CITY OF
RICHMOND EMPLOYEE COMMUTING PLAN
CITY OF RICHMOND OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY
ADAM SOCKI BRANDON TOBIAS DON O’KEEFE
INTRODUCTION More than 4,000 people are employed by the City of Richmond, and nearly all of these employees commute to their workplaces hundreds of times per year. More than a million trips are generated, and these commutes produce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, tax the city’s infrastructure, increase parking demand, and exacerbate traffic problems. If a greater number of employees chose modes of travel other than commuting alone by automobile, the aforementioned issues could be mitigated, and Richmond would be a step closer to becoming a sustainable community where productivity and quality of life increase for all. With these factors in mind, VCU conducted a study for the City of Richmond’s Office of Sustainability to investigate policies and practices that can be enacted to create an energy-efficient employee commuting program. The first step in the process was an evaluation of the current state of commuting by City of Richmond employees. We began by determining from where and to where Richmond employees commute. Using data from the Office of Sustainability, these locations have been grouped and analyzed to see commuting patterns across the central Virginia region. Data from the 2013 Employee Commuting Survey conducted
by the Office of Sustainability was analyzed to see what modes of transit employees use to get to work. Because one of the study’s main goals is to help reduce GHG emissions, it was important to determine the current level of emissions before setting goals for improvement. Again, the Employee Commuting Survey provided more specific information such as distance of commutes, mode of transportation, and the gas mileage of vehicles, where applicable. Using this data, total GHG emissions were calculated, as were average per capita emissions by mode of transit. These figures allowed us to make projections of different future commuting scenarios.
based on best practices, which most closely relate to Richmond and on the reality suggested by the data. The result is a number of scenarios reflecting varying levels of success in implementing these recommendations. Each scenario includes a projected change in GHG emissions which can be compared with baseline conditions. This report will provide the Office of Sustainability with a background from which to make informed decisions about how to reduce the VMT of Richmond City employees.
In order to create meaningful scenarios for VMT reduction among city employees, it was necessary to understand how cities go about changing commuting patterns. We have highlighted best practices from cities of different sizes from across the country. We researched a variety of programs including subsidized transit passes, city assisted vanpool programs, improved bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and other incentives, financial and otherwise. Before applying any of these lessons to Richmond, we catalogued the city’s existing programs and services. Any plan to reduce commuter VMT must leverage assets the city already has, including programs and infrastructure. With an understanding of these assets, we formed a series of recommendations. These recommendations are
Commuters on West Broad Street
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 1: Employee Locations within Bus Routes
The map in Figure 1 illustrates the specific locations in which employees of the City of Richmond live across the local metropolitan area. Each white dot is a geocoded location representing where one unique commuter lives. The blue dots represent the employees who live within a 5 minute walk to a GRTC bus line. The black lines located within the City of Richmond illustrate this 5 minute walking buffer zone surrounding the existing GRTC bus lines across the city. Geocoded locations of city employees were obtained from data generated by the City of Richmond Employee Directory. This map shows that the majority of commuters are located in the surrounding counties and areas across the region. Although there are significant clusters of employers located within the city’s transit boundaries, many individuals live outside of this area and may not have access to viable transportation alternatives. Figure 2 (next page) represents a density map of city employees located within census block groups across the local Richmond region. The map illustrates a changing color gradient where darker block groups indicate a higher number of employees are located within that particular census geography compared to others across the region. What this illustrates is that there is a significant portion of city employees that live within the eastern
Source: City of Richmond Employee Directory portion of Henrico County along the border with the City of Richmond; along the southern portions of the city; and in northern Chesterfield County.
THE ‘DONUT ZONE’ The is a radial area located around the City of Richmond in which there are currently no
specific policies or infrastructure in place to address employee commuting alternatives. GRTC Ridefinders policy states that you must be located at least 25 miles from your employment center to qualify for the vanpooling program. Furthermore, GRTC local bus route coverage area is limited to areas within the city with little to no access to transit within the counties. This creates
Figure 2: Employee Locations within Bus Routes
Identifying and addressing this gap in service is an important issue because those living within the Donut Zone represent a significant portion of city employees. Approximately a quarter of the city’s employees live within the bus buffer zone meaning the remaining employees across the region are without any significant travel alternative for their commute. Specifically these residents live in the surrounding counties across the Richmond MSA. Figure 2 illustrates this point very effectively. There are many census block group areas towards the eastern and southern sections of the Richmond area just outside of the city limits that are very heavily populated but yet have no policies from the city or local governments to address their commute.
