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

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

3. CTR Program – Looking Back  Legislative intent: reduce congestion, save energy, cut pollution  Created as major employer-based program  Local responsibility to support participating employers  Highly structured top down, narrowly focused approach – not well integrated or connected to other local efforts or objectives  Politically calculated goals 3

4. Original Program— Structure/Implementation  State (CTR Board)  Rules for:  Program structure  Geography (the where)  Implementation structure  Participation  Funding  Local ordinances and government administration  Employer engagement  Employee decisions 4

5. CTR Program Today  2006 Efficiency Act shifted the focus of the program  From counties to urban growth areas  From employers to local governments  With new role for regional transportation planning organizations  By connecting the goals more closely with local needs 5

6. Program Has Evolved As Intended The CTR Program has expanded and evolved, becoming more flexible and locally-driven. The new law: Built upon established employer role Expanded responsibility for program success to local jurisdictions Connected local plans with regional plans Created linkages between land use decisions and transportation investments 6

7. The Legend of GTECs  GTECs created enhanced community- focused implementation of CTR in urban centers  Expanded partnerships (external: small employers, residents, students; internal: planning, public works)  Connected transportation goals with job growth and economic development  Created new energy, innovative initiatives, enhanced performance 7

8. Lessons Learned  The existing program model does not work for everyone  Local jurisdictions need the ability to define their own success  There is a lot of interest in individualized marketing and community-based approaches  The legends of GTECs/TRPP live on, helped shape pilot program, and continue to inform future program work 8

9. 2013 Legislative Update Attempt  Strategically minimizing changes to existing law, the Board developed the following recommendations for the 2013 legislature to consider:  Expand Trip Reduction from Work Commutes to All Trips  Update the CTR Program  Update Program Data Methodology  Extend and Amend CTR Tax Credit 9

10. Moving Forward with Current Law  The CTR Tax Credit was extended for one year only  The Board must move forward with the current law and address several required elements in the next four year cycle (2015- 2019)  Determine affected jurisdictions  Set goals  Update local, regional, and state plans 10

11. Discuss recommended affected areas and goals 11

12. ALPACA 12

13. Building the Future Program  The Board now has time to reevaluate the current law and consider other changes in program purpose, structure, and performance  The Board will continue to advocate for the legislative changes necessary to update and expand the program 13

14. And now, a new program 14 1. Clearly articulate program purpose 2. Develop general program structure and implementation plan  Identify opportunities and issues associate with achieving the purpose 3. Identify performance measures that support the goals and are affected by implementation (next meeting) 4. Establish measurement approach 5. Develop measurement methodology 6. Find, adapt, or develop measurement tools 7. Implement! 8. Analyze data, evaluate program, reassess goals

15. New Program— Purpose The first question What are we trying to accomplish?  Leverage funds  Support economic development  Effective and efficient use of transportation investments  Respond to climate change  Reduce vehicle trips  Reduce emissions  Create a multimodal, integrated system  Test whether a decentralized program will be as effective as centralized CTR  Improve the safety of the transportation system 15

16. Emerging Purpose “Theories” From Growth and Transportation Efficiency Centers  Development of new Partnerships (A new level of engagement)  Facilitate land use changes  Align perspectives of various organizations From Pilot Projects  Test new ideas emerging from local initiative  Establish new partnerships/new partners  Align program with local values and vision From WSDOT mission:  Create multimodal, integrated, sustainable  Support community, economy, environment 16

17. And from the agenda  Support the principles of Moving Washington  Strengthen and grow public-private partnerships  Help meet state and local economic, environmental and community objectives  Focus resources where they have the most impact  Cultivate and reward local innovation and accountability  Incentivize integration of transportation and land use policies, plans and decisions  Keep existing successful TDM infrastructure relatively intact  Maintain consistent, efficient measurement as much as possible  Simplify requirements  Lean from new approaches 17

18. The second question— Structure  Local control and decision making  Local definition of objectives  Local definition of market  At least partially through a competitive grant Program focus:  Base CTR  Community  Corridor 18 Is this already answered?

