Transportation energy use in Monroe County (Rochester), New york

E!iqo. Vol. 9. No 8. PP. 667-677. Pnnted in the U.S.A

1984

03bO-5442/84 $3.00 + .#I Q 1984 Pergamon Press Ltd.

TRANSPORTATION ENERGY USE IN MONROE COUNTY (ROCHESTER), NEW YORK

RODNEY A. BAILEY Rochester Institute of Technology, One Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY I4623, U.S.A. (Received

21 December 1983)

A&met-Monroe County’s transportation sector energy use has been analyzed with a veiw toward examining possible energy conservation strategies. Primary emphasis has been placed on commuting energy use since commuting driving is a significant component of the transportation sector and is often amenable to either incentive-oriented or ordinance-mandated measures to change commuting patterns. It has been assumed that, if major transportation energy conservation is to be achieved, it will be in response to measures taken at the regional level. Options explored in&de an additional mass transit subsidy (from a iocal futl tax); a vanpooling subsidy (also from a local fuel tax); charges for employee parking in relation to the cost for that parking; employer-provided benefits for any mode of commuter travel (not just parking); and traffic signal op~tion. Fuel savings might be as little as 1% or in excess of 20% of the present commuting fuel ~ns~ption. These fuel savings would translate into EIZ-18 x 106per year, which would remain in the County. If any programs are undertaken, they must have the support of ail segments within the County or there might be significant changes in existing development patterns which would increase the transportation fuel demand.

1. INTRODUCTION

When looking at community energy conservation strategies, the focus has all too frequently been on the residential sector. In part, this may stem from the attention given at the nationai level to residential energy conservation possibilities,* and the perception that in the residential sector indi~dual decisions, with federal or state ~nco~gement, are practicable and effective. While there have been significant federal and state subsidies to mass transportation systems over the past 15 years, these subsidies were generally not perceived to be primarily designed to make the United States’ transportation network more energy efficient.* In fact, some have argued that the $12 x lo9 spent as of 1980 on public transportation, plus further billions in anticipated expenditures during the next 20 years, will increase per person transportation energy use if those billions are focused on fixed rail and large capacity transit systems. 3p Legislatively mandated auto fleet fuel efficiency standards have provided significant transportation sector energy savings, but have been viewed by some’ as about the least offensive program which would be palatable to a public which highly prizes its fteedom of movement. In retrospect, we know that inte~ational ~m~tition in the auto market, coupled with rapidly rising gasoline prices (after 1978), has been more effective at ac~mp~~ing fuel efficiency than the legislative program. Other more coercive measures, which would directly impose restrictions on the individual’s use of his/her automobile (gasoline rationing, a ceiling on the number of cars allowed in a city’s central business disuict) have been suggested, but always as a last resort for an emergency which has, so far, not arrived. Much of the transportation energy conservation effort to date, both nationally and regionally, has focused on single occupant vehicle work-related trips because such trips constitute a single, large category of all driving that is done. Also, since the origin and destination of commuting trips are generally stable over a period of time, it has been felt that commuters might be especially receptive to alternate modes of transportation. While many community strategies have emphasized expanded public transit schemes to reduce commuter driving, other methods such as si~ifi~ntly increased long-term parking charges, or reduced availability of close-by parking facilities can, and have, encouraged people to utilize carpools, vanpools, or existing bus or rail lines. 667

RODNEY A. BAILEY

668

Within a community such as Monroe County, New York, the largest single energy expense is for transportation fuels (approximately 40% of all the money which leaves the County for energy purchases). If the community wants to try to conserve energy it should focus attention on how energy is used in the transportation sector, and which programs might be most effective at reducing this energy. In formulating these options, it is assumed that: (1) energy conservation is a desirable social and community goal; (2) the ease of mobility and access to the transportation network (either economically or physically) should not be greatly impacted; (3) the long term (more than 10 years) is a more appropriate planning objective than the short term (except in cases of true energy emergencies); and (4) the economic stability and vitality of areas within the region (e.g., the city of Rochester within the County) should not be sacrificed for short term economic gain by other areas within the region. Within these larger goals, and the existing structure of the community under study, certain options may not serve an energy conservation function. For example, as mentioned above, rail transit systems seem to require more energy per passenger-mile than buses or fuel efficient autos.3.6On the other hand, if a rail line significantly changed development and land use patterns over a period of time, the initial capital and energy investments might be appropriate.4*7Some options, such as increased carpooling or vanpooling&13and traffic signal optimization9*” will result in energy conservation in the short and long term at minimal capital investment. Parking restrictions will result in energy conservation with no capital investment.‘“” 2. BACKGROUND

