Trip Reduction Tables
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 6 September 2019
This chapter contains tables indicating the reduction in commute trips that can be expected from various combinations of Commuter Financial Incentives, such as increased parking and road charges, and financial benefits to those who use alternative modes. The Transport Elasticities chapter provides additional information on the travel impacts of various price changes.
The tables below indicate the reduction in commute trips that can be expected from various combinations of parking charges and financial benefits for alternative modes, based on a commonly used reference document published by Institute of Transportation Engineers and the U.S. Department of Transportation (Comsis, 1993, Table 3.3-8), updated to reflect 30% inflation between 1993 and 2000.
These tables take into account variations in worksite settings, including its location (suburban, activity center, central business district), and whether carpooling or transit are favored as alternative modes. For example, Table 3 indicates that a $1.30 per day rideshare and transit subsidy provided to employees at a transit-oriented activity center where parking costs $2.60 per day is likely to result in a 43.6% reduction in commute trips, while in a rideshare-oriented Central Business District, a $2.60 per day rideshare and transit subsidy matched with a $4.00 per day parking fee would only cause a 33.5% trip reduction compared with free parking and no subsidy for alternative modes.
These tables use three geographic categories:
· Rideshare Oriented refers to locations where ridesharing (carpools and vanpools) provides more than half of all commute travel by alternative modes.
· Mode Neutral refers to locations where ridesharing and transit represent about the same portion of alternative commute travel.
· Transit Oriented refers to locations where transit provides more than half of all commute travel by alternative modes.
The table below indicates the typical mode split for these locations without Commuter Financial Incentives (i.e., free parking and no subsidies for transit or ridesharing). Two indicators are used to measure the effectiveness of trip reduction efforts:
· Average Vehicle Occupancy is calculated by dividing the number of persons traveling in private vehicles (but not transit) by the number of private vehicle trips.
· Average Vehicle Ridership is calculated by dividing the number of persons traveling by all person trips (including transit riders) by the number of private vehicle trips.
Table 1 Typical Mode Split by Location (Comsis, 1993, p. 3-44)
|
|
Low Density Suburb |
Activity Center |
Regional CBD/Corridor |
|
Single Occupant Vehicle |
85% |
66% |
41% |
|
Transit |
7% |
16% |
30% |
|
Rideshare |
8% |
18% |
29% |
|
Average Vehicle Occupancy |
1.05 |
1.20 |
1.35 |
|
Average Vehicle Ridership |
1.13 |
1.35 |
1.90 |
CBD = Central Business District
The tables below show the percentage reduction in automobile trips that Commuter Financial Incentives typically cause under various geographic conditions.
Table 2 Rideshare/Transit Subsidy = $0
|
Worksite Setting |
Daily Parking Charge (2000 U.S) |
||||
|
|
$0 |
$1.30 |
$2.60 |
$4.00 |
$5.20 |
|
Low density suburb, rideshare oriented |
0.0 |
5.9 |
13.1 |
21.0 |
28.6 |
|
Low density suburb, mode neutral |
0.0 |
6.5 |
15.1 |
25.3 |
36.1 |
|
Low density suburb, transit oriented |
0.0 |
6.7 |
15.7 |
26.7 |
38.8 |
|
Activity center, rideshare oriented |
0.0 |
10.8 |
21.4 |
30.7 |
37.9 |
|
Activity center, mode neutral |
0.0 |
12.3 |
25.1 |
37.0 |
46.8 |
|
Activity center, transit oriented |
0.0 |
14.3 |
30.5 |
46.8 |
61.4 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, rideshare oriented |
0.0 |
12.4 |
21.7 |
28.2 |
32.5 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, mode neutral |
0.0 |
17.5 |
31.8 |
42.6 |
50.0 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, transit oriented |
0.0 |
22.5 |
42.6 |
58.7 |
70.6 |
Values in the table indicate the percentage reduction in commute trips compared with no fees or subsidies.
