S475: Sustainable Transportation Analysis and Rating System

S475: Sustainable Transportation Analysis and Rating System

Peter Hurley; Sustainable Transportation Council

George Dondero; Santa Cruz County RTC

Sine Adams, AICP; Parsons Brinckerhoff

APA’s 2012 National Planning Conference

Agenda

STARS 101

Application: Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Plan

Application: C-TRAN Bus Rapid Transit Project

STARS Next Steps

Q&A

Key Learning Objectives

• Triple Bottom Line

• Performance Outcomes

• Innovative Analysis

STARS 101

Why STARS?

Create Better Outcomes

What is STARS?

• Voluntary, national system

• For use by public & private sector

• Process to focus and simplify alternative analysis and decision-making

planet

people prosperity

STARS

STARS’ Foundations

Sustainability as defined by The Natural Step and organized by the Triple Bottom Line

STARS Four Step Process

1. Foundation STARS Workshop | Baseline Data | Survey Users

2. Frame Establish goals, performance measures and targets

3. Test Test strategies to meet targets | Make decisions | Get rated

4. Follow-up Monitor on-going performance

STARS Performance Dashboard

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Improve Access +10% +5%

Reduce Fatalities and Injuries

Medium High

Economic Benefit $12/year $9m/year

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

- 11% - 7%

Equity Medium High

Outcome: Local Economic Benefit

Seven performance areas cover the triple bottom line: • Integrated process

• Access and mobility

• Safety, health, and equity

• Climate and energy

• Ecological function

• Cost effectiveness

• Economic benefit

Plus “Community Context” for local customizing

STARS-Plan

STARS - Project

STARS Safety, Health, and Equity Credits

STARS Applications

• Regional Transp. Plan

• Transit Corridor Project

• City Transportation Plan

• Station Area Plan

• EcoDistrict Transp. Plan

• Bike/Ped Trail Project

• Safety, Health & Equity Analysis

STARS-Plan Pilot

Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Plan

14.313.3 13.3

9.6

5.8

3.41.4

452427

522

422

284

185

85

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

-50

50

150

250

350

450

550

Per Capita Emissions Emissions (MMTCO2E)

California’s GHG Goals for 2020 and 2050

Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission

2014 Regional Transportation Plan

Approach:

• Laundry list

• Align with community values: integrated goals

• Shrinking revenues

• Meet state mandates for GHG emissions

• Build on prior STARS Project work

Significance of the RTP

• Engage public

• Declare policies, goals & objectives

• Develop alternatives

• Guide funding decisions

• Comprehensive guide to coordinate

Steps Completed

Workshops for –

agency partners

Public

Online survey for public input

Draft Policies, Goals & Targets

Next Steps

• Draft Goals, Policies and Targets to RTC board – April 19

• Analyze projects for meeting goals

• Develop scenarios

• Prioritize projects & programs

• Complete Draft Plan and circulate – Feb. 2014

• Adopt Regional Transportation Plan – May 2014

• Submit RTP to STARS for rating

Challenges • Data needs

• Takes time to explain

• Learn from LEED

• Political support

Benefits

• Compliments existing tools

• eg: Green Roads, Smart Mobility Framework

• Longer planning horizon – 50 year

• Requires Evaluation = credibility

• Includes all modes

Benefits

• Is context sensitive

• Adaptable

• Expandable

• Accounts for full life-cycle costs

Benefits

• Encourages strategies of all types – “soft” and “hard”

• Supports known strategies

• Encourages innovation

• Foundation is solid, easily explained

• Inclusive of all major stakeholders- environmental, economic, social equity

Observations

Fits description of planning’s “Emerging 4th Wave” or Era of Sustainable Growth (Timothy Chapin, JAPA Winter 2012)

STARS-Project Pilot

C-TRAN Fourth Plain Transit Improvement Project

Fourth Plain Transit Improvement Project

Fourth Plain Corridor

Why We Chose to Use STARS

• Client identified sustainability throughout the RFP

• Shows non-typical project benefits and costs, including:

