Travel demands
mode choice
model (cont.)

Transportation Control} developed that leads the analyst Tequires local input
Measures In Reducing | transportation step-by-step through the | parameters to forecast
and demand model input of data for region local effectiveness;
Improving Air Quality.° | that integrates specific analyses default values may not
Loudon, Witllam R., et | emissions be sufficient
al. JHK & Associates. | calculations; Contains extensive cost-
Alr & Waste provides example | effectiveness module
Management calculations from
Association Annual the model Gan be used at elther
Meeting & Exhibition regional or a smaller area
1983. AWMA 93-RAP- or location
149.05.
includes exhaust and
evaporative emissions
‘Tr Overview paper | Paper presents modeling | Use of model VMT
and Travel Behavior." | onthe effects of | results from the San developed for San
Harvey, Greig W. In ‘transportation Francisco Bay Area Francisco Bay Area Vehicle trips
Curbing Gridiock: system pricing on | Pricing Study using the —_ | may limit usefulness of
Peak-Pertod Fees to activity pattems | STEP mode! results to other regions | Fue! usage
Relieve Traffic and travel
Congestion. Vol. 2. behavior, some | Quantifies VMT, trips, Emissions (ROG,
Transportation emissions results | fuel usage, ROG, CO, that the STEP model | CO, NOx, CO2)
Research Board NOx, and CO2 does not accurately
‘Special Report 242, @ccount for regional
1994. ‘Shows quantified travel | growth or employment
‘and emissions modeling | allocation, and treats
results that correspond to | time of day ina
‘specific, clearty defined | simplified way

Pricing proposals

dac

dt



Transportation

serseron

Advantages
of Methodology

Disadvantages
of Methodology

Transportation
Research, 1996. Vol 4
no. 1. pp. 13-32.

Description

State of Calitomia
telecommuting
projéct data to
determine trip,
MT, and
emissions
reduction

Advantages of Study

Identifies the number of
and effects of non-
commute trips during
days in which
telecommuting took place

Implemented travel diary
logs to account for all
trips taken by study
partipants

Actual vehicle model
year and speed data Is
used instead of fleet
averages

Assesses the impact of

lowered average speeds
caused by telecommuting

Analyzes exhaust,
running, and evaporative
losses

Participants were studied
before and after

telecommuting began

Disadvantages
of Study

‘Study participants ar
Not representative of
general workforce and
emission reductions
should not be applied
to whole population

Does not accurately
model emissions from
accelerations and
decelerations; only
average speed used

Travel mode choice

impacts not
extensively studied

Household are
members not included

in the study analysis

Does not model
indirect telecommuting
impacts (e.g.
residential location
shifts)

Factors Analyzed

Affect of
telecommuting on
non-commute trips

Average speeds, hot
and cold starts

Total VMT versus
umber of cold starts

Variation between
before and after

telecommuting
groups

Time of day for trips

dac


Clean Fuel
Fleets (cont.)

Compressed
Work Week/
Flex Time

and analysis of
other studlea

Travel demand/
mode choice

inexpensive and
simple to conduct,
because It

requires no
primary research

Provides an
introduction to the
range of results
produced by
different studies,
which could be
used if other
diractly applicable
research Is not
available

identifies
advantages and
disadvantages of
several

methodologies
Somewhat
applicable to
muttple regions

Analyst can vary
input parameters

directly applicable to
other regions (they
do not Incorporate
characteristics of
other regions)

Unlikely to provide
precise estimates

Requires region-
‘specific household
survey, land use,
socioeconomic, and
travel cost data

Requires complex
computer model

Potentially high cost
touse

A,, etal, University of
Texas, Austin, Center

Institute. CTR SEDC-
1, June 1985.

“Implementing Effective
Travel Demand °
Management

Measures: inventory of
Measures and

Synthesis of
Experience.” COMSIS:
Corporation. USDOT,
September 1993.
DOT-T-94-02.

Provides a solid overview
of the range (and effects)
of TCM options, as well
‘as technology and policy
options

Focuses upon energy
efficiency Impacts in
addition to emissions and
VMT .

Excellent overview of the
range of TOMs possible;
provides description,
nature of effectiveness,
appfication setting,
effectiveness potential,
and cost

Uses actual case studies
to Inform the use of a
computer model for
forecasting TOM
effectiveness:

Provides a road-map to

impiementing TDMs

contain a methodology
for evaluating new
TCM plans, but follow-
on report focuses
upon these strategies

