ATTACHMENT D. Chair and Members of the Transportation Advisory Committee. Meeting Date Agenda Category Agenda Item # January 28, 2013 Information 6

Transcription

1 ATTACHMENT D To: From: Chair and Members of the Transportation Advisory Committee Melina Dempsey, Transportation Planner or mdempsey@drcog.org Subject: Regional TDM Program Pool process and policies for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 Meeting Date Agenda Category Agenda Item # January 28, 2013 Information 6 REQUESTED ACTION No action required. This is for information and discussion. SUMMARY Background DRCOG is initiating the process for selecting projects to be funded through the Regional Travel Demand Management Program Pool (TDM Pool) for fiscal years (FYs) 2014 and DRCOG is looking to the TAC as lead committee to discuss and develop recommendations for the TDM Pool process and policies; specifically on rules related to eligibility, evaluation criteria, scoring, and project selection. Attachment D-1 provides more detail on the specific questions to be addressed by the TAC. The questions were developed by DRCOG staff from a review of the existing TDM Pool Program process and policies used for FYs 2012 and For FYs 2012 and 2013 in the Regional TDM Program Pool (2-year total): $960,000 was awarded to the Regional TDM Partnership (6 TMOs) $1.8 million was awarded to 15 projects in September 2011 (see attachment Table 1). For FYs 2014 and 2015, it is estimated that approximately: $1.12 million will be available for the Regional TDM Partnership (amount depends on number of TMOs in the TDM Partnership) $1.73 million will be available for TDM Pool projects (amount may be higher and is contingent on decisions pertaining to monies freed up from previous TDM pool projects) TAC Process to Develop FY 2014/15 TDM Pool Rules The proposed TAC process for developing the final rules is as follows: 1. Today, discussion regarding clarity and understanding of the questions listed in Attachment D With TAC s approval, staff will post all of the questions in an online forum and send it to members/alternates of TAC and TDM stakeholders to provide comments through February DRCOG will compile the comments, and propose recommendations for the TAC s consideration. 4. TAC will then consider each question at the February 25 meeting and either: accept staff s recommendation, approve a revised answer/recommendation, or propose further discussion at the March 25 meeting.

2 Fiscal years 2014 and 2015 Regional TDM Program Pool process and policies January 28, 2012 Page 2 5. A final version of TDM Pool Rules will be compiled, along with the application form for recommendation by TAC at the March meeting. Tentative Overall Schedule January 2013 Initiate the TDM Pool process at TAC (January 28) CDOT LEAN process to develop contracting improvements (January 28 to February 1) CDOT administers contracts for TDM Pool projects February 2013 Open the online discussion forum to TAC and TDM Stakeholders (February 1 to February 12) TAC discuss findings from online forum and make recommendations on certain TDM Pool Rules TAC discuss further aspects of evaluation criteria, scoring process, and project selection process March 2013 TAC recommend/approve final TDM Pool Rules and application form April 2013 Call for projects (early April) Hold required applicant training session May 2013 Applications due (mid/late May) June July 2013 Evaluation and Scoring process, per process contained in the TDM Pool Rules Projects are ranked and selection recommendations prepared TAC recommend selections August 2013 MVIC (tentative) and RTC recommendations and DRCOG Board action PRIOR BOARD ACTION September 21, DRCOG Board approves Regional TDM Pool projects to receive funds in fiscal years June 1, MVIC concurred with the process for selecting TDM Pool projects FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS N/A ALTERNATIVES N/A PROPOSED ACTION/RECOMMENDATIONS N/A BACKGROUND INFORMATION Attachments: Table 1: Board Approved 2012/13 TDM Pool Projects D-1: TDM Pool Project Rules Questions for Discussion and Verification

