Making TDM work in your community

Making TDM work in your community

Material Information

Making TDM work in your community
National Urban Transit Institute (U.S.)
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
[Tampa, Fla
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 v. (various pagings) : maps, ill. ; 29 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Urban transportation policy -- United States ( lcsh )
Transportation demand management -- United States ( lcsh )
Traffic congestion -- United States ( lcsh )
Traffic flow -- United States ( lcsh )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
bibliography ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
Additional Physical Form:
Also issued online.
Statement of Responsibility:
[prepared by] National Urban Transit Institute ; [prepared for] CUTR, University of South Florida ... [et al.].

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
026289759 ( ALEPH )
86074617 ( OCLC )
C01-00215 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.215 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader 00000nas 2200000Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 026289759
005 20110909180109.0
008 070320s199u fluab b s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00215
b .M35 1990
0 245
Making TDM work in your community /
[prepared by] National Urban Transit Institute ; [prepared for] CUTR, University of South Florida ... [et al.].
[Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1 v. (various pagings) :
maps, ill. ;
29 cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
Also issued online.
Urban transportation policy
z United States.
Transportation demand management
United States.
Traffic congestion
United States.
Traffic flow
United States.
2 710
National Urban Transit Institute (U.S.)
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


Overview of TOM MODULE GOALS 1 Define TOM. 2 Understand the reasons why TOM is i mportant in meeting commun ity needs 3 Relate the importance of TOM to federal i nitiatives. 4 Summarize the relatio n ship between congestion manage ment systems and TOM. ASSUMPTIONS 1 Participants deal with TOM issues on a regular bas i s 2 TOM has received new emphasis because of ISTEA CAAA, and t he public's unde rsta nding that we can no longe r build our way out of congestion. MODULE INFORMATIO N TOM is defined as TO M can be classified into three c ategories: 1 2 3 Five Reasons Why TO M Has G rown In Impo rtance: 1 Growth in vehicle miles traveled 2 Energy usage of the SOV 3 Transportation p r oject funding shortfalls 4 Urban density trends 5 Air pollution caused by vehicle emissions MAI

\1AKING T O M WORK N YOU R C OMMU NI TY 1-2 Transportation p rovi s i on s o f the Cl ean Air A c t A m endments o f 1990 are: 1 2 3 4 5 Th e 1 0 Commandments of ISTEA 1 Thou shall i mplement in termo dalism 2 Th ou shal t be flex ible 3 Thou s h al t be more effic i e n t 4 T hou sha lt support th e N a t io nal Highw a y Sys tem 5 Tho u shalt enh a n ce t he enviro n ment 6 Tho u s h alt p r omot e s a fety 7 Thou s halt inno v ate 8 Tho u sha lt prom o t e c r ea t ive investment 9 Thou sh a lt take seriously pl a n s and the p l an n in g prooess 10 T hou s h alt cr ea t e new part n erships Energy P o licy A c t of 1992 1. E mp l oye r may pay up to $60 / mon th fo r ri desh a re expe n ses 2. Reduc e A m e rican oi l v ul nerability Alterna t ive fuels and electr ic vehi cles -Te l e c ommut in g s tudy au t horized


A Congestion Management S ystem is defined as: ___ Seven ke y C M S elements: 1 2 3 4 5 6. 7. What geographic areas must CMS cover? 1. Must cover entire state. 2 Areas where traffic congestion is or will be occuring 3 All corridors and facilities that are or will be conges t ed 4. Entire metro planning area in non-attainment TMAs 5. Sufficient size to show e ffects of policy on system performance CMS measurement systems must: 1. 2 3 MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 13


IIIAKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 14 Good performance measures should be: 1. Clearly unders t ood 2 Sensitive to modes 3. Sens i tive to t i me 4 N ot too difficult or costly to coll e ct 5 Forecasted Into future 6 S e n s it i v e t o the imp a ct of congestion mitig a t ion s t rategies Possible perfoman c e mea s ures : 1 2. 3. A performance m o n i t o ring plan: 1 D ocuments me a sures, coll ection and analytical p rocedures 2. I d e n tifies agency res pon sib il ities 3 I den t ifies count me a sure men t frequency 4 Fos t ers coord i nation and com plement a ry use o f resources Congestio n management strategy plans : 1. 2. 3. 4 5 6


Classes of congestion management strategies: 1. 2. 3. Evaluating Effectiveness Primary Measures 1. change in vehicle occupancy for targeted corridors 2. Change in mode split and average vehicle ridership (AVR) at work sites 3. Change in distribution in volumes (work schedules) Techniques 1. Work place surveys 2 Vehicle occupancy counts on specific facilities 3. Volume counts documenting peak spreading Factors Impacting Effectiveness 1 Employer size 2. Transit service levels 3. Income levels 4. Management style of ETC MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 1 .. 5


AAKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 1-6 Possible answers: What is TOM? TOM is defined as a set of specific strategies that foster increased effic i ency of the transportation systems and resources by influenc i ng employee travel behav i or by mode, t ime frequency, trip l ength, cost or route. The goals of TOM are to reduce traffic congestion, i mrpove air quality, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, enhance emp l oyee mobi l ity, reduce commuter expenditures and expand access to labor TOM is a process aimed at relieveing congestion TOM actions can be classified into three categories: 1. Actions that reduce the number or length of trips 2. Actions that shift trips to more efficient modes ; 3 Actions that shift trips t o off-peak hours or uncongested routes Key CMS elements: 1. Area of application 2 T ransportation System Definition 3. Performance Measures 4 Performance Monitoring Plan 5. Ident i fication and Evaluation of Strategies 6 Implementation and Management 7 Monitoring of Strategy Effectiveness Possible Performance Measures: 1 Measure the extent of congestion 2. Evaluate strategy effectiveness 3. Established coopera tivel y


Classes of comgestion management plans: 1. Demand Management Transportation Demand Management HOV Strategies Transit operational improvements Non-motorized and non-traditional modes Congestion pricing Growth management 2. Operational Management Tra ffic operationa l i mprovements Access management I ncident management IVHS 3. Capital I ntensive improvements Lane additions Transit capital improvements MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 17



TOM IMPACTS ON BUSINESS Module Goals o To identify the benefits of TDM to employers. o To provide infonnation about the relative importance of transportation to corporate relocation decisions. o To demonstrate how to estimate the cost of turnover and relate it to investment in TDM strategies. Assumptions o Employers are more receptive to TDM strategies when the benefits are described in tenns of interest to a busi ness. o Workshop participants have little experience in estimat ing the potential impact of the program on issues of importance to businesses. Benefits of TDM to Employers: Businesses use transportation demand management strategies to: MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 2 .. 1


AAKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUN ITY 2-2 Site Selection Criteria The of the transportation system has a direct bear ing on an areas economic development potential. The real estate adage of "location, location, loca tion" is giving way to "access, access, access". Location alone is not sufficient. What is important is the access to the facility by customers, clients, suppliers, and employees. For example, advances in telecommunications have and will continue to make it less important where a business is loca ted but how one can access the services and products of that business. The reasons for relocatinga business seem to focus on reduc ing costs as much as increasing market opportunities. COMPANY REASONS FOR GROUP MOVE Consolidation of operations Division or subsidiary reorganization and relocation Company wanted a l owercost operating environment Corporate relocat io n Company wanted to attract quaiUied employees Closer proximity to markets Opening of a new sales t e rritory Other Improve company image Source: International 59.3% 57.6% 27.1% 23.7% 23.7% 20.3% 15.3% 15.3% 10.2% Acco rding to a survey of 150 personnel executives by Runzheimer lntemational, the five most important criter ia during the site selection phases of the corporate relocatio n process are high quality workers, low operating costs, quality of l ife geographical locale, and proximity to markets. MOST IMPORTANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA Available h ig h quality workers Low operating costs Quality of lne Geographical locale Proximity to markets Source: Runzheimer lntemationsl 67% 59% 46% 39% 38% As the following examples illustrate, transit and TOM strategies contribute to most of these criteria. o Carpooling and vanpooling link long distance com muters with potential employers. Transit services from the downtown can link transit dependent populations i n the city with jobs in the suburbs. Thus, these modes expand the pool of candidates from which to attract high quality workers. o Transit and TOM can reduce operating costs by


decreasing d ema nd to build additional parking which can range from $2 000 per space for a sur face lot to $20 000 per space tor an ynderground garage. o Telecommuti n g pro grams reduce office space re quir e me n ts. o High occupan c y vehic l e lanes can reduce commut l n g ti m e for commute rs and I n crease opp ort u n itie s for r e sident i al choices. List t h e top q ua lity of life factors that affected sit e selecti o n dec i sio n s .-----------------------. QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS THAT AFFECTED SITE SELECTION DECISIONS 85% 79% 67% 51% 38% 29% 28% 10% 9% LOCAL INCENTIVES OFFERED TO TRANSFERRING COMPANIES THAT INFLUENCED THEIR RELOCATION DECISION Ta x abateme n t s 34% Free lan d 30% Low interest loans 22% Employee relocation ass istance 13% Fina ncial Assistance 11% Labor training 11% Tax credits 4 % Waiver of permits 3% W hat TOM stra tegies or services c oul d be ind ucements t o relo c at e t o your area? MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNI'TY 2-3


MKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 2-4 The High Cost of Turnover The need for good employees is a never ending quest for busi nesses of all types. h i gh quality employees, businesses will find it difficult to grow. Why should companies worry about finding replacement work ers? Problems associated wtlh new employees can i nc l ude: Many emp l oyers think they miscalculated when they find tum over costs of per employee. Simply having a large pool of potential job applicants is not enough. The cost of employee turnover is likely to be hidden, because It rarely shows up as a budget line item. The d ir ect costs associated with employee turnover such as the pay and benefH costs are only a portion of the total costs. The high costs of turnover are found In the indi r ect costs The following table lists the components of the high cost of turnover. The accompanying tables illustrate how to est i mate the cost of turnover. The final tab l es show that seemingly small impacts on m itigat ing turnover can pay big dividends to employ ers The challenge to the TOM program is to tailor its services to meet the specific needs of employers and their workforce. COST OF TURNOVER 1 Incoming employee inefficiency 2. Ineff i ciency of those c lose ly asso ciated with Incoming employee 3 Departing emp loyee i nefficiency 4. Ineff i ciency of those closely associated with departing employee 5 Inefficiency of position being filled while vacant 6 Out-ofpocket processing costs 7. Human reso urce s processing costs 8. Nonhuman resources employee processing costs 9. Relocating costs Requiring employers to invest time and resources in TOM pro grams or activities can be c ompared to other investments. The following tables provide reference guides to help understand that T OM strategies that contribute to reduced employee tum over (e.g., transit subsidies) can have "bottom line" Impacts on the business.


EMPLOYEE TURNOVER AVOIDANCE REQUIRED PER $100,000 INVESTMENT WI TH 12 MONTHS PAYBACK ( NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES) COST OF TURNOVER TO SALARY RATIO 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1 .50 1.75 2.00 ANNUAL SALARY $15,000 53 27 18 13 11 9 8 7 $20.000 40 20 13 10 8 7 6 5 $25,000 32 16 1 1 8 6 e 5 4 $30,000 27 13 9 7 5 4 4 3 $40,000 20 10 7 5 4 3 3 3 $50,000 16 8 5 4 3 3 2 2 No. of employees= (($100,000 i nvestment +$100,000 savlngs)/(salary cost of turnover t o salary ratio)] Source : Personnel Journa l, "Til e Price Tag ofTurnover', December 1990 MAXIMUM INVES TMENT ALLOWED TO REDUCE COST OF TURNOVER WITH A 12 M O N TH PAYBACK ($ PER TURNOVER ) TURNOVER COST REDUCTION TARGET 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% COST OF TURNOVER $10,000 $500 750 1 000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 $20,000 1 000 1 ,500 2 ,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 $30,000 1,500 2 250 3,000 3,750 4,500 5,250 6,000 $40,000 2,000 3 000 4,000 5 000 6 000 7 ,000 8,000 $50 ,000 2 500 3 ,750 5 ,000 6 250 7 ,500 8 750 10,000 $60 000 3 ,000 4 ,500 6 000 7 ,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 $70, 000 3,500 5,250 7 000 9 ,000 10,500 12,250 14,000 $80 000 4,000 6 000 8 000 10,500 12,000 14, 000 16,000 $per turnover= (Cos t of turnover *(1turnover cosl reduction targel) Source: Personne l Journal, The Price Ta g of Turnover', December 19 MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 2-5


.lAKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 2-6 SU MMARY OF EMPLOYERS' COST AND BENEFITS The following checldist summarizes the key areas whe n evaluating the costs and beneli!s of TOM strateg i es on employers E ffectiveness Change in output or delive rables Quantity Quality Change in employment costs Salary and expenses Support stall Office space and overheads Core team response Health and enetgy Changes In productivity Time Time lost to illness Training costs Change in motivation Hours WO

Examole: Beoefilsto Emomers !rom Ie!e<:ommliting 1 More hours worked per day. Less time i s consumed by commuting and socializing at the water cooler. 2. More work done per hour less distractions from co-workers. 3. Ability to work at peak hours. Morning persons and night owls can accommodate their internal clocks. 4 Expanded coverage. Flexibility offers the opportunity to expand tele phone coverage to customers and clients in different time zones with existing resources. 5 Less Incidental absence. A poll by the Detroi t News found the following percentages of people agreed that it was okay to stay home for the following reasons. Fever 60% Sprained ankle 59% Arthritis 28% Stomach ache 18% Visible bnuises 12% Sun bum 11% Lack of sleep 9% Hangover 8% H eadache 7% "Blah" feeling 7% Runny nose 3% Example: Benefits to Employers from Reduced Parkjog Expeodtlure:; 1. Reduce capita l expend itu res 2 Reduce maintenan ce expend itures. 3. Allow room for more expansion on-sfte. S1J4,1l ..... ....... tt40.12 .. ..., MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNrTY 2-7




INC O MIN G EMPLOYEE INEFFI C IENCY ... . . Efficiency Months X Average = Months of Level Required Efficiency Full Productivity 0 25% 1.7 X .125 = 2 2550% 1.9 X .375 = .7 50 75% 3.5 X .625 = 2.4 75100% 4.8 X .875 -4 2 Cumulative 11.9 7.5 Mont h s Therefore, on average, it required almost 12.0 months to rea c h full productivity, dur i ng w h ich only 7 5 months of equivalent full perfo r mance was achieved, result ing in 4.4 months of lost efficiency X,= AX B Where: A = Months of lost productivity due to learning curve B = Monthly Salary and Benefits of Incoming employee CASE STUDY X, = $18,600 Source: Personnel Journal "The Price Tag of Turnover", December 1 g90 U niversity of South Florida Ce n ter fo r Urban Transportation Research M arch, 1994


INEFFICIENCY OF THOSE CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH INCOMING EMPLOYEE Postion Percent X Average X Months to = Cost Time Monthly Reach Full Required Salary Efficiency Supervisor 14% X X 11.9 = Exempt 12% X X 11.9 = N on8% X X 11.9 = exempt Cumulative Cost X, = (C + D + E) MONTHS REQUIRED TO REACH FULL E FF ICIENCY Where: C = Pet. time of supervisor helping incoming employee reach fu ll efficiency multip l ied by monthly salary and benefits of supervisor D = Pet. of time other dept. exempt staff member spends helping incoming emp l oyee reach full efficiency multiplied by the monthly salary and benefits of the exempt staff member E = Pet. of time dept. non-exempt staff member spends helping incoming employee reach full efficiency multiplied by the monthly wages and benefrts of non -exempt staff member CASE STUDY X2 = $11,700 Source: Personnel Journal "The P rice Tag of Turnover", December 1990 University of South Florida Center for Urban Transportation Research March, 1994


DEPARTING E M PLOYEE I N EFF I CIE NCY Efficiency Weeks At X Average = Weeks of Level L evel Efficiency Full Productivity 10075% 2 6 X 0.875 2.2 7550% 1.4 X 0.625 -1 .0 50-25% 1.1 X 0.375 = 0.4 250% 4.8 X 0.125 4 2 Cumulative 6.3 3.8 Weeks Equivalent 1.5 0.9 Months Therefore, a departing employee began to lose productivity about 1 5 months prior to departure During that 1.5 months, only an equivalent of about one month of about one full month of full productivity was achieved, resul t ing in 0.6 months of lost efficiency X,=FXG Where : F = Months of lost productivity of departing employee G = Month l y Sal ary and Benefits of departing emp l oyee C A SE STUDY X3 = $2,200 Source: Personnel Journal "The Price Tag of Turnover December 1990 Un i versity of South F l orida Center for Urban Transportation Research March 1994


INEFFICIENCY OF THOSE CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH DEPARTING EMPLOY EE Postion Percent X Average X Months of = Cost Time Monthly Declining Required Salary Efficiency Supervisor 10% X X 0.6 = Exempt 10% X X 0.6 = Non8% X X 0.6 -exempt Cumulative Cost X2 = (H + I + J) MONTHS REQUIRED TO REACH FULL EFFICIENCY Where: H = Pet. t im e of supervisor time related to depart ing employee activities during declining effic ie ncy multiplied by monthly salary and benefits of supervisor I = Pet. of time other dept. exempt staff time related to departing employee activit ies during declining efficiency multiplied by the monthly salary and benefrts of the exempt staff member J = Pet of time dept. non-exempt staff related to departing employe e activities during declining efficiency multiplied by the monthly wages and benefits of nonexempt staff member CASE STUDY x. = $800 Source : Personnel Journal, "The Price Tag of Turnover" December 1990 University of South Flor id a Center for Urban Transportation Research March, 1994


INEFFI C IENC Y OF POSITI O N BEIN G FILLED WHILE V ACANT Post i on Percent X 'WeM!yX Duration of = Cost of position Va l ue vacancy in efficiency (Salary and weeks sacrificed Benefits) of while Vacant vacan t Posit ion Vacancy 67% X X 18 = Position Avg. Hours X H ou rly X Duration of = Cost Devoted to Salary and v acancy in Vacant Benefits weeks Pos i tion Sup e rv isor X X 18 -(regular hours) Exempt X X 18 = (regula r hours) N on-X X 18 = exempt (regular hours) Exempt X X 18 = (ov e rtime hours) Non-X X 18 e x empt ( overt i me hours) Cumulative Cost University o f South F l orida Center for Urban Transportation Research March, 1994


X5 = (K + L) Where: K = K, KJ L = [(L X L2 ) + (lo X L.) +(L5 X lo) + (l, X L,) + (Lg X L,0))K, Where: K, = Duration of vacancy in weeks = Percent of position efficiency sacrificed while vacant K, = Weekly value (salary and benefits) of vacant position L, = Hourly salary and benefits of supervisor L2 = Average regular hours per week supervisor devotes to position Lo = Hou rly salary and benefits of exempt staff L. = Average reg ular hours per week exempt staff devotes to position L5 = Hourly wages and benefits of nonexempt staff L. = Average regular hours per week nonexempt staff devotes to position L7 = Average weekly hours subject to overtime (1.5x ) L8 = Overtime hourly wages and benefits of exempt staff L. = Average weekly hours subject to overtime for nonexempt staff L ,0 = Overtime hourly wages and benefits of nonexempt staff CASE STUDY x. = $19,000 Source: Personnel Journal, ''The Price Tag of Turnover'', December 1990 University of South Florida Center for Urban Transportation Research March, 1994


OUTOF-POCKET PROCESSING HIRING COSTS Includes orientation costs agency s&arOh arid butplacement fees Advertising costs and travel costs for recruiters and candidates X.= (M + N + 0 + P) Where : M = M + M 2 N = [( N, X N2 ) + N3 ) N4 0 = o + 02 P = (P, X P 2 + P3 ) P4 Where : M = Average expenses v i a recru i ting M2 = H i res via recruitin g/tota l hires N = Agency fee as a percent of annual salary N2 = Average annual salary of hires via agency N = Average expenses other than search fee via agencies N = Hires via agencies/total hires 01 = Average expenses via other sources 02 = Hires via other sources/total hires P, = Average agency outplacement fee as a pe rc ent of salary P 2 = Average sa l ary of outplaceme n ts P 3 = Average expenses other than agency outplacement fee P 4 = Outplacementsltotal term i na tio ns CASE STUDY X8 = $2,400 Source: Personnel Journal, "The Price Tag of Turno ver", December 1990 University of South F l orida Center for Urban Transportatio n Research March 199 4


HUMAN RESOURCES PROCESSING COSTS X7=(QXR/S) Where: Q = Percent of department time devoted to processing incom ing and departing exempt employees R = Annual department salaries, wages, benefits and expenses S = Total hires CASE STUDY X7 = $900 Source: Personnel Jou rnal "The Price Tag of Turnover" Decembe r 1990 University of South Florida Center for Urba n Transportation Research March, 1994


NON-HUMAN RESOURCES EMP L OYEE PROCESSING T I ME Position Avg Hours X Hourly Cost Devoted to Salary and Process i ng Benefits Replaceme nt Position Supervisor 40 X = Exempt 34 X -Non 10 X -exempt Cumulative $2,500 Cost X8=T+U+V Where: T = T X T2 u = u x U2 v = v x v2 Where: T1 = Hourly salary an benefits of hiring supervisor T2 = Hours supervisor devoted to processing a rep l acement U = Hourly salary and benefits of o t her department exempt employees U2 = Hours exempt employees devote to processing a replacement V1 = Hourly wages and benefits of department none x empt employees V2 = Hours nonexempt staff devotes to processing a replacement CASE STUDY x. = $2, 500 University of South Florida Center fo r Urban Transportation Resea r ch March, 1994



ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE MODULE GOALS 1. To understand the i nterre l ationsh i p belweeh tl16traditional plann ing process and the Deming Quality Improvement Cycle 2 To understand how to facilitate buy-in to the TOM plan through such activities as charrettes and the nominal group technique. 3. To understand the data requirements to deve lo p a TOM plan 4 To be able to collect your own data set. 5 To be able to ana l yze a data set. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Customer service i s paramount. 2. An Interrelated and structured process has a better chance to succeed. 3 Background mater ia l s can provide import a n t insight into the p r oblems and perceptions. 4 Getting b uy-in to the p l an and process makes Imple menta tion easier 5. let the data do it. 6 A good plan requi r es good data 7. What you can' t find in ot h er sources you can collect TH E PD C A CYCLE MAKING TDM INORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY J .. l


lofAKI NG TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 1 I ssue Formulation -Project Ini tiat ion Activ i ties Define key issues 2 Data Collection and Analysis Existing condit io n s scan -Issue a n a l ys i s 3. Goal Sett ing --Develop goals and objectives 4 Strateg ic P lan -Plan Development --Implementation Strategies ISSUE FORMULATION Project Initia tion Activities 1 Define purpose 2 Backgrou nd scan 3 Advisory committee Define Key Issues 1 Establish buy-in -Charrettes -Nomina l group techn i que 2 Review of rele vant legisla tion --Fulfill requirements 3 Refine purpose 4 Basic understanding of key issu es ESTABLISH BUY-IN Charrette 1 A one-time public event ( p u blic forum ) a ime d at solving transportation related problems or i ssue s 2 Facilitates public involvement by providing p riv ate citizens with an opportun ity to openly and freely discuss transporta ti on i ss ue s an d prob l ems


A successfu l charrette 1 2 3. 4. 5. Ample time and space Background materials Materia ls -Large maps --Larg e newsprint pads and markers -Site photographs -Outline basic goals rules, and time cons traints Adequa te staffing -Competent leader Individuals who have previous e xperience with the problem or issue Individuals who are familiar with the derivation and use of the data Good organization An agreement on the process and timing F inding an experienced leader Setting up space for an informal d iscussi on Nominal Group Technique 1 Designed to discourage d iscussion until all issues are listed 2. Four step process --Silent idea generation --Round-robi n reporting of ideas --Discussion for clarification --Ran king of prob l em/ solution importance 3 Guided group discussion 4 All topics mentioned, many discussed 5. Input from all 6. Drawback : Not all topics get exhaustive t reatment How to use the Nominal Group Technique 1 Give all participants 3 X 5 index cards 2. Ask them to respond to a question or a problem statement 3. Have each person share one of their responses. Go around the table as many times as necessary until all responses are recorded. Write all responses down on the poster boards. 4 N o d i scussion is allowed until all responses have been shared 5. After all po ints are l i sted discussion b y group to clarify or elaborate. MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 3 .. 3


v!AKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 6 7. Using new 3 x 5 cards each participant ranks the top five to ten issues listed on the master sheet Cards are collected and the results of the voting are tabu l ated 8 Group discussion is then permitted on each one of the issues 9. Again each participant ranks the issues which then become the results of the group KNOWIN G WHAT YOU NEE D 1.Data Needs --Current transportation conditions --Commute r trave l patterns --Site/service area characteristics --Identification of congested areas 2. Collection Methods -Period i c employee transportat i on survey -Driveway counts/survey Traffic counts/surveys DATA C H OICES o Demand Volume o Average Travel Speed o Average Trave l Time o Volume/Capacity Ratio (v/c) o Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) o Person Mi les Traveled o Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) o Average Queue L engths o Max i mum Queue Lengths o Vehicle Hours of Delay o Level-of serv ice (LOS) o Peak Hour Factor (PHF) o Roadway Congestion Index (RCI ) o Average Daily T r affic (AD T ) o Average Weekday Traffic (AWT) o Average Annual Dail y Traffic (AADT) o Average Annual Weekday Traffic (AAWT) The TOM planner must determine: ( 1 ) what data is to be collected (2) locations for data collection, and (3) the period for data collec tion (e g hour ly, daily, weekly monthly, etc ) such that effective ness measures can be recorded and monitored. Appropriate select i on of these data characteristics will m i nimize effort and produce meaningfu l measurable resu lts


Demand Volume: The number of vehic les or persons that des i re to traverse a particu lar section of roadway or facility during a specified period of time. Can only be measured where avai l able capacity does not constrain the demand Average Travel Speed: Total distance divided by total time needed to traverse a g i ven roadway segment or travel corridor, averaged for more than one vehic le-trip. Ave r age Travel Time: Tota l time, Including stopping needed to traverse a given roadway segment or trave l corridor averaged for more than one vehicle-trip. Volume/Capacity (v/c) Ratio : A measure of facility usage or congestion where demand volume or flow is divided by the designed facil ity capacity Capacity should be in terms of person-carrying capacity A ratio of 1.0 signifies that measured volume equal s capacity Likewise, the greater a ratio is below 1.0 the more the facility is under-uti liz ed . Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT): An estimated measure of travel activity from network or roadway segment studies. Level -of-Service (LOS) : A letter designation (A th r ough F) that describes a range of operat ing conditions on a particular transportation facility LOS "A" de scribes a free-flowing condition w here individual vehicles are not influenced by the presence of other vehicles in the traffic stream. LOS "F" describes breakdown operat i ons which occur when traffic flow arriving at a point is greater than the f acility's capacity to d isch arge flo w and queues develop. Level-of-service is a performance parameter and its measure of effectiveness varies depending on the type of facility and/or the type of flow. For example, for uninterrupted flow facilities (i.e., freeways and multi-lane highways), level-of-service is measured in terms of vehicle density, vehicle or person flow rates and average travel speed. For interrupted flow facilities (i.e., signal ized intersec t i ons, arterials, transit and pedestrian faci l ities), l eve l-of-service is measured in terms of average stopped delay, average travel speed, load factor (persons per vehicle seating capacity) and space (square feet per sidewalk pedestrian) Peak-hour factor (PHF): A factor that indicates the relationship between ho urly volume and the max i mum rate of flow within the peak-hour For 15-m inute MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 3 .. 5


MKING TOM WORK N YOUR CO MM U N ITY per i ods of flow, th e PHF Is defined as the ho urly volume d ivided by 4 times the maximum 15 -minute rate of flo w. The maximum value is 1.0 the minimum value is 0 25, and the typical range of values is between 0 70-0 98 (with lower values signifying a greater degree of variation in traffic flow during the pea khour) Roadway Congestion Index (RCI): A relative measure of urban mobility l e vel s developed by the Texas Transportation Institute in tended to be areawide representa tions not site-specific locations of spot congest ion The RCI com bines the daily veh icle-mi les of travel per l ane-m i le (DVMT) for freeways and prin cipa l arte ria l s in a ratio compa rin g the existing DVMT to calculat ed DV M T values identified with congested cond i tions An RCI value of 1.0 or greater indic a t es that congested conditions exist areawide Assumed capacity for freeway sections is taken as 13 000 vehicles per lane per day, and 5 ,00 0 vehicles per lane per day for princ i pal arterial roadways Average Dally Traffic ( ADT) : Averag e 24-hour traffic volume at a given location for a period of at least two d a ys but less than one year. Average Weekday Traffic (AWT) : Average 24 hou r traffic volume, occuring on weekday s only, for at least two days but l ess than one year. D epend i ng on the type o f land use activity b ei n g mon i tored AWT may be more cri ti cal than ADT (e.g., office building d u rin g weekdays vs. shopping center on weekends ). Average Annual Dally Traffic (AADT) : Average 24-hour traffic vo l ume at a given l ocation over a fu ll 365d a y year or the tota l number of vehicles p ass ing a given location in a year d iv i ded by 365 Average Annual Weekday Traffic (AAWT) : Average 24-hour traffic volume occuring on weekdays only over a full year or the total number of vehicles passing a given location in a year for wekd ays only divided by 260. Average Vehi c le Occupancy (AVO) -Defined as: Numb er of E mployees arriving at work s i te during the pea k hour. AVO is typically measured for an area (i. e Cen tra l Business Dis trict) or reg ion of many w ork sites whereas a verage passenger occupancy (APO) is measured for a single w ork site The need to examine bot h or one should be stipulated. For purposes of t his example discussion AVO will be used.


