Transportation Survey and Carbon Reduction
Efficacy Analysis at California State
University, East Bay and Contra Costa College
Professor Chris Johnson, Salt Lake Community College
and
Professor Michael Lee, Cal State East Bay
2014 CHESC
Summary
• Transportation survey metrics – Contra Costa College
and Cal State East Bay
• Decision-making tool
• Used metrics to do carbon reduction efficacy analysis
that ranked TDM strategies by $/MTCO2E
• Used as many cost/savings assumptions as possible
(cost to institution and students)
• Most popular or least expensive strategies may not be
the most efficient
• Most efficient strategies vary between campuses due
to geography and demographics
Source: Slate.com, Sept. 22, 2013
Problem
• 2012 – 72% of California college students were
community college students.
• Most GHG emissions at community colleges are
from commuting.
• Ex. 3 Bay Area community colleges - 65% – 83% of GHG
emissions were from commuters.
• Per the CCCCO, community colleges may be held to
the GHG reduction goals of AB 32.
Problem
• More commuter emissions from community colleges
statewide than UC and CSUs.
Problem
• Studies have not been conducted to determine which
strategies would most effectively reduce commuter
emissions, especially at community colleges.
• Community colleges
• least concern and most to gain
• Low hanging fruit
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
• How will TDM and metrics address problem?
• Reduce emissions by reducing single occupancy vehicle
(SOV) use and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
• This study – How reduce SOV and VMT?
• Collect transportation metrics via a stated-preference
survey.
• Developed a economic tool that uses these metrics to
identify which TDM strategy would most effectively
reduce commuter emissions at the least cost to the
institution and students.
• Decision makers - use to prioritize strategies.
• Prioritization - $/MTCO2E.
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
• Common TDM Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Carpool parking – preference or discounted parking fee
Carpool electronic forum – i.e. Zimride.com
Unlimited access pass – i.e. AC Transit “Easy Pass”
Bicycle infrastructure – parking, showers, repairs, etc
Shuttle bus – light rail to campus (BART shuttle)
Flexible work schedule
Compressed work week
Van pool
Cash-out program – i.e. “Clean Air Cash”
Guaranteed ride home program
On-campus housing
Increasing cost of parking
Methods – Transportation Survey
• Two similar surveys conducted at two
geographically unique campuses –
• Contra Costa College (community college)
• Cal State East Bay (state university)
• Stated-preference transportation surveys –
• respondents directly state their preference for
something.
Methods – Transportation Survey
• Survey questions developed based on the needs of:
• GHG inventory,
• project module (CA-CP Campus Carbon Calculator)
• This tool is a modification of the project module.
• Worked backward to determine metrics needed in
survey.
Methods – Transportation Survey
• Survey Questions • Categorical Questions
• Mode split
• Affiliation (faculty, student, etc)
• Preferred transportation alternative (bus pass, carpool parking,
etc)
• Numerical Questions
•
•
•
•
•
No. of trips to campus per week
No. of weeks per year commuting to campus
No. of miles traveled to campus one-way
Estimated travel costs
No. of days late to class due to transportation issues
• Location
• Nearest street intersection
• Zip code
Results – Cal State East Bay
• Cal State East Bay
• 1,548 respondents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
683 undergraduates,
334 staff/administrators,
254 faculty,
248 graduate students,
3 blank (not used),
23 “other” (not used),
3 visitors or contractors (not used)
• 1,412 respondents were from Hayward campus – only
these were used.
Results – Cal State East Bay
Results – Cal State East Bay
• Separate metrics (5 numeric questions) by affiliation and
mode split
• Ex. Students who drove alone – ave. distance 22 mi. ±1.5 (n=509)
Results – Cal State East Bay
• Of students who drove alone, proportions who
choose a preferred alternative:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
26% - continue to drive alone
17% - more online classes were available
17% - improved BART shuttle
14% - free bus pass
14% - discounted or free carpool parking
10% - carpool with help of electronic forum
2% - bicycle program and infrastructure
1% - discounted or free motorcycle or scooter parking
Results – Cal State East Bay
• Separate metrics (5 numeric questions) for those
who ONLY choose “drove alone” in mode split.
• Ex. Students who drove alone, 17% (n=86) choose
BART shuttle as their preferred alternative and spend
$12 per day ± 1.5 for commuting.
Results – Contra Costa College
• Contra Costa College –
• 394 respondents
•
•
•
•
263 undergraduate
48 staff/administrators
54 faculty
29 no affiliation (not used)
• Final total number of usable respondents 365.
• Low sample size due to lack of institutional support for a
transportation survey – high margin of error and wide
confidence intervals – less meaningful results.
