Yakima’s Regional Commute Trip Reduction Pilot Program

An Examination of Non-Traditional Worksites Within the Yakima Urban Growth Area:

Agriculture & Higher Education

2

CTR Progra

m

Traditional

Higher Education

Ag/Seasonal

3

Alternative Plan Progress

• Established relationships with eight (8) agriculture related employers and the two (2) higher education institutes.

• Conducted “windshield” surveys of worksites to develop DAR data. Anticipate future paper surveys to develop VMT data.

• Our offer to develop maps pinpointing employees home locations to help establish ridesharing opportunities was well accepted.

4

Changes to Alternative Plan From Original

We planned to conduct paper surveys so that DAR as well as VMT could be determined. This was met with some resistance from employers. We proceeded with

windshield surveys.

Employer Concerns:• Disruption of the worksite.• Employee Privacy.• It is anticipated that as trust is

developed, paper surveys will eventually be allowed.

• No other changes have been made to the original plan.

5

What Are We Learning About This Experiment

What is working well?

CTR

CTR Program Awareness

Benefits to their Business

Partnerships (YVCOG,

Transit, etc.)

Productive Meetings with

Employers

6

What are the Challenges/Obstacles?

Challenges

CTR Program not Mandated for Ag or Higher Ed

Employers Worksite

Disruption

Employers Concern for Privacy.

7

Is this changing local support for trip reduction?

CTR Concept is New:

Benefits are Obvious

Dependable Transportation

Less Demand for

Parking

Employee Benefits: GRH, Incentives, etc

Improved Air Quality

8

* CTR Affected Employer

Tree T

op*

Del Monte*

Borton Fr

uits

Zirkle

Fruit

John I. Haa

s

Hansen

Fruit

CM Holtzinge

r

Monson Fr

uit0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Agriculture Related Businesses DAR % Full Time EmployeesAgriculture Related Businesses DAR % Peak Seasonal Employee

9

Conclusions:Do We Want To Continue the Grand

Experiment?

YES