TDM Planning and Implementation

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

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

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

Updated 19 July 2017

---

This chapter discusses various issues to consider when planning and implementing Transportation Demand Management programs. It describes basic planning principles and best practices. For more information see “Planning Principles and Practices” at www.vtpi.org/planning.pdf.

Wit and Humor

“The one thing we need to do to solve our transportation problems is to stop thinking that there is one thing we can do to solve our transportation problems.”

-Robert Liberty, Executive Director, 1000 Friends of Oregon.

Contents

Introduction.. 1

Levels of Analysis and Activity. 5

Levels, Scales and Perspectives. 6

Goals, Objectives, Criteria and Performance Indicators. 7

Geography (Transportation and Land Use Interactions) 12

Generic Planning Process. 12

Public Involvement 14

Selecting and Evaluating TDM Strategies. 15

TDM Planning Tasks. 17

Best Practices. 18

Related Chapters. 20

References And Resources For More Information.. 21

Introduction

Planning is the process of deciding what to do and how to do it. Effective planning allows people’s needs, preferences and values to be reflected in decisions. Planning occurs at many different levels, from day-to-day decisions make by individuals and families, to major decisions made by governments and businesses that have comprehensive, long-term impacts on society.

Better planning can support Transportation Demand Management in various ways. It provides a foundation for more integrated services, fares and ticketing, user information, infrastructure provision and management, institutions (transport and public transit agencies), transport and land use planning, and other public policies such as road, parking and fuel pricing (Preston 2012).

A basic principle of good planning is that individual, short-term decisions are coordinated in order to support strategic, long-term objectives. Comprehensive planning provides this coordination, allowing transportation, land use, economic development and social planning decisions to be coordinated.

Planning is a social activity – that is, it involves people, and the results are affected by who is involved and how they participate in the process. Good planning does more than simply identify the easiest solution to a particular problem. It can be an opportunity for learning, development and community building. For example, a planning process intended to address local traffic problem should identify neighborhood concerns, develop communication and trust between residents and officials, and create organizational networks for ongoing problem solving. This creates a framework for broad community development, and a way to identify and prevent potential problems. A constrained traffic planning process is likely to result in a few roadway projects that address the most acute problems, but does little to solve other residents’ concerns. A comprehensive community transportation planning process may result in a strategic program of pedestrian and cycling facility improvements, roadway projects, traffic safety programs, transit and community transportation services, and supportive land use policies, which help address traffic problems while also supporting a variety of other community development objectives.

Planning and management are similar activities: planning tends to involve a single decision while management tends to involve an ongoing decision-making process, but they often overlap.

Good planning coordinates short-term decisions to support long-term goals. In other words, good planning selects solutions to one problem that also help solve, or at least avoid exacerbating, other problems. For example, there may be many ways to reduce traffic congestion in a community. Some of these solutions may also help reduce other problems such as parking congestion, pollution and inadequate mobility for non-drivers, while other solutions may exacerbate these problems. Good planning identifies and accounts for these tradeoffs.

Most people don’t think too much about how their community came to be the way it is, how roadways are designed or why buildings are located where they are, but they are very aware of how will their community accommodates various forms of transportation, and will respond by choosing the mode that is most convenient. Community design can have significant impacts on individual’s travel options and behavior. The methods used to Model and Evaluate transportation activities and options can have a significant impact on transportation and land use planning decisions.

A particular planning decision can have a wide range of impacts, some of which are indirect or of concern to a particular group, and so may be overlooked or undervalued. The outcome of a planning process is significantly affected by how people are involved, interact and communicate. Different people may perceive a planning decision from many different perspectives, including those listed below. These are called stakeholders. How stakeholders are involved a key factor in the effectiveness of a planning process.

Stakeholders

Users Citizens/taxpayers Impacted residents Businesses

Employees/workers Public official Affected organizations/interest groups.

Planning requires explicit Prioritization of transportation activities to efficiently allocate resources. It gives higher value trips and lower cost modes priority over lower value, higher cost trips. For example, emergency vehicles, transit and freight vehicles tend to have relatively high value per vehicle-mile, and so can be given priority over private automobile travel (Basic Access). Transit, rideshare vehicles, bicycling and walking generally cost society less per passenger-trip than single occupant automobile travel (in terms of road space, parking costs, crash risk imposed on other road users and pollution emissions), and so should receive priority (Transportation Costs).

Optimization

Optimization refers to solutions that provide the best balance between multiple, conflicting objectives. Transport planning is sometimes reductionist (evaluation that considers just one or two objectives), which can result in non-optimal solutions that may make society worse overall. For example, decision-makers overwhelmed by the perceived complexity of considering multiple planning objectives sometimes ask planners to focus on just one or two problems. This can result in decisions that address certain problems (such as congestion or pollution) which exacerbate other problems (such as accidents and inadequate mobility for non-drivers), and tends to undervalue solutions that provide multiple benefits. More comprehensive optimization tends to be best for society overall.

Good planning is forward-looking, based on a comprehensive, strategic, long-term vision of the outcomes that you want to achieve (Bartholomew 2005). It involves more than simply extrapolating past trends (called “predict and provide” planning). It requires understanding the basis of change, modeling future impacts, and determining optimal responses. For example, it is poor planning to simply assume that current traffic and population growth rates will continue into the future, or that road capacity must be expanded to accommodate anticipated growth. Many factors may affect future growth rates, and management solutions may be the best way to meet community objectives.

Planning involves making decisions for the future, and therefore must deal with change and uncertainty. For example, it is not possible to know how changes in demographics, economics, technologies or consumer preferences will affect future travel patterns. As a result, it is difficult to predict exactly how much vehicle traffic will grow in the future. Even small differences in population and trip generation growth rates can have significant impacts on future travel and land use patterns. There are several ways to incorporate this uncertainty in decision-making. Predictions can describe ranges and probabilities rather than point estimates, and planning can incorporate contingencies and alternatives that response to different circumstances. For example, a community transportation plan may include various transportation improvements and management strategies, some of which will be only be implemented if Demand meets a certain threshold. TDM tends to be an important component of such Contingency-Based Planning.

Planners make a distinction between growth (increased quantity) and development (increased quality) (Sustainable Transport). In other words, growth means getting bigger while development means getting better. Development improves a community so that residents become wealthier, healthier, wiser and happier. Development involves using resources more efficiently rather than increasing resource consumption. Growth is not necessarily beneficial, and often imposes significant economic, social and environmental costs. Many of the problems associated with growth actually result from increased vehicle ownership and use. TDM allows communities to increase population and employment with fewer parking and traffic problems. For example, with conventional transportation patterns, infill development increases traffic and parking problems because each additional resident adds an additional car, but a successful TDM program can reduce per capita vehicle ownership and use, allowing additional population with fewer transportation problems. This can result in true community development, not just growth.

The scope of transport planning objectives tends to increase over time as people learn more about the broad range of impacts from transportation planning decisions. Older issues primarily concerned the accommodation of motor vehicle traffic. In recent years new issues have been added addressing various social and environmental concerns, although the older concerns have not diminished. As a result, transportation planners are forced to apply more Comprehensive Planning.

Older Issues	Newer Issues
· Roadway design and construction · Congestion reduction · Driver education and law enforcement · Traffic control and management · Vehicle parking · Traffic safety · Freight management · Transit service for non-drivers · Technological innovation (intelligent transportation systems)	· Environmental concerns · Energy conservation · Equity – serving disadvantaged populations · Transportation demand management · Sustainability · Community livability · Land use integration (smart growth) · Security · Emergency response · Public health and fitness · ????

