15 percent of commuters account for 39 percent of aggregate time spent commuting

Average commuting times can distort the picture of commuting in America. Are excessive commuting times really a problem for all?

According to data from the 2009 American Community Survey, 15.2% of U.S. workers 16 years and over who did not work at home and have at least a 45 minute journey to work account for 38.7% of the aggregate travel time to work.

At the other end of the scale, 59.0% of U.S. workers 16 years and over who did not work at home and have no more than a 24 minute journey to work account for only 29.7% of the aggregate travel time to work. In fact, nearly 3 in 10 commuters have less than 15 minute commute trips and account for less than one-tenth of time spent by all workers commuting.

There will be variations, of course, at metropolitan and local levels.

For example, some areas like the Miami-Fort Lauderdale MSA, show similar results to the national average. They have 15.8% of Florida commuters with at least a 45 minute journey to work account but tally 35.0% of the aggregate travel time to work. In addition, 50.9% of Miami-Ft. Lauderdale commuters have no more than a 24 minute journey to work and account for only 26.6% of the aggregate travel time to work.

In the Metropolitan Washington MSA, 29.5% of commuters have at least a 45 minute journey to work account for 54.3% of the aggregate travel time to work. And 39.4% of Metro Washington workers who have no more than a 24 minute journey to work account for only 16.3% of the aggregate travel time to work.

Of course, travel time is affected by many factors, including the extent of use of options other than driving alone. Our next post will look at the relative effiency of moving people (e.g., private vehicle trips per 100 commuters).

Changing the Car Culture Down Under

Changing the Car Culture Down Under - Australia Entices Commuters Off the Roads One Household at a Time With Educational Marketing Push, Elaborate Bike-Ped Infrastructure highlights how the personalized approach to influencing travel behavior is making a significant impact in Australia.

This article serves as a reminder that while it is easy to become infatuated with the latest technological solutions to congestion, it is the one-on-one assistance that continues to demonstrate its effectiveness in changing travel behavior. It really isn't a new lesson. For example, Personalized Approach for Ridesharing Projects: Experience of Share-A-Ride in Silver Spring showed that coaching commuters was a very effective means of changing behavior.

These travel behavior changes are more than just moving drive alone commuters to carpools but include approaches for adjusting time of travel (e.g., discounts on the shoulder of the peak in Ft. Myers) or routes - even without mode shift. For example, FHWA Congestion Pricing - A Primer reports that "In Ft. Myers, Florida, a 50 percent discount on the toll was offered on the Midpoint and Cape Coral bridges for a short period of time before and after the rush hours. Survey data revealed that, among those eligible for the discount, there was an increase in traffic of as much as 20 percent during the discount period before the morning rush hours, with corresponding drops in the rush hour itself."

Focusing on the Retention of Carpoolers and Transit Riders

I just returned from annual meeting of the Southeast chapter of Association for Commuter Transportation in Sarasota, FL where I heard several interesting presentations about "new" approaches to reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel. Rick Steele with NuRide demonstrated their incentive-based approach. NuRide offers commuters the choice of a wide range of rewards provided by local and national businesses to commuters who use travel options other than driving alone and record their trips. An added benefit - the value of these donated rewards are used by some communities as local match for funding purposes.

This apparent win-win focus is on rewarding people to increase "loyalty" and frequency of those commuters who use of options other than driving alone. Another outcome from this approach is increased word-of-mouth advertising to increase participation.

While many TDM agencies seem to focus most of their resources on trying to convert the "drive alone" commuter, approaches like NuRide reflect an understanding that it should be less expensive to retain existing customers (and increase "purchasing" behavior) than attract new customers and pay for performance (the more you do, the more points you earn). Given the erosion of the regular use of transit and carpooling over the years, one wonders how many more people would have remained in those modes if more attention (and resources) were placed on retaining existing transit riders, carpoolers, etc. Still, it isn't too late to start.

Double taxation risk for out-of-state teleworkers - FederalTimes.com

In her letter on May 17 to FederalTimes.com, Nicole Belson Goluboff, author of "The Law of Telecommuting" and "Telecommuting for Lawyers" and member of the advisory board of the Telework Coalition (www.TelCoa.org) discusses double taxation risk for some out-of-state teleworkers.

Clearly, this is an obstacle for expanding the use of telework. HR 2600 Telecommuters Tax Fairness Act of 2009 would prohibit "a state from imposing an income tax on the compensation of a nonresident individual for any period in which such individual is not physically present in or working in such state or from deeming such nonresident individual to be present in or working in such state on the grounds that: (1) such individual is present at or working at home for convenience; or (2) such individual's work at home fails any convenience of the employer test or any similar test." For the status of this bill, search THOMAS on "Telecommuters Tax Fairness Act of 2009".

