See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235358087

Transportation Demand Management: Planning, Development and

Implementation

Article in Journal of the American Planning Association · December 1990

DOI: 10.1080/01944369008975448

CITATIONS READS

46 400

1 author:

Erik Ferguson
Evangelische Theologische Faculteit
19 PUBLICATIONS 271 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Decision making View project

Leadership Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Erik Ferguson on 21 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Transportation Demand Management: Planning, Development, and Implementation
Ferguson, Erik
American Planning Association. Journal of the American Planning Association; Autumn 1990; 56, 4; ABI/INFORM Global
pg. 442

Until recently, developers often were not held respon-

Transportation sible for the transportation system impacts of their proj-
ects (Cervero 1988). Occasionally, if major site-specific

Demand traffic impacts were identified, the developer might be

required to provide mitigation in the form of traffic sig-
nalization or road improvements at the boundary of or

Management within the area designated for development (Greenberg

and Hecimovich 1984). This situation has changed dra-
matically within the past few years. Local traffic conges-
Planning, tion and regional mobility are major issues in many parts
of the country, particularly in suburban areas character-
Development, and ized by rapid economic growth and development (Pisarski
1987; Deakin 1988). Because of these changing condi-
Implementation tions. the role of developers in transportation system
management. planning, and operations is currently being
redefined in many parts of the country.
Erik Ferguson Land developers and real estate speculators played an
important role in building many of the early electric
streetcar. subway, and elevated public transit lines in
Transportation demand management (TDM) is American cities (Warner 1962; Wachs 1984). With the
the art of modifying travel behavior, usually to advent of the federal interstate highway construction
avoid more costly expansion of the transporta- program in the 1950s. however, public subvention of
tion system. TDM is not a panacea, but it can urban transportation facilities supplanted the role of the
help ease some transportation problems. TDM private sector almost completely in most areas of surface
requires the cooperation of many actors, who transportation (Weiner 1988). More recently, it has be-
may include developers; landowners; employers; come popular once again to consider the privatization
business associations; and municipal, county, re- and deregulation of transit, aviation, and other transpor-
gional, and state levels of government. This ar- tation services as a means of increasing the absolute size
ticle reviews new TDM organizational forms, in- and relative efficiency of the transportation system (Lave
cluding transportation management associa- 1985; Morrison and Winston 1989). To the extent that
tions, trip reduction ordinances, and negotiated developers. employers. and other private actors are in-
public-private agreements. More flexible ap- volved in determining the configuration or utilization of
proaches appear to work best. TDM evaluation future transportation system improvements, a form of
is difficult, because reductions in trip generation privatization, or public-private cooperation, may be said
rates, i.e., relative changes in travel demand, are to be occurring (Lundqvist 1988).
not easy to measure. Evidence suggests that TDM
can be applied in a wide variety of situations, The Function and Context of
with equally variable, and sometimes quite good,
overall results. TDM strategies that often have
Transportation Demand Management
proven to be effective include on-site employee Historically, the most common approach to the miti-
transportation coordination, parking manage- gation of traffic congestion in the United States has been
ment provisions, and alternative work schedules. expansion of the transportation system, usually with the
intention of staying one step ahead of travel demand.
This simplified approach has many problems. For ex-
ample. traditional travel demand forecasting methods fail
to take latent demand into account. Travel demand often
grows much faster than anticipated, and traffic congestion
may occur much sooner than expected. In addition. con-
struction costs for new highways have escalated in recent
years. Public funding for new highway construction has
Ferguson is an assistant professor in the Graduate City not grown as rapidly. Some funds earmarked for new
Planning Program of the Georgia Institute of Technol- highway construction are being diverted to cover long-
ogy, where he teaches and conducts research on urban
transportation planning and policy analysis, urban and deferred maintenance of existing infrastructure, which is
regional economics, and environmental and natural re- rapidly aging and deteriorating under heavy traffic loads.
source economics. He worked as a transportation plan- These factors exacerbate chronic highway capacity
ner for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Trans- shortages, particularly in rapidly growing suburban areas.
portation Systems Center, the Orange County Transit Further, social and environmental concerns, at least in
District, and Commuter Transportation Services, Inc., some parts of the country. have led to the conclusion
prior to coming to Georgia Tech. that expansion of the transportation system to accom-

APA JOURNAL 442 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 modate increasing travel demand is no longer warranted sponses to various aspects of travel behavior, as treated
as the fundamental premise of surface transportation in the traditional four-step urban transportation planning
policy and planning (Giuliano 1989). process, with a temporal dimension added.
During the 1970s transportation experts actively The specific strategy adopted will depend on the in-
sought alternatives to highway expansion. They identified terests of the parties involved. Suburban residents often
a wide variety of low cost measures, including strategies are concerned with quality-of-life issues (Harashina and
to increase transportation system capacity globally, to Mutoh 1989). Developers are concerned about local
decrease transportation system capacity locally, to reduce economic growth and freedom of action in the exercise
travel demand, and combinations of all three. These dis- of private property rights (Kroll 1984). Planners should
parate measures were eventually billed as transportation be concerned with maintaining high quality growth, as
system management (TSM) techniques. Many problems well as with providing community services in an equi-
were encountered in implementing TSM in this period. table and efficient manner (Harris and King 1988). These
One key problem was the lack of interface between the actors may differ over local political issues associated
public and private sectors, which made TSM approaches with suburban traffic congestion and other external social
such as ridesharing difficult or impossible to implement and environmental effects of the development process
(Engelen 1981; Roark 1981). (Banister 1989). The most common TDM approaches
TDM differs from TSM in that its focus is exclusively emphasize travel behavior modifications independent of
on travel demand rather than on transportation supply. location and land use. Efforts to change mode and time
Travel demand management responds to changes in of travel for the work trip have been applied most often.
transportation supply; hence, the two approaches are The other approaches may be equally viable, but have
complementary rather than competing strategies to been tested with far less frequency in practice.
achieve more efficient transportation system utilization. TOM is appealing because it offers an opportunity to
Table 1 shows how person-trips might be modified using increase the efficiency of transportation systems at little
two types of travel demand strategies. It presents land use- or no cost (Bautz 1988). A successful TDM program may
and transportation-oriented demand management re- allow a higher density of development to occur, without

TABLE I: Transportation demand management and travel behavior

Aspect of
travel TDM objective TDM implementation strategies

Trip generation Eliminate trip entirely. Land use: growth control (eliminate specific activities associated with
trip making).
Transportation: telecommunications substitution for travel
(telecommuting, teleshopping, teleconferencing) (eliminate trip making
associated with specific activities).

Trip distribution Shift trip from a more congested Land use: zoning restrictions that limit the density of development, type
destination to a less of land use, etc., thus shifting the location of activities within urban
congested one. or regional areas.
Transportation: trip chaining, satellite activity locations (satellite work
locations, on-site daycare facilities, personal services, cafeterias,
restaurants, etc.)

Mode choice Shift trip from a lower-occupancy Land use: increasing allowable density of development (to improve the
mode of travel (e.g., drive market for high occupancy vehicle facilities).
alone) to a higher-occupancy Transportation: mode-specific incentives and diSincentives, such as
one. parking pricing, carpool, vanpool, and transit subsidies; bicycle and
pedestrian amenities; guaranteed ride home programs; etc.

