Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process:
A Desk Reference
Contact Information: Operations Feedback at OperationsFeedback@dot.gov.
Publication Number FHWA-HOP-12-035
PDF Version 22MB
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.
The U.S. Government is not endorsing any manufacturers, products, or services cited herein and any trade name that may appear in the work has been included only because it is essential to the contents of the work.
Quality Assurance Statement
The U.S. Department of Transportation provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. U.S. DOT periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
|1. Report No
|2. Government Accession No.||3. Recipient's Catalog No.|
|4. Title and Subtitle
INTEGRATING DEMAND MANAGEMENT INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS: A DESK REFERENCE
|5. Report Date
August 31, 2012
|6. Performing Organization Code
Deepak Gopalakrishna (Battelle), Eric Schreffler (ESTC), Don Vary (Wilbur Smith Associates), David Friedenfeld (Wilbur Smith Associates), Beverly Kuhn (Texas Transportation Institute), Casey Dusza (Texas Transportation Institute), Rachel Klein (Battelle), Alexandra Rosas (Battelle)
|8. Performing Organization Report No.
|9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Battelle, 505 King Avenue, Columbus, Ohio
ESTC, San Diego CA
Wilbur Smith, Fairfax, VA
Texas Transportation Institute, Austin, TX
|10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
|11. Contract or Grant No.
|12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20590
|13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Technical Report 2009-2012
|14. Sponsoring Agency Code
|15. Supplementary Notes
Project performed under contract to Battelle for the Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations COTR- Barry Zimmer
The document has been developed to serve as a desk reference on integrating demand management into the transportation planning process. The desk reference is organized around two fundamental aspects of transportation planning – policy objectives and scope of the planning effort. The report discusses how demand management relates to seven key policy objectives that are often included in transportation plans, such as congestion and air quality. It then discusses how demand management might be integrated into four levels of transportation planning from the state down to the local level. The report also includes information on tools available for evaluating demand management measures and on the known effectiveness of these measures.
|17. Key Word
Demand Management, Planning Process
|18. Distribution Statement
|19. Security Classif. (of this report)
|20. Security Classif. (of this page)
|21. No. of Pages
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 2.1 A New Focus on Travel Choices for Reliable Travel
- 2.2 A Vital Tenet of a Sustainable Transportation System
- 2.3 Technology and Connectivity Driven
- 2.4 Economics of TDM
- 3.1 Improvements in Regional Mobility and Accessibility
- 3.2 Congestion Reduction, System Reliability, and Safety
- 3.3 Air Quality and Environment
- 3.4 Economic Development
- 3.5 Land Use/Transportation Integration
- 3.6 Goods Movement and Freight
- 3.7 Quality of Life, Livability, and Health
- 5.1 What Plans Should TDM be Included In?
- 5.2 What Is Your Capability with TDM at the State Planning Level?
- 5.3 Actions to Move Statewide Planning Process from Level 1 (Ad-Hoc) to Level 2 (Defined)
- 5.4 Actions to Move Statewide Planning Process from Level 2 (Defined) to Level 3 (Optimized)
- 5.5 Best Practice Examples: State-Level TDM Integration
- 6.1 What Plans Should TDM be Included In?
- 6.2 What Is Your Capability with TDM at the Metropolitan Planning Level?
- 6.3 Actions to Move Metropolitan Planning Process from Level 1 to Level 2
- 6.4 Actions to Move Metropolitan Planning Process from Level 2 to Level 3
- 6.5 Best Practice Examples: Metropolitan-Level TDM Integration
- 7.1 What Plans Should TDM be Included in?
- 7.2 What Is Your Capability with TDM at the Corridor Planning Level?
- 7.3 Actions to Move Corridor Planning Process from Level 1 to Level 2
- 7.4 Actions to Move Corridor Planning Process from Level 2 to Level 3
- 7.5 Best Practice Examples: Corridor-Level TDM Integration
- 8.1 What Plans Should TDM be Included In?
- 8.2 What Is Your Capability with TDM at the Local Planning Level?
