Least-Cost Transportation Planning

Creating An Unbiased Framework For Transport Planning

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated 22 July 2008


This chapter describes transportation planning and investment reforms that allow demand management strategies to be implemented when they are cost effective, taking into account all benefits and costs.

 

 

Description

Least-Cost Planning (or Integrated Planning) is an approach to resource planning that:

·       Considers demand management solutions equally with strategies to increase capacity.

·       Considers all significant impacts (costs and benefits), including non-market impacts.

·       Involves the public in developing and evaluating alternatives.

 

 

Least Cost Planning reflects best practices in transport Evaluation and Planning. Current planning practices tend to overinvest in road and parking capacity and undervalue TDM strategies (Market Principles). When all impacts are considered, TDM is often the most cost effective solution to transportation problems (Why TDM?). Least-Cost Planning first developed in the field of energy planning, when decision-makers realized that it can be cheaper to invest in conservation than to build additional electrical generation and distribution capacity. The same approach is now being applied to transportation planning.

 

For example, Least Cost Planning means that transit improvements, rideshare programs, or road pricing can be implemented instead of roadway capacity expansion if they improve mobility at a lower total cost, including costs to governments, businesses, consumers and the environment. If a particular demand management strategy can reduce traffic or parking demand by 10%, it is considered to be worth at least as much as a 10% increase in road or parking facility capacity, and often more when indirect impacts, such as environmental and safety impacts, are considered. 

 

Least-cost planning involves the following steps:

 

1.     Identify objectives (general things that you want to achieve) and targets (specific things that you want to achieve).

 

2.     Identify various strategies that can help achieve the objectives and targets. These can include both projects that increase capacity and demand management strategies.

 

3.     Evaluate the costs and benefits of each strategy (including indirect impacts, if any), and rank them according to cost-effectiveness or benefit/cost ratios.

 

4.     Implement the most cost-effective strategies as needed to achieve the stated targets.

 

5.     After they are implemented, evaluate the programs and strategies with regard to various performance measures, to insure that they are effective.

 

6.     Evaluate overall results with regard to targets to determine if and when additional strategies should be implemented.

 

 

Least Cost Planning methods can be applied to many different types of problems. For example, they can be applied to find the most cost effect way to increase safety, improve mobility options for non-drivers or reduce air pollution emissions. Many TDM strategies can help achieve a variety of planning objectives, and so tend to receive a high rating when evaluated using Least Cost principles (Win-Win Solutions).

 

For example, a roadway expansion project may have an annualized cost (the additional annual payment needed to pay off capital costs and any additional operating costs) of $1 million dollars and be able to accommodate 2,000 additional peak-period travelers, which works out to be $500 per additional vehicle-year, $2.00 per additional vehicle-day (assuming 250 annual work days). This is the unit benefit provided by the roadway expansion.

 

Transportation Demand Management can provide comparable benefits by reducing congestion or avoided roadway expansion costs. For example, if Road Pricing or Public Transit Improvements reduce peak-period traffic volumes by 2,000 vehicles, this has the same congestion reduction benefit as roadway expansion, and provides additional benefits such as reduced downstream congestion, reduced parking costs, consumer cost savings, reduced accidents, improved mobility options for non-drivers, energy conservation and emission reductions. The exact impacts vary depending on circumstances, and not all TDM strategies provide all of these benefits. For example, Road Pricing benefits depend on the type of travel responses since shifting vehicle travel from peak to off-peak times, or to less congested routes, provides only a few benefits. Reductions in total vehicle travel and shifts to alternative modes tend to provide far more benefits.

 

Table 1            Evaluating Multiple Benefits

Planning Objective

Road Expansion

Congestion Pricing

Transit Improvement

Congestion reduction

$2.00

$2.00

$2.00

Reduced downstream congestion

 

$0.50

$1.00

Parking cost savings

 

$0.00

$4.00

Consumer costs savings

 

$0.00

$2.00

Reduced traffic accidents

 

$0.00

$1.00

Improved mobility options

 

$0.00

?

Pollution reductions

$0.10

$0.10

$0.50

Energy conservation

$0.05

$0.05

$0.25

Smart growth land use objectives

 

?

