2017-08-28 GHG Reduction REP BLK FINAL

To request additional copies of this document or copies in an accessible format, contact:

Central Transportation Planning Staff
State Transportation Building
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 2150
Boston, Massachusetts 02116

Executive Summary

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) in 2008, creating a framework for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions statewide. The transportation sector has a key role to play in meeting the emission reduction goals set by the GWSA: 1) emission reductions between 10 and 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020; and 2) 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Supporting the Commonwealth’s aims, the Boston Region MPO established a Clean Air and Clean Communities goal in its Long-range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040, and stated its objective to “reduce GHGs generated in the Boston region by all transportation modes.” As an organization engaged in performance-based planning, the MPO will measure progress toward this objective and support the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)’s emission impacts reporting requirements by tracking the projected GHG emissions of projects programmed in its LRTP and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

Further, the MPO has been exploring GHG emission reduction strategies that could be implemented through its own funding programs and strategies the MPO could encourage other entities in the Boston region to advance. Transportation investment approaches for reducing GHG emissions were analyzed for cost-effectiveness and relevance in the 2016 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Alternatives: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis report. This report, Promising Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies for the Boston Region, follows up on that previous study’s recommendations, in particular, detailing the results of an effort to identify cost-effective strategies employed by other transportation agencies and MPOs in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. The findings may help inform the Boston Region MPO’s investment decisions and planning processes as it works towards achieving the aforementioned emission reduction goals.

Nine promising GHG emission reduction strategies were the focus of this research:

This report details the experience of these agencies with these strategies. Nearly all the organizations we interviewed completed GHG inventories for identifying GHG reduction strategies, but few reported having measured the progress of their GHG emission reduction initiatives. Several have integrated GHG emission reduction considerations into their scenario planning work.

All of the MPOs interviewed have incorporated GHG considerations into their decision-making processes for project selection. Most use GHG emission reduction as a criterion when reviewing project benefits, but none consider GHG emission reduction potential as the sole reason to advance projects or policies. GHG emission reduction strategies tend to be implemented because of their potential to assist in the progress of achieving statewide and national GHG emission reduction targets, not because they are inherently cost-effective.

Although the Boston Region MPO is very much in line with, and often ahead of, its regional peers in terms of GHG emission reduction strategies, we found that it awards a lower percentage of TIP evaluation points specifically for emissions reduction than all but one of the interviewed MPOs outside of Massachusetts that presently use project ranking systems. Compared to the project evaluation schemes of other MPOs in Massachusetts, the Boston Region MPO ranks 8 out of 13 in terms of the focus it puts on emissions reduction.

We therefore concluded that the most concrete area of potential enhancement regarding GHG emission reduction strategies for the Boston Region MPO is in the planning process, specifically the evaluation criteria used for the TIP and the LRTP. A greater percentage of points should be awarded for the emissions reduction criterion. The overall scoring system should be refined to further favor and reward projects that implement any of the nine GHG emissions reduction measures discussed in this report. Potential scoring would thus be structured so that projects could earn points for as many components that characterize the selected strategies as possible and give maximum value to projects that reduce GHG emissions.

Further, as part of its work towards achieving its GHG reduction goals, we recommend that the MPO design and put into place tools for the measurement and evaluation of the progress of GHG emission reduction initiatives that it has implemented. Future scenario planning efforts by the Boston Region MPO should specifically incorporate the nine strategies previously mentioned.

Methodologies used for estimating and predicting GHG emissions are also discussed in this report, including spreadsheet analyses, travel demand modeling, and sketch planning. We recommend that the MPO devote further study to two profiled modeling tools: the Federal Highway Administration’s Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool (EERPAT) and the Levelized Cost of Carbon (LCC).

Project Background and Report Structure

One of the goals of Charting Progress to 2040, the most recently adopted Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), is to create an environmentally friendly transportation system. An objective of the Clean Air and Clean Communities goal is to “reduce greenhouse gases [GHGs] generated in the Boston region by all transportation modes as outlined in the Global Warming Solutions Act [GWSA].” In 2008, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted the GWSA, aiming to create a framework for reducing GHGs to levels believed to be relatively benign in terms of climate change effects. This act set two statewide GHG emission reduction goals:

The Boston Region MPO has worked closely with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and other involved agencies to achieve these goals. In June 2010, MassDOT issued the GreenDOT Policy Directive. Three primary goals were set in this sustainability initiative:

In January 2015, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) promulgated 310 CMR 60.05: Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. This regulation, amended in August 2017, establishes emission reduction goals that MassDOT must achieve. The requirements set in the regulation are as follows:

As directed by MassDOT and DEP, the MPO staff tracks the projected GHG emissions that would be produced in the region from individual projects implemented through the LRTP and the TIP. As an agency engaged in performance-based planning, the MPO desires the wisest expenditure of resources and optimal results. MPO staff has undertaken this study to identify cost-effective and efficient GHG reduction strategies among its geographic peers that can help inform the MPO’s investment decisions and planning processes as it works towards achieving the aforementioned emissions reduction goals and mandates. Prior to interviewing these geographic peers, MPO staff reviewed previously identified GHG reduction strategies and selected a subset of them for further examination.

Review of 2016 Report Findings

In 2016, the Boston Region MPO published Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Alternatives: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. This report, based upon national research, identified 14 GHG emission reduction strategies for further study by the MPO. Priority consideration was given to the strategies that the MPO has the ability to implement through its own funding programs or those strategies that could be advanced by other entities in the region with encouragement from the MPO. Specifically, strategies were chosen only if they could be funded through the LRTP or TIP, studied through the UPWP and eventually funded in the LRTP or TIP, or publicized through the MPO’s public outreach avenues. These criteria consequently precluded the selection of many high-profile GHG reduction strategies such as carbon pricing and taxing, congestion pricing, reduced speed limits, and vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) fees. Table 1 displays these 14 national strategies grouped into five broad categories.

Travel Demand Management	Transportation System Planning, Funding, and Design	Transportation System Management and Operations	Public Education	Land-Use Policies
Workplace Transportation Demand Management	Pedestrian Improvements	Increased Transit Service	Driver Education and Eco-Driving	Parking Management
Ridesharing	Bicycling Improvements	Truck-Idling Reduction	Information on Vehicle Purchases
Individualized Marketing of Transportation Services	Expansion of Urban Fixed-Guideway Transit
Teleworking	Rail Freight Infrastructure
Car Sharing

1.3 Selecting Effective Strategies

The first task of this study was to select the best GHG emission reduction strategies for the Boston region from the 14 approaches recommended in the aforementioned 2016 report. Two main evaluative criteria identified in that report were used for this purpose: cost-effectiveness and GHG emission reduction potential. Cost-effectiveness was defined as the direct cost per ton of carbon dioxide (CO₂) or carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) reduced, while GHG emission reduction potential was defined as the percentage reduction of projected emissions.

Two recent GHG-related studies – conducted by MassDOT and the Georgetown Climate Center (GCC) – included Massachusetts in their study areas, and provided useful cost-effectiveness data and data on GHG emission reduction potential. Since the authors of both reports were able to isolate and quantify the effects of individual GHG emission reduction strategies, these studies informed the determination of strategies to pursue.

1.3.1 MassDOT Analysis: Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool

The May 2016 MassDOT report, Application of the EERPAT Greenhouse Gas Analysis Tool in Massachusetts, documents the use of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool (EERPAT) for policy analysis in Massachusetts. EERPAT is a rapid-response policy-analysis tool that can be used to evaluate individual policies as well as alternatives involving complex policy interactions. The EERPAT tool is discussed in detail in Section 2.2.5.

MassDOT developed a list of 12 discrete statewide GHG emission reduction policies based upon the plausibility of their implementation by the Massachusetts public sector and upon their previous identification in the GreenDOT Policy Directive and in the state’s 2015 Clean Energy and Climate Plan. The Clean Energy and Climate Plan, in addition to providing a GHG inventory, outlines policies that will enable the state to meet the GWSA emission reduction targets. Following the development of GHG emission projections for a 2030 horizon year scenario reflecting Massachusetts transportation policies and funding circa 2015, these 12 GHG emission reduction policies were individually tested. Table 2 displays how the tested policies measure in terms of cost-effectiveness and GHG reduction potential, and the GHG reduction strategies (identified in the 2016 MPO report) associated with each policy. Eight other strategies were also tested, but these policies lacked analogues among the 14 MPO-supportable strategies identified in the 2016 MPO report, and thus are not listed in Table 2.

Policy	Direct In-state Transportation Sector Emissions Reduction Percentage by 2030	Annual Cost Per Metric Ton of GHG	GHG Reduction Strategy
Transit Investment/ Service	0.37%	$1,700	Increased Transit Service, Expansion of Urban Fixed-Guideway Transit
Bicycle Infrastructure	0.91%	$510	Bicycling Improvements
Travel Demand Management	0.10%	$300	Workplace Transportation Demand Management, Teleworking, Individualized Marketing of Transportation Service, Ridesharing
Electric Vehicles	0.34%	$370	Information on Vehicle Purchases
Parking Pricing	0.07%	$71	Parking Management

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Application of the EERPAT Greenhouse Gas Analysis Tool in Massachusetts (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, May 2016), 1-7.

1.3.2 Georgetown Climate Center Study

The November 2015 GCC report, Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation: Opportunities in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, was another key source for quantifying the impacts of various GHG emission reduction policies. One of the major areas of study of this effort was the analysis of opportunities for GHG emission reduction in the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) region. The TCI is composed of the transportation, energy, and environmental agencies of 11 northeast and mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia; the TCI includes Massachusetts. Various strategies for GHG emission reduction were analyzed using cost-effectiveness and GHG emission reduction potential as evaluative criteria.

Table 3 displays the approaches that were directly related to the 14 GHG reduction strategies identified in the 2016 MPO report and provides a measure of their cost-effectiveness and GHG emission reduction potential. Not every strategy was quantified for both evaluative metrics.

Source: G. Pacyniak, K. Zyla, V. Arroyo, M. Goetz, C. Porter, D. Jackson, et. al., Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation: Opportunities in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic – Appendix 2 (Washington, DC: Georgetown Climate Center, November 2015), 28-41.