DATA ANALYIS FROM THE CITY OF RICHMOND EMPLOYEE DIRECTORY Source: City of Richmond Employee Directory two spaces that are served by GRTC’s commuting alternatives; one is immediately within the city limits and the other begins approximately 25 miles outside of the center city’s employment clusters. The lack of programs, policies, or infrastructure to address commuting alternatives immediately around the city leaves a wide
radius of people around the city who live too far outside of the GRTC bus coverage area to ride the bus but are located too close to their workplace to qualify to use GRTC Ridefinders’ vanpooling service. This creates a ‘transit free radial zone’ that surrounds the city that we have called the ‘Donut Zone.’
One of the methods we employed in conducting this analysis was to determine the total amount of GHG emissions produced by City of Richmond employee commuters. In order to calculate the GHG values, a total aggregated value of commute distance was needed. GHG values are generated by multiplying the different coefficients for each model of commuting (such as cycling, walking, transit or motor vehicle).
There are several methods of calculating this the total number of miles driven by employees. The data obtained from the City of Richmond Employee Directory gives both the employee’s home and work location. A process of geocoding both work and home locations was used to calculate the travel distance and time in order to determine total GHG emissions.
Employee Commute Survey administered by City of Richmond Office of Sustainability.
workers have commutes longer than 20 miles.
Figure 3: Commute Trip Distance
According to survey data, 49% of the City’s workforce resides within the City of Richmond. Approximately 19% of the workforce lives in Chesterfield County, and approximately 16% lives in Henrico County. Other areas where a significant portion of the workforce lives include Hanover County and the City of Petersburg which each account for approximately 6% of the work
The data provided through the City of Richmond Employee Directory offers a great deal of potential to develop very refined policies to address a wide range of commuting alternatives for employees. The data provides the exact location of employees residences along with their place of work. Using this data can generate a precise level of travel time and distance between each individual employee.
Figure 4: Mode of Transportation
SURVEY DATA Because the City of Richmond Employee Directory data does not indicate mode of travel, it is limited to a spatial analysis of transit alternatives and cannot provide existing mode share. Mode split of city employees is obtained from the survey data that has been collected. In this section of the paper, we will examine the current commuting trends of Richmond City employees by qualitatively, quantitatively, and visually analyzing data on employee residential and employment locations and data gathered from the
Source: 2013 City of Richmond Office of Sustainability Employee Commute Survey Richmond City workers have an average (mean) commute distance of 15.89 miles and a mean commute distance of 12 miles, as seen in Figure 3. Several outliers skew the mean distance, so the median is a better representation of the average worker’s commute. Only 13% of the workforce lives within 5 miles of their workplace. Most workers live between 5 and 20 miles of their workplace. Approximately 28% of
Source: 2013 City of Richmond Office of Sustainability Employee Commute Survey
force. By far, driving alone in an automobile is the most widely used mode of transportation. As shown in Figure 4 (see previous page), approximately 77% of workers drive alone to work. The second most popular transportation mode is bus/transit with approximately 11% of workers commuting this way. Other significant modes of transportation include carpooling/vanpooling and using multiple modes which each account for 4% of commutes. Walking, biking, various, and other modes each account for approximately 1% of commutes. The low number of bikers and walkers is likely because so few commuters live within a 5-mile commute of their workplace.
GOOGLE API Another potential method of calculating total commute time and distance is to use the Google Maps API (Application Programming Interface). Google Maps has an API coding interface which allows for the easy calculation of aggregate commute time and distance based on a variety of commuting patterns and travel modes.Google Maps offers a very dynamic service which allows users to calculate both travel distance and time between two different locations. Google Maps also allows for a shift in mode choice in calculating travel distance and time. Driving, walking, cycling and transit are among the four different travel modes available to use within the API. Using Google Map’s API platform would
allow one to calculate the total aggregate travel time and distance for all 4,336 employees. This is an extremely powerful tool that can easily assist in calculating the effects of policies based on the different projected scenarios discussed later on in this report in the scenarios section. This Google Maps API application has several advantages over traditional ArcGIS tools that are often used. Google’s mapping interface has continuously up to date travel information that can more easily calculate current and future traffic conditions, changes in transit service, improved cycling infrastructure among other data. In order to calculate these values, basic Java and HTML coding skills are required to generate the needed script/commands. Figure 5 shows an example of the coding interface used in calculating the API figures. Longitude and latitude of each location are used for the locations for both the home and workplace. These inputs are used to generate the starting and ending addresses for each individual commute.