DATA

AND

INFORMATION

transportation picture in Rochester/Monroe County is fairly characteristic for many medium sized cities in the northeast. There is a preponderance of automobile travel, much of it involving daily work trips with an average of slightly more than one passenger per car. A fairly well developed city/regional bus system exists with its major routes radiating from the center of the city like the spokes of a wheel. There is no subway or commuter rail transit system, although there was one in operation thru part of Rochester from 1927-56; there are periodic discussions about resurrecting this system. Parking spaces that are available in the City, especially in the central business district (CBD) are heavily utilized and there are plans for expansion in both public and private facilities. Virtually all of the fuel for the transportation sector is imported into the region. It has been reported9*i*that about 70% of the petroleum used in New York State, and presumably a similar percentage in Monroe County, comes from foreign countries. The balance is imported into the region from other parts of the U.S. This is not at all unusual for most parts of the northeast and upper midwest where there are few, if any, locally available and developed petroleum supplies. Characteristics of the Monroe County transportation sector are summarized in Table 1. The transportation sector is composed of approximately 343 x lo3 passenger cars, 62 X lo3 trucks, and 250 buses.‘9.20These vehicles consumed approximately 3 14 X lo6 gallons of gasoline and 18 x lo6 gallons of diesel fuel in 1979. It has been projected that the amount of gasoline consumed would decrease slightly (because of increased vehicle fuel efficiency) to 269 x 106 gallons by 1982. Current figures are not available. Diesel fuel consumption was projected to remain fairly constant over the next several years.18Based on a late-1982 estimate of $1.20 per gallon for the wholesale price of gasoline, Monroe County residents paid approximately $344.4 x lo6 for transportation fuels in 1982. The average daily tragic volume in Monroe and five surrounding counties (Genesee, Livingston, Ontario, Orleans, and Wyoming) was about 86 x lo3 vehicles in July 1981.19 In the same period there were approximately 2 x lo6 transit trips per month on the Regional Transit Service (RTS) buses, or a total of about 25 x lo6 for 1981.19In June 1981, of 171.6 x lo3 vehicle trips in and out of the Rochester Central Business District (CBD), 109 x lo3 were single passenger occupied vehicles, 45.7 x lo3 were multiple occupant vehicles, 2.9 X lo3 were RTS buses, and 14 X IO3were commercial vehicles2’ It has been estimated that commuting trips constitute about 40% of the trips in Monroe County and about 40% of the daily vehicle miles traveled in the County.23 Surveys in 1975 and again in 1982 indicated that about 6065% of the commuting drivers were solo occupants of their The

Transportation Table 1. Transportation

energy use in Monroe County sector characteristics 1980

1975 Vehicle registration Auto Truck Bus fleet Bus riderehip Vehicle fuel efficiency Auto - new - total fleet

669

for Monroe County. 1981

1982

ll.8.

3.25x105 19

3&3x105 l9

3.ur105 19

0.39x105 19

0.61~10~ l9

0.62~10~ l9

n.a.

2.5;::,2 2'

n.a.

24.9'H,::6l9

25.5:;b

18.0(1976)19

23.319

~5.2~~

n.a.

16.E2'

17.620

l9

20.80x106 19.21 n.a.

,;;;;1

BUS

n.e.

n.a.

n.a.

Ye"

".8.

n.*.

11

11

31.9x107 l8

28.7~10~ I8

28.1x107 l8

26.9~10~ 18

14.4x106 la

17.2~10~ 18

17.8~10~ l*

18.0x106 18

Fuel consumption (gallons) CeeOli"e Diesel Commuting characteristics Auto or truck

2.~4~10~ 2o

2.69~10~ 22

2.49~10~ 2o

2.70x105ee.t.

Solo driver

2.10x105 2o

2.07~10~ 22

1.76~10~ 2o

2.00x105est.

car PC.01(3/tar)

0.74x105 2o

0.62~10~ 22

0.74x105 2o

0.70x105est.

Bue

0.18x105 20

0.21~105 22

0.49x105 20

0.21xl05est.

Other than vehicle

0.06~10~ 2o

0.18x105 22

0.09x105 2o

0.17x105est.

Gaeoline co"sumptio" (gallons)

-__

-_-

___

49.5x106 est.

Dim', consumption - gallona)

___

m-m

-__

1.78x106 2l

cars, 24% of the commuters were sharing rides, and the balance were using the bus system or other means to get to worke20 Approxima tel y 1/ 3 to l/2 of the solo drivers into the CBD need their cars during the day for business related trips.” The median work commuting trip in the County is approximately 6.7 miles (one way) and the mean driving time is almost 19 minutes (1980 census figures). By one estimate, 20 x 10’ employees (out of a total County work force of 340 x 103) drive more than 20 miles each way to work.21 Parking facilities in the County are provided by a combination of private parking lots and municipally owned parking areas. Within the central business district there are approximately 6 x IO3 parking spaces available in city-owned parking structures, slightly over I x lo3 in county-owned parking structures, 1.5 x 10) in private parking structures, 3.4 x lo3 surface parking spaces in employee-only parking lots, almost 7 x lo3 in public parking (privately owned) surface lots, and about 1 x lo3 on-street spaces, for a total of over 2 1.7 x lo3 parking spaces. 2o The utilization rate on these spaces is about 85%; however, in some of the centralized facilities there is a waiting list of commuters desiring long term parking commitments. 24In the municipal parking garages, approximately 42% of the spaces are utilized by commuters with monthly passesa Parking fees in the municipally owned facilities were raised in early 1983 an average of S-10% (both short-term and long-term rates). Even with these increases there is a projected deficit in these facilities of over $0.3 X lo6 (on total revenues of $2.25 X 106). Previous annual deficits have averaged about $0.5 X 106. In privately owned, publicly accessible parking structures in the CBD, monthly parking rates are $50-60, or an average of $15-20 per month more than the rates in’ the publically owned structure~.~~ 3. MASS

