Road Space Reallocation
Roadway Design and Management to Support Transportation Alternatives
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 21 March 2019
This chapter describes how roadway design and management practices can encourage more efficient transportation by providing more space for walking, cycling, ridesharing and public transit.
Road space is a scarce public resource. Roadway right-of-way is one of the most valuable assets owned by most municipal governments, and roadway design can have a significant effect on a community’s character and transportation patterns. Conventional transport planning practices tend to devote most road space to general traffic and vehicle parking. Since automobiles are relatively space intensive and impose crash risk, noise and air pollution impacts on nonmotorized travellers, motor vehicle traffic tends to “squeeze out” other modes of transport.
Road Space Reallocation involves shifting road space currently devoted to automobile traffic or parking to serve other modes, such as sidewalks, bike lanes, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and bus lanes, or rail lines. In some cases it involves reducing total road rights of way in order to make land available for other uses. It is a method of Prioritizing transportation to favor higher value trips and more efficient modes. Road Space Reallocation can involve the following TDM strategies.
Road Space Reallocation is particularly appropriate on congested roadways. A vehicle’s road space requirements increase with its size and speed (Congestion). Automobile transportation requires several times as much road space per passenger-mile than other modes, as indicated in Table 1 (also see Litman 2001), so motorists impose far more congestion per person than travels using other modes. For this reason, it tends to be both more equitable and efficient to give priority to more space-efficient modes on congested roads, so travelers who require less road space are not delayed by congestion imposed by more space-intensive modes.
Table 1 Typical Per-Person Travel Space Requirements (Land Use Evaluation)
|
|
Speed (mph) |
Standing/Parked (square feet) |
Traveling (square feet) |
|
Pedestrian |
3 |
5 |
20 |
|
Bicycle |
10 |
20 |
50 |
|
Bus Passenger |
30 |
20 |
75 |
|
Automobile |
30 |
400 |
1,500 |
|
Automobile |
60 |
400 |
5,000 |
This table compares typical space requirements for different modes of travel.
Road Space Reallocation is supported by Complete Streets policies which recognize that roadways often serve diverse functions including through travel, recreational walking, socializing, vending, and nearby living, which must be considered and balanced in roadway design and management. Since road space requirements increase with traffic speeds (faster vehicles require more “shy distance”) and impose greater impacts on nonmotorized travelers, Traffic Speed Management can be considered a form of road space allocation that increases transport system efficiency and modal diversity.
Some cities have removed urban highways, in some cases converting them into multi-modal roadways, with slower speed, wider sidewalks, special lanes for bicycles and buses, and attractive streetscaping to integrate them into the urban environment (ITDP 2012). The Highways to Boulevards Initiative (www.cnu.org/highways) describes how and why these highway conversions occur, and discusses various examples and case studies.
Research summarized by Cairns, Akins and Goodwin (2001) indicates that under certain conditions, reducing the amount of road space allocated to automobile traffic does not increase traffic congestion, and that it can help achieve a variety of transport improvement objectives. This research found that reducing roadway capacity tends to reduce total vehicle traffic: travelers respond by shifting when and how they travel, and their destinations.
Many congested urban arterials have on-street parking lanes. In such situations, Road Space Reallocation involves trade-offs between convenient automobile parking and improved mobility by alternative modes. Reallocating this road space to transit, HOV or cycling lanes, or increased sidewalk space can help achieve equity and efficiency objectives by improving mobility options for non-drivers and encouraging travelers to shift from automobile to more space-efficient modes such as transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking, particularly since automobile parking can be provided off-street or on nearby streets. However, local interests (particularly merchants with shops located on an arterial) often lobby to maintain on-street parking.
In some situations it is possible to eliminate separated lanes and even sidewalks and share road space between various users (Hamilton-Baillie 2008), sometimes called naked streets. This is appropriate on low- and medium-volume urban streets where vehicle traffic speeds are low.
In addition, prioritization can support other planning objectives, such as creating better public spaces for commercial activities, social interactions and aesthetic features Marshall, 2003). For example, it may mean converting traffic or parking lanes into sidewalk space to accommodate retail activities, benches and laws, or closing off streets to vehicle traffic for special events.
