Evolving The CTR Program:

1. Evolving The CTR Program: • CTR Board Meeting • Olympia, WA. • April 25, 2014 • Kathy Johnston, CTR Program Manager

2. Presentation Approach Looking Back – Learning from the past Moving Forward – Building for the future Engaging Partners Creating an integrated, sustainable, multi-modal transportation system

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

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

14. And now, a new program • Clearly articulate program purpose • Develop general program structure and implementation plan • Identify opportunities and issues associate with achieving the purpose • Identify performance measures that support the goals and are affected by implementation (next meeting) • Establish measurement approach • Develop measurement methodology • Find, adapt, or develop measurement tools • Implement! • Analyze data, evaluate program, reassess goals

15. New Program—PurposeThe first question What 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. The second question—Structure Is this already answered? • 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

19. 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 Make sure we answer this: Do we still need to measure progress? Do we still need to demonstrate that employer-based programs work?

20. 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

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

27. 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

28. What do each of these elements mean?

29. 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

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

34. Keep It Simple

35. What is the structure?