Route selection Shift trip from a more congested Land use: street quietening (removal of through traffic from residential
(spatial) route to a less congested one. streets through creation of permanent or temporary barriers).
Transportation: smart highways and vehicles (technologies capable of
the instantaneous delivery of current route information, including
identification of the route with the shortest travel time, based on
ambient traffic conditions before or during the trip).

Route selection Shift trip from a more congested Land use: mixed use development, jobs/housing balance (where
(temporal) time period to a less different land uses exhibit different peaking characteristics of trip
congested one. generation).
Transportation: alternative work schedules (flexible work hours,
staggered work shifts, and compressed work weeks).

APA JOURNAL 443 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ERIK FERGUSON

impeding the mobility of the existing population, or re- Direct regulation of travel behavior has been avoided in
quiring the construction of additional transportation fa- the United States as economically and politically unjus-
cilities to serve the increased travel demand associated tifiable (Witheford 1989). While it was proposed as a
with urban growth. Despite its broad appeal to trans- method for reducing air pollution in perennial nonat-
portation professionals, TOM has some significant prob- tainment areas such as Los Angeles in the early 1970s,
lems associated with program implementation. But new it was never implemented (Myhre 1989).
institutional arrangements have been identified that might Zoning ordinances specify types of land uses permitted,
increase the likelihood of success for many TSM and as well as the maximum allowable density of develop-
TOM strategies. ment. Growth management initiatives place limits on
both the timing and extent of new development. Growth
Roles and Responsibilities of the Public management strategies seek to limit growth to that which
and Private Sectors can be absorbed by the community, including existing
or planned transportation infrastructure (Harris 1988).
Developers, landowners, employers, and the business Regulations that reference the number of person or ve-
community at large influence individual travel behavior hicle trips generated by a proposed new development
through the size, location, and types of economic activ- are a more recent phenomenon, and are generally re-
ities involved in new and existing development. Public ferred to as trip reduction ordinances.
policy is increasingly geared toward issues related to
traffic congestion, air pollution, and the overall quality Financing
of life in urban and suburban areas undergoing rapid Options other than regulatory control strategies are
economic growth and change (Owen 1988). A number also available. For example, a development that will
of techniques have emerged that are designed to assist generate traffic in excess of transportation system ca-
in traffic mitigation and resolution of conflicts over traffic pacity may be required to pay development impact fees
congestion in the planning process (Oram 1987). Methods (Cowart 1988). Suburban traffic congestion may be the
to coordinate private decisions on development with result of inadequate design, insufficient capacity, or ex-
public decisions on transportation infrastructure invest- cessive demand. To the extent that capacity is the prob-
ment and operations include the regulation, financing, lem, additional financing may be necessary (Gakenheimer
and operation of various aspects of the transportation 1989). If inadequate capacity acts as a brake on economic
system (Lundqvist 1988). An illustrative typology of these growth, developers may wish to contribute on a voluntary
TOM implementation strategies based on the degree of basis to the cost of additional transportation infrastruc-
privatization using Lundqvist's terminology is shown in ture. Such apparently altruistic behavior may enhance
Table 2. the market value of private property, and may permit
development at higher densities to occur. Benefit as-
Regulation sessment districts, in which local landowners voluntarily
If the transportation system has insufficient capacity tax themselves, often with matching funds provided by
to handle an increase in travel demand, development local governments, have also been used to provide the
might be limited to an amount that can be served ade- additional funding necessary for transportation in areas
quately by existing capacity. In addition, either individual characterized by rapid economic growth (Heath et al.
travel behavior or the location of activities could be reg- 1988). TOM financing may come from either the public
ulated. The regulation of travel behavior might also in- or the private sector. Where developers contribute to
clude restrictions on the use of private automobiles. Ra- TOM program funding, offsets for trip reduction may be
tioning the purchase of gasoline on odd or even days appropriate where development impact fees are currently
during energy shortages is a form of indirect regulation. in force.

TABLE 2: Transportation demand management Operations

and privatization New or existing private development and the trans-
portation system are not always perfectly matched in op-
Orientation erational efficiency over the short term. Neither devel-
opment impact fees nor growth management strategies
Function Private Mixed Public influence the operation of the existing transportation sys-
tem, at least not over the shorter term. Both types of
Regulation Transportation Negotiated Trip reduction strategies are aimed at new development, and fail to take
management developer ordinance into account the effects of existing development on
association agreement transportation system utilization. This can create severe
Financing Private Public and private Public equity problems in dealing with existing traffic conges-
tion. Thus, changes in the transportation system or in the
Operations Employer Brokerage Regional
development scheme might be offered, negotiated, and/
ridesharing services ridesharing
program provider program
or required as a condition of development and/or building
occupancy.

APA JOURNAL 444 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TRANSPORT A TION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

Organization and Implementation of TOM evaluation. TOM performance monitoring

TDM Efforts usually documents external social and environ-
mental benefits. which may be of less value to pri-
Several new organizational approaches to TOM im- vate than to public sector interests.
plementation have been tested within the past decade.
including transportation management associations. trip Sixty-six percent of all TMAs were initiated at the
reduction ordinances. and negotiated agreements. While request of employers or the local business community.
specific orientations may vary. all three approaches are 56 percent were sponsored by state and local govern-
intended to foster greater cooperation between the pri- ment. and 45 percent were created at the behest of de-
vate and public sectors (see Table 2). Private efforts often velopers or private landowners (Table 3). Many TMAs
focus on the formal incorporation of transportation man- were initiated by more than one group. with a slight bias
agement associations. Public efforts often include the toward the private sector. Overall. 16 percent of surveyed
formal enactment of trip reduction ordinances. Combined TMAs were initiated by the public sector only. 43 percent
efforts sometimes are administered more informally. They were initiated by the private sector only. and 41 percent
may consist of negotiated agreements. often implemented were initiated by representatives from both the public
through modification of existing development and oc- and private sectors. The most common reason given for
cupancy permit review processes. All three approaches TMA initiation was traffic congestion. Developers and
have been tried in practice. and have achieved success landowners were more likely to initiate TMAs in response
in some applications. Elements of all three may be useful to growth and land use issues. presumably of direct in-
in implementing comprehensive TOM programs. terest to them. State and local governments were more
likely to mention traffic congestion. trip reduction ordi-
Transportation Management Associations nances (TROs). and air quality as reasons for TMA ini-
One way in which the private sector can join with the tiation. all different forms of "public goods." Employers
public sector voluntarily in TOM implementation is and business associations mentioned parking manage-
through the formation of a transportation management ment more often as a reason. once again of most direct
association. or TMA (Schreffier and Meyer 19S3). Most interest to this group. This information would seem to
existing TMAs serve major employment activity centers. confirm hypothesis 1.
TMAs may include among their board members business Surveyed TMAs relied more often on public funding
associations. employers. building management compa- than on membership dues or other sources of financing.
nies. landowners. and developers (Dunphy and Lin 1990). None were financed by dedicated tax revenues at the
TMAs have increased rapidly in recent years. As of time the directory was published. Developer TMAs were
August 19S9. there were 53 TMAs located in 14 different more likely to be financed by membership dues. while
states across the United States. Five of these (IO percent) government-initiated TMAs were more likely to be fi-
were formed prior to 19S4. Half of those surveyed (50 nanced through public subvention. This finding would
percent) were created between 19S4 and 1985. and fully seem to confirm hypothesis 2. Mean annual budgets for
40 percent came into existence in the year 19S9 alone. developer TMAs were smaller than those for employer
About 40 percent of all TMAs identified through 19S9 TMAs. Public sector TMAs had the largest mean annual
were concentrated in California (Wright 19S9). Data on budgets. This would seem to support hypothesis 3.
51 of the 53 known TMAs in the United States have been In general. TOM program components offered by or
summarized in matrix form by Wright in the TMA Di· through TMAs tended to focus more on information ser-
rectory (I9S9). I analyzed these data to try to identify the vices (carpool-matching assistance. bus information.
relationship. if any. between TOM implementation and transportation management plans. etc.). and less on direct
TMA initiation. I formulated the following hypotheses modal incentives or parking management strategies.
based on a priori theoretical expectations (I through 4» Developer-initiated TMAs were more likely to offer al-
and practical experience (5): ternative work schedules. shuttle services. HOY pref-
erential parking. and carpool and vanpool incentives.
1. TMAs should be inspired by issues of direct interest Government-initiated TMAs were more likely to offer
to participants in TMA formation. carpool- and van pool-matching services. transit infor-
2. Private sector TMAs should derive a greater portion mation. transportation management plans. parking man-
of their financial support from private sector agement services. and transit incentives. Employer-
sources. initiated TMAs were more likely to offer employer re-
3. Private sector TMAs may be smaller in size than location services and guaranteed ride-home programs.
public sector TMAs. because of greater private In general. TOM program elements seemed to be offered
sector skepticism regarding TMA cost effectiveness by TMAs on the basis of least cost and greatest gain
and efficiency. principles. TMA initiators were thus favored by the TOM
4. Private sector TMAs should be more likely to offer program components they implemented. confirming hy-
incentives based on the principle of direct self-in- pothesis 4.
terest. Developer-initiated TMAs were most likely. and em-
5. Private sector TMAs should exhibit less interest in ployer-initiated TMAs least likely. to evaluate TOM pro-