?

Total Benefits

$2.15

$2.65

$10.75

Roadway expansion reduces congestion and may cause small reductions in pollution emissions and energy consumption, but provides few other benefits. Congestion pricing that shifts travel to alternative times and routes may provide some additional benefits, such as reduced downstream. However, transit service improvements that attract motorists provide a wide range of benefits, including some that may be difficult to quantify, such as improved mobility for non-drivers and support for smart growth land use planning objectives.

 

 

In fact, roadway expansion tends to provide even smaller net benefits over the long term due to Induced Vehicle Travel, which reduces congestion reduction benefits and increases other problems such as downstream congestion, accidents, energy consumption and pollution emissions over the long run.

 

Least Cost planning recognizes that there is usually no single strategy that will address problems, and it is not always possible to predict the effectiveness of a particular management strategy or anticipate all future conditions. It allows Contingency-Based Planning, that is, planning that addresses uncertainty by deploying solutions on an as-needed basis. For example, a transportation plan may identify 5 strategies to implement immediately, another 4 to implement in two years if stated targets are not achieved, and another 3 can be implemented in the future if needed. This tends to be cost effective and flexible, because strategies are only deployed if they are needed, and additional strategies can be ready for quick deployment if unexpected changes create additional needs. This approach is ideal for medium and long-range transportation and land use planning.

 

Current planning and funding practices often favor capital expenditures over maintenance and Traffic Operations, and highway expenditures over transit or TDM programs (Beimborn and Puentes, 2003). Capital projects are considered prestigious and some government funds may only be used for major capital improvements. This encourages jurisdictions to expand infrastructure and implement major new projects even when they have inadequate resources to maintain and operate existing facilities, or when incremental improvements to existing facilities and demand management strategies would provide greater economic benefits. Several omissions and distortions in current transportation planning practices tend to violate least-cost planning principles (Comprehensive Transportation Planning).

 

  • Dedicated funding for highways that cannot be used for alternative transportation investments and services, even if they are more cost effective.

 

  • Transportation planning, evaluation and measurement practices based on vehicle traffic rather than Accessibility.

 

  • More generous federal and state funding match rates for highways (often 80-90%) than for alternatives such as transit (often 40-60%), or for operations, management or services.

 

  • Inefficient Asset Management, which fails to preserve valuable resources due to poor planning, maintenance or protection.

 

  • Focusing on major projects to solve transportation problems, rather than supporting more diverse, incremental and innovative strategies.

 

  • Project Evaluation that ignores or undervalues fixed, indirect and external costs, and therefore the full potential savings of demand management strategies.

 

 

The Case For Economic Neutrality in Transport Planning

Imagine that a teacher favored boys over girls, or tall students over short students. This is not only  unfair, it is also inefficient, because some smart short girls may be discouraged from preparing for higher education, leaving less qualified but taller boys to fill those slots. As a result, the pool of physicians, lawyers and engineers would be less than optimal.

 

Similarly, it is both unfair and inefficient for decision-makers to arbitrarily favor one mode over others, for example, automobile transport over walking and cycling or public transit, because this would favor some people (those who drive a lot) over others (those who drive little or prefer alternative modes), and because it can result in resources being allocated in ways that are not optimal. Perhaps, out of their personal prejudice, local officials are willing to devote $1,000 worth of public resources (money, municipal employee time, or land devoted to roads and parking facilities) to accommodate an automobile commute trip, but only $100 to accommodate commuting other modes. The result would be a bias in the quality of services available to non-drivers, and to the degree that travelers respond to such favoritism, economically-excessive amounts of automobile travel, and less walking, cycling and public transit travel than is optimal.

 

There are many possible causes of bias in transportation decision-making. For example, a particular mode may receive extra support because it tends to be used more by influential people (busy professionals, such city councilors and agency administrators). A particular problem may receive extra attention because it is easier to measure (traffic congestion is easier to measure than delay to pedestrians and cyclists). A particular type of transport improvement may be easier to finance because, through accidents of history, it has dedicated funding unavailable to other options. For example, it may be easier to finance road and parking facilities than sidewalk and path improvements or mobility management programs, even if they are more cost effective overall.

