Travel demand management: a toolbox of strategies to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and increase alternate mode usage in Arizona

              Final Report 654
February 2012
Arizona Department of Transportation
Research Center
Travel Demand Management:
A Toolbox of Strategies to Reduce
Single‐Occupant Vehicle Trips
and Increase Alternate Mode Usage in Arizona
Travel Demand Management:
A Toolbox of Strategies to Reduce
Single‐occupant Vehicle Trips
and Increase Alternate Mode Usage in Arizona
Final Report 654
February 2012
Prepared by:
William R. Obermann, Transportation Consultant
UrbanTrans Consultants
730 17th Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80202
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
In cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the
facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the
Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are
cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S.
government and the state of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.
Cover photographs courtesy of Valley Metro.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA-AZ-12-654
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
5. Report Date
February 2012
4. Title and Subtitle
Travel Demand Management: A Toolbox of Strategies to Reduce Single-
Occupant Vehicle Trips and Increase Alternate Mode Usage in Arizona 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors
William R. Obermann
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
UrbanTrans Consultants
730 17th Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80202
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR-PL-1-(173) 654
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.Type of Report & Period Covered
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Project Manager: Dianne Kresich
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
The report provides a suite of recommended strategies to reduce single-occupant vehicle traffic in the urban
areas of Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona, which are presented as a travel demand management toolbox. The
toolbox includes supporting research on how to deliver, monitor, and fund implementation of the strategies, and
a framework for the development of performance measures to assess their effectiveness. The research effort
included studies of travel behavior in Phoenix and Tucson, reviews of best-practice measures nationally, and
those in use in Arizona today, and interviews with local and national TDM professionals.
17. Key Words
travel demand management, TDM, transit,
performance measurement
18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the
U.S. public through the
National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia
22161
23. Registrant’s Seal
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages 22. Price
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm
ft feet 0.305 meters m
yd yards 0.914 meters m
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km
AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2
yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2
VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL
gal gallons 3.785 liters L
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3
NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3
MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg
T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t")
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
oF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC
or (F-32)/1.8
ILLUMINATION
fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N
lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
m meters 3.28 feet ft
m meters 1.09 yards yd
km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA
mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME
mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
L liters 0.264 gallons gal
m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3
m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3
MASS
g grams 0.035 ounces oz
kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb
Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF
ILLUMINATION
lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2
*SI is the symbol for th International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to e comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
(Revised March 2003)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Introduction.................................................................................................... 1
Background..................................................................................................................... 1
Report Purpose and Organization ................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2. TDM Strategies for Phoenix and Tucson .................................................... 5
Social Marketing and Individualized Marketing ............................................................ 5
Description.................................................................................................................. 5
Case Examples and Results ........................................................................................ 6
Potential Opportunities for Phoenix and Tucson ...................................................... 11
Telework ....................................................................................................................... 12
Description................................................................................................................ 12
Case Examples and Results ...................................................................................... 12
Potential Opportunities for Phoenix and Tucson ...................................................... 15
Transit Subsidies and Promotional Campaigns ............................................................ 15
Description................................................................................................................ 15
Case Examples and Results ...................................................................................... 15
Potential Opportunities for Phoenix and Tucson ...................................................... 19
Parking Management .................................................................................................... 19
Description................................................................................................................ 19
Case Examples and Results ...................................................................................... 20
Potential Opportunities for Phoenix and Tucson ...................................................... 24
Shuttle and Circulator Links to Regional Transit ......................................................... 25
Description................................................................................................................ 25
Case Examples and Results ...................................................................................... 26
Potential Opportunities for Phoenix and Tucson ...................................................... 31
Summary of TDM Benefits .......................................................................................... 31
Chapter 3. TDM Performance Measures ..................................................................... 39
Performance Measurement Basics................................................................................ 40
Performance Measurement Alternatives....................................................................... 41
Chapter 4. Implementing Effective TDM Programs................................................... 43
Challenges to Implementing Effective TDM Programs ............................................... 43
Government Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................... 43
Specific Challenges to Implementing TDM in Phoenix and Tucson ....................... 43
Integrating TDM into the Built Environment ............................................................... 44
Step 1: Land-Use Assessment................................................................................... 45
Step 2: Transit Service Assessment .......................................................................... 48
Step 3: Recommendation of TDM Strategies ........................................................... 49
Funding Mechanisms for TDM .................................................................................... 53
Federal Grants: CMAQ Funding .............................................................................. 54
State, County, and Local Governments .................................................................... 54
Foundation Funding.................................................................................................. 55
Fee-for-Service Initiatives ........................................................................................ 55
City Business Improvement Districts ....................................................................... 56
Parking Districts........................................................................................................ 57
Evaluating and Monitoring TDM Impacts.................................................................... 58
Vehicle Counts and Monitoring Vehicle Trip Reduction ......................................... 58
Survey Questionnaires: Improving TDM Programs and Services............................ 59
Chapter 5. Conclusions................................................................................................... 63
References....................................................................................................................... 65
Appendix A. Land-Use Assessment Worksheets ......................................................... 69
Appendix B. TDM Strategy Descriptions ..................................................................... 73
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. FHWA Definition of Travel Demand Management............................................ 1
Figure 2. Designed to Ride Bus Stop, Denver, Colorado ................................................... 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Drive Less Denver Challenge: Impact on Vehicle Miles Traveled by Mode....... 7
Table 2. Drive Less Denver Challenge: Impact on Number of Trips by Mode.................. 7
Table 3. Impact of Individualized Marketing Demonstration Program............................ 10
Table 4. Revenue Impacts of Employee Transit Pass Programs ...................................... 17
Table 5. Participation in Employee Transit Pass Programs.............................................. 18
Table 6. Results of Parking Cash-Out Programs in California......................................... 21
Table 7. Local Demographics and Characteristics of Circulators in Broward County,
Florida....................................................................................................................... 27
Table 8. Downtown Tampa Circulator Performance Measures........................................ 29
Table 9. Estimated Costs and Benefits of Selected Social Marketing and Individualized
Marketing Programs.................................................................................................. 33
Table 10. Estimated Costs and Benefits of Selected Telework Programs........................ 34
Table 11. Estimated Costs and Benefits of Selected Transit Subsidy Programs and
Promotional Campaigns............................................................................................ 35
Table 12. Estimated Costs and Benefits of Selected Parking Management Programs..... 36
Table 13. Estimated Costs and Benefits of Selected Shuttle and Circulator Programs.... 38
Table 14. Residential TDM Strategies.............................................................................. 50
Table 15. Office TDM Strategies...................................................................................... 51
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Travel demand management (TDM) is a diverse host of actions that are employed to
improve the efficiency of the transportation system. These actions modify the demand
placed on a transportation system by reducing single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips,
encouraging off-peak travel, and/or reducing trip time or length.
Traditionally, communities have implemented TDM programs that encourage commuters
who normally drive alone to choose higher-occupancy modes or nonmotorized modes.
These can be programs that increase the use of transit, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling,
walking, telework, or alternative work schedules. Recently, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) broadened the definition of TDM to include the many
technological advances that now enable individuals to receive real-time information
about the transportation system to help them choose their routes, their travel start times,
and their destinations (FHWA 2008). In addition, many communities implement TDM
programs for non-commute travel purposes, such as tourism, special events, construction
mitigation, and emergencies. This broad definition of TDM for commute and non-commute
travel can be diagrammed as shown in Figure 1. TDM helps travelers use the
transportation system more efficiently by providing information and a range of modal
choices, and making that system more accessible, predictable, and reliable.
(FHWA 2008)
Figure 1. FHWA Definition of Travel
Demand Management.
Agencies and organizations that implement TDM do so through incentives, education,
and marketing in concert with valued travel services in order to manage congestion and
2
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As these strategies encourage travelers to use high-occupancy
modes or travel along different routes or at different times, accessibility and
mobility are enhanced.
Altogether, TDM comprises three integrated components:
 The first component involves providing travel services and options that can
compete with the automobile for convenience and cost-effectiveness.
 The second component involves educating travelers on the availability of
alternatives. Marketing and other activities promote non-SOV options to those
travelers who may not have tried them in the past.
 The third component, using pricing to manage the demand for services and
infrastructure, balances the price of services with demand. Examples of pricing as
applied in TDM include parking pricing, tolls, and tiered fares for transit and
vanpools.
Successful TDM programs utilize all three components, and are oriented toward reducing
vehicular trips by combining various strategies and modal alternatives (Rowell et al.
1997). This research, sponsored by the Arizona Department of Transportation (Arizona
DOT), identified specific TDM alternatives:
 Regional: Service improvements to transit services, provision of preferential
access for high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) users, and application of area-wide cost
surcharges or subsidy measures.
 Employer-based: Company provision of ride-matching, vanpools, and financial
incentives to encourage HOV use, flex-time scheduling, and telecommuting from
home.
REPORT PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION
The purpose of this research was to investigate and recommend a suite of TDM measures
to reduce SOV traffic in the urban areas of Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona. The research
effort included studies of travel behavior in Phoenix and Tucson, reviews of best-practice
measures nationally and those in use in Arizona today, and interviews with local and
national TDM professionals.
This research helped refine a suite of recommended strategies for implementation in
Phoenix and Tucson, as well as potential application in smaller urban regions across
Arizona. These strategies are presented in this report as a TDM Toolbox. The Toolbox
contains:
 A detailed review of five categories of TDM strategies, with supporting case
studies from around the nation.
 A framework for the development of performance measures to assess the
strategies’ effectiveness.
3
 A discussion of the issues surrounding implementation of TDM strategies.
Chapter 2 of the Toolbox describes five categories of TDM strategies:
 Social marketing and individualized marketing.
 Telework.
 Transit subsidies and promotional campaigns.
 Parking management.
 Shuttle and circulator links to regional transit.
The text for each strategy area includes three sections:
 A description of the strategy.
 Case examples and results.
 Potential opportunities for Phoenix and Tucson.
Chapter 3 of the Toolbox describes the use of performance measures to assess the
effectiveness of TDM strategies.
Chapter 4 provides a guide to implementing effective TDM programs that are appropriate
to the land use and transportation environment where they will be carried out. This
chapter assists organizations in selecting TDM strategies, addressing the following
topics:
 Challenges to implementing effective TDM programs.
 Integrating TDM into the built environment.
 Funding mechanisms for TDM.
 Evaluating and monitoring the impacts of TDM programs.
Chapter 5 presents the report’s conclusions.
An assessment tool to assist in the selection of appropriate TDM strategies for a given
land use is provided in Appendix A. Appendix B supplies a glossary of relevant TDM
strategies.
5
CHAPTER 2. TDM STRATEGIES FOR PHOENIX AND TUCSON
Five categories of TDM strategies are recommended for implementation in the Phoenix
and Tucson regions:
 Social marketing and individualized marketing.
 Telework.
 Transit subsidies and promotional campaigns.
 Parking management.
 Shuttle and circulator links to regional transit.
The strategies were selected in coordination with this study’s Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) members to ensure that they were applicable to the Phoenix and
Tucson metropolitan areas.
Each category of TDM strategies presented in this chapter includes three sections:
 A description of the strategy.
 Several case examples of where and how the strategy has been implemented, and
the results of the implementation. The case examples were developed by meeting
and interviewing representatives of local agencies and TDM providers nationwide.
 Potential opportunities for application in Phoenix and Tucson.
SOCIAL MARKETING AND INDIVIDUALIZED MARKETING
Description
The social marketing process involves identifying the barriers to a behavior, developing
and piloting a program to overcome these barriers, implementing the program across a
community, and evaluating the effectiveness of the program.
Similarly, individualized marketing takes the principles of social marketing and
customizes them to the individual traveler. The approach is simple: give customized
information, training, and incentives to people who are open to changing the way they
travel. Identifying people who are open to travel by alternative modes is achieved through
pre-surveys of the population to determine who uses transportation alternatives currently,
who is interested in using them more, and who would not consider ever using them.
Typically, most resources of individualized marketing programs are spent on individuals
who are interested in—or open to—trying transportation alternatives, but who do not use
them currently.
6
Case Examples and Results
The following projects are featured as case examples of social marketing and
individualized marketing:
Social Marketing:
 Drive Less Denver Challenge, Denver, Colorado.
 “Designed to Ride” Campaign, Denver, Colorado.
 SmartCommute Challenge 2008, Triangle Region, North Carolina.
