Evolving The CTR Program:
CTR Board Meeting Olympia, WA. April 25, 2014
Kathy Johnston, CTR Program Manager
Presentation ApproachLooking Back – Learning from the past
Moving Forward – Building for the future
Engaging Partners
Creating an integrated, sustainable, multi-modal transportation system
2
CTR Program – Looking Back Legislative intent: reduce congestion, save
energy, cut pollution Created as major employer-based program Local responsibility to support participating
employers Highly structured top down, narrowly
focused approach – not well integrated or connected to other local efforts or objectives
Politically calculated goals
3
Original Program—Structure/Implementation State (CTR Board)
Rules for: Program structure Geography (the where) Implementation structure Participation
Funding Local ordinances and government administration Employer engagement Employee decisions
4
CTR Program Today 2006 Efficiency Act shifted the focus of the
program From counties to urban growth areas From employers to local governments With new role for regional transportation planning
organizations By connecting the goals more closely with local
needs
5
Program Has Evolved As Intended• The CTR Program has expanded and evolved,
becoming more flexible and locally-driven. • The new law:
• Built upon established employer role • Expanded responsibility for program success
to local jurisdictions • Connected local plans with regional plans • Created linkages between land use decisions
and transportation investments
6
7
The Legend of GTECs GTECs created enhanced community-
focused implementation of CTR in urban centers
Expanded partnerships (external: small employers, residents, students; internal: planning, public works)
Connected transportation goals with job growth and economic development
Created new energy, innovative initiatives, enhanced performance
8
Lessons Learned The existing program model does not work
for everyone Local jurisdictions need the ability to define
their own success There is a lot of interest in individualized
marketing and community-based approaches
The legends of GTECs/TRPP live on, helped shape pilot program, and continue to inform future program work
9
2013 Legislative Update Attempt Strategically minimizing changes to
existing law, the Board developed the following recommendations for the 2013 legislature to consider: Expand Trip Reduction from Work
Commutes to All Trips Update the CTR Program
Update Program Data Methodology Extend and Amend CTR Tax Credit
10
Moving Forward with Current Law The CTR Tax Credit was extended for
one year only The Board must move forward with the
current law and address several required elements in the next four year cycle (2015-2019) Determine affected jurisdictions Set goals Update local, regional, and state plans
11
Discuss recommended affected areas and goals
12
ALPACA
13
Building the Future Program The Board now has time to reevaluate
the current law and consider other changes in program purpose, structure, and performance
The Board will continue to advocate for the legislative changes necessary to update and expand the program
And now, a new program
14
1. Clearly articulate program purpose2. Develop general program structure and implementation
plan Identify opportunities and issues associate with achieving
the purpose
3. Identify performance measures that support the goals and are affected by implementation (next meeting)
4. Establish measurement approach5. Develop measurement methodology6. Find, adapt, or develop measurement tools7. Implement!8. Analyze data, evaluate program, reassess goals
New Program—PurposeThe first questionWhat are we trying to accomplish? Leverage funds Support economic development Effective and efficient use of transportation investments Respond to climate change
Reduce vehicle trips Reduce emissions
Create a multimodal, integrated system Test whether a decentralized program will be as effective
as centralized CTR Improve the safety of the transportation system
15
Emerging Purpose “Theories”From Growth and Transportation Efficiency Centers
Development of new Partnerships(A new level of engagement)
Facilitate land use changes Align perspectives of various organizations
From Pilot Projects Test new ideas emerging from local initiative Establish new partnerships/new partners Align program with local values and vision
From WSDOT mission: Create multimodal, integrated, sustainable Support community, economy, environment
16
And from the agenda Support the principles of Moving Washington Strengthen and grow public-private partnerships Help meet state and local economic, environmental and
community objectives Focus resources where they have the most impact Cultivate and reward local innovation and accountability Incentivize integration of transportation and land use
policies, plans and decisions Keep existing successful TDM infrastructure relatively intact Maintain consistent, efficient measurement as much as
possible Simplify requirements Lean from new approaches
17
The second question—Structure
Local control and decision making Local definition of objectives Local definition of market
At least partially through a competitive grant
Program focus: Base CTR Community Corridor
18
Is this already answered?