An lobbying effort called Complete The Streets (www.completestreets.org) promotes the concept of insuring that all (or at least most) streets accommodate all modes, including walking, cycling and motor vehicles. This program argues that nonmotorized modes deserve more consideration in roadway design and roadspace allocation.
Road Space Reallocation is usually implemented as part of a local or regional transportation planning process (EC 2009). It can begin with establishment of Complete Streets policies which recognize that roadways often serve diverse functions including through travel, recreational walking, socializing, vending, and nearby living, which must be considered and balanced in roadway design and management. It may include adopting HOV Priority policies, New Urbanist street design standards, and Nonmotorized Planning programs. Institutional Reforms may be required to achieve these changes, for example, allow funding to be shifted from general lanes to HOV or bicycle lanes, or sidewalks. Harvey, Tomecki and Teh (2012) describe a methodology for evaluating where bus lanes and other priority treatments are economically justified.
Roadway design affects transportation activities in many ways. Reallocating road space can encourage the use of alternative modes and create more accessible land use patterns.
Table 2 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
Depends on the specific strategies employed. |
|
Reduces peak period traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Shifts peak to off-peak periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces the need for travel. |
2 |
|
|
Increased ridesharing. |
3 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
3 |
|
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
3 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Road Space Reallocation can encourage the use of alternative modes and create a more efficient transportation system, and so can help achieve all TDM objectives. By improving access and creating more attractive, walkable neighborhoods it can support economic development (Fleming, Turner and Tarjomi 2013). Research by Cairns (1999) indicates that it can increase road safety.
Table 3 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
|
|
Road & Parking Savings |
2 |
|
|
Consumer Savings |
2 |
|
|
Transport Choice |
2 |
|
|
Road Safety |
2 |
|
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
|
|
Efficient Land Use |
3 |
|
|
Community Livability |
3 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Road Space Reallocation has a variety of equity impacts. It increases safety and accessibility for some types of travel, but can reduce speeds for others. Road Space Reallocation gives priority to efficient modes, which increases horizontal equity: travelers that impose less congestion on others bear less congestion delay. Current road design and management practices result in transit and rideshare passengers being delayed by traffic congestion equally with single occupant automobile passengers, although they require less road space per passenger-mile and so impose less congestion on other road users.
Similarly, current transportation planning practices can be considered unfair to people who walk or bicycle, who bear transportation costs, but receive less benefit than motorists. Road Space Reallocation that favors nonmotorized modes can increase horizontal equity by allowing people who impose lower costs (road space, parking requirements, crash risk and environmental impacts) to have a greater share of public resources than they do now.
Table 4 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
-1 |
Benefits some people, but disadvantages others. |
|
Individuals bear the costs they impose. |
2 |
Allocates more road space to space efficient modes. |
|
Progressive with respect to income. |
3 |
Improves travel by modes used by low-income people: transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking. |
|
Benefits transportation disadvantaged. |
3 |
Improves travel by modes used by disadvantaged people: transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
3 |
Prioritizes travel to favor basic access trips. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Road Space Reallocation can be implemented at various scales, but tends to be most important in urban areas where there is adequate demand for alternative modes, and traffic and parking congestion problems are significant.
32%
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
1 |
Federal government. |
0 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial government. |
1 |
|
Medium-density, urban/suburban. |
2 |
Regional government. |
2 |
|
Town. |
2 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
1 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
3 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
1 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
3 |
Developer. |
1 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
2 |
|
College/university communities. |
3 |
Campus. |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Incentive to Use Alternative Modes
Road Space Reallocation supports Transit, Ridesharing, Cycling, Walking, Universal Design, HOV Priority, Freight Transport Management, Complete Streets Policies, Traffic Calming, Parking Management and Tourist Transport Management. It is supported by transportation planning reforms (Prioritizing Transportation, Access Management, Comprehensive Transportation Planning, Institutional Reforms, Least Cost Planning and Context Sensitive Design). It tends to support land use management objectives, including New Urbanism, Street Reclaiming and Smart Growth.
Road Space Reallocation is implemented through planning that often includes provincial/state departments of transportation, local and regional transportation and planning authorities and traffic engineers.