Planning requires resources (time, effort, money). In a typical project, 5-15% of the total budget is devoted to planning activities, and more if a decision affects many stakeholders or faces many obstacles.

Transportation System Design Vehicle

What “design vehicle” should be used for transportation planning? A car? A truck? A bus?

The most important design vehicle is the human body. This means that facilities and vehicles should be safe, comfortable, flexible, and easy to use by people with diverse physical abilities and needs, including those are young and old, big and small, who have disabilities, carry packages, travel in groups, have pets, and cannot read the local language. A transportation system must serve these diverse needs to be efficient and equitable.

Levels of Analysis and Activity

There are several levels of planning analysis and activity, listed below from the most general to the most specific. A good planning process usually begins with the most general concepts and leads to increasingly specific plans, programs and tasks, resulting in integration between each part.

· Principles – A basic rule or concept used for decision-making

· Policies – A general course of action.

· Plans – A scheme or design of action. This may be a strategic (general and broad) or an action (specific and narrow).

· Program – A specific organization with a plan of action, usually with specific objectives, responsibilities, staff and tasks.

· Task or Action – A specific thing to be accomplished.

Some important planning principles are listed below.

· A clear decision-making process. Each set in the process should be defined and understood by all stakeholders.

· Stakeholder involvement. People who are affected by a planning decision (“stakeholders”) should have opportunities to become informed and involved.

· Accurate information. Good decision-making requires good information.

· A range of options to choose from. The greater the range of options that decision-makers have to choose from, the more likely they will be able to develop a plan that truly reflects their needs, preferences and values.

A planning process that fails to reflect these principles may result in confusion, conflict, disappointment and waste. As an example, imagine a process that offers just one choice for birthday celebrations: “Do you want a birthday party? If yes, instructions and a bill will be delivered shortly. Have a good time.” A more satisfying process allows individuals to help decide when and where their birthday party will take place, who is invited, the theme, decorations, and entertainment activities. It allows them to decide how much to spend, and what expenses should be added or subtracted to fit a desired budget. Of course, some or all of these decisions can be delegated, but an effective birthday celebration planning process allows individuals to affect their party to the degree they want. The resulting parties are likely to be quite different than a generic birthday party because they more accurately reflect the participants’ needs, preferences, values and creativity.

Levels, Scales and Perspectives

Planning occurs at many different levels and scales. Many planning decisions have direct and indirect impacts, which can be classified as below.

1. First level – Direct impacts (changes in travel conditions and costs).

2. Second level – Current indirect impacts (changes in travel behavior, tax revenue, external impacts).

3. Third level – Long-term indirect impacts (changes in land use, economic development).

For example, increasing roadway capacity has first-level impacts of reducing traffic congestion and increasing vehicle traffic speeds. A second-level impact is that the increased traffic capacity may attract additional travel from other routes and times (Rebound Effects), and it may create barriers to walking and cycling (Nonmotorized Evaluation). A third-level impact may be that over the long run, land use patterns become more dispersed and automobile dependent (Land Use Impacts).

Some geographic scales reflect natural areas and boundaries and others of which reflect political jurisdictions, as listed below. There are also temporal (time) scales: short-term usually refers to one or two years, mid-term usually refers to three to six years, and long-term usually refers to more than five years.

Table 1            Planning Scale

Natural	Political
Site Street Neighborhood Ecosystem/watershed Regional Global	Special service districts Municipality/Regional government State/provincial Federal

This table lists various scales used for planning, from the smallest to the largest.

These often overlap, and may reflect different economic, ecological and social perspectives. For example, a regional transport network usually overlaps many different political jurisdictions, watersheds, and human communities. To be effective, a planning process must account for these various geographic units. If a particular jurisdiction (such as a city or state) is making decisions that may affect people located outside its political jurisdiction, it is generally a poor practice to exclude those people from the planning process, since this can lead to unresolved conflicts, although their concerns may be given less weight than those of residents within the jurisdiction.

Goals, Objectives, Criteria and Performance Indicators

Goals are desired outcomes to be achieved, such as health, equity and happiness. Objectives are ways to achieve goals. Evaluation Criteria are impacts or factors to consider in the planning process and to incorporate into an evaluation framework, which may range from general to very specific (Evaluating TDM). Performance Indicators are practical ways to measure progress toward objectives. These identify, what we want to achieve, how we will achieve these goals, and how we know whether we are making progress.

The ultimate goal of most transport is Access to goods, services and activities. Mobility refers to the movement of people and goods, and traffic refers to vehicle movement  (Measuring Transportation). A transportation planning process that treats traffic improvements as a goal rather than an objective may overlook other ways to improve access, and result in decisions that degrade other forms of access.

For example, Transit Improvements and Rideshare Programs can result in more people traveling in fewer vehicles, Telework and Delivery Services can reduce the need for personal travel, and Location Efficient Development can reduce the distance between common destinations, reducing the amount of travel required for access. Increasing roadway and parking capacity can improve automobile access but often degrades access by walking, cycling and public transit. Conversely, Traffic Calming, some types of Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements, and more Clustered Development may reduce vehicle traffic speeds.

Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility

How transportation is defined and measured can affect which solutions are considered best. A particular policy or project may appear worthwhile when transportation system performance is measured in one way, but undesirable when it is measured another way.

Conventional transportation often reflects the assumption that transportation means motor vehicle traffic. From this perspective, anything that increases motor vehicle traffic speed and volume improves transportation, and anything that reduces motor vehicle traffic speed and volume must be harmful.

A more comprehensive approach reflects the assumption that transportation means personal mobility, measured in terms of person-trips and person-kilometers. From this perspective, strategies such as better transit services and rideshare programs may improve transportation without increasing total vehicle-kilometers. However, this approach still assumes that movement is an end in itself, rather than a means to an end, and increased personal movement is always desirable.

The most comprehensive definition of transportation is Accessibility, the ability to reach desired goods, services and activities. This is the ultimate goal of most transportation, and so is the best definition to use in transportation planning. It recognizes the value of more accessible land use patterns and mobility substitutes such as telecommuting and delivery services as ways to improve transportation while reducing total physical travel.

Many transport projects improve accessibility by some modes, but degrade it for others. For example, increasing roadway capacity and traffic speeds tends to improve access by automobile but reduces it by other modes, such as walking, cycling and transit. Only by defining transportation in terms of accessibility can these tradeoffs be considered in the planning process.

Vehicle traffic is relatively easy to measure, so transportation system quality tends to be evaluated based largely on automobile travel conditions (e.g., average traffic speeds, roadway Level-of-Service, vehicle congestion delay, vehicle operating costs, parking supply), while ignoring other accessibility impacts, including impacts on transit service quality, nonmotorized transport and land use accessibility. This tends to favor automobile-oriented solutions, and undervalues alternative solutions to transportation problems.

Transportation Planning Goals

Transportation planning goals should be broadly defined to include various economic, social and environmental outcomes that a community wishes to achieve. For example, goals might include improved Accessibility, support for economic development, improved opportunity for residents, equity, improved Safety and Health, and environmental protection. These can be defined for a specific geographic area or demographic group.

Transportation improvement goals are sometimes defined in terms of addressing a particular problem. For example, a TDM program may have a goal of reducing congestion or parking problems in a particular area. However, as described earlier, such a narrowly defined goal is actually an objective, since reducing a congestion or parking problem is not really an end in itself, it is a means to improve access to destinations. The danger with defining goals narrowly is that it limits the range of solutions and impacts that can be considered in the planning process. Planning based on narrowly defined goals and objectives allows solutions to one problem that exacerbate others (Comprehensive Transportation Planning). A variety of possible transportation planning goals and objectives are listed below.