 In Motion Program, Columbia City, Washington.
Individualized Marketing:
 Individualized Marketing Demonstration Program, FTA, various locations.
 Eastside Hub Project, Portland, Oregon.
 Smart Trips Summit-U Program, Summit-University neighborhood, St. Paul,
Minnesota.
Drive Less Denver Challenge, Denver, Colorado
In this program, sponsored by the Downtown Denver Partnership in May 2006 and May
2007, interested participants took the challenge of not driving for an entire month. To
keep momentum strong, mini-challenges were sponsored all month long and participants
were rewarded with hundreds of dollars in prizes and incentives, from weekend hotel
stays to amusement park tickets and restaurant gift certificates. Participants also received
a wealth of free incentives, including transit passes, bike gear, books, gift certificates, and
a messenger travel bag.
The Drive Less Denver Challenge engaged 120 participants, who traveled over 45,000
miles using alternatives to driving alone during the challenge period. A follow-up survey
of 2007 participants revealed that 67 to 75 percent of participants planned to increase
their use of transportation alternatives to get to work (67 percent), to run errands (75
percent), or for social trips (72 percent). In addition, 10 percent of participants said it was
extremely likely that they would sell one of their cars due to their participation in the
challenge. The challenge was broadcast on local news stations and local radio programs,
as well as featured in a live, nationally televised interview on MSNBC. The reduction in
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and number of trips as a result of the challenge are
summarized in Tables 1 and 2 (UrbanTrans Consultants 2007a).
7
Table 1. Drive Less Denver Challenge:
Impact on Vehicle Miles Traveled by Mode.
2006 Challenge 2007 Challenge
VMT VMT
Mode Campaign Baseline Change Campaign Baseline Change
Drive Alone 7,960 10,577 -2,617 398 4,705 -4,307
Bike 585 538 48 2,909 1,092 1,817
Bus/Light Rail 3,526 1,155 2,371 8,587 6,809 1,778
Carpool 15,468 9,721 5,747 11,368 5,453 5,915
Walk 1,016 255 761 1,071 401 670
Telework/Other 29 9 20 584 0 584
(UrbanTrans Consultants 2007a, page 20)
Table 2. Drive Less Denver Challenge:
Impact on Number of Trips by Mode.
2006 Challenge 2007 Challenge
Trips Trips
Mode Campaign Baseline Change Campaign Baseline Change
Drive Alone 269 492 -233 54 558 -504
Bike 203 94 109 438 170 268
Bus/Light Rail 285 105 180 506 288 218
Carpool 419 337 82 512 264 248
Walk 406 114 292 471 151 320
Telework/Other 29 9 20 33 15 18
(UrbanTrans Consultants 2007a, page 20)
Two levels of participation were associated with the Drive Less Denver Challenge: the
Gold Level and the Silver Level. The Gold Level participants pledged to leave their car
home for every trip for the entire month of May and received a full transit pass,
messenger bag, and high-dollar-value incentives (raffle for hotel stays, etc.). Silver Level
participants committed to using transportation alternatives at least three days per week
and received a few transit passes and fewer incentives. In 2006, Gold Level participants
reduced their drive-alone mode share from 43 percent to 17 percent, while their 2007
peers achieved a more dramatic decrease from 39 percent to 3 percent. Silver Level
participants reduced their drive-alone mode share for work trips from 45 percent to 18
percent. The follow-up survey of 2006 participants indicated that nine out of 10
participants can be expected to continue to make fewer drive-alone trips a full year after
participating in the program.
“Designed to Ride” Campaign, Denver, Colorado
Transportation Solutions, a transportation management association (TMA) in the
southeast portion of Denver, Colorado, targeted “transit by choice” riders with a program
8
to increase ridership and improve the transit experience in a southeast section of the city.
With the approval of the transit provider, the TMA adopted a strategy akin to a
rebranding of the bus service in this affluent part of Denver served by nine transit routes.
The program began in 2007 with an inventory of over 60 bus stops in the project area.
The inventory revealed:
 Bus stop signage was either incorrect or inconsistent.
 Many bus stops lacked appropriate amenities and information.
 The basic task of locating the stops was difficult, as stops often blended into the
landscape.
By conducting a survey and several focus groups, Transportation Solutions uncovered the
local opinion on current bus stops as well as proposed changes. The survey and focus
group efforts revealed:
 Current bus stops were “invisible” and “hard to read/understand.”
 New bus stops should be unique in color, shape, and/or other visual aspects.
 Maps and route information provided at bus stops must be easy to understand (this
was noted as the most important amenity to improve).
 Comfort and convenience of the stops should be improved.
Transportation Solutions hired an artist and design firm to create vibrant new bus stop
elements such as colorful signage and enhanced route maps and schedules (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Designed to Ride Bus Stop, Denver, Colorado.
9
Survey instruments were used before and after the project to gauge the impact of the
efforts. Results clearly demonstrated the direct influence of the project on improved
perceptions of bus transportation in the area (UrbanTrans Consultants 2007b). Ridership
increased by 7 percent on the routes surveyed (increasing from 1091 to 1167).
Transportation Solutions also estimated a corresponding VMT reduction of 507,400
annually (based on the assumption of daily ridership and an average trip length of 12.4
miles). Other highlights from the survey include:
 A 17 percent increase in the response “I know which bus routes to take to
work/school.”
 A 19 percent increase in the response “Bus stops in Cherry Creek provide the
information I need to ride the bus.”
 A 26 percent increase in the response “Bus stops in Cherry Creek are attractive.”
 A 19 percent increase in the response “I feel safe waiting at bus stops.”
 A 12 percent increase in the response “People like me ride the bus.”
SmartCommute Challenge 2008, Triangle Region, North Carolina
The Triangle Region of North Carolina has annually offered residents in Durham,
Raleigh, Chapel Hill, and the surrounding suburbs an incentive to ride transit as part of a
larger regional SmartCommute Challenge. The results summarized in this report are from
the 2008 SmartCommute Challenge. Any commuter or college student who took part in
the SmartCommute Challenge pledged to use a transportation alternative at least once
between April 15 and May 30, 2008. Based on what transportation mode they pledged to
use, participants received bike maps, walking kits, carpool match information, or a one-day
free regional bus pass. The bus pass could be used for a full day of travel on Capital
Area Transit (CAT), Cary Transit, Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA), Triangle
Transit, Chapel Hill Transit, and the North Carolina State University buses.
The 2008 challenge received 12,210 pledges. Based on these pledges and follow-up
surveys, the following results were documented (SmartCommute Challenge 2009):
 A 19.5 percent increase in transit use during April 2008 and a 7.8 percent in May
2008.
 SmartCommute Challenge participants utilized transit, carpools, telework, and
biking or walking to collectively reduce VMT that would have otherwise been
driven in single-occupant vehicles by 1,899,225 miles.
In Motion Program, Columbia City, Washington
King County Metro (the county transit agency) targeted three neighborhoods within its
service area for a social marketing pilot project. This project utilized incentives, direct
mail, posters, focus groups, events, design, and the distribution of new branding and
marketing materials to promote transit. To assess the program’s effectiveness, Metro
conducted before and after surveys of participants and conducted bus ridership counts.
10
The cost of the program was $250,000, distributed across all three neighborhoods. The
following annualized results of the program were observed by comparing the before and
after surveys:
 2564 trips shifted from cars to alternative modes.
 Reduction of 31,522 VMT.
Individualized Marketing Demonstration Program, FTA, Various Locations
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) sponsored a pilot program in four cities
nationwide, with each target area consisting of 400 households. This Individualized
Marketing Demonstration Program (IMDP) covered all modes of travel, and focused on
motivation techniques such as direct contact via mail, telephone, and door hangers.
Participants completed before and after surveys, as well as travel diaries. The total cost of
the pilot program across the four areas was $1,000,000. As a result of the pilot program,
the four participating cities observed changes in travel behavior that are displayed in
Table 3 (MELE Associates 2006).
Table 3. Impact of Individualized Marketing Demonstration Program.
Mode Bellingham Sacramento Cleveland Durham
Walking +8% +15% +13% +15%
Cycling +13% +30% +33% +25%
Public transit +14% +43% +26% +35%
Car as driver -8% -2% -4% -7%
Car as
passenger +10% +1% +5% +7%
Eastside Hub Project, Portland, Oregon
The city of Portland, Oregon, used individualized marketing and outreach efforts on a
target group of 50,000 people. The $398,000 program included direct contact by mail,
Internet, and door hangers, as well as before and after participant surveys. As a result of
the city’s efforts, participants reported the following travel changes:
 A 7 percent increase in walking.
 A 23 percent increase in bicycling.
 A 41 percent increase in public transit use.
 No change in carpooling.
 A 9 percent reduction in drive-alone trips.
11
Smart Trips Summit-U Program, Summit-University Neighborhood, St. Paul, Minnesota
The Smart Trips Summit-U Program was an individualized marketing program that
targeted the Summit University neighborhood in St. Paul, Minnesota, in the summer of
2008. Program components included newsletters, delivery of informational materials
(“Smart Trip kits”) via bike, and organized bike rides, walks, and classes. The initial
newsletter was sent to 7100 neighborhood households; 8.6 percent of these households
ordered a total of 612 Smart Trip kits. A survey of participants after the program
concluded revealed:
 A 33 percent increase in biking and walking trips.
 A reduction of approximately 2,289,000 VMT per year.
 A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 990 metric tons per year.
Potential Opportunities for Phoenix and Tucson
Phoenix opened its first light rail line in December 2008, and Tucson began construction
on a streetcar line in 2011. As a means of attracting people to these systems, marketing
campaigns could target neighborhoods surrounding the rail lines with information on
hours of service, service frequency, parking, connecting transit, transit pass purchase
options, etc. Station area maps could be designed and distributed to all locations within a
quarter-mile of each station to alert potential riders to destinations that are accessible by
transit and minimal additional walking distances.
Phoenix and Tucson could also:
 Market bus transit to teen and elderly populations through the distribution of
information at community centers, retirement communities, high schools,
recreation centers, and libraries.
 Market services to commuters, such as express buses, in neighborhoods within
three miles of major park-and-ride lots.
 Market ridesharing opportunities to neighborhoods not well served by transit and
where park-and-ride lot capacity is minimal.
 Market transit to residents who are not proficient speakers of English through
partnerships with English as a Second Language programs at schools, workplaces,
and community colleges.
While individualized marketing campaigns can target any of the above-mentioned
groups, they may also be used to promote new transit programs or services such as:
 New transit lines.
 New transit pass or fare programs.
 New park-and-ride lots.
12
 New ridesharing programs.
 New services such as an improved website or real-time email alerts from the 511
traveler information service.
Individualized marketing can also focus on neighborhoods that fit the demographic
profile of likely transit riders, but show lower-than-average ridership. If a transit agency
desires to make a route more productive through an individualized marketing program, a
first step could be to survey the targeted area to identify the number of residents and
employees who may be willing to try transit and who therefore may be interested in
enrolling in these programs. Marketing to an interested population enables an
individualized marketing program to focus its resources on a group with the highest
potential for changed travel behavior.
TELEWORK
Description
Telework is a work arrangement program whereby employees work at a location other
than the conventional office, usually from home or a remote office close to home such as
a telework center. Telework can be a strong component of an overall congestion
management strategy given that it is the most effective method of fully removing
commute trips from the roadway system while simultaneously reducing parking demand.
Often telework programs allow employees to work at home on an occasional or part-time
basis, typically once per week. Telework programs can also set a goal for the number of
hours an employee may spend teleworking, such as 10 percent of the employee’s total
monthly work hours.
Case Examples and Results
The case studies featured in this section include:
 State of Arizona, Telework Arizona Program.
 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Work-at-Home Program.
 State of Georgia, Work Away Program.
 Georgia Power, Telework Program.
 Sun Microsystems, iWork Program.
State of Arizona, Telework Arizona Program
Telework Arizona is a telework program operated by the Arizona Department of
Administration with coordinators in participating state agencies. The program is focused
on Arizona state employees in Maricopa County, which encompasses the Phoenix
metropolitan area. The program began in the fall of 1989 as a pilot program with the state
of Arizona and AT&T. An evaluation of the program revealed that more than 75 percent
of supervisors approved of the program and appreciated the resulting increases in
13
employee productivity and morale. As a result of the pilot, the Arizona governor issued
Executive Order 93-16 in 1993 to create the State of Arizona Telework Program and
authorize every state agency to implement telework programs in Maricopa County. Since
that time, the program has evolved into a key strategy for reducing congestion and
improving air quality.