TRANSPORTATION

ISSUES

As with most urban bus companies, the Regional Transit Service (RTS) in Monroe County receives its revenues from local, state, and federal subsidies and the fare box. For the past several years, the revenue picture for the RTS included a 25% subsidy from the federal government, a 25% combined state and local subsidy, and 50% from rider fares. Within the past year, the subsidy provided by the federal government has remained fairly constant in dollars, which means the percentage contribution has slipped to about 18% as operating costs have continued to increase. ” Presently the state subsidy has increased

670

RODNEY A. BAILEY

to off-set some of this. The RTS has also recently had to increase rider fares to insure a balanced budget. The overall result has been an 8.4% increase in operating revenues. The fare increase had an impact on ridership. In the regular adult ridership category (which accounts for approximately 66% of the RTS boardings), there was an average 25% fare increase and a 9% decrease in boarding. 21This is comparable to the reported elasticity for transit fares.” The average occupancy on RTS buses is 21%.23 This might suggest that smaller buses, with better fuel efficiency, would improve the revenue picture for the RTS. However, since 86% of the RTS expenses are labor related, more, smaller buses (which would allow greater route and timing flexibility) could worsen the revenue situation. In fact, the RTS is considering the purchase of larger buses to allow a more efficient labor operation during peak ridership times when the present fleet of buses is operating at, or near, capacity. In addition to bus service, there is one minor experiment in another form of mass transportation going on in Monroe County-The Employee Vanpool Program sponsored by the Xerox Corporation. This program was begun in 1980 when eight vanpools were formed; since than, a ninth van has been added to the program.26 The vans used in the Xerox program are leased for a 40 month period. The van driver has free use of the van during non-working hours (except for gasoline purchases). He/she also gets to ride to work free in exchange for doing the driving and housing the van. The other eleven passengers are charged a fee based on lease costs, insurance, maintenance, and operating costs. The Xerox Corporation participates in the program only to the extent of providing some coordination (mostly in 1980), and handling the billing for maintenance at local garages and for the passenger costs. There is no corporate subsidy for the program. Roundtrip distances travelled by the vans are 42, 50, 54, 56, 58, 64, 75, 90 and 105 miles. The per passenger monthly cost in 1982 for the 58 mile round-trip was $53.50.26 Van ridership came from solo driver (55x), carpools (35x), and other types of commuting (10%). A study of a vanpooling program operating in Southern California found that a vanpool participant drove an average of about 1500 miles per year on the car left at home.&” This mileage was required for running errands that otherwise might have been done on the way to and from work, and to get the commuter to a pick-up point. Another estimatti3 has suggested a figure about double this if the car which had been used for commuting is sold, and as much as 6000 miles per year if the commuting car is not sold. The wide variation in these figures may simply reflect the difference between short term and long term behavior. Certainly, selling what often is the family’s second car will occur only when the vanpooler is assured that the vanpool will last and be a reliable method for commuting. 4. PARKING

IN MONROE

COUNTY

We will focus attention on commuter parking in Monroe County. There are two major categories of parking spaces in Monroe County: public areas for paying customers (either privately owned lots, on-street spaces, or municipally owned facilities) and private areas for employees only. Based on charges for regular long-term (i.e., monthly pass) users of privately owned, non-subsidized parking structures, a cost of at least $3.00 per space per day, and perhaps as much as $4.00-5.00 per space per day, is required to meet all expenses related to owning and operating a parking structure. Municipally owned structures, which don’t pay any property taxes, are charging a maximum of about $2.30 per space per day for long-term users. The municipally owned structures in Rochester are operated by private organizations under a fee structure established by the City. The operators are responsible for daily operating and minor maintenance expenses. They are making some profit on their operations. The City is responsible for capital improvements and debt retirement. Since the City’s revenues do not fully cover these items, some general operating funds are used to subsidize the municipal parking operations. By one estimate,23 a daily charge of $3.00 per space for regular long-term parkers would allow the elimination of the City’s present subsidy. It should be noted that in Rochester, as in most urban centers, there are a number of privately owned surface lots which provide low-side cost competition

