Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region Review and Recommendations

final

report

prepared for

Colorado Department of Transportation

prepared by

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with

Sprinkle Consulting, Inc.

February 2010 www.camsys.com

final report Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Review and Recommendations

prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation

prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, MA 02140 with

Sprinkle Consulting, Inc.

date February 2010

Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1

1.0 Introduction ...... 1-1

2.0 Review of Peer Region Practices in Project Evaluation, Selection, and Funding Allocation ...... 2-1 2.1 CMAQ Funding Allocation and Evaluation Methods (General) ...... 2-1 2.2 TDM Funding Allocation and Evaluation Methods (General) ...... 2-3 2.3 Existing DRCOG TDM Funding Allocation Method ...... 2-4 2.4 TDM Allocation Methods (Peer Regions) ...... 2-7 Atlanta, Georgia ...... 2-8 Phoenix, Arizona ...... 2-13 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ...... 2-15 San Francisco, California ...... 2-17 Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas ...... 2-19 Washington, D.C...... 2-21 2.5 TDM Fund Distribution – Comparative Table ...... 2-25 2.6 Summary of Peer Region Review ...... 2-27

3.0 TDM Project Evaluation Methods in the Denver Region ...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 Methods Used for Projecting Cost-Effectiveness of Projects Applying for Funding ...... 3-1 3.3 Methods Used for Post-Project Effectiveness Evaluation ...... 3-2 3.4 Interview Findings ...... 3-3 Evaluation Methods ...... 3-3 Survey Challenges ...... 3-3 Limitations of Existing Evaluation Tools ...... 3-3 Data Issues ...... 3-4 Inter-Agency Relationships and Program Balance ...... 3-4 Project Selection Process ...... 3-4 3.5 Recommendations ...... 3-5

4.0 Cost-Effectiveness of TDM Projects ...... 4-1 4.1 Range of Cost-Effectiveness Reported for Denver Region Projects .... 4-1

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 8148.001 Table of Contents, continued

4.2 Range of Cost-effectiveness Reported from Elsewhere...... 4-4 CMAQ Evaluations ...... 4-4 Washington, D.C. – Commuter Connections Program ...... 4-6 Other Estimates in Literature ...... 4-7 4.3 Summary ...... 4-8

5.0 Recommendations for TDM Pool Project Scoring and Selection Process ...... 5-1 5.1 Recommendations ...... 5-1 5.2 Example for Revised Scoring and Selection Process ...... 5-3

6.0 Funding Allocation Recommendations ...... 6-1 6.1 Overview ...... 6-1 6.2 Recommended Approach for Developing TDM Program Funding Levels ...... 6-2 6.3 Summary of Funding Allocation Recommendations ...... 6-6

Appendix A – Recommendations for the CMAQ Reporter

Appendix B – Framework Agreement from Atlanta

ii Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 8148.001 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

List of Tables

Table 2.1 FY 2009 Funding Levels for Atlanta Regional TDM Programs ...... 2-13 Table 2.2 FY 2010 Funding Levels for Metro Washington TDM Programs ..... 2-23 Table 2.3 Comparative Analysis Table ...... 2-25 Table 4.1 Range of Cost-Effectiveness CMAQ of TDM-Funded Projects Nationwide ...... 4-6 Table 5.1 Current Evaluation Factors Used in Project Scoring and Ranking .... 5-2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii

Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 FY 2009 Allocation of DRCOG CMAQ Funding ...... 2-6 Figure 2.2 Relationship of TDM Projects and Roles in Atlanta ...... 2-11 Figure 2.3 Commuter Connections Structure ...... 2-22 Figure 4.1 Projected Cost-Effectiveness for FY 2008-2009 DRCOG-Funded TDM Pool Projects ...... 4-2 Figure 4.2 Cost-Effectiveness Estimated from Denver Region TDM Post- Project Evaluations (Pool Projects and RideArrangers) ...... 4-3 Figure 4.3 Median Cost-Effectiveness of CMAQ TDM-Funded Projects Nationwide ...... 4-5 Figure 4.4 Cost-Effectiveness for MWCOG Commuter Connections Program Elements ...... 4-7 Figure 5.1 Concept for Scoring Projects ...... 5-5

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. v

Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Executive Summary

This study was undertaken to assess the current approach to funding and evaluating transportation demand management (TDM) projects funded in the Denver region, and to recommend changes to project selection processes, funding, and evaluation procedures that could improve the cost-effectiveness of the region’s TDM projects. The study included the following activities which are summarized in this report: • A review of TDM evaluation methods and funding procedures used around the country; • Interviews with TDM service providers regarding evaluation approaches and methods; • A review of pre- and post-project evaluation data for previous DRCOG area regionally funded TDM programs/projects; and • Recommendation of TDM evaluation and funding methods and concepts for DRCOG’s project selection and monitoring processes.

Discussion of Key Issues CDOT and DRCOG asked the study team to consider whether the region is spending its TDM dollars effectively. DRCOG currently funds TDM through the region’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds. In FY 2009, a total of just over $3 million (12 percent of CMAQ funds) was allocated to TDM activities. A TDM Pool that funds local projects received $1.0 million, or 32 percent, while the regional RideArrangers program run by DRCOG received $2.1 million, or 68 percent. The TDM Pool funds individual projects sponsored by local and regional TDM service providers on a biannual basis, through a competitive application process. All TDM Pool project applications must submit projections of cost-effectiveness (cost per vehicle-mile of travel reduced), as part of their application, and some sponsors have conducted post- project evaluations. The RideArrangers program is also routinely evaluated for cost-effectiveness. Based on a review of estimates provided by project sponsors for projects funded in FY 2008-2009, pre-project estimates of cost-effectiveness generally perform favorably on DRCOG’s scoring system and fall within the range of what might be expected based on a review of other TDM projects nationwide. However, good post-project evaluation data is not available for most of the TDM Pool projects, and therefore it is difficult to assess actual performance across the pool. The limited evaluations that have been performed suggest that results can vary quite widely, with actual cost-effectiveness in most of the cases evaluated much less favorable than projected.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-1 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

To some extent, diverging results may be expected, especially with innovative types of projects that have not been tried before. However, we recommend that the region conduct more systematic monitoring of actual results, across as many projects as possible. We believe that expanded monitoring, in conjunction with some revisions to pre-project evaluation methods, could better help to ensure that regional funds are being spent as cost-effectively as possible. Another issue of concern that has been raised by some TDM service providers in the region is the relatively large amount of funding that is allocated to DRCOG’s regional RideArrangers program compared to other TDM projects. RideArrangers is routinely evaluated for cost-effectiveness and shows post- project estimates that are generally consistent with other regions’ experience with ridematching and vanpooling programs. However, regional funders may wish to consider either increasing the overall TDM funding pool, or reallocating some funds from RideArrangers, to provide a more substantial source of funding for activities that may be more effectively accomplished at a local level. Local governments and business associations also may by encouraged to provide more funding for these activities. Examples include employer and employee outreach through existing Transportation Management Agencies (TMAs) who may be more closely in touch with their business members. These activities provide important complements to regional ridesharing, vanpooling, and marketing and outreach efforts. In particular, the RideArrangers program should continue to fill important roles of providing technical support to TMAs, outreach and assistance to employers in areas not covered by TMA programs, and coordinating regional rideshare and vanpooling activities. A third, related issue of concern has been lack of stability in funding for local TDM activities, such as TMAs, which must compete for regional TDM Pool funds in each funding cycle. The need for greater stability and consistency in local funding might be addressed by providing additional TDM funding from other sources since the particular restrictions of the CMAQ program (e.g., three- year limit on operating funds) can limit the ability to provide a consistent source of funding for local agencies’ activities.

Summary of Recommendations A variety of specific recommendations for improving cost-effectiveness estimation methods, project selection procedures, and the TDM project funding process are made throughout this report, particularly in Sections 3.5, 5.0, and 6.0. The overall objective of these recommendations is to improve the cost-effectiveness of Denver region-funded TDM projects. The key recommendations can be summarized as follows: • Improve the information available for pre-project effectiveness estimation and the consistency of these estimates, by: providing more consistent guidance on parameters to be used for similar types of projects, establishing a database of information on results from completed projects (including information such as projected versus actual number of employers reached,

ES-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

employees participating, transit riders, etc.), and continuing to provide training and technical support to TDM service providers as needed (Section 3.5). This includes some recommended changes to the CMAQ Reporter equations and default values (Appendix A). In addition, we recommend setting aside a given percentage of TDM pool funds (e.g., 5 to 10 percent) to fund independently conducted post-project evaluations, to support improved resource allocation decisions in the future. • Develop more formalized program relationships describing the specific roles and responsibilities of individual organizations (including DRCOG, RTD, and local TDM service providers) in working together to meet the overall objectives of the regional TDM strategic plan. This would include signing inter-agency working agreements such as in the Atlanta area (Section 6.1; Appendix B). In essence, the region’s TDM service providers and funding agencies should decide collectively what work activities are most important and who is best suited to perform each. • Attempt to achieve greater stability and consistency in TDM funding provision, reducing competition that is heavily based on often unreliable pre- project estimates of benefits (Section 6.0). In particular: – Consider integrating TDM project selection with the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) funding cycle and providing TDM funding from other sources in addition to CMAQ; – Set TDM funding targets for different types of TDM projects or funding categories (e.g., TMA support, regional rideshare and vanpool, nonwork programs); and – Within each program category, allocate funding to those service providers that have developed the most effective projects in terms of transportation and emissions benefits, and are most effectively positioned to implement the project. • Make changes to the project selection process to better support the selection of a set of cost-effective projects consistent with overall regional program objectives. While there is no single approach or formula that will guarantee selection of the most beneficial and cost-effective projects, we suggest, consistent with the above recommendations: – Creating a few key TDM funding categories to guide suballocation with approximate funding to each category based on regional program priorities, effectiveness data, and identified needs; and – Suballocating within each category by removing the 70/30 funding split for projects based solely on score versus other factors, and replacing it with a system that includes two general categories: 1) project performance; and 2) support for regional TDM objectives, where a high score is required for both, across all projects (Section 5.1).

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-3

Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this study is to assess the current approach to funding and evaluating transportation demand management (TDM) projects funded in the Denver region, and to recommend changes to project selection processes, funding, and evaluation procedures that could improve the cost-effectiveness of the region’s TDM projects. The study includes the following components: • Element 1 – A review of current evaluation methods used around the country for predicting results and measuring outcome results for TDM projects; • Element 2 – An evaluation of result calculations from previous DRCOG area regionally funded TDM programs/projects, including predicted results and post-project measured or estimated results; • Element 3 – Recommendation of TDM evaluation methods and concepts to be used as part of DRCOG’s project selection and monitoring processes; • Element 4 – A summary and evaluation of the distribution of regional funds funding arrangement alternatives, and level of investments in TDM activities across the Denver region; and • Element 5 – Evaluation of a small number of Colorado employers that currently provide some form of a commuter trip reduction program. A series of technical memoranda has documented the findings of each work element. This final report, developed as part of Element 4, presents the overall recommendations of the study with respect to project evaluation methods, funding mechanisms, and project selection procedures. It also includes background information from previous technical memoranda on project cost-effectiveness and national practices in support of the recommendations. The work performed in Element 5 is documented in a separate technical memorandum dated July 20, 2009. The remainder of this report includes the following sections: • Section 2.0 – A review of peer region practices in project evaluation, selection, and funding allocation; • Section 3.0 – A review and critique of TDM project evaluation methods in the Denver region; • Section 4.0 – A review of the cost-effectiveness of TDM projects, based on evaluations of Denver region projects and a comparison to nationwide results; • Section 5.0 – Recommendations for the TDM pool project scoring and selection process;

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-1 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

• Section 6.0 – Funding allocation recommendations; • Appendix A – Recommendations for the CMAQ Reporter; and • Appendix B – Example of framework agreement from Atlanta.

1-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

2.0 Review of Peer Region Practices in Project Evaluation, Selection, and Funding Allocation

This section provides an overview of general project evaluation and selection procedures used to support CMAQ funding allocation decisions for TDM programs and projects as well as a detailed discussion of TDM project evaluation and selection processes in six peer regions. Topics covered include: • General CMAQ funding allocation methods; • General TDM funding allocation methods; • Current CMAQ and TDM allocation practices in the Denver region; and • Practices in “peer” regions nationwide.

2.1 CMAQ FUNDING ALLOCATION AND EVALUATION METHODS (GENERAL) As in the Denver region, in many urbanized areas around the country CMAQ is a major source of TDM program funds and the primary Federal source of such funds. CMAQ regulations and associated U.S. DOT Guidance1 provide significant flexibility to states and MPOs regarding project eligibility and priority. The program generally requires projects to have quantifiable emission reductions and guidance directs MPOs and States to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the projects and give priority consideration to those that will create the greatest emissions reductions for the least cost. Otherwise, it is left to the state and/or regional agency to best determine the basis and procedure for allocating funds. As a result, there are no standardized methodologies in place as each state or metropolitan area tends to have its own, unique process. A set of best practices have emerged over time, however, as areas have become more sophisticated in programming CMAQ funds. Best practice in the area of project analysis and selection for CMAQ funding includes:2

1 CMAQ Final Program Guidance, October 2008: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ environment/cmaqpgs/cmaq08gd.pdf. 2 SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment, Phase 1 Final Report, http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/safetealu1808/index.htm.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-1 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

• Development of standardized evaluation templates, calculation guidebooks, and spreadsheets to help ensure a consistent set of project inputs and parameters to be used to estimate project benefits and enable fair comparison between projects; • Development of well-documented, systematic, scoring and ranking procedures to promote transparency in the project selection process; • Coordination of selection processes with transportation and air quality planning partners; and • Collection of post-project data to assess actual project benefits once implemented, as resources permit. Projects are evaluated using a wide range of evaluation and selection methodologies that vary greatly by each area’s transportation and air quality objectives, staff and resource capabilities, and schedule for plan/program development. Evaluation criteria vary greatly, but in general: • Total emission reductions and cost-effectiveness are both commonly applied criteria, with emissions reduction evaluated for pollutants of concern in the particular nonattainment/maintenance area; • Other project benefits may be considered such as safety, GHG reduction, community benefits, etc., with projects that provide co-benefits prioritized for funding; and • Other considerations often include planning factors such as size of local match, project readiness and political support, life-cycle funding costs for operation and maintenance of the project, and the timeframe of project benefits. Examples of commonly used approaches to support project evaluation and allocation of CMAQ funds include: • Single Criterion – This approach involves selecting one key determinant of project benefit (e.g., cost-effectiveness) and using this to rank projects for funding. • Multicriteria Approach – Qualitative – Various factors are considered in an evaluation, but in a qualitative manner, based on an array of information. There tends to be less consistency in the process, since people weigh for themselves the different factors. • Point/Scoring System – Quantitative – Many areas use point/scoring systems to score and weight multiple criteria. These systems are good at providing uniform evaluation and support for a very transparent project selection process, but can be overly rigid and controversial depending on how points/weights are assigned. • Informal System – The informal approach relies heavily on local political or agency identification of project priorities, with little quantification of actual

2-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

project benefit. Top priority projects are funded based on equitable distribution of funds to each jurisdiction as opposed to funding projects based on specific benefit/impact. • Consensus-Based Approach – The consensus-based approach uses both subjective and objective criteria within a consensus-based process. This way, selection is made based on rational information, but is not strictly rational or “rule-driven.” Flexibility is allowed to account for special considerations, as determined by committee consensus. In this way, it is also rather an informal system, but with more specific criteria applied for project selection, both qualitative and quantitative. Regardless of the evaluation approach applied, projects are often evaluated and selected within program category (e.g., transit, bike/ped, TDM). Different types of projects often have very different types of benefits and impacts, and can be hard to compare using standardized evaluation criteria (“apples and oranges”). In addition, the technical tools or scoring system may be unintentionally biased toward one type of mode or project, or unable to quantify benefits of certain types of projects. As a result, projects of similar type (within same program category) are typically evaluated relative to each other only, with cross-program analysis not usually performed.

