This chapter describes numerous examples of successful TDM programs, and many more examples are included in chapters dealing with specific TDM strategies. What constitutes success? Ideally we would have comprehensive Performance Evaluation of each program, including information on program development and context, verified before-and-after or with-and-without data for comparison with long-term followup, and rigorous economic analysis to determine cost effectiveness. Unfortunately few such studies exist.

However, we do have adequate information to conclude that certain TDM programs are successful at meeting their objectives, including providing specific services, improving transportation options, increasing use of alternative modes, reduced automobile travel, and reducing problems such as parking and traffic congestion. In some cases their total impacts are larger than what is measured by direct surveys due to various indirect impacts. For example, Transit Improvements can provide a catalyst for more compact, walkable neighborhoods where residents own fewer cars and drive less for local errands, and so leverage larger reductions in VMT than just the automobile trips shifted to transit. Similarly, Commute Trip Reduction, School Transport Management and Active Transport Encouragement programs can help shift a community’s culture away from automobile dependency, providing additional VMT reductions in the long-run.

Critics sometimes argue that TDM strategies have been tried and have failed, claiming, for example that “despite billions of dollars spent on rail transit and HOV facilities, traffic congestion has increased in U.S. cities.” Such criticism is unfair because it fails to account for the magnitude of these investments and indicates nothing about what would have happened without such programs. For example, rail transit and HOV facility investments, although totaling billions of dollars, are a small portion of total transportation expenditures, and are overwhelmed by investments and policies that favor automobile travel, such as roadway capacity expansion, subsidized parking, low fuel taxes, and automobile-oriented planning practices. Rail lines and HOV facilities are generally constructed in rapidly growing cities during periods when traffic congestion problems are worsening. It is wrong to conclude that transit and HOV investments fail to reduce congestion problems from what would otherwise occur. Several studies comparing cities with and without such investments indicate that rail transit and HOV facilities do reduce congestion and other transportation problems (Litman, 2005).

When all benefits and costs are considered using a Comprehensive Evaluation Framework, TDM programs often turn out the be the most cost effective way of improving transportation.

Examples

Community Transportation Management Programs

Seattle Climate Action Plan (www.ci.seattle.wa.us/climate/report.htm)

In 2005 Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels established a Green Ribbon Commission that included a wide variety of stakeholders and experts to recommend climate protection actions for the Seattle community to meet or beat the Kyoto target. In 2006 the Commission released a report and recommendations, which include the following strategies to reduce automobile use (plus other strategies to reduce emissions in other ways):

· Increase the supply of frequent, reliable and convenient public transportation.

· Significantly expand bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure.

· Lead a regional partnership to develop and implement a road pricing system.

· Implement a new commercial parking tax.

· Expand efforts to create compact, green, urban neighborhoods.

Along with their recommendations the Commission offered these observations:

· Success will require a deliberate, sustained, community-wide effort. And, since cars and other transportation sources are the largest source of climate pollution in our area, we will need strong regional collaboration as well.

· The actions and investments needed to rein in Seattle’s climate pollution will, at the same time, make our community healthier and more livable, for example, by reducing traffic congestion and toxic air pollution from diesel emissions.

· In addition, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels increases our energy independence, keeps more money circulating in the local economy and supports local and regional economic development.

· The road to a more climate-friendly community is paved with economic opportunities, including cost-savings from energy efficiency measures for our families and businesses—especially in light of rising and volatile energy prices—and new business prospects for our companies and entrepreneurs.

· Implementing these recommendations requires a significant investment of time and money by the community. But we believe the price tag is dwarfed by the cost to our community of not taking additional action.

· Finally, meeting the Kyoto target here—and, more important, transforming Seattle into the nation’s most climate-friendly city—is an extraordinary challenge. But our community has rallied to meet such challenges in the past. With Seattle’s unique mix of eco-intelligence and entrepreneurial zeal, we will meet and exceed the goal.

Eltis Case Study Database (www.eltis.org/case_study.phtml)

The European Local Transport Information Service (ELTIS) database provides information on more than 800 case studies of urban transportation innovations, including the following:

Arlington County (www.co.arlington.va.us; Dittmar & Ohland, 2004)

Arlington County, adjacent to Washington DC, is one of the most successful examples in the U.S. of Transit-Oriented Development. Nearly 18,000 residential units and more than 46 million square feet of office and retail space have been built during the last two decades. This type of development would not be possible without the Metrorail transit system. Prior to the development of this system the Rosslyn-Ballstron corridor was an aging, low-density commercial stretch with declining commercial activity. To help support the areas economic development County leaders insisted that Metro be built underground rather than in the freeway medians.

In return, the County channeled nearly all development along the Metrorail lines. It promoted high-density development adjacent and above rail stations, with relatively high density housing within convenient walking distance. Development follows a Bulls Eye pattern, with the greatest density around the rail station, where there are high-rise commercial and residential buildings (up to 20 stories), which declines with distance away from the center, into medium-density residential (apartments, duplexes and townhouses), and then into two-story single-family neighborhoods established prior to 1960. The areas General Land Use Plan (GLUP) has been adjusted as needed to allow additional development in the center while preserving older, established residential neighborhoods and historic buildings.

Despite population and employment growth, traffic volumes on local roads has increased little, and the area has far less commuter parking than would normally be required, due to high levels of transit ridership (most transit riders get to the rail station by foot, bicycle or bus), frequent local bus service, excellent walking and cycling conditions, and mixed land use that locates so many activities close together, minimizing the need to drive. As a result, the County has grown rapidly without major expansion of the highway network or parking facilities, while maintaining low tax rates. The Metrorail corridors provide 50% of the County’s tax base on only 7% of the land. The area enjoys low vacancy rates and higher lease and sale prices than otherwise comparable locations. Transit ridership has grown steadily. Mixed land use has resulted in relatively balanced ridership over the day, rather than two sharp peaks experienced on some systems.

The area also has aggressive Transportation Demand Management programs implemented by local governments, employers, developers, transit agencies, a local Transportation Management Association (TMA), and residents to encourage efficient travel behavior (Table 1). Performance guarantees and fines are applied if developers fail to implement required programs.

Table 1 Developer/Employer TDM Program Requirements

	Consistent with Land Use Plan	Consistent with Land Use Plan But Traffic Problems Forecasted	Requires Land Use Variation, No Traffic Problems Forecasted	Requires Land Use Variation, Traffic Problems Forecasted
Rideshare Promotion
Distribute brochures and posters	√	√	√	√
Conduct travel surveys	√	√	√	√
Operate vanpool program		√		√
Subsidize vanpool program		√		√
Employee transportation coordinator		√	√	√
Support TMA	√	√	√	√
Guaranteed Ride Home		√	√	√
Parking Management
Rideshare vehicle priority parking	√	√	√	√
Price SOV parking	√	√	√	√
Discounted vanpool parking	√	√	√	√
Transit Programs
Help fund shuttle buses	√	√	√	√
Commuter transit subsidy		√	√	√
Provide Onsite Facilities
Bike Parking & Showers	√	√	√	√
Van accessible garage	√	√	√	√
Off-street delivery	√	√	√	√
Roadway improvements	√	√	√	√
Help Fund Off-site Facilities
Pedestrian systems (SKYWALK)	√	√	√	√
Direct connections to Metro	√	√	√	√
Intersection improvements			√	√
New Metrorail station				√

This table indicates the TDM program measures required for development. Requirements vary depending on the location and size of development and whether it is forecast to cause significant traffic problems.

A survey performed in 2000 found that worksites that had TDM programs generated 1.97 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, about 10% less than the 2.17 vehicle trips generated at worksites that lack such programs (which is itself a low generation rate). The area also has between half and a quarter of the parking supply as would be required at an automobile-oriented development (buildings in the area have 1 to 2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, compared with the 3 to 4 spaces normally required), providing huge cost savings and allowing greater design flexibility and development density.

Smart Communities Sustainable Transportation Case Studies (www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/transprt/trsstoc.shtml)

The Smart Communities Network provides information on the following sustainable transportation case studies.

· The Crossings (www.calthorpe.com/Project%20Sheets/crossings.htm) is an exemplary transit-oriented project in Mountain View, California. It converts a shopping mall built in the1960s into a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development within easy walking distance of the new CalTrain commuter station.

· Fruitvale Transit-Oriented Village (www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/success/fruitvale_bart.shtml) offers a transit-based development revitalization story of a Hispanic and Asian community along the BART line in Oakland, California.

· Village Homes Sustainable Community (www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/success/village.shtml) is an innovative housing development in Davis, California where there are more bike and pedestrian paths than roads.

· Sustainable Urban Transportation Planning (http://sol.crest.org/sustainable/curitiba/part1.html) in Curitiba, Brazil serves as an international model of a city that is successfully integrating transport and land-use planning.

· Neighborhood ECO-Pass (www.ci.boulder.co.us/goboulder/html/transit/pass/index.html) is a program in Boulder, Colorado that encourages people to use the Denver metro area transit system by offering passes at reduced cost to neighborhoods that agree to participate.

· Ride Arrangers Program (www.ridearrangers.org/index.html) is a commuter-assistance program of the Denver, Colorado Regional Council of Government that encourages alternative forms of transportation, including car/vanpools, bikepools and schoolpools.

· Telecommuting and Trip-reduction Policies (www.usmayors.org/USCM/best_practices/bp_volume_2/redmond.htm) are being instituted for city employees in Redmond, Washington. This effort is funded by Washington's Commute Trip Reduction Program.

· Transportation Solutions-Trip Reduction Grant Recipients (www.iclei.org/co2/tpgrants.htm) details programs that were awarded grants by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives Sustainable Transportation Program.

LundaMaT (www.vtpi.org/lund.pdf)

The city of Lund, Sweden has implemented a variety of mobility management programs that improve transport options (walking, cycling and public transit service), and encourage use of efficient modes. As a result, despite population growth, automobile traffic has stayed steady while use of alternative modes increased significantly between 1995 and 2004.

Perth, Australia (www.travelsmart.transport.wa.gov.au; www.socialdata.de)

INSIDE TRACK; How to think people out of their vehicles

When 8,000 Perth households were helped to analyze their journeys, car use fell by 14 per cent with a shift to public transport and cycling.
Juliette Jowit, Financial Times, Sep 11, 2001

It sounds like a transport dream. A cheap and effective scheme that could cut traffic by 10 per cent or more within months. But in Australia it is reality. And the idea is now on trial in 15 European countries.

The concept, called “individualised marketing”, is simple. Households are contacted and offered advice about the journeys they make. If they are interested, they can get information and personalised timetables by post or a telephone hotline, or a home visit from a consultant who analyses the trips they make and suggests alternatives to the car.

