Congestion Reduction: Decreasing Travel Time Delay and Green House Gas Emissions 2014 by Cat Silva's Portfolio

CONGESTION REDUCTION: Decreasing Travel Time Delay & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Along Interstate-‐5 in the Seattle Area 2014 Policy Option Analysis

Prepared for: Washington State Department of Transportation Preapred by: Josh Cole, Katy Kaltenburn, Cat Silva, and Alicia Teel

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1 I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 2 II. SYMPTOMS AND CAUSES OF CONGESTION ............................................................................................. 2 III. PROPOSED POLICY OPTIONS ................................................................................................................... 3 Option A: Maintain WSDOT’s Existing Policies and Programs. ................................................................ 3 Option B: Implement Tolling at Four Points on I-‐5 within Seattle City Limits .......................................... 3 Option C: Increase Use of RideshareOnline.com ..................................................................................... 3 Option D: Support VMT Reductive Car Insurance Policies ....................................................................... 4 Option E: Fund Non-‐Motorized Highways ............................................................................................... 4 IV. POLICY EVALUATION CRITERIA ............................................................................................................... 5 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Financial Costs and Efficiency .................................................................................................................. 5 Political Feasibility and Legitimacy .......................................................................................................... 5 Equity ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Assessing Policy Options .......................................................................................................................... 6 V. POLICY OPTION EVALUATION ................................................................................................................ 6 Option A: Status Quo ............................................................................................................................... 6 Projected Outcome .............................................................................................................................. 6 Trade-‐Offs ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Uncertainties ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Option B: Implement Tolling on I-‐5 on Four Points Within Seattle City Limits ........................................ 7 Projected Outcome .............................................................................................................................. 7 Trade-‐Offs ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Uncertainties ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Option C: Increase Use of RideshareOnline.com ..................................................................................... 9 Projected Outcome .............................................................................................................................. 9 Trade-‐Offs ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Uncertainties ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Option D: Support VMT Reductive Car Insurance Policies ....................................................................... 9 Projected Outcome ............................................................................................................................ 10 Trade-‐Offs .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Uncertainties ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Option E: Fund Non-‐Motorized Highways ............................................................................................. 11 Projected Outcome ............................................................................................................................ 11 Trade-‐Offs .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Uncertainties ...................................................................................................................................... 12 VI. POLICY RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 12 APPENDIX A: Policy Option Recommendation Matrix ............................................................................... 16 APPENDIX B: Presentation Handouts ......................................................................................................... 17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As the primary north-‐south interstate in Washington state, Interstate 5 (I-‐5) plays a significant role in moving people and goods. In Seattle, the state’s largest city, roughly 250,000 vehicles travel on I-‐5 each day. Yet as the metropolitan region continues to grow, I-‐5 does not work as efficiently as it once did: due to increasing congestion, drivers and passengers travel more slowly and spend more time in traffic. Congestion on I-‐5 reduces vehicle throughput, causes delays, and increases greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), which compromises the reliability of the transportation system and has long term negative impacts on the local and regional environment. This report analyzes ways in which the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) could reduce congestion on I-‐5 in Seattle. In addition to analyzing the effect of WSDOT’s existing policies and programs, this report includes four different congestion reducting tools. The policy options include: A. Maintaining WSDOT’s existing policies and programs; B. Instituting congestion pricing on I-‐5 within Seattle city limits; C. Increasing investment in RideshareOnline.com; D. Partnering with private insurers to support a countywide car insurance policies that encourage drivers to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT); and E. Funding non-‐motorized highways in the City of Seattle. The research team used four main criteria to evaluate these policy options: • Effectiveness, measured by reductions in vehicle delay and greenhouse gas emissions. • Efficiency, measured by financial costs to WSDOT. • Feasibility, measured by the likelihood of acceptance by policymakers and constituents. • Equity, measured by how the costs and benefits of each policy fall on lower-‐income residents. Uncertainties and tradeoffs exist for each of our tools. Overall, the extent to which a new policy will change consumer behavior is uncertain for all options. Following an evaluation and analysis of trade-‐offs of the status quo and each of the four alternatives, this report recommends that WSDOT adopt policy option 3: VMT insurance programs. This policy option is the best fit for WSDOT at this time, as it is easy to implement, flexibility to design reduction goals, and its low cost of implementation. As a long-‐term solution, the team recommends that WSDOT implement variable tolling on I-‐5 in Seattle. This option will require significant political navigation, but offers a cost-‐effective way to significantly and equitably reduce both congestion and greenhouse gases.