Estimates may be too
rough to apply to other
programs in other

Use of the model
requires local input

local effectiveness
Mode! does not
incorporate
emissions calculation

Most analysis Is at the
employer-ievel
than the area-level

4/40, 3/36, and 9/80
work weeks

Participation levels

dao

dac


Transportation Advantages Disadvantages

Disadvantages
Measure Methodology | of Methodology of Methodology Report

Description + Advantages of Study of Study Factors Analyzed

Trip Employer TOM | Estimates Results may vary “Transportation Reports on the Most employers dkp
Reduction cost- reduction in and widely from one Demand Management | development of a employers reflects ‘Surveyed to develop based TOM
t. effectiveness | costs of daily trips | employer to the next | Cost-Effectiveness model to different tavel-related model were unable to | measures
(cont. model and peak period Model for Suburban —_‘| individually characteristics of provide detailed cost
trips Many inputs maybe | Employers." Dagang, | evaluate the cost- | suburban and urban information on the Daily trips and peak
difficutt for Deborah A. JHK & effectiveness of | areas TOM measures they | pertod trips.
Aids employer employers or - Associates. in 15 different had implemented
determination of | planners to quantify | Transportation employer-based | Spreadsheet-based Costs and cost:
cost-effectiveness Research Record 1404. | TOM measures in | model is user-friendly Does not calculate eftactiveness
of TOM measures ‘suburban settings | and readity accessible for emissions directly
for their particular use at the site-specific
worksite level; model makes Potential for regional
Sensitivity analysis bias, as mode! was
‘elatively simple developed in pant
based on a survey of
Eight transportation suburban San
environments were Francisco Bay Area

defined to represent ‘employers; model also
various combinations of | used the SCAQMD
transportation service Regulation XV and
characteristics Pima Association of
Governments Travel
For employers without Reduction Program
access to entire range of | employer plan
databases:

Operate model, default
values are included Only some TDMs.
Included in model
Provide for estimates
of VT reductions

Use of default values
could diminishes:
accuracy of estimates
for some users



Index of Transportation Measure Quantification Efforts:
Methodology Matrix

Regional and State Programs Division
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

NOTICE

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions.
It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data which are currently available.
The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of
technical information and to inform the public of technical developments which
may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position, or regulatory action.

Ge


Transportation
Measure

Shuttles/
Station Cars

sores

Disadvantages: : Disadvantages : ’
of Methodology _ Advantages of Study & of Study. Factors Analyzed
Sample survey Requires large data "Analysis ol Indirect Assumptions ara Availability of nearby
of customer applicable to collection process to [| Source Trip Activity: customers of (including customer sequired to tanstate | transit
travel patterns {multiple regions —_| generate statistically | Regional Shopping fegional shopping | demogsaphic and stated | stated preference data
and {but influenced by | significant results Centers.” Prepared by | centers to preference data) to expected outcome | Availability of nearby
Preferences at | focal factors of the JHK & Associates and | determine tail
shopping study area) Moderate to high K.T. Analytics for the | potential! impact | Developed calculation Does not quantity
centers cost Catifornia Alr of various travel specific to | emission reductions
Does not require Resources Board. reduction each tip reduction
an extensive ARB-R-94/510, measures: measure, using site-
‘computer model November 1993. specific data
Compares data between
shopping centers in
different tand-use types
Sketch ‘Simple tools can | Sketch planning "Evaluating Travel and | Describes simple | Methodology can be Methodology relies on | Trips reduced
planning generate sesuits are usually Air Quality Cost- methodologies used to evaluate prior Participation data
tevel estimates of {not the most Effectiveness of used to evaluate | projects or proposed provided by project Trip length
tuansportation accurate, depending | Transportation Demand | projects funded future projects Proponents, which
measure on the input Management Projects.’ | by the AB 2766 May not always be Prior travel mode
ettectiveness at | parameters Scheffler, Eric N., vehicte Uses available EMFAC | unbiased
tow cost Therese Costa, and tegistration fee —_| emission rates to
Cari B. Moyer. in program in calculate ROG, PM10, EMFACTE factors are
Generalized tools Transportation ‘Southem NOx, and CO Califomla-specific
can be somewhat Research Record 1520, | Califomia
applicable to 1996. Study develops
multiple regions standardized worksheet
to evaluate projects:
Analyst can vary
input parameters _ | Study points out
drawbacks of self-
reported project results

dac



Transportation Disadvantages

Methodology of Methodology

of Methodology

and analysis of

Occupancy

Olsadvantages

lanes and ramp metering

Description | / Advantages of Study of Study
“Assessment of High- | Summarizes an Identifies clear objectives | Compares case Design treatments,
Occupancy Vehicle assessment of for developing HOV studies of ongoing operating scenarios,
Facilities In North HOV lane facilities and Projects of differing enforcement
America: Executive Projects on corresponding measures | ages, and indifferent | techniques,
Report.” Tumbull, freeways or of effectiveness, as well | locations (each with utilization levels, and
Katherine. Texas separate rights-o!- | as general threshold unique factors such as | general experiences
Transportation Institute. | way in North guidelines (ranges) and | weather, transit with HOV facilities
Prepared for Federal America; includes | data needs issues, and public
Transit Administration, | suggested opinions); thus, Institutional
August 1992. procedures for Details suggested conclusions drawn arrangements
evaluating HOV | approach for evaluating | could include errors in | associated with the
projects operating HOV projects | consistency or development and
(summarizes four comparability of data | operation, historical
other reports Focuses on overall trends in use, and
prepared as part | impacts of HOV facilities | Conclusions and impacts of the
of the same ‘on person and vehicle comparisons drawn facilities
three-year movement, cost from relatively little
assessment) effectiveness, data in some cases
implementation risks and
flexibility, and use Does not provide
emissions estimates
Extensive data collection
done which provides a
large data set detalling
{| the status of HOY i
facilities In North America
(including HOV utilization
by passengers and
vehicles)
“HOV Lanes and Ramp | Comments on the | Illustrates the process of | Identifies need for Interrelationships
Metering: Can They analysis process | analysis and decision- estimating between HOV lanes
Work Together for Air | used to assess. making, as well as the disaggregate mode- and ramp metering
Quality?” Shoemaker, | the air quality key role of analytical specific emission
Bill R. and Edward C. impacts of HOV | modeling, required In the | factors, including
Sullivan. land and ramp San Francisco Bay Area_ | vehicle fleet
Transportation metering projects, | to galn approval for HOV | characterlstics, and
Research Board Paper | and examines the |fane and ramp metering | identifies difficulties in
940444. January 1994. | degree to which —_| projects at the regional doing so
these measures | level
are effective and
compatible where | Examines the .
jointly applied to | interrelationships, and
improve freeway | potentially perverse
operations effects, between HOV