Single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) users often do not r egard the full costs of operation when making the i r trave l decisions They tend to consider the outof-pocket costs only (parking tolls fuel oil) and disrega r d the costs of vehic l e ownership depreciation mainte nance insura n ce taxes and fees park i ng at the employment site is free or heavily subsi dized and would greatly offset the perce i ved cost advantage of driv ing i f it had to be paid by the employee. The closer the AVO is to 1 0 the h igher the percentage of s ingl e-occupant vehicles in the mode split (or the greater the potential for congestion and mobility problems) The goal of TOM Is to detennine the desirable AVO. AVO measures are generally represented In four categories: 1 .0-1. 05 1 .10 1 .15 common for many new, low-density suburban growth areas a little less auto dependency and maybe some use of carpool in g with l ittle or no tran sit use. Detennined to be the national average for commute t rips. common in established suburban corridors and activ ity centers, with some transit use. 1.30+ common for a radial corridor into a CBD, involving varying degrees of transit use. During the peak-hour, the expected average vehicle occupancy for a carpool Is 2 5, 12 for a vanpool, and 50 for a bus. These AVO's can vary substantially depending on the "incentives" (i.e., travel time savings, cost savings availability of alternative modes etc.) provided to the user The following examples us i ng the aforemen tioned vehicle occupancies. describe the levels of mode shift that would be needed for achieving desired average vehicle occupan c ies for a work site. Example A:For a work site with 100 employees if existing AVO = 1 05 and desi red AVO= 1.3, then instead of95 (100/1 05) vehicles entering the work site during the peak-hour, 19 fewer vehicles or 76 (1 00/1.3) vehicles would enter during the peak -hour. The necessary carpool program to achieve th e desired AVO would require 60 SOV's (60 employees) and 16 carpools (40 employees, 16 2.5), or a mode shift of 40% ((100-60)1100) to carpool. Example B:For a work site with 500 employees if the existing AVO = 1 .05 and the desi red AVO= 1 3, then instead of476 (500/1 05) vehic les entering the work site during t h e peak -hour, 92 fewer vehicles or 384 ( 500 1 1 3 ) vehic les would ente r dur i ng the peak hou r MAK ING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 3-7


\lAKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMU N ITY The necessary vanpool program to achieve the desired AVO would req uire 373 SOV's (373 employees ) and about 11 vanpoo ls (132 emplo yees 1 1 1 2 ), or a mode shift of 25. 4 % ((500-373)/500) van pool. Example C:For a work si t e 2 000 employees i f the existing AVO = 1. 05 and the desired AVO = 1.3, then instead of 1,905 (2,000/1.05) vehicles entering the work site during the pea k -hour, 367 fewer vehicles or 1,538 (2,000/1.3) vehicles would enter during th e peak-hour. The n ecessary b u s transit program t o ach i eve the des ir ed AVO w ould req u ir e about 1,528 SOV's ( 1,528 employees ) a nd about 10 b uses (500 employees 10 50) or a mode shift of 23.6% ((2,0001 ,528)12, 000) to buses VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED Background One of the outputs of transportation n etwork analysis is an est i mate of th e total vehicle-m il es traveled (VMT) on the ne twork duri ng the period of i nterest. The est imate of VMT ass umes that a vehicle coun ted on a network l ink travels the entire length of the link. This is consi dered to be a reasonable assumption because while some vehicles traveling only a portion of the l ink w ill be counted, others w ill not since they do not all cross the specific counting location. A 24-hour VMT estimate requires that the counts be taken and averaged over a t least two 24 hour periods Further, peak-hour or daily VMT ca n no t be expa n ded to a n nua l VMT w ithou t knowledge of seasona l v ariations tha t exist. Control counts a re used t o moni tor and quantify daily and seasonal (or monthly) volu me variation pattems S uc h control counts may be taken at perma ne nt-count stations or at control-count s t ations. Permanent-count stations are counted 24 hours each day, 365 days per year. Control counts are used to supplement the informa tion obtained from permanent-count stations. Control counts are typically one-week counts taken dur ing each month of the year for a continuous seven -day or five-day p eriod using portab l e mechanical counters. Count locations for pe rmanen t and control counts should be repre sentative of the vario us roadway c l asses (i. e ., principal arterial minor arterial major collector minor collector etc.) in the t ranspor tation network for estimates of network-level VMT. On the other hand, specific roadway VMT estimates should have co unts taken at a location where traffic flows do not vary (e g., mid -block, away from short segments of major point loadings") Generally a cover age count should be taken on each two-mi l e segment of the road way or ne twork.


Annual VMT can be estimated using the average annual daily traffic (AADT) estimates computed for ea<;h count. For .. r , .. example for each coverage count: AVMT = AADT L 365 where AVMT =annual vehicle-miles trave led, AADT = 24-hour count on a particular day da i ly variation factor monthly variation factor (see sample tables below) and L=length of the segment, in miles Volume/Capacity Ratio The volume/capacity (v/c) ratio is a measure of facility usage or congestion, where demand volume or flow is divided by the de signed facility capacity. Capacity is typically noted in t erms of passenger -car equivalents per hour per lane for roadway facilities, people per hour per lane for transit facilities, and people per minute per foot for pedestrian fac iliti es (See attached Tables) Volu me is a point measure or the rate at wh ich vehicles (or people) pass a particular point. The volume/capacity ratios are used to determine the facility level of-service, or capacity efficiency. A ratio of 1.0 signifies that mea sured volume equals capacity, and that there is a need for Improve ment (I.e., spreading the demand volume). Likewise, the greater a ratio is below 1 0, the more the facility is under-utilized. The goal In TOM planning is to establish a standard for level-of-service, or tolerable v/c ratio. The evaluation process then becomes under standing what type and intensity of TOM measure is needed to adjust the vic to the desired l evel-of-service STEP 1 -Calculate V/C Ratio Example A:A single-lane HOV, buses only able to accommodate le vel-of-service C Estimated design person-carry i ng capacity during the peak-hour would be: 60 buses/hour x 45 passengers/bus = 2, 700 passengers/hour If peak-hour headways are actually 2 minutes (due to l ack of ad equate "retu rn" route, number of buses available, etc.), and buses are only two-thirds filled, the volume would be: 30 buses/hour x (2/3 x 45 passengers/bus ) = 900 passengers/hour, and the v/c ratio would be 0.33. Example B:A 4-lane roadway with a design speed of 50 mph, able to accommodate the maximum LOS o volume Estimated capac ity during the peak-hour would be: 1,500 veh icles/hour /la ne x 4 l anes= 6 000 vehicles/hou r MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUN I TY 3-9


lo1AKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 0 If the peak-ho u r vol umes are measured at 5,700 vehi cl es/hou r the v/c r at io w ould be 0 95 Step 2 Determine VIC Adjustment Requirements Example A : The HOV facility is very under-utilized and a significant adjustment (or increase in volume) is required Since the facility is designed to accommodat e LOS c. and the desired v/c ratio is 0 85, an additional 1,400 passengers/hour need to be attracted to the fac i lity. Example B :The roadway facility i s operating at 95% of its design capacity. S i nce the desired v/c ratio is 0 .85, approx imate ly 600 vehicles/hour need to be encouraged to select a high-occupancy mode of travel or encouraged to travel at another tim e of the day. Step 3 Determine Most Effective TOM Mea sure Example A:The most effect i ve TOM measure to selec t to remedy this under-utilized fac i lity is one t h a t would be most expected to increase HOV u sage by 1 4 00 passengers/hour ( or if AVO= 1.2, the n 1,16 6 SOVs). There fore, th e selection of the most a p p ropri ate TO M measure can best be detennined by the level of n on-HOV traffic on the facility For example, if the traffic volume is at least 32,000 vehicles/hour, then employe r support of transit cou ld apply (1, 166/0.36 = 32,388). If the traffic volume is at least 15,000 ve hicles/hour, then vanpooling could apply (1,166/.075 = 15,5 46). The maximum level of employer support and employee partic ipa tion is assumed for all cases Example B :The most effect ive TOM measure to select t o r emedy this over-u t ili zed facility is one tha t wou ld be most expected to reduce vehicle-trips by approximate l y 10.5% (600/5700) Assum i ng a CBO/Co rridor envi ronment and maxi mum level of employer support and employee participation, alternative work schedules and tran s it service imp r ovements can be expected to reduce vehicle trips up to 9% ( the most of any other TOM measure exclud ing SOV surcharges).


ADDITIONAL NEEDS 1. Transit Service Ava il ability Routes 2 Peak Pe riod Volumes 3. Park i ng -Location -Types --Costs 4. Employment Distribution I dentify Activity Centers Target Areas 5 Major Employers -Activities -# of emp l oyees 6 Growth Trends 7 Non-Motorized Access 8. Residential Locations 9. Access Points MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUN ITY 3-11




' MEASURING PERFORMANCE Module Goals o To explore the need for evaluation and examine the results of several TOM performance evaluations. o To demonstrate how to use the FHWA/FTA tools, o To provide additional resources to facilitate partici pants' further understanding. Assumptions o Eva l uation is good. o Transportation professionals can imp rove TOM perfor mance. We can learn from the successes and failures of others as well as ourselves. o We recognize the importance of performing reasonable and defensible evaluations of TOM imp acts to establish TOM's credibility, o We share a common interest in, and commitment to, developing a broad-based coalition of public and pri vate interests to advocate TOM implementa tion. Goal Setting Goals and objectives may be established throughout the planning process, but the primary goal setting effort should be fo c used after data collection and analysis for the following reasons. ------------------------------------2 ____________________________________ __ MAKING IDM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNilY 4 .. 1


nAKING TOM WORK 'l YOUR COMMUNITY BENCHMARKING EXAMPLE 4-2 The Use of Benchmarks in Goal Setting Benchmarking information and data refer to processes and resu l ts that represent superior practices and performance. Benchmarks encourage TOM programs to set targe t s that stretch. 1. To encourage creativity and represent a clear challenge to "beat the best," rather than on l y gradually refining the existing approach. 2. To place the emphasis of program benchmarks on achiev i ng super ior program offerings and low costs of operation 3 To help improve commun i cation with other organizations interested i n TDM by providing a common language for assessing performance 70 60 ... ., 50 M) E E 30 0 u -e-lnclustry Avetage 1 20 1-+-TDM, Inc. i ... g u 1 0 1--Best TOM Program 0 1966 1989 1990 1991 1992 1 993 1 994 Yoa< 4 To serve as a working tool fo r plann i ng, train i ng and othe r uses Sources of comparisons and benchmark i ng data might include : (1) information obtained from other TDM programs thr ough the d i rect shar i ng of information: (2) prior exper i ence of the TOM


program ; and (3) pub l ished r eports such as an nua l reports of TOM programs Selecting the right benchmarks is critical, and ben c hmarks should be reviewed periodically for appropriateness Using the above graph, the following characteristics of clear and effective benchmark data are presented (Data are for illustrativ e purposes only): o the trend line report data for a key performance require ment for TOM programs o both axes and units of measurement are c l early labeled o results are presented over severa l years to i ndicate trends affecting the organiza ti on a nd its ind ustry o mean in gful comparisons are c learly shown What comments on the graphed results wo u ld be appropriate? I dentifyi n g Goa l s Successful TOM programs exhibit several core values and concepts These values and concepts are the foundation for integrating performance requirements of the customer w i th that of the TOM program. The core values and concepts are : 1. Leadership 2. Customer driven quality 3 Management by fact 4 Design quality 5. Cont in uous i mprovement 6. Employee participation and development 7 Long-range outlook 8. Partnership development 9. Public responsibility MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUN ilY 4-3


AAKJNG TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP Thi s goal category exami nes how the TOM Board and other stakeholders become persona ll y invo l ved in visible activities such as: planning communications review of TOM program performance recognizing employees for qual ity achi eveme n t CUSTOMER..ORIVEN QUALITY The ultimate success of the TOM program will depend on how focuses on and satisfies its customer" needs. The goals set for this category should consider methods how to track customer s a tisfaction, monitor curren t trends, a ssess levels of satisfaction and measure retention TO M programs must have a constant sensitivity to changing commuter and employer requ i rements This includes increasing awareness of deve lo pments in technology and rapid and flex ible response to customer and market requirements Who are the custome rs ? 1 .. __________________________________ __ 2 ____________________________________ __ 5 .. ________________________ __________ __ -----------------------------------------------------------------------


MANAGEMENT BY FACT Management by fact requires a framework of data, analysis, and measurement. Facts and data needed for quality improvement and quality assessment, include: o customer profiles, o product and service performance o .. operations, o the market, o competitive comparisons, o suppliers o employee-related and o cost and financial. Analysis refers to the process of extracting larger meaning from data to support evaluation and decision making at various levels of the TOM program. Such analysis may entail us ing data to reveal information-such as trends, projections, and cause and effect-that might not otherwise be evident. Performance measures or indicators should be derived from program strategies and encompass all key activities and out puts. A system of measures or indicators tied to customer satisfaction and program performance provides a clear and objective basis for aligning activities with TOM goals and objec tives DESIGN QUAUTY AND PROBLEM PREVENTION In general costs of preventing problems at the design stage are much lo wer than costs of correcting problems that oocur later. This requires paying attention to TOM program suppliers includ ing: o carpool and vanpool drivers, o regional commute r assistance programs (CAP) and TMAs/TMOs, o transit agencies MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNITY 4-5


MKING TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY 4-6 o taxicab companies for guaranteed ride home programs, and o third-party vanpool providers for the provision of vans and maintenance support. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Achieving the highest levels of quality and competitiveness requires a well-defined and well-executed approach to continuous imp rovement. Opportunities for improvement have four major sources: 1._ -------------------------------2 .. ------------------------------3. _____________________________ 4 .. ----------------------------------Improvements may be of several types : o enhancing value to customers through new and im proved products and serv ices; o reducing errors; o improving r esponsiveness; o improving productiv ity and effectiveness in the use of all resources; and o improv ing the TOM program's leadership position in fulfilling its publ i c responsibilities. EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION AND DEVELOPMENT A TOM program's success in improving performance depends on the skills and motivation of its work force. o Employee success depends on having meaningful op portunities to learn and practice new skills.


o TOM programs need to invest in development of the work force through education tra i ning, and creating opportunit i es for continuing growth LONG-RANGE OUTLOOK Achiev ing qua l ity and deepe r marl

lAKING TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY 4 .. 8 PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY A TOM program's objectives should stress responsibility and accountability to the public. This responsibility refers to basic expectations of the TOM program to: o protect public health, o enhance mobility for all, and o conduct realistic, defensible evaluations of the public re sources. Inclusion of public responsibility as a core value means meeting all local, state, and federal laws and regulatory requirements. It also means treating these and related requirements as areas for continuous improvement beyond mere compliance. APPLY IT! What ideas presented in this session do you plan to put into ac tion? 1. ____________ 2. ____________ 3. ____________ 4. _____________ ___


TOM EVALUATION Why Evaluate? There are many reasons for developing a system to monitor progress, as follows: 2 .. __________________________________ __ 3 .. __________________________________ __ 4 .. ________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12. __________________________________ __ What Does Evaluation Do? A successful evaluation will use procedures that detennine one or more of the following: 1. The extent to which the program has achieved its stated objectives (e.g., increases in average vehicle r i dership). 2 The extent to which the accomplishment of the objec lives can be attributed to the program (direct and indirect effects). 3. Degree of consistency of program implementation to plan (relationship of planned activities to actual activit ies). 4. The relationship of different tasks to the effectiveness of the program (productivity). MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 4-9


AAKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 10 M e a sures of Perfonnance 1 Measuring the extent to which the program has achieved its stated objectives {e.g. incr eases in AVR) w ill include methods to detennine : o How many people were placed into a carpool per year or per 100 employees? o How many new vanpools were fonned? o How many people were placed as riders into new and existing vanpools per year? o How many customers were served ? o How many requests for ass istance were filled? o How many transit passes were sold? What wa s the s a les value? o What was the change in Average Vehicle Occu pancy over the year? 2. Measurin g the extent to which the accompl ishment of the objectives can be attr ibuted to the program {direc t and indirect effects) o What is the estimated change in Veh i cle Miles Traveled ? o What is the estimated change in Vehicle Trips? o How has demand for parking been affected? o What reduction in pollutants is estimated?


o How much money did our commuters save as a result of the program? o What were the above outcomes for commuters who were influenced to try an alternate mode as a result of marketing efforts, but not directly attr ib ut able to any specific program or service of the agency? (e.g., commuters who form a vanpool on own). Some research indicates the indirect effects of a program may equal or exceed the direct effects. 3. Evaluating the degree of cons i stency of program imple mentation to plan (rel ationsh ip of p l anned to actual activities) may determine whether, for example the number of match lists produced were sufficient to form new carpools o Which impl ementat i on tactics were the most effec tive? o Where all planned activities carried out on time and within budget? o Where the number of carpool formation meetings adequate? o Was customer response time w ithin performance goal ( e g ., requests received by 10: 00 a m w ill be filled the same day for 95% of the emp loyees)? o What level of staffing did it take to form and maintain a carpool? 4. The relationship of different tasks to the effectiveness of the program (productivity). The CAP and taxpayers will want to see that the Investment in the program is being used efficiently and effectively. Benefit/ cost ratios or productivity matrices can be produced to provide this measure MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNITY 4 .. 11


lAKING TOM WORK COMMUNITY 12 Methods of Evaluation There are several different methods for collecting the data for evaluation purposes. Some of the most commonly used methods involve: o Employee surveys o Program participation documentation (e.g. registrations for preferential parking ; appl ications for subsidies) o Vehicle or average vehicle occupancy counts o Time sheets/Activity logs The evaluation method and data collection requirements depend on the measures of effectiveness being used. ON DEATH AND TOM EVALUATION" THE FIVE STAGES OF COPING WITH A POOR TOM EVALUATION 1. Denial and Isolation "No, not us, the data cannot be true!" 2. Anger, Rage, Envy and Resentment "Your survey is faulty." "Why us? DOT spills more money than what we getl" 3. Bargaining "Okay, so your evaluation of our TOM program found that we didn't change the behavior of thousands of commuters overnight. What about all the other things we do like provide traffic advisories, Identify sites for bus shelters and encourage the provision of sidewalks? How about giving us credit for these activities?" 4. Depression "Our TOM program bad so much potential. 5. Acceptance "I'm happy. We can only improve." Our apologies to Elisabeth Kub ler -Ross, author of Qn Death and Dying


Use of Surveys In T r a nsportation Research Surveys are often used in transportation research to determine how a group of people (commuters residents in a certain part of town etc.) travel now and how they might change their travel behavior if certain changes are implemented (ne w roads transit routes transit costs etc.). There are four major types of survey research. These a r e characterized in the t able on the next page Survey Sampling, Analysis and Uncertainty Survey results always have an element of uncertainty, based on the fact that we haven't polled everyone to find out what they want. Clearly because of expense and time constraints, it is not possible to survey everyone. Therefore one key decision must be made: How many people should be surveyed? There are two key factors that will determine the answer to this question: 1. The budget that is allocated to surveying the popula tion, and 2. The amount of uncertainty that you are willing to accept from the surveys The budget will generally give you an absolute maximum to the number of people you can survey However, within that maxi mum you may find that you don't need the amount of precision that will come out of doing all of the surveys that the budget allows Suppose for instance, that you want to know approximately how many people will use a new tol lway You have a budget of $20 ,000 to survey the popu la tion You are quoted a rate of $5 000 overhead and $10 per i nterview comple ted Should you conduct 1 500 interviews, as the budge t allows? You probably want an answer t hat is rel iab le within a range of 5 percentage points. In other words if you get a result of 32.5% from the survey you want to be able to say confidently that between 30% and 35% of the population will use the new MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 4-13


lAKING TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY 414 tollway. This means that your amount of uncerta i nty is plus or minus 2 5 points around the 32.5% result. A mathematical formula is used to determine the uncertainty from survey re sults. For a proportion, as we are discussing here, that formula is: amount of uncertai nty around the result= 1.96 x (P(1-P)JN) where P is the proportion (in this case 32.5%} N is the sample size ofthe sUJvey 1.96 is the standard multiplier used to achieve a 95% confi dence level. A confidence level" means that you are 95% sure that the true"' results will indeed fall within the uncertainty range. If you want to be 99% sure, tha t number changes to 2.576; if you want to be 90% sure, it falls to 1.645 The "amount of uncertainty" is generally referred to as the Confidence Interval, and is associated with the confidence level. When you hea r the term "a 95% confidence interval" used by statisticians, this is what they mean. When you see national polls on TV, this is the formula used to determine what the "plus or minus" amount of the result is as in "25% of Americans actually believe results from national polls, with an error rate of +or-3.5%". Solving for N, we get: N= (P(1-P))/(amount of uncertainty/1.96)' N= (0.325 X (1. 325)) I (0.02511.96)2 N= 1,348, which is the sample size nee ded to achieve this result. So, in fact, yes you should do just about all of 80.7 the surveys if you want an answer as precise as 2.5 percentage points around the result. A lot of times you can't afford to do 1,500 surveys. You may


: : . .,_ . only have a budget for 350 surveys. So, let s turn the problem around. Suppose you contract to have 350 surveys conducted, and you get 32.5% (or 65 people) saying that they would use the new tollway. What is the error rate associated with this result? The f ormula says that the error rate is 1.96.((.325.(1 .325))1350 )0 5 or 4.9%, so tha t you can say wlth 95% confidence that between 27 6 % and 37 4 % of the popula tion will use the tollway .. Because of the way the f ormulas are set up in order to double your precision (that is, to reduce the erro r rate by half) you need to get four times as many in t erviews completed. Now let's suppose tha t you aren t interested in a proportion, but rather in a mean result, such as Average Vehicle Occupancy Let's say you surveyed 350 people, and got an Average Vehicle Occupancy of 1 .12. Suppose the mean has a standard devia tion of 0.35 (the standard deviation refers to how much the answers vary around the mean result. About 60% of the survey responses will fall with in 1 standard deviation of the mean). How do you determine the error rate in this case? The formula is actually very much the same as the proportion formula. 1.96.(5 I N)0 0 = amount of uncertainty, where S, the standard deviation, replaces P(1-P) from the proportion formula In this case, the result would be 1.96.(0.35 I 350)0 6 = 0.06. So we could say that the AVO is between 1.06 and 1.18 at a 95% confidence level. An interesting property of survey sampling is that the amount of precision h as only to do with the size of the sample, not w ith the size of the popula tion it is drawn from If you sample 300 people your results are just as accurate if the populat i on i s 10 million as they are if the population is 100,000. There is no need to survey 1%, or 5 %, or 10% o f the population You only need to get a random sample of sufficient size to reduce the error to an acceptable level. ( Note that this property becomes invalid if you survey a large proport i on of the total population, MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 4 .. 15


TOM WORK COMMUNITY 4-16 say 50% to 70%. In those rare cases, your level of precision will actually be greater (and your error rate lower) than the sample size would indicate) One of the most important ways in which surveys are used is to compare trends from one survey to the next to see if there has been a change in behavior. Typically there will be a require ment that a statistically significant change be measured through a survey statistically significant means that the change in the survey results must not be due to the uncertainty arising from the sampling, but instead accurately reflect a change in the behavior of the population. Trending and change detection requirements place serious constraints on the sample sizes you can use. If you expect a program to have an impact of a 5% increase, in, say, bus ridership, you need to conduct enough surveys so that if in fact a 5% change has occurred in the population, you can detect. If you only interview 100 people, the error from sampling will be so large that a 5% change in the behavior of the population may well be completely masked by uncertainty from the small sample size. Suppose you want to know if the changes in the survey results (Using AVO again, say from an AVO of 1.06 to an AVO of 1.10) are significant (i.e. not due to error arising from the size of the sample). These formulas are very involved A safe rule of thumb is to add the uncertainty levels from the two samples together, and if the change is larger than this sum, it is signifi cant. This will overstate the size of change needed for a statis tically significant result which should be fine you will err on the side of caution. The method of determining this is: Step 1. Step 2. Assume the second survey had a sample size of 500, AVO of 1.10, standard deviation of 0.35 Calculate change needed from first survey to the next. = 1.96 (std dev 1/sample size 1 + std dev 2/sample size 2)0 : 1.96 X (.35/350+.35/500)0 5


= 0.081 This represents how much change you need to see from one survey to the next to report an increase in AVO. In this case, the change was only 0.04 (1.1 0-1. 06) so the change in the survey results may be due to the uncertainty arising from the sampling, and may not have anything to do with a change in the behavior of the population. For instance, we may have, by random chance, interviewed a few more carpoolers in our sec ond sample that we did in our first sample, even though the proportion of carpoolers In the whole population did not change. This situation becomes especially problematic as sample sizes get down into the 75-100 respondent range. Another way to use this formula is to decide how much sample you will need to detect a given change in behavior. Suppose we are again working with the above problem, but now we want to know, if we expect an increase in AVO from 1.06 to 1.1 0, how many people we should sample? We will assume that we are doing this analysis before the pro gram starts, and, to simplify the problem, we want to survey the same number of people before and after program imp lementa tion. The formula is: Amount of change = 1.96 x (std dev 1/sample size 1 + std dev 21 sample size 2)0 5 = 1 .96 x (2"std dev/sample size)'' (since sample size 1 and 2 are assumed to be equal, as are std dev 1 and 2) Solving for the sample size yields: sample size= (1.96/change needed)' x (2 x std dev) so, assuming a standard deviation of 0.35 (you may have to look through some prior research results to get an idea of what a reasonable guess for what the standard deviation will be), use the following formula. sample size = (1.96/0 .04 )2 x (2 x 0.35) = 1,681 respondents per survey. Remember, to double the precision, we have to quadruple the MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 4-17


TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY 4 .. 18 sample size, as this example and the last example fairly well demonstrate For proportions, the formula is a lot more involved. C hange needed= 1 .96 x ((sample size 1 +sample size 2)/ (sample size 1 x sample size 2))0' x (Y x (1Y))05 where: Y=(Sample size 1 x proportion 1 + sample size 2 x proportion 2)/(sample size 1 + sample size 2) and the sample size needed to find a given change can be determined by: Sample size = (1.962 x ((2 x estimated propo rtion) + change needed)) I (change needed') So to be sure a change from 32.5% to 37.5% was significant, we would need 1,075 respondents per survey. There is a subtle difference between a "statis tically significant change" and a minimum change of, say, 5% within the popula tion. A "sta tistically significant change means that there is at least some difference, even if you aren't sure what that differ ence is. Essentially, it means that there was an i ncrease of more than 0 points. To show a minimum change of 5%, you need to perform a slightly different calculation. Take the base number you are trying to find a change twm. and use the above formula for amount of change needed" bu1 use 1.282 instead of 1.96 in the formula (the reasons for using 1.282 instead of 1.96 have to do with the probability distribu tions.) Find the number needed for a significant change, add 5 points to it, and then solve the "amount of change needed" (Original proportion+ sig. change +.05). Use the same formula with 1.282, and also use the number of respondents in the second survey, and your result needed to show a minimum 5% change is given by (Original proportion +sig change 1 +.05 + sig change 2). You can use the same logic to determine if you had a change


of "at least x as you would for proportions. You will have to assume that the standard deviation doesn't change in the sec;.. ond survey. RELA TIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF TOM STRAT E GIES Based on research sponsored by FHWA and FTA, the most Important factors in reducing vehicle trips appear to be: o Park ing management o Subsid ies o Travel Allowance o Carpooling o Legal Requirements The moderate ly impo rtant factors appear to be: o Vanpooling/Buspooling o Site location and Density o Transit Services The least important factors appear to be : o Personalized Ass i stance and Rldematching o Emp l oyee Transportation Coord in ators o Employer Size o Promotion o Flexible Work Hours Other factors not explicitly identified in the analysis include : o Bicycl ing and Walk ing o Te lecommuting o Guaranteed R i de Home The following pages summarize the impact of TOM on trip reduction and costs on several employers Additiona l research and gu i dance materials should be available in early 1995 on the cost-effectiveness of TOM. The project i s funded unde r the Transit Cooperative Research Program MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 4-19


\KI NG TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY .. 20 COST EFFECTIVENESS SUMMAAY EMPLOY!:R TD M PROGRAMS Sl T .. lterticdM ,.,s.n_ ....... ....... N"Coot ('per &17 ...,.,. flip) I. Tmltl.kts :mo I Plrtllla J Srl,600 HWat4, CT ( f7."') co..., ... (IO.CU) ..... 4'-S...-c .n,l21.'00 ( .S J.J5 ---.. S1"J6J9< CoiMiia.sion (4U") co..., .......... Nonh lk\IMsda (.12.64) M'O!WIDmcl)', eo.. C.,.Ob MD l'rMii t s 1 diu GJCO .. J.alriac4 """' s jftJ2S f rlclldsJiifl Heia:htf (lU% ) Qaqc 1ot '-'"' Montcomcry Co r tu. CPNP Pvllif\1 (.S 1.11) M O Sulidi:r.c4 vP PYopn Racmd CPNP Ptt tlnc T .-sit Sbrldlc:t 5 CH,M If"' m SolO Temsp. Altowtnct ..s )1,6.10 Wl$h. (lS.'J'%) .o-p ... -lo. Carpool ,,. Pll'kina 1-"'lll T1111Sii:Subsldy .. SIMt 276 c.poot S.t.ddlu .S 107,JIJ O..,...O...CA po _.,q ---0..75) 1. Paci(;c. lcll ,,.. a.c:.riatd Pdfllc S2J9,l&l 01Shop 1\an(l\ CA (2U%) Fulkm&O.. ... (SOJ4) Coord" ''"(' $91),010 _ ,_lnt (SI-11) ._.. CSniQp.oot -V--""COtol -eo...r- Allilc. - tun!ord $1(Am 197 s 163.l'9' Do i ter {26>%) Ooap ........ .. w-...01 ...taHttlllll Fcc $ruell.ft ($1.59) Y....-JA'Tr.d s.t Not F'KW A Cut StiHly .. No lllfOfJUfioft o cplo)'tr adllriaisfndoalprop'lu D ... RcprncCI lalrkCI \'elt Of &.ltd lplmlfttiJ Tr tp011t tioe Dndd MlftlteC r,.._, Prate ltd "1 lutllld t tiTnuportadO&I lor Jw FTA.a J ,J, $mioll UL


COST EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY: EMPLOYER TDM PROGRAMS Sit ntp llddib TOM Stn.tcafe AIPW A .. Nd C.f (per 4.,- ..,., lrip) -Hosplbl m ._ ........ 467l,l00 (lf..l"' Ooooo"'- ew,ool&,.,., -(oSJ.n) eo ..... Tnnslt s .. o.,.,.'" lidc UORIIt Flc::a"ble Woffc Hows 0. ......_a.y .... 121 """''"-"'"" Bdtc.._ WA (2U%) fe Partiq fw HOV.s Priority ltOV ... ,. (40.82) Me* Si*blldks I. San TN5t .t )6 P.tinc His)lrr s ,..,, .. ....... (22.?"1 for HOV"s Ste T...sil Sllilt5llt1 (Soi,OC) .............. Fk:l:ibk Wort: HOviS l.. PAdc.u City Hall 90 P.tdq& Fca S J6S.OOO -CA (llmlj P.till& TJJNp. (S :UI) Fttt Trwlt PIA Sabs\di n OlktJW81k S11bsldles Rldl HoMe "'""""'-13. ,., OllfiC; f\W Part!irl& s 31o4,900 1M (20.0%) HOY PaJt.lna Dboounls & SbbsM!Iu (oS 1.9l) -v--.... ,_._ ,....,. -1-4. ARCO ,., a. tor P.wtlo, S 1&7,].41 Down!OWI\ L.A. (IU%) Trwp. Allowlncc CPNP P..tioa S'"""y (S I.OS) V--........ ..,. ....... GuaraM" Rbk nome IS. Vatlln o OnSilt, Discollflt s J&l,lll hlo-CA (17 .'1%) Tr.rsit hss s..kc A-.d PICCfUlb (SOAO) T'*'*HOY .sns TnlliSJI. Cool'diiiiMOc Bike/Walk: f acllllks Not nn A Cue Stlldy No l111forti011 OG cMploytr admlltl11ntlo'*"'rocnm rosa. .,. JU,prac.nts m:lrllct nha orla11d .... t ... pac.eatic T'nullpOTUdon Dt u d ftbitqtllltfll PrOJn;au. Pratlk4 by tlt e lrutiiiiiC otTn. Npori Atloo &acbtun Auoclario Cor ColllM IIIItt Trn.,...Urlo ter n'A ll fHWA. J1111c 1"1. Sttdoa Ul. MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNITY 4-21


N.0..) u......e Ride Home VcMUn Couney-, CA. httiflc AUW4 Facililio 18. MSIS CocponUon Sllwr Sprill & (IO.l") lf'lftSP Allowance CP & TR Sublidlc:l: MD ""'=-'Y ...... 19. )M 1.1)0 Sl Pau1, MN ,...,,., Sagmod Wort Jbrs 1 0 AAaJ-16 SeWdizrd ........ "" (l.o!IJ - 100% Triii!Sk S.. Pwtinc hid Holid.ay HOY - Comptdwnsiw mclloytr Suppon Musum fbiblc: WO!t Koun 21. ucv. 821, LolMc



!/lAKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 4-24 PROJECTED EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIVIDUAL TOM STRATEGIES The following lnfonnatlon Is adapted from Implementing Effective Travel Demand Mamtgement Measures: A Series on TDM as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and sponsored by FHWA and FTA. Step 1 Modal Split sov Determine the Setting, in terms of density, average veh icl e ridership, average vehicle occupancy, or mode split. Usi ng the table below, determine the operating env i ronment. 111 (2) (3) Low Density Regiona l Suburb Activity C.,ter CBD /Corridor 85% 66% 41% 7% 16% 30% Ride1hare 8% 18% 29% Avg. Veh. OcCiupancy 1.05 1.20 1.35 Avg. Veh fUderahlp 13 1.35 1 .90 Step2 Determine Modal Bias, i.e. whether the AVR is compr i sed of a modal split that is initially ti l ted in favor of transit use r i deshare use or is mode neutral. Using the table below, determine whether site is "mode neutral", "transit heavy" or rideshare heavy" LowDonsity Regional CBD Sub\lrb Activity C6ftter AVA .. 1 ... ,.c' C1.35 . ,. . ., . : .1.'90\'' AVO 1.0 5 1.20 1.35 Mode Ne v tra J AVR 1 EV AVA 2 EV A VA 3 EV AVO= 1.02 1 .04 1.04 transh Heavy" AVR 1 TR AVA 2 TR AVA 3 TA AVO 1.10 1.24 1.60 Rldeshare Heavy AVA 1 CP AVA 2 CP AVA 3 CP


Step3 Step4 For Transit: Level1: Level2: Level3: Level 4 : Determine Regulatory Environment, i.e., whether employers would be implementing these efforts under Mandatory or Voluntary conditions. "Mandatory" represents an environment where em ployers are compelled to make good faith efforts by law "Voluntary" represents an environment where em ployers are simply requeSted to participate The "Fu ll Participation category represents an ideal environment where all employers would part icip ate T his scenario represents the theoret i ca l upper limit. Determi n e Level of Employer Support for each mode, using the following descriptions. Provision of a transtt information oenter on site, plus a 114-time transportation coordinator. Level1 plus adoption of a policy of schedule flexibility to attow employees to synchronize work schedules with transit schedules. Level 2 p lus provision of on-site transi t pass sales (does not include e mployer discou ntin g o f transit fare), and increase in the effort of the transportation coon:l lnator to part-time Level 3 p lu s adoption of a guaranteed ri de home program, and provision of a full-time transportation coordinator MAKI N G TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 4-25


MKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 4-26 For Carpool : Level1: Level2: Level3: Level4: Provision of information on carpooling opportunities (tied in with area-wide matching efforts) and general promotion of carpooling on-s ite, plus a 114-time transportation coordinator. Level 1 plus In-house carpool matching services and/or person alized carpool get-togethers (e.g., Zipcode Parties). Level2 plus preferential parking privileges for carpools (re served, enclosed, or particularly convenient) adoption of a policy of work-hours flexibility to allow employees to con form to carpool schedules, and an increase in the effort of the transpor tation coordinator to part-time. Level 3 plus adoption of a guaranteed ride home program, and provision of a full-time transportation coordinator. For Vanpool: Level1: Level2: Level3: Level4: Provision of information on van pooling opportunities (tied i n with area-wide matching efforts and/or third-party vanpools) plus a 1/4-time transportation coordinator. Level 1 plus in-ho use vanpool matching services and/or person alized vanpool candidate get-togethers (e.g . Zipcode Parties), plus non-monetary vanpool development activities, and adoption of a policy of work-hour flexi bility to allow employees to conform to vanpool schedules Level 2 plus offering financial assistance to vanpool deve lop ment, inc luding vehicle purchase loan guarantees, consolidated purchase of insurance (or self-insurance), start-up subsidy (generally at least two forms of financial assistance), and additional assistance such as van washing and preferential parking privileges for vanpools (reserved enclosed, or particu !arty convenient), plus an i ncrease i n the effort of the transporta tion coordinator to part-time. Level 3 plus adoption of a guaranteed ride h ome program. major financial assistance such as employer purchase of vehicles with favorable leas eback employer-supplied maintenance, fuel or insurance or empty-seat subsidies, plus p rov isio n of a full-time transportation Coordinator.


StepS Determine Vehicle Trip Reduction from the follow ing tab les based on the earl ier steps and specific requ i rements or assumptions for the individual strat egy Transit Service Improvements Improving transit service or reducing Its time of travel for the user, therefore Involves lhe follow ing measures to overcome or reduce the impacts of these disad vantages Oirect Routing to e li m i nate circuitous travel paths ; B roader Coverage to reduce the imped i ments to accessing the serv i ce by bri n g in g the serv ice closer to home and / o r des ti nation ; More Frequent Service to reduce the wait imposed by schedule on the user; and Travel on High Qccypancy Vehicle Facilities to give the traveler an en-route travel time advantage over mixed traffic. Generally Table 3.3-4, Transit Service I mprovements, shows o Transit service improvements that reduce Out -ofVehicle travel time are clearly much more effective in attracting r i dersh i p than In-Vehicle improvements o T ransit improvements of eithe r typeOVT or lVI-are not very effective i n suburban areas defined as those l ocations wher e Average Veh i cle Ridership i s 1.20 o r l ess. It woul d take substantial service offerings to begin to compete with the private single occupant vehicle (SOV}, the difficulty of providing which is compounded by the sprawled low density nature of suburban environment. o Transit is primarily an important strategy in activity centers, corridors and downtowns, (AVR of more than 1 20), and because of the cost of providing transit service, is best conce i ved as targeted service improvements to key concen trated market segments MAKI N G TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMU N ITY 4-27


.... I N 00 Table 3 3 1 Employ e r Support of Tran sit Teble Sho Percent Vehicl e Trip Reduction A VR ' :; siiirilng .. ... .. Setting .. , : Mode Shilres : ... ,,:;,x ... ..... " .AvR :til iii> '}-, of. f;upport : .; f ... 2 :-AVA! CP 1.1 3 79. 5 0 5 18. 3 1.7 AVR1EV, 1 1 3 85. 0 7 0 AVRi TR 1.13 86. 6 9.0 7 3 0 7 4.1 0.3 0 2 0 5 1.5 2.0 0 2 0 5 1.6 2.2 0.2 0.5 1.6 2.2 AVR2 CP I 1.35 60. 2 5.0 31.2 3.6 I 0.2 66. 2 16.0 1 6 1 1.71 0 2 AVR2 TR 1.35 73. 7 25. 0 1.1 0 2 0 3 AVR3 CP 1 .90 30.7 10.0 53.1 6 .2 0.2 AVR3 E V 1.90 41.3 30. 0 25.8 2.9 0.3 AVR3 TR 1.90 50. 8 4 5 0 3 8 0 4 0 4 0.5 1.6 2.1 0 6 1.8 2 4 0.7 2 0 2 7 0 6 1 7 2. 2 0.7 2 1 2.9 0.9 2 7 3 6 Mriiiillor ' ' I 0 '' ' '' : .I.e 'vel of Supporiil-ii Level qf '' ' '' ,. t CJ<,< .. ... > 4 2 3 4 _,_, ,. .. ,., .> " 0 2 0 5 1.4 1 8 0.0 0 1 0 3 0.4 0 2 0 5 1 5 2 0 0.0 0 1 0 3 0 .4 0 .2 0 5 1.5 2 0 0.0 0.1 0 3 0.5 0 2 0 2 0 2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0 5 0 6 0.5 0 6 0 8 1. 4 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.9 2.5 1.9 2 2 2 4 2.0 2.6 3.3 0 0 0 1 0.3 0.4 0 0 0 1 0.4 0 5 0 1 o 1 0 4 0 5 0.0 0.1 0 3 0.5 0 1 0.1 0 4 0.6 0 1 0.2 0.6 0.7 --o2S cz ;nG) o a :Z:;n


Table 3.3-2 Employer Support of C a rpooling Tab l e Shows Percent Vehicle T rip Reduct ion AVR .. . ::sf81't/ng . Maximum-Participation MandatofY Participation. _;.Voluntary Participation .. .. .. ... ... ... t : ( , ' ''' $ I#' ', r ."f{ff!f. 'ir{tilvel or:siiPP.oitFF P.I L tiv,el of..'Supp'or tt:t!l- Set '"9. i.:::,-:r: : .. .. : . o s):shsrs ... s .. ::. ...:: ..... .'.,: > : ;tv } ) .. .. t ....... 'l'"" )) l ' AVR oAr n --'''CP'ft:-v p . 2 .. ' :! ' ' , I '.!t t'" :,; : . = ..... Y,J ,': ,,. 2 '. 3' ''4 '-' .\ . ,, . . . . AVR1 CP 1 .13 79.5 0.5 18. 3 1 7 0.2 0.5 1. 4 2.8 0 2 0 4 1.7 2.6 0 0 1 0.4 0 6 AVR1 EV 1.13 85 7 7 3 0.7 0 2 0.4 1. 7 2.6 0.2 0 4 1.6 2.3 0 0.1 0.4 0 5 AVR1 TR 1.13 86.6 9 4.1 0 3 0 2 0.4 1. 7 2 6 0.2 0 4 1.6 2.4 0 0.1 0 4 0.5 \ . 1 .35 60.2 5 31. 2 3 6 0.2 0 5 2 3 0 2 0 5 1 8 2.7 0 0 1 0 4 0 6 .J),!. 16 2.1 0.1 0.3 1.3 1.9 0 0 1 0 3 0 4 AVR? 1.35 66. 2 16. 1 1.7 0.1 0.4 1.4 ... 25 0.2 0.2 0.4 2 6 0 2 0.4 1. 6 2.4 0 0 1 0 4 0.5 i AV62TR 1.35 73. 7 1 .1 1 7 ... ". . 1.9 .30.7 10 53. 1 6 2 0.2 0.4 1.6 2.4 0 2 0.4 1.5 2 2 0 0.1 0 3 0 5 AVR3 :EV 1.9 41.3 30 25. 8 2 9 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.2 0.1 0 2 0 7 1.1 0 0 0.2 0 2 ,., .. .;.'1"'' .... AVR3 -tR 1.9 50.8 45 3.8 0.4 0 0.1 0 4 0.5 0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0 0 0.1 0 1 ---------------:;:: zl> I c z ;oGl N o -1 oo :;:::;:: '() Z;o ::;!"'


Oz I ;G> V-1 o-< oo 0 Z;;o Table 3 3-3 E mp l o y er S up p o rt of V anpooling ........... ..... .............. .. ---.. ............... ._. . v. ,..,. ' A Pnldoiion : VoluntiiN P11rticio11tion AVR .: ,, St111tifl(l . Muim ; lb AVA2 CP. 1.35 60. 2 5 0 31.2 3.6 0.4 0 9 4.6 7.3 0 .3 0 8 4 I 6.6 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.5 AvR'2 evi 1.35 66.2 16.0 I 6. I 1 7 0 4 0.9 4 5 7.1 0 3 0 8 4 I 6.5 0. I 0.2 0 9 1.5 k"' .h.vii2 iR 1.35 73 7 25.0 1 1 0 2 0.4 0.9 4 4 7.0 0 3 0.8 4.0 6.4 0.1 0.2 0 9 1.4 . AVR3 CP 1.90 30.7 10.0 53.1 6 2 0.4 0 9 4.7 7 5 0 3 0.9 4 3 6 8 0 I 0.2 1 0 1 5 AVR3 EV 1.90 41.3 30. 0 25.8 2.9 0.4 0 9 4.5 7 2 0 3 0 8 4 1 6 5 0. I 0 2 0 9 1.5 AVR3TA 1.90 50.8 45. 0 3 8 0.4 0.4 0.9 4 4 7 0 0 3 0 8 4.0 6 4 0.1 0 2 0 9 1 4


1.3 5 1.$ 1 9 1.9 73..7 30. 7 -4\.S so. a 88.6 60. 2 68.2 7 3 7 30. 7 41.3 so.e 25 10 3 0 7 9 1S 2 5 10 30 4 6 Tabl e 3 .3-4 Translt Service Impro v ements In Vehicle Time Savings 1 1 63. 1 2:5.8 ... 0.2 6.2 2.9 o. 0 0.1 0 2 2.5 0 0 4 0 5 0 1 0.3 0.3 0.8 o s 1.3 0. 2 0 .5 o t 1.s O t 2 3 0 1 0. 7 0 $ 0.5 1.7 1 6 1 3 .1 4 5 7. to .tz 16 : 2 o ,\: 0 1 0 1 0.1 0.2 0 .2 u 1. 5 1.9 2 4 3 .3 2 2 5 3.' 4.2 o.e 1 .1 1.4 1 7 1 4 2.1 3.4 4 3 a a 7.3 3.9 5 2 & 8 10.1 1.6 2 2 2.8 3.4 4.7 6 ..2 7.9 1.1 12.1 5.1 9 1 1 1.3 13.6 18.1 Out-of Vehicl e Time Saving s 7 3 4 1 31.2 1&.1 1 1 5 -3.1 2 S.8 3 8 v 1.7 0 7 0.3 3 6 1.7 0 2 0.2 2 9 0. 4 0 0 3 0 .4 0.2 0. 8 1.2 ,., I ,, .. --; ... s 2.s ).6 td u 1 6 .:10 0 1 0.1 0..2 0 3 0..4 0 5 0.1 0.9 1.9 3 1 4 .3 5 7 7.S 10.7 1. 2 2.s 3 t s.& 1 2 1 a 0 7 2.1 3.2 1.3 3.8 5 7 1.4 4 3 8.& 2 2 3.1 4 ,2 5 3 '' a . e t 4 12.2 16.2 2 1. 6 10. 1 14 17.8 21.8 3 0 2.8 4 4 6 1 8 10 7 9 n 1 6 3 2 0 7 25. 1 3 4 1L3 17 22.6 28. 1 33. 5 4 3 1 MAKING TOM WOR K I N YOUR COMM U NITY 4 .. 31


AAKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 4-32 HOV Priority Lanes provide en-route t i me savings that will benefit users of both transit and rideshare modes. This time savings can be in the form of an HOV lane on a highway, a system of HOV lanes, and priority treatment at ramps and interchanges. The issues important in quantifying the vehicle trip reduction benefrt received from HOV facilities include: Time Sayed i n comparison to the usual trip. Beneficiaries of the Savings, whether the HOV facility permits on ly transit vehicles or transit and carpools/vanpools Minimum Number Per Pool, whether carpools of 2, 3 or 4+ people are allowed to use the HOV facility. Generally, Table 3.3-5, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes shows: o In a low or medium AVR environment, the greatest reductions in vehic l e trips occur when the occupancy restriction is kept at the minimum, i.e., HOV 2 or greater. Setting the restriction higher results in fewer people using the lane, and less impact. o In high AVR env i ronments, where there is already an appreciable level of transit use, setting the occupancy restriction at a higher level (HOV 3+ or HOV 4+) results in more vehicle trip reductions. o Provision oftime savings to all high-occupancy ve hicle travelers produces a greated impact on vehicle trip reduction than with transit service improvements.


Table 3.3-5 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOVI Lanes 1. 0 0.6 0.4 1. 7 1 1 0 6 AWU.C, 1 9 AlnU,fV 1.3 Awr.t .TA 1.0 .' . S'hows Perc.ent Vehlcle Trip R ed uction 2.7 u 1. 1 ... 2.7 1.1 4.7 3 3 2 4 ':' : Awua A \;'II TJ! .. \ Alill2 C.O A'llf11R AVIQCP A-EV AVR.tnt S 7 3.2 2.3 .., 6.6 3.0 9 0 8.0 6.1 3.7 13.4 8.6 4 6 12.7 7.3 10 12.5 7..3 5.3 17.6 11. 7 '-3 16. 8 12.1 TirM S.vlfJo, It !tMdU i't lrfft. 1 ,,6 a '' ro .. 0.2 o.s 0.3 0.7 0.3 0 7 1.0 2.$ 0.6 1.4 0 6 1 4 1.8 4 7 1.2 3.2 1. 0 2.4 A ... Snffl# AVA1 CP AVIU EV A\IR.1'TA AVJI2(V AVJU lA AVR1CI' AVfta rv AVFI3 TR 1.5 2.1 1. 6 2 4 1 A z.3 9.0 2.9 4.7 2 9 4 . 6 14. 7 10.2 4 9 7 4 3.7 3 4 3.2 12 . 8 6.6 6 1 19.6 13.9 ... r..w ltTr.,.,il?,;, Mit. 2.1 s 7. 5 to 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 7 0.6 o s 1. 4 1.1 1 0 0.6 1. 3 0 6 1..3 o e 1.3 1.9 4.3 1.3 2 8 1.4 2.8 3.7 7.8 2 8 5 9 2.2 3 3 2.1 3 0 2.0 2. 8 7.0 10. 1 .... t.:J 4.3 5.8 12.3 17.0 9 1 12 6 7.3 MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 4-33


lAK ING TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY .. 34 PTeferentia l Parking for HOVa is another way t o prov ide t i me savings to users of high-occupancy vehicles by providing specia l parking priv i leges at t he work site. Though parking located closer to the entrance to the building may decrease some of the out-of vehicle time the difference in the time savings is minute The issues of importance are : HOV Time Sav ings resulting from a parking loca tion closer to the entrance. soy Time Penalty result i ng from HOV parking being placed closer to the entra nce. The largest ve hic le t rip r educt i ons due to preferent i a l park i ng occur in the med ium AVR environment. The lowest reductions appear in the low A VR environment. In the high AVR environment and its high level of transit use preferential parking may contribute t o a shift from transit to carpools and vanpools. Large reductions in vehicle trips may be possible if HOV users were given access to on-site parking but SOV commuters would be req uired to park off site and the resulting time differential would be large.