In 2002, the governor strengthened the state’s commitment by requiring 20 percent of the
state workforce in Maricopa County to actively telework. By 2007, state agencies,
boards, and commissions reported that more than 20 percent of state employees in
Maricopa County telework. Telework Arizona estimates that these workers saved
5,250,000 miles of vehicle travel and 181,000 hours of personal commute time in 2008
(State of Arizona Telework Program 2011).
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Trademark Work-at-Home Program
In 1996, USPTO initiated the Trademark Work-at-Home Program, which began with 18
patent examiners as participants. Today, USPTO’s telework program is fully operational,
with 46 percent of its more than 9000 nationwide employees teleworking at least weekly.
Eligible employees are encouraged to conduct a self-assessment to determine if
teleworking is feasible for them. Ineligible positions include those that require face-to-face
interaction with the public. USPTO conducts annual job assessments to determine
changes in position eligibility status, which varies by business unit.
Survey results of employees show 46 percent of 9000 employees telework at least once
per week, eliminating 4140 people making at least two weekly trips. This represents an
annualized trip reduction of at least 430,560 one-way trips.
To estimate VMT savings from this reduction in trips, a review of research conducted by
the National Environmental Policy Institute found that the average round-trip commute
distance for teleworkers is 36.1 miles, and that on the days they telework they saved an
average of 26.3 miles (Best Workplaces for Commuters 2005). Applying the average
measure of 26.3 miles to the annual trip reduction of 215,280 round-trip trips (or 430,560
one-way trips), the USPTO telework policy is responsible for an estimated annual VMT
savings of 5,661,864 miles.
State of Georgia, Work Away Program
What initially began as a six-month pilot project with four agencies has grown into a
mandate encouraging all state agencies and departments to implement telework
initiatives. The initial stages of implementation included pre- and post-pilot surveys,
management training, and monthly reporting. While in its initial phase, a Telework
Advisory Committee was formed to guide the program’s development and
implementation; the committee consisted of a cross-section of representatives of various
agencies, the Georgia Law Department, and local environmental groups.
14
Five percent of Georgia’s 80,000 state employees participate in the Work Away telework
program. If those 4000 employees telework at least once a week, 416,000 trips are saved
per year. Using the average round-trip commute distance savings of 26.3 miles for
teleworkers used in the USPTO case example above (Best Workplaces for Commuters
2005), this equates to an estimated VMT savings of 5,470,400 miles annually.
Georgia Power, Telework Program
A total of 8800 employees work for Georgia Power, and 475 telework once or more per
week. Georgia Power first allowed its employees to telework in 1993, and formally
adopted teleworking policies in 2004. Georgia Power also developed a comprehensive
telework manual that provides guidelines on every aspect of telework, from selection of
personnel to termination of the arrangement. Georgia Power has a remote-access
infrastructure in place and strict guidelines on the security and safety of its data and
information. For example, if a teleworker introduces a virus into the workplace three
times, that employee’s remote-access capability is permanently disabled. The company
hosted several two-hour training sessions to familiarize teleworkers and their managers
with these policies and guidelines (Georgia Clean Air Campaign and Downtown TMA
2005).
Prior to teleworking, 70 percent of the participants drove alone; after teleworking, the
drive-alone rate dropped to 44 percent, with 28 percent of the change attributed to
teleworking. Georgia Power reported that this equates to an annual VMT reduction of
2,596,350 miles, an annual reduction of 3.2 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOC),
and an annual reduction of 2.7 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) (Georgia Clean Air
Campaign and Downtown TMA 2005).
Teleworkers also reported an increase in productivity. Eighty percent of teleworkers
reported that productivity increased an average of 27 percent while teleworking. Forty
percent of managers believed productivity had increased by 5 percent as a direct result of
teleworking, while 60 percent of managers thought that productivity had stayed the same.
Sun Microsystems, iWork Program
Nearly 15,000 Sun Microsystems employees participate in Sun’s iWork program, which
enables employees to work from home, from drop-in centers, or at different campuses
throughout the country. Employees at Sun’s major campuses around the country also
receive transit subsidies or prepaid transit passes to encourage and facilitate the use of
public transit. In addition, Sun operates a large transit shuttle program in the San
Francisco Bay Area, with six vehicles operating seven shuttle routes each workday. In the
first eight months of 2005, the number of employees riding shuttles rose by 15 percent,
from 7700 employees to 8700. Sun also distributes information about commuter benefits
and other regional commute programs via email and the SMART (Sun Microsystems
Alternative Resources for Transportation) internal commute program website. Sun’s
comprehensive Commute Benefit program has resulted in fewer commute trips being
15
made by Sun employees, less air pollution, reduced stress, and lower commuting costs
(Best Workplaces for Commuters 2007).
Assuming that 15,000 employees participate in the iWork program and telework at least
once per week, an estimated 1,560,000 one-way trips (780,000 round trips) are saved per
year. Using the average round-trip commute savings of 26.3 miles for teleworkers used in
the USPTO case example above (Best Workplaces for Commuters 2005), this equates to
a VMT savings of 20,514,000 miles annually.
Potential Opportunities for Phoenix and Tucson
Telework is robust in Arizona, particularly among state employees working in Maricopa
County and participating in the Telework Arizona program. Valley Metro, the Phoenix
public transit system, also provides technical assistance on teleworking to other entities in
Maricopa County.
Using their collective knowledge of how to implement successful telework programs,
regional and state partners could continue to identify the characteristics of organizations
and settings where telework programs are successful. Valley Metro is a valuable resource
for public and private organizations seeking to acquire information on how to establish
and maintain telework programs for their employees.
TRANSIT SUBSIDIES AND PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGNS
Description
To encourage more people to ride public transit, some transit agencies have created
discounted pass programs and promotional campaigns to recruit new riders. By offering
programs where companies can subsidize their employees’ transit use through the
provision of reduced-price transit passes, agencies hope that the reduced cost of riding
transit for these employees will outweigh other barriers to using transit (e.g., increased
travel time) and result in higher ridership. To encourage transit ridership among the
general public, some transit agencies implement promotional campaigns and offer a set
number of transit trips, or transit service during certain times, at free or reduced rates.
Case Examples and Results
Case examples featured in this section include:
 Neighborhood Transit Passes, Boulder, Colorado.
 “Five Free Rides” Program, Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City, Utah.
 “Shop Tops, Ride Home for Free” Program, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
Authority, Cleveland, Ohio.
 National surveys of employer transit programs by the Transit Cooperative
Research Program.
16
Neighborhood Transit Passes, Boulder, Colorado
In November 2000, residents of Boulder’s Forest Glen neighborhood voted to form a
General Improvement District (GID) to levy an assessment on all residential property to
create the revenue necessary to pay for transit passes for all neighborhood residents.
Today, all Forest Glen residents, including homeowners and renters, are eligible to
receive a Regional Transportation District (RTD) Eco Pass. The RTD Eco Pass allows
unlimited riding on all RTD buses, light rail service to Denver International Airport, and
Eldora Mountain Resort buses.
At the time of this writing, no information is available on this program’s ridership results.
“Five Free Rides” Program, Utah Transit Authority (UTA), Salt Lake City, Utah
During the summer of 2001, the UTA introduced a “Five Free Rides” promotion to
encourage people to try UTA’s bus service, particularly during the summer months when
ridership tends to decrease. The campaign was launched with television, radio, and
newspaper advertising inviting people to request the five free passes. The free rides were
valid on all forms of transit, including bus and rail.
The Five Free Rides promotion ran through August 2001 and targeted 550,000
households within the Salt Lake City metropolitan area. By the end of 2001, bus ridership
had increased 2.61 percent over 2000 ridership totals, and overall system ridership had
increased 1.8 percent, or by approximately 574,300 transit trips (UTA 2003).
“Shop Tops, Ride Home for Free” Program, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
Authority (GCRTA), Cleveland, Ohio
In July 2001, GCRTA and a grocery store chain, Tops Friendly Markets, partnered to
implement the “Shop Tops, Ride Home for Free” program. Together they sponsored a
three-month promotion to offer a free ride home via a GCRTA Community Circulator to
customers who bought at least $15 in groceries at Tops Friendly Markets. The promotion
was considered successful enough to be converted into an ongoing program.
GCRTA Community Circulators generally ran from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through
Saturday, and served Tops stores every 20 to 30 minutes. In part because of this
promotion, as well as other marketing efforts, ridership rose 1.5 percent from 2002 to
2003 and 5.5 percent in the last six months of 2003. During the first four months of 2004,
ridership rose 4.5 percent (GCRTA 2005).
National Surveys of Employer Transit Programs by the Transit Cooperative Research
Program
Research conducted in 2005 by the Transit Cooperative Research Program compared the
results of employer transit pass programs launched by seven major transit agencies
17
throughout the United States. The systems were selected to represent varying system
sizes and transit mode offerings. Overall, the research concluded that ridership increased
as a result of the launch of employer transit pass programs, and that after implementation
pass holders composed a substantial part of total ridership (from 5 to 25 percent,
depending on the program). In addition, the analysts found that the transit pass programs
also generally increased transit revenues. The results are provided in more detail in
Tables 4 and 5 (ICF Consulting and CUTR 2005).
Table 4. Revenue Impacts of Employee Transit Pass Programs.
Transit Agency Program Name
Annual
Revenue
(millions)
% of Revenue
from Program
Agency’s
Perception
of Impact on
Revenues
Metrochek $177.0
Smart Benefits $13.8 Washington 30%
Metropolitan
Area Transit
Authority
(WMATA)
Total $190.8 30% Increase
Metropolitan
Atlanta Rapid
Transit
Authority
(MARTA)
Partnership Program $20.0 11% (est.) Increase
Flex Pass $6-$7 8-10%
UPass and GoPass $10.7 14%
Retail programs $9-$12 13-17%
Voucher programs $6.7 N/A
King County
Metro
Total $25.7-
$29.7
35-41%
Increase
Regional
Transportation
District (RTD),
Boulder,
Colorado
Eco Pass $8.1 17%
Unclear
Metropass $15.1 25%
TransitWorks! $10.0 17% (est.)
Metro Transit
(Minneapolis/St.
Paul,
Minnesota)
Total $25.1 42% (est.)
Neutral
Santa Clara
Valley
Transportation
Authority
(VTA)
EcoPass $1.7 5%
Neutral
Valley Metro Bus Card Plus $3.6 N/A Increase
(ICF Consulting and CUTR 2005, page 68)
18
Table 5. Participation in Employee Transit Pass Programs.
Transit Agency Program Name
Number of
Participating
Employees
% of All
Riders Using
Employer
Passes
Metrochek 189,067 N/A
WMATA Smart Benefits 18,933 N/A
Total 208,000 25%
MARTA Partnership Program 30,700 <10%
Flex Pass 38,000-40,000 (est.) 6 to 8%
UPass and GoPass 48,600 <10%
Retail programs 10,000-14,000 (est.) 3%
Voucher programs N/A N/A
King County Metro
Total 95,000-103,000 20 to 22%
RTD Eco Pass 52,700 (est.) 12 to 21%
Metropass 15,000 7%
Metro Transit TransitWorks! 12,000 5% (est.)
Total 27,000 12% (est.)
VTA Eco Pass 42,800 (est.) 5%
Bus Card Plus 12,189 11%
Valley Metro Private Outlet 12,000 (est.) 11%
Total Over 24,000 22%
(ICF Consulting and CUTR 2005, page 65)
In 2005, the Transit Cooperative Research Program conducted a second and more
comprehensive survey of 22 transit systems that had implemented transit passes.
The intent of this survey was to learn the effects of these programs on employee
commute behavior. Although the results varied widely, ridership increases were reported
on most systems following the establishment of the new transit pass programs. More than
half of the agencies surveyed reported an increase in transit riders of between 10 and 40
percent, and nearly one-quarter reported increases of more than 60 percent. Two surveys,
one in San Jose in 1997 and one in Atlanta in 2003, suggest that transit ridership more
than doubled after a transit benefits program was implemented.
In contrast, the data sets from areas affected by state Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)
legislation—Washington state, Southern California, and Pima County, Arizona—indicate
very small changes in transit ridership on average, with a very slight decline in Tucson
(Pima County, Arizona), and increases of only 3 percent in Southern California and 6
percent in Washington (ICF Consulting and CUTR 2005). Such legislation typically
requires larger employers to promote SOV commuting alternatives, including transit.