Page 57

om)


Trip
Reduction
(cont.)

AOI

Transportation

Methodology
‘Comparison
and analysis of
other studies
(cont.

Advantages

of Methodology

Disadvantages
of Methodology

Disadvantages

Factors Analyzed

" Compares Provides typology of Provides little detail Direct vs. indirect dac
Transportation congestion pricing measures | about logistics of implementation
Demand: Markets with Regulation and Identifies implementing the
Versus Mandates.” XV for the effectiveness and policy Market-based vs.
Giuliano, Genevieve, | Southem common barriers to recommendations pertormance-based
and Martin Wachs. Califomia area; implementation imptemeniation
Reason Foundation. describes pros. Does not quantity
Policy Insight No. 142, | and cons of each | Simple side-by-side emission reductions Efficiency and equity
September 1992. measure and comparison of VMT considerations
discusses reduction and cost-
implications effectiveness for each
transportation measure
Makes policy
recommendations to
improve each
transportation measure
“The Equity and Cost =| Analyzes the ‘Shows different methods | Philadelphia modeling | Rideshare promotion | dac
Etfectiveness of results of surveys | of using the same model: | assumed average level
Employee Commute and transportation | Travel Demand vehicle ridership
Options Programs.” measure Evaluation Mode! targets were reached =| Parking charge level
Farkas, Z. Andrew. modeling studies | developed by COMSIS —_| and resulls are only
Morgan State pertormed for the applicable relative to | Transit subsidy
University. TRB Baitimore and Provides a discussion of | each scenario levels
960078, January 1996. | Philadelphia social equity
regions considerations based on | Baltimore modeling did | Work schedule
@ Survey of the two not estimate emissions | flexibility
regions reductions
“Evaluation of Summarizes the | As thelr techniques and =| Report does not South Coast Air dkp
Employee Trip results of an ~ targets are closely contain a methodology | Quality Management
Reduction Programs _| evaluation of parallel, empirical data _| for evaluating naw District Regulation
Based on Califomia's | employee trip tor Regulation XV was | TCM plans XV results to date
Experience with reduction * used to represent
Regulation XV." Orski, | programs, based | projected results of the —_| Calitomia-specific. Areawide program
C. Kenneth. Institute of | on California's Federal Clean Air Act, so | factors may influence | impact
Transportation experience with fessons evaluated may —_| and limit applicability
Engineers. January Regulation XV be relevant to other of conclusions to other | Program costs and
1994, metropotitan areas fegions effectiveness
Able to draw general
conclusions of employee
trip reduction program

effectiveness, based on
assessment of numerous
Calitomia studies

available at the time

Page 141


Transportation
Measure

Advantages

Utilizes actual
data from travel
diares, surveys,
and/or local and
household
characteristics

Relatively simple
approach (does
not require
computer
modeling)

Some results may
have applicability
to other regions

of Methodology

Disadvantages

‘Complexity of
relationship betwen
travel behavior and
urban form can
make it difficult to
achieve statistically
‘Significant results

Causality can be
difficult to establish

Uncertain
applicabllity to
multiple regions (but
can be duplicated at
moderate cost, if
necessary)

“Advantages of Study ‘Factors Analyzed
Utilizes actual survey More research Is Land use
Land Use and Travel in | of five Bay Area | data from five different necessary to reach characteristics
Five Neighborhoods In | neighborhoods; | neighborhoods for conclusions that are | (access to transit,
the San Francisco Bay | assessesimpact | comparison useful to land use sidewalk/bikeway
Area.” Kitamura, of land use planners availability, etc.)
Ryuichi, et al. Institute | characteristics Distinguishes between
of Transportation andattitudes on | impact of land use Diaries and surveys Personal attitudes:
Studies, UC Davis. travel behavior characteristics, attitudes, | require time-intensive, | related to
November, 1994. and income methodical approach =| environment,
mobility, etc.
Explores multiple
variables (household
| size, profession,
environmental attitude,
time pressure, etc.)
“Using Residential Evaluates the Explores some key Evaluates VMT per Annual VMT per
Pattems and Transit to | effects of relationships between household, but does =| household
Decrease Auto neighborhood often-overiooked not estimate emissions
Dependence and characteristics neighborhood impacts directly Household vehicla
Costs.* Holtzclaw, (density, transit characteristics and travel ownership
John. For Natural accessibility, behavior ‘Study does not
Resources Defense neighborhood account for several Neighborhood
Council, June 1994. shopping, and Uses Innovative potentially important characteristics
pedestrian techniques to account for | n (density, transit
accessibility) on | transit accessibility, characteristics, accessibility,
household vehicle | neighborhood shopping, | including parking neighborhood
ownership and and pedestrain availability and shopping, and
MT, based on accessibility Proximity to the urban | pedestrian
data from 27 ‘center accessibility)
neighborhoods in | Uses data from a wide
Califomia. variaty of California Results may not be Household income
neighborhoods, from applicable outside of
central city to suburban =| California
tringe