Transportation

energy use. in Monroe County

671

(anywhere from $1.00 to $2.50 per day for daily parkers) for the municipally owned parking facilities. In most. of these cases, the opportunity value of the land is not incorporated into the parking cost but will be realized when the land is developed for building purposes. New parking facilities (high rise garages) have been estimated to cost from $4000 to S 15,000 per space to create’4PJ7 and have a real cost of $2500 per year per space associated with them.25 This latter figure includes debt retirement, maintenance, and land value. Surface lots are estimated to have a construction cost of $1500-2000 and an annual operating cost that may vary greatly depending on the land value, maintenance costs, taxes, and lost opportunity costs.14 While no firm estimates are available, it seems likely that a daily fee of at least $0.50-1.00 per space would be required for regular users of private (employee only) surface parking lots simply to pay for debt retirement and annual maintenance and operating costs. Based on the above, we can categorize at least five distinct classes of commuter parkers: (1) those who park free at suburban, employee-only surface lots; (2) those who park free at employee-only facilities in the City; (3) those who park in the City in privately owned surface lots for which they (the commuters) generally bear the full charge for a space; (4) those who park in a partially subsidized, municipally owned facility for which they pay the full charge; and (5) those who park in a municipally owned or privately owned facility in the City for which they pay a portion and their employer pays a portion (in one case the employer portion is $15.00, or about l/3 of the charge). In all of these cases, the parker is not paying the full value or cost of that parking space. Categories 1,2,4 and 5 are fairly directly subsidized, by the employer or the City or both, at a rate of anywhere from $10.00 to $20.00 per month. A subsidy for category 3 is difficult to estimate since the opportunity value for the land will be realized,. and paid for, by a developer in the future. 5. ENERGY

AND ECONOMIC TRANSPORTATION

CONSIDERATIONS RELATED IN MONROE COUNTY

TO

With the present preponderance of single occupant commuting trips in Monroe County, petroleum in the transportation sector is being used relatively inefficiently. One of the barriers to more etlicient energy use is the real economic incentive the commuter receives to travel alone in his/her car. The commuter often considers the real cost of his/her driving to be approximately $0.10-0.20 per mile plus possibly another $2.00-3.00 per day to park in a public parking area. The actual cost for keeping a car on the road is about $0.30 per mile.28 If one considers an average commuting distance of 15 miles per day, and a total actual parking cost of $200 per month, then the average commuter is accountable for monthly commuting costs of about S300. Because most automobile consumers do not confront an actual cost of SIO-15 per day for their commuting expenses, the perception is that single occupant comuting is not very expensive. On the other hand, commuters who utilize mass transit systems are faced with their total costs (in the case of the Xerox vanpooling program) or 50% of their total costs if they are riding the bus. The Monroe County commuting patterns resulted in the consumption of an estimated 52.2 x lo6 gallans of gasoline or diesel fuel for commuting in 1982. While not all commuters could switch to a mass transportation mode, it is of interest to see what impacts there would be on fuel consumption if there were modal shifts in commuting so that greater utilization was made of vanpools and the bus system.t Table 2 presents the parameters used in making these estimates. The maximum modal shift to vanpooling assumes that all people commuting more than 40 miles each day (round trip) to work would form vanpools. This threshold round trip distance is based on assumed tAn estimate of the actual gallons of gasoline which are dedicated to commuting is possible by two methods. Census data and other estimates would indicate an average round trip commuting distance of about 15 miles per day.uJ3 The resulting annual fuel consumption for commuting trips of 49.5 x lo6 gallons of gasoline is probably conservative since this is only lt3-19% of the total annual gasoline consumption. The conservatism is due to two assumptions: commuters will be traveling only 260 days per year and commuters will achieve the total car fleet average of 17.6 miles per gallon while commuting. This latter assumption is optimisticzs and biases all our estimates on commuting fuel savings toward the low side.

672

RODNEY A.BAILEY

Table 2. Ridership, energy, and employment impacts of minimum and maximum modal shifts in the Monroe County commuting sector. Present pattern

Minimum modal shift

Maximum modal shift

3.08x105

3.08x105

Ridership All commuters Auto (solo car-pool)

