Demand management in suburban settings

This paper provides findings from a review of employer based demand management strategies for reducing traffic congestion in several areas of the United States. The research was carried out by K.T. Analytics, Inc. in 1989 under a contract with the Federal Department of Transportation, Transportation Systems Center. Relying on a review of employer based programs in 26 sites, as well as selected literature, the paper draws conclusions about the effectiveness of employer based transportation systems management (programs to encourage carpooling, transit, biking, cycling, walking and flextime) and parking management (preferential parking for carpoolers, removal of parking subsidies, and other measures) aimed at reducing solo driving and peak period commuting.Several conclusions are offered for local planners and policy makers. Demand Management programs can be effective in reducing traffic congestion, provided they are targeted to larger employment centers, accompanied by transit development, high occupancy vehicle incentives and parking management strategies, especially pricing. Flextime should not be encouraged without careful evaluation as it may discourage ridesharing. Guaranteed ride home services appear promising and deserve attention. With all strategies, long term vigilance will be necessary as programs are susceptible to change over time. Stringent public policies do not appear necessary for development of effective programs. Ordinances should require plans not specific strategies, as it is difficult estimating the probable effectiveness of particular strategies. Ordinances should contain sanctions for employers not carrying out agreed to plans, and should include fees and financing to support public sector review of plans and on-going monitoring.     

Transportation policy in the eighties

Urban transportation policy during the nineteen seventies has been characterized by attempts to deal with four major problems: 1) the minimization of environmental impacts of transport investments, 2) the alleviation of inequities in mobility, and financial burdens imposed upon some groups by earlier investments in capital intensive highway networks, 3) the accommodation of demands for public participation in transport decision-making, and 4) the precipitous rise of public transit operating costs. In this paper examples are given of policies which have been pursued in attempting to solve each of these problems. It is shown that policies designed to solve one of them have often intensified others. Thus, current policy is characterized by reliance upon very small-scale and timid plans and proposals. The eighties may see a return to large-scale and comprehensive transport plans, but these will not be exclusively physical or system plans. Rather, transportation plans in the eighties will include a balance among physical facilities, institutional arrangements, financial plans, and user incentives and disincentives. Several examples of such comprehensive policies are given in this paper.Paper prepared for presentation at the Fourth World Congress of Engineers and Architects in Tel Aviv, Israel, December, 1976.     

Modeling the relationships among urban passenger travel carbon dioxide emissions,transportation demand and supply,population density,and proxy policy variables

To support the development of policies that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by encouraging reduced travel and increased use of efficient transportation modes, it is necessary to better understand the explanatory effects that transportation, population density, and policy variables have on passenger travel related CO₂ emissions. This study presents the development of a model of CO₂ emissions per capita as a function of various explanatory variables using data on 146 urbanized areas in the United States. The model takes into account selectivity bias resulting from the fact that adopting policies aimed at reducing emissions in an urbanized area may be partly driven by the presence of environmental concerns in that area. The results indicate that population density, transit share, freeway lane-miles per capita, private vehicle occupancy, and average travel time have a statistically significant explanatory effect on passenger travel related CO₂ emissions. In addition, the presence of automobile emissions inspection programs, which serves as a proxy indicator of other policies addressing environmental concerns and which could influence travelers in making environmentally favorable travel choices, markedly changes the manner in which transportation variables explain CO₂ emission levels.     

Impacts of motor vehicle operation on water quality in the US – Cleanup costs and policies

This paper investigates the costs of controlling some of the environmental impacts of motor vehicle transportation on groundwater and on surface waters. We estimate that annualized costs of cleaning-up leaking underground storage tanks range from $0.8 billion to $2.1 billion per year over 10 years. Annualized costs of controlling highway runoff from principal arterials in the US are much larger: they range from $2.9 billion to $15.6 billion per year over 20 years (1.6–8.3% of annualized highway transportation expenditures). Some causes of non-point source pollution were unintentionally created by regulations or could be addressed by simple design changes of motor vehicles. A review of applicable measures suggests that effective policies should combine economic incentives, information campaigns, and enforcement, coupled with preventive environmental measures. In general, preventing water pollution from motor vehicles would be much cheaper than cleaning it up.     

Transport system management in San Francisco: an assessment

The paper reports the results of a transportation corridor study. The emphasis in the study is in transportation system management (TSM) policies although some capital intensive alternatives are also considered.

The results suggest that currently popular TSM policies in U.S.A., even when augmented with capital intensive changes, have only marginal impacts on modal choices. These currently popular policies, high occupancy vehicle priority lanes, improved bus and express bus service, increased feeder bus service and so forth, appear to confer benefits to well to do suburbanites but do not improve the transportation of urban dwellers.

