the investment is repaid through a set surcharge on monthly utility bills (on- bill). Much of these loans are offered at low or no-interest rates over short repayment periods, typically less than three years.2 Utilities find the provisions attractive because it lowers demand for electricity or gas, reducing the need for more expensive power generators at peaks. In this sense, every kilowatt of avoided consumption counts as additional generation. Of the five public electricity providers, four public gas providers, and one public provider of both electricity and gas in the region, only Green Mountain Energy has an on-bill financing program for the installation of EnTouch EMS controls for small business customers.3 New Jersey Natural Gas, which serves only two townships in Burlington County within their service areas,4 provides up to $6,500 for high efficiency equipment and up to $10,000 for deep energy whole house retrofits at 0% APR to eligible residential customers who use approved contractors and commercial 0% APR on-bill financing.5

Challenges to utility financing make it difficult to prescribe this method of financing regionwide. Utilities are reluctant to serve as the originator of loans and collector of repayment, given that the activities are tangential to their core business and customer service complaints are likely. Additionally, these banking functions may run afoul of state consumer lending laws. Third party lenders providing the capital also fear this structure of payment.6

Property Assessed Clean Energy financing: PACE works as an alternative form of on-bill financing that creates a tax lien on the deeded property as collateral. Municipalities with state enabling legislation (now in 31 states) provide loans to property owners to cover the upfront cost of approved investments in energy retrofits. The property owners then pay the loan back through increased property tax bills. The terms are usually structured so that additions to the property tax bill are smaller than the savings realized by efficiency improvements. Municipalities may use general fund

Appendix 6.3: Possible Financing Models


Possible Financing Models

revenue or issue bonds to establish an initial pool of capital. PACE programs benefit from the fact that they are backed by a municipality’s financial reserves and are highly transferable to the next property owner by running a contract with the deed. PACE programs may also be structured to qualify as expense pass throughs to tenants, where repayment becomes an operating expense and not a debt service.7

PACE programs have met trouble in the past because the property tax lien has senior priority over mortgages, meaning that PACE loans are repaid before the mortgage lender in the case of foreclosure. After a statement from the FHFA in July 2010, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refused to underwrite mortgages for homes under these contracts, leading many cities to suspend their residential programs and a slowing down of the pace of program initiation nationwide. New Jersey passed the enabling legislation for PACE in January 2012 authorizing municipalities to levy clean energy special assessments collected quarterly on participating properties and to issue bonds to fund the program.8 Pennsylvania’s legislation is pending.9 Once PACE financing is legal, there is an additional hurdle of generating upfront reserves to loan out. Municipalities can do this with general funds or by issuing bonds; in either case, beginning with the origination of projects and then amassing funds is preferable.

Bonds: Federal Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds were created during the stimulus in 2008 to allow state, tribal, and local governments to issue bonds and borrow money at low long-term rates to fund qualified energy conservation projects. These bonds are subsidized by the Federal Department of the Treasury because the bond issuer can sell direct subsidy revenue bonds where the issuer receives cash rebates to subsidize interest payments. QECBs can be used for PACE funds as well as individual CHP systems, microturbines, fuel cells, and conservation projects in public buildings that reduce consumption by at least 20%.10 Philadelphia utilized this process in 2012 in combination with an energy savings performance contract to upgrade four city buildings for greater efficiency.11

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs): Energy service companies (ESCOs) enter into long-term performance contracts with building owners that guarantee a certain level of annual energy savings that will pay back the initial capital investment over the term of the contract. The ESCO is often the entity providing financing or it arranges third-party financing, allowing for no upfront costs. ESCOs are frequently chosen through a competitive process, and they then perform a building energy audit. This audit is used as the base measurement to calculate utility bills as well as the basis from which to design and construct the efficiency project.12

ESPCs are often used for government entities, and therefore would be best for municipalities to utilize to perform retrofits. DVRPC should encourage municipalities to utilize this funding method. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development has compiled success stories from places as diverse as Providence, Boston, Buffalo, Boulder, Minneapolis, and Wilmington.13 The City of Philadelphia has also used the ESPC structure to retrofit 4 public buildings, including City Hall and the Courthouse, as part of its Greenworks plan.14

Energy Service Agreements: In the ESA model, investors act as intermediaries between the building owner and the energy efficiency service company. ESAs are beneficial in that they eliminate an individual’s cost of equipment from implementing the retrofit measure. The energy service company- not the individual whose building is retrofitted or the investor- owns the assets throughout the contract. The investor establishes separate contracts with the building owner and the service company; the building owner pays a service charge, often set at the cost per unit of avoided energy, to the investor in return for arranging the upfront financing. In some large commercial agreements, the building owner has the ability to pass through this service charge as a fixed fee equivalent to historical utility bills to tenants of multi-family or commercial properties, avoiding split incentive hurdles.15