3.08x105

and

Bus Vanpool Other

2.70~10~

2.47x105

i .52x105

0.21x105

0.42~10~

1.19x105

0.001x105

0.02x105

0.20x105

0.17x105

0.17x105

0.17x105

49.40x106

44.86~10~

23 .61x106

Energy impact (r;$;ons of fuel) Bus

1.78x106

3.56~10~

7.12~10~

VtXl

O.OlxlO6

0.16~10~

1.58x106

Errand trips Van riders

0.008xlO6

0.15x106

1.54x106

Bun riders

0.96~10~

1 .72x106

4.8axlo6

52.24~10~

50.45x106

3a.73xlo6

___

1.79x106

13.51x106

Percent of present consumption

---

3.4

25.9

Dollars

--_

2.14~10~

16.21~10~

Totals Savings Fuel

Employment impact Bus

-__

430

1,290

patterns of commuting behavior when the commuter weighs the advantages and disadvantages of the cost of the commute, the time for the commute, the cost of parking, and the loss of the freedom associated with his/her own car. The minimum modal shift to vanpooling assumes that only 10% of the potential vanpoolers actually form vanpools. The maximum modal shift to the bus system assumes that all those people who have convenient bus service will utilize it. At the present time 21 x lo3 (7%) of the Monroe County vehicle commuters use the bus; a maximum of 41% might if the present bus routes are maintained.20 The minimum modal shift to the bus system assumes simply that the present bus ridership of work commuters will double. The energy impact for these modal shifts has assumed the following: (1) vanpoolers will use the family car an additional 1.5 x lo3 miles per year for errands which had previously been done during the commuting drive; (2) the average commuting distance for a vanpool is 40 miles, round trip; (3) the average commuting distance of new transit or paratransit riders had been 15 miles, round trip; (4) for both the minimum and maximum modal shift to the bus, the family car is used an average of an extra 0.8 x lo3 miles per year for errands which had previously been done during the commuting drive; (5) 55% of the new vanpoolers or bus riders had been solo drivers; 35% had been 3 person carpoolers; and loo/, had gotten to work by other methods (but still using vehicles). No loss or saving of energy was attributed to this latter 10%. With respect to the vanpool component in these modal shifts, our estimate of overall fuel saving is about 0.9 gallons per day per person in the vanpool. This is on the low end of a range from 0.8 gal./day/person from Southern California experience” to 1.6 gal./day/person from Texas experience.’ The employment impact assumes no increased employment due to the expanded

Transportation

energy use in Monroe County

673

vanpooling program and a doubling and quadrupling, for minimum and maximum modal shifts, respectively, of the number of employees needed to drive and maintain an expanded bus fleet. While the net fuel savings are fairly directly calculated, the overall cost picture is more difficult to ascertain because so many of the present commuting costs are hidden or indirect. The easiest cost to estimate is the direct savings due to the lowered fuel requirement. This, however, is perhaps not the most significant way to examine the economic trade-offs. Any commuter who elects either the vanpool or the bus will significantly save on commuting expenses; and their employer, who may now be providing free or subsidized parking will also save money. These savings will be 7-10 times the direct cost of the fuel. Beyond simply looking at these hypothetical minimal and maximal modal shifts, it is instructive to analyze what modal shifts might occur if various incentive, or restrictive programs were undertaken in Monroe County. Before doing this, there are two general questions about modal shifts that must be asked: what is the elasticity for an option, and what is the stability of commuters in a new mode? One estimate places the elasticity of parking costs at - 0.15 to - 0.29;‘729another study found that a $l.OO/day increase in parking costs would result in 5% fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by autos in the CBD (a $2.00 per day increase resulted in a 10% decrease in VMT);i6 while a third study found that 20-25x of the employees who had access to employer provided no-charge parking would switch to mass transit or paratransit if the employer began charging for the parking.29*M These estimates all use a slightly different basis to assess how employees might change their commuting behavior. If we use an elasticity estimate of - 0.22 and assume that all commuters had to pay an additional $10.00 per month for long term parking (an approximate 25% increase) we might expect to see a decrease of 12.3 x 10) commuting vehicles per day, or an approximate savings of 2.05 x 10” gallons of gasoline? per year. On the other hand, if 25% of the commuters who presently receive employer provided free parking (conservatively assumed to be 80% of all commuters in the County) were charged a reasonable fee we might expect a reduction of 44.6 x lo3 commuting vehicles per day, or an approximate savings of 5.65 x 106gallons of gasoline per year.7 These estimates are presented in Table 3. The elasticity for transit fare changes is about - 0.33.‘725We will assume that Rochester employers will provide the same employee benefit whether the employee commutes by auto or bus, and will further assume that about 78% of the CBD commuters have parking provided for them, or significantly subsidized by their employerr at an estimated rate of $15.00 per month. An unlimited-ride monthly bus pass currently costs $30.00. With a 50% subsidy we might expect a minimum increase in transit usage in line with that calculated below for a fuel tax supported subsidy (see Table 3). In the present instance however, there might be a greater shift to transit usage since this subsidy is in the form of a direct employee benefit and each employee will realize a direct advantage in overall commuting cost savings. This case differs from the tax supported subsidy example because not all transit users will realize reduced transit fares. In this respect, this is not an equitable transit subsidy since most of the new subsidized riders will be from middle to upper-middle income families. Considering that present transit fare structures generally penalize the short distance, inner-city rid& an employee-based subsidy will aggravate the inequities between transit users. A comprehensive community energy plan should take this into account. There do not appear to be any directly subsidized carpool or vanpool programs and therefore no direct data on the elasticity of paratransit fare changes. This is ironic because these two types of programs are the most energy efficient methods for moving commuters to and from work.s,‘o In the case of vanpooling, a direct employee subsidy (as a fringe benefit) might lower the threshold distance at which a commuter would consider the vanpool as a practical commuting alternative. In Monroe County, if that threshold were tThe estimate is based on the assumption that these commuters will shift to the bus and thereby realize fuel savings similar to those calculated above.