TDM has failed us; Bury it

As a marketing guy and a wordsmith, I enjoy these types of “telework vs. telecommute” discussions. From my POV, it’s our job to use words and language that will engage our target audiences… not the jargon of our technical peers.

Case in point is the old debate on “Transportation Demand Management”. After all these decades I would guess that less than a few percent of commuters have any idea what it means. The term has failed to serve our community of TDM evangelists. It’s a losing phrase and it’s time to bury TDM.

Commuter Choice and Commuter Options have been suggested and tried for years, but neither of these have taken off.

I would like to get the debate restarted by suggesting:

Green Transportation Options
Green Transportation Strategies
Green Transportation Alternatives
Green Commuting

Respectfully,

Denis Eirikis
President
Clear Light Communications Inc.

Strategic Marketing: The Truth About Gender and Generational Commuting Trends - and Its Consequences

On May 27, 2009, the National Center for Transit Research's National TDM and Telework Clearinghouse at the University of South Florida
(www.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse) and the Association for Commuter Transportation (http://www.actweb.org/) held a netconference entitled "Strategic Marketing: The Truth About Gender and Generational Commuting Trends - and Its Consequences."

The on-demand streaming media recording and copies of the slides are now available online at
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse/netconference/netgendermarketing.htm

Summary: While traffic may be standing still, changes in gender and generational commuting trends are not. These changes will provide significant marketing challenges and opportunities for the transportation demand management (TDM) and public transportation communities. A recent ACT survey found that nearly nine in ten members agreed that it is important to customize TDM marketing messages for each generation but very few do. This session provides information to improve understanding of those gender and generational trends as TDM and transit agencies develop strategic marketing plans.

Speakers:

Dr. Randall Crane, UCLA, presented Does Gender Matter? Changes, Choices and Consequences for Transportation Policy. He reviewed the broad demographics of travel demand and identified which demographics will influence demand the most - and the least. Dr. Crane discussed why gender travel patterns change, how these changes are influencing demand and what the implications are for influencing travel behavior. He briefly discussed what transportation agencies can do to plan for these changes.

John W. Martin, Southeastern Institute of Research & The Boomer Project, presented Using A Generational Lens to Advance Non-Drive Alone Alternatives in America. John presented an overview of the four generations of commuters: Silent, Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials (Gen Ys) - and shared an easy way to understand their differences and what motivates them to rideshare. John's presentation concluded with recent findings of a survey that examined the willingness and propensity of the various generations for using alternatives to driving alone.

This 76 minute netconference was moderated by Donna Smallwood, MassRides/URS

Strategic Marketing: The Truth About Gender and Generational Commuting Trends – and Its Consequences

On Wednesday, May 27, the National TDM and Telework Clearinghouse at the National Center for Transit Research and the Association for Commuter Transportation will be holding a netconference entitled, Strategic Marketing: The Truth About Gender and Generational Commuting Trends – and Its Consequences.

While traffic may be standing still, changes in gender and generational commuting trends are not. These changes will provide significant marketing challenges and opportunities for the transportation demand management and public transportation communities. A recent ACT survey found that nearly nine in ten members agreed that it is important to customize TDM marketing messages for each generation but very few do. This session will help you understand those gender and generational trends as you develop your long-range plan and your strategic marketing approaches.

The netconference will feature:

Dr. Randall Crane, UCLA, will present Does Gender Matter? Changes, Choices and Consequences for Transportation Policy. He will review the broad demographics of travel demand and identify which demographics will influence demand the most – and the least. Dr. Crane will discuss why gender travel patterns change, how these changes are influencing demand and what the implications will be for influencing travel behavior. He will identify what transportation agencies can do to plan for these changes.

John W. Martin, Southeastern Institute of Research & The Boomer Project, will present Using A Generational Lens to Advance Non-Drive Alone Alternatives in America. John will present an overview of the four generations of commuters: Silent, Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials (Gen Ys) - and share an easy way to understand their differences and what motivates them to rideshare. John’s presentation will conclude with best practice examples and practical tips on how to tailor TDM services and communication campaigns to most effectively resonate with each generation.