Results - Contra Costa College
Results – Contra Costa College
• Of the students who drove alone (n=146),
proportions who choose a preferred alternative:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
31% - continue to drive alone
23% - carpool with an electronic forum
12% - carpool if parking was discounted or free
8% - AC Transit unlimited access pass
8% - ride a bicycle if more bicycle infrastructure
8% - blank
5% - BART shuttle
5% - more online classes
1% - ride a motorcycle if discounted parking
Analysis – Carbon Reduction
Efficacy
• Cost and savings assumptions (modified CA-CP Campus Carbon
Calculator project module):
• Marginal capital cost - upfront costs of initiating the
project
• Annual marginal operating costs - change annual costs for
operating and maintaining the project such as personnel
• Annual savings or revenues - any cost savings to students
or the university due to implementing the project, such as
reduced need to build or maintain parking spaces.
• Activity change - marginal costs of operating under the
new project such as the mileage change due to a switch to
a different mode and the associated change in cost per
mile
Analysis – Carbon Reduction
Efficacy
• BART shuttle example:
• Marginal capital cost $-30,000 per year in labor costs
• Annual marginal operating costs $-484,000 per year
• Annual savings or revenues $509,000 saved in parking
maintenance
• Activity change $350,000 saved per year and -1,168 MTCO2E
reduced – change from driving alone to BART shuttle
• Metrics – over 10 years of the project
1. Net Present Value (NPV) Savings of $2,566,071
2. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 12% (If a project has a IRR greater than the
discount rate (7.5% endowment, 5.5% bond), then a project should be implemented)
3. Carbon reduction efficacy ($/MTCO2E) –
• $2,566,071 / 11,680 = 230.90 $/MTCO2E
Analysis – Carbon Reduction
Efficacy
Discussion
1) Don’t select the most popular alternative nor the
cheapest
• At Cal State East Bay - 5 most popular alternatives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
online classes,
unlimited access pass (bus pass),
BART shuttle,
carpool parking,
carpool electronic forum
• But efficacy ranking of those alternatives –
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
carpool electronic forum
Online courses
Carpool parking
BART shuttle
Unlimited access pass (bus pass)
Discussion
• At CCC - 5 most popular alternatives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
carpool electronic forum
carpool parking,
unlimited access pass (bus pass),
bicycle infrastructure
BART shuttle
• But efficacy ranking of those alternatives –
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
bicycle infrastructure
carpool electronic forum
Online courses
Carpool parking
Unlimited access pass (bus pass)
Discussion
2) Further, the unlimited access pass (UPASS or
discounted bus pass) was the most widely studied in
the literature, but was the LEAST efficient at reducing
emissions at both institutions.
- Bus pass was the only strategy that COST
money to reduce emissions.
Recommendations
1. Institutions should conduct a transportation survey and
economic analysis that uses metrics to estimate
$/MTCO2E - or another metric such as reduction of SOV
use or parking.
2. Implement TDM strategies based on the efficacy.
3. The need is most urgent at community colleges.
4. Do the transportation survey annually for monitoring.
Conclusions
1. Tool can help decision makers choose the best strategies
that most efficiently meet the future GHG reduction goals
or parking goals (think - MP and CEQA lawsuits).
2. Especially at community colleges and other commuter
colleges –
a.
with the majority of students
b.
the majority of commuter emissions
c.
and are the least prepared financially and institutionally to meet
these demands.
Future Work
Suggested improvements to model –
• Institutional support and standard survey sampling
methods/software essential for high response rates, low
margin of error and narrow confidence intervals.
• An economist and statistician could help with refining the
model, making the spreadsheet easier to use for a
sustainability coordinator, and more accurate cost
assumptions could be determined.
• Future Research –
• Location data available (zip code and street intersection).
Future geography research potential such as research
questions such as “How many respondents who drove alone
but choose the bicycle infrastructure alternative live within a
2 mile radius of campus”?