APA JOURNAL 445 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ERIK FERGUSON

TABLE 3: Transportation management associations - principal activities by initiation source

Initiator(s)"

Developer/land Employer/business State/local

owner community government Average
TMA Activities (%) (%) (%) (%)

Reasons for initiation"

Traffic congestion 70 77 86 75
Growth/land use 96 62 69 69
Trip reduction ordinance 22 9 28 24
Air quality 9 18 24 14
Parking management issues 4 18 17 14

Incorporated 48 47 38 43

Staffing
Full time 61 65 55 63
Part time 35 15 14 18

Participation
Voluntary 74 65 55 63
Mandatory 0 0 7 4

Financing"
Public assistance 61 65 76 69
Member dues 70 50 41 49
Other sources 13 24 24 20

TDM program elements"

Carpooljvanpool matching services 57 56 62 59
Transit information 52 47 55 55
Transportation management plan 30 47 48 43
Alternative work schedules 39 32 38 33
Parking management services 22 27 28 29
Shuttle services 26 21 21 24
Employer relocation services 9 12 10 12
High occupancy vehicle
preferential parking 17 9 10 12
Transit incentives 13 6 17 12
Carpool/van pool incentives 22 6 10 12
Guaranteed ride home programs 9 12 10 10

Evaluation efforts"
Baseline surveys 30 15 21 18
Follow-up surveys 22 12 17 14
Focus groups 13 0 7 6

Mean annual budget $143k $190k $309k $249k

Number of observations 23 34 29 51

a. Multiple response possible.

Source: Wright 1989.

gram results through baseline surveys, follow-up surveys, information on TMA regulation might be useful in as-
and focus groups. The employer data support hypothesis sessing TMA potential. TMA leadership is an important
5, while the developer data contradict it. It was odd that concern. Some experts believe that TMAs should include
developers were most interested in TDM evaluation, public sector representation on the board with full voting
given that they spent less money than other initiators on rights. Others seem to think that TMAs should be com-
TMA implementation. This finding suggests that devel- pletely privatized operations. It is not always clear
opers and landowners may be more skeptical about po- whether specific TMAs are intended to serve as lobbying
tential TMA success than either employers or public or advocacy groups, or as providers of transportation
agencies, a conclusion that reinforces hypothesis 3. services. Some do both. At this point, TMAs appear to
TMA financing, operations, and evaluation vary con- be oriented slightly toward the private sector, though not
siderably with the identity of TMA initiators. Additional overwhelmingly so.

