Facts and Figures. October 2006 List Release Special Edition BWC National Benefits and Related Facts October, 2006 (Previous Versions Obsolete)

Similar documents
2 VALUE PROPOSITION VALUE PROPOSITION DEVELOPMENT

Summit County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary, 2017

August ATR Monthly Report

The Case for. Business. investment. in Public Transportation

Transportation Demand Management Element

Earth Day Report April 22, 2013

Transportation: On the Road to Cleaner Air Did you know?

CLRP. Performance Analysis of The Draft 2014 CLRP. Long-Range Transportation Plan For the National Capital Region

May ATR Monthly Report

PGE Sustainability Report Key Metrics FISCAL YEAR 2017

TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES REPORT 2017

Caltrain Downtown Extension Study Ridership Forecast Summary

The USDOT Congestion Pricing Program: A New Era for Congestion Management

The Green Dividend. Cities facilitate less driving, saving money and stimulating the local economy. Joseph Cortright, Impresa September 2007

Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Where are the Increases in Motorcycle Rider Fatalities?

The Value of Travel-Time: Estimates of the Hourly Value of Time for Vehicles in Oregon 2007

Implementation of Future Transportation Technologies: Getting Beyond the Low Hanging Fruit without Chopping Down the Tree

New Energy Activity. Background:

2015/16 CTR Survey Data Overview

Utah Transit Authority Rideshare. CTAA Conference June 12, 2014

2016 Greenhouse Gas Inventory

September 21, Introduction. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ), National Highway Traffic Safety

CTR Employer Survey Report

Click to edit Master title style

Motorcoach Census. A Study of the Size and Activity of the Motorcoach Industry in the United States and Canada in 2015

Performance Measure Summary - Large Area Sum. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Medium Area Sum. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Address Land Use Approximate GSF

Green Fleet Conference Hyatt Regency Chicago October 19-20, 2009

The TDM Plan for Fort Washington Office Park NOVEMBER 1 6, 2017 FORT WASHINGTON OFFICE PARK STAKEHOLDERS

Performance Measure Summary - Austin TX. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Pittsburgh PA. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - New Orleans LA. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Portland OR-WA. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Oklahoma City OK. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Buffalo NY. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Seattle WA. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Fresno CA. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Hartford CT. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Boise ID. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Tucson AZ. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Wichita KS. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Spokane WA. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Denver Car Share Program 2017 Program Summary

Performance Measure Summary - Grand Rapids MI. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Washington DC-VA-MD. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Charlotte NC-SC. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Toledo OH-MI. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Pensacola FL-AL. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Omaha NE-IA. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Allentown PA-NJ. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Nashville-Davidson TN. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Corpus Christi TX. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Attachment C: Benefit-Cost Analysis Spreadsheet

Performance Measure Summary - El Paso TX-NM. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Boston MA-NH-RI. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Minneapolis-St. Paul MN-WI. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

The Carbon Footprint of Daily Travel

Performance Measure Summary - Louisville-Jefferson County KY-IN. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Air Quality Impacts of Advance Transit s Fixed Route Bus Service

Impact of Transportation Emissions on New Jersey s Air Quality

Performance Measure Summary - New York-Newark NY-NJ-CT. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

CONTRIBUTION OF THE BIODIESEL INDUSTRY TO THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES

San Francisco Transportation Plan Update

Analysis of Waste & Recyclable Materials Collection Arrangements. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Presented by Jeff Schneider

Transportation 2040: Plan Performance. Transportation Policy Board September 14, 2017

NEW YORK SUBURBAN RAIL SUMMARY (COMMUTER RAIL, REGIONAL RAIL)

POWERING WORLD A MORE PROSPEROUS CUMMINS AND SUSTAINABILITY

CTR Employer Survey Report

HAS MOTORIZATION IN THE U.S. PEAKED? PART 5: UPDATE THROUGH 2012

WAITING FOR THE GREEN LIGHT: Sustainable Transport Solutions for Local Government

CTR Employer Survey Report

Third Quarter 2018 Performance and Business Update. October 24, 2018

CTR Employer Survey Report

Vehicle Miles Traveled in Massachusetts: Who is driving and where are they going?

Transportation and Energy

ENERGY SLIDESHOW. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

The Road to Automated Vehicles. Audi of America Government Affairs

Call for Projects Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Emissions Formulas Technical Advisory Committee

USF Tampa Campus Percent Mode Share 2010

1.963 Report: A Sustainable Transportation Plan for MIT Campus May 2007

Center for Energy Studies. Lauren Lee Stuart. Louisiana State University

Vanpooling and Transit Agencies. Module 3: Benefits to Incorporating Vanpools. into a Transit Agency s Services

Lauren Lee Stuart Center for Energy Studies Louisiana State University

RUPOOL: A Social-Carpooling Application for Rutgers Students

Urban transit is important for those who lack access to automobiles. But the

TRANSIT DEMAND IN RURAL DOUGLAS COUNTY: PRELIMINARY BACKGROUND DATA

The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix

Vanpool in Atlanta: Accommodating a 10% Mode Shift for Coca-Cola. Prepared for CEE 6625 by Calvin Clark Daejin Kim Yu Chen

Whither the Dashing Commuter?

