the Commute Trip Reduction Board Community

enhancing transportation across washington state

WSDOT, the CTR Board and local partners continue to discuss potential changes to the CTR program. As we work through the issues, it is very important to us that we engage you and our other partners to gain the benefit of your perspectives.

For a quick review of where we've been and what's up next, check out the Board's decisions to date and upcoming work.

The Board's October 26 meeting was focused on the threshold that determines which parts of the state are required to participate in the CTR program. WSDOT provided a preliminary recommendation and the Board engaged in a lively discussion, which you can read all about in the draft October meeting minutes.

WSDOT will continue to work on the threshold recommendation and related items for further consideration by the Board at its December 7 meeting in Olympia. This work includes applying the threshold analysis to urban growth areas, considering policy options for including areas that don't meet the proposed thresholds, considering options for the major employment installation definition, and more.

As part of this work, we will be reaching out to our partners over the next few weeks. If you have thoughts on the discussion, or data, analysis or ideas to contribute, don't wait for us to contact you! We want to hear from you.

Please feel free to post your thoughts in this discussion thread or contact me and others on the CTR program team.

Views: 120

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Having listened to most of the CTR Board meetings over the past year, I applaud the process in determining recommended approach for the CTR Program.  Consideration of multiple factors is key for areas like our own (Tri-Cities) and seems a reasonable approach to pursue.   

With that said, it seems that the Tri-City area should be listed as no longer affected under proposed recommendations in the "Preliminary Recommendations" document.  I tried to mention this during the recent Board meeting, but may not have been clear.  Our metro area is currently "affected" under existing thresholds, but is exempted from CTR participation due to funding availability and desire to have all affected jurisdictions operating on same cycle.  Perhaps inclusion with an asterisk identifying the area as affected, but unfunded and therefore exempted, as our current status?   

Thanks Brian. We have updated the document to reflect the status of the Tri-Cities. The next version will be shared with the Board on Friday.

Brian Malley said:

Having listened to most of the CTR Board meetings over the past year, I applaud the process in determining recommended approach for the CTR Program.  Consideration of multiple factors is key for areas like our own (Tri-Cities) and seems a reasonable approach to pursue.   

With that said, it seems that the Tri-City area should be listed as no longer affected under proposed recommendations in the "Preliminary Recommendations" document.  I tried to mention this during the recent Board meeting, but may not have been clear.  Our metro area is currently "affected" under existing thresholds, but is exempted from CTR participation due to funding availability and desire to have all affected jurisdictions operating on same cycle.  Perhaps inclusion with an asterisk identifying the area as affected, but unfunded and therefore exempted, as our current status?   

RSS

© 2017   Created by Jef Lucero.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service