1.3.3 Strategies Selected for Further Research

As seen in the right-most columns of Tables 2 and 3, GHG reduction strategies that can be implemented with low capital investment and those that have low operating and maintenance costs perform well in terms of cost-effectiveness in Massachusetts and the surrounding TCI region. These include transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, parking management, and “information on vehicle purchases,” such as the promotion of electric vehicles and Zero-Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs). While the promotion of ZEVs and electric vehicles is subsumed in the “information on vehicle purchases” strategy, actual electric vehicle and ZEV deployment are not. Also, bicycle and pedestrian improvements rank among the leading strategies for reducing emissions. Hence, nine of the proposed strategies, including all in the TDM and land-use policies categories, were selected for further examination among peer agencies in the TCI region:

1.3.4 Strategies Not Pursued

Five GHG reduction strategies identified in the 2016 MPO study were deemed to be either not cost-effective or to have limited potential for reducing GHG emissions. These strategies are discussed below.

Transit

The two transit-related strategies–increasing transit service and expanding urban fixed-guideway transit–were not chosen for further research due to their low cost-effective ratios. As seen in Tables 2 and 3, both the GCC and MassDOT reports estimated that the annual cost to implement the strategies would be greater than $1,500 for each ton of CO₂ reduced. Capital, operating, and maintenance expenditures are the main contributors to the high costs of these strategies.

Rail Freight Infrastructure

The GHG emission reduction potential of improved rail freight infrastructure is hard to gauge because of the lack of data and specific analytical methodologies for assessing this potential.

According to the GCC study, “The level of uncertainty related to freight investment GHG benefits is perhaps even higher than for other strategies evaluated. There are few studies that quantify freight infrastructure GHG benefits, and freight analysis methods are not well-developed so broad assumptions about mode shift potential are generally employed.”1

Furthermore, most of the rail freight projects studied were not cost-effective in terms of GHG emission reduction, most likely due to capital costs. Of the six projects examined in the TCI area, two-thirds had cost-effectiveness ratios greater than $1,000 per ton. The rail freight investments recommended in Massachusetts’ 2010 Freight Plan were found to be the least cost-effective, having a ratio of $86,500 per ton.2

Truck-Idling Reduction

The truck-idling reduction strategy was not examined in the aforementioned MassDOT and GCC studies. The strategy appears to have extremely negligible potential for GHG emission reduction. The three largest truck stop electrification (TSE) facilities in the TCI region each only removed between 16 and 25 metric tons of CO₂ annually between 2013 and 2015, according to the Interstate Electrification Improvement Project, a study sponsored by the US Department of Energy.3 For an order of magnitude comparison, the EERPAT model estimated that in 2015 the transportation sector in Massachusetts produced 27.2 million metric tons of GHG emissions.4 A large TSE facility would, at best, reduce GHG emissions by 0.000092 percent. Furthermore, truck stop electrification does not appear to be cost-effective or sustainable from a business point of view.5 Successful business models for maintaining and operating electrified truck stops apparently have not yet been discovered.

Driver Education and Eco-Driving

Neither driver education nor eco-driving were sufficiently examined in the MassDOT and GCC studies. The GCC report chose not to investigate eco-driving for several reasons:

“While ecodriving has theoretically significant potential to reduce fuel use (on the order of 5 to10 percent or more if implemented by all drivers), there are few examples of demonstrated programs successfully reaching a large population. Most successful ecodriving examples have focused on a small number of commercial fleets. … Over the long-term, ecodriving benefits may occur through connected vehicles and infrastructure strategies. These benefits are potentially significant if they can help achieve the theoretical potential of ecodriving, but are not quantified … due to uncertainty over the timeframe of deployment and the extent to which ecodriving practices will be implemented.”6

1 G. Pacyniak, K. Zyla, V. Arroyo, M. Goetz, C. Porter, D. Jackson, et. al., Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation: Opportunities in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic – Appendix 2 (Washington, DC: Georgetown Climate Center, November 2015), 40-41.

2 Ibid., 41.

3 Calculations based on data present on p. 27 and p. 68 of Shorepower Technologies, Interstate Electrification Improvement Project Final Report. (Portland, OR: US Department of Energy, July 2015).

4 Cambridge Systematics, Application of the EERPAT Greenhouse Gas Analysis Tool in Massachusetts, (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, May 2016), 1-6.

5 In the course of interviews with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and the Maryland Department of Transportation, both mentioned that they had previously sponsored TSE projects designed to reduce truck-idling. However, the operators of these facilities discontinued them after short initial pilot periods, deeming them to be unprofitable, even with state government subsidies.

6 G. Pacyniak, et. al., Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation: Opportunities in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic – Appendix 2, (Washington, DC: Georgetown Climate Center, November 2015), 37.

2.1 Agency Experiences with Selected Strategies

As previously stated, the 2016 MPO report based its GHG emission reduction strategy recommendations upon national data. That study did not investigate their potential based on local or regional data. This report focuses on investigating GHG emission reduction practices employed by government agencies geographically close to the Boston region; agencies within this geographic area were thought to be most analogous in terms of experiences with GHG emission reduction given similarities in topography, political and legislative culture, and weather.

The TCI region (the District of Columbia and 11 states in the northeast and mid-Atlantic) was selected as the geographic area for analysis. MPOs, state Departments of Transportation (DOTs), and other relevant agencies were contacted to learn more about their experience with GHG emission reduction. Ultimately six MPOs, three DOTs, and three other government bodies were interviewed. Data were gathered from a number of other agencies that were not interviewed. A complete list of the agencies consulted for this study is available in Appendix A.

The first realm of inquiry focused on the experience agencies had with the nine GHG emission reduction strategies identified for further research in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.3. Each agency was asked if they have implemented any of the nine strategies and, if so, if they have evaluated the effect of the approach on GHG emission volumes. The intent was to determine from empirical evidence which strategies may work best in practice.

2.1.1 Evaluation of Strategies

Surprisingly, although nearly all of the interviewed agencies have completed GHG inventories in the hopes of being able to best identify, pursue, and implement GHG reduction strategies, only two have put monitoring and evaluation programs in place. Both agencies are located in the Baltimore-Washington, DC area.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) is the only surveyed agency that has empirically measured the impact of any implemented GHG emission reduction strategy. An emissions monitoring program arose as a byproduct of MWCOG’s efforts toward meeting the conformity requirements of federal transportation and clean air mandates.

As early as 1997, MWCOG began quantifying the air quality impacts of five Transportation Emission Reduction Measures (TERMs)—teleworking, Guaranteed Ride Home programs, employer TDM outreach, targeted marketing, and ridesharing—that were undertaken to decrease nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter emissions. In 2008, CO₂ was added to the list of measured pollutants. Approximately every three years, an analysis is performed to evaluate the TERMs for their efficacy towards achieving MPO-set emissions reduction targets.

Table 4 displays the latest quantifications of MWCOG’s TERMs. Collectively in 2016, these five measures yielded slightly more than a one percent reduction in GHG emissions, a reduction of more than 250,000 tons of CO₂. Greater reduction had actually been anticipated from the teleworking and Guaranteed Ride Home program strategies; these TERMs did not meet the reduction targets that had been set for them.

National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (NCRTPB), Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) for the Nation Capital Region: 2016 CLRP Amendment Documentation (Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, November 16, 2016), 81.

Commuter Connections and MWCOG/NCRTPB staff, Washington Metropolitan Region Transportation Demand Management Resource Guide and Strategic Marketing Plan FY2017 Final Report, (December 2016), 194.

Maryland Department of Transportation and Baltimore Metropolitan Council

Maryland DOT annually publishes an evaluative report of the performance of the state’s transportation system, known as the Annual Attainment Report on Transportation System Performance (AR). Performance measures were established from the goals set in the Maryland Transportation Plan and the Consolidated Transportation Program, which is the six-year budget for financing transportation projects.7

Direct measurement of the impact on GHG emissions of the nine selected strategies was not available; however, transportation-related GHG emissions dropped statewide by more than eight percent between 2007 and 2016. The overall statewide impacts of TERMs were measured in the AR by vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle-trip reduction, not by GHG emission reduction. Specific TERMs that Maryland DOT operates in the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) regional area, such as the Commuter Choice Maryland Program, were also measured in this fashion.8

2.1.2 Promotion and Implementation of Strategies

Since it became clear that the majority of the agencies have not measured the success of their GHG reduction strategies, other questions were also asked. The interviewed agencies were asked about how they have promoted and implemented the nine selected GHG reduction strategies. Recall that while the promotion of ZEVs and electric vehicles is subsumed in the “information on vehicle purchases” GHG reduction strategy, an actual electric vehicle implementation program is not.

Baltimore Metropolitan Council

The last LRTP prepared by BMC, Maximize 2040 – A Performance-Based Transportation Plan for a Greater Baltimore Region, lists several of the nine selected strategies among its long-term goals and objectives. The plan promotes investment in non-motorized transportation infrastructure and GHG emission reduction programs, encourages the private sector’s participation in erecting bicycle and pedestrian facilities, advocates for the development of new TDM programs, and suggests offering incentives for zero-emissions vehicles. However, none of these strategies are specified or detailed.9

Capital District Transportation Committee

The Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC), the MPO for the Albany, New York area, encourages the nine strategies through a variety of initiatives. CDTC has made its GHG emissions inventory available to its local municipalities and has encouraged them to adopt VMT reduction measures. Many TDM strategies are promoted, including employer TDM programs, household TDM programs, and ridesharing programs. CDTC sponsors Capital CarShare (a regional carsharing program), manages a ridesharing program, and maintains a regional travel options website, www.capitalmoves.org. CDTC also has sponsored bike-sharing pilot programs.10 The CDTC’s LTRP, the 2040 New Visions Plan, noted that the Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA), which is the regional transit provider, has made significant strides in employer TDM cooperation since CDTC’s 1995 Transit Futures Report, but the impacts of these TDM strategies were not quantified.11

CDTC’s Community and Transportation Linkage Program provides MPO discretionary funding for municipalities to prepare and implement land-use and transportation plans that align with the principles established in the LRTP, such as Complete Streets (which incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities), road diets, parking management, and smart growth. Between 2000 and 2016, two parking management studies and 15 bicycle and pedestrian studies were undertaken courtesy of this program.12

Since 2001, CDTC has coordinated the Capital District Clean Communities Program, a local public-private partnership under the federal Clean Cities Program. The group encourages the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles and investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure.13

Capitol Region Council of Governments

While the Capital Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) in Hartford, Connecticut, actively promotes TDM, parking management, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and electric vehicles through the adoption of policy recommendations, the agency does not actually fund or implement any of them.