RODNEYA. BAILEY

674

Table 3. Fuel savings with several possible programs to encourage model shifts in Monroe County’s commuter transportation sector. Auto commuters

ProgCam Gasollne tax to subsidize ~.Ol/gallon

bus

Mowift BUS

to Vanpool

Estimated fuel savin s P; (gal/year

2.677x105

0.023~10~

___

0.403x106

2.6.53x105

O.O4?xlO5

_s_

0.827~106

2.54Oxlo5

-_-

0.160x105

2.380~10~

___

0 .320x105

2.700x105

-_-

--_

1.170x106

255 increase in parking fees

2.552x105

o.148x105

--a

2.051x106

At least $lO.OO/monthfee on all presently free parking

2.160~10~

0.54oxlO~

__S

5.649~10~

$l5.OO/monthemployee transit fare subsidy

2 -665x10~

0.035x105

--_

0 .610x106

b .02/gallon Gasoline tax to subsidizevanpools $0 .Ol/gallon $O.O2/gallon Traffic signal

optimization

$l;;;i(oynthemployee vanpool 2.500x105

-_*

0.200xl05

3.679~10~ 7.357x106

4.727~10~

decreased from 20 miles to 10 miles (one-way commute) then approximately 150 X lo3 employees would be potential vanpool riders. a Based on the present meager vanpooling experience in Monroe County, it is difhcult to know what impact an approximate 30% subsidy ($15.00) for monthly co~uting costs would mean in terms of a modal shift from private auto to a vanpool. Optimistically, one might imagine that at least l&15% of the potential commuters will become vanpoolers. In other areas where no subsidy was given, but aggressive matching efforts were conducted, it was found that an average of 15% of the commuters took advantage of paratransit modes.* (This was often carpooling because no vanpooling programs were available.) In the present case, if we assumed a modal shift of 20 x 10’ (the same as the m~mum vanpool modal shift in Table 2), we could expect a fuel savings of 4.73 x lo6 gallons per year. It is possible, and quite likely, that some car- or vanpoolers will be drawn from the bus, or vanpoolers will be drawn from carpoolers. 23As the threshold distance for practical car- or vanpooling decreases, such modal shifts will increase. The estimates for fuel savings above have assumed that all vanpoolers have come from auto, not bus commuters. The results may, therefore, be somewhat optimistic. It does appear, based on earlier studies,8*1o that vanpoolers are especially satisfied once they have gotten into a program, If the local Xerox program is any indication for Monroe County residents, commuters will stay with a vanpool over an extended period of time. 6. CONCLUSIONS

While the above data and discussion focus on ways to achieve transportation energy efficiency by modal shifts, we are cognizant of the arguments that much greater energy savings will be achieved simply by further technical improvements in engine and auto design which will increase overall auto fuel efficiency.3~3*J2 While such technical improvements should be encouraged (or even mandated) they are generally out of the control of any particular metropolitan area. Further, the degree to which transportation energy efficiency can be improved will ultimately depend on a variety of strategies, some of which will be appropriate to implement at the federal level, some at the local or regional level, For an area such as Monroe County, two overall trends afTectingtransportation energy use will be occurring over the next 15-20 years. One is the further increase in auto fuel efficiency; the other is an increase in the number of households, a decrease in household size,t3?3and an increase in the workforce, with an overallincreasein work relatedtrips, For the local area (Monroe County), these trends have been projected to lead to some decrease in overall transportation energy requirements. YJThe point of the present analysis,