Do you see measures emerging from purpose?Meaningful measures that inform about the achievement of goals and are affected by implementation.
Local funding Land use changes Multimodal, integrated Change in drive alone rate? VMT? Number of partners Injuries Gross sales, jobs Developments meeting concurrency requirements
19
Make sure
we answer
this:
Do we still need to measure progress?
Do we still need to demonstrate that employer-based programs work?
What is the new program’s purpose? Support a more efficient transportation system Congestion, fuel, air pollution Reduce vehicle trips (greater efficiency) Integrate and infiltrate (not just one category) Problem to solve People, planet, prosperity Energy-efficient transportation system Performance efficient, fuel efficient,
economically efficient RCW 36.70A.108
20
21
Defining Transportation System Efficiency There are several ways to define
transportation efficiency What problem is the program trying to
solve? The way a problem is defined
determines optimal solutions, drives strategies, and sets up an evaluation framework
22
Problem Statement The transportation system is auto-centric,
resource intensive, contributes to environmental degradation, and unsustainable
How do we move people and goods most efficiently in an energy, budget, time, and space-constrained world?
We need a paradigm shift to transform transportation, support investment choices, and enhance decision-making
23
Existing paradigm Assumes transportation means mobility Considers a limited set of objectives,
impacts, and options Perpetrates conventional solutions and
approaches Is not sustainable Does not help create the future system
24
A New Paradigm is Needed to: Redefine system efficiency Recognize the ultimate goal of
transportation is accessibility Expand the range of objectives, impacts,
and options considered Address many of the existing systemic
problems Create an integrated, sustainable, multi-
modal 21st century transportation system
25
Planning for Accessibility Creates the ability to address a broader
spectrum of goals and initiatives, including transportation-land use integration
Shifts the focus to people, places, choices Addresses needs of all travelers and supports
development of multi-modal systems Impacts policies and investments chosen
26
Discuss and Decide on a Program Purpose
What is the new program’s structure? Board structure continues—evaluation requirement Local plans (policy) and ordinances State mandate Local determination of objectives Basic parameters (including outcome, definition of market), local
determination of how they are going to get there MPO & RTPO designated role Integration and infiltration (overall system) Measurement expectation Where would we go for implementation (planning, TMA)? With our
limited resources, where are we most effective to have impact? How do we engage divergent markets State funding
27
28
What do each of these elements mean?
What are the new performance measures? Efficiency (energy, economic and performance) The need to parallel this with what is measured elsewhere Performance measures are locally defined but include
energy, economic and performance What existing measurement can we align with and tie back
to the local program (Results WA) Sustainable and clean energy Reduced energy consumption VMT SOV Where will we have the greatest impact on the system Supply or demand of options
29
30
Challenges and Opportunities Accessibility is harder to define and
measure It requires new approaches, skills, tools,
and data This is a time of great change.
Transitioning systems at every level of government, creating new approaches, and moving forward will be an iterative process
31
MAP-21 Impacts Renewed focus on transportation planning Proposed regulations pending Establishes set of national goals, including
environmental sustainability MPOs/State DOTs encouraged to collaborate on
Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs): Transition to performance based planning and
programming (PBPP) Cooperation and coordination across boundaries –
regional approach Access/Connectivity/Gaps
32
PBPP Defined Application of performance
management principles within agencies’ planning and programming processes to achieve desired performance goals and outcomes for the multimodal transportation system
33
PBPP Applied FHWA Report: A Performance-Based
Approach to Addressing GHG Emissions through Transportation Planning
Keep It Simple
34
What is the structure?
35