There may be opposition to reallocating road space from automobile associations, and public officials accustomed to current roadway design and management practices. There may be opposition from people who consider current practices most equitable, and shifting resources to alternative modes to be unfair. There may be institutional barriers to overcome, including planning and funding practices that favor automobile use, such as dedicated highway funding that is unavailable for other types of facilities.
|
One night a wife found her husband standing over their newborn baby's crib. Silently she watched him. As he stood looking down at the sleeping infant, she saw on his face a mixture of emotions: disbelief, doubt, delight, amazement, enchantment, skepticism. Touched by this unusual display and the deep emotions it aroused, with eyes glistening she slipped her arms around her husband. “A penny for your thoughts,” she whispered in his ear. “It's amazing!” he replied. “I just can't see how anybody can make a crib like that for only $46.50!” |
The report Reclaiming City Streets For People: Chaos Or Quality Of Life? (EC 2009) describes several examples of reallocation of road space from automobile to alternative modes.
Gössling, et al (2016) used high-resolution digital satellite images in combination with a geographical information system to analyze the amount of land devoted to transportation facilities, and the portion of this land devoted to various modes, in four different districts in Freiburg, Germany. Their results indicate that space is unevenly distributed, with automobile transport receiving more than it’s mode trip share and bicycling receiving less than their proportional share of trips.
Table 6 Land Area Versus Mode Share in Freiburg (Gössling, et al 2016)
|
|
Portion of Land Area |
Mode Share |
|
Roads |
48.6% |
|
|
Public parking |
6.6% |
|
|
Road and parking |
55.2% |
32% |
|
Pedestrian area |
24.8% |
23% |
|
Mixed use bicycle and walking |
8.3% |
50% |
|
Public transport |
6.5% |
18% |
|
Bicycle |
2.4% |
27% |
|
Mixed uses |
2.7% |
100% |
Freiburg, Germany devotes a greater share of public land to automobile facilities (roads and parking) than its mode share, while public transit and bicycling receive less than their mode share.
The UK Government’s Transport White Paper ‘A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone’ signalled a change in the policy framework within which roadspace can be reallocated and highlighted how in appropriate cases roadspace can be used to accommodate, even facilitate, the renaissance of urban areas. Indeed, the Government, in its recent ‘Guidance on Provisional Local Transport Plans’, has indicated that it is now keen to “encourage local authorities to take a radical look at the options” for reallocating roadspace (paragraph 49).
In addition, the potential road traffic reduction impacts of novel capacity reallocation measures such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes and No-Car Lanes may also warrant further investigation. However, at a more general level, it is clear that the reallocation of roadspace will form a crucial element in any strategy for road traffic reduction. There are two important reasons for this. Firstly, by reallocating road space to buses, pedestrians and cyclists, road capacity released by the restraint of certain car-based trips (for example, through road user charging) will be prevented from being taken up by suppressed demand, which is known to exist on large parts of London’s congested highway network. Secondly, it is likely that significant increases in vehicle speed may occur in areas where road user charging schemes are implemented.
For example, the previous Government’s London Congestion Charging Research Programme found that if a high level (£8.00 per day, one-way) road user charge was introduced in Central London, traffic speeds in the area would increase by 27%. Similarly, Halcrow Fox’s recent work for London First, found that the imposition of a £5.00 road user charge in Central London would result in an increase in vehicle speeds of 20%. The ROCOL Report indicates a 12.5% increase in average traffic speeds over a 14-hour period in Central London with a £5.00 road user charge. Such speed increases will need to be carefully checked if one of the strategy’s main objectives - to reduce the number of road accident casualties - is to be achieved. Clearly, the reallocation of roadspace to buses, pedestrians and cyclists, and sensible traffic calming measures are likely to be critical in checking such speed increases. It is, however, worth clarifying that LPAC’s strategy aims to deliver improvements in journey time reliability rather than increases in speed for vehicles paying road user charges, hence, bringing greater certainty of travel for all road users.