Transportation energy use in Monroe County

675

however, is to determine what additional savings of transportation energy might be achieved by local strategies and policies. A significant alteration of present land use patterns with a re-emphasis on major transportation corridors, including perhaps the re-institution of the Rochester subway, would probably alter residential development densities and result in some transportation energy savings. 4*32 However, construction of new or more &cient freeway systems of new rail transit lines seems improbable in the near term because of current and projected public revenues and the weakness of the mass transportation lobby.2 Assuming little likelihood of major land use pattern changes, what, then, are the possible options for a regional transportation energy conservation program? There are three areas of interest: a direct tax on transportation fuels to encourage conservation and perhaps help subsidize mass transit; various engineering options to improve trafiic flow; and the programs already discussed to induce modal shifts from less efficient to more efficient forms of transportation, especially among commuters. The 5rst option has been proposed but never implemented by Portland, Oregon,34 and is allowed in counties in Florida and transit districts in Connecticut.35 While it seems unlikely that a modest local tax ($0.014.02 per gallon) will alter travel behavior much, the revenues collected from the tax could be used to subsidize mass transit and if any, ‘6*31 paratransit programs. This is not an unusual scheme. 35One advantage of a general fuel tax is that the impact is spread across all users of transportation fuels, not just commuters. Any energy savings will, of course, depend on what programs these revenues are directed toward. For Monroe County, a tax of $0.01-0.02 per gallon will generate $2.9-5.8 x lo6 per year. If these revenues were used entirely to subsidize the existing Transit Service, there would be an annual fuel saving of anywhere from 403 X lo3 to 827 X lo3 gallons because of reduced auto commuter traffic. If the revenues were used to subsidize a vanpool program such that each vanpooler would receive a monthly subsidy of $15.00, and if the program were maximally utilized, there would be between 16 X 1O3 and 32 X IO3 commuters in the vanpool program and an annual saving of 3.7 to 7.4 X lo6 gallons of gasoline. The second area, engineering options to improve traffic flow, has had some attention in Monroe County. Presently a $12 x lo6 program is underway to optimize the trafhc flow by coordinating 3 14 traffic signals (about l/3 of the total number of signals in the County). The program is focusing on the most heavily traveled and most centralized intersections. It has been estimated that this will reduce traffic delays by IO-IS%, save 0.6 x lo6 travel hours per year, result in a 10% increase in average traffic speed, and conserve 1.17 x lo6 gallons of gasoline per year. 36This is a modest fuel saving; the major impact the program will have on most drivers is a perception that traffic flows more smoothly through the downtown area. Considering that there are over 0.3 x 10” registered vehicles in the County, on the average each vehicle will be saving about four gallons of fuel per year. If this program were expanded to cover all traffic signals in the County, the additional fuel savings per dollar invested in the program would be much less than what is currently projected simply because the traffic flows are much lighter at the outlying intersections. The third area, modal shifts to more fuel efficient transit options for commuters, is the area that has received the most attention from local energy planners around the United States. For Monroe County, the significant modal shifts are from single occupant autos to carpools, vanpools, or buses. Referring to Table 3 we can see that from the range of possible programs that have been considered there might be a model shift of less than 1% to as much as 20% of all automobile commuters in Monroe County. The programs are not all exclusive, nor would they all be equally successful if implemented, so it is possible that there might be more than a 20% modal shift. Some of the programs will not involve any net cost. For example, an employee subsidy for vanpooling, instead of employer provided free parking, simply reallocates funds that have already been devoted to an employee benefit. In this and several other examples, then, one can consider that the program cost is nearly zero so that there will be a very high energy return per dollar invested. In other cases (e.g., traffic signal optimization) there is a definite capital investment. In an optimistic scenario, with

676

RODNEYA. BAILEY

computerized traffic flow, reasonable parking fees on ail free or subsidized parking, employee transit or vanpool subsidies rather than parking subsidies, and a gasoline tax to subsidize the bus system, it is possible to imagine an annual fuel saving of lo- 15 X lo6 gallons of gasoline. This conservatively represents about 25% of the fuel presently consumed by the commuting segment of the transportation sector and will keep $12-18 x lo6 per year in the County. If Monroe County or any community with a similar transportation pattern chose to optimize utilitization of mass transportation modes, either for fuel savings, overall community economic savings, air pollution abatement, or simply lack of space for more roads and parking lots, there are several options from the above discussion which would accomplish this goal. (1) If employers are going to continue offering subsidized employee parking, the real cost of this should be estimated and that sum made available as an employee benefit for any mode of transportation the employee chooses. (2) For employees who sometimes need their cars at work, the employer, if it presently provides subsidized parking, should provide the employee with a transferable parking/bus pass. In that way, on days when the employee didn’t need his/her car, he/she could ride the bus. (A parking/bus pass option has recently been implemented in Monroe County. It is not, as yet, treated as an employee benefit.) (3) Make sure that all actual costs for parking are considered where public parking is provided. If federal grants are used to construct parking facilities, the capital investment should be recovered as if it had been local tax monies invested (or local bonds sold to raise the capital). (4) Impose a $0.01-0.02 per gallon gasoline tax (State enabling legislation may be required first) and use the revenues to subsidize the existing or expanded transit and paratransit operations. A final caveat is in order. The hallmark of all successful community energy strategies is wide involvement of all affected citizens (often through neighborhood or interest groups) in the planning and implementation process. In that light, it should be understood that the analyses above were conducted only to display a spectrum of energy impacts, not to suggest how Monroe County or any other community should proceed. Frequently the precipitating event for a regional energy plan is either an energy emergency (the natural gas shortage in parts of the country in 1976-77, for instance) or a realization that much of the energy money leaving the community could more productively be used in the community. Given these conditions, a community will realize that there is a larger social benefit to be achieved by imposing some restrictions on their-energy use (or waste). Then, and only then, will community energy planning be effective. Without that realization, there will be no commitment .to an overall community goal and some segments within the community will undermine the plan; and, in fact, might cause greater energy consumption than had been occurring before any plan was implemented. A case in point with the proposals suggested above is the possibility that an office headquarters or a major commercial enterprise might move from the CBD to remote suburb if parking was priced at its true value (assuming those values in the CBD are higher than in some of the suburbs). It is clear from work in other communities that any transportation plan will not be successful without vigorous support of the community and especially the major employers but that where that support is available and visible, there can be in the community, 8*27.37 significant shifts to transit and paratransit modes with concomitant fuel and dollar savings for the community. REFERENCES 5% National Energy Plan, Executive DfBce of the President, 1977. E. Weiner, APA J. 48, 293, Summer 1982. C. A. Lave, Transpn Res. 14A, 321 (1980). D. B. Feaver. ITE J. SO, 29, May 1980. R. Stobaugh and D. Yergin, Energy Future, Chap. 6. Ballantine, New York (1980). D. J. Kulash. “Energy Efficiency: Which Modes, Which Programs?“, in Urban Transportation: Perspectives and Prospecfs (Edited by H. S. Levinson and R. A. Weant), p. 86. Eno Foundation for Transportation, Inc., Westport, CT (1982). 7. D. L. Keyes, “Reducing Travel and Fuel Use through Urban Planning”, in Energy and Land Use (Edited by R. W. Burchell and D. Listokin), p. 214. Center for Urban Policy Research, New Jersey (1982). 8. Carpooling: Current and Promising Strategies, Technical Council Information Report, Committee 6AI 1, ITE J. 51, 56, June 1981.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Transportation