3 Table 1 Board Approved 2012/13 TDM Pool Projects Sponsor Project Name Description / Elements 2 Year Funding Amount (Federal Funds) 36 Commuting Solutions (TMO) US 36 Transit Incentive Program Transit passes to residents (10 ticket); transit incentive (targets employers) $119,218 Boulder County Nederland Monthly Transit Pass Program Subsidized community wide trans. pass to Ned. residents during ozone season (7mths); $100 reimbursable credit for xpress fare passes $108,799 RTD Region-Wide Marketing of RTD FlexPass Program Promotion/marketing of transit passes (Flex Pass) on behalf of RTD $194,076 South I-25 Urban Corridor (TMA) Million Mile Challenge Subsidize portion of monthly RTD passes; Marketing campaign; ozone season, non-pass holders, cap 3 mos. per pers $138,349 Transportation Solutions (TMO) Parker/Leetsdale Corridor Campaign Marketing/outreach to employers & residents to reduce trips; transit subsidies during ozone season $64,000 B-cycle (Denver) Denver B-cycle Marketing Campaign Staff & operate program in winter; year round marketing, corp. memberships; coord. w/ egocarshare $50,000 Bike Denver Denver Special Event Bike Parking Bike parking service and facilities at special events $50,000 Community Cycles (Boulder) Employee Bike Ambassadors Work with employers/ees in Boulder to increase bicycling; workshops (how to, maint), tune ups, incentives $50,000 Boulder County Diagonal Highway Vehicle Trip Reduction Program Education and marketing program; promote eco pass, DRCOG services, final mile, bicycling, transit $51,200 Boulder East Community (TMO) Community Investment Program Incentive program to use alt. modes; points earned for community investments; $ for B-cycle station (not cash to participants); $150,000 RAQC (Wadsworth Corridor) Every Trip counts Program to reduce VMT/trips along Wadsworth Corridor; individualized and workplace marketing $226,082 Groundwork Denver NW Denver Community-based Social Marketing VMT Reduction Program Community social marketing program; hands-on activities; workshops, clinics, etc. $145,710 Stapleton Area (TMA) Building an Active Stapleton Try Transit Campaign: 1-month transit passes to 125 employees; Residential outreach: active transportation; installs community bike racks (3) $50,000 ego CarShare Vehicle Purchase and Marketing Program 15 new vehicles adjacent to B-cycle and transit (Boulder & Denver) $218,566 NATA (Thornton) NATA Transportation Management Organization Start Up New TMO (modeled after 36 Commuting Solutions) $156,000 Grand Total: $1,772,000

4 Attachment D-1 TDM Pool Project Rules Questions for Discussion and Verification Background on TDM Rules This attachment contains questions about rules for eligibility, evaluation criteria, and other topics relevant to the TDM Pool. Some of the questions include background information and some have staff recommendations. Questions have been organized into three categories; project/sponsor eligibility, evaluation criteria, and other. Additional questions may be added. All questions will be included in an online forum (or other commenting mechanism) which should be available for viewing and comment from approximately February 1 to February 12. Any additional questions not included in today s version will be added to the online forum. An will be sent to TAC and TDM stakeholders when the forum is available. The rules and eligibility criteria established for the TDM Pool must adhere to CMAQ Final Program Guidance (October 2008) and FHWA interpretations. Additional rules and restrictions can be recommended by staff and established through the DRCOG decision-making process. o Items eligible per the CMAQ Guidance may not necessarily be eligible in the DRCOG TDM Pool. For example, there are other more appropriate dedicated sources of funding and programs contained in the TIP for projects that are infrastructure-heavy and capital-oriented (bike paths, transit vehicles and facilities, etc.). o TDM Pool funds have historically been allocated to projects and programs more oriented to the marketing and outreach of TDM services. In the last pool cycle, vehicle acquisition and limited infrastructure that supplements carshare or bikeshare programs were eligible. Specific Questions A. Project/Sponsor Eligibility 1. a.) Should carshare operations or capital purchases (vehicles) be funded for more than three years? DRCOG is awaiting further FHWA guidance on this question. The 2008 CMAQ Final Program Guidance notes that CMAQ funds may support capital expenses and up to three years of operating assistance to administer and manage new or expanded TDM programs; and marketing and outreach efforts to expand use of TDM measures may be funded indefinitely, but only if they are broken out as distinct line items. ego Carshare was awarded funds through the TDM Pool over four years (FYs 10-13) for the purchase of vehicles. b.) Aside from the federal guidance (above), should DRCOG continue to fund vehicle purchases/operations for carshare program projects? The private sector is taking on a stronger role. For example, WeCar by Enterprise provides car sharing to the University of Denver. Avis/Budget and Hertz are expanding their carshare markets. Avis recently purchased Zipcar, the largest car-sharing network. Over the past year there have been significant problems and delays related to carshare vehicle purchases due to FHWA Buy America provisions. DRCOG is waiting for a response from FHWA if there have been any recent decisions or upcoming interpretations that would clarify the situation with Buy America. 1