Appendix –
Analysis – BART Shuttle Example
at Cal State East Bay
Next three slides of calculations
Marginal Costs – Example BART Shuttle
Marginal Capital Costs
$ - 30,000
Annual Marginal
Operating Costs
$ - 484,000
Marginal Costs for First
Year of Project
$ - 4,796
Annual Savings or Revenue Costs (i.e. Reduced
Maintenance Cost of Parking Spaces)
$ 509,204
Activity Change – Mileage Change – Students only shown (Faculty/Staff not shown but similar calculation
Existing
Mileage Drive Alone
Number of
Commuters
(12,136,
Students)
One Way
Trips per
week
7.0
Weeks per
Year
31
Existing
Mileage Carpool
Number of
Commuters
(12,136,
Students)
One Way
Trips per
week
7.0
Weeks per
Year
31
Mode Split –
Car Pool
0.0767
Mileage – Car
Pool
10.6
Mileage After
BART Shuttle
- Drive Alone
Number of
Commuters
(12,136,
Students)
One Way
Trips per
week
7.0
Weeks per
Year
31
Mode Split –
Drive Alone
0.4975
Mileage –
Drive Alone
22.1
Mileage After
BART Shuttle
- Carpool
Number of
Commuters
(12,136,
Students)
One Way
Trips per
week
7.0
Weeks per
Year
31
Mode Split –
Car Pool
0.0767
Mileage – Car
Pool
10.6
Existing
Mileage Light Rail
(BART)
Number of
Commuters
(12,136,
Students)
One Way
Trips per
week
7.0
Weeks per
Year
31
Mode Split –
Light Rail
0.2465
Mileage –
Drive Alone
20.7
Mileage After
BART Shuttle
- Light Rail
(BART)
Number of
Commuters
(12,136,
Students)
One Way
Trips per
week
7.0
Weeks per
Year
31
Mode Split –
Light Rail
0.3455
Mileage –
Drive Alone
20.7
Mode Split –
Drive Alone
0.5965
Mileage –
Drive Alone
22.1
Existing Mileage –
Automobile (Students)
35,924,020
2
Net Change of Mileage
– Automobile
(Students)
-5,784,746
Mileage After BART Shuttle –
Automobile (Students)
30,139,274
2
Existing Mileage –
Light Rail
13,523,425
Mileage After BART
Shuttle – Light Rail
18,955,526
Net Change of Mileage
– Light Rail (Students)
5,432,101
Activity Change – Cost Change
Net Change of Mileage –
Automobile (Students)
- 5,784,746
Price per mile
0.2728
-1 (Positive Value
Shows Savings and
Negative Shows Cost
Net Change of Mileage –
Automobile (Faculty/Staff)
- 1,276,262
Price per mile
0.2208
-1 (Positive Value
Shows Savings and
Negative Shows Cost
Net Change of Mileage –
Light Rail (Students)
5,432,101
Price per mile
0.2145
-1 (Positive Value
Shows Savings and
Negative Shows Cost
Net Change of Mileage –
Light Rail(Faculty/Staff)
1,739,431
Price per mile
0.1988
-1 (Positive Value
Shows Savings and
Negative Shows Cost
Cost Change due to Mileage
Change (Students)
$ 1,578,079
Cost Change due to Mileage
Change (Faculty/Staff)
$ 281,799
Cost Change due to Mileage
Change (Students)
$ - 1,165,185
Cost Change due to Mileage
Change (Faculty/Staff)
$ - 345,799
SAVINGS - Decreased Cost due to
Switch from driving to BART
Shuttle
$ 1,859,877
COST - Increased Cost due to
Switch from driving to BART
Shuttle
$ - 1,510,984
Net Present Value, Internal Rate of Return, and Discounted Rate of Reduction
SAVINGS - Decreased Cost due
to Switch from driving to BART
Shuttle
$ 1,859,877
COST - Increased Cost due to
Switch from driving to BART
Shuttle
$ - 1,510,984
Annual Savings or Revenue
Costs (i.e. Reduced
Maintenance Cost of Parking
Spaces)
$ 509,204
Annual Operating Marginal
Cost - BART Shuttle
$ - 484,000
Net Present Value After First Year of
Project
$ 318,630
Total Cost Inflow
$2,369,081
Net Cash Flow for First Year
$ 374,097
Total Cost Outflow
$ - 1,994,984
Net Present Value After 10 years of
the Project
$ 2,566,071
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of Project
12 %
Activity Change – Carbon Emission Change
Net Change of Mileage –
Automobile (Students)
- 5,784,746
Emissions
Factor
0.000376384
MT e CO2 Change due to
Mileage Change (Students)
-2,177
Net Change of Mileage –
Automobile (Faculty/Staff)
- 1,276,262
Emissions
Factor
0.000376384
MT e CO2 Change due to
Mileage Change (Faculty/Staff)
- 480
Net Change of Mileage –
Light Rail (Students)
5,432,101
Emissions
Factor
0.000207767
MT e CO2 Change due to
Mileage Change (Students)
1,128
Net Change of Mileage –
Light Rail(Faculty/Staff)
1,739,431
Emissions
Factor
0.000207767
MT e CO2 Change due to
Mileage Change (Faculty/Staff)
361
Net Present Value After 10 Years of
the Project
$ 2,696,085
Total Lifetime Reductions of
MT e CO2
11,676
Annual Reduction of
MT e CO2
- 1,168
Discounted Cost per Reduction – Positive
Values Show a Positive Return on the
Investment per MTCO2E
230.90 $/MTCO2E