Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 129
along with mixed-use development, was estimated to offer an 8 to 27 percent VTR at participating sites, a 6 percent average workplace VTR, and a 2 percent peak-traffic reduction on the adjacent I-494 segment (Pratt, 1990).17 Insofar as this study only looked at suburban freeway mainline vol- umes and the Seattle I-5 analysis described immediately above reported only urban freeway ramp volumes, direct comparison is not possible, but the estimated traffic outcomes appear to be gener- ally compatible. Note that the Minneapolis airport-area "High Scenario" key employer and average workplace impact estimates are in the same ballpark as the downtown Bellevue empirical results now avail- able (see the Bellevue case study). On the other hand, the Bellevue program is a uniquely success- ful example and is outlying-downtown-oriented. Actual results for voluntary TDM programs in spread-out suburban employment areas would likely be in the realm of the Minneapolis I-494 "Low Scenario" estimates. It is also of interest to note that the Minneapolis I-494 "High Scenario" estimate for facility-level traffic reduction of 2 percent is of the same order of magnitude, although somewhat lower than, the estimates by Kenneth Orski of a theoretically achievable 2 to 3 percent decrease in regional vehicle trips and 3 to 4 percent decrease in regional vehicle miles of travel (VMT) (Orski, 1993). These estimates were presented earlier, at the end of the "Voluntary Versus Regulatory Employer Motivation" discussion within the "Underlying Traveler Response Factors" section. As of this writing, Washington is one of very few states that currently have strong Commute Trip Reduction laws or the equivalent. State officials have noted that "Washington and Oregon are the only states where the percentage of people driving alone to work decreased between 1990 and 2000." Oregon has similar regulations plus urban growth boundaries. In Washington State the 19902000 drive-alone share reduction was 0.6 percentage points, from 73.9 percent to 73.3 percent, an 0.8 percent decline. Nationwide, the U.S. drive-alone share for commuting increased by 3.4 per- cent (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2007). Although these observations cannot demonstrate causality, they are suggestive of a broad-scale TDM, transportation investment and operations, and land use public policy impact. Comparing the Washington State 19902000 drive- alone share reduction with the national drive-alone share increase suggests that this combined impact may, over a decade, be on the order of a 4 percent drive-alone share reduction/dampening under favorable mandatory regulation conditions. Cost-Effectiveness Numerous studies in the 1990s investigated the cost-effectiveness of TDM approaches for reduc- ing vehicle travel and also emissions. A major motivation in these studies was the outcry from employers in Southern California who complained about substantial costs to implement trip reduction programs under the requirement of Regulation XV, made in the context of growing evi- dence that the program was falling short of its goals in achieving trip-reduction targets. A 1993 study by Ernst & Young caused widespread controversy when it concluded that employers par- ticipating in Regulation XV were realizing an annual expense per employee of $105 for that par- ticipation, with a cost per trip reduced of $3,000 per year. In a challenge of these findings, contrary evidence from other studies was presented, including Chicago ($31.42 per employee per year); San Diego ($26.15); Commuter Transportation Services 17 The original estimates included effects of workplace-based variable work hours programs and facility-based TSM measures such as freeway metering/bypass lanes and HOV lanes. These effects are not included here for clarity of presentation. 19-129
OCR for page 130
($57); UCLA/USC ($31); TCRP ($14.70); Maricopa County, Arizona ($8); Pima County, Arizona ($18); and Washington State ($9). From these data it was concluded that a more appropriate esti- mate of cost per employee would be in the $8 to $57 range, with an average of $24 (Schreffler, 1996). An earlier study at University of California, Berkeley tended to reinforce the latter findings with an average cost of $31 per employee per year and a median cost of $20, although the objective of the University of California, Berkeley study had been to demonstrate that other transportation management measures--such as pricing, land use density, and a broader range of alternatives-- would be generally more cost-effective than regulatory TDM (Wachs, 1993). In Part III (Section 3.4) of the 1993 FHWA report, Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures, an assessment is made in circa 19911992 dollars of the cost and cost-effectiveness of 22 employer programs researched for the study. Parking was charged for outright at 12 of these 22 organizations. These 12 plus another six of the programs included incentives and/or disincen- tives of some sort. The analysis looked at direct costs associated with administering the program, plus any subsidies or costs of providing services, and then also estimated cost savings. Savings were determined as either revenues generated by the program (such as parking fees) or costs