Figure 5: HTML and Java Script
Figure 6 is an example of the output that is produced when the coding is compiled
Figure 6: Google API Distance Calculator
through the API. A map and detailed data are presented. The data output includes the home and work addresses, and travel time and travel distance depending on the mode of travel used. Aggregating all of this information will provide a figure of total miles traveled total travel time.
EXISTING PROGRAMS As of now, the City of Richmond subsidizes transit for full time employees enrolled in its employee commute trip reduction (CTR) program. The CTR program pays for trips to and from work on GTRC buses or vanpools organized through RideFinders. RideFinders requires at least 7 people to begin a vanpool and it is only recommended for commuters traveling 25 miles or more each way. As exemplified by the data, GRTC is restricted to Richmond with the exception of park-and-ride routes. Many people are caught in between these two service areas. 39% of City of Richmond employees live in Henrico, Chesterfield or Hanover counties, for example. The City of Richmond CTR
program does not provide compensation for carpooling, which, at present, is the only option for reducing VMT for these commuters. Commuters who want to bike or walk are also not subsidized. In the most recent data provided, 22% of city employees are enrolled in the CTR program. As seen in Figure 7, less than half
Figure 7: Commute Trip Reduction Program Participation April – June 2013
of those registered in the program actually use RideFinders or GRTC, about 9.5% of the city’s workforce. The average cost per trip for the past year was $2.17. The average of $2.17 is more than a standard bus fare but on par with express service to park and ride areas. All expenditures for the trip reduction program are being matched by a combination of CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation Air Quality) and state funding. Currently, the program only covers GRTC trips relating to commuting. This makes it harder for employees to switch from primarily using a car to relying on alternate modes. Furthermore, emissions are reduced equally regardless of the nature of the trip. Currently, no money is being spent marketing this service to employees.
BEST PRACTICES
Source: 2013 City of Richmond Office of Sustainability Employee Commute Survey
In order to help inform a decision about Richmond’s efforts to reduce employee commuting, case studies from cities of a variety of sizes were examined. Case studies in progressive cities like Austin, Texas and Seattle, Washington help to set the bar high for the success of a commuting VMT reduction program. A case study from Cleveland serves as an example of how a mid-sized city is striving to reduce commuter related emissions. Additional small studies are included to illustrate specific concepts. Included are program’s specific to city government employees and programs, which have been implemented
on a larger scale but are still relevant to Richmond’s efforts.
SUBZIDIZING TRANSIT The city government in Santa Monica, CA offers incentives to its employees who use public transit to get to and from work through a program called the City of Santa Monica Transit Club. Employees qualify for the program if they have at least 15 round trips per month. The benefit includes bus, rail, and train travel modes, and travel reimbursements are up to $84 per month for bus and $100 per month for rail/train. Participants do not have to forfeit their parking passes to join the program. This fairly lenient program helps city employees who have never used transit before, like many in Richmond, to try it. There is no requirement on the actual number of times per month one must use transit either (City of Santa Monica, 2013). In the state of Washington, all organizations employing more than 100 people at a single site, including municipal governments, are required to offer subsidized transit passes to employees. The efforts of Bothell, Washington, a city of only 34,000 in Seattle’s metro area, exemplify how transit subsidies can be further improved. Bothell offers the mandated services to employees, but it has a unique feature which encourages participants to further reduce reliance on the car. The amount of the subsidy increases proportionally with the greater the
number of days an employee commutes without using a single occupant car. A participant can bike one day, walk one day, and take a bus the next, and it will all count towards an increased discount. The actual increase in discount is small, sometimes only 10 dollars less for a new discount bracket. If certain benchmarks are reached, say less than 90 days of car commuting in a year, the participant can be awarded a transit gift card or, in the case of those who walk, bike, or vanpool rather than take transit, gift cards of other kinds (City of Bothell, 2013). Despite the modest rewards for commuting changes, the system’s concept is profound. The individualized reward system encourages people to monitor their own commuting performance. Bothell has also partnered with it’s surrounding county, Snohomish, to create the Curb the Congestion program. This program offers additional incentives for good commuting practices. If a participant refers a new person to the program they are given a reward from a $25 transit subsidy to a gift card to outdoor outfitter REI. Cleveland has not mandated participation in CTR reduction programs but it has created a system by which employers can offer subsidized passes to employees. The office of sustainability is currently exploring the idea of providing discounts for bulk pass sales. For city employees, the city offers tax-deductible transit passes. Cleveland monitors its employee’s commuting patterns with the goal of reducing VMT but, on the whole, it has allocated resources to
infrastructure improvements, including its recent Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Health Line, more so than programs. Subsidizing transit costs is one of the most popular ways for cities to reduce commuting VMT for both city employees and the community at large. Convenience is an important factor in helping people switch, so directly offering discounted passes or making transit tax deductible are good options. Incentives offered on a sliding scale help encourage more transit use once people have already made the switch.