I. INTRODUCTION Interstate 5 (I-‐5) serves as the primary north-‐south travel connection in Washington state, and in Seattle, the state’s largest city, 250,000 vehicles use I-‐5 each day. From 2010 to 2012, there was a drastic 45% per-‐person increase in travel time delay along this corridor (WSDOT 2013a, 13). Of the ten state highway corridors evaluated in 2013, this section of I-‐5 experienced the second highest increase in traffic congestion (WSDOT 2013). This report provides a policy analysis of options available to WSDOT to address congestion on I-‐5 in Seattle, which reduces vehicle throughput, causes delays, and results in increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For local residents and regional business community, congestion on the freeway directly compromises the reliability of a major transportation system for the area. Moreover, the slower moving traffic caused by congested conditions substantially adds to the amount of GHG emissions from transportation in the state. While developing these options, the research team considered WSDOT’s stated goal of securing equitable and efficient transportation options throughout the state, as well as WSDOT’s commitment to reducing traffic congestion 10% over the next 10 years (Congestion, n.d.). The various programs WSDOT runs to target congestion under its “Moving Washington” effort ubiquitously center on efficiency, environmental sustainability, and adding capacity to local, regional, and statewide transportation systems (Moving Washington, n.d.). Following the lead of these existing objectives, this report proposes five policy options for which WSDOT might consider putting into action in order to reduce increased traffic congestion in the future. II. SYMPTOMS AND CAUSES OF CONGESTION At a technical level, traffic congestion occurs when an excessive number of vehicles must share a particular section of the roadway and free-‐flowing conditions are impeded (FHA 2013). An investigation of I-‐5 usage in the Seattle area revealed four main symptoms of congestion: 1. Trip Time Delay and Distance: While Seattle ranks 22nd in population among US, it ranks 9th highest for average peak-‐period1 vehicle delay per capita (Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) 2012). The average peak-‐period driver in Seattle experiences 48 hours of delay each year. To monitor this delay, WSDOT measures the annual number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and hours of vehicle delay (WSDOT 2013a, 12). 2. Economic Implications: TTI estimates that congestion costs the average peak-‐period auto commuter in Seattle an additional $1,050 each year, an estimate that factors in the hard cost of extra fuel used as well as the value of time lost in traffic. Consumers also see higher costs because of delayed freight movement—businesses pass on over 60% of the increased fuel, labor, and inventory carrying costs caused by slower-‐than-‐expected traffic (WSDOT 2012, 11). 3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: In 2010, transportation activities contributed to 44% of statewide GHG emissions, highlighting why WSDOT must play a role stewarding congestion and emissions reduction (Liedos 2013, 2). Moreover, this is a third annual measurement used b WSDOT as a measurement of corridor capacity (WSDOT 2013a, 12). The 2012 Urban Mobility report estimates that 497,500 metric tons of GHG emissions resulted from traffic congestion in the Seattle area (Eisele 2012). Stop-‐and-‐go traffic causes a greater amount of emissions. When moving less than 25 miles hour, vehicles emit five times more carbon dioxide than when they move between 35 and 65 miles per hour (WSDOT 2013a, 6). 1

WSDOT defines morning and evening peak periods as spanning from 5-‐10 am and 2-‐8 pm.

4. Highway Productivity: Heavy traffic congestion leads to inefficient use of existing road capacity, since the road can carry fewer vehicles. WSDOT calculates highway productivity primarily by measuring the number of vehicles the highway serves in a given period of time. In 2013, WSDOT found that I-‐5 South at Northgate-‐-‐ one of the principal count locations along the Central Puget Sound corridor—saw a productivity loss of 30% during the evening peak period (WSDOT 2013b, 8). This means that almost one-‐ third of the road’s capacity was unavailable due to congestion. In addition to the mode-‐split experienced in the Seattle area, WSDOT attributes a portion of the increased congestion to the state’s growing economy. Travel delays declined from 2008 to 2009, as the recession hit and fewer commuters were on the road, but delays began to rise in 2010 as the economy began to recover (WSDOT 2011, 13). III. PROPOSED POLICY OPTIONS Option A: Maintain WSDOT’s Existing Policies and Programs. WSDOT’s existing “congestion arsenal” includes: (a) capacity improvements, (b) tolling, an incident response team, (c) a commute trip reduction program that encourages residents to find alternatives to driving alone, and (d) intelligent transportation systems that allow the department to vary speed limits and alert drivers to lane closures and blockages. WSDOT plans to expand many of these options. Option B: Implement Tolling at Four Points on I-‐5 within Seattle City Limits WSDOT could work with the federal government to get approval for charging drivers to use I-‐5 within Seattle city limits through the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP). WSDOT used this program to get authority for tolling the SR 520 bridge and has justified planned tolls on I-‐90 through this program as well. While states normally cannot toll an existing interstate without adding new capacity, the VPPP makes an exception and allows states to "improve operations while generating revenue on interstates through variable tolling.” (I-‐90 Tolling, n.d.) WSDOT presently tolls some facilities and has observed drops in congestion on those facilities. For example, since tolling went into effect on the SR 520 bridge, roughly 43,000 fewer vehicles use the bridge, a 32% drop from pre-‐tolling levels. Travel times have dropped on SR 520 as well, and public transit and vanpool ridership have both increased (WSDOT 2013c). However, the drop in vehicle traffic has meant increased use of alternate routes, such as I-‐90 and SR 522(WSDOT 2013c). Option C: Increase Use of RideshareOnline.com We recommend that WSDOT increase efforts to spread awareness about RideshareOnline (RSO) services and provide funding for RSO to purchase more vanpool vehicles. WSDOT created RSO in 2010 to connect commuters with more efficient transportation resources (i.e., carpooling, vanpooling, bus, rail, biking). RSO provides tools that make vanpooling and carpooling easier and more rewarding by connecting a broader audience of residents who wish to carpool, rideshare, or vanpool. The website is a convenient and easy-‐to-‐use tool for the traveling public to help reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and sustain the quality of living in Seattle. By spreading awareness about RSO services and marketing the website to a broader audience, WSDOT could incentivize carpooling and reduce the amount of single-‐occupancy vehicles on I-‐5. Ridesharing and vanpooling, two of the options RSO provides, are effective ways to address traffic congestion. Commuting with others allows more people to move along freeway corridors by increasing the vehicle occupancy. It also allows access to HOV lanes, reducing overall travel time for vanpool users. 3