Cli

bce mm ees



Alternative
‘Transporta-
tion-Friendly
‘Workplace
(cont.)

Empirical Somewhat appli- | Requires large data
analysis of cable to multiple | collection process to } Evaluating the collected on teduction measure provide exceptional
transportation | regions generate statistically | Effectiveness of Trip Southem database availabie in the | detall; report does not
measure significant results Reduction Incentives." | Califomia wortd contain details of the
Implementation | Can be Gluliano, Genevieve, employment sites level of Incentive
programs {at moderate cost) ‘and Wachs, Martin. in | subject to Panel method allows for | support provided to
Panels for SCAQMD assessing before-and-
Does not require Transportation Planning | Regulation XV, after-TCM conditions
extensive and Applications, ed. | and assesses the Only generalized
computer mode! T.F. Golob, et al, 1997. jrelative effectiveness results
effectiveness of are shown
trip reduction
strategies TCMs were not always
Implemented at the
time of the survey
Empirical Requires little or | Case study resuits “Evaluation of Travel Performs caso Shows potential for Generally does not Not applicable in
analysis of No new data do not necessarily Demand Management | studies of the reduction In commute- evaluate specific TCM | context of specific
transportation | acquisition apply to other Measures to Relieve effectiveness of | based trips due to , programs | transportation
measure regions Congestion.” 11 transportation | Implementation of of muttiple TCMs are =| measures:
demonstration | Relatively tow cost demand transportation measures | evaluated for
projects effectiveness
‘Shows actual Provides high level of
potential of detail about the specific | Does not quantify
transportation programs Implemented emission reductions
measures DOT-T-80-14.
February 1990. Trp reductions based
upon vehicle
Ocoupancy assumpt-
tons for each mode
choice (carpool,



Transportation
Measure

Telecom-
muting
(cont.)

9130198

Methodology

Sketch
’| planning (cont.)

Advantages

Air Quality Cost-
Effectiveness of

‘Schreffler, Eric N.,
Therese Costa, and
Cari B. Moyer. In
Transportation
Research Record 1520,
1996.

usad to evaluate
projects funded
by the AB 2766
vehicle
registration fee
Program in
Southem
Calitomia

Methodology can be
used to evaluate prior
projects or proposed
future projects

Uses available EMFAC
emission rates to
calculate ROG, PM10,
NOx, and CO

‘Study devetops
standardized worksheet
to evaluate projects

‘Study points out
drawbacks of self-

reported project results.

Disadvantages

Methodology relies on
participation data
provided by project
proponents, which
may not always be
unbiased

EMFACZE factors are
Califomla-specific

Factors Analyzed
Trips reduced
Trip length

Prior travel mode

Page 117

drt



Transportation
Measure

Traffic
Management
(cont.)

MSIE

analysis of
transportation
measure
demonstration
projects

Methodology

Advantages
of Methodology

Requires little or
no new data
acquisition
Relatively low cost
Shows actual
potential of

transportation
measures

Disadvantages:
of Methodology

Case study results
do not necessarily
apply to other
regions

Description

Advantages of Study

Disadvantages
of Study

Factors Analyzed

Evaluates: Compares several types | Some of the projects On-ramp queue dac
it Really Work?* effectiveness of | of ramp-metering projects | implemented other tength
Robinson, James, and | several ramp under different transportation
Mark Doctor. metering projects | circumstances measures concurrently | Wait times
FHWANMTE 1989 across the nation, with the ramp-metering
Compendium of identities Provides effectiveness in | project, so it is difficult
Technical Papers. limitations and terms of vehicle speed to examine the
issues for increases or travel time _| effectiveness of this
implementation _| decreases as well as. program only
reductions in accidents
, Does not quantity VMT
Discusses types of ramp- | or emissions
metering systems, reductions
metering rates, ramp
geometries, and
diversion problems
“Environmental Reviews Combines general Emissions calculation | Land use and drt
Considerations for environmental discussion with case methodology and physical features
Planning Advanced factors retated to | study results from an results not presented .
Traffic Management ITS strategies, actual ITS project in great detail Emissions (CO, HC,
Systems." Kraft, and presents a NOx)
Walter H., and William | case study of Evaluates changes In
A. Redi, in Resource |New Jersey DOT | VMT and emissions (CO, Benefit/cost ratio
Papers for the 1994 | 1-80 Metropolitan | HC, and NOx) at the
ITE Intemational Area Guidance corridor level
Conference, 1994. information and
Control (MAGIC) | Includes cost/benefit
project analysis results
Tracks changes in VMT
and emissions impacts
over time