CAR AND VANPOOLING Vanpooling is an important strategy for reducing commuting impacts in most American cities. Low residential densities make traditional mass transit nearly impossible in many areas. The smaller scale of vanpooling allows people to reduce their carbon footprint within the constraints of their current living situation and, often times, save money. City government policies can establish vanpools or encourage the formation of vanpools by individuals. Recently, Seattle established a vanpool pilot program to test the effectiveness of transit solutions catered specifically to city employees. While the program sounds ambitious, only 23 employees (2 vans) are involved in the pilot program. This is a relatively small investment. The pilot involves a handful of volunteer participants in concentrated geographic areas and is
organized by the city government. This program supplements the State of Washington’s comprehensive rideshare service which subsidizes car and vanpools created by individuals. The city of Santa Monica supports vanpooling through its Vanpool Subsidy Club. The club offers up to $100 per month for each employee who participates in a vanpool. Any employee over age 25 can start a vanpool using their own vehicle so long as at least 5 people ride in the pool regularly. The Metro government may supply up to $400 in additional funds for vanpool maintenance costs per month on top of the $100 per month for each employee. This flexible program allows commuters to start and manage their own vanpools with no capital investment by the city. Similar subsidies are also available for car pools which are defined as any commute in which at least two people ride together for more than 50% of the commute distance. Interestingly, City of Santa Monica employees can start carpools with non-city employees and still receive personal and maintenance subsidies (City of Santa Monica, 2013).
REDUCING BARRIERS TO MODE SWITCH The City of Austin has a program involving the ‘trading’ of parking spaces for downtown employees (both who work for the city and those who do not). In the program, the City of Austin will actually ‘buy’ an employee’s parking space from them for
ers and offers secure bike parking, shower and changing facilities, and minor bike repairs ("The bike rack," 2013).
Cars crossing the Mayo Bridge $50/month (Fillion, 2012). This unusual type of financial incentive makes switching to alternate modes easier. Austin also offers a training program where people can learn how to reduce their number of trips to work. These training sessions are conducted on many different topics including telecommuting, bike safety, how to use public transit, and how to start a carpool. Cleveland has gone a step further by establishing a physical office of bike and transit education. This office helps city employees and citizens alike overcome barriers to using alternate modes of transit. Cleveland partnered with the city’s downtown booster group, the Downtown Cleveland Alliance, to create “Bike Rack” a bike commuting transit hub. The downtown storefront serves city employees and other commut-
The City of Austin has a centralized website that offers commuting solutions not only for internal employees but for all of those who are living, working, or visiting the downtown area. The City of Seattle has established an “in-web” site which is designed for and can be access only by city employees. The site ties the city’s programs together by providing information on all Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) initiatives in the city and how to participate in one place. Also included are city employee testimonials detailing a successful switch in commuting patterns.
event of an emergency. The eGO program was designed to provide transportation for those employees who have to travel around the city for their work. As part of the eGO program, after employees reach city hall or another operations center, they can use Seattle’s green fleet, which includes electric cars and bicycles ("A clean and green fleet," 2003). Charging stations and bike racks are located at city facilities. Information on all of these programs has been consolidated and detailed on the aforementioned “in-web” CTR site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On a broader level, Seattle has tried to make using transit simpler for city employees, residents, and visitors alike. Seattle’s transit system cards have been integrated with ORCA cards. ORCA cards work for all transit in the Greater Puget Sound area allowing seamless transitions between ferries, buses, and various forms of rail in the region.
