Funding and Institutionalizing Emerging Forms of Transportation

download report

Transcript Funding and Institutionalizing Emerging Forms of Transportation

Funding and Institutionalizing
Emerging Forms of Transportation
Shana Retherford Johnson, AICP
November 18, 2012
AASHTO Annual Meeting
Key Questions





Why are these emerging modes important?
What is the role of the private sector?
What is the role of the public sector?
How are emerging forms of transportation funded now?
What might the potential impact be of additional funding for emerging forms
of transportation
Work Trips by Mode -- 2009
Data/slide credit: Cynthia Burbank, AMPO Annual Conference, Sept. 12, 2012
Ridesharing, Bikesharing, and Transit
Public Subsidies
San Francisco MTC cost per
passenger trip:
 $0.63 – Ridesharing Program
 $8.34 – Transit
Arlington County, VA Capital
Bikeshare Farebox Recovery (2011)
140%
120%
SFO, LA, DC, Denver, NY,
Massachusetts total spending:
 $ 0.023 billion – Ridesharing
programs
 $ 14.000 billion - Transit capital
& options
100% Cost Recovery
100%
80%
60%
40%
18%: ART (local bus)
20%
Ridesharing/Transit Data Credit: Cynthia Burbank,
AMPO Annual Conference, Sept. 12, 2012
0%
Jan.
Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun.
Jul.
Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Trip Reduction &
Environmental Benefits
Per-passenger GHG Emissions of
Transportation Options
 Capital Bikeshare members (18,000 –
Nov 2011) reduce nearly 5 million
driving miles per year
 Atlanta Clean Air Campaign 16 million
car trips eliminated from metro
Atlanta roadways and more than
200,000 tons of pollution not released
into the air.
 Arlington County Commuter Services
(Arlington, VA) reduces 40,100 vehicle
trips on an average workday – while
the the average lane of interstate
highway carries approximately 4,000 –
6,000 vehicles in the rush period.
Data Source: Hodges, Tina, Public Transportation’s Role in Responding to
Climate Change, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration, Jan. 2009
Information Source: Grant, Michael. “Vanpooling: Opportunities for Reducing
GHG Emissions” Presentation to the ACT Vanpool Conference, April 2010.
State of the Vanpool Industry
 68 vanpool programs report to NTD (2010)
 Vanpool industry emerged in response to the 1970s energy crisis.
 Many private sector firms started vanpool programs for their employees.
 Public involvement in vanpools began mostly in the 1980s.
 Why is the public sector involved in vanpooling?
 Vanpool programs that report to National Transit Database earn
additional Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307) for their regions (for
large UZAs).
 Fare “buy down” incentives for riders have led to dramatic vanpool
program growth.
 Provides transit in areas where traditional transit (i.e., commuter bus,
commuter rail) are limited or absent.
 Leverages investments in HOV facilities.
Directly Operated vs.
Purchased Transportation
 No Direct Rider Subsidy,
Lower Fares vs. Direct Rider
Subsidy and no Fare Control
 Number of FTEs required to
operate a program
 Program functions
 Level of involvement in dayto-day vanpool management
 Required program funding
Pierce Transit Vanpool, Seattle, WA
Agency
Program
Year Program
Type/Owner
Started
King County, Seattle WA Directly Operated 1970s
Pace, Arlington Heights Directly Operated 1991
IL
Number of Staff
38 FTEs
Guaranteed ride home, 300 personal miles per month
for the driver, free fare for drivers, discounted fare for
backup drivers.
4 Senior Mgmt, 4
Drivers of large vans are not charged a fare, and
Customer Svc, 4 Finance, participants may receive up to four emergency rides
6 Business Development, home per year. Cash reward for recruiting new, full& 5 Operations
time riders and cash incentive for reporting data on
time. Reduced monthly fare when taking vacation or
extended leave.
1 public FTE, 9 FTEs at the Flat subsidy of $35 per qualified rider, average van
master contractor, several subsidy of $350.
Non-profit
1987
MTA, Houston TX
Purchased
Transportation
Private vanpools
started in 1970s,
public involvement others part-time .
began in 1980s.
Utah Transit Authority,
Salt Lake City UT
Directly Operated Private firm in the
1980s; UTA
acquired in 1990.
Purchased
2007
Transportation
Snohomish County –
Community Transit,
Everett WA
Valley Metro, Phoenix,
AZ
Directly Operated 1986
Unknown.
10 FTEs
The Rideshare
Company, Connecticut
MTA, Los Angeles CA
Incentives or Subsidy Offered
9 FTEs.
Drivers receive 50 personal miles per month.
2.5 FTE, another 2 LA MTA Subsidizes 50% of van costs up to $400. Most vans
employees used as
receive the full $400.
needed.