Page 123

ay


oe)
a,
\

drt

dac

Transportation Advantages Disadvantages Disadvantages
Measure Methodology | of Methodology of Methodology Description of Study of Study Factors Analyzed
Intelligent ‘Emissions impacts of | A preliminary Provides framework for | Assesses the VMT
Transporta- | planning (cont.) Intelligent Vehicle assessment of evaluating emissions expected direction, but
tion Systems Highway Systems.° emissions Impacts of ITS. not the magnitude, of | Vehicle trips
(cont.) Washington, Simon, impacts of ITS. ITS emissions impacts.
Randall Guensler, and | technology Discusses potential ITS Modal emissions
Daniel Sperling. U.C. | bundles impacts of VMT, trip-end | Does not draw upon activity
Davis Institute of emissions, engine idling, | data from specific
Transportation Studies, diurnal and refueling existing ITS projects
UCD-AP-13-93. 1993. emissions, and modal
emissions activity
Identifies role of ITS In
reducing emissions
impacts associated with
Non-recurrent traffic
congestion
Addresses potential role
of ITS technologies in
implementing demand
management strategies
such as congestion
priding and preferential . .
tieatment of shared
modes
Process Explains lessons | Does not necessarily | "Transportation Control | Provides Addresses the strengths | Requires an extensive | None (factors
analysis of learned during the | help quantify VT, Measures Analyzed tor | comprehensive and weaknesses ofthe _| study of already- analyzed are
transportation | planning and VMT, or emissions the Washington evaluation of the | bottom-up, multiple Performed process applicable to each
measure implementation of | reductions from the } Region's 15 Percent selection and committee planning transportation
planning and an actual transportation Rate of Progress Plan. | quantification process used by the measure analyzed
implementation | transportation measure FHWA/Metropolitan process coG . during the process)
measure, such as | implementation Washington Council of | performed by the
reactions to Governments, February | MWCOG for Provides extensive, clear
expect from the Cost can vary greatly | 1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and
Public and funding transportation weaknesses) of both the
sources measures evaluation tools used and
each specific
Provides pros and transportation measure
cons of planning evaluation method
and .
implementation Estimates VT, VMT, and
methods emission reductions and
cost-effectiveness
’
9/30/98 Page 63


Transportation
Measure ~

Compressed
Work Week/
Flex Time
(cont.)

9/30/98

Methodology ~

Sketch
planning

‘Simple tools can
generate planning-
level estimates of

effectiveness at
low cost

Generalized tools
can be somewhat
applicable to
multiple regions

Analyst can vary
input parameters

results are usually
not the most
accurate, depending
‘on the input
parameters

“TCM Analyst 1.0 and
User's Guide.” .
Crawford, Jason A., et
al. Texas
Transportation Institute.
For the Federal
Highway
Administration,
November 1994,

1.0, including
Input data
requirements,
methods of use,
and an overview
of the model's
structure and
calculation
Procedures

relatively easy Instruction
manual for using TCM
Analyst 1.0

Uses MOBILESa output
data (emission factors)
as inputs to the model,
providing more accurate
emission benefit
calculations for each
TCM

microscale) basis onty

Page 21


.| Transportation
Messi

Rideshare
(cont.)

OOK

Advantages Disadvantages: Disadvantages .
Methodology | of Methodology | of Methodology Report Description Advantages of Study of Study Factors Analyzed
Travel damand/ “Transportation Contro! | Describes use Utilized high-quality Does not provide Many; not specified
mode choice Measures for the San jandresulits ofa | household travel survey | detail on model
modal (cont) Francisco Bay Area: travel demand data and advanced ‘operation
Analysis of model to modal modeling capabilities
Effectiveness and VT, VMT, and
Costs." Harvey, G., emission Emissions calculatior +
and E. Deakin. For reductions of uses standardized
Bay Area Air Quality —_| various methods, but takes into
Management District, | transportation account more subtle
October 1991. measures in the | effects of emissions
San Francisco generation
Bay Area
Provides succinct, clear
data on results of study,
including cost-
{ effectiveness estimates
Empirical Somewhat Requires large data the Describes the Uses actual data froma | Some findings may Rideshare logistics
analysis of the | applicable to collection process to | Effectiveness of and | survey of current and have been and personal
impacts of multiple regions: generate statistically | Ridesharing Programs." | results of a past rideshare contradicted by more | flexibility
personal (but likely to be significant results Stevens, William F. survey to participants as wellas a | recent studies (e.9.,
preference and | influenced heavily Transportation determine which | random sample of ‘study finds that large | Monetary: parking,
workplace by local factors of | Personal pretarence | Quarterly, October Personal potential participants corporations have fuel
conditions on —_| the study area) and workplace 1990. Vol. 44 No. 4. Preference and better success with
mode choice conditions difficult to workplace factors | Survey instrument tideshare programs) Interpersonal issues
Can be replicated |impact through affect rideshare | developed through focus ("having someone to
{at moderate to | public policy participation groups and interviews for talk to")
high cost) better results
Altruism
Doss not require .
extensive
computer model
‘Uses actual
‘survey data