Based on current conditions, we have created a series of recommendations with the goal of reducing GHG emissions. This involves getting as many commuters as possible to switch from commuting in single occupant vehicle to alternative commuting methods. These recommendations draw heavily from the best practices of existing programs in other cities.
The city government of Seattle has its own commute trip reduction (CTR) program, which includes all requirements and most recommendations of Washington state law including transit subsidies for city employees. In addition, Seattle offers the Guaranteed Ride Home program by which employees who commute by public transit can take reimbursable taxi rides in the
The current City of Richmond CTR program subsidizes only vanpooling and GRTC buses. Bikers and walkers are not given support despite their lower cost to the city, their mitigating effect on congestion, and their lack of GHG emissions. Many other commuters live in areas too far to walk or bike from that are not served by GRTC or vanpooling. We recommend extending
subsidies to pedestrians, bikers, and carpoolers to encourage these practices. Carpool subsidies should be given to each city employee in a given carpool. Subsidies could be on a sliding scale, rewarding carpoolers more with each added passenger. Passengers need not all be City of Richmond employees to count towards this total, though only city employees would be subsidized. An additional subsidy could be provided to the pool as a whole for car maintenance costs. Walkers and bikers provide the most benefit for congestion and GHG emission reduction of commuters in any category and should be supported by the city’s CTR program. Participants could be subsidized on a sliding scale depending on the number days they walk or bike to work. Subsidies could either be direct or, for biking, reimbursement for related expenses. The City of Richmond needs a comprehensive “in-web” site to make employees aware of the new programs. The site would allow employees to track their transit use and determine what subsidies they can expect to receive. All city employees should be encouraged to register on the site even if they plan to drive alone for the foreseeable future. It is important that people know how much they stand to save and what their options are for making a change in their commute. People could use their individual profiles to monitor relevant statistics such
as VMT, GHG emissions, and so on. Small rewards could even be given based on these statistics. These could range from a symbolic ranking system (bronze, silver, gold) to gift cards or other small rewards. The site should contain peripheral information such as a forum, testimonials from employees who have switched modes of commuting, and an FAQ page. This will allow people to get answers to questions about different modes of transit and what is involved in using them. Information on information and training sessions held by the city would also be found there. These programs could focus on how to start a carpool, bike safety, or using GRTC. There should also be an avenue for existing participants in the CTR program to refer new users. Ideally, this would result in a small perk for the referrer. Ideally, in addition to the online resource center, there would be a physical location where City of Richmond employees could go to learn about commuting options. This would likely be integrated into the ground floor of a building in the downtown employment center. This would be best integrated with a multimodal commuting hub. Bike and pedestrian infrastructure would take the forefront here with covered bike parking, shower and changing facilities, and so on. People who wanted to jog to work and walk or take transit home would also benefit, A vanpool drop off point or carpool preferred parking could be located nearby.
A group biking on Forest Hill Avenue in Southside Other functions such as training sessions could be integrated into transit hub. Employees would be able to find information about transit options, buy GTRC swipe cards, and attend workshops, discussions, and so on. Basic bike repairs and maintenance could be part of the storefront’s function and the subsidy bonuses for bicyclists discussed earlier could be linked to goods and services here. Bike repair stands and basic tools such as pumps, patch kits, and so on could be made available to commuters as well. The storefront could serve ancillary function as the a center of bike and pedestrian culture among City of Richmond employees. It is not hard to image the storefront being a place where group bike rides, walks, or runs convene. To further increase
the accessibility of biking to employees, “bike trains” could be established. Bike trains are groups of commuters who ride together to work at similar destinations. The concept is becoming increasingly popular in public and private sectors. This makes riding feel safer and helps novice bike riders gain confidence under the supervision of peers. The transit storefront could serve as a destination for bike trains which, overtime, could be created for other employment centers in the South Side and elsewhere. Bike trains, like carpools, could be organized by employees and visible on the employee commuting in-web site. Over the course of our research, it has become obvious that switching modes and reducing emissions is easier the closer one is to one’s destination. While we do not have a specific recommendation, we feel that encouraging employees to live closer to work would have a myriad of benefits. Reducing GHG emissions, mitigating congestions, reducing parking needs, and cutting wear and tear on infrastructure are just some of the benefits. This would further benefit Richmond’s environment by promoting good land use patterns and possibly help the city’s workers by saving them time and money.