19. Do you see measures emerging from purpose? Meaningful measures that inform about the achievement of goals and are affected by implementation.  Local funding  Land use changes  Multimodal, integrated  Change in drive alone rate? VMT?  Number of partners  Injuries  Gross sales, jobs  Developments meeting concurrency requirements 19 Do we still need to measure progress? Do we still need to demonstrate that employer-based programs work?

20. What is the new program’s purpose?  Support a more efficient transportation system  Congestion, fuel, air pollution  Reduce vehicle trips (greater efficiency)  Integrate and infiltrate (not just one category)  Problem to solve  People, planet, prosperity  Energy-efficient transportation system  Performance efficient, fuel efficient, economically efficient  RCW 36.70A.108 20

21. Defining Transportation System Efficiency  There are several ways to define transportation efficiency  What problem is the program trying to solve?  The way a problem is defined determines optimal solutions, drives strategies, and sets up an evaluation framework 21

22. Problem Statement  The transportation system is auto-centric, resource intensive, contributes to environmental degradation, and unsustainable  How do we move people and goods most efficiently in an energy, budget, time, and space-constrained world?  We need a paradigm shift to transform transportation, support investment choices, and enhance decision-making 22

23. Existing paradigm  Assumes transportation means mobility  Considers a limited set of objectives, impacts, and options  Perpetrates conventional solutions and approaches  Is not sustainable  Does not help create the future system 23

24. A New Paradigm is Needed to:  Redefine system efficiency  Recognize the ultimate goal of transportation is accessibility  Expand the range of objectives, impacts, and options considered  Address many of the existing systemic problems  Create an integrated, sustainable, multi- modal 21 st century transportation system 24

25. Planning for Accessibility  Creates the ability to address a broader spectrum of goals and initiatives, including transportation-land use integration  Shifts the focus to people, places, choices  Addresses needs of all travelers and supports development of multi-modal systems  Impacts policies and investments chosen 25

26. Discuss and Decide on a Program Purpose 26

27. What is the new program’s structure?  Board structure continues—evaluation requirement  Local plans (policy) and ordinances  State mandate  Local determination of objectives  Basic parameters (including outcome, definition of market), local determination of how they are going to get there  MPO & RTPO designated role  Integration and infiltration (overall system)  Measurement expectation  Where would we go for implementation (planning, TMA)? With our limited resources, where are we most effective to have impact?  How do we engage divergent markets  State funding 27

28. What do each of these elements mean? 28

29. What are the new performance measures?  Efficiency (energy, economic and performance)  The need to parallel this with what is measured elsewhere  Performance measures are locally defined but include energy, economic and performance  What existing measurement can we align with and tie back to the local program (Results WA)  Sustainable and clean energy  Reduced energy consumption  VMT  SOV  Where will we have the greatest impact on the system  Supply or demand of options 29

30. Challenges and Opportunities  Accessibility is harder to define and measure  It requires new approaches, skills, tools, and data  This is a time of great change. Transitioning systems at every level of government, creating new approaches, and moving forward will be an iterative process 30

31. MAP-21 Impacts  Renewed focus on transportation planning  Proposed regulations pending  Establishes set of national goals, including environmental sustainability  MPOs/State DOTs encouraged to collaborate on Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs):  Transition to performance based planning and programming (PBPP)  Cooperation and coordination across boundaries – regional approach  Access/Connectivity/Gaps 31

32. PBPP Defined  Application of performance management principles within agencies’ planning and programming processes to achieve desired performance goals and outcomes for the multimodal transportation system 32

33. PBPP Applied  FHWA Report: A Performance-Based Approach to Addressing GHG Emissions through Transportation Planning 33

34. Keep It Simple 34

35. What is the structure? 35