In order to meet increased demand for RSO, WSDOT should provide a greater amount of funding to purchase Vanpool vehicles. Vanpool is a commuter program using vans operated by King County Metro; the program provides vans and all else required to operate them. Between 2008 and 2011, WSDOT saw a decrease in carpooling rates from 12.2% to 10.2%. During this period, the number of vanpool vans in operation decreased, despite considerable demand. WSDOT might now choose to provide funding for the county agency to purchase more vanpool vehicles and improve the program’s online marketing. Option D: Support VMT Reductive Car Insurance Policies Insurance is an accepted, legally mandated cost of driving and coverage minimums are in place in Washington State (Drivers License, n.d.). Generally, drivers’ insurance rates are determined by how high of a deductible they want to pay, how much coverage they want, age, gender, education levels, value of vehicle, and history of driving violations. How much an individual drives regularly (i.e., how long is their daily commute) is rarely factored into the pricing formula. Thus, traditional car insurance does not incentivize driving less. Lowering VMT reduces congestion, decreases the risk of automobile accidents, and directly addresses one of WSDOT’s three corridor capacity measures WSDOT could work with insurance companies to provide a per-‐mile insurance option focused on VMT reduction. Users would pay a monthly base rate, plus cents-‐per-‐mile driven. Therefore, individuals can save money by choosing to drive less. Initial research indicates that per-‐mile reduces the yearly mileage by 8-‐10% (Lindblom 2013). If the driver is below the agreed mileage cap, WSDOT subsidizes the per-‐ mileage amount by a percentage if a driver agrees to a mileage cap lower than the national average. If the driver goes above the agreed cap, the program would incur a significant per-‐mile penalty. A driver signs up for a VMT program and indicates they will cap their mileage at a certain amount. The average driver drives 12,000 miles per year (EPA 2008). A program capped at 11,000 miles with 5,000 participants would take at least 5,000,000 miles off the road. Currently these types of insurance programs are primarily offered in the Seattle area and the VMT benefits would accrue primarily in King County. Option E: Fund Non-‐Motorized Highways This option aims to stall or reverse this trend by diverting some commuters away from I-‐5, out of their cars, and onto non-‐motorized/bicycle highways throughout the city. Between 2008 and 2013, Seattle was ranked fifth best city in the nation for bicycle commuting and tied for sixth as a pedestrian commuting city (Thompson 2013). The 2012 Mode Split report estimates 11.4% of Seattle-‐area commuters walk to work and 5.8 % ride their bicycle (GRG 2013). That a total of 17.2% residents already using non-‐motorized forms of transportation for their commutes indicates that local residents are receptive to alternative modes. WSDOT could support the expansion of non-‐motorized commuting by helping to fund the implementation of the 2014 Seattle Bicycle Master Plan (Seattle 2014, ii). The proposed bicycle network would include 52.8 miles of off-‐street paths, including connections from Ballard to Bothell on the Burke-‐ Gilman Trail. The plan also proposes a total of 102.4 miles of protected, bi-‐directional cycle tracks on streets (Seattle 2014, 40). WSDOT could work with the Puget Sound Regional Council, the local Metropolitan Planning Organization to grant funds to and set priorities for the implementation of bicycle highways in Seattle and the rest of the Central Puget Sound. Highways connecting neighborhoods to downtown or the University District, for example, encourage self-‐selecting residents to ride a bicycle

highway to work instead of driving on the freeway. Funding might come from the Federal Highway Administration’s Moving Ahead for Programs (MAP-‐21) program for improving non-‐motorized mobility. IV. POLICY EVALUATION CRITERIA The team has identified four key criteria with which to analyze the potential options effectiveness at addressing traffic congestion on I-‐5 in the Seattle area and aligning with WSDOT’s organizational objectives of safety, mobility, and stewardship. Effectiveness This criterion focuses on a policy option’s overall ability to effectively solve the problem of I-‐5 congestion. Effectiveness is measured by how much the policy option will reduce congestion. Congestion reduction also addresses delays and greenhouse gas emissions, two symptoms of the problem. We have included increased traffic safety as an indicator of effectiveness as well because of its central position in the department’s transportation policy goals. Financial Costs and Efficiency WSDOT must also consider the costs involved in each policy option, and balance these costs against the results it could achieve. This criterion involves economic costs, which include opportunity costs, as well as financial costs to governments and residents. Calculating costs offers a measure of the comparative benefits an option provides to all freeway users. Political Feasibility and Legitimacy WSDOT should consider whether the policy option could be implemented under its existing authority, or if it would need to work with officials at the local, state, or federal levels to secure the ability of make the needed changes. Since several policy options we recommend would need tax dollars for implementation, demonstrating accountability for these funds is an important element of establishing feasibility. The Department should also consider the degree of coerciveness—the extent to which a policy restricts individual or group freedoms (Salamon 2002, 25). The degree of coerciveness will affect the Department’s relationship with constituents. Elected officials in particular may not want to take actions that infringe on constituents’ abilities to make choices because voters will likely view an action that limits choice negatively. Equity This criterion will assess how each option affects low-‐income Seattle area commuters. First, the team aims to equally distribute the economic and financial costs and benefits to all road users. To do this, the team will explore whether each policy option is fair and equitable for all drivers and does not adversely affect certain drivers more than others. Since roads are public goods, the team wants each policy option to provide equal transportation access for all drivers. The team also seeks to ensure that each policy option can be channeled to equitably benefiting all I-‐5 users.