Socialdata (www.socialdata.de), a German-based consultancy, claims to have developed the idea and spent 10 years looking for a guinea-pig before the government of Western Australia agreed to try it in Perth. An initial trial in 1997 of more than 800 households in South Perth showed a 10% drop in car journeys and vehicle miles, with a significant shift to public transport and cycling. Surveys a year later, and again 18 months after that, showed those gains were sustained.

Last year, Western Australia’s Department for Planning and Infrastructure extended the project to 8,000 households in South Perth, with even better results. Car journeys and mileage fell 14 per cent and walking, cycling and use of public transport rose again. Use of local shops and services increased, air pollution fell and bus companies collected enough extra fares to recoup the cost within three years.

The south Perth trial cost AUS$1.3m - including new bus stops in the suburbs, printed material and surveys - and took three months. That compares with the UK government’s 10-year transport plan, published last summer, which promised that in return for ₤180 billion of private and public money, traffic would rise by 17% (admittedly, that is 5% less than what has been forecast without the plan.) Werner Brog, Social-data’s founder and managing director, explained the theory behind the individualised marketing project.

Socialdata found that only 20% of journeys in Perth were by “green modes” - public transport, walking and cycling. However, in potentially 60% of journeys, people either did not need their cars or had an adequate alternative. Then Socialdata asked why people did not leave their cars behind more often and found a big gap between perception and the reality of public transport, walking and cycling. Typically, people thought their journey would take twice as long as it did and would cost a third more than the real fare. Half of motorists with a viable alternative did not know about the individualised marketing service.

“There’s an alternative there,” says Mr. Brog, pointing outside to buses, cycle lanes and Tube stations, “but not there,” he says, jabbing at his head. “Transport planners want to fix that (pointing out of the window again) but we’d say it’s much easier to fix the head.”

It sounds almost too good to be true, which raises the question of why more towns, cities and regions are not pursuing the idea. As it stands, Western Australia plans to extend the scheme to all 600,000 residents of Perth, while elsewhere in the country, Brisbane is running a trial. Transport operators in Europe are talking to Socialdata about city-wide initiatives, says Mr. Brog. Socialdata is also exploring how individualised marketing can be used for energy, water, waste disposal and other applications.

However, before the transport scheme can spread, deep-rooted cultural and practical barriers will need to be overcome in many countries. Perhaps the biggest perceived threat, especially among politicians being asked to fund such projects, is a backlash from motorists who may see the scheme as “anti-car”.

But in Australia, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure collected seven files of positive feedback and not one letter of complaint, insists Bruce James, the department’s executive director metropolitan. The reason is that the approach is “not Stalinist” says Mr. Brog. People are not stopped from making journeys; they are never told to stop using their cars; and the project stresses how even tiny changes - say, one journey a week - can make a big difference.

“As soon as people hear what I do at a party they start saying ‘Do you know how far I have to travel to work? Do you know I have to make interchange four times?’ and so on,” says Mr. Brog. “I say, if that’s the case, use your car. But let’s look at where else you can use public transport.”

More subtly, another barrier is the long-standing assumption by transport engineers and planners that putting on more services and building new infrastructure is the solution to all problems. And the “boys with toys” approach has always chimed with the political attraction of opening new railways and roads. Individualised marketing can be complementary to investing in infrastructure, says Mr. Brog. But he hopes that, as more successful trials roll in, the balance will shift. Individualised marketing is more cost-effective, he believes. “We can better them hands down every time,” he insists.

Doubters should know that Perth - designed for cars and a massive 100km by 80km in size - was a highly testing trial area, says Mr. Brog. “The saying is if it works in Perth it works everywhere in the world,” he says.

Examples of Successful Traffic Reduction Programs (Nelson\Nygaard, 2006, Appendix A)

Arlington County, Virginia, Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor: In the 1960s and 1970s, this suburban corridor consisted largely of tired strip malls with the ubiquitous free parking, a surrounding fabric of single-family homes, and sharply declining population and retail sales. Today, development in the corridor is booming, but with little growth in traffic. Traffic counts from 1997 to 2004, for example, show that while office and residential development grew by 17.5% and 21.5% respectively, traffic along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor grew by only 2.3%. Census Journey-to-Work Survey data show that over 47% of corridor residents now take transit to work.

Bellevue, Washington: In downtown Bellevue, Washington, the drive alone commute rate fell from 81% in 1990 to 57% in 2000, a 30% reduction in ten years.

Boulder, Colorado: Since 1995, the drive-alone rate for employees in downtown Boulder has fallen almost 36%, from 56% driving alone to 36%, while the transit mode share has more than doubled from 15% to 34%.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge's Travel Demand Management Ordinance requires that developers reduce the drive alone rate for their development to 10% below the average rate for the census tract in which their development sits. Although the ordinance applies only to new development and building expansions, by two years after the adoption of the ordinance, citywide drive alone rates had declined, even as the state of Massachusetts experienced increasing drive alone rates.

London, United Kingdom: Since the beginning of 2003, when congestion pricing was introduced in central London, the number of vehicle trips in the congestion pricing zone has fallen by 17%. Congestion, measured in terms of person-hours of delay per mile traveled, has fallen by 26%.

Lloyd District, Portland, Oregon: In the nine years since the baseline figures were measured (in 1997), the drive alone rate among all Lloyd District employees has fallen almost 29%, from 60% to 43%.

Portland, Oregon: In 1975, the City of Portland set a cap of roughly 40,000 parking spaces downtown, later replaced with tight maximum parking requirements. City officials credit these limits with helping to increase downtown's transit mode split from about 20% in the early 1970s to 48% in the mid-1990s.

San Francisco: Employment in downtown San Francisco doubled between 1968 and 1984, while the number of cars traveling into the downtown stayed the same.

Stockholm, Sweden: Six months into the trial of congestion pricing the average traffic reduction across the control points between 6:30 AM and 6:29 PM is 22%.

Vancouver, Canada: As a deliberate transportation strategy, Vancouver tremendously increased housing capacity in the downtown area to reduce commuting times and congestion, in what became known as the “living-first strategy”. From 1991 to 2002, the number of residents living downtown increased by 62%, to 76,000, but car trips into downtown remained essentially constant. In 1994, walking and cycling trips made up 20 percent of all daily trips into the downtown and together made up the third-highest used mode behind auto and transit trips: by 1999, walking and cycling trips made up 35 percent of all daily trips and are now the most frequently used mode.

Municipal Traffic Reduction Program (Nelson\Nygaard, 2006)

After the City of Pasadena, California commissioned a detailed study of potential traffic reduction strategies, the city manager and Transportation Advisory Committee recommended the following:

Establish a target occupancy rate for on-street parking meters and request staff and develop a program to adjust meter prices to achieve that target.
Investigate the conversion of an existing Residential Preferential Parking District to a Residential Parking Benefit District (so revenues are dedicated to that neighborhood).
Prepare a budget proposal that would: (a) use a portion of parking meter revenues for transportation demand management programs within those districts, (b) use a portion of parking meter revenues to purchase Universal Transit Passes for employees within those districts, and (c) use a portion of parking meter revenues to support Car Sharing programs within those districts.
Study the feasibility of removing minimum parking requirements for new development in the Central District and other suitable locations in the city.
Study the feasibility of requiring the unbundling of parking costs for the second parking space per unit for new residential structures in the Central District and in the Transit Oriented Development Zones.
Require proof of compliance with the State of California's Parking Cash-Out Law prior to issuing occupancy permits for new commercial development.
Develop a proposal to implement Parking Cash-Out for City employees.
Support efforts to establish a Bus Rapid Transit Route linking the Metro Orange and Gold Lines.
Establish a priority for use of funds collected through the Traffic Reduction and Transportation Improvement Fee for the projects needed to implement a transit network.
Study the feasibility of implementing a Congestion Pricing mechanism within the Central District Area.

Downtown Pasadena Parking Management (Kolozsvari and Shoup, 2003)

During the 1950-70s Old Pasadena’s downtown had become run down, with many derelict and abandoned buildings and few customers, in part due to the limited amount of parking available to customers. Curb parking was restricted to two-hour duration, but many employees simply parked in the most convenient, on-street spaces and moved their vehicles several times each day. The city proposed pricing on-street parking as a way to increase turnover and make parking available to customers. Many local merchants originally opposed the idea. As a compromise, city officials agreed to dedicate all revenues to public improvements that make the downtown more attractive. A Parking Meter Zone (PMZ) was established within which parking was priced and revenues were invested.

This approach of connecting parking revenues directly to added public services and keeping it under local control helped guarantee the program’s success. With this proviso, the merchants agreed to the proposal. They began to see parking meters in a new way: as a way to fund the projects and services that directly benefit their customers and businesses. Because downtown parking had previously been unpriced, the city didn’t lose anything from the general fund by dedicating the revenue to improvements in that area. In fact, the city gained additional revenue from overtime fines.

The city formed a PMZ advisory board consisting of business and property owners, which recommended parking policies and set spending priorities for the meter revenues. Investments included new street furniture and trees, more police patrols, better street lighting, more street and sidewalk cleaning, pedestrian facility improvements and marketing (including production of area maps showing local attractions and parking facilities. To highlight these benefits to motorists, each parking meter has a small sticker which reads, “Your Meter Money Will Make A Difference: Signage, Lighting, Benches, Paving”

This created a “virtuous cycle” in which parking revenue funded community improvements that attracted more visitors which increased the parking revenue, allowing further improvements. This resulted in extensive redevelopment of buildings, new businesses and residential development. Parking is no longer a problem for customers, who can almost always find a convenient space. Local sales tax revenues have increased far faster than in other shopping districts with lower parking rates, and nearby malls that offer free customer parking. This indicates that charging market rate parking (i.e., prices that result in 85-90% peak-period utilization rates) with revenues dedicated to local improvements can be an effective ways to support urban redevelopment.

The Chattanooga Story (www.chattanooga.gov)

Over the last 20 year, Chattanooga, Tennessee has redeveloped its once-depressed downtown to become a major commercial and tourist center that attracts millions of visitors a year. This evaluated out of three decades of community planning that emphasize citizen involvement, local environmental quality and strategic investments.

Concerned about the impacts that pollution was causing on local economy, the Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce created a Air Pollution Control Board in 1967. The board included a diversity group of business leaders and citizens. It established a 1972 deadline for all existing major sources of pollution to be in compliance with emission standards, which was met at a cost of $40 million. National and international attention was focused on a city that in three years had changed from the most polluted city in the United States to one of the cleanest. This inspired a new community challenge, revitalizing a dying city.

In the early 80’s, city officials established a goal that Chattanooga should become a leader in developing solutions to urban problems. In 1982, City and County governments appointed a task force to study and define the best way to develop the 22-mile Tennessee River corridor around Chattanooga. Through this process thousands of citizens attended hundreds of meetings to focus on the riverfront. The Task Force drafted the Tennessee Riverfront Master Plan covered 20 years and involved $750 million in commercial, residential and recreational development.