2.2 TDM FUNDING ALLOCATION AND EVALUATION METHODS (GENERAL) In many areas around the country, evaluation and funding of TDM projects is treated in a rather unique fashion, due to the varying nature and type of TDM projects that can be funded. Many projects do not lend themselves to quantitative project-level assessment due to the integrated planning and implementation efforts often used support TDM efforts. There can be quite significant overlap between different types of TDM expenditures, and, in many areas, it becomes impractical to attempt to quantify the benefits attributed to each specific element prior to project implementation. Transportation agencies often have a difficult time in developing project-level predictive evaluations as required by CMAQ regulations, as a result. This issue is exemplified well in the Atlanta region (documented in more detail below). TDM partners in this region have agreed that it is not practical to evaluate specific elements of a regional TDM program, in isolation of one another, as part of CMAQ emissions analysis. As an example, if the region’s TDM Media Campaign were not providing advertising for the multiple employer service organizations and the regional rideshare database, each organization would need its own outreach and advertising funds and every organization would have to do its own ride-matching which would mean duplication of effort and degradation in the rideshare match rate. At the same time, the employer service organizations work directly with their clients to generate leads for the larger, regional

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-3 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

rideshare database and serve to market regional TDM efforts on a more local scale. To try to define which TDM element (media, employer outreach, rideshare database) generates particular leads (and hence, air quality benefits) upfront as justification for CMAQ funding is very difficult, if not impossible. The regional partners at U.S. DOT responsible for reviewing and approving CMAQ funding requests agree, and accept a regionwide TDM analysis with benefits quantified across all TDM projects as part of initial CMAQ funding requests. While TDM projects may be treated in a more qualitative and/or programmatic manner for CMAQ reporting purposes prior to programming of CMAQ funds, these same projects typically benefit from more rigorous ex-post evaluation. These types of post-evaluation procedures can be used to refine TDM planning efforts and future CMAQ funding requests. Metrics such as trip reduction, VMT reduction, reduction in travel delay and air pollutant emissions are often calculated. Responses to paid media and PR campaigns are often tracked and reported as well. Data is most often collected through outreach personnel, commute options service providers, and employers, and often supplemented through the use of surveys that are used to record placement of commuters in various programs and track participation over time, as well as trace placement leads to particular media or outreach outlets.3

2.3 EXISTING DRCOG TDM FUNDING ALLOCATION METHOD TDM activities in the Denver region are funded primarily by Federal CMAQ funds. In 2000, the Colorado Transportation Commission adopted a resolution (TC-807) to increase accountability for expenditures of state CMAQ funds. The resolution determined a suballocation of CMAQ funds to each nonattainment/ maintenance area in the State, and requires fund recipients to report annually to CDOT and the Commission on the effectiveness of CMAQ fund expenditures. CDOT allows each MPO to develop its own project evaluation and selection process for projects to be programmed with CMAQ funds, as part of regional transportation plan and program development. Over the last five fiscal years, the vast majority (approximately two-thirds) of state-apportioned CMAQ funds have been suballocated by CDOT to the DRCOG region.4 Allocating CMAQ funds for TDM activities within the Denver region is a two- step process: First, funds are allocated to various CMAQ program areas, such as

3 TDM Program Comparison Study: Program Comparison Research for Nine TDM Programs Across the Nation, February 2006, Prepared by Center for Transportation and the Environment. 4 Annual CDOT CMAQ Reports for Fiscal Years 2003-2007: http:// www.dot.state.co.us/CommuterChoice/CMAQ/CMAQ.htm.

2-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

transit, traffic signal coordination, and the RideArrangers program and the TDM Pool; and second, TDM Pool funds are allocated to specific projects. Allocation of CMAQ funds to RideArrangers and to the TDM Pool is largely directed by the Policy on Transportation Improvement Program Preparation (Preparation Policy), most recently adopted by the DRCOG Board of Directors on June 20, 2007, and amended December 19, 2007. The Preparation Policy establishes specific funding targets over discrete program types. This policy has been in place for the last several TIP update cycles, with minor modifications adopted over time. Through the most recently adopted Preparation Policy, specific levels of CMAQ funds are first allocated for the RideArrangers Program, the Transportation Demand Management Program, Traffic Signal System Improvement Program, and Regional Intelligent Transportation System Program, in addition to resub- mitted projects. The Preparation Policy also directs funds to support implementation of the region’s FasTracks program.5 Additional remaining CMAQ funds are also programmed for other CMAQ-eligible projects such as clean fuel programs or projects needed to reduce particulate matter emissions. DRCOG staff report that total CMAQ funding has been about $20 million annually on average. In FY 2009, DRCOG allocated about $20.7 million in Federal CMAQ funds of which approximately 14 percent was allocated to the regional TDM Pool and RideArrangers Program (Figure 2.1).6 Actual and recommended funding levels for each program remain relatively constant over the 2008-2011 period.

5 In November 2004, voters in the RTD service area endorsed a multi-billion dollar transit implementation program called FasTracks by approving a 4/10 cent sales tax increase. The FasTracks financial plan assumed a variety of funding sources beyond the regional sales tax, including federal funds (new starts, earmarks, and CMAQ funds) and local contributions. 6 DRCOG 2008–2013 TIP, http://www.drcog.org/index.cfm?page=TransportationImprovementProgram(TIP).

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-5 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Figure 2.1 FY 2009 Allocation of DRCOG CMAQ Funding Total Funding: $20,684,000

RideArrangers, $2,120,000, 8%

Regional TDM, $1,000,000, 4%

Other – AQ and Station Planning, Regional TrafficSignal, $9,014,000, 31% $3,900,000, 14%

Regional ITS, $1,250,000, 4%

FasTracks, Bike/Ped Pool, $5,012,000, 18% $5,934,000, 21%

Source: DRCOG 2008-2013 Transportation Improvement Program. Does not include local match funding. The Regional TDM Program Pool category noted in the TIP Preparation Policy is a grant program supported by a specific CMAQ funding pool established by DRCOG in the TIP to implement regional and subregional TDM efforts. Within the TDM Program category, DRCOG conducts a competitive evaluation process based on how projects score in relation to 12 evaluation criteria. Project sponsors first submit an on-line application providing detailed information to support scoring of the 12 criteria. Six of the criteria are quantitative and relate to the congestion reduction potential of the project, the cost-effectiveness, and support for MetroVision principles. The other six criteria are qualitative and address issues such as project readiness, timeliness, and the sponsor’s plan to track and monitor project effectiveness. DRCOG provides a detailed VMT and Trip Reduction Calculation Packet to assist project sponsors in estimating the project benefits that are to be submitted as part of the on-line application. The methodologies provided in the packet are consistent with those used by CDOT in its annual CMAQ report. Project sponsors are not required to use the equations and methodologies, but if not used, must provide detailed documentation on methodology and assumptions that were applied. DRCOG, in coordination with a TDM Pool Project Recommendation Panel, reviews projects for eligibility, validates information provided in the project submittal, and calculates total project scores across the 12 evaluation criteria. Seventy percent of Regional TDM Program CMAQ funds are then applied to the highest ranking projects based solely on score, with the remaining 30 percent applied more flexibly considering factors such as project score, regional equity, and timeliness. Project recommendations are then provided to

2-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

various DRCOG committees and its Board for action. DRCOG currently collabo- rates with six Transportation Management Associations (TMA), the Denver’s Regional Transportation District, the Regional Air Quality Council, and CDOT to implement the regional TDM Program. The RideArrangers Program also provides travel demand management services to the region, but is treated as a separate program category for CMAQ funding via the TIP Preparation Policy. Through this program, DRCOG administers the following: • Rideshare and Vanpool – The ridematching program serves the Denver area and offers matches for carpoolers and vanpoolers through a typical database program. It offers specialized matching for the SchoolPool program, a service that provides school-based ridesharing matches for parents who drive their children to school. • Telework – DRCOG works directly with employers who are interested in setting up a telework program for their employers. They assist with establishing polices, eligibility, and the technical side of the programs. • Guaranteed Ride Home – DRCOG administers the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program for employees who have used an alternative commute mode and have to leave work due to an unexpected event or illness. • Regional Events and Marketing – DRCOG organizes a number of regional events to promote alternative transportation options. These include Bike to Work Day and RideSmart Thursdays. DRCOG also partners with a local TV station that sponsors a “live green” program. The program provides information on the environmental and health benefits of TDM. • Regional Employer Services and Assistance – DRCOG provides services such as such as consultation and development of employee commute plans and programs, and tools for employers and TDM service providers such as survey instruments, business database information, maps and data on commute habits.

2.4 TDM ALLOCATION METHODS (PEER REGIONS) TDM funding and allocation methods were reviewed in six peer regions: • Atlanta, Georgia (Atlanta Regional Commission); • Phoenix, Arizona (Maricopa Association of Governments); • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission); • San Francisco, California (Metropolitan Transportation Commission); • Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas (North Central Texas Council of Governments); and • Washington, D.C. (National Capital Transportation Planning Board).

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-7 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Atlanta, Georgia The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) serves as the MPO for the Atlanta metro area, and is responsible for programming CMAQ funds in the region’s TIP, in consultation with Georgia State Air Quality Partners – the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD), Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). The ARC serves an 18-county region (20-county nonattainment area) with a population of approximately 3.5 million people. Similar to DRCOG, the ARC represents a key partner in planning for and implementation of regional TDM efforts, which are funded in large part by CMAQ. For almost a decade, TDM representatives in Atlanta involved with CMAQ- funded initiatives have collaborated in TDM planning and implementation activities through a “Framework” coalition. In a unique example of cooperation, 12 state, regional, and local Atlanta government and private sector organizations signed a pact in September 1999 to coordinate activities to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality in the Metro Atlanta region through travel demand management initiatives. Titled the Framework for Cooperation to Reduce Traffic Congestion and Improve Air Quality, the pact has one overarching goal: to improve the Atlanta region’s air quality and mobility through the coordinated programs of public and private organizations designed to change individual and employer behaviors.7 The original Framework agreement is provided as a separate attachment to this report. Over the last 10 years, there have been many changes in TDM service provider names, jurisdiction, and responsibility, but the concept and spirit of the overall Framework structure remains the same. The Framework document is currently being updated to reflect these changes, but is not provided with this memo since it is not yet finalized. For a copy of the draft contact the Georgia DOT directly. Participant organizations in the Framework include the Georgia DOT, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, the ARC, a network of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) and Employer Service Organizations (ESOs), and other regional umbrella TDM outreach organizations. The Framework partners have identified program areas that form the core of activities aimed at reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality. These areas include service to individual commuters, mass media communications and public relations, and employer services. The participating organizations agree that these activities should be coordinated and centrally managed to improve effectiveness and create resource efficiencies.

7 http://www.tdmframework.org/html/bg_framework.html.

2-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Key elements of the TDM Framework include: • RideSmart (ridematching software)/Guaranteed Ride Home; • The Clean Air Campaign (statewide); and • Eight formal TMAs that work directly with employers to promote Commute Options/TDM programs primarily in Community Improvement District (CID) areas. An illustrative diagram of the general TDM service provider relationships is provided in Figure 2.2.8 Each program noted in the diagram provides either direct or indirect support (or, in some cases, both direct and indirect support) for voluntary TDM measures within the Framework. In Atlanta, TDM partners have emphasized the need to understand the TDM structure and the relationship of the programs with various support elements that may not demonstrate a measurable result when isolated, but without which other programs and projects could not succeed. A key element of the Framework initiative is a comprehensive evaluation program, also funded by CMAQ. Since 1999, GDOT, in collaboration with regional TDM organizations, has worked with an independent evaluation team to assess the impact of CMAQ-funded TDM projects. Programs involved in the evaluation vary from year to year, but typically include the regional rideshare database program, targeted regional incentive programs, vanpool programs, discount transit pass programs, and large-scale advertising and public relations programs. The independent evaluation team regularly conducts surveys of program participants to provide GDOT with updates on the travel and emission benefits of CMAQ-funded programs. TDM organizations are also required to provide key performance measure data on a monthly or quarterly basis (e.g., ridematch applications submitted, transit passes sold, client partners). Regional surveys of residents and business leaders are conducted on a less frequent basis but provide important information in assessing awareness of and participation in TDM programs.9 Evaluation results are used to modify regional TDM efforts and funding allocation, as needed. In the Atlanta region, there is currently no predefined CMAQ scoring process used to program CMAQ funds for TDM or other CMAQ-eligible projects. CMAQ projects are screened for general eligibility and an emissions analysis is conducted by ARC staff to demonstrate air quality benefit for newly proposed projects. A project selection tool (matrix of project types and anticipated bene-

8 Adapted from ARC diagrams that have been submitted with TDM emissions analysis/ CMAQ funding requests to demonstrate the Framework interrelationships. 9 TDM Program Comparison Study: Program Comparison Research for Nine TDM Programs Across the Nation, February 2006, Prepared by Center for Transportation and the Environment.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-9 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

fits) has been developed to help in ranking projects as High, Medium, or Low based on anticipated emissions benefit and cost-effectiveness. This tool is included as separate attachment. Generally, only projects ranked as High are selected for funding. Consideration is also paid to geographic equity and support for larger regional planning goals. Emissions analyses are submitted, along with the project proposal, in a CMAQ report for all newly funded CMAQ projects as part of each TIP update.

2-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Figure 2.2 Relationship of TDM Projects and Roles in Atlanta

AR 730 Clean Air Campaign (Education and Outreach) Advertising and Public Relations

Lead for regional advertising and public relations about alternatives to single occupant vehicle travel in order to: • Educate the public on options; • Give the public reasons why they should change behavior; • Convince people to take individual actions e.g.,

“call 1-87-RIDEFIND”; Making Leads on Interested Employers • Soften the market and generate interest for employer services groups promoting TDM

AR 720 TDM Employer Services and Incentives Funding for groups promoting TDM Services to employers and providing financial incentives to promote alternative modes. Generates IndividualRidematch Applications Ridematch Registration Applications GRH EmployerGRH Management Regional GRH Program GRH Regional Self-Reported Information Service Funding and Grant Funding Ridmatching

Miscellaneous AR 740C TDM Regional Ridesharing Self-Reported Information Sources GDOT contracts for an independent agency to conduct research and measurement of TDM CMAQ projects. Hard Numbers from Database

AR 750 TDM Measurement and Needs Assessment to GDOT Annual Report Additional Data Collection Related to FrameworkRelated to Activities

Source: Adapted from information in Atlanta Regional Commission CMAQ funding requests.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-11 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Because of the complex structure of the TDM function, it is difficult to attribute individual air quality benefits to any specific TDM program or project as part of a CMAQ funding request. For example, if the Regional TDM Media Campaign were not providing advertising and public relations support to the regional ridematch program and employer services groups, each program would need its own funds to support its own media outreach. Another example is the RideSmart Database operated by ARC. Without a regional database, every organization would have to do its own matching which would mean duplication of software and degradation in the match rate – the odds of finding a match against 30,000 names is better than the odds against 500 names. Instead, an emissions analysis is developed over the entire regional TDM program as part of CMAQ funding application. VMT estimates for regional TDM programs are first provided by ARC’s TDM division for the previous five fiscal years (these VMT estimates are developed via the annual TDM evaluation effort described above). VMT estimates are extrapolated to the last year of the TIP and emissions estimates are generated assuming an average congested travel speed for the p.m. peak commute period for the 20-county regional highway network as produced by the ARC travel demand model.10 This aggregate emissions analysis is submitted with the CMAQ fund request for TDM services. CMAQ funding is then programmed in part via a lump sum line item in the ARC’s TIP to support ongoing TDM (and other CMAQ-related air quality) efforts, as well as individual line item programming for Employer Outreach Services and Ridesharing programs. Each year, the ARC, in consultation with state CMAQ partners, conducts a separate TDM call-for-projects to define specific fund levels for various TDM projects. Information requested as part of this project call is for work scope only (programmatic information), and does not include a request for specific (quantified) TDM program impacts or benefits.11 On average, the ARC receives approximately $47 million in CMAQ funds per year.12 Programmed funds for TDM fluctuate from year to year, but in general approximately 23 percent is allocated each year to support TDM activities. Table 2.1 shows the breakdown of funding for FY 2009 (funding levels for all

10 Emission factors are calculated using MOBILE6.2 and reflect passenger vehicle types only. 11 Note that more detail related to the yearly TDM call for projects and fund allocation method was requested from both ARC and GDOT, but no information was provided. 12 FY 2008-2013 TIP: http://www.atlantaregional.com/documents/tp_rtplist_090909.pdf; Appendix 3 2030 RTP Financial Summary: http://www.atlantaregional.com/ documents/tp_e6_vol1_rtp_2_7_08.pdf.

2-12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

programs except RideSmart include a 20 percent local match).13 Funded programs include: • Employer Service Organizations – Assistance to eight TMAs, as well as other activity center-based employer outreach organizations; • RideSmart – The region’s rideshare program (including Guaranteed Ride Home), which is operated and administered by the ARC TDM Division; • Clean Air Campaign – A nonprofit organization consisting of business and government groups, which conducts outreach, offers incentives, and provides public relations and advertising services; • Advertising and Public Relations (managed by the Clean Air Campaign); and • Measurement and Reporting, including regional surveys and evaluation.

Table 2.1 FY 2009 Funding Levels for Atlanta Regional TDM Programs

Program Funding Employer Service Organizations $4,300,000 RideSmarta $1,700,000 Clean Air Campaign $4,000,000 Advertising and Public Relations $2,600,000 Measurement and Reporting $880,000 Total $13,480,000

a100 percent CMAQ funding.

Phoenix, Arizona The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) serves as the MPO for the Phoenix metropolitan area, and is responsible for programming CMAQ funds in the region’s TIP. The MAG planning area is comprised of Maricopa County, Arizona, which contains approximately 3.7 million people. CMAQ projects include TDM projects as well as other regional air quality measures. The Phoenix region is unique in that Maricopa County is subject to a mandated Trip Reduction Program (TRP) for employers and schools in Maricopa County.14

13 Presentation by Chief of ARC’s TDM Division to ARC’s Transportation Coordinating Committee, Transportation Demand Management and Commute Options in the Atlanta Region, March 6, 2009. 14 In April 1985 the Center for Law and Public Interest filed suit against Maricopa County and the State of Arizona for failure to meet the Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide. The federal court ordered the State of Arizona to write a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to comply with the standards. In response, the Arizona Footnote continued

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-13 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Eligible schools and employers (50 or more employees and/or driving age students) are expected to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and/or miles traveled by 10 percent a year for the first five years of eligibility, and then 5 percent for three additional years or until a rate of 60 percent single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips is reached (i.e., a 60 percent SOV/40 percent non-SOV mode split is required for employers and schools). The TRP program is still in place in Maricopa County, with penalties for noncompliance.15 The TRP provides assistance to employers and schools with driving age students in developing and implementing travel reduction plans, disseminating information on air quality, promoting alternate modes, and increasing the effectiveness of selected travel reduction measures.16 Like many of the other regions reviewed as part of this effort, MAG is a key partner in implementing regional TDM efforts, in large part, to support meeting TRP requirements. The MAG operates the region’s ridesharing, vanpooling, and Guaranteed Ride Home program. On average, MAG receives approximately $54 million in CMAQ funds per year. Of this amount, approximately $2 million (4 percent) is programmed for TDM activities each year.17 This funding supports the Maricopa County Trip Reduction Program,18 the Regional Rideshare Program, Telework Outreach and Ozone Education, and State of Arizona Travel Reduction Program. The funding level established for TDM projects was based on existing levels when the long-range transportation plan was developed in 2003.19 Programming of CMAQ funds is determined primarily by each project’s expected emissions reduction benefit and cost-effectiveness. MAG staff calculate the estimated emissions reductions for proposed projects using the MAG Methodologies for Evaluating CMAQ Projects. This is a comprehensive manual that provides detailed documentation and supporting examples for calculating

Legislature passed the 1988 Air Quality Bill (ARS 49-581 et seq.) which mandated a Trip Reduction Program for employers and schools in Maricopa County. The original county ordinance affected employers and schools with 100 or more employees and/or driving-age students. There have since been two ordinance revisions which have reduced the required number of employees and/or students from 100 down to 50. 15 Confirmation of TRP program and requirements received via 9/2/09 email from Maricopa County Air Quality Department which administers TRP. 16 http://www.maricopa.gov/aq/divisions/trip_reduction/default.aspx. 17 CMAQ amounts from FY 2008-2012 TIP (Hwy) http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/ detail.cms?item=7490; FY 2008-2012 TIP (Transit) http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/ detail.cms?item=7491; confirmed by MAG staff March 2009. 18 MAG staff noted that in the past, an additional $948,575 in state funds was provided annually to support the regional Trip Reduction Program. 19 Information provided by MAG staff in March 2009.