5 Attachment D-1 TDM Pool Project Rules Questions for Discussion and Verification DRCOG Staff recommendation: Limit vehicle and infrastructure purchases to no more than three years to any one sponsor. Marketing and outreach programs to expand customer base could be eligible indefinitely. However, if the situation pertaining to carshare and Buy America is not resolved prior to the adoption of the eligibility criteria, then carshare vehicle purchases should not be eligible in this pool cycle. 2. Should studies or plans be eligible? Current DRCOG rules state the project must implement TDM strategies. DRCOG Staff recommendation: Leans towards defining studies and plans as ineligible. 3. Should minor infrastructure projects be eligible (e.g., those not eligible for direct TIP funds) provided they have direct VMT reduction benefits? Further research and discussion on this topic is required. DRCOG Staff recommendation: None at this time. 4. Should direct cash-incentive program elements continue to be discouraged? DRCOG Staff recommendation: Yes. 5. Should it be mandated that marketing/promotion-focused projects show or promise a direct link to Way to Go s services and campaigns (work with Way to Go)? If so, to what level of detail? DRCOG Staff recommendation: A significant amount of time and financial commitments have been dedicated to the Way to Go campaign. It is recommended that marketing-related projects are mandated to utilize or promise a direct link to the Way to Go campaign, with details to be worked out during this TDM Pool process. B. Evaluation Criteria 6. Should past performance results of TDM projects by project sponsors be incorporated as a criterion or required input for sponsors? If so, should this include a comparison of how well the sponsor s results compared to benefits predicted in their original application? Sponsors of TDM Pool projects must provide actual performance results (e.g., VMT reduction) to CDOT and DRCOG upon project completion. DRCOG compiles predicted (from application) and reported project benefit results into a spreadsheet. The previous TDM application required past awardees to submit results of previous projects (trips and VMT reduced or other actual data). MAP-21 will require more transparent conveyance of this information. In the past, this information has not been used to inform project selection DRCOG Staff recommendation: Leans toward incorporating these criteria. 7. Should the share of points allocated for detailed calculations of predicted trips and VMT reduction benefits be lessened? Should more qualitative methods for estimating benefits and awarding points be used? Currently, applicants can score up 18 points for VMT reduced, 15 points for trips reduced, and 25 points for VMT/project cost effectiveness (totaling 58% of the total score). Review of past results has shown that most predictions submitted on application forms were unreliable and nearly always much higher than the final reported results. 2

6 Attachment D-1 TDM Pool Project Rules Questions for Discussion and Verification C. Other Qualitative assessments based on reasoned and logical determinations that the project will reduce VMT are acceptable when it s not possible to accurately quantify emissions benefits. Public education, marketing and other outreach efforts, which can include advertising alternatives to SOV travel, employer outreach, and public education campaigns, may fall into this category (CMAQ Final Program Guidance FHWA, 2008). DRCOG Staff recommendation: Continue requiring applicants to submit predicted reductions for both number of trips and VMT, but reduce the share/emphasis of these factors on the total score. Staff is evaluating techniques to accomplish this, as well as methods to improve the quality and reasonableness of predicted benefits. 8. Should the overmatch criteria be eliminated? DRCOG Staff recommendation: Leans toward yes, as TDM projects are small and fairly comparable in size with little point variation resulting from this criterion. Plus, tracking of overmatch during project implementation is problematic. 9. Should targets or limits be established for the share of funds allocated to specific types of projects (i.e., marketing vs. transit passes vs. minor infrastructure, etc.)? This has been suggested to DRCOG in the past because it is difficult for certain project types to compete or be compared with one another. DRCOG Staff recommendation: None at this time. 10. How much of the applicants budget should be dedicated to the evaluation and calculation of project benefits? Per the DRCOG TDM Short Range Plan (p. 18) TDM Pool applicants will be required to dedicate a percentage of their budget toward a task to calculate the benefits of their project. As part of the current DRCOG Regional TDM Partnership Program, the six partner TMOs are required to spend 5-10% of their budget on surveys and evaluations. (DRCOG Partnership MOU). DRCOG Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that each project allocate 5-10% of its budget to project benefit evaluation efforts. 3