• Net cost to taxpayers

• Lifecycle costs

• Social costs of GHG emissions

• Up front or behind the scenes

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Better freight mobility

Increased bus capacity

Access to businesses

Improved parking

Improved aesthetics of the corridor

Increased awareness of business / services…

Economic vitality of the corridor

Improved pedestrian crossings

Increased pedestrian/bike access

Reduced energy consumption

Cleaner air/environment

Cost effectiveness of the project

Improved transit travel time/predictability

Safety and security

Highest priority High priority Neutral Low priority Lowest priority

Community Priorities

Transit Project Goals

• Goal 1: Improve Corridor Transit Service

• Goal 2: Create a cost-effective, long-term transit solution

• Goal 3: Meet Current and Projected Corridor Travel Demand

• Goal 4: Enhance the Safety and Security of the Corridor

• Goal 5: Support Economic Vitality and Corridor Revitalization Efforts

• Goal 6: Support a Healthy and Livable Community

Fourth Plain TIP Study Area

Fourth Plain TIP Dashboard

TSM BRT …over the 20 year lifetime of the

project…

$7.19 $3.12 per boarding ride

$54.3 M $22.5 M amount paid by local taxpayers

$6.2 M $17.5 M transportation costs saved

930,000 2,630,000 gallons of gasoline saved

8,300 23,400 metric tons of CO2 (GHG) not emitted

C-TRAN Goal 2: Create a Cost-Effective, Long-Term Transit Solution

$0.00

$7.19

$3.12

Net Lifecycle Cost per New Boarding Ride ($2011)

No BuildAlternative

TSMAlternative

BuildAlternative

Objective: Develop a cost-effective project

C-TRAN Goal 2: Create a Cost-Effective, Long-Term Transit Solution

Objective: Develop a cost-effective project

$-

$54.3

$22.5

Net Lifecycle Cost to Taxpayers ($M - 2011)

No BuildAlternativeTSMAlternativeBRTAlternative

Photo source: http://charlestonteaparty.org/bill-whittle-the-iceberg/

C-TRAN Goal 2: Create a Cost-Effective, Long-Term Transit Solution

Objective: Develop a cost-effective project

$0

$6.23

$17.54

Money Retained in the Local Community Over the Lifetime

of the Project ($M)

No BuildAlternative

TSMAlternative

BRTAlternative

Photo source: http://howtolivelocal.com/2011/05/why-should-you-move-your-money-to-a-local-bank/

C-TRAN Goal 6: Support a Healthy and Livable Community

Objective: Avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the natural environment

Photo source: http://alansmoneyblog.com/2008/05/09/top-13-most-fuel-efficient-cars-that-save-you-money/

$-

935,000

2,630,000

Net Fuel Savings in the Study Area Over the Project Lifetime

(in gallons)

No BuildAlternative

TSMAlternative

BuildAlternative

C-TRAN Goal 6: Support a Healthy and Livable Community

Objective: Avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the natural environment

0

8,300

23,400

Metric Tons of GHG Emissions Not Emitted (Net)

No BuildAlternative

TSMAlternative

BRTAlternative

1 lb CO2

Fourth Plain TIP Dashboard

TSM BRT …over the 20 year lifetime of the

project…

$7.19 $3.12 per boarding ride

$54.3 M $22.5 M amount paid by local taxpayers

$6.2 M $17.5 M transportation costs saved

930,000 2,630,000 gallons of gasoline saved

8,300 23,400 metric tons of CO2 (GHG) not emitted

Next Steps

STARS Phased Development

1 – Development

• Project 1.0

• Plan 1.0

• Safety, Health, and Equity

2- Testing

•Pilot projects •Project 2.0 •Plan 2.0

3- Certification and Training

How Does STARS Compare?

Roads Transit

Bike Ped

TDM, TSM , Land Use

Planning Construction Operations Other

Infrastructure

Greenroads H H

Envision L M M M M L H

FHWA INVEST

H M L L M

LEED ND

L L M L M H

STARS H H H H L M

Potential Plans or Projects?

Create Better Outcomes

Visit the STARS Website

www.transportationcouncil.org

Sine Adams, AICP – Parsons Brinckerhoff

(503) 274-8772 |adamssi@pbworld.com

Peter Hurley – North American Sustainable Transportation Council

(503) 823-5007 |peter.t.hurley@portlandoregon.gov

George Dondero – Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission

(831) 460-3200 |gdondero@sccrtc.org