.-.uoung Jor n tgn uccupancy Vehicles (HOVsl Tbte S hows P t r c ent V .rt ld Trio Ftocfuctlon ,.,..,. ... .-: . . . ...,. .. .,._. '. S.,,i,;..;.,;. 0.;;...;... . ;: AvR . Sov t mftltts ..._ .. :' .. . > . . .., ' .' . .. : ...... : t : . ., . : ,,. '.:.; H{JV TlnN (m/nute l.l .. HOV 71miJ fm/nuful ,:;. ':i\: 1o., 3 & to .. 4 ..... . 0 ..... 3 . 5 10 AVRIEV o.o 0 2 0.7 1 3 2. 7 AWfiEV o s 0 1 1 1.9 3 . i.wc AVR2CV 0 0 O.G u 2.6 6.7 MAX AVR2EV 1 3 1.9 2 9 3 9 AVR3V o o OA 1.0 1.8 3. 8 AV1t3 EV 1.8 2 2 2 8 3.6 5 4 AVRIEV o.o 0 2 0.7 1 2 5 AV1tl EV 0 6 o a 1.3 1.7 3 1 MAN A VR2tv o.o 0.4 1 5 2 5 6. 1 MAN AVR2V 1.% 1.8 2.6 3.6 6 3 AVIf3EV 0 0 0.4 0.0 1.6 3 4 AVIUEV 2.0 2.6 3.2 4.8 AVRIEV o.o 0 0 o.o 0.0 0 1 AVIU EV 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0 1 VOL AVR2lV 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 VOL AVRZlV o.o 0 1 0.1 0.1 0.3 A\I'R3tV 0 0 0.0 0.0 o o 0 2 A111UEV 0.0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 2 hi'fkf. !""..,. atJOn AVR' = [Potion' AVR sov AMattv 5 mlnutu Sft .... . . ._ . . . .. . . HOV Tlml s.w'_.,.,J' HOV nm. Sl'ii<1pl .. .. 0 t 3 6 : tO 0 t 3 5 to AVRI tV 1 8 2.0 2 6 3.2 AVR1 fN 3.2 3.4 4 0 4 6 8.3 MAX AI/R2lV 3 <.5 s.s 6.6 9 3 MAX AIIIUEV 7 1 8 2 9 2 u e A\1Jt3tv & 5 6 6.2 8.8 8.6 A VR3 fV 8.8 9.3 9 7 10.1 11 3 AVRt IV 1.7 1.9 2 4 2.8 ..... AVR1lV u 3.1 3.8 4 . 5 5.7 MAN Alllt2lV 3.8 4.1 5.0 e o u MAN AVR2EV 8 0 &A 7 3 8 3 10.S AVIl3 EV s.o 5.2 5.6 6.2 7 6 AVR3EV 8.0 8.2 8.7 9.3 \0. 3 AVRilV 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 AVIU tV 0 1 0. 1 0 1 o.2 0.2 """ AVR2EV 0.1 0.1 0.3 0 3 0 4 AVR2Y 0.3 0 3 0 3 0.4 ... ... AVR3EV 0.2 0 2 0. 2 0 2 0 4 .. AVA3 E V 0 4 o 0.4 0.4 0.4 ............. MAX = Mllxlnun MAH MlrMtltory VOl. v Oz I ;G> t,..l ocJ V1 z:o


lAKING TOM WORK CO MMUNITY l36 T ravel Cost Incentives can be offe r ed commuters i n t h e fonn of carpoo l, van poo l, or tra n s it subsid ies t o reduce th e cost of trav e l and favor no n -SOV modes Transit Subsidieli may be offered in the fonn of reduced fares or employee subsidies HOY Subsidies are considered to be offered to all HOV users including vanpoolers and members of carpools. HOV subsidies seem to have about the same impact as Transit Subsidies in the low AVR setting but progressively less in sett i ngs where transit i s in greater exi sting use The decl ine i n effectiv e ness i n the high A VR sett ing occ urs if subsid i es are offered on l y to HOV u sers and riders are t aken out of transit SOV Surcharges a r e the most effective s i ng l e TOM strategy for reducing veh i cle trips by d i vert in g commuters from the SOV i s the surcharge This i s because the surcharge pushes" some peop l e out of the SOV mode rather than "pulling" them to non-SOV modes through the use of incent i ves or subsidies. Other observations include: o In the low AVR case progressive Increases in subs i dies and surcharges continue to produce increas e s in vehicle trip reduction except that at SOV surcharge levels of $3 or greater the applicat i on of subsidy and surc h arge resu lt s in a d i min i sh ing return in t r ip r educ tion o In the med i um A VR case tri p reductio n be n e fi t s i ncrease w ith each added applicatio n of subs idy/ surcharge, though at an increasingly decl i ning rate as higher levels of subsidy/surcharge are applied At the highest leve l of surcharge ($4 ). any i ncreases In subsidy beyond $3 meet with no further gains in trip reduction o In the high AVR case all surcharge/subsidy applica tions result in an increase in trip reduction but at an ever declin ing rate At the $3 and S4 levels of s u r c h arg e inc r eases in subsidy have little or no addi t i ona l tr i p r educt i on i mpact


Table 3.3-7 Effects of Subsidies and Su rcharg es Table Shows Percent Vehicl e Tri p R educt lon IA:v.r:.:c. .. idr ....... . . ;, . -:. . .. '14 v . ::-;! .. :; : : : f4W.i'c.o 0 1 0.2 0.6 1 9 f.\,liliiv: 1.6 3.3 7 9 21.7 2..0 4.2 9 9 23.2 '1 ..... .. l>" .. .. 'llfiCP' 1.1 2.4 $.8 16.5 3 4 7.3 16.4 38.7 fhl i TR 6.2 10.9 23.6 4 9 7 AVR3CP 2..2 4.7 10.9 28. 3 AVR3EV 8.2 12 9 26. 9 54. 3 A yR3 TR 9. 1 18., n 5 64,0 '. ... AVR ... Dally HDV ,hr Subsidy SertMg :$1 $2 .$3 .. : < .. AVRI CP 5.6 12..6 20.2 27 6 AVRrtv 2.6 6 1 11.0 17, 0 AVRI TR. 1.4 3.6 6 8 11.1 A\o'l'I'2CP 8.4 17.0 24.9 31.4 AV1l2 EV 4.1 9.4 1!5.3 21.3 AVR2 TR 0.6 1.2 2.4 4 3 AVRSCP 8 1 14.7 19. 6 23.0 AVR3EV 3.9 8 1 2.3 15.9 AVR37R 0.5 1.2 2 3 3 8 AVR Dlily SOV Setting 12 13 AVRt CP 6.9 13.1 2 1 0 AVRt EV 6.6 15.1 25.3 AVR1 TR 6 7 16.7 26.7 .. j.AVR.2 CP 10.8 2 1.4 30.7 AVR2EV 12.3 2.6.1 37. 0 JAVR2 TR 14.3 30.5 41$.8 AVR3CP 12.4 2 1.7 28.2 AVR3EV l?.S 31.8 42.6 AVR3TR 22. 5 42. 6 58 7 C.orpool 1 Vanoool ontv .. ,. 2 8 .8 36.1 38.8 37.9 46.8 61.4 32.& 50. 0 70 6 MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 4-37


AAKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY -38 Table 3.3-8 HOV!Transit Subsidies and SOV Surcharges (Daily Per Capita) Table Shows Percent Vehicle Trip ReduC'Iion ..... HOV6 l(i AVR ifOV 6 ffWWir 'I -..,._ ....... sov 10 11 ,. 10 11 4> ,. AVJII'I C/1 0.0 :J, 1 21. 0 .ae.e A\l'lllltl', '' \),0 2.0.1 Zl. t .... AWI'IEV 1 21. 2 l)l-.1 A\tR1V 13, 1 .... .... 44 . 6 A VIti. Tit ' 11.? 21. 7 )l. t t.A\1'1111 Tilt 14.1 2 )1. 0 .... A Wit C'1' ... 21 4 ... )1. t :AVS12 CP 10.1 2 0.1 >0.0 '2 4 ...... v 26. 1 ..... .... .... ""2 EV .... ... .... S2., ) ..... ,. .... .... .... . .... J1,2 .. ... ,o. ......... ... n:. 2 1 J ... ... AVIU Cf' "" .. . "" .... .... ... n s .U. t .... AV11S IV .... ... ..... , .. .. ..., "' ... .... .... ,., ,... ..... ,. .. .... .... .... ,.. . .. ... l2 -.SCWSloawpoo 10 II .. ... u AVIIIICf' 1), 0 ,.,. 21, 4 .... .... A ""trv 12.? 22.4 32.t 4.2. 1 $1,$ """" '"' u 22. 1 ... 40.1 56.5 AVIU. CP 20 1 111.3 30.0 "'' 4$,4 AVIU: IV 21.2 3>.0 .... .... "' 2.4.0 .a.o. s 55.8 ... 18.) AVIIUCP lt. t 20.2 ... 33. 0 35.) .AVIUIV 21.-!1 31.5 4.5.4 !50.7 ... -"' ... .... ... t l l .... NOV TIWM!It ...... U .... IJV .t. r,._;, 1 4 -SOVAnh .. - 11 13 u 10 11 13 A\IJtiC/1 ... H.3 .... ... .... AWWICI' ... ... , ... ..... .... AVItt IV 2:1..0 )1.3 ' .... .... A"" EV ... .. . .... .... .... AVJ!tt nt 2:1. 1 .U. I .... .... .... A VIti nt )0, $ .... 11.0 .. .. 01.4 .... CI' :tt. l 30.0 4 1 2 ... .... ..... Cl' ''' ..... .... ... ........ 31.1 .. .. ,. ... ..... I'V 3t.3 47.0 u s ... .. . l7.l .... ... '' .... AVJII: 71f .... ., .. '" 12. 17. 7 AVJUC' 15.3 Jt, t 32. t ,.., '' A liM C,. 2t. O '"" ,,, , ... 3 5 5 AVNIV 3&. 0 43. . $ n o A"" IV ... u &0. 0 .,., 53-. 7 AVRJ TR ea.t u e "' 13.1 ........ 00. 0 70.11 n.7 1'2 3


COST EFFECTIVENESS MEASU RE : COST PER PASSENGER TRIP The cost per trip reduced and other efficiency factors are useful for comparing progress from one year to the next or measuring against other TOM programs. Another measure is TOM program cost effective relative to other alternatives such as the cost to add highway capacity or p roviding other forms of transit service The operating expense per unlinked passenger trip Is one perfor mance measure used by the transit ind ustry to m easu r e cost effec tiveness. A comparable measure can be estimated for T OM programs to provide a low cost b asis for planners and funders to quickly evaluate the cost effectiveness of TOM programs By converting the TOM program results of placing people into nonsingle occupant vehicle modes to passenger trips and allocating the costs of the programs t o those units these parties will have a basis of comparison of TOM programs to other t ransit alternatives. H owever, a cautionary note is required. Clearly. there are significant martset differences between transit and TOM programs and Ibis sketch planning tool should not be the sole basis used for allocating funds, Furthermore there are several issues to be resolved ; some of the issues reduce or incre ase the comparable transit cost. Unlike TOM programs transit agencies offset some of their costs through the collection of passenger revenue. Compar ing the operating costs would clearly give the misleading impression that the bus average cost per trip of $1.82 is significantly less cost effective than TOM programs. The exclusion of some forms of re venue (e.g., passenger fares) for transit appears to provide a reasonable basis for comparison. As an alternative planners or fund ing agencies might treat only the State a nd Federal grant shares for trans i t as a comparative standard Other issues are the excl usion of capital cost depreciation for transit and the fact that unlinked passenger trips overstate the number of person trip s from origin to u ltimat e destination by exclud i ng transfer. Accounting for these i ssues would increase the cost MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COM MUNITY 4-39


TOM WORK YOUR C OMM U N ITY l-40 basis for transit Another issue i s th e durat i on rate for poo l formation T he i nvest ment" in the people placed i nto a pool or bus should be allo c ated over the l ife of that pool regardless of the reporting period Number of customers: Number of different commuters who have used the TO M agency's services over the reporting period. Usually, this is not the same as the tota l number of customers in the database as some of them may have been registered with the TOM program for longer than the reporting peri od Placement Rate : Percentage of customers who form a pool or ride transit as a direct or indirect result of the TOM program s efforts The placement rate may be determ i ned from surveys o f the customers There are three types of placement rates to be identified : custome r direct placement rate ; customer i ndirect placement rate ; and genera l public i ndirect placement rate The direct placement rate focuses on those customers who change their travel behavior as a direct result of a TOM program or ser vice. The customer indirect placement rate refers to those who change travel behavior but do not attribute the change to a spe cific service. The remaining group, the general public jodjrect placement rate, refers to those who are affected by marketing of the program or take advantage of a service {e.g. use a new bikepath} that never make direct contact with the TOM program Fr eque ncy: Average number of days per week a person placed i nto a pool or on a bus act u ally uses this mode to commute TOM programs a lso sho uld strive to increase the frequency of use of these options Duratio n : The average life of the carpoo l for examp l e may be shorter or longe r than the funding period Some stud ies report a carpool duration average of two years. Including pool duration as an important variable In the effectiveness equation also recog nizes the need and funding required to maintain existing pools and bus ridership.


EXAMPLE : TOM, Inc., a non profit 1'11hnagement organ izatio n with a budget of $100,000 serv ed 2,500 com m ute rs i n 1994. Rese arch fo und that 15 perce n t o f the se commuters w ere p l aced i n to a n o n-SOV mode. T h ese commu t ers used these op tions an average of 3 times per week. Additional research found that commuters only remained in this a rrangement for 6 months. Based on this information TOM Inc.'s cost per passenger trip is $1.71, one w ay cost per passenger trip c $100 000/(2,500 commuters x 15% x 3 days per week x 2 trips per day x 52 weeks per year x 0.5 yea r dur at ion) Ope r ating Expen s e Per U nlinked Passenger T rip by Mode 1 988-1992 MODE Bus Heavy Rail Commuter Rail Light Ra!l Deman d Re s po nse 1 988 $ 1 .43 1 .53 5 17 1 .29 7 .03 1989 1 47 1 .46 5.54 1 30 7.53 1990 1 56 1.63 5.87 1.36 8.53 1991 1 .65 1 n 6 .01 1 58 9.47 1992 1 .82 1.61 6 92 1 .64 11.03 Source: Natio nal Transit S u mmaries and Trends: F rom t he 1992 Natio nal T r a nsi t Database MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 4-41


this page IS blank


TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS MODULE GOALS 1. To introduce transit friendly land use designs. 2. To understand the rel ationship between land use and transpor tation. 3 To provide the knowledge to rev i ew site plans for transit, bicycle and p edestrian access ASSUMPTIONS 1. Participants have a bas i c know l edge of plann ing . 2. A picture is worth a thousand words 3. Future development must be transit friendly. I PERCENTAGE OF TRIPS AND AVERAGE TRAVEL DISTANCES 1. Shopping, religious and education 2. Services and personal business 3. Social and recreational 4. Work and rel ated activities 24% 5 miles 15% 7.7 miles 20% 1 0. 7 miles 33% 1 0.6 miles WHERE DO DOWNTOWN WORKERS GO DURING LUNCH? 1. 2. 3. 4. IMPORTANT RIDESHARE INCE NTIVES FOR EMPLOYEES 1 Lunchtime shutt l es 2. Employee cafeteria 3 On-site childcare 4 Other on-s ite services MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNIT't 5 .. 1


MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 5-2 TEN REASONS WHY NEW COMMUNITIES ARE BETTER: 1. Recreational facilities 2. Organization of land uses 3. Attractiveness of community 4. Street design 5. Shopping facilities 6. Open space/lack of crowding 7. Preservation of natural features 8. Schools 9 Social programs 10. Variety of housing types 27% 25% 16% 16% 15% 15% 14% 12% 5% 3% WHY OUR COMMUNITIES ARE NOT PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY : 1. A quarter mile walk takes the average person five minutes. 2. Conventional zoning isolates uses and discourages easy flow. 3. Many streets are not designed to accomodate foot traffic. 4. Most blocks are too long, or do not have sidewalks. 5. The average household averages 14 auto trips per day. 6. Residential streets are subjected to higher spee d design standards. -Broad turning radii -Gradua l curves -Lane widths 12 feet or greater THE EDICTS OF ANDRES DUANY


-f' ... ot7tON A L Source : Andres Duony ond :Eliznbeth Pl:>ler-Zyberk Neighborhood Design," Minmi, Floridn, December 1991. 1 Reduce Infrastructure costs through clustering 2. Preserve natural space. 3 Facilitate pedestrian and recreational activity. 4. Improve connectivity. 5 Provide multiple paths. MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNil 5


M AKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMM U NI TY 5-4 NEOTRAD ITI O N A L TOWN DE SIG N LINKED VE R SUS SINGLE P URPOSE TRI PS CSD: SINGLE PURPOs.E T1UPS LlNKEJ? TRIPS 19 '"' I I 31 COU.IC'l'OII 51 cl I I I I I ' oRJclNiom'""nok ,.L SHOPPING, Sfi!VICfS A 'h. --< / I .......... I --' 1 -. I Source: W3Uer Kutnsh. Town De$lg n -WHI the Traffic: Work? AICP Workshop on Neotr:ulitionnl .Town Pl:annjng, 1991. 1 No street hierarchy. 2 Street comers as commercial enclaves 3 Linked trips. Comparison o f travel speeds and travel times Trip Convent i onal Neotradilional Purpose Suburban Design Design Home-Shop 21 mph, 3.1 minutes 13 mph, 2. 7 minutes Home-Office 23 mph, 4.6 minutes 10 mph, 4.8 minutes Home-School 21 mph, 3.7 minutes 13 mph, 2.8 minutes THE V ILLAGE CLU S T E R DES I G N FEATUR E S


0 .... . . . .. . ------....... ..... 0 0 0. . . . . . . . . . 1. Transit routes on collectors not arterials . ....... 2. Each neighborhood has variety of hous ing types 3. Community centers provide services for all 4 Pedestrian movement is easiest. 5. Village center has services that require highest vo lum e of people. MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 5-5


MAK ING TOM W ORK I N YOUR COMMUN ITY 5-6 CAL THORPE DES I GNS : Souree.: Ca.ltborp e .,.1'2risit-Orient e d Denlopmcnt Design Guidelines, Prepared for tbe Couaty und Community Dudoptnent Oep::.rtment, Novembfr 1990.


. \ . . . ,)/<4 .. ---lJf.... . . .... . . . . . .... . . . StcorMlary Aru ; ourc:e;: C.Jchorpc Om:lonmMIDcije;o Guideline,s, Frcp:arc.d ror the Sacramento County and Dcvdo(lment Ncwcn.1bet 1990. 1 Everything relies on hierarchy of transit 2 Communities/neighborhoods served by bus, connected to r a il. 3. Bus stops as neighborhood centers. 4 Rail stops as activity centers 5 Outlying areas served by park and ride at end of busline 6 Higher densities within quarter mile of stops. 7. M aximum distance to transit stop is one mile. 8. Neighborhood centers have commercia l and office on arterial. 9. Transit stops off arterial and integrated with parks. 10 High densities which support transit. MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNITY s .. J


1AKING TOM WORK II YOUR COMMUNITY 5-8 TRANSIT CORRIDOR DISTRICTS GENERAL LOCATION OF TRANSIT CORRIDOR DISTRICTS Arterial Street Tr.anslt Sections of Corrldof ..... CONTROL OF UIROUGH AUTO TRAFFIC Soonn: Etlvr:ud Delmltotn tl A Trllntil Oillted ApprO:II(b lo Use Duign,4 Pftpu pn-scn ted AI Ill 7JJI AIUIII!II Mccllr!J, T':llliSJIOrfillllOit RU-c-.flfdl Do11n1 jiUUllllty 12, 1,1, ..... ..... .... .. Sourc: lhrvty Jbbinowlt1 ond Dchnborn, The New SnbndJ (Wo.sblncton ; D.C.: Ornce o f TcduiiUI Aulstonce, Urtlao Mos.t T,nsporl.111i01:1: Administration, July J991). 1. Special travel corridors designed to provide transit time savings. 2. Non-HOV vehicles proh i bited from sections of roadway. 3. Arterials remain as i s for autos only. 4. Transit stop reoriented to special corridors. 5 Transit way is surrounded by higher density housing. 6. Commercial uses linked to transit stops.


TRANSIT SENSITIVE SUBURBAN LAND USE DESIGN TRANSIT-RELATED DEVELOPMENT AUTOMOBILE-RELATED DEVELOPMENT . So11rcu ldwoNI Belmhorn find }bney Roltlnwltr, O u!de!htM (Qt l)pnaJ! 8rnllliu J.ood Usr fk:SjD (WIIiltllnJIOII, D.C.: Orne. of 'J\Jc:l1nlcnl Aulltonu, UrhAn Mns.s1'rnnJiortnllnn Admln lrtrollon1 July tftl). 1. Restricted through travel. 2. Pedestrian protection. 3. Parking on-street and behind buildings. 4. Buildings oriented to street. 5. Human scale. 6. Auto given lower priority than pedestrians. 7. Park and walk v. drive, park and drive TRANSIT DESIGN GUIDELINES land Use Type Residential Commercial Office Industrial Min i mum Size 2,400 dwelling units 375,000 square feet 150 000 square feet 1,400 ,000 square feet ... MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNm 5-9


M KING TO M W ORK COMMU N ITY 5-10 TRAN S I T A CCESS STAN D ARD S TURNOUT BAY ,._,sn&T D L + + + :so'RMIH J ,. II :IS'JWMUS '\. CULDESAC 52.5' RADIUS ..,. ....... TH E B E LM O NT C A SE : N EOTRAD I T I O NA L V. LAND U SE LAWS . . . " . ... ...... _,. .. _ _.._ = ..... _.._ .. : f -----. \ : ... .. 1-: .... I . .. \ +--r-----. ._ \ i I .( !l--: : .. -; t I I I / -i ---


The neotradltional desi gn 1. Variable paths to choos e from. 2. Mixing of uses 3. Reduced number of higher speed roadways 4 Provision of many types of uses The req ui red des i gn variances: Featu re VDOT Standard Variance reques ted Design speed Lands c a ping Streets 35-45 mph 20-35 mph Not allowed in ROW Within ROW 12 fee t 1 0 feet ROW Width On-street parking 40 90 feet+ side walks 34-70 incl. side walk Yes-R emove d as Needed Yes-Perman ent ' .. ' . I \ .. ______ ... ..... The refined Belmont design 1. L ots of cul-de.saos 2. Segregation of uses 3. Serv i ces only on arteria l 4. More high spe ed s treets 5 Cleared right-of-way 6 Loss o f character == ....... --------.. c .. 9 I f / / d I MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNm 5-11


MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 5-12 SITE PLANNING ALTERNATIVES ... J I r;:----------1 I @A -. Source: EdW.rd.'Beimborn and Ha,.ey Guideljnes for Transit Sensitive Suburban Land Use DesjgD(Wasbington, D.C.: Office of Thnical Assi stance, Urban Mass Transportation July 1991). . . . FLEX IBLE ZONING ORDINANCES 1 Usually incorporates land use percentages 2. Higher densities 3. Building setback maximums 4 Self-sufficiency


PARKING MANAGEM E NT Module Goals o Thi s module investig ates and reflects on seven aspects of parking policy and its effects : 1 Parking's role in inducing and sustaining travel related to both pattern and volume, especially with respect to encouraging single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel; 2 Parking's use as a governmental control for land use and zoning; 3 Parking's purpose in local government revenue genera tion ; 4 Parking s role and function in economic growth and development attractiveness from bo th public and private sector perspectives ; 5. Parking s roles in institutional issues such as develop ment financing and joint deve lopment; 6. Parking s p l ace in the ISTEA era of transportation plan n i ng, programming, and funding; 7. How parking management strategies could be consid ered as a real option to alleviate traffic congestion. Assumptions o The rel ationship of parking to mode choice is generally under stood by participants. o The TOM community would benefit from a broad e r understand ing of park i ng s relationsh i p to the community Pa rking Management Defined Parking management is a set of strategies used to balance the supply and demand for parking. Parking management strategies, especially parking pricing, also are some of the most effective tools that can be used for modifying mode choice The decision of commuters to drive alone carpool, vanpool or use mass trans i t is strongly influenced by the and _______ MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNI TY 6 .. 1


l AKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY ) 2 Much of the following material was prepared for the Metro Dade MPO by the Center for Urban Transportation Research. INTRODUCTION When commuters have difficulty finding low cost, convenient parking, the common perception is that area has a "parking problem". When people are stuck in traffic in th(!ir vehicle among a sea of other single occupant vehicles. they tend to perceive that the area has a "highway congestion problem". Yet, in many cases these two situations are symbolic of an important and interconnected relationship -the overall effects of parking policies on urban transportation issues Too l ittle parking creates excess traffic in many urban areas as drivers "circle the block" looking for an available spot to park. On the other hand, too much parking encourages excessive use of the single occupant vehicle (SOV) as the primary commuter travel mode, clogging the arteries of an urban area and wasting valuable resources. Even the creation of a rapid mass transit system may affect actual or perceived parking issues both within and outside of the transit corri dors. A slight miscalculation of ridership patterns may result in one transit node having insufficient parking for a large ridership, resulting in commuter parking spillover into nearby residential areas. At the same time, parking facilities in excess of current ridership may have prematurely been installed at another node giving the impression of administrative waste and mismanagement. The public policy issue is: How to balance the needs of parking users with publicly mandated goals such as improved access to places of employment or markets, traffic congestion mitigation, and air pollution abatement. Governmental agencies and officials are faced with an imposing central question: How much par!sjng js enough to satisfy commuters, yjsjtors, shgppers, deyelgpers, and public pgljcy gbjec tjyes? This module reviews the national literature that has been developed over the last decade. That time period has seen a change in the attitude of government agencies that have traditionally been the public sector regulating authorities over parking issues in their local areas. This shift has involved slow change from the mandated supply of "more parking" to one of regulation of parking supplies In limited attempts to affect the behavior of parking users. Another reason for


this incremental change in attitude has been the recognition that transportation policy and parking policy ale and insepa rab l e Obv io usly public policy change is not made overnight. The presence of many actors iss ues of equity and development recognition of environmental responsibility and confticting in terest groups can create the perception that change comes too slowly Yet the very nature of the institutions by wh ic h the democratic process performs its specific functions has a llo wed progress to be made in many significant public pol icy areas Change in park ing po l icy has been increm enta l; it has been evolving ever since at leas t 1923. Historical Overview The development of parking policies has historically followed the rise of the motorcar as the domi nant mode for moving people from place to place. Beginning with a 1923 zon i ng ordinance requiring parking be provided for multi-family dwellings in Columbus, Ohio (Zoning Applied to Parlsing. LeCraw and Smith, 1947), and continuing with the 1935 introduction of the first parking meter in downtown Oklahoma City Oklahoma, cities and towns attempte d to control and regulate the where, when how, and at what cost, of urban automobile parking. These policies were generally developed to aid the commercial growth of town and city central business districts, as described in "Parking as a Factor in Business (1954) and "What Parking Means to Business (1955) both from the Highway Research Board. Parking policy-making expanded to include additional jurisdictional areas through the promul gation of zoning regulations covering parking space requirements for new commercial and residential developments in expand in g urban and suburban areas However par1dng policy-maker's primary focus was on downtown commercial centers and major trip generators. Scientific approa ches to determining the quantity size and location of parking spaces were developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), including Indus tr ial P l ant Parlsing, A Recommended Practice (195 9 ) and Parking Eac jljtjesforlndus!rlal P l a nts(196 9 ), while "ru les of thumb were adopted by developers and lenders as to the correct" number of parki ng spaces that woul d make developments competitive in the marketplace Thus, on one hand governmental statutes, ordinances and regulations attempted to provide some intra-MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 6 .. 3


lAKING TOM WORK J YOUR COMMUNITY ) -4 jurisdictional consistency in parking policies; on the other hand, commercial rules of thumb worked towards leveling the commercial market's perceived playing fields. During the first three Post-War decades, the onset of suburbia produced a series of publications examining parking as both a stand alone phenomena and as one factor in the examination of overall municipal policies. The U. S. Department of Commerce devised their ParJsjng Study Manual (Bureau of Public Roads, 1957) as an instruc tion manual calling for consistency in parking policy study methodo l ogy for public administrators and planning and zoning officials; while the Eno Foundation created a series of publications regarding the subject: Parking Authorities (Mogren, 1953); Parking: Legal. Finan cial, Administrative. 1956; Parking (Burrage and Mogren 1957); Traffic Design ofPar!sing Garages (Ricker, 1957); Access and Par!sing for Institutions (Smith, 1960); Zooing, Par!sing. and Traffic (Wrtheford and Kanaan, 1972); and Par!sing and Access at General Hospitals (Kanaan, 1973). The Highway Research Board published Par!siog Principles while the American Planning Association added Off-Street Par!sing Requirements (Bergman) to the basic literature on parking, both in 1971 (the latter revised twenty years later). Two events coincided to add a significant amount of literature on this subject in the 1970s: the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Oil Crisis. Both of these events pointed out America's co-dependent relationship with the petroleum-powered automobile. The Federal Energy Administration published Guidelines for Travel Demand Analysis of Program Measures to Promote Vaopgols and Public Transport a tion (Cambridge Systematics, 1976). Also in the same year, the EPA issued Par!sing Management Strate gies for Reducing Automobile Emissions (J. Dem, et al; U.S. EPA). Central Missouri State Un iversity looked at the legitimacy of govern ment-induced commuter parking regu lations in an article titled "Park ing Restrictions: Commuter Parking (The National Traffic Law News 4, November 1977). The National Parking Association published Toward a New Urban Policy; Report of a Studyforthe National Par!sing Associatioo (Harbridge House, Inc. 1978) which looked at the growing problem of parking in the nation's central business districts. In 1979, the Federal Highway Administration published the three volume series Study of Par ki ng Management Tactics, consisting of Volume One: Overview, Volume Two; Overview and Case Studies, and Volume Three; Reference