2-14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

benefits of a wide variety of CMAQ-eligible projects. The CMAQ methodologies provide options for local input, while striving to keep the overall data requirements from being overly complex and burdensome. In general, agencies sub- mitting CMAQ projects may provide local data to replace default values in any of the methodologies, as long as there is supporting written documentation. The values to be substituted and the supporting documentation (e.g., traffic engi- neering modeling; city-specific survey data) must accompany the request for CMAQ funding.20 Project benefits and cost-effectiveness are estimated using these methodologies, and projects are ranked in order of cost-effectiveness based on the CMAQ amount requested. Each year, the Regional Public Transportation Authority conducts an annual TDM survey that provides a measure of the effectiveness of the programs as well as the penetration of the communications and promotional activities to major employers and the public. These surveys are administered through the employers and schools participating in the trip reduction program. They capture changes and trends in travel mode choice and are used to estimate reductions in VMT and air pollution.21 This information is then used to update to default parameters used to calculate benefits of associated TDM projects via the MAG Methodologies for Evaluating CMAQ Projects. Per MAG staff, the current system and process are working well.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) serves as the Philadelphia region’s MPO. DVRPC serves as a bistate MPO for nine counties in the Philadelphia-Camden-Trenton region in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, with a population of approximately 5.4 million people. While the Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) is the lead agency in managing the regional TDM program, the DVRPC administers the CMAQ programming and project selection process and also manages the Office of Commuter Services which supports commute options programs geared toward employers and their employees. The goal of Commuter Services is to improve air quality and increase mobility, while lessening traffic congestion through alternate modes of transportation. Specific initiatives include TransitChek, the region’s commuter voucher program, the Mobility Alternatives Program (MAP) which assists Southeastern Pennsylvania employers in establishing alternative commutes for employees, and Share-A-Ride which is the region’s ridematch program open to either commuters working or employers located in Southeastern Pennsylvania.22

20 http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/pdf/cms.resource/ August_2005_Draft_CMAQ_Methodology91559.pdf. 21 http://www.valleymetro.org/valley_metro/publications/tdm_research_reports/. 22 http://www.dvrpc.org/transportation/commuter.htm.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-15 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

CMAQ evaluation is managed by DVRPC’s Regional Transportation Committee (RTC) which forms a special CMAQ subcommittee to evaluate CMAQ applications that are submitted by a both public and public-private partnership groups. The subcommittee is comprised of county, state, and transit operator planners, and citizen representatives of environmental, biking, transit, and business interests. DVRPC first screens every application for completeness and basic eligibility. The subcommittee then applies an evaluation process which consists of a number of quantitative and qualitative criteria to include emissions reduction potential and cost-effectiveness, as well as other factors such as ease of implementation, extent of prior work, commitment of sponsor to provide matching funds, the level of matching funds, certainty of emission benefits, consistency with local, county, and regional plans, degree of innovation, and how well it complements other efforts in the region to improve air quality. The distribution of projects with regard to geographic location is also considered, as well as the desire to produce a balanced program of mixed project types. Quantification of emission benefit and cost-effectiveness is completed using software tools provided by PennDOT. Candidate projects are ranked based on their emissions reduction potential and other criteria listed above before recommendations are made to the DVRPC Board.23 DVRPC receives on average approximately $64 million in CMAQ funds each year, with approximately $4.0 million (6 percent) allocated to TDM each year.24 The majority of TDM funding is allocated to the region’s TMAs. PennDOT provides funding for each TMA through two funding mechanisms: 1) the TMA Assistance Grant and 2) the Mobility Alternative Program. The TMA Assistance Grant provides funding to support basic services and administration, as well as general TDM messaging. The Mobility Assistance Program is a program managed by the DVRPC with the TMA’s to conduct employer outreach. Under the Mobility Assistance Program, each TMA in the region has basically the same work program, and is eligible to receive the same level of funding regardless of the population served. This is a very modest amount of funding and is used primarily to run TMA offices, and for general program administration. There has been no significant discussion to increase the funding level, in light of recent funding and budget constraints impacting DVRPC’s TIP development. This is approximately the same fund level that has been in place for the last 15 years.25

23 http://www.dvrpc.org/transportation/capital/cmaq.htm; http://www.dvrpc.org/ transportation/capital/cmaq/pdf/dvrpc-cmaq-guide-2002.pdf. 24 NJ 2009-2012 TIP http://www.dvrpc.org/asp/TIPsearch/2009/NJ/list.asp; PA 2009- 2012 TIP http://www.dvrpc.org/asp/TIPsearch/2009/PA/list.asp. 25 Information provided by DVRPC staff on March 4, 2009.

2-16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

There has been no formalized evaluation of TDM efforts to date. The region has wanted to implement an evaluation process for some time, but has not been able to justify the cost in relation to the funding level for the TDM program itself.

San Francisco, California The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO for the San Francisco Bay Area in California, serving a nine-county area with a population of approximately seven million people. Just as with the other peer region MPOs, the MTC administers project selection and programming for CMAQ projects. For the most recent RTP update, the MTC has developed clear guidelines for allocation of CMAQ funds to specific funding “target areas.” These target areas mirror larger RTP investment areas that support improved system efficiency and include the following: Squeeze Better Mileage, a system operations focus for highways which includes management and operations strategies and the region’s 511 travel information system; Clean Air in Motion, which includes retro- fit and vehicle buy-back programs as well as Spare the Air marketing, outreach, and public education campaigns; Walk and Roll, to support bike and pedestrian improvements; Seamless Transit, a systems operations focus for transit; and Enhance Livable Communities, which supports enhanced transportation/land use planning and design.26 On average, MTC receives approximately $75 million in CMAQ funds per year. There is currently no specific TDM program area for CMAQ funding; rather, TDM-type projects are funded under the Squeeze Better Mileage and Clean Air in Motion programs, both of which are funded in part by CMAQ. Examples of Bay Area TDM projects funded with CMAQ include: • The Spare the Air Program supports regional outreach, marketing and public education about air quality issues and TDM services as part of the RTP Clean Air in Motion program. Spare the Air is managed by the local air district, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Spare the Air receives $1 million in CMAQ funds per year. • The region’s 511 Rideshare Program supports improved system operations as part of the Squeeze Better Mileage program. 511 Rideshare is part of a larger suite of free multimodal traveler information services provided through the 511 phone number and 511.org web site. 511 Rideshare provides instant carpool and vanpool referrals, bicycling information, park-and-ride information, rideshare incentives, etc.27 A ridematch database, similar to the other peer review areas surveyed, is a large part of this system. 511 Rideshare received

26 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Evaluation, MTC presentation, September 11, 2008. 27 http://www.mtc.ca.gov/services/511/index.htm.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-17 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

an average of $2.5 million in CMAQ funds each year for the four-year period from FY 2006 through FY 2009; future CMAQ funding is anticipated to be consistent with this funding level. A portion of 511 Rideshare CMAQ funds (approximately $70,000 per county per year) is passed through to each of five counties that support more localized employer outreach services. The $70,000 funding level is not enough to fund local programs, but helps support administrative functions. Services are coordinated between each county and the MTC to minimize any redundancy in services. The 511 Rideshare program is also funded in part by BAAQMD, through its Transportation Fund for Clean Air. MTC receives $1 million each year to support the rideshare program from this fund source, which serves as local match to Federal CMAQ funds.28 In the MTC region, the call for projects and evaluation methods vary by the program area and geographic area. There is no single unified project evaluation criteria. Evaluation methodologies are drawn from several key sources which include CARB Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiveness of Funding Air Quality Projects, May 2005; TRB Special Report 264, The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, Assessing 10 Years of Experience, 2002; and unique MTC calculation methods as defined in the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, 2006. Project evaluation is conducted by MTC as part of each TIP update. Of key interest here is the methodology to evaluate the Spare the Air Program and Regional Rideshare Program, both of which use the CARB calculation methodologies to develop emission reduction and cost-effectiveness estimates for Reactive Organic Gases, CO, NOx, CO2, PM10 and PM2.5. Note that the emission estimates/cost- effectiveness results are not treated as the sole criteria in the project selection process, due to lack of quality project-level activity data. Projects are instead selected, and funding levels are determined, largely based on discussions with the Air District about ongoing Federal/state initiatives in air quality that impact the region. Also, funding levels in most cases are based on pro rata needs identified in the region’s transportation plan based on needs analyses of the transit, road systems, etc.29 In the early 2000s, MTC staff conducted outreach to partner transportation agencies to educate them about the value of its 511 Rideshare program (as well as other MTC-managed projects that are funded with Federal CMAQ or STP funds). This was handled mostly through presentations on the project’s qualitative and quantitative value and benefits, including information about the methodology MTC uses to estimate the 511 Rideshare’s trip reduction and emissions benefits. Over time, this outreach to partner agencies has improved confidence in and the fund programming environment for 511 Rideshare (and MTC’s other projects). Recently, there have been questions about the effectiveness of the BAAQMD’s

28 CMAQ fund information provided by MTC staff on March 25, 2009. 29 Information provided by MTC staff on March 25, 2009.

2-18 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Spare the Air program, and MTC has agreed to a more focused evaluation of the program to support future fund requests.30

Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is the MPO serving the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, covering a 16 county region with a population of approximately 5.7 million people. The MPO administers the CMAQ programming process, and has project selection responsibility in the Dallas-Fort Worth ozone nonattainment portion of the metropolitan planning boundary (a subregion of the larger MPO planning area). CMAQ project evaluation and selection occurs periodically through various MPO-defined funding initiatives that support larger regional transportation and air quality objectives, and may not by linked directly to each TIP update cycle. Local governments and transportation agencies are invited to submit projects for consideration through these strategic programming initiatives, with selected projects amended into the TIP when necessary. Each proposed project must first meet stringent screening criteria before they will be evaluated for funding. Project evaluation criteria for the most recent CMAQ call for projects included: • Cost-effectiveness; • Air quality/energy conservation; • Local cost participation (fund (over)match); • Intermodal/multimodal/social mobility (mode occupancy); and • Congestion Management Strategy/Transportation Control Measure – project included in Congestion Management Program (CMP) or State Implementation Plan (SIP). Each evaluation criterion is weighted equally at 20 percent of a total 100 point score. Specific thresholds are applied within the cost-effectiveness, air quality and local cost participation evaluation criteria to determine point allocation. Point allocation for the other two criteria are determined based on a more simplified “yes/no” assessment of whether or not the project will lead to increased mode share or if it is included in the CMP or SIP.31 The MPO conducts all project-level analysis. On average, NCTCOG programs approximately $54 million in CMAQ funds each year. CMAQ funds are used almost entirely to support improved management and operation of roadway and transit systems via ITS, managed lanes, and

30 Information provided by MTC staff on March 25, 2009. 31 NCTCOG FY 2008-2011 TIP: http://www.nctcog.org/trans/tip/08_11TIP/ AmndedApril09/5_ChIII.pdf.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-19 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

HOV system support, as well as transit system expansion. Per NCTCOG staff, TDM programs currently being implemented in the Dallas-Fort Worth region include a regional employer trip reduction (ETR) program which includes employer outreach and support for creation of an on-line ridesharing system, a regional vanpool program, development of TMAs, and the construction of park- and-ride lots.32 If construction of park and ride lots is reflected in the TDM fund category then, on average, approximately 3.7 percent ($2 million) of CMAQ funds is expended on TDM projects each year per the most recent TIP. However, in order to provide a more relative comparison to the other peer regions that did not include major capital projects in the TDM category, park and ride construction has been removed from the comparative analysis. With this category of TDM projects removed, the latest TIP shows 0 percent of CMAQ funds programmed for TDM services in the region. Instead, the ETR and vanpool TDM programs are supported by Surface Transportation Planning-Metropolitan Mobility (STP-MM) funds at approximately $2 million per year, on average.33 Per NCTCOG staff, a funding distribution assessment was conducted prior to the most recent January 2005 CMAQ Call-for-Projects, also known as Partnership Program II/III. It was concluded that about 3 percent of CMAQ funds were programmed on TDM projects historically, and that this level of TDM programming would be continued. This is demonstrated in the current TIP, with approximately 3.7 percent allocated towards park and ride facilities, which are considered in the TDM category in this region. There is fairly extensive post-implementation evaluation of many of the TDM programs in the Dallas-Fort Worth region. NCTCOG receives monthly performance measures from regional transit agencies for the Regional Vanpool Program and Employer Trip Reduction Program. The performance measures highlight the number of participants in each program, emission reductions, employers and employees added/reduced, vehicle trips removed, etc. NCTCOG also collects alternative commute information via www.tryparkingit.com. Avail- able reports through the web site include employee/employer registrations, emissions reduced, caloric activity, logged rideshare history, and commute modes used. NCTCOG staff believe that sufficient funding is currently being allocated to TDM projects.34

32 NCTCOG staff response: March 24, 2004. 33 All TIP programming levels were derived from NCTCOG FY 2008-2011 TIP: http://www.nctcog.org/trans/tip/08_11TIP/AmndedApril09/9_ChVII.pdf. 34 Personal communication with NCTCOG staff March 2009.

2-20 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Washington, D.C. The National Capital Transportation Planning Board (TPB) is the MPO for the metropolitan Washington region which includes a portion of Maryland, Northern Virginia, and the District of Columbia, serving a population of approximately 5 million. The MPO is responsible for programming CMAQ funds in the TIP, and is a key partner in administering the regional TDM efforts through its Commuter Connections program.35 Commuter Connections consists of a core program of regional transportation demand management operational activities funded jointly by state and local jurisdictions, plus jurisdictional programs that are funded at the discretion of individual state funding agencies. State funding agencies include: District Department of Transportation, Maryland Department of Transportation, Virginia Department of Transportation, Maryland Transit Administration, and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. Additional Federal funds are provided via the CMAQ fund category, although it is not the primary fund source to support regional TDM efforts as with most of the other peer regions. The Commuter Connections service area is much larger than the Washington eight-hour ozone nonattainment area for workers eligible for the GRH program, and larger still for workers who can access the Commuter Connections ridematching services, with a total service area population of approximately 10 million. Hence, supplementary funding, in addition to CMAQ, is needed to maintain larger TDM efforts. Over the last few years, the region has worked to streamline and clarify its regional TDM funding program, administration, and oversight responsibilities. A Strategic Plan36 was adopted in November 2007 that serves as a framework regarding the roles and responsibilities of the Commuter Connections stakeholders. The Strategic Plan includes a mission statement, definition of Commuter Connections, overall program and operating objectives, roles and responsibilities for each program area (“network responsibilities”) that include objectives and acceptable performance levels, a committee structure, sample meeting calendar, and internal and external report deliverables. A State TDM Work Group was also created and meets monthly to provide oversight to TDM efforts. Group members include representatives of the state transportation funding agencies in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia to provide oversight to TDM efforts. This group is supported by a number of strategic sub- committees representing core elements of the TDM program. The Commuter Connections program structure is shown in Figure 2.3.

35 Detailed information on Commuter Connections and FY 2010 Work Program referenced in this section is provided for in MWCOG FY 2010 Commuter Connections Work Program, March 18, 2009. http://www.mwcog.org/commuter2/pdf/ FY2010%20CCWP%20FINAL%20031809.pdf. 36 The Strategic Plan can be accessed via: http://www.mwcog.org/commuter2/pdf/ Final%20Strategic%20Plan%20110707.pdf.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-21 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Figure 2.3 Commuter Connections Structure

Transportation Planning Board

State TDM Work Group TPB Technical Administrative and Committee Programmatic Oversight

Commuter Connections Travel Subcommittee Technical Management Review of Regional TDM Subcommittee Programs

Travel Bike to Work Steering TDM Evaluation Group Regional TDM Marketing Forecasting Committee Direction and Review of Group Coordination of Subcommittee Organizes Bike to Regional TDM Evaluation Regional Advertising and Work Day Methodology Marketing Campaigns

Commuter Connections Employer Outreach Aviation Ridematching Committee Committee Input and Technical Technical Review of TDM Review of D.C. and MD Subcommittee Ridematching Software Employer Outreach Efforts System

Source: MWCOG, FY 2010 Commuter Connections Work Program, March 18, 2009. The TPB was suballocated approximately $69 million in CMAQ funds over the course of the entire six-year TIP period.37 An average annual amount is not calculated for the TPB region, per TBP staff direction. The distribution of CMAQ funds in the TIP is extremely front-loaded, and calculating an average annual estimate would not give an accurate picture of this region’s fund allocation process. FY 2010 programs $43.16 million (in line with what other peer regions typically program on average in one year), while 2011 only has $16.34 million. 2012 and 2013 combined only total $7.29 million and 2014-2015 only $2.56 million. The TPB updates the TIP on an annual basis, and this programming curve stays in place with agencies mostly focused on the year in front of them. Some of the funding agencies commit to the programs on an annual basis and are

37 Metropolitan Washington Region Financial Summary, Table F-13, FY 2010-2015 TIP: http://www.mwcog.org/clrp/projects/tip/fy1015tip/FY_2010-2015_TIP.pdf.