The recording of the event will be available on May 28 at www.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse/netconferencing.htm. Over 25 other previously recorded netconferences are available for on-demand viewing at that same location

More on bicycle commute benefit

The success of extending the qualifed transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters (sec. 126 of the bill and sec. 132(f) of the Code) will be partially determined by how many people can use it. So how many did Congress think would use it? We haven't found a reference to a specific estimate of the demand but the Joint Committee on Taxation scored the bill (i.e., estimated impact on revenues) at ~$1 million per year for 10 years. http://www.jct.gov/x-78-08.pdf The methodology JCT used isn't public but if one were to assume $1,000,000 of foregone tax revenue from people claiming the $240 maximum and having an average effective tax rate of 15% then about 28,000 commuters might expect to use the benefit (this excludes the payroll taxes that employers would not have to pay on the $240, too).

The number of commuters might be much higher if the average claim was much less. Of course, participation depends on how many companies make the subsidized bicycle commuting benefit available to employees. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports about 5% of workers have access to subsidized commuting. At the same time, the recently release 2007 American Community Survey found about 0.5% of commuters or over 664,000 usually bicycle to work.

The question then turns to are there particular socio-economic groups who will benefit more from this benefit? ACS 2007 shows that 77% of the bicycle commuters are male so one could argue this proposal could benefit more males than females. The Census' American Factfinder combines the number of people bicycle commuting with taxis, motorcycles and other means for most of the socio-demographic comparisons (e.g., race, income, etc.) so we are unable to tease out the socio-economic factors for only bicyclists. Additional work the ACS PUMS dataset might be able to parse the data for bicycle commuters.

Finally, there are other unique aspects in the bill that extended the qualified transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters. For example, the bicycle benefit can not be combined with transit, commuter highway vehicle and parking benefits. Also, unlike other Section 132(f) qualified transportation fringe benefits, the $20 maximum tax free amount for bicycle commuters is not indexed for inflation.

Source: http://www.house.gov/jct/x-75-08.pdf

Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefits for Bicycle Commuters

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 : H.R. 1424 (bailout) bill signed into law by President Bush includes expanding qualified transportation fringe benefits (Section 132(f) ) to allow employers to reimburse employees with up to $20.00 per month for bicycle commuters.

For most employees, those who ride transit or commuter highway vehicles (e.g., vanpool) can receive up to $115.00 per month tax free. They can also receive $220.00 per month tax free for qualified parking. IRS will be developing guidance to provide implementation details/parameters.
We should expect to see IRS guidance on how this will be implemented but we can look to the existing guidance http://www.irs.treas.gov/pub/irs-regs/td8933.pdf to hazard a guess.

Cavaet – I’m no tax expert, yada yada so don’t use the following for implementation. It could be food for thought if IRS seeks public input on guidance.

First, it isn’t a tax deduction for individual commuters. Like the rest of Section 132(f), employers are permitted (not required) to allow employees to seek reimbursement of up to $240 per year (assuming they regularly bike to work for all 12 months). I would assume the employer can offer no reimbursement for bicycle commuters if they offer parking and/or transit subsidies. Or they can choose to offer less than $20 per month, too. You’d have to assume that the individual will have submit some receipts for reimbursement. Where the line is drawn as to what is reimbursable will have to be decided – e.g., bike helmets, lights, tires, routine maintenance, baseball cards for spokes (just kidding), etc.

Clearly, terms like “regularly uses” and “substantial portion” need to be clarified. It now says: `(I) regularly uses the bicycle for a substantial portion of the travel between the employee's residence and place of employment. While qualified transportation fringe benefits for commuter highway vehicles (e.g., vanpools) have a 80% use for commuting requirement, transit does not.

As a “reimbursement program”, employers will not be able to pre-pay. Current guidance says “A payment made before the date an expense has been incurred or paid is not a reimbursement.” This may mean that a person who purchases a bike in January with the intent to use it for commuting for the next 12 months, he or she may not get the full reimbursement amount (e.g., $240) in the first month.

It is interesting to note that to receive the bicycle commuter benenfit the individual can not "receive any benefit described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1)" so it excludes people who are already receiving a transit, commuter highway vehicle or parking benefit. I interpret this as meaning that the employee has to choose one or the other (transit/commuter highway vehicle/parking benefit OR bicycle benefit). This clause is in contrast to the current law that allows employees to combine parking and transit tax free amounts (e.g., cost of parking at a rail station and the rail fare). It wouldn’t appear that the new bicycle benefit will be an additional sweetener for a bike-to-bus or bike-on-bus programs if transit subsidies are provided.