modal (cont) Harvey, Greig W. In| transportation Francisco Bay Area Francisco Bay Area __| Vehiclo trips
Curbing Gridlock: system pricing on | Pricing Study using the —_| may {imit usefuiness of
Peak-Perlod Fees to activity patterna | STEP model esufts to other regions | Fuel usage
Relieve Traffic and travel
Congestion. Vol. 2. behavior, some =| Quantifies VMT, trips, jes | Emissions (ROG,
Transportation emissions results | fuel usage, ROG, CO, that the STEP model | CO, NOx. CO2)
Research Board NOx, and CO2 does not accurately
Special Report 242, account for regional
1994, ‘Shows quantified travel | growth or employment
and emissions modeling | allocation, and treats
results that correspond to | time of day in a
specific, clearly defined | simplified way
pricing proposals ;
Travel cost Most accurate Resutts do not “Impacts of Congestion |Uses economic | Compares impact of Requires many Congestion prica dac
model way of measuring | necessarily apply to | Pricing on Transit and = theory of travel ~ | congestion pricing on ‘assumptions that Jevel
true travel costs a | other regions Carpool Demand and =| demand, supply, | various income groups | could
prion Supply.” Kain, John. —_ [| and pricing, as affect resutts, including | Flow speed
Requires extensive | Harvard University, well as. Provides excellent between
Allows information gathering | 1994. TRB 940444. assumptions discussion of total costs 4 price level and traffic | Parking price level
comparison of about the value of | of travel and relationship | flow speed
muttipte scenarios time to estimate | between congestion Transit service lavel
total travel costs | pricing and transit use Does not quantity
to commuters emission reductions Personal value of
time



Occupancy
Vehicle
Facilities
(cont.)

9/30/98

Factors Analyzed

“Negative Impacts of Addition of bus-only
throughput to actual corridors, HOV Facilities on composition of latent | or HOV lane
model given accurate Transit." Vuchic, demand for freeway

knowledge of key Vukan R., et al. use is assumed Conversion of bus-
assumptions University of several cities; Results are consistent onty or HOV lane

Pennsyivania/Universit | modeled with actual demonstration } Shifts In passengers

Low to moderate y of Delaware. January | differences in project findings, and from SOV to HOV
cost 1995. TRB 950543. impacts between | show potential to reduce |lanes are assumed
bus-only and VMT
HOV lanes Does not model
emissions
Emission Readily available | Requires computer | “Air Quality Impacts of | Uses an Establishes and upper Highly theoretical Bus-only lanes vs.
dispersion models. mode! HOV Facilities." emissions and tower bound on study with idealized multiple passenger
model (used for Chatterjee, Aun. et al. | dispersion model | emission concentration —_| conditions; does not lanes.
freeways) Applicable to any | Requires many University of to estimate CO impacts due to HOV use actual data
highway simplifying Tennessee, January and NOx lanes
assumptions 1996. TAB 960425. concentrations Assumes mode choice
Analyst can vary along a freeway | Includes impacts of latent | spilts
Input parameters with HOV lanes =| demand
Relatively low cost
touse
Empirical Somewhat Requires large data} “Evaluating the Seattle | Summarizes the | Provides overview of Factors under study in | Impact of changing
analysis of applicable to collection process to [1-5 North HOV Lane 2+ | impact (on the general trends and travel corridor may HOV lane vehicle
transportation | multiple regions generate statistically | Occupancy HOV lane and impacts of a reduction In |have been Influenced | occupancy
measure . significant results Requirement " | general purpose | HOV lane requirements | and confounded by requirements
implementation | Can be replicated Demonstration.” lanes) ofa additional variables
Programs {at moderate cost) | Tumut, Katherine F. | demonstration Information evaluated in . Trattic levels and
etal. Texas Project which study was obtained Changes in travel traffic conditions
Does not require Transportation Institute. | lowered the through special surveys | characteristics as a during moming and
extensive January 1993. minimum vehicle | and from ongoing result of demonstration | aftemoon peak hours
computer mode! occupancy monitoring efforts by Project may nothave | and peak periods:
requirement on Washington State's: emerged immediately
the I-5 North HOV | Department of after implementation,
lanes in Seattle | Transportation and thus may not
from 3 or more show up in evaluation
persons per
| vehicle to 2 or Analysis limited by
more persons per availability of data,
vehicle especially for the

period immediately

Preceding the start of
the demonstration

ety

dao

dac

Page 53


Transportation

Trip
Reduction
(cont.)

oI

Advantages
of Methodology

vehicte trips (VT)
and vehicle miles
traveled (VMT)
from TCMs, for
use in a planning-
level context;
developed
originally for the
South Coast Air
Basin

and VMT reductions from | VT and VMT from
‘TCMs were based upon | TCMs were estimated
‘relatively simple methods | based upon a general
for estimating emissions | survey, 80 fora