Possible Transportation Planning Goals and Objectives

Improved Access and Mobility

Congestion Reduction

Reduced Parking Problems

Improved Safety and Health

Transportation System Resilience

Improved Transportation Choice

Improved Transportation Equity

Sustainable Transportation

Economic Development

Improved Community Livability

Energy Conservation and Emission Reductions

Improved Nonmotorized Transportation

More Efficient Land Use - Reduced Sprawl

TDM Objectives

Objectives are ways to achieve goals. There are different levels of objectives that can be used for TDM planning.

First Level – Incentives

Transportation Demand Management uses the incentives listed in the table below to affect travel behavior. These can be considered the first-level objectives. For example, improving transportation choices, information and the relative speed and comfort of alternative modes can be considered TDM objectives if they are likely to change travel behavior in ways that help address transportation goals.

Table 2            Examples of TDM Program Incentives

Mechanism	Description	Related TDM Strategy
Transportation choice	Whether alternatives to driving exist.	Transit, rideshare, shuttle services, walking, cycling, telework, carsharing.
Information	Whether potential users can easily obtain accurate information about alternatives.	TDM programs and marketing. Transit improvements.
Travel time	Door-to-door travel time ratio between an alternative mode and driving.	Transit improvements. HOV Priority. Pedestrian and cycling improvements. Traffic calming.
Convenience and comfort	The relative level of convenience and comfort between an alternative mode and driving.	Transit improvements. Walking and cycling improvements.
Price	The relative financial costs between an alternative mode and driving.	Market reforms, road pricing, parking pricing, distance-based charges, transit improvements.
Prestige	Level of respect given by society to users of alternative modes.	TDM Marketing. Pedestrian and bicycle promotion. Transit improvements.

Second Level – Travel Changes

Second-level objectives are changes in travel behavior. TDM can affect travel scheduling (such as shifts from peak to off-peak periods), route, mode, destination, trip distance, trip frequency, use of mobility substitutes and vehicle ownership. For example, reductions in peak-period vehicle traffic volumes, per capita vehicle trip frequency or annual vehicle mileage may be considered TDM program objectives.

Third Level – Desirable Outcomes

Third level objectives are desired outcomes that result from changes in travel behavior, including reductions in traffic congestion, crashes, pollution emissions and parking costs, and improvements in Basic Access (e.g., education and employment participation by people who are transportation disadvantaged).

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation criteria are impacts or factors to considered in the planning process. Some, such as direct financial cost and vehicle travel, are relatively easy to measure. Others, such as equity and aesthetics, are more difficult to measure, but still important to consider. Various evaluation criteria and indicators can be used in TDM planning, such as those described in Table 3. TDM tends to have a wider range of impacts than other types of transportation improvements, and so requires a more Comprehensive Evaluation Framework.

Table 3            Examples of Evaluation Criteria and Indicators

Criteria	Indicators
Direct program financial impacts.	Program costs per participant, per capita or per peak-period automobile trip reduced. Additional revenues from pricing strategies.
Direct consumer financial impacts.	Financial costs and benefits, such as higher or lower user fees, or financial rewards.
Indirect financial impacts on governments and businesses.	Changes in parking and roadway costs.
Indirect consumer financial impacts.	Changes in vehicle operation and ownership costs.
Impacts on transportation objectives.	Changes in peak period trips, per capita vehicle mileage, mode split, etc. (Measuring Transportation).
Impacts on transportation system performance.	Average congestion delay, trip speeds, crash rates, pollution emissions.
Impacts on transportation choice and basic mobility objectives.	Changes in Transportation Choice for various types of users (e.g. students, low income, non-drivers, etc.)
Impacts on Transportation Equity.	Cost-based pricing, regressivity of price changes, improved access for transportation-disadvantaged people.

Performance Indicators

Performance Indicators are practical ways to measure progress toward objectives. A planning process can be significantly affected by the performance indicators that are used for evaluation. The table below illustrates various transportation quality indicators based on vehicle traffic, mobility and access. These different sets of indicators reflect different assumptions about the nature of transportation problems, and tend to favor different sets of solutions.

Table 4            Performance Indicators (Measuring Transportation)

Traffic Oriented	Mobility Oriented	Access Oriented
Road system quality (e.g., roadway Level-Of-Service). Average traffic speed and congestion delay. Parking convenience. Vehicle use affordability. Vehicle-km crash and pollution rates.	Transit service quality. Transit fare affordability. Rideshare Programs. Walk and bike facility quality. Transport system integration (e.g. ability to carry packages and bicycles on transit vehicles). Passenger-km crash and pollution rates. Universal Design.	Door-to-door commute times. Portion of homes and worksites with shops, public services and transit within convenient walking distance. Quality and availability of telephone and Internet service. Quality of delivery services. Per capita total transportation costs and overall transport affordability. Per capita crash and pollution rates.

This table compares different types of performance indicators. Transportation Demand Management tends to require mobility-oriented and access-oriented indicators.

The evaluation of TDM programs can be affected by the scale and perspective used for analysis. For example, a comprehensive Commute Trip Reduction program might reduce vehicle trips at participating worksites by 20%, representing 50% of downtown employees, where 10% of regional employees are located. Commute trips usually represent the majority of peak-period highway travel, but only about a third of total automobile travel. As a result, this program could be described as reducing 20% of trips a participating worksites, 10% of downtown commute trips, 2% of regional peak-period highway travel, or less than 1% of total regional travel. From a regional perspective the program may seem if little significance, although a major investment to increase highway capacity typically affects a similar portion of trips. As a result, it could be considered equal in value to a multi-billion dollar expenditure on new roads and parking facilities, and the most cost effective regional transportation investment.

Although most individual strategies have modest impacts, typically reducing travel by just a few percent, their effects are cumulative and synergetic. The most effective TDM programs usually include a combination of improved travel choices and incentives to reduce driving. Programs that include an appropriate combination of strategies can reduce peak-period driving at a particular location by 10-30%, and even greater impacts are possible if a combination of local, regional and state/provincial programs were implemented together (see TDM Programs and Comprehensive Market Reforms for examples). Since no North American community has implemented truly comprehensive TDM strategies, we don’t really know what the upper range of potential impacts would be.

Geography (Transportation and Land Use Interactions)

Transportation and land use decisions have many interactive effects. Certain transportation patterns support a particular type of land use, and certain land use patterns support certain type of transportation (Evaluating Land Use Impacts). This occurs in many different ways and at many different scales. For example:

· Automobile-oriented land use patterns have abundant roadway and parking capacity, creating a more dispersed landscape that tends to be unsuitable for other forms of transportation. Multi-modal land use tends to be more clustered, with narrower streets and less land devoted to parking.

· Streets designed for automobile access have maximum lanes, driveways and parking (i.e. strip development), while streets designed for multi-modal access have good pedestrian conditions, and buildings clustered together.

· Automobile-oriented communities tend to have large areas that have single land uses (residential, commercial, etc.). Communities designed for multi-modal transportation have more mixed land use, with some commercial buildings within or near residential neighborhoods.