Another point - the monthly transit/vanpool and parking limits are subject to cost of living increases (increase in $5 increments if the cost of living is high enough). While this has caused parking to increase more than transit based on the current level, this also would mean that bicycle limits are unlikely to change (the $20 per month basis is too low for the $5 increment to kick in automatically).

You can find the full bill (HR 1424) at http://thomas.loc.gov/
See IRS' Taxable Fringe Benefit Guide http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/fringe_benefit_fslg.pdf for more information about Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefits (Section 132(f)).

You may also be interested in IRS' ruling in 2006 about when and how employer-provided transportation benefits provided through smartcards, debit or credit cards, or other electronic media are excluded from gross income under §§ 132(a)(5) and 132(f) of the Internal Revenue Code and from wages for employment tax purposes. See http://www.irs.gov/irb/2006-47_IRB/ar05.html

Journal of Public Transportation

There are several TDM-related articles in the recently released issue of the Journal of Public Transportation (Volume 11 Issue No. 1)

The journal is published by the National Center for Transit Research (http://www.nctr.usf.edu/) at the University of South Florida.

You can download individual articles at www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/jptv11n1.htm or go to http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/journalfulltext.htm to obtain a copy of the entire issue (you can access prior issues from the same link).

Below are abstracts of the articles in this issue.

Qualitative Research to Assess Interest in Public Transportation for Work Commute
Kerstin Carr, University of Regensburg

Given the need for reducing single occupancy vehicle commutes, this article presents a case study of employer-based research. Using conjoint analysis as a qualitative research method, factors that potentially influence people’s choices to drive alone to work were studied at a major company in Columbus, Ohio. Such factors included reasons for driving alone, satisfaction with commute, perceptions toward transportation modes, importance of transportation attributes, and likelihood to switch if certain Transportation Demand Management measures were implemented. Target groups were formed by using simple regression and cluster analysis of a stated-ranking question regarding transportation attributes.

Managing Limited Access Highways for High Performance: Costs, Benefits, and Revenues
Patrick DeCorla-Souza, Federal Highway Administration

Managed lanes are a set of lanes where highway operations strategies are actively applied in response to changing conditions. High-Occupancy/Toll (HOT) and Express Toll lanes are examples of managed lanes. The transportation operations concept discussed in this article involves conversion of existing freeways (all lanes) into premium-service free-flowing highways that provide fast, frequent, and inexpensive express bus service and charge all private vehicles a variable toll—except for authorized buses and certified ridesharing vehicles. The toll would vary by level of demand and would be set high enough to guarantee that excessive demand will not cause a breakdown of traffic flow. This article discusses the advantages of this concept. It introduces a new sketch-planning tool that provides estimates of costs, benefits, and revenues from applying the concept on a highway network in a prototypical large metropolitan area. The estimates suggest that implementing the concept can provide significant net social benefits. It may also generate sufficient new toll revenue to pay for all costs for implementation and operation, including new express bus and park-and-ride services that would complement the pricing scheme.

Demand Responsive Route Design: GIS Application to Link Downtowns with Expansion Areas
Mintesnot Gebeyehu and Shin-ei Takano, Hokkaido University Sapporo, Japan

The movement of residential locations to suburban areas to obtain cheaper land results in increasing mobility and infrastructure problems. One of the important infrastructures is transportation, which determines the level of accessibility of people and commodities from one place to another. Therefore, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures are important in providing an optimal transit route to increase accessibility of public transportations. In the past, several researchers have developed various TDM programs, including public transport improvement as a strategy to encourage a more transit-oriented society. This study attempts to create a methodology of identifying bus links between urban centers and newly developed urban expansion areas using Geographical Information Systems by considering reduction of route overlapping. A TAZ-based analysis is undertaken to identify the demand responsive bus routes, which maximize population coverage, minimize travel time, and reduce duplicating routes.

Does Government Structure Matter? A Comparative Analysis of Urban Bus Transit Efficiency
Suzanne Leland and Olga Smirnova, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

As public transit becomes more and more important to our economy, it is imperative that we understand which governing system achieves optimal efficiency. Following up on the work of Perry and Babitsky (1986), we quantitatively test whether certain forms of public governance are more efficient administrators of bus service. We utilize 2004 data from the National Transit Association database and control for federal funding, whether services are contracted out, region, population density, whether the system has a fixed guideway, the presence of local dedicated funding, and the ratio of local to federal funding. We find that special-purpose governments are more likely than general-purpose governments (cities and counties) to operate more efficiently. We also discovered that governments that contract out for some or all of their bus services are also more likely to be efficient than those public agencies that directly operate all of their services.