During the consultation exercise on the draft Supplementary Advice, a number of concerns were raised, particularly in Outer London, that a reduction in general highway capacity on the secondary network through the reallocation of roadspace to buses, pedestrians and cyclists, could result in the transfer of traffic onto local residential roads. Whilst this may occur in certain circumstances, if roadspace reallocation is co-ordinated with traffic calming measures on neighbouring local roads, the problem should be avoided in most cases. Of relevance to this, research carried out jointly for the DETR and London Transport in 1998 into the ‘Traffic Impact of Highway Capacity Reductions’ (Summary Report) found that “the negative effects of reducing capacity exist, but are, on balance, less significant than has sometimes been feared” (paragraph 4.1.1). The report concludes that “measures which reduce or reallocate road capacity, when well-designed and favoured by strong reasons of policy, need not automatically be rejected for fear that they must inevitably cause unacceptable congestion” (paragraph 4.1.5).
Traditionally, traffic-signal optimization refers to the efforts being made to improve motor-vehicular-traffic flow. However, the optimization philosophy for Arlington, Virginia differs substantially from that of most jurisdictions as its vision of creating urban villages focuses on reducing automobile dependency and encouraging the use of mass transit, walking and biking. The County has recently completed optimization of 190 signals with the primary emphasis on improving pedestrian mobility and multi-modal safety, while also improving traffic flow for autos, buses and bicyclists, and reducing fuel consumption and emissions.
By performing a thorough review of pedestrian intervals, the newly implemented time for pedestrians to cross the streets increased by an average of over four seconds per crossing. To further improve pedestrian operations, an exclusive all-red phase and additional pedestrian overlaps were implemented at selective locations. Among other multi-modal improvements, new vehicular clearances were implemented to enhance traffic safety; “Walk” intervals were increased at selective bike crossings to improve the bicycle flow; an additional left-turn phase was added and the offsets were specially designed near the metro stations to improve bus flow; and time-of-day lead/lag operations were implemented to improve the peak directional traffic flow. Despite the increases in clearance intervals, efforts were made to maintain the historically low cycle lengths in Arlington. A significant effort was made to adjust the splits and also fine-tune the offsets using the time-space diagram that resulted in improved bi-directional progression and a reduction in existing traffic problems such as left-turn spill-over, blockage of upstream intersections, stacking issues on short links, etc. These improvements are truly multi-modal – for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders – consistent with Arlington’s commitment to transportation investment that supports improved access for all modes of travel and environmental sustainability.
The speed-up programme concentrated on three separate objectives:
· Unhindered trips between junctions, without hold-ups caused by private traffic, to be achieved by building special (tram) lines and separate bus lanes.
· Zero' waiting time for public transport at light-controlled junctions, by developing a fully flexible control philosophy.
· Extension of the data-controlled operational control system, so that the operational control centre is always informed about deviations from the timetable and other programmes, and can remedy the situations or help by putting previously-designed measures into effect.
Houston, Texas has 105 miles of HOV lanes. They move 96-228% more people per lane than general access lanes, and account for 5% of the travel by the workforce. HOV lanes can be used by buses, carpools, vanpools and motorcycles. On weekday mornings, HOV lane traffic moves toward Downtown (inbound). On weekday afternoons and evenings, HOV lane traffic moves away from Downtown (outbound). On the Katy HOV lane, minimum occupancy increases to three persons from 6:45 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays; a minimum of three passengers per vehicle also is required on the Northwest HOV lane from 6:45 to 8 a.m. At other times, the minimum occupancy requirement is two. QuickRide, a pilot program started in January 1998, allows carpools with two people per vehicle to use the Katy HOV during weekday peak periods for a fee. QuickRide commuters are tracked and billed using a transponder attached to their windshields.
The city of Oxford (population of 130,000, of which 20,000 are students) was one of the first cities in the UK to adopt traffic restraint policies. This program includes:
Oxford serves as a regional centre for a scattered, largely rural population of about half a million people. The city has the largest Park and Ride system in the UK and extensive bus priority lanes and traffic signal systems. Deregulation of buses in 1986 resulted in real competition with two large bus companies operating extensive bus services. These strategies were first introduced in the 1980’s and were expanded further in the mid-1990’s. They have proven very successful, with traffic levels remaining stable for over 25 years. Bus patronage has experienced an 80% growth in passengers in the last 10 years and economic vitality has been preserved.
