Laserfiche WebLink
ALTERNATOr'ES CO~S]~F~D ~ WEP <br /> <br />Work related trips are approximately 25% of all trips and represents a significant concentration of <br />trips during a narrow window of facility demand or peak period. This opportunity for trip reduction <br />was examined in greater detail by the task force. <br /> <br />Two types of employer based TDM strategies were modeled by LCOG on five sub-areas in the <br />Eugene-Springfield region. The strategies were grouped by employer support strategies and <br />employer incentive strategies. Each strategy or package of strategies was modeled twice, once as a <br />voluntary strategy and once as a mandatory strategy. Voluntary and mandatory refer to the <br />implementation conditions. The selection of either voluntary or mandatory determines the <br />participation rates of employers in the TDM strategy or program. Rates were based on actual <br />program results documented elsewhere from around the country. <br /> <br />Employer support strategies were packaged into two complete programs. The two programs <br />considered for study were: <br /> <br />o Modest Em orr Package- Rideshare (carpool and transit) information activities tied <br /> in with area-wide matching, and a ¼ time transportation coordinator. Rates range from a low of <br /> fi. 1% for voluntary to a high of 0.4% trip reduction in work trip VMT by sub-area. <br /> St~_...rgnl~..~¥er ~.up~ort Package.- In-house rideshare matching and information services, <br /> preferential parking for ride sharers, flexible schedules, a guaranteed ride home program, and a <br /> full-time transportation coordinator. Rates range from a low of 2.4% for voluntary to a high of <br /> 10.5% trip reduction in work trip VMT by sub-area. <br /> <br />Employer incentive strategies involve changes in the cost per day (in parking or fare) to single- <br />occupant vehicles (SOVs), carpools, vanpools, and transit users. For example, a reduction in transit <br />fare of $0.75 and an increase in parking of $1.00 would have double affect on SOV. <br /> <br />* Transit Fare Reduction - Rates range from a low of 0% for voluntary to a high of 0.4% trip <br /> reduction in work trip VMT by sub-area. <br /> Parkin~ Pricing.Increase - Rates range from a low of 0.2% for voluntary to a high of 6.0% for <br /> trip reduction in work trip VMT by sub-area. <br /> <br />While work related trips are one segment of VMT, there are additional strategies that were evaluated <br />for broader application and corresponding benefit to ¥~T reduction. Several TDM strategies were <br />considered and evaluated by the task force to go beyond work related VMT reduction. The findings <br />of the TDM Task Force resulted in the following: <br /> <br />* Mandato~ Em up~pg~ Programs - 2.5% reduction in total VMT, assuming strong <br /> employer package as defined above. <br />* ~-reduction Ordinances - not supported by the Task Force <br />o Transk Strategi..e~ - 1% reduction in total V'MT, assumes a $0.75 trip fare reduction. <br />* Parking Price Increases - 2.5% reduction in total VMT~ assumes SOV increase in the downtown <br /> area of $2.00 and caspool fee were increased by $0.40. <br />* HOV Lanes - 1% reduction in total VMT, assumes some shif~ from transit to carpool. <br />* Fuel ?rice Increases - 0.3% reduction in total VMT, assumes an increase of $0.06 per gallon that <br /> was being contemplated by the legislature. <br />* Telecommuting - voluntary 0.5% and mandatory 2.1%, assumes strategy would only affect work <br /> related trips. <br /> <br />The conclusions from TDM Task Force and LCOG study efforts show that a reduction o__f <br />a_p~.r~,i¢_ate_, loy_9_~f'ust under 10% reduction in total VMT can be justified with a relatively high level <br />of acceptance. <br /> <br />EX. HJB~T C-2 - FINDINGS <br /> <br /> <br />