APA JOURNAL 446 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

Trip Reduction Ordinances mechanism for performance monitoring, program eval-

A municipal, county, regional, or state regulation re- uation, or enforcement.
quiring any form of developer or employer participation Size is almost always used as a criterion for determining
in TDM implementation often is referred to as a trip the applicability of a TRO to specific types of activities.
reduction ordinance (TRO). TRO may be a misnomer in Size may be specified in terms of gross floor area, number
some cases, since trip reduction is not always specified of employees, number of peak trips generated. and so
as a goal or objective of regulations that bear this name. forth. A minimum size requirement usually is designed
Nonetheless, it is the most common name used for TOM to reduce hardships on small businesses, or to limit mon-
regulatory requirements, and is retained here for consis- itoring and enforcement costs to the jurisdiction. Size
tency. restrictions are sometimes implemented in discrete steps
Information on TROs was collected in the state of Cal- over time, often with the intention of bringing larger em-
ifornia by the California Department of Transportation ployers and developers on line with implementation
(I 990), and on a national basis through the combined sooner. Size restrictions seem to be falling over time as
efforts of the Association for Commuter Transportation, well; smaller and smaller developments and employers
the author, and Jesse Glazer, a recognized expert on are being covered by TROs, though often with less strin-
ridesharing. From these various data sources, an upper gent requirements than those for larger activities. Local
limit of 58 separate TROs in 46 independent jurisdictions TROs show wide variations in specific applications;
was identified. A rather amazing 67 percent of all TROs sometimes they include new development only, or new
were concentrated in the state of California (Sanford and existing development only, or large development
1990). Multiple TROs in single jurisdictions usually ap- only, or office and industrial development only, or resi-
plied to different locations within the jurisdiction, differ- dential development only, and so forth. Most county and
ent types of regulated activities (e.g., new and existing regional TROs cover all developments of a certain size.
development), or both. Of the 46 separate jurisdictions whether new or existing. within their regulatory purview.
represented, two were states, three were regional air TRO regulatory requirements vary considerably from
quality management districts, four were counties, and one jurisdiction to another. but generally they include
thirty-seven were municipalities. Nine representative the provision of a TOM or transportation management
examples of municipal, county, and regional TROs are plan. TOM plans may include the identification of specific
shown in Tables 4 and 5. These examples were chosen incentives and amenities that will be offered to employ-
to represent the full range of TRO jurisdictions, appli- ees. the planned timing of TOM program implementation.
cations, objectives, requirements, and enforcement pro- and specific performance standards to be achieved. TOM
visions. plans generally must be updated on a regular basis. most
The main goal of most TROs (65 percent) is to mitigate often annually. If periodic TOM program evaluations
existing traffic congestion. Some TROs (13 percent) are show that program objectives are not being achieved.
aimed at mitigating future traffic congestion. A few (15 further action may be required. Experience indicates that
percent) have more comprehensive goals, including im- two to five years may be necessary to achieve full results
proved air quality and reduced energy consumption from TOM programs. TOM programs generally must be
(Vigna 1987). Three of the TROs identified in California managed by a professionally trained employee transpor-
are in fact development impact fee ordinances, designed tation coordinator (ETC), who must be located on site.
to collect funds for street improvements rather than to For larger firms and new development projects of in-
foster TOM implementation. County and regional TROs creasing size and complexity, TRO requirements tend to
tend to be oriented toward air quality improvements more become more comprehensive and detailed in perfor-
often than traffic mitigation. mance expectations.
Most TROs (76 percent) apply to both new and existing Of the 46 TROs, 50 percent included mandatory TOM
development, at least in some form. This finding is sur- strategies only. 15 percent included voluntary TOM
prising. A common concern about TROs has been that strategies only. and 35 percent showed both mandatory
existing development often escapes inclusion within their and voluntary compliance measures. Of the 46 TROs.
regulatory purview. Just a few TROs (15 percent) are 13 percent listed supply-side (TSM) measures only. 35
limited in application to new development only. It is true percent listed demand-side (TOM) measures only. and
that some TROs apply to existing development only when 49 percent listed both TSM and TOM measures. TROs
such existing development significantly expands the that were exclusively TSM- or TOM-oriented tended to
scope of its activities (e.g., Minnetonka and Pasadena, emphasize mandatory compliance measures only. TROs
see Table 4). Limited exemptions for existing develop- that combined elements of both TSM and TOM tended
ment may be viewed sympathetically by local citizens to include both mandatory and voluntary compliance
and policymakers. Such exemptions may lead to poor measures. and hence were probably more flexible policy
TOM performance, however, since existing development instruments.
thereby receives a "free ride," a result TROs usually are Enforcement provisions vary widely among TROs.
intended to avoid. A relatively few TROs are purely vol- from none at all to fines and penalties for specific code
untary in nature, calling for increased awareness and violations. Fines vary from $500 per month (North
participation on the part of the private sector, with no Brunswick, see Table 4) to $25.000 per day (South Coast

APA JOURNAL 447 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ERIK FERGUSON

TABLE 4: Trip reduction ordinances - municipal examples

Jurisdiction Application Objectives Requirements Enforcement

Bellevue, WA Non-CBD: new Increase ridesharing and Post and distribute Not explicitly stated.
development only; transit share of information; provide Violations might be
5,000+ sq. ft. (office); commute trips to 18 coordinator, preferential subject to fines or
12,500+ sq. ft. percent; further reduce parking, financial other penalties,
(professional services); traffic congestion incentives, and however.
30,000+ sq. ft. through flexible work guaranteed ride-home
(manufacturing); hours programs. program, among
60,000+ sq. ft. others, depending on .
(hospitals, retail); 16 or size of development.
more units (multifamily). CBD: coordinated with
CBD: all developments Bellevue TMA and
with 150 or more Seattle Metro. Action
employees. plan required;
maximum annual
expenditures $45/
employee in third and
fourth years.

Minnetonka, MN New development Ensure reasonable traffic Master development plan. Required as a condition
(1-394 District) exceeding 25,000 sq. operations; encourage Traffic impact study. for certain land uses
ft. in gross floor area; high quality Estimate trip within the 1-394
expansion of existing development generation; identify District, as defined in
development greater standards; protect road system the Zoning Ordinance,
than 10 percent of environment; promote improvements required, Section 300, as
GFA and 25,000 sq. ft. neighborhood stability; if any; develop traffic amended.
total; any development promote flexibility in mitigation plan in
that would generate development, more consultation with the
more than two p.m. efficient use of land, city that may include
peak trips per 1,000 alternative housing, urban design,
sq. ft. of GFA. energy conservation. incentives, etc.

North Brunswick, Existing businesses with Address traffic problems. Employers: annual Failure to submit original
NJ 50 or more employees, survey, report (all); surveys, reports, traffic
except certain uses traffic reduction plan reduction plans, or
(mainly retail). New (100+ employees). required revisions to
development: all Residential: survey (all); any of the above is a
residential development vanpool parking (50- violation, subject to a
of 20 or more units, 350 units); park-and- fine of $500 per month
without preliminary ride lot (351 or more until such time as
subdivision approval; units). Nonresidential: compliance is achieved.
all nonresidential traffic reduction plan
development of aimed at 70 percent
15,000+ sq. ft. GFA; drive-alone mode split;
all planned annual survey, report;
developments. transitions to employer
requirements; complex
plans must be
maintained.

Pasadena, CA All new development that To discourage single- Carpool preferential Failure to comply may
would employ 100 or occupant vehicle trips parking spaces (10 result in the denial of
more employees. All and reduce peak percent), matching certificates of
existing development demand on local services, secure bicycle occupancy, future
planning to increase its streets, parking parking, posting building permits, or
GFA by 25 percent or facilities, and transit information (100-499 conditional use permits;
more and that would systems. employees); all of the failure to achieve
employ 100 or more above, carpool loading objectives activates
employees. areas, bus stops, stricter contingency
vanpool facilities, and measures.
TSM plan (500 or more
employees).

APA JOURNAL 448 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TRANSPORTA TION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

TABLE 4. (Continued)
Jurisdiction Application Objectives Requirements Enforcement

Pleasanton, CA All employers, business To reduce peak-hour Annual employee Failure to make progress
complexes, activity traffic by a minimum of commute survey (all). may require revision of
centers, and the city 45 percent (from an Information program the TSM plan. Failure
government. assumed base of 100 and annual report (10+ to meet requirements
percent drive-alone), employees). TSM (in good faith) may
staged over a four-year program targeting 45 result in penalties of
period; and to maintain percent reduction (50+ up to $250 per day.
Level of Service C· on employees). Employer
all city streets and at TSM program
all city intersections for coordination, required
as long as possible. tenant participation,
Peak hours are 7:30 and the provision of a
a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and complex coordinator
4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. (business, activity
centers).

a. "Level of service C" is the typical traffic engineering standard for road design. in which traffic is neither free-flowing. nor heavily congested. but rather
sees full, efficient utilization, with a minimum of delay.
Source: California Department of Transportation 1990.