Instead, CRCOG serves as a data clearinghouse for its member communities. CRCOG has produced model sustainable land-use regulations (including parking policies), Complete Streets guidance (for non-motorized infrastructure), and TDM instruction. The agency makes these tools available to the public and encourages their use.

Like most of the interviewed MPOs, CRCOG’s LRTP calls for encouraging TDM, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and other VMT reduction strategies, but not for the express purpose of GHG emission reduction. Actually, CRCOG is the only interviewed agency that has not conducted a GHG assessment. One of the policy recommendations of the 2014 Capitol Region Plan of Conservation and Development is to conduct a regional GHG inventory to better identify specific mitigation strategies.

Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission

In 2011, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) in Winooski, Vermont, received a grant from the FHWA’s Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program to build a more robust, comprehensive, and coordinated regional TDM program. CCRPC helped to establish an integrated TDM program, known as Go!Chittenden County (gochittendencounty.org), among the agencies that provide transportation services in the region, such as CarShare Vermont, the Chittenden Area Transportation Management Association (CATMA), Local Motion, Chittenden County Transportation Authority, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC), Vermont Department of Health, and GoVermont (VTrans).14 Go!Chittenden County offers information and assists individuals and businesses to find sustainable options to single-occupant-vehicle trips. With CATMA’s expansion in 2015 to serve the county as a comprehensive TDM resource, Go!Chittenden County will sunset in 2017.

In addition to promoting bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in its Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan, CCRPC administered a municipal sidewalk grant program for its communities. Over $2 million was spent on 26 projects in 10 municipalities.15

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

GHG emission reduction is one of the goals listed in Connections 2040, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission’s (DVRPC) most recently adopted LRTP.DVRPC, based in Philadelphia, encourages and administers efforts involving nearly all of the nine GHG emission reduction strategies; Connections 2040 specifically notes the role that these programs, and many other ones, play in GHG emission reduction. DVRPC facilitates and coordinates the regional Mobility Alternatives Program (MAP), which encourages various employer-based TDM strategies, including the Ride ECO commuter benefit program. DVRPC also offers the Share-a-Ride ridesharing service. A significant funding commitment, $500 million, was made in Connections 2040 for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, primarily focusing on completing the 750-mile regional trail network, the Circuit. Recently, DVRPC has taken a key role in promoting alternative vehicle technology, leading the Pennsylvania Partnership to Promote Natural Gas Vehicles and preparing several electric vehicle action plans over the past decade. 16

Maryland Department of Transportation

Reducing GHG emissions is among the top two transportation-related environmental priorities of Maryland DOT.17 Maryland DOT chairs and staffs the Maryland Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Council (EVIC), which is responsible for developing a statewide infrastructure plan, a legislative action plan, and policies to promote the successful integration of electric vehicles into Maryland’s transportation system. To these ends, in 2012, EVIC issued 32 recommendations for promoting electric vehicle adoption.18 In conjunction with the Maryland Energy Administration, the Maryland Department of the Environment, the Motor Vehicle Authority, the State Highway Administration, and other state agencies, Maryland DOT promotes electric vehicle adoption and use. Federal income tax credits, Maryland excise tax credits, and rebates for charging systems and stations are available. Electric vehicles are also permitted to use all high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes in the state.

The Maryland Transit Administration, which is part of Maryland DOT, manages the Commuter Choice Maryland Program. This worksite-based TDM program operates statewide, but is primarily focused on the Baltimore area.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

In addition to its aforementioned TERM work, MWCOG advances and promotes other GHG reduction strategies. The Constrained Long-Range Plan (CLRP) and the supporting 2014 Regional Transportation Priorities Plan outline support for non-motorized infrastructure and electric vehicles.19 One project advanced in the 2016 CLRP Amendment is the expansion of the District of Columbia’s dedicated bicycle lane network by nearly four miles.20

New York State Department of Transportation

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is involved in both TDM and active transportation and demand management programs at both regional and statewide levels. NYSDOT’s 511NY service (511ny.org) broadcasts information on real-time travel conditions around the state and presents a myriad of transportation resources for travelers, including a multi-modal trip planning component, and information on alternative transportation options such as shuttles and carpools. NYSDOT also maintains 511NY Rideshare (511nyrideshare.org), an open-source platform that helps match travelers and employers with potential carpool options. The 511NY Rideshare website also disseminates multimodal travel data, alternative travel information, and guides for employers that wish to get involved with TDM efforts. Travelers can register at both of these websites and customize them to receive updates, alerts, and information pertinent to their commutes and travel routes.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) spearheads the state’s electric vehicle program and administers Charge NY, the state initiative to get more electric vehicles on the New York transportation system. In addition to promoting electric vehicles, NYSERDA administers rebates for electric vehicle purchases, provides information on tax credits for both electric vehicles and charging stations, and disseminates information about electric vehicle infrastructure. Electric vehicles pay reduced tolls on the New York State Thruway and are permitted to use its HOV facilities regardless of vehicle occupancy.

2.2 Methodologies for Estimating and Predicting GHG Emissions and Cost-Effectiveness

2.2.1 MassDOT GHG Tracking for Massachusetts MPOs

MassDOT requires that MPOs in Massachusetts assess all transportation projects considered for inclusion in a TIP either quantitatively or qualitatively for GHG emissions impact. Each year, the agency provides spreadsheets to MPOs that are used to determine whether projects are eligible for Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program funding. These spreadsheets can be modified to quantify CO₂. MassDOT delivers these CMAQ spreadsheets and a set of emission factors each year for use in that year’s TIP development process.21 These spreadsheets can be found in Appendix B.

GHG emission reduction associated with bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and with alternative fuel vehicles can be modeled using the CMAQ spreadsheet models. However, MassDOT does permit MPOs to use alternative methodologies to quantify the GHG emission impacts from these projects. Qualitative GHG emissions impacts must be assessed if a project cannot be quantitatively measured. Proposed projects should be classified according to one of three categories: 1) increases GHG emissions; 2) decreases GHG emissions; or 3) has no/negligible impact on GHG emissions.22

2.2.2 Methodologies for Estimating and Predicting GHG Emissions Used in Other States

Measuring the impact of GHG emission reduction strategies for agencies outside of Massachusetts revolves around VMT reduction. Travel demand models, sketch planning tools, and other methods are used to calculate decreases in VMT that would be caused by proposed transportation projects. Following this computation, emissions factors from the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model, which is provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are applied to the VMT reduction calculations to produce estimated GHG emission savings. MOVES estimates emission factors and emissions for on-road motor vehicles under a wide range of user-defined conditions. MOVES can also estimate emission factors for non-road equipment mobile sources, such as snowblowers, recreational boats, and construction vehicles.

Travel Demand Models

Nearly all the surveyed agencies use either a statewide or regional travel demand model to estimate VMT impact, after which MOVES emissions factors are applied. CDTC currently uses MOBILE emission factors in conjunction with their regional travel demand model, but this agency is in the process of upgrading to MOVES.23 Some statewide DOTs, such as those in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland, also have used EPA’s State Inventory Tool (SIT), particularly for off-road GHG emission calculations. SIT is a spreadsheet model using state-specific and default data combined with VMT and transportation fuel consumption data.

Sketch Planning Tools

Several agencies use sketch planning tools to estimate VMT reductions due to initiatives, such as TDM measures, that are not easily represented in travel demand models. The majority of these tools are spreadsheet based:

Other Methods

Two agencies have used other methods for GHG quantification besides the specific use of MOVES-generated emissions factors in conjunction with VMT calculations.

For its 2040 New Visions Plan, CDTC did not forecast GHG emission reduction for proposed investment strategies. Instead, VMT reductions per household, an analogous measure, were estimated. GHG emission reduction was assumed to be equivalent to VMT reductions per household, as one of the findings from the Capital District 2010 Regional GHG Inventory was that the percentage of transportation-related GHG emission reductions was directly correlated and identical to the percentage of VMT reduction.25

New Jersey Transit uses a multifaceted GHG-savings-estimation model, based on an approach suggested by the American Public Transportation Association. The model considers three distinct areas of GHG emission reduction: 1) VMT reduction, calculated as in the EPA SIT model; 2) land use; and 3) congestion relief. These elements are summed, and the amount of new GHG emissions produced by additional transit service is subtracted from this number.26 Appendix C presents more details about this methodology.

7 Maryland Department of Transportation, 2017 Annual Attainment Report on Transportation System Performance, 1.

8 Ibid., 48-50.

9 Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, Maximize 2040 – A Performance-Based Transportation Plan for a Greater Baltimore Region: Goals and Strategies (Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, April 29, 2014), 7-9.

10 Capital District Transportation Committee, CDTC New Visions 2040: New Visions for a Quality Region, (Albany, NY: Capital District Transportation Committee, March 2016), 40, 77.

11 Ibid., 80.

12 Ibid., 36.

13 Ibid., 39.

14 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan Amended, (Burlington, VT: Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, May 2016), 169.

15 Ibid., 166.

16 Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Connections 2040: Plan for Greater Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, September 2013), 81, 106, 125.

17 Maryland Department of Transportation, 2035 Maryland Transportation Plan: Moving Maryland Forward (January 2016), 10.

18 Maryland Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Council, Interim Report (Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of Transportation, January 2017), 6.

19 National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) for the Nation Capital Region: 2016 CLRP Amendment Documentation, (Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, November 16, 2016), 6.

20 Ibid., 31.

21 An emission factor is a value relating the amount of a pollutant released into the atmosphere (emissions) from a causal activity. Examples of this are weight of pollutant per activity distance traveled (grams/mile), weight of pollutant per activity duration (grams/hour), and weight of pollutant per volume of substance consumed during the activity (grams/gallons of gasoline). The factors are then used in emissions calculations.

22 Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Planning, Sustainable Transportation, Transportation Improvement Program Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting Guidance - Guidelines to assist Metropolitan Planning Organizations in complying with 310 CMR 60.05: Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, December 2016), 6.