5 FTE.
Free fare for drivers (not all vans), all drivers are
allowed 160 personal miles per month.
Directly Operated Approximately 1990 1 FTE, others at
contractor.
511 RideMatch Services, Private Sector
San Francisco CA
1978
Free fare and 300 personal miles per month for drivers.
Reimbursement for two taxi rides home per year for
emergencies.
2 FTEs who work for MTC Van startup/Van save assistance ($100 per lost seat for
and 15 FTEs who are
three months).
contracted to operate the
ride match program.
Pierce County, Tacoma
WA
Directly Operated 1986
11 FTEs, including 2
program managers.
Free fare and up to 1,800 personal miles per year for
drivers.
Funding and Use of 5307
 Directly Operated Programs
 Operating Expenses: Fares cover 100% of operating costs in all programs
interviewed for the Northern Virginia Vanpools Incentive Program Study.
 Capital Expenses: 5307, CMAQ (expansion), Job Access and Reverse Commute
(JARC).
 Administrative Expenses: 5307, CMAQ (marketing), some programs use farebox
revenue.
 Purchased Transportation Programs
 Startup subsidy funding, marketing, and administration funding for purchased
transportation programs (Houston, Los Angeles), including: CMAQ (marketing),
JARC, 5307, local sales tax dedicated to transit (Houston, pre-1996).
 5307 Use: Programs can be supported entirely with the additional 5307 increment.
 Houston uses 5307 increment earned to support rail expansion.
 Los Angeles uses 5307 to provide the rider subsidies, among other non-vanpool
related uses.
Dynamic Ridesharing
 Dozens of Apps/Dynamic
Ridesharing Firms (Zimride,
Carticipate, RideAmgios,
PickupPal)
 Ridesharing Software firms
incorporating dynamic
capabilities.
 Focused Pilot Programs (All
Avego)
 Go520 – Washington State DOT
 WeGoMil – Northern Virginia
Regional Commission
 WeGoSonoma
Avego – Dynamic Ridesharing App
Passenger View
Bikesharing Systems
City
Open Date
Bikes
Stations
New York/Brooklyn
Spring 2013
10,000
600
Chicago
Spring 2013
5,000
500
Fall 2012/Spring 2013
4,000
400
2,500
250
Los Angeles
Long Beach
Washington DC/Arlington
County, VA / Alexandria, VA
9/20/2010
1,525
179
Minneapolis/St. Paul
6/10/2010
1,200
145
3/15/2011
1,000
105
Spring 2013
750
74
Boston
7/28/2011
725
83
Denver
4/22/2010
510
53
San Francisco
Fall 2012
500
50
Madison
5/22/2011
350
35
Chatanooga
7/23/2012
300
30
2013
300
30
12/14/2011
275
26
Miami Beach
Portland
Baltimore
Broward County
Table Source: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/promote/bikeshare.cfm?/bikeshare
Capital Bikeshare Trips
If Capital Bikeshare had not been
available, how would you most likely
have made this trip?
Alternative Mode Choice
% of Arlington
Members
Bus or Metrorail
42%
Walk
Drive or ride in a personal
vehicle
Would not have made this
trip
30%
Personal bike
5%
Taxi
4%
9%
6%
Capital Bikeshare Trip Characteristics
(2011)
 1,364,435 total trips system-wide in
2011
 1.4 million bicycle miles system wide
 Average Trip Distance (Arlington Trips)
-1.3 miles all users, 1.2 miles annual
members, 1.8 miles casual members
 Average trip length: Average trip was
22 minutes (4th Qtr. 2011).
