Follow up to Good Times article: Crash for Carpools

A massive difference in performance — over five-hundred times less than anticipated — exists between the projected results and the actual results achieved by the RTC’s Carpool Incentive Program. This was made graphically clear with the 18-foot-long printed plot of the data displayed at the RTC meeting on June 26, 2014.

The projected results required that many fundamentally unrealistic assumptions be met which led to the program’s failure to deliver as will be detailed in this blog post.

 

Projected *VMT reduction results	Actual VMT reduction results
345,000 miles per month	648 miles per month (actual results 500 times less than projection)

*VMT = Vehicle Miles Travelled

 

Two significant reasons behind the huge discrepancy between the projections and the actual results:
1. The projected results in the RTC’s grant application were not based on any “proven procedure or technology” as claimed, but instead were based on impractical and oversimplified calculations to maximize the cost effectiveness score of 1,900 carpoolers within a two-year period.
2. From its inception, the program that the RTC delivered was poor in concept, design, and implementation and was therefore neither capable of achieving significant results nor returning the extraordinary projected results.

For this particular post, let’s focus on reason number one — the unrealistic grant application. The following chart demonstrates the type of oversimplified calculations that the RTC used to project their “expected” results:

Achieving these projected results required many impractical assumptions with very little incentive to drive participation. Example: For a one-time incentive $25 gas card, all 1,900 qualified carpoolers were expected to:

• Change their commute completely from five days per week solo-driving to five days per week carpooling.
• Sign-up on the first day of the program and carpool every single commute day for the entire two-year term of the program.
• Deliver this massive change in commute behavior for an incentive of about a nickel a day. ($25 / 1000 carpool days = $0.05 per day)

It is unrealistic to expect to achieve full-participation and effectiveness immediately — in the first month — of most any type of promotional program. It takes time to build participation. In addition, I have never heard of a commute program that has achieved this massive behavior change from five days a week solo-driving to five days a week carpooling, for such minimal incentive.

To be clear, there are effective traffic pollution reduction programs available. In fact, the RTC referenced my work at the City and the County of Santa Cruz in their 2008 grant application. However, for the RTC to point to RideSpring’s success, and then claim (with no track record) the capability to vastly exceed the results of what had been achieved defies all logic. This misrepresentation netted the RTC a $120,000 publicly funded contract.

This fundamental error was clearly identified as far back as 2012 in the RideSpring report. The first call for an independent investigation was also included at that time. Instead of acknowledging this error in the face of the actual data, the RTC dismissed the concerns in the July 2012 Santa Cruz Sentinel.

In the RTC Executive Director’s response to the Air District’s Stop Work Order earlier this year, Mr. Dondero claimed that the RTC’s confidence in the projected results were based on “outcomes of incentive programs throughout the state, region and country.” However, no documentation identifying the specific programs that have achieved the stated results have been presented.

As recently as March 2014, in testimony to transportation commissioners, the RTC Executive Director blames unpredictable “human behavior” as the reason why the expected results were not met. Video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQKl0yTsyn8

Another fact that makes it difficult to understand how the RTC could have endorsed those projected results:

At the time of the grant application in 2008, the RTC paid their own staff an incentive of $2 every day for using an alternative commute. RTC staff certainly do not use an alternative commute 100% of the time for this comparatively greater incentive. Therefore, how did the RTC expect the participating public (not just some, but all 1,900 participants) to use an alternative commute every single commute day, for two years solid at a mere $0.05 per day — an incentive of 1/40th of what they were paying their own staff?

For the RTC to claim that they had reasons to believe they were going to achieve these results loses all credibility based on the evidence of their own experience.

How can the RTC be brought to account for this mismanagement and waste of taxpayer time and money? Click the link below to add your name to the petition calling for an independent investigation:

Transportation Commissioners: Please do not ignore this third call for an independent investigation of the RTC

Please join me, and other community-minded people by signing this petition. It’s time to get back on track and implement sustainable programs that move our community forward. Thanks for your consideration and support.

Additional action: Share your thoughts on this issue with your county supervisor, or other RTC transportation commissioners: http://www.sccrtc.org/about/commission-members/

—

Paul McGrath
Commute Consultant
RideSpring

An important update on the campaign calling for the truth behind the RTC’s failed traffic pollution reduction program:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/independent-investigation-5 

See the brief email exchange below with Virginia Johnson (Office of Supervisor Bruce McPherson) where I am asking for confirmation of several key points made in a conversation she had with Les Strnad regarding the petition.