Impacts of Weakening the Existing EPA Phase 2 GHG Standards. April 2018

ADVANTAGES OF USING SMARTWAY TECHNOLOGIES

Technical Memorandum Analysis Procedures and Mobility Performance Measures 100 Most Congested Texas Road Sections What s New for 2015

Funding Scenario Descriptions & Performance

ITEM 9 Information October 19, Briefing on the Performance Analysis of the Draft 2016 CLRP Amendment

American Driving Survey,

Trip Generation and Parking Study New Californian Apartments, Berkeley

Opportunities in CNG. July, 2016

UC Santa Cruz TAPS 3-Year Fee & Fare Proposal, through

Transcription:

Facts and Figures Date October 2006 List Release Special Edition BWC National Benefits and Related Facts October, 2006 (Previous Versions Obsolete) Best Workplaces for Commuters - Environmental and Energy Benefits (all figures annual) Commuters Covered Metric CO2 NOx VOCs Gallons gasoline Barrels Oil Gas Price 1 Dollars saved Sept. 2001 360,000 165,000 400 200 18,745,000 446,000 $1.54 $28,913,000 Sept. 2002 570,000 261,000 700 400 29,652,00 706,000 $1.33 $39,293,000 Sept. 2003 1,100,000 500,000 1,400 700 56,804,000 1,352,000 $1.58 $89,494,000 Sept. 2004 2 2,000,000 1,042,000 2,800 1,500 118,429,000 2,820,000 $1.79 $211,455,000 Sept. 2005 2,800,000 1,459,000 3,900 2,100 165,801,000 3,948,000 $2.20 $364,775,000 Sept. 2006 3 3,600,000 1,882,000 3,600 1,700 213,815,000 5,091,000 $2.66 $568,748,000 Cumulative 5,309,000 12,800 6,600 573,623,652 14,363,000 $1,302,678,000 The Current CO2 Reduction (September 2006 Annual Reduction Rate) is Equivalent to One of the Following: (From U.S. Climate Technology Center Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator) 241,592 Household electricity use for one year (number of households) 48,256,410 Number of tree seedlings grown for 10 years 1,568,333 Acres of pine or fir forests storing carbon for one year 15,426 Acres of forest preserved from deforestation 78,416,667 Propane cylinders used for home barbeques 9,563 Railcars of coal burned 633,670 of waste recycled instead of landfilled BWC Program Indicators as of October 5, 2006 Over 1,800 BWC partners covering nearly 3,600,000 employees, including: o 22 BWC Districts covering 953,000 employees o 1,865 BWC Employers (excluding Districts) covering 2,600,00 employees 1 Gasoline prices referenced here are based on monthly averages for all grades and all formulations reported by the Energy Information Administration. They are averages for the twelve month period ending on the month stated in the table. 2 Figures for 2004 and later reflect the findings of the 2004 BWC Survey that not only regular employees (shown in the Commuters Covered figures) change their commuting behavior in response to BWC commuter benefits, but there is also a smaller shift toward alternative modes among on-site contractor employees, temporary employees, and other irregular employees. 3 Emission reduction estimates for 2006 are based on MOBILE6 emission factors for Calendar Year 2006. For earlier years they are based on EFs for 2004 used in the analysis of the 2004 BWC Survey. 1

o 296 Fortune 500 worksites covering 696,000 employees o 326 Network members (includes Network members that are not BWC Employers) o 2.7 percent of the nation s civilian, non-farm workforce (135 million) covered by commuter benefits meeting the BWC National Standard of Excellence. Primary Benefit breakdown: These numbers represent the number of BWC worksites offering each of the following primary benefits, and the number of employees at those worksites. A number of worksites offer more than one primary benefit. These worksites and their employees are counted for each primary benefit offered. Consequently the percentages add to more than 100%. Worksites Employees Transit Pass 1,379 73% 2,183,185 61% Vanpool Pass 320 17% 1,223,504 34% Telecommuting 281 15% 430,361 12% Parking Cash-out 48 3% 55,705 2% Employer Proposal 281 15% 916,907 26% Key Accomplishments since September 30, 2005 Employer Strategies o Number of participating employers grew by over 30 percent. o Number of employees covered grew by 29 percent in 2006 from 2.8 million to 3.6 million. o Cumulative saving of over 573 million gallons of fuel and 5.3 million metric tons of CO2. o Fortune 500 effort grew by more than 20 percent. Colleges & Universities o Grew from 55 to 77 participants. o Number of employees covered in BWC colleges & universities grew by 33 percent. o 33 million gallons of fuel saved annually. BWC Network o Established in 2004. o Currently 326 members. o 69 members added since FY 05 for a growth rate of more than 25 percent. Travel Facts Total miles driven by cars and light trucks in 2004 2.7 trillion, almost triple since 1970 (FHWA Highway Statistics 2004) 2