Particular location

Methods to quantify VT | Expected reductions in

effectiveness developed | different assumptions
prior to this report for the | may be needed

rather than use report's use of
Mandated transportation | transportation data
Performance standards | and emissions factors

Actual experience data | were quantified

used as much as

Possible: estimated trip | runs for 1994

feduction levels from

Applicability to other
fegions outside
approach was developed | Califomia limited by

in the analysis which
using
BURDEN and EMFAC

each TCM was collected | Does not incorporate
from other studies, and =| any consideration of
planning-evel analysis: cost-effectiveness

uses site-specific data
inputs, thus offering.
increased precision in
emissions estimates

Ranges in VT reductions:
estimates address the
interactive impacts of the
application of multiple
\ansporation measures:

Equivalency factor used
to convert VMT to VT can
account for region-
‘specific average trip

tengths

Bike parking facilities

Existence/extent of
bike path system

Existence of shower
lacilities

kp

Page 137

\~
‘ey


‘Transportation
Measure

Compressed
Work Week/
Flex Time
(cont.)

Methodotogy, ||.6

Emptoyer TOM
cost-

effectiveness
model

costs of daily trips
and peak period
tips

Aids employer
determination of
cost-effectiveness
of TDM measures
for their particular
worksite

Results may vary

widely from one
employer to the next

Many inputs may be
difficult for
employers or
planners to quantify

based
model Is user-friendly
and readily accessible for
use at the site-specific
level; mode! makes
sensitivity analysis
relatively simple

For employers without
access to entire range of
data necessary to
operate model, default
values are included

Most employers
surveyed to develop
mode! were unable to
provide detailed cost
Information on the
TDM measures they
had implemented

‘Does not calculate
emissions directly

Potential for regional
bias, as model was
developed in part
based on a survey of
suburban San
Francisco Bay Area
employers; model also
used the SCAQMD
Regulation XV and
Pima Association of
Governments Travel
Reduction Program
employer pian
databases

Only some TOMs:
Included In mode!
provide for estimates
of VT reductions

Use of default values
could diminishes
accuracy of estimates
for some users

Suburban employer-
based TDM
measures

Dally trips and peak
period trips

Costs and cost-
effectiveness



Explains fessons None (factors
Occupancy | analysis of feamad during the |help quantify VT, Measures Analyzed for and weaknesses ofthe | study of already- analyzed are
Vehicle transportation | planning and MT, of emissions ff the evaluation of the | bottom-up, multiple Performed process applicable to each
Facliities measure implementation of | reductions fromthe | Region's 15 Percent selection and committee planning transportation
(cont) planning and ‘an actual ‘transportation Rate of Progress Plan.” | quantification process used by the measure analyzed
" imptementation | transportation measure FHW/ Process coa during the process)
measure, such as |implementation Washington Council of | performed by the
reactions to Govemments, February | MWCOG for Provides extensive, clear
expectfrom the | Cost can vary greatly | 1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and
public and funding transportation weaknesses) of both the
‘sources measures evaluation tools used and
each specific
Provides pros and transportation measure
cons of planning evaluation method
end 3
Implementation Estimates VT, VMT, and
methods emission reductions and
cost-effectiveness
Comparison Relatively Results are not “An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solid overview | Report does not Impacts: vehicle
and analysis of |inexpensiva and | directly applicable to | Transportation Control | studies that of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles
other studies. simple to conduct, | other regions (local | Measures, analyze a host of | of TCM options, as weil | for ev: new traveled, and
because It Inputs may play a tr transportation as technology and policy | TCM plans, but follow- | emissions
requires no significant rote in Technologies, and measures, options on report focuses
primary research | determining the Pr technology upon these strategies | Costs
‘travel and emissions { Policies.” Euritt, Mark | options, and Focuses upon energy
Provides a review | impacts of HOV A., etal. University of | policies for total _| efficiency impacts in Estimates may be too
of the results. facilities) Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and | addition to emissions and | rough to apply to other
produced by for Transportation costa/benefits VMT programs in other
different HOV Unlikely to provide ResearctyTellus regions
facitiiesin North | precise estimates institute. CTR SEDC-
America, which 1, June 1995.

{gout greet " “The Effects ofNew [Reviews past —_| Provides an overview Vartous travel
applicable High-Occupancy modeling efforts | and critique of previous characteristics,
research Is not Vehicle Lanes on and travel HOV impact assessment depending on the
available Travel and Emissions." | demand efforts, with specific study

Johnston, Robert A., simulations of recommendations for reviewed
Identifies and Raju Ceerla. In HOV lanes Improvements.
advantages and Transportation
disadvantages of Research A, vol. 30 no. Summarizes modeling
several 1, pp. 35-50, 1996. issues related to the
methodologies Federal and Califomia
Clean Air Acts



Advantages Disadvantages: Disadvantages
of Methodology Report Description |° Advantages of Study of Study Factors Analyzed
Empirical “The Influence of Analyzes Analyzes a large data set | Some findings may Level of employer
(cont.) analysis of the Employer Ridesharing | aggregate-level | comprising almost 10% [have been effort to encourage
impacts of Programs on Employee | data compiled by | of Los Angeles area contradicted by more | ridesharing
personal Mode Choice.” alarge Southam | workforce recent studies (e.9.,
preterence-and Ferguson, Erik. Califomia regional study finds that large | Size of firm
workplace Transportation, vol 17, | ridesharing Utilizing existing agency | corporations have
conditions on 1990. agency; assesses | database is a cost- better success with
mode choice impact of effective approach fideshare programs)
(cont) employer
characteristics on | Less accurate than Aging data source:
employee mode | disaggregated (employee | 1985 survey data
spilt by employee) data
Los Angoles area
Inciudes cost- factors may be
effectiveness estimations | uncharacteristic of
other regions, so.
resulls may not be
| applicable elsewhere
Employer-derived data
was acquired using
different methods

No estimates of
emissions impacts

ONS, Page


Telecom-
muting
(cont.)