2-22 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

reluctant to commit to future funding beyond what they have committed to for the upcoming year.38 The TPB programs approximately $8 million in CMAQ funds on average, each year, of which approximately $1.2 million (15 percent) supports regional TDM efforts. Commuter Connections funding in FY 2010 is about $5.2 million, mostly from non-CMAQ sources (state and local funds). The State TDM Work Group defines the Commuter Connections program content and budget for each fiscal year and develops a detailed annual work program in collaboration with MWCOG/TPB staff. Per TPB staff, funding levels are determined by “political back and forth.” TDM activities funded and evaluated through the Commuter Connections FY 2010 program include (see Table 2.2 for funding levels): • A telework outreach/assistance program (Maryland Telework); • A Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program; • An employer outreach program to encourage large, private-sector and nonprofit employers voluntarily to implement commuter assistance strategies; • A mass marketing campaign to inform the region’s commuters of services available from Commuter Connections; and • A Commuter Operations Center that provides services including carpool and vanpool matchlists, transit route and schedule information, information on park-and-ride lot locations and HOV lanes, telework information, commute program assistance for employers, GRH, and bicycling and walking information.

Table 2.2 FY 2010 Funding Levels for Metro Washington TDM Programs

Program MWCOG Funding Commuter Operations Center $419,032 Guaranteed Ride Home $584,443 Marketing $2,520,933 Employer Outreach $794,695 MD Telework $81,063 Monitoring and Evaluation $800,000 Total $5,200,166

Source: MWCOG, FY 2010 Commuter Connections Work Program, March 18, 2009. Note: FY 2008 numbers were provided in the previous version of this memo. Funding levels between the two fiscal years by program area vary slightly.

38 TPB staff response September 16, 2009.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-23 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

About two dozen local jurisdictions, TMAs, Federal agencies, and major employers deliver services to their members through the Commuter Connections program. Many of these service providers also receive separate grants through Maryland and Virginia state transportation agencies. For the employer outreach program, COG’s Commuter Connections staff provides overall administration and arranges for sales training and support as well as technical training on the regional sales contact management database. Ten local jurisdictions provide outreach to employers and work with employers to develop and implement new or expand existing employer-based alternative commute programs. The evaluation approach used in the Washington, D.C. region to assess the impact of the TDM efforts implemented by Commuter Connections has become recognized as among the most comprehensive and rigorous in the nation.39 The approach has been used as a model for other areas, including Atlanta, Los Angeles, and New Jersey. Activities supporting evaluation include: • A regional State of the Commute survey conducted every two to three years, which includes a random sample of households in the region; • Surveys of employers assisted with telework programs, GRH program regis- trants, employers/employees participating in voluntary commuter choice programs, and bike-to-work day participants; • Information on employer-offered TDM services, obtained from local employer outreach sales representatives; • Other information on program participation (e.g., information kiosk usage, alternative mode placements); and • Use of the EPA’s COMMUTER model to translate program information into estimated travel impacts. The regional State of the Commute survey is particularly critical for obtaining local parameters for other data that are not easy to collect at a program level, such as recall and response to mass marketing campaigns, teleworking parameters, and frequency of alternative mode use. The overall evaluation includes adjustments to account for double-counting of overlapping programs. Perfor- mance measures include reductions in vehicle-trips, VMT, and emissions (NOx, VOC, CO2).

39 LDA Consulting et al for MWCOG. Transportation Emission Reduction Analysis Report, FY 2006–2008, January 2009. http://www.mwcog.org/commuter2/aboutus/ publications.htm.

2-24 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

2.5 TDM FUND DISTRIBUTION – COMPARATIVE TABLE As part of the peer region review, a comparative analysis table has been developed to show the relative levels of CMAQ funding expenditures towards TDM programs and projects. Table 2.3 focuses on CMAQ funding allocation as this is the primary fund source in most of the peer regions reviewed, and is the current primary funding mechanism in the Denver region. Where other funding sources exist they are noted in the table.

Table 2.3 Comparative Analysis Table CMAQ/TDM Funding Levels

Average Annual TDM Average Average Fund Distribution by TDM Annual Annual CMAQ Program Type MPO CMAQ to TDM (Percent of TDM-CMAQ Other TDM Region Funds (Percent) Funds) Fund Sources Notes Denver $20M $2.6M (13%) TDM Pool – FTA funds for $1.0M (32%) vanpool and GRH RideArrangers Program – $2.1M (68%) Atlanta $47M $11M (23%) Employer Outreach – Fund levels by TDM Program $3.4M (31%) Type for this table reflect breakdown for FY 2009 (from RideSmart – Table 1), with local match $1.7M (15%) excluded. Could not average Marketing/Media – over entire TIP due to lump $5.3M (48%) sum programming that supports ongoing TDM efforts Evaluation – and blurs line-item fund $704,000 (6%) levels for each FY. Phoenix $54M $2.0M (4%) Regional Rideshare – In past, $819,400 (40%) additional $948,575 in Regional TRP – state funds $910,000 (45%) was provided Outreach and Education – annually to $312,000 (15%) support the regional TRP Philadelphia $64M $4.0M (6%) TransitChek/Mass MAP also support TMA Marketing – services. $200,000 (5%) Ozone Action/Public Education – $160,000 (4%) TMA Support – $3.0M (75%) MAP/Share a Ride (regional rideshare program) – $654,000 (16%)

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-25 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Average Annual TDM Average Average Fund Distribution by TDM Annual Annual CMAQ Program Type MPO CMAQ to TDM (Percent of TDM-CMAQ Other TDM Region Funds (Percent) Funds) Fund Sources Notes San $75M $3.5M (5%) Spare the Air (outreach, $1M each year No formal TDM program in Francisco marketing, education) – from BAAQMD place. TDM-type projects $1M (28%) to support 511 funded via larger RTP Rideshare. investment areas – Squeeze 511 Rideshare – $2.2M Better Mileage and Clear the (reflects $350K pass- Air. through for ESO) (62%) ESO – $350,000 (Rideshare pass-through funding) (10%) Dallas $54M $2M P&R Lots – $2M $2M each year on average (3.7%)/$0M programmed for P&R Lot with P&R Lots Employer Trip Reduction construction, which NCTCOG excluded (0% (employer outreach, considers in TDM category. with P&R Lots ridesharing) – $625,000 This is unlike other peer excluded) (0% CMAQ, funded with regions and should be STP) excluded for comparative Vanpool – $1.7M (0% analysis. CMAQ, funded with STP) Washington, $43M $1.2M (3%) Commuter Operations Majority of All numbers for Washington D.C. Center – $419,000 (8%) TDM funding reflect FY 2010 programming from state and (local match excluded), not Guaranteed Ride Home – local sources. average annual estimates, $580,000 (11%) per TPB staff direction. Marketing – $2,521,000 (48%) MD Telework – $81,000 (2%) Monitoring and Evaluation – $800,000 (15%)

Funding allocation information was collected for each peer region for the most recent TIP. Because programmed funding levels can vary from year to year within each TIP, and because each MPO area may have a different TIP period (anywhere between four and six years), all numbers presented are average annual estimates. For each peer region, a detailed TIP review of CMAQ (and other applicable) TDM funding was conducted. This information was supplemented with direct MPO staff feedback on current TDM funding allocation levels, where possible. Although significant effort was taken to ensure apples-to-apples comparison between TIP numbers (e.g., all numbers in the table exclude local match, TDM projects were grouped into categories similar to current TDM efforts in DRCOG region – ridesharing, employer outreach, etc.), all numbers presented in this table should be considered approximate amounts. The peer region comparison does not provide any summary of the overall effectiveness of each region’s funding allocation method for TDM efforts, or the level

2-26 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

of sustainability of the current funding processes (e.g., there is no assessment of whether or not a particular funding level or mechanism is improving regional TDM services or facilitating transition of TDM programs from Federal CMAQ funding support to more self-sustaining local funding methods). The level of effectiveness of various funding streams to support TDM should be reviewed by DRCOG/CDOT as part of the region’s overall reassessment of funding levels and allocation methods for future TIP and long-range plan updates.

2.6 SUMMARY OF PEER REGION REVIEW Following are some findings that emerge from this review of peer region practices: • Denver allocates a relatively large proportion of its CMAQ funds to TDM compared to most regions (except for Atlanta). However, it is difficult to compare overall TDM program funding levels since some regions fund TDM through other sources (such as local sources), and air quality programs are funded and reported differently, and may or may not contain TDM elements. • Most regions fund regional rideshare and/or vanpooling programs, with varying funding levels. Only one of the peer regions funded a telework program. Regional marketing activities were funded at highly varying levels and are also incorporated in different ways within the categories for each agency. • Two peer regions – Atlanta and Philadelphia – allocate significantly more regional CMAQ funding for employer outreach (at least $3 million annually) than does the Denver region, although other regions allocated less. • Some regions, such as Atlanta and Washington, have established agreements describing the relationships and division of responsibilities among the various regional and local service providers. • Atlanta and Washington also set-aside a percentage of their regional TDM funds for evaluation activities. In terms of outcome evaluations in particular (e.g., VMT, emissions reduced, and cost-effectiveness) their evaluation activities focus on the set of regional TDM programs as a whole, rather than individual projects.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-27

Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

3.0 TDM Project Evaluation Methods in the Denver Region

3.1 INTRODUCTION Consultant team members from Sprinkle Consulting conducted in-person interviews with 13 TDM service providers and other agencies receiving regional TDM and air quality funding in late February 2009. The interviews included questions about how providers evaluate projects that are already underway or completed, as well as how they estimate the predicted benefits of new projects that are being proposed for funding. Questions focused on measures of effectiveness, data sources (including type, ease of use, and reliability), technical tools used, time/ resources expended on evaluation, and additional resources that would be helpful. Service providers also offered general feedback on the TDM program and funding allocation process. Responses are summarized below by topic/theme, along with the number of respondents noting each particular issue. The review presented in this memo also contains an overview of TDM evaluation methods used by the service providers in their applications for TDM Program funds.

3.2 METHODS USED FOR PROJECTING COST- EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECTS APPLYING FOR FUNDING The CS team conducted a review of cost-effectiveness estimation methods used by project sponsors in support of their project application for the FY 2008-2009 cycle. The reported cost-effectiveness of these projects is summarized in Section 4.0. Most projects used the CMAQ Reporter tool, or formulas based on this tool, to estimate the benefits of their project. In a few cases, the CMAQ Reporter formulas may not have been appropriate to a particular project and customized methods and assumptions needed to be made. The CMAQ Reporter tool, developed by CDOT in the 1990s, is essentially a set of formulas that are used to convert assumptions about usage/impact of a project or program (e.g., vanpool or carpool participants, number of bicyclists, number of people reached through outreach) into estimates of VMT and emissions reduced. The strength of the tool is that it provides a consistent set of equations along with common default assumptions regarding factors such as trip lengths, vehicle occupancy, emission

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-1 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

factors, etc. Users are still required to enter certain key inputs regarding project/ program impacts, which they must determine from surveys, surrogate data from other programs/regions, or professional judgment. (They also may choose to adjust default assumptions if better local data are available.) These user-input impact assumptions are generally critical to the estimation of overall benefits and cost-effectiveness. For projects that are new, the assumptions will be highly uncertain since there is no information from which to observe impacts. For projects that already have been undertaken, data may be available on participation and other key factors (e.g., prior mode share for transit riders) but the methods for obtaining these data need to be carefully scrutinized for reliability and potential bias. Project sponsors generally made their own assumptions based on previous program experience or data from other areas; these were reviewed and sometimes adjusted by DRCOG staff in the development of the final funding application. In some cases, assumptions for similar parameters for similar types of projects were not completely consistent across projects with different sponsors (e.g., employer or employee response to outreach or incentives). Appendix A includes recommendations for the CMAQ Reporter, which were originally reported in Technical Memorandum 1 of Element 3. The TDM service provider evaluation training materials provided as part of Element 3 also contain some evaluation data from projects in other regions, or national evaluations, that may be useful for developing default parameters.

3.3 METHODS USED FOR POST-PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION Only a subset of funded projects has conducted post-project evaluation of VMT reduction and cost-effectiveness, using varying methods specific to the type of project. DRCOG regularly evaluates its RideArrangers program, including ridesharing, telework, and vanpool components separately as well as all components combined, based on program participation information (e.g., ridesharing registrations, vanpool users). For FY 2006 and 2007 funded projects, the Boulder East Transportation Management Organization (TMO) evaluated three services – a bikepool program (based on on-line reservations), an EcoPass distribution program (based on observed new employer participation and EcoPass mode share data taken from other projects), and EcoPass use assistance (based on before/after surveys of the affected population). The U.S. 36 TMO also reported VMT reductions for TDM services, but did not provide information in its annual report on the source of these estimates. The Regional Transit District (RTD) evaluated an individualized marketing program based on participant surveys.

3-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

3.4 INTERVIEW FINDINGS

Evaluation Methods A number of respondents felt that there was a need for better estimates of project-level impacts and quality control of how impacts are calculated, especially for information providing input to project selection and funding allocation. Specific issues noted included: • Need better estimates/more accountability for data/better validation, QA- QC process (6); • Estimates too optimistic; too easy to tweak system (4); • Should base funding on past performance/accuracy of estimates to provide incentive for better evaluation (3); • Conduct independent consultant evaluations for all projects (2); conduct long-term evaluation (1); • Need transparency in methods (1); and • Do not avoid programs just because difficult to evaluate, e.g., marketing (1).

Survey Challenges Many of the service providers conduct surveys of various sorts to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs. While some respondents felt reasonably comfortable with their survey approaches, a few noted some problems/challenges, including: • Biased response (1); • Cumbersome/long surveys – low response rates (1); • Dishonest responses due to incentives (e.g., reward for participation) (1); and • “Squishy”/subjective (1).

Limitations of Existing Evaluation Tools A number of respondents used the CDOT CMAQ reporter, and/or DRCOG formulas based on the reporter, to quantify benefits. While some felt these tools were adequate, others commented on them: • DRCOG tool is a “black box” (1); • DRCOG formula for marketing programs is questionable (1); • CMAQ reporter not designed for prediction (1); and • CMAQ reporter has vague questions, provides no response/feedback (1).

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-3 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Data Issues A few respondents also noted other data issues or limitations that inhibited the development of reliable benefits estimates: – Need for good VMT reduction surrogates, especially for innovative/ nontraditional programs (2); but question transferability of these surrogates (2); and • Question project lifetime assumptions (1).

Inter-Agency Relationships and Program Balance Beyond data and evaluation issues, a number of respondents made comments that pointed to tensions in inter-agency relationships and disagreement over the balance of funding provided through the program. Comments included: • General problems with DRCOG-TMA relationships and program coordination (2); • TDM marginalized by DRCOG/needs more dollars/DRCOG takes off too much (4); • (Conversely) TMAs too reliant on regional TDM pool, and DRCOG programs important to TMAs (2); • Regional agencies “double-count” benefits in TMA service areas/TMAs get inadequate credit (2); • Bike/ped projects get short shrift (1); and • Problems with contracting/timing (CDOT-DRCOG-TMAs) (5).

Project Selection Process Finally, some respondents noted some concerns about how the project selection process is structured and conducted. Issues included: • Biased selection committee/vested interests (3); • Biased towards smaller programs – not necessarily most effective/cost- effective (3); and • Need to broaden focus to include different/more metrics, not just VMT reduction – trip reduction (1), air quality/emissions (2), CO2 (1), bike-miles traveled (1).

3-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

3.5 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the review of evaluation methods, the following recommendations are made to assist in achieving consistent and reliable estimates across projects for selection and evaluation purposes: • Train TDM service provider staff on survey and other data collection methods. CDOT has already taken steps on this by hosting an evaluation training workshop for TDM service providers in May 2009; the resources for this workshop can be made available to new staff as needed. Even with training it will continue to be important for CDOT and DRCOG to provide technical support. • Establish a database of post-project evaluation results to assist future project sponsors, CDOT, and DRCOG in determining reasonable parameters. For example, for employer outreach programs, it would be helpful to establish a database comparing actual employer recruitment to targets set by the project sponsor. Similarly, for incentive-based programs, it would be helpful to document the number of people actually taking advantage of the incentives in comparison to the overall target population. This database should also include qualitative information from the project sponsor about why a project was or was not as effective as was expected, and what lessons were learned. Project sponsors should be required or encouraged to add information to this database as part of post-project reporting. • Providing specific guidance on appropriate sources of surrogate data or other estimation methods (e.g., modeling tools) when local data are unavail- able. This should include providing additional standard or “default” parameters on items such as employer and employee response to outreach and incentive-based efforts. Standardization will avoid arbitrary differences in project cost-effectiveness projections based on inconsistent assumptions made by different project sponsors. At the same time, project sponsors should be allowed to substitute nonstandard parameter values if a compel- ling argument can be made for their use (e.g., previous local experience). The following specific recommendations are made about standardization of parameters: – For marketing/outreach and financial incentive programs targeted at worksites/commuters, consider utilizing a standard mode shift value based on the literature, or at least a range of mode shifts where the project sponsor needs to justify values higher or lower than a standard value based on their own program and site context. The mode shift should be higher for programs where financial incentives are offered. For financial incentives with limited duration, a discount factor should be applied to account for attrition over time. Expected mode shifts might also be higher based on factors such as employment density in the subarea and level of transit service (rail versus bus, number of routes, frequencies, etc.).