Assessing Policy Options Each of the congestion reduction policies proposed to WSDOT is assessed in the following section using these four criteria. The relative trade-‐offs of each option is evaluated on a three-‐point scale of how well the option achieves the goals of each criterion. This scale is exhibited on the diagram below:

V. POLICY OPTION EVALUATION The five policy options proposed are evaluated using the criteria introduced and described in the previous section. This evaluation considers the expected outcomes, uncertainties, and comparative trade-‐offs for each option. Option A: Status Quo Projected Outcome The long-‐term impacts of the congestion arsenal may make a difference, but current activities are unlikely to substantially change vehicle movement and use or meet the goal of reducing congestion by 10% by 2024. Trade-‐Offs Effectiveness: Low. While current and future planned activities provides a range of tools to better manage operations, recent data provided by WSDOT demonstrates that congestion in the central Puget Sound area has actually increased in recent years (WSDOT 2013a, 14). Between 2010 and 2012, delay increased by 2.0 hours per person even as WSDOT implemented major elements of the arsenal, such as tolling the SR 520 bridge and intelligent transportation system signs that vary speed limits and alert drivers to lane closures. Financial Costs and Efficiency: High Cost, Low Efficiency. Continuing with the status quo comes at a high cost, largely because the capacity improvements that WSDOT plans in the Seattle area will cost over $1.9 billion. $1.4 billion would go toward the Westside improvements to the SR 520 Bridge and $570 million is needed for I-‐5 improvements between Tacoma and Everett. Assuming these projects are funded by a 10-‐year gas tax, annual costs would be $190 million over the 10 years that they are built. The operations components of WSDOT’s congestion reduction efforts add to these costs (S.B. 6001, 2014). Key elements in the Seattle area include: ● The incident response team, which costs $4.8 million per year statewide. ● Tolling operations on the SR 520 Bridge, which cost about $10.5 million in FY 2013. Political Feasibility and Legitimacy: Medium. WSDOT has the authority to implement most of the tools it plans to use in the Seattle metro area. However, two elements that may have a major effect on the area of interest will require legislative approval: an existing proposal to implement tolls for single-‐occupant vehicles on the I-‐5 express lanes and funding for the above capacity improvements. Given the legislature’s previous support for HOT lanes, the team has a reasonable expectation that legislators will authorize HOT lanes on I-‐5 as well. However, funding capacity 6

improvements seems significantly less feasible than approving HOT lanes, in light of the legislature’s failure to approve a major statewide transportation funding package during its most recent session. Some components of the arsenal, such as capacity improvements, have a relatively high degree of coerciveness: if the legislature approves a tax on gasoline to fund expanded and improved roads, people who purchase gas cannot opt-‐out of paying this tax, nor can I-‐5 users. Other elements of the current approach to congestion, such as HOTs, have a lower degree of coerciveness relative to other tolling options, which will likely mean less political resistance and a greater sense of legitimacy among constituents. Equity: Low. Much of the funding for highway improvements and operations comes from the state’s gas tax, which the legislature would likely increase to fund the capacity improvements. While lower-‐income households in the Puget Sound region have lower rates of car ownership than their non-‐low income counterparts and have higher rates of public transit use, funding improvements through the gas tax has a disproportionate impact on low-‐income residents who do drive (Plotnick et al). Lower-‐income drivers are more likely to have older, less fuel-‐efficient cars and thus end up purchasing more gas (FHA 2006). Gas taxes also cost low-‐income drivers a higher proportion of their income compared to more affluent drivers, making this a regressive form of taxation. In addition to bearing greater negative impacts from the gas tax, low-‐income drivers are unlikely to receive proportionally higher benefits. Low-‐income drivers in the area who use I-‐5 will benefit from increased capacity and smoother traffic flow as much as their more affluent counterparts. Uncertainties Three main external factors could affect the number of vehicles using I-‐5: 1. Increases in the price of gas: Some residents would likely seek other options like public transit, carpooling, vanpooling, or teleworking, all of which would reduce the number of vehicles on the road. 2. Population patterns and preferences of new residents: Regional planners estimate that the population of the Puget Sound region will increase by over 1.3 million people over the next 25 years (PSRC 2014). If new residents opt for SOV use at the same rate as today’s residents, then the absolute number of vehicles in the region will increase. 3. Availability and use of public transit: In the short term, King County faces transit reductions which will likely increase single occupancy vehicle use throughout the Seattle metro area. Option B: Implement Tolling on I-‐5 on Four Points Within Seattle City Limits Projected Outcome This option reduces the number of vehicles using I-‐5, but it may push existing traffic to other routes, particularly non-‐tolled ones such as surface streets and SR 99. Since WSDOT anticipates starting tolling of $1.00-‐$1.25 on the deep-‐bored tunnel when it opens at the end of 2016, a low toll on I-‐5 would likely blunt some diversion through the tunnel. Trade-‐Off Effectiveness: High. As mentioned earlier, the recent start of tolling on the SR 520 Bridge demonstrates that tolling can reduce the number of vehicles using a road and decrease travel times. Theoretical modeling bolsters this finding: in 2006, WSDOT examined several strategies for 7