23 EPA’s MOBILE emission factor model was superseded by the MOVES model. The last version was released in 2004.

24 ICF International, Renaissance Planning, & Mondre Energy, Multi-Sector Approach to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Metropolitan Washington Region – Final Technical Report (Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, January 2016).

25 Capital District Transportation Committee, CDTC New Visions: Environment and Technology Task Force White Paper January 2015 Draft, 47.

26 D. Deka, Off Peak Rail Transit Service Study – Importance for Auto Reduction and Peak Ridership Growth. Final Report, (Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Transportation, December 2011), NJDOT/FHWA, FHWA-NJ-2011-008, 57-58.

2.2.3 Projections of GHG Emissions for Selected Strategies

Several agencies forecast future GHG emissions for a few of the nine selected strategies. Not surprisingly, the replacement of current vehicles by electric vehicles in the transportation system has the largest impact. Again, while electric vehicle promotion falls under the “information on vehicle purchases” strategy, direct electric vehicle adoption does not.

	2040			2050
Strategy	CDTC	MWCOG	BMC	MWCOG	NJDEP
TDM	0.50%	1.30%	1.08%	2.90%
Non-motorized	1.50%	10.9%		9.0%
Electric Vehicles		4.10%	1.51%	4.70%	52.4% / 71.7%

BMC = Baltimore Metropolitan Council. CDTC = Capital District Transportation Committee. MWCOG = Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. NJDEP = New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. TDM = Transportation Demand Management.

The TDM strategy includes workplace TDM as well as teleworking, ridesharing, carsharing, guaranteed ride programs, and individual marketing of transportation services

The Non-motorized strategy includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The MWCOG projections include land-use changes, such as sustainable development patterns and urban design.

The Electric Vehicles strategy includes subsidies as well as, in the NJDEP case, two different assumptions (45%/90%) about electric vehicle adoption in the light duty vehicle fleet. The MWCOG ‘s projections assume an electric vehicle adoption rate of 15% in 2040 and 25% in 2050 for the light duty and public vehicle fleets. BMC’s projection assumes an adoption of 7.2% ZEVs and 9.8% hybrid-electric vehicles in the light duty vehicle fleet.

Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, How Far Can We Get? (December 2015), 17-21.

Capital District Transportation Committee, CDTC New Visions: Environment and Technology Task Force White Paper January 2015 Draft (Albany, NY: Capital District Transportation Committee, January 2015), 47.

ICF International, Renaissance Planning, & Mondre Energy, Multi-Sector Approach to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Metropolitan Washington Region – Final Technical Report (Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, January 2016), Appendix A.

2.2.4 Other Models

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), based in Philadelphia, is currently at work on a new regional-fleet-emissions and energy-content spreadsheet tool, which will be able to test the emissions impacts and energy use of fleets that use a mix of energy sources, including alternative fuels. The agency is also working with the University of California-Davis to customize its GIS EV Planning Toolbox for MPOs using Pennsylvania Division of Motor Vehicles data and US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data. This toolbox, while not directly estimating GHG reduction from electric vehicle use, does generate the location and magnitude of expected demand for charging stations. Presumably, emission reductions could be deduced from this information.

The Argonne National Laboratory, under the sponsorship of the US Department of Energy, developed the Alternative Fuel-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) tool. Although AFLEET can be used to estimate the benefits and costs of alternative fuel vehicles, it is rather complex measuring “wells-to-wheels” petroleum use and GHG generation. Furthermore, it relies on MOVES for tailpipe emissions.27

2.2.5 Methodologies for Estimating and Predicting Cost-Effectiveness of GHG Emission Reduction Strategies

Only a few of the contacted agencies have tried to quantify the cost-effectiveness of GHG emission reduction strategies and policies using methods more advanced than simple sketch planning. BMC, Maryland DOT, and MassDOT have used the aforementioned FHWA EERPAT model. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, under contract to MassDOT, tested several projects for GHG emission reduction using an approach called the Levelized Cost of Carbon (LCC).

Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool (EERPAT)

EERPAT, based on Oregon’s GreenSTEP model and Regional Strategic Planning Models, is an open-source code program designed to estimate GHG emissions for surface transportation on a statewide level using disaggregate household-level models. It is a rapid-response policy-analysis tool that can be used to evaluate individual policies as well as alternatives involving complex policy interactions. Unlike many travel demand models, it accounts for both feedback from congestion and induced demand. Outputs include travel delay, VMT, GHG emissions, and fuel consumption.28

Levelized Cost of Carbon (LCC)

LCC is grounded in the concept of the time value of money. “It is well recognized that there is a time value to money, so that money spent now and money spent ten years from now are not equivalent.”29 This method uses life cycle costs, carbon costs, and discount rates for money and GHG emissions over time to calculate a cost-effective metric called annualized lifetime costs. LCC is powerful enough to compute cost-effectiveness metrics for choosing projects when there are specific constraints on resource allocation/policy selection (“the knapsack problem”) as well as if there are no constraints (investing in overall social welfare).30

Limitations of LCC and EERPAT Methods

While analytically robust, the EERPAT and LCC models are extremely data intensive. EERPAT requires household-level data on a statewide basis. The LCC model requires a lot of speculative information such as the changing rates of the value of reducing a ton of CO₂ over time. Moreover, much of the data necessary for running the LCC model are not typically calculated for LRTP projects. For example, the GHG emissions resulting from transportation projects planned for long-term implementation are usually quantified for the project’s opening year as well as for a horizon year. The LCC requires life-cycle details, meaning that construction, capital, operating, and maintenance costs would need to be calculated for every single year of the project, as would GHG emissions. This would represent a fundamental shift in how projects are analyzed. While this might not be an issue for TIP evaluation (as the TIP has a five-year timeframe), it would be an issue for LRTP evaluation (as the LRTP has a 20-year timeframe). Furthermore, all projects would need to be judged within the same timeframe; again, this might not be a problem for short-range planning efforts.

The LCC authors note that “while the LCC is valid to determine whether a particular project is cost-effective of not, it faces a weakness when used to compare projects.”31 This weakness is chiefly due to the model’s inability to adequately capture the societal cost of carbon. They add that the analysis is only valid when considering projects solely as GHG emission reduction projects and ignoring all other potential benefits, such as congestion reduction, safety, or other environmental improvement.32

While EERPAT offers some advantages over traditional travel demand models, it does have some drawbacks. Since it is not a network model, it cannot provide outputs for specific facilities. Instead, the model is spatially aggregate and performs analyses at either the statewide, regional, or metropolitan area level; it is not granular enough to perform at finer levels of geographic detail. EERPAT also has limitations in regard to the types of specific inputs it can accept. Not every GHG emission reduction policy can be explicitly modeled.

As the authors note, “the inputs related to transit service provision include rate of growth of vehicle-revenue miles (VRM), bus fuel type and efficiency, and rail percent electrification. Policies such as increasing frequency, coverage, or reliability of service, or adding new rail service, could not be modeled except as an increase in VRM. Similarly, land-use policies are modeled based on the fraction of households in “mixed-use” versus “single-use” neighborhoods and the amount of population in urban versus rural areas. Policies such as transit-oriented development cannot be explicitly modeled.”33

2.3 Informing Project Evaluation

Interviewed agencies were asked how they use GHG emissions as an evaluative metric in project selection. The Transportation Evaluation Criteria (TEC) used by Massachusetts MPOs were compared to the Boston Region MPO’s metrics for TIP project prioritization. First, TEC were scrutinized for metrics explicitly mentioning GHG emission reductions. Five of the 12 Massachusetts MPOs (not including the Boston Region MPO) and three of the agencies outside of Massachusetts have a GHG emission reduction criterion. Seven of the other Massachusetts MPOs and three of the agencies outside of Massachusetts use a more general criterion for “emissions reduction.” Second, agencies’ TEC were examined for metrics under which the nine selected GHG emission reduction strategies might qualify and be viewed as favorable.

2.3.1 Evaluation of TIP Projects by Massachusetts MPOs

Since 2012, MassDOT has recommended that MPOs in Massachusetts assess and track GHG emissions as part of their TIP project evaluation and prioritization process. Appendix D contains the TIP TEC for the Massachusetts MPOs. Formal assessment and tracking of GHG emission reductions achieved by transportation projects was legally codified in January 2015 by the aforementioned DEP regulation, 310 CMR 60.05: Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. The quantitative and qualitative methodologies described in Section 2.2 are used to complete necessary annual reporting. GHG data are reported to MassDOT during each TIP development cycle in the TIP Template provided by MassDOT. MPOs are also required to annually track the quantitative GHG impacts of completed TIP projects to measure the progress that has been achieved towards the state’s Clean Energy and Climate Plan.

Boston Region

The Boston Region MPO evaluates projects for its TIP according to 28 criteria spanning six categories that represent the MPO’s goals: Safety; System Preservation; Capacity Management/Mobility; Clean Air/Clean Communities; Transportation Equity; and Economic Vitality. Appendix E presents these TIP metrics in detail. A project can earn a maximum of 134 points. CO₂reduction is a specific criterion in the Clean Air/Clean Communities category; a project can earn a maximum of five points in this category. Projects can earn additional points for the following evaluative criteria that are applicable to the nine selected strategies:

Berkshire Regional Planning Commission

GHG Emission Reduction is one of eight evaluative categories used by the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (BRPC) in the development of its TIP. A project that would have a positive effect in terms of GHG emission reduction would earn a point. A project that supports increasing the use of alternate modes, such as active transportation, would earn a point for the Livability category.34 Therefore a quarter of the total points can be earned by evaluative criteria that are applicable to the nine selected strategies.