As a result, transportation and land use planning are two sides of the same coin. Planning analysis must recognize the Land Use Impacts of Transportation Decisions, and the Transportation Impacts of Land Use decisions. Some TDM strategies involve direct land use changes (Smart Growth, New Urbanism, Location Efficient Development, Transit Oriented Development), and others can have indirect but significant land use impacts (Parking Management, Traffic Calming). Many are affected by land use. For example, the design of a Commute Trip Reduction Program is affected by whether a worksite has a urban or suburban location, and what sort of amenities are located within convenient walking distance (because employees are more likely to use alternative commute modes if they can reach services such as restaurants and shops without a car). Conversely, efforts to reduce urban sprawl require TDM, since clustered, mixed land use is unlikely to be effective in areas with high levels of automobile use.

Generic Planning Process

A planning process should be based on an overall problem or vision statement (these are essentially the same thing from opposite perspectives), and general goals. These determine specific objectives and evaluation criteria that will be used for prioritizing actions, programs, projects and tasks.

A.         Problem Statement, Vision and Goals

(examples: safety, health, mobility, equity, economic development)

B.         Objectives

(examples: teach safety, improve roadway and trail facilities, increase non-motorized travel)

C.         Evaluation Criteria

(examples: accident/injury rates, Bicycle Compatibility Index, non-motorized travel rate)

D.         Actions, Programs, Projects and Tasks

(examples: adopt design standards, provide safety program, implement road and trail projects)

E.         Program Evaluation

(examples: did program achieve its stated objectives? How is the program accepted by clients? What are its costs and benefits?)

Planning is a social process that requires the involvement of people who are affected by the outcomes. An effective planning process involves stakeholders in the development of goals, objectives and evaluation criteria, if possible. In some situations goals and objectives are already established by a legislative or executive body before a planning process begins.

Below is a generic planning process that can be applied in some form to virtually any decision making process, from organizing a party to developing a comprehensive transportation network. Of course, this generic process should be adjusted as needed to reflect the needs of a particular situation.

Generic Planning Process

1. Identify who is responsible for the planning process.

2. Identify stakeholders and partners. Develop information networks and advisory committees.

3. Organize meetings, conferences or surveys to share information and discuss the problem.

4. Establish goals (i.e., create vision, problem or goal statement).

5. Identify general concerns, constraints, barriers and opportunities (brainstorming).

6. Establish evaluation criteria and data requirements.

7. Begin gathering baseline data.

8. Develop information resources (i.e., experts, publications, websites, etc.) and use that to create a menu of policy and program options.

9. Evaluate policy and program options based on identified criteria.

10. Identify specific policy changes and programs needed for implementation. This includes program objectives, responsibilities, staffing, funding, tasks, deliverables, schedule, etc. Prioritize if needed. Develop Contingency options, for example, for different levels of funding and other factors that may change. This is the Master Plan.

11. Implement policy changes and programs.

12. Gather evaluation information.

13. Evaluate program.

14. Revise Master Plan as appropriate.

15. Repeat steps 11-14 as needed.

Public Involvement

Public involvement is an important component of most public planning. It allows plans to be considered from a variety of perspectives, which can help identify potential problems early in the process, and help gain support for a plan’s implementation.

Public Involvement Techniques

·      Advisory committee ·      Audio-visual presentation ·      Discussion paper ·      News release, brochure and mail-out ·      Open house (public information drop-in)

·      Public meeting ·      Site tour ·      Small group meeting ·      Survey and questionnaire ·      Public workshop

Public Involvement Resources

Choosing Visualization (www.choosingviz.org) Transportation Knowledge Sharing Web Portal provides guidance for selecting public participation visualization tools

Committee on Public Involvement, Transportation Research Board (www.ch2m.com/TRB_PI/default.asp) and Public Involvement Research Page (www.ch2m.com/TRB_PI/trbresearch.html)

CoPlan (https://projects.openplans.org/coplan) is an Internet toolkit for inclusive, responsive, authentic citizen engagement in transportation planning.

FHWA (1996), Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decisionmaking, Federal Highway Administration, (www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/cover.htm).

FHWA, Transportation Project Development and NEPA, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/pi_pol.htm).

FHWA/FTA Questions and Answers on Public Involvement in Transportation Decisionmaking, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/pub_inv/q_and_a.htm).

FHWA and FTA (2002), Transportation & Environmental Justice: Effective Practices, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, FHWA-EP-02-016 (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ej2.htm).

FHWA and FTA (2002), “Establishing Meaningful Performance Measures for Benefits and Burden Assessments,” Transportation & Environmental Justice: Effective Practices, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, FHWA-EP-02-016 (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ej2.htm).

Envision Sustainability Tools (www.QuestForTheFuture.com) provides information on scenario planning and community engagement.

OTM, Transportation Performance Measures, Office of Transportation Management, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/toolbox). 

Carissa Schively, Meagan Beekman, Cynthia Carlson and Jenn Reed (2007), Enhancing Transportation: The Effects of Public Involvement in Planning and Design Processes, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota (www.cts.umn.edu), for the American Institute of Architects; at www.cts.umn.edu/pdf/CTS-07-10.pdf. 

SGN (2002), Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation, Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) and International City/County Management Association (www.icma.org).

John B. Stephens, Using A Mediator In Public Disputes, Mediate.com (www.mediate.com/articles/stephensJ.cfm).

Joanne Tippett, John F. Handley and Joe Ravetz (2007), “Meeting the Challenges of Sustainable Development - A Conceptual Appraisal of a New Methodology for Participatory Ecological Planning,” Progress In Planning, Vol. 67 (www.elsevier.com/locate/pplann), January 2007, pp. 1-98.

Selecting and Evaluating TDM Strategies

Transportation Demand Management is still a relatively new concept. As a result, many of the strategies are not well known and their potential impacts are not well understood. Too often, TDM planning focuses on a relatively small number of potential strategies, and overlooks some significant impacts. TDM planning should involve more than simply choosing the best single strategy for solving a single problem. In general, a more Comprehensive Planning Process that considers the widest possible range of options and impacts tends to be most effective for TDM.

Effective TDM planning should start with an overview of all potential strategies and their effectiveness at achieving various objectives, in order to insure that some appropriate strategies are not overlooked. This Encyclopedia is intended to provide the information needed for such comprehensive TDM planning and evaluation.

TDM Planning must overcome various institutional barriers. TDM often requires greater cooperation between different government agencies, businesses and communities than conventional transportation improvements. It may require policy changes that support Least Cost Planning, so that TDM strategies can be considered equally with other potential solutions to transportation problems. It may involve a new program to provide a suitable institutional framework for implementing individual TDM measures.

TDM also has many unique positive attributes to consider in planning. Transportation professionals and citizens increasingly realize that traditional approaches based entirely on capacity expansion cannot solve our transportation problems. There are many situations where TDM is more cost effective than alternatives, particularly when all potential benefits are considered. Resources and tools, such as this Encyclopedia, can help educate decision-makers about the range of TDM strategies that are available, their potential effects on vehicle travel, and their benefits, costs and equity impacts.

Contingency-Based Planning

Contingency-Based Planning means that plans are designed to change in response to future needs. This involves the following steps:

1. Identify objectives (general things that you want to achieve) and targets (specific things that you want to achieve).
2. Identify various strategies that can help achieve the objectives and targets. These can include both projects that increase capacity and demand management strategies.
3. Evaluate the costs and benefits of each strategy (including indirect impacts, if any), and rank them according to cost-effectiveness or benefit/cost ratios.
4. Implement the most cost-effective strategies as needed to achieve the stated targets.
5. After they are implemented, evaluate the programs and strategies with regard to various Performance Indicators to evaluate their effectiveness.
6. Evaluate overall results with regard to targets to determine if and when additional strategies should be implemented.