reducing expected congestion in 2025, and found that implementing variable pricing on highways and arterials in the central Puget Sound would reduce expected average vehicle delay at levels comparable to enough lanes or transit service to meet demand (WSDOT 2006). Further, the modeling found that a pricing strategy achieves these reductions by decreasing the number of vehicles that are using the tolled roadway, which in turn decreases greenhouse gas emissions. Financial Costs and Efficiency: Low Cost, High Efficiency. This option incurs relatively low costs, and generates revenue that can offset those costs. Based on operations costs for tolling the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and the SR 520 Bridge, the team estimates that adding tolls on I-‐5 would cost about $10.5 million annually, a cost that includes a contract for operations, staff time, and benefits. As WSDOT’s bi-‐annual budget is $7 billion, the costs of this program would represent only a small portion of the total budget. This cost would be offset by the revenue the tolls generate. WSDOT estimates that 250,000 vehicles travel on I-‐5 in Seattle each day. Assuming that 5,000 vehicles are emergency vehicles, buses, or vanpools which qualify for an exemption on the SR 520 bridge, this report finds that a toll as low as $0.25 per vehicle at four points along I-‐5 in Seattle would generate $89.4 million a year, more than enough to cover operations. The team found that the tolls would still generate $46.9 million a year even when one assumes a 30% decrease in drivers and assumes that 50% of the remaining drivers are in-‐city drivers who will only encounter two tolling points. Political Feasibility and Legitimacy: Medium. WSDOT requires approval from the Federal Highway Administration for implementing tolling on Washington State highways. While this will take time, the structure of the VPPP statute seems to indicate this would be a permissible instance of tolling, and recent comments made by the Obama administration indicate federal agencies’ general receptiveness to tolling existing interstates (Watts 2014). In addition, the ability to generate revenue through a “user fee” instead of a broad-‐based tax like the gas tax may help gain political support. Tolling I-‐5 would provide greater geographic equity since WSDOT already tolls roads in east and south King County. This proposal has a high degree of coerciveness, since individuals would not be able to avoid the toll unless they modify their behavior, either by taking another route or using another mode like public transit. This may lead to some pushback from constituents. Equity: Medium. In the Puget Sound area, low-‐income persons are less likely to drive alone and more likely to carpool, take public transportation, or use other modes like walking or biking than others. Tolling isolates the financial costs to drivers who use the roadway, providing a better connection between the cost and the benefits received. An entirely automated tolling system, like the system used for the SR 520 Bridge, would have negative effects on unbanked drivers (FHA, n.d.). These drivers do not have bank accounts or credit cards to link to the “Good to Go” transponder system, and would thus have to pay the higher pay-‐by-‐mail fees. Fortunately, King County has a robust program to provide resources that connect residents with banking options, and the most recent estimate from the City of Seattle places the unbanked population at less than 0.5% of King County’s population (Gilblom 2011).

Uncertainties The primary uncertainty for this option is the degree of diversion. The SR 520 bridge has demonstrated that faced with tolls, drivers will select other routes. While this would decrease congestion on I-‐5, this may not reduce greenhouse gases, one of our other metrics for effectiveness, since vehicles will still be out on the road. Option C: Increase Use of RideshareOnline.com Projected Outcome Supporting RideshareOnline may reduce congestion by facilitating the use of a diverse set of modes option and by providing a greater availability of mode options. Trade-‐Offs Effectiveness: Medium. Increased awareness of, access to, and usage of RSO would reduce congestion, traffic delay, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. However, this effect may depend upon several aspects, particularly the: (a) frequency of use, (b) diversity of options that RSO promotes, and (c) the general availability of vanpool vehicles. In order to have the largest effect upon reducing congestion, WSDOT must to increase the number of Metro vanpool vehicles, as well as facilitate communication for carpooling, as each of these are options for different groups of people. Vanpooling may only affect a small number of people, as the city has limits as to how many vehicles it can provide. The Rideshare program can have a larger effect on reducing congestion if WSDOT markets the website to a larger audience. Finally, ridesharing may improve traffic safety by reducing congestion, as congestion is a source of many accidents. Financial Costs and Efficiency: Medium Cost, Medium Efficiency. Marketing RSO may incur high costs initially, but costs would decrease overtime as the website gained popularity. Marketing costs are low compared to other options. However, Vanpooling is a less efficient option, as the costs to purchase the van are high when compared to the benefit of taking 8-‐10 other vehicles off the road. Political Feasibility and Legitimacy: Medium. Increasing demand for ridesharing makes this investment politically feasible (CCR, 2013). Although ridesharing has a low degree of coerciveness, small budgets for transportation may constrict feasibility and implementation. Equity: High. The variety of services RSO provides makes ridesharing accessible to wide diversity of people throughout the King County region. Equity of the RSO could provide more equitable services by enabling website translation so English-‐as-‐a-‐second-‐language users can more easily coordinate ridesharing. Uncertainties We have several uncertainties about the ways in which this option will change consumer behavior. We are unsure whether are not greater access to information online about ridesharing options will change the way people commute and by how much. Option D: Support VMT Reductive Car Insurance Policies 9

Projected Outcome The potential to reduce emissions, increase safety, and decrease congestion by lowering the number of miles King County residents travel and taking willing drivers off the road. This option option offers to subsidize the per-‐mile costs if drivers agree to an annual mileage cap below the national average— proposing an annual cap of 11,000 VMT, 1,000 miles under the national average (EPA 2008). If 5,000 drivers enroll in the program, a calculated total of 5 million fewer miles will be driven annually. As caps increase over time and more residents participate, GHG emissions and costs will decrease at a linear rate, while travel delay, motor accidents, and congestion are assumed to decrease at an exponential rate. Since VMT programs are primarily targeted to young urbanites in densely populated areas, these benefits will likely accrue primarily in the Seattle area of King County. Additional savings will accrue directly to insurance-‐holders in the form of reduced vehicle maintenance costs, reduced gasoline consumption and lower insurance payments. Trade-‐Offs Effectiveness: High. Per-‐mileage travel incentivizes drivers to reduce the amount of miles they drive. Problems with GHGs, traffic accidents, congestion and travel delay will go down as people drive less. The most directly impacted categories are GHG emissions and congestions, with longer-‐term impacts on increased safety and travel delay. The main challenge with this approach is getting people to buy this type of insurance and then to stick to their mileage caps. The per-‐mile penalty is there to address the latter problem, but creating participation in VMT options remains a challenge. VMT programs address drivers who currently drive more than optimal, but does not address drivers who need to drive above the yearly average. Financial Costs and Efficiency: Low Cost, High Efficiency. The average mile in VMT programs cost 5.5 cents. At 10% of mileage costs, each person costs to WSDOT would be $60.50 per participant driving 11,000 miles. Because the model is a private-‐public partnership for an already existing product, there will be few associated costs other than the direct subsidy. AAA estimates that each 100 miles driven costs drivers $60.00 in costs, which is the nearly the same amount of money as the proposed yearly subsidy (AAA 2011, 9). This indicates that by providing this low subsidy, WSDOT encourages drivers to travel 1,000 fewer miles and save $600.00 on travel costs. This program would also reduce the economic costs of congestion and the direct costs to WSDOT of managing traffic collisions. As people drive less, this program costs WSDOT less to pay for, while the benefits increase. Finally, the details of this option can also be easily tweaked to optimize participation and costs. Political Feasibility and Legitimacy: High. Since the program is voluntary and saves the consumers who participate money, while lowering congestion directly, the only potential source political criticism is that the state would that since these programs exist in primarily urban areas, the state is subsidizing the cost of living in King County. Equity: Medium. This policy does not impose additional costs onto non-‐participants, but does confer benefits to all drivers in King County. This program works well for people living close to their job, working from home, or having strong alternative transportation options available. Not being able to afford related resources such as housing close to their place of employment may cause people to drive more. 10