Cape Cod Commission

The Cape Cod Commission (CCC) rates potential TIP projects across seven distinct categories. A maximum of 100 points can be earned. A project that would result in GHG emission reductions alone can earn two points for that benefit. Projects can earn additional points for the following evaluative criteria that are applicable to the nine selected strategies:

Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission

The Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission (CMRPC) ranks potential TIP projects across 10 categories. Projects can earn a maximum score of 36. Although GHG emission reduction is not a specific criterion, one point can be garnered for reducing emissions. Projects can earn additional points for the following evaluative criteria that are applicable to the nine selected strategies:

Franklin Regional Council of Governments

The Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) ranks its TIP projects according to 19 criteria across six categories: Condition; Mobility; Safety; Community Effects and Support; Land Use and Economic Development; and Environmental Effects. Three points are available for each metric. Points for criteria within each category are averaged; all the category averages are then summed. A maximum of 18 total points can be garnered. Air quality or climate effects is a specific criterion in the Environmental Effects category, even though GHG emissions reduction is not specifically mentioned. Other criteria related to the nine selected strategies are as follows:

Martha’s Vineyard Commission

Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) uses seven evaluative TIP categories. One has GHG emissions reduction as a major component: Environment, Climate Change / Greenhouse Gas Emissions / Air Quality (GHG/AQ). The other six categories are Safety, Alternate Modes, Congestion, Infrastructure Preservation / Improvement, Character, and Project Readiness. Bicycle and pedestrian safety are specifically mentioned in the Safety metric and the Alternate Modes metric is defined as a mode other than the private automobile.

A project can earn as many as three points for each category, after which the points are weighted. Interestingly, the GHG/AQ metric is weighted the least, while the safety metric is weighted the most. A project can earn a maximum of 39 points.38

Merrimack Valley Planning Commission

The Merrimack Valley Planning Commission (MVPC) rates its TIP projects according to 22 criteria across six categories: Condition; Mobility; Safety and

Security; Community Effects and Support; Land Use and Economic Development; and Environmental Effects. Three points are available for each metric. Points for criteria within each category are averaged; all the category averages are then summed. A maximum of 18 total points can be garnered. Air quality or climate effects is a specific criterion in the Environmental Effects category, even though GHG emissions reduction is not specifically mentioned. Other criteria related to the nine selected strategies are as follows:

Montachusetts Regional Planning Commission

The Montachusetts Regional Planning Commission (MRPC) rates potential TIP projects according to 25 criteria across six categories. A project can earn a maximum of 100 points. As many as four points can be earned by a project if it has a positive impact on air quality, follows climate-change standards, and/or reduces GHG emissions. Projects can earn additional points for the following evaluative criteria that are applicable to the nine selected strategies:

Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission

The Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission (NP&EDC) rates potential TIP projects according to 23 criteria across four categories. A project can earn a maximum of 100 points. A project can earn one point if it improves air quality and mitigates climate change. Additional points can be scored by the nine selected strategies as follows:

Northern Middlesex Council of Governments

The Northern Middlesex Council of Governments (NMCOG) rates potential TIP projects according to 18 criteria across six categories: Condition; Mobility; Safety; Community Effects and Support; Land Use and Economic Development; and Environmental Effects. Three points are available for each criterion. Points for criteria within each category are averaged; all the category averages are then summed. A project can earn a maximum of 18 total points. Air quality or climate change effects is a specific criterion in the Environmental Effects category, even though GHG emission reduction is not specifically mentioned. Other criteria related to the nine selected strategies are as follows:

Old Colony Planning Council

The Old Colony Planning Council (OCPC) ranks its projects differently than the other Massachusetts MPOs. Roadway projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects, and non-bicycle and non-pedestrian enhancements are rated by slightly different criteria under the same six evaluative categories: Condition and Service Quality; Mobility; Safety; Community Effects and Support; Land Use and Economic Development; and Environmental and Air-Quality Effects. Roadway projects are judged by 21 criteria, bicycle and pedestrian projects by 19 criteria, and non-bicycle and non-pedestrian enhancements by 17 criteria. Three points are available for each metric. Points for criteria within each category are averaged; all the category averages are then summed. A project can earn a maximum of 18 total points. Air quality or climate effects is a specific criterion in the Environmental Effects category of each project type, even though GHG emissions reduction is not specifically mentioned. Other criteria related to the nine selected strategies in the non-bicycle and non-pedestrian category types are as follows:

Pioneer Valley Planning Commission

The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) uses specific TEC to rank potential projects for their TIP. Projects are rated according to these metrics and can earn a maximum of 100 points across eight categories. GHG emission reduction is a specific criterion in the Environment and Climate Change category. A project can earn a maximum of one point for CO₂ reduction and an additional point can be earned for air quality improvement. Projects can earn additional points for the following evaluative criteria that are applicable to the nine selected strategies:

Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District

The Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) evaluates potential TIP projects according to 25 criteria across six categories: Maintenance and Infrastructure; Mobility and Congestion; Safety and Security; Community Impact and Support; Livability and Sustainable Development; and Environmental and Climate Change. A project can earn a total of 87 points. As many as three points can be earned for positively impacting air quality, even though GHG emissions reduction is not specifically mentioned. Points can be earned by criteria related to the nine selected strategies as follows:

2.3.2 Evaluation of Projects by Agencies Outside of Massachusetts

All but two of the eight interviewed agencies listed in this section use GHG or emission reduction as a criterion in their project evaluation processes.

Additionally, many of the nine selected GHG emission reduction strategies qualify under the prioritization schema. However, all the agencies contacted reported that although GHG emissions reduction was an important criterion, no projects or policies were pursued for that benefit alone. Each agency’s detailed TEC can be found in Appendix F.

Baltimore Metropolitan Council

Although GHG emissions reduction is not explicitly mentioned as a measure for prioritizing projects in the BMC’s latest TIP, nearly half of the 14 TIP evaluative criteria include elements pertaining to the nine selected strategies:

GHG emission reduction is, however, explicitly mentioned as an evaluative criterion in the Maximize 2040 LRTP. As much as 10 percent of the maximum of 50 total technical points can be earned by GHG and other emission reductions. A project can earn as many as five additional points for each of the following:

Capital District Transportation Committee

CDTC clearly has made GHG emissions reduction an important criterion in its transportation planning efforts; it underpins much of the TIP project rating process. Six of the 11 merit categories in CDTC’s TIP project evaluation system involve either the promotion of GHG emissions reduction or one of the nine selected strategies:

The range of possible total points in this ranking system is between -28 and 67. Two later steps occur before the final project score is tallied.49

Capitol Region Council of Governments

While CRCOG does not explicitly uses GHG emissions reduction or other emission reductions as evaluative metrics for its project selection process for the Local Transportation Capital Improvements Program (LOTCIP), the nine selected GHG emission reduction strategies do figure in the project rating process. With the exception of bridge improvement projects, proposed projects are rated by project type: reconstruction projects; pavement rehabilitation projects; and bicycle and pedestrian projects and stand-alone sidewalk projects.

Points can be earned in the Pavement Rehabilitation category if the project includes elements of Complete Streets. As many as 50 points can be earned for bicycle and pedestrian projects and stand-alone sidewalk projects. Of the 120 points available for reconstruction projects, roughly 10 percent can be potentially earned via the nine selected GHG emission reduction strategies. As many as three points can be earned for pedestrian supportive projects and for bicycle supportive projects. An additional three points can be earned if the pedestrian improvements are transit supportive. A maximum of five points can be earned by a project if it is deemed to be supportive of TOD; enhancement of bicycle and pedestrian connections are explicitly mentioned as TOD components. Air quality improvement is one of the potential environmental improvements for which as many as two points can be earned in the environmental and historic preservation category. 50

Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission

One of CCRPC’s products is the 2014 Climate Action Guide. The purpose of the guide is to establish a common understanding of the regional issues associated with climate change, establish goals and priorities that are most appropriate for Chittenden County and identify actions to address the regional priorities. The focus of the guide is on both reducing the ways the region contributes to climate change (climate mitigation) and adapting in ways that make the region more resilient to a changing climate (climate adaptation). The guide is not a policy document, rather it is intended to support interested municipalities, businesses, and individuals in developing policy and regulations to address climate change. It also includes a comprehensive accounting of greenhouse gas emissions produced by heating, electricity generation, transportation, solid waste and waste-water management, and agriculture for all 19 towns in the region.

CCRPC developed an evaluative criteria matrix to help prepare the Climate Action Guide and used it to prioritize strategies as being most effective for climate adaption and mitigation. One of the climate-mitigation criteria in the matrix is potential GHG emission reduction. It is actually the most influential metric in the matrix as it comprises nearly half of the overall available score. Possible strategies were rated for their mitigation effectiveness as either Low, MedLo, MedHi, or High, corresponding to a score between four and 12. The ranking scale is very different for the other criteria used in the mitigation effectiveness analysis; the scoring range for them is between -3 and 3. Adaptation effectiveness is scored separately and GHG emission reduction is not a criterion. Thus, this tool is heavily weighted toward GHG emission reduction.51

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

In February 2014, DVRPC adopted an updated TEC list. There is no specific GHG emission reduction metric listed among the nine TIP evaluation criteria and measures, but one of the scoring categories concerns air quality and green design. GHG emissions reduction is merely one listed element of the air quality improvement component of this category; other components include VMT reduction and low- or zero-emissions vehicles. However, additional points can be earned for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects, which are two of the selected strategies. Rewards can be earned for the following:

Maryland Department of Transportation

A directive known as the Maryland Open Transportation Investment Decision Act – Application and Evaluation, took effect on July 1, 2017. This law requires Maryland DOT to develop a project-based scoring system as a model to rank “major transportation projects” being considered for inclusion in the Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP). However, Maryland DOT is not required to use the ranking model as a prioritization tool for the CTP.53 It remains to be seen how or if GHG emission reduction will be incorporated into the scoring scheme.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

MWCOG has historically not used GHG emissions reduction as a specific evaluative criterion in its transportation planning processes or products. In fact, GHG-focused studies that culminated in reports such as What Would it Take? in 2010 and Multi-Sector Approach to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Metropolitan Washington Region in 2016 were published in parallel with mandated MPO planning efforts such as the LRTP and TIP. In early 2017, a Multi-Sector Working Group—convened by MWCOG and comprised of experts from local governments and regional and state transportation, planning, and environmental agencies—published its proposed recommendations for reducing GHG emissions. MWCOG has adopted these findings and hopes to use them to inform its upcoming planning work.