Tax Credits and Incentives: PECO, Philadelphia Gas Works, PPL Electric Utilities, New Jersey Natural Gas, and PSE&G all have utility rebate programs to encourage energy efficient appliances and heating equipment and renewable generation.16


Appendix 6.3

Many existing state tax credits, rebates, and incentive programs have been eliminated in recent years, but one of the largest in Pennsylvania, the Keystone Home Energy Loan Program (HELP) program is still in existence. HELP offers low-rate loans to eligible Pennsylvania homeowners to fund home energy efficiency retrofits performed by specially approved contractors. Loans can last up to 10 years and cover 100% of the upfront costs in exchange for fixed monthly payments. Only loans above $15,000 need to be secured, and up to 25% of the loan amount can be spent on non-qualifying improvements.17

Municipal Revolving Loan Funds: A revolving fund can be used to internally funds energy efficiency or renewable energy investments by providing financing to parties for projects whose cost-savings can replenish the fund for the next round of investments. Projects can be deemed eligible based on environmental criteria related to greenhouse gas emissions reductions, reduced energy use, reduce water use, green energy generated, and reduced pollutants and on financial criteria like payback period, capital cost, and cost-effectiveness. By rolling savings into the next round of investments, revolving loans funds are more easily able to establish strict, disciplined programmatic standards. The revolving loan structure can also force municipalities to track and measure energy, greenhouse gas and financial savings.18

The hardest part of establishing a revolving loan is setting up the seed capital. Money can be obtained from annual budgets, bonds, or grants from private organizations, states, or the federal government. It is important to keep in mind the tradeoff between risk and reward with large capital allocations from existing budgets; larger funds will be more firmly established in a community and gain credibility when multiple projects can be financed, however incremental funding put fewer resources at risk in the event of unexpected obstacles. Payback can require interest or an administrative fee in order to allow the fund to grow organically without additional capital infusions, but this adds costs to potential projects. Regardless of strategy, each fund needs to understand the volume of potential projects and the capacity of the financial management to oversee a portfolio of projects of different sizes and payback periods. Revolving funds can be structured either as loans, where a direct transfer of money is contracted, the individual owns the improvement, and repayment is determined upfront based on expected performance, or as accounting transactions, where repayments are made based on savings. The accounting model is best applicable only when the retrofit building draws on a central budget or central operations facility.19

We recommend pursuing this strategy at a more regional level than municipalities, perhaps reviving the Energy Works Loan Fund with The Reinvestment Fund and the Metropolitan Caucus, or combining with the funds with an energy savings performance contract.

Equipment Leases: With equipment leases, the individual retrofitting their home or business rents the energy efficiency equipment managed by an energy service provider. There are two types of equipment leases: capital or operating. With operating leases, typical for solar panels, the lessee can use the energy efficiency or energy production equipment, but does not assume ownership. Instead, the system becomes an operating expense where customers pay a predefined rate for power generated, which does not affect the balance sheet, can be made tax-deductible, and hedges against future energy cost increases. In capital leases, the lessee does take over partial ownership of equipment, but is compensated by claiming accelerated depreciation and claiming government incentives. At the end of the lease term, typically shorter for operating leases and 5-10 years for capital leases, it may be possible to negotiate a bargain price to purchase the equipment outright, remove the equipment at no cost, or extend the lease in shorter increments.20

Energy Efficient and Energy Improvement Mortgages: An EEM credits a home’s energy efficiency in the debt-to-income qualifying ratio on the loan or includes the


Possible Financing Methods

cost for energy-saving measures as part of the single mortgage without increasing the down payment required.21 Most energy efficient and energy improvement mortgages, including those insured by the FHA, often require an energy rating prior to approval so that the lender can estimate monthly energy savings and the value of efficiency or renovation measures.22 The big advantage of this lending structure is that homeowners can tie the expense of upgrades to a 15- or 30-year mortgage rather than a short-term loan, which more easily matches the longer payback period of many energy efficiency measures. Neither Pennsylvania nor New Jersey have state-wide programs that support energy efficient mortgages currently.23 Nevertheless, there are five lenders each in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, plus the Veterans Administration that provides these home loans.24 In the fourth quarter of 2013, there were 12,720 home sales closed in the DVRPC region, an average 10% increase per county over 2012.25 EEMs have been around at the federal level for years, and are typically used to purchase a new home that is already energy efficient, such as one certified by ENERGY STAR or LEED criteria. Using these examples pilot programs now exist to obtain an energy efficient second mortgage. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation offers 15-year loans of up to 100,000 dollars through its Second Mortgage for Energy Conservation program.26