Encouraging Sustainable Campus Travel: Self-Reported Impacts of a University TravelSmart Initiative
Geoff Rose, Monash University

At the start of the 2004 and 2005 academic years, a voluntary travel behavior change program targeted incoming first-year students at the Clayton Campus of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Analysis of before and after travel surveys identified a significant effect in terms of reducing single occupant commuting and increasing public transport use. Nearly one in four of the students who participated in the TravelSmart initiative indicated it had influenced them to the extent of thinking about using, trying, or regularly using alternatives to solo driving to campus. The information provided about public transport services was the most valued element of the program. A range of barriers to further behavior change are identified to overcome a number of those impediments and thereby increase the use of environmentally friendly modes for commuting to campus.

Faith-Based Organizations: A Potential Partner in Rural Transportation
Tom Seekins, Steve Bridges, Annesa Santa, Daniel J. Denis, and Andrea Hartsell, University of Montana

Disability advocates frequently suggest that faith-based organizations (FBO) may be potential providers of transportation for people with disabilities living in rural communities. We conducted a national survey of rural FBOs in the United States to explore their capacity and interest in being involved in local transportation. We randomly selected 716 FBOs located within 15 miles of a rural center for independent living. Forty percent (N = 288) of these responded to our mailed survey. Responding faith communities averaged 300 worshiping adults with an average of 9.5 percent being judged to have a significant disability. Overall, respondents indicated they were neither willing nor unwilling to become involved in providing transportation to either the general public or to people with disabilities. Nevertheless, 32 percent of respondents said they would be willing or very willing to do so. Respondents reported that their congregations owned a total of 146 vehicles, 18.5 percent of which were judged to be accessible. Results are discussed in terms of the need to understand faith communities and their orientation to community service.

TDM sessions at 2008 Transportation Research Board

Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org) 87th Annual Meeting will be held in Washington DC on January 13-17, 2008. There are many sessions related to transportation demend management (TDM) and a long list of papers. Links below take you to abstracts for each paper that was sponsored by the Transportation Demand Management Committee. There are other TDM-related sessions on topics such as high occupancy toll facilities, telework, carsharing, etc. Please go to TRB's Interactive Program http://www.trb.org/am/ip/ to find the sessions that appeal to your interests.

Poster Session 253 Transportation Demand Management and Parking Strategies: New Tools and Approaches
Monday, January 14, 2008, 9:30 AM - 12:00 PM, Hilton

Lori Diggins, LDA Consulting, presiding
Sponsored by: Transportation Demand Management Committee (ABE50)

• Vehicle Occupancy Trends in Florida: Evidence from Traffic Accident Records (08-3089) - C11 Albert Gan, Florida International University and Kaiyu Liu, Florida International University
• Estimating Societal Benefits and Costs of Transportation Demand Management (08-2651) - C9 Sisinnio Concas, University of South Florida and Philip L. Winters, University of South Florida
• Macrolevel Collision Prediction Models to Evaluate Road Safety Effects of Mobility Management Strategies: New Empirical Tools to Promote Sustainable Development (08-2385) - C7 Gordon Richard Lovegrove, University of British Columbia, Canada and Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Canada
• Park and Bike: New Multimodal Concept for Congested Areas (08-0411) - C5 Ilona Bos, University of Nijmegen, NetherlandsArnoud van de Vrugt, Keypoint Consultancy, Netherlands
• Modeling Car Park Choice in Urban Areas and Managing Demand for Parking (08-1191) - D6 Narasimha Chandrasekhar Balijepalli, University of Leeds, United Kingdom, Simon Shepherd, University of Leeds, United Kingdom, and Anthony May, University of Leeds, United Kingdom
• Modeling Parking Choice Behavior in Business Areas (08-1539) - D4Peter J.H.J. Van der Waerden, Eindhoven University of Technology, NetherlandsAloys Borgers, Eindhoven University of Technology, NetherlandsHarry J .P. Timmermans, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
• Effects of Parking Policy on Travel Demand in Bangkok’s Commercial District (08-1679) - D8 Saksith Chalermpong, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, and Kittiphum Kittiwangchai, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
• Using Land Use Planning Process to Secure Travel Plans: Assessment of Progress in England (08-0962) - D2 Tom Rye, Napier University, United Kingdom, Emma Young, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, United Kingdom, and Stephen Ison, Loughborough University, United Kingdom
• Role of Public Transport as Transportation Demand Management Measure (08-0909) - C3 Stephen Ison, Loughborough University, United Kingdom and Tom Rye, Napier University, United Kingdom