This led to creation of the RiverCity Corporation, a private, nonprofit organization with a mandate to implement the Riverfront Master Plan and 40 community development goals. Among other achievements, it developed the Tennessee Aquarium, the world’s largest freshwater aquarium, which opened in 1992. The structure has become a trademark for the city that in 10 years transformed itself from a dying city to one of growth and sustainable development.

A second "structure" that defines Chattanooga was also introduced in 1992. The Electric Shuttle was implemented by the Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority. With free five minute service between the Tennessee Aquarium and the Chattanooga Choo Choo hotel, the Electric Shuttle provided the transportation link that had been identified as one of the top goals identified during Vision 2000. As a result of these efforts, Chattanooga is now one of America's most livable cities.

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.

Go Boulder (www.ci.boulder.co.us/goboulder)

The City of Boulder has a number of innovative transportation management programs, called Go Boulder. Established in 1989, Go Boulder is a community-based program that improves and promotes transportation “options.”

By improving public transit service and providing incentives, approximately 60% of city residents have city bus passes, the highest rate in the U.S. for cities of its size. Buses operate with 10-minute headways on several highly visible routes, with amenities such as music and bike rates.

University students, employees at the city’s main hospital and several other major worksite all receive transit passes. The municipal group that collects downtown Boulder parking fees uses a portion of that revenue to buy annual bus passes for 6,000 employees who work in the city core. The Chamber of Commerce followed suit, adding $50 per year to the fees of its members. Employees appreciate it because they commute for free and don’t need to find or pay for downtown parking, and can use the bus pass for non-commute trips. Merchants appreciate it because it frees up scarce parking spots for shoppers. Several private companies with hundreds of employees pay for annual, unlimited transit passes. Go Boulder group also persuaded resident groups in several neighborhoods to sign annual bus pass contract. That buys a photo ID and unlimited bus use, for all members of each household.

A Boulder city bylaw requires developers of new residential subdivisions to buy each household three years’ worth of unlimited transit passes, at an average cost of $50 each. After the third year, the residents can either drop the deal or pay the same amount through their local residents’ or apartment association. There is virtually no attrition on any of these ridership programs.

Go Boulder also offers a “safe ride home” service. By pooling $2 from each $50 pass, the transit agency arranged with city taxis to pick up, at no extra cost to the employee, anyone in the office who needs an emergency ride or one after bus operating hours. The same deal applies to all 1,200 employees of the city hospital. Nurses on shifts especially welcomed the low-cost, flexible bus service with taxi backup.

Boulder has an extensive pedestrian and cycling programs, including sidewalk and path facilities, bicycle parking, and bike racks on buses.

Go Boulder also promotes telework (use of telecommunications to substitute for private vehicle ownership), ridesharing (carpooling and vanpooling), and has a carsharing service (www.carshare.org), a vehicle rental service designed to substitute for private vehicle ownership.

The city’s Transportation Management Plan (TMP) Update is proposing the creation of multiple Transportation Management districts which will provide services to reduce the overall traffic demand on the city’s roadways through the provision of ongoing commuter and traveler assistance programs. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) services within the districts will correspond to the level of expected development and redevelopment in the area.

The Truth About Cars & Trucks: Reinventing Our Wheels;

How the continent’s best transit works: A maverick city bus manager decided to do what virtually no other transit agency has done in North America: Ask riders what they want, then deliver it. The results are astounding.

by Paul McKay, The Ottawa Citizen, Thu 31 May 2001

BOULDER, Colorado - What taxpayer-funded product usually arrives on time, but is empty so often it burns money for nothing? That would be the diesel-belching, 12-metre “loser cruiser” that lumbers -- by the relentless hour, day, week, month and year -- through the suburbs of Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto, Denver, Dallas and hundreds of other North American cities. Most of the time, they chug past bus stops where few passengers get on or off.

In cities such as Ottawa and Vancouver, public transit accounts for only 15 per cent of rush-hour passenger trips. In outlying cities like Cumberland or Coquitlam, peak bus ridership is a dismal five per cent of passenger trips. Outside of rush hour, riders are so scarce they drop off the radar screen of transit agencies apparently resigned to running buses at a huge loss. Forever.

It’s no secret where those missing riders are: Usually driving alone, in the cars that are clogging every major city on the continent. They may not know it, but those solo drivers are paying for the worst of both worlds.

Out of one pocket, they annually pay an average of $9,000 to own, operate and maintain private vehicles that are besieged by gridlock. The No. 1 cause? Other solo drivers. From the other pocket, their taxes help pay for city transit agencies that own, operate and maintain the 20-tonne buses often carrying little more than the bus driver and air. Perversely, in the rare times these buses are full, they are often brought to a halt by commuter cars carrying those who subsidize them.

Empty buses. Empty cars. Overloaded roads. Paying twice for less and less mobility. Has no one found a way out of this mess?

Yes. One of them would be Bob Whitson, an engineer with a Texas twang and wry wit who heads up what could be the most successful city transit system on the continent. He works for the city of Boulder, an hour’s drive northwest of Denver, where 100,000 residents live, study and work in the spectacular shadow of the Colorado Rockies. And 60,000 of them have city bus passes.

In the world of public transit, that ratio is astounding. No other city in North America comes even close. Mr. Whitson says the reason is simple: “The riders chose their bus service. It was not chosen for them.”

He means that literally. In Boulder, riders choose the size of buses (40-footers are dismissed as “diesel dinosaurs”), the design, the seating plans and upholstery, the size and tinting of windows and options like hanger straps and bike racks. The drivers get to choose their uniforms and the music for an on-board CD player.

Most important, Boulder riders help choose the routes and pickup spots. So buses come to them, usually in 10 minutes or less.

How is that possible? By scrapping the mindset that has failed to fill suburban buses for half a century.

“We are outside the mainstream of public transit thinking,” Mr. Whitson says with a renegade grin. “No one here has ever studied transit. We’ve learned everything on our own. When I go to national public transit conferences, they all talk about bus maintenance, the latest in diesel fuels, how windshield wipers work and counting every nickel that goes in the fare box. They never talk about the customer. Here we ask people -- in their homes, schools, where they work, at the gym -- what they want. We listen very carefully, then go out and try to get it for them.”

The number and range of car-to-bus converts is unheard of.

At the University of Colorado campus in Boulder, 26,000 students voted to add $15 to their tuition fees every semester for an unlimited bus pass. It takes them anywhere in the city, virtually anytime. Or to downtown Denver, the closest ski resort or Denver’s international airport (which costs a non-pass holder $44 for a round-trip shuttle).

Those bulk passes let Boulder bus planners know, in advance, exactly how many riders they will have, and when and where buses should be routed to connect the campus, residences, major malls, even downtown bars until 3 a.m. on weekends.

A student photo ID eliminates the need to feed fare-boxes and have exact change. In fact, the fare-box is the college administration office, which collects the bulk fares three times a year and promptly hands the money over to the Boulder bus operator.

That simple, unorthodox formula also works for the Boulder downtown merchants, the city’s main hospital and several major employers. For instance, the municipal group that collects downtown Boulder parking fees uses a portion of that revenue to buy annual bus passes for 6,000 employees who work in the city core. The Chamber of Commerce followed suit, adding $50 per year to the fees of its members.

The employees love it because they get to commute for free, don’t have to find or pay for downtown parking and can use the bus pass to shop on Saturday or get to a Broncos game on Sunday. The merchants love it because it frees up scarce parking spots for shoppers. And the bus company loves it because it gets paid, in one advance shot, for a year of servicing predictable, high-use routes.

The next target for Mr. Whitson and his Go Boulder staff were private companies with hundreds of employees. Successful pitches led several to sign contracts, pledging an average of $50 per employee for annual, unlimited transit passes. With up-front payments and predictable riders, that allowed the bus company to plan the most effective routes to and from those workplaces.

A key feature is the “safe ride home” promise. By pooling $2 from each $50 pass, the bus company arranged with city taxis to pick up, at no extra cost to the employee, anyone in the office who needs an emergency ride or one after bus operating hours. The same deal applies to all 1,200 employees of the city hospital. Nurses on shifts especially welcomed the low-cost, flexible bus service with taxi backup.

Next came residential neighbourhoods. So far, Mr. Whitson’s Go Boulder group has persuaded 15 community groups to sign annual contracts pledging a minimum of $5,000 for annual bus passes. That buys a photo ID and unlimited bus use, for all members of each household in the neighbourhood block. Some of the keenest riders are kids -- including teenagers who wouldn’t normally be caught dead riding a “loser cruiser.”

Mr. Whitson says that’s because “they figured out pretty quickly that it gives them total freedom. They know there will be a bus every 10 minutes. They don’t have to worry about schedules or fares or exact change or how many trips they can take.”

Mr. Whitson proudly notes that even primary school kids get to help design the outside bus markings, which boldly announce that a circular route “Hop,” “Skip” or “Jump” bus is arriving. The nicknames are painted in huge letters and surrounded by cute rabbits and grasshoppers.

“There is a reason for that. It lets our youngest riders know exactly which bus to take, and their parents feel safe about letting them take a bus to sports practice or music lessons,” says Mr. Whitson. “We’re also instilling a culture. Those kids are going to be our riders 20 years from now.”

Another novel tactic is a Boulder city bylaw that requires developers of new residential subdivisions to buy each household three years’ worth of unlimited transit passes, at an average cost of $50 each. After the third year, the residents can either drop the deal or pay the same amount through their local residents’ or apartment association. There is virtually no attrition on any of these ridership programs. Take-up on the bus passes (average annual cost of $50 each) has increased from 4,000 to 60,000 since 1994.

Meanwhile, traffic congestion has not increased despite a boom in area housing and employment. “These initiatives are driven by concern about congestion and the worry of businesses that they can’t get their employees to and from work efficiently, or from businesses that want people to shop and are worried people will get blocked out by congestion,” says Mr. Whitson. “That’s our main motivator. That’s where we measure our success: Have we maintained congestion levels at 1994, even with the big growth in jobs and some housing? We have.”

Denver is finding it hard to argue with Boulder’s success. The scene of notorious smog and sprawl, it has recently launched its own version of the mass bus pass system.

So how can Boulder afford to sell city bus riders an unlimited annual pass for $50 U.S.? It can’t. As in the rest of Colorado, and most of the U.S., two-thirds of the costs of public transit are paid through federal, state and city taxes. Fare-box revenues account for only one-third of costs.

“Our ECO pass is designed to collect one-third of what is needed to run the buses,” says Mr. Whitson. “That’s the same amount as if riders were putting cash in the fare-box. The difference is, most of our buses in Boulder run full most of the time. A lot of those in Denver run around empty.”