While there is no data to explain the difference in transit ridership in CTR program areas,
researchers offered the theory that ridership increases appeared largest in systems with
comparatively low transit ridership prior to the legislation’s implementation. Therefore,
19
systems in mandatory CTR areas, which have higher transit ridership in comparison with
their local surroundings, showed lower percentage increases due to the pass programs.
Transit mode shares increased by nearly 2 to 17 percentage points on average. In other
words, a work site with 100 employees that offers a transit benefit might expect the
equivalent of 2 to 17 employees to switch to riding transit full-time. The data sets from
the mandatory CTR program areas, however, reported on average less than one new
transit rider per 100 employees (ICF Consulting and CUTR 2005). Researchers also felt
that ridership decreases such as those in Pima County could have been due to differences
in program administration and reporting at different work sites, survey administration
issues, or external factors such as changes in the economy and employment levels.
Potential Opportunities for Phoenix and Tucson
Because Phoenix and Tucson have larger-than-average populations of retired citizens,
either of the local transit agencies could consider a partnership with local grocery stores
similar to the “Shop Tops, Ride Home for Free” example, in order to target greater transit
ridership among senior populations who may have relatively low incomes and/or no
longer own or operate a private vehicle.
Similarly, transit agencies could consider marketing a program similar to “Five Free
Rides” to residential areas within three miles of major or underutilized park-and-ride lots.
As a larger promotion, “try transit” campaigns could be effective in capturing a greater
share of secondary school students, university students, and teachers. In these campaigns,
bilingual communication should be considered, given each metropolitan area’s diversity.
Because Phoenix and Tucson have historically been areas of rapid and large population
growth, the transit agencies in both regions might also consider promotions targeting new
residents. Promotional programs could be marketed, in particular, to new residents of
apartments or condominium communities adjacent to light rail or bus lines.
PARKING MANAGEMENT
Description
Commuters can also be influenced to change their mode of travel through parking-related
programs or regulation of parking pricing. This section presents two sets of parking
management concepts. The first features “parking cash-out” programs where employees
agree to exchange their employer-paid parking space for a transportation allowance paid
by the employer to offset the costs of using transportation alternatives. The second set of
case studies is from cities that have engaged in active parking management by setting
vehicle occupancy requirements for parking spaces, varying the parking price by time of
day or day of week, and utilizing technology to provide commuters with real-time
parking occupancy information and, in some cases, reserved parking spaces.
20
Case Examples and Results
The case examples featured in this section include:
Parking Cash Out:
 California parking cash-out pilot projects, various employers.
 King County, Washington, parking cash-out pilot projects, various employers.
Parking Management:
 Downtown Development Authority, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
 Lloyd District, Portland, Oregon.
 City of Aspen, Colorado.
 BART Station Parking Reservation Project, Oakland, California.
California Parking Cash-Out Pilot Projects, Various Employers
In 1992 California enacted legislation requiring many employers who subsidize
commuter parking to offer parking “cash-out” programs, in which employees receive a
transportation allowance in lieu of a parking space (California Code 2010). A 1997 study
of eight California employers found that parking cash-out programs decreased the
number of SOV trips per employee per day by 13 percent (Shoup 1997).
The eight employers included in the study were an accounting firm, a bank, a government
agency, a managed-care medical provider, a video post-production company, and three
law firms. These employers ranged in size between 120 and 300 employees, combining
for a total of 1694 employees. Two of the employers were located in downtown Los
Angeles, three were in Century City (a high-density regional center in West Los
Angeles), two were in Santa Monica, and one in West Hollywood. The 1997 price of
parking at the work sites ranged from $36 to $165 a month (Shoup 1997).
Benefits of the cash-out programs studied included greater use of alternate modes of
travel among program participants and reduced carbon dioxide emissions. The number of
carpoolers increased by 64 percent, the number of transit riders increased by 50 percent,
and walking and bicycling combined increased by 39 percent. VMT for commuting to the
eight firms fell by 12 percent. Carbon dioxide emissions from commuting fell by 367
kilograms per employee per year, and the benefit/cost ratio of the eight cash-out
programs was at least four-to-one. The results of the study by work site are presented in
Table 6.
21
Table 6. Results of Parking Cash-Out Programs in California.
Case/Location Solo Drive Share
(percent change)
Vehicle Trips per
Employee per Day
(percent change)
VMT per
Employee per Year
(percent change)
Downtown L.A. -22% -24% -24%
Downtown L.A. -16% -16% -16%
Century City -13% -9% -11%
Century City -12% -9% -9%
Century City -12% -5% -5%
Santa Monica -8% -5% -5%
Santa Monica -7% -9% -9%
West Hollywood -3% -5% N/A
Weighted Average -13% -11% -12%
(Shoup 1997, page 204)
King County, Washington, Parking Cash-Out Pilot Projects, Various Employers
The Marketing Development Division of King County, located in the Seattle region of
Washington, surveyed seven employers between September and December 1994 to
measure the effectiveness of charging for parking at employers located on suburban
campuses. The employers selected were among the 500 affected by the Commute Trip
Reduction legislation that in 1995 applied a goal for employers with over 100 employees
to reduce their workers’ SOV trip rate to 15 percent below the 1993 rate (King County
1995). The case studies include the following:
 In 1993, Cellular One began charging employees $50 per month for covered
parking and $30 per month for uncovered parking as a means of encouraging
alternate modes of travel in order to meet the requirements of the CTR law. The
parking fee was determined based on local and peer parking rates, and adjusted to
a level that the employee transportation coordinator believed was “still
reasonable.” The new parking charges were deducted from each employee’s
paycheck. Management also offered free parking for carpools and vanpools, ride-match
services, and transit and vanpool subsidies of $57.50 per month.
During the first year after the program was implemented, the number of carpools
operating among Cellular One’s 321 employees rose from two to 25. Before the
parking program was implemented, the SOV mode share was 74 percent. Within
two years of the program’s implementation, the SOV trip rate had dropped to 71
percent.
 In 1989, the City of Bellevue, Washington, imposed a parking fee on its employees
as a means of deterring SOV trip growth and as an alternative to supplying
additional parking at its downtown office location. To determine the fee, the city
surveyed employers in downtown Bellevue, took the average of the rates charged
22
for parking, and charged that rate to city employees. No incentives were
introduced with the fee, but the city had introduced a ridesharing program the
previous year that included free parking to carpoolers; a $15 monthly subsidy to
carpoolers, bicyclists, walkers, and drop-offs; fully subsidized bus passes; and
vanpools subsidized to $39.50 per month. Five years after implementing the
parking fee, the employee SOV trip rate dropped from 65 percent to 56 percent.
 In 1994, as a means of decreasing SOV trip rates to meet the 1995 CTR goal, the
Olin Aerospace Corporation implemented a $5 per month parking fee. The amount
was set arbitrarily, but with the intent of discouraging SOV travel without
overburdening employees at the lowest wage rate. Management directed the
employee transportation coordinator to create any transportation program of his
choosing, as long as the program did not incur additional costs or change the work
week. The parking fee met both requirements, and in lieu of an incentive package,
the fee was waived for employees who found alternate means to driving alone to
work a minimum of eight times per month. After the fee’s implementation, the
employee drive-alone rate dropped from 90 to 67 percent.
 In 1991, the Sverdrup Corporation relocated its offices to a new suburban building
that charged for parking. Management decided to pass the parking expense onto
the firm’s 120 employees given that parking rates were low compared with
downtown rates ($35 per month for covered parking, and $20 per month for
uncovered parking). The company implemented the parking fee within a
transportation management program that also included free carpool parking, a
subsidy for carpools and vanpools, transit pass subsidies, bicycle parking, and
company fleet vehicles for emergencies. Following these actions, SOV travel rates
dropped from 90 percent in 1991 to 70 percent in 1993.
Downtown Development Authority, Ann Arbor, Michigan
In 1992, the city of Ann Arbor gave control of its seven parking structures to a
newly created Downtown Development Authority (DDA). This quasi-public agency
agreed to finance a $40 million garage repair and replacement program, using funds from
a tax increment financing district. Since the creation of DDA, the agency successfully
revitalized the garages; passed a new parking plan; helped implement a universal transit
pass program (participating employers pay $5 for annual, unlimited-ride bus passes for
their employees); helped implement a fare-free circulator bus service between the
University of Michigan and downtown with over 800 riders per day; and launched the
getDowntown program, which promotes multimodal commuting to downtown jobs
(Brown and Fields 2008).
While DDA’s intention was that parking should pay for itself, the agency also used
parking revenues to support the TDM programs active within the district. District parking
management practices included:
 No minimum parking space requirements for individual land uses downtown.
23
 Reliance of nearly all downtown trip generators on a consolidated inventory of
shared public parking.
 Control of all public off-street parking facilities by the DDA or the University of
Michigan–Ann Arbor.
On June 11, 2007, the DDA’s programming expanded when the City Council approved
recommendations for a downtown parking policy. The recommendations included:
 Create a parking benefit district pilot program in a section of downtown where the
concept was well-received; the program included setting meter rates based on
availability targets and returning revenue to local improvements.
 Implement commuter express bus service.
 Initiate valet parking services.
 Modify pricing strategies by replacing fixed monthly permits with permit program
for occasional parking.
Lloyd District, Portland, Oregon
The Lloyd District is a mixed-use neighborhood northeast of downtown Portland,
Oregon. In addition to commercial office space, the area accommodates a variety of uses
that include restaurants, shops, hotels, condominiums, and apartments. In the past two
decades, the district has supported over 1.3 million square feet of new public and private
development and has seen the commercial office vacancy rate drop from 12 percent to 3
percent.
In the early 1990s, the Lloyd District partnered with the city of Portland and TriMet, the
area’s public transportation provider, to develop transit improvements and incentives
paired with a parking management program to encourage new commercial development
in the district. These improvements and incentives included:
 Development of transit-oriented development guidelines.
 Establishment of a new direct bus route connecting homes with destinations in the
Lloyd District.
 Establishment of the Lloyd District Passport Program, an annual employee transit
pass program.
 Revenue sharing of transit pass sales.
 Restrictions on future development of surface parking lots.
 Restrictions on parking near the MAX light rail station and development of transit-oriented
guidelines.
 Elimination of free on-street parking, installation of parking meters, and
development of a parking meter revenue sharing plan.
24
In part due to these measures, land used for parking has decreased from 3.5 spaces per
1,000 square feet to 1.95 per 1,000 square feet. This has resulted in an estimated savings
of over $35 million in parking development costs (estimated based on a construction cost
of $25,000 per space in the Lloyd District) (Wilbur Smith Associates 2007).
In addition, the district has quantified the impact of the measures described in terms of
use of transit by district employees. Before the measures were implemented, the transit
mode share by office employees was 8 percent. By 2000, the drive-alone commute share
had dropped to 56 percent (Bianco 2000).
City of Aspen, Colorado
The city of Aspen, Colorado, maintains several parking policies to maximize the
efficiency of the city’s transportation system, including a “Pay and Display Parking
System” for on-street parking, free parking for carpoolers, park-and-ride lots, and
residential parking permits. The city has created a larger and better-managed supply of
on-street parking, discouraged spillover employee parking in residential areas, and
improved the aesthetics of the streetscape. After removing parking meters and parking
stall markings, the city installed single “pay stations” on each block where customers can
pay by coin or credit, debit, or smart card.
BART Station Parking Reservation Project, Oakland, California
A parking reservation concept was tested from December 2004 to April 2006 at the
Rockridge station of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in Oakland, California.
The smart parking concept utilized several technologies that were new at the time,
including changeable message signs located on the highway that displayed real-time
parking availability information for motorists; a wireless counting system in the station
parking lot to provide data for these updates; and parking reservations facilitated through
the Internet and an interactive voice response system (Shaheen and Kemmerer 2007).
The results of a survey conducted on the project showed that 30 percent of respondents
indicated that the program encouraged them to use BART instead of driving alone to their
typical place of work. Furthermore, the program attracted a new user population to
BART. Forty-nine percent of survey respondents did not use BART to commute to work
before the reservation program, but were encouraged to use BART more often because
they were assured a parking space at the station (Shaheen and Kemmerer 2007).