This type of planning addresses uncertainty by deploying solutions on an as-needed basis. For example, a transportation plan may identify 5 strategies to implement immediately, another 4 to implement in two years if stated targets are not achieved, and another 3 can be implemented further in the future if needed. This tends to be cost effective and flexible, because strategies are only deployed if they are needed, and additional strategies can be ready for quick implementation if unexpected changes create additional needs. This approach is ideal for medium and long-range transport and land use planning.

TDM Planning Tasks

Below are some tasks that can be performed as part of a comprehensive TDM planning process.

· Identify transportation problems facing various constituencies, including various types of residents (e.g., elderly, employees, students, people with disabilities, children, etc.), employers, retail businesses, tourists and tourists-related businesses, city agencies (e.g., garbage and emergency agencies), and goods delivery organizations.

· Define specific goals and objectives for improving transportation in the city, including targets for improving access, choice, safety, and environmental protection.

· Prioritize Transportation activities, so higher value trips and lower cost modes have priority over lower value, higher cost trips.

· Review zoning laws and development practices to insure that they support transportation objectives (e.g., minimum parking requirements, and sidewalk development polices).

· Review current transportation planning and funding practices to identify opportunities to create a more balanced transportation system and improved integration between modes. In particular, evaluate the use of “least cost” principles for transportation planning.

· Identify any institutional barriers that exist to more efficient use of transportation and parking resources, such as conflicts between goals and responsibilities of different agencies within the city; and any barriers to improved coordination between municipal agency activities and other stakeholders such as BC Transit, developers and local businesses, or provincial agencies. Recommend policy reforms to correct such conflicts.

· Identify opportunities to encourage more efficient use of parking resources, through more efficient pricing, shared parking, in lieu parking options (developers can contribute to the city’s transportation program as a substitute for building on-site parking facilities), parking resource brokerage, and other parking management techniques.

· Identify opportunities for cooperation between city, employers (including provincial agencies) and other businesses with regard to commute trip management, parking management, pedestrian and cycling improvements, transit and rideshare promotion, and related improvements.

· Evaluate the desirability and feasibility of creating a transportation demand management program (either within the city planning department, in partnership with BC Transit, or under another organizational structure), and if such a program is recommended, identify appropriate goals and objectives.

· Evaluate the desirability and feasibility of creating a non-motorized (walking, cycling and Universal Access) development program, and if such a program is recommended, identify appropriate goals and objectives.

· Identify potential problems from policy changes, particularly with regard to parking pricing, reduced and more flexible parking requirements, and commute trip reduction incentives. Identify and recommend appropriate strategies to mitigate such problems.

Best Practices

The following are general guidelines for developing effective TDM programs (Comprehensive Planning)

· Begin with a comprehensive, long-term, strategic vision of the overall outcomes that you want to achieve (Bartholomew, 2005).

· Use responsive, contingency-based planning that identifies a wide range of potential solutions and implements the most cost-effective strategies justified at each point in time, with additional strategies available for quick deployment if needed in the future.

· Involve users in TDM planning to insure that their ideas and concerns are considered.

· Offer a wide range of transport options and incentives, so that people can choose the combination of changes that best meet their needs.

· Make changes predictable and gradual. For example, establish a three-year schedule for increasing parking pricing so employees and motorists can take these into account when making long-term plans.

· Correct current practices that favor automobile travel over other modes, such as zoning laws that result in excessive parking capacity.

· Use financial incentives and pricing. It is virtually impossible to have a significant effect on vehicle travel without them.

· Include support services, such as Guaranteed Ride Home and Bicycle Safety Education.

· Implement Complete Streets Policies which ensure that roadway design and operating practices safely accommodate diverse users and activities including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, public transport users, people with disabilities, plus adjacent businesses and residents. 

· Pay attention to land use. Encourage zoning and development practices that favor higher-density, mixed-use infill, and more pedestrian- and transit-friendly communities.

· Develop cooperative organizations involving transportation agencies, local governments, businesses, and non-profit organizations to support TDM efforts.

· Encourage businesses to establish Transportation Management Associations and arrangements to share parking facilities. Work to maximize the economic savings from more efficient use of parking.

· Encourage Traffic Operations programs, which improve roadway system performance, as an alternative to system expansion.

· Establish a reliable source of Funding for Transportation Programs.

· Encourage administrators and participants to identify and develop creative solutions to problems that develop. For example, if increased parking fees result in parking spillover into nearby residential areas, establish parking benefit districts that provide a financial reward to those neighborhoods.

· Evaluate programs to determine effectiveness and obtain feedback from participants.

· Incorporate Resilience principles in transport planning, to create a transportation system that can accommodate variability and unexpected change.

Ahwahnee Principles Toward More Livable Communities (LGC, 2000)

Community Design:

1.All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of the residents.

2.Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other.

3.As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops.

4.A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries.

5.Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents.

6.The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network.

7.The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses.

8.The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design.

9.Public spaces should be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night.

10.Each community or cluster of communities should have a well-defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development.

 11.Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic.

12.Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts.

13.The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste.

14.Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling.

15.The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to the energy efficiency of the community.

Regional Principles:

1.The regional land-use planning structure should be integrated within a larger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways.

2.Regions should be bounded by and provide a continuous system of greenbelt/wildlife corridors to be determined by natural conditions.

3.Regional institutions and services (government, stadiums, museums, etc.) should be located in the urban core.

4.Materials and methods of construction should be specific to the region, exhibiting a continuity of history and culture and compatibility with the climate to encourage the development of local character and community identity.

Implementation Principles:

1.The general plan should be updated to incorporate the above principles.

2.Rather than allowing developer-initiated, piecemeal development, local governments should take charge of the planning process. General plans should designate where new growth, infill or redevelopment will be allowed to occur.

3.Prior to any development, a specific plan should be prepared based on these planning principles.

4.Plans should be developed through an open process and participants in the process should be provided visual models of all planning proposals.

Related Chapters

For more information on issues related to TDM Planning see Evaluating TDM, Comprehensive TDM Evaluation, Measuring Transportation, Evaluating TDM Equity, Safety Impacts of TDM, Complete Streets Policies Prioritizing Transportation, TDM and Economic Development, Transportation Costs, Transportation Statistics, TDM in Developing Regions, Smart Growth, Market Principles, Change Management, Individual Actions for Efficient Transportation, Contingency-Based Planning and Evaluating Transportation Diversity.

Wit and Humor

A construction engineer, a physicist and a planner are arguing as to whose profession is oldest. The engineer points out, “God divided heaven from earth. That was one great feat of engineering. My profession is oldest.”

The physicist interjected, “Yes, but before that, god created light. That involved energy. My profession is oldest.”

After a pause they both looked at the planner who said, “Yes, but first there was chaos…”

Examples and Case Studies

Urban Mobility Plans (SUTP 2014)

Urban mobility plans are comprehensive plans that identify urban transportation problems and support development of integrated solutions. They are increasingly used as a policy instrument and planning tool to guide the efficient development of integrated transport systems . Many countries require urban regions to have such plans in place in order to qualify for national government funds for urban transport projects. The report, Urban Mobility Plans – National Approaches and Local Practice, Sustainable Urban Transportation Project describes specific policies and planning practices that can maximize urban transport system efficiency.