 

Because transport planning decisions are often mutually exclusive (road widening improves vehicle travel but often degrades walking and cycling conditions, and a location that optimizes automobile access is often difficult to reach by other modes), even modest bias can have large total effects. For example, zoning codes that mandate generous parking supply not only create more automobile-oriented, dispersed land use development, it also tends to prevent parking pricing (a basic rule of economics is that increased supply reduces prices), reducing the feasibility of access by other modes.

 

Below are types of bias common in Conventional Transport Planning. In practice, most of these biases tend to favor mobility over accessibility and automobile travel over other modes.

  • Range of options considered. Investments in alternative modes and motility management strategies are often overlooked.
  • Planning integration. Improvements to accessibility and alternative modes often require planning that is coordinated between different sectors (such as transportation and land use planning) and jurisdictions.
  • Project financing. Dedicated funding often favors a particular mode.
  • Modeling practices. Conventional transport modeling tends to favor motorized travel over other modes and accessibility options, because it overlooks certain impacts, including generated traffic, service quality factors such as convenience and comfort (as opposed to travel speed and price), and impacts on non-motorized travel.
  • Range of impacts considered. Conventional project evaluation tends to overlook many costs that result from increased vehicle travel, and benefits from improved alternatives, such as downstream congestion, vehicle ownership costs, parking costs, accidents, energy consumption, environmental impacts, public fitness and health, and the quality of accessibility for non-drivers.

 

 

How it is Implemented

Least-Cost Planning implementation usually involves policy Changes by state, provincial, regional or local governments, and changes in administrative practices within a transportation agency. It may require legislation to reform transportation planning and funding practices (Puentes and Prince, 2003). Some U.S. states have constitutional limitations on how fuel taxes may be used, which can restrict Least Cost Planning, although there is often some flexibility if demand management is shown to benefit road users (Comprehensive Transportation Planning). For example, dedicated roadway funds can sometimes be used transit improvements if they reduce highway congestion (Transit Evaluation), or for bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are within roadway rights-of-way.

 

“Fix It First” means that transportation planning and funding give top priority to maintenance, operations and incremental improvements to existing transportation facilities, and major capital projects are only implemented if there is adequate additional funds (SELC and ELI, 1999; NGA, 2004).

 

 

Travel Impacts

Least-Cost Planning provides a foundation for TDM strategies to compete equally with capacity-expansion for resources. Its travel impacts depend on how it is implemented, which TDM strategies are implemented, and how effective they are at achieving their objectives. Research by Johnston and Ceerla (1995) indicate that applying least-cost planning practices to regional highway funding would result in significant shifts from investments in roadway capacity expansion to various travel demand management programs, resulting in about a 10% reduction in regional vehicle travel. Additional funding and travel shifts could occur if least cost planning were applied to local transportation and parking planning decisions.

 

Table 2         Travel Impact Summary

Objective

Rating

Comments

Reduces total traffic.

2

Usually increases support for TDM.

Reduces peak period traffic.

2

"

Shifts peak to off-peak periods.

2

"

Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes.

2

"

Improves access, reduces the need for travel.

2

"

Increased ridesharing.

2

"

Increased public transit.

2

"

Increased cycling.

2

"

Increased walking.

2

"

Increased Telework.

2

"

Reduced freight traffic.

2

"

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

 

 

Benefits And Costs

Benefits include more balanced and efficient transportation, more cost-effective investments, more flexible solutions, and a more diverse transportation system (Least-Cost Planning is by definition more economically efficient than planning that restricts the range of solutions that can be applied to transportation problems). A more diverse and efficient transportation system tends to increase consumer savings and choice. A less automobile-dependent transportation system tends to reduce road risk and environmental costs.

 

Costs include transition costs and any additional administrative activities required to incorporate more factors in transportation planning.

 

Table 3         Benefit Summary

Objective

Rating

Comments

Congestion Reduction

2

Allows the most cost effective congestion reduction solution.

Road & Parking Savings

3

Allows most cost effective solutions to road and parking problems.

Consumer Savings

2

Tends to improve transport choice.

Transport Choice

2

Tends to increase modal choices.

Road Safety

2

Tends to reduce automobile use.