Some background information:

Virginia Johnson
Board of Supervisors – Office of Supervisor Bruce McPherson
Ms. Johnson is familiar with this story. In 2008 Virginia Johnson was the Executive Director/CEO of Ecology Action which managed Cabrillo College’s AB2766 grant application to the Air District. Cabrillo’s top priority in the application was commute program services to be provided by my company (RideSpring).
In addition to managing Cabrillo’s AB2766 grant application, Ecology Action was also included on the grant as a provider of bike lockers, a student bike loan program, and a half-time transportation planner.
Final decision by Air District on Cabrillo College’s grant application in August 2008: $90,000 to be directed to Ecology Action services. Air District specified that Cabrillo College could not use AB2766 funds to implement Cabrillo’s top priority – RideSpring. This was even with both the RTC & Air District recognizing RideSpring as an effective commute program, and the model that the RTC attempted to copy with their Carpool Incentive Program – the program that is the subject of the petition:
Truth behind traffic pollution failure needed before approving $5.6 billion transportation plan 
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/independent-investigation-5

Les Strnad
Former Deputy Director, Central District, California Coastal Commission
Mr. Strnad recently became interested in this issue and supported the petition with his comment:
As the former Deputy Director -Central District- California Coastal Commission I strongly recommend a detailed independent analysis of the effectiveness for the last 5 years of the SCCRTC’s Commute Incentive Program prior to adopting a new budget on June 26th. It is the responsibility of every local government to implement the most effective greenhouse gas emission reduction program. Prior to your budget vote it appears, in my professional opinion, that the Commission should have such an analysis to make appropriate program adjustments to assure public confidence in the Commute Incentive Program. I am available to discuss with your staff the formulation of an oversight review committee to assure effective program implementation and monitoring. Sincerely, Les Strnad, CZMA

I look forward to letting you know of any further developments…

Best,
Paul

On 7/16/14, 5:16 PM, Paul McGrath wrote:

Virginia,
Thank you for your response. I understand that you want any discussion relating to the petition calling for an independent investigation of the RTC’s failed traffic pollution reduction efforts to be open and public. In support of this, can you please confirm the main points you communicated in the conversation you had with Les Strnad in June:

• The commute program / traffic pollution reduction program that I developed & launched in 2005 (RideSpring) works very well, and should be widely adopted.
• George Dondero tried to copy model & has acknowledged that the RTC’s attempt failed
• George Dondero has admitted privately that they screwed up, but has not acknowledged this publicly
• Paul should go away and build support for his model and come back to the RTC in a years time with a positive message

With your confirmation of the above I will be happy to respond to the other points you made in you email below.

Yours sincerely,
Paul

—
Paul McGrath
Commute Consultant
paulm@ridespring.com
831.278.0312
www.ridespring.com
—

On 7/14/14, 3:58 PM, Gine Johnson wrote:

Paul,

Sorry for the delayed response as I’ve been out of the office.

I did have a conversation with Les Strnad recently about the petition you have put together and Les’ idea that there should be a citizen’s oversight committee to assure that funded transportation projects are implemented on time and budget while meeting all of the project goals. I did not agree with him simply because there is plenty of oversight that already exists as part of regular public meetings of the SCC Regional Transportation Commission and the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.

In terms of you and I discussing the project that is the subject of your petition, this topic has been discussed in multiple public SCCRTC meetings, most of which I have attended. Any future discussion that needs to occur belongs as part of an open public meeting.

I am, however, willing to share my opinion on the situation. That is, not all projects are successfully implemented as planned. That is the basic nature of undertaking the completion of a large and diversified portfolio of complex projects, which is what the SCCRTC and the MBUAPCD have done. Both agencies have acknowledged that the project in question was not implemented as planned and subsequently took the appropriate actions to cease devoting more resources to the project. Challenged projects such as the one in question teach valuable lessons that are relevant to considering future projects. The best run public and private organizations regard project challenges and even outright failures to be essential and very valuable elements of sustained long term success because the lessons learned strategically inform the use of future resources.

Also, as I explained to Les, it seemed odd to me to link the approval of the Regional Transportation Plan with the challenges of this one project. The purpose of the plan is to identify the unmet transportation needs within the County and most of the projects listed in the plan are not funded. It’s a planning document that positions the region to access money if it were to become available and the list of projects gets updated frequently with full public input.

Moving forward, I hope that the lessons in this situation to which everyone involved has been exposed will inform improving future actions.

Sincerely,
Virginia Johnson
Board of Supervisors – Office of Supervisor Bruce McPherson
701 Ocean Street – Suite 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 454-2200
McPherson newsletter and updates:
brucemcpherson.org

—–Original Message—– From: Paul McGrath [mailto:paulm@ridespring.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 8:04 AM
To: Gine Johnson
Subject: Les Strnad suggested we talk

Hello Virginia, I hope you are well. I believe you had some good conversations with Les Strnad regarding the recent petition I put together. Les suggested we talk, and I would certainly like to do that if you are available.

Any good times to talk on the phone, or meet in person next week? Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,
Paul
—
Paul McGrath
Commute Consultant
paulm@ridespring.com
831.278.0312
http://www.ridespring.com
—

At the RTC public hearing on June 26, I delivered the following petition:

Truth behind traffic pollution failure needed before approving $5.6 billion transportation plan
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/independent-investigation-5

Even though the petition was clearly directed to the thirteen transportation commissioners, a response from commissioners has not yet been received. Over 100 petition supporters deserve a response.

