Click for next page ( 92


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 91
age, 4 percent more peak-period I-5 ramp traffic and 23 to 44 percent more peak period traffic con- gestion in the 8.6-mile corridor segment studied (Georggi et al., 2007). Critics of mandatory TDM as a means of cost-effective, region-wide solution to congestion and air quality problems point to both the relatively small number of employers whose programs have substantial trip reduction impacts and the dilution of these impacts over a large employment base and background regional traffic. A 1993 article written at the height of the regulatory controversy by Kenneth Orski acknowledged that there were compelling examples of substantial modal shifts and trip reductions achieved at individual employment sites, but questioned whether comparable reductions could be achieved at a regional level. He argued, firstly, that work trips constituted only about 25 percent of all daily trips, and were not more than 40 percent of the trips occurring in the peak period. Secondly, he contended that work trips to major employment sites (those with 100 or more employees) constituted only about 40 percent of total work trips, hence about 10 percent of daily trips (16 percent of peak-period trips) and 13 percent of daily VMT would be the maximum affected by a mandatory TDM program. He then calculated that a full 25 percent increase in aver- age vehicle ridership (the theoretical target) would produce a 2 to 3 percent decrease in regional vehicle trips and about a 3 to 4 percent decrease in regional VMT (Orski, 1993). While such a reduction might prove cost-effective in particular situations, it is well to recognize the relationship between the achievements of a few excellent TDM programs and measurable impact at a regional, corridor, or subarea level. The relationships between individual employer- level results and regional- or facility-level results are further dissected in the above-mentioned "Site- Versus System-Level Impacts" subsection. Characteristics of Employer It may be rightly asked whether there is any relationship between the characteristics of the employer or institution staging a TDM program and the types--and thus combined effectiveness-- of strategies which are employed. Tables 19-24 and 19-25 explore this question on the basis of two characteristics, type of employer and employer size, once again drawing upon the 82-program sample as described in Appendix Table 19-A.11 This investigation only attempts to chart the types of strategies which may be more common to particular types of employers, and does not address the implications of these strategy preferences on outcome, namely vehicle trip reduction. Earlier sections have examined the relative effectiveness of various types of strategies versus others. Many of the conclusions that might be drawn from these displays should be treated with special caution, given the sparse sample sizes for many of the strata. For example, the commercial/service, utility, medical institution, university, and other institution groupings are each represented by less than 10 observations. The samples of employer groupings of fewer than 100 employees, and 500 to 1,000 employees, are represented by only two and seven observations, respectively. Hence, the data should be used only for broadly descriptive purposes. 11 For an alternative perspective on the mix of strategies offered by employers, focusing on strategy combina- tion information rather than employer type stratification, see the discussion surrounding Table 19-31, "CUTR Worksite Trip Reduction Model--Ranking by Frequency of Occurrence of the 50 Most Common Program Combinations," found in the "Related Information and Impacts" section under "Modeling Studies"-- "CUTR Worksite Trip Reduction Model." 19-91

OCR for page 91
With respect to type of employer (Table 19-24), it can be seen that the practice noted earlier of pro- viding basic employer support type strategies--such as offering commute information, rideshare matching, and guaranteed ride home--is widely followed across all of the employment types. It would appear, though, that office, utility, government, universities, and other institutions are somewhat more likely to offer these strategies with high frequency compared to commercial, manufacturing, and medical types of employers. Interestingly, utilities and universities are the most likely to have limited parking and to charge for that parking, while commercial, manufac- turing, government, and other institutions are more likely to have ample parking and to provide it without charge.12 The offering of preferential parking appears to coincide with the restricted/priced parking that more frequently occurs with utilities, universities, and other institutions, possibly because these are also generally large employers with large parking facilities, where offering close-in parking for HOVs could actually be a meaningful incentive. Consistent with this reasoning, a high percentage of industrial/manufacturing employers (64.3 percent) also offer preferential parking despite the fact that only 14.3 percent report restricted parking capacity. Conversely, medical institutions do not offer preferred parking because, in general, their parking is at such a premium given the mul- titude of uses (staff, visitors, outpatients) that they have no surplus capacity to part with. (For more insight on the particular circumstances faced by medical institutions, consult Dowling, Feltham, and Wycko, 1991, or the summary provided in this Handbook's Chapter 18, "Parking Management and Supply," under "Response by Type of Strategy"--"On-Street Residential Neighborhood Parking Management"--"Effects on TDM Program Effectiveness"). In terms of transportation service type strategies, particularly vanpool programs, it appears that these occur most frequently among industrial/manufacturing employers, utilities, and universi- ties, in part because of the large sizes and often remote campus locations involved. Transit subsi- dies are offered at a high rate across the entire set of employers, but have their highest prevalence in professional/office, government, utilities, medical, and other institutions. Provision of modal subsidies other than transit is most prevalent at office, government, and medical institutions. 12 There is an odd result in the "Other Institution" category where only 28.6 percent have restricted parking but 42.9 percent charge for it. This is not a data error, but rather reflects the policy of the organizations in the sample. 19-92

