transportation survey and carbon reduction efficacy analysis at california state university, east...
Post on 23-Dec-2015
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Transportation Survey and Carbon Reduction Efficacy Analysis at
California State University, East Bay and Contra Costa College
Professor Chris Johnson, Salt Lake Community Collegeand
Professor Michael Lee, Cal State East Bay
2014 CHESC
Summary• Transportation survey metrics – Contra Costa College
and Cal State East Bay• Decision-making tool• Used metrics to do carbon reduction efficacy analysis
that ranked TDM strategies by $/MTCO2E• Used as many cost/savings assumptions as possible
(cost to institution and students)• Most popular or least expensive strategies may not be
the most efficient • Most efficient strategies vary between campuses due
to geography and demographics
Problem• 2012 – 72% of California college students were
community college students. • Most GHG emissions at community colleges are from
commuting.• Ex. 3 Bay Area community colleges - 65% – 83% of GHG
emissions were from commuters.
• Per the CCCCO, community colleges may be held to the GHG reduction goals of AB 32.
Problem
• Studies have not been conducted to determine which strategies would most effectively reduce commuter emissions, especially at community colleges.• Community colleges• least concern and most to gain• Low hanging fruit
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
• How will TDM and metrics address problem? • Reduce emissions by reducing single occupancy vehicle
(SOV) use and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
• This study – How reduce SOV and VMT? • Collect transportation metrics via a stated-preference
survey.• Developed a economic tool that uses these metrics to
identify which TDM strategy would most effectively reduce commuter emissions at the least cost to the institution and students.
• Decision makers - use to prioritize strategies.• Prioritization - $/MTCO2E.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
• Common TDM Strategies• Carpool parking – preference or discounted parking fee• Carpool electronic forum – i.e. Zimride.com• Unlimited access pass – i.e. AC Transit “Easy Pass”• Bicycle infrastructure – parking, showers, repairs, etc• Shuttle bus – light rail to campus (BART shuttle)• Flexible work schedule • Compressed work week• Van pool• Cash-out program – i.e. “Clean Air Cash”• Guaranteed ride home program• On-campus housing• Increasing cost of parking
Methods – Transportation Survey• Two similar surveys conducted at two
geographically unique campuses – • Contra Costa College (community college)• Cal State East Bay (state university)
• Stated-preference transportation surveys –• respondents directly state their preference for
something.
Methods – Transportation Survey• Survey questions developed based on the needs of:• GHG inventory,• project module (CA-CP Campus Carbon Calculator)
• This tool is a modification of the project module. • Worked backward to determine metrics needed in
survey.
Methods – Transportation Survey• Survey Questions -• Categorical Questions
• Mode split • Affiliation (faculty, student, etc)• Preferred transportation alternative (bus pass, carpool parking,
etc)• Numerical Questions
• No. of trips to campus per week• No. of weeks per year commuting to campus• No. of miles traveled to campus one-way• Estimated travel costs• No. of days late to class due to transportation issues
• Location• Nearest street intersection• Zip code
Results – Cal State East Bay• Cal State East Bay• 1,548 respondents
• 683 undergraduates, • 334 staff/administrators, • 254 faculty, • 248 graduate students, • 3 blank (not used), • 23 “other” (not used), • 3 visitors or contractors (not used)
• 1,412 respondents were from Hayward campus – only these were used.
Results – Cal State East Bay
• Separate metrics (5 numeric questions) by affiliation and mode split• Ex. Students who drove alone – ave. distance 22 mi. ±1.5 (n=509)
Results – Cal State East Bay• Of students who drove alone, proportions who
choose a preferred alternative: • 26% - continue to drive alone• 17% - more online classes were available• 17% - improved BART shuttle• 14% - free bus pass• 14% - discounted or free carpool parking• 10% - carpool with help of electronic forum• 2% - bicycle program and infrastructure• 1% - discounted or free motorcycle or scooter parking
Results – Cal State East Bay• Separate metrics (5 numeric questions) for those
who ONLY choose “drove alone” in mode split. • Ex. Students who drove alone, 17% (n=86) choose
BART shuttle as their preferred alternative and spend $12 per day ± 1.5 for commuting.
Results – Contra Costa College• Contra Costa College – • 394 respondents
• 263 undergraduate• 48 staff/administrators• 54 faculty• 29 no affiliation (not used)
• Final total number of usable respondents 365.• Low sample size due to lack of institutional support for a
transportation survey – high margin of error and wide confidence intervals – less meaningful results.