Environmental Protection

2

Tends to reduce automobile use.

Efficient Land Use

2

Tends to encourage more efficient land use.

Community Livability

2

Tends to reduce automobile use.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

 

 

Equity Impacts

Least-Cost Planning tends to provide equity benefits by creating more neutral public policies with respect to transportation investments. A more efficient and diverse transportation system tends to benefits lower-income and transportation disadvantaged people by improving their mobility options and increasing access for non-drivers.

 

Table 4         Equity Summary

Criteria

Rating

Comments

Treats everybody equally.

2

Allows alternative modes to be considered and funded.

Individuals bear the costs they impose.

3

Can reduce unjustified subsidies for automobile travel.

Progressive with respect to income.

3

Usually improves affordable transport options.

Benefits transportation disadvantaged.

3

Increases transport options for non-drivers.

Improves basic mobility.

3

Usually improves transport options.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

 

 

Applications

Least-Cost Planning can be applied by any government agency involved in transportation planning. It is particularly appropriate in urban areas with significant congestion and environmental problems.

 

Table 5         Application Summary

Geographic

Rating

Organization

Rating

Large urban region.

3

Federal government.

3

High-density, urban.

3

State/provincial government.

3

Medium-density, urban/suburban.

3

Regional government.

3

Town.

3

Municipal/local government.

3

Low-density, rural.

2

Business Associations/TMA.

2

Commercial center.

3

Individual business.

1

Residential neighborhood.

2

Developer.

1

Resort/recreation area.

2

Neighborhood association.

1

 

 

Campus.

3

Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).

 

 

Category

Policy Reform

 

 

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

Least-Cost Planning and investment practices support most other TDM strategies. It is closely related to Institutional Reforms, Comprehensive Transportation Planning, Prioritizing Transportation, Traffic Operations, TDM Programs, Change Management, Contingency-Based Planning, and Comprehensive Market Reforms.

 

 

Stakeholders

Government policies and agencies are the key stakeholders for implementing Least-Cost Planning. Transportation planners, educators and consultants may need to change their practices. The public may become more directly involved in transportation decision-making.

 

 

Barriers To Implementation

There are a variety of political and institutional barriers to Least-Cost Planning. Some jurisdictions (particularly U.S. states) restrict fuel tax revenue to highway expenditures, which can prevent some Least-Cost Planning activities. Many transportation professionals and decision makers are unfamiliar with Least-Cost Planning principles.

 

 

Best Practices

Guides listed below describe how to implement Least-Cost Planning. The least cost planning methodology can be broken down into seven basic steps:

 

  1. Develop comprehensive transport Modeling and Evaluation techniques for accurately evaluating transportation options, including alternative modes, TDM strategies and land use management.

 

  1. Forecast customer’s needs for transportation services.

 

  1. Define goals for meeting customer’s transportation needs

 

  1. Develop a complete list of options for supplying transportation services and the characteristics of those options and their costs.

 

  1. Select the best mix of transportation options. This selection is based on comparing the benefits and cost of the options, the flexibility of the options in the uncertain future, and the options’ unity with environmental and social goals and constraints.

 

  1. Develop an action plan for the optimal list of transportation options.

 

  1. Implement the action plan.

 

  1. Evaluate the results. The results are then combined with new demand forecasts and the process begins again, as needed.

 

 

Wit and Humor

How many efficiency experts does it take to replace a light bulb?

None. Efficiency experts replace only dark bulbs.

 

 

Case Studies and Examples

TravelSmart Program: Kamloops, British Columbia (www.city.kamloops.bc.ca/transportation/plans/travelsmart.shtml)

The TravelSmart program in Kamloops, British Columbia, promotes changes in travel behaviour and encourages sustainable community development in order to minimize demands on the municipal transportation system. Kamloops’ population, which is expected to increase from 85,000 to 120,000 by 2020, is placing increased demands on the city's transportation system and causing growing concern about quality of life amongst residents. Launched in January 1997, TravelSmart includes these ongoing initiatives:

 

Land use integration: Recognizing the strong links between transportation and land use, the city's official plan was revised to minimize the demand for car travel by influencing growth patterns. The plan now favours a compact form of development, situating accommodation close to employment and community services, and increasing density of the central area.

