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 |[email protected]
Peter Hurley – North American Sustainable Transportation Council
(503) 823-5007 |[email protected]
George Dondero – Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission
(831) 460-3200 |[email protected]