Traffic restraint measures in the city center appear to have increased economic activity for many businesses, particularly those involved in light retail and tourist activities. Other businesses opposed the changes. Some of their objections appear warranted (their business activity declined) but others were excessively negative in their reactions, giving customers an impression that access to their shops would be far more difficult than it really is (customers are allowed to access most city businesses by car, they simply cannot drive through the town).
Strategic land use policies, for the sub-region within which Oxford lies, take account of the critical landscape and environmental constraints and are complimentary to transport policies aimed at reducing car dependence and encouraging the use of alternative modes of travel.
A legislative study of HOV facilities in California found that they carry an average of 2,518 passengers per hour during peak hours--substantially more people than a congested mixed-flow lane and roughly the same number of people as a typical mixed-flow lane operating at maximum capacity. This only represents two-thirds of their capacity. Regional data indicate that HOV lanes induce mode shift to carpooling.
A survey of more than 1,000 drivers and pedestrians traveling to a commercial street in central New York city found that most area shoppers do not drive, and that shifting street space from vehicle parking to pedestrians would increase the number of shoppers and the amount of business activity in the area. Shoppers who value wider sidewalks over parking spent about five times as much money, in the aggregate, as those who value parking over sidewalks. “The majority of shopping dollars, and the majority of residents and visitors that spend them, come by mass transit and on foot. The way we manage our street space should reflect this basic fact,” says Bruce Schaller, Principal of Schaller Consulting. “We already know that wider sidewalks are good for health, safety, and quality of life, now we know that they are also good for NYC's business,” says Paul Steely White, Executive Director of Transportation Alternatives.
The study, Shared-Use Bus Priority Lanes on City Streets: Case Studies in Design and Management, examined the design and operations of bus lanes in major congested urban centers. It focuses on bus lanes that operate in mixed traffic conditions, and provides the historical legal, institutional, engineering, and enforcement contexts for understanding the bus lane development and management strategies in seven cities out of the dozens that have chosen to adopt this practice. Bus lanes tend to be well suited for cities that have high levels of bus transit demand and traffic operating conditions that are so dense and complex that it is impractical to physically segregate lanes solely for transit use.
Most common bus priority lanes are along the curbside. This position minimizes impacts on general traffic flow, but puts buses into competition with vehicles queuing to make turns, stopping at the curb to pick up or discharge passengers, standing at the curb to make deliveries to local business, or parking. Several of the cities examined here are shifting toward alternative approaches that mitigate some of these drawbacks, including offset lanes that preserve more curb access (New York, San Francisco), physical barriers (Paris), and median bus lanes (Seoul). There has been trend over the past decade in most of these cities toward bus lane designs that more clearly declare their presence by using painted lanes. But one city (Seoul) is already pulling back from this due to safety and maintenance concerns, and it remains to be seen how many of the cities sustain the commitment to ongoing painting programs that such lane designs require. There is no single “one size fits all” bus lane design or alignment suitable throughout any of these cities. Each has had to adapt its bus lane designs and regulations to meet local conditions, often on a block-by-block basis.
Nearly every city studied allows all vehicles to use curbside bus priority lanes to make turns and access driveways. Taxis are universally allowed to use the lanes to pick up and discharge passengers. Several cities authorize bicycles and taxis to drive in a bus lane as well. In most cities these lanes are bus-only during peak periods.
In most cases, enforcement of traffic laws is a police responsibility. Some cities have passed laws reclassifying bus lane violations as civil infractions that can be enforced by civilian agents and/or by automated cameras. Others have developed contractual or supervisory relationships between police and transportation agencies to ensure that there are personnel directly responsible for bus lane enforcement. Others have pursued opportunities to install physical barriers, move bus lanes away from the curb, or adopt other design strategies that rely less heavily on enforcement to make bus lanes work.
The British government has developed policies to allow highway authorities to designate streets as “home zones,” residential streets with limited traffic speeds. Within these zones, street activity, including play, will be lawful. Design speeds will be less than 20mph - probably 10mph. Signs will be posted at the area edges to indicate their special status. Designs will include shared surfaces (no curbs), landscaping and play equipment. The federal government will distribute funding to local agencies for planning and implementation.