Another interesting result is that if user costs were increased to cover the full costs of transportation the transit fares for low income people would increase ten percent and the increase for urban dwellers would be about 20 percent. Interestingly, there would be no change in bus fares for either group. However, for high income travellers and suburbanites the increase in transit fares would be in excess of 100 percent. Thus, the current fare structure is inequitable making the low income people and the urban dwellers to pay a much larger share of their transportation cost than the often well to do suburbanites.     

Challenges and opportunities for transportation: Implementation of the clean air act amendments of 1990 and the intermodal surface transportation efficiency act of 1991

The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) may be the most powerful of all environmental laws affecting transportation. They are intended to significantly affect transportation decision-making, not only to achieve air quality goals but also to affect broader environmental goals related to land use, travel mode choice, and reductions in vehicle miles traveled. The CAAA require greater integration of transportation and air quality planning, and assign a greater responsibility to transportation plans and programs for reducing mobile source emissions. By expanding the requirements for determining the conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects with State Implementation Plans for air quality, and by expanding the use of highway funding sanctions to enforce those requirements, the CAAA ensure a continuing linkage between transportation and environmental goals.While the CAAA give transportation and air quality decision-makers the mandate to better coordinate their respective planning processes, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 offers the tools to help carry out that mandate. Consequently, this paper summarizes the transportation and air quality provisions of both of these Acts and their relationships.     

Policy innovations of the US intermodal surface transportation efficiency act and clean air act amendments

In combination, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) are innovative and aggressive efforts to move US cities toward integrated transportation and air quality planning. Under these complementary laws, air quality has become a major national transportation goal. In areas with serious air pollution, air quality will be a major consideration in determining the future shape of urban transportation.This paper considers how the CAAA and ISTEA combine to provide an innovative national policy approach of interest to countries seeking to encourage sustainable development in urban centers. The CAAA mandates measurable and enforceable air quality targets. Nation-wide standards are set for acceptable levels of carbon monoxide, ground level ozone, and small particulates. ISTEA includes directions for transportation planners and decision-makers to follow to reach air quality and other goals — transportation planning must emphasize system efficiency, and for cities with severe air pollution, transportation projects are expected to contribute to cleaner air. Each urban area has flexibility in how it applies this framework to reflect its priorities and solve its problems. Strict federal sanctions provide incentives for compliance with both laws.Enactment of these laws has produced a period of transition and uncertainty as well as of challenge and opportunity for planners and elected officials. The next several years, the US will provide one national laboratory and over 100 different urban laboratories for innovative approaches to integrate transportation and environmental policies to resolve major urban problems.Abbreviations CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 - CO Carbon monoxide - ECO Employee Commute Option - EPA US Environmental Protection Agency - HC Transportation hydrocarbons - I/M Inspections and maintenance program - ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 - MPO Metropolitan planning organizations - NO_x Nitrogen oxides - PPM Parts per million - PM₁₀ Small particulate matter - SIP State Implementation Plan - TIP Transportation Improvement Program - TCM Transportation control measures - VMT Vehicle miles traveled     

Learning from Los Angeles: transport,urban form,and air quality

Los Angeles is well known around the world as an automobile-oriented low density community, yet recent transportation policies have emphasized greater capital investment in rail transportation than in highways, and recent policies have attempted to discourage automobile usage through transportation demand management. While these policies have accomplished small shifts toward public transport and somewhat lower dependence upon singly occupied automobilies for work commuting, the financial costs of these policy changes has been very large in relation to their benefits. Proper pricing of transportation alternatives, more creative use of new and emerging transportation technologies, and the provision of many more opportunities for simpler private sector transport services, would all appear to be more promising as cost-effective approaches to coping with congestion in Los Angeles than the current regional transportation policies.     

Joint development at transit stations in the United States

Joint development, as the term is generally used in connection with transit systems in the United States, is real estate development that is closely linked to public transportation services and station facilities, and takes advantage of the market and locational advantages provided by them. Research conducted by LEK Associates for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) suggests that, in addition to helping shape urban growth and land development, joint development is also a surprisingly effective means of increasing transit system ridership and farebox revenues, as well as a source of increasingly significant revenues from the sale or lease of air rights.The completion of nine joint development projects in as many different cities, started under the former Urban Initiatives Program, for example, net additional annual ridership might reach 12000000 one-way trips. Net additional annual farebox revenues might reach over $9000000. This added revenue would be sufficient to repay the $62 million combined UMTA/transit operator investment in the nine projects, exclusive of the costs of the basic transit system improvements around which the projects are planned, in less than six years.Among transit authority-administered joint development programs examined in a separate study, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has had the most success in generating significant value capture income. For example, the cumulative revenue realized by WMATA from just six joint development projects in the Washington, DC region, through September 1983 exceeded $ 6.9 million. Projections through fiscal year 1986 indicate cumulative revenues approximating $ 28 million will be received from developer leases.     