Public transit is a baseline, essential service, notes Mr. Whitson. “No city in North America is going to scrap its system. It is already there, already being paid for and subsidized. Our thinking here is: Since the buses are going to be running anyway, let’s make sure they are not empty. So our bus pass is designed like group medical insurance, except it’s for transit. The cost is based on an average. Everybody has to pay. Some use it a lot; some don’t. Those who don’t help pay for those who do. But everybody has the choice to use their unlimited bus pass.”

Portland, Oregon Transport Improvements (www.trimet.org/inside/publications/sourcebook.htm)

Portland, Oregon has implemented several successful transportation and Smart Growth projects including the MAX regional rail system, Portland Streetcar, Intercity Passenger Rail, TDM programs, the OHSU tramway, numerous Transit Oriented Developments, and improved walking and cycling conditions. Portland’s transit agency, Tri-Met, has produced a Community Building Sourcebook which describes many of the projects, plans, programs and organizations that make the Portland region a national model for linking land use and transportation initiatives. This document discusses specific transportation and related real estate development projects, with information on their goals, design, financing, impacts, and lessons learned.

Cortright (2007) finds that as a result of innovative transportation and land use policies, Portland, Oregon area residents drive about 20% fewer annual miles and use alternative modes about twice as much in comparable cities, and as a result enjoy various benefits, including more regional economic development, consumer cost savings, reduced air pollution, better health and more livable urban neighborhoods.

Seattle Way-To-Go Household Car Reduction Program (www.cityofseattle.net/waytogo)

Way to Go, Seattle is a new initiative to show people they can save money and make their communities more livable by making more conscious transportation choices, just as they do now with recycling and water conservation. Below is an article and news release about two of the program’s trail projects.

“Program to Get Seattleites Out of Second Cars Successful”

Seattle Times, Saturday, March 10, 2001

They rode bicycles or car-pooled or took the bus. They saved up errands and ran them in one trip. They walked to the grocery store or to the kids’ soccer match. And, ultimately, they saved themselves hundreds of dollars and avoided dumping 3 tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

What those 22 Seattle families did not do was use their second cars.

“I didn’t think I could do it, says Sharon Griggins-Davis, a Queen Anne resident. “We’d got into some very bad habits of relying on that car.”

Hers was one of the families that volunteered to give up their second cars for six weeks as part of a city-sponsored experiment.

As volunteers for “Way to Go, Seattle, the families agreed to take $85 a week from City Hall in exchange for promising to get by with one automobile. Just to be sure, the city recorded their odometer readings.

Participants also agreed to keep journals of how they got around.

Based on city calculations, taking 22 cars off the roads for six weeks saved each family an average of more than $70 per week - even allowing for bus and taxi fares - officials said. It also led to 1,700 fewer car trips through local neighborhoods, 8,100 fewer car-miles and prevented 6,500 pounds of carbon-dioxide emissions - the gas that causes global warming.

“This was not a scientific survey, said Mayor Paul Schell. “It was an educational experiment into how we can do better with what we have.”

Some of the families found the task too difficult and reverted to their second cars when the program ended, city officials said. But most said they learned how easy it is to get along with one car. One family has sold its second car and others plan to.

“With two cars, there is always the temptation to use a car when you really don’t need it, said Malva Slachowitz, a Ballard participant. “But we learned some things. When we made a shopping list, it was a serious list. When we went on a family outing, we would stop and do an errand.”

The experiment appears to have been successful enough to justify another one, Schell said.

Walking, Biking Surpass Driving in Vancouver (www.gvrd.bc.ca)

More people are now moving about by foot and bike than by car in Vancouver, British Columbia, according to a survey by the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Auto trips have actually dropped five percent, the report says. Vancouver City Councilor Gordon Price says, “Though some may find it difficult to believe, there are actually places on the peninsula with less vehicle congestion than five years ago.” Vancouver is famous for its commitment to planning, and every City Council since the early 1990s has stated that the city’s transportation priorities would be walking and cycling, followed by transit, goods movement, and cars. “A new way of living is happening in Vancouver as we become the city we said we wanted,” Price says. “Great cities are first of all places where most people can walk - and Vancouver is on its way to becoming one of those places.”

Fewer Vehicles on Road as People Opt for Transit in Vancouver

Vancouver Sun, August 30, 2004

The number of vehicles in the city of Vancouver has dipped slightly for the first time after a steady increase over a decade, according to official statistics. “There are some fundamental changes going on,” says David Baxter of the research firm Urban Futures. “It’s increasingly possible to live in Vancouver without a motor vehicle.” TransLink says ridership across Greater Vancouver on buses, SeaBuses and the SkyTrain rose by 9.5 per cent in the first half of this year compared to the same period last year, and was 24.6 per cent higher than 2002. Three times more people used buses (with 100.9 million boardings) than SkyTrains (with 32.4 million).

“The numbers show that demand for public transit continues to grow in response to the significant expansion of services TransLink has introduced since it took over the system five years ago,” TransLink chair Doug McCallum said in a press release. 42 per cent of people coming into the downtown core arrive on mass transit, while fewer people -- only 47 per cent – are coming into the area by car.”

Others, such as Vern Bethel, a guru of vintage cars at False Creek Automotive, says the younger generation doesn’t value cars as much as their parents did. “It [the love of cars] is decreasing because of pressures, such as lack of space, storage expenses, gas and insurance. Even my own kids aren’t as oriented toward cars as I was.”

Calgary, Alberta

Calgary, Alberta is a typical young and rapidly-growing western city. Starting in 1978, when the city had about a half-million residents, Calgary Transit began construction of the CTrain, a commute rail system, partly underground. The first line began operation in 1981, and the system has since expanded to three lines totaling about 35 kilometers, plus feeder bus service, serving the current city population of nearly a million residents. The city has also implemented various other programs to encourage walking, cycling and ridesharing. The table below summarizes the changes in morning peak mode split to downtown. It shows that automobile trips have declined by about 4 percentage points (3,500 fewer vehicles driving downtown) despite growth in regional population and downtown business activity.

	1991	2001
Single-Occupant Vehicle	40%	36%
Automobile Passenger	12%	12%
Transit	39%	41%
Bike/Walk	9%	11%

Prioritizing Transportation

Kunming Public Transport Priority (www.movingtheeconomy.ca/cs_kunming.html)

The Kunming Public Transport Masterplan was begun in 1993 by the city of Kunming, China and its sister city, Zurich. Supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, the project defined clear priorities for the use of city streets with the aim to transport people, not cars, giving priority to public transport, bicycles and pedestrians. Affordability as well was an important aim. Two principal components of the transportation policy were to run the existing buses, and to re-introduce trams on reserved lanes that were taken away from use by private car.

A first “Demonstration Bus Line,” running on reserved lanes began operation in April 1999. Following its success, a second line was built (this one without support from Zurich), beginning operation in June 2002, with plans for two more lines. The bus lanes will be changed into Modern Tram lanes once bus capacity is no longer sufficient.

Other components of the project include:

· More than 20 newly designed intersections with separate lanes for left turning bicycles.

· Safe pedestrian crossings at street level.

· Pedestrian-only streets in shopping zones in the city centre.

· Pedestrian islands in the middle of city streets to improve safety of street crossing.

· Studies on minimizing urban sprawl by building densely designed towns along existing railway lines.

No other city in China is following so comprehensive an urban development and transportation policy. It was a courageous step by the municipal government of the city of Kunming, to take away one lane from non public transport and dedicate it exclusively to buses. No other city in China has a concept for developing the greater city region like Kunming with densely built new towns along the railway, as a precondition for using public transport in a high degree.

Kunming planning officials are monitoring the public’s response to these projects through public surveys. The first, in 1999, found the total satisfaction rate of citizens toward the project to be 79% and by 2001 the total satisfaction was over 96%.

California HOV Lanes (LAO, 2000)

A legislative study of HOV facilities in California found that they carry an average of 2,518 passengers per hour during peak hours – substantially more people than a congested mixed-flow lane and roughly the same number of people as a typical mixed-flow lane operating at maximum capacity. This only represents two-thirds of their capacity. Regional data indicate that HOV lanes induce mode shift to carpooling.

Commute Trip Reduction Programs

Best Workplaces for Commuters (www.bwc.gov)

Best Workplaces for Commuters (BWCs) is a program through which employers encourage use of alternative commute mode. A survey of BWC firms was conducted in the fall of 2004. The survey measured differences between the commuting patterns of employees receiving employee commuter benefits such as those offered by BWCs and those who do not and to estimate the resulting saving in trips, vehicle miles of travel (VMT), and emissions and fuel consumption. Employers recognized as BWCs in the Denver, Houston, San Francisco, and Washington DC metro areas were randomly sampled and recruited into the survey using a combination of telephone and email communications. The results of this survey indicate that where employers provide employees with incentives to commute by means other than driving alone, significant percentages of them take advantage of these benefits. Comprehensive benefit packages such as those enjoyed by commuters in the BWC group, with financial incentives, services (such as guaranteed ride home, carpool matching, etc.) and informational campaigns, appear to produce reductions of trips, VMT, pollutants, and fuel consumption of around 15% even under conservative assumptions. Benefits packages offering services and information, but not financial incentives, appear to produce reductions of around 7% under conservative assumptions.

King County METRO Commute Partnership Program (http://transit.metrokc.gov)

The King County (Seattle area) METRO Transit Agency has developed a comprehensive commute trip reduction program. The table below lists program components. A detailed description of each component can be downloaded from their website. METRO also provides general support and resources to employers to develop commute trip reduction programs and integrate these efforts with parking, land use and transit management activities.

Table 2 Commute Partnership Products, King Co. Metro

Product	Description
Alternative Work Schedules	Compressed or flexible work schedules allowing employees to work longer hours in fewer days.
Biking and Walking	Alternative commute mode that can be subsidized.
Business Use of Vans	A program making Metro commuter vans available for use by employees (at that worksite) during the business day.
Carsharing	A convenient and economical alternative to owning a personal vehicle.
Commuter Bonus	A non-taxable voucher program that encourages employees to take the bus, a vanpool or a ferry.
Commuter Bonus Plus	A voucher program to encourage employees to commute by carpool, or walking and biking.
Carpools	Alternative commute mode that can be subsidized.
Custom Bus	A special service for areas with limited bus service.
Datamatch	A computerized ridematching service to encourage employees to “share the ride”.
Flex Pass	A comprehensive discount pass program that can be customized to include commute incentives.
Home Free Guarantee	A program that ensures an emergency ride home for employees using alternative commute modes.
Parking Cash-out	A program for offering employees a choice between a subsidized parking space, and cash.
Pass Subsidy	A variety of options for businesses interested in purchasing employee transit passes.
Preferential Parking	Program that reserves worksite parking spaces for those employees commuting by carpool & vanpool.
Ridematch	A computerized ridematching database and mapping service.
Rideshare Plus	A customized service approach for carpool and vanpool formation that employers can contract for.
Tax Laws	Some helpful guidelines about commute-related tax issues that provide advantages for both employer and employee.
Vanpools	A program that supplies vans to groups of employees to share. How to get a Metro Vanpool on the Road

TDM Program Benefits Analysis (www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/77605.pdf)

A study by Winters, et al. (2007) evaluates commute trip reduction (CTR) program impacts on transportation system performance in the Puget Sound region.