The Congress for New Urbanism’s Highways to Boulevards program describes successful highway conversion projects in New York City, Portland, San Francisco (Embarcadero and Central Freeway), Milwaukee and Seoul, South Korea. In each of these cases, reducing road space improved the city’s livability and supported economic development without creating gridlock. The CNU’s Freeways Without Futures identifies ten North American urban highways with significant opportunity to replace aging urban highways with boulevards and other cost-saving urban alternatives.
Several sets of roads in Florida (Atlantic Boulevard in Del Ray Beach, and another couplet of main street streets in West Palm Beach County) went on 4- to 3-lane and 4- to 2-lane reductions on the Main Street roads. In each case the businesses did much better once the roads were made more attractive and speeding was reduced. The Atlantic Beach treatment was so successful that it is being extended another 10 blocks.
In Ferndale, Michigan, a 4-lane was converted to a 2-lane on their very busy main street. Before the transition most businesses had either failed or were operating out of the alley. Following the conversion there has been a major return of shoppers. The treatment is being extended.
On PARK(ing) Day people transform parking spots into small parks. PARK(ing) Day seeks to create awareness about the need for more open spaces in cities and challenge the way people think about how streets are used. These places where cars would sit all day became active places of recreation, interaction and play. PARK(ing) Day seeks to create awareness about the need for more open spaces in cities and challenge the way people think about how streets are used.
The Swiss federal government has established “Begegnungszonen” (Strolling Zones), which is a downtown commercial street that is operated as a pedestrian zone, where lanes are narrow and cars must travel at a low speed. This concept has proven popular with residents and businesses, and is being implemented in more than 20 communities in Switzerland.
Grandview Avenue in University Place, Washington is a busy two-lane suburban road where traffic averaged 44 miles per hour despite a 35-mph posted speed limit, until the roadway was redesigned with narrower traffic lanes, bike lanes, landscaping and sidewalks. After the project, average traffic speeds have declined to 35-mph, and the road is much more attractive for pedestrians and cyclists.
Every Sunday more than 70 miles of Bogota, Columbia streets are closed to motor vehicle traffic so residents can walk, bike, run, skate, recreate, picnic, and visit with family, neighbors & strangers. Nearly 1.8 million Colombians use the Ciclovia and Recreovia to de-stress, get healthy, and connect personally with their fellow citizens. Young or old, rich or poor, pedestrian or cyclist - in Bogotá everyone loves the Ciclovia. This program encourages share living, civility and urbanism.
Jeffrey Ang-Olson and Anjali Mahendra (2011), Cost/Benefit Analysis of Converting a Lane tor Bus Rapid Transit—Phase II Evaluation And Methodology, Research Results Digest 352, National Highway Research Program; at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf.
America Bikes (2005), Complete The Streets for Safer Bicycling and Walking, America Bikes (www.americabikes.org/bicycleaccomodation_factsheet_completestreets.asp).
Jim Beamguard (1999), “Packing Pavement,” Tampa Tribune (www.swt.org/share/bguard.html). Photos and article compare the amount of road space used by transit patrons, motorists and cyclists.
Eric Bruun and Vukan Vuchic (1995), “Time-Area Concept: Development, Meaning, and Applications,” Transportation Research Record 1499, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 95-100.
Stephen Burrington and Veronika Thiebach (1995), Take Back Your Streets; How to Protect Communities from Asphalt and Traffic, Conservation Law Foundation (www.clf.org). Guide provides justifications and information on implementing Traffic Calming.
Sally Cairns, Steven Akins and Phil Goodwin (2001), Disappearing Traffic: The Story so Far, Centre for Transport Studies, University College London (www.ucl.ac.uk/transport-studies/tsu/disapp.pdf).
Sally Cairns, et al (2004), Smarter Choices - Changing the Way We Travel, UK Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk). This comprehensive study provides detailed evaluation of the potential travel impacts and costs of various mobility management strategies. Includes numerous case studies.
Center for Livable Communities, which is part of the Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org/clc), provides practical tools for innovative land use and transportation planning.
Center for Urban Transportation Research, (www.cutr.eng.usf.edu) provides TDM materials and classes and publishes TMA Clearinghouse Quarterly.
