Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)
Programs That Encourage Employees to Use Efficient Commute Options
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 6 September 2019
This chapter describes Commute Trip Reduction programs, which encourage more efficient commute travel. These programs provide encouragement, incentives and support for commuters to use of alternative modes (such as walking, cycling, ridesharing, public transit and telework), alternative work hours, and other efficient transportation options.
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) (also called Employee Trip Reduction or Vehicle Trip Reduction) programs give commuters resources and incentives to reduce their automobile trips. CTR programs typically include some of the following TDM strategies:
· Commuter Financial Incentives (Parking Cash Out and Transit Allowances).
· Parking Management and Parking Pricing.
· Alternative Scheduling (Flextime and Compressed Work Weeks).
· Telework (allowing employees to work at home, and using telecommunications to substitute for physical travel in other ways).
· TDM Marketing and Promotion.
· Walking and Cycling Encouragement.
· Walking and Cycling Improvements.
· Bicycle Parking and Changing Facilities.
· Transit Encouragement programs.
· Provide Wayfinding and Multi-Modal Navigation Tools which provide guidance on how to reach a worksite by walking, cycling and transit.
· Worksite amenities such as on-site childcare, restaurants and shops, to reduce the need to drive for errands.
· Company travel reimbursement policies that reimburse bicycle or transit mileage for business trips when these modes are comparable in speed to driving, rather than only reimbursing automobile mileage.
· Company vehicles, to eliminate the need for employees to drive to work in order to have their cars for business travel.
· Proximate Commuting, which allows employees with multiple possible work locations to choose worksites that are closer to their homes (Batchelor 2016).
· Special Event Transport Management, for example, to provide special employee travel services during special events, peak shopping periods, roadway construction projects or Emergencies.
· Worksite locations that reflect Location-Efficient Development principles.
CTR programs must be able to meet employees’ diverse and changeable needs. Many employees can use transportation alternatives part-time, if given suitable support and incentives. For example, many employees can carpool, telecommute or flextime two or three days a week. Some employees can bicycle commute part of the year.
Some jurisdictions mandate CTR programs for certain types of employers, such as those with more than 50 daytime employees at urban worksites. These have been criticized as “laws forcing workers to give up their cars,” but that is not quite true. Such laws only require employers to develop a program with suitable incentives, taking into account location and employee requirements. They do not require individual employees to change their commute pattern.
USEPA’s Commuter Choice program (www.commuterchoice.gov) has established National Standards of Excellence in Commuter Benefits, and the Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative (CCLI) awards. To meet National Standard of Excellence employers must offer:
· Guaranteed ride home.
· Employer-paid Transit/Vanpool Benefits where the employer provides at least $30 per month in benefits or the full value of commuting costs.
· Parking Cash Out where the employer provides the option of cash instead of parking. CCLI requires the employer to offer at least $30 per month and at least 75% of the actual saved costs of parking to classify this option as a primary benefit.
· Telecommuting as a primary benefit requires the employer to meet or exceed a 6% average participation rate as expressed as the percent of employees telecommuting on an average day (e.g., 10% of employees who telecommute an average of 2 days per week would not meet the standard).
· Employer-defined benefits can allow employers to use other strategies to achieve the standards. Employers must achieve demonstrable benefits the Federal Commuter Choice Team must agree if an option is to qualify.
Other TDM incentives are treated as supporting strategies to these primary activities. These include:
Commute Trip Reduction programs may be encouraged or required by local, regional or state/provincial policies. Trip Reduction Ordinances (TROs) require developers, employers, or building managers to provide incentives for occupants or employees to use alternative modes (www.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse/tro.htm). Programs and ordinances can be implemented state/region wide or by local jurisdictions, and take many different forms. Ordinances can require a certain reduction in trips with penalties and rewards set for achievement or nonattainment of goals.
For ease of administration, mandatory TROs often apply only to large employers (those with at least 50 or 100 at a worksite), although this limits their effectiveness since the majority of employees in most areas work for smaller companies. Smaller employers can form a Transportation Management Association to provide CTR services in a particular commercial district or mall. Many transportation planning and transit agencies provide support for CTR programs. Developers may implement CTR programs in exchange for reduced parking requirements.
To establish a Commute Trip Reduction program, a business usually develops corporate goals and objectives, policies and procedures, and services and benefits. Travel Surveys are important help plan and evaluate programs. CTR programs may be managed by an in-house Employee Transportation Coordinator, a specialized transportation services company, or a local Transportation Management Association. Organizations such as the Association for Commuter Transportation provide resources for developing such programs and training staff.
Some governments make special efforts to implement commute trip reduction programs within their own agencies as a way to demonstrate leadership and as an opportunity to develop tools and experience that can be transferred to non-government organizations. For examples see the Greening Government guide at www.greeninggovernment.gc.ca, Federal House In Order “Commute and Business Travel” emission reduction program information at www.fhio.gc.ca/commuting/commuting.htm.
Models are now available which can predict the travel impacts of a specific Commute Trip Reduction program, taking into account the type of program and worksite. These include the TRIMMS (Trip Reduction Impacts of Mobility Management Strategies) Model (www.nctr.usf.edu/abstracts/abs77704.htm), Commuter Model (USEPA 2005), the CUTR_AVR Model (www.cutr.usf.edu/tdm/download.htm), the Business Benefits Calculator (BBC) (www.commuterchoice.gov) and the Commuter Choice Decision Support Tool (www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/PrimerDSS/index.htm).
Various performance indicators can be used to Evaluate CTR program effectiveness:
· Mode Share: The portion of trips currently made by Single Occupant Vehicle, transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking.
· Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO): Number of people traveling in private vehicles divided by the number of private vehicle trips. This excludes transit vehicle users and walkers.
· Average Vehicle Ridership: All person trips divided by the number of private vehicle trips. This includes transit vehicle users and walkers.
· Vehicle Trips or Peak Period Vehicle Trips: The total number of private vehicles arriving at a worksite (often called “trip generation” by engineers).
A comprehensive CTR program typically reduces peak-period automobile trips by 4-20% at a worksite (Rye 2002; Boarnet, Hsu and Handy 2014), and more if supported by regional TDM strategies such as transit improvements. Impacts vary depending on program design, geography and employee demographics. Programs that lack Financial Incentives generally achieve reductions under 10% (Boarnet, Hsu and Handy 2014). In large urban centers, trips tend to shift to transit and walking, while in lower-density areas more trips shift to carpooling and cycling. Although a large Central Business District (CBD) can usually achieve the lowest Single Occupant Vehicle commute rates, they often start with relatively low rates, so suburban sites can often achieve comparable trip reductions.
A British study of CTR programs found that “Averaged overall, these organisations managed to reduce the numbers of cars arriving at their sites by more than 14 per 100 staff- more than an 18% reduction in the number of cars that were previously there. Sixteen of the travel plans cut car use by more than 10%, five by more than a fifth and two by more than 50%.” (DTLR, 2002) Hendricks and Joshi (2004) identified specific factors that affect CTR program effectiveness. They found that the degree of management support and the presence of an Employee Transportation Coordinator is important if a worksite is located outside a major business district, but are less critical in a CBC.
The table below shows the predicted trip reduction impacts of various TDM strategies. The Trip Reduction Tables provide more technical information on the travel impacts of various financial incentives. One study estimates that CTR programs can reduce about 4.1% of total vehicle trips and 3.3% of total vehicle mileage in a region (Apogee 1994).