- 8.3 Actions to Move Local Planning Process from Level 1 to Level 2
- 8.4 Actions to Move Local Planning Process from Level 2 to Level 3
- 8.5 Best Practice Examples: Local Level TDM Integration
- 10.1 Overview
- 10.2 Travel Impacts
- 10.3 Traffic and Network Impacts
- 10.4 Environmental Impacts
- 10.5 Other Impacts
- 10.6 Summary of TDM Effectiveness - Relative Impact on Policy
- 11.1 State Level
- 11.2 Metropolitan Level
- 11.3 Corridor Level
- 11.4 Local Level
- 11.5 Funding of TDM Programs
List of Tables
- Table 1.1: FHWA Resource Documents
- Table 1.2: Potential Uses of Desk Reference
- Table 2.1: Traffic Management and TDM Strategies Influencing Choices
- Table 3.1: Ability of TDM to Address Policy Objectives
- Table 3.2: Levels of TDM Inclusion/Capability to Address Policy Issues
- Table 3.3: Transportation Evaluation Perspectives
- Table 3.4: Portland TSMO Strategies
- Table 3.5: Washington DC Evaluation of TDM TERM Measures
- Table 3.6: Range of TDM Strategies Potentially Addressed in the Land Development Process
- Table 5.1: Statewide Planning
- Table 5.2: State-level Self-Assessment Matrix
- Table 5.3: List of Actions and Associated Level of Difficulty to Move Statewide Planning Process from Level 1 to Level 2
- Table 5.4: List of Actions and Associated Level of Difficulty to Move Statewide Planning Process from Level 2 to Level 3
- Table 6.1: Metropolitan Planning
- Table 6.2: Metropolitan Planning Self-Assessment Matrix
- Table 6.3: List of Actions and Associated Level of Difficulty to Move Metropolitan Planning Process from Level 1 to Level 2
- Table 6.4: List of Actions and Associated Level of Difficulty to Move Metropolitan Planning Process from Level 2 to Level 3
- Table 7.1: Corridor Planning
- Table 7.2: Integrating TDM into the Corridor Planning Process: An Overview
- Table 7.3: List of Actions and Associated Level of Difficulty to Move Corridor Planning Process from Level 1 to Level 2
- Table 7.4: List of Actions and Associated Level of Difficulty to Move Corridor Planning Process from Level 2 to Level 3
- Table 8.1: Local Planning
- Table 8.2: Integrating TDM into the Local Planning Process: An Overview
- Table 8.3: List of Actions and Associated Level of Difficulty to Move Local Planning Process from Level 1 to Level 2
- Table 8.4: List of Actions and Associated Level of Difficulty to Move Local Planning Process from Level 2 to Level 3
- Table 9.1: Comparative Assessment of TDM Models
- Table 9.2: Mobility-Related Performance Measures in Current Practice
- Table 10.1: National Evidence on TDM Program Impacts
- Table 10.2: Vehicle Trip Reduction Percentages Related to Monetary Incentives and Other Site Programs or Conditions
- Table 10.3: Travel Impact Summary – Car Free Areas
- Table 10.4: General Emissions Impacts of TDM Strategies
- Table 10.5: CMAQ Project Category Cost Effectiveness
- Table 10.6: TDM Strategies and Their Relative Effectiveness in Addressing Key Policy Objectives
List of Figures
- Figure 1.1: Desk Reference Structure
- Figure 1.2: Capability Levels and Actions Inform the Structure of the Desk Reference
- Figure 2.1: Travel Demand Management – A Philosophy of Choices
- Figure 3.1: Factors in Urban Mobility
- Figure 3.2: TDM Applications and Markets for Urban Mobility
- Figure 3.3: WSDOT "Rice" Experiment
- Figure 3.4: Access-Restricted Lanes near Heathrow, London
- Figure 3.5: Influencing Travel Behavior Process Flow Chart
- Figure 3.6: Bicycle Parking in Lund, Sweden
- Figure 3.7: Reduction in VMT during a Period of Economic Growth in Lund, Sweden
- Figure 5.1: TravelWise TDM Program Solutions
- Figure 5.2: Florida State Multi-Modal LOS Standards
- Figure 5.3: HOV Use during I-25 Construction
- Figure 5.4: Georgia DOT TDM Program Coordination
- Figure 6.1: Regional TDM Strategic Plan
- Figure 6.2: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Organizational Structure
- Figure 6.3: An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach to Planning for Operations
- Figure 6.4: Delaware Valley Livability Report Card
- Figure 6.5: Oregon Metro Regional 10 Year TSMO Plan Cost
- Figure 7.1: Denver T-Rex I-25/225 Reconstruction
- Figure 8.1: Mode Shift from Lloyd District TDM Program (1997-2004)
- Figure 8.2: City of Redmond TDM Online Incentive Calendar
- Figure 9.1: Max-SUMO Assessment Levels
- Figure 10.1: Florida State Multi-Modal LOS Standards
This report describes approaches for integrating demand management into the planning process at various levels for addressing different policy objectives. The report also documents known effectiveness, modeling, and evaluation approaches for demand management strategies to enable transportation professionals to effectively include demand management into their planning and operational "tool box." The authors would like to acknowledge the role and contributions of the many reviewers of this desk reference, who have enthusiastically supported this effort with their time, effort, and ideas for improving the document. We also gratefully acknowledge the direction and guidance provided by the DOT steering team for this project including Robin Smith, Reginald Arkell, Jim Hunt, Ralph Volpe, Rick Backlund, Patrick DeCorla-Souza, David Luskin, and Jeff Spencer. The report benefitted from review workshops held in Chicago, Richmond, Salt Lake City, Dallas, and Orlando.
The authors are grateful to all those who attended and provided comments and follow-up materials. Specifically, we would also like to thanks Phil Winters and Sisinnio Concas from the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, for their technical review of relevant portions of the document.
Finally, Egan Smith and Wayne Berman have provided their ongoing support for this project with a clear guiding vision of demand management and its role in the planning process.
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Operations (HOP) 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Office of Operations Web Site
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®.