Goals and Targets for 2015-2020 CTR PlansOlympia, Washington

September 26, 2014

Lynn PetersonSecretary of Transportation

for 2015-2020 CTR plansRecommendations to the Commute Trip Reduction Board

Goals and Targets

Keith CottonPolicy and Analysis Manager

Today’s discussion and decisions092414KC

2

• Where are we in the process?

• Feedback from the TAG on goal options

• Decision on jurisdiction goals

• Discussion and decision on state targets

• Next steps

Where are we?

3

Document from July 25, 2014 board meeting

Where are we?

4

Decision from July 25, 2014 board meeting

Where are we?

5

Discussion from July 25, 2014 board meeting

6

Content slide option 3

Statewide Program Goals

Jurisdiction Goal Option 1

(statewide goals and targets)

Jurisdiction Goal Option 2

(statewide goals with locally set targets)

Jurisdiction Goal Option 3

(goals based on local programs needs)

Target 1: nDAR X percent

Target 2: VMT – 18 % reduction

Target 3: GHG – 18% reduction (based on

VMT)

Target 1, 2, 3: nDAR X %, VMT & GHG

18% reduction(statewide targets)

Target 1, 2, 3: nDAR X %, VMT & GHG X

% reductionWork with WSDOT to tailor these based on

local objectives

Targets developed by local government to support local goals

and objectivesWork with WSDOT

Board Decision 7/25/2014

Proposed for Board Decision9/26/2014

Proposed for Board Decision9/26/2014

To be drafted in local CTR plans for approval by CTR board

7

Content slide option 3

Jurisdiction Goal Option 1

(statewide goals and targets)

Jurisdiction Goal Option 2

(statewide goals with locally set targets)

Jurisdiction Goal Option 3

(goals based on local programs needs)

Proposed for Board Decision9/26/2014

Feedback from the TAG on goal options

8

• Support for decoupling the state and local goals and targets

• Strong support for Option 2 from local jurisdictions

• Some will go with Option 1 and some with Option 3

• Expressing goals as increases rather than decreases is preferred (nDAR vs. DAR)

CTR BoardDiscussion and Decision

9

10

Target 1: nDAR X percent

Target 2: VMT – 18 % reduction

Target 3: GHG – 18% reduction (based on

VMT)

Proposed for Board Decision9/26/2014

To start, some definitions

Proportion, percentage of

y1 / 100

27 / 100 = 27%

nDAR

Non drive alone rate(Percentage of travelers using

modes other than driving alone)

11

Change ofy2 - y1

33 - 27 = increase of 6

Percent change,percentage change((y2 - y1) / y1) * 100

((33-27) / 27) * 100 = 22.2% increase

Target 1: nDAR X percent

Executive Order 13-04 Results WA

12

Four options to set non Drive Alone Rate target:

Low Medium Aspirational

33% nDAR 42% nDAR 67% nDAR

Based on achieving the

same numerical increase of 6 percentage

points aligned with Results

WA, starting in 2007/2008

Based on achieving the

total percentage change of 23%

aligned with Results WA, starting in 2007/2008

Assumes that the CTR program worksites take on a goal to

achieve 33% nDAR goal for 40% of

commuters, rather than the current market of 20%)

Based on Executive Order 13-04 Results

WA

40% nDAR

Current C

TR

nDAR 36.4%

13

20152007 202020

40

60

50

30

26.9%27.8%

33%

Results WA

% nDAR

14

20152007 202020

40

60

50

30

26.9%27.8%

33%34.3% 33%

35.5%Same 33%

Results WA target applied to CTR

% nDAR

15

20152007 202020

40

60

50

30

26.9%27.8%

33%34.3% 33%

40%

35.5%

Increase of 6

Same 33%

Results WA change increase applied to CTR Baseline

% nDAR

Increase of 6

16

20152007 202020

40

60

50

30

26.9%27.8%

33%34.3% 33%

42%

40%

35.5%

Increase of 618% change

Same Percentage Change of 23%

Same 33%

Results WA percent change applied to CTR Baseline

% nDAR

Increase of 623% percent change

17

20152007 202020

40

60

50

30

26.9%27.8%

33%34.3% 33%

42%

40%

67%

35.5%

Double Proportion

Same Percentage

Change of 23%

Same 33%

Double the proportion of trips needed to meet the 33% target%

nDAR

Increase of 618% change

Increase of 623% percent change

18

Four options to set non Drive Alone Rate target:

Low Medium Aspirational

33% nDAR 42% nDAR 67% nDAR

Based on achieving the

same numerical increase of 6 percentage

points aligned with Results

WA, starting in 2007/2008

Based on achieving the

same percentage

change of 23% aligned with Results WA, starting in 2007/2008

Based on Executive Order 13-04 Results

WA

40% nDAR

Current C

TR

nDAR 36.4%

19

Assumes that the CTR program worksites take on a goal to achieve the 33%

nDAR goal for 40% of commuters, rather

than the current market of 20%

Target 2: VMT – 18 % Reduction

Reduce the state’s annual per capita vehicle miles traveled by 18 percent by 2020

(RCW 47.01.440 – state VMT goals)

VMT 2007/8 = 10.9 miles per person one-way to workVMT 2019/20 target = 8.9

20

Target 3: GHG – based on VMT

Reduce the state’s greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020

(RCW 70.235.020 – state GHG goals)

Reduce daily GHG (lbs) per employee by 18% (if tied to VMT)

(may need further exploration)

21

CTR BoardDiscussion and Decision

22

23

Content slide option 3

Statewide Program Goals

Jurisdiction Goal Option 1

(statewide goals)

Jurisdiction Goal Option 2

(statewide goals with locally set targets)

Jurisdiction Goal Option 3

(goals based on local programs needs)

Target 1: nDAR X percent

Target 2: VMT – 18 % reduction

Target 3: GHG – 18% reduction (based on

VMT)

Target 1, 2, 3: nDAR X %, VMT & GHG

18% reduction(statewide targets)

Target 1, 2, 3: nDAR X %, VMT & GHG X

% reductionWork with WSDOT to tailor these based on

local objectives

Targets developed by local government to support local goals

and objectivesWork with WSDOT

Board Decision 7/25/2014

Proposed for Board Decision9/26/2014

Proposed for Board Decision9/26/2014

To be drafted in local CTR plans for approval by CTR board

Board expectations for local targets

24

• Option 1 expectations

– Continued flexibility in individual employer target-setting

– Six percentage point increase or 23 percent increase? Will align with state target decision

• 20% baseline + 6 points = 26% target• 20% + 23% = 24.6% target• 50% + 6 points = 56% target• 50% + 23% = 61.5%

Board expectations for local targets

25

• Option 2 expectations for local target setting– Do no worse– Demonstrate integration with local plans and goals– Develop targets tied to local plans and goals– Work with WSDOT to develop local targets

• Option 3 principles– Demonstrate relevance to local plans and goals– Ensure that goals and targets can be measured– Work with WSDOT to develop local goals and targets

Next steps

26

• Do we really want to call it nDAR?– Non SOV rate?– Commute alternatives rate (CAR)?– Alternative mode share?– Efficient mode share?– Luke Skywalker mode share?

• WSDOT technical assistance for local target development

• CTR Board’s funding policy• Program measurement