Air Quality Management District, see Table 5). In at least enough to gain passage of a TRO, it may be possible for
one jurisdiction, failure to comply with the ordinance planners to introduce TDM into the development process
may be treated as a criminal misdemeanor (Sacramento through informally negotiated agreements. Large devel-
County, see Table 5). More typically, failure to comply opments, because of their complexity, often require vari-
is a straightforward violation of the civil code. Failure ances from local zoning ordinances, building codes, and
to perform in trip reduction requirements rarely is treated so forth. It is the moment when the developer applies
as a violation, at least not initially. In most cases, only for or expresses interest in such variances that is often
"wilful" disregard of implementation requirements for the critical stage for taking urban design and transpor-
agreed-upon policies, programs, or plans, within specified tation system characteristics into account as part of the
time periods, is treated as a direct violation. Total fines overall development review process. This is usually the
in excess of $1 00,000 have been levied in Southern Cal- ideal point at which to discuss TDM as an integral part
ifornia against individual firms determined to be out of of a specific development plan.
compliance, but this type of penalty is rare. The intent An example of a TDM program based on negotiated
of most TROs is to encourage participation, rather than agreements is that of Montgomery County, Maryland
to punish laggards, or to generate revenues. Developers (Hekimian 1986). This case illustrates the advantages and
have been active in supporting the creation of several disadvantages of using negotiated agreements in TDM
major TROs, including those in Bellevue, Washington; implementation. Associated with a TRO and several
Pleasanton, California; and the South Coast Air Basin of TMAs, the Montgomery County trip-reduction program
Southern California. This support has usually grown out clearly demonstrates the principles on which a policy of
of concern over horizontal equity issues in the provision negotiated agreements can and should be based. This
of transportation infrastructure investments and im- case reveals the creativity that can enter into the design
provements in the vicinity of new and existing devel- of TDM programs in a more flexible and individualized
opments. format (Table 6). With 23 negotiated agreements in force
in Montgomery County as of September 1, 1988, 74 sep-
Negotiated Agreements arate TDM concessions had been negotiated. These ne-
Developers often interact with planners in the nego- gotiations yielded an average of 3.2 "concessions" (spe-
tiation of development agreements; petitions for variances cific types of TDM program components or incentives)
in local zoning regulations; rezoning requests; and ap- per agreement, which varied by type of development from
plications for the approval of large, complex, planned- 2.5 for residential developments, to 3.0 for mixed use
unit, or mixed-use developments. Such agreements may developments, and 3.5 for office developments. The types
include traffic mitigation measures as conditions for de- of program components negotiated in Montgomery
velopment. While negotiated agreements may provide County are in many cases sophisticated and even unusual;
freedom of action to both planners and developers, they they include shuttle services to Metrorail stations, resi-
also offer opportunities for the abuse of power and ar- dential and commercial park-and-ride lots, guaranteed
bitrariness in outcomes for individuals or firms. If private ride-home programs (free taxi vouchers for transit users
sector interest is insufficient to generate a working TMA, and carpoolers, to be used only in the event of unantic-
and local community concerns are not quite strong ipated overtime or personal emergencies), pedestrian

APA JOURNAL 449 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ERIK FERGUSON

TABLE 5: Trip reduction ordinances - county and regional examples

Jurisdiction Application Objectives Requirements Enforcement

Maricopa County, Employers with 100 or A 5-percent reduction in Provide employees with Increased civil penalties
AZ more employees. the percentage of information; participate in a under the Clean Air Act
employees who drive baseline survey; prepare a of 1970, as amended,
alone in each of the TDM plan that includes though not necessarily
first and second year designation of an employee for non attainment of
of program transportation coordinator objectives per se.
implementation. (ETC) and specific programs
and reduction measures to
be used.

Montgomery Employers with 25 or Increase transportation Formation of an advisory Failure to submit a plan is
County, MD more employees. system capacity; committee to work with a violation on the part
Any proposed reduce existing and planning director and to of employers; failure to
subdivision or future levels of traffic oversee the preparation and comply with an
optional method congestion; reduce air execution of traffic agreement is a violation
development for and noise pollution; mitigation plans by on the part of
which additional promote traffic safety employers, and the developers.
transportation and pedestrian negotiation of traffic
facilities or traffic access. Must mitigation agreements with
alleviation measures conform with annual developers.
are necessary for growth policy.
approval.

Sacramento Employers with 100 or Reduce the number of Employers: provide information Employers: failure to
County, CA more employees at employee vehicle trips on commute alternatives; apply for a permit or to
a common business in order to reduce matching services; on-site implement any
location. peak hour coordinator; carpool requirements is a
Developments congestion; delay preferential parking spaces. misdemeanor, with
expected to house need for major Developers: provide carpool fines of up to $500,
500 or more transportation facility passenger loading area; at imprisonment for not
employees. improvements; reduce least 15-percent carpool more than six months,
future air pollution preferential parking spaces; or both. Developers:
concentrations. showers and lockers for issuance of application
bicyclists, joggers, and for permits, plans,
walkers; and transit variances, etc., is
shelters, as appropriate. contingent on meeting
all requirements.

South Coast Air Employers with 100 or Reduce auto emissions Submit plan (prepared by a Failure to meet target
Quality more employees from vehicles used to trained coordinator) AVR is not a violation.
Management within the counties commute by specifying measures to Failure to submit a plan
District, CA of Los Angeles, increasing average achieve target AVR, or annual update, or to
Orange, and vehicle ridership including the designation of offer any incentive in
Riverside, and the (AVR) between 6:00 a trained coordinator, the an approved plan, is a
nondesert portion of a.m. and 10:00 a.m. identification of all measures violation, subject to
San Bernardino. on weekdays. AVR currently being used that penalties as outlined in
targets vary from 1.3 influence employee travel Article 3, Chapter 4,
to 1.75, depending behavior, a verifiable Part 4, of Division 26
on the firm's location estimate of current AVR, of the Health and
within the region. and a list of specific Safety Code.
incentives the employer will
undertake to meet the A VR
objective, if necessary.
Plans are to be updated
and resubmitted annually.

Source: California Department of Transportation 1990.

APA JOURNAL 450 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TRANSPORTA TION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

TABLE 6: Negotiated developer agreements - trip reduction programs in Montgomery County,

Maryland
Total
Types of number of Trip
development negotiated reduction
affected agreements requirements' Typical program components'

Residential 4 NT (3) Residence-based carpool matching programs

None b (2)
Shuttles to Metrorail stations (2)
Park-and-ride lots
Subsidized vanpools
Commuter association
Transportation management coordinator
Bus shelters
Subsidized transit fares

Office 14 NT (8) Subsidized transit fares (7)

None (5)b Employer-based carpool matching programs (6)
AVR Reserved carpooljvanpool parking spaces (6)
Subsidized van pools (4)
Shuttles to metrorail stations (3)
On-site ridesharing promotional programs (3)
Transportation management coordinators (2)
Free emergency ride-home programs (2)
Employee parking fees (2)
Reduced employee parking supply (2)
Park-and-ride lots (2)
Reduced parking fees for carpoolsjvanpools
Prohibition of employer-subsidized parking
Annual payment to county ridesharing fund
Bus shelters
Transportation information center
Express bus service
Shuttle bus service
Commuter rail easement
Alternative work hours
Pedestrian walkway

Mixed use 5 NT (2) Employer-based carpool matching programs (2)

None (2)b Transportation management coordinators (2)
AVR Subsidized van pools (2)
Subsidized transit fares (2)
Free emergency ride-home programs (2)
Reserved carpooljvanpool parking spaces
Rent reduction for tenants who walk to work
Bus shelters
Prohibition of employer-subsidized parking
Retail-oriented transportation information kiosk

Total 23 NT (13)
None (8)b
AVR (2)

a. NT ~ Number of trips. A specified number of vehicle trips attracted to the site per day to be reduced upon occupancy and implementation of the
program, varying from 10 to 400 trips among the 13 developments so far affected, depending on the size of the development, the anticipated rate of
trip generation, and other factors.
A VR ~ Average vehicle ridership. The standard employed so far has been 30-percent participation in public transit and an average of 1.3 persons per
private vehicle for the remaining 70 percent.
(n) ~ Number of negotiated agreements affected by a specific requirement or incorporating a particular program component.
b. Specific trip reduction requirements are called for in the ordinance only when local streets currently are operating at or above capacity. In some cases,
TDM programs were negotiated with developers who legally were not required to reduce trips. No trip reduction requirements were included in those
agreements.
Source: Hekimian, A. J. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Silver Spring, Maryland. Based on a summary of all developer agreements
negotiated as of September 1, 1988.

