Edward L. Hillsman Washington State DOT Olympia, WA 98501 USA For presentation at:

1. Strategies for re-orienting a TDM program from switching modes to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases Edward L. Hillsman Washington State DOT Olympia, WA 98501 USA For presentation at: ECOMM, London, June 4-6, 2008

2. Purpose • Review changes in vehicle-kilometers traveled (VKT) in a TDM program that has not targeted VKT reductions • Assess whether VKT reduction targets proposed for program participants are realistic • Identify opportunities for reducing VKT • Identify changes to realize opportunities

3. Background (1)

4. Background (2) • State program works with ~570,000 employees in 9 most-populous counties • 25% of employment in these counties, 20% of state’s employment • ~1,100 worksites 25% in Seattle, 25% in close suburbs, 50% in other counties • Targets for reducing drive-alone rate and VKT • Program has focused on drive-alone rate and vehicle trips, not on VKT

5. Background (3) • Revisions to program in 2006 • Additional emphasis on congestion but retained VKT • Goals to reduce VKT 13% between 2007 and 2011 • State set targets in 2006–7 to reduce GHG emissions • 6.7% overall by 2020 • Possibly 15.7–24% for on-road transportation

6. What has happened at program worksites between 1993 and 2007? • The drive-alone rate decreased from 70.9% to 65.6% (a reduction of 8.2%) • VKT per employee increased from 17.1 km to 17.2 km (an increase of 0.8%) • But, the average length of the commute increased from 21.6 km to 24.6 km in 2005 (an increase of 13.8%)

7. Whole CTR program 1993

8. Whole CTR program 2005

9. But some worksites and jurisdictions have done very well • VKT per employee has decreased at 596 of the 1439 sites that had ever been in the program through 2006: • by at least 13% at 234 of these, at some time following their baseline survey • by 7–12% (enough to meet the U.S. Kyoto targets) at an additional 155 • by smaller amounts at an additional 207

10. And 9 jurisdictions have seen VKT decrease by more than 13%

11. How did they do it? • Review survey results for sites that have achieved the largest reductions • Three examples follow

12. Case 1 (baseline)

13. Case 1 after 8 years

14. Case 2 baseline

15. Case 2 after 2 years

16. Case 3 baseline and 2 years • VKT per employee decreased 15.7% from 2003 to 2005 • Drive-alone rate decreased only 2.2% • No large changes in mode split • One-way distance to work decreased by 12.8% (employees live closer to work)

17. So, what works? • From these and other examples: • Switch modes not just from drive-alone but also from carpooling to higher-occupancy modes, or from any motorized mode to non-motorized modes (including telework and alternative schedules) • Concentrate switching among longer-distance commuters • Reduce distance from home to work (including errands)

18. What does this mean for running a statewide program? • Switch from mass marketing to targeted marketing • Promote greater coordination among jurisdictions, transit agencies, planning agencies • Encourage employees to live closer to work

19. Targeted marketing • Focus on more-distant commuters • Focus on switching from drive-alone and from carpooling • Use spatial detail with employer data on employee addresses to identify areas where alternatives compete well • Track frequency of use and work with low-frequency users • Coordinate with construction mitigation

20. How have we been marketing? • Mass marketing to all employees at a site or group of sites • Encourage all employees who are driving alone to try an alternative • Print, e-mail, “bus sides”, radio • Focus on recruiting new users, not on increasing use by present users • Targeted marketing has been largely mode-specific • Bicycle commuter contests/bike-to-work days • Bus or bicycle mentoring • Vanpooling to fill out a van

21. Marketing strategies reflect a focus on reducing the drive-alone rate • Target those who are driving alone • Get them to try something else (we don’t care what) • Hope they like it enough (perhaps with incentives) that they will keep doing it • If we get them out of their car (and keep them there), we’ve succeeded • Should pay more attention to increasing frequency of use • Onward to the next customer • VKT reduction is a byproduct of switching modes

22. Targeting VKT gives us more levers to work with • Vehicle occupancy matters • Mode type matters • Distance matters (A LOT!)

23. Mode type matters (1) • If it doesn’t use a vehicle, it doesn’t contribute VKT • So, 50 person-trips by walking, cycling, telework, or compressed workweek*10 km=0 RT VKT per day • If we are focused on reducing VKT, it makes a big difference whether someone is carpooling or teleworking

24. Drive Alone Carpool Bus Mode type matters (2) • We may not want to try to shift people directly from driving alone into any specific mode • But we may want to monitor use of various motorized alternatives and look for ways to encourage shifting to lower-VKT/employee modes

25. Distance matters (A LOT!) • Switching 101-km drive-alone trips per week to telework (or walking) saves 20 RT VKT • Switching 150-km drive-alone trip per week to telework (walking not realistic) saves 100 RT VKT • The closest 10% of employees contribute roughly 1% of the VKT • The most distant 10% of employees contribute roughly 28% of the VKT • This has been true since the CTR program began • If you only have money to market to 10% of your employees, target the more distant

26. Barriers to targeted marketing • This may not be easy for jurisdictions and transit agencies to do directly • Privacy concerns • Data assembly • Peak-period service is just one of several competing interests • Develop tools for employers to use • Consider this kind of marketing activity during travel plan review

27. Coordination (1)

28. Coordination (1a) • Local/transit partners—example • Increasing number of people live in Thurston County and commute north along I-5 (long trips) • First part of the trip is through Ft. Lewis (no alternative routes) • Develop park-and-ride lots and supporting transit/vanpool services south of Ft. Lewis, and promote to this market • If they park and ride north of Ft. Lewis, they’ve incurred a lot of VKT • Pierce and King County jurisdictions have an interest in Thurston County park-and-rides

29. Coordination (2) • Employers, jurisdictions, and other program partners can advocate for state policies to support VKT reduction • Base automobile insurance premiums on distance driven • Shift road revenue source from fuel tax to charge for distance driven • Increasing the gasoline tax • Probably other things

30. Reducing the distance from home to workplace (1) • Employers • Structure commute incentives to favor living closer to work • Consider commute distance in relocation assistance planning for new employers

31. Reducing the distance from home to workplace (2) • Local governments, transit agencies, planning agencies • Getting employees to live closer to work (or slowing the trend toward living farther away • Land use, growth boundaries • Development (mixed-use, transit-oriented) • Affordable housing • Tax commute distance • Longer time frame • Changing the perception of what “a house” is

32. Conclusions • The VKT targets are achievable • We know this because some sites and jurisdictions have seen equivalent changes • Some jurisdictions and sites can probably meet them without focusing on them • But getting smart about them would probably increase prospects for success

33. Getting smart probably means: • Targeted marketing and provision of commute services • More market research • To figure out how to do this most effectively • More cooperation among jurisdictions and other partners • Long commutes are much more likely to traverse jurisdictions

34. Getting smart also means • Some short-term inefficiencies while we develop expertise with reducing VKT equivalent to that for the drive-alone rate • We’ve had 14 years to learn how to focus on drive-alone; it will take time to learn how to do VKT well