 

Less expensive road structure alternatives: To avoid expensive improvements to road networks, the city has slowed or halted development in some areas and identified underutilized arterial corridors for access to the downtown core. Rather than building bypasses over the busy highway that runs through town, the city encourages residents to use alternatives to the highway.

 

Improved public transit: A comprehensive travel plan was developed to improve the Level of Service and provide alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. Some improvements include increased frequency of service to outlying communities and the use of smaller buses that feed into the main system.

 

Promoting bicycle use: The Kamloops Bicycle Plan identifies $6 million worth of additional cycle routes and initiatives for businesses to provide "end of trip" facilities to cyclists, such as showers and bike racks.

 

Promotional programs: Transportation alternatives, such as carpooling, biking and walking, are promoted through workshops and seminars in workplaces; the "Safe Routes to School" program in schools; "Go Green" billboards on commuter streets; and door-to-door neighborhood education by city staff. The plan recognizes the need for an ongoing awareness campaign and community involvement to sustain TravelSmart.

 

Total project planning costs $300,000, of which $245,000 was funded by the city and $55,000 by the province. The full program is funded through city's general revenue, development cost charges, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, specific developers and BC Transit.

TravelSmart will be updated every five years as one component of "Kamplan", the city's growth management strategy.

 

After three years of operation, the program has improved air quality and reduced planned road expenditures by 75 per cent. Economic and environmental benefits:

·       Anticipated road expenditures were reduced from $120 million to $14 million.

·       Annual energy consumption is expected to decline from 128 to 125 gigajoules per capita.

·       Carbon monoxide is expected to decline from 116 to 111 kg/capita/year, and carbon dioxide from 7,200 to 7,000 kg/capita/year.

 

 

Sacramento Region Transportation Savings (Rodier and Johnston, 1997)

In one case study researchers estimated that Sacramento regional governments could justify spending $37 million per year on TDM programs if doing so could delay the need for anticipated roadway capacity expansion by seven years.

 

 

Preventive Maintenance (FCM, 2002)

A primer on preventive infrastructure maintenance provides guidelines for applying least-cost planning to roads. It explains, “Preventive maintenance is intended to treat small problems before they require more expensive repairs. By slowing the rate of deterioration, treatment can effectively increase the useful life of pavement. However, the practice of systematically identifying payments that would benefit most from preventive maintenance, and of implementing treatments in a timely manner, is often neglected.”

 

 

Washington State: What Is Least-Cost Planning? (WSDOT, 1999)

Least Cost Planning is a process of comparing direct and indirect costs of transportation demands and supply options to meet transportation goals and/or policies. The intent of the process is to identify the most cost effective mix of options.

 

Where did Least Cost Planning come from?

Least cost planning is a process that was developed by the electric utility industry. The utility industry set out to develop a process designed to maximize efficiency while lowering electrical costs to the customer. Energy-conservation programs are an example of this. After a decade of development, least cost planning methodology is still changing and evolving in the utility industry.

 

Why are we doing Least Cost Planning?

The Washington State Growth Management Act requires each Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) to develop a regional transportation plan based on a least cost planning methodology that identifies the most cost-effective transportation facilities, services and programs for their region. Regional Transportation Plans adopted after July 1, 1995 should incrementally incorporate least-cost planning methodologies as they are updated. All RTPs developed or updated and adopted after July 1, 2000 must be based upon a least-cost planning methodology.

 

The least cost planning process can also fulfill federal mandates for consideration of the cost-effectiveness of alternative transportation modes and transportation demand management alternatives as promoted by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and its’ successor, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

 

 

References And Resources For More Information

 

Mia Layne Birk and P. Christopher Zegras (1993), Moving Toward Integrated Transport Planning: Energy, Environment, and Mobility in Four Asian Cities, International Institute for Energy Conservation (www.iiec.org).

 

Marlon G. Boarnet and Andrew F. Haughwout (2000), Do Highways Matter? Evidence and Policy Implications of Highways’ Influence on Metropolitan Development, Brooking Institute (www.brookings.edu).