APA JOURNAL 451 AUTUMN 1990

------ -----

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ERIK FERGUSON

walkways, commuter rail easements, rent reductions for velopment, level of success is usually gauged by differ-
commuters who walk to work, and mandatory parking ences between actual performance (with TOM) and an-
pricing strategies combined with significant parking sup- ticipated performance (without TOM). Level of success
ply limitations. A very knowledgeable negotiator would can be defined in terms of the site-specific or regional
be required in order to come up with some of these ideas, rate of personal or vehicle trip generation, the relative
let alone incorporate them into a contract requiring a frequency with which different modes of travel are cho-
commitment from the private sector to perform them as sen (mode split), or the timing and location of site-specific
legally binding contractual obligations. trip generation in comparison with the timing and loca-
The Montgomery County TOM negotiated agreements tion of critical and/or congested transportation system
are not always completely clear on performance expec- components.
tations. Some agreements specify trip reduction as the Kuzmyak and Schreffier (1990) compared TOM eval-
primary goal, others average vehicle ridership with a uation studies across the United States, focusing on spatial
transit component, and still others have no explicit mea- and programmatic variations in measured TOM impacts.
sure of trip reduction performance. Part of the reason for The principal evaluation criterion used in this study was
this wide variation has to do with legal requirements and mode split, or the percentage of employees using partic-
limitations. Only those developments located in areas ular modes of travel to work. Vehicle trips, the theoret-
where transportation system capacity is deemed inade- ically preferred output measure, was discarded because
quate can be required to mitigate traffic. In such cases, of lack of data, inability to control for external changes
the developer has two choices: in ambient conditions (e.g., regional economic growth
and development), and measurement problems associated
I. Finance the construction of sufficient transportation with significant variations in daily traffic observed in
system capacity to support all new trips generated many real world applications. Regional impacts of TOM
by the development; or programs have tended to be slight or negligible (Urban
2. Implement a comprehensive TOM program that is Transportation Monitor 1988). Kuzmyak and Schreffier
entirely open to negotiation, but that must achieve (1990) found that TOM impacts across activity centers
an equivalent reduction in the number of trips gen- were larger (-2.4 percent to -17.8 percent in drive-alone
erated by existing travel demand, prior to devel- mode split), and that TOM impacts across individual firms
opment or occupancy permit approval. were even larger (-5.5 percent to -47.6 percent in drive-
alone mode split). The best markets for TOM tend to be
Thcse devclopers must mitigate all of the anticipated located in exactly those areas with the greatest levels of
traffic impacts associated with their project. To ensure a traffic congestion and air pollution. TOM impacts on re-
reasonable expectation of this outcome, developers must gional traffic delay (and possibly localized hazardous air
post a bond sufficient to fmance the operation of the TOM pollution) will be much greater than measured changes
program negotiated with the county for at least 10 years. in regional vehicle miles of travel under these circum-
The bond is forfeited in its entirety if the TOM program stances.
is not implemented as required within the specified time Parking management, particularly parking pricing, has
frame. been found to have the largest and most consistent im-
pacts among TOM program elements (Bhatt and Higgens
Performance Monitoring and Program 1989). This finding is consistent with expectations drawn
Evaluation from the important theoretical and empirical work of
Shoup on the impact of parking pricing on mode choice
One critical obstacle to the significant allocation of (Shoup 1982; Surber et al. 1984; Mehranian et al. 1987).
resources to TOM program implementation from either However, implementing comprehensive parking man-
the public or private sectors is the great uncertainty con- agement strategies is much more difficult than simply
cerning the likelihood of success and expected magnitude raising the price (Feeney 1989). Over 90 percent of all
of TOM program impacts. A number of recent studies U.S. workers-including many downtown employees
funded by the U.S. Oepartment of Transportation have (Higgens 1989)-pay absolutely nothing for parking
looked into these issues (e.g., Bhatt and Higgens 1989; (Ferguson I 990b). Most firms have a much clearer idea
Kuzmyak and Schreffier 1990). Evaluations of TOM pro- of the number of parking spaces they provide free of
gram effectiveness can be based on the level of effort charge to their employees than they do of the cost of
made, or the level of success achieved, or both. Level of providing such "free" employee parking spaces (Fergu-
effort is usually identified in terms of policies, programs, son 1990a).
and other actions to be implemented over a certain time Interestingly, firms that have recently relocated are
period. Occasionally, level of effort may be measured in more likely to offer free parking to all employees, as a
terms of the level of financial commitment made (e.g., recruitment or retention device, while firms that have
dollars spent on TOM implementation per employee per been in one place for a longer period of time are more
year). For existing development, the level of success may likely to offer ridesharing incentives, as a means of re-
be gauged in terms of measured changes in travel demand ducing parking demand (Ferguson 1989a and 1989b).
before and after a program is implemented. For new de- This dynamic temporal effect is illustrated numerically

APA JOURNAL 452 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

TABLE 7: The influence of employer incentives in Table 7 and graphically in Figure 1. As these results
on the duration of mode choice in downtown on the dynamics of mode choice in downtown Los An-
Los Angeles geles illustrate, parking supply seems to be sticky, with
successful ridesharing programs freeing up parking
Mode choice spaces, which then are used by solo drivers instead of
being sold or traded to other firms and their employees.
Transit Carpool Drive alone This finding suggests that parking supply is too high at
current market prices, perhaps because of local parking
Mean duration of mode choice, requirements in zoning ordinances. Income tax exemp-
in months 50.3 37.9 50.1 tions for employee parking at the state and federal level
may also assist in perpetuating the strongest mode-
Estimated change in mode specific incentive of all, free parking for employees who
duration due to: drive alone to work in private automobiles on a daily
Transit incentives a +6.2 -2.6 -2.9 basis.
Carpool incentives b +4.7 +11.8 +9.5 Other key TDM program components may include the
Drive alone incentives C -10.0 -5.8 -5.3
provision of a trained employee transportation coordi-
a. Typically, free or subsidized monthly bus passes.
nator located on site for carpool and van pool matching
b. Preferential parking for car/vanpools, the provision of trained ridesharing (Ferguson 1990a), the provision of subsidized transit
coordinators located on site, and car/vanpool subsidies. passes and cash carpool incentives, and the coordination
c. Free parking for all employees, as opposed to free or subsidized
parking for some employees or none at all. of alternative work schedules with other strategies to
Source: Ferguson 1989b. prevent conflicts with carpool formation or bus schedules