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-5 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

– Request that when project sponsors make a target or goal-based estimate (e.g., number of new transit riders or incentive program participants), that they express this estimate as a percentage of the target population they expect to reach via the outreach program (workers, residents, etc.) so that comparisons can be made with mode shift ranges per above. – Decide whether any nonwork mode shifting should be assumed for worksite-based outreach programs, and if so, what percent of nonwork trips might be shifted within the target worker populations. This issue appeared to be treated inconsistently among applications. • Providing high-quality, objective quality control of estimates by a know- ledgeable, unbiased reviewer. DRCOG already performs such a function and this oversight should continue. • Implement other specific recommendations for improving the CMAQ Reporter, as provided in Element 3 Technical Memorandum 1 (Appendix A). • In addition to requesting post-project reporting from project sponsors, set aside a given percentage of TDM pool funds (e.g., 5 to 10 percent) to fund more rigorous, independent evaluations of selected projects. These evaluations would focus especially on new/innovative projects for which little information is available, either from the Denver region or elsewhere, to estimate likely effectiveness. The evaluation information would be used to help determine whether similar projects should continue to be funded through the TDM pool and/or other sources in the future.

3-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

4.0 Cost-Effectiveness of TDM Projects

This section addresses the work task specified in Element 4 to “conduct a benefit/cost analysis of a variety of types of TDM strategies and programs currently being utilized in the Denver region.” Overall, while the project team provided a critique of the cost-effectiveness estimation methods as described in Section 4.0, we did not feel comfortable revising these numbers to develop different cost-effectiveness estimates or conducting a “benefit/cost analysis.” Doing so would require a detailed evaluation of each project, including in many cases, collection of additional data which is beyond the scope of the current project. Instead, in this section we compare cost-effectiveness estimates reported in the Denver region to a range of cost-effectiveness estimates for TDM programs from other locations and as reported in the literature. This will help TDM service providers and decision-makers in the Denver region assess how well their projects perform compared to similar projects in other areas. It will also provide an indi- cation of how cost-effectiveness may vary depending upon the type of TDM project (e.g., employer outreach, marketing, rideshare, bicycle/pedestrian).

4.1 RANGE OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS REPORTED FOR DENVER REGION PROJECTS Figure 4.1 illustrates the range of cost-effectiveness as self-predicted in project applications for those projects funded by DRCOG in FY 2008-2009. These estimates are as prepared by the project sponsor with adjustments by DRCOG staff. They are generally based on assumptions about key impacts (e.g., mode shift, new transit riders, participation rates), which may be based on evidence from other studies or the literature, or simply on targets established by the project sponsor. In most cases, the estimates appear to be optimistic – representing the potential impacts of the program if it is carried out effectively and if conditions within the target population are favorable. For example, most estimates of employer-based outreach and incentive programs assume a mode shift of 10 to 20 percent in the affected worker population, which the literature has demonstrated may be achieved under favorable conditions with the provision of financial incentives for alternative mode use.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-1 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Figure 4.1 Projected Cost-Effectiveness for FY 2008-2009 DRCOG-Funded TDM Pool Projects

TDM Project Type

Marketing and Incentives (Worksite) Max Points = $0.01/mi Min Points = $0.25/mi

Marketing and Incentives (Worksite)

Transit Service with Incentives

Marketing (Worksite)

Marketing, Incentives, and Vanpool (Worksite)

Marketing and Incentives (Business District)

Marketing, Incentives, and Vanpool (Worksite)

Marketing (Residential Population, Non-English)

Land Use, Nonmotorized, Transit Infrastructure

Marketing and Program Development (Worksite)

Marketing and Incentives (Worksite)

Marketing (School Trips)

Marketing and Incentives (Recreational Travel) $0.126

$0.00 $0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.04 $0.05 $0.06 $0.07 $0.08 $0.09 $0.10

The projects are identified by their primary elements, as well as their target population (e.g., worksite, residential). Primary project elements include: • Marketing/outreach – Informational materials, promotion through direct contact, etc., to employers, workers, residents, and/or another target population; • Incentive – Some sort of financial incentive (temporary transit subsidy, prize drawing, etc.); • Services – Transit or vanpool services; and • Infrastructure – Bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Most of the project applications provide estimates in the range of $0.01-$0.03 per VMT reduced. In comparison, DRCOG’s selection process awards a maximum number of points for projects with a cost-effectiveness of $0.01 or less, and a minimum of $0.25 or more. Therefore, most funded projects seem to cluster around the most cost-effective end of the range. A review of the specific assumptions embedded in these application estimates suggests that there is significant uncertainty associated with almost all of the estimates – probably greater that the difference among most of the project estimates. Therefore, we suggest that relatively small differences in projected cost-effectiveness (differing by a factor of, say, two to three) are not a good basis for identifying the most worth-

4-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

while projects to fund. Instead, when making choices among projects with similar cost-effectiveness it may be better to give primary weight to other, more subjective factors such as the quality of the outreach program proposed, extent to which project supports the regional TDM strategy, etc. Figure 4.2, for comparison, presents cost-effectiveness estimates from post- project evaluations performed on projects in the Denver region. These estimates are generally based on surveys or other observed data from which actual mode shifts and other key parameters can be identified. The number of projects for which post-project evaluation data could be obtained is limited. However, even with this limited dataset it can be observed that measured cost-effectiveness is in most cases much lower than projected cost-effectiveness based on pre-project applications. This suggests that most pre-project estimates are indeed likely to be optimistic. The very wide range of post-project values also suggests that actual cost-effectiveness will depend very strongly on the characteristics of a specific project, and that it is important to monitor projects as they proceed for indi- cators of effectiveness. Post-project evaluation results can also help inform the selection of future projects by suggesting which types of projects may or may not be cost-effective.

Figure 4.2 Cost-Effectiveness Estimated from Denver Region TDM Post- Project Evaluations (Pool Projects and RideArrangers)

TDM Project Type

Marketing and Incentives Max Points = $0.01/mi Min Points = $0.25/mi (Worksite/Employer-Focused)

Regional Ridematching and TDM Services

Regional Telework Assistance

Regional Vanpool

Marketing (Worksite)

Marketing and Incentives $0.29 (Worksite/Employee-Focused)

Individualized Marketing $1.17

Shared Bikes (Worksite) $6.02

$0.00 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-3 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

DRCOG also performed a comparison of pre-project with post-project evaluation results for seven FY 2007-2008 projects that had conducted post-project evaluation studies. On average, the seven projects were only one-fifth as cost-effective ($0.12 per mile) as predicted in advance of the project ($0.02 per mile).40

4.2 RANGE OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS REPORTED FROM ELSEWHERE The cost-effectiveness estimates for TDM projects can be compared to estimates from other sources, including: • Evaluations of the Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) conducted in 2002 and 2008; • An evaluation study of the Metro Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Commuter Connections Program; and • Other data cited in the literature.

CMAQ Evaluations In 2002, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) published an evaluation of the CMAQ program.41 The study included cost-effectiveness estimates for a variety of project types (measured in dollars per ton of VOC and NOx reduced), based on empirical and modeling data on individual projects from the literature. (Self- reported CMAQ project emissions estimates from the CMAQ database were not used because of concerns regarding the quality of data and consistency of assumptions used by project sponsors in developing these estimates.) For comparison purposes for this memorandum, the cost-effectiveness ranges were converted into dollars per VMT using emission factors which were applied in the TRB report to achieve consistency among project estimates.42 The study found that cost-effectiveness varied widely on a project-by-project basis, as well as by project type. Therefore, it is difficult to draw blanket conclusions about the effectiveness of any particular type of project. The median cost-effectiveness estimates reported for TDM projects are shown in Figure 4.3, with the range of results shown in Table 4.1. Regional ridesharing, vanpooling, employer TDM, and other TDM projects (the first four categories) fall in the range of $0.01 to $0.05 per VMT reduced. Transit and nonmotorized services and capital investments tend to be somewhat less cost-effective, falling

40 Source: DRCOG analysis, November 17, 2009. 41 Transportation Research Board (2002). The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 42 Year 1-5 emission factors were used, as shown on TRB (2002), p. 293.

4-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

in the range of $0.05 to $0.20 per VMT reduced. Telecommuting programs were the least cost-effective, with a median cost of $0.32 per VMT reduced. A 2008 evaluation study for the Federal Highway Administration also looked a the cost-effectiveness of CMAQ projects.43 This study reviewed a sample of individual projects in some detail. Again, the range of cost-effectiveness for TDM projects was found to be quite large – from $0.04 to $0.59 for regional ridesharing and vanpooling, and from $0.012 to $1.89 for new and enhanced transit service. While median values were not determined, the ranges tended to show higher values than the 2002 study. Bicycle and pedestrian projects showed very high results, from $0.76 to $8.39 per VMT reduced.

Figure 4.3 Median Cost-Effectiveness of CMAQ TDM-Funded Projects Nationwide 2002 Study (Dollars/VMT Reduced)

Regional Ridesharing

Vanpool Programs

Employer Trip Reduction Programs

Miscellaneous TDM

Telework $0.51

Bicycle/Pedestrian

New Bus Service

New Transit Systems/Vehicles

Service Upgrades/Amenities

Modal Subsidies and Vouchers

$0.00 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25

Source: Transportation Research Board (2002), ibid.

43 ICF International (2008). SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment: Phase I Final Report. Prepared for FHWA, FHWA-HEP-08-019. Cost per ton of VOC and NOx reduced was converted into cost per VMT using 2005 average national emission factors (the latest available) derived from EPA’s National Emissions Modeling System (NEMS) data. This introduces a source of uncertainty, as different emission factors were used for individual projects.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-5 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Table 4.1 Range of Cost-Effectiveness CMAQ of TDM-Funded Projects Nationwide 2002 and 2008 Evaluation Studies (Dollars/VMT Reduced)

2002 CMAQ Evaluation Report 2008 CMAQ Report Category Low Median High Low High TDM Regional Ridesharing $0.002 $0.009 $0.020 $0.104 $0.592 Vanpool Programs $0.007 $0.013 $0.112 $0.040 $0.201 Employer Trip Reduction Programs $0.007 $0.029 $0.221 Miscellaneous TDM $0.003 $0.016 $0.042 $0.020 $3.660 Telework $0.017 $0.316 $10.343 Bicycle/Pedestrian $0.005 $0.106 $0.434 $0.763 $8.391 Transit New Bus Service $0.015 $0.110 $2.481 $0.218 $1.835 New Transit Systems/Vehicles $0.011 $0.083 $0.592 Service Upgrades/Amenities $0.005 $0.031 $0.151 $0.012 $1.893 Modal Subsidies and Vouchers $0.001 $0.059 $0.592

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of data from Transportation Research Board (2002) and ICF (2008).

Washington, D.C. – Commuter Connections Program In 2008, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) published an evaluation of its regional Commuter Connections program. This evaluation is based on a survey of over 7,000 regional commuters and is perhaps the most comprehensive evaluation conducted of a regional TDM program. The evaluation attributes VMT reductions to specific program components, including a commuter operations center, guaranteed ride home program, regional mass marketing, telework outreach program, and information kiosks. Total program funding in FY 2008 was $5 million, and the program resulted in an estimated 638 million VMT annual reduced, for a net cost-effectiveness of $0.008 per VMT reduced.44 Cost-effectiveness varied by program element (Figure 4.4); the least cost-effective element was mass marketing (at $0.12 per VMT reduced), which also made up a significant portion ($2 million) of the program budget. The

44 These cost-effectiveness estimates were developed based on program funding levels reported in the MWCOG, FY 2008 Commuter Connections Work Program (March 2007), and effectiveness estimates for FY 2006-2008 as reported in the FY 2006-2008 TERM Evaluation Report (January 2009). It was assumed that annual funding levels remained constant over the three years of the evaluation period.

4-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Commute Operations Center ($645,000) and employer outreach ($1 million) elements were estimated to be in the range of $0.003 to $0.004 per VMT reduced. The estimates for individual program elements cannot be directly compared to the cost-effectiveness estimates for DRCOG’s RideArrangers program because the evaluation of the DRCOG program included marketing costs within each of the service elements, rather than separating them as did the MWCOG evaluation.

Figure 4.4 Cost-Effectiveness for MWCOG Commuter Connections Program Elements

Commuter Connections Program Total

MD/VA Telework

D.C. Kiosks

Commute Operations Center

Employer Outreach

Guaranteed Ride Home

Marketing $0.13

$0.00 $0.005 $0.010 $0.015 $0.020 $0.025

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of data from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ FY 2008 Commuter Connections Work Program (March 2007) and FY 2006-2008 TERM Evaluation Report (January 2009).

Other Estimates in Literature A few other cost-effectiveness estimates were developed from information found in the literature:

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-7 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

• A 1994 review of studies of regional ridesharing programs estimated a typical cost-effectiveness of $0.60 per vehicle round-trip avoided.45 At the commute average of 24 miles per trip and inflating to 2008 dollars, this translates into about $0.04 per VMT reduced. • Results of carpool program evaluations from the 1970s found a project cost of $47 per new carpooler captured, or $0.024 per vehicle-mile reduced over the project life, which is about $0.08 per mile in 2008 dollars.46 • Cambridge Systematics recently estimated the cost per VMT reduced for individualized marketing campaigns, based on program evaluation data from Portland and Seattle. Assuming a program cost of $15 per participant and a VMT reduction of 5 percent per participant (per program data), and 7,500 annual per-capita VMT (typical for urban neighborhoods), cost- effectiveness was estimated to be approximately $0.03 per VMT reduced. It might be possible in theory to develop cost-effectiveness estimates of regional TDM programs – or elements thereof – funded by other regional agencies such as the peer regions reviewed in Section 2.0. However, regions typically do not have either comprehensive benefits estimates similar to those developed by MWCOG, or benefits estimates broken out by program area in such a way that one-to-one comparison with program costs can be made. In addition, we had difficulty obtaining complete program cost information for a number of the peer agencies reviewed.

4.3 SUMMARY Some general findings can be drawn comparing cost-effectiveness for Denver projects compared to results from other programs: • The pre-project estimates for most of the TDM projects funded in the Denver region’s TDM Pool in FY 2008 and 2009 tend towards the more cost-effective end of the range of project results found in nationwide evaluations of the CMAQ program. However, these estimates are not directly comparable, as the nationwide CMAQ program estimates are based on empirical and mod- eled evaluation data, whereas the Denver project estimates are pre-project estimates. Post-project evaluation data suggests that a number of TDM Pool projects have not performed as well as predicted. The number of Denver- region projects with post-project data is limited enough though, and the

45 Apogee (1994). Costs and Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures (TCMS): A Review and Analysis of the Literature. Prepared for the National Association of Regional Councils. 46 Wagner, F.A. (1978). Evaluation of Carpool Demonstration Projects. Phase 1 Report. Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation by JHK & Associates, DOT-FH-11- 9269.

4-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

variability great enough, that it is difficult to make comparisons with the national data. • Evaluation of MWCOG’s Commuter Connections program found somewhat greater cost-effectiveness for this program as a whole, and for most individual elements (with the exception of marketing), than for most of the DRCOG- funded TDM activities. MWCOG’s program has been recognized as being one of the most cost-effective regional programs in the country, so it may provide a “benchmark” for good performance. However, because the programs contain different elements and are evaluated using different methods, the cost-effectiveness estimates for the two programs are not directly comparable. Regional differences may also help to explain differences in cost- effectiveness – for example, the much more extensive rapid transit options in the Washington, D.C. metro area, high levels of congestion, and limited highway network may help to explain strong TDM program performance in this region. • Although there are differences in evaluation methods, the magnitude of cost- effectiveness estimates for DRCOG’s RideArrangers program can be compared to other estimates for regional ridesharing programs. National evaluation studies from the 1970s and 1990s found cost-effectiveness estimates of $0.04 to $0.08 per VMT reduced, while the 2002 CMAQ report found a median cost-effectiveness of about $0.02 for regional rideshare and vanpool programs. MWCOG’s Commute Operations Center (which includes ridematching and vanpool support functions) and their Guaranteed Ride Home program are estimated at less than $0.01 per VMT reduced. DRCOG’s estimated cost-effectiveness, which ranges from $0.05 per VMT reduced for regional ridematching and TDM services to $0.12 per VMT reduced for its vanpool program (from its FY 2006-2007 program evaluation report, based on participation data) therefore falls somewhat towards the high end of these estimates, but nonetheless the average of $0.06 per VMT for all the RideArrangers programs falls within the range of values reported in the literature.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-9

Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

5.0 Recommendations for TDM Pool Project Scoring and Selection Process

Within the TDM Program Pool category, DRCOG conducts a competitive evaluation process based on how projects score in relation to 12 evaluation criteria. Six of the criteria are quantitative and relate to the congestion reduction potential of the project, the cost-effectiveness, and support for MetroVision principles. The other six criteria are qualitative and address issues such as project readiness, timeliness, and the sponsor’s plan to track and monitor project effectiveness. DRCOG, in coordination with a TDM Pool Project Recommendation Panel, reviews projects for eligibility, validates information provided in the project submittal, and calculates total project scores across the 12 evaluation criteria. Seventy percent of Regional TDM Program CMAQ funds are then applied to the highest ranking projects based solely on score, with the remaining 30 percent applied more flexibly considering factors such as project score, regional equity, and timeliness. There are many ways to evaluate and prioritize projects for funding, and there is no single “right way” that will ensure that the best mix of projects gets selected. However, we do suggest some potential changes to DRCOG’s TDM Pool project selection process. The objective of these recommendations is to assist DRCOG in selecting a set of cost-effective projects that also contribute to and are consistent with other regional transportation goals and objectives. General recommendations on the overall project scoring, ranking and selection process are provided below, followed by more specific comments as they relate to current evaluation criteria. An illustrative example for a revised selection process is also provided.