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) maintains comprehensive databases of CTR plans and employee travel characteristics. The CTR programs include various bicycle, carpool, vanpool and transit incentives. These databases were used to calculate the impacts of these programs on vehicle traffic in the Seattle downtown area. Two scenarios were compared: Scenario A “With TDM” represented existing traffic conditions on the network with current CTR programs, and Scenario B “Without TDM” represented traffic conditions after trips reduced because of CTR programs were added onto the network, i.e., as though CTR did not exist in the study area. The comparison was conducted using a microscopic simulation model, CORSIM, to evaluate the impacts of CTR programs on roadway traffic. The analysis was conducted for the duration of the peak periods defined for this study as from 5:30 AM to 10:15 AM for AM peak and from 3:00 PM to 7:45 for PM peak.

In the corridor analyzed, the cumulative delay reduction due to programs were estimated to be 152,489 and 169,486 vehicle-minutes for the AM and PM periods respectively. The CTR programs resulted in a total reduction of 102 lane-miles of spatial congestion in the AM peak period and 143 lane-miles in the PM peak period. A significant total reduction in travel time of 60 and 45 minutes for the AM and PM peak periods was observed, respectively. The average speed increased up to 19 mph for the AM and up to 11 mph for the PM peak period. The cumulative VMT reductions ranged from 17,297 vehicle-miles in the AM to 14,511 vehicle-miles in the PM peak period. Fuel savings for all travelers, not just those using non-single occupant vehicles, were estimated to be 3,489 gallons during the AM peak period and 4,314 gallons during the PM periods. The total estimated peak hour emission reductions due to improved traffic flow were 16.4 and 21.7 kilograms of hydrocarbon (HC) emissions and 1,109 and 1,545 kilograms of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions for the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. These results indicate that the CTR programs provide significant benefits, including reduced traffic delay, reduced spatial and temporal extent of congestion, reduced emissions and fuel savings.

These results do not encompass all the impacts. The analysis was limited to an 8.6-mile corridor and the study only takes into account the impact of 189 CTR employers in the region. However, there might be more worksites with CTR programs. Therefore, CTR programs might provide even greater regional benefits. In many areas of the study corridor and/or times of day, mobility management made a significant impact on congestion, but TDM, like every other transportation solution, will not eliminate delay for every congested segment or time period. Sensitivity analysis indicates that even a small reduction (4%) in vehicle trips could provide significant benefits.

Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit Program (www.energy.state.or.us/bus/tax/taxcdt.htm)

The Oregon Office of Energy offers the Business Energy Tax Credit to those who invest in energy conservation, recycling, renewable energy resources and less-polluting transportation fuels. Projects that reduce employee commuting or work-related travel and investments in cleaner-burning transportation fuels may qualify for a tax credit. Projects must reduce work-related travel by 25% to be eligible. To date, more than 5,500 Oregon energy tax credits have been awarded (see website for a list of case studies). Altogether, those investments save or generate energy worth about $100 million a year.

The tax credit is 35% of the eligible project costs - the incremental cost of the system or equipment that’s beyond standard practice. You take the credit over five years: 10% in the first and second years and 5% each year thereafter. If you can’t take the full tax credit each year, you can carry the unused credit forward up to eight years. Those with eligible project costs of $20,000 or less may take the tax credit in one year.

Pioneer Pacific Property Management (www.bctransit.com/traveloptions)

Pioneer Pacific Property Management’s Station Tower, located at a SkyTrain station in Surrey (a suburb of Vancouver, British Columbia) is home to more than 700 employees of 30 different organizations. By working together, Station Tower has created an extremely effective program. Nearly 50 percent of Station Tower’s employees use transportation alternatives.

Known as TravelChoices, the program was commissioned by Intrawest Corporation, the developer of the complex. Each organization in the building has a TravelChoices representative who provides time to administer the program. The trip reduction program enabled Intrawest to reduce the number of parking spaces required by 50 spots. At about $11,000 per spot, that meant $500,000 in savings. The program includes the following features:

· Showers and secure bike lockers are provided for cyclists.

· TravelChoices members have free access to the Gateway fitness facilities, including exercise equipment, showers and lockers.

· A ride-matching service links potential carpool partners within the complex.

· Reserved, preferential parking is available for carpools and vanpools.

· TravelChoices members get guaranteed ride home insurance.

· The TravelBucks incentive program gives its members one TravelBuck for each day they use alternative transportation to and from work.

· Prizes include free coffee, transit FareSaver Tickets, ski passes and rental car certificates.

“Working a trip reduction program into the planning stages of a development is a strategy more property developers should use. It saves money, it’s environmentally friendly and it presents potential tenants with another reason to choose your site.” Glenda Onstad, Senior Property Manager, Pioneer Pacific Property Management

Alameda County Congestion Management Program (www.accma.ca.gov)

The Alameda County (East San Francisco Bay area, including suburban and rural areas) Congestion Management Program enlisted four employers to provide financial incentives to encourage reduced driving. The table below summarizes the results at the four worksites. The program managers conclude that financial incentives alone typically reduce automobile commute trips by 16-20%, and significantly more if combined with other TDM strategies.

Table 3 Alameda County Commute Incentive Program

	Alameda	Albany	Oakland	Pleasanton
Incentive offered	$1.50/day	$2.50/day	$40/mo transit pass	$2.00/day
Average combined fuel savings and financial benefit.	$268/year	$381/year	$407/year	$282/year
Eligible Employees	573	130	400	380
Participants before	12 (3%)	7 (5%)	11 (3%)	147 (40%)
Participants after	108 (19%)	30 (23%)	93 (23%)	130 (34%)

Ernst & Young (www.wageworks.com)

The accounting and management firm Ernst & Young offers a pre-tax commuter transportation and parking benefits to its employees in partnership with WageWorks, starting in 2001. This is projected to save employees 40% of their commuting and work-related parking costs, and reduce the firm’s payroll expenses.

“Adding commuter benefits to our innovative benefits offerings is just one more reflection of Ernst & Young’s commitment to make the firm a great place to work,” says vice chairman of human resources, James L. Freer. “When we surveyed a group of employees regarding what benefits they value, a pre-tax commuter program was the most frequent enhancement by far, with 62% of the respondents asking for it. We are pleased to offer such a program that will make our people’s commute to work a bit easier.”

Lloyd District TMA (www.ldtma.com)

The Lloyd District, located across the Willamette River from downtown Portland, currently consists of approximately 650 businesses and 20,000 employees, including a major convention center, a mall, medical clinics, hotels, and office building. There are plans to add 17,000 new jobs and 4,000 new housing units within the district.

Since 1995 the Lloyd District Transportation Management Association (LDTMA) has worked to promote the area’s economic vitality by providing transportation programs and services to improve access. The LDTMA has 69 member businesses representing approximately 9,000 employees. It manages several programs to improve and promote walking, cycling, ridesharing and transit, including Commuter Connection, a retail transportation store that brings a new level of convenience for access to transportation information and services. The LDTMA works to improve walking and bicycling facilities, improve public transit services, and in various ways promotes use of alternative modes, including the Passport Transit Pass Program, an annual all-zone transit pass employers can purchase at a reduced rate per employee for all qualified employees. It manages Commuter Connection, a retail transportation store that brings a new level of convenience for access to transportation information and services. Transportation Coordinators (TC’s) act as liaisons between the LDTMA and employees.

In 1997, 76% of all employee commute trips to the Lloyd District were made in an automobile, 60% were drive alone trips and 16% were carpool. Despite the rise and fall in the number of participating employees from one year to the next, the percentage of drive alone trips has decreased during 6 out of the last 7 years, and transit ridership has increased, particularly among Passport Transit Pass member, among whom the percentage of transit trips nearly equals the percentage of drive alone trips. This has reduced about 1,000 daily peak period vehicle trips and about 3.9 million annual vehicle-miles. The district’s ultimate target is 42% transit and 10% bike commute mode splits.

Table 5 Lloyd District Commute Mode Split

	1997	2005	Percentage Change
Drive alone	60%	42.7%	-28%
Rideshare	16%	11.0%	-24%
Bus/MAX	21%	39.1%	91%
Bicycle	3%	3.3%	8.8%
Walk	2%	2.3%	13%
Telecommute	0%	0.8%	NA
Compressed Work Week	0.5%	0.9%	88%

CH2M Hill

Upon moving into new offices in the Seattle suburb of Bellevue, WA, the 430 employees of the engineering firm of CH2M Hill were offered $40 per month if they walked, bicycled, carpooled or took transit to work; or free parking if they drove alone. The firm’s drive-alone rate declined from 89% to 54%, and stayed there, while the percentage biking or walking increased from 1% to 17% (see table below). With parking demand down by 39%, the firm’s problem of ‘too many parkers for too few spaces’ disappeared. This approach reduced costs to the company, reduced traffic and pollution, while increasing tax revenue.

	Before	After
Drive Alone	89%	54%
Carpool	9%	12%
Bus	1%	17%
Bike, Walk	1%	17%

Commuting and Business Travel (www.fhio.gc.ca/commuting/commuting.htm)

The Canadian Federal House In Order (FHIO) website provides information on several successful Commute Trip Reduction programs, as summarized in the table below. Each description includes information on the program’s tools, background, target audience, program description, main components, communications, resources required, results, lessons learned, resources and transferability.

Table 4 Canadian Commute Trip Reduction Programs

	Public Transit	Bike/Walk	Carpool/ Vanpool	Business Travel	Telework
Walk & Roll (Go For Green)	X	X	X	X
AT&T Telework				X	X
Cambie Corridor	X	X	X	X	X
Commuter Challenge	X	X	X	X	X
GVRD Employee Trip Reduction	X	X	X	X
Episodic Clean Air Days	X	X	X	X	X
Go Green Choices (BEST)	X	X	X	X
Smart Program	X	X	X	X	X
Share-A-Ride-And-Save			X

Successful Mobility Management Plans Implemented by Well Known Companies

The Toolbox for Mobility Management Measures in Companies (www.mobilitymanagement.be/english/fame.htm) provides information on the following Commute Trip Reduction case studies.

· Improved rail accessibility of the Nokia plant (Germany). BASF introduced a comprehensive company transport plan (Germany).

· Waterschap Veluwe promotes bicycle, public transport and car-pool ... with success (especially for cycling) (The Netherlands).

· Wolfords promotion campaign increased cycling to work from 18% to 35% (Austria).