Table 1 Sacramento Trip Reductions Credits from TDM Strategies (Ewing 1993)
|
TDM Strategy |
CBD |
Within 660ft of Transit Station |
Elsewhere |
|
Rideshare Vehicle Preferential Parking |
10% |
5% |
5% |
|
100% Transit/Rideshare Subsidy |
35% |
25% |
10% |
|
50% Transit/Rideshare Subsidy |
20% |
15% |
10% |
|
Vanpool Program |
10% |
10% |
10% |
|
Worksite Showers and Lockers |
5% |
2% |
2% |
|
Guaranteed Ride Home |
2% |
2% |
2% |
|
Onsite Childcare |
5% |
5% |
5% |
Values indicate how much commute travel is predicted to decline in response to these strategies.
Several studies have tried to identify what features contribute most to CTR program effectiveness (Su and Zhou 2011). Below are some conclusions from this research:
· The more incentives a program includes, the more effective it is likely to be. The most effective programs include both travel choice improvements and incentives to reduce driving.
· Commuter Financial Incentives (Parking Cash Out, transit benefits, parking fees, etc.) tend to be the most effective strategies.
· Guaranteed Ride Home and marketing programs can significantly increase the effectiveness of other strategies, although they have little effect by themselves.
· Proximity to quality transit service tends to increase program effectiveness, although worksites that lack public transit can have effective programs based on Ridesharing and Cycling encouragement.
· CTR efforts tend to be more effective at worksites located within convenient walking distance of shops and public services, because at less Accessible locations employees often drive to work so they have a car to run errands during breaks.
· Occupation constraints can limit program effectiveness. Some types of work require employees to have an automobile, although this can be address if employers have a vehicle pool or Carshare Services available for business trips.
· Executive commitment can affect program effectiveness. If employees perceive support from top company officials they are more likely to participate in trip reduction efforts.
· Support or resistance from labor organizations can affect program effectiveness.
Table 2 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Reduces peak period traffic. |
3 |
|
|
Shifts peak to off-peak periods. |
2 |
Often includes flextime. |
|
Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces the need for travel. |
1 |
May include efforts to improve local access. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
2 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
2 |
|
|
Increased cycling. |
2 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
2 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
2 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Shifting commute travel from peak period automobile trips to alternative times and modes can provide a variety of benefits (Concas and Winters, 2007).
CTR Programs can benefit employees by increasing their travel options, reducing travel stress and by providing financial savings. Some studies show that many workers place a high value on having commute alternatives (Novaco and Collier, 1994). Even people who generally enjoy driving do not necessarily want to drive to work every day. At the margin (i.e., relative to current levels of vehicle travel), many consumers would probably prefer to drive somewhat less, provided that they had good mobility alternatives with adequate comfort, convenience and prestige.
CTR Programs can benefit employers by reducing their parking costs or freeing up parking for customers. Programs that improve travel choices or provide financial benefits tend to improve employee morale and recruitment, and reduce employee turnover. For example, employee turnover at the Calvert Group (an investment firm) declined from 25% to 12% after a comprehensive package of commute benefits were introduced, and other surveys find that telecommuting reduces employee turnover by 16% (EPA, 2001).
The SMART Trip Reduction Manual published by Pollution Probe (2001) provides information on calculating the benefits of CTR programs to employers and employees. The study Business Benefits of TDM (Winters and Hendricks, 2001) identified the following benefits that CTR programs can provide to employers:
· Reduced Overhead Costs. Increased competition and need to build shareholder value place more pressure on businesses to lower their cost of doing business as well as increase revenues and/or margins. Strategies such as telecommuting and parking management can make a difference. Telecommuting can reduce office space requirements. Parking management can eliminate the need to build additional parking.
· Enhanced Employee Recruitment and Retention. A shrinking labor force has increased competition for qualified applicants. Similarly, the cost of replacing an employee in productivity and direct costs can be very expensive.
· Expanded Employee Benefits at Low/No Cost. Employers can take advantage of changes in the federal tax treatment of commute-to-work fringe benefits to benefit employees and reduce costs. Employers can now provide employees with a tax-free benefit and/or offer to subtract the cost of transit, vanpool, or parking as a pre-tax payroll deduction option.
· Enhanced Corporate Image. Employers with environmental image problems and/or difficulties with their neighbors often seek to mitigate the problems using a combination of trip reduction strategies.
· Reduced Localized Transportation Problems. Employers are well-aware of the value of banding together to address common problems. More employers are joining transportation management associations (TMAs) to address access and mobility problems in their immediate area.
· Expanded service hours. Work hour schedules such as flextime, staggered work hour programs, compressed work week programs enable organizations to provide additional coverage with the same total number of employers
· Lower absenteeism and tardiness. Employees may earlier time commitments to their carpool partner or to meet the bus. Telework may allow work to be accomplished when travel to the office isn’t possible.
· Increased employment opportunities for the disabled and others unable to meet traditional work hours. Telework provides an alternative to having to physical transport.
· Reduced employee stress. Employee health is significantly related to the distance and duration of the trip. People who are exposed to high levels of traffic congestion arrive at work with higher blood pressure than people who are not exposed. The more sensitive long distance commuters are to the effects of commuting on family life, the greater the inclination to try alternatives to solo driving.
· Enhanced employee productivity. One of the oft-cited benefits of telework is productivity increase.
CTR is particularly effective at reducing traffic congestion, since commute trips are the largest share of peak-period travel. It can reduce road, on-street parking and traffic service costs. It can also help reduce pollution and crash risk, and increase demand for alternative modes, providing economies of scale. By reducing road and parking facility requirements it supports more efficient land use, such as Clustering and more pedestrian-oriented streetscapes (New Urbanism).
Costs include program administration expenses and any additional employee time requirements (CTR Task Force 2001). Administrative costs typically average $1-8 per employee-month to cover program planning, marketing, management, and Performance Evaluation activities. A survey by Pollution Probe (2001) found that the American employers with successful CTR programs spend an average of US$156 annually per employee, with the majority spending US$33 to $89. Three Canadian companies spend an average of CA$48 annually per employee. However, there are also savings and benefits to businesses that may offset much of these costs (Winters and Hendricks, 2003).
Some costs and benefits are economic transfers, in which costs to one group are offset by benefits to another. For example, Parking Pricing increases costs to automobile commuters but provides additional revenue to businesses. Commute Financial Incentives (such as Parking Cash Out and transit benefits) represents an economic transfer from employers to employees, and often substitute for other employee benefits such as free parking. These financial incentives typically average $20-65 per month per employee.
Table 3 Benefit Summary
|
Objectives |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
3 |
Reduces automobile commuting. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
3 |
Reduces automobile commuting and parking requirements. |
|
Consumer Savings |
2 |
Often includes new benefits for non-drivers, but may include higher parking fees for motorists. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Usually increases commute choices. |
|
Road Safety |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. |
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. Encourages higher-density development. |
|
Community Livability |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Equity impacts vary depending on how programs are implemented. CTR programs can increase horizontal equity by giving non-drivers a benefit comparable to free parking provided to drivers. CTR programs may be considered unfair if policies do not apply equally to all employees (Poulenez-Donovan and Ulberg, 1995), particularly if they involve negative incentives. CTR programs can benefit lower-income and transportation disadvantaged employees by improving travel choices and providing financial benefits to non-drivers, but may be regressive if parking fees increase without offsetting benefits.