Metered Energy Efficiency Transactions: In this financing model, after smarter meters are installed at a property to measure, normalize, and benchmark monthly energy use, investors can “rent” a building to install energy efficiency equipment and compensate the owner with monthly payments. The utility charges the customer the baseline energy consumption level (and thus sees no drop in revenue due to efficiency improvements like with energy service agreements), as if the upgrades were not implemented, and the investor receives the premium for the avoided kilowatt-hours achieved over the life of the lease.27 The investor holds the performance risk entirely, and is thus incentivized to pursue the best retrofits and maintain their operations. The brand new financing structure is being tested in Seattle, where EnergyRM signed the first commercial application- a twenty-year contract with Seattle City Light and the Bullitt Center to sell energy savings.28

MuniCiPAlLocal Government Energy Audit (New Jersey)Provides 100% subsidized energy audits to government entities including municipal buildings, schools, and public service buildings.29

REsidEntiAlHome Performance with Energy Star (New Jersey)Provides information for certified contractors. Contractors provide audits at 100% fee, but provide information on possible rebates based on inspection.30

Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania)Offers free audits to Columbia Gas customers with qualifying incomes. Customers are also provided with an energy reduction plan, a programmable thermostat if appropriate, and rebates for implementing retrofit measures.31

Appendix 6.4: Free and Reduced Cost Audits


Appendix 6.5

ModEl oRdinAnCEs PRoMoting solAR instAllAtions(1) “Modify the zoning ordinance to include solar...overlay zones.”32 (Jackson County)(2) “Rooftop and building mounted solar collectors are permitted in all zoning districts in the [Town/City/Village]”33 (Ithaca Town)(3) No permit shall be required for flush mounted Photovoltaic panels.34 (Town of Brookhaven, Town of Southampton)(4) “Any height limitations of the [Town/City/Village] Code shall not be applicable to solar collectors provided that such structures are erected only to such height as is reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose for which they are intended to serve, and that such structures do not obstruct solar access to neighboring properties.”35 (Albion Town, Albion Village, Blooming Grove Town, Medina Village, Monroe Village, North Salem Town, Nyack Village, Perry Village, Port Jervis City, Shandaken Town, Spring Valley Village, Tivoli Village, Union Town, Wheatfield Town)(5) “Placement of solar collectors on flat roofs shall be allowed as of right in non-historic districts, provided that panels do not extend horizontally past the roofline.”36 (Albany City)(6) “Building-Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) Systems are permitted outright in all zoning districts.”37 (7) “Solar-thermal systems are permitted in all zoning districts and Building permits are required for the installation of all solar-thermal systems.” 38 (8) Projects which meet energy efficiency standards will get expedited permitting processes.(9) Develop solar easements for property.39 These can be defined to specify time of day. (New Mexico). While these can be used to protect installed solar, they can also hinder TOD development, an integral aspect in reducing GHG emissions within the DVRPC area. Therefore, provisions for providing payment for solar blockage should be considered over strict easements. (10) “Require a percentage of solar energy technology for public improvements.” 40(Oregon)(11) “Require developers to build solar-ready residential and commercial buildings.“41 (Tucson, AZ)(12) “Update the Table of Uses to further ensure that solar energy projects are not unnecessarily prohibited.”42 (13) Waive fees for small solar projects.43 (14) Assure same agency handles all solar related permits and activities.44 (15) “Provide standard over-the-counter permits for solar energy systems that do not exceed weight threshold on buildings meeting minimum code requirements.”45 (16) Define minimum efficiency standards(17) Require building energy labeling at time of sale

Appendix 6.5: Model Ordinances

1. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Methods for Cal-culating Efficiency, April 10th 2013, http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/methods.html

2. Michael C. Polentz, 11 Ways to Finance Commercial Real Estate Energy Retrofits, August 2013, http://www.ccim.com/cire-maga-zine/articles/323112/2013/07/11-ways-finance-commercial-real-es-tate-energy-retrofits

3. Green Mountain Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and En-Touch Controls Patner to Provide Energy Management Systems for Small Commercial Customers, April 14th, 2014, http://www.green-mountain.com/about-us/news-room/press-releases/1411

4. New Jersey Natural Gas, Energy Suppliers: Areas Served, http://www.njng.com/my-business/energy-suppliers/areas-served.asp

5. New Jersey Natural Gas, 0% Financing, 2014 http://www.savegreen-project.com/featured-pages/o-apr-on-bill-repayment-program

6. Anthony J. Buonicore, Energy Efficiency Retrofit Financing Options for the Commercial Real Estate Market, February 15th, 2012, http://www.srmnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/Whitepaper_EE_Fi-nancing_Options_F

7. U.S. Department of Energy, Database of State Incentives for Re-newables & Efficiency, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incen-tive.cfm?Incentive_Code=NJ49F&re=0&ee=0