New York State Department of Transportation

NYSDOT facilitates consideration of GHG emission reduction strategies in the transportation planning and programming processes at the local level through its GreenLITES Program. NYSDOT, in conjunction with several MPOs, developed the GreenLITES project solicitation tool. The tool is voluntary, and helps municipalities and MPOs gauge how well a proposed transportation infrastructure project aligns with other community sustainability goals such as economic development, protecting and enhancing the environment, energy efficiency, and overall how well the project supports a sustainable society. This tool assesses projects according to their consistency with the state’s and locality’s sustainability goals. Of 26 possible points a project can earn, one point is dedicated to GHG emissions reduction.54

2.3.3 TIP Decision-Making—Comparison with Boston Region MPO

As displayed in Table 6, the Boston Region MPO awards a lower percentage of its TIP evaluation points specifically for emissions reduction than all but one of the interviewed agencies outside of Massachusetts that presently use project ranking systems. Compared to the other Massachusetts MPO’s TEC schemes, the Boston Region MPO ranks 8 out of 13 in terms of the focus it puts on emissions reduction. Interestingly enough, the MPOs serving Massachusetts’ three largest metropolitan areas—Boston, Worcester, Springfield—put the least emphasis on emissions reduction, despite having the highest vehicle traffic and emissions in the state.

27 Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Model, https://greet.es.anl.gov/afleet

28 Cambridge Systematics, Application of the EERPAT Greenhouse Gas Analysis Tool in Massachusetts (US Department of Transportation), 1-1. EERPAT – Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool, https://www.planning.dot.gov/FHWA_tool/default.aspx

29 E.D. Baker & S.N. Khatani, Developing a Metric for the Cost of Green House Gas Abatement, (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, March 2017), 7.

30 Ibid., 14.

31 Ibid., 11.

32 Ibid., 25.

33 Cambridge Systematics, Application of the EERPAT Greenhouse Gas Analysis Tool in Massachusetts, 1-3.

34 Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, Berkshire County Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program October 1, 2016 – September 30, 2021, (Pittsfield, MA: Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, 2016), 6.

35 Cape Cod Commission, Cape Cod Transportation Improvement Program Federal Fiscal Year 2018-2022, (Barnstable, MA: Cape Cod Commission, May 22, 2017). Appendix A, 3-7.

36 Central Massachusetts Metropolitan Planning Organization, CMMPO Endorsed 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (Worcester, MA: Central Massachusetts Metropolitan Planning Organization, May 17, 2017), 23.

37 Franklin County Transportation Planning Organization, Draft 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program for the Franklin Region: Appendix B. (Greenfield, MA: Franklin Regional Council of Governments, April 25, 2017), 3.

38 Martha’s Vineyard Commission, Martha’s Vineyard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 2018-2022. (Oak Bluffs, MA: Martha’s Vineyard Commission, April-May 2017), 5-6.

39 Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, Merrimack Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Federal Fiscal Years 2018 to 2022 Transportation Improvement Program: Appendix Final Report. (Haverhill, MA: Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, May 2017), Appendix D.

40 Montachusetts Regional Planning Commission, Montachusetts Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program Federal FY 2018-2022, (Fitchburg, MA: Montachusetts Regional Planning Commission, May 17, 2017), 74-76.

41 Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission, Transportation Improvement Program FFY 2018-2022 (Nantucket, MA: Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission, 2017), Appendix A.

42 Northern Middlesex Council of Governments, Northern Middlesex Regional Transportation Improvement Program Federal Fiscal Years 2018-2022 Draft (Lowell, MA: Northern Middlesex Metropolitan Planning Organization, May 2017), 84.

43 Old Colony Planning Council, FFY 2018-2022 Old Colony Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (Brockton, MA: Old Colony Metropolitan Planning Organization, May 16, 2017), Appendix I.

44 Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, 2017 TEC Form Official, http://www.pvpc.org/projects/transportation-evaluation-criteria-information-center

45 Southeastern Massachusetts Regional Planning and Economic Development District, 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program for the Southeastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Planning Organization (Taunton, MA: Southeastern Massachusetts Regional Planning and Economic Development District, May 16, 2017), Appendix C.

46 MAP-21 was superseded by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). Funding for transportation alternatives and pedestrian and bicycle facility projects are now included in the FAST Act’s Surface Transportation Block Grant Program.

47 Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, Baltimore Region Transportation Improvement Program 2017-2020 (Baltimore, MD, 2016), 395.

48 Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, Maximize 2040 – A Performance-Based Transportation Plan for a Greater Baltimore Region: Final (Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, November 24, 2015), Appendix F.

49 O’Neill, C. CDTC New Qualitative Merit Score for Project Evaluation. Presentation at 2017 AMPO Planning Tools and Training Symposium, (St. Louis, MO: 23 May 2017).

50 Capitol Region Council of Governments, Capitol Region Council of Governments LOTCIP Program: Project Selection Policy, (Hartford, CT: Capitol Region Council of Governments, May 2017), 8-12.

51 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, Creating a Climate for Resilience: Chittenden County Regional Climate Action Guide (Burlington, VT: Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, May 2014), Appendix F.

52 Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Draft DVRPC FY2017 TIP for Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, July 2016).

53 Maryland General Assembly, Senate Bill 307: Maryland Open Transportation Investment Decision Act – Application and Evaluation, 2017 Session.

54 New York State Department of Transportation, GreenLITES Project Solicitation Tool, Albany, NY.

Agency	Percentage
BMC	7.1%
BMC*	10.0%
BRPC	12.5%
CCC	2.0%
CCRPC**	50.0%
CDTC	3.0%
CMRPC	2.8%
CRCOG	2% - 4%
DVRPC	11.1%
FRCOG	5.3%
MRPC	4.0%
MVC	7.7%
MVPC	4.5%
NMCOG	5.6%
NP&EDC	1.0%
NYSDOT	3.8%
OCPC	4.8% - 5.9%
PVPC	1.0%
SRPEDD	3.4%
Boston Region MPO	3.7%

Because of the wide variation in specificity and detail of the evaluative metrics and the variety of weighting schema, it is very difficult to make comparisons with other agencies regarding point awards for criteria advancing the nine selected strategies. However, every agency provides for the reward of non-motorized improvements. The Boston Region MPO offers as many as nine specific points for bicycle improvements and as many as 14 specific points for pedestrian improvements. An additional 36 points might be garnered for non-pedestrian improvements from ancillary criteria that reward the promotion of inter-modalism, targeted development, and reduction of other non-GHG emissions. Given that as many as five of the 134 total points can be awarded for GHG emission reduction, a non-motorized project could earn between 37 and 41 percent of the maximum total score from these criteria alone.

No agency, including the Boston Region MPO, explicitly rewards alternative fuel modes (for example, electric vehicles). The Boston Region MPO does not award points for TDM strategies, while several other Massachusetts MPOs do reward such programs.

2.4 Consideration of GHG Emission Reduction Strategies in Scenario Planning

Only a few of the interviewed agencies have undertaken scenario planning and, of those that have, very few have actually broached the topic of GHG emissions reduction. Only one agency, CCRPC, integrated the testing of packages of GHG emissions strategies into its LRTP and transportation scenario planning efforts. Three other agencies—BMC, EPA, and MassDOT—performed scenario planning independently of other planning efforts to isolate the impacts of the GHG reduction strategies.

Baltimore Metropolitan Council

BMC’s most recent LRTP effort focused on scenario planning for climate change adaptation, not for mitigation. Three distinct future scenarios were discussed in the “Scenario Thinking exercise,” and emissions reduction was deemed to be important.55 Bonafide scenario planning was performed for BMC’s previous How Far Can We Get? study. Seven different alternatives were modeled, each testing a different combination of TERMs. The Vehicle Technology Plus/Marketing Scenario was ultimately recommended. This scenario was composed of vehicle-use optimization and eco-driving programs, employer and household TDM programs, truck-idling reduction, and a low-rolling resistance-tire rebate program.56

Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission

CCRPC performed scenario planning for its ECOS Plan, which combines the agency’s Regional Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy into a single document. CCRPC did not individually model GHG emission reduction strategies but instead modeled packages of strategies in three distinct transportation scenarios. The most aggressive scenario, the Energy Conservation/Social Equity Alternative, included some of the nine selected strategies—TDM, carsharing, and non-motorized infrastructure—as well as other emission reduction strategies—transit system expansion, passenger rail, increase in vehicle operating costs, intelligent transportation systems (ITS) improvements, and park-and-ride lot expansion. All of these elements combined were estimated to decrease GHG emissions by 20 percent; the difficulty of modeling the effects of a single project or strategy was noted.57

Many of this scenario’s components, several of which had not been included in the initial scenario, were ultimately reflected in the adopted MTP.58

US Environmental Protection Agency—TEAM Case Study

The Boston Region MPO area was one of the locations selected for a case study on EPA’s TEAM approach to emissions-reduction estimation. The study team worked with MassDOT, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Central Transportation Planning Staff, and GCC to develop and test five different future scenarios for the 2035 horizon year. In one of these scenarios, the Expanded Healthy Modes Program, participation in the MassRIDES worksite TDM program was expanded by 25 percent. Additionally, employees presently eligible to use MassRIDES would be offered a monthly monetary incentive of $70.59

Three other scenarios tested emission reduction strategies other than the nine addressed in this report, and another alternative was the Business as Usual scenario, in which no new emission reduction strategies were included. The Expanded Healthy Modes Program scenario decreased GHGs by 2.8 percent regionally compared with the Business as Usual scenario. The Expanded Healthy Modes Program’s impact was much greater for the affected population—the existing 650,000 MassRIDES users would reduce their VMT by 16 percent, while the 150,000 new MassRIDES users would reduce their VMT by 20 percent.60

MassDOT—EERPAT Study

In addition to modeling individual GHG emission reduction strategies as aforementioned, packages of strategies were modeled in different scenarios in MassDOT’s EERPAT study. One scenario, called Additional MassDOT Policies, considered investments that MassDOT could make if additional funding was available. The scenario was comprised of two of the nine selected strategies—bicycle infrastructure, TDM—and a few other approaches—transit investment in increased transit service, ITS, and clean buses. The other major scenario, called Other State and Local Policies, considered policies outside of MassDOT’s direct control. Two of the nine selected strategies—parking pricing and electric vehicles—were present in this scenario as well as four other approaches—land use and smart growth, VMT fees, congestion pricing, and an enhanced clean fuels standard. Table 7 compares the results of these scenarios with a projected future baseline scenario.

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Application of the EERPAT Greenhouse Gas Analysis Tool in Massachusetts (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, May 2016), 1-6.