Results – Contra Costa College
• Of the students who drove alone (n=146), proportions who choose a preferred alternative: • 31% - continue to drive alone • 23% - carpool with an electronic forum• 12% - carpool if parking was discounted or free• 8% - AC Transit unlimited access pass• 8% - ride a bicycle if more bicycle infrastructure• 8% - blank• 5% - BART shuttle• 5% - more online classes• 1% - ride a motorcycle if discounted parking
Analysis – Carbon Reduction Efficacy
• Cost and savings assumptions (modified CA-CP Campus Carbon Calculator project module):
• Marginal capital cost - upfront costs of initiating the project• Annual marginal operating costs - change annual costs for
operating and maintaining the project such as personnel• Annual savings or revenues - any cost savings to students or
the university due to implementing the project, such as reduced need to build or maintain parking spaces.
• Activity change - marginal costs of operating under the new project such as the mileage change due to a switch to a different mode and the associated change in cost per mile
Analysis – Carbon Reduction Efficacy
• BART shuttle example: • Marginal capital cost $-30,000 per year in labor costs• Annual marginal operating costs $-484,000 per year• Annual savings or revenues $509,000 saved in parking
maintenance• Activity change $350,000 saved per year and -1,168 MTCO2E
reduced – change from driving alone to BART shuttle
• Metrics – over 10 years of the project
1. Net Present Value (NPV) Savings of $2,566,0712. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 12% (If a project has a IRR greater than the
discount rate (7.5% endowment, 5.5% bond), then a project should be implemented)
3. Carbon reduction efficacy ($/MTCO2E) – • $2,566,071 / 11,680 = 230.90 $/MTCO2E
Discussion
1) Don’t select the most popular alternative nor the cheapest
• At Cal State East Bay - 5 most popular alternatives1. online classes, 2. unlimited access pass (bus pass), 3. BART shuttle, 4. carpool parking,5. carpool electronic forum
• But efficacy ranking of those alternatives –1. carpool electronic forum 2. Online courses3. Carpool parking4. BART shuttle5. Unlimited access pass (bus pass)
Discussion
• At CCC - 5 most popular alternatives1. carpool electronic forum 2. carpool parking,3. unlimited access pass (bus pass), 4. bicycle infrastructure5. BART shuttle
• But efficacy ranking of those alternatives –1. bicycle infrastructure2. carpool electronic forum 3. Online courses4. Carpool parking5. Unlimited access pass (bus pass)
Discussion
2) Further, the unlimited access pass (UPASS or discounted bus pass) was the most widely studied in the literature, but was the LEAST efficient at reducing emissions at both institutions.
- Bus pass was the only strategy that COST money to reduce emissions.
Recommendations
1. Institutions should conduct a transportation survey and economic analysis that uses metrics to estimate $/MTCO2E - or another metric such as reduction of SOV use or parking.
2. Implement TDM strategies based on the efficacy. 3. The need is most urgent at community colleges.4. Do the transportation survey annually for monitoring.
Conclusions
1. Tool can help decision makers choose the best strategies that most efficiently meet the future GHG reduction goals or parking goals (think - MP and CEQA lawsuits).
2. Especially at community colleges and other commuter colleges –a. with the majority of students
b. the majority of commuter emissions
c. and are the least prepared financially and institutionally to meet these demands.
Future Work
Suggested improvements to model – • Institutional support and standard survey sampling
methods/software essential for high response rates, low margin of error and narrow confidence intervals.
• An economist and statistician could help with refining the model, making the spreadsheet easier to use for a sustainability coordinator, and more accurate cost assumptions could be determined.
• Future Research – • Location data available (zip code and street intersection).
Future geography research potential such as research questions such as “How many respondents who drove alone but choose the bicycle infrastructure alternative live within a 2 mile radius of campus”?