5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS The current project selection process strongly emphasizes the quantitative estimate of cost-effectiveness. However, as shown in Sections 3.0 and 4.0, the cost- effectiveness estimates are not always the most reliable way of distinguishing projects (especially when differences are relatively small, by a factor of two or three) given the inconsistencies and uncertainties that underlie these estimates. We suggest greater emphasis on other factors, including qualitative factors, that relate to the likelihood of selecting effective projects while supporting a consistent set of overall program priorities. Particular recommendations include: • Continue the requirement that project sponsors provide direct input/ quantification of key metrics as part of project evaluation, but with some of

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-1 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

the changes suggested in Section 3.5 to improve consistency. This allows sponsors to have a clear and vested role in the project evaluation process. Validation by DRCOG staff and the project review panel provides acceptable means of ensuring consistency and accuracy across all project submittals. • Simplify overall evaluation criteria and removing redundancies as outlined in Table 5.1. • Separate technical performance evaluation which is based on the project’s predicted impact, from TDM planning evaluation which is based on the project’s contribution to overall regional TDM planning goals. These would be treated as equal components in project selection. This allows more qualitative planning factors related to project synergies, partnership, etc., to be emphasized as part of project selection. These factors are often critical to TDM project and program success when administered within a larger TDM planning framework due to integrated planning and implementation efforts, but are difficult to quantify and as a result are often weighted less in overall project scoring processes. • Remove the 70/30 funding split. The current process is somewhat redundant in that multiple planning-type measures are incorporated into the actual project score subject to panel review and point allocation, while the overall CMAQ funding split provides 30 percent of available funds to be allocated based on planning partner negotiation which presumably takes into account many of the factors already addressed in the evaluation. Our example below suggests a process for considering qualitative factors equally for all projects.

• Consider adding emissions reduction (VOC, NOx, PM) as an evaluation criteria or replacing VMT/trip reduction with an emissions measure. This will provide a more focused assessment of each project’s contribution to air quality improvement.

Table 5.1 Current Evaluation Factors Used in Project Scoring and Ranking

Evaluation Factor (Weight) Comments VMT Reduction (18%) Consider combining with Trip Reduction measure (or replacing with emission reduction). Trip reduction leads to VMT reduction; direct correlation and, therefore, somewhat redundant measure (although reducing short trips can lead to disproportionate emission reductions). Trip Reduction (10%) See comment above. Cost-Effectiveness (25%) Recommend retaining as is. Overmatch (8%) Reconsider lower thresholds for point allocation. Base thresholds on reasonable expectations for overmatch. For example, current scale provides only 2 additional points for up to 10% additional funding (over required 20% match requirement) and 8 points for 50% or more overmatch. If it is not reasonable to expect a project sponsor to ever provide up to 50% match, than these points may be wasted.

5-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Evaluation Factor (Weight) Comments Congestion Level in Service Recommend retaining as is. This is an objective criterion that provides a Area (8%) measure of potential success by relating project to areas of greatest need. MetroVision TIP (6%) Recommend retaining as is. This provides a connection to larger transportation and land use investment decisions and planning process and indi- rectly shows how the project may support regional growth policies. Tracking and Evaluation (6%) Consider requiring more detailed information from the project sponsor for points to be assigned, e.g., require sponsor to provide cost for the evaluation component and document source and likelihood for securing evaluation funds (e.g., out of current funding request, future fund request, other source). Partnership (3%) Consider removing from 100-point project score and treating as part of stand-alone TDM planning factor evaluation. See example below. Timing/Synergy (3%) Readiness (3%) Innovation (6%) Other (4%) Consider dropping this so that points can be allocated to other, more objective measures. “Other” considerations are already addressed as part of the planning factor discussion/evaluation in both current and potentially revised process.

5.2 EXAMPLE FOR REVISED SCORING AND SELECTION PROCESS

Step 1 – Evaluate Project Based on Simplified Set of Quantifiable Performance Measures Measures relate to predicted project performance and impact on transportation plan and program. Proposed measures and weights are listed below. • VMT reduction and/or emissions – 40 percent; • Congestion level in service area – 15 percent; • Cost-effectiveness – 25 percent; • Overmatch – 10 percent; and • MetroVision TIP – 10 percent.

Step 2 – Evaluate Project in Context of Larger Regional TDM Planning Goals Evaluation will be more subjective and be based largely on individual panel member review of each project’s contribution to overall regional TDM program. Points are averaged over each panel member, as is currently the process. Proposed criteria and weights listed below.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-3 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

• Partnerships – 40 percent; • Timeliness/synergy – 20 percent. Note: consider refining definition to be clear about timeliness criteria; • Project readiness – 10 percent; • Innovation – 10 percent; and • Tracking and evaluation – 20 percent. (Twenty percent weight only if sponsor is asked for more detailed information on cost of tracking/evaluation component, where funds will come from, and how funds will be administered, i.e., more detailed plan for post-implementation evaluations.)

Step 3 – Select Projects Using 100-Point Performance Measure Score and 100-Point TDM Contribution Score as Key Determinants A “quadrant approach” is provided in Figure 5.1 as an illustrative example. • Tier 1 – Highest priority projects with high predicted performance and greatest contribution to regional TDM efforts; • Tier 2 – Medium priority projects with high predicted performance, but lower overall contribution to regional TDM efforts; • Tier 3 – Medium priority projects with lower predicted performance, but higher contribution to regional TDM efforts; and • Tier 4 – Lowest priority projects with low predicted performance, and low overall contribution to regional TDM efforts. Project selection would focus on those projects that fall within Tier 1, and Tiers 2 and 3 as funding permits. Scoring thresholds used to determine the quadrants would need to be discussed.

5-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Figure 5.1 Concept for Scoring Projects

Tier 3 Tier 1

TDM Threshold TDM

Tier 4 Tier 2 Score Threshold

Performance

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-5

Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

6.0 Funding Allocation Recommendations

6.1 OVERVIEW This section presents information that may be considered by the DRCOG Board when making decisions on the distribution of funds for TDM activities, programs, or projects. As noted in the peer region review (Section 2.0), allocation of CMAQ funding involves two key programming decisions: first, funding to support particular CMAQ program types (e.g., TDM, transit, bike/ped, traffic flow); and second, funding of particular projects within the program types (i.e., project selection). The same applies for funding decisions related to the TDM program itself, with programming decisions involving how much money to allocate to particular TDM project types (e.g., TMA/employer outreach services, vanpool/carpool, flex-car, outreach, marketing, rideshare support) and what specific projects to fund within these particular program areas. In most peer regions of the country, a quantitative process exists for estimating individual project benefits within particular program types primarily because CMAQ funding regulations require it. Allocation of funding levels to support TDM programs as a whole, though, is typically handled in a much more subjective and qualitative fashion. In fact, funding support for various TDM programs is typically based on historical funding levels, as opposed to a predefined, measured assessment of what funding levels are needed across multiple types of programs, to advance regional or statewide TDM planning goals. This section does not recommend specific funding levels to support TDM programs and projects in the Denver region. Rather, it suggests a process to define future program funding levels. It also does not recommend moving towards a process that is more heavily based on quantitative projections of cost- effectiveness. Such a direction would not be supported by the current quality of such estimates, which appear subject to considerable uncertainty. In addition, it is strongly recommended that specific funding levels for various TDM project types be developed through a collaborative, consensus-based process that links to larger, regional TDM and MetroVision goals. This process can be administered by DRCOG as the regional planning agency, and should provide ample opportunity for input from regional TDM service providers. Specific regional TDM goals and strategies (linked directly to MetroVision regional transportation goals) were established in the DRCOG November 2005 Regional Travel Demand Management Strategic Plan (2005 Plan), adopted by the

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6-1 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

DRCOG Board on November 16, 2005. This plan defines TDM goals and specific strategies in the context of the long-term regional transportation goals, to be implemented by DRCOG over a 25-year period. It also touches, generally, on TDM service provider support needed for implementation for some of the strategies. However, the plan stops short at formalizing responsibilities, prioritizing strategies, or discussing specific fund levels for various strategies needed to meet regional goals. An approach for developing specific funding allocation levels within the context of this plan is provided below.

6.2 RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR DEVELOPING TDM PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

Step 1 – TDM Service Providers Formalize Relationships and Responsibilities As noted in the 2005 Plan: Continued successful collaboration requires that roles and responsibilities be clarified among TDM partners, that service area and tasks be clearly defined within each respective community, and all members be accountable to one another. Activities that benefit from the involvement of multiple partners need to be identified, and memorandums of understanding reached among the partner agencies regarding the necessary tasks and implementation steps. We recommend that DRCOG facilitate a formalized partnership between TDM service providers in the region, similar to the Atlanta Framework discussed in Section 2.4, and that this partnership define the following: • Specific TDM program/activity categories to guide the funding allocation process (e.g., local TMA support, regional marketing/advertising, regional rideshare and vanpool, “noncommute” activities such as car-sharing, individualized marketing, schoolpools). The number of categories should be kept to a minimum; we suggest no more than four or five separate categories.47 In addition, we recommend that the current RideArrangers programs be included within the TDM program categories, instead of being treated as a separate funding program, as it is now. Regional activities are critical to the overall success of a regional TDM program as demonstrated in the Denver region and other peer regions, but are just one element of a larger TDM approach and should be evaluated and funded within the context of the larger TDM plan.

47 Note that a particular agency might conduct activities in more than one category. The categories are not meant to be rigid funding restrictions but rather to provide a general guide to overall resource allocation.

6-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

• TDM provider service areas and specific TDM roles as they relate to TDM and MetroVision goals. • Areas of partnerships/synergy (and conversely, overlap/redundancy) among service providers at the state, regional, and local level and opportunities for service-support cost savings. • A process for TDM program level and project level evaluation, monitoring and reporting. Partnership agreements can be accommodated via a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU), Board-adopted framework agreement, or other formalized mechanism as defined by TDM service providers.

Step 2 – Determine Overall Level of Expected TDM Funding in the Region Funding levels and revenue sources should be developed for a short-term period consistent with the DRCOG Transportation Improvement Program (i.e., on a yearly basis over a minimum four-year period), and a long-term planning hori- zon consistent with the DRCOG Long-Range Transportation Plan (i.e., minimum 20-year period). Federal CMAQ funds should be considered as well as other potential regional and local revenue sources that could be used to support TDM efforts in the Denver region. One option would be to integrate TDM project funding with the TIP project selection cycle and allocate additional TIP funds, from non-CMAQ sources, to TDM projects. Compared to the other peer regions, the Denver area currently allocates a relatively large percentage of its CMAQ funds to TDM activities, exceeded only by Atlanta on a percentage basis (Table 2.3). However, TDM still only represents 12 percent of total CMAQ funding and the Denver region does not significantly fund TDM activities from other sources (e.g., local) to the extent that some regions such as Metropolitan Washington and San Francisco have. Throughout the country, there is significant competition for CMAQ funds. This is only expected to get worse due to the increasing number of new nonattainment areas expected under revised ozone and particulate matter standards and increasing urbanization. While it is possible that funding for CMAQ could be increased (or the program restructured or even eliminated) under surface transportation reauthorization, we recommend at this point that TDM partners pursue other means of stable funding sources to supplement current CMAQ funding as opposed to planning for increased levels of CMAQ funding in the future. Non- CMAQ funds could be provided by Federal, state, and/or local sources. As an example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in San Francisco provides significant funding each year to support the MTC’s regional rideshare and TDM activities. Where Denver TDM activities serve to help another agency achieve its transportation and/or environmental goals, funding partnerships should be considered.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6-3 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

Step 3 – Determine Initial TDM Program Funding Allocation It is recommended that an initial funding allocation (either as an absolute value or percentage of total funds) be applied to program categories identified under Step 1, based on the following criteria that relate to potential program impact: • Program-level cost-effectiveness (i.e., dollars per VMT reduced) based on 1) cumulative self-reported (and QA/QC reviewed) predicted benefits of Denver region projects, 2) documented post-project evaluation results for Denver region projects within each program category, and 3) information on cost-effectiveness of different project types from other areas (see Section 4.0). Based on our review of this material, well-run and carefully targeted employer outreach programs, ridesharing programs, and vanpooling programs tend to be some of the more cost-effective types of programs. Indivi- dualized marketing programs may have potential but are still in the experi- mental stages and not widely documented. Other areas have found that new transit service provision or infrastructure improvements tend to be fairly costly in comparison to outreach programs, and therefore may not be as effective a use of limited TDM funds (DRCOG currently does not fund infrastructure or new transit services through its TDM programs). • Expected co-benefits derived from the program that support other regional MetroVision transportation and land use goals (e.g., livability, travel time reliability, jobs access, safety), but are not directly accounted for in the cost- effectiveness calculations. TDM funders and service providers may find it helpful to ask the following questions when considering funding levels by type of activity: • In general, how effective or cost-effective is the particular activity in question? Which activities are most cost-effective? • What is a minimum level of funding that is needed to do an effective job with this type of activity? What is a desired level of funding? (Is there a point beyond which returns diminish?) • Given overall funding constraints, what is the best balance of funding across activities that both supports essential programs/services and provides incentives for creativity and innovation? For the initial funding allocation, attention should be paid to historic fund levels so that existing TDM activities are not significantly negatively impacted in the short term. Any significant shift in current fund allocation between program types should be phased in on a timeframe that regional TDM partners are comfortable with. As a general note, we recommend paying close attention to the current fund split between the Regional RideArrangers program and other TDM projects. From the peer region review it is difficult to draw any generalizations about the relative balance of funding between regional and local programs (Table 2.3).

6-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

However, Atlanta and Philadelphia do allocate significantly more funding to employer outreach activities that are largely locally based (Atlanta – $3.4 million for employer outreach; Philadelphia – $3.0 million for TMA support) and others (San Francisco, Washington, D.C.) fund such activities through other sources that are not included in Table 2.3. While it is recommended that program funding levels not be shifted dramatically in the short term, we do recommend that the Denver region TDM partners review this fund split closely, and begin to shift some level of funding to the following: • Direct outreach services (e.g., employer or individual) to strengthen “front- line” TDM efforts that serve to generate visibility and commute-option leads to support the larger regional TDM program; and • Monitoring and evaluation to strengthen future funding allocation decisions. We are recommending Step 3 to ensure that funding be committed across each of the TDM program categories identified under Step 1. Pre-determining funding levels by TDM program category, up-front, guarantees that all TDM service providers will receive some level of funding to support the larger regional effort. Funding levels determined under Step 3 should be modified over time, however, to reflect the actual performance of the projects and programs once implemented. Partnership agreements or MOUs can better ensure that the greatest levels of TDM benefits will be achieved.

Step 4 – Fund Individual Projects up to Initial TDM Program Fund Allocation Level Within each TDM program category identified in Step 1, we recommend that DRCOG evaluate individual projects using recommendations as provided in Section 5.0. As noted in that section, we recommend evaluating projects from two perspectives: 1) technical performance and 2) support for regional TDM and MetroVision planning goals. The technical performance evaluation would be based on the project’s predicted impact and reflect such factors as VMT reduction and cost-effectiveness. The planning evaluation would be based on the project’s contribution to overall regional transportation goals and include factors such as project readiness, innovation, and level or partnership. Both factors would be scored out of 100 points and treated as equal components in project selection. A tiered approach for project selection is recommended, with projects falling in Tier 1 (highest expected performance and greatest contribution to regional goals) prioritized for funding. As many projects as possible falling into Tier 1 (and Tier 2 if needed) would be funded within each TDM program category, up to the funding allocation threshold level.

Step 5 – Monitor Performance and Update Funding Levels as Needed Under Step 1, it is recommended that the TDM partners define a more formal method of monitoring and reporting performance of TDM activities. Based on this post-implementation evaluation, the region will be able to better identify

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6-5 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region

what types of programs and projects are most effective in helping the regional achieve transportation goals. Category funding levels determined under Step 3 can then be modified as needed. Similar to Metropolitan Washington and Atlanta, we recommend that between 5 and 10 percent of funding be made available to support performance monitoring, if possible, particularly for selected new/innovative projects for which there is little existing information available from which to estimate effectiveness.

6.3 SUMMARY OF FUNDING ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed approach for allocating specific fund levels to TDM projects is consistent with current DRCOG practice in that DRCOG has, for several TIP cycles, defined in its TIP Preparation Policy discrete funding levels for the Regional RideArrangers, Regional TDM Pool, as well as other TDM-related initiatives. These are based largely on historic funding levels. The key difference is that the proposed approach recommends a reassessment of these funding levels in a collaborative, consensus-based process, based on more objective criteria that link to overall program performance in relation to regional transportation and TDM goals. Key benefits of this approach are as follows: • TDM service providers will develop more formalized partnerships and work to improve overall implementation efforts of TDM programs in the region. • It ensures that a variety of project and program types will be implemented and avoids marginalizing smaller-scale projects that may not show a large impact when considered alone, but provide a significant benefit when implemented in a complementary fashion with other TDM projects. • TDM service providers will more effectively demonstrate the benefits of TDM in relation to regional transportation goals. • TDM service providers will develop a more unified voice and more clearly articulate benefits of TDM expenditures.