40"

30"
~~~ .......................... Int8f'-.od81 8quJJJbf'Ju•
....."

.....,
~ 20"
z
0

~:::> 10"
c
w
c 0"
0
~
z
-10"
w Int8f'-.od81 8quJJJbf'Ju.......... .. ..
(!)

~
(,)
-20"

-30"

-40"
TRANSIT INCENllVES CARPOOL INCENllVES FREE PARKING (FOR DRIVE ALONE)
EMPLOYER INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
E;:SI TraMit Mode Duration ~ Carpool Mode Duration ~ Drfve Alone Mode Duration

FIGURE I: The influence of employer incentives on the duration of mode choice in downtown Los
Angeles.

APA JOURNAL 453 AUTL.:MN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ERIK FERGUSON

(Ferguson 1990a, Cervero and Griesenbeck 1988). These planning and land development policies and procedures.
other types of TOM offerings tend to show much weaker TOM is primarily an organizational issue, linking short-
and less consistent results than those associated with term direct and indirect pricing mechanisms with long-
parking management. If and when parking management term community development goals and objectives. TOM
is not feasible for immediate implementation, other types is useful in addressing regional mobility concerns, but is
of incentives must be sought, however. Comprehensive rarely effective when implemented simply as a regional
TOM programs that identify groups of compatible incen- planning tool. The cooperation and participation of the
tives and amenities may have greater impacts than spe- private sector is necessary to make TOM work for even
cific types of incentives offered in isolation. Measuring one employer or community.
the separate effects of individual TOM strategies em- Developers should become much more involved in
ployed in comprehensive programs would be difficult to TOM program implementation at the very outset of proj-
accomplish. Organizational survey sampling methods ect planning. Amenities to encourage travel modes other
might be used, if sufficient variation among TOM policies than the private automobile should be made part of the
of firms located in similar settings (e.g., a single employ- initial layout of new activity centers. Retrofitting existing
ment activity center) were available (Ferguson 1990c). developments to provide bus shelters, carpool parking
Additional research is needed on TOM program eval- spaces, or secure bicycle parking areas is far less efficient
uation. There is too little information available on the than providing these facilities during the initial construc-
success of TOM programs implemented through TMAs, tion phase. Well-funded, fully staffed, on-site TOM pro-
TROs, and negotiated agreements. Most current TOM grams should be in place prior to the occupation of new
evaluations tend to stress the achievement of site-specific facilities, so that newly arrived commuters are provided
vehicle occupancy, with emphasis on mode choice for with alternatives before they have established daily travel
the work trip. This type of evaluation is relevant and patterns. Planners can assist in making TOM an integral
feasible, but may not capture all of the potential benefits part of the development process through active encour-
of TOM (Richardson and Gordon 1989). As with standard agement of the formation of TMAs, the enactment of
methodologies for predicting trip generation rates, as- TROs, and negotiation of developer agreements that in-
suming that a fixed proportion of person trips will be corporate TOM concepts in project design. The result
made by solo-occupant private autos, new methodologies should be a more efficient transportation system, a less
are needed for identifying trip reduction rates associated stressful and traffic-congested population, and more
with different types of TOM organizational and imple- competitive local and regional economic activities, at
mentation strategies. This information is required to in- the margin. This result may be less than obvious to the
tegrate TOM more carefully into public and private plan- naked eye. It nonetheless lies at the very heart of good
ning and development processes at the local and regional planning.
levels.
AUTHOR'S NOTE
Developers, Planners, and TDM Many individuals and organizations provided information
and assistance vital to the successful completion of this
Does TOM work? The answer is an unqualified yes. research. Helpful individuals included Ray Bullock, Di-
Is TOM the complete solution to the latest version of the ane Davidson, Jennifer Dill, Jesse Glazer, Alex Hekimian,
urban and suburban transportation problem? The answer Thomas Higgens, David Levinson, Arthur C. Nelson,
is an equally unqualified no. The only other clear message Tom Nissalke, Liz Sanford, Eric Schreffier, Don Tor-
concerning TOM implementation that can be derived luemke, Martin Wachs, Mark Wright, and three anony-
from this research is that it is a very "messy" business, mous reviewers, among others. Organizations that as-
requiring cooperation and support from many different sisted in different ways include the Association for Com-
groups within the community in order to achieve any muter Transportation, the California Department of
measurable success. Transportation, several city and county governments, re-
TOM is the implementation of short-term incentive gional air quality management districts, and transporta-
and disincentive programs that incorporate, directly or tion management associations. The author is responsible
indirectly, the external social and environmental costs of for any errors that remain.
individual travel decisions. TOM provides a "bridge"
between short-term economic policies, such as road or REFERENCES
parking pricing and long-term economic policies, such
as land use planning and zoning. Inadequate pricing sig- Banister, David. 1989. Conflict Resolution through Part-
nals are the primary cause of traffic congestion in urban nership between Developers and the Community: The
areas. If proper marginal cost pricing signals were given Case of Transport in the Kings Cross Railways Lands,
to consumers of transportation services, travel behavior London. Paper presented at the Fifth World Conference
would be modified, and the extent of both actual and on Transport Research, Yokohama, Japan. July.
perceived urban and suburban traffic congestion would Bautz, James. 1988. Suburban Gridlock: Fighting
be reduced. TOM is not a substitute for pricing, nor can Congestion to Improve Mobility. Transportation Re-
it replace the need for adequate long-range infrastructure search News 138 (September-October): 8-10.
APA JOURNAL 454 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TRANSPORT A TION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

Bhatt, Kiran, and Thomas Higgens. 1989. An Assessment Greenberg, Froda, and Jim Hecimovich. 1984. Traffic
of Travel Demand Management Approaches at Sub· Impact Analysis. Planning Advisory Service Report
urban Activity Centers. Draft report prepared for the No. 387. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Harashina, Sachihiko, and Hiroshi Mutoh. 1989. Envi-
Transportation. KT Analytics, Frederick, MD, April. ronmental Dispute Resolution as a Learning Process:
California Department of Transportation. 1990. A Direc- Case Study of Keiji By-Pass Construction Dispute. Pa-
tory of California Trip Reduction Ordinances. 2d ed. per presented at the Fifth World Conference on Trans-
Sacramento, CA: Division of Transportation Planning, port Research, Yokohama, Japan, July.
Technical Assistance Branch. Harris, Diane. 1988. Growth Management Reconsidered.