Table 4 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
2 |
Gives non-drivers benefits comparable to drivers. |
|
Individuals bear the costs they impose. |
1 |
Involves subsidy, but usually equal or less than existing parking subsidies. |
|
Progressive with respect to income. |
3 |
Lower-income employees tend to use alternative modes. |
|
Benefits transportation disadvantaged. |
3 |
Benefits non-drivers. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
2 |
Improves access to employment by non-drivers. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
CTR programs can be implemented almost anywhere, although they tend to be most effective where there are significant traffic congestion, parking or pollution problems, and so they are most common in employment centers within large urban areas. They are also effective in resort communities, commercial centers and campuses.
Table 5 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
2 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density, urban/suburban. |
3 |
Regional government. |
3 |
|
Town. |
2 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
1 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
3 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
3 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
2 |
Developer. |
2 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
2 |
|
|
|
Campus. |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
TDM Program
Commute Trip Reduction programs support and are supported by most other TDM strategies, particularly Parking Pricing, Parking Management, Commute Financial Incentives, Public Transit Improvements, Ridesharing, Transportation Management Associations, Nonmotorized Transportation Improvements, and Smart Growth development practices. It is important to incorporate Evaluation into CTR programs.
CTR programs can be initiated and supported by state, provincial, regional or local governments, by transit agencies, and by Transportation Management Associations. They are implemented by individual employers or groups of employers (such as the businesses in a commercial center or mall). Labor organization support can be important for the success of CTR programs.
Barriers include lack of support, resistance by employers and employees, and contradictory employment practices (such as inflexible work schedules). Zoning codes often require excessive parking, giving employers little financial incentive to reduce automobile commuting. Tax policies that favor free parking over other employee commute benefits also discourage CTR program effectiveness.
Several publications listed below provide guidelines for implementing effective CTR programs, including WSDOT (1999), BC Transit (2003) and the Commuter Choice program. Best practices include:
· Make CTR programs diverse and flexible to meet employees’ varying needs. Design programs to support a variety of choices and incentives.
· Provide as many positive incentives as possible, including improvements to alternative modes (ridesharing, transit, cycling, walking), financial incentives, and support services such as Guaranteed Ride Home programs.
· Involve employees in CTR program planning and marketing.
· Produce an annual “State of the Commute” report, which describes TDM programs and resources, travel trends, and comparisons with other communities.
· Encourage the concentration of employment into Commercial Centers served by public transit and ridershare programs, with amenities such as shops and services within convenient walking distance.
· Implement Parking Management. Parking requirements should be flexible so employers can reap financial savings when CTR programs reduce parking demand.
· Form Transportation Management Associations so employers in an area can coordinate their CTR programs.
|
What goes “oom oom”? A cow walking backwards.
My neighbor has two dogs. One of them says to the other, “Woof!” The other replies, “Moo!” The first dog is perplexed. He asks, “Moo? Why did you say ‘Moo?’” The other dog replies, “I’m learning a foreign language.” |
The King County (Seattle area) METRO Transit Agency has developed a comprehensive commute trip reduction program. The table below lists program components. A detailed description of each component can be downloaded from their website. METRO also provides general support and resources to employers to develop commute trip reduction programs and integrate these efforts with parking, land use and transit management activities.
Table 6 Commute Partnership Products, King Co. Metro
|
Product |
Description |
|
Alternative Work Schedules |
Compressed or flexible work schedules allowing employees to work longer hours in fewer days. |
|
Biking and Walking |
Alternative commute mode that can be subsidized. |
|
Business Use of Vans |
A program making Metro commuter vans available for use by employees (at that worksite) during the business day. |
|
Carsharing |
A convenient and economical alternative to owning a personal vehicle. |
|
Commuter Bonus |
A non-taxable voucher program that encourages employees to take the bus, a vanpool or a ferry. |
|
Commuter Bonus Plus |
A voucher program to encourage employees to commute by carpool, or walking and biking. |
|
Carpools |
Alternative commute mode that can be subsidized. |
|
Custom Bus |
A special service for areas with limited bus service. |
|
Datamatch |
A computerized ridematching service to encourage employees to "share the ride". |
|
Flex Pass |
A comprehensive discount pass program that can be customized to include commute incentives. |
|
Home Free Guarantee |
A program that ensures an emergency ride home for employees using alternative commute modes. |
|
Parking Cash-out |
A program for offering employees a choice between a subsidized parking space, and cash. |
|
Pass Subsidy |
A variety of options for businesses interested in purchasing employee transit passes. |
|
Preferential Parking |
Program that reserves worksite parking spaces for those employees commuting by carpool & vanpool. |
|
Ridematch |
A computerized ridematching database and mapping service. |
|
Rideshare Plus |
A customized service approach for carpool and vanpool formation that employers can contract for. |
|
Tax Laws |
Some helpful guidelines about commute-related tax issues that provide advantages for both employer and employee. |
|
Vanpools |
A program that supplies vans to groups of employees to share. How to get a Metro Vanpool on the Road |
The state of Oregon has a Employee Commute Options (ECO) program requires employers with more than 100 employees in the Portland area to make a good faith effort to encourage employees to reduce automobile commute trips, with a target of a 10% reduction over three years. Employers to fail to make such an effort may be fined.
The Oregon Office of Energy offers the Business Energy Tax Credit to those who invest in energy conservation, recycling, renewable energy resources and less-polluting transportation fuels. Projects that reduce employee commuting or work-related travel and investments in cleaner-burning transportation fuels may qualify for a tax credit. Projects must reduce work-related travel by 25 percent to be eligible. To date, more than 5,500 Oregon energy tax credits have been awarded (see website for a list of case studies). Altogether, those investments save or generate energy worth about $100 million a year.
The tax credit is 35 percent of the eligible project costs - the incremental cost of the system or equipment that's beyond standard practice. You take the credit over five years: 10 percent in the first and second years and 5 percent each year thereafter. If you can't take the full tax credit each year, you can carry the unused credit forward up to eight years. Those with eligible project costs of $20,000 or less may take the tax credit in one year.
The Canadian Federal House In Order (FHIO) website provides information on several successful Commute Trip Reduction programs, as summarized in the table below. Each description includes information on the program’s tools, background, target audience, program description, main components, communications, resources required, results, lessons learned, resources and transferability.
Table 7 Successful Canadian Commute Trip Reduction Programs
|
|
Public Transit |
Bike/Walk |
Carpool/ Vanpool |
Business Travel |
Telework |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Commuter Challenge is a non-profit organization that provides business leaders with expertise and support to create innovative solutions that reduce commute trips, while recognizing business needs and improving quality of life in the Puget Sound region. It partners with the Economic Development Council of Seattle & King County, and various city and state agencies. Some of its activities are described below.
Employer Recognition. Commuter Challenge sponsors an annual employer recognition program. Winners show management commitment to reducing employee commute trips.
Work Options. Commuter Challenge provides resources to support compressed work schedules, flextime and telework. A cost/benefit analysis tool, case studies of employers with work options programs, and a Manager's Guide to Compressed Workweeks and Flextime are available for employers considering implementation or increasing work options.
Workshops/Forums/Committees. Commuter Challenge invites business representatives to participate in various transportation workshops, forums, and committees to address regional transportation issues. These opportunities provide the business community an avenue to shape public policies that will affect them, provide input to transportation service providers, and learn about new products and services that will assist them in further reducing commute trips to their work sites.