Table 3 Rideshare/Transit Subsidy = $1.30
|
Worksite Setting |
Daily Parking Charge (2000 U.S) |
||||
|
|
$0 |
$1.30 |
$2.60 |
$4.00 |
$5.20 |
|
Low density suburb, rideshare oriented |
5.8 |
13.0 |
20.9 |
28.5 |
35.0 |
|
Low density suburb, mode neutral |
5.6 |
13.9 |
23.8 |
34.4 |
44.5 |
|
Low density suburb, transit oriented |
5.5 |
14.1 |
24.8 |
36.6 |
48.3 |
|
Activity center, rideshare oriented |
10.2 |
20.8 |
30.0 |
37.2 |
42.4 |
|
Activity center, mode neutral |
10.5 |
23.1 |
34.9 |
44.8 |
52.2 |
|
Activity center, transit oriented |
11.3 |
27.2 |
43.6 |
58.6 |
70.9 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, rideshare oriented |
11.3 |
20.6 |
27.2 |
31.6 |
34.4 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, mode neutral |
14.5 |
29.1 |
40.0 |
47.7 |
52.8 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, transit oriented |
18.1 |
38.8 |
55.6 |
68.2 |
76.9 |
Values in the table indicate the percentage reduction in commute trips compared with no fees or subsidies.
Table 4 Rideshare/Transit Subsidy = $2.60
|
Worksite Setting |
Daily Parking Charge (2000 U.S) |
||||
|
|
$0 |
$1.30 |
$2.60 |
$4.00 |
$5.20 |
|
Low density suburb, rideshare oriented |
13.0 |
20.8 |
28.4 |
34.9 |
40.0 |
|
Low density suburb, mode neutral |
12.7 |
22.4 |
32.8 |
42.9 |
51.5 |
|
Low density suburb, transit oriented |
12.6 |
22.9 |
34.5 |
46.1 |
56.5 |
|
Activity center, rideshare oriented |
20.1 |
29.3 |
36.6 |
41.8 |
45.5 |
|
Activity center, mode neutral |
21.2 |
33.0 |
42.9 |
50.4 |
55.8 |
|
Activity center, transit oriented |
24.0 |
40.5 |
55.8 |
68.6 |
78.3 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, rideshare oriented |
19.6 |
26.2 |
30.6 |
33.5 |
35.3 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, mode neutral |
26.3 |
37.5 |
45.4 |
50.7 |
54.1 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, transit oriented |
34.8 |
52.3 |
65.6 |
74.9 |
81.1 |
Values in the table indicate the percentage reduction in commute trips compared with no fees or subsidies.
Table 5 Rideshare/Transit Subsidy = $4.00
|
Worksite Setting |
Daily Parking Charge (2000 U.S) |
||||
|
|
$0 |
$1.30 |
$2.60 |
$4.00 |
$5.20 |
|
Low density suburb, rideshare oriented |
20.7 |
28.3 |
34.8 |
39.9 |
43.5 |
|
Low density suburb, mode neutral |
21.0 |
31.3 |
41.3 |
49.9 |
56.6 |
|
Low density suburb, transit oriented |
21.1 |
32.5 |
44.0 |
44.0 |
62.8 |
|
Activity center, rideshare oriented |
28.7 |
36.0 |
41.2 |
41.2 |
47.2 |
|
Activity center, mode neutral |
31.1 |
41.0 |
48.7 |
48.7 |
57.7 |
|
Activity center, transit oriented |
37.3 |
52.9 |
66.3 |
66.3 |
83.8 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, rideshare oriented |
25.3 |
29.8 |
32.8 |
32.8 |
35.6 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, mode neutral |
35.0 |
43.1 |
48.5 |
48.5 |
54.3 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, transit oriented |
48.9 |
62.9 |
72.8 |
72.8 |
83.8 |
Values in the table indicate the percentage reduction in commute trips compared with no fees or subsidies.