2.4.1 Ancillary Discussion of GHG Strategies in Scenario Planning Work

The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) modeled GHG emission reduction scenarios for the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island, but did not focus on the transportation sector; these alternatives assumed 100 percent market penetration by electric vehicles.

DVRPC’s scenario planning effort for its latest LRTP, Connections 2040, centered on different future funding levels for transportation infrastructure. Three distinct transportation investment scenarios (high, medium, low) were modeled. Consequently, GHG emission reduction strategies were not explicitly modeled for their potential to reduce GHG emissions. Instead, their presence in the scenarios was only due to their impacts on the overall operation of the transportation system. Furthermore, although a GHG emission reduction alternative was not modeled explicitly, it was noted that the high investment scenario would allow the region to make progress towards attaining its stated goal of lowering of GHG emissions.61

55 Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, Maximize 2040 – A Performance-Based Transportation Plan for a greater Baltimore Region: Final, Appendix C.

56 Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, How Far Can We Get (December 2015), 28.

57 Chittenden County RPC, 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan Amended, 90

59 ICF International, Estimating Emission Reductions from Travel Efficiency Strategies: Three Sketch Modeling Case Studies (Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, June 2014) EPA-420-R-14-003a, 28.

61 Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Connections 2040: Transportation Investment Scenarios (Philadelphia, PA: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, October 2012), 24.

3.1 Findings

The Boston Region MPO appears to be in line with its peers in terms of GHG emission reduction strategies. Many other agencies have undertaken the same approaches as the Boston Region MPO—TDM, electric vehicle promotion via “information on vehicle purchases,” non-motorized infrastructure, and parking policies. However, no agency appears to have discovered a truly cost-effective GHG emission reduction strategy that is a panacea.

Few agencies have actually measured the progress of GHG emission reduction initiatives that they have implemented. Several have integrated GHG emission reduction considerations into their scenario planning. All have incorporated GHG considerations into their decision-making processes as criteria for project selection.

However, every contacted agency reported that GHG emissions reduction is never the primary motivation for pursued policies. The nine selected strategies have been undertaken for other overarching planning purposes—congestion relief, increased accessibility and mobility, healthy communities, smart growth, and TOD, for example; associated GHG emission reductions are merely co-benefits. There appears to be consensus among transportation agencies nationwide that GHG emission reduction is a worthy aim, and that aim is evident in the regional planning goals and strategies of the agencies interviewed for this study. GHG emission reduction, however, does not significantly factor into the criteria used to prioritize transportation projects among these agencies.

Because GHG emission reduction is merely seen as a co-benefit of the implementation of projects, it is neither the primary goal not the main driver for initiatives. Notwithstanding, GHG emission reduction approaches often mutually support other initiatives and usually comprise components of potential projects and policies; projects, including those designed to reduce GHG emissions, never occur in a vacuum. Projects that proponents will advocate for will likely have GHG emission reduction benefits because GHG emission reduction is correlated and enmeshed with other regional planning goals. Although GHG emission reduction does not appear to be prominent in the project prioritization process, GHG emission reduction frequently occurs as a complementary co-benefit from the implementation of projects.

Cost-effectiveness, with regards to GHG emission reduction, does not seem to play a large role in project prioritization. GHG emission reduction strategies tend to be implemented because of their potential to assist in the progress of achieving statewide and national GHG emission reduction targets, not because they are inherently cost-effective.

The Boston Region MPO and the other Massachusetts MPOs appear to be ahead of their peers in many respects. In fact, many of the contacted agencies reported that they look to the Boston Region MPO for guidance on GHG emission reduction strategies.

3.2 Planning Recommendations

As part of its work towards achieving its GHG reduction goals, the MPO should design and put into place tools for the measurement and evaluation of the progress of GHG emission reduction initiatives that it has implemented. Future scenario planning efforts by the Boston Region MPO should specifically incorporate the nine selected strategies.

The two modeling tools examined for cost-effectiveness deserve further study. LCC needs more investigation and enhancement. With some assumptions, more of the social costs of carbon might be quantified and incorporated into the analysis. LCC might be useful for analysis of short-term planning efforts where annual costs and emissions are either already known or relatively simple to compute.

Since an EERPAT analysis can be conducted at the regional level as well as at the statewide level, the MPO should consider using it to test some of its policies. Although the aforementioned MassDOT EERPAT study was chiefly conducted at the MPO level of geography, MassDOT policies, not individual MPO ones, were tested. BMC enlisted the help of Maryland DOT to do this for their 2015 study, How Far Can We Get? Maryland DOT, which maintains the EERPAT model for Maryland, calibrated the model to the BMC area before testing some policies provided by BMC; results were then presented at the BMC regional level. At the very least, such an analysis can serve to confirm and support MPO decisions and calculations made using other models and methods.

The most concrete area of potential enhancement of the Boston Region MPO’s GHG emission reduction strategies is the TEC used for the TIP and the LRTP. A greater percentage of points should be awarded for the emissions reduction criterion. If the GHG emissions reduction criterion used the TEC’s greatest point range (-6 to 6), GHG-emissions reduction could comprise approximately 4.5 percent of the total maximum score that projects could earn in the evaluation process. Then the Boston Region MPO would be tied for sixth place among the 13 Massachusetts MPOs in terms of the focus put on emissions reduction. Raising the point range by another point would place the MPO in roughly fifth place; another additional point (raising it to eight possible points) would place it squarely in third place. Additionally, points should be specifically awarded for TDM programs, as they are in several other Massachusetts MPOs.

The overall scoring system should be refined to further favor and reward projects that implement any of the nine GHG emissions reduction measures discussed in this study. Potential scoring would thus be structured so that projects could earn points for as many components that characterize the selected strategies as possible and give maximum value to projects that reduce GHG emissions.

Baker, E.D., & Khatani, S.N. Developing a Metric for the Cost of Green House Gas Abatement. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, March 2017.

Baltimore Regional Transportation Board. Maximize 2040 – A Performance-Based Transportation Plan for a Greater Baltimore Region: Goals and Strategies. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, April 29, 2014.

Baltimore Regional Transportation Board. Maximize 2040 – A Performance-Based Transportation Plan for a Greater Baltimore Region: Final. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, November 24, 2015.

Baltimore Regional Transportation Board. Baltimore Region Transportation Improvement Program 2017-2020. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, 2016.

Baltimore Regional Transportation Board. How Far Can We Get? Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, December 2015.

Bansal, M., & Morrow, E. “What Would It Take?” Scenario, TPB Scenario Study. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), May 2010.

Batac, T., Schattanek, G., & Meyer, M. NCHRP 08-36, Task 107: Synthesis of State DOT and MPO Planning and Analysis Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Planning, October 2012.

Benware, A. New Visions for a Quality Region: The Capital District’s 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Presentation at 2011 NYS Conference on the Environment. October 22, 2011.

Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. Berkshire County Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program October 1, 2016 – September 30, 2021. Pittsfield, MA: Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, 2016.

Booz Allen Hamilton, & Michael Baker Jr. Inc. NCHRP Web Document 55 (Project B25-23): Environmental Informational Management and Decision Support System Implementation Handbook – Appendixes B through F. NCHRP/TRB, March 2003.

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Charting Progress to 2040: Long-Range Transportation Plan of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. Boston, MA: Boston Region MPO, July 2015.

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Alternatives: Cost-Effective Analysis. Boston, MA: Boston Region MPO, January 2016.

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Transportation Improvement Program Federal Fiscal Years 2018-2022. Boston, MA: Boston Region MPO, May 25, 2017.

Cambridge Systematics. Application of the EERPAT Greenhouse Gas Analysis Tool in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, May 2016.

Cambridge Systematics, Michael Baker International, KFH Group, Toole Design Group, Integrated Designs. Maryland 2015 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act Plan. Maryland Department of Transportation, October 2015.

Cape Cod Commission. Cape Cod Transportation Improvement Program Federal Fiscal Year 2018-2022. Barnstable, MA: Cape Cod Commission, May 22, 2017.

Capital District Regional Planning Commission & Climate Action Associates. Capital District 2010 Regional GHG Inventory. Albany, NY: NYSERDA, May 2013.

Capital District Transportation Committee. CDTC New Visions: Environment and Technology Task Force White Paper January 2015 Draft. Albany, NY: Capital District Transportation Committee, January 2015.

Capital District Transportation Committee. CDTC New Visions: White Paper Recommendations January 2015 Draft. Albany, NY: Capital District Transportation Committee, January 2015.

Capital District Transportation Committee. CDTC New Visions 2040: New Visions for a Quality Region. Albany, NY: Capital District Transportation Committee, March 2016.

Capitol Region Council of Governments. Capitol Region Plan of Conservation and Development 2014-2024. Hartford, CT:Capitol Region Council of Governments, 2014.

Capitol Region Council of Governments. Capitol Region Transportation Plan: Minor Update-2015. Hartford, CT:Capitol Region Council of Governments, 2015.

Capitol Region Council of Governments. Capitol Region Council of Governments LOTCIP Program: Project Selection Policy. Hartford, CT:Capitol Region Council of Governments, May 2017.

Central Massachusetts Metropolitan Planning Organization. CMMPO Endorsed 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Worcester, MA: Central Massachusetts Metropolitan Planning Organization, May 17, 2017.

Clarion, Shipman & Goodwin, & Seth Harry and Associates Sustainable Land Use Code Project: Model Land Use Regulations: Capitol Region Council of Governments. Hartford, CT:Capitol Region Council of Governments, 2014.

Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. Creating a Climate for Resilience: Chittenden County Regional Climate Action Guide. Burlington, VT: Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, May 2014.

Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan Amended. Burlington, VT: Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, May 2016.

Commuter Connections, & MWCOG/NCRTPB Staff. Washington Metropolitan Region Transportation Demand Management Resource Guide and Strategic Marketing Plan FY2017 Final Report, December 2016.

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. 2013 Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, 2013.

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Taking Action on Climate Change: 2014 Progress Report, June 2014.

Deka, D. (December 2011) Off Peak Rail Transit Service Study – Importance for Auto Reduction and Peak Ridership Growth. Final Report. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Transportation, December 2011, NJDOT/FHWA, FHWA-NJ-2011-008.

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Connections 2040: Transportation Investment Scenarios. Philadelphia, PA: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, October 2012.

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Connections 2040: Plan for Greater Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, September 2013.