· Rijnstate Hospital increased public transport use by more then 20% (The Netherlands).

· The small company ECOVER supported its image as a producer of ecological products by implementing a system of financial support for cyclists, car-poolers and users of small cars (Belgium) .

· Only 30% of Ford employees drive to work alone thanks to a successful company bus network and the success of car-pooling (Belgium).

· Novartis (Switzerland) has an integrated cycling policy and 27% of journeys to work are by bike (Switzerland).

· Nestlé developed a complete strategy to stimulate car-pooling (France).

· The city of Ghent supported its mobility and cycling plans by introducing a commuter plan for its own civil servants (Belgium).

· Stepping Hill Hospital introduced a successful multi-modal green commuter plan (UK).

Freight Transport Management

Exel: How The Logistics Campus Can Reduce Unnecessary Trips and Enable the Efficient Flow of Goods to Market

Exel Worldwide is an international provider of logistics services, which has pioneered the ‘campus’ concept - a collection of multiple manufacturers focused on consumer products with similar distribution channels. The collection of companies in a single location achieves critical mass in several key areas. It allows for the sharing of resources, freight consolidation and flexibility. A campus begins with establishing individual account(s) within a narrow geographic area, and grows organically through new business acquisitions. There are clear practical benefits and economic efficiencies to the campus - having facilities and resources close to consumer goods customers; being able to share labour resources among clients and operations; improved transit time and reduced order cycle time; and reduced inventory velocity and lower freight costs through volume leverage. In addition, there are also important environmental efficiencies made possible through the campus model.

For instance, in the past, if Loblaws requested an order of two truckloads of soup and one truckload of cereal, three trucks would go out. Now, only two trucks go out because the cereal can sit on top of the soup. Trips are reduced, and $600 can be saved by providing one less truck. The trend towards supply chain integration allows the linking of inbound goods with outbound goods and materials. The result, made possible by more sophisticated software and breakthroughs in tracking media, allows logistics specialists to mix inbound materials with outbound products, so that trucks have a higher load factor. In the area of Canadian food sales, which amounted to $66.2 billion in 1998, totalling 662,000 truckloads (two thirds of which were in the GTA), there is potential through consolidation to reduce truck movements by up to 30 percent. It is important to note that there is additional room to improve capacity efficiency because an average “full truck load” is 40,000 lbs and 2,300 cube, while the actual capacity is 62,500 lbs and 3,400 cube.

(From Moving the Economy (www.city.toronto.on.ca/mte). A more detailed version of this case study is featured in Moving Goods in the New Economy: A Primer For Urban Decision Makers, a joint publication of Moving the Economy and the Canadian Urban Institute, made possible by support from Transport Canada and HRDC.)

Car Free Planning

Bogota Car Free Day (www.sinmicarroenbogota.com and in English www.alcaldiabogota.gov.co/sinmicarroenbogota/sinmicarroeng.htm)

The city of Bogota, Columbia first established an official Car Free Day on February 24th, 2000, organized by Mayor Enrique Peñalosa and The Commons, an international environmental organization. This was one of the first Car Free days organized in a developing country. The event was successful and highly popular, and as a result the organizers won the prestigious Stockholm Challenge Award (www.challenge.stockholm.se). Below is the mayor’s summary:

“It was a formidable achievement of Bogata’s citizens. A city of seven million inhabitants functioned well without cars. This exercise allowed us to catch a glimpse of what must be the transportation system of the city in ten or fifteen years: an excellent public transportation system and rush hours without cars.

Most important of all, was the sense of community that was present that day. We fortified our confidence in our capacity of making great collective efforts to build a more sustainable and happier city. Surveys revealed that 87% of the citizens were in agreement with the Car Free Day; 89% did not have any difficulty with the transportation system used; 92% said there was no absenteeism at their office, school or university; and 88% said they would like to have another Car Free Day.

Now we want to bring a referendum to our voters, proposing a goal for the year 2015: Between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., all cars must be off the streets. Therefore the city should move exclusively in public transport and bicycles.

Campus Transport Management

Stanford University (www.stanford.edu)

Stanford University in Palo Alto, California plans to expand capacity by 25%, adding more than 2.3 million square feet of research and teaching buildings, public facilities and housing without increasing peak period vehicle traffic. By 2000, 1.7 million square feet of new buildings had been developed while automobile commute trips were reduced by 500 per day. To accomplish this the campus transportation management plan includes:

· A 1.5 mile transit mall.

· Free transit system with timed transfers to regional rail.

· Bicycle network.

· Staff parking “cash-out”.

· Ridesharing program.

· Other transportation demand management elements.

By using this approach the campus was able to add $500 million in new projects with minimal planning or environmental review required for individual projects. The campus also avoided significant parking and roadway costs. Planners calculate that the University saves nearly $2,000 annually for every commuter shifted out of a car and into another mode. This also reduced regional agency traffic planning costs.

Public benefits included decreased congestion and improved safety on surrounding roadways and the regional traffic system, reduced air, noise and water pollution, and improved local transit options. All of Stanford’s transportation services are available to students, employees and the general public.

Unlimited Access Programs (www.sppsr.ucla.edu/res_ctrs/its/UA)

Unlimited Access (also called UPass) programs mean that colleges and university purchase unlimited use of local transit services for students and sometimes staff, at a significant discount compared with regular fares. A valid campus identification card becomes a transit pass. More than fifty colleges and universities throughout North America currently have such a program, providing fare-free transit service to more than 825,000 students and staff.

· University officials reported that Unlimited Access reduces parking demand, increases students’ access to the campus, helps to recruit and retain students, and reduces the cost of attending college.

· Transit agencies reported that Unlimited Access increases ridership, fills empty seats, improves transit service, and reduces the operating cost per rider.

· The universities’ average cost for Unlimited Access was $30 per student per year.

· Student transit ridership increased between 71 percent and 200 percent during the first year of Unlimited Access, and continued to increase 2-10% annually in subsequent years.

Below is a list of participating campuses:

Appalachian State University

Santa Barbara City College

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Auraria Higher Education Center

Texas Tech

University of New Hampshire-Durham

Boise State University

University of California, Berkeley

University of North Carolina-Wilmington

Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

University of California, Davis

University of Pittsburgh

Cal State Sacramento

University of California, Irvine

University of South Florida

Chicago Transit Authority Programs

University of California, Los Angeles

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Clemson University

University of California, San Diego

University of Texas at Austin

Colorado State University

University of California, Santa Barbara

University of Utah

Edmonds Community College

University of California, Santa Cruz

University of Washington

George Mason University

University of Colorado at Boulder

University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire

Marquette University

University of Florida

University of Wisconsin at Madison

Mary Washington College

University of Georgia at Athens

University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee

Ohio State University

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Virginia Polytechnic

University Rensselaer Polytechnic University

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Western Michigan University

San Jose State University

University of Montana

University of California, Los Angeles

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Clemson University

University of California, San Diego

University of Texas at Austin

Colorado State University

University of California, Santa Barbara

University of Utah

Edmonds Community College

University of California, Santa Cruz

University of Washington

George Mason University

University of Colorado at Boulder

University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire

Marquette University

University of Florida

University of Wisconsin at Madison

Mary Washington College

University of Georgia at Athens

University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee

Ohio State University

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Virginia Polytechnic

University Rensselaer Polytechnic University

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Western Michigan University

San Jose State University

University of Montana

Institutional Reforms

European Planning Innovations (FHWA, 2006)

A comprehensive study of European TDM programs found that European planners tend to use more comprehensive strategies to influence travelers before they get into their cars (promoting nonmotorized modes and alternative destinations of travel) and provide improved options for drivers who choose to use the road system (faster routes and more reliable travel times).

A variety of management systems are used to manage travel demand and traffic. Pretrip traveler information systems are clearly designed to encourage more efficient travel by suggesting routes and times of the day that are less congested and offer more reliable travel times. Pretrip information can also influence the mode selected (e.g., public transport or carpooling) or even the destination of travel (whether to work from home or shop closer to home). In addition, near-trip and even on-trip (en route) information can influence time, route, mode, and destination choice. For example, commuters can be provided with real-time information on travel times to their work location if they continue to drive or shift to a nearby park-and-ride service. Road pricing can clearly affect mode, time, and route choice, and even influence lane choice, as is the case with high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in the United States. Pricing can also include incentives for changing modes or time of travel.

In the center of the management systems is the transportation management center (TMC), which both manages facilities and provides information to travelers. Traditional transportation demand management (TDM), such as rideshare matching, promotion of alternative modes, and vanpool provision, typically works at the other end of the framework to influence mode and destination choice based on the need to travel, but it can also be an integral part of the information systems linked to the TMC. This comprehensive approach provides a new way of looking at the need for and management of transport and traffic demand.

These programs are designed not just to reduce traffic congestion, they are intended to create more livable, sustainable cities by creating and implementing integrated packages of transportation measures that combined improved alternatives to driving a car; real-time information on traffic conditions; options providing pretrip, near-trip, and on-trip route information; new partnerships to support these enhanced travel choices; and even pricing to reduce the number of cars entering the city centers or on the entire network during congestion periods. Planners are doing so by integrating demand management into both their long-range transportation plans and shorter range operating policies. They are carefully monitoring the performance of the system by looking not only at mobility but also at measures such as accessibility, air quality, and livability.

Regional Transportation Operations (www.ite.org/library/reg_trans_ops.htm)

Regional operating organizations (ROOs) are effectively addressing transportation problems in metropolitan areas throughout North America. They are:

· Bringing together transportation, public safety, and emergency management operators to provide more effective management of incidents, disasters, and emergency evacuations.

· Establishing new sources of funding for transportation and regional control of major roadway and transit assets.

· Reducing construction and incident-related delays through multi-agency coordination and real-time information dissemination.

· Enabling agencies to share transportation data and software resources via an integrated information backbone.

· Enabling public agencies and private partners to combine resources to provide quality public and personalized transportation information services.

· Improving transit services by implementing a common smartcard fare collection system across transit operators.

ROOs are partnerships among transportation and public safety agencies to provide coordinated transportation operations on a regional basis. These cooperative efforts take different forms depending on the transportation needs, available resources, and existing policies, procedures, and institutional relationships of partners within the region.

However, these partnerships face significant challenges because they represent new ways of providing transportation services and often depart from traditional agency roles, responsibilities, and relationships.

Pricing Reforms

London Congestion Pricing (www.vtpi.org/london.pdf)

Since 17 February 2003 the city of London has charged a £5 daily fee for driving private vehicles in an eight square mile central area during weekdays as a way to reduce traffic congestion and raise revenues for transport improvements. An automated system checks vehicles entering the charging zone against a database of motorists who have paid the fee. Despite considerable controversy the program was implemented without major problems, and has substantially reduced traffic congestion, improved bus and taxi service, and is generating revenues. Vehicle traffic speeds have increased, bus transit service has improved, while accidents and air pollution have declined in the city center. Public acceptance has grown and there is now support to expand the program to other parts of London. In 2004 Mayor Livingstone was reelected, largely due to the success of the congestion pricing program. This is the first congestion pricing program in a major European city, and its success suggests that congestion pricing may become more politically feasible elsewhere.