Guide (D i Renzo et a l; Peat Marwick & Mitche ll, December 1979 ). Munic i pal planners had sought to a l lev i ate traffic congest ion i n urban business and resident i al districts across the country through zoning regulations to ensure that developers supplied adequate off-street parking to meet perceived peak user demands The idea was that sufficient parking would take commuter vehicles off city streets, reduce excessive circulation as commu t ers searched out parking spaces ("cruising ), cut down no x ious e x ha u st emissions from idling automo biles, and eliminate g r idlock i n city cores. It was assumed that by regulating supply in one market (the parking user) that another market (the SOV user) could be managed. The October 1978 article by Donald Shoup and Don Pickrell Problems with Park in g Requirements in Zoning Ordinances ", i n the Eno Foundation s Traffic Quarterly (Vol.32, no.4 ) skillfully addressed the erroneous assumption that drove this concept which was t hat i ncreas i ng supply woul d lessen demand The market had reacted not by parking off-street and rel i eving traffic woes but by driving more single occupant vehicles and adding to urban congestion The Shoup and Pickrell article was a turning point in the use of zoning regulat i on of parking supply provision as a city planning instrument for alleviating traffic congestion The decade of the 1980s saw a broadening and deepening of the investigative nature of parking research as transportation dema n d management (TOM) programs began to be instituted via transportation management associations (TMA) and through other public policy in i tiatives However the literature often reflected a desire to create additional parking through better management of existing facilities and rev i sed design and construction techniques includ ing Park ing Man agement ( Emery Hines 1982 ) The ITE publ is hed the leading refer ence books of parking space determ i nat i on : E!arlslng Generation in 1985 ; Ernoloymenl Center Parlsing Faci l ities in 1988 ; and Parking M11nagement. AToolboxforAIIevi ating Tra ffi c Congest i on in 1989. The Downtown Research & Development Center published Better Parking Downtown: Increasing Supply and Managing II Better (Laurence A. Alexander editor; 1987). The N ational Association of I n dustrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) published an extensive nationwide study which was one of the first compilations of direct research into the effects of parking policies on developers and lenders. The survey results of the NAIOP Parlsing fpr Industrial and Office Parks (John A. Casazza 1986) was abstracted for thi s modu l e The survey suggests more comm u nication is needed MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 6 .. 5


lAKING TOM WORK J YOUR COMMUNITY ) -6 between the actors who affect parking policies, namely developers, lenders, governmenta l zon ing and planning personnel, and parking administrators. By developing an areawide parking policy and encour aging consistent policy administration, developers, lenders and employers on one hand, and public administrators on the other, can cooperate on reducing wasted space that is given over to underutilized parking while at the same time creating opportunities for increased commuter usage of alternatives to the single-occupant vehic l e and for assisting traffic mitigation programs This was one of the only national studies available which asked direct questions of the developers and lenders and brought to the fore the nature of the rule of thumb which governed developer and lender preferences in parking quantities The Eno Foundation also continued to publish parking-related mate ria ls: Parking in a Changing Time (Levinson). and Parking tor lnstUu t ions and Special Events (Whitlock), both in 1982. Public Technology, Inc. published a series of parking-related works for the U.S. Govern ment: parking and Traffic Enforcement", 1 g51; and "Flexible Parking Requirements", The Coordination of Parking with Public Transporta tion and Ridesharing, and "Innovations in Parking Management. all in 1982. The 1990 re-edition ofParJsjng (Burrage and Mogren) by the Eno Foundation resulted in a 335-page manual which incl udes sug gested methods to determine parking demand and presents guide lines for use by zoning and planning officials in determining parking space requirements for various land uses. Within the last ten years there has been a shift in the sense and tone of publications r egarding parking issues as traffic congestion and mitigation, resource conservation and environmental awareness, urban revitalization, mass transit, and public equity issues have usurped the half-century old concept of "more parking on the urban policy la ndscape The literature on parking is rich, broad, deep and varied. Two journals in particular address parking issues on a regular basis and many of the works cited in this study are from these two sources. One is ITE Journal (Institute of Transportation Engineers, published monthly by the ITE, 525 School Street, S.W., Suite 410, Washington, DC 20024-2797) ... by and for transportation engineers, transporta tion planners, and others responsible for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods on our surface transporta tio n system." The second is Transportation Quarterly (Eno Transportation Founda tion, Inc 44211 Slatestone Court, Lansdowne, Virginia 22075) pub-


lished .. to provide those many experts ,.'ressl on and distribu tion of their ideas and views. These two journals are the most consistent contributors to the study of parki n g policies. Of particular interest are the publications produced from two symposia held in Seattle Washington one In 1990 and the second in 1993 The first Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Sym"osjum includes a series of presentation papers authored by the primary experts in the field of parking policy most of which are included in this module as abstracts The second "Managing Employee Parking in a Changing Market" but is not a study per se, rather the abstract t!lkes the form of a series of quotes from the symposium participants Additionally, a number of spontaneous and unstructured telephone interv i ews were conducted during the national search for recent parking studies that may have been done by the more progressive jurisd i ct i ons i n the area of park i ng policy reform and imp l ementation. Interv iews were conducted with parking or transportation demand management (TOM) program admin i strators in : Montgomery County Maryland ; San Francisco and Pleasanton, Cal i fornia ; Bellevue and Seattle, Washington; and Portland, Oregon. These interviews re vealed that, other than parking Inventor i es, s t udies on the stand-alone effects o f parki n g po l icy or policy reforms are no l onger being con ducted Rather, parking policies have been fully Integrated into overall TOM programs to such an extent that these analyses are no longer separating out the effects of park i ng measures within transportation management programs. The studies that are available treat parking policy measures as one of many too l s i n the overall traffic congestion mitigation toolbox. Therefore the most recent publ i c sector sponsored literature does not directly address before-and-after effects of stand alone parking policy implementation. Literature Revi e w The l iterature review i nves ti gates seven aspects of parking po l icy: 1 Parking s ro l e i n inducing and susta i ning trave l re l ated to both pattern and volume, especially with respect to encourag i ng single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel; 2. Parki ng's use as a governme nt al control for land use and M A K ING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMU N ITY 6-7

PAGE 100

lAKING TOM WORK J YOUR COMMUNITY ) -8 zoning; 3. Parking's purpose in local government revenue genera tion ; 4. Parking's role and function in economic growth and development attractiveness from both public and pri vate sector perspectives; 5. Parking's roles in institut ional issues such as develop ment financing and joint development; 6. Parking's place in the ISTEA era of transportation plan ning, programming, and funding; 7. How parking management strategies could be consid ered as a real option to alleviate traffic congestion. The books articles, and papers that are referenced below was selected for its scope, timeliness, relevance, and importance to this module; yet each is unique, reflecting the authors' area of specializa tion or interest. The publications as a group were also chosen fortheir potential impact on parking policy reform even though none specifically addressed all of the problems assoc i ated with such reform. Therefore, each of the articles cited below and can only by analyzed in its own context. However, information gained from reading the abstract or the indi vidual publication in its entirety may still be applied to parking policy formation, administration, implementation, and enfo rcement at the local level. 1 Parking's role in Inducing and sustaining travel related to both pattern and volume, especially with respect to en couraging single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. According to many of the authors, the simple fact is that "free (employer-provided) parking is the greatest incentive for single occu pant vehicle (SOV) use. However, it was not unti l studies clearly analyzed the effects and defined the flaws in the use of "more parking" zoning ordinances that this fact could be addressed. In "Problems with Parking Requirements in Zoning Ordinances"

PAGE 101

(Shoup & Pickrell, 1978) the authors suggested that the practice of numerical detailing of minimum quantities of part,
PAGE 102

AKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY How Employer P8rklng Subsldlts Affect Solo Driving $olo Driwr Mode Share Cese Study and TYPf PlY On' ver pay s tor O.Cte ase In :olo lot plridng parkiriQ dlivtJf$ M id IWsiWe, Los Angole a% -81% too,_.nt%
PAGE 103

Parking Price and Mode Share Data for "bli!oielaltef'; ease Studies Location!OrganlzatH>n Varlabla Bef ore (fu ll Afte r subsidy) (subsidies reduce d) Mid Wilshire, Los (near Parking $0 $58 CBD) Cost/Mo. Mid-sized non-profit Solo Driver 42% 8% Catpool/ 17% 58% Van pool Transit 38% 28% Warner Center (suburban Los Parking $0 $30 Angeles) CosVMo. Large Private Firm Solo Driver 90% 46% CarpooV 6% 48 % Vanpool Transit ... 0% . . Cenln!t Bus in ess D istrict, Parl
PAGE 104

AKINC TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY ) 12 the decision-mak i ng process affecting parking user behavior (th e demand) This contention appears throughout the avail able literat u re and virtually every publication cited in this module could have been included under thi s aspect of the literature investigation 2. Parking's usa as a governmental control for land use and z o n i n g The traditiona l link between parking policy and zoning ordinances had been forged by the user-driven concept of"more parking" That is, zoning code ordinances required certain parking supply provis ion minimums so as to Insure sufficient quantities of parking to accommo date peak parking user demand at every site-residential. commercial, industrial, medical educational etc. Planners assumed that the provision of'sufficient park i ng supply to handle peak parking demand would help alleviate traffic congestion. As Shoup and P i ckrell explained in Problems with Parking Requ i rements in Zoning Ordi nances' in 1978, thi s policy had resulted in an unintended and opposite consequence The oversupply of 'free' parking that had been created by zoning minimums had simply encouraged more citizens to commute alone. The deve l opment of parking related zoning ordinances is a delicate balancing act between planners and developers, parking users, and public officials. Thomas Smith recognized that delicacy in Elexible Parlsing Regujrements (Thomas P. Smith, 1983). Since these zoning policies were such a balancing act Smith suggested that flexibility in parking requirements could be used to affect parking user behavior. Zoning ordinances that accommodated various land uses differing temporal (daily weekly seasonally) peak demands transit p roximity, and ridesharing programs were necessary to manage the balance problems. The article included examples of in nova tive (at that time) and flexible ordinances; and its publication enabled the American Planning Association (APA) to spread the word on flexibility Steven Smith and Alex Hekimian based "Parking Requirements for Local Zoning Ordinances" (Smith & Hekimian, 1985) on their study of parking policies in Montgomery County, M aryland in the early 1980s This study covered four land uses with the intent of developing flexible parking regulations that would accommodate various densities park ing patterns and travel mode shares within each use. Along with the

PAGE 105

fou r land uses ( office bui ldings reta il, hote l s mu l t ifam il y res i dentia l) the authors also addressed the problems of shared parking downsized cars, a n d park in g maximums Sm it h and Hekim i a n developed four prerequisites i n working out shared parking recommendations and they presented a six-point program to accommodate mixes of car sizes through a "universal parking space size recommendation. They felt thatthe internal economics within the suppliers' own marketplace (land and parking space construction costs) were the limiting determinants of any parking supply provis ion quantities that would be over zoning required minimums The authors called for the use of localized and flexible requirements, and accurate assessments of actual parking needs Melody McCutcheon and Jeffrey Hamm stud i ed the effects of using parking prov i sion regulations based on env i ronmental p r otection legis l ation i n "Land Use Regulations to Promote Ridesharing : An Eva luation of t h e Seatt l e Approach ( McCutcheon & Hamm 1983 ) The C l ea n A i r Act was env i ronmental legis l atio n t hat had profound effects on traffic congestion mitigation programs. However Seattle s use (in the late 1970s) of the environmental review process to force parking provision quantity changes by developers was perceived by the au thors as inappropriate. While requiring preferential parking for high occupancy vehicles (HOV) and restricting total parking quantities for new developments was an effective method for discouraging SOV use, the environmental regulation instruments chosen for implementation simply d i d not work because the Seattle instrument was weak, unat tractive to developers and virtually unenforceable The Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE ) deve l oped a supp lement to be used with Park i ng Faci l ities for Industrial Plants a n d the park in g s u pply provis i on reference Parking Generat ion, that updated some secti ons of both publications Emp l oyment Center Parking Fac il ities ( ITE 1 988 ) summarized the changes i n parking requi r ements due to ridesharing mode use increases since the Oil Cr i ses of the 1970s This work indicated that local parking space prov i sion zoning ordinances needed to be adjusted to reflect the reality that nearly twenty percent of employees at some work centers used some form of ridesharing The authors feltthat zoning ordinances could allow reduc tions in parking space requirements where employers actively pro moted ridesharing to discourage SOV use. ITE also observed that there were frve criteria on wh ich to base zoning variances regarding parking supply provis i on i n n e w deve l opments MAK I N G TOM W ORK I N YOUR COMMUNI TY 6-13

PAGE 106

TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 514 and an additional five factors that affected parking user demand at particular employment centers. It suggested that the "rule of thumb" used by many zoning boards in developing parking requirements was inadequate to frt a variety of employment center situations. Wayne Swanson focussed on the need for flexibility and adaptability in parking-related zoning regulations in "Park ing : How Much Is Enough?" (Swanson, 1989). He argued that regulations should be based on cooperation, adaptation to specific needs, and situational monitoring. Swanson also suggested that a proactive stance towards flexibility in parking supply requirements when an employer wished to actively promote a ridesharing program was a better method than requiring zoning variance hearings. The author indicates that states suffering from automobile overdependence (Texas, Florida, California) should be the most innovative in parking policy-making and ordinance implementation. He also provided examples showing the folly of any jurisdiction that simply cop ies the parking requirements of another. The implications for a particular community, however are not that every jurisdiction needs to develop its own parking supply provis ion ordinances; on the contrary, it would seem much more reasonable to create a single flexible, countywide parking policy. The Seattle Commuter Parking Symposium brought parking thought forward through the many papers included in the Proceedings publi cation, including Kiran Bhatt's "Local Zoning Codes and Parking Supply" (Bhatt, 1990). Bhatt systematically analyzed the parking policy potential in zoning regulations. He l isted seven promising parking supply policy measures and five localized conditional vari ables that might affect the effectiveness of these measures. Along with nine key issue areas, Bhatt also recommended four policy directions Of i mportance to suburban counties, the author indicated that subur ban communities offer some of the best opportunities for parking policy reform measures like re duced minimums. This is because suburban parking is generally oversupplied, suburbs are often sites of new mixed-use developments, and the natural market may take a long time to mature if ever. On the other hand, he suggests that urban areas may benefit from other strategies, such as employer cashout increased parking costs through parking taxes or differential pricing, developer "in-lieu or payments, or reduced parking requirements for

PAGE 107

developments in proximity to transit stations. Richard Willson addressed suburban parlling policies through case studies of ten suburban Los Angeles area worksites for Suburban Pa!Kjng Economics and Policy : Case Studies of Offioa Worksijes in Southern California (Willson, 1992) The study presents six policy options w ith the warning that convincing the various actors of both the need for and benefits In parlling reform can only be accomplished through a concerted education program and consistent public sector parking policy implementati on His recommendations for local governments Include as one option the elimination of minimum parking requ ireme nts and then letting the market" determine supply. However, if peril ing minimums are seen as a necessity then fiVe factors must be accounted for: a actual cost-reflective parKing user pricing ; b specific office-use characteristics ; c the surrounding land uses; d proximity to transit ; and e. employee dens i ty. Willson recommended programs to educate developers on actual parking costs and needs, opportunities for shared parking, ongoing transit programs (Including TOMs and TMAs), and public/private coop erative efforts. Additionally, Willson saw a need for public transit operators to expand their efforts to influence parking policy in the city planning and development approval process to encourage reductions in parlling sup p lies, transit-friendly design, and transit support in general Zoning ordinances across the country no longer need address the parlllng issue from the traditional user-driven perspective. Flexibility in parking provision requirements bas been put forward as a ne w para digm in parking policy However, Inherent in a fragmented metropolitan area are difficulties in implementing policy in one location if there are competing policies in other jurisdictions. When a developer compares parking ordinances across jurisdictions, even if partling policies are similar, confusion (and the potential appearance of conflict) may arise due to different interpretations of ordinance language, categorizations, and vocabulary. A municipal ordinance review may indicate the differ ences In categorizations and provis ion requirements from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 6-15

PAGE 108

lAKING TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY ) 16 3. Parking's purpose in local government revenue genera tion. When parking revenue generat i on is brought up, first thoughts usually turn to parking meters. However, there are more aspects to this a r ea than curbside meters (and Mete r Maids) Among these add i t i onal aspects are: a. increasing pay for parking user turnover; b raising fees fo r municipa l parking lots to increase revenues; c. aggressive enforcement of existing on-street metered parking; d. increas i ng parking v i o l ation fines; e. installation of more park i ng meters (both on-and off street); and f.. other tradit i ona l park i ng revenue generation methods. However the so-called park i ng tax", that is, a tax i mposed direc tly on parking users above exist i ng parking charges, has attracted the most attention in recent years ( even though parking taxes have existed i n some jurisdictions since 1937) as more cities seek to both i ncrease r evenues and affect parking user behaviors. The 1990 Seattle Parking Symposium produced three papers on this subject. In his "Proposal to Levy Parking Charges in the San Francisco Bay Area (Huerby, 1990), AI Huerby looked at the use of park i ng charges to fac i litate commuter behav i or changes aimed towards meeting the requirements of environmenta l policies. Whi l e the C i ty of San Franc i sco has had a parking tax in p lace for some time, the use of such a tax in rest ofthe Bay Area to allev i ate air qual ity problems did not meet with much success. I n today's era of ISTEA however prototype air quality improvement programs that use a parking tax as one facet may be able to attract federa l funding The second paper, "Proposed Parking Tax for Montgomery County, Mary l and (McGarry 1990) was the story of a fa il ed parking tax initiative This represents a good examp l e of the need for "pol i t i ca l prepositioning", that is, the necessity to educate the public and the important actors to the i mportance o f a particular problem before any attempt is made to implement a solution, particularly o n e i n volv i ng an economic disincentive like a parking tax. Th i s i s a critica l lesson to be learned about parking policy i mplementation in genera l Unless and until the public sees parking prob l ems and deve l ops these problems

PAGE 109

into a clear parking pol i cy i ssue it will not readily accept the need for any fonn of solution The third paper from the Symposium, Parking Tax Discussion Pape r" (Uiberg, 1990} is also pertinentto the possible introduction of a parking tax In this paper, Cy Ulberg argues that the revenue generation potential of a parking tax is greatest when applied jurisdiction-wide and on all parking and parking users. In order for this to be accomplished in some jurisdictions there would need to be a countywide parking authority to : a present the facts outlining the parking problem; b. educate the public and the important actors to the need for a solution to the parking problem ; c provide a mix of alternative solutions ; and d outline "accom p lishable goals ; e lobby the State Legislature for statutory revenue e n ha ncement powers: f monitor parking programs and make adjustments; g. maintain an ongo ing public promotion program; and h form the basis for countywide cooperative efforts. The City of Portland, Oregon has had a "parking cap" in place for a number of years but recently decided to increase the overall number of parking places in the city to accommodate more growth Yet, they were still faced with the risks of debasing ambient air quality by simply allowing "more parking. The City's Parking Tax Survey Update (TRiMET, 1992} done by the regiona l transit authority (TRi-MET}, is an overview of the effects of parking taxes in other juris d ictions. While no decision has been made regarding the implementation of such a tax on Portland s parking users, the revenue generation potential (actual a nd estimated) of such a tax is exceptional. 4. Parking's role and function in economic g rowth a n d development attractiveness from both public and private sector perspectives. One of the hardest aspects of park i ng policy reform is the necessity of addressing ce rtain parking "myths", including the role of parking in development attractiveness. Across the world office developments continue to be built in urban central business districts in both the absence of "sufficient" parking and the presence of over-priced" parking Yet within the boundaries of some jurisdictions an innate fear MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 6 .. 17

PAGE 110

lAKING TOM WORK J YOUR COMMUNITY ) 18 of the effects of parking policy reform on deve l opment has thwarted such reform. It is possible that there is also a lack of communication between the various actors. Lenders want a return on their i nvestment, while developers want their development to be successful (fully leased) in order to pay off the lenders and then make profits. At the same time employers wantto pay as little as possible fortheirfacilities so that they may maximize their profits and employees want easy access to worksites such that they may spend as l ittle as possible to obtain their earnings. Each of these actors wishes to maximize his or her returns and minimize expenses. The myth of "free" parking has resulted in lenders, developers, employers, and employees all thinking that they have been getting something for nothing. Yet, parking that does not generate revenue slows down the rate of return for lenders, wastes development and space, is a hidden cost for employers, and is a subsidy for only certain employees. The fears that pub li c administrators have regarding parking policy reform must be faced. "Automobile Parking Trends" (Wilbur Smith 1983), indicates that through communication of community objectives to all of the actors involved through the use of innovative and flexible parking policy instruments, and by tailoring new or changed parking po li cies to the individual jurisd i ction these myths may be addressed The national survey ofthe National Association of Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) "Parking for Industrial and Office Parks" (John A. Casazza, 1986) suggests that the re needs to be more such commu nication between private sector developers and lenders on one hand, and governmental zoning and planning personnel and parking author Ity administrators on the other. Only by developing an areawide interest in parking policy and encourag ing consistent policy adminis tration, can developers, lenders, employers, and public administrators cooperate on reducing wasted space that is given over to underutilized parking. At the same time, these actors may also be engaged in creating opportunities for increased commuter usage of alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle and for assisting traffic congestion mitigation programs. There are enough presentable economic incentives avail able to influence lenders and developers into rethinking the mythica l effects of parking "rules of thumb"; however, these actors do not have the information available to them that is available to public agencies

PAGE 111

Before park i ng policy reform can take pl ace an i ntensive jurisdiction wide educa t io nal program must be implemented As one example of the tools available to educate th e private sector, the Institu t e of Transportation Engineers, Guidelines for Parking Facility Location and Design ( ITE 1990) shows how less space may be given over to parking sim ply by adjusting parkin g space size to meet the size mix of current commu ter fleets. Beyond simple physical changes in parking space size lies the rea lm of attitudinal adjustments. The 1993 Seattle Park i ng Symposium, "Managing Employee Parking in a Changing Market (Munic i pality of Metropolitan Seattl e WA: 1993) shows how the educa t ion process can be imp l emented The public sector sponsors of the sympos i um were able to gathe r pri vate sector a ctors togethe r in order to deve lop understand i ngs of eac h others' rea l -as op posed to imagined or mythical needs and i ssues Th e necessity of interaction and mutual education i s paramount for policy reform 5 Parking' s roles in institutional issues such as development financing and joint development. There are myths in both the private and public sectors regarding parking's role in development issues One of the myths, the economic Importance of parking to developers and l ende rs, was succinctly addressed by Peter Valk's paper, "Leas i ng Practices and Parking (Va l k 1990), from t he 1990 Seattle Commuter Parking Symposium Vai k c learly s hows the circu lar nature o f the argument that parking re f orm h as n egative i mpacts on development. Yet, un til deve l opers ( and lenders ) are pr ese n ted with parking facts they wi ll co n tinue to operate at an economic disadvantage to the i r own goals. More than any pub lic sector plea to private sector cjyjc responsibility, addressing deve l opers own self-interest can be t he greatest persuader towards cooperat jye packin g reform efforts The public sector is armed with Information on the real issues and effects of parking policies, and until the private sec tor is brought into the "Information loo p myth will obscure and obstruct pa r ki ng policy r eform. A lth ough the abstract of the 1993 Seattle P a rking Sympos i um "Man ag in g Employee Parking in a Changing M arket (Mun i cipality of Metro-,. MAKIN C TOM W O R K IN YOU R COMMU NITY 6 .. 19

PAGE 112

AKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY ) -20 po l itan SeaHie, WA: 1993) covers primarily the statements of the public sector actors, the degree of cooperative effort between the public and private sectors in the Seattle Area comes out in a reading of the entire text. The extent of communication between these sectors in the Seattle area clearly shows that this relationship need not be an adversarial one. There are cooperative efforts existing in the most progressive parking policy jurisdictions. The case studies in Flynn and Glazer's "Ten Cities' Strategies for Transportation Demand Management" (TRB, 1989) show the diver gent results between public/private cooperation (SeaHie and Bellevue, Washington; Portland, Oregon) and public sector imposition (Sacra mento and Los Angeles, California: Orlando, Florida) of parking management programs. Additionally, the NAIOP survey in John Casazza's "Parking for Industrial and Office Parks" (NAIOP, 1986) shows the potential that communication between public administra tors and private sector actors has to create a cooperative relationship in the area of parking policy. One of the most important goals of parking policy retorm is myth destruction, The most importan t tools to reach this goal are education and communication. In order for a jurisdiction's public and private sector actors to accomplish these tasks they must cooperate. There are myths rampant in both the public and private sectors: regarding the nature (and even the existence) of parking problems"; regarding parking's role in development issues; determining the institutions and instruments appropriate to address the "problems"; and parking policy-making, administration, and enforcement. The literature directly addressing joint development issues is less than scant. However, the potential for site-specific parking policy reform measures that is opened up by public/private joint developments at major transit facilities is extensive. Future major transit infras truct ure developments (high-speed rai l stations and intermoda l nodes, in particular) offer opportunities for planners in this area. 6. Parking's place in the ISTEA era of transportation planning, programming, and funding. The literature available on parking policy makes no direct reference to the impacts of the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). However, there wou ld appear to be opportunities to obtain federal funding of parking policy-related pilot programs under

PAGE 113

the Conges tion Mitigation and Air Qua lity Improvement Program without designating a metropo l itan area as a major non-attainment zone. By placing parking policy reform under the MPO for projects implemented after FY 1996 start-up and pilot projects may be made more attractive to both the public and private sectors. ISTEA is probably the most important federal legislation aimed at promoting parking policy reform and this area deserves deeper study. According to ISIEAYearThree (Surface Transportation Policy Project, January 1994), ISTEA .. allows loca l communities and sta.tes to select tran sportation programs that make sense in the context of community goals and plans and it provides the funding flexibility to deliver the alternative sele cted thro ugh that process ." The r e Is approximately six billion dollars available through FY 1997 unde r this section of ISTEA. From the cong es tion mitigation/air quality i m p r oveme n t point of v iew, the us e of t ransportation demand management (TOM) programs may be most applic able to this sector of lSTEA planning and funding provisions. However, directly tying parking policy reform a nd air pollu tio n can become a stretch as indicated by McCutcheon & Hamm (1983) and Huerby (1990). Nevertheless us ing air quality as one factor in TOM program justification can create a more cooperative effort, as in Pleasanton, California (Information Report 9C: "Results of the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Program and 1993 Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Transportation Survey" 1994) Portland Oregon (TRIMET Parlcing Tax SuNay, 19 92) and Seattle and Bellevue Washington (Rideshare/Parlcing Manag ement Program Handbook, 1994) The relationship between TOM programs (includ ing those tha t do not address parking p olicies ) and the funding provis ions of lSTEA de serves closer i nves tig a tion. 7 How parking management strategies could be considered as a real option to alleviate traffic congestion. Parking management is not the only answer to traffic congestion mitigation However, parking management is on e of the most signifi cant tool s I n the traffic congestion mitigation toolbox. Parking manage ment strategies include: peak-period pric ing, transportation demand management (TO M ) programs and the parking tax .. MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 6-21