Table 6 Rideshare/Transit Subsidy = $5.20
|
Worksite Setting |
Daily Parking Charge (2000 U.S) |
||||
|
|
$0 |
$1.30 |
$2.60 |
$4.00 |
$5.20 |
|
Low density suburb, rideshare oriented |
28.2 |
34.7 |
39.8 |
43.4 |
45.8 |
|
Low density suburb, mode neutral |
29.9 |
39.8 |
48.4 |
55.2 |
60.0 |
|
Low density suburb, transit oriented |
30.5 |
42.0 |
52.5 |
61.0 |
67.4 |
|
Activity center, rideshare oriented |
35.4 |
40.7 |
44.3 |
46.6 |
48.1 |
|
Activity center, mode neutral |
39.3 |
47.0 |
52.5 |
56.2 |
58.6 |
|
Activity center, transit oriented |
50.0 |
63.8 |
74.6 |
82.4 |
87.7 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, rideshare oriented |
29.0 |
31.8 |
33.7 |
34.8 |
35.5 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, mode neutral |
40.9 |
46.4 |
50.0 |
52.3 |
53.7 |
|
Regional CBD/Corridor, transit oriented |
60.0 |
70.5 |
77.7 |
82.3 |
85.3 |
Values in the table indicate the percentage reduction in commute trips compared with no fees or subsidies.
Cambridge Systematics (2000), A Sampling of Emissions Analysis Techniques for Transportation Control Measures, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-EP-01-017
(www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqeat/index.htm).
Commuter Choice Business Calculator (www.commuterchoice.com/employers/businesscalculator.htm) indicates how much business can save by using Commuter Choice tax benefits.
Comsis Corporation (1993), Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/2641/dot_2641_DS1.pdf.
CUTR (1998), AVR Employer Trip Reduction Software, Center for Urban Transportation Research (www.cutr.eng.usf.edu/tdm/download.htm). This software predicts the change in average vehicle ridership that results from various Commute Trip Reduction measures.
FHWA (2003), Interactive Guidance Tool: Commuter Choice Decision Support System (CCDSS), Federal Highway Administration (www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/PrimerDSS/index.htm).
Sara Hendricks and Ajay Joshi (2004), Commuter Choice Program Case Study Development and Analysis, Center for Urban Transportation Research (www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/527-06.pdf).
Erik Herzog, et al (2006), Do Employee Commuter Benefits Reduce Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Consumption? Results of the Fall 2004 Best Workplaces for Commuters Survey, Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting (www.trb.org); available at www.mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/trb_cd/Files/06-2363.pdf.
ICF Consulting and CUTR (2005), Analyzing the Effectiveness of Commuter Benefits Programs, TCTP Report 107, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); available at http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_107.pdf.
Todd Litman (2005), Transportation Elasticities: How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behavior, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); available at www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf.
Patrick McDonough (2003), Employer-Based Transit Pass Program Tool: Decision Support Tool for Employer-Based Transit Pass Programs, ITS Decision, Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways, University of California Berkeley (www.path.berkeley.edu/itsdecisiontools/tdmtool/itslook.asp). Provides information on the effectiveness of various employee transit pass programs, selected based on geographic and program features.
USEPA (2002), Business Benefits Calculator (BBC), Commuter Choice Program (www.commuterchoice.gov), USEPA.
USEPA (2005), Commuter Model, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/oms/stateresources/policy/pag_transp.htm).
Valley Metro (2004), Alternative Mode Cost Savings Calculator, Valley Metro (www.valleymetro.org/calculator/rideshare2/Calc_Entry.asp). Calculates savings to commuters when they shift from driving to walking, cycling, ridesharing, transit and telework, based on various input factors.
Philip Winters and Daniel Rudge (1995), Commute Alternatives Educational Outreach, National Urban Transit Institute, Center for Urban Transportation Research (www.cutr.eng.usf.edu).
This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
Phone 250-360-1560
#41