Uncertainties The largest uncertainty is voluntary participation. The size of the market of people interested in this product is also unknown at this time. However, VMT plans have spiked in popularity in the last 7 years. While the option could be cheaper than traditional insurance options, there is a low coerciveness to this program. Since WSDOT could be collaborating with insurance companies committed to expanding these insurance options, WSDOT would take on the easier task of supporting existing approaches and not creating new insurance products. Option E: Fund Non-‐Motorized Highways Projected Outcome This policy option will expand and improve the quality of local non-‐motorized infrastructure. This will encourage bicycling and walking instead of driving, but we lack data to estimate the effect this will have on reducing I-‐5 congestion. Trade-‐Offs Effectiveness: Low. Non-‐motorized forms of transportation enable individuals to travel without having a negative impact on the environment. Unfortunately, the positive impact that non-‐ motorized travel has is quite out-‐weighted by emissions from motorized traffic. According to a Danish report on bicycle highways every 10 miles an individual travels by bicycle instead of a car, saves 0.002 metric tons of GHG emissions (Cykelsuperstier 2012, 14). If one individual has a 10 miles round-‐trip commute and works a regular, full-‐time job, 0.702 metric tons of GHG emissions are saved. Even if 100 individuals choose to ride a bicycle, the total reduction in emissions would only equal 0.14% of the annual emissions reported in King County in 2012 (Eisele 2012). According to a Danish report on bicycle highways, every 6.2 miles saves 3.5 pounds of emissions that would have resulted from vehicular transportation. ThisWhile this option has the potential to slightly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it does not address the larger congestion issue. As is stated above, only 5.8% of Seattle area commuters use a bicycle. Although this option aims to increase this percentage, it is unlikely that a switch to bicycle commuting will have a strong impact traffic congestion on I-‐5. Financial Costs and Efficiency: Medium Costs, Medium Efficiency. The cost of building a bi-‐ directional cycle track usually costs around $170,000 but can be up to $5 million per mile (Fucoloro 2012). Under this option, expanding the highway would cost around $2 million per lane per mile, a cost relatively comparable to the cost of improved bicycle facilities (ARTBA, n.d.). While this report does not propose adding an additional lane, this comparison is important for determining if investing in a non-‐motorized highway is the best way to address congestion and serve to improve the local and regional transportation systems. Arguably, a highway lane arguable serves more users than a bicycle highway can, unless the bicycle highways are wildly successful. Political Feasibility and Legitimacy: Medium. Investments in non-‐motorized transportation are well supported by WSDOT, the Puget Sound Regional Council, as well as the Washington State Legislature. Walking and bicycling are recognized as sustainable forms of transportation for which funding programs have been established to support. This option proposes to support Seattle’s Bicycle Master Plan. This report assumes that there will be support for bicycle highways among those who supported the citywide plan. That said, WSDOT is a state agency and some constituents may not support 11