78 percent of all commute trips nationwide are drive-alone (2000 Census) Percentage of Total VMT represented by commuting 27 percent (National Household Transportation Survey, 2001) Total Commuting VMT 734 billion (calculated) Total Crude Oil Equivalent consumed by Cars and Light Trucks in 2002 8.5 million barrels per day, 42.5 percent of U.S. total consumption (DOE) Gasoline consumption in vehicles accounts for 20 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (DOE) 18% of household income is dedicated to transportation- before recent price increases (BLS) Between 2002 to 2012 drive- alone commuting VMT will increase by at least 15% - generating an additional 43 million metric tons of CO2 annually (BLS/EPA) 4 300 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Caused by commuters in single-occupancy vehicles) Million Metric of CO2 250 200 150 100 50 185 220 278 0 1990 2000 2012 Congestion in America Highlights from TTI s 2005 Urban Mobility Study Cost of congestion $63.1 billion per year Annual delay per peak period (rush hour) traveler, which has grown from 16 hours to 47 hours since 1982 Rush hour now lasts six to seven hours per day Number of urban areas with more than 20 hours of annual delay per peak traveler, which has grown from only 5 in 1982 to 51 in 2003, 4 This projected increase in CO2 emissions is based on the increase in the size of the U.S. labor force alone (from 131 million to 153 million) and does not take into account the possibility that the drive-alone mode share, or trips lengths might increase. 3

Total amount of delay, reaching 3.7 billion hours in 2003, and Wasted fuel, totaling 2.3 billion gallons lost to engines idling in traffic jams. Congestion Growth Trend Annual Hours Delay per Traveler 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Population area size Small (under 500,000) Medium (500,000 to 1 million) Large (1 to 3 million) Very Large (over 3 million) 1983 1993 2003 GfK Automotive National Survey Findings on Attitudes & Behaviors Commute considerations are important in driving workplace decisionmaking. A majority (85%) of commuters surveyed reported commute consideration as Important in determining where they work / look for work, with the largest proportion reporting such considerations as Very Important. Less than one-in-five (15%) deem such matters as Not at All Important There is broad positive association attributed to the concept of Commuter Benefits. A majority (68%) of commuters reported a positive attitudinal shift upon awareness of employers / companies offering such benefits to employees. A majority of American commuters report anticipated changes in behavior should Commuter Benefits be offered by their employer. Should the opportunity exist, the largest proportion (25%) of commuters anticipate utilizing Commuter Benefits at least 3 times each week, while others predict taking advantage of such offerings 1-2 times each week (15%), or a few times per month (15%). The American workforce is interested in working for a company that offers Commuter Benefits. A majority of commuters (57%) express interest in working for a company that offers a Commuter Benefits program. 4

There is strong overall agreement that companies offering Commuter Benefits demonstrate environmental leadership. A majority of commuters (83%) are in agreement that the offering of Commuter Benefits demonstrates environmental leadership, due to reduced traffic congestion, air pollution, and energy savings. The recent elevation in gasoline prices has impacted the attitudes and behaviors of those who commute to / from work. Half report either considering changing jobs to reduce their commute (12%), or behavioral changes (i.e. seeking carpooling opportunities, use of mass transit, etc.) to limit commute (39%). The remainder of commuters across the U.S. report no changes in (commuting) behavior as a result of gasoline prices GfK Automotive Study on Lifestyle responses to Rising Fuel Prices http://www.gfkamerica.com/news/risinggasprices.htm The following illustrates the lifestyle changes consumers will make based on the price per gallon of gas. 2.50/gal $3.00/gal $3.50/gal $4.00/gal $5.00/gal Drive Your Most Fuel Efficient Vehicle 26% 35% 44% 50% 57% Immediately Purchase a More Fuel Efficient Vehicle 17% 27% 40% 54% 71% Reduce Overall Driving 22% 34% 47% 56% 65% Walk/Bike More and Other Forms of Transportation 13% 24% 38% 49% 64% Use Public Transportation 8% 16% 26% 40% 59% Carpool 15% 25% 38% 49% 66% Based on the Percentage of Consumers Owning at Least One Vehicle Numbers are cumulative 5