Nature and/or nurture? Analyzing the determinants of transit ridership across US urbanized areas

Public subsidy of transit services has increased dramatically in recent years, with little effect on overall ridership. Quite obviously, a clear understanding of the factors influencing transit ridership is central to decisions on investments in and the pricing and deployment of transit services. Yet the literature about the causes of transit use is quite spotty; most previous aggregate analyses of transit ridership have examined just one or a few systems, have not included many of the external, control variables thought to influence transit use, and have not addressed the simultaneous relationship between transit service supply and consumption. This study addresses each of these shortcomings by (1) conducting a cross-sectional analysis of transit use in 265 US urbanized areas, (2) testing dozens of variables measuring regional geography, metropolitan economy, population characteristics, auto/highway system characteristics, and transit system characteristics, and (3) constructing two-stage simultaneous equation regression models to account for simultaneity between transit service supply and consumption. We find that most of the variation in transit ridership among urbanized areas – in both absolute and relative terms – can be explained by factors outside of the control of public transit systems: (1) regional geography (specifically, area of urbanization, population, population density, and regional location in the US), (2) metropolitan economy (specifically, personal/household income), (3) population characteristics (specifically, the percent college students, recent immigrants, and Democratic voters in the population), and (4) auto/highway system characteristics (specifically, the percent carless households and non-transit/non-SOV trips, including commuting via carpools, walking, biking, etc.). While these external factors clearly go a long way toward determining the overall level of transit use in an urbanized area, we find that transit policies do make a significant difference. The observed range in both fares and service frequency in our sample could account for at least a doubling (or halving) of transit use in a given urbanized area. Controlling for the fact that public transit use is strongly correlated with urbanized area size, about 26% of the observed variance in per capita transit patronage across US urbanized areas is explained in the models presented here by service frequency and fare levels. The observed influence of these two factors is consistent with both the literature and intuition: frequent service draws passengers, and high fares drive them away.     

Suburban congestion: Recommendations for transportation and land use responses

Transportation congestion is reaching intolerable levels in many urban and suburban areas in the US. Reliance upon traditional responses, such as transit and new highway capacity, is not working — especially in suburban areas. Although methods for dealing with suburban congestion are often different, there are a number of common features that must be considered in developing short term as well as more permanent and long lasting solutions. In proposing short term solutions, a Menu of Actions is described. It includes transportation actions (the traditional transit and transportation management options) where there are opportunities for getting more out of the existing systems; land use/growth management actions which will result in more rational land use-transportation interactions; financial incentives, to encourage or discourage appropriate actions; more comprehensive and systematic land use and transportation planning; and the organizational and institutional actions required to implement rational solutions.While the Manu of Actions provides a broad array of possible actions to provide relief in the short run, over time the growth in traffic is likely to outpace their effectiveness. Consequently, longer term and often more difficult solutions must be considered and implemented as appropriate. They could include changes in land use development and land use management policies; changes in lifestyle and business practices; improvements through technological innovation; changes in the traditional ways of providing transportation services; and greatly expanded research and development.     

The strategic transportation research study — Its origins and purposes

The highway industry in the United States spends about $35 to $40 billion annually. Management of the industry is almost wholly decentralized. This decentralization plus diminishing fuel tax revenues used to finance road improvements have caused road research efforts to decline to a very low level. Comparisons between funds for highway research and those spent by private firms in similar industries show that private firms spend from 5 to 12 times the rate of highway agencies. The problem of how much to spend on research is difficult both for private-sector and for public-sector enterprises. The level of research spending is shown to correlate well with both profitability and growth in U.S. firms. Four methods used for making research decisions in the private sector are discussed. The goals of the Strategic Transportation Research Study (STRS), which is being conducted by the Transportation Research Board to examine highway and transportation needs, are described.     

Distribution of the transit tax burden in five U.S. metropolitan areas

As transit subsidies increased twelve-fold in the United States between 1970 and 1980, metropolitan areas responded in very different ways to the challenge of financing burgeoning transit costs. The variety of approaches to transit finance has led to variation in the income-redistributive impacts of taxation. This paper reports on the results of disaggregate analysis of transit tax incidence in Chicago, Portland, northern New Jersey, San Antonio, and Phoenix. In cases where alternative tax shifting assumptions can be made, a range of tax burden distributions is calculated. Causes of the variation in redistributive impact are discussed. The analysis concludes by comparing the regressivity of financing transit through higher fares with the regressivity of taxes needed to support subsidies.     