Pacesetter and Website. Commuter Challenge publishes the bi-monthly Pacesetter newsletter, a publication of interest to business decision makers, containing articles on transportation policy and helpful information on what other businesses are doing to reduce commute trips. It also maintains a website that provides extensive resources to support Commute Trip Reduction programs, and descriptions of successful case studies.
The Space Coast Area Transit agency in Southern Florida supports the Space Coast Commuter Assistance (SCCA) program to help commuters use alternative modes. The program supports car/vanpool matching, fixed route bus service, employer parking incentive programs, developing Park-n-Ride locations, telecommuting options, the vanpool program, alternative work scheduling, bicycle commuting, pedestrian commuting, or combination of the above elements. The agency helps develop individualized commute trips reduction programs for each business. There is no charge for SCCA’s services. The program highlights the following benefits:
· Employer benefits: Reduced federal taxes, reduced parking demand, employee recruitment and retainment, positive public relations and increased employee productivity.
· Customer benefits: Reduced commuting costs, less wasted time and reduced stress.
· Community benefits: Improved air quality, reduced peak period traffic congestion, quality of life issues, reduced energy consumption and less land used for parking facilities.
Commuter Connections is a network of Washington DC metropolitan commuter transportation organizations coordinated by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). It is the main commuter information resource for Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. It helps businesses identify opportunities for voluntarily complying with the Clean Air Act guidelines to reduce vehicle emissions, and provides the following services:
· Promoting telework programs and other pollution reduction activities.
· Using Geographic Information System software to match commuters for ridesharing.
· Offers a regional Guaranteed Ride Home program.
· Operates a regional system of Traveler Information kiosks, InfoExpress.
Some jurisdictions have ordinances that require or encourage commute trip reduction programs. Below are some examples.
· Washington State’s Commute Trip Reduction Law (CTR) is designed to reduce traffic congestion, pollution and fuel consumption (www.wsdot.wa.gov/pubtran/ctr). Employers in major urban areas with more than 100 employees at a worksite are required to develop CTR programs that encourage employees who drive alone to work to consider using an alternative commute mode such as buses, vanpools, carpools, biking, walking, teleworking and flexible work schedules.
· Maricopa County (www.valleymetro.org/Rideshare/EmployerServices/ordinance.htm) requires major worksites with 50 or more employees to implement trip reduction programs.
· Cambridge (www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/~CDD/envirotrans/ptdm/index.html) has an ordinance requiring businesses to implement TDM at new developments.
· South Notomas (www.SouthNatomasTMA.org) allows developers to use TDM programs, such as participation in a TMA, to help gain municipal acceptance of new developments.
· Bay Area (www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/BA/CURHTML/R13-1.HTM) requires all public and private employers with 100 or more employees at a work site to establish employee trip reduction targets for various locations and years, and identify various strategies to help achieve these targets.
· Marin County (www.co.marin.ca.us/bos/code/cty-code/ch15-06.html).
· PIMA Association of Governments (www.pagnet.org/TRP/trpstats/stats1998).
The Toolbox for Mobility Management Measures in Companies (www.mobilitymanagement.be/english/fame.htm) provides information on the following Commute Trip Reduction case studies.
· Improved rail accessibility of the Nokia plant (Germany). BASF introduced a comprehensive company transport plan (Germany).
· Waterschap Veluwe promotes bicycle, public transport and car-pool ... with success (especially for cycling) (The Netherlands).
· Wolfords promotion campaign increased cycling to work from 18% to 35% (Austria).
· Rijnstate Hospital increased public transport use by more then 20% (The Netherlands).
· The small company ECOVER supported its image as a producer of ecological products by implementing a system of financial support for cyclists, car-poolers and users of small cars (Belgium).
· Only 30% of Ford employees drive to work alone thanks to a successful company bus network and the success of car-pooling (Belgium).
· Novartis has an integrated cycling policy and 27% of journeys to work are by bike (Switzerland).
· Nestlé developed a complete strategy to stimulate car-pooling (France).
· The city of Ghent supported its mobility and cycling plans by introducing a commuter plan for its own civil servants (Belgium).
· Stepping Hill Hospital introduced a successful multi-modal green commuter plan (UK).
Kaiser Permanente (KP), a large health care provider, is taking great steps in northern California to point out the connection between health, air pollution, and using alternative methods of transportation. The KAISERider program provides employees and patients with a wide range of transportation services, offering transit and vanpool subsidies, rideshare matching, preferential carpool parking, transit information distribution, a guaranteed ride home, bicycle parking and showers, shuttle buses, telecommuting, and prize drawings for program participants. As a result, nearly one-third of the work force uses transportation alternatives an average of three days per week, which eliminates 48,000,000 miles of vehicle travel per year and a significant amount of automobile pollution.
A survey of 25 employers (18 American and 7 Canadian) CTR programs found that on average, 34% of employees use commute alternatives. The most frequently implemented CTR measures include:
· Bikeracks and changing facilities.
· Rideshare programs.
· Marketing and promotion campaigns.
· Alternative work schedules and telecommuting.
· Transit subsidy.
· Guaranteed ride home.
American workplaces contacted spend an average of US$156 annually per employer, with the majority spending US$33-89. Three Canadian companies spend an average of CA$48 annually per employee.
The Cambie Corridor Consortium (CCC) was the first transportation management association (TMA) established in Canada. The Cambie area, which includes the Cambie Bridge to 33rd Avenue and Main to Granville Street, has become Vancouver’s second largest business district, combining business, shopping, and residential areas. The area also includes several hospitals and medical centres. In the early 1990’s, the B.C. Teachers’ Federation and one of the Vancouver Police Stations moved into the area, increasing traffic even more. Parking was becoming an increasing in the area. A planned expansion of the hospital would have required increasing the number of parking spaces. On average, each space costs $15,000 to $25,000 to build, maintain, and administer.
A transportation consultant and other staff at the Vancouver General Hospital had been meeting with some of these partners for the last several years, and in 1995, they decided to form the Cambie Corridor Consortium to address some of their transportation problems. From those meetings, a trip reduction expert developed a transportation management plan that was used as the basis for the CCC's programs and services. The CCC's aim is to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles commuting to the Cambie/Broadway area of Vancouver and improve air quality by providing alternative transportation solutions and information. Approximately 25,000 employees are represented through CCC's 21 members.
The CCC hired a part-time transportation management coordinator, making her the primary point of contact for its members and their employees. Transit kiosks were erected at each member's work site where employees could easily obtain information on transit fares, shuttle bus schedules, and other information
A shuttle bus service was implemented to transport hospital staff between sites, and today the bus makes approximately 2,100 trips per month carrying 9,000 passengers. Before the shuttle service was implemented, hospitals were paying parking fees and mileage to employees who drove their cars between sites. The shuttle bus is now used to transport equipment, supplies, and documents between sites, saving member hospitals approximately $200,000 each year in courier costs, which covers the program costs. Van pooling services are used by approximately 200 employees. Another 500+ staff members carpool.
To respond to the needs of employees, and address some of the barriers expressed in the initial surveys, an emergency ride home has been implemented. CCC has a contract with a local taxi company and employees are given vouchers if they need to leave work in case of illness or emergency. To avoid abuse of the program, employees are allowed up to four emergency rides home per year (Overcoming Specific Barriers).
Also in response to employee requests, additional shower and change facilities, and secure bike cages were installed at some of the members' work sites (Overcoming Specific Barriers). Five pamphlets, each detailing a different method of transportation and its benefits, are available (Vivid, Personalized Communication). Regular transit fairs are held at different member sites to promote active and sustainable methods of commuting, and promotional items such as mugs and t-shirts are offered as prizes.
