1. CTR Performance WSDOT Nisqually Board Room December 4, 2015 Lynn Peterson Secretary of Transportation 2013/2014 Cycle Additional CTR Performance Paul Mason Performance Analyst

2. The Employer Survey in conjunction with the Aggregate Report 2 Employer Survey:  535 Responses for 2013/2014 sites  Available fields to answer: 221  For surveys received:  Average fields with a response: 77.1%  Five sites responded to fewer than 30% of the fields, with these five ignored  Provides additional worksite information not captured in the aggregate report Aggregate Report  966 Worksites counting towards goal for 2013/2014  VMT reduced by 33 million miles  Worksite sizes vary from 1 to well over 20,000 employees  Median size: 243 employees

3. 3

4. Percentage of Questions Answered per Employer Survey 4 5 of 535 Surveys Answered less than 50% of questions Min: 28.1% Max: 92.8% Average: 77.1%

5. Number of Worksites by Industry Type 5 Note: These only reflect the 530 sites with Employer survey responses. The remaining 436 sites (of 966) are not represented here.

6. Number of Employees by Industry Type 6 Note: These only reflect the 530 sites with Employer survey responses. The remaining 436 sites (of 966) are not represented here.

7. Non-Drive Alone Travel Rates by Industry Type Weighted by total number of employees 7 Note: These only reflect the 530 sites with Employer survey responses. The remaining 436 sites (of 966) are not represented here.

8. Count of Sites, by Employer Size All Employees 8 Note: These only reflect the 530 sites with Employer survey responses. The remaining 436 sites (of 966) are not represented here.

9. Non-Drive Alone Travel Rate and Employer Size All Employees 9 Note: These only reflect the 530 sites with Employer survey responses. The remaining 436 sites (of 966) are not represented here.

10. Non-Drive Alone Travel Rate and Employer Size All Employees 10 Note: These only reflect the 530 sites with Employer survey responses. The remaining 436 sites (of 966) are not represented here.

11. Non-Drive Alone Travel Rate and Proximity of Site to Bus Stop 11 Note: These only reflect the 530 sites with Employer survey responses. The remaining 436 sites (of 966) are not represented here.

12. Private Investment and Performance? The annual employer survey asks about different funding amounts Challenges: –The existing Employer survey responses to financial questions represent less than half of the 966 worksites in this cycle –In looking at the provided data, some worksites within the same company have identical numbers reported, suggesting that some financial data may be double-reported –There are privacy concerns around this information being collected and analyzed With the private financial information being incomplete, we cannot draw conclusions based on our current data 12

13. CTR Benefit Versus Traditional Construction? 13  VMT reduction of 33 million miles in 2014  This translates to an approximate VMT reduction of 36,000 miles per peak hour  Average throughput during peak period = 1,800 single occupancy vehicles per lane per hour  Per WSDOT 2015 Corridor Capacity Report, averaging SOV throughput per lane on I-5, I-405, SR-520, and I-90 during the peak periods  http://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/graynotebook/CCR15.pdf  This is the equivalent capacity of adding a single lane that is 40.3 miles long Since the program is administered in multiple areas throughout the state, the simple addition of 40.3 lane-miles would not yield the same results achieved by the program.

14. CTR Benefit Versus Traditional Construction? 14 Theoretical Cost of a 40.3 mile long lane added to the existing freeway  Costs for adding an additional lane to an existing freeway +  $4.1 to $14.7 million per lane-mile in 2015 dollars, small urban area  Low estimate of $7.5 million per lane-mile in 2015 dollars, large urbanized area  Cost of adding 40.3 miles  From $166 million to $591 million, small urbanized environment  A low estimate of $304 million, large urbanized environment + Per-mile cost of adding a lane is outlined below, per FHWA’s Table 6-1. Elemental Capital Improvement Costs, in 2002 dollars https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/hersst/pubs/tech/tech06.cfm *The following calculator was used to convert from 2002 to 2015 dollars. This calculator is tied to the consumer price index (CPI) http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ Since the program is administered in multiple areas throughout the state, the simple addition of 40.3 lane-miles would not yield the same results achieved by the program. Right of way acquisition costs vary widely depending on the area. The above estimates may be high for rural areas and low for large urban areas.

15. Question for the Board 15  Now is a good time to discuss assumptions and methodologies  Additional methods and analyses can be applied to existing program data  Calculations can be simplified, where appropriate  Can the performance committee convene to discuss the above items and more?