Views on transit tax financing in the U.S.

Transportation - Although much has been written about the economics of transit tax financing, public views and opinions toward alternative tax sources have received comparatively short shrift. This...     

Planning for economic and environmental resilience

Climate protection will require major reductions in GHG emissions from all sectors of the economy, including the transportation sector. Slowing growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will be necessary for reducing transportation GHG emissions, even with major breakthroughs in vehicle technologies and low-carbon fuels (Winkelman et al., 2009). The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) supports market-based policy approaches that minimize costs and maximize benefits. Our research indicates that significant GHG reductions can be achieved through smart growth and travel efficiency measures that increase accessibility, improve travel choices and make optimum use of existing infrastructure. Moreover, we find such measures can deliver compelling economic benefits, including avoided infrastructure costs, leveraged private investment, increased local tax revenues and consumer vehicle ownership and operating cost savings (Winkelman et al., 2009).As a society, what we build – where and how – has a tremendous impact on our carbon footprint, from building design to transportation infrastructure and land-use patterns. The empirical and modeling evidence is clear – people drive less in locations with efficient land use patterns, high quality travel choices and reinforcing policies and incentives (Ewing et al., 2008). It is also clear that there is growing and unmet market demand for walkable communities, reinforced by demographic shifts and higher fuel prices (Leinberger, 2006, Nelson, 2007). Transportation policy in the United States must rise to meet this demand for more travel choices and more livable communities.The academic, ideological and political debates about the level of GHG reductions and penetration rates that can or should be achieved via smart growth and pricing on the one hand, or measures such as ‘eco-driving’ and signal optimization on the other, have served their purpose: we know which policies are ‘directionally correct’ – policies that reduce GHG emissions even though we may not know the scope of those reductions. Now is the time to implement directionally correct policies, assess what works best where, and refine policy based on the results. It is a framework that CCAP calls “Do. Measure. Learn.”The Federal government is poised to spend $500 billion on transportation (Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2009). CCAP encourages Congress to “Ask the Climate Question” – will our transportation investments help reduce GHG emissions or exacerbate the problem? Will they help increase our resilience to climate change impacts or increase our vulnerability? And, while we’re at it, will our investment foster energy security, livable communities and a vibrant economy? Federal transportation and climate policies should empower communities to implement locally-determined travel efficiency solutions by providing appropriate funding, tools and technical support.     

Do high income households reduce driving more when living near rail transit?

Transportation planning today requires an understanding of how income and near-rail residence jointly influence household travel behavior. This article fills a gap in the literature by showing how vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transit trips taken (TT) vary with income and rail transit access by neighborhood type. Results indicate that, when comparing households with similar incomes and examining how the “near-rail” versus “far from rail” VMT and TT gap varies by income, the cross-sectional reduction in nominal VMT and the increase in TT on a percentage basis is generally larger for higher-income households (>$50,000), and particularly so in neighborhoods dense with both jobs and population. These findings offer support for the notion that near-transit housing targeting higher-income households can have both sustainability and transit use benefits. We note, though, that equity considerations are a strong reason to include low-income housing near rail transit, and argue that policies focusing overly singly on either low-income or high-income housing near rail transit will not be as impactful as a robust focus on mixed-income housing developments in rail transit-oriented developments (TODs).     

Meeting mobility and air quality goals: Strategies that work

Recent federal legislation sets tough air quality goals for the nation but offers scant guidance to urban areas responsible for meeting those goals. Traditionally, transportation-related air quality policy emphasized cleaner vehicle and fuels technologies and alternatives to single-occupant vehicle travel such as car-pooling and mass transit. Analysis suggests, however, that meeting air quality goals will require the addition of policies to manage the growing demand for transportation. The introduction of market forces into transportation supply and demand decisions would support traditional transportation and air quality strategies, and produce additional mobility, air quality, and economic benefits. Recent transportation legislation offers states and localities the flexibility to meet mobility and air quality goals in an innovative, nontraditional manner. Drawing on theoretical analysis and recent empirical evidence we offer a package of measures for the consideration of state, and federal policy-makers.The authors are with the Office of Policy Analysis of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The views expressed here belong solely to the authors. This paper does not represent the view of the US EPA or the policy of the United States Government. This paper was significantly improved by extensive comments from Bruce Schillo, and by suggestions from Michael Shelby, John Chamberlin (all of the EPA Office of Policy Analysis), Robin Miles-McLean (EPA Office of Mobile Sources), Allen Basala (EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards), and numerous other colleagues. The authors are responsible for all errors and interpretations.     