Over the weeks ahead I will be writing to all thirteen transportation commissioners asking for their response to the petition, and the valid concerns it raises. Please join me in asking questions! Contact info. for RTC commissioners can be found here: http://www.sccrtc.org/about/commission-members/

Below is my first letter/email to commissioner Dennis Norton, sent today. You will see that it contains the RTC Executive Director one-year extension request to the Air District that shows:

1. RTC Executive Director conceals actual traffic emission reduction is less than 1/500th of expected.
2. RTC Executive Director falsely claimed traffic emission reduction success.
3. RTC Executive Director attempts to extend duration & funding for failed emission reduction program.

This is just one example of many why I have no confidence in the SCCRTC providing effective traffic pollution reduction services in our community. Santa Cruz needs and deserves much better.

–
Paul McGrath
Commute Consultant

 

---

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:	Over 100 petition supporters deserve a response from SCCRTC transportation commissioners
Date:	Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:24:22 -0700
From:	Paul McGrath <paulm@ridespring.com>
To:	dnortondesigns@msn.com
CC:	zach friend <zach.friend@co.santa-cruz.ca.us>, john.leopold@co.santa-cruz.ca.us, rlj12@comcast.net, bds031@co.santa-cruz.ca.us, greg.caput@co.santa-cruz.ca.us, bruce.mcpherson@co.santa-cruz.ca.us, emontesino@ci.watsonville.ca.us, dlane@cityofsantacruz.com, dene@bustichi.com, lrobinson@cityofsantacruz.com, fishsweetheart@netzero.com, tim_gubbins@dot.ca.gov, ‘George Dondero’ <gdondero@sccrtc.org>

 

Dear Mr. Norton,

As a Santa Cruz transportation commissioner providing oversight to the actions of RTC staff (which includes the Executive Director) please provide a full response to over 100 petition supporters demanding an independent investigation of the RTC traffic pollution reduction failure 2008 – 2014.

As well as demanding an independent investigation, the petition asks:

How can the public have confidence in, and be expected to pay for the SCCRTC’s $5.6 billion plan to ‘reduce greenhouse gas emissions primarily from a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT)’, if the SCCRTC failed so abysmally at VMT/pollution reduction over the past five years?

This question demands an answer.

The Carpool Incentive Program ‘Ca$h-for-Carpools’ failed to achieve over 99.8% of the anticipated traffic pollution reduction. An abysmal 0.16% of the traffic pollution reduction goal was achieved.

I delivered the following petition in person at the RTC public hearing on June 26:

Truth behind traffic pollution failure needed before approving $5.6 billion transportation plan
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/independent-investigation-5

Unfortunately, even though the petition was clearly directed to you and the other 12 transportation commissioners, a response from commissioners has not yet been received. I also want to point out that I first informed commissioners of the petition on the June 16, and provided petition updates of the number of signers, and comments from supporters on June 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24.

The only response provided so far was the verbal dismissal of the petition by RTC Executive Director George Dondero at the June 26 public hearing – whose actions regarding this matter will certainly be scrutinized when an independent investigation is eventually performed.

For one example of the RTC Executive Director’s actions that demand scrutiny, see below the written request for a one-year extension to the Air District in January 2011:

There are many troubling statements made in this extension request from the RTC Executive Director. Mr. Dondero paints a false positive picture, describing the program as successful, and claiming the RTC are on track to achieve the anticipated emission reduction. However, the RTC program was in operation for seven months before this letter was written and it would have been abundantly clear from the results available that the program was failing to achieve even 1% of the anticipated traffic pollution reduction. There is absolutely no mention of problems in performance, or even any indication that performance needs to improve.

See a close-up (below) of the 18ft. plot displayed at the RTC public hearing on June 26. I have indicated on the timeline when Mr. Dondero submitted the one-year extension request to the Air District:

You can view the full 18ft. plot here: http://greenstartupstory.com/2014/06/30/18ft-rtcresult-plot/

In summary, Mr. Dondero’s one-year extension request to the Air District shows:

1. RTC Executive Director conceals actual traffic emission reduction is less than 1/500th of expected.
2. RTC Executive Director falsely claimed traffic emission reduction success.
3. RTC Executive Director attempts to extend duration & funding for failed emission reduction program.

Petition supporters do want the whole story
Concerned community members that signed the petition do want the real reasons for this traffic pollution reduction failure to be acknowledged and responded to. Unfortunately, rather than taking these concerns seriously, the RTC dismissed the concerns first raised in the 2012 report – which included the first call for an independent investigation. Even with the Stop Work Order at the beginning of this year that validated the concerns raised in the 2012 report, the RTC continue attempts to discredit my work, as George Dondero did at the public hearing on June 26.

You have also attempted to discredit my work, dismissing the facts I present as ‘opinions’.

You have also asked petition signers to “get the whole story on this issue” – this point I agree with you 100%. Your response to the petition is your opportunity to provide your side to this story.

Please let me know when that you have received this request, and when petition supporters can expect to receive a response.

Yours sincerely,

 

—
Paul McGrath
Commute Consultant
RideSpring
—