PAGE 114

l AKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY ) -22 Thomas Parody looked at peak-period pricing in "Implementat i on of a Peak-Period Pricing Strategy for CBD Parking" (Parody, 1984), a study of parking management strategies in Madison, Wisconsin However, Madison was a unique situation in that all parking supplies that were available to the general public were controlled by the Parking Utility department within the City Transportation Commission (which commission also had responsibility for transit, taxicabs, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and traffic engineering) Rephrasing the analogy used above, peak period pricing is one tool in the parking manage ment toolbox Carolyn Flynn and Lawrence Glazer gave an overview of TOM programs in "Ten Cities Strategies for Transportation Demand Man agement" (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board 1989). This paper presents ten case studies in the implementation of trans portation demand management (TOM) programs, some of which addressed parking pol i cies as a strategic too l in the instigation of TOMs. The City of Pleasanton, California used a transportation systems management (TSM) ordinance to implement a traffic congestion mitigation program. Various parking-related measures were included (with others) in an attempt to reduce traffic-generated i mpacts. Broad implementation, cooperative public/private programs, articulated goals, and provis i ons for program enforcement have made Pleasanton one ofthe commonly c it ed jurisdictions with successful congestion mitiga tion programs. Their self-review of this program, "Results of the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Program and 1993 Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Transportat i on Survey" (City of Pleasanton CA: 1994} indicates that they are now looking towards adding emp l oyer cashoutand parking tax instruments to their toolbox Anothe r successful program is presented by the City of Bellevue, Washington in their Rideshare/Parking Management Program Hand book (City of Bellevue, WA: 1994), where an aggressive ridesharing promotion program is included with parking supply management measures. Cy Ulberg's "Parking Tax Discussion Paper" {Uiberg, 1990} i s included under the "Parking's purpose In local government revenue generation" (aspect 3. above} Ulberg, however,looked at the parking tax as not only a revenue generator but also as a TOM strategy as long as the actual parking users are the ones who are directly affected by

PAGE 115

the tax itself. Of as much impo rtance as in d ividua l studies, was the frocee
PAGE 116

TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 6-24 I n order to select park i ng management i nstruments measures, and techniques i t is necessary to develop a method i ca l approach to po li cy-making Th i s dec i sion making process is complicated due to the inter-relatedness of various parking issues on the many actors R ick Kune r' s "Downtown Parking Policy Analys i s" from Transportation Quarterly (October 1983) is a descriptive primer on po licy analysis methodology directed at parking policy i n particular. He indicates that parking policy-making i s a difficult process due to the diverse and legitimate concerns of the various actors and the perceptions that parking pol icy issues can be controversial, that a l ternatives may be overlooked, and that systematic or cost-benefits ana l ysis methods are cumbersome and inexact. Kuner simp l ifies parking policy issues by recognizing that parking is .. a system in and of itself .. .", described in terms of supply and demand and he suggests a matrix approach to parking policy analys i s

PAGE 117

Summary Review of Abstracted Literatur e The primary find ings o f the l iteratu r e review a r e : 1 Padsing policy can have protound effects upon single occu pancy veh i cle yse as a commute mode. and parking pricing policies are the most effective tool in reduc i ng SQV yse by commuters. Negative parking policy (quantity restrictions, price Increases parking taxes, etc.) are not efficient, however If positive commuter mode choice alternatives are not concurrently offered. Parking policy reform must be offered in a "win-win" situational context 2 E'arkjng policy can be a tool towardS ggvernment control efland yse and planning programs : however. it j s on)y one tool in the plannjng too lbox. Past mistakes i n the use of zoning regu l ations to affect parking user demand behavio r m ake parking reform a "difficu l t sell An areawide parking policy education program that includes state county and mun i cipal officials ; developers lenders and empl oyers; public and private sector employees; and other affected parties has the best chance of producing the best policy. 3. Parking can be an Inva lu able re v enue generation resource; however, some degree of public sector control of the parking market is an obvious prerequisite to such generation Metered onand off-street public parking a parking tax, vigorous enforcement of parking statutes and ordinances and areawide regulatory authority are the best assets to developing such market contro l. Whi le pol itical j udgements will determine how much control is possib l e a clear presentation of the benefrts of parking policy reform can make the politica l decision making process less controversial. By mandating that parking-generated net (after implementation and enforcement cost) revenue be directed towards transit, the citizen is offered a free market choice: to pay for parking and subsidize transit, or use transit and reap the rewards from others' pa r king payments. MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNITY 6-25

PAGE 118

lAKING TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY 6-26 4. The role of parking in economic growlb and development attractiveness has been one wrapped in myth and a basic lack of both understanding and communication between and among the actors involved. Modem economic circumstances have presented the public sector with an opportunity to change the private sector's percept ions. Lenders and developers demand more precise estimates of the actual return on their investments and the primary focus of the re:education process must be this one simple fact-there is no such thing as "free parking. When employers recognize that the actual cost to them for supplying free parking to their employees can be the same as supplying company-paid health care, employers are much more inclined to assist public sector parking policy reform. Again, public sector education of the private sector is the key to parking policy cooperation. 5. Areawide parking policy reform. the education of private sector actors, and intergovernmental cooperation can be used as a focal point for positive approaches to the ins titutional issues circulating around development financing and economic growth, Other geographic areas that have been the core instigators of progressive and comprehensive parking management/trans portation program development policies have not suffered in the least from parking policy reforms. On the contrary, positive quality of l ife and civic responsibility issues have tended to overcome negative first impressions of parking policy reform. 6. Although the available parking policy literature makes no retereoce to the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). there would appear to be opportunities to obtain federal funding of programs under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program By placing parking policy reform under the MPO and using IS TEA funding, start-up transportation management associations may be made more attractive to both the public and private sectors. The role ofiSTEA in parking policy reform and implementation deserves deeper investigation.

PAGE 119

7. Parting management is not the solution to traffic congestion. However. it is one of the most important of the many tools ayailable io traffic congestion mitigation By ignoring parking policy reform, the single occupancy vehicle will continue its dominance in most jurisdictions. Parking policy reform by itself will simply move parking users around the jurisdiction, never actually helping alleviate congest i on However, the recognition that parking policy reform qombined with intelligent overall transportation policy implementation is the only method of addressing the traffic congestion dilemma is paramount. Without including parking policy in the transporta tion picture any efforts directed at traffic congestion mitigation will potentially be less successful than they could be i f parking policy is included. Overall Review of Parking-Related Utarature Any park ing policy has to be based on Its effects on parking users. Secondary effects (and unintended consequences) may be noted in policy re l ationships with secondary actors (developers, owners, lend ers, architects, designers, engineers, contractors, operators, etc.). Historically parking policies have also been used to advance other public policies such as economic development traffic congestion mitigation, or air pollution abatement for example But the direct consequences of public administration decision-maklng regarding parking policy rest between the two primary actors the decis ion makers and the users. Until recently parking policy was user driven ; that is, the perceived user demand determined the policy and po licy determined that this demand must be met through statutes, ordinances, and regulations which set minimum limits on requ i red supply. Other rules covered parking space sizes, layout of spaces landscap ing, fire protection and security req uirements, and other technical items. Such rules and regulations were designed to requ i r e, support and sustain parking supplies to meet user demands. While meeting perceived parking user demand was the dominant paradigm governing parking policy deci sion-making for decades, other issues have since arisen and drawn attention to the effects of parking policy on myriad areas These include . MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 6 .. 2]

PAGE 120

TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 6-28 traffic congestion, ai r pollution, petroleum dependency, quality of life, urban sprawl and suburban infill, development and redevelopment, governmental economics, and other social complications. The literatu re of the 1950s through 1970s addressed accuracy in estimating user demand and the provision of supply to meet that perceived demand. The issues of the 1980s through today created a literature that revolves around adjusting parking s upply -or supply costs to modify parking user demand behavior In general this recent literature falls into two categories: 1. Field experiments designed to test hypotheses. These fall into six types: a. The effectiveness of parking policy decisions in supplying sufficient parking space to meet parking user demand. b. The effectiveness of parking policy decisions in modifying parking user behavior by forcing supply below demand. c. The effectiveness of parking policy decisions in modifying parking user behavior by economic adjustments to park ing user costs. d. The effectiveness of parking policy decisions in concert with other transportation policy decisions in modifying parking user behavior. e. The effectiveness of non-park ing policy dec is ions in modifying parking user behavior. f. Future projections of parking user demand. 2. Gather data category These fall into eight areas: a Accurate counts of parking supply andlor use. b. Data analysis of parking user behavior and attitude. c Economic analysis of the costs of supplying and! or

PAGE 121

operating parl
PAGE 122

AKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY s-30 tal and i nterest, ma i n t enance and security costs, etc ) are sometimes squandered on underutilized space. Reliance on the "market" and its rul es of thumb are no longer sufficient to supp l y a l ess than adequately understood demand. I n fragmented jurisdictions these problems are actually enhanced by a l ack of an overarching cohesive flexible and cooperative park i ng policy which i s applied w i th cons i stency and pragma ti sm as part of a unified overall transportation program. Fragmented jurisd i ctional areas as much o r more than central bus i ness d i strictsneed a centralized source for infonnation policy direction rules and regulations, ordinances and enforcement and especially one commun i cation/educa tion nexus. 2. Certain areas of the country appear to have determined that parlsing po licy needs to be integrated with oyera ll transportat io n poljcjes The West Coast is at the forefront of th i s pol icy mak i ng and implementation change. Cities i n the San Francisco Bay (Pleasanton) and Los Angeles (part i cu l arly I rv i ne), California areas ; Portland O r egon ; and in the metropol i tan Seattle, Washington area (notably Bellevue) continuously appear in the literature as examp l es of i nnovative and cohesive policy development, implementation, administra tion and enforcement. These areas for various reasons, have chosen not to ma i ntain the status quo, and instead have attempted to make adjustments or changes in the i r approaches to parking policies The cities which appear to have the best opportunities to create functional and progressive parking pol i cies also appear to have some cons i stent e l ements i n their makeups : a they tend to be "rail" cities, with pub l ic rapid mass transportat i on systems; b they have had l ocally recognized parking p r oblems ; c. they have been experiencing rap i d economic growth; and d. they have areawide mechanisms i n place for the development of systematic problem solv i ng programs

PAGE 123

in a range of issues In the eastern states, only the area around Washington, DC (Montgomery County Maryland) is mentioned to any great degree. One would expect that this is due in n o small part to the systemic effects o f the decades-long economic decl i ne of the major cities of the northeas t and a history of experience with ra il, subway or bus commuting in genera l in those areas-as opposed to the one-man/one-car mind set of the South and West. Cit ies in the Sou t h and West grew concurrently ( a nd often because of) the Automobile Age. It m a y be a rgued that thi s his t orical con t ext should have offered a better opportun ity to develop parking polic ies. The olde r cities of the East were more cen tral i z e d a nd the automobile was a retrofit on the dense urban l a ndscape. For the E a s tern ci t ies, congestion issues were more dominant than parking issues 3. Areas which have exist i ng public mass rap i d transit systems appear to have recognized tha t changes in parking policies have lim i ted (but generally positive) effects on transit ridership mode share They have r ealize d through their experiences that adjusting or modifying parking policies may result in mode shifts in commuter trav e l methods, bu t may not significan tl y affect increases in mass transit shares. However care f u l con tro l s placed on park ing in and along trans it corridors may be able to affect transit shares to a greater degree than areawide parking pol icy changes When many urban public mass transit systems were first i mple mented, the central business district was the economic hub of the urban area and the transit corridors operated as feeder spokes into and ou t of tha t hub With the changes in the ove r all economic p ict ure in th e United Sta t es and in particular the movement from manufacturing t o service industry pre domi nance, a resultant ( but delayed) shift in commuter patterns was o b served This shift t ended to be awa y from the hub-and-spoke pattern to one of in trasuburban traffic That is rathe r than a commute from a suburban res i dential a r ea to a n urban manu facturing site the recent trend is towards a commute from one mixed-use (office/residential) suburb t o another mixed-use suburb. Thi s represents a change tha t has a negative effect on mass transit, whi ch is more effective at serving centralized MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 6 .. 31

PAGE 124

lAKING TOM WORK 4 YOUR COMMUNITY s32 locations. There would appear, however, to be an opportunity to create mixed-use nodes within the existing mass transit corridors, and parking policy flexibility may become one inducement for developers to assist in that movement. Developers who are given economic incentives within these existing corridors by not having to provide expensive -and often underutilized parking spaces on valuable land may become the catalyst for expanded transit system share increases. 4. Spa!jal consideration is another area of parlsing policy which parlsing regulators need to address. The typical commuter car is no longer the Chevrolet Impala of the 1960s, requiring a standard stall 10 feet wide and 19 feet long. By adjusting parking stall sizes to fit say, a Honda Accord, the standard parking stall would become 8 1/2 feet wide and 15 feet long, accommodating more vehicles i n the same parking lotfootprint. One ofthe future items which may affect parking policies would be growth in consumer i nterest in so-called "micros" or "city cars. These ultra-compact, high-efficiency vehicles create the opportunity to roughly double the total vehicle capacity of existing parking supply. Through the capability of parking three micros in the same square footage now commonly used up by two full-sized vehicles, city cars may increase commuter num bers while having virtually no effect on highway levels of service. However, the reluctance of American commuters to downsize the ir vehicles would tend to put this revolutionary shift further into the future here, as opposed to Europe or Asia, where micros have been making inroads for some time. 5. Parking policy measures which appear potentially most successful in modifying parking user behavior seem to be measures (in no particular order) which: a. are comb ined with transportation alternatives, because if alternatives to SOV use are not offered, then parking policy changes may tend to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

PAGE 125

b take into consideration the policy refonns on as many actors as possible. c increase the user cost of parking. d. are based on accurate estimates of parking user demand based on development size, location, and proposed or anticipated land uses. e. offer preferential spatial or economic treatment to carpool/ vanpool participants. f. carry out restrictions on the minimum and maximum parking supply quantity requirements in transit corridors. Polley Effects Parking policies can be used to affect the two primary aspects of the parking market: supply, the quantity of parking spaces available in a given area; and demand, the number of parking users within that area. Park ing regulations have traditionally been directed towards ensuring sufficient fixed supply to meet a variable demand a difficult task at best, and an unattainable goal at worst. On the supply side, the recent escalation of the costs in volved in parking supply provision (land acquisition deve l opment, financing, construction, operation, maintenance, safety, security, and liability) have created a real-market-oriented opportunity for public administra tors to affect changes in developer/employer percept i ons as to the relative importance of pseudo-market-based rul es of thumb relating to parking supply. On the demand side, parking po li cies must be designed in conjunction with alternatives to the SOV travel mode These may include carpool o r vanpool programs preferential treatment of HOV modes, public mass transit, flexible work hours or telecommuting or similar user incentives. Economic disincentives based on the price (per hour day, month, year) that parking users are willing to pay to park a l so have an effect on demand. MAK ING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 6 .. 33

PAGE 126

AAKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 534 Secondarily, parking policies can affect commuter residence location and travel mode selection choices, localized land use, and relations between the various actors affecting or affected by those policies. However, it is important to point out that these secondary effects depend on three aspects: the personalities of the actors, the degree of communication between and among the actors and the local environment. Parking policies can affect -in limited and variable degrees, depending on the local situations alternative commuter mode shares by: a. increasing the number of carpoolers; b. increasing transit share; c. decreasing the numbers of SOVs; or d. increasing the number of telecommuters. Depending on local conditions, parking policy changes may increase carpool commuter share and decrease transit ridership at the same time. Until changes in parking policies are implemented, however, no empirical evidence can be obtained as to wh ich (if any) of these increasesfdecreases will actually occur. This requires active, consis tent, and comprehensive monitoring of before and after parking supplies, parking user demand data and commuter attitudes. Park ing policies can affect the physical amounts of public and private land space given over to park i ng. There is a domino effect related to this facet of land use regulation. For example, increases or decreases I n the land "footprint" surrendered to parking lot use affects rainwater runoff, which affects storm sewer and catch basin placeme nt, which affects retention area construction and lift station des ign capacities, which affects municipal capital outlays, etc., etc. Other physical effects involve air quality, l ight pollution, criminal activity, urban redevelop ment, and local construction costs. Parking policies can have positive or negative effects on the relation ships between developers, lenders, and employers on one hand, and public officials and admin istra tors on the other. Additionally, they can have positive or negative effects on the relationships between com muters, visitors, and tourists on one hand, and these same public officials on the other. Changing the parking capacity rule of thumb in local development can have effects on attitudes as much as on traffic or land use. The effects of parking policies in these areas both primary and secondary can be presumptively predicted but they cannot be exp licitly foretold.

PAGE 127

Conclusion The parking-related literatu r e collectively paints a picture of i ntercon necte dness That i s, no individual parking-related policy or strategy ,Instrumental measure, regulatory statute, or ordinance stands alone Just as there is an interconnectedness between parking supply and user demand, so t oo, th ere are complicated inter relationships between the actors involved i n th e inputs and outcome $ of parking policy decisions. Public officials and administrators must take into account the delicacy of the balan cing act that parking policy-mak ing entails The public policy issue remains unchanged s in ce the in troductory pages of this study: How to balance the needs of parking users with publicly mandated goals such as im proved access to places of employment or markets traffic congestion mitigation, and air pollution abatement. Remaining too, is the eentral pub li c policy question : How much parlcing is enough to satisfy commuters, visitors, shoppers, developers, and public policy objectives? The lite r ature does not provide the answers What It does supply is information so that the pub l i c sect or decisionm akers can make a t tempts to find a satisfactory b ala nce o f the various aspects of this issue. Accurately predicting the outcomes of pol i cy changes deviating from the status quo is not possible; on the other hand neither is predicting the outcomes of maintaining the status quo At best guess maintaining the present policies may see one of three scenarios develop First scenario : nothing changes, that is, individual ci tize n perceptions as to the impact and importance of parking problems or "traffic congestion problems will stay at the presen t levels; some parking facilities will go underutilized while others will be overcrowded; the single occupant vehicle will remain the primary travel mode; and transit share will fluctuate but remain low. These are the least benign aspects of doing nothing Second scenario: perceptions of "parking problems and "traffic con gestion problems become acute with citizen complaints and local media exposure ; more parking facilities are underutllized and capacity stressed facilities become even more overcrowded; the single occu pant vehicle becomes the dom inant travel mode ; transit ridership MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 6-35

PAGE 128

lAKING TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY ) -36 remains low; intrasuburban infill will not necessarily be as controlled or transportation-integrated; directed transit policy will be more diffi cult; and undercurrents of mistrust of official policies develops. Third scenario: "parking problems and "traffic congestion problems reach a critical stage, complaints escalate as organizations become involved and national media coverage focusses on difficulties caused by Inaction; costly underutilized parking facilities are abandoned and expensive new ones constructed to address supply/demand imbal ances; the single occupant vehicle controls transportation policy decision-making; transit ridership stagnates at uneconomic levels forcing the privatization of the public mass transit system; urban sprawl fills in the few remaining green areas of the county; the citizens lose confidence in elected and appointed public officials and admin istrators. The worst case scenario may sound like a computer game program gone fatally bad and it is. Major metropolitan areas of the nation Seattle, Washington; Port land, Oregon; San Francisco and Los Angeles, California; Montgom ery County, Marylandhave addressed the same overall transporta tion problems as affect most metropolitan areas. Interestingly, they each have also adopted the concept of areawide parking policies as part of TOM orTRO programs. Additionally, these progressive jurisdic tions continuously monitor, adjust, and update their policies. Parking policy development and implementation seems to have the best chance at succeeding in modifying parking user behavior if: 1 The re is a countywide parking authority regulating private off-street and public on-and off-street parking facilities as to supply, physical construction requirements, technical and aesthetic factors, location, and cost to user. 2. The parking authority operates as an operational part of exist ing countywide institutions, so as to integrate and facilitate parking policies with countywide planning and transportation policies. 3. The parking authority functions in a cooperative manner with planners and developers, developers and lenders, developers and employers, employers and employees, central business district and suburban civic organizations, citizens and elected representatives, tourist and visitor bureaus, the MPO and

PAGE 129

transit agency and the various municipa l ities within its area. 4. The parking authority develops an areawide public education and promotion program directed at parking users 5. The policy integrates existing or helps create or support new alternatives t o SOV use as the primary commuter mode choice. The answer to the basic quest ion asked in the introduction of th i s study "How much parking is enough to satisfy commuters, visitors shoppers developers and public policy objectives?", i s unavailable, or at best it may be answered with the catch-all reply, "It depends ." However, if parking po licie s are uniform but flexible ; i f they are implemented countywide yet locally adaptable ; if they are perceived as equitable, proactive progressive, comprehensive cohesive and public; if the reasons for the policies are articulated, readily understood and widely publicized; if the effects of the policies are monitored and unintended consequences ameliorated ; and if public administrators and elected officials support the policies and the public accepts them; then the potential exists for parking supply to roughly equate with parking user demand under all but the most exaggerated of circumstances. And that is the best scenario of all MAK I NG T OM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 6 .. 37

PAGE 130

this page IS blank

PAGE 131

PUBLIC POLICY MODULE GOALS 1. Provide an introduction to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. 2. Know how to implement a "Cash-Out" program. 3. Ability to relate various tax issues and incentives to em ployers and employees. 4. Provide a framework for develop i ng trip reduction ordi nances. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Parking incentives and disincentives will affect com muter behavior. 2 The federal government is having a positive influence on TOM through their policies and tax l aws 3 Local governme nts can develop TOM ordinances if given the proper tools Part Ill. Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous Qualified Transportation Fringes Under Section 132 (f) Notice 94-3 I. PURPOSE This notice addresses issues relating to the provision for qualified transportation fringes in section 132 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code. As part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the Act), Pub. L. No 102-486, Congress amended section 132 to incorpo rate three basic changes in the tax treatment of employer -provid ed transportation benefrts. First it increased the exclusion for transit passes from $21 to $60 per month and provided thatoniythe value of a tra nsi t pass in excess of the statutory limit would be includible in gross income. Second Congress added an exclus ion for van pools Up to $60 per month may be excluded, butthe $60 exclusion applies to the aggregate of van pools and transit passes Finally, Congress eliminated the workin g condition fringe benefit for com muter parking and provided that the amount of employer provided parking excludable from gross Inco me is limited to $155 per month. MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNITY 7 .. 1

PAGE 132

AKING TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY 7-2 II. APPLICATION Q-1: What is a qualified transportation fringe? a. In general. A "qualified transportation fringe" is any of the following that is provided by an employer to an employee and meets the requirements described in this notice: (1) transportation in a commuter highway vehicle, (2) transit passes, and (3) qualified parking. Nothing in section 132 (f) of the Code or this notice prohibits an employer from simultaneously providing an employee any combination of these three benefits b, Transportation in a commuter highway vehicle. A "commuter highway vehicle'' is any highway vehicle that has a seating capacity of at least six adults (excluding the driver) and meets the two requirements for mileage use. At least 80 percent ofthe vehicle s mileage use must be reasonably expected to be (1) for transporting employees in connection with travel between the i r residences and their place of employment, and (2) on trips during which the number of employees transported for commuting is, on average, at least one-half of the adult sealing capacity of the vehicle (excluding the driver). c, Transit passes, A "transit pass" is any pass, token, farecard, voucher or similar item entitling a person to transporta tion (or transportation at a reduced price) (1) on mass transit facilities (whether or not publicly owned), or (2) provided by any person in the business of transport ing persons for compensation or hire in a highway vehicle with a seating capacity of at least six adults (excluding the driver). d, Qualified parking, "Qualified parking" is access to parking provided to an employee on or near the emp l oyer's business premises or at a l ocation from which the employee commutes to work by car pool, commuter highway vehicle, mass tra nsit facilit ies, transportation provided by any person in the business of transporting persons for compensation or hire, or by any other means The term does not i nclude park i ng on or near property used by the employee for residentia l purposes. Qualified parking means parking for whic h an employer pays (directly to a parking lot operator or by reimbursement to the employee), or that an employer provides on premises it owns or leases. See Q-3b for the rules relating to reimb ursements. For purposes ofthe definition of qualified parking, a car pool means two or more individuals who commute together in a motor vehicle on a regular basis.

PAGE 133

Q-2: Is there a limit on the value of qualified transportation fringes that may be excluded from an employee's gross income? a. Iransitpassesandtransportationinacomnurlerhighway yeh l cle. Up to $60 per month is excludable from th e gross income of an employee for transit passes and transportation in a commuter highway vehicle provided by the employer. One $60 limit applies whether these benefits are provided separately or in combination with one another. b Parking. Up to $155 per month is excludable from the gross income of an employee for qualified parking by the employer. This exclusion is available whether an employer pro vides only qualified parking or qualified parking in combination with other benefitS described in this notice. c. Limitation on employees of a controlled group of COfllO= rations All employees treated as employed by a single employer under section 414(b) (c), (m) or (o) of the Code are treated as employed by a single employer for purposes of section 132(f). section 1.132 -1(c) of the Income Tax Regulations Thus, an employee of one corporation that is part of a controlled group of corporations may, under certain circumstances, be eligible to receive qualified transportation fringes from another corporation within the controlled group. The statutory dollar limitations with re spect to that employee, however, are not increased under this rule. d Resutt If the yalue of the otherwise qualified transporta tion fringe exceeds the statuloQ' ljmij. Generally, an employee must include in gross income the amoun t by which the fair market value of the benefrt exceeds the sum of the amount, if any paid by or on behalf of the employee and any amount excluded from gross income under section 132 or another section of the Code section 1 61-2 1 (b)(1) of the regulations. Thus, if an employer provides a n employee with a qualified transportation fringe that exceeds the statutory limit, the excess value must be included in the employee's gross income for income and employment tax purposes. EXAMPLES Example 1. Each month Employer M provides a transit pass valued at $70 to Employee D.. D. does not reimburse M for any portion ofthe pass. Because the value of the monthly transit pass exceeds the statutory l i mit by $10 $10 must be included in D.'s wages for i ncome and employment tax purposes . MAK ING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 7-3

PAGE 134

lAKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY 7-4 Example 2 Each month Employer M provides parking valued at $165 to Employee E Because the fair market value ofthe parking exceeds the statutory limit by $10, $10 must be included in E's wages for income and employment tax purposes. e, Payments by employees for qualified transportation fringes. If an employee pays the employer for a qualified transpor tation fringe, the amount includible in the employee's gross income is the amount by which the fair market va l ue of the benefit exceeds the amount paid by the employee plus any amount excludable under section 132 or another section of the Code. Example. Employer f provides qualified parking with a fair market value of $200 per month to its employees, but charges the employees $45 per month. Because the amount paid ($45) by the employees plus the amount excludable ($155) for qualified parking equal the fair market value of the benefit, no amount is i ncludible in the employee's gross income t Exclusion applies pn a monthly basis. The value of qualified parking, transit passes, and transportation in a commuter h i ghway vehicle must be calcu l ated on a monthly basis to deter mine whether the value of the benefit has exceeded the limits on qualified transportation fringes. If the value of the benefit does not exceed the statutory limit in any month, the unused portion of the exclusion may not be carried over to subsequent months Similarly, if the employer prov i des a benefit having a monthly value greater than the statutory limit, the value in excess ofthe statutory limit may not be excluded by combining the monthly exclusions. An em p l oyer may, however, reimburse an employee for costs incurred for qualified parking, transit passes, and transportation in a commuter highway veh i cle in subsequent months, so long as the value of the benefit is calculated on a monthly basis Example. Employer Q. at the end of a three-month period, reimburses Employee A for transit passes purchased during the preceding three months. A purchased a $60 transit pass each month, and Q reimburses A $180 in cash at the end of the third month. Because the value of the reimbursed expenses did not exceed the statutory limit in any month, the $180 reimbursement is excludable from A's gross income as a qualified transportation fringe See Q-3b for the specific rules governing reimbursements. g, "Month" defined. A "month" is a calendar month or a substantially equivalent period applied consistently.