Marginal Capital Costs$ - 30,000
Annual Marginal Operating Costs
$ - 484,000
Annual Savings or Revenue Costs (i.e. Reduced Maintenance Cost of Parking Spaces)
$ 509,204
Marginal Costs – Example BART Shuttle
Activity Change – Mileage Change – Students only shown (Faculty/Staff not shown but similar calculation
Marginal Costs for First Year of Project
$ - 4,796
Number of Commuters
(12,136, Students)
One Way Trips per
week7.0
Weeks per Year
31
Mode Split – Drive Alone
0.5965
Mileage – Drive Alone
22.1
Weeks per Year
31
Mode Split – Car Pool0.0767
Mileage – Car Pool10.6
2
Number of Commuters
(12,136, Students)
One Way Trips per
week7.0
Existing Mileage -
Drive Alone
Existing Mileage - Carpool
Existing Mileage – Automobile (Students)
35,924,020
Number of Commuters
(12,136, Students)
One Way Trips per
week7.0
Weeks per Year
31
Mode Split – Drive Alone
0.4975
Mileage – Drive Alone
22.1
Weeks per Year
31
Mode Split – Car Pool0.0767
Mileage – Car Pool10.6
2
Number of Commuters
(12,136, Students)
One Way Trips per
week7.0
Mileage After BART Shuttle - Drive Alone
Mileage After BART Shuttle
- Carpool
Mileage After BART Shuttle – Automobile (Students)
30,139,274
Number of Commuters
(12,136, Students)
One Way Trips per
week7.0
Weeks per Year
31
Mode Split – Light Rail0.3455
Mileage – Drive Alone
20.7
Mileage After BART Shuttle
- Light Rail (BART)
Number of Commuters
(12,136, Students)
One Way Trips per
week7.0
Weeks per Year
31
Mode Split – Light Rail0.2465
Mileage – Drive Alone
20.7
Existing Mileage - Light Rail
(BART)
Existing Mileage – Light Rail
13,523,425
Mileage After BART Shuttle – Light Rail
18,955,526
Net Change of Mileage – Light Rail (Students)
5,432,101
Net Change of Mileage – Automobile
(Students)-5,784,746
Activity Change – Cost Change
Price per mile0.2728
Cost Change due to Mileage Change (Students)
$ 1,578,079
Net Change of Mileage – Automobile (Students)
- 5,784,746
Price per mile0.2208
Cost Change due to Mileage Change (Faculty/Staff)
$ 281,799
Net Change of Mileage – Automobile (Faculty/Staff)
- 1,276,262
Price per mile0.2145
Cost Change due to Mileage Change (Students)
$ - 1,165,185
Price per mile0.1988
Cost Change due to Mileage Change (Faculty/Staff)
$ - 345,799
Net Change of Mileage – Light Rail(Faculty/Staff)
1,739,431
Net Change of Mileage – Light Rail (Students)
5,432,101
Annual Operating Marginal Cost - BART Shuttle
$ - 484,000
COST - Increased Cost due to Switch from driving to BART
Shuttle$ - 1,510,984
Total Cost Outflow$ - 1,994,984
SAVINGS - Decreased Cost due to Switch from driving to BART
Shuttle$ 1,859,877
Annual Savings or Revenue Costs (i.e. Reduced
Maintenance Cost of Parking Spaces)
$ 509,204
Total Cost Inflow$2,369,081
COST - Increased Cost due to Switch from driving to BART
Shuttle$ - 1,510,984
SAVINGS - Decreased Cost due to Switch from driving to BART
Shuttle$ 1,859,877
Net Cash Flow for First Year$ 374,097
Net Present Value After First Year of Project
$ 318,630
Net Present Value After 10 years of the Project
$ 2,566,071
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of Project12 %
Net Present Value, Internal Rate of Return, and Discounted Rate of Reduction
-1 (Positive Value Shows Savings and
Negative Shows Cost
-1 (Positive Value Shows Savings and
Negative Shows Cost
-1 (Positive Value Shows Savings and
Negative Shows Cost
-1 (Positive Value Shows Savings and
Negative Shows Cost
Activity Change – Carbon Emission Change
Emissions Factor
0.000376384
MT e CO2 Change due to Mileage Change (Students)
-2,177
Net Change of Mileage – Automobile (Students)
- 5,784,746
MT e CO2 Change due to Mileage Change (Faculty/Staff)
- 480
Net Change of Mileage – Automobile (Faculty/Staff)
- 1,276,262
MT e CO2 Change due to Mileage Change (Students)
1,128
MT e CO2 Change due to Mileage Change (Faculty/Staff)
361
Net Change of Mileage – Light Rail(Faculty/Staff)
1,739,431
Net Change of Mileage – Light Rail (Students)
5,432,101
Emissions Factor
0.000376384
Emissions Factor
0.000207767
Emissions Factor
0.000207767
Annual Reduction of MT e CO2
- 1,168
Discounted Cost per Reduction – Positive Values Show a Positive Return on the
Investment per MTCO2E230.90 $/MTCO2E
Total Lifetime Reductions of MT e CO2
11,676
Net Present Value After 10 Years of the Project
$ 2,696,085
top related