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 studies 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.

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

Contents

What Constitutes Success?

Examples

Community Transportation Management Programs

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

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