OCR for page 91
Table 19-24 TDM Strategy Offerings by Type of Employer Percent of Employers Offering Given Strategy by Employer Type (Sample Size in Parentheses) Prof./Office Commerc./ Indust./ Govern- Utility Medical University Other Inst. All TDM Strategy (25) Service (8) Manuf. (14) ment (10) (8) (6) (4) (7) (82) Info. Center/ETC 80.0% 50.0% 64.3% 70.0% 87.5% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 74.4% Rideshare Matching 60.0 50.0 64.3 80.0 87.5 50.0 100.0 85.7 68.3 Guaranteed Ride 60.0 62.5 57.1 100.0 37.5 66.7 75.0 57.1 63.4 On-Site Pass Sales 20.0 12.5 21.4 10.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 42.9 19.5 Fairs/Promotions 12.0 12.5 35.7 40.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 57.1 22.0 On-Site Services 8.0 0.0 14.3 10.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 14.3 8.5 Preferential Parking 28.0% 37.5% 64.3% 40.0% 62.5% 16.7% 75.0% 71.4% 45.1% Bike Racks/Showers 36.0 50.0 50.0 90.0 37.5 33.3 100.0 57.1 51.2 Company Vehicles 12.0 12.5 14.3 20.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 14.3 12.2 19-93 Vanpool Program 32.0 12.5 42.9 0.0 37.5 16.7 75.0 0.0 26.8 Transit Services 8.0 12.5 14.3 0.0 0.0 50.0 75.0 14.3 14.6 Restricted Parking 56.0% 25.0% 14.3% 30.0% 87.5% 66.7% 100.0% 28.6% 46.3% Parking Fees 52.0 25.0 0.0 30.0 62.5 50.0 75.0 42.9 39.0 HOV Parking Discounts 36.0 12.5 0.0 30.0 37.5 16.7 25.0 0.0 22.0 Transit Subsidies 80.0 50.0 35.7 70.0 75.0 83.3 50.0 71.4 65.9 Trnsp. Allow./Cash-Out 12.0 0.0 7.1 40.0 12.5 16.7 0.0 14.3 13.4 Other Mode Subsidies 52.0% 12.5% 42.9% 60.0% 12.5% 66.7% 50.0% 14.3% 41.5% Other Monetary 12.0 37.5 14.3 20.0 12.5 16.7 0.0 0.0 14.6 Flextime 52.0 75.0 35.7 70.0 87.5 33.3 50.0 57.1 56.1 Staggered Hours 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 42.9 7.3 Comp. Work Week 24.0 25.0 28.6 50.0 50.0 66.7 25.0 85.7 39.0 Telecommuting 4.0 0.0 14.3 40.0 12.5 50.0 25.0 42.9 18.3 Sources: Derived (see Appendix Table 19-A) from Comsis (1994), Comsis and ITE (1993), Rutherford et al. (1994), and Comsis et al. (1996).

OCR for page 91
Finally, with respect to alternative work arrangements, several but not all relationships appear to confirm intuition on the types of employment that are best suited or not suited to these relax- ations from a standard 40-hour/5-day work week. For example, government and utilities appear most inclined to offer flextime, while manufacturing and medical institutions do not. Surprisingly, 3/4 of commercial/service employers in the sample offer flextime. Perhaps in-store schedule adherence needs are counterbalanced by order-taking, administrative, and off-site functions. What also seems an anomaly is finding that 1/2 of medical institutions allow telecommuting, despite the critical nature of physical presence at the institution. Other institutions, medical insti- tutions, utilities, and government seem to be the most likely to allow CWW, with a lower but not insubstantial rate of involvement (about 1/4) for office, commercial, manufacturing, and univer- sities. Telecommuting appears at a low rate overall in this sample, more likely to be encountered among government, medical, and other institutions, and less so at office, commercial, manufac- turing, utilities, and universities. Table 19-25 portrays the frequency by which individual TDM strategies are applied in relation to employer/institution size. Unfortunately, uncontrollable irregularities in the distribution of the sample result in too few observations of smaller employers (under 100 employees) and those in the medium-to-large category (500 to 1,000). Limiting the comparison mainly to the 100-to-500 size versus the over-1,000 size employers suggests the following trends: First, those TDM strategies that seem to be offered more frequently by larger employers are rideshare matching; on-site pass sales; transportation fairs and promotions; preferential HOV parking; bike racks and changing facilities; vanpool and supplemental transit programs; parking fees; modal subsidies; other mon- etary incentives (raffles, prizes, award points, time off with pay); and telecommuting. Strategies where size of employer does not obviously correlate with higher frequency of offering include information center/ETC, guaranteed ride home, use of company vehicles, transit subsidies, HOV parking discounts, flextime, and CWW. Partially compensating for the lack of information on smaller employers in Table 19-25, Table 19-26 shows the rates at which particular strategies were adopted by employers in their introductory plans for compliance under Regulation XV in Southern California. These data were compiled from SCAQMD's Regulation XV database in a study of TSM Measures in Suburban Settings (JHK & Associates, 1992). The strategies in the table appear in order of the frequency with which they were applied by the largest employers (more than 1,000 employees), although it will be noted that the distribution for the large (500 to 1,000) and medium (100 to 499) size employers is similar in pattern. For the smaller employers, however, the pattern begins to diverge a bit, apparently in relation to the lesser resources of the smaller employers. A common phenomenon across employers of all sizes is the very infrequent use of parking man- agement, pricing, and direct financial incentives. Also, work at home and alternative work sched- ules were not particularly popular strategies in the first year of these programs. What is perhaps surprising is the relatively high rate of employers offering transit subsidies, even among the smaller employers, and even when transit service is not particularly good. One conclusion that might be drawn is that as employers are compelled to add strategies, it is relatively inexpensive to offer tran- sit subsidies if it isn't likely that they will actually be used. 19-94