TRANSIT SCENARIOS To estimate potential reductions in VMT and emissions from commuting, we
designed four scenarios based on changes in commuting patterns. In the first three scenarios, we replaced a portion of drive alone commuters with an increase in a single alternative mode while holding the usage level of the other three alternative modes constant. The fourth scenario is a combination of the first three scenarios in which all four alternative modes are increased. Furthermore, for each scenario, we calculated emission reductions for both a moderate reduction approach and an aggressive reduction approach For details on baseline and reduction calculations, refer to the appendices at the end of the paper. The following is a summary of our methodology for calculating reductions in emissions. First, we calculated baseline emissions of current employee commuting patterns. We multiplied the usage levels for each mode (from the survey data) by the total number of employees to calculate the number of employees who use each mode. Then, for each mode, we multiplied the number of employees who use the node by
the average commute distance for the mode (from the survey data). This calculation gave us the VMT each day by mode. We then multiplied the daily VMT by the number of days the average employee commutes per year. We used the number 250 for the number of workdays. This number was calculated by multiplying 52 weeks per year times 5 days per week minus 10 holiday or sick days per year. This calculation gave us the total annual VMT for each mode. We then multiplied the total vehicle miles by average load factors for each mode to determine total passenger miles. To find total energy use in Btu, we multiplied by total passenger miles by the estimated number of Btus per passenger mile. Then, using emissions factors, we calculated GHG emissions.
SCENARIO 1: BUS In the first scenario, we examined the effect on increased bus ridership on emissions reductions. As described in the existing conditions section, bus ridership among
Figure 8: Scenario 1 Employee Commuting Patterns
employees living within the city is already high, so there the potential to increase bus ridership is less than the potential for other alternative modes. Refer to Figure 8 (previous page) for the detailed breakdown of usage levels by mode for scenario 1. For the moderate reduction approach, we assumed a 50 percent increase in bus ridership from 11 percent of commuters to 16.5 percent of commuters. At this level of bus ridership, a 2.16 percent reduction in GHG emissions would be realized. For the aggressive reduction approach, we assumed a 100 percent increase in bus ridership from 11 percent to 22 percent. At this level of bus ridership, GHG emissions would be reduced by 4.35 percent.
vanpooling, emissions would be reduced by 1.43 percent. Under the aggressive approach, with a 400 percent increase in carpooling and vanpooling, emissions would be reduced by 4.34 percent.
SCENARIO 3: BIKING AND WALKING
In the third scenario, we examined the effect of an increase of walking and biking commutes on emissions reductions. Refer to Figure 10 for the detailed breakdown of usage levels by mode for this scenario. Although many employees live in close
proximity to their workplaces, there are currently very few employees who walk or bike to work. We posit that this number has great potential to increase and designed the scenario accordingly. For the moderate reduction approach, we assumed a 250 percent increase in walking and bike commutes from 2 percent of commuters to 5 percent of commuters. At this level, there would be a 3.26 percent decrease in emissions. Under the aggressive approach of increasing walking and biking commutes by 500 percent, there would be an 8.67 percent emissions reduction.
Figure 9: Scenario 2 Employee Commuting Patterns
SCENARIO 2: CAR AND VANPOOLING In the second scenario, we explored the effect of increased participation in carpools and vanpools on emissions reductions. Refer to Figure 9 for the detailed breakdown of usage levels by mode for this scenario. As mentioned earlier, a transit-free ‘Donut Zone’ exists around Richmond where transit options are very limited. Furthermore, few residents who live in this area currently take advantage of carpooling and vanpooling. For these reasons, we postulate that there is great potential for an increase in this commuting method. Under the moderate reduction approach, the number of carpoolers was doubled from 4 percent to 8 percent. With this two-fold increase in carpooling and
Figure 10: Scenario 3 Employee Commuting Patterns
SCENARIO 4: MULTIMODAL In the final scenario, we considered the combined effect of increased bus ridership, carpooling and vanpooling, and walking and biking. Refer to Figure 11 for the detailed breakdown of usage levels by mode for this scenario. With the moderate approach, GHG emissions would be reduced by 6.86 percent. With the aggressive approach, GHG emissions would be reduced by 17.36 percent.