Citizen Planner Institute (www.citizenplanner.com) trains average citizens, public officials, business people, and kids in the basics of neighborhood and town design.
CIVITAS (www.civitas-initiative.org) is a European Commission supported initiative to help introduce sustainable urban transport strategies.
CNU (2011), Highways to Boulevards, Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org); at www.cnu.org/highways. Includes examples of successful urban highway conversion projects in New York City, Portland, San Francisco, Milwaukee and Seoul, South Korea
Tina Collier and Ginger Goodin (2004), Managed Lanes: A Cross-Cutting Study, Operations Office of Transportation Management, Federal Highway Administration (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/managed_lanes/index.htm).
Complete Streets (www.completestreets.org) is a campaign to promote roadway designs that accommodate multiple modes and support local planning objectives.
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). Available at www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/474.html.
Congress for the New Urbanism (www.cnu.org), provides a variety of information on innovative urban design. The CNU Narrow Streets Database (www.sonic.net/abcaia/narrow.htm) describes more flexible zoning codes being implemented in various communities.
CDEA & Associates (1999), Main Street…When a Highway Runs Through It, Transportation and Growth Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental Quality
(www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm).
DfT (2006), Manual for Streets, Department for Transport (www.manualforstreets.org.uk). Provides guidance to practitioners on effective street design.
EC (2009), Reclaiming City Streets For People: Chaos Or Quality Of Life?, European Commission Directorate-General For The Environment (www.ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm); at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/streets_people.pdf.
FHWA, Management and Operations Toolbox, (http://plan2op.fhwa.dot.gov/toolbox/toolbox.htm) provides information and techniques for evaluating transportation systems management strategies.
T. Fleming (Allatt), S. Turner and L. Tarjomi (2013), Reallocation of Road Space, Research Report 530, NZ Transport Agency (www.nzta.govt.nz); at www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/530/docs/RR-530-Reallocation-of-road-space.pdf.
GIZ and KOTI (2011), Reviving the Soul in Seoul: Seoul’s Experience in Demolishing Road Infrastructure and Improving Public Transport, GIZ and the Korea Transport Institute (KOTI), Sustainable Urban Transport Policy (www.sutp.org); at www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2782.
Stefan Gössling, Marcel Schröder, Philipp Späth and Tim Freytag (2016), “Urban Space Distribution and Sustainable Transport,” Transport Reviews (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1147101).
Ben Hamilton-Baillie (2008), “Toward Shared Space,” Urban Design International, Vol. 13, pp. 130–138; at www.hamilton-baillie.co.uk/_files/_publications/30-1.pdf. Related publications at Hamilton-Baillie Associates, www.hamilton-baillie.co.uk.
M. Harvey, A. Tomecki and C. Teh (2012), Identify, Evaluate And Recommend Bus Priority Interventions, Research Report 506, New Zealand Transport Agency (http://nzta.govt.nz); at http://nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/506/docs/506.pdf.
Daniel Herriges (2016), Narrow Streets do More with Less, Public Square, Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org); at www.cnu.org/publicsquare/narrow-streets-do-more-less.
Meyer Hillman (2001), A Continuous Pedestrian Network, Walking the 21st Century (www.dpi.wa.gov.au/metro/gettingthere/walking/pdfs/K1.pdf).
Herman Huang and Michael Cynecki (2001), The Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA RD-00-104 (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/for_ped.htm#calm).
Information and Publicity Helping the Objective of Reducing Motorized Mobility (INPHORMM) (www.wmin.ac.uk/Env/UDP/phorm/inphormm.htm) is an organization that supports TDM marketing efforts.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org/traffic) has extensive technical resources on TDM, transportation planning and traffic calming.
ITDP (2012), The Life and Death of Urban Highways, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.itdp.org/urbanhighways); at www.itdp.org/documents/LifeandDeathofUrbanHighways_031312.pdf.
Robert Johnston, Jay Lund and Paul P. Craig (2005), “Capacity-Allocation Methods for Reducing Urban Traffic Congestion,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 1, January 1995, pp. 27-39.
Todd Litman (2000), Transportation Land Valuation; Evaluating Policies and Practices that Affect the Amount of Land Devoted to Transportation Facilities, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org).
Todd Litman (2001), Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org).