using state funds to pay for bicycle facilities in Seattle. While this option could be extended to other municipalities, it might be difficult to receive statewide support to go ahead with this initial bicycle highway. Equity: Medium. Non-‐motorized forms of transportation are substantially less expensive for users than the cost of entry for driving a private vehicle, making these modes more accessible to lower-‐income residents. However, individuals are only likely to use their bicycle on a non-‐motorized highway if they live or work near to the new infrastructure. As use is expected to be partially dependent on place of residence or work, this option is only moderately equitable for all residents, despite this being the least expensive form of transportation for the individual users. Uncertainties It is unknown to what extent a new bicycle highway will stimulate increased bicycle commuting. Similar to Option C, the success of this option in reducing congestion relies on how many people elect to use the new infrastructure. Without further study of the bicycle as a commuter mode of transportation in Seattle, it is difficult to confidently estimate what impact this option has on the mode-‐split and traffic congestion on I-‐5. VI. POLICY RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION None of these options are mutually exclusive, but given the ongoing budget problems of Washington State and the failure of the State Legislature to pass a transportation package, the combined costs of these options would probably make implementation infeasible. The varying ranges of political feasibility also pose unique funding challenges. A simple matrix of policy option trade-‐offs is included as appendix a, and visually exhibits the strengths and weakness of each option respectively. Short-‐Term Recommendation In the short-‐term, the team recommends that WSDOT adopt policy Option D, VMT insurance programs. The funding challenges are weaker in this option because the per-‐unit cost is low and the project scope is customizable. VMT insurance programs use already existing regulations so equity burdens are not shifted between various stakeholders. New burdens are not created for users of I-‐5 either. The projected outcome of the policy—fewer miles driven by few people—will reduce overall use of roads and shift the burden onto alternative forms of transportation. Moreover, if this program gains new users, its financial costs will decrease while overall effectiveness increases. Long -‐Term Recommendation This report additionally recommends that WSDOT consider implementing tolls on I-‐5 as part of its long term strategy. As other parts of the regional system become tolled facilities, particularly the SR 99 tunnel and the I-‐405 express lanes, I-‐5 may see an increase in users. Adding tolls to I-‐5 helps dampen some of that diversion, reduce the number of vehicles on the roadway, and generate revenue. The biggest challenge for this option is feasibility, and the federal political climate suggests that there may be a window of opportunity soon for tolling existing highways, even outside of the Value Pricing Pilot Program. WSDOT faces a significant challenge in advancing the status quo because of legislative inaction on a transportation funding package. Tolling offers a financial mechanism that would pay for itself, and could also alleviate congestion that results while the state waits for funding to come through on planned capacity improvements. 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY _______. “Congestion.” Washington State Department of Transportation. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Congestion/. (accessed May 8, 2014). _______. “Getting a Driver License.” Washington State Department of Licensing. http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/insurance.html. (accessed May 8, 2014) _______. “I-‐90 Tolling: Questions an Answers.” Washington State Department of Transportation. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I90/CrossLakeWATolling/FAQ.htm#tollillegal. (accessed May 8, 2014). _______. “Moving Washington.” Washington State Department of Transportation. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/movingwashington. (accessed May 14, 2014). _______. “Our Congestion Arsenal.” Washington State Department of Transportation. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/movingwashington. (accessed May 10, 2014). American Automobile Association (AAA). 2012. “Your Driving Costs: 2012 Edition.” American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). “Transportation Frequently Asked Questions.” http://www.artba.org/about/transportation-‐faqs/. Cykelsuperstier. 2012. “Cyklesuperstier i Hovedstadsregionen.” Sekretariatet for Cykelsuperstier. Eisele, Bill, Tim Lomax, and David Schrank. 2012. “TTI’s 2012 Urban Mobility Report: Powered by INRIX Traffic Data.” College Station, TX: Texas A&M Transportation Institute. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. “Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-‐Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.” Federal Highway Administration (FHA). “Guide for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Impacts of Road Pricing.” Chapter 3: Congestion Pricing Equity. Federal Highway Administration (FHA). 2006. “Congestion Pricing: A Primer.” Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration (FHA). 2013. “Traffic and Congestion Reliability: Trends and Advanced Strategies for Congestion Mitigation.” Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Transportation. Fucoloro, Tom. 2012. “Seattle Cycle Tracks Can Be Built Easily and Quickly.” Seattle Bike Blog. http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2012/12/04/seattle-‐cycle-‐tracks-‐can-‐be-‐built-‐easily-‐and-‐ quickly/. (accessed May 12, 2014). Gilblom, Kelly. 2011. “Program Helps ‘Unbanked’ in King County Live Happily with Accounts.” Puget Sound Business Journal. 13

Liedos. 2013. “Evaluations of Approaches to Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Washington State: Final Report.” Washington State Climate Legislation and Executive Workgroup. Lindblom, Mike. 2013. “MetroMile to Allow Drivers to Insure Cars by the Mile.” The Seattle Times. Plotnick, R.D., Jennifer Romich, Jennifer Thacker, and Matthew Dunbar. 2011. “A Geography-‐Specific Approach to Estimating the Distributional Impact of Highway Tolls: An Application to the Puget Sound Region of Washington State.” Journal of Urban Affairs. Vol. 33, No. 3, Aug. 7 :345-‐366. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). 2014. “Regional Centers Monitoring Report.” Salamon, Lester M., ed. 2002. “The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction,” in The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York: Oxford University Press, 1-‐ 41. Seattle, City of. 2009. “Seattle Variable Tolling Study.” City of Seattle Department of Transportation. Seattle, City of. 2014. Bicycle Master Plan Update. City of Seattle Department of Transportation. Sweet, Matthias. 2013. “Traffic Congestion’s Economic Impacts: Evidence from U.S. Metropolitan Regions.” Urban Studies. Vol. 15, No. 15, Oct. 10. S.B. 6001, 63rd Legislature. 2014. “Transportation Budget: Supplemental.” http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/lbns/2014Omni6001-‐S.SL.pdf. The Gilmore Research Group (GRG). 2013. “2013 Center City Commuter Mode Split Results.” Seattle, WA: Commute Seattle. Thompson, Derek. 2014. “The Cities Where Americans Bike and Walk to Work.” CityLab. U.S. Census Bureau. 2006-‐2008. American Community Survey. http://factfinder.census.gov/home. (accessed May 3, 2014). Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2006. “Congestion Relief Analysis: Central Puget Sound Area Report.” Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2011. “The 2013 Corridor Capacity Report: WSDOT’s Comprehensive Annual Multi-‐Modal Analysis of State Highway System Performance.” Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2012. “The Impact of Truck Congestion on Washington State’s Economy: Executive Summary.” Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2013a. “The 2013 Corridor Capacity Report: WSDOT’s Comprehensive Annual Multi-‐Modal Analysis of State Highway System Performance.” Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2013b. “The 2013 Corridor Capacity Summary: WSDOT’s Comprehensive Annual Multi-‐Modal Analysis of State Highway System Performance.” 14

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2013c. “WSDOT Toll Division Annual Report FY 2013: Where We’re Going.” Watts, Jim. 2014. “Obama Highway Bill OKs Interstate Tolls.” The Bond Buyer. Apr. 29. http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/123_82/obama-‐highway-‐bill-‐oks-‐interstate-‐tolls-‐1061994-‐ 1.html.

APPENDIX A: POLICY OPTION RECOMMENDATION MATRIX

APPENDIX B: PRESENTATION HANDOUTS

POLICY ANALYSIS CASE FILE

CONGESTION REDUCTION Decreasing Travel Time Delay & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Along Interstate-5 in the Seattle Area Good To Go!