8. Katherine Tweed, PACE on a Roll: $43M and Counting, October 30th 2013, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pace-on-a-roll-43m-and-counting

9. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Qualified En-ergy Conservation Bonds (QECBs), April 22nd 2014, http://www.epa.gov/chp/policies/incentives/uqualifiedenergyconservation-bondsqecbs.html

10. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Using Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds for Public Building Upgrades: Reducing Ener-gy Bills in the City of Philadelphia, July 18th 2012, http://financing.lbl.gov/reports/public-building-qecb.pdf

11. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Energy Per-formance Contract Success Stories, April 30th 2014, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_hous-ing/programs/ph/phecc/eperformance/epcsuccess

12. Ibid.13. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Using Qualified Energy

Conservation Bonds for Public Building Upgrades: Reducing Ener-gy Bills in the City of Philadelphia, July 18th 2012, http://financing.lbl.gov/reports/public-building-qecb.pdf

14. Namrita Kapur, Jake Hillier, Robin Langdon, Alan Abramson, Show Me the Money: Energy Efficiency Financing Barriers and Opportu-nities, July 2011, http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/11860_Ener-gyEfficiencyFinancingBarriersandOpportunities_July%202011.pdf

15. Anthony J. Buonicore, Energy Efficiency Retrofit Financing Options for the Commercial Real Estate Market, February 15th, 2012, http://www.srmnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/Whitepaper_EE_Fi-nancing_Options_Final_02-15-12.pdf

16. U.S. Department of Energy, Database of State Incentives for Re-newables & Efficiency, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incen-tive.cfm?Incentive_Code=NJ49F&re=0&ee=0

17. Keystone HELP Home Energy Loan Program, Financing Program, 2014, http://www.keystonehelp.com/info/financing-programs

18. Joe Indvik, Robert Foley, Mark Orlowski, Green Revolving Funds: A Guide to Implementation and Management, July 2013, http://greenbillion.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GRF_Full_Implemen-

tation_Guide.pdf 19. Ibid.20. Anthony J. Buonicore, Energy Efficiency Retrofit Financing Options

for the Commercial Real Estate Market, February 15th, 2012, http://www.srmnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/Whitepaper_EE_Fi-nancing_Options_F

21. Energy Star, Energy Efficient Mortgages, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=mortgages.energy_efficient_mortgages

22. Ibid.23. U.S. Department of Energy, Database of State Incentives for Re-

newables and Efficiency, http://www.dsireusa.org/24. MortgageLoan.com,EEM Lenders, http://www.mortgageloan.com/

eem-lenders/25. Trend, Marketwatch Report: Q4-201326. U.S. Department of Energy, Database of State Incentives for Re-

newables and Efficiency,ttp://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incen-tive.cfm?Incentive_Code=AK11F

27. Stephen Lacey, This May Be the Most Innovative Energy Efficienc Financing Tool, June 19th, 2013, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/This-May-Be-the-Most-Innovative-Energy-Efficien-cy-Financing-Tool-Yetkj

28. Equilibrium Capital, Equilibrium Capital Confirms First Commer-cial Application of Metered Energy Efficiency, June 12th, 2013, http://www.eq-cap.com/wp-content/uploads/Equilibrium-Bul-litt-SCL-press-release2_6.12.13.pdf

29. New Jersey’s Clean Energy Program, New Jersey SmartStart Build-ings, http://www.njcleanenergy.com/commercial-industrial/home/home

30. New Jersey’s Clean Energy Program, What to Expect from a Home Energy Audit, http://www.njcleanenergy.com/residential/programs/home-performance-energy-star/what-expect-home-energy-assess-ment

31. Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, WarmWise Audits & Rebates, https://www.columbiagaspa.com/ways-to-save/warmwise-au-dits-and-rebates

32. Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, Jackson County Compre-hensive Plan, https://www.co.jackson.or.us/Files/11%20-%20EN-ERGY.pdf

33. Danielle Sugarman, Model Small-Scale Solar Citing Ordinance, Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, 2012, http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/climate-change/files/Resources/Model-Ordinances/Model-Small-Scale/Model%20ordinance%20Solar%20v%207.pdf

34. Ibid35. Ibid36. Ibid37. Ibid38. Ibid39. Feldman, Gail, and Dan Marks. 2009. “Balancing the Solar Access

Equation.” Zoning Practice, April.40. HDR Engineering, Inc. 2010. City of Seattle Code Review: Final

Gap Analysis Report. Executive Summary; Appendix A, Best Man-agement Practices Gap Analysis. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory and City of Seattle.(12)

41. Ibid 42. Ibid43. Jenior, Mary-Margaret. 2010. “Solar Access: Using the Environment

in Building Design.” Zoning Practice, April.

References


Model ordinances

44. Ibid 45. Ibid

References