Environment Canada provided a grant of $60,000 with the provision that the CCC's members contribute an equal amount in in-kind donations. Each new member was given a one-year exemption from any fees, but the CCC will begin assessing annual dues based on the number of employees from current and future members.
Survey results show increases in the use of alternative transportation. Between 1994 and 1998, single occupancy vehicle drivers had dropped by 1.6%, transit use had increased by about 25%, and cycling had increased to 5.5% from 4.5%. The number of walkers had increased tremendously since 1994. Previously, employees who lived a short distance away would drive to work so that they would have a car available during the day to make trips between sites. Almost 10% of all survey respondents said that they regularly walked to work. In addition, of the people responding to the 1998 survey, 85% said they no longer brought their car to work because the shuttle bus allowed them to travel between sites.
Company benefits
from car-pooling. Nissan is showing that the auto industry can take a
leadership role in encouraging alternatives to the solo car commute. At its
southern California headquarters, Nissan provides employees with an array of
programs and financial incentives to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, biking,
walking, and using public transit. Through these efforts, Nissan employees are
saving more than 10,000 miles per day or about 2.5 million miles per year. When
recruiting, managers often bring favoured applicants to Commuter Services for
an immediate orientation, as the program is seen as a benefit to employment.
Approximately 10% of the employees participate in Nissan's Vanpool Program, and
more than 90% of the seats are filled. The company plans to expand the program
and is sharing information with other auto manufacturers. Nissan's formula for
motivating employees to participate in the program is to ensure that the
solutions offered are easy, effective and economical.
The program has a full time administrator who organizes all activities,
compiles participation data and publicizes participation rates. All new
employees receive an orientation, and the program provides any employee with
printouts of other employees having the same work and home parameters.
A key component of the program is monetary rewards for daily participation.
Employees earn points valued at US$1 for using commute options: 1 point - 2
person carpool; 1.5 points - 3 person carpool or vanpool; 2 points - 4+ person
carpool, walking, biking or taking public transit. Points may be re-deemed for
cash or gifts or transferred to other employees.
The company also ensures that once employees arrive at work, they do not need a
car to obtain needed services. Services located on the premises include a
cafeteria, convenience store, dry cleaners, photo shop, credit union, mail
service, vehicle service centre, a fitness centre and video conference centre.
It is fair to say that the Commuter Services Program at Nissan was at first the
result of local regulation. Lately, the regulations have been softened, and it
would be easy for Nissan to comply without a committed focus to reducing
commute vehicles travelled. The company decision, however, was to go forward
with a comprehensive service to answer the needs of its more than 2,000
employees.
In 1993 Bellevue, Washington passed an ordinance (14.40) that established municipal Commute Trip Reduction program goals and requirements. It requires certain employers to develop a commute trip reduction program, and sets the following single occupant automobile commute reduction goals:
· After 2 years: 15%
· After 4 years: 20%
· After 6 years: 25%
· After 12 years: 35%
The ordinance identifies which commuters are affected (private and public employers with 100 or more affected employees at a single worksite, with certain exemptions), program components (a transportation coordinator, information distribution to employees, commuter surveys, etc.), what types of commute trip reduction measures may be included in the program, and how travel impacts are measured and reported. The ordinance affects 53 employers with 22,000 employees. Among all CTR-affected worksites, the drive-alone rate has dropped from 77% in 1993 to 69% in 2001, and among downtown Bellevue CTR-affected worksites the drive-alone rate has dropped from 73% in 1993 to 59% in 2001.
Pioneer Pacific Property Management’s Station Tower, located at a SkyTrain station in Surrey (a suburb of Vancouver, British Columbia) is home to more than 700 employees of 30 different organizations. By working together, Station Tower has created an extremely effective program. Nearly 50 percent of Station Tower’s employees use transportation alternatives.
Known as TravelChoices, the program was commissioned by Intrawest Corporation, the developer of the complex. Each organization in the building has a TravelChoices representative who provides time to administer the program. The trip reduction program enabled Intrawest to reduce the number of parking spaces required by 50 spots. At about $11,000 per spot, that meant $500,000 in savings. The program includes the following features:
· Showers and secure bike lockers are provided for cyclists.
· TravelChoices members have free access to the Gateway fitness facilities, including exercise equipment, showers and lockers.
· A ride-matching service links potential carpool partners within the complex.
· Reserved, preferential parking is available for carpools and vanpools.
· TravelChoices members get guaranteed ride home insurance.
· The TravelBucks incentive program gives its members one TravelBuck for each day they use alternative transportation to and from work.
· Prizes include free coffee, transit FareSaver Tickets, ski passes and rental car certificates.
"Working a trip reduction program into the planning stages of a development is a strategy more property developers should use. It saves money, it's environmentally friendly and it presents potential tenants with another reason to choose your site." Glenda Onstad, Senior Property Manager, Pioneer Pacific Property Management
Best Workplaces for Commuters (BWCs) is a program through which employers encourage use of alternative commute mode. A survey of BWC firms was conducted in the fall of 2004. The survey measured differences between the commuting patterns of employees receiving employee commuter benefits such as those offered by BWCs and those who do not and to estimate the resulting saving in trips, vehicle miles of travel (VMT), and emissions and fuel consumption. Employers recognized as BWCs in the Denver, Houston, San Francisco, and Washington DC metro areas were randomly sampled and recruited into the survey using a combination of telephone and email communications. The results of this survey indicate that where employers provide employees with incentives to commute by means other than driving alone, significant percentages of them take advantage of these benefits. Comprehensive benefit packages such as those enjoyed by commuters in the BWC group, with financial incentives, services (such as guaranteed ride home, carpool matching, etc.) and informational campaigns, appear to produce reductions of trips, VMT, pollutants, and fuel consumption of around 15% even under conservative assumptions. Benefits packages offering services and information, but not financial incentives, appear to produce reductions of around 7% under conservative assumptions.
A research programme investigated factors that can influence commuting patterns to work or schools, including chauffeuring children to school. Our work on the latter led to a separate research programme trialing Walking School Bus networks in four schools. The trial resulted in over 10% of the schools’ population becoming involved in walking school buses and generated significant interest in the concept of networks in New Zealand. There are now walking school bus networks in at least ten cities throughout New Zealand and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has released a “Walking School Bus Kit” based on the guidelines developed by Pinnacle Research.
This programme also designed and administered a sophisticated stated preference questionnaire to car drivers in Auckland and Wellington and Christchurch. We analysed the resultant database using standard statistical methods along with multinomial logit analysis. Recognising that each of these regions (Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch) is different, we have analysed each region separately, as well as developing a national model. We have estimated the marginal effect of these policy tools, both "carrots" and "sticks", on an individual’s decision to travel by car:
From the above information and the contextual data we collected, we have developed “profiles” of different mode users, identifying the characteristics of those car drivers most likely to switch to using passenger transport, being car passengers, car pooling or other modes (e.g. walking or cycling). We have also identified perceptual barriers to using passenger transport in particular and “concrete” barriers to mode switching generally. We also collected data on peoples’ attitudes and ability to work a “compressed” work week and to “telecommute” (work from home) one or more days per week. We found 23% of respondents were receptive to these concepts. Our survey also gathered information about car drivers' attitudes towards their cars, passenger transport, ride sharing (car pooling), and cycling.