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Emissions in Greater Philadelphia, 2010: Methods and Sources. Philadelphia, PA: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, April 2015.

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Draft DVRPC FY2017 TIP for Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, July 2016.

Eastern Research Group, & Energy & Environmental Research Associates. Shore Power Technology at U.S. Ports. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, March 2017, EPA-420-R-17-004.

Franklin County Transportation Planning Organization. Draft 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program for the Franklin Region. Greenfield, MA: Franklin Regional Council of Governments, April 25, 2017.

Gao, S., Ni, D., Jiang, T., Tang, Y., & Oduwole, A. Mitigation Techniques to Modify Driver Performance to Improve Fuel Economy, Reduce Emissions, and Improve Safety. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, July 2016.

ICF International. Analyzing Emission Reductions from Travel Efficiency Strategies: A Guide to the TEAM Approach. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, September 2011, EPA-420-R-11-014.

ICF International. Estimating Emission Reductions from Travel Efficiency Strategies: Three Sketch Modeling Case Studies. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, June 2014, EPA-420-R-14-003a.

ICF International, Renaissance Planning, & Mondre Energy. Multi-Sector Approach to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Metropolitan Washington Region – Final Technical Report. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, January 2016.

LDA Consulting, ESTC, & Center for Urban Transportation Research (University of South Florida). National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board Commuter Connections Program: Transportation Emission Reduction Measure (TERM) Analysis Report FY2012 – FY2014. Washington, DC: National Capital Regional Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, November 2014.

LDA Consulting, Schreffler, E.N., Center for Urban Transportation Research (University of South Florida), & CIC Research, Inc. Commuter Connections Transportation Demand Management Evaluation Project: Transportation Emission Reduction Measures (TERMs) Revised Evaluation Framework FY2015 – FY2017. Washington, DC: National Capital Regional Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, March 2016.

Looney, J.P. Visioning 2050: BNL’s Contribution to the NYS Climate Action Plan. Brookhaven, NY: Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2011.

Lutsey, N., Searle, S., Chambliss, S., & Bandivadekar, A. Assessment of Leading Electric Vehicle Promotion Activities in United States Cities. Washington, DC: International Council on Clean Transportation, July 2015.

Martha’s Vineyard Commission. Martha’s Vineyard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 2018-2022. Oak Bluffs, MA: Martha’s Vineyard Commission, April-May 2017.

Maryland Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Council. Interim Report. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of Transportation, January 2017.

Maryland Department of the Environment. The 2015 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Act Plan Update, October 2015.

Maryland Department of Transportation. 2017 Annual Attainment Report on Transportation System Performance, 2017.

Maryland Department of Transportation. 2035 Maryland Transportation Plan: Moving Maryland Forward, January 2016.

Maryland General Assembly. Senate Bill 307: Maryland Open Transportation Investment Decision Act – Application and Evaluation, 2017 Session.

Massachusetts Department of Transportation. GreenDOT Policy Directive. Policy P-10-002, June 2, 2010.

Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Planning, Sustainable Transportation. Transportation Improvement Program Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting Guidance - Guidelines to assist Metropolitan Planning Organizations in complying with 310 CMR 60.05: Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, December 2016.

Merrimack Valley Planning Commission. Merrimack Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Federal Fiscal Years 2018 to 2022 Transportation Improvement Program: Appendix Final Report. Haverhill, MA: Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, May 2017.

Montachusetts Regional Planning Commission. Montachusetts Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program Federal FY 2018-2022. Fitchburg, MA: Montachusetts Regional Planning Commission, May 17, 2017.

Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission. Transportation Improvement Program FFY 2018-2022. Nantucket, MA: Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission, 2017.

National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) for the Nation Capital Region: 2016 CLRP Amendment Documentation. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, November 16, 2016.

Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Mitigation Options Overview and Reduction Estimates. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, December 2010.

Northern Middlesex Council of Governments. Northern Middlesex Regional Transportation Improvement Program Federal Fiscal Years 2018-2022 Draft. Lowell, MA: Northern Middlesex Metropolitan Planning Organization, May 2017.

Old Colony Planning Council. FFY 2018-2022 Old Colony Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Brockton, MA: Old Colony Metropolitan Planning Organization, May 16, 2017.

O’Neill, Chris. CDTC New Qualitative Merit Score for Project Evaluation. Presentation at 2017 AMPO Planning Tools and Training Symposium, St. Louis, MO, May 23, 2017.

PlaceMatters, Placeways. Interagency Transportation, Land Use, and Climate Change Pilot Project. USDOT.

Pacyniak, G., Akbar, N., Lynch, L., & Weil, G. State-Level Programs and Policies Supporting Sustainable Communities within Transportation & Climate Initiative (TCI) Jurisdictions. Washington, DC: Georgetown Climate Center, November 2012.

Pacyniak, G., Zyla, K., Arroyo, V., Goetz, M., Porter, C., Jackson, D., et. al. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation: Opportunities in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Washington, DC: Georgetown Climate Center, November 2015.

Powers, C. Finding the Funds: Options for State Plug-In Electric Vehicle Programs. Washington, DC: Georgetown Climate Center, April 2015.

Porter, C.D.; Brown, A.; DeFlorio, J.; McKenzie, E.; Tao, W.; & Vimmerstedt, L. Effects of Travel Reduction and Efficient Driving on Transportation: Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Transportation Energy Futures Series. Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Golden, CO) and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (Cambridge, MA), for the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, March 2013, DOE/GO-102013-3704.

Randall, E., Posey, J., & MWAQC TAC. USDOT Performance Based Planning and Programming (PBPP) Presentation on 14 February 2017. National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, February 14, 2017.

Rasmussen, B., Morse, L., Perlman, D., Filosa, G., & Poe, C. A Framework for Considering Climate Change in Transportation and Land Use Scenario Planning: Lessons Learned from an Interagency Pilot Project on Cape Cod, March 2012, DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-11-02.

Regional Plan Association. Growing Economy, Shrinking Emissions: A Transit-Oriented Future for Connecticut’s Capital Region. Regional Plan Association, March 2010.

Rhode Island Division of Planning. Energy 2035 Rhode Island State Energy Plan Preliminary Draft June 2015. Providence, RI: Division of Planning, June 2015.

Rhode Island Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council. Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan. Providence, RI: Rhode Island Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council, December 2016.

Schwartz, S., Lovaas, D., Epstein, L., Sildordff, C., Hauck, D., Network, et. al. “The Constrained Long Range Plan Update Must Address Regional Climate Change Goals.” Received by Patrick Wojahn and Members of the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, April 11, 2014.

Shorepower Technologies. Interstate Electrification Improvement Project Final Report. Portland, OR: US Department of Energy, July 2015.

Southeastern Massachusetts Regional Planning and Economic Development District. 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program for the Southeastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Planning Organization. Taunton, MA: Southeastern Massachusetts Regional Planning and Economic Development District, May 16, 2017.

STAR Communities. STAR Community Rating System Version 2.0. Washington, DC: STAR Communities, October 2016.

Swaine, A. NECFC Partner Application Support & Collaboration. Northeast Clean Freight Corridors Workgroup Webinar #6: Preparing Applications for Alternative Fuel Corridors, Northeast Diesel Collaborative, July 28, 2016.

Thornton, J. Gap Analaysis for Northeast Clean Frieght Corridors: Electrified Parking Spaces (EPS) / Truck Stop Electrification (TSE). Northeast Clean Freight Corridors Workgroup Webinar #6: Preparing Applications for Alternative Fuel Corridors, Northeast Diesel Collaborative, July 28, 2016.

Turchetta, D. FAST Act: Alternative Fuel Corridor Designations. Northeast Clean Freight Corridors Workgroup Webinar #6: Preparing Applications for Alternative Fuel Corridors, Northeast Diesel Collaborative, July 28, 2016.

Turchetta, D., & Davies, J. (2014) FHWA GHG Analysis Toolkit. Presentation at AASHTO Air Quality Peer Exchange, May 7, 2014.

Turner, C. MDOT Climate Change Planning and Emissions Modeling. Presentation on 31 August 2016. NTAQS Climate Change and Energy Issue Conference, 2016.

US Environmental Protection Agency. (January 2017) 2017 SmartWay Truck Carrier Partner Tool: Technical Documentation US Version 2.0.16 (Data Year 2016).Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, January 2017, EPA-420-B-17-003.

Wagner, F., Roberts, D., Francfort, J., & White, S. (March 2016) Drive Electric Vermont Case Study. Idaho Falls, ID: US Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy / Edison Electric Institute, INL/EXT-16-38077.

Winebrake, J.J. (2012) Achieving Emissions Reductions in the Freight Sector: Understanding Freight Flows and Exploring Reduction Options. Webinar on Talking Freight Seminar: Freight and the Enivronment Part I. March 12, 2012.

Yang, Z., Slowik, P., Lutsey, N., & Searle, S. Principles for Effective Electric Vehicle Incentive Design. Washington, DC: International Council on Clean Transportation, June 2016.

Policy	Transportation Sector Emission Reduction Percentage by 2030	Annual Cost Per Metric Ton of GHG	GHG Reduction Strategy
Transit	0.10%	$3,500 - $19,300	Increased Transit Service, Expansion of Urban Fixed-Guideway Transit
Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure	0.70%	$790 -$13,425	Bicycling Improvements, Pedestrian Improvements
Employer / Worksite Travel Demand Management		$30 - $420	Workplace Transportation Demand Management, Teleworking
Rideshare Programs		$80	Ridesharing
Miscellaneous Travel Demand Management		$40 - $7,486	Individualized Marketing of Transportation Service, Car Sharing
Electric / Alternative Fuels Vehicles	2.7% - 5.4%		Information on Vehicle Purchases
Freight / Intermodal Infrastructure and Operations		$172 - $86,500	Rail Freight Infrastructure

TERM	Tons CO₂e Reduced	Percent CO₂e Decreased
Telework Assistance	23,528	0.11%
Guaranteed Ride Home Program	21,891	0.10%
Employer Outreach	135,753	0.62%
Mass Marketing	18,840	0.09%
Ridesharing	61,484	0.28%
Totals	261,496	1.19%

Scenario	2030	2040	2050
Additional MassDOT Policies	1.90%	2.30%	2.70%
Other State and Local Policies	4.50%	4.80%	4.90%