6-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Appendix A

Recommendations for the CMAQ Reporter

Memorandum

TO: Betsy Jacobsen, Colorado DOT

FROM: Chris Porter, Cambridge Systematics

DATE: April 22, 2009; Revised December 22, 2009

RE: Element 3 Technical Memorandum 1 – Review of CMAQ Reporter Equations

This memorandum reviews the CMAQ Reporter equations and default values for TDM projects and makes some recommendations for changes. A marked-up copy of the “CMAQ Reporter Overview” document was provided with the draft memorandum dated April 22, 2009.

General Comments

• It would be useful wherever possible to reference the source of the default data provided, to assist users in identifying whether the default may be appropriate for their own situation. • Default values based on national studies should be updated with local defaults over time, based on results from tracking/evaluation of local projects. • It would be helpful to provide default values for PSOV throughout, based on past local experience, and/or national data. Or perhaps a supplementary table could be provided showing PSOV for different local programs and for different types of services from national experience. Another alternative might be to provide state/regional geographic area source data – e.g., census work trip data in a table for every community, in lieu of the sponsor having their own derived data. • The default values for “average one-way trip distance” all seem to be set at 19.5 miles. This seems long for most types of trips. For example, the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) provides the following average commute trip lengths: all modes – 12.2 miles; local bus – 7.9 miles; commuter bus – 12.9 miles; subway/rail – 11.4 miles; vanpool – 20.4 miles; bicycle – 2.9 miles; walk – 0.9 miles. The 19.5-mile value may be appropriate for carpools and vanpools, which are largely formed by longer-distance commuters looking to save costs, and for teleworkers, who also tend to have longer-than – average commutes; but not for transit service (unless it is a long-distance commuter route) bike-to-work day, or marketing. • In general, the carpool, vanpool, and schoolpool formulas do not include a circuity factor (i.e., to account for some out-of-the-way travel required for the pick-up/drop-off). This may be a fairly small effect for carpools, probably no more than 10 percent and within the margin of error for other assumptions (average occupancy, trip length, etc.). It is more significant

100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, MA 02140 tel 617 354 0167 www.camsys.com fax 617 354 1542 for vanpools, however; evidence suggests that typical vanpool one-way trip lengths are in the range of 30 to 35 miles,1 which is at least 50 percent more than the average 20-mile individual commute trip distance reported by NHTS respondents. No national evidence is available on schoolpool circuity. • The carpool and vanpool formulas also do not include a factor for access mode, if the pick- up is not at the house. This is probably a minor consideration, since the access trip is likely to be short and on local roads (although it will create cold-start emissions if by automobile). • DRCOG has suggested splitting the formulas at a point to distinguish the reduced number of trips, prior to calculating VMT. Displaying trip reduction initially provides a preliminary logic check to how the final VMT will come out. This seems like a reasonable suggestion.

Comments on Specific Formulas

Carpool Matching

• We do not understand the (N + Nt-1 + 0.75 * Nt-2) * P factor at the beginning of the equation; this could be better explained.

Vanpool Matching

• AVMTR – Alternative: Replace N, (S-1)/S, and (F/W) with (number of vanpools operating/day) * (average vanpool occupancy). • N: Does “average number of vanpool commuters” mean the number of registered vanpoolers? (As opposed to number of people vanpooling on a given day).

School Pool

• This formula could be better explained. Should average pool size say “not including the driver”? Are two-way pools primarily students 16+ carpooling with each other?

New or Expanded Transit Service

Note: These projects are not typically eligible for TDM Pool and instead apply for direct TIP- CMAQ funding every three or four years.

• GR: This should be the annual growth rate applied to the time period between the after (Ri) and before (Rf) measurements, right? If the formula is being used for pre-project prediction, this term should be zero and (Rf – Ri) should simply be the anticipated ridership increase. • D: Too long for a transit trip, usually. Replace with local or NHTS data (~8 miles for local service, 13 for commuter service?)

1 TCRP Report 95 Chapter 5: Vanpools and Buspools, p. 5-34.

- 2 - DRAFT • EF: We recommend to provide a default value based on Denver emission factors (may vary depending upon the size of the bus), and considering the pollutant(s) of most interest. This one is difficult because transit vehicles can reduce some pollutants (VOC, CO) while increasing others (NOx, PM) so the particular pollutant needs to be specified.

Bike Ped

• Retitle as “Bike Ped Facility.” • PSOV: Replace “formerly commuted with “formerly made the trip,” since we are counting all facility users – not just commuters? • D: We might provide the additional guidance that this can be estimated as the average number of users of the facility, x their average trip length. Also, if we are counting new bike/walk trips (consistent with PSOV factor), does it makes sense to use the entire trip length – not just the proportion of the trip length on the facility. It may be helpful to provide default values of 2.9 miles for bike trips and 0.9 for walk trips (commute lengths from NHTS) or 1.9 mi for bike and 0.7 mi for walk (average lengths for all trips from NHTS).

New Transit Station

Note: These projects are not typically eligible for TDM Pool funding.

• We may want to get rid of this one. If it is a major transit station (e.g., LRT, commuter rail) there should be ridership forecasts (which are plugged into the formula). If it is small investments (e.g., enhanced bus stops) it seems better to estimate the ridership impacts independently, as might be done for any transit service improvements. Also, the Cs/Ci term should be better explained. If we keep it, I would use a shorter trip length more appropriate to transit.

Telework/Telecommute

• This equation appears to imply that all of the teleworkers at a company with a telework program are new teleworkers as a result of the TDM program that encouraged them. We might redefine the terms as something to the effect of: − N = Total number of employees that work at companies participating in the telework expansion program (?) − P = Percentage of employees at these companies that are encouraged to telework by the program.

Bike Share

• PSOV: As for Bike Ped, I might replace “formerly commuted” with “formerly made the trip by.” • Nd: Should this be more than 252 – assuming bikes will be used on weekends as well?

- 3 - DRAFT Bike to Work Day

• D: 19.5 miles is far too long. Suggest replacing with NHTS default of 2.9 miles, or other trip length as reported in local bike to work day survey.

Marketing

• D: Suggest replacing 19.5 miles with the average one-way work trip distance from NHTS (12.2 miles) or other local data. • We might replace this formula and defaults with a different approach, based on regional survey data from Washington, D.C. A possible approach is shown below. AVMTR = N * R * S * ((Pt * Lt) + (1 – Pt) * (F/W) * Nd) * Nt * D

Variable Default Units Description N Total number of commuters in target area/market exposed to campaign R 0.27 – 0.35 Percent of total exposed (N) (expressed as decimal) who recalled commute message S 0.001 – 0.01 Percent (expressed as decimal) who shifted to alternative mode after seeing/hearing ad Pt 0.8 Percent of those who made a temporary rather than permanent shift Lt length of time (number of days) by alternative modes by temporary shifters – e.g., how long did they use it after hearing the message F Number of days per week permanent shifters used alternative mode W 5 Workdays/week Nd 240 Number of benefit days per year Nt 2 Number of trips per day D 12.2 Average one-way trip distance

Other Types of Projects

It may be helpful to include new formulas for other types of projects that are becoming more common in the Denver region. Possible topics include: 1) employer outreach programs, 2) Ecopass promotions, 3) incentive-based programs, and 4) individualized marketing. Some potential formulas are provided below; these will be further refined by the project team in consultation with CDOT, DRCOG, and TDM service provider staff if it is decided to include these.

- 4 - DRAFT Employer Outreach Programs

AVMTR = N * P * (F/W) * D * Nd * Nt

Variable Default Units Description N Total number of employees at worksites targeted by campaign P Proportion of employees shifting from SOV mode as a result of the outreach campaign (for transit component, check against current ridership)

Other terms as used elsewhere; default for D being average trip length for all commuters.

Default values for P could be developed using COMMUTER, WTRM, or TRIMMS – possibly with different defaults provided for different levels of incentives offered (e.g., transit monetary incentive versus information only). A check against current local ridership can also be performed, which DRCOG already requests (based on data from the travel demand model or RTD ridership data). For example, if ridership (one-way trips) to/from a market area is 4,000 per day it is probably not reasonable to predict an increase of 10,000 trips per day.

EcoPass Promotions

AVMTR = N * U * PSOV * (F/W) * D * Nd * Nt

Variable Default Units Description N Total number of new commuters receiving EcoPass in response to promotion or incentive (includes sign-ups discounted by pick-up rate) U Utilization rate (fraction of commuters receiving EcoPass who use it for commuting)

Other terms as used elsewhere; default for D consistent with average trip lengths for transit riders.

Default values for PSOV could be developed from past regional program experience, if data is available, or local census data as described above. Default values for F should also be identified from past program experience. Again, N may be “reality-checked” against existing local transit ridership.

Consideration might be given to adding an additional factor to account for use of EcoPass for nonwork trips, if data is available on this impact.

- 5 - DRAFT Incentive/Pledge Programs

AVMTR = N * PSOV * (F/W) * D * Nd * Nt

Variable Default Units Description N Total number of commuters pledging to use alternative mode

Other terms as used elsewhere; default for D consistent with average trip lengths for all commuters.

Default values for PSOV could be developed from past regional program experience, if data is available. Default values for F should also be identified from past program experience. Again, N may be “reality-checked” against existing local transit ridership.

Individualized Marketing

AVMTR = N * P * ((Pt * Ndt) + (1 – Pt) * Nd)) * D

Variable Default Units Description N Total population reached by campaign P Proportion of population reached who participate by using an alternative mode Pt Proportion of participating population that makes a temporary change Ndt Number of days for which temporary change is sustained Nd 365 Number of days in a year (for those who sustain a permanent change) V Reduction in average daily VMT per participant (expressed as a decimal)

Some evidence on P and V are provided from national pilots, if local data are not available (P * V is in the range of 2 to 8 percent – i.e., VMT reduction for population reached). Pt and Ndt may not be available; if so, set Pt to 0 and define P as the proportion of population who make a permanent (at least one year) change in behavior.

- 6 - DRAFT

Appendix B

Framework Agreement from Atlanta

A Framework for Cooperation to Reduce Traffic Congestion and Improve Air Quality

DEVELOPED COOPERATIVELY BY:

n Atlanta Regional Commission

n Buckhead Area TMA

n Clean Air Campaign

n Clifton Corridor TMA

n CobbRides TMA

n Cumberland Transportation Network TMA

n Georgia Building Authority

n Georgia Department of Transportation

n Georgia Environmental Protection Division

n Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce

n Perimeter Transportation Coalition TMA

n Regional Business Coalition 3

A Framework for Cooperation

The Undersigned have committed their organizations to implementing the agreements forged in this Framework. It is through the promise of agreements like these that environmental gains can be made which improve both the quality of life and local economics for residents in our communities, municipalities and counties throughout Georgia.

______Harold F. Reheis Wayne Shackelford Director Commissioner GA Environmental Protection Division GA Department of Transportation

______Cheryle J. DeDios Glenn Kurtz Executive Director Executive Director Clifton Corridor TMA Perimeter Transportation Coalition, Inc.

______Helen Scholes Mary Lou Stephens Executive Director Executive Management GA Building Authority CobbRides TMA

______Helen Tapp Malaika Warner Regional Business Coalition Executive Director Cumberland Transportation Network

______Harry West Sam A. Williams Director President Atlanta Regional Commission Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce

______Dan Willis Denise M. Wright Clean Air Campaign Executive Director Transportation Management Buckhead Area Association (BATMA) 4

Foreword

As the Atlanta region’s steady job growth fuels rapid population increases, personal- vehicle travel, and freight movement, a number of groups have recognized the need to address concerns over increased traffic congestion and poor air quality. Each of these groups has focused on specific strategies for addressing elements related to alleviating congestion and restoring air quality using the resources in their core competencies. During the past four years, many of these groups have used federal CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement) funds to operate programs targeted at changing consumer behavior through education, providing access to alternative transportation choices and marketing.

A group dubbed “Master Planners” was convened in March 1999 representing organizations receiving CMAQ funds, and other stakeholders, to review ongoing operations and to identify ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the aggregate programs.

The following master plan, A Framework for Cooperation, represents a set of guiding principles that define a strategic direction for coordination of efforts to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality in the Atlanta region. This document is a “living document” which will be updated as needed to reflect current developments and changing requirements. Implementation of the strategies described require the development of detailed operating plans, adequate funding of program elements, and the hiring and training of staff. As experience is gained in the implementation phase, this plan will be reviewed and revised to respond to evolving needs.

The Master Planners have agreed to a continuous planning process that will monitor and evaluate operations and make adjustments as required. An organization’s participation in implementing the Framework for Cooperation and in the master planning process is a critical element for the approval of federal funding for eligible projects. The goal of this effort is to improve the efficiency of operations and the effectiveness of the public investment. 5

Executive Summary

Metropolitan Atlanta is in noncompliance with federal Clean Air Act standards. Traffic congestion is at all-time highs and continues to increase. Federal funds for transportation projects in the region are restricted. However, certain federal funds, such as Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds, are available. Currently only the Atlanta region is eligible to receive CMAQ funds, but other Georgia metropolitan areas will be eligible to receive funds if categorized to be in noncompliance with the federal standards in the future. It is very important for organizations working in the Atlanta region to maximize the effectiveness of limited CMAQ and other federal funds as well as other resources.

In March 1999, representatives from organizations working on CMAQ-funded initiatives and other stakeholders came together in a collaborative environment to define areas of overlap and gaps in activities. They identified program areas that formed the core of activities aimed at reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality: service to individual commuters, mass media communications and public relations, and employer services. Two program areas were targeted for additional review: 1) mass media communications/public relations and 2) employer services. The participating organizations agreed that these activities could be coordinated and centrally managed to improve effectiveness and create resource efficiencies.

The participants reached consensus on the following issues:

· Proposed new initiatives are not intended to impact programs currently in place for the 1999 smog season. The focus of the Framework for Cooperation is on efforts for the calendar year 2000 and beyond.

· Two functional areas require program consolidation and leadership definition. This will be accomplished through the establishment of two working committees.

· The Employer Services Committee (ESC) is a partnership of organizations receiving federal funds and other employer-focused organizations collaborating to provide employer service delivery. It is convened by the Coordinator for the Partnership for a Smog-Free Georgia (PSG) and will coordinate activities for employer services. · The Media Planning Committee (MPC) is a partnership of organizations receiving federal funds that are pooling their media/public relations’ resources for greater educational and behavioral change impact. It is convened by the Director of the Clean Air Campaign (CAC). 6

· Both functional groups, the ESC and the MPC, will participate in a joint standing committee to ensure programmatic consistency and full implementation of the Framework for Cooperation;

· Services to individual commuters are provided by ARC’s Commute Connections program in close coordination with the ESC, MPC and TMAs.

Through lengthy deliberations, a dozen organizations have committed to this Framework for Cooperation for coordinating activities well into the 21st century. It is believed that through this collaboration and cooperation, federal dollars (as well as matching funds and other resources) will be utilized more effectively. Additionally, concise, consistent and complete information and services will be delivered effectively to employers and individuals in the regions, resulting in reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality.

The Framework for Cooperation represents an initial effort in a continuing planning and implementation process for addressing the issues of clean air and congestion mitigation in the Atlanta region. Representatives of participating organizations form a standing committee that will be convened regularly by GDOT to assess progress and continue the on-going collaborative planning process. Initially the standing committee meets as needed (as requested by any participant). The committee will establish a regular meeting schedule to accomplish annual evaluation of this planning process. 7

Introduction Representatives from the business community as well as more than a dozen CMAQ- funded organizations gathered in March 1999 in a collaborative environment to discuss air quality and transportation management projects in the Atlanta area. They convened in order to identify redundancies in project operations, look for new efficiencies and determine how resources might be better allocated to cover existing and anticipated gaps. They developed a formal goal:

To improve the Atlanta Region’s Air Quality and Mobility through the coordinated programs of public and private organizations designed to change individual and employer behaviors.

This document provides a framework for funding, actions, coordination and measurement of behavioral change. The Framework for Cooperation outlines a strategy for agencies and organizations cooperating and implementing a coordinated system of clean air and congestion mitigation initiatives. The participants will continue to plan together and incorporate new efforts and initiatives into an integrated planning effort. The Framework for Cooperation identifies current clean air and transportation-related initiatives. Key organizations involved in these clean air initiatives, as well as their respective roles and responsibilities are also identified.

The Elements There are three target areas where coordination can create project efficiencies and enhance effectiveness:

· Employer Services · Mass Media Communications and Public Relations · Services to Individual Commuters

The Framework for Cooperation’s primary focus is the first two target areas, which presented ready opportunities for collaboration and coordination. The provision of services to individual commuters is an essential element to be provided in close cooperation with the two other elements. This document addresses those functional areas where coordination is a priority: employer services and mass media communications.

The group recognized that there are on going activities targeted to specific markets that will continue. Other work activities can be coordinated. The 8

following table provides a thumbnail sketch of the organizations, their mission and initiatives relative to the Framework for Cooperation.