Transportation Demand Management Committee

Monday, January 14, 2008, 1:30 PM - 5:30 PM, Hilton

Lori Diggins, LDA Consulting, presiding
Sponsored by: Transportation Demand Management Committee (ABE50)

• View Committee Scope and Roster
  
• Current Practices in France (P08-0771)Robert Clavel, French Ministry of Transport

Parking Management Subcommittee, ABE50(1)
Monday, January 14, 2008, 7:30 PM - 9:30 PM, Hilton
Tom Rye, Napier University, United Kingdom, presiding
Sponsored by: Transportation Demand Management Committee (ABE50)

Session 707 Revisiting Traditional TDM Strategies and Breaking New TDM Ground Wednesday, January 16, 2008, 2:30 PM - 4:00 PM, Hilton
Lori Diggins, LDA Consulting, presiding
Sponsored by: Transportation Demand Management Committee (ABE50)

• An Empirical Analysis of Compressed Work Week Choices (08-2137) Liren Zhou, University of South Florida and Philip L. Winters, University of South Florida
• Employee Transportation Benefits in High Transit Mode Share Areas: a University Case Study (08-0916) David Block-Schachter, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Attanucci, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Four Challenges of Incorporating Transportation Demand Management into the Land Development Process (08-2535) Sara Jane Hendricks, University of South Florida
• Park and Ride: Lessons from the UK Experience (08-0730) Stuart Daniel Meek, Loughborough University, United Kingdom, Stephen Ison, Loughborough University, United Kingdom, Marcus Paul Enoch, Loughborough University, United Kingdom

Session 729 Driver Response to Urban Parking Parameters

Wednesday, January 16, 2008, 4:30 PM - 6:00 PM, Hilton

Philip L. Winters, University of South Florida, presiding
Sponsored by: Transportation Demand Management Committee (ABE50) and the New Public Transportation Systems and Technology Committee (AP020)

• Reassessing On-Street Parking (08-2926)Wesley Marshall, University of Connecticut, Norman Garrick, University of Connecticut, and Gilbert Hansen, University of Connecticut
• Social Experiment of Cooperative Dynamic Park-and-Ride in Japan (08-2224)Kunihiro Sakamoto, Saitama University, Japan
• Evaluating Urban Parking Policies with Agent-Based Model of Driver Parking Behavior (08-0341)Karel Martens, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands, Itzhak Benenson, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and Slava Birfir, Tel Aviv University, Israel
• Smart Parking Linked to Transit: Lessons Learned from the San Francisco Bay Area Field Test (08-3027) Susan A. Shaheen, University of California, Berkeley, and Charlene R. Kemmerer, University of California, Berkeley
  

TDM responses to I-35W Bridge Collapse

With the tragic collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis comes the need to adjust travel behaviors and patterns. It begs the question if transportation demand management (TDM) programs have specific plans in place for similar emergency responses. If so, what are they? Respond by clicking on the comments URL below.

Carpoolers - Coming to Your TV

Carpoolers a new ABC pilot due out this fall will be about a group of suburban guys in their carpool to work. View the trailers According to the promo, 'These men are the Carpoolers; four guys, living different versions of the modern suburban family life who obsess, dream, and strategize as they rocket their way up and down the carpool lane every day."

Certainly, this pilot provides the vehicle (pun intended) to bring the pros and cons of carpooling together. It might offer an opportunity for the TDM community to suggest storylines or back stories. For example, always-late carpool member finally left at work and having to use an emergency ride home program.

What story lines do you suggest?

TDM sessions at 2007 Transportation Research Board

Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org) annual meeting in next week in Washington DC, has a couple of sessions related to transportation demend management (TDM) and a long list of papers. Links below take you to abstracts for each paper.

Poster Session 553 New International Research in Transportation Demand and Parking Management
Tuesday, January 23, 2007, 2:30 PM - 5:00 PM, Hilton
Eric N. Schreffler, Consultant, presiding
Sponsored by: Transportation Demand Management Committee (ABE50)

Note: The increasing interest in strategies to manage transportation systems has prompted growing research into the effectiveness of various parking management and transportation demand management measures. This session provides exposure to various initiatives in managing transport and promoting more sustainable travel options, including parking guidance and information, employer commute management, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and managed lanes.