The Microsoft Corporation has approximately 40 thousand workers (employees and contractors) working in 13 million square feet of office space dispersed around the Puget Sound (Seattle, Washington) region, including its 500 acre Redmond campus which contains 94 buildings, with 23 cafes, and various employee services and retail outlets. Employee parking is generally unpriced at these worksite. In order to reduce commuting costs for both employees and their communities, Microsoft has implemented an extensive Commute Trip Reduction program that encourages employees to use efficient travel options. This includes the following incentives:
In addition, starting September 2007 Micorsoft began offering its employees free Connector Bus services between residential areas where large numbers of employees live and their major employment centers. This uses premium-quality buses with features such as guaranteed, reclining seats with generous legroom, on-board wireless Internet service. These buses made use of the region’s extensive HOV Priority lanes, making them time competitive with automobile travel. By 2009 this service had:
Ridership increased significantly as fuel prices increased during 2008, indicating that even relatively high-income professionals will respond to financial incentives such as increased fuel, parking and insurance pricing, provided that they have high quality alternatives.
In 1999 the state of Maryland passed a law giving employers a strong positive incentive to pay their employees extra for giving up their parking spot at work. The law, which goes into effect in 2001, also extends tax credits to non-profit organizations such as schools or medical centers if they pay for employee transit benefits or other alternatives to driving. The tax credit is valued at half of whatever an employ pays toward an employee's transit or vanpool commuting costs, up to $30 each month. Supported by both business and environmental groups, the measure will help address traffic and air pollution problems.
Table 8 summarizes changes in commute travel by employees in four British hospitals in response to the implementation of commute travel plans. The results indicate an average 17-point mode shift from driving to alternative modes, resulting in an average 24.5% reduction in automobile commuting.
Table 8 Hospital Commute Mode Share
Hospital |
Mode |
Before |
After |
Change (points) |
|
Addenbrookes, Cambridge |
Car |
74% |
49% |
-25 |
|
|
Bus |
4% |
19% |
+15 |
|
|
Walk |
4% |
6% |
+2 |
|
John Radcliffe, Oxford |
Car |
58% |
54% |
-4 |
|
|
Bus |
7% |
9% |
+2 |
|
|
Walk |
12% |
14% |
+2 |
|
Derriford Hospital, Plymouth |
Car |
78% |
54% |
-24 |
|
|
Bus |
8% |
15% |
+7 |
|
Nottingham City Hospital |
Car |
72% |
55% |
-17 |
|
|
Bus |
11% |
19% |
+8 |
|
|
Walk |
8% |
9% |
+1 |
The San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Control District’s Rule 9410 requires employers with more than 100 eligible employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP) to encourage employees to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing commute trip pollutant emissions.
A ETRIP (Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan) is a set of measures an employer chooses that will encourage employees at the worksite to use alternative transportation and ridesharing for their morning and evening commutes. Each measure contributes to a workplace where it is easier for employees to choose to use ridesharing or alternative transportation. Employers have the flexibility to choose the options that work best for their employees and work environments, and employers also have the option of suggesting measures that are not yet on the list. Each ETRIP measure has a point value, and an employer’s ETRIP needs to meet the point targets specified in the rule.
The ETRIP is phased in over a period of three years. Phase 1 includes “Marketing” and “Program Support” strategies to increase program awareness make ridesharing and alternative transportation easier for employees. The Phase 2 “Services and Facilities” strategy includes measures deployed in the workplace so that employees are less likely to need to travel offsite for personal business during the workday. Phase 3, “Transportation, Alternative Schedules, and Incentives,” includes a wide range of options such as comprehensive carpool and vanpool programs, monetary incentives for ridesharing, subsidized transit passes, and telecommuting. A sample ETRIP is available here.
A Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) is a charge on employers that provide free or relatively cheap workplace parking. It is being introduced in the United Kingdom as a way to generate revenues and discourage automobile commuting. Starting April 2012 the City of Nottingham plans to implement a WPL on employers that provide 11 or more liable parking places. This is being implemented as an alternative to a road user charge. All WPL revenue will be invested into improving public transport.
The WPL is projected to reduce traffic congestion. The pricing itself is expected to have only a small impact, since only a small portion of the fee is expected to be passed onto commuters, but the additional transit service funding is predicted to increase City Centre public transport travel by over 20% and reduce area traffic growth from 15% to only 8%, which should provide significant congestion reduction benefits.
The Vancouver International Airport’s Green Commuter Program encouraged staff to make green commuting choices and reduces parking demand by offering employees $50 per month if they car-pool, cycle, walk or take public transit to work. All employees (full-time, part-time and contract) quality. Employees much must use a green transport choice at least 16 times out of each 22 day work period. Participants are allowed to expense a taxi ride home for personal or family emergency. The program works on the honor system. After two years of operation:
A levy on large employer’s parking at workplaces was introduced in 2012 in Nottingham, England. The £379 annual charge is levied on approximately 25,000 spaces across the city, representing 42% of total spaces. In its first three years the levy raised £25.3 million of revenue, which is dedicated to improving the city’s transport infrastructure, including the largest fleet of electric buses. The levy has helped increase public transport mode share to over 40%, and reduce carbon emissions by 33%.
Clark, Chatterjee and Melia (2016) used the UK Household Longitudinal Study to evaluate factors that affect commute mode decisions. One third of those that cycle or bus to work, and one quarter of those that walk to work, are shown to change commuting mode by the following year. Car commuting is more stable, with only one in ten car commuters changing mode by the following year. Commute mode changes are found to be primarily driven by alterations to the distance to work which occur in association with changing job or moving home. Switching to non-car commuting becomes much more likely (9.2 times) as the distance to work drops below three miles. High quality public transport links to employment centres are shown to encourage switches away from car commuting and mixed land uses are shown to encourage switches to active commuting (walking and cycling). Switches away from car commuting are found to be more likely (1.3 times) for those with a pro-environmental attitude. Overall, the study shows that changes in commuting behaviour are strongly influenced by life events, spatial context and environmental attitude.
Several states offer tax credits to business that implement commute trip reduction programs, including New Jersey (www.state.nj.us/njcommuter/html/taxcred.htm), Maryland (www.commuterchoicemaryland.com) and Oregon (www.energy.state.or.us/trans/transhm.htm).
|
As Gas Prices Rise, So Do Demands On Employers Manufacturer Bill Lathem knew that higher gas prices would affect his business--he just didn't expect to have to shut it down one day a week. Stephanie Clifford, Inc. Magazine, July 2006
Bill Lathem's family has run Lathem Time, an Atlanta manufacturer of time clocks, since 1919, and it's the kind of company where workers stay for decades. "That family feeling around here is what keeps our tenure up," says Lathem, who employs 150 workers, "and a lot of the skills that these guys have are not easily trained."
So when his human resources director began to field a series of complaints about commuting costs, Lathem listened. What he heard was troubling. Nila Rose, an inventory-control manager who's been working at Lathem for 20 years and has a 30-mile commute, had seen her gas bill rise from $25 a week to $60 a week. And hers is one of the reasonable commutes: Lathem's secretary, who assisted his father and grandfather before him, drives 78 miles to work each way from the Georgia mountains. Another factory worker drives 58 miles each way from Alabama. "I had several employees mention to me that they were using one week's paycheck per month to get to work," says Grace Perry, Lathem Time's HR director.