 

Edward Beimborn and Robert Puentes (2003), Highways and Transit: Leveling the Playing Field in Federal Transportation Policy, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu).

 

Patrick DeCorla-Souza, Brian Gardner, Jerry Everett & Michael Culp (1999), A Least Total Cost Approach to Compare Infrastructure Alternatives, Transportation Modeling Improvement Program, FHWA (http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov).

 

ECONorthwest and PBQD (1995), Evaluation of Transportation Alternatives; Least-Cost Planning: Principles, Applications and Issues, Metropolitan Planning Tech. Rpt. #6, FHWA (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment).

 

FCM (2002), Timely Preventive Maintenance for Municipal Roads - A Primer, National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure (www.infraguide.ca).

 

FHWA (2002), Economic Analysis Primer, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/primer.htm).

 

FHWA, National Dialogue on Transportation Operations (www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/nat_dialogue.htm), discusses institutional changes needed to implement more efficient transportation.

 

Phil Goodwin (1997), Solving Congestion, Inaugural Lecture for the Professorship of Transport Policy, University College London (London; www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucetwww/pbginau.htm).

 

IIEC (1996), The Integrated Transport Planning Beginner’s Handbook, International Institute for Energy Conservation (www.iiec.org).

 

ISF (2003), Least Cost, Greatest Impact: A Discussion Paper On The Applicability of Least Cost Planning To Transport In Australia, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney (www.isf.uts.edu.au).

 

Robert A. Johnston and Raju Ceerla (1995), Effects of Land Use Intensification and Auto Pricing Policies on Regional Travel, Emissions, and Fuel Use, Paper 269, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net).

 

Todd Litman (1999), Transportation Market Distortions – A Survey, VTPI (www.vtpi.org).

 

Todd Litman (2001), What’s It Worth? Life Cycle and Benefit/Cost Analysis for Evaluating Economic Value, Presented at Internet Symposium on Benefit-Cost Analysis, Transportation Association of Canada (www.tac-atc.ca), available at VTPI (www.vtpi.org). 

 

Todd Litman (2005), Win-Win Transportation Solutions: Cooperation for Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2006), Win-Win Emission Reduction Strategies: Smart Transportation Strategies Can Achieve Emission Reduction Targets And Provide Other Important Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf.

 

Ward Lyles (2005), Where Do We Go From Here? Wisconsin Transportation at the Crossroads, 1000 Friends of Wisconsin & The Land Use Institute (www.1kfriends.org/documents/1KFriendslegislat_001.pdf).

 

Terry Moore and Paul Throsnes (1994), The Transportation/Land Use Connection, American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Report 448/449 (www.planning.org).

 

David Mozer (1999), Least Cost Transport Planning, IBF (www.ibike.org/lcp.htm).

 

NGA (2004), Fix it First: Targeting Infrastructure Investments to Improve State Economies and Invigorate Existing Communities, National Governors Association (www.nga.org).

 

PSRC, Least-Cost Planning Publications, Puget Sound Regional Council (www.psrc.org/publications/publist.pdf), various years.

 

Robert Puentes and Ryan Prince (2003), Fueling Transportation Finance: A Primer on the Gas Tax, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu/es/urban).

 

Caroline Rodier and Robert Johnston (1997), “Incentives for Local Governments to Implement Travel Demand Management Measures,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 295-308.

 

SELC and ELI (1999), Smart Growth in the Southeast: New Approaches to Guiding Development,  Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) and Environmental Law Institute (ELI) (www.eli.org/pdf/rrsoutheast99.pdf).

 

Brian Taylor (2000), “When Financing Leads Planning: Urban Planning, Highway Planning, and Metropolitan Freeways in California,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 196-214.

 

TRL, Strategic Environmental Assessment Newsletter, Transportation Research Laboratory (www.trl.co.uk/env_sea_newsletter.htm) provides information on international efforts to develop more integrated transportation planning.

 

WSDOT (1999), What Is Least Cost Planning?, Washington State Department of Transportation (www.wsdot.wa.gov).


This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.

 

 

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

www.vtpi.org       info@vtpi.org

1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC,  V8V 3R7,  CANADA

Phone & Fax 250-360-1560

“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

 

#21