• Evaluating Parking Management Benefits (07-1581) - H3 Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Canada
• Switching Process of Parking Pricing Principle: From Duration-Based to Rights-Based (07-1053) - H5Chih-Peng Chu, National Dong Hwa University, Taiwan, Jyh-Fa Tsai, Soochow University, Taiwan
• Examining Incentives and Preferential Treatment of Carpools in Managed Lane Facilities: A State-of-the-Practice Review (07-2880) - H7 David H. Ungemah, Texas Transportation Institute, Mark W. Burris, Texas A&M University, Ginger D. Goodin, Texas Transportation Institute, Casey Toycen, Texas Transportation Institute,
• Employer Perception of Employer-Based Trip Reduction Benefits and Strategy Implementation (07-0676) - H9Kai Zuehlke, Georgia Institute of Technology, Randall Guensler, Georgia Institute of Technology
• Potential to Attract Drivers Out of Their Cars in Dense Urban Areas (07-2124) - H11Andres Monzon, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
• Analysis of Effects on Workplace Mobility Management Targeting Commuter Transport (07-2729) - J2Ayako Taniguchi, University of Tsukuba, JapanSatoshi Fujii, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
• Setting Up Local Travel Plan Groups: The Future of Workplace Travel Planning in Urban Conurbations? Examples from London (07-2164) - J4 Sophie Tyler, University of Westminster, United Kingdom, Marcus Paul Enoch, Loughborough University, United Kingdom, Lian Zhang, Loughborough University, United Kingdom
• Commute Travel: How Does Proximity Influence Mode Choice? GIS Analysis of a Large Urban University (07-3234) - J6 Jane Gould, University of California, Los Angeles, Jiangping Zhou, University of California, Los Angeles
• Testing the Effectiveness of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvements in Reducing Commute Vehicle Trips (07-3174) - J8 William R. Loudon, DKS Associates, Sarah Kavage, Lawrence Frank & Co, Mandi Roberts, OTAK Inc
• Use and Impact of Maximum Parking Standards in Scotland (07-2527) - J10Tom Rye, Napier University, United KingdomStephen Ison, Loughborough University, United Kingdom

Session 614 The New and the Old in Transportation Demand Management Initiatives: Reducing Car Use Through Personalized Travel Information and Carpooling
Tuesday, January 23, 2007, 7:30 PM - 9:30 PM, Hilton
Marcel Rommerts, European Commission, Belgium, presiding
Sponsored by: Transportation Demand Management Committee (ABE50)

Note: One traditional transportation demand management strategy is the promotion of carpooling. This session investigates who carpools and the implications of trip chaining on carpooling. Of growing interest are initiatives to provide improved information on travel choices, including advice tailored to individualized travels. Research on the effectiveness and implications of these strategies to reduce congestion, air pollution, and energy use are explored.

• Travel Choice Adaptation Through Information Provision: Insights from Literature Review (07-0149)Caspar Chorus, Eindhoven University of Technology, NetherlandsEric Molin, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, Bert van Wee, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
• Mobility Management in Japan: ITS Development and Meta-Analysis of Travel Feedback Programs (07-2657)Ayako Taniguchi, University of Tsukuba, Japan, Satoshi Fujii, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan, Haruna Suzuki, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
• Successfully Changing Individual Travel Behavior Applying Community-Based Social Marketing to Travel Choice (07-3098)Carol Cooper, King County Metro Transit
• Who Chooses to Carpool and Why: Examination of Texas Carpoolers (07-1369)Jianling Li, University of Texas, Arlington, Patrick M. Embry, University of Texas, Arlington, Stephen Mattingly, University of Texas, Arlington, Kaveh Farokhi Sadabadi, University of Texas, Arlington, Isaradatta Rasmidatta, University of Texas, Arlington, Mark W. Burris, Texas A&M University
• Impact of Carpooling on Trip-Chaining Behavior and Emission Reductions (07-3281)Sisinnio Concas, University of South Florida, Philip L. Winters, University of South Florida

There are numerous other sessions that would interest many in the TDM community (e.g., value pricing, HOV, telecommunications and travel behavior, etc.)

Go to http://www.trb.org/meeting/ for more information.

Promises Unfulfilled or Ignored

Last week, the National Center of Transit Research (www.nctr.usf.edu) released a 17 minute streaming presentation on the project, Incorporating TDM into the Land Development Process at http://streaming.cutr.usf.edu/ramgen/streamingfiles/NCTR/576-11.rm (RealPlayer required). It provides a good overview of the opportunities and challenges of including trip reduction strategies as part of the land development process. Senior researcher Sara Hendricks talks about the need to take a long term view, including staffing and funding, if TDM requirements as part of the land development process are to have the best chance of fulfilling its promise to reduce vehicle trips.