averted, particularly avoided costs related to employee parking. Only situations where the employer was paying a sep- arate, definable cost for parking were considered to be avoidable. Over the sample of 22 employers, the direct cost per daily one-way vehicle trip reduced ranged from $0 to $6.75, with an average of $1.22 (weighted by trips). Cost savings per trip reduced ranged from $0 to $6.21, with a weighted average of $1.94. Net cost per trip reduced, or direct cost minus cost savings, ranged from $4.99 to -$3.32, with a weighted average of -$0.72.18 If this net cost were presented in terms of the entire employee base (perhaps a better measure of the cost impact on an employer) the range was from $1.81 to -$2.01 per employee, with an average of -$0.24 for the over- all sample. The lesson taken from this analysis was that employer TDM programs that incorporate financial incentives and disincentives--most particularly including the availability and price of parking-- are not only the most effective in reducing vehicle trips, but have the lowest cost per employee and per trip reduced of all programs. Indeed, as just presented, the net costs per trip and per employee were each found to be negative on average (Comsis and ITE, 1993). This finding may also partially explain the high cost per employee and per trip in the Ernst & Young study. The great majority of programs that were in place and examined in that study were support-type programs that did not use incentives and disincentives (Schreffler, 1996). Similar findings about the effect of different program types were derived from the results of a survey of 49 employers in the TCRP Project B-4 study (Comsis, 1994). In this project, a framework was used that categorized employer programs into four groupings: programs that were essentially support measures, programs incorporating services, programs built on incentives and disincen- tives, and programs combining services with incentives/disincentives. Table 19-36 shows the cost-effectiveness results from this analysis. 18 The trip cost data presented here in the first half of this paragraph are the only known instance in this chapter of performance data dimensioned in one-way trips. The findings should be multiplied by two before comparing with other information in the chapter on cost per trip reduced. 19-130
OCR for page 131
Table 19-36 Cost-Effectiveness of Four Types of TDM Programs Annual Cost per Cost per Daily Trip Employee Reduced Type Program Number VTR Direct Net Direct a Net a Support 6 -1.4% b $13.92 $13.92 $0.62 $0.62 Services 5 8.5% $29.16 $29.16 $1.49 $1.49 Incentives 27 16.3% $13.46 -$111.47 $0.37 -$1.36 Services and 11 24.5% $92.94 -$24.77 $1.35 -$0.63 Incentives All 49 15.3% $32.96 -$62.30 $0.75 -$0.78 Notes: a Computed only for programs with a positive trip reduction. b A negative VTR implies that the sample program(s) had vehicle trip rates that were actually greater than the average from the surrounding area with which they were compared. Source: Comsis (1994), with table corrections by the Handbook authors, derived on the basis of the disaggregated data in the source document. As the level of program intensity grows from support to full-fledged services-plus-incentives, the average VTR also increases. This increase runs from the seemingly odd result of an average computed gain in vehicle trips for the support programs of a -1.4 percent VTR (see Note b in Table 19-36) on up to a reduction of 24.5 percent for the service and incentive programs. Looking at costs, support programs cost the employer an average of $13.92 per employee per year, while service-based programs, which have a higher VTR impact, cost $29.16 per employee per year. Incentive/disincentive-based programs cost the employer $13.46 per employee per year, less than one-half the cost of the services programs but reducing twice the rate of trips. Service/incentive pro- grams cost $92.94 per year per employee, the highest unit cost, attributable to the extensive nature of the programs--especially the services and subsidies. These programs, however, also achieve the highest average trip reduction, at 24.5 percent. The picture changes sharply when avoided costs are factored in. When this is done, the support and the services programs change imperceptibly, since they haven't reduced trips substantially, and because parking was not found to be a problem at these employers. However, the incentive/ disincentive programs show an average net cost savings of $111.47 per employee per year. The service/incentive programs--comparatively expensive on a direct cost basis--become financially attractive with avoidable cost savings factored in, providing a net cost savings of $24.77 per employee per year. The relationships change somewhat when costs are examined on a per-trip basis. Support pro- grams average $0.62 in direct cost per daily vehicle trip reduced (a cost per trip was only calcu- lated for those programs with a positive trip reduction). Service programs average $1.49 per daily vehicle trip reduced, again about double the cost of the support programs. Incentive programs realize a cost of $0.37 per trip, lower than the others, while service/incentive programs cost $1.35 per trip. The average direct cost per daily vehicle trip reduced is $0.75 for all programs, a surprisingly 19-131