 If trips over 60 minutes are excluded,
the average Capital Bikeshare trip is
only 13 minutes long
Bikesharing Funding
 Variety of funding for capital costs. Some innovative sources
include:
 Private foundations, public health grants, addition of bikeshare
stations in the financial plans of larger transit and highway projects
System
B-Cycle (Boulder)
Hubway (Boston)
Nice Ride (Minneapolis)
Chicago
Capital
Corporate donations
Private foundations
Individual donations
Federal stimulus
State transit funds
Add-on to roadway projects
Bus and Bus Livability grant
CMAQ grant
State capital grant
Station sponsorship
Corporate foundation
FHWA non-motorized transportation funds
Convention Center
Private and non-profit investors
CMAQ grant
New York
-
Corporate sponsorship
Private grants
Paris Vélib’
-
Advertising firm with street furniture contract
Operating
User fees
Station sponsorship
State grants
-
Advertising
Public Health Commission grant
CMAQ grant
User fees used to pay contractor
User fees
Station sponsorship
-
User fees
Station sponsorship
Advertising
Possible use of CMAQ grant
User fees
Advertising
City funds and bonds
State and federal loans/grants
Advertising firm with street furniture
contract
Bikeshare State of Good Repair
Arlington County Capital Bikeshare Plan – 2013-2018 CIP, 2019-2025 Capital Needs
Fiscal Year
CAPTIAL EXPENDITURES
New Capital Equipment and
Installation
New Station Site Planning and Pad
Construction
Replacement Stations and
Bicycles
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
$1,333,732
$161,838
$142,248
-
-
-
$66,274
$6,430
$5,848
-
-
-
$12,039
$30,706
$52,161
$222,688
$343,991
$492,877
TOTAL
$1,412,046
$198,974
$200,256
$222,688
$343,991
$492,877
Decal Fee
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality
$1,236,000
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
$1,436,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$23,954
$1,026
CAPTIAL REVENUES
CAPITAL PLAN BALANCE
Fiscal Year
2019
2020
2021
($256) $ (22,688)
2022
2023
$(143,991)
2024
$ (292,877)
2025
Replacement
Bicycles
$59,756
$42,406
$8,828
$160,475
$268,587
$474,573
$116,812
$27,556
$44,518
$65,065
$91,558
$96,813
$87,780
$50,547
$1,158,124
$1,167,907
$2,464,585
$293,499
$178,844
$87,312
$86,924
$1,232,017
$1,419,939
$2,829,985
$855,851
$346,203
Bicycle Parts
Replacement
Station
Replacement
TOTAL
Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ)
CMAQ Funding by Project Type, 1992-2010
Shared Ride
5%
36%
5%
Demand Management
5%
Pedestrian / Bicycle
$30 billion invested
since 1992
6%
Traffic Flow Improvements
9%
STP/CMAQ
34%
Inspection Maintenance /
Transportation Control
Measures
Transit
Information Source: FHWA, MAP-21 Webinar
Series, Overview of MAP-21 provisions on the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) Program, September 13,
2012
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/docs/13sep_cm
aq.pdf
CMAQ & MAP-21
 Performance measures for traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions.
 States are required to establish targets for these measures
within 1 year of the final rule on national performance measures.
 Each MPO with a transportation management area of more than
one million in population representing a nonattainment or
maintenance area is required to develop and update biennially a
performance plan to achieve air quality and congestion
reduction targets.
 USDOT and EPA will assess emission reductions, air quality and
health impacts of actions funded under the CMAQ program
since the enactment of SAFETEA-LU.
Common TDM Funding Sources
TDM Funding Measure
Description
Parking pricing
Dedication of public parking revenues to transportation programs. Notably, in the Bethesda, MD
area, parking fees have been a significant, stable source of revenue for the Transportation
Management District and other TDM programs.
Special parking taxes
Imposition of taxes specifically tailored to commercial parking transactions or parking facilities.
Road pricing
Road tolls and congestion fees used to fund a variety of transportation programs, including
roadway facilities, transit improvements and TDM programs.
Fuel tax increases and
surcharges
Dedication of a portion of fuel tax revenues to special transportation programs (e.g., one percent
dedicated to non-motorized facilities) or an additional, optional tax is imposed to fund those
programs.
Special taxes designed to limit carbon dioxide emissions.
Fees paid by developers based on the transportation costs imposed by their projects, including
payments for roadway improvements, “in lieu fees” for public parking facilities, funds used to
establish a Transportation Management Association, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, or
other programs to mitigate local traffic impacts.
Also termed “local improvement districts” these taxes are imposed in areas served by
transportation programs and services.
Fees on registered vehicles are used to pay for programs and projects that serve motorists and
mitigate the negative impacts caused by vehicle traffic. For example in California, about $14
million in revenues from vehicle registration fees are allocated yearly for TDM programs.
Carbon taxes
Transportation impact
fees
Special property taxes
Vehicle impact mitigation
fees
Business/employee
assessments
Special assessments on area businesses based on floor area, revenues, or number of employees,
typically for the purpose of funding Transportation Management Associations.
Adapted from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute’s TDM Encyclopedia, Financing Options, Options For Funding Transportation Programs,
available online at: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm119.htm.
Other TDM Funding Sources
 Transit Fare Commission
Revenues
 Non-Transportation Grant
Programs
 Private Foundations
 New Advertising,
Sponsorship, and
Partnership Opportunities
Arlington County Commuter Store and Mobile Commuter Store
What is the role of State DOTs?
Most Common TDM Activates Reported of State DOTs
 Help find new sources of
funding!
 Rationalize services and
connect providers
 Technical assistance and
planning requirements (esp.
mid-range plans)
 Integrate TDM agencies into
corridor-level TDM activities
Table Source: NCHRP Research Results Digest 348: State Department of Transportation Role in the Implementation of Transportation Demand Management
Thank you!
Shana Retherford Johnson, AICP
[email protected]
301-774-4566 x402
Special thanks to Cynthia Burbank (PB) and
Michael Grant (ICF) for their assistance with this
presentation!