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 13
Establish a Department-level Protocol
for Integrating TDM into Projects All respondents complete
Section 1: Identifying the Role
Regardless of whether or not state DOTs oper- of the State in TDM
ate an overarching TDM program, they can still
integrate TDM into planning phases. This can often
be done through the development of traffic mitiga-
tion or management plans, as well as construction If "yes," respondents complete If "no," respondents complete
Section 2: Existing TDM Section 3: Absence of TDM
mitigation, and consideration of bike/pedestrian fa- Programs Programs
cilities for new highways or roads. States may want
to develop a protocol based on input from a variety
Figure 1 Illustration of survey logic.
of divisions, so that TDM can be incorporated as a
strategy into projects across multiple departments
within the state DOT. States may want to consider If the response was no, the team then requested that
adding a step into the project planning phase to ac- the contact recommend an alternate contact. In the
count for TDM measures, including a TDM repre- few cases without any response, the team followed
sentative on all major new projects to ensure that up via telephone. Through this outreach strategy, the
TDM mitigation is at least considered in the plan- team was able to identify and confirm contacts for
ning phase, as with Caltrans' example. As another 49 states and the District of Columbia.36
example, UDOT has a standing committee of inter- The survey was designed in three parts using
nal TDM stakeholders across departments in order http://www.surveymonkey.com. Figure 1 shows the
to help this integration process. relationship between the three parts described here.
All respondents filled out Section 1 (Identifying the
CHAPTER 4 SURVEY RESULTS Role of the State in TDM) and one additional sec-
tion depending on their response to the following
As part of the first step in surveying the state conditional question.
DOTs, the research team conducted outreach to iden- Question #3. Does your state DOT:37
tify contacts to participate in the survey. The research
team aimed to identify and confirm at least one con- · Enforce/support the implementation of local-
tact for each state DOT who could participate in the ities' plans to reduce SOV travel?
survey. The team reviewed a variety of sources to · Fund local organizations focused on TDM,
identify contacts, including: professional contacts; such as local jurisdictions or TMAs/TMOs?
membership directory for the Association for Com- · Fund/manage a statewide TDM approach?
muter Transportation (ACT); membership directory · Provide technical assistance to local TDM
for the AASHTO Standing Committee on Public organizations?
Transportation; TDM Listserv, Center for Urban · Use TDM as part of its own activities, such as
Transportation Research at the University of South during construction projects?
Florida; membership directory of the TRB TDM Those participants who responded affirmatively
Subcommittee; Biking and Pedestrian Coordinator (e.g., that their agency did one/all of these roles) filled
contact list at http://walkinginfo.org; contacts from out Section 2 (Existing TDM Programs). Those re-
past research team projects and reports; staff list for spondents who did not identify a role in TDM filled
FHWA Federal-aid Division Offices, Planning and out Section 3 instead (Absence of TDM Programs).
Environment and Realty; and general review of state The survey allowed for several open-ended ques-
DOT websites. tions in which respondents could provide additional
Using these sources, the researchers identified information/detail.
two to three potential contacts at each state DOT.
The team emailed each potential contact inquiring if
that person would be an appropriate contact to dis- 36 While the research team was unable to confirm a contact in
cuss TDM at their agency. If the response was yes, Texas, the team did send the survey to potential contacts, but
the team requested that the contact confirm that he did not receive a response.
or she would be able to participate in a brief survey. 37 Paraphrased and edited from original survey question.
13