Potential Opportunities for Phoenix and Tucson
Downtown Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tucson, as well as university and community college
campus areas, are the areas with the greatest potential to establish successful parking
cash-out programs. In addition, several suburban employers in Chandler, Mesa, Glendale,
Scottsdale, and Tucson could initiate a pilot program of charging for parking, even just
once per week or one week per month. Implementing a charge for parking or a parking
cash-out program may be more effectively marketed if treated more as a parking
25
“district” (covered in more detail in the next section) where the funds are used for
employee benefits such as shaded outdoor lunch or recreation areas, subsidized gym
passes, or bike lockers, or as a donation to charity.
The case examples also show that parking management programs are most successful in
areas with significant attractions, which tend to have high parking demand and turnover.
In addition, areas that can centralize control over parking supply through a parking
district can manage demand and implement TDM programs more effectively. Parking
districts may work well in and around new rail corridors, and candidate locations might
include:
 Downtown Phoenix, Old Town and downtown Scottsdale, or Glendale.
 Downtown Tucson and St. Philips Plaza.
 Major shopping malls, with proceeds invested in shaded walkways and transit
shelters.
SHUTTLE AND CIRCULATOR LINKS TO REGIONAL TRANSIT
Description
As a means of better linking potential passengers with a regional transit system, some
transit agencies offer shuttle circulators that serve residential areas, activity centers, or
downtown locations. These often-free routes connect neighborhoods with activity centers
and transit hubs, thereby extending the geographic reach of fixed-route bus and high-capacity
transit systems. They also provide additional mobility within downtown or
activity centers to support commuters’ midday travel needs, making it more feasible for
them to use transit on their commute. The case studies featured in this section include
shuttle feasibility studies, as well as currently operating shuttles, both in downtown and
in residential areas:
 Boulder Community Transit, Boulder, Colorado.
 Broward County Circulators, Broward County, Florida.
 Miami Beach Electrowave, Miami, Florida.
 LINK, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
 Chattanooga Electric Bus, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
 Downtown Circulators, Tampa, Florida.
 Coral Gables Circulators, Miami, Florida.
 Lynx Lymmo, Orlando, Florida.
 BART Shuttle Feasibility Surveys (2005 and 2006).
26
Case Examples and Results
Boulder Community Transit, Boulder, Colorado
In 1989 the city of Boulder, Colorado, initiated a demonstration transit service with a
fleet of small, colorfully designed buses that provided high-frequency, inexpensive, and
direct service within the city (City of Boulder 2010). Today, six bus routes operate in the
Community Transit Network, which is funded by the city of Boulder, Boulder County,
the University of Colorado, and the Regional Transportation District (RTD). Each route
has a unique identity and amenities shaped by community input and direction. In 1990,
transit ridership averaged 5,000 riders daily for all local and regional routes. In 2002,
ridership reached a daily average of about 26,000, representing a 500 percent increase.
The community transit network concept used in Boulder offers many potential benefits:
 Provides a convenient transit alternative to SOV travel.
 Uses neighborhood-scaled vehicles to fit the context of the community.
 Strengthens the local economy by providing easy access around Boulder and to
and from surrounding communities.
 Provides wheelchair-accessible transportation.
 Alleviates traffic congestion.
 Reduces the need for roadway expansion.
 Provides reliable, high-frequency service.
 Promotes a positive transit image with attractive vehicles and ongoing marketing
support.
 Accepts Eco Passes (transit passes for students and residents of certain
neighborhoods).
 Provides bike racks on buses to allow for integration of travel.
Broward County Circulators, Broward County, Florida
Broward County, Florida, initiated a number of residential shuttle circulators with the
intent of increasing mobility and decreasing the need for more expensive door-to-door
paratransit services. Cities offering the service are expected to maintain ridership levels
of at least five passengers per hour in order to receive county funding. A 2004 inventory
of the residential shuttles found that the eight local circulator systems reviewed carried an
average of 14.2 passengers per hour with an average cost per passenger on the local
circulators of $2.18. Paratransit costs approximately $17 per passenger (Chavarria and
Volinski 2004). More detail on the performance of the circulators is provided in Table 7.
27
Table 7. Local Demographics and Characteristics of Circulators in
Broward County, Florida.
City
Population
Density
(Persons
per square
mile)
Household
Median
Income
Owner
HH
without
car
Renter
HH
without
car
Service
Frequency Fare
Pass.
per
Hour
# of
Connecting
Routes
Dania
Beach
3,272 $32,043 5.4% 19.6% 40 min Free 7.05 7
Cooper
City
3,317 $69,995 2.1% 8.3% 60 min Free 5.48 4
Coral
Springs
5,548 $52,946 3.9% 11.5% 60 min Free 12.38 6
Lauderdale
Manors
6,542 $29,417 8.0% 32.9% 60 min Free 16.0 2
Margate 5,773 $45,697 8.0% 12.7% 60 min $0.25 11.54 9
Plantation 4,920 $45,272 7.0% 12.0% 45 min Free 6.47 13
Miramar 4,434 $44,786 6.8% 12.4% 60 min $0.25 7.2 8
Lauderhill 8,179 $32,070 15.0% 20.0% 45 min Free 22.0 13
(Chavarria and Volinski 2004, page 52)
The study found that demographic factors such as population density (shown in Table 7
as persons per square mile), car ownership, and median household income highly
correlate with transit use at the local circulator level, as they do with regional transit
service. However, the study also found that while seniors and other typical paratransit
riders travel on the circulator shuttles, the shuttles are also used by teens, students, and
commuters.
Miami Beach Electrowave, Miami, Florida
In the late 1990s the Miami Beach Transportation Management Association (MBTMA)
instituted a circulator service in the South Beach area, operating seven electrically
powered vehicles. South Beach had been experiencing parking shortages, air pollution,
and difficulty connecting low-income residents with the local service economy.
Compared with Miami-Dade Transit’s existing fleet of large diesel buses, the new
vehicles offered clean operation and a small maneuverable size more appropriate for the
pedestrian environment in South Beach. A funding partnership to support the new
circulator service raised $3.5 million for capital and operating expenses in its first year.
The partnership was composed of MBTMA, the city of Miami Beach, Florida DOT,
Florida Power and Light, the Florida Alliance for Clean Technologies, the Clean Cities
Coalition, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. The service operated on headways of 10 to
15 minutes, 18 to 20 hours per day, 365 days per year, and charged a fare of $0.25. In
1998, the “Electrowave” was used by over 1 million passengers during its first 35 weeks
of operation.
Miami-Dade County agreed to take over responsibility for the service, and it is now
called the “SoBe Local.”
28
LINK, Ann Arbor, Michigan
In September 2003, LINK shuttle service began connecting Ann Arbor’s four main retail
areas: Main Street, State Street, Kerrytown, and South University. The route traveled
within one block of all major parking facilities, and was designed to increase connections
to other municipal and university shuttle routes. By 2004 daily ridership averaged 625,
and ridership grew to 800 by 2005. In late 2005, LINK service was combined with one of
the university shuttle routes in order to take advantage of different funding streams. The
funding package, which replaced an expired federal grant, comprised state revenue,
municipal bus advertising revenue, university funds, and Downtown Development
Authority funds (see the Parking Management section of this chapter for more
information about the DDA) (Perk et al. 2005).
Chattanooga Electric Bus, Chattanooga, Tennessee
In 1984, the city of Chattanooga launched the revitalization of its downtown through the
Vision 2000 project. At the time, the major downtown corridor extended for two miles,
parking lots were at capacity, and more than 65 percent of the land in the downtown area
was used for vehicle parking. City planners conceptualized a new downtown
transportation plan, and collaborated with the Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation
Authority (CARTA) to design a downtown circulator system.
Because the effective transportation of visitors, employees, and commuters was such a
prominent goal in the plan, the new shuttle service had to be frequent and free of charge.
In addition, city planners wanted the design and operation of the vehicle to be
environmentally friendly. When it was determined that no manufacturer of electric buses
could meet their needs, project leaders facilitated the creation of Advanced Vehicle
Systems, Inc., with the purpose of building electric shuttle buses for CARTA and other
transit operators worldwide. Concurrently, CARTA and other partners created the
Electric Transit Vehicle Institute, a nonprofit organization charged with promoting the
design, production, and utilization of battery-powered electric buses (Perk et al. 2005).
In 1992, CARTA placed the first electric shuttle into service in the downtown corridor,
planning to support its operational costs with revenue from the parking garages. By 1993,
six vehicles were running on five-minute service headways, and the fleet size has since
grown to 23.
Downtown Circulators, Tampa, Florida
Downtown Tampa is populated by a government center, a major sports arena, office
developments, an arts center, the county’s convention center, and a number of hotels. It is
also within a half-mile of another business center on Harbor Island and new residential
development that surrounds it. Circulator services were first considered in the mid-1990s
as an amenity to help attract conventions and meetings to the city. The service became a
higher priority when the automated people-mover service between downtown and Harbor
29
Island was terminated. Ultimately, a rubber-tired trolley service composed of two
routes—Route 96 and Route 98—was implemented.
Ridership has fluctuated since the service’s inception (see Table 8) and decreased by 20
percent in 2003 when the service transitioned from being free to charging $0.50 per ride.
Table 8. Downtown Tampa Circulator Performance Measures.
Year Route 96
Ridership
Route 96
Passengers per
Hour of
Operation
2000 141,931 15.8
2001 201,953 22.4
2002 136,499 14.9
2003 90,537 7.5
2004 129,193 10.7
2005 110,281 10.8
(Perk et al. 2005, page 47)
Coral Gables Circulator, Miami, Florida
The city of Coral Gables is located four miles west of downtown Miami and four miles
south of the Miami airport. More than 175 multinational corporations, as well as the
University of Miami, are located in the city. During a typical workday, the city’s
employee population exceeds 7000. The Coral Gables Circulator serves these employees
and other travelers along its route on Ponce de Leon Boulevard. Over 6.5 million square
feet of office space are within walking distance of the route.
The circulator service took several years to develop from conception to launch. In 2001,
the local MPO funded a planning effort to study how a circulator could serve the growing
employee population by connecting workers to Metrorail service (running every 6
minutes during peak hours) and local bus routes (running every 15 to 30 minutes).
Miami-Dade County then purchased five new buses to dedicate to the service, and in
2002 voters approved the People’s Transportation Plan, a half-cent general sales tax to
fund public transportation. Finally, a grant from Florida DOT completed the funding
necessary to begin service in November 2003.
By the end of the first six months of service, ridership had grown to 2000 passengers per
day, with service headways every 10 minutes (this was double the initial demand
estimates). By the end of the first 10 months, service was every six minutes and ridership
averaged 2500 passengers per day (30 passengers per hour). When school opened in
August 2005, ridership exceeded an average of 3000 passengers a day. By the end of
September 2005, the Coral Gables circulator was attracting over 4000 passengers per day
(almost 50 passengers per hour), well above the regional system average of 35 passengers
per hour (Perk et al. 2005).
30
Lynx Lymmo, Orlando, Florida
The Lynx Lymmo serves employment centers, government centers, shopping,
restaurants, and parking garages in Orlando, Florida. The service targets commuters who
drive into downtown, park, and then need to access multiple downtown destinations.
With headways of five minutes, the Lymmo carries 50 passengers per hour. The annual
operation costs are approximately $1.2 million (Chavarria and Volinski 2004).
BART Shuttle Feasibility Surveys (2005 and 2006)
The BART system in San Francisco conducted surveys in 2005 and 2006 to determine
the feasibility of new shuttle service areas to attract more riders to the BART system.
Similar research may be helpful to communities around the Phoenix light rail line and the
Tucson streetcar line.
In 2005, analysts from the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) surveyed
800 BART passengers who accessed the system at urban and suburban stations. The
purposes of the study were to determine the market potential of a rail feeder shuttle and
the extent to which it could increase the BART system’s capture area, and to analyze the
factors that affect a rider’s willingness to use shuttle service, such as cost, schedule, and
accessibility. The motivation for the study was the growing concern that BART was
losing potential riders due to a lack of suburban accessibility created by parking
constraints and a lack of alternate means of access to suburban stations. Responses were
compared for urban and suburban commuters, and also summarized by demographic
categories (age, racial background, etc.).
