Strategies for re-orienting a TDM program from switching modes to

reducing emissions of greenhouse gases

Edward L. HillsmanWashington State DOT

Olympia, WA 98501 USA

For presentation at:ECOMM, London, June 4-6, 2008

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

Background (1)

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

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

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%)

Whole CTR program 1993

Mode split by distance percentile 1993program surveys for all sites

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

AltSched

DidOther

Teleworked

Walked

Biked

RodeTrain

RodeBus

Vanpooled

Carpooled

DroveAlone

56.3 km3.2 km 8 km 16.1 km 32.2 km

Whole CTR program 2005

Mode split by distance percentile 2005program surveys for all sites

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

DidNotWork

AltSched

DidOther

Teleworked

Walked

Biked

RodeTrain

RodeBus

Vanpooled

Carpooled

DroveAlone

62.8 km3.2 km 8 km 16.1 km 32.2 km

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

Jurisdiction

Number of sites in 2005

Number of employees in

2005

Avg daily 1-way VKT

per employee

Avg1-way

distance to work

City of Redmond 45 38617 -17.8% -1.3%

City of Shoreline 6 2683 -25.1% -20.2%

City of Buckley 2 939 -14.3% -2.0%

City of Arlington 7 2017 -17.4% -5.0%

City of Monroe 5 2054 -26.2% -19.6%

Unincorporated Spokane County 10 5465 -28.1% -19.2%

City of Medical Lake 4 1469 -15.0% 3.6%

City of Selah 3 846 -51.6% -34.0%

City of Moxee 2 204 -58.6% -29.2%

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

How did they do it?

• Review survey results for sites that have achieved the largest reductions

• Three examples follow

Case 1 (baseline)

Mode split by percentile 1995program surveys for Case 1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

DidNotWork

AltSched

DidOther

Teleworked

Biked

Walked

RodeTrain

RodeBus

Vanpooled

Carpooled

DroveAlone

1.6 km 8 km 16.1 km 32.2 km 40 km

Case 1 after 8 years

Mode split by percentile 2003program surveys for Case 1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

DidNotWork

AltSched

DidOther

Teleworked

Biked

Walked

RodeTrain

RodeBus

Vanpooled

Carpooled

DroveAlone

1.6 km 8 km 46.7 km16.1 km 32.2 km

Case 2 baseline

Mode split by percentile 2001program surveys for Case 2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

DidNotWork

AltSched

DidOther

Teleworked

Biked

Walked

RodeTrain

RodeBus

Vanpooled

Carpooled

DroveAlone

3.2 km 16.1 km 32.2 km 53.1 km8 km

Case 2 after 2 years

Mode split by percentile 2003program surveys for Case 2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

DidNotWork

AltSched

DidOther

Teleworked

Biked

Walked

RodeTrain

RodeBus

Vanpooled

Carpooled

DroveAlone

3.2 km 8km 32.2 km 56.3 km16.1 km

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

trips-person commute all of # totalalone drivingby made trips-person commute of #

Targeting VKT gives us more levers to work with

• Vehicle occupancy matters

• Mode type matters

• Distance matters (A LOT!)

employees ofnumber

*distance typeefor vehicloccupancy vehicle

typeby vehicle made trips-person commute of #

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

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

Drive Alone Carpool

Bus

Distance matters (A LOT!)

• Switching 10 1-km drive-alone trips per week to telework (or walking) saves 20 RT VKT

• Switching 1 50-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

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

Coordination (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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