As gas approached $3 a gallon in Atlanta last fall, Lathem responded--and in a pretty radical way. Today two white vans rented by the company bring 22 employees to work each day. About 30 additional employees are carpooling in their own vehicles, and a third of the office staff telecommutes at least one day a week.
The most stark difference, however, can be seen on Fridays, when most machines in Lathem's 115,000-square-foot factory stand idle and plant workers have the day (and the commute) off. Lathem was apprehensive about making these moves, and he's not sure they'll last. But he felt he had to act before high prices at the pump persuaded some workers to look for new jobs closer to their homes.
The vanpools have been a hit. Perry, Lathem's HR director, plotted where employees lived on a map and created two routes. She appointed a driver for each route--the worker who lived farthest away and had access to parking--and rewarded them with weekend custody of the vans. Each vehicle stops at two or three park-and-ride lots. A nonprofit called the Clean Air Campaign pays a stipend of $425 per van per month, the rental-car company covers maintenance costs, and each rider chips in $14 a month, which the company deducts from their paychecks.
Nila Rose, the inventory-control manager, is putting the $180 a month or so she saves by vanpooling toward retirement. Many of the other workers in the vanpool use the savings "just to pay the bills each week," she says. Sharing a ride, she adds, has been surprisingly fun--one co-worker brings McDonald's biscuits on some mornings.
The telecommuting policy has gone smoothly too. Fourteen of Lathem's 50 office employees work from home at least once a week. Calls are forwarded to their home phones.
It's the Fridays-off policy that worries Lathem. Plant workers come in early four days a week to complete a week's production. By adding the extra time in the morning, Lathem figures, workers are less likely to get tired and make mistakes or suffer injury. He also extended break times to 15 minutes from 10. Still, when a stamping machine operator caught his finger in a press recently, Lathem suspected that the new 10-hour schedule was to blame. The worker is back on the job after three months on short-term disability, but the episode was unsettling. "If gas prices went back down, we would be very encouraged to go back to the five-day week," Lathem says. "It's gas prices that're holding me to it right now." They may be holding him there for a while. |
A detailed study (Travel Demand Management: An Analysis Of The Effectiveness Of TDM Plans In Reducing Traffic And Parking In The Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area) measured actual trip generation at various office buildings. It found that, compared with Institute of Transportation Engineers’ average trip generation rates, office buildings that implemented TDM Plans generate, on average, 34% to 37% less traffic and need 17% to 24% fewer on-site parking spaces.
Jobs-housing balance refers to the ratio of jobs to residents in a community, particularly housing that is affordable to local employees. Increasing this balance tends to reduce commuting distances, and to the degree that jobs provide services used by residents (shops, restaurants, schools, etc.) it can reduce travel for other activities. Jobs-housing balance is a Smart Growth Strategy to create more accessible communities.
Key Bank of Washington participated in a study of Proximate Commuting (www.epa.gov/oms/transp/comchoic/ccmeasur.htm). The study evaluated employee commutes at fourteen Seattle bank branches and found that only 17% of the employees worked at the branch nearest their home. For the other 83%, there were ten other same-employer branches, on average, closer to each employee's home than the branch he/she worked at each day.” The Key Bank study demonstrated a 65% reduction in commute miles for participants who transferred to a site closer to home. Average round-trip miles before the project equaled 43 miles. After the trades were made the average round-trip was 15 miles. These reduced commutes in turn reduce congestion, pollution and fuel consumption. Shorter commutes are also likely to increase employee satisfaction, punctuality, and operational efficiency. The program is low in cost and reduces vehicle miles as much as more expensive and resource intensive programs.
The state of Maryland’s Live Near Your Work (LNYW) program provides $3,000 in direct cash assistance to home buyers moving to designated neighborhoods surrounding major employers (www.dhcd.state.md.us/lnyw/index.cfm). Local governments designate the LNYW areas and administer the program within their jurisdictions. Participating employers - businesses, non-profits, colleges or universities, or government agencies - must set eligibility requirements, promote the program to their employees and provide matching resources. This is expected to:
The City of Cambridge, MA requires commercial developers to commit to a maximum SOV mode share, with penalties if they fail to meet their objectives. Developers pass these requirements on to facility users through lease agreements and tenant fees, resulting in the implementation of Commute Trip Reduction programs.
ABC (2014), Establishing an Effective Commute Trip Reduction Policy in Massachusetts:
Lessons Learned from Leading Programs, A Better City (www.abettercity.org); at www.abettercity.org/docs/Effective%20TRO%20Final.pdf.
ACT (2004), The Role of Demand-Side Strategies: Mitigating Traffic Congestion, Association for Commuter Transportation, for the Federal Highway Administration (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/mitig_traf_cong/index.htm).
Apogee (1994), Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures; A Review and Analysis of the Literature, National Association of Regional Councils (www.narc.org).
Association for Commuter Transportation (www.actweb.org) is a non-profit organization supporting TDM programs.
Bruce Batchelor (2016), The Effects of Long Commutes and What To Do About Them – An Annotated Bibliography, Close Commute Systems (www.closecommute.com); at www.trelawnyconsulting.com/closecommute/Effects_of_Long_Commutes.pdf.
Best Workplaces for Commuters (www.bestworkplaces.org) is a program sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation to recognize employers that provide outstanding commuter benefits. The website has a variety of resources, including the TDM Case Studies Spreadsheet (www.cities21.org/epaModeShiftCaseStudies.xls) which summarizes 41 TDM programs.
Marlon G. Boarnet, Hsin-Ping Hsu and Susan Handy (2014), Policy Brief on the Impacts of Employer-Based Trip Reduction Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature, for Research on Impacts of Transportation and Land Use-Related Policies, California Air Resources Board (http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm); at www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/ebtr/ebtr_bkgd.pdf.
Cambridge Systematics (2013), Effects of Travel Reduction and Efficient Driving on Transportation: Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (www.nrel.gov); at www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/55635.pdf.
Center for Urban Transportation Research (www.cutr.usf.edu) at the University of South Florida provides resources and training for CTR program development.
Cities21 (2010), $2 Daily Workplace Parking Charge + $4 Cashout: Cut U.S. Commute VMT/GHG 23%, Cities21 (www.cities21.org); at www.cities21.org/cms/index.php?page=parking-charges.
Ben Clark, Kiron Chatterjee and Steve Melia (2016), “Changes to Commute Mode: The Role of Life Events, Spatial Context and Environmental Attitude,” Transportation Research A (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.05.005); at www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856416303871.
Commuter Choice Program (www.commuterchoice.com) provides information on Commute Trip Reduction programs and benefits, particularly U.S. income tax policies related to commuter benefits.
Comsis Corporation (1993), Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/2641/dot_2641_DS1.pdf.
Sisinnio Concas and Philip L. Winters (2007), Economics of Travel Demand Management: Comparative Cost Effectiveness and Public Investment, Center for Urban Transportation Research (www.nctr.usf.edu); at www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/77704.pdf.
CTR Task Force (2001), 2001 Report to the Washington State Legislature, Washington State Department of Transportation, Transportation Demand Management Office (www.wsdot.wa.gov/tdm/tripreduction/download/CTR_Report_01.pdf).
DfT (2007), Making Personal Travel Planning Work: Research Report, Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/travelplans/ptp/makingptpworkresearch.
Marcus Enoch (2012), Sustainable Transport, Mobility Management and Travel Plans, Ashgate (www.ashgate.com); at www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754679394.
Reid Ewing (1993), “TDM, Growth Management, and the Other Four Out of Five Trips,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3, Summer 1993, pp. 343-366.