The Innovative DOT

The Innovative DOT: A Handbook of Policy and Practice by Smart Growth America and the State Smart Transportation Initiative describes innovative approaches that state transportation leaders are already using to make systems more efficient and effective in today’s challenging economy.  This handbook provides 34 recommendations transportation officials can use as they position their agencies for success in the new economy. Developed with input from top transportation professionals and officials at state agencies around the nation, the handbook documents many of the innovative approaches state leaders are using to make systems more efficient, government more effective and constituents better satisfied.

Multi-Modal Concurrency

Some jurisdictions have concurrency requirements that prohibit land use development unless it includes transport facility improvements that accommodate the additional traffic generated. With conventional planning, these requirements are automobile-oriented, which discourages compact, infill development and increases roadway capacity. Multimodal concurrency allows improvements to alternative modes (walking, cycling and public transit services) to satisfy concurrency requirements. Information on this can be found in the Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service Handbook, by the Florida Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/MMTDQOS.pdf), and Assessing the Effectiveness of Transportation Concurrency, by the Puget Sound Regional Council (www.psrc.org/projects/growth/concur/reports.htm). 

Integrated Approach to Planning (www.transit.govt.nz/planning/iap.jsp)

Integrated Approach to Planning (IAP) is a is a collaborative endeavour between New Zealand transport sector agencies and Ministry for Environment to identify gaps and barriers to achieving better integration, both within and between transport and land-use planning, to help improve transport system sustainability. They project includes various studies that evaluate current planning practices and recommend improvements for more integrated planning. It used several case studies of actual transport and land use planning situations selected to represent various modes and problems, including strategic planning, regional growth, urban redevelopment, and freight transport improvements.

Plan-It Calgary

Plan-It Calgary is a comprehensive regional transportation and land use planning process that includes extensive consultation and research to identify policies and planning practices that can help achieve sustainability objectives. The following studies were commissioned for this project:

Public Opinion Research

• Telephone Survey and Workbook Questionnaire Results
• Focus Group Results (Weaver)
• On-line stakeholder and public feedback on The Consultation Paper- Towards a sustainable city: key directions for land use and mobility
• Citizen Public Opinion Survey on the Key Directions for Land Use and Mobility- Results
• Summary of Feedback on Key Directions  from the Federation of Calgary Communities (FCC) Workshops

Plan It Calgary Research

• A Context for Change Management in the Calgary Regional Partnership Area
• 17 Avenue SE Charrette report
• Research Backgrounder Housing Affordability and Smart Growth in Calgary Report
• Housing Affordability and Smart Growth in Calgary Report
• Greenfield Case Study Charrette
• The Built Environment and Health and Wellness
• Green Infrastructure in Calgary's Mobility Corridors
• Recommended Direction for City-wide Commercial / Retail Policy
• Local Transportation Connectivity
• Energy Mapping Study
• Plan It Calgary Cost Study Analysis April 3, 2009

Plan It Calgary publications

• Introduction, background and methodology of the MDP and CTP
• Municipal Development Plan (MDP)
• Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP)
• Plan It Calgary Sustainability Principles
• Where do we grow from here? workbook
• Towards a sustainable city: The case for change
• Towards a sustainable city: key directions for land use and mobility (detailed report)
• Plan It Calgary Key Directions  for Land Use and Mobility Paper
• LPT Report October 15, 2008
• LPT Report Attachment October 15, 2008

Planning Publications (www.planetizen.com/node/28700)

A new generation of open access journals is making planning research accessible beyond the campus. Some examples illustrate the range of material now available. Some are fully accessible and some are partially open to non-subscribers:

· A few journals are fully free online and do not charge subscriptions or author submission fees. The new International Journal of Architectural Research, though focused on architecture, includes empirical studies and topics of interest to planners. The journal is based at MIT at the Archnet web site. It has something of an odd interface. One goes to the main page at http://archnet.org/gws/IJAR, scrolls down to the “volumes tab”, is led to a second interface, has to click on tabs for each issue and then scroll down to find PDFs.

· Other journals provide several free articles from each issue. For example, Progressive Planning (www.plannersnetwork.org/publications/magazine.html), a magazine that includes many articles by academics aimed at a popular audience, typically places two to five articles online from each issue in html format. The full magazine is available to members in a password protected PDF format. However, almost all articles in the Spring 2007 issue—featuring work on New Orleans and on advocacy planning--were put online (www.plannersnetwork.org/publications/mag_2007_2_spring.html).

· Still other journals, such as the Journal of the American Planning Association (www.planning.org/japa/byissue/index.htm) include a few free articles online—for JAPA such articles are not available for all issues.

· Finally are journals that are open access but that charge authors, a practice based in the sciences. The International Journal of Health Geographics (www.ij-healthgeographics.com/articles/browse.asp) is one of the new generation of journals requiring a stiff fee for submission—over $1,500—but then not charging for subscriptions. While the jury is still out on this approach, the journal contains much interesting work using GIS. Their recent articles include many of interest to planners. 

Collaborative Planning Mandates

Taylor and Schweitzer (2005) evaluate the effectiveness of U.S. federally-mandated metropolitan-scale planning, based on surveys of agency staff. The study concludes that this type of planning has only modest direct impacts, but does help increase interagency cooperation in some situations, particularly for dealing with environmental problems, to implement locally unpopular policies, and to take advantage of institutional economies of scale.

References And Resources For More Information

ADB (2009), Changing Course: A New Paradigm for Sustainable Urban Transport, Asian Development Bank (www.adb.org); at www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Paradigm-Sustainable-Urban-Transport/new-paradigm-transport.pdf.

American Planning Association (www.planning.org) has extensive resources for community and transport planning.

Keith Bartholomew (2005), Integrating Land Use Issues into Transportation Planning: Scenario Planning, University of Utah; funded by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation under Cooperative Agreement No. DTFH61-03-H-00134 (www.arch.utah.edu/bartholomew/SP_SummaryRpt_Web.pdf).

Marlon G. Boarnet (2013), “The Declining Role Of The Automobile And The Re-Emergence Of Place In Urban Transportation: The Past Will Be Prologue,” Regional Science Policy & Practice, Special Issue: The New Urban World – Opportunity Meets Challenge, Vol. 5/2, June, pp. 237–253 (DOI: 10.1111/rsp3.12007).

Booz Allen (2012), Integrating Australia’s Transport Systems: A Strategy For An Efficient Transport Future, Infrastructure Partnership Australia (www.infrastructure.org.au); at www.infrastructure.org.au/DisplayFile.aspx?FileID=812.

Center for Environmental Excellence (www.stewardship.transportation.org), sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, provides information to help state departments of transportation deliver projects that protect and enhance the environment.

Susan Chapman and Doug Weir (2008), Accessibility Planning Methods, Research Report 363, New Zealand Transportation Agency (www.landtransport.govt.nz/research/reports/363.pdf).

Choosing Visualization (www.choosingviz.org) Transportation Knowledge Sharing Web Portal provides guidance for selecting public participation visualization tools

Community Impact Assessment Website (www.ciatrans.net) provides information for considering impacts on human environments in transportation planning.

Commuter Choice Program (www.epa.gov/oms/traq). A U.S. EPA program that provides information, materials and incentives for developing employee commute trip reduction programs.

CTE (Center for Transportation and the Environment) (2008), Improved Methods For Assessing Social, Cultural, And Economic Effects Of Transportation Projects, NCHRP Project 08-36, Task 66, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); at www.statewideplanning.org/_resources/234_NCHRP-8-36-66.pdf.

Allison L. C. de Cerreño (2009), Strengthening Interjurisdictional Coordination on Transportation and Related Land Use, Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management, NYU Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service (http://wagner.nyu.edu); at http://wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter/research/Guide%20Book%20Revised%20Cover2008%20FIN.pdf.

Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk) has extensive resources on transportation and land use planning, travel demand management, and traffic calming.

DfT (2003), Guidance on the Methodology for Multi Modal Studies (GOMMMS), UK Department for Transport, Transport Analysis Guidance Website (www.webtag.org.uk).

DfT (2006), Transport Analysis Guidance, Integrated Transport Economics and Appraisal, Department for Transport (www.webtag.org.uk/index.htm). This website provides comprehensive guidance on how to identify problems, establish objectives, develop potential solutions, create a transport model for the appraisal of the alternative solutions, how to model highway and public transport, and how to conduct economic appraisal studies that meet DoT requirements.

DVTPC (2008), Smart Transportation Guidebook: Planning and Designing Highways and Streets that Support Sustainable and Livable Communities, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (www.dvrpc.org); at www.dvrpc.org/asp/pubs/publicationabstract.asp?pub_id=08030A.

FHWA (1996), Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decisionmaking, Federal Highway Administration, (www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/cover.htm).

FHWA (2011), Transportation Planning for Sustainability Guidebook, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov); at www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/climate/resources.htm#sustain.

FHWA and FTA (2002), Transportation & Environmental Justice: Effective Practices, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, FHWA-EP-02-016 (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ej2.htm).

FHWA and FTA (2002), “Establishing Meaningful Performance Measures for Benefits and Burden Assessments,” Transportation & Environmental Justice: Effective Practices, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, FHWA-EP-02-016 (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ej2.htm).

FHWA and FTA (2007), The Transportation Planning Process Key Issues: A Briefing Book for Transportation Deicsionmakers, Officials, and Staff, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, FHWA-HEP-07-039 (www.planning.dot.gov).

David J. Forkenbrock and Glen E. Weisbrod (2001), Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects, NCHRP Report 456, Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press (www.trb.org).

GIZ (2015), Urban Mobility Plans: National Approaches and Local Practices, GIZ (www.giz.de/transport); at http://bit.ly/1TZCSiA.

Patrick Hare (1993), Clunker Mortgages and Transportation Redlining; How the Mortgage Banking Industry Unknowingly Drains Cities and Spreads Sprawl, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/clunker.pdf.

Rachel E.M. Hiatt (2006), An Alternative to Auto LOS for Transportation Impact Analysis, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www.trb.org); at http://eisenletunic.com/news_docs/Publication_TRBpaper.pdf.

Julie Hoover, Bruce McDowell and Gian-Claudia Sciara (2004), Transit at the Table: A Guide to Participation in Metropolitan Decisionmaking U.S. Federal Transit Administration (www.planning.dot.gov/documents/TransitAtTable.pdf).

ICLEI (2009), Sustainable Planning Toolkit, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (www.icleiusa.org); at www.icleiusa.org/action-center/planning/sustainability-planning-toolkit.

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group (2005), Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group Draft Baseline Report: Executive Order 13274, U.S. Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/stewardshipeo/icireporticf031405.pdf).

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (www.iclei.org) provides tools to help communities become healthier and more environmentally responsible.

ITE (1997), A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion and Enhancing Mobility, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/5dz01!.pdf).

Konsult: Knowledgebase on Sustainable Urban Land use and Transport (www.elsevier.com/gej-ng/29/29/konsult) provides information on approaches to urban transport strategy development, related policy objectives and measures, past trends and future scenarios, assessment issues, barriers to implementation, and ways of developing an integrated strategy.

John LaPlante (2010), “The Challenge of Multimodalism; Theodore M. Matson Memorial Award,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 80, No. 10, October, pp. 20-23.

LGC (2000), The Ahwahnee Principles Toward More Livable Communities, Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org).

Todd Litman (1999), Guide to Evaluating Mobility Management Benefits, VTPI (www.vtpi.org): at www.vtpi.org/tdmben.pdf.

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

Todd Litman (2003), “Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 73, No. 10, October 2003, pp. 28-32; at www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf.

Todd Litman (2003), Evaluating Research Quality, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/resqual.pdf.

Todd Litman (2004), Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impact, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/landuse.pdf.

Todd Litman (2005), “Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient Transportation: Comparing Transportation Energy Conservation Strategies,” Transport Policy, Volume 12, Issue 2, March 2005, Pages 121-129; at www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf.

Todd Litman (2005), The Future Isn’t What It Used To Be: Changing Trends And Their Implications For Transport Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/future.pdf; published as, “Changing Travel Demand: Implications for Transport Planning,” ITE Journal, Vol. 76, No. 9, (www.ite.org), September 2006, pp. 27-33.

Todd Litman (2006), Win-Win Emission Reduction Strategies, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf.

Todd Litman (2006), Planning Principles and Practices, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/planning.pdf. This paper summarizes key principles and practices for effective land use and transportation planning.

Todd Litman (2006) “Transportation Market Distortions,” Berkeley Planning Journal; issue theme Sustainable Transport in the United States: From Rhetoric to Reality? (www-dcrp.ced.berkeley.edu/bpj), Volume 19, 2006, pp. 19-36; at www.vtpi.org/distortions_BPJ.pdf.

Todd Litman (2007), Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/access.pdf .

Todd Litman (2007), Pavement Buster’s Guide: Why and How to Reduce the Amount of Land Paved for Roads and Parking Facilities, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/pavbust.pdf.

Todd Litman (2007), Comprehensive Transport Planning, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/comprehensive.pdf.

Todd Litman (2008), Recommendations for Improving LEED Transportation and Parking Credits, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/leed_rec.pdf.

Todd Litman (2008), Multi-Modal Transport Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/multimodal_planning.pdf.

Todd Litman (2009), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis; Techniques, Estimates and Implications, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtip.org); at www.vtip.org/tca.

Todd Litman (2009), Rethinking Malahat Solutions: Or, Why Spend A Billion Dollars If A Five-Million Dollar Solution Is Better Overall?, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/malahat.pdf. 

Todd Litman (2012), Toward More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/comp_evaluation.pdf; summarized in JOURNEYS, September 2013, pp. 50-58 (www.ltaacademy.gov.sg/journeys.htm).

Todd Litman (2013), “The New Transportation Planning Paradigm,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vo. 83, No. 6, pp. 20-28; at http://digitaleditions.sheridan.com/publication/?i=161624.

Ian Lockwood (2017), “Making the Case for Transportation Language Reform: Removing Bias,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol.87, No. 1, January, pp. 41-43; at https://swbikeinitiative.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/ite_language_reform-by-ian-lockwood-pdf.pdf.

Hugh McClintock (2001), Comprehensive Transportation Planning Bibliography, Institute of Urban Planning, University of Nottingham, U.K (www.nottingham.ac.uk/sbe/planbiblios/bibs).

Montana Transportation and Land Use Toolkit (www.mdt.mt.gov/research/toolkit/default.shtml) provides best practices for better coordinating transportation and land use decisions.

Noxon Associates (2009), Canadian Guidelines for the Measurement of Transportation Demand Management Initiatives, Transport Canada (www.tc.gc.ca/urban); at www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/programs/cgmtdmi.pdf.

Noxon Associates (2011), Transportation Demand Management for Canadian Communities: A Guide to Understanding, Planning and Delivering TDM Programs, Transport Canada (www.tc.gc.ca/urban); at www.noxonassociates.com/guide.html.

Office of Highway Policy Information (www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi) provides information on U.S. highway system planning, funding and use.

OTM, Transportation Performance Measures, Office of Transportation Management, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/toolbox). 