Overall, 20 percent of respondents to the 2005 survey indicated they would be “very
willing” to use a shuttle that would take them round-trip to and from BART stations; 40
percent indicated they would be “not at all willing.” The analysts also found that
regardless of location, there is “significant interest in using rail feeder shuttles, as long as
they have acceptable fares, wait times, trip lengths, and scheduling times.” Willingness to
wait and willingness to pay for shuttle service varied widely among age and income
categories. However, suburban commuters were willing both to wait longer and to pay
more for a rail feeder shuttle than were urban commuters. The survey also found that
“three mode choice groups, in particular, show promise as target groups: noncommuting
SOV users, noncommuting transit users in urban areas, and rail users who access stations
by transit in urban areas. In terms of socioeconomics, women, younger, and elderly
people also show promise” (Anspacher et al. 2005).
In 2006, another survey was conducted around a BART system suburban station (the
Castro Valley station). The survey asked 400 respondents to characterize their
willingness to use a smart shuttle, their willingness to pay for a smart shuttle, and what
additional services or attributes could entice them to use a smart shuttle instead of their
own car (a smart shuttle was described as an on-demand service with real-time locators
that could notify potential passengers of arrival and departure times to enable them to
better plan their trip).
31
Survey results showed that of the 400 respondents, 72 percent accessed the BART station
by driving alone, 3 percent carpooled, and 17 percent walked. Eighty percent said that
parking was free, 13 percent reported paying for parking themselves, 5 percent said their
company pays for parking and 2 percent shared parking costs with their company.
Approximately 40 percent of the participants expressed a high likelihood that they would
use the shuttle service. They also said they would be more likely to use BART if a shuttle
service were available, estimating that they would use BART eight or more times a
month because of the shuttle service (Yim and Ceder 2006). When asked about the
characteristics of the service, respondents reported that the three most important service
qualities are, in order:
 Cost.
 Overall travel time (including wait time).
 Reliability.
Respondents indicated that they expected no more than four to five stops per shuttle ride
(between their pickup point and the station), and about 10 riders per shuttle. The study
found that interest was higher among women, minorities, and zero-car households than
among other segments of the population.
Potential Opportunities for Phoenix and Tucson
Phoenix and Tucson operate residential, downtown, and activity center shuttles.
However, as park-and-ride and station area parking capacities diminish, or in residential
areas where transit use is lower than expected given residents’ demographics and travel
patterns, transit agencies in both cities might consider developing additional services. As
shown by the BART surveys, shuttles help connect off-peak and other nonwork trips to
the regional transit system. Candidate locations in the Phoenix and Tucson areas for
additional shuttles may include:
 Park-and-ride reliever or connector service at heavily used park-and-ride lots.
 End-of-line connections to major activity centers.
 Connections from the new rail lines to other major transit or activity centers.
Since many bus routes have been revised to serve the new rail stations, it may only be
necessary to “rebrand” or market the local buses to increase passenger awareness of their
function.
SUMMARY OF TDM BENEFITS
The benefits detailed for each TDM program in this chapter are summarized in Tables 9
through 13.
32
Absent from the summary is a calculation of the cost-effectiveness of the various TDM
programs, which could aid agencies in assessing the value of various strategies and in
developing programs that deliver strong results. However, the inconsistency in the type of
available data renders a reliable determination of cost-effectiveness and an “apples-to-apples”
comparison among programs impossible. Following Table 13 is a description of
performance measures and methods, including those that address cost-effectiveness, that
could be applied to TDM programs.
Several important points to consider when comparing TDM programs include:
 Goals and objectives. The intent of TDM programs can be to increase awareness
of options, increase ridership, reduce parking, reduce congestion, and many other
objectives. Each TDM program serves a different purpose. For example, parking
cash-out programs are site-specific and are intended to reduce parking demand. In
contrast, many of the transit strategies are applied regionally and are intended to
boost bus ridership.
 Different markets. Each TDM program is applied in a different market, with
considerable differences in the types of travelers served by the program.
 The modes of transportation available in each market are also very different.
The modes available to people and the constraints of using these modes (e.g., the
convenience and time cost of using transit) vary from region to region.
 Positive aspects of TDM programs are not necessarily captured by traditional
measures. Because a central purpose of many TDM programs is to raise
awareness of transportation alternatives to a wide audience, it is difficult to capture
all the VMT and trip reduction benefits associated with larger marketing programs.
 Lasting impacts of TDM programs. While some programs are likely to be more
effective than others, TDM has inspired change in the travel habits of participants.
33
Table 9. Estimated Costs and Benefits of Selected Social Marketing and Individualized Marketing Programs.
Benefit
Program Cost Number of Trips
Reduced
Percentage
Reduction in SOV
Traffic
VMT Reduced
Ridership
Increase
(Transit
Strategies Only)
Drive Less
Denver, 2006
$110,000
223 trips (May
2006; 30
participants)
25% average decrease
in SOV use by
participants
2,617 mi (May)
n/a
Drive Less
Denver, 2007
$110,000
504 trips (May
2007; 75
participants)
39% average decrease
in SOV use by
participants
4,307 mi (May)
n/a
Designed to Ride $108,000 n/a n/a
5,073,990 mi
(annual;
estimate) 76 new riders
SmartCommute
Challenge, 2008 $103,000 n/a n/a
1,899,225 mi
during challenge
period
19.5% in April
2008; 7.8% in
May 2008
In Motion
Program $250,000 2,564 trips n/a 31,522 mi n/a
FTA
Demonstration
Program
~$250,000 per city (4
cities selected within
$1M pilot program) n/a 2% to 8% n/a n/a
Eastside Hub
Project $398,000 n/a 8.6% n/a n/a
Smart Trips
Summit-U
Program $134,000 n/a n/a 2,289,000 mi n/a
34
Table 10. Estimated Costs and Benefits of Selected Telework Programs.
Benefit
Program Cost Number of Trips
Reduced
Employee
Participation Rate VMT Reduced
Ridership
Increase
(Transit
Strategies Only)
Telework Arizona No cost
n/a
20% of employees
(4,300 people)
participate
5,250,000 mi
saved annually n/a
U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office
430,560 trips
46% of employees
(4,140 people)
telework at least once
per week
5,661,864 mi
saved annually
(estimate) n/a
State of Georgia
“Work Away”
Program
IF the employees
telework at least
once per week,
416,000 trips
saved annually.
5% of employees
(4,000 people)
participate
IF the
employees
telework at least
once per week,
5,470,400 mi
saved annually. n/a
Georgia Power
n/a
5% of employees (475
people) telework once
per week
2,596,350 mi
saved annually n/a
Sun Microsystems
Cost data not
available.
IF the employees
telework at least
once per week,
1,560,000 trips
saved annually.
15,000 employees
participate
IF the
employees
telework at least
once per week,
20,514,000 mi
saved annually. n/a
35
Table 11. Estimated Costs and Benefits of Selected Transit Subsidy Programs and Promotional Campaigns.
Benefit
Program Cost Number of Trips
Reduced
Percent Reduction in
SOV Traffic
Vehicle-Miles
of Travel
(VMT)
Reduced
Ridership
Increase
(Transit
Strategies Only)
Five Free Rides
(Salt Lake City,
Utah)
$1,004,500 n/a n/a n/a System ridership
increased by
1.8% (574,300
trips)
Shop Tops, Ride
Home for Free
(Cleveland, OH)
Cost data not
available
n/a n/a n/a Annual ridership
increased system-wide
4.5%, in
part due to
program
National Survey Cost data not
available
n/a n/a n/a Fare elasticity is
between -0.34
and -0.44 (for
every dollar
increase in price,
ridership
decreases
between 34%-
44%)
36
Table 12. Estimated Costs and Benefits of Selected Parking Management Programs.
Benefit
Program Cost Number of Trips
Reduced
Percent Reduction in
SOV Traffic
Percent
Vehicle-Miles
of Travel
(VMT)
Reduced
Ridership
Increase
(Transit
Strategies Only)
California cash-out
examples
$22,000 ($100 per
employee enrolled in
program; 220
employees enrolled)
22,960 trips
reduced for month
period
13% 12% n/a
Cellular One $2,530 monthly,
$30,360 annually
(calculated using a
cash-out average of
$57.50/employee/mo)
50 people
participate in cash
out program (25
carpools with an
average of 2
occupants).
12,000 trips
reduced/year
3% n/a n/a
City of Bellevue $11,929 monthly,
$143,148 annually
(calculated using a
cash-out average
$39.50/employee/mo)
302 people
participate in
cash-out program
(151 carpools with
an average
occupancy of 2
occupants)
72,480 trips
reduced/year
9% n/a n/a
37
Table 12. Estimated Costs and Benefits of Selected Parking Management Programs. (continued)
Benefit
Program Cost Number of Trips
Reduced
Percent Reduction in
SOV Traffic
Vehicle-Miles
of Travel
(VMT)
Reduced
Ridership
Increase
(Transit
Strategies Only)
Olin Aerospace No cost. Olin began a
$5/day charge and
did not offer
transportation
subsidy in return.
n/a 23% n/a n/a
Sverdrup
Corporation
$390 monthly,
$4,680 annually
(calculated using a
cash-out average of
$15/employee/mo)
n/a 20% n/a n/a
38
Table 13. Estimated Costs and Benefits of Selected Shuttle and Circulator Programs.
Benefit
Program Cost Number of Trips
Reduced
Percent Reduction in
SOV Traffic
Vehicle-Miles
of Travel
(VMT)
Reduced
Ridership
Increase
(Transit
Strategies Only)
Miami Beach
Electrowave
Operating and capital
cost: $8,750 per day
(calculated based on
$3.50/passenger cost)
n/a n/a n/a 126 passengers
per hour (2,500
riders per day,
20-hour service
day)
Broward County
Shuttles (8 shuttle
systems
combined)
Operating cost only:
$370.60 per day
(calculated based on
$2.18/passenger cost)
n/a n/a n/a 14.2 passengers
per hour (170
riders per day,
12-hour service
day)
Lynx Lymmo,
Orlando, FL
Operating and capital
cost: $2,624 per day
(calculated based on
$3.28/passenger cost)
n/a n/a n/a 50 passengers per
hour (800 riders
per day, 16-hour
service day)
39
CHAPTER 3. TDM PERFORMANCE MEASURES
This chapter defines performance measures and methods that could be applied to the
TDM programs described in Chapter 2:
 Social marketing and individualized marketing.
 Telework.
 Transit subsidies and promotional campaigns.
 Parking management.
 Shuttle and circulator links to regional transit.
The basic performance measurement tools for any of these programs are mode split and
vehicle counts. Mode split represents the percentage of travelers who use each type of
transportation mode and is typically compiled from participant surveys. Vehicle counts
are usually monitored at a key entrance or exit point for the area under analysis. These
two tools complement each other in that mode split documents the extent to which
transportation alternatives are being used compared with driving alone, while vehicle
counts can be performed before and after a TDM program is implemented to determine
the actual number of vehicles removed from traffic.
With mode split and vehicle count information, the following variables could be
calculated for any of the TDM programs listed above (Schreffler 2000):
 Vehicle trip reduction: The number or percentage of automobiles removed from
traffic. To determine the number of trips removed, vehicle trip counts must be
taken before and after a TDM program is implemented.
 VMT reduced: The number of trips reduced multiplied by the average trip length.
These two indicators are the typical performance measures collected to demonstrate the
impact of a TDM program. However, to better understand the impact of a TDM program,
other variables can be considered as well. These variables include:
 Energy and emission reductions: Calculated by multiplying VMT reductions by
average vehicle energy consumption and emission rates.
 Cost-effectiveness: Calculated by dividing program costs by a unit of change. For
example, the cost-effectiveness of various TDM programs could be compared
based on cost per trip reduced and/or in tons of emitted air pollutants eliminated.
 Number of parking spaces reduced: A count of the number of parking spaces
reduced as a result of a TDM program.
o Note: Trip reduction and parking space reduction are not synonymous.
Physical parking spaces can be used by multiple users in a 24-hour period,
particularly if shared parking is permitted at a mixed-use development.
Therefore, one trip reduced does not equal one parking space reduced.
40
Ideally, parking occupancy counts can show the real parking space
reductions realized by a TDM program. If a site has flexibility in leasing
parking for residents or employees, TDM programs can lead to significant
long-term parking cost savings. This is an important additional factor in
determining cost-effectiveness.
 Awareness: Number of potential users who are now aware of a program or service
as a result of a TDM program.
 Participation: Number of people who responded to an outreach effort or request
to participate in a program.