Variable Pricing Travel Impacts

In February 2001 the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey changed from fixed to variable priced tolls (lower tolls during off-peak periods). In June 2001 they released a first-cut analysis of how its new electronic variably priced toll schedule has affected traffic and transit patterns at the agency’s Hudson River crossings and PATH. Although preliminary, the data suggests that the Port Authority’s substantial discounts (see table) for E-ZPass users (electronic toll collection), off-peak drivers and over-night truck drivers, and car-pools have already led thousands of travelers to make decisions that reduce traffic congestion.

Port Authority Toll Facilities

	Cash	E-Z Peak	E-Z Off-Peak	E-Z Overnight
Cars	$6	$5	$4	N/A
Carpools	N/A	$1	$1	N/A
Trucks (Per Axle)	$6	$6	$5	$3.50

Although the off-peak price differences are modest ($1 per trip, a 16-20% discount), the effects have been significant. Comparing one typical day in May 2001 - less than 2 months after the variable pricing program went into effect - with a typical day in May 2000, the Port Authority analysis found that 7% fewer drivers used the agency’s bridges and tunnels during the morning peak hour period and that 4% fewer were traveling the crossings during the afternoon peak hours. These declines amount to 5,150 fewer vehicles in the morning’s most congested hours and 2,500 fewer during the early evening rush.

Stockholm Congestion Pricing

Starting in 3 January 2006 the city of Stockholm, Sweden, began charging vehicles entering the inner city area on weekdays between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. 10 to 20 kronor (US$1.27 to US$2.54) per trip, with a maximum daily charge of 60 kronor (US$8.00). After operating for one month this has reduced traffic volumes by 25%, removing 100,000 vehicles from the roads during peak business hours and increasing public transit ridership by 40,000 users per day. About 350,000 vehicles per day pay the fee, generating between 3,500,000 and 21,000,000 kronor (US $500,000 to $2.7 million) in daily revenue, not counting revenue from the 630 kronor (US $77) fee charged to those who forget to pay the tax.

Retail sales in central Stockholm shops increased in January compared with the same month in 2005, including significant increases in grocery sales in central neighborhoods, which probably reflects increased purchases by area residents who are more likely to shop locally rather than drive to shop.

Swiss Heavy Vehicle Fee (www.zoll.admin.ch)

Switzerland introduced a Heavy Vehicle Fee (HVF) in January 2001, as a result of a successful public referendum passed in 1998. The HVF charges heavy trucks (over 3.5 tonnes) based on their gross weight, kilometres driven and emissions. The system was carefully planned and has been widely accepted by the freight industry. Billing for most trucks is based on data collected by an electronic on-board data collection unit that records vehicle mileage and route. At the end of each month the data are transmitted to the Swiss Customs Agency either by mail or over the Internet. This information is used to generate a bill that is sent to the owner.

Total truck volumes actually increased on many cross-Alpine routes when the HVF was implemented because maximum vehicle weights were increased from 28 tonnes to 34-tonnes at the same time. Environmental groups are lobbying to increase HVF rates and improve rail service, as demand management strategies to reduce total truck traffic.

Transit Improvements

For numerous examples of successful transit improvements see the Center for Transportation Excellence (www.cfte.org); “Light Rail Transit Success Stories” (www.lightrailnow.org),TRB (2001) and TranSystem (2005).

Innovative Strategies To Increase Ridership Website (http://ftawebprod.fta.dot.gov/bpir)

The U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed an interactive website/database that includes dozens of examples of successful innovative programs that have increased ridership. These include improvements in service, fare collection, marketing, vehicles, coordination with other organizations, intermodal activities, operator training, and security. Detailed descriptions are provided for each program, including the type of program, size of service area, and impact on ridership.

Secrets of Success for Public Transport (www.cfit.gov.uk)

Sustainable Mobility News, December 6, 2001

Vibrant public transport systems can be achieved alongside high car ownership, according to a pan-European study which found wide variations in practice and performance across Europe. The research found beacons of public transport success in Munich, Barcelona, Stuttgart, Graz (in Austria) and Achterhoek in the Netherlands. And it says the use of buses, trains and cycles has grown over the past two decades in most European countries – even as car ownership has accelerated.

The work was carried out for the UK Commission for Integrated Transport, an independent body set up by the government in 1998 to help rescue Britain’s failing transport network. It identified three secrets of success in the cities studied, but emphasised that integration is the key:

First, public transport strategies must be co-ordinated across the different modes, rather than allowing buses, trams and trains to compete with each other. The report cites Munich, where public transport being used for 25% of all trips across the whole metropolitan area, compared with 12% in Glasgow.

Second, finance and policy-making needs to be integrated, preferably at a regional level, bringing together land use, transport planning and public finance.

Finally, streets in urban areas need to be reclaimed from the dominance of the car, providing space for all uses rather than concentrating on auto mobility.

The research found wide variations in transport indicators across the continent. Congestion was worst in Britain, where almost a quarter of the most popular roads experience delays of at least an hour. There are no such traffic jams in Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg or Finland, while only 8% of roads in Germany suffer such congestion, and only 5% in France.

Car ownership is not the most critical factor in congestion. Luxembourg, Italy and Germany have the highest car ownership rates in the European Union. But British people make more use of cars than in any other European country, so that only Spain has more intensively used roads (measured as vehicle kilometres per kilometre of road).

Investment in public transport is crucial to building a quality network, and that also varies widely. Expressed as a percentage of GDP, Luxembourg, Italy and Portugal have been the highest spenders, while Greece, Finland and Denmark have been laggards. Subsidies also vary widely. In Austria almost two-thirds of bus company income comes from public subsidies. At the other end of the scale, in the UK, the subsidy is only a third.

Transit Oriented Development

Orenco Station: A Compact Community With Diverse Housing Options (Benfield, Terris and Vorsanger, 2001; www.nrdc.org/cities/smartgrowth/solve/orenco.asp)

Although Oregon is well known for its progressive growth management policies, greater Portland is not immune to the problems that plague new, poorly planned suburbs elsewhere in the country, such as main arteries with soulless strip-mall development, isolated residential areas, and automobile dependence. People who live at the edges of Portland, like those who live in most new suburbs elsewhere, must get in their cars to go to work, to drop off clothes at the dry cleaner, or to eat out. Those without access to a car or who cannot afford a single-family home are essentially excluded. Single people and empty-nesters who seek a different kind of lifestyle also find few choices that meet their needs.

On the other hand, Portland is doing something about it. While several metropolitan areas have recently been building new light-rail lines and expanding existing ones beyond their core cities, Portland has been the first to combine its extensive light-rail expansion into the suburbs with deliberate transit-oriented development around the stations. This coordination of transportation and land-use planning is a very promising trend. Not only are previously isolated communities being connected to downtown and to each other by light-rail, but the stations also serve as a focal point for creating walkable, vibrant, mixed-use pockets in suburbia. Orenco Station, in the Portland suburb of Hillsboro, is an outstanding example of such a development.

A Livable Neighborhood
Orenco Station is a new, 190-acre community, substantially but not yet fully built as of this writing. It is green, quiet, and safe, just like any desirable suburb. However, it is anything but a typical suburban development. First of all, it has a heart: a community shopping and gathering place. Within a five-minute walk, every Orenco Station resident can reach the town center to grab a coffee at Starbucks, shop for specialty wines, get a new prescription and eyeglasses, or enjoy delicious restaurant fare. Another notable feature of Orenco Station is the diversity of housing choices, including single-family homes, townhouses, loft apartments, and condominiums. One choice that merits special mention is the development's live/work units, which transform the notion of the morning commute from a grueling drive to a walk down a few stairs to the first floor of one's own residence.

Smart-Growth Features

Efficient use of land
Varied housing options, live/workunits
Light-rail station adjacent to development
Close to employment opportunities
Community parks and open space
Neighborhood shops and services

For those who work outside of the neighborhood, Orenco Station offers multiple commuting choices. Most prominently, the community is anchored by a light-rail stop, linking residents to the regional transit system. Free light-rail passes are provided to all newcomers for their first year, encouraging them to try transit. In fact, according to a 1999 neighborhood survey, more than one-fifth of households had at least one member taking light-rail regularly, and over one-half of residents were using it more often than they had thought they would. In addition, many residents choose to walk or bicycle to their nearby offices. And many of those who drive have only a short commute, since Orenco Station is situated within Portland's high-tech corridor and its many workplaces.

Turning Challenge into Opportunity
The parcel where Orenco Station stands today Metro was originally slated for commercial and industrial development. In the early 1980s, Hillsboro began assembling land to lure high-tech Spaces companies to the area. One of the private development companies helping Hillsboro was Pacific Realty (PacTrust), which had acquired a number of the assembled parcels, including the future Orenco site.

Then, in the early 1990s, Portland's Westside light-rail line was approved, with a stop planned adjacent to the property. In order to receive funding for the light-rail, Hillsboro was required to rezone the area around the stop from the original commercial-only use to accommodate a compact, mixed-use development.

PacTrust faced a substantial challenge. It had not planned to build a mixed-use community on the parcel and, as a commercial development company, it had no expertise in such projects. Should it sue to keep the property zoned for commercial use? Should it get rid of the parcel?

Instead of fighting or giving up, PacTrust chose to embrace the challenge. Looking at its new situation with optimism, the company could sense opportunity. Also, the company's chief executive officer was himself a local resident, and he saw the value to the community of an innovative new development. The company initiated a series of meetings with Hillsboro planners, the Portland regional planning authority (Metro), and the regional public transit agency (Tri-Met) to work out planning guidelines. Once it was clear that the new development would have a strong residential component, PacTrust also joined with Costa Pacific Homes, an award-winning residential builder with local expertise.

Public-Private Partnership -- Each Doing What It Does Best
As is often the case with smart-growth developments, a key to Orenco Station's success has been the public entities' willingness to give private developers flexibility in devising their own ways to meet public needs. "The public agencies did what they do best -- setting worthy policy goals. We did what we, as a private company, do best -- finding out what would sell in the market and delivering it in an innovate and cost effective way," says Mike Mehaffy, project manager for PacTrust. "We actually became more ambitious than we would have been under more prescriptive guidelines, because we were in control of our risk management." For example, PacTrust experimented with narrow streets and houses sitting close to the sidewalks to encourage a walking environment. In spite of conventional wisdom among developers (also held by many public sector planners) that an automobile-oriented clientele prefers wide streets and that front yards are essential, the alternative features did well in the market.