Figure 11: Scenario 4 Employee Commuting Patterns
Figure 12: Greenhouse Gas Savings (CO 2) by Scenario
EMISSIONS SUMMARY Figure 12 is a summary of the reductions in greenhouse gases by scenario and plan. For a detailed summary table of energy use and emissions reductions, refer to appendices While its impacts should not be discounted, moderately increasing carpooling and vanpooling would have the smallest impact on emissions reductions. A moderate increase in bus ridership would have a slightly larger impact; however, of the moderate approaches, increased walking and biking would have the greatest impact by far. Under the aggressive approaches, increased bus ridership and carpooling and vanpooling would result in approximately the same reduction in emissions. An aggressive approach to increase walking and biking would result in about the same emissions reduction as the aggressive increase in bus ridership and carpooling and vanpooling combined. A combination moderate approach would
M - Moderate
A - Aggressive
result in a reduction of under a thousand metric tons of GHG emissions while a combination aggressive approach would result in a reduction of over two thousand metric tons of GHG emissions.
To make the emissions reductions numbers more comprehensible, we converted the emissions savings into what it equals in terms of cars off the road. The individual moderate scenarios would result in emis-
sions level decreases equal to between 50 and 114 cars being off the road during a daily commute. An aggressive bus and carpooling and vanpooling would each result in about 150 cars off the road, and an aggressive walking and biking approach would result in about 300 cars off the road. A combination moderate approach would result in 246 cars off the road, and a combination aggressive approach would result in 620 cars off the road. These results are shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13: Cars Off the Road by Scenario
CONCLUSION Over the course of our research, certain conditions consistently presented themselves as barriers to decreasing commuter VMT. The most obvious was people’s distance from work. Many employees live beyond walking or biking distance from employment, including the majority of of city workers who live outside of the city itself. While policy changes would make it possible for them to commute without driving alone, there are major barriers to expanding transit services into their areas. The further out employees live, and the lower the density of their neighborhoods, the less likely it is they can find access to transit and the less likely it is they can find other city workers who commute along the same route. If most city employees live within walking distance of their work, emissions would be cut more dramatically than in our most aggressive scenarios.
M - Moderate
A - Aggressive
But how would one go about changing patterns of habitation when patterns in commuting already present such a problem? Ideas such as tax breaks or incentives came up, but in order to have a significant effect on housing choices the programs would have to be generously, likely unrealistically, funded. For this reason, we did not feel equipped to make a specific recommendation regarding this type of policy. That is not to say that the city should not consider how to make living closer to downtown, where most city employees are concentrated, more attractive, but that this effort is inextricably linked to policies which promote the revitalization of the city’s
urban neighborhoods. Another example of another major issue raised by our research is that reducing VMT for City of Richmond employees is tied to reducing city and region-wide VMT. While we feel our recommendations could have a significant impact on the City of Richmond commuting VMT, investments made in infrastructure and services which make it easier and more attractive to walk, bike, carpool, or take public transit for residents of the Richmond region will likely be the ones that are most effective for city employees as well. Proposals like Broad Street Bus Rapid Transit or light rail, the Floyd Avenue
Bike Boulevard, and support for complete streets are important examples of these policies. Of course, our recommendations complement these proposals rather than conflict with them. With more mixed-use, private development in the city’s urban core, it is more likely that some city employees will choose to move closer to work on their own in the coming years. Fostering this growth, in addition to following the earlier outlined recommendations, is an important part of promoting sustainable transportation trends for all commuters in Richmond moving forward.
WORKS CITED City of Bothell. (2013). Commute trip reduction program. Retrieved from http://www. ci.bothell.wa.us/CityServices/HR/Benefits/CTR.ashx?p=1803 City of Santa Monica. (2013). Santa monica human resources rideshare. Retrieved from http://www.smgov.net/Departments/HR/Benefits/Rideshare.aspx City of Seattle, Office of Sustainability and Environment Fleets and Facilities Department. (2003). A clean and green fleet: an action plan for the city of seattle. Fillion, L. (2012, Jan 4). City begins pilot to reduce city employee parking downtown. Retrieved from http://www.austintexas.gov/news/city-begins-pilot-reduce-city-employee-parking-downtown The bike rack - downtown cleveland. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.clevelandbiker bikerack.com/about-us
APPENDICES
BASELINE
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 1
CONTINUED
SCENARIO 2
SCENARIO 2
CONTINUED
SCENARIO 3
SCENARIO 3
CONTINUED
SCENARIO 4
SCENARIO 4
CONTINUED
SUMMARY TABLE