Saving Money -and- The EnvironmentA look into Commute Trip Reduction by Erica Guttman How does one place a monetary value on a clear view of Mt. Rainier from downtown Seattle, or a reduction in the health problems caused by emissions from motor vehicles? Even without quantifying these more intangible benefits, commute trip reduction specialist T.J. Johnson and his colleagues in the state Department of Transportation's Commute Trip Reduction Office can report that the monetary benefits outweigh the costs of implementing the state's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law. In the first two years of the program alone, for every dollar spent on the CTR program by employers, state, and local governments, there was a $3.92 savings to an employee who adopted an alternative commute strategy to driving alone. The analysis isn't yet completed for the next two years of the program's operation (1995-97), but Johnson is optimistic that the latest data will show even greater reductions in single-occupant vehicle (SOV) rates and vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) per person at the affected worksites, the two measures of the program's success (see sidebar, "CTR in a Nutshell"). Preliminary data from King and Thurston Counties indicate that the program has been even more successful in the last two years than it was in its first: in Thurston County, our affected worksites reduced their VMT or SOV rates by 4 percent in the first two years following implementation (1993-95) and by 8 percent for the 1995-97 period, thereby reducing rates a total of 12 percent in four years. Although many program observers asserted that the efforts leading to the 1995 results were adequate and that the program was "maxed out," Johnson isn't surprised to see the impact of the program expanding. He points out that "these attitudes and behaviors [about cars and driving] are deeply ingrained and can't be changed over night." Because this program is long term in scope and will require sustained effort over a number of years, Johnson is gratified by the recent legislation to extend the program to 2005 (see "CTR in a Nutshell" sidebar). "During the hearings to modify the law, no one testified against it. Everyone acknowledged that CTR is important to our quality of life, but we also recognized that to change behavior we need more time than the original law allowed," Johnson said. Many alternative-transit advocates were concerned that the modifications to the CTR Law would weaken it, but Johnson asserts that it is a stronger law now. The expanded time frame will allow time to develop the tools to make the goals achievable, such as expanded transit services, statewide education, and more technical assistance. Moreover, many employers were discouraged by their progress in meeting the original goals. Johnson points out that, because they are used to working in a regulatory environment, many employers felt like they were "failing" by not meeting the goals. "If you think about it, the goals were really aggressive: VMT is increasing everywhere, and through CTR we're not just holding the line on that increase but actually trying to reverse it." Barriers to CTR "People think that to do CTR you have to stop driving," Johnson says in pointing out just one of the attitudes that makes implementing CTR "more difficult than anyone expected it to be." "Even if you use an alternative mode just once a week, you can reduce your impact 20 percent," Johnson adds. "There's a whole package of lifestyle issues" wrapped up in overcoming barriers to CTR, Johnson notes. Increased development of worksites, shops, and housing on the urban fringes or in plazas designed almost exclusively for cars means that people are tending to live farther from their worksites and feel dependent on their cars not only for commuting but also for shopping, transporting their children, and running other errands. The latest surveys of affected employees have attempted to understand what services employees need to help them use alternative modes. Workers are asked to react to a list of 14 proposed services, including: an employer-provided car for work purposes, transportation during breaks for personal errands, services for bicyclists and walkers, personalized trip planning, and on-site childcare, banking, cleaning, etc. Some jurisdictions are moving forward with implementing some of these options without waiting to analyze data from the surveys. Under a pilot project in Tukwila, for instance, workers were shuttled between their worksites and shopping malls during lunchtime. The project was deemed successful in encouraging reduced SOVs and increased interest in trying transit, but funding constraints have limited the ability to continue the shuttle. King County's METRO and Thurston's Intercity Transit organize Transit Fairs at worksites to provide customized trip planning that combines the transportation modes that work for each employee's schedule. Johnson believes that one of the keys to successful implementation is making the benefits of CTR clear to employees and employers. "People need to understand the personal costs of their current system as well as the benefits of alternatives in terms of time and money saved," he says. For employers, Johnson notes that there are many hidden benefits to a good CTR program, and that the management staff of worksites with strong CTR programs see them as money-saving ventures. Many tools to promote CTR are employee benefits, and should be helpful in recruiting and retaining good employees. For instance, adding services like childcare or banking on site, "serves the goal of CTR, but are also 'family-friendly' perks for employees," as is providing free or subsidized transit passes (which can be used for personal trips, too). Employers who take their CTR programs seriously enhance their image as caring businesses concerned with the quality of life in their communities. Even employers who don't care about their image or employee retention will benefit from having to provide and maintain fewer parking stalls. As Johnson sums up, "There's a perception that when you use alternative transportation, you're giving something up. But actually there are numerous benefits." ---- CTR Law In a Nutshell What? The CTR Law affects any county with a population of 150,000 or more. Within each county, only those jurisdictions with worksites that have 100 or more full-time employees are affected. Using the framework in the law, local jurisdictions pass ordinances detailing requirements for their employers to reduce SOV and VMT rates. When? The law passed in 1991. It took about two years to put all the pieces in place for implementation: planning, ordinances, notification of affected employers, and baseline survey data. Every two years, the affected worksites are surveyed so that local jurisdictions and the state can measure success toward meeting the goals. Why? The law aims to reduce automobile-related air pollution, energy consumption, and traffic congestion. Other benefits include reduced road construction and repair costs, better land-use planning, better use of current land devoted to parking, reduced water pollution, fewer traffic-related deaths and injuries, reduced health impacts from emissions, and reduced stress for employees. What's New? The law's original goals called for affected worksites to reduce both VMT and SOV rates at the following levels:
|