Todd Litman (2015), When Are Bus Lanes Warranted? Accounting For Economic Efficiency, Social Equity, and Strategic Planning Goals, presented at Threadbo 14 Conference (www.thredbo-conference-series.org); at www.vtpi.org/blw.pdf.
Elizabeth MacDonald (2006), “Building A Boulevard,” ACCESS 28, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net), Spring 2006, pp. 2-9.
Managed Lanes Initiative (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/managed_lanes/index.htm), sponsored by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, provides information on various strategies for managing highway lanes to improve their performance.
Stephen Marshall (2003), “The Street: Integrating Transport and Urban Environment,” Handbook of Transport and the Environment, Elsevier (www.elsevier.com), pp. 771-786.
NACTO (2016), Transit Street Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials (http://nacto.org); at http://nacto.org/transit-street-design-guide.
Nelson\Nygaard (2009), Abu Dhabi Urban Street Design Manual, Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (http://www.upc.gov.ae/en/Home.aspx); at www.upc.gov.ae/en/SustainableUrbanDesign/UrbanStreetDesignManual.aspx.
Jon Obenberger (2004), “Managed Lanes,” Public Roads, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov), Nov./Dec. 2004, pp. 48-55.
OECD (1995), Urban Travel and Sustainable Development, OECD (www.oecd.org), pp. 114-115.
R. Ott (1995), “Conurbation Transport Policy in Zurich, Switzerland.” Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Transport, #111, Aug, 1995, pp 225-33.
Richard H. Pratt (1999), “HOV Facilities,” Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Interim Handbook, TCRP Web Document 12 (www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/crp.nsf/all+projects/tcrp+b-12), DOT-FH-11-9579.
A. Wasim Raja and Michael Packard (2006), Multi-modal Traffic Signal Optimization – It’s Not Only About Vehicular Traffic, ITE Annual Meeting (www.ite.org).
Kyle Rowe (2013), Bikenomics: Measuring the Economic Impact of Bicycle Facilities on Neighborhood Business Districts, University of Washington; at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0xHj6OM3QVWMUxScjZuMndxVkk/edit?pli=1.
Jennifer A. Rosales (2007), “President's Award for Merit in Transportation Engineering: Road Diet Handbook,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 77, No. 11, November 2007, pp. 26-41.
Paul Ryus, et al (2015), A Guidebook on Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies, Report 183, Transit Cooperative Research Program, TRB (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/main/blurbs/173932.aspx.
SACOG (2011), Complete Streets Resource Toolkit, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (www.sacog.org); at www.sacog.org/complete-streets/toolkit/START.html.
Schaller Consulting (2006), Curbing Cars: Shopping, Parking and Pedestrian Space in SoHo, Transportation Alternatives (www.transalt.org); available at www.transalt.org/campaigns/reclaiming/soho_curbing_cars.pdf.
UK Local Transport (www.local-transport.detr.gov.uk/ult/urban2/contents.htm) provides information on local planning resources to encourage more balanced transportation.
UK Parliament (1998), Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980024.htm).
USEPA (2002), Transportation Control Measures Program Information Directory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (http://yosemite.epa.gov/aa/tcmsitei.nsf). This is an on-line searchable database with approximately 120 case studies of programs that reduce transportation pollution emissions.
Asha Weinstein Agrawal, Todd Goldman And Nancy Hannaford (2012), Shared-Use Bus Priority Lanes on City Streets: Case Studies in Design and Management, Mineta Transportation Institute (www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at www.transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2606.html.
World Bank (2000), Cities on the Move; A World Bank Urban Transport Strategy Review, World Bank, Urban Transport Section (http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/transport/utsr.nsf).
WSDOT (2001), Managed Lanes Feasibility Study, Washington State Department of Transportation, (www.wsdot.wa.gov/mobility/managed).
Walkable Communities (www.walkable.org) helps create people-oriented environments.
Asha Weinstein and Elizabeth Deakin, “How Local Jurisdictions Finance Traffic Calming Projects,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 3, Summer 1999, pp. 75-87.
Thomas Welch (2001), The Conversion of Four-Lane Undivided Urban Roadways to Three-Lane Facilities, Transportation Research Board Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium (www.trb.org).
This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#56