Mobility evaluation for urban public transportation

Summary

This paper has reported on a study of relative opportunity—not absolute opportunity. Minimum absolute standards for mobility or accessibility are difficult to justify. Some additional study into the development and application of absolute mobility standards may be warranted.

The application of the mobility evaluation model has primarily focused upon a corridor line‐haul system. Conclusions suggest that such a system will not markedly improve existing transit mobility levels in either the peak hour or the off‐peak. The experimental work has verified this conclusion, and more importantly, it has detailed quantitatively the exact levels and spatial distribution of mobility improvements. However, this study does not include a comprehensive analysis of all methods of mobility enhancement, nor does it undertake a comparison of alternative means of mobility improvement. Certainly other methods to improve access to opportunities should be explored before policy considerations are finalized. These methods include other transit solutions, land use alternatives, socio‐economic policies, and other‐mode transportation alternatives. The accessibility technique and mobility indices approach appears to have general applicability in the analysis of optimal strategies for system evaluation.

Of interest is an examination of alternative feeder transit systems to the corridor line. Additional research with the model might point out the maximum mobility effects expected through improved collector service in the suburbs, with corridor line‐haul to the CBD.

The indices are also readily available for a comparison of mobility patterns for different urban areas. Application of the program to transit and socio‐economic data for a set of cities would yield an indication of the relative mobility levels provided. Such data might be considered as an evaluation criterion for future transit funding by federal officials.

In addition, the model is currently being considered by UMTA as a tool to aid in the evaluation of the equitable distribution of transit system benefits as defined in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.²⁵ The mobility output would serve as an indicator of the levels‐of‐service provided to certain disadvantaged urban groups. For this application the computer model is being altered to achieve compatability with the Transportation Planning System (UTPS) computer model package developed by UMTA.     

Planning for implementation

Although the urban transportation planning process has evolved into the most sophisticated of all urban planning processes, the increasirig difficulty in implementing long-range transportation plans in urban areas today suggests basic questions concerning the process which deserve critical examination.Planning for implementation of urban transportation programs, particularly during periods of rapidly changing human values, requires a continuing re-evaluation of both technical and organizational strategies and their interrelationships.This paper raises some fundamental questions about the traditional activities and relationships that have characterized most urban transportation planning programs in the past. It also suggests a number of strategies, both technical and organizational, that may contribute to the implementation of plans and programs resulting from the transportation planning process.The first portion of this paper discusses the implications of not providing transportation services to match metropolitan growth. The experience of the Washington Metropolitan Area over the past decade is used to illustrate these implications.A discussion of organizational and institutional constraints upon the planning process follows. Then, the implications for the planning process are explored, and the scale of planning is reviewed as well as the need for monitoring the performance and impact of facilities.Next, the paper deals with the need to broaden the range of solutions to transportation problems, including consideration of economic and land development policies to reduce travel demand, as well as the provision of new facilities.Finally, techniques for involving decision-makers in the planning process are discussed. Examples of special project activities in the Washington area are used to illustrate these techniques and their value.     

Transit funding: Implications of federal aid strategies

Federal funding strategies greatly affect investment in urban transportation facilities in the United States. This analysis concentrates on the implications of varying federal aid matching requirements, structuring aid programs as categorical or block grants, and allo cating funds on a discretionary basis or according to formula. Toward this end the effects of recent federal transit aid arrangements are assessed.Increased federal matching share broadens program participation, especially among smaller cities. However, when offered a choice, communities' preference for more generous federal aid shares is tempered by their election of discretionary grants (e.g., Urban Mass Transportation Administration - UMTA - Section 3) instead of drawing on formula funds (e.g., UMTA Section 5 or highway fund transfers). Formula funds are easier to administer, distributed quite evenly in the UMTA case, and generally more suitable than discretionary funds except where expenditures are large relative to budgets. Categorical aid programs shift local priorities, and thus should be used with cautionOverall, results suggest that one must begin with established transportation objectives against which to evaluate the effectiveness of funding arrangements. In particular, it is critical to make clear the rationale for federal involvement in funding specific programs. Four such federal funding intents are distinguished: compelling national interest, regional development, stimulation of recipient investment in the given program, or financial relief for the aid recipient. Conclusions are drawn as to the desirability of various funding policies according to such program intent.