Cervero, Robert. 1988. Congestion, Growth, and Public Journal of Planning Literature 3, 1: 466-82.
Choices. Berkeley Planning Journal 3, 2: 55-75. Harris, Glenn, and Leslie King. 1988. Reconsidering
Cervero, Robert, and Bruce Griesenbeck. 1988. Factors Planning and Environmental Protection. Journal of
Influencing Commuting Choices in Suburban Labor Planning Literature 3, 4: 373-85.
Markets: A Case Analysis of Pleasanton, California. Heath, David, Glenn Kreger, Glenn Orlin, and Meg Rie-
Transportation Research 22A: 151-61. sett. 1988. Traffic Impact Fees. In Development Impact
Cowart, Richard. 1988. Negotiating Exactions through Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory, and Issues,
Development Agreements. In Private Supply of Public edited by Arthur C. Nelson. Chicago: APA Planners
Services: Evaluation of Real Estate Exactions, Link- Press.
age, and Alternative Land Policies, edited by Rachelle Hekimian, Alexander. 1986. Public and Private Sector
Alterman. New York: New York University Press. Trip Reduction Programs in Montgomery County,
Deakin, Elizabeth. 1988. Diagnosing Suburban Traffic Maryland. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
Congestion: Assessing the Options for Relief. Trans- the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
portation Research News 139 (November-December): January.
5-8. Higgens, Thomas. 1989. Parking Management and Traffic
Dunphy, Robert, and Ben Lin. 1990. Transportation Mitigation in Six Cities: Implications for Local Policy.
Management through Partnerships. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Record (forthcoming).
Urban Land Institute. Kroll, Cynthia. 1984. Suburban Office Markets. Berkeley
Engelen, R. 1981. Coordination of Transportation Sys· Planning Journal 1, 1: 122-30.
tem Management and Land Use Management. Na- Kuzmyak, Richard, and Eric Schreffier. 1989. The Effec-
tional Cooperative Highway Research Program, Syn- tiveness of Existing TDM Programs. Paper presented
thesis of Highway Practice, Report No. 93. Washing- at the ITE National Conference, San Diego, CA, Sep-
ton, DC: Transportation Research Board, National tember.
Research Council. Lave, Charles, ed. 1985. Urban Transit: The Private
Feeney, Bernard. 1989. A Review of the Impact of Park- Challenge to Public Transit. San Francisco, CA: Pacific
ing Policy Measures on Travel Demand. Transporta- Institute for Public Policy Research.
tion Planning and Technology 13, 4: 229-44. Lundqvist, Lennart. 1988. Privatization: Towards a Con-
Ferguson, Erik. 1989a. Developers' Management of cept for Comparative Policy Analysis. Journal of Public
Suburban Traffic Congestion. Paper presented at the Policy 8, 1: 1-19.
APA National Planning Conference, Atlanta, GA, May. Mehranian, Maria, Martin Wachs, Donald Shoup, and
___ . 1989b. The Dynamics of Mode Choice for the Richard Platkin. 1987. Parking Cost and Mode Choice
Journey to Work in Downtown Los Angeles. Paper Among Downtown Workers: A Case Study. Trans-
presented at the Fifth World Conference on Transport portation Research Record 1130: 1-5.
Research, Yokohama, Japan, July. Morrison, Steven, and Clifford Winston. 1989. Airline
___ . 1990a. The Influence of Employer Ridesharing Deregulation and Public Policy. Science 245: 707-711.
Programs on Employee Mode Choice. Transportation Myhre, Douglas. 1989. Commuter Control. Civil Engi-
(forthcoming). neering 59,2: 44-47.
___ . 1990b. The Influence of Household Composition Oram, Richard. 1987. Traffic Mitigation and Demand
on Residential Location and the Journey to Work in Management: Summary of National Experience and
the United States. Transportation Research Record Potential Applications in New York. Report No. DOT-
(forthcoming.) T-88-02. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Trans-
___ . 1990c. Non-Horne-Based Organizational Sur- portation.
veys of Location and Travel Behavior. Paper presented Owen, Wilfred. 1988. The View from 2020: Transpor-
at the Third International Conference on Survey tation in America's Future. The Brookings Review 6,
Methods in Transportation, Washington, DC, January. 4: 10-14.
Gakenheimer, Ralph. 1989. Infrastructure Shortfall: The Pisarski, Alan. 1987. Commuting in America: A National
Institutional Problems. Journal of the American Plan· Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends. Westport,
ning Association 55, 1: 14-23. CT: Eno Foundation for Transportation.
Giuliano, Genevieve. 1989. New Directions for Under- Richardson, Harry, and Peter Gordon. 1989. Counting
standing Transportation and Land Use. Environment Nonwork Trips. Urban Land 48,9: 6-12.
and Planning 21 A: 145-59. Roark, J. 1981. Experiences in Transportation System

APA JOURNAL 455 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ERIK FERGUSON

Management. National Cooperative Highway Re- Urban Transportation Monitor. 1988. Limited Success
search Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice, Report Shown in Ridesharing. 2, 15: 1, 8-9.
No. 81. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Vigna, Thomas A. 1987. Traffic Management-It's the
Board, National Research Council. Law in North Brunswick. New Jersey Municipalities
Sanford, Elizabeth. 1990. The Vote is Still Out on Trip 14: 6-7, 34-38.
Reduction Ordinances: A Look at Alternative Means Wachs, Martin. 1984. Autos, Transit, and the Sprawl of
to Define and Evaluate TRO Success. Unpublished Los Angeles: the 1920s. Journal of the American
transportation policy seminar paper, Graduate City Planning Association 50, 3: 297 - 310.
Planning Program, Georgia Institute of Technology. Warner, Sam. 1962. Streetcar Suburbs: The Process of
Schreffier, Eric, and Michael Meyer. 1983. Evolving In- Growth in Boston, 1870-1900. Cambridge, MA: Har-
stitutional Arrangements for Employer Involvement vard University Press.
in Transportation: The Case of Employer Associations. Weiner, Edward. 1988. Urban Transportation Planning
Transportation Research Record 914: 42-48. in the United States: An Historical Overview. 3d ed.
Shoup, Donald. 1982. Cashing Out Free Parking. Trans- Report No. DOT-T-88-26. Washington, DC: U.S. De-
portation Quarterly 36, 3: 351-64. partment of Transportation.
Surber, Monica, Donald Shoup, and Martin Wachs. 1984. Witheford, David. 1988. Traffic Jam: Relieving Conges-
Effects of Ending Employer-Paid Parking for Solo tion on the Nation's Highways. Transportation Re-
Drivers. Transportation Research Record 957: 67 -71. search News 139 (November-December): 2-4.
Swanson, Wayne. 1989. Parking: How Much Is Enough? Wright, Mark. 1989. TMA Directory. 2d ed. Washington,
Planning 55, 7: 14-17. DC: Association for Commuter Transportation.

Forthcoming in the Journal: Winter 1991

ARTICLES
Promoting Economic Development: Urban Planning in the United States and
Great Britain
Susan S. Fainstein
Electric Utility Least-Cost Planning: Using a Multiattribute Decision-Making
Framework
Mark Hanson, Stephen Kidwell, Dennis Ray, and Rodney Stevenson
Planning and Chaos Theory
T.J. Cartwright
The Politics of Relocation: The Moving of the Crest Street Community
William M. Rohe and Scott Mouw
Revitalizing the Urban South: Neighborhood Preservation and Planning since
the 1920s
Christopher Silver
DEPARTMENTS
THE LONGER VIEW
The Coming Global Metropolis
William Alonso, Anthony Downs, Peter Hall, Lawrence Susskind,
and Raymond Vernon
PLANNER'S NOTEBOOK
Roadside Land Use Control: The Success of Newfoundland's Protected Road Zoning
Program
John M. Crowley

APA JOURNAL 456 AUTUMN 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
View publication stats