Even when communities do extract vehicle trip reduction commitments from developers doesn't mean implementation is guaranteed without follow-up and enforcement. It was recently driven home (pun intended) with a recent Washington Post article. The article notes that "when the owners of Tycon Tower, the high-rise office complex adjacent to Tysons Corner Center mall, sought Fairfax's permission to expand in 1998, they agreed to give a 50 percent discount on the building's parking garage to car- and vanpools to help limit traffic around Tysons. But eight years later, garage parking at the tower costs the same across the board. The building's property manager, Mikele Torgler, with Quadrangle Management Corp., said she was aware of the requirement but is unsure why it is being ignored. 'I wasn't here in 1998,' she said. 'I need to check into it.' "

We'd suggest the localities need to "check into it", too. Where did they fail?

How to Bring Parking Charges to Offices

Paid parking at offices reduces commute trips by 23%, producing very large traffic and CO2 reduction. This is a very effective policy that is not popular. Are there "clever policy tricks" to bring this about? Can we help cities "jump in together" with small steps, making this policy more palatable? Could cities synchronize their actions to reduce risk? Here is a web page with details of such a proposal: http://www.cities21.org/paidParking.htm

An example of cities "jumping in together" is provided: "Interesting example in the Twin Cities. This was always said about changing bars and restaurants to non-smoking. Every time any city council member proposed it, they were shouted down by people who said, "But people will go somewhere else and all our businesses will lose out." Then one December day the city of Bloomington (largest suburb) passed a smoking ban. The following month St. Paul did the same, then Minneapolis right after. It turns out they had been in agreement all along about who would go first and who would follow next."

What do you think?

True Cost of Driving

In light of today's (Sept. 26, 2006) post on the true cost of driving, consider this editorial. In my opinion, the true cost of driving cannot be calculated without taking into account the need to secure access to oil. US domestic oil discovery peaked in 1930. US domestic oil production peaked in 1970. In 1994, the US began importing more oil than we could produce. Each year since 1994, the US has had to import more oil and spend more money to secure the supply of oil. Andy Singer, a great editorial cartoonist, just came out with a new one depicting how transportation policy begets energy policy begets foreign policy.

What is your take on things?

Explain Relationship of Increasing Efficiency and Keeping Traffic Moving and Win $1,000

Every one knows what traffic congestion is. Transportation engineers know that efficiency improvements can make a big difference in traffic flow. They simply have a problem communicating this concept to the public (and politicians).

Well, one State Dept of Transportation official has challenged the transportation profession - or anyone else - to solve this communication problem.

Washington State Department of Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald has challenged transportation professionals to think of a better way to communicate to the general public the relationship between maximizing the use of existing system capacity, increasing efficiency, and keeping highway traffic moving.

As a follow-up to his challenge, Secretary MacDonald has made a personal donation of $1,000 to be awarded to the person or group that submits the best idea. Entries are due by October 6, 2006 and should be submitted to Washington DOT's special e-mail address: Dougmacdonaldchallenge@wsdot.wa.gov

Please e-mail any questions concerning the contest to that e-mail address.

The contest winner and honorable mentions will be showcased in a Transportation Research Board poster session to be scheduled during the 2007 TRB Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C.

The contest winner will be awarded the $1,000 check to start off the new year with considerable flair.

To download the contest flyer and for further information, please consult the TRB Congestion Pricing Committee's website at:
http://www.trb-pricing.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=7&page=1

Portland Prepares Peak Oil Briefing Book

In May 2006, Portland City Council created a Peak Oil Task Force to develop recommendations on appropriate responses to uncertainties in the supply and affordability of oil. The Task Force is intended to identify key short-term and long-term vulnerabilities and develop recommendations for addressing these. Twelve citizens were appointed to the Task Force in June, and the Task Force is expected to provide recommendations to City Council in early 2007.

Changes in the availability of affordable petroleum products may have significant impacts on transportation, housing, food, and other life-essential products and services. Click here for a set of background materials [94 page PDF] intended to provide an overview of the peak oil issue, excerpts of relevant Portland policy and planning documents, and a number of related resources.

For more information: Click here

Simmons: "We are past energy peak"

TDM Talk

On June 20, 2006, Matthew Simmons of Simmons and Company International gave a presentation to the Department of Defense entitled, "The Energy Crisis Has Arrived." In this presentation, Simmons declared that world energy production has peaked and stated that he believes Middle East oil production will decline by 50 percent in the next 12 years.

Click here for powerpoint slides from presentation