PennDOT (2007), The Transportation and Land Use Toolkit: A Planning Guide for Linking Transportation to Land Use and Economic Development, Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation, PUB 616 (3-07); at (ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20616.pdf).

PennDOT & NJDOT (2008), Smart Transportation Guidebook, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the New Jersey Department of Transportation, Smart-Transportation Partnership (www.smart-transportation.com); at www.smart-transportation.com/guidebook.html.

Performance Measurement Exchange (http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/pm.nsf/home), is a website supported by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the Transportation Research Board to promote better transportation decision-making.

Planners Web (www.webcom.com/pcj), maintained by the Planning Commissioners Journal, includes a sprawl resources guide, a primer for citizen planners, a tour of 12 key planning related sites, and a section on conservation design for subdivisions.

PLANetizen (www.planetizen.com) provides up-to-date information on planning and development issues.

John Poorman (2005), “A Holistic Transportation Planning Framework for Management and Operations,” ITE Journal, Vol. 75, No. 5 (www.ite.org), May 2005, pp. 28-32.

PPS (2008), Streets As Places: Using Streets To Rebuild Communities, Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org); at www.pps.org/pdf/bookstore/Using_Streets_to_Rebuild_Communities.pdf.

PPS (2008), The Quiet Revolution in Transportation Planning: How Great Corridors Make Great Communities, Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org); at www.pps.org/pdf/bookstore/Great_Corridors_Great_Communities.pdf.

PPS (2008), A Citizen’s Guide to Better Streets, Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org); at www.pps.org/pdf/bookstore/How_to_Engage_Your_Transportation_Agency_AARP.pdf.

Richard H. Pratt (2005), Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook, TCRP, TRB (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=1034.

John Preston (2012), Integration for Seamless Transport, Discussion Paper No. 2012-01, International Transport Forum (www.internationaltransportforum.org); at www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP201201.pdf. 

PROSPECTS (2003), Transport Strategy: A Decisionmakers Guidebook, Konsult, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds (www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk); at www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/public/level1/sec00/index.htm; originally published as, Developing Sustainable Urban Land Use and Transport Strategies: A Methodological Guidebook; at www.infra.kth.se/courses/1H1402/Litteratur/pr_del14mg.pdf.

Resource for Urban Design Information (RUDI) (www.rudi.net) supports urban design, transport, architecture and planning professionals involved in placemaking.

Collin Roughton, et al. (2012), Creating Walkable and Bikeable Communities: A User Guide to Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans, Center for Transportation Studies at Portland State University (www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu); at www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/media/IBPI%20Master%20Plan%20Handbook%20FINAL%20(7.27.12).pdf.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (www.spur.org) is an organization working to improve urban planning practices in the San Francisco region.

SANDAG (2012), Integrating Transportation Demand Management Into the Planning and Development Process: A Reference for Cities, iCommute (www.icommutesd.com), San Diego Regional Planning and HNTB; at www.icommutesd.com/documents/TDMStudy_May2012_webversion_000.pdf.

Carissa Schively, Meagan Beekman, Cynthia Carlson and Jenn Reed (2007), Enhancing Transportation: The Effects of Public Involvement in Planning and Design Processes, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota, for the American Institute of Architects; at www.cts.umn.edu/pdf/CTS-07-10.pdf. 

SGN (2002), Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation, Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) and International City/County Management Association (www.icma.org).

Charles Siegel (2010), Unplanning: Livable Cities and Political Choices, Preservation Institute (www.preservenet.com); at www.preservenet.com/unplanning/Unplanning.html.

Smart Growth America and SSTI (2015), The Innovative DOT: A Handbook of Policy and Practice, Smart Growth America and the State Smart Transportation Initiative (www.smartgrowthamerica.org); at www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/the-innovative-dot-third-edition.pdf.

The SUSTRAN network (www.geocities.com/sustrannet) provides useful information on implementing TDM in developing countries.

SUTP (2014), Urban Mobility Plans – National Approaches and Local Practice, Sustainable Urban Transportation Project (www.sutp.org); at www.sutp.org/files/TD13_UMP_final.pdf.

TDM Resource Center (www.wsdot.wa.gov/Mobility/TDMhome.html) and Northwest Technology Transfer Center (www.wsdot.wa.gov/TA/T2) provide TDM resources.

TDM Resource Center (1996), Transportation Demand Management; A Guide to Including TDM Strategies in Major Investment Studies and in Planning for Other Transportation Projects, Office of Urban Mobility, WSDOT (www.wsdot.wa.gov).

Victor S. Teglasi (2012), Why Transportation Mega-Projects (Often) Fail? Case Studies of Selected Transportation Mega-Projects in the New York City Metropolitan Area, Thesis, Columbia University (www.columbia.edu); at https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:147069/CONTENT/Teglasi__UP_Thesis_May_2012__vst2106_.pdf. 

Brian D. Taylor and Lisa Schweitzer (2005), “Assessing the Experience of Mandated Collaborative Inter-Jurisdictional Transport Planning in the United States,” Transport Policy, Vol. 12, No. 6 (www.elsevier.com/locate/transpol), Nov. 2005, pp. 500-511.

Toolbox for Regional Policy Analysis Website (www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/toolbox/index.htm) by the US Federal Highway Administration, describes analytical methods for evaluating regional economic, social and environmental impacts of various transportation and land use policies.

TrafficLinq (www.trafficlinq.com) is an extensive directory of links covering issues regarding road traffic and transportation. It covers about 1,000 web sites world wide, and has an option to scan all transportation sites with one query.

Transport Geography on the Web (www.people.hofstra.edu/geotrans) is an Internet resource to promote access to transport geography information, including articles, maps, figures, and datatsets.

Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships (www.transportationforcommunities.com) is a decision support tool which provides technical information to help develop, prioritize, and inform transportation plans and projects.

Transportation Control Measures Directory (http://yosemite.epa.gov/aa\tcmsitei.nsf) is a U.S. EPA resource that provides a searchable database of TDM program case studies.

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

Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships (www.transportationforcommunities.com) is an integrated website that provides guidance for transport planning and investment decisions, particularly within the U.S. transportation development system.

Transportation Research Board Joint Subcommittee on Community Impact Assessment  (www.ciatrans.net) addresses environmental planning, environmental justice, sustainable development and other federal, state, and local planning issues.

TRB (2012), Going the Distance Together: A Citizen’s Guide to Context Sensitive Solutions for Better Transportation, Web Document 184, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_W184.pdf.

Jeff Tumlin (2012), Sustainable Transportation Planning: Tools for Creating Vibrant, Healthy, and Resilient Communities, Wiley (www.wiley.com); at www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470540931.html.

University of California Transportation Systems Center (www.uctc.net) provides a wide range of research publications.

Urban Land Institute (www.uli.org) is a professional organization for developers, which provides practical information on innovative development practices, including infill and sustainable community planning.

Wilbur Smith Associates (2004), Noteworthy MPO Practices in Transportation-Land Use Planning Integration, prepared for Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations; at

www.ampo.org/assets/library_3/4_ampotranlanduserptfinal05.pdf.

World Bank (2004), Design and Appraisal of Rural Transport Infrastructure, World Bank (www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/transport/rural_tr/des&appr.htm).

WSDOT (2011), Community Planning And Development, Washington State Department of Transportation (www.wsdot.wa.gov); at www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/Planning.

---

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.

VTPI Homepage

Encyclopedia Homepage

Send Comments

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Web page: www.vtpi.org       Email: info@vtpi.org

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

Phone & Fax 250-360-1560

“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

#50