Package Evaluation Framework

Analyzing the three separate packages allowed us to draw conclusions about actions that are capital-heavy versus those that are more programmatic, as well as how they work in tandem.

PACKAGE B: PROGRAMS PACKAGE B: PROGRAMS

Includes all program-intensive actions (including all TDM, most parking actions, and all community programs actions) if we were to fully implement them by 2050

+$1,200 MILLION (REVENUE GENERATING)

1,527,000

PACKAGE C: DO EVERYTHING

PACKAGE C: DO EVERYTHING

Includes both capital and program-intensive actions from both Packages A and B, plus more intense parking reform

4,160,000

190,000

1,597,000

Findings from Packages Evaluation

1. The “Programs” Package (B) has the lowest costs due to low capital investment and revenue generating potential, while delivering significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions and achieving the smallest mode shift. It falls short of the city’s targets, however, and this package produces the weakest community benefits across packages.

2. The “Capital” Package (A) has a comparable mode share and total emissions reduction to the “Programs” package. Its high capital and operating costs mean that it is not very cost-effective at reducing emissions per dollars spent, though this package does deliver moderate community benefits.

3. The “Do Everything” Package (C), which essentially enacts all the strategy actions, achieves the most greenhouse gas emissions reductions annually and cumulatively by 2050. It does not reach the 80% lowcarbon mode share goal by 2030, though it comes closer than the other packages and reaches this mark later in the decade. Although the package is not as cost-effective at emissions reduction as the “Programs” package, it does deliver the highest impact for community benefits.