PAGE 135

Q -3: Are cash reimbursements permitted under new section 132(f)? a In general. The term qualified transportation fringe includes cash reimbursements by an employer to an employee for qualified par1
PAGE 136

AKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNilY 7-6 Q-4: Can employers reduce their employees' compensation In exchange for providing qualified transportation fringes? Section 132(1)(4) of the Code prevents employers from reducing their employees' compensation in exchange for providing qualified transportation fringes This rule applies even if state or local law requires employers to offer employees the choice of receiving a qualified transportation fringe or a higher salary. Example 1. Employer lS. reduces its employees' compensa tion by $60 per month and provides $60 per month in transit passes. Each employee is required to include $60 per month in gross income, even though the employee received an otherwise qualified transportation fringe. Example 2. Employer 'i. offers its employees a choice between $45 per month intransit passes and $45 per month in additional compensation. Every employee of 'i. is required to include $45 per month in gross income, whether the employee selected cash or transit passes. Q-5: To which employers and employees do the quali fied transportation fringe rules apply? a Employers. Section 1911 of the Act does not exclude government employers from coverage. Accordingly, section 132(1) of the Code applies to both non-government and government employers. b, Employees. Qualified transportation fringes may be provided only by employers to employees. For th is purpose, employees are individuals who are employees within the meaning of section 1.132-1(b)(2)(i) of the regulations. This definition in cludes common law employees and other statutory employees, such as officers of corporations. Self-employed ind iv iduals, who are employees w ithin the meaning of section 401(c)(1) ofthe Code, are not employees for purposes of section 132(1). Therefore, partners, 2-percent shareholders of S corporations, sole propri etors, and other independent contractors are not employees for purposes of section 132 (f). An individual who is both a 2-percent shareholder of an S corporation and an officer of that S corporation is not considered an employee for purposes of section 132(1). Q-6: Are there any special rules for qualified parking for vehicles provided by law enforcement agencies to their employees? Section 1911 of the Act does not provide special rules for vehicles provided by Jaw enforcement agencies. Accordingly, section 132( f) of the Code applies to qualified parking provided to

PAGE 137

law enforcement officers who trave l from home to work in vehicles provided by a law enforcement agency unless the vehicle is a qua lified nonpersons/ use vehicle as described in section 1.2745T(k) o f t he regulations. U nder section 1.1325 ( h )(1) of the regulations, 100 percent of th e value of the use of a qualified nonpersonal use vehicle ( as described in section 1.27 4-5T( k)) is excludable f rom gross income as a w orking condition fringe. This applies to employer provided park in g for qualified no npersonal use vehicles as we ll. Thus, if an e mploy ee drives from hom e to w ork in a vehicle des c rib ed i n section 1.274-5T(k) of the regul atio n s the parking provided for that vehicle Is excludable from the employee's gross income as a working condition fringe. AJ3 with employer-p rov id ed parking for othe r types of vehicles used solely for business p urposes parking prov ide d for la w enforcement vehicles used exclusive l y for business purposes is a working condit i on fringe and the rules of section 132 (f) do not apply. Q-7 : May partners and 2-percent shareholders of S corpora tions continue to use the rulea that applied to transit passes and parking prior to the Act? a Transit passes. The existing de m inimis and working condition fringe rules remain available for transit p asses provided to p art n e r s a nd 2-percent shareholders of S corpo ratio ns For example, the de m ini mis fringe rule for transit passes con tinues to apply to partners and 2-percen t shareholders of S corporations to the extent it applied prior to the Act. Tokens orfarecards provided by a partnership to a partner tha t enable the part.nerto commute on a public t ransit system (not i nclud i ng privately-operated van pools) a re e x cludable from the partner's gross income i f t he value of the tokens and farecards in any m onth does not exceed $21 section 1 132-6 (d)(1) of the regu l ations If the value of a pass provided in a month exceeds $21, however t he f ull value of the benefrt is i n cludible in gross income. b Parlsjng The Act eliminated th e w orking con dition fringe exclusion for commuter park i ng. However, if a partner performing service s for a partnership or a d i rector of a corporation wou l d be able to deduct the cost of parking as a trade or business expe nse under section 162 of the Code, the value o f f ree or reduced-cost park i ng is excludable as a working condition f ringe. 1.132-5(a)(1) and 1 132-1 (b)(2) of the regula t ions The de minimis fringe rules remain avai labl e for park ing provided to partners a nd 2-percent shareholders of S corpora t ions that qualifies under the general de minimis rul es 1 .132-6(a) and ( b ) MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 7-7

PAGE 138

\KJNG TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY 7-8 Example .G is a partner in partnership f. which mai ntains offices at various locations in G commutes to and from G's office every day and parks free of charge in a reserved space in f's lot. G periodically drives to f's other offices in for business reasons and parks i n lots leased by f .G must include in income the full monthly value of G's reserved parking space Because _a would be allowed a deduction under section 162 of the Code for the cost of using the parking spaces at f's other offices, the value of that parking is excludable from gross income as a working condi tion fringe. Q-8: How does section 132(f) affect transit passes and parking provided to independent contractors? Even though qualified transportation fringes cannot be provided to self-employed ind i viduals (see Q-5b), the existing de minimis fringe rules for transit passes and parking continue to app l y to independent contractors to the extentthey applied prior to the Act. a, Tran sit passes. Tokens or farecards that enable an independent contractor to commute on a public transit system (not including privately-operated van pools) are excludable from the independent contractor's gross income if the value ofthose tokens and farecards i n any month does not exceed $21. 1 132-6(d)(1) of the regulations. if the value of a pass provided in a month exceeds $21 however, the full value of the pass is includible in gross income. b, ParJsjng. An independent contractor may exclude the value of parking from income as a de minimis fringe if the require ments of section 1.132-6(a) and (b) are satisfied. See also section 1.132-1 (b)(2) ofthe regulations. Q-9: How do the qualified transportation fringe rules apply to van pools? a, Van pools operated by or for the employer. (i), In general. This category covers two types of arrangements: (1) empl oyers purchase or lease vans to enable employees to commute together, and (2) employers contract with and pay a third party to provide the vans mai ntenance, and liability insurance. Up to $60 per month ofthe va lu e oftransportation I n the vans may be exc l uded from the employees' gross incomes provided the van qualifies as a commuter h ighway vehicle" as defined in Q-1 b of this notice and section 132(f)(5)(B) of the Code.

PAGE 139

(ii}. \falualjoo. The regulations under section 61 of the Code provide that the fa ir market value of a fringe benefit is based on all the facts and c i rcumstances. As an alternative transporta t ion in an employer provided commuter highway vehic ltl be valued under t he following special val uation rules wh16h exi s ted p rior to th e Act: ( 1 ) automobile lease val uation rule 1 61-21 ( d ) of the regulations, (2) veh i cle centsper-m il e rule 1.61 -2 1 (e), and (3) commuting valua t ion rule, 1 61-21 (f). For general rules applicable to each of th e special valuation rules see section 1.61-21 (c) of th e regulat io ns. The Act does not affect the availability o f these rules for valu ing an employee s personal use of an employer provided vehicle that does not qualify as a commuter h i ghway veh i cle. Examp l e Emp l oyer V purchases a van for p u rposes of tra n sporting i t s employees from home to worl<. The van q u alifies as a commuter highway vehicle" w ith i n the mean ing of Q-1 b and section 132 (f) (5) (B) ofthe Code. :i elects to value employee travel in its vans using the commuting valuation rule In one month, Employee C. commutes to and from work in 'Y:,s van 20 days Under the commuting val ua tion rule, the value of each one-w ay commute is $1.50 (for a total of $3 per day); therefore, the value of C.'s travel for the month is $60. The full value of the benefit is excludable from C.'s gross income because it does not excee d the statutory limit. See Q-2d and Q-2e for the rules governing the treatmen t o f amounts in exces s of the statutory limit and payments by employees for i n-kind qualified transportation fringes b \fan pool o p erated bv emp l oyees Cas h reimbursements by an emp l oyer t o emp l oyees for transportatio n in a van pool operated by employees i ndependent oftheir employer are exclud a ble as qualified transportation fringes pro vi ded the van qualifies as a commuter highway vehi cle as defined in sections 132 (f) (5) (B) of the Code The amount that may be excluded from an employee s Income is limited to $60 per month See Q 3b for the rules governing cash reimbursements. c, Prjyateorpubljctransjt-operated van pools The qualified transportation fringe exc l usion is available for transi t passes for travel in van poo l owned and operated eithe r by public transit authorities or by any person i n the business oftransport ing persons for compe n sation o r hi re. The va n must seat at l ast six adults (exclu d in g th e d river). See Q-3c for the spec i al rul e for cash re i mb u rsements for tra n sit p a sses MAKING T O M WORK IN Y OU R C OMMU NITY 7-9

PAGE 140

AKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMM U N I TY 7-10 Q-10 : How Is the value of parking detennined? a I n general. The valuation rules of sectio n 1 61-21(b) of the regu l atio ns apply bo t h for purposes of determ ini ng wh e the r the amou n t of qualified transportation fringes exceeds the amount (if a ny) i n cludible in incom e Generally thevalueofparlli ng provided by an emp loyer to an employee i s based on the cost (includin g taxes or other added fees) that a n i ndividua l would incur in a n arm'slen gth tra ns action to obtain parlling at the same site. I f that cost is not ascerta ina ble, then the val ue of parll i ng is based on the cost that an individual would incur in an arm's-length transaction for a space in the same lot or a comparable lot in the same general location under the same or similar circumstances An employee's subjective perception of the value of the parl\ing is not relevant to the determinat ion of Hs fair market value Example Employer z operates an industrial p l ant in a rural area in w hich no commercial parlling i s avai l able Z furnish es amp le parll ing fo r Hs employees on the bus iness prem ises, free of c h arge. The parll in g p rovided by z has a fa ir marllet value of $0 beca use a n indiv i dual other than a n emp l oyee ordinarily wo uld not pay to pari\ there b, Rate U nder the general valuation ru les ofsectio n 1 61-21 (b) ofthe regulations the monthly rate may be used to determ i ne a monthly value rather than the daily rate multiplied by the number of days in the month If an annual rate is available the monthly rate may be determined by dividing the annual rate by twelve If a space is available for le ss than a month, the space may be valued according to the daily rate muHipl ied by the number of days the employee has access to the space. In no case is H necessary however, for the monthly value to exceed the month l y rate. The rates described above may only be u sed if they a r e ava ilable t o the gen era l public c, Parting aya jla b le primarily to customers Employer prov i ded parlling that is available prim a rily to customers of the emp l oyer free of charge will be deemed to have a fair martet val ue of $0 This rule does not apply however if an employe r maintains preferential reserved spaces for employees A re served space if"preferential" if it is more favorably located than the spaced available to the employer's customers. Example 1 Employer place of business is situated in a shopping mall. Amp le free parking is available to cus tomers and employees alike in the mall parll i ng l ot. None of the s paces is reserved for employees The parl\ing provided to emp loy ee s i s deemed to have a fair marllet va lu e of $0.

PAGE 141

Example 2. Employer Ys place of business is situated in a shopping mall Ample free parl
PAGE 142

AKING TOM WORK youR COMMUNITY 7-12 a. Occasiona l l ocal transportation tare. Section 1.132-6(d) (2) (i) ofthe regulations provides that local transportation fare (such as taxi fare) provided to an employee is excludable from income as a de minimis fringe if the benefit is reasonable and is provided on an occasional basis because overtime work necess it ates an extension of the employee's normal work schedule. b, Transportation provided under unusual circumstances Section 1.132-6(d) (2) (iii) of the regulations provides that if an employer provides transportation (such as taxi fare) to an em ployee for use i n commuting to, from, or both to and from work because of unusual circumstance and because, based on the facts and circumstances, it is unsafe for the employee to use other available means of transportation, the excess of the value of each one-way trip over $1. 50 per one-way commute is excluded from gross income. c, valuation of local transportation provided to qualified" employees. Section 1.6121(k) of the regulations provides a special valuation rule for location transportation provided, solely because of unsafe condi tions, to qualified" employees who would ordinarily walk or use public transportation to and from work. If unsafe condit i ons exist and the employee is valued at $1.50 per one-way commute Because section 2.61-21(d) is a special valuation rule under section 61, i t is not affected by section 132 (f) (7). Therefore, employers may continue to provide local transportation to employ ees meeting the requirements of section 1.61-21 (k). Q-12: When and how do employers withhold and report the value of qualified transportation fringes includible In gross income? a, Noncash benefits. Taxable fringe benefits are ordinarily treated as wages fo r federal income tax withholding Federal Insurance Contributions Act, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act purposes and are reported on an employee s Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Employers may use the guidel i nes in Announce ment 85-113, 1985-311.R.B. 31, for reporting and withholding on taxable noncash fringe benefits. Announcement 85-113 provides that employers may elect, for purposes ofthe FICA, the FUTA, and federal income tax withholding purposes, to treat noncash fringe benefrts as paid on a pay period, quarterly, semi-annual, annual, or other basis provided that the benefits are treated as paid no less frequently than annually. b, Cash reimbursements. Because employers may not use Announcement 85-113 for cash reimbursements to employees (for example, cash reimbursements for transit passes or qualified parking), cash reimbursements in excess of the sta tu tory limits

PAGE 143

under section 132(f) of the Code are treated as paid for employ menttax purposes when actually paid Employers must report and deposit the amounts withheld in addition to reporting and deposit ing the amounts w i thheld in addition to reporting and depositing the employer portion of the FICA taxes and the FUTA tax See Q-3b for the rules governing cash reimbursements. Q-13 : How do employers report income for qualified parking provided to car and van pools? a Prime member. If an employee obtains a qualified parking space as a result of membership in a car or van pool, the individual to whom the parking space is assigned, the "prime member" must bear the tax consequences attributable to that space. If the space is not assigned to a particular individual, then the employer that provides access to the space must designate one of its employees as the person who w ill bear the tax consequences. The employer ofthe prime member is responsible for report ing any taxable income to the employee. An amount of money (reasonably calcul ated to cover actua l costs including taxes) received by a prime member from fellow car or van pool members for their share of transport ing them to and from work constitutes reimbursement by them for the operation of the vehicl e for their mutual convenience. This money is not includible in the gross income of the prime member for federal income tax purposes. Rev. Rul. 55-555, 1955-2 C. B. 20. See also Rev Rul. 80-99, 1980-1 C.B. 10. b No aggregqjion of exclusions Member of a car or van pool are not permitted to combine their $155 parking exclusions for the pool For examp l e emp l oyees .L. M, and fl. be lo ng to a car pool and use, at no charge qualified parking worth $165 a month M i s designated as the prime member" of the car pool and must bear the tax consequences M may not use the exclus ions attributable to .B. and .L. Accord i ngly M must i nclude $10 pe r month In gross incom e the amount by which the fair market value of the park ing exceeds the excludable amount. Q-14: What Is the effective date of section 132 (f)? a Effeclive dqte. Section 132(f) of the Code applies to benefits provided after December 31, 1992. The rules In this notice can be applied to comply with section 132(f) of the Code for benefits provided after December 31, 1992, and before April1, 1994 and must be applied to comply with sect i on 132(f) for benefrts provided after March 31 1994. MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR CO MMUNI TY ] .. 13

PAGE 144

AKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY 7-14 b Tra n sition ru l e For qualified transportatio n frin ges provided aft e r December 31, 1992, and be f ore April 1, 1 994, empl oyers may use any reason able good faith method of co mpli ance with section 132(f) of the Code I n lieu o f the rul es contained in th i s not i ce Efforts to comp l y with section 132 ( f) of the Code and to det enn i ne the fai r market value of bene fi ts that d i ffe r from the rules contained in thi s notice will be considered rea son able good faith comp liance so long as they are based on a reasonabl e good faith interpretation of section 132(f) PARKING CASH-OUT: The Pres ldenfs Parking Subs i dy Reform Program The Problem o The average home-to-work trip results in about 0 6 tons of carbon pe r ye a r o Home to w ork trips are a primary contributor of u r ban smog and poor air qua l ity i n US cities o The rush hour means traffi c conges tion and the need to spend scarce resources on ne w road construction Free Parking at Work Is an Ubiquitous Fringe Benefit o 95% of all Amer i cans who drive to w ork receive free park ing from the i r emp l oyers o Even in the central bus i ness d i stricts of the largest US cities, over half of all commuters wh o drive to work r e ceive free parking from their employers o A l most no one i s offered t h e cho i ce of a cash allowance o r othe r benefit in stead of park i ng Who pays for "free" parking? o US bus inesses spend $40 $70 billion per y ear on 'free' parking spaces o All of thi s park i ng is t ax-exempt a loss t o th e T r easury of $12-$25 billion per year o Since free parking is an invita tion to drive, i t raises the cost of maintaining the highways. o Dr i v ing means poll ution wh i ch i ncreases i ndustry's bu r den in meeting clean a i r goa l s

PAGE 145

What is the Tax Exemption for Parking at Work ? 0 0 0 Section 132 of the Internal Revenue 9ualifies employer-provided parking as a 'transpoitati6n fringe benefit' Makes offering free parking tax-smart o Tax-Deduct ib le business expense for employers o Tax-free income for emp loy ees (up to $155 per month) o Also unto uched by sta te incom e social security unemployment and other taxes Makes offering other choices tax-stup id o Park ing tax break is lost if o th er options are of f ered (even if employees choose parking) o Transit passes have a tax break but less than half the size of tha t for park ing The President's C a s h -Out Proposal o Keeps the tax advantages of free parking, but makes it tax-smart fo r employers to offer cash and transit pass options as well o Increases commuter choices, but does not add business costs or tax burdens o Amend Internal Revenu Code Section 132(1) paragraph(5)(C), w hich defines qualified parking: o Qualified Parking -The term 'qualified parking" means parking provided to an employee on or near the busin ess premises of the employer .. o By adding the follo wing cash-out provision: o ... If the employer offers the employee th e option to receive, In lieu of the parking, the fair market value of the parking, as taxable cash or a qualified transit subsidy Cash Out Makes the Tax Code Work for the Environment o Parking provided by employers t o employees is, as before, tax deduct i ble and tax exempt o But only if parking is offered with the choice of a com muter allowance equal to the cost of the park ing. o The commuter a llo wance may be taken by em ployees in the form of cash, which would be tax able income to the employee o Up to $60 per month of the commuter allowance may be tak en i n the form of a transit pass wh ich would be tax -exempt The Proposal: Cash Out Employer-Provided Parking Subsid ies o Make the tax code work for the environment: Encourage employers to offer workers who get free parking the option of tak i ng c ash or a transit pass instead. o Keep parking tax fre e and do not increase costs to busiMAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 7-15

PAGE 146

AKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY 7-16 ness 0 Target urban areas where parking costs more, and em ployers with greater flexibility to reduce parking costs. The Benefits: More Choices Mean Less Pollution o More choices for commuters o Without significant increased cost to employers o Cleaner air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions o Less traffic congestion o Lower costs for Clean Air Act compliance o A boost to transit, carpooling, and other commuting alternatives o A positive step for downtown business Under Current Law, it is Tax-Smart for Employers to Offer only Free Parking Parking Mass Transit Pass Salary Employer Spends $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Minus Empioyel's Taxes Social Sea.rity $0.00 $2.48 $6.20 Medicare $0.00 $0.58 $1.45 Unemployment Ins. $0.00 $1.20 $3.00 Unemployment Tax $0.00 $0.32 $0.80 Training Tax $0. 00 $0.04 $0.10 Employee's Taxes Social Security Tax $0 .00 $2.48 $6.20 Federal Income Tax $0.00 $11.20 $28.00 State Income Tax $0.00 $2.00 $5.00 Medicare $0.00 $0.58 $1.45 Equals Employee Takes Home $100.00 $79.12 $47.80 . For a typical mamed WOiker with total family 1nc:ome ol $ 50,000 California's Cash Out Law o Requires employers who offer subsidized parking to also offer the choice of a cash allowance in lieu of parking to employees o Reason o Subsidized parking creates a strong incentive fo r solo commuting, leading to traffic congestion and air pollution

PAGE 147

0 0 o When offered the choice of a cash allo wance, many employees choose t o take it and find other ways t o get to woJk Expected Impacts o Improved ai r quality and reduced fue l use o Redu ced traffic congestion o Increased transit ridership carpooling and bik ing t o work. Passed with bipartisan support Whe r e It Ia offe r ed, the Cash Out Option Worka o California Chamber of Commerce, Sacramento o The cash option was offered to all 85 employees. 23% gave up their park i ng spaces f or cash in the first year. o Sierra Research, Sacramento o The cash option was offered to all 31 employees of th i s small fi!TTl. 9 employee s (29% ) chose c ash ove r park i ng o C i ty of West Hollywood CA o Offered cash out to city employees and qu i ckly reduced driving to w ork by 1 6% o Warner Center, West LA o When given the opportunity to save money by giving up a parking space employees of a large firm reduce d sol o driving by nearly 1/3, a lthough the building is not well served by transit. Carpool participation shot up from 6% to 31% o f empl oy ees Commuter Cash Is good for Downtown Bus iness o Because downtown parking is more valuable, do wn town emp l oyers can offer more commuter cash t o their em p l oyees o Vacated parking spaces make downtown more attractive t o shoppers and other commerce o Downtown congestion is reduced o Reduced demand for parking means less need for new garages more room for downtown deve l opment. The Cash Out. Proviaion woul d be app l icab l e to employer paid parking: o Provided by firms of 25 or more employees o Located p ri ma ri ly in urban areas o Located in a controlled parking l ot o Not owned by the employer o Not offered to military personne l o But all employers m a y participate MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY

PAGE 148

TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY 7-18 TRIP REDUCTION ORDINANCES City. county or regional enactments sett i ng TOM goals and mandating TOM actions by local developers and/or employers Jurisdictional Development o A locality develops the ordinance with the input from employers and developers Task Force o A government body appoints a task force comprised of local officials, employers, and developers Private Sector o Major employers and developers draft ordinance with input from local jurisdiction representatives Motivations for TROs o 12% Maintain air quality conserve fuel. .. o 20% Reduce Traffic Impacts o 60% Alleviate Congestion o 08% Generate Revenues TROs by Year YEAR tJ. YEAR 0 1980 0 0 1985 0 1981 0 0 1986 0 1982 2 0 1987 0 1983 3 0 1988 0 1984 1 0 1989 TRO Effectiveness tJ. 4 2 6 12 6 o TROs are new There is limited direct evidence on per formance. o Design of the ordinance and characteristics of env i ron ment must be considered o Effectiveness is determined by the ord i nance scope, nature of its mandates and performance assessment. Common TRO Requirements o Employee travel surveys o Annual reporting o Information dissemination o Designation of transportation coordinator o Development of trip reduction plan

PAGE 149

TRO Options o Goals o Scope and Threshold o Phasing o Geograph ic coverage o Menu v. mandates o Penalties Costs of TROs o $10.00 to $60 00 per employee per year o As much as $600 per sing l e occupant veh i cle removed per year (Source: Cambridge Systematics I nc., Transportation Control Meas ures I nformation Document Draft, M ich igan : EPA 1991 ) Pleasanton TR O Evaluation Results 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Peak Period Vehicle Trip Reduction 26% 36% 36% 43% 41% Employee M odal Spilt Drive Alone 81% 84% 86% 84% 85% CarNanpool 13% 10% 10% 12% 11% Transit 2% 2% 2% 2"k 2% Other 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% TRO Evaluation Framework o SET GOALS : Reduce peak period traffic congestion by X amount in locality A o IDENTIFY OBJECTIVES : Form Y carpools and Z vanpools at employment center B o IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS: Offer ridesharing incentives M N and P at firm C o MONITOR PERFORMANCE : Collect mode spl i t data at all firms meeting criterion F on a regu l ar basis ( with fre quency G). o EVALUATE RESUL TS: Compare actua l data with de sired performance MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 7-19

PAGE 150


PAGE 151


PAGE 152

this page IS blank

PAGE 153

MARKETING TOM Module Goals o To examine the importance of customer serv i ce o To identify the components of a marketing plan o To provide guidance in developing a ma r keting plan for TOM. Assumptions o Market ing is an essential component of TOM o For many TOM programs, the challenges are similar to oper atlng a small business. 0 Marketing plans need to be developed for each TOM pro gram. What works in one area may not work in another WHAT IS MARKETING? Th e process of planning and executing concep tion pric ing, promotion and distribution of ideas, goods a nd services to create exchanges that satisfy i nd ividua l and organiza tional objectives." Ame rican Marketing Associatio n The Importance of Customer Service Many public agencies eva l uate the effectiveness of TOM based upon the type of strategies used, the location of the site, and the resources allocated to the program. What is too often over l ooked Is the role of customer serv i ce in program success The primary purposes of TOM promotion al campaigns are to increase awareness, foste r i nterest, and facilitate inquiry. The near term goa l i s to get the commute r to come in the front door. After that, customer service must drive the organiza tion In Service America, Kar l Albrecht and Ron Zemke advise that: Th ree key facts about customer loyalty are that it is circumstantial, it is fragile, and i t is fleeting MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNITY Three key facts about customer loyalty are that it is cin:umstanual, ft is fragile, and ft is fleeting Kar1 Albrecht and Ron Zemke 8 -1

PAGE 154

/lAKING TOM WORK 'II YOUR CO MMUNITY h e cost of obtaining a !!Wcustomeris live times .e cost of keeping a cusrner 8-2 A strong customer service orientation will help bring commuters into the TOM program and keep them there The objectives of qual ity customer serv ice are: to meet or exceed customer needs and wants ; to retain existing customers ; and to develop new customers For TOM quality customer service focuses on what commuters want and need helps them select the options best for them, and re i nforces their decision The imp l ications of poor customer service can be substantial. The Technical Assistance Research Program Institute, a leading research organization in the service field, found: 0 customers who have a good experience with a company on a smal lticket item tell an average of other people 0 customers tell a n average of ___ o ther peop l e about a bad service experience And an A. C. Nie lsen Co study found that only 1 i n 50 dissat i sfied consumers take the time to complain to the organ ization. In other words, communication among potential customers about bad service will do more damage to the TOM program than good service will enhance it. Even if the customer complains all is not lost. The U S Office of Consumer Affairs study Consumer Complaint Handling in America found that 70 percent of complainants will patronize the establishment again if the problem cost them $5 or l ess and if the complaint was resolved in a manner satisfactory to the customer That figure rises to 95 percent if customers feel their compla i nts are resolved quickly Research a lso shows that customers are five t i mes more likely t o switch vendors because of perce i ved service prob l ems than for price concerns or product quality i ssues The need to handle customer complaints quickly is not only important for customer retention It is also critical to the cost effectiveness and efficiency of TOM programs. The cost of obtaining a new customer is five times the cost of keeping a customer. Therefore, money spent on customer service equals customers retained. So, what's the value of a retained customer? Your local supermarket expects at least $4 400 to $2. 2.000 from each consumer during the five