Organization or Mission Key Initiatives and Products Program

GDOT Oversight and accountability 1. Reports on activities 2. Planning partner GA EPD To administer the Partnership for a Smog- 1. State agency for air quality planning Free Georgia program and to give 2. Planning partner administrative assistance to the Clean Air Campaign State Employees To reduce the number of single occupancy 1. Mass Transit discounts and subsidies Commuter Assistance vehicles used by state employees for 2. Carpool and vanpool incentives Program (SECAP) commuting within non-attainment areas 3. Bicycle and walking incentives 4. Ridematching assistance A program of the GBA 5. Guaranteed Ride Home program 6. Alternate work schedule and telework assistance 7. Promotion/marketing assistance CAC To educate the public about ground-level 1. Mass Media/public relations education ozone focusing on mobile sources (cars program for the general public and light trucks) as a major source of pollutants, and to get people to take actions such as changing driving habits PSG To work primarily with PSG Partners and 1. Forecast ozone levels during ozone season A program which is a secondarily with individuals to raise and issue smog alerts collaborative effort of awareness and induce actions to improve 2. Educate employers on Transportation private and public the region’s air quality. It is the regional Demand Management (TDM) and Operations partners (the steering employer based air quality/ transportation and Maintenance actions which may improve committee comprises demand management (TDM) program air quality EPD, GDOT, ARC, 3. Encourage employers to participate in TDM CAC, MACOC and activities RBC 4. Encourage individuals to change their behavior and participate in TDM activities 5. Support the creation of “account representative” positions in the Atlanta region. Commute Connections To increase use of commute options 1. Operate the Regional Ridematching System, among individuals, employers, and increase ridesharing participants in the region A program of the Transportation Management Associations and support current TMAs. Atlanta Regional (TMAs) by providing customer specific 2. Assist colleges and universities in developing Commission services in order to relieve traffic TDM programs (University Rideshare). congestion and improve air quality in the 3. Pilot project to provide transit and carpool ten-county Atlanta region. subsidies to encourage new use of alternatives to SOV travel. 4. Use Transportation Management Initiatives to test feasibility of potential TMA areas. 5. Regional Vanpool Subsidy Program. 6. Start-up funds for TMAs. Details shown for specific TMAs in this table are included in this total. 7.Provides Guaranteed Ride Home in the region 9

Organization or Mission Key Initiatives and Products Metro AtlantaProgram To ensure the provision of high quality 1. MATI recommendation #6, which is an 8% Chamber of services and program marketing to private reduction in SOV commuting among large Commerce (MACOC) sector employers employers Regional Business To measurably increase corporate 1. Produce and distribute “Air Quality Primer” Coalition (RBC)1 commitment to air quality improvement and for businesses actual emission reductions 2. Initiate peer-to-peer employer outreach program 3. Brief Chambers of Commerce Cumberland To assist and coordinate the efforts of 1. Carpools, vanpools, transit, cycling and Transportation interested parties in designing and pedestrian mobility; Network (CTN) implementing programs that will support 2. Alternative work arrangement assistance; transportation demand management now 3. Contests, seminars and training, parking TMA in the and in the future as a means of maintaining management; Cumberland-Galleria and improving access to and within the 4. Developer site-design considerations, such as Area Cumberland CID area. sidewalks, transit orientations and more; 5. Guaranteed Ride Home; 6. Vanpool subsidies, transit discounts (TransAdvantage). Perimeter To improve access to the Central Perimeter 1. Serve as a collective voice for the Central Transportation area for employees, residents and visitors Perimeter area in addressing transportation Coalition (PTC) by implementing and promoting issues; transportation alternatives and 2. Facilitate employee access to and around the TMA in the Perimeter improvements through a coordinated and area by implementing TDM strategies; Center Area comprehensive effort of public-private 3. Increase the awareness of transportation partners. The PTC will fulfill this mission by issues and TMA activities and services; and implementing strategic activities and 4. Provide for the effective administration of the services that meet four goals. TMA. CobbRides To provide transportation demand 1. Town Center advocate for addressing local management (TDM) services, information, and regional-based transportation and air TMA in the Town and advocacy to manage congestion, quality issues; Center Area improve access and travel, and maintain air 2. Assisting development and implementation of quality throughout the Town Center area. commuter assistance and alternative CobbRides services include, but are not transportation options such as ridesharing, limited to those shown. cycling, pedestrian, public transit and telecommuting; 3. Guaranteed Ride Home. Clifton Corridor TMA To serve employer members. Emory 1. Ridematching assistance; University leads CCTMA in developing and 2. Carpool and vanpool incentives; providing member services to hospitals and 3. MARTA discounts and subsidies; non-profit organizations in the surrounding 4. Guaranteed Ride Home program; area, including The Emory Clinic, American 5. Promotional/marketing assistance at the Cancer Society, Centers for Disease workplace; Control and Prevention, and Wesley 6. Shuttle service. Woods Hospital. Buckhead Area TMA To coordinate and facilitate the business 1. Alternative fuel shuttle system development; (BATMA) community’s initiative to work with 2. Pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and developers, commercial property owners, safety improvements; commercial tenants, employers, community 3. Reduced fare MARTA passes (Tran$AVE); and civic organizations, elected officials 4, Carpool and vanpool programs; and residents to address transportation 5. Guaranteed Ride Home programs. concerns, improve accessibility and mobility, provide transportation services and to work cooperatively with local government entities to mitigate traffic congestion and to promote the use of alternative means of transportation.

1 A partnership of the eleven Chambers of Commerce in metro Atlanta. 10

Employer Services

Background and Baseline

A number of Atlanta organizations assist employers in implementing Air Quality Improvement and/or Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. This group includes ARC’s Commute Connections program, five Transportation Management Associations (TMAs), the Georgia Building Authority (GBA), the Partnership for a Smog-free Georgia (PSG), and the MARTA Partnership program. The Regional Business Coalition (RBC) and the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce (MACOC) have initiated an effort to enlist leading companies to establish air quality/transportation initiatives and reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) travel.

The proliferation of employer services occurred without regional coordination, therefore limiting the potential impact of these efforts. Prior to the development of a strategic approach, resources were limited in geographic scope or by type and extent of service. The Framework for Cooperation focuses on the need for a comprehensive, coordinated service program for employers.

Lessons Learned from TDM Programs

A recent study of employer TDM programs across the country identified critical elements for increased employer participation and trip reduction. The study identified specific short-term actions to enhance the level of TDM service in a region including:

· Establish a lead organization, and a unified approach; · Secure involvement of private sector organizations and maximize employer participation; · Increase on-site assistance to employers; · Focus marketing on areas with the most potential; · Enhance transit and vanpool marketing; · Establish baseline data to measure effectiveness; and, · Implement appropriate incentive and disincentive strategies for future and long-term program effectiveness.

Organizational Structure and Relationships 11

GDOT will administer the Framework for Cooperation. This responsibility includes accountability for reporting program activities, overseeing compliance with administrative rules, and disbursement of funding. EPD and FHWA will provide technical input to GDOT in support of these efforts so that both congestion and air quality issues are appropriately addressed.

Participating organizations in the Framework for Cooperation will form an Employer Services Committee (ESC). The PSG Coordinator will be responsible for holding meetings with this Committee to discuss issues related to the Employer Services Program. During the initial start-up, the ESC will meet at least monthly to coordinate implementation and address issues that arise.

The ESC will coordinate five program elements:

1. Program Identification and Development Establish a unified service package to use with employers. Develop new or enhanced services, including incentive and/or disincentive programs to encourage employers and their employees to participate in TDM activities. The Committee will coordinate with the Media Planning Committee (MPC) to develop common messages and produce media materials.

2. Resource Development Collaborate, identify and secure the financial resources and staff needed to implement programs from both public and private resources. Develop a comprehensive budget for Atlanta CMAQ activities, establish budget priorities and identify program outputs and outcomes.

3. Employer Contact/Outreach Identify target employer markets with TDM and air quality potential, and initiate contact to secure their participation in air quality and TDM activities.

4. Service Delivery Coordination Provide direct delivery of services to employers; coordinate referrals to service providers; provide on-going assistance including on-site services.

5. Monitoring / Evaluation Program performance data collection and evaluation will continue during CY2000 under the current system. Research and evaluation of the program and of the measurement systems will be undertaken by an independent contractor; recommendations for improving/enhancing the program and for additional or revised measurements will be used for program/measurement revisions. 12

The ESC will coordinate services for the regional Employer TDM and air quality programs funded with CMAQ moneys. The relationship between these Employer Service organizations is illustrated in the following table:

GDOT (Oversight & Accountability)

PSG Employer Services Committee Program Elements Public Sector Private Sector Private Sector (non TMA area) (TMA areas) Program Identification & ESC ESC* ESC Development Resource Development ESC ESC* ESC Initial Contact/Sales EPD EPD* TMA Service Delivery/Coord. EPD EPD* TMA Monitoring/Evaluation GDOT GDOT* GDOT

*With guidance and assistance provided by a Business Advisory Council convened by the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and the Regional Business Coalition.

Roles and Responsibilities of Key Players The Framework for Cooperation identifies the following roles and responsibilities for employer services providers and other participants:

Organization Key Roles and Responsibilities

FHWA Provides guidance regarding program and funding eligibility Approve the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Authorize individual projects Advisor Member of the Employer Services Committee Coordinate through GDOT federal expectations of the CMAQ program FTA Provides guidance regarding program and funding eligibility Approve Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Advisor Administers CMAQ funds for transit projects Federal funding source for transit projects GDOT Oversight and accountability (monitoring and evaluation) for Employer Service Program Board develops and approves STIP, which includes funding for programs Requests Project authorization Operates HOV lanes Funding Resource Member of the Employer Services Committee GA EPD Supply account representatives to business for employer outreach and service delivery coordination 13

Organization Key Roles and Responsibilities

Administers all PSG activities Provide technical Air Quality Input to GDOT Member of the Employer Services Committee Conduct outreach activities and service delivery to government agencies Implement monitoring system for the region and evaluate employer activities for the region Report on the Public Sector Program GBA Operates SECAP, a program to reduce SOV usage for commuting by state employees within non-attainment areas. SECAP is similar to a TMA in the transportation/commuter initiatives offered, but differs in that it is limited to state government rather than a specific geographic area. SECAP will address parking policy, Mass Transit, Vanpool operations and rideshare assistance. SECAP is a participant in the ARC Rideshare and guaranteed ride home programs. Member of the ESC PSG (not an agency The Partnership for a Smog-Free Georgia is the regional, comprehensive, employer- but a program which based air quality/transportation demand management (TDM) program. The PSG EPD administers; a coordinator convenes the Employer Services Committee, which is responsible for collaborative effort of managing/coordinating the operations of the Employer Services Program. many private and Coordinate resource development public partners; a Delivers employer services to the public sector steering committee comprised of EPD, GDOT, ARC, CAC, MACOC and RBC) ARC Staff develops and board approves federal funding for inclusion in Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Manages Commute Connections Program, responsible for: Development, technical assistance, and support for TMAs in the region. Managers Regional Ridematch database Support for worksite ridematching events Regional Guaranteed Ride Home Program Regional Vanpool Subsidy Program (proposed for FY 2001) Member Employer Services Committee TMAs Program development, outreach, service delivery for TMA area Member Employer Services Committee Metro Atlanta Chamber Convene and support a PSG Business Advisory Council to provide assistance and of Commerce and the guidance to EPD outreach coordinators serving private sector employers outside of Regional Business a TMA area Coalition Member Employer Services Committee Other Service Coordinate activities with PSG, MACOC, RBC (source of alternative mobility services for Providers (e.g., Employer TDM Services program) MARTA, Metro Member of Employer Services Committee Vanpool, CCT, etc…) CAC Support employer TDM and individual services program through mass media and shared public relations resources Member of Employer Services Committee EPA Funding sources Evaluate eligibility of CMAQ projects Member of Employer Services Committee 14

Next Steps

It is the responsibly of the ESC to develop an operations plan that lays out implementation strategies and activities for the employer services element of the Framework for Cooperation. The Operations Plan will include a detailed budget and the schedule for program activities. 15

Mass Media and Public Relations

Background and Baseline

The organizations involved in congestion mitigation and air quality improvements have much in common: dedication to improvement of air quality, alleviating traffic congestion, and individual public relations programs. However, programs sometimes offer slightly different messages and target slightly different audiences resulting in overlapping efforts. As a result, some inefficiencies have occurred:

· Duplication of efforts and inefficient use of funds; · Lost opportunity to leverage individual efforts to the best advantage; · Confusing messages received by target audiences; and · Loss of maximum effectiveness.

A task force of the participants met to identify the potential for consolidating efforts, to identify precisely the activities that could be centralized, and to develop a structure and process for managing those centralized activities.

The group considered the “pros” and “cons” associated with consolidation, and noted that the overwhelming benefits of the pros far outweighed the cons. Thus, consensus was reached to proceed with a consolidation of efforts. The members understood that a successful consolidation of this effort would require extreme care and sensitivity to the “cons” and especially to the concern of organizations about the possibility of lost program identity and control of destiny.

The working group identified those areas of mass media and public relations that could be centralized. Ultimately, participants agreed that the following functions should be coordinated:

· Mass Media Buys (including radio, TV, Print Media and Outdoor Signage); · Public Relations (including Direct Mail and Special Events); and, · Market Research and Performance Measures/Reporting (including independent review and analysis of established measures and baselines and subsequent monitoring; baseline surveys/counts/focus groups; target markets and suggested value mapping).

Activities outside of this coordination include program specific brochures, newsletters, flyers, bills, inserts, and media relations (e.g., press releases, press conferences, press kits and briefings). 16

Organizational Structure

As with the Employer Services program, GDOT will be responsible for overseeing the Mass Media and Public Outreach program. This oversight will include accountability for reporting marketing effectiveness, and for disbursing CMAQ funds. EPD and FHWA will provide technical input to GDOT so that both congestion and air quality issues are appropriately addressed.

The Clean Air Campaign (CAC) Director will convene a Media Planning Committee (MPC) for managing these coordinated activities. (CAC has experience in doing large-scale marketing campaigns to educate the public on clean air.) The formal committee structure includes participation from all CMAQ-funded entities and others as appropriate. This MPC will result in the disbanding of the CMAQ Marketeers, a former coordinating group of CMAQ-recipient organizations.

Financial and related human resource allocations will be channeled through the CAC. The participating agencies agree that a special account will be established for CMAQ funds earmarked for public relations and mass media activities. The MPC will plan, program and make recommendations regarding contracting public relations / mass media items agreed to by consensus of the MPC.

Roles and Responsibilities of Key Players

The Framework for Cooperation identifies the following roles and responsibilities for Mass Media and Public Relations involving CMAQ activities:

Organization Key Roles and Responsibilities

FHWA Provides guidance regarding program and funding eligibility Coordinate through GDOT federal expectations for the CMAQ program Approve the STIP Authorize projects Member of the MPC FTA Provides guidance regarding program and funding eligibility Approves STIP Advisor Administers CMAQ funds for transit projects Federal funding source for transit projects GDOT Accountability and reporting responsibilities to FHWA on the entire mass media and PR program Research and develop measures of program effectiveness Develops and board approves STIP which includes funding for programs Member of the MPC GA EPD Manage activities related to the operation of CAC Provide Technical Air Quality Input to GA DOT Member of the MPC CAC Lead coordinating body for the centralization of Mass Media and PR and for 17

Organization Key Roles and Responsibilities

providing information to the public Lead responsibility for issuing RFPs Convener of MPC Manager/Coordinator of CMAQ Mass Media and PR resources Mass Media/public relations education program for all ages PSG Lead coordinating for Employer Services Program Member of the MPC Convener of the Employer Services Committee ARC Board approves federal funding for inclusion in TIP Member of the Clean Air Campaign Manages Commute Connections Program, responsible for: Operation of 1-87-RIDEFIND hotline and website Providing member of the MPC Represents all TMAs where they opt not to participate TMAs Program development, outreach, service delivery for TMA area consistent with the Employer Services Committee strategies and documentation Member of MPC Chamber of Represent interests and concerns of the private sector Commerce and/or Coordinate information on the Employer Outreach Program to assure that the Regional Business media campaign is targeted Coalition Advisory member of the MPC as appropriate Other Service Advisory member of the MPC as appropriate Providers (e.g., Coordinate information on the Employer Outreach Program to assure that the MARTA, Metro media campaign is targeted Vanpool, CCT, etc…) US EPA Funding eligibility of CMAQ projects Funding source Member MPC

Next Steps

An operational plan, developed by the MPC, will define and guide the process and actions to accomplish this element of the Framework for Cooperation. The Operations Plan will include a detailed budget and the schedule for program activities.

The MPC will develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) to procure mass media and public relations services. The RFP is scheduled to be released in September 1999 and awarded in December, 1999. Work on the mass media and public relations campaign should begin in January 2000. The Committee will develop strategies for obtaining resources to support this program. 18

Services to Individual Commuters

Background and Baseline

For many individuals in the Atlanta region, the only options to single occupant vehicle travel are carpooling and vanpooling. At the heart of facilitating this mode shift is a system to match individuals who live and work near each other in order for them to form car and vanpools. The system used for matching individuals is the Regional Rideshare database, operated by Commute Connections at the Atlanta Regional Commission. Names are added to this database by direct phone calls to 1-87 RIDEFIND, e-mail applications via 187ridefind.com, telefaxed and regular mail applications from individuals, and applications collected at employer worksites by Commute Connections worksite support teams or by TMA staffs. The effectiveness of this program is measured, in part, using numbers of ridematch applicants entered into the database. This is supplemented with regional information gathered through a customer maintenance contract to determine numbers of carpools formed, average number in each carpool, and average number of days per week riders carpool, translated into reduction in vehicle miles traveled.

The Framework does not change the ridematch function. Commute Connections will continue to enter the data, match the individuals and provide responses to every individual in the database within 7 days of receipt of an application. The Framework will cause Commute Connections to rely on the MPC’s mass media function to inform the public of the regional ridematching services and to generate new applications from individuals. Commute Connections will depend on ESC Teams to identify new employers desiring on-site ridematching assistance and to facilitate the on-site support needed from Commute Connections’ worksite support teams.