OCR for page 91
Table 19-25 Application of Strategies by Employer/Institution Size Percentage of Employees Offered Strategy by Employer Size Range (Sample Size) 1,000 All Sizes TDM Strategy (2) (34) (7) (39) (82) Info Center/ETC 50.0% 76.5% 57.1% 76.9% 74.4% Rideshare Matching 0.0 58.8 71.4 79.5 68.3 Guaranteed Ride 0.0 76.5 57.1 56.4 63.4 On-Site Pass Sales 50.0 8.8 14.3 28.2 19.5 Fairs/Promotions 50.0 8.8 14.3 33.3 22.0 On-Site Services 0.0 11.8 0.0 7.7 8.5 Preferential Parking 0.0 29.4 28.6 64.1 45.1 Bike Racks/Showers 100.0 44.1 14.3 61.5 51.2 Company Vehicles 0.0 14.7 14.3 10.3 12.2 Vanpool Program 0.0 8.8 0.0 48.7 26.8 Transit Services 0.0 2.9 14.3 25.6 14.6 Restricted Parking 0.0 32.4 42.9 61.5 46.3 Parking Fees 0.0 35.3 42.9 43.6 39.0 HOV Parking Discounts 0.0 20.6 42.9 20.5 22.0 Transit Subsidies 0.0 64.7 71.4 69.2 65.9 Transp. Allow./Cash-Out 0.0 17.6 0.0 12.8 13.4 Other-Mode Subsidies 0.0 29.4 57.1 51.3 41.5 Other Monetary Incentives 0.0 11.8 0.0 20.5 14.6 Flextime 0.0 64.7 28.6 56.4 56.1 Staggered Hours 0.0 2.9 0.0 12.8 7.3 Compressed Work Week 0.0 41.2 14.3 43.6 39.0 Telecommuting 0.0 11.8 14.3 25.6 18.3 Sources: Derived (see Appendix Table 19-A) from Comsis (1994), Comsis and ITE (1993), Rutherford et al. (1994), and Comsis et al. (1996). Also of interest is what happens over time to TDM programs, as experience is gained and the need arises to either secure more trip reduction impact or improve cost-effectiveness. The same study that provided the information for Table 19-26 developed a comparison on how the preference for strategies changed between program Years 1 and 2. The results are shown in Table 19-27, which compares the frequency of offered strategies in terms of the number of employees exposed to them. Next to the number is the corresponding rank, with "1" being the most commonly applied strategy in that year. The final column shows the change in rank between Years 1 and 2, calcu- lated as the difference between the first- and second-year rankings. The top 10 strategies in Year 1 were, in order: (1) on-site services, (2) ongoing transit subsidy, (3) regional ridematching, (4) com- muter information center, (5) internal rideshare matching, (6) flextime for ridesharers, (7) prefer- ential parking, (8) drawings and prizes, (9) guaranteed ride home, and (10) transit information. In Year 2, the preference order changed to: (1) showers and lockers, (2) on-site services, (3) regional ridematching, (4) commuter information center, (5) marketing/other, (6) guaranteed ride home, (7) internal rideshare matching, (8) drawings and prizes, (9) preferential parking, and (10) pas- senger loading areas. 19-95