Evans School of Public Affairs Josh Cole

PBAF 513: Public Policy Analysis

Katy Kaltenburn

Cat Silva

Page 1 of 13

Spring 2014

Alicia Teel

THE CLIENT & THE POLICY PRObLEm

CLIENT: Washington State Department of Transportation Secure equitable and efficient transportation options throughout Washington State Mitigate congestion Decrease greenhouse gas emissions

POLICY PRObLEm Congestion on Interstate 5 in the Seattle area reduces vehicle throughput, causes delays, and results in increased greenhouse gas emissions, all of which compromise local residents’ quality of life.

Page 2 of 13

THE CHALLENGE OF CONGESTION

CONGESTION: Issues on I-5 in Seattle Excessive commute times is a stressor on local quality of life: Seattle has the ninth-highest amount of vehicle delay in nation High usage of Single Occupancy Vehicles

Congestion results in increased costs for drivers: Greater fuel consumption and lost opportunities/ productivity

CHALLENGES: Ability to Influence Causes of Congestion Congestion increases Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Vehicles emit five times more carbon dioxide at speeds of less than 25 MPH

Lost highway productivity: Congestion leads to inefficient use of existing road capacity

Page 3 of 13

POLICY OPTION A: maintain the Status Quo

ACTION: Continue Using Current “Congestion Arsenal” Utilize Current Tolling on WA Highways Plan Capacity Improvement Projects Use Existing Intelligent Transportation Systems Support Commute Trip Reduction Programs

ANTICIPATED OUTCOmES If current trends continue, congestion will likely increase As elements of the existing “congestion arsenal” come online, they may alleviate some of this increase

Page 4 of 13

POLICY OPTION b: Implement Tolling on I-5

Good To Go!

ACTION: Toll I-5 users at Seattle City Limits Reduce congestion through pricing, which data shows affects traffic volumes Encourage alternative modes of transportation by tolling drivers Use existing “Good to Go” system and a congestion pricing scheme for ease of implementation

CHALLENGES: Ability to Influence Causes of Congestion ANTICIPATED OUTCOmES Likely to reduce congestion on I-5 but may push existing traffic to other routes (SR 99, surface streets)

Page 5 of 13

POLICY OPTION C: Support RideShareOnline.com

ACTION: Encourage Increase RideShareOnline.com Use Meet local demand for vanpooling Market RideShareOnline.com Purchase a greater number of vanpool vehicles for local residents to use

CHALLENGES: Ability to Influence Causes of Congestion ANTICIPATED OUTCOmES May reduce congestion through an increase in the diversity of mode options and the availability of options

Page 6 of 13

POLICY OPTION D: Car Insurance Plans

ACTION: Fund VMT Reductive Insurance Plans Enable drivers to save money by driving fewer miles Support a per-mile insurance plan through a partnership with insurance service providers Allow users pay a monthly base rate, then pay a subsidized per-mile rate

CHALLENGES: Ability to Influence Causes of Congestion ANTICIPATED OUTCOmES The program may lower the overall vehicle miles driven in the Seattle-area, reducing congestion and greenhouse gas emissions

Page 7 of 13

POLICY OPTION E: build a bicycle Highway

ACTION: Fund a New Non-Motorized Highway Reduce the use of I-5 by encouraging a mode-shift to bicycles Fund upgrades to proposed off-street paths and cycle track networks in SDOT’s Bicycle Master Plan Promote an inexpensive & healthy form of transportation

CHALLENGES: Ability to Influence Causes of Congestion ANTICIPATED OUTCOmES These highways may encourage a modeshift toward bicycling, leading to a reduction the number of individuals using I-5

Page 8 of 13

CRITERIA

CRITERION 1: Effectiveness Will the policy options effectively reduce congestion? (Measured in travel delay and GHG reduction) Is travel safer for Seattle-area road users?

CRITERION 2: Efficiency What is the approximate financial cost to implement the policy options? Are there future financial benefits of the policy options, for WSDOT and road users?

Page 9 of 13

CRITERIA

CRITERION 3: Political Feasibility Can WSDOT achieve political support, and does it have the authority, to enact the policy options? Will road users and residents support the policy options?

CRITERION 4: Equity Do the policy options provide benefits to low-income populations, service industry workers, etc? Is the process for entry and use of the policy options readable to non-English speaking residents?

Page 10 of 13

TRADE-OFFS

KEY UNCERTAINTIES A: Status Quo

FINANCIAL COSTS A: Status Quo

Are improvements effective and what will modal preferences be in the future?

b: Tolling I-5

Currently planned projects will cost $1.9 billion.

b: Tolling I-5

Is this equitable for individuals in terms of costs, time, and benefits?

C: RideShareOnline.com

Adding I-5 to the current contract would have relatively low costs.

C: RideShareOnline.com

Will access to information online changing consumer behavior?

D: VmT Reductive Insurance

Initial costs are high, but marketing costs decrease over time.

D: VmT Reductive Insurance

Will vehicle owners join the insurance programs?

E: bicycle Highway

Annual cost will be ~$60.50 per person enrolled, with 5,000 enrollees.

E: bicycle Highway

Is the highway a strong enough incentive for Seattle area riders?

Costs will be above the normal $4-5 million per cycle track mile.

Page 11 of 13

CONCLUSION

POLICY OPTION STRATEGY These options reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions on I-5 by: modifying the existing use; or supporting alternatives to using the freeway.

mAIN CONCERN: Challenge of Affecting Behavior Will people actually use any of these options, and if so, to what extent?

Page 12 of 13

CONCLUSION

NEXT STEP: Complete the Analysis of the Policy Options Evaluate which option best addresses our policy problem using our criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, feasibility, and equity.

Good To Go!

CHALLENGES: Ability to Influence Causes of Congestion

Recommend best Policy Option

Page 13 of 13