PAGE 155

years that the customer lives in the same In banking, the average customer represents $80 a year or more in profit. A loyal transit rider or van pool rider who pays an average of $1 per trip cOuld be expected to pay about $500 per year in revenue The Marketing Plan : A Road map for Succeaa No single market ing plan is appropriate for every circumstance. Each organization faces d ifferent problems and has a different set of parameters affecting its progress But successful organizations tend to hold certa in plann ing and management principles in common These princip les focus on the customer and tota l involvement of every team member in achieving organizational goals and objectives. It is a process whereby companies or organizations continually strive for better ways to serve their customers. The objective Is not only to be better Internally, but also to be better than the competition. The primary principles are to focus on the customer, manage with facts, work as a team show mutual respect, emphasize training and profes sional development, and follow the "P lan -Do-Check-Act" process. The underlying tenets of the process are to strive for total customer satisfaction and to never assume that the job is done Other principles include commitment to the process by top managers and policy makers, total involvement of every team member, and methods of evaluating quality and improving progress. Simply stated marketing means developing better ways to satisfy commuter needs All commuters are potential customers of TOM programs. But who is the competition? The primary competition for TOM programs is the that attracts commuters away from TOM the single occupant vehicle. Envisioning sing l e occupant vehicles as the competition may seem unusual, but if TOM programs fail to convince commuters to use a TOM alternative, then they cannot be claimed as customers And if they are no t customers ofTDM, then they have decid ed t hat SOV trave l i s the i r best solution They have been lost to the competit ion. Attracting commuters as TOM customers requires knowledge of the ir nee ds and products or services that target those needs The process for gett ing there is can be descr i bed as Plan-Do-Check-Act" (PDCA) cycle In simple tenms, a TOM agency wou l d prepare a Plan for getting customers into alternate modes Do or carry out the plan, Check to MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 8-3

PAGE 156

MKING TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 84 assure that the plan is working, and Act by standard izing the success fu l program then starting the cycle over again with new information Even if the decision is made to standardize, the key is to never assume that the job is done. Instead, accept that change is inevitable and constantly exam ine new and better ways to meet cus tomer needs The foll o w ing describes how to i ncorporate the Plan-Do-Check-Act" cycle into TOM. SAMPLE STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRA M S T RATEGY o Program Goals o Program Description o Scope The types of solutions to commute problems offered or to be offered are : o Ridematching o Batch matching o Personal ized matching o "Ride Wanted" Posters o Vanpooling o Third-party provider o Owner-operator o Transit agency o Transit o Route information o TickeVpass sales o Guaranteed Ride Home o Taxi o Rental Cars o Fleet cars o Alternate Work Programs o Flextime workshops o Employee Transportation Coordinator training o Parking Informat ion o Telecommuting

PAGE 157

o Segments o Differentiation from Competition o Our program name does/does not help us to increase ridesharing awareness among our target markets. o Our promotional theme does/does not help us to in crease awareness. o Program Objectives: o Market Share Increase share of non-single occupant vehicle modes by a statistically significant amount from %of the TOM, Inc.'s customers by the end of the fiscal year." o Customer growth rate "Increase the total number of customers receiving assistance by a statistically significant amount more than the customers who received assistance last year." o Average Vehicle Ridership -"Increase the average vehicle ridership by a statistically significant amount from the current 1.20 by the end of 199X." As part of the program's strategic process, the TOM agency will need to identify the markets and services to be offered. The strategic direction will shape the serv ices and tactics to be developed in the marketing plan. STRATEGIC DIRECTION GRID Current Services New Services Current Markets Market Penetration Service Development New Markets Market Development Diversification FOUR COMPONENTS OF MARKETING 0-----------------------------o ______________________________ o ______________________________ o ______________________________ MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 8-5

PAGE 158

lAKING TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY 8-6 PRODUCT STRATEGY ALTERNATIVES The following checklist summarizes the type of strategies that could be used for each of the above products and services. Q No Product/Service Change Q Product/Service repositioning Q Product/Service improvement Q Changes in attributes Q Changes in packaging Q Eliminate the product/service Q Develop a new product/service APPLY IT! Q Closely related product/serv i ce Q Provide a product or service you previously pur chased Q Unrelated product or service that will expand the scope of the program What ideas presented i n this session do you plan to put into action? 1 ____________________________ __ __ __ ___ 2 __________________________________ ___ 3 __________ __ __ __ __________________ 4 __________________________ __________ ___ PRICING STRATEGY ALTERNATIVES The following table was adapted from an article in INC. Magazin e "Naming Your Price and contains a variety of pricing strategies that could be used for each of the program's products and services. APPLY IT! What ideas presented in this session do you plan to put into action? 1 ____________________________________ 2 ____________________________________ 3 __________________________________ 4 ________________ ________________ __

PAGE 159

ble. segments. or break them apart and aoe<>ldlng\y. variable. some msmes. to appeal to price segm&n". by a variable the buyer to give a guaranteed ride home part of the transit pas.s subsidy passes. $1 0 and allowing commutm to for any amourrt refunded after for per payments of in the guaranteed ride program based on the employees and space. MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNITY 8 -7

PAGE 160

TOM WORK N YOUR COMMUNITY 88 DISTRIBUTION STRATEGY ALTERNATIVE The fo llowing options help detenn in e how the products and services will be distributed to the mar1
PAGE 161

PROMOTIONAL STRATEGY ALTERNATIVES The follow ing lists the promotional and advertising strategies that can be u sed for each of the products and services as well as the organiza tion itself Q Types Q Generic advertising Q Mode advertis i ng (e.g., vanpooling o r transit) Q Channel (distribution) support ("Trade" prori'iotion to distributors, e.g., employers ) Q Objectives Q Increase awareness Q Organization Q Competition Q Products/ Serv ices Q Increase rate of in qu iry Q I ncrease prod uct trial Q Reinforce regular use Q Copy Strategy Q Segment for d i fferen t user group s Q D iffere ntiate from competition Q Correct misperceptions Q Media Strategy Q Broad reach Q La rgest mar1
PAGE 162

lAKING TOM WORK COMMUN ITY 810 0 P ubl i c Relat ions 0 Create image for: 0 Program or agency 0 Ridesharing generically 0 Selected mode (e.g., carpooling ) 0 Communica t e sponsor or agency p hilosophy 0 Correct negat i ve or faulty image 0 Personal Selling 0 Organization: 0 Geographic 0 Market O ri ented 0 Outreach method : 0 Program s own personnel 0 Employee Tran sportat ion Coord i nators 0 Outsou rcing 0 Personnel Selection 0 Experienced 0 Educational Backg round 0 Training needs 0 Compensation package APPLY I T What ideas presen ted in this session do you plan t o put into action ? 1. ____ ______ ____ ____________________ __ ___ 2. ____________________________________ 3. ___ ____________ __ 4. ______ __ _____ __ ___ _

PAGE 163

SAMPLE MARKETING PLAN FORMAT I. EXECUT IV E SUMMARY II. I N TROD U CT I O N A. Purpose: The purpose of this marketing plan is to prov i de a guide for all marketing activities during 199X. Specifically, this doeument will : . 1 Revie w the TOM program's marketing situation. 2 Define the TOM progra m's challenges and oppor tunities 3 Outline a marketing program, including goals objectves and stra t egies Ill. S I T UATIO N REVIEW A. Market for TOM serv i ces 1 Trends a Population b. Workforce c Customer base B The Product Line 1. R ld ematching a Ba tch match ing b Personalized matching c Ride Wanted Posters 2 Vanpooling a Third -party provider b Owne r-operator c Transit agen cy 3 Tra nsit a. Route informa tion b. Ticket/pass sales 4 Guaranteed Ride Home a. Taxi b. Rental Cars c. Flee t c a rs 5. Alternate Work Program s a Flext ime workshops b. How -to gu ide for employers 6 Emp loyee T rans port a tion Coordin ator training MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 8 -11

PAGE 164

PAGE 165

4 etc IV CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES A. Results of the current campaign are The TOM program has awareness in the abso l ute and relative to other alternatives Strategic lroplicalion : The TOM program's greatest strength is V MARKETIN G PROGRAM A Goa l s/Objectives/Rationale 1 Awa r eness a Goa l: To inc r ease t op-o fmind ( unaided ) awareness of the TOM program. b Objective : To increase unaided aware ness of the TOM program in its marketi ng area by a statistically significant amount versus the l evel measure in __ c Rationale : Before commuters will use the services, they need to know what services are offered, how to access those services, and what are the costs and benefits asso elated with the serv i ces 2. Image a. Goal : To create an image of the TOM program among potent i al customers that is __ b . Objective: To increase ratings of the TOM prog r am in its marke t ing area by a statis tically significant amount versus the level measure i n __ c Rationale : ( 1 ) ThedifferencesbetweenSOVand MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMU NITY 8-13

PAGE 166

4AKJNG TOM WORK COMMUNITY 8-14 alternative modes are significantto commuters {2) The TOM program needs to estab lish a strong umbrella image to support the various alternat i ves (carpool, van pool bus, etc ) as well as the various vendors (transit sys tern, van leasing company etc ) 3 Cost Efficiency a Goal: To improve the cost efficiency of the TOM program by : {1) increa s ing the number of custom ers using the services (2) increasing the rate of customers altering their mode (3) increasing the part time use of modes b. Objective : To be determined c Rationale: A key objective of a publicly funded program is to increase the effec tiveness of the services it delivers To help accomplish this the goal of the TOM program makretlng should be to incr ease the number of customers, format i on rate and part-time use of modes B Advert i s in g Strategy 1 Objective : The prospect should initiate or renew a n account relationship w ith the TOM program a. Target Audience: {1) Demographics o Adults o Employed {2) Pyschograph i cs o Seeking an alternative to driving alone o Finds commute to be stress ful

PAGE 167

2. Creative S t rategy a Image : The prospect should feel that the TOM program is a leade r in commuting options w ithin the community. b Key Thought : The prospect should know tha t the TOM program is a provide r of commuter i n fonn ation and ass i stance c. Ma ndatories ( 1 ) Advertising should build an emo tion a bond with the TOM program (2) Visual me d i a should include logo. 3. M edia Stra t egies a Use as the most efficient medium for generating high reach of the target audi ence, w hich is __ 4 Public Relations Strategy a. Use public relations at major employment centers as a basis to reinforce the TOM program's image and increase inquiries b The public relations program will consist of the following : ( 1 ) Employer o utreach (2) Transporta tion Days/National Transporta tio n Week (3) Crisis response package 5 Additional Key Strategies a. Estab lish an aggressive and enthusat i c staff through training. b Use targe ted mark eting programs to crosssell existing and former customers : c. D i rect mail d. Point -of-pr omotion materials e Use targeted m arketing programs to build business for vanpooling and non-motor i zed travel MAKING T O M WORK I N YOUR COMMUNITY 8 .. 15

PAGE 168

TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY 8-16 Key Tenns In Advertising Gross Impressions : The sum ofthe estimated number of persons who listened to a station for a minimum of five minutes within a quarter hour for all spots in a given schedule For example, if one person hears a spot three times and two other persons hear the spot once ea ch the n there has been a tota l of five gross impressions made Reach: The estimated number of different persons who are listening at least once to a given schedule (unduplicated audience). Frequency : The number of times a person is exposed to an a dvertise ment. Cpst per thousa nd impressions : The average cost delivering 1,000 gross impressions

PAGE 169


PAGE 170

this page IS blank

PAGE 171

TOM in the Age of D i versity M ODU L E GOALS o To examine the impact of TOM po lici es o n subsegments of the populat i on. o To provide guidance for estab lishing a TOM program respons i ve to the needs of specific markets. ASSU M PTIO N S o Participants have a basic understanding that the workforce Is becoming increasingly diverse demographically o Marl
PAGE 172

A.KING TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY ome people say that by 95, three out of four ople coming into the >rkplace will be women minorities. That is a :t. Well ff you are go J to attract the best of >se people intoyouror nization, you'd better ve a culture; you'd bel. have an environment Nhich those people feel ly can prosper and urish If you don't, they I go elsewhere and u'll be at a competitive advantage." 1is is not some type of nevolent activity on our rt. There is seH-intert here. We have to e a culture and envi tment in which these >pie can flourish and 1t's what we are worktoward." m Preston, CEO of on Products 9-2 will act i n a particular manner because of gender or heritage is ludicrous. Conversely, without some sensitivity to the obstacles and needs of single parents in the workplace. an employer risks losing a valuable employee to a competitor who offers more attractive, and necessary benefits. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TRAVEL BEHAVIOR Statistical research shows: o Working women depend more on the car than men who are in the same economic class and family situation. o Working women rely on the car to combine work trips with fam ily obligations: childcare, grocery shopping, etc. o Low-income women travel farther to work than low-income men and high-income workers of either gender o Single mothers in the labor force depend more on the car than any other group.

PAGE 173

RECOMMENDATIONS IDM programs should : o Allow flex i ble work schedules o Encourage tel ecommuting o Provide childcare and eldercare services in convenient locations o Compensate workers for the child care and eldercare costs of using slower alternative modes o Provide meaningful security for women using alternative modes at night o Offer mid-day transportation to grocery stores dry-clean ers banks post office, etc. o Offer comprehensive well-advertised guaranteed ride home programs Just as working mothers, sing leparents, and primary care-givers have special needs in today's workplace which demand consider ations and changes in the way managers approach TOM, another distinct group is the body of union workers. Union workers have specific regulations which delineate work regulations arrived at under negotiation, and agreed to by union representatives and management. These men and women generally hold the blue collar jobs with strict work-hour guidelines that would cause them to be considered prime candidates for many ridesharing arrange ments. Before the program manager may approach these com muters however it is i mperative tha t he/she becomes fam ili ar with the collective barga i ning contract under whi ch these people work Once the contract has been reviewed, if no conflicts are present the manager may proceed with a TOM program. If there is any doubt about the legality or propriety of typ i cal TOM in i tiatives, the wisest course of action for the TOM manager is to approach management and union representatives simultaneously to reach consensus and make a determination about the possibilities of a TOM program If this requires changes to the collective bargaining agreement, the union representative is the best resource for learning the method to change this contract as w ell as the vehicle fo r the change(s} MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNITY 9 3

PAGE 174

AKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY 9-4 ORGANIZED LABOR An Unfair Labor Practice (UFLP) occurs when: an employer dictates terms of employment covered by a collective bargaining agreement without negotiating w ith the designated union representative. Examples of TOM measures which can change work rules: o Cash incentives for employees who opt for alternative modes o Alternative work hours o Management-by-results rev iew of employee perfoiTTiance necessary for telecommuting How to Avoid an UFLP: o Include a person selected by the union in the design of the TOM program o Renegotiate the contract to include TOM measures, if necessary List two advantages of implementing TOM in a unionized workplace: 1. 2. As white collar workers left the city, and moved to the suburbs, blue-collar and unskilled, manual-labor jobs were created in and near the new suburban neig hborhoods. The people who moved to these more-expensive neighborhoods continue to work in the central business district to afford their lifestyles. The people who l ive in the inner-city by choice or for financial reasons make up the unemployed and under-employed population who have no access to the new markets in the suburbs, and may burden the financial infrastructure of their city. If provisions were made to transport the

PAGE 175

men and women who cannot afford private transportation and are not offered public transit, two obstacles will be overcome by this "rev erse commute. The people will have jobs, and tlie open jobs will be filled REVERSE COMMUTING Trends in American demographics (1970-1990): o Population growth in the suburbs o Job creatio n in the suburbs o Whites fled to the suburbs ; minorities stayed in the cities o Lack of alternative mode infrastructure in the suburbs Catch-22 for urban residents: o Need a car to get to the jo b o Need a job to afford the car Reverae Commute programs: provide transportation for urban residents to reach suburban job sites Programs can be sponsored by: public housing tenants association (Chicago) urban ne i ghborhood community center urban non-profrt association (Chicago, Detroit) municipal transit agency (Detroit) regional transi t agency (Philadelphia) state department of transportation (Milwaukee) suburban employers suburban business park developers MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 9-5

PAGE 176

PAGE 177

From the folowing tables, a trend has been estab l ished which demo n strates how the commute patterns ol a r e becoming more similar to those o f th e "white commu n ity Alt h ough o n e s tu dy i s gai ned form survey info r matio n i n one city the other is from a na ti ona l survey and they both in dicate s i milar findings over about a decade. It i s important to note that although the trend i s toward sameness, the two groups have some differ ences which the effective manager will understand and use to serve the communities bett e r independently and in tum, the combined, larger commun ity s o c iety, better. COMMUTER PATIERNS AND TRENDS BY RACE 1980 1980 1990 1990 Commute Type El.lopean African El.ropean African 'American American American Total Number 2924 Commuters 186 7156 482 Number 477 133 890 318 City> City Percent 16.3 71.5 12. 4 68.8 lime 15.4m i n 16.4 min. 15.0 min 15. 9 min Number 173 34 534 76 Crty>Nonclty Percent 5.9 18 3 7A 16 5 Tme 20.3min 26 1 min 19 . 2min 23. 5 min Number 716 12 1688 36 Noncrty>City Percent 24.5 6 5 23.5 7 8 Tme 23.5min 21:7min 24.7min 25.4mil Number 1558 7 4056 32 Noncrty>Nonclty Percent 53.3 3.8 56. 6 6 9 lime 14. 4min 21.0 min 14. 9 min 18. 1 min Source: Gender Race and L ocat1onal Access to Employment 1 n Buffal o NY, 1980 to 1990" by lbipo Johnston-Anumonwo, State University of New York, College a t Cortland. Presented at TRB, January, 1994. MAKING TOM WORK I N Y OUR COMMU NI TY 9-7

PAGE 178

AKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY 9-8 References 1. A Directory of California Trip Reduction Ordinances Second Edition, California DepartmentofTransportation, Sacramento, CA, January 1990. 2. Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Board of Regents of the State University System of Florida and the Association of Federal, State and Municipal Employees 1991-1994. Bibliography Gerwig, Katherine, "Implementation Issues and Barriers", Re sources Papers from TOM Innovation and Research: Setting a Strategic Agenda for the Future, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., November 15-16, 1993. Hughes, Mark Alan and Julie Sternberg, The New Metropolitan Reality: INhere the Rubber Meets the Road in Anti-Poverty Policy, Public Finance and Housing Center, the Urban Institute, Washing ton, D.C., December 1992. Parker, M ike and Jane Slaughter, Choosing Sides: Unions and the Team Concept, Labor Notes, Detroit, Ml, 1988. Rosenbloom Sandra and Elizabeth Burns, Do Environmental Measures and Travel Reduction Programs Hurt Wof1(ing Women?, Drachman Institute for Land and Regional Developmental Studies, University of Arizona, Tuscan, AZ., J une 1993. RACIAL DIVERSITY AND TOM COMMUTER TRENDS Blacks Non-Blacks Variable 1963 1990 %Change 1983 1990 %Change Person Trips 2.2 2.7 22.7 3.0 3.1 3.3 Person Miles 15.1 19.5 73.5 26. 2 29.7 13.4 of travel Vehicle Trips 0.9 1.4 55 6 1 7 2.0 17.6 Vehicle Miles 6.4 10.5 64. 1 13.7 18.2 32.8 of Travel So urce : "Assess1ng Travel Behavior by Blacks 1n the Umted States A New Perspective" by Eric Hill, Center for Urban Transportation Research. July, 1994. Data from 1983 and 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Study Database.

PAGE 179

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AMONG LOS ANGELES COMMUTERS White Afrfcon Asian Hispanic American % at With >1 00 employees 65 50 62 70 % with Household lncome>$65,000 38 20 "31 9 Average number of months at wotlcsHe 65 54 47 53 .. % always have a car 94 85 90 79 available to CXlmmute % Drive atone 3+ days 84 per week 73 86 65 Average number of 2 50 2 98 2 56 2.89 people per carpool Average number of . .. months in a carpool 29 27 32 24 Most common carpool Household Co-worker Household Household partner member member member %would try car pooling 16 22 .. 25 20 1 days/wk. .. % of 2D+ mile . . . .. : commuters would try ., 18 11 20 0 14 van pooling % would try riding the 6 9 7 9 bus . . Source : "Understandlng Asian Commuters ill Soulhem Callfoma: Implications for Rideshare Market i ng by Amy Ho, Commuter Transportation Services Inc .. July 199 3 What programs or approaches would be best suited for Asians? African Ameri cans? Hispanics? Whites? MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 9 .. 9

PAGE 180


PAGE 181

TOM in t he A g e of Div ers ity MODULE GOALS o To examine the impact of TOM policies o n sutisegments of t he population. o To prov ide guidance for establishing a TOM program responsive to the needs of specific markets ASSUMPTIONS o Partic i pants have a basic understanding that the workforce is becoming increasingly diverse demographically o Market segmentation can improve the marl
PAGE 182

TOM WORK YOUR COMMUNITY lme people say that by 95, three out of four ople coming into the
PAGE 183

RECOMMENDATIONS TOM programs should : . o Allow flexible work schedules o Encourag e telecommuting o Provide ch ildcare and eldercare services in conven i ent locations o Compensate workers for the childcare and eldercare costs of using slower alternative modes o Provide meaningfu l security for women us ing alternative modes at night o Offer m i d-day transportation to grocery stores dry-clean ers banks post office etc o Offer comprehensive, we iJ..advertised guaranteed ride hom e programs Just as working mothers, single-parents, and primary care-givers have special needs in today's workplace which demand consider ations and changes in the way managers approach TOM, another distinct group is the body of un io n workers. Union workers have specific regulations which delineate work r egulations arrived at under negotiation, and agreed to by union representatives and management. These men and women generally hold the blue collar jobs with strict work-hour guidelines that would cause them to be considered prime candidates for many ridesharing arrange ments Be fore the program manage r may approach these com muters however it is im perative tha t he tshe becomes familiar with the collective barga in ing contract under whic h these people work Once the contract has been reviewed if no conflicts are present the manager may proceed with a TOM program If there is any doubt about the legal i ty or propriety of typical TOM In i tiat i ves, the wisest course of action for the TOM manager is to approach management and union representatives simultaneously to reach consensus and make a determination about the possibilities of a TOM program. lfthis requires changes to the collective bargaining agreement, the union representative is the best resource for l earning the method to change this contract as well as the vehicle for the change(s). MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNITY 9-3

PAGE 184

AKING TOM WORK YO UR COM M U NilY 9-4 ORGANIZED LABOR An Unfa i r Labor Practice (UF LP) occurs whe n : an employer dictates terms of employment covered by a collectiv e bargaining agreement without negotiating with the designated union repres entativ e Examples of TOM measures which can change work rules ; o Cash incentives for emp l oyees who opt for alternative modes o Alternative work hours o Manageme nt -byresults review of employee performance necessary for t elecommuting How to Avoid an UFLP : o Include a person selected by the un i on in the des i gn of the TOM program o Renegotiate the contract to include TOM measures, if necessary List two advantages o f implementing TOM in a unionizec workplace: 1 2. As white co llar workers left the city, and moved to the suburbs, blue-collar and unskilled manual-labor jobs were created i n and near the new suburban neighborhoods The people wh o moved to these more-expensive neighborhoods continue to work in the cen tra l business district to afford their lifestyles. The people w ho live in the inner-city by choice or for financial reasons make up the unemployed and population who have no access to the new markets i n the suburbs, and may burden the financial infrastructure oftheir city If provisions were made to transport the

PAGE 185

men and women who cannot afford private transportation, and are not offered public transit, two obstacles will be ove r come by this "reverse commute The people will have jobs and the open j obs will be filled. REVERSE COMMUTING Trends in Amer i can demographics (1970-1990): o Population growth i n the suburbs o Job crea ti on i n the suburbs o Whites fled to the suburbs ; m i norities stayed i n the cit i es o Lack of alternative mode infrastructure in the suburbs Catch-22 for urban residents: o Need a car to get to the f ob o Need a j ob to afford the car Reverse Commute programs: provide transportation for urban residents to reach suburban job sites. Programs can be sponsored by: public housing tenants' association (Chicago) urban neighborhood community center urban non profit association (Ch i cago Detroit) municipal transit agency (Detroit) regional transit agency (Phi l ade l phia) state department of transportation (Mi lwaukee) suburban employers suburban business park developers MAKJNG TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNI TY 9-5

PAGE 186

lAKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY 9-6 Program Example: Hartford CT C ity of Hartford Employment Transportation Serv ice Reverse Commute Vanpool Program. Cooperative effort between public agency and 1-3 employers Specific Program guidelines: Income level considerations For under employed and unemployed urban residents Only for commute routes not served by transit Must have minimum of four riders to start program To initiate van pool, company pays half of cost after subsidy, i f any Employee pays other half of costs Employee's share is comparable to transit costs Door-to-Door $1.50-1.75 each way Centra l Pickup $0.75-1.25 each way Free van ride to interviews, testing, training ... for new job Employee does not cont ri bute fare for two weeks, until first paycheck. After approximately 6 months, company stops subsidy, and employee assumes costs (payroll deduction is an option) Additional information: everse commute programs can enable people to hold a job who otherwise be unemployed. strategies based on financial penalties (i.e. parking fees) will a disproportionate effect on low -wage earners. commute programs are only a short-term solution. Prov i ding reverse commute transportation services is, at best, a short-term solution The long term problem is the job-housing imbalance which c r eates the need for r everse commuting Trans portation planners must address this problem with long-term solutions which encourage job creation in the urban area and affordable h ousing in the suburbs

PAGE 187

From the folowing tables a trend has been es t ablished whic h demonstrates how the commute pattern s of minority communities are becoming more. similar to those of community. Although one study IS gained f o r m survey intormation in one city, the other is from a national survey, and they both indicate similar findings over about a decade. It Is i mportant t o note that although th e tre nd i s to w ard samen ess, the two groups have some differ ences which the effectiv e manager will understand and use to serve the communities better Independ e n tly and In tum, the combined larg e r community society, better COMMUTER PATTER NS AND TRENDS BY RACE 1980 1980 1990 1990 Commute Type European African European African Amel1can American American American Total Number 292A '186 7168 462 Cornrruters . Number 4n 133 890 318 City> City Percent 16.3 71.5 12.4 68 8 lime 1 5.4 min 16 4 m in 15 0 min 15.9 min Number 173 34 534 76 City> No ndty Percent 5.9 18.3 7.4 16.5 Tme 20 3min 26.1 mil' 192min 23.5min Number 716 12 1688 36 Nondty>City Percent 24 5 6.5 23 .5 7.8 lime 23.5 min 21. 7 min 24.7 min 25.4min N umber 1558 7 4 056 32 Noncity>Noncity Percent 53.3 3.8 56.6 6.9 Tme 14 4mln 21. 0min 14.9min 18 1 min . Source : "Gender, Race and Locational Access to Employmen t In Buffalo NY 1980 to 1990" by lbipo Johns t on-Anumonwo, State University of New York College at CorUand. Presented at TRB, January, 1994 MAKING TOM WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY 9-7

PAGE 188

lAKING TOM WORK I YOUR COMMUNITY 9-8 References 1. A Directory of California Trip Reduction Ordinances Second Edition, California DepartmentofTransportation, Sacramento, CA. January 1990. 2. Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Board of Regents of the State University System of Florida and the Association of Federal, State and Municipal Employees 1991-1994. Bibliography Gerwig, Katherine, Issues and Barriers, Re sources Papers from TDM Innovation and Research: Setting a Strategic Agenda for the Future, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., November 15-16, 1993. Hughes, Mark Alan and Julie Sternberg, The New Metropolitan Reality: Where the Rubber Meets the Road in Anti-Povelty Policy, Public Finance and Housing Center, the Urban Inst itut e, Washing ton, D C., December 1992. Parke r, Mike and Jane Slaughter, Choosing Sides: Unions and the Team Concept, Labor Notes, Detroit, MI. 1988. Rosenbloom Sandra and Elizabeth Bums, Do Environmental Measures and Travel Reduction Programs Hurt Worl
PAGE 189

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES LOS ANGELE S COMMUTERS Whit8 .Mian Hispanic American .. % at worksites with >100 employees 65 50 62. 70 % with Househo l d income>$65,000 36 20 '31 9 Average number of months at wor1l programs or approaches w oul d be best suited for Asians? Hispanics? Whites? MAKING TOM WORK I N YOUR COMMUNITY 9-9

PAGE 190



Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.