energy use in Monroe County

677

9. D. T. Hartgen, J. M. Gross, and C. E. Meyers, ITE J. 51,_20, July 1981. 10. P. Gordon and P. M. Theobald, Transpn Res. 14A, 229 (1980). 11. F. A. Wagner, “Energy Impacts of Urban Transportation Improvements”, in Urban Transportation: Perspectives and Prospects (Edited by H. S. Levinson and R. A. Weant), p. 168. Eno Foundation for Transportation, Inc., Westport, CT (1982). 12. M. K. Singh and S. J. LaBelle, “Total Energy Use Analysis of Urban Transportation Energy Conservation Strategies”, presented at the Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Jan. 1983. 13. V. Kamhi, “Rural Ridesharing in San Luis Obispo County, California*‘, in Community Energy Strategtes Conference Proceedings, Knoxville, TN, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, p. 222, Aug. 1982. 14. W. S. Smith, Planning 49(6), 10 (1983). 15. H. S. Levinson, “Model Choice and Public Policy in Transportation”, in Urban Transportation:Perspectives and Prospects (Edited by H. S. Levinson and R. A. Weant), p. 149. Eno Foundation for Transportation, Inc., Westport, CT (1982). 16. Analytical Procedures for Urban Transportation Energy Conservation-Summary of Findings and Methodologies, Vol. I, DOE/PE/8628-1, Oct. 1979. 17. Energy Impacts of Transportation Systems Management Actions, Final Rep., Oct. 1981, U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT-1-82-Q. 18. Urban Energy Assessment Report-Rochester and Monroe County, New York, General Motors Technical Center Report (Draft), April 1981. 19. Transportation and Energy Data Report for Rochester and Monroe County, Genesee. Transportation Council, Get. 1982. 20. Transportation Data Guide, Genesee Transportation Council, June 1982. 21. Rochester Transit Service Operating Statistics Report for February 1983. 22. 1980 Census Data for Monroe County as Summarized and Reported by the Center for Governmental Research, Rochester, New York. 23. W. Holtoff, Associate Transportation Engineer, Genesee Transportation Council, Rochester, New York, personal communication, 1983. 24. T. Borschoff, Former Director of Parking Operations, City of Rochester, New York, personal communication, 1983. 25. W. Evans, Director of Evaluation and Development, Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, Rochester, New York, personal communication, 1983. 26. L. Pieters, Real Estate Division, Xerox Corporation, Rochester, New York, personal communication, 1983. 27. U.S. Department of Transportation, “Ridesharing: Meeting the Challenges of the 198Os”, in Urban Transportation: Perspectives and Prospects (Edited by H. S. Levinson and R. A. Weant), p. 194. Eno Foundation for Transportation, Inc., Westport, CT (1982). 28. Your Driving Costs, 1983 Edn, American Automobile Association. 29. C. J. Kbisty, TraJic Quarterly 34(10), 511 (1980). 30. D. H. Pickrell, III, “Free Parking and Urban Transportation”, UCLA 1980 Ph.D. thesis, Abstracted in Energy Abstracts for Policy Analysis, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Vol. 7, p. 28, Jan. 1981. 3 1. E. Hirst, Science. 192, 15 (1976). 32. M. Cheslow, “Transportation Energy Use and the Relative Impact of Urban Land Use Changes”, in Transportation Energy Conservation Through Lund Use Pkmning-Conference Report, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, p. 13, June 1982. 33. F. Spielberg and S. Andrle. APA J. 48, 301, Summer 1982. 34. Portland, OR Ordinance 148251 (Aug. 15, 1979), and personal communication from J. McCormick, Director, Energy G&e, Portland, OR, 1983. 35. Transit operating subsidies, ITE Committee 6F7, ITE J. 49,40, Oct. 1979. 36. R. Bolte, County Traffic Engineer, Monroe County, New York, personal communication, 1983. 37. L. McClelland, M. B. Marks, M. Eidson, and S. W. Cook, Transportation10, 247 (1981).