Go Green, Walk & Roll: A Guide to Active Transport To, From, and At the Workplace, Canadian Council for Health and Active Living at Work (www.goforgreen.ca/resources/Resource.html).
Green Trip Program (http://transformca.org/GreenTRIP) is a certification program that rewards projects that apply strategies to reduce traffic and greenhouse gas emissions.
HDA (2005), Making the Case: Improving Health Through Transport, Health Development Agency, UK National Health Service (www.publichealth.nice.org.uk).
Sara Hendricks and Ajay Joshi (2004), Commuter Choice Program Case Study Development and Analysis, Center for Urban Transportation Research (www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/527-06.pdf).
ICF Consulting and CUTR (2005), Analyzing the Effectiveness of Commuter Benefits Programs, TCTP Report 107, TRB (www.trb.org); at http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_107.pdf.
Rich Kuzmyak, Jay Evans, and Dick Pratt (2010), “Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies,” Chapter 19, Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Report 95 series, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/162432.aspx and to the B-12A website at http://144.171.11.40/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=1034.
Todd Litman (2007), Guide to Calculating Mobility Management Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tdmben.pdf.
Todd Litman (2008), Recommendations for Improving LEED Transportation and Parking Credits, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/leed_rec.pdf.
Mobility Lab Research Catalog (https://mobilitylab.org/research/mobility-lab-research-catalog) describes extensive research on the use and awareness of transportation options.
MWCG (2009), Transportation Emission Reduction (TERM) Analysis Report, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (www.mwcog.org); at www.mwcog.org/store/item.asp?PUBLICATION_ID=341.
National TDM and Telework Clearinghouse (www.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse) provides current information and resources on Transportation Demand Management and Telework programs.
NCTR (2004), Worksite Trip Reduction Model (www.nctr.usf.edu/worksite), National Center for Transit Research, University of South Florida (www.nctr.usf.edu). this Internet-based computer model predicts the effects of a particular Commute Trip Reduction program.
Nelson\Nygaard (2006), Traffic Reduction Strategies Study, Report and various appendices, City of Pasadena (www.cityofpasadena.net); at www.cityofpasadena.net/councilagendas/2007%20agendas/Feb_26_07/Pasadena%20Traffic%20Reduction%20Strategies%2011-20-06%20DRAFT.pdf and www.cityofpasadena.net/councilagendas/2007%20agendas/Feb_26_07/Appendix_A_Case%20Studies%2012-1-2006%20DRAFT.PDF.
Raymond Novaco and Cheryl Collier (1994), Commuting Stress, Ridesharing, and Gender: Analyses from the 1993 State of the Commute Study in Southern California, University of California Transportation Center (Berkeley), Working Paper #208 (www.uctc.net); at www.uctc.net/scripts/countdown.pl?208.pdf.
Noxon Associates (2011), Transportation Demand Management for Canadian Communities: A Guide to Understanding, Planning and Delivering TDM Programs, Transport Canada (www.tc.gc.ca/urban); at www.noxonassociates.com/guide.html.
Pinnacle Research (2004), Identifying Factors to Change People’s Transport Use, Land Transport New Zealand (www.pinnacleresearch.co.nz); at www.pinnacleresearch.co.nz/research/commuters/reducing_car_use.htm.
Craig Jesus Poulenez-Donovan and Cy Ulberg (1995), “Seeing the Trees and Missing the Forest: Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research Findings in a Model Transportation Demand Management Program Evaluation,” Transportation Research Record 1459, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 1-6.
ProximateCommute (www.ProximateCommute.com) provides technical support to help companies match employees with their closest worksite.
Tom Rye (2002), “Travel Plans: Do They Work?,” Transport Policy, Vol. 9, No. 4 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol), pp. 287-298.
SANDAG (2012), Integrating Transportation Demand Management into the Planning and Development Process: A Reference for Cities, iCommute (www.icommutesd.com), San Diego Regional Planning and HNTB; at www.icommutesd.com/documents/TDMStudy_May2012_webversion_000.pdf.
San Francisco TDM Tool (www.sftdmtool.org), and Step-by-Step Instructions for Creating a TDM Plan (http://sf-planning.org/shift-transportation-demand-management-tdm), provides specific guidance for transportation planners and engineers, developers and building managers to encourage more efficient transportation, for various land use types and conditions. It gives points for each TDM strategy that can be used to evaluate program effectiveness.
Mike Spack and Jonah Finkelstein (2014),Travel Demand Management an Analysis of the Effectiveness of TDM Plans in Reducing Traffic and Parking in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area, Spack Consulting (www.spackconsulting.com); at www.mikeontraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TDM-Plan-Effectiveness-Study.pdf.
Qing Su and Liren Zhou (2011),
“Parking Management, Financial Subsidies to Alternatives to Drive-Alone And
Commute Mode Choices in Seattle,” Regional Science and Urban Economics;
abstract at www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046211000925.
Eric Sundquist, et al. (2018), Modernizing Mitigation: A Demand-Centered Approach, State Smart Transportation Initiative (www.ssti.us) and the Mayors Innovation Project (www.mayorsinnovation.org); at https://bit.ly/2TCxtBD.
The Transportation Cost-Savings Calculators (https://mobilitylab.org/calculators) includes the TDM Return on Investment Calculator (TDM ROI) helps users calculate vehicle trips and miles travelled reduced by their TDM programs and to calculate benefit-cost ratios or ROI, and the TRIMMS model 4.0 (Trip Reduction Impacts of Mobility Management Strategies) estimates the impacts of a broad range of TDM initiatives and provides program cost-effectiveness assessment, such as net program benefit and benefit-to-cost ratio analysis at an area-wide or site-specific level.
TRIMMS (Trip Reduction Impacts of Mobility Management Strategies) Model (www.nctr.usf.edu/abstracts/abs77704.htm) developed by the University of South Florida (www.nctr.usf.edu) evaluates the travel impacts, benefits and costs of various commute trip reduction programs and other mobility management strategies.
USEPA (2005), Commuter Model, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/oms/stateresources/policy/pag_transp.htm). This computer model to calculates the impacts of a specific commute trip reduction programs.
Phil L. Winters and Sara J. Hendricks (2003), Quantifying The Business Benefits of TDM, Center for Urban Transportation Research, for the Office of Research and Special Programs, USDOT (www.nctr.usf.edu/html/416-11.htm).
Washington State Commute Trip Reduction Program (www.wsdot.wa.gov/transit/ctr). Also see, Keith Cotton, et al, (2012), “Washington State Commute Trip Reduction Program: Reducing Emissions and Growing the Economy by Managing Transportation Demand,” TR News, 281, pp. 28-33, at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews281toc.pdf.
WRI (2019), Reducing Demand for Vehicle Trips in Cities – Learning Guide, The City Fix (https://thecityfixlearn.org); at https://thecityfixlearn.org/en/learning-guide/reducing-demand-vehicle-trips-cities. This short guide describes why and how cities can implement transportation demand management policies and programs.
WRI (2019), The Role of Companies in Improving Urban Mobility – Learning Guide, The City Fix (https://thecityfixlearn.org); at https://thecityfixlearn.org/en/learning-guide/how-develop-trip-reduction-ordinance.
WWF (2017), Workplace Parking Levy, Nottingham, International Case Studies for Scotland’s Climate Plan, World Wildlife Fund (www.wwf.org.uk); at https://bit.ly/2l5fB2m.
This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
Phone 250-360-1560
#9