These performance measures are a sample of the quantification transportation
organizations may employ to demonstrate the impact of a TDM program. For example, a
cost-effectiveness analysis can be augmented by an analysis of the air quality benefits,
local economic development benefits, mobility enhancements, and reduction in personal
vehicle costs (gas, parking, maintenance, etc.) that may also be attributed to a TDM
program. Each program’s performance measures will be unique to the information
required by the funding agency, the goals of the community, and the monitoring required
by the agency.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT BASICS
To assess the performance of any TDM program, a few basic strategies should be
followed. These are summarized below.
 Define the baseline. Before any TDM program is implemented or augmented, a
baseline should be defined to understand the travel patterns of the population
before the program was implemented. Without this important piece of information,
an objective determination of the impact of the TDM program is unlikely. An
accurate baseline is needed to reliably attribute behavior change caused by
implementation of the TDM program.
 Define a control group. Ideally, a project assessment would identify and survey a
control group before and after the TDM program was implemented. This would
help clarify the true impacts of the TDM program versus other external factors that
affect travel behavior (gas prices, time of year variations, etc.).
 Craft measurement tools that are repeatable before and after. Measuring the
population with the same or nearly the same tools before and after the TDM
program is implemented is an important performance measurement basic. For
example, if a vehicle count is the tool used to monitor the impact of a TDM
program, a vehicle count would also need to be taken before the program started.
 Measure the community benefits of the TDM program. The performance of
some TDM programs could be monitored based on benefits to the community in
addition to vehicle trips and miles reduced. These benefits could include tons of
pollutants saved, calories burned by walking or biking, or the number of trips to
41
local retail and services via foot, bicycle, or bus if a TDM program was launched
in support of economic development.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ALTERNATIVES
Since surveys and vehicle counts can be expensive to implement, many TDM program
professionals have sought alternative methods to track vehicle trips and miles reduced.
These options include:
 Online trip-tracking tools. Such tools require individual user accounts through
which participants in a program record their travel behavior and, particularly, the
times at which they use transportation alternatives. These tools are especially
appropriate for carpool programs, vanpool programs, incentive campaigns, and
individualized marketing programs to help track participation.
 Workweek scheduling. The reductions in average vehicle trips and miles of travel
can be calculated from the amount of time employees spend teleworking or
working alternative schedules, such as compressed work weeks.
 Transit pass use. For TDM programs with transit incentives, the use of transit
passes can be tracked with “smart card” technologies. More and more transit
agencies are developing such technologies to track the use of their services more
effectively. Typically, individual passes are scanned upon entry into a transit
vehicle, and the fare for the journey is subtracted from the balance remaining on
the card (or eventually billed to the rider). At a minimum, this information could
provide TDM program administrators with a count of the number and timing of
transit trips. In many cases, these would represent vehicle trips reduced, especially
for commuting employees.
 Decreases in parking permit sales. In a situation where parking permits are sold
or distributed periodically to employees (e.g., a large medical campus with a
monthly permit program), simply tracking the number of permits sold and
distributed before and after the implementation of a TDM program is a basic
measure of trip reduction. However, an important component of this approach is a
method to track occasional parking by employees who use transportation
alternatives, since most will not be able to forego driving altogether. This may be
accomplished through the smart-card technologies that most modern parking
programs integrate into employee identification badges to track parking use.
43
CHAPTER 4. IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE TDM PROGRAMS
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE TDM PROGRAMS
Implementing effective TDM programs such as those described in this report entails the
integration of TDM elements into planning practice, as well as infrastructure investments.
This section details the challenges in implementing effective TDM programs in Phoenix
and Tucson and recommends policy and planning tools to address these issues.
The findings of this research are best applied to communities in the Phoenix and Tucson
regions that desire to make an area that is currently automobile-dominated more
conducive in the future to walking, bicycling, and using transit. Communities most likely
to fulfill this vision are those that carefully develop a mix of uses and appropriate land-use
densities, invest in physical transportation infrastructure, and develop TDM programs
and services. Investing in TDM programs and services is a critical component in
changing travel habits in an area that has primarily served the single-occupant vehicle,
even if planning decisions will change the built environment significantly over the long
term.
Government Roles and Responsibilities
Local governments and employers, the state of Arizona, and the federal government all
have roles and responsibilities in supporting the integration of TDM into the planning and
development of new neighborhoods, employment centers, and commercial districts.
Local government has the largest role to play by integrating TDM review into planning,
policy, and development review processes. The success of TDM also relies, to some
extent, on the commitment of developers, employers, and community leaders who see the
potential benefits to business and the community of attracting more people to non-SOV
transportation alternatives. Finally, implementation of effective TDM programs also
benefits from financial support from state and federal agencies responsible for funding
transportation programs.
Specific Challenges to Implementing TDM in Phoenix and Tucson
The challenges involved in implementing effective TDM programs in Phoenix and
Tucson are policy-driven, as well as implementation-driven. These challenges are
summarized
below.
 Developing a “business approach” to marketing TDM to employers by conveying
the financial benefits of implementing TDM programs that:
o Improve employee retention.
o Provide affordable transportation options to employees.
o Use land for the highest and best purpose instead of surface parking.
44
o Ease congestion around the business site.
o Develop a practical, measurable commitment to sustainability.
 Implementing programs that respond to the specific needs of Phoenix and Tucson
travelers.
 Securing long-term funding to support marketing of alternative transportation and
TDM programs.
 Securing long-term funding to support financial incentives that encourage SOV
drivers to try alternative transportation.
 Monitoring and evaluating the impact of TDM strategies on trip reduction and
traffic congestion.
Addressing these challenges in the long term can include integrating TDM planning and
practice into broader planning efforts in communities (e.g., comprehensive land use and
transportation plans) and development review policies and procedures, as well as
securing buy-in from the local business community to fund TDM programs in the long
term. Often, the most overlooked challenge is the planning of the transportation system,
including how to incorporate TDM programs and how to implement programs that can
sustain themselves over a long time frame.
Considering these challenges, this section details the following recommendations and
examples for implementing effective TDM programs in the Phoenix and Tucson urban
areas:
 Integrating TDM into planning for new developments, and appropriately matching
TDM programs and services to existing built environments.
 Financing TDM programs for the long term.
 Developing methods to monitor and evaluate the impact of TDM programs.
INTEGRATING TDM INTO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
While the built environments of Phoenix and Tucson make it challenging to use
transportation alternatives at many work sites, a variety of programs and strategies are
available and appropriate for many different land uses. This section details the general
parameters to be considered when implementing TDM strategies in different land use and
transportation environments. The heart of the section focuses on a decision matrix
through which TDM program recommendations can be developed for a particular land
use and transportation environment.
The first step in this process is to analyze the current and/or future land uses of the site in
question. This assessment will help determine the TDM programs and strategies that are
appropriate for a particular built environment. The assessment consists of four steps:
45
1. A land-use assessment, including a review within a half-mile of the center of the
existing or planned development, of:
a. Land-use mix.
b. Density.
c. Pedestrian accessibility.
2. A transit service assessment that determines the type of transit service within
walking distance of the site as well as its frequency.
3. The recommendation of a set of TDM strategies for the site considering the land-use
and transit service assessments.
4. Estimation of the potential peak-hour SOV trip reduction expressed as a
percentage from a calculated baseline of trips for a given land-use type.
It is only after progressing through the first three steps that a vehicle trip reduction
percentage factor is chosen as a fourth and final step.
Each of the steps in the TDM review process is outlined in more detail below.
Step 1: Land-Use Assessment
The land-use assessment consists of three components. These components are a mix of
uses, density, and pedestrian accessibility. Within each of these three components is a
series of questions that indicate whether a site has a “high” or “low” potential for impact
of TDM programs on vehicle trip reduction.
Note that a “low” ranking in these categories does not imply that TDM programs should
not be implemented in these areas. On the contrary, this ranking indicates that these
environments do not lend themselves naturally toward the use of those transportation
alternatives, and the active management of alternatives through TDM is critical.
However, one should not expect the same level of vehicle trip reduction in these
environments compared with those with a higher degree of land-use density and mixing.
Importantly, the peer-reviewed research examined to develop the land-use assessment
showed that density has the most significant influence on the use of transportation
alternatives when compared with land-use mix or pedestrian accessibility (Cervero and
Kockelman 1997; Dunphy and Fisher 1996; Ewing and Cervero 2001). Therefore, the
density threshold described next must be exceeded to achieve a “high” ranking from the
land-use assessment.
While adequate density is required for any site to receive a high ranking, only one of the
other two components must have all questions answered affirmatively (land-use mix or
pedestrian accessibility). This allows for flexibility in assessing how a specific existing or
new development’s built environment will influence travel behavior, but still requires a
site to fulfill more than the density component to achieve a high ranking. However, note
that all three components should always be considered.
46
To facilitate the decision-making process associated with each of the three components
below, the questions associated with each component have been summarized on printable
forms in Appendix A for use by local agencies and organizations.
Land-Use Mix
The series of questions required to determine whether the land-use mix in and around an
existing or proposed development warrants a “high” ranking include:
1. Are residential uses present within a half-mile radius of the development?
2. Is at least 100,000 square feet of office or commercial space available within a
half-mile radius of the development?
3. Is a grocery or supermarket retail store present within a quarter-mile radius of the
development? (This question is not required for commercial-only developments.)
4. Are eight or more “other” uses present beside grocery/supermarket?
o Note: These eight uses should be neighborhood, small-scale uses
accessible by foot, such as schools, restaurants, cafes, clothing stores, post
offices, banks, dry cleaners, fast food restaurants, and bookstores. Retail
stores greater than 50,000 square feet with large off-street surface parking
are not considered part of this category unless they are constructed
immediately adjacent to the development, or the project itself is a
redevelopment of a large regional shopping center complex.
The four questions must all be answered affirmatively to receive a “high” ranking for the
land-use mix component of the land-use assessment. It is important to identify not only
that an adequate quantity of other residential and commercial uses are present near the
site, but also that existing convenience retail and other uses are within walking distance.
Again, the rank of “high” or “low” for this category simply indicates what types of TDM
programs or strategies could complement this built environment from a land-use mix
perspective. A “low” score does not indicate that no TDM programs should be
implemented.
Density
This component of the land-use assessment is composed of three questions:
1. Are there at least 15 housing units per acre?
2. Is the population density greater than or equal to at least 30 people per residential
acre?
3. Are there at least 50 workers per commercial acre?
Any one of these questions must be answered affirmatively for an existing or proposed
development to receive a score of “high” on the density component of the land-use
47
assessment. The flexibility in requiring only one question is important for this component
because various types of sites and new projects are good candidates for different TDM
programs and services. Some areas may only contain or be planned for residential uses
(with no major commercial uses planned), others only commercial (with no residential
planned), and still others a mix of both. By requiring a project to affirmatively answer
only one of the questions above, this tool allows flexibility in making TDM program
decisions for a wide variety of land-use environments.
Pedestrian Accessibility
This component of the land-use assessment contains a series of questions focused on the
pedestrian-level transportation infrastructure in and around an existing or proposed
development. Of the three components of the land-use assessment, this is the most
sensitive to determining how well the average person driving alone will be likely to use
transportation alternatives for the first time. For example, if a potential user cannot easily
and safely access transit service by walking in a given built environment, other
alternatives such as vanpooling, carpooling, or telework could be established.
To receive a “high” pedestrian accessibility score, an existing site or proposed
development must meet criteria for conditions within a quarter-mile of the center of the
development. A high score is achieved through affirmative answers to these questions:
1. Are paved sidewalks at least four feet wide located on both sides of all streets?
2. Is lighting adequate to provide visibility along sidewalks?
3. Is the terrain flat (less than 5 percent slope)?
4. Along roadways with two or more lanes in each direction and speed limits in
excess of 30 miles per hour, are median buffers provided between the curb and
the sidewalk? (Median buffers are any feature that separates vehicles from
pedestrians. Examples include sidewalks wider than four feet, planted medians,
hardscape medians, on-street parking, and bike lanes.)
5. Is the average block length, including all cul-de-sacs and pedestrian cut-throughs,
less than 600 feet?
These five questions can be answered through a field review of the current conditions in
and around the existing or proposed site. Emphasis should be placed on reviewing the
pedestrian infrastructure in sites adjacent to the existing or proposed development, as
well as the site itself. Most new developments will pass this test easily because they will
be built according to current design practices and local design review policies; the bigger
issue is whether the existing pedestrian infrastructure that is adjacent to a new
development (and possibly built decades earlier under different design practices) also
provides a high degree of pedestrian accessibility.