In fact, market research pushed the developers not toward a more traditional suburban design, but rather toward bolder innovations. Early in the process, a survey of 1,500 local employees revealed important information about the housing interests and needs of potential residents. A majority of respondents who indicated an interest in living in a community like the still-evolving Orenco Station placed a high priority on walkable streets, neighborhood shopping and meeting places, commuting options, and a sense of community. Potential residents also expressed nostalgia for the "great old neighborhoods" of past eras. Many of the respondents were single, couples with no or few children, or empty nesters, all market segments poorly served by sprawling subdivisions.

The planners found innovative solutions to provide these amenities. For example, communal green spaces provide beautiful vistas and encourage encounters between neighbors. The compact design helps put more people within walking distance of the light-rail stop and the commercial portion of the development. Putting garages behind houses (they are accessible from alleys), another innovative design idea, not only strengthens the pedestrian environment, but also enhances the "great old neighborhood" feel of the community. Instead of driveways and garage doors, passersby are greeted with porches and varied design elements of English cottages and Craftsman bungalows.

Orenco Station is proof that traditional sprawling suburban development is not the only choice that sells well in the market. Not only have sales been high, but also the units command as much as a 25% premium over other suburban homes in the area, even though the latter have larger square footage and yards. This is especially impressive given that the original Orenco Station parcel had no natural amenities such as water, scenic views, or even large trees. Today, the large communal green space and the parks throughout the development provide attractive substitutes for the missing natural amenities.

Costa Pacific was so encouraged by the market success of Orenco Station that it has purchased a large parcel on the other side of the light-rail stop and is planning to develop it, too, according to smart-growth principles. Eventually, the catalyst of the original development -- the transit stop -- will be at the heart of an even larger extended community.

New Urbanist Residents 'Walk the Walk’ (www.lclark.edu/~podobnik/orenco02.pdf)

Portland's Orenco Station shows evidence of high suburban transit use, other "smart growth" goals; gets high marks from residents for livability.

HILLSBORO, OR - Will Americans be happy in walkable, transit-oriented communities as an alternative to suburban sprawl? A new study by Dr. Bruce Podobnik, a sociology professor at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Ore., suggests the answer is yes.

Podobnik studied residents of Orenco Station, a New Urbanist community on Portland's Westside MAX light rail line. Residents were asked various questions about life in the community, some five years after its founding. Ninety-four percent of residents said that they find the community’s New Urbanist design superior to typical suburban communities. Residents were asked to name up to three things they like and dislike about the community. Residents said they liked the “overall design’ (13%), greenspaces and parks (12%), Town Center (10%), garages on alleys (9%), pedestrian-friendly streets (6%), and access to light rail (5%). Features residents dislike included “none” (20%), “dog problems” (11%), and “traffic problems outside Orenco” (8%). Twenty-two percent of residents reported using light rail or the bus to commute to work or school - far higher than the 5% average for the region. Sixty-nine percent of residents reported that they use public transit more often than they did in their previous community.

G.B. Arrington, a public transit expert with Parsons Brinckerhoff, is quick to point out that these numbers are “totally off the charts for conventional suburban development.” Arrington notes that “the fact that many residents can walk or take very short trips is very significant.”

Podobnik believes the Town Center is an important part of the community's success. He notes that 70% of residents say they shop in the Town Center's grocery store or other businesses at least once a week. Orenco Station's tree-lined streets and public spaces also seem to facilitate social interaction among neighbors. Seventy-eight percent of residents state that there is a higher sense of community than in their previous neighborhood, and 40% reported participating in neighborhood activities.

“Overall,” concludes Podobnik, “this study clearly demonstrates that New Urbanist designs can play an important role in improving the quality of life and sustainability of neighborhoods in Portland and elsewhere.” As a demonstration of the growing success of New Urbanism, says Podobnik, Orenco Station “stands as a promising beacon for advocates of dense rather than sprawling urban landscapes.”

Evans and Pratt (2007) summarize extensive research concerning Transit Oriented Development (TOD) on travel. They found:

· In Portland, Oregon, as of 1995, the average central area TOD transit share for non-work travel was roughly four times that for outlying TODs, which in turn had over one-and-two-thirds times the corresponding transit share of mostly-suburban, non-TOD land development.

· In Washington DC, work-commute transit mode shares decline from 75% at downtown office buildings right at Metrorail stations to just over 10% on average at office buildings within roughly 1/2-mile of a station but located in the suburbs outside of the Capital Beltway. Transit mode shares along the Washington Metro system were found to decrease by 7 percentage points for every 1,000 feet of distance from a station in the case of housing and by 12 percentage points in the case of office worker commute trips.

· A 2003 California TOD travel characteristics study found TOD office workers within 1/2 mile of rail transit stations to have transit commute shares averaging 19% as compared to 5% regionwide. For residents, the statewide average transit share for TODs within 1/2 mile of the station was 27% compared to 7% for residences between 1/2 mile and 3 miles of the station.

· TOD residents are generally associated with lower automobile ownership rates. For example, auto ownership in three New Jersey “Transit Village Areas,” for example, averaged 1.8 vehicles per household compared to 2.1 outside the transit villages.

Ridesharing Programs

Puget Sound Rideshare Marketing (www.vtpi.org/VanpoolMAPReport.pdf)

The Puget Sound region has some of the most successful vanpool programs in North America. Vanpooling represents about 2% of total commute trips and 7% of commute trips over 20 miles in length. Several factors contribute to this success: a Commute Trip Reduction law requires large employers in the region to help employees use alternative modes, vanpooling services are provided by transit agencies which insures quality and integrated services; and HOV Priority provides travel time savings for vanpools on some routes. The Puget Sound Regional Vanpool Market Study identifies ways to further increase vanpool ridership by providing improved and expanded services.

Fred Meyer Vanpools: One-Stop Commuting

When the I-5 bridge over the Columbia River closed for repair in 1997, the Fred Meyers corporation established a vanpool program to help their employees get to work in Portland. The company leases 15-person vans, and pays all expenses (fuel, parking, etc.). Employees organize their own routes, schedules and drivers. There are currently 11 vanpools each with 10 riders. The vans pick up riders at a central meeting spot, usually a Park & Ride. Drivers may use the vans for personal errands after work, and vans are available during working hours for business meetings. The program coordinator reports “Vanpoolers have told me they love the program! It relieves their stress. They learn more about the company by riding with people in their departments. They relax before they get home. It’s reduced their [vehicle] insurance rates and cut their commute time in half.”

Non-Motorized Transportation Improvements

Seattle Metro (http://transit.metrokc.gov/bike/bikeride.html)

Seattle Metro transit agency’s entire bus fleet was equipped with bicycle racks in 1994. Bikes can be transported on board any bus on a first come, first served basis. No additional fare is required. Bicycles may be loaded or unload at any bus zone at any time, except, in the central business district where some restrictions apply. More than 40,000 cyclists use these racks each month.

Copenhagen Free Bike Program (www.cios.com)

In 1995, the Free City-Bike Program was implemented by the City of Copenhagen. One thousand specially designed free City-Bikes were stationed at 120 stands around the City at train and subway stations, parking lots and large housing blocks. The bikes were also stationed around common final destinations, such as office buildings, shopping districts, parks and other tourist attractions. For a deposit of only 20 Dkr. (US$3), anyone can take a bike and cycle wherever they want, within downtown (restricted area). When the bike is returned to any bike stand within the area, the user gets their deposit back. With the cooperation of sponsors, the project went so well that 500 more bikes were added when Copenhagen was named the “European Culture City” in 1996. The number of bikes increased by 300 in 1997 and 300 in 1998 for a total of more than 2,000 bikes. 38% of users are tourists.

Special Transport Services

Baseball Fan Trip Management (www.sfmuni.com/routes/pacbsvc.htm)

Through a massive advertising campaign, the San Francisco Giants convinced half their fans to forsake cars when traveling to the new ballpark. This for a team that moved to Candlestick Park in 1960 for the parking spaces.

How did they do it? Public relations, says Giants ballpark transit director and former Allan Jacobs student Alfonso Felder. The Giants embarked on a mission to drill the pro-transit message into the soul of every single fan.

“Really, no matter how you interacted with the Giants, whether it was with our Web site, our broadcasts, whatever, it would have been hard not to have been touched by the message, which was that there were a number of ways to get to Pacific Bell Park and that you were encouraged to take transit.”

Acadia National Park Transit System (www.nps.gov/acad)

In 1999 the free Island Explorer bus service was established with seventeen vehicles on seven routes connecting hotels, inns, campgrounds and nearby village centers with Acadia National Park in Maine. The service is funded by the National Park Service, state transportation funds, local businesses and conservation organizations. It carried 142,000 passengers during its 76-day first season, approximately double the original ridership goal. The service uses advanced information systems, including automatic vehicle location, real time bus arrival information at some stops, automatic passenger counting, and two-way voice communication.

Smart Growth

Portland’s Positive Experiences In Curbing Sprawl (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us)

Elaine Wilkerson

Director, Portland Metro Growth Management Services Department

A Thriving Compact Region. The Portland metropolitan area is thriving with 1.3 million people in a compact region, about 35 miles across at its widest point. The region has grown by more than 24% over the last 20 years but only by 13% in land area. Employment in the Portland downtown has nearly doubled from 63,000 (1970) to 108,000 (1995). In addition, the average lot size for residential development has reduced by 50% over the last 20 years. This is due to diversification of the housing market with land-use initiatives to encourage a compact community. The region has adopted a 2040 Growth Concept that promotes minimal expansion of the existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), increased densities in centres and along transit corridors, multi-modal accessibility, and protection of neighbourhoods, parks and green spaces.

How It Happened. There are five historical events that help frame the discussion about the Portland region’s experience in curbing sprawl:

· 25 years ago, the State of Oregon enacted legislation requiring universal land use planning and UGBs, as well as state goals such as public involvement, creating compact communities using UGBs, and preserving farmland, forest land and water resources

· 25 years ago the City of Portland first adopted its Downtown Plan. This provided for pedestrian and transit amenities, open spaces, public art, housing and active streets. The plan was instrumental in ensuring that the downtown remained vibrant and continued to redevelop and intensify with both jobs and housing

· Metro adopted the first regional UGB 20 years ago. Since then, there has been continued community leadership in promoting the downtown and multi-modal access to the downtown (including parking caps, a bus mall and light rail).

· The state also adopted a Transportation Planning Rule to increase accessibility, require pedestrian and bike facilities, and require reductions in vehicle miles travelled and parking spaces per capita

· In 1992 the Metro region approved a Metro charter with a primary priority being the coordination of transportation and land use planning for the region. A key responsibility for Metro is the administration of the UGB.

Portland Metro works because of its collaborative planning approach, supportive State laws and engaged people who care about the environment and the community.

Figure 1 Portland Vehicle Travel Trends (www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=26796)