OCR for page 91
Table 19-26 Strategies Offered in Year One by Company Size--SCAQMD (Los Angeles) Number of Employers Offering Strategy by Size Group (Sample Size) 1,000 TDM Strategy (43) (96) (278) (383) (584) Preferential Parking Areas 27 64 197 252 436 Ongoing Transit Subsidies 31 57 146 217 326 Prize Drawings, Raffles 27 47 153 208 295 Bike Racks 24 50 130 178 250 Regional Rideshare Matching 21 43 107 142 218 Transit Information/Racks 14 27 89 133 210 Guaranteed Ride Home 17 33 79 117 207 Flextime for Ridesharers 12 21 78 134 197 Employer Rideshare Matching 14 30 84 129 181 Ongoing Carpool Subsidies 7 29 97 138 180 New Hire Orientation 18 26 67 118 166 Commuter Info Center 9 14 74 110 157 Employee Benefits and Services 20 31 73 105 151 Showers and Lockers 10 26 58 78 149 Marketing Elements - Other 11 20 84 118 147 On-Site Services 13 19 49 69 120 Bike to Work Subsidies 6 20 64 91 114 Ongoing Vanpool Subsidies 2 8 46 50 113 Walk to Work Subsidies 13 28 65 92 109 4/40 Work Schedule 3 11 37 74 108 Company Owned/Leased Vans 3 5 35 64 108 Commuter Fairs 4 7 36 65 87 Use of Company Vehicles 2 10 27 43 82 Company Recognition 11 17 44 48 70 Work At Home 3 5 27 33 68 On-Site Auto Services 22 24 34 41 59 Direct Financial Incentives 6 10 25 29 55 9/80 Work Schedule 1 7 11 37 41 Additional Time Off with Pay 3 13 21 19 39 Subsidized Rideshare Parking 1 5 7 28 3/36 Work Schedule 1 4 10 13 23 Facility Improvements 4 8 4 10 18 Parking Management Strategies 2 5 12 13 17 Passenger Loading Areas 1 1 2 3 17 Parking Fees for Drive Alones 4 9 13 Childcare Services 4 2 3 11 Work at Satellite Center 1 7 5 Transportation Allowance 1 2 5 Source: Drawn from SCAQMD Regulation XV Database as published in JHK & Associates (1992). 19-96

OCR for page 91
Table 19-27 Change in Type of Strategies Offered in Year 2 Versus Year 1--SCAQMD (Los Angeles) Employee Exposure to Strategies Rank Change TDM Strategy Year 1 Rank Year 2 Rank (Year 1 to Year 2) Passenger Loading Areas 4,364 31 53,178 10 21 Showers and Lockers 15,886 16 198,945 1 15 Marketing Elements - Other 22,935 13 65,785 5 8 Direct Financial Incentives 3,304 33 5,390 26 7 On-Site Auto Services 5,181 27 9,856 21 6 Additional Time Off with Pay 2,883 35 4,168 30 5 New Hire Orientation 14,405 17 27,662 14 3 Company Recognition 16,674 15 31,697 12 3 Guaranteed Ride Home 32,877 9 61,430 6 3 Parking Fees for Drive Alones 3,010 34 3,362 32 2 Transportation Allowance 950 37 1,824 36 1 Work At Home 2,417 36 1,858 35 1 Parking Management Strategies 4,477 29 4,812 28 1 Commuter Fairs 13,331 18 23,861 17 1 Work at Satellite Center 603 38 32 38 0 Prize Drawings, Raffles 38,090 8 55,236 8 0 Commuter Info Center 57,027 4 80,675 4 0 Regional Rideshare Matching 72,579 3 87,658 3 0 Walk to Work Subsidies 4,411 30 3,477 31 -1 Bike Racks 5,921 24 5,399 25 -1 3/36 Work Schedule 10,414 19 15,083 20 -1 On-Site Services 179,412 1 97,734 2 -1 Bike to Work Subsidies 3,876 32 2,839 34 -2 Subsidized Rideshare Parking 5,466 25 4,872 27 -2 9/80 Work Schedule 6,994 22 6,223 24 -2 Facility Improvements 7,506 21 6,965 23 -2 Ongoing Vanpool Subsidies 7,823 20 8,266 22 -2 Preferential Parking Areas 41,809 7 53,398 9 -2 Employer Rideshare Matching 56,667 5 56,102 7 -2 Employee Benefits and Services 23,444 12 25,213 15 -3 Transit Information/Racks 28,603 10 31,610 13 -3 4/40 Work Schedule 19,120 14 20,085 18 -4 Ongoing Carpool Subsidies 27,339 11 24,940 16 -5 Flextime for Ridesharers 46,003 6 37,193 11 -5 Introductory Transit Subsidies 5,927 23 4,767 29 -6 Company Owned/Leased Vans 5,256 26 3,323 33 -7 Childcare Services 4,751 28 1,344 37 -9 Ongoing Transit Subsidies 95,461 2 19,116 19 -17 Source: Drawn from SCAQMD Regulation XV Database as published in JHK & Associates (1992). 19-97