48
Land-Use Assessment Summary
The land-use assessment will help to determine whether a development has high or low
potential for SOV trip reduction due to its density, mix of land uses, and pedestrian
accessibility. This initial assessment stage does not consider TDM strategies themselves;
instead, the existing or planned conditions of the built environment are being considered
to help guide TDM strategies that are recommended for a particular site.
The next step in the assessment is to review the transportation services offered in an
existing or planned site. Specifically, a transit assessment can be performed as described
below.
Step 2: Transit Service Assessment
The transit service assessment is composed of three questions regarding the type and
frequency of transit service (bus or rail) in the existing or proposed development’s
location. This assessment, in combination with the land-use assessment described above,
is used to help select appropriate TDM strategies for the site.
For planned projects, it is important to consider the transit service that will be available
upon completion of the existing or proposed development. Full completion is likely to
occur several years, if not decades, into the future for most new development projects. In
some locations, this is important because transit service may change significantly over
time.
The three transit service assessment questions are:
1. Is the development within a half-mile of frequent light rail service and/or short
bus headways? (“Frequent” headways are defined as headways under 15 minutes
during peak hours and under 30 minutes during off-peak times.)
a. If yes, this is a “Class A” transit service environment.
2. Is the development farther than a half-mile from frequent transit service, but
connected to the service via frequent headways through shuttles or circulators?
(“Frequent” headways are defined as headways under 15 minutes during peak
hours and under 30 minutes during off-peak times.)
a. If yes, this is a “Class B” transit service environment.
3. Are there no frequent transit services or shuttle/circulator connections to frequent
transit services available in the vicinity of the development?
a. If yes, this is a “Class C” transit service environment.
The guidelines of this assessment are rough approximations used to gauge the types of
TDM programs and services that could be used under specific transit conditions. The
tools needed to complete the transit assessment are basic and can typically be accessed on
the Internet. These include use of: (1) online mapping websites to determine the distance
to transit service from an existing or proposed development, and (2) a review of the local
49
transit agency’s website to survey the frequency and type of transit service available at a
given location.
Once the level of available transit service is determined through this assessment, the
review process moves to Step 3: TDM Recommendations.
Step 3: Recommendation of TDM Strategies
The TDM strategies suitable for a specific development are primarily chosen according to
the results of Steps 1 and 2 (land-use and transit service assessments).
For example, if an existing office development is determined to have a “high” trip-reduction
potential based on the land-use assessment (Step 1) and is located in a “Class
A” transit service area (Step 2), a set of pedestrian and transit-oriented TDM strategies
are strongly recommended over other TDM strategies such as carpooling.
The recommended TDM strategies that consider the land use and transportation
environment are displayed in Tables 14 and 15. With the results of Steps 1 and 2 from the
sections above, readers can navigate these tables to find which TDM strategies are
recommended for residential (Table 14) or office (Table 15) sites.
The TDM strategies outlined in Tables 14 and 15 can be divided into seven categories as
follows:
1. Basic strategies.
2. Bicycle and pedestrian programs.
3. Transit programs.
4. Marketing programs.
5. Parking programs.
6. Rideshare programs.
7. Alternative work schedule programs.
Note that the strategies are recommended with three degrees of emphasis (high, medium,
or low applicability as represented by solid, partially filled, and hollow circles). Most
strategies should be implemented in conjunction with other strategies in order to achieve
their maximum effectiveness and vehicle trip reduction.
50
Table 14. Residential TDM Strategies.
Land-use Assessment Score: High Low High Low High Low
TDM Program or Strategy:
Basic Strategies
Bike Racks      
Bus Benches      
Information Kiosks      
General Marketing Materials      
On-site Transportation Fairs      
Pedestrian Facilities      
On-site Program Manager      
Van-accessible Parking and Drop-off      
Website      
Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs
Bike Lockers      
Bike Routes/Lanes      
Bike Paths      
Transit Programs
Bus Shelters      
Incentive Campaigns (e.g., TryTransit)      
Real-time Transit Information      
Reduced-cost Transit Passes      
Shuttle      
Marketing Programs
Access Guide      
Bricks and Mortar Commuter Store      
Incentive Programs      
Customized Travel Plans/Profiles      
Individualized Marketing Programs      
Live-near-work Marketing      
Off-peak Travel Programs      
Shop-near-home Marketing      
Parking Programs
Paid Parking      
Unbundle and Share Parking      
Rideshare Programs
Vanpool Program      
Site-based Carpool Matching      
Alternative Work Programs
Business Center      
Other Programs
Car-Share Program      
Concierge Service      
High applicability Medium applicability Low applicability
Level of Transit Service:
Connectivity to rail and/or short
to moderate bus/shuttle
headways
Within 1/2-mile of rail and
short bus headways No transit service
Class A Class B Class C
51
Table 15. Office TDM Strategies.
Land-use Assessment Score: High Low High Low High Low
TDM Program or Strategy:
Basic Strategies
Bike Racks      
Carpool and Vanpool Preferred Parking      
General Marketing Materials      
Information Kiosks      
On-site Transportation Fairs      
Pedestrian Facilities      
Pre-tax Commute Benefit (IRS 132(f))      
Program Manager      
Vanpool-accessibile Parking and Drop-off      
Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs
Bike Lockers      
Shower Facilities      
Bike Routes/Lanes      
Bike Paths      
Transit Programs
Bus Benches      
Bus Shelters      
Free Transit Passes      
Real-time Transit Information      
Reduced-cost Transit Passes      
Shuttles/Circulators      
Marketing Programs
New Employee Information      
Bricks and Mortar Commuter Store      
Customized Travel Plans/Profiles      
Incentive Programs for First-time Users      
Individualized Marketing Programs      
Live-near-work Marketing      
Shop-near-work Marketing      
Parking Programs
Advanced Parking Technologies      
Occassional Parking Program      
Paid Parking      
Parking Cashout      
Unbundle and Share Parking      
Rideshare Programs
Vanpool Program      
Site-based carpool matching      
Alternative Work Programs
Compressed Work Weeks      
Flexible Work Schedules      
Telework Programs      
Other Programs
Car-share Program      
Concierge Service      
Guaranteed Ride Home      
High applicability Medium applicability Low applicability
Connectivity to rail and/or short to
moderate bus/shuttle headways
Within 1/2 mile of rail and
short bus Level of Transit Service: headways No Transit Service
Class A Class B Class C
52
The ratings for the TDM strategies and programs in Tables 14 and 15 were developed
from national research and implementation programs in comparable major cities. Two
important sources of local information were the results of the 2008 TDM Annual Survey
administered by Valley Metro (Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority
2008) as well as the 2005-2006 Travel Reduction Program Annual Report compiled by
the Pima Association of Governments (Pima Association of Governments 2006). These
documents report the impact of TDM programs on travel behavior, particularly on the
percentage of travelers who use alternatives to driving alone. Some of the highlights from
these reports that were considered in rating the TDM strategies and programs in Tables
14 and 15 are summarized below.
 The Valley Metro 2008 TDM Annual Survey reported:
o Use of telework has increased noticeably since 2007, and as a mode of
travel to work it is responsible for 8 percent of total trips (in other words, 8
percent of trips that would normally be drive-alone trips to work never
occur because people are teleworking, mostly from their homes).
o Carpooling represents 15 percent of the total trips to work. This places it
as the leading transportation alternative to driving alone to work. In
addition, 22 percent of the surveyed population said they would very
likely consider carpooling if it were made easier for them, and an
additional 31 percent said they would be somewhat likely to consider it.
Twenty percent of survey respondents said they would be very likely to
carpool with gas expenses paid, and 28 percent said they would be
somewhat likely. All these responses placed an emphasis on carpooling
and incentive strategies in Tables 14 and 15, particularly preferential
parking and site-based, ride-matching TDM strategies.
o The strongest influences on the use of transportation alternatives are, in
order of priority, a desire for greater convenience, easier access to the
workplace, and the ability to maintain the same schedule as the normal
commute to work. These perspectives strongly point to delivering
individualized marketing and commute profiling as TDM strategies in
Tables 14 and 15.
 The Pima Association of Governments’ 2005-2006 Travel Reduction Program
Annual Report found:
o The most common employer programs are providing information on
alternative modes, offering bike racks and lockers, providing ride-developing
services, developing promotional campaigns, providing
guaranteed ride-home programs, and targeting new employees with
information. Because these strategies are popular with the existing
employers in the Travel Reduction Program, they are all included in
Tables 14 and 15.
o The least common employer programs included parking fees, incentives
for employees to live close to work, preferential parking, rebates not to use
parking (cash-out programs), and vanpool subsidies. These programs were
53
also considered as TDM strategies, and case examples are presented in
Chapter 2 to explain how and why these programs have been successful in
other areas.
Detailed explanations of the TDM strategies displayed in Tables 14 and 15 are contained
in Appendix B.
FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR TDM
Securing dependable, long-term sources of TDM funding is an issue faced by any entity
that implements programs or services. Today, many TDM programs rely heavily on
government-controlled funds, such as the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) program, or city or county sources. But public funds alone cannot
support the programs and activities recommended in this chapter. The agencies,
employers, and other organizations that have operated successful TDM programs over the
long term use a variety of funding sources to sustain their efforts.
While a variety of organizations can implement TDM programs, there are generally four
sources of revenue:
 Public grants (federal, state, and local) and foundation grants.
 Fee-for-service initiatives.
 Property assessments (business improvement districts and community
improvement districts).
 Parking districts.
The need is ongoing to identify and incorporate strategic funding for any organization
implementing TDM programs. To maintain quality service delivery, these organizations
need a variety of funding sources. If one funding source dissipates, additional funding
sources should be available to keep the programs running. If one funding source has
prescriptive requirements, another should provide more flexibility in program options,
leading to more diverse program offerings.
As an example, transportation management associations (TMAs) are one type of
organization that implements TDM programs. A 2003 survey (Hendricks and Pederson-
Stahl 2004) of TMAs around the country found that TMA program budgets included the
following revenue sources:
 Membership dues (56 percent).
 Federal grants (48 percent).
 Local grants (28 percent).
 State grants (27 percent).
 In-kind donations (25 percent).
 Service contracts (19 percent).
54
 Fees for services (16 percent).
 Developer contributions (9 percent).
 Business improvement districts (BIDs) (7 percent).
Federal Grants: CMAQ Funding
The primary purpose of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
(CMAQ) program is to fund projects and programs that reduce transportation-related
emissions in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas, such as the Phoenix and
Tucson regions. The 2004 decision by the Resource Allocation Advisory Committee
(RAAC) directs all CMAQ funds available to Arizona to the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) in Phoenix. The RAAC is an advisory body whose membership
includes high-ranking representatives from Arizona DOT and several regional planning
organizations. Eligible CMAQ projects should demonstrate a likely contribution to the
attainment of national ambient air quality standards.
Currently, CMAQ funds are used to fund a variety of projects aimed at reducing
congestion and improving air quality in Maricopa County. CMAQ funds can be used to
support transportation control measures identified by Arizona DOT or MAG as
alternative-mode incentive programs, transit improvements, bicycle and pedestrian
programs, and ridesharing projects. Funds have been used to purchase vans and buses, to
subsidize bus operations, and to develop and implement ridesharing programs. Currently,
MAG considers the following TDM-related elements as CMAQ-eligible (Maricopa
Association of Governments 2005):
 Bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
 Bus and light rail projects, including new services.
 High-occupancy vehicle facilities.
 Ozone education programs.
 Park-and-ride facilities.
 Ridesharing programs.
 Telework programs.
 Trip reduction programs.
 Vanpool vehicles.
State, County, and Local Governments
Since TDM programs can mitigate congestion in key activity centers, state, county, and
local jurisdictions often set aside funds to support implementation. Both the Phoenix and
Tucson areas have several TDM programs in place due in large part to the trip reduction
programs in each area. In addition to funding and maintaining much of the alternative
transportation infrastructure, local governments help fund such programs as telework
assistance, ride-matching services, commute campaigns, and shuttle or circulator
55
services. Furthermore, some city and county governments are implementing new
alternative-mode-friendly development requirements to assist in mitigating the traffic
impacts of future developments. These funds can provide additional revenues for future