YONI,

Macro-level Provides Generally unable to |} *Energy Efficiency tn | Evaluates, at the | Incorporates indirect Study does not
analysis estimates of evaluate impacts of ff the U.S. Economy, national level, the | impacts such as latent distinguish between
overall travel and =} smaller-scale Technical Report One: | direct and indirect | travel demand and urban | market-driven
emissions impacts | telecommuting Energy, Emissions, and | effects of decentralization telecommuting and —_‘| Level of roadway
of telecommuting | programs. Social Consequences | telecommuting on potential policy-driven | congestion
of Telecommuting.” travel, traffic Evaluates current and telecommuting (i.e.,
Applicable to Cannot be used to U.S. Department of ‘congestion, projected future impacts | telecommuting ‘Latent travel demand
multiple evaluate impacts of | Energy, DOE/PO-0026. | energy use, and resulting from a
geographic areas | specific program June 1994, emissions; also: Uses MOBILE emission | specific government Location patterns
design elements on examines social | lactors policy or program — and urban density
telecommuting impacts.
Includes sensitivity Study does not show | Total hours of delay
Macro-level results analysis results for individual
may have substantial urban areas: Average speeds:
uncertainty Uses existing algorithms
such as the Roadway Emissions (HC, CO,
‘Congestion index NOx)
developed by the Texas
Transportation institute: Monetized costs and
benefits
Sketch ‘Simple tools can | Sketch planning “TCM Analyst 1.0 and | Describes a Provides a useful and Program only models | Not stated
Planning generate planning- | results are usually User's Guide.” computerized relatively easy instruction | limited TCMs and
level estimates of | not the most Crawford, Jason A., et | sketch planning | manual for using TCM cannot model multipte
transportation accurate, depending fal. Texas tool, TCM Analyst | Analyst 1.0 TCM packages
measure on the input Transportation Institute. | 1.0, including
effectiveness at parameters For the Federal input data Uses MOBILESa output =| Requires several runs
tow cost Highway requirements, data (emission factors) with MOBILESa to
Administration, ‘methods of use, | as inputs to the model, obtain input emission
Generalized tools November 1994. and an overview =| providing more accurate | factors
can be somewhat of the modet's” emission benefit
‘applicable to structure and calculations for each Modeling on regional
multiple regions calculation TCM (rather than
Procedures - microscale) basis only
Analyst can vary

input parameters:

Page 11S

dn

dac



Database!
Information

Review of existing results
focuses on aggregate

Not applicable in
analysis of nonew data do not necessarily Demand Management | studies of the reduction In commute- evaluate specific Context of specific
acquisition apply to other Measures to Relieve effectiveness of | based trips due to transportation transportation
measure regions Congestion.” 11 transportation | implementation of measure Individually; | measures
demonstration | Relativaly low cost Kuzmyak, J.R., and demand transportation measures | programs of multiple
projects E.N. Schreffier. management transportation
‘Shows actual Prepared by COMSIS =| programs. Provides tavel of measures are
potential of Corp. for FHWA. detall about the specific | evaluated for
transportation FHWA/SA-80/005; Programs implemented _| effectiveness
measures: DOT-T-90-14.
February 1990. Does not quantify
emission reductions
Trip reductions based
upon vehicle
occupancy
assumptions for each
mode choice (carpool,
| vanpool, transit)
ee



Market
Incentives

Pei
Methodology.

Advantages

Uses joumey-to-work

Travel demand/ | Somewhat Uses Travel Sufficiently detailed Transit fare levels
‘mode choice applicable to ‘specific household Evaluation of Travel Demand census data to develop | journey-to-work and travel time
model multipte regions ~—_/ survey, land use, Demand Management | Evaluation Model | estimates of zone-to- census data may not
socioeconomic, and } Measures.’ Taylor, developed by zone travel be available for all HOV lane time
Analyst can vary | travel cost data Christopher J., et al. COMSIS to cities: Syracuse has | savings
Input parameters TRB 971114, January | evaluate the Evaluates both area-wide | this data available due
Requires 41997. Impact of programs and employer- | to a pilot program Parking costs
‘complicated transportation based programs
‘computer model measures on Requires assuming Employer transit
mode choice and | Assesses revenue some estimates of encouragement level
Potentially high cost VT for the generation potential and | effectiveness
‘to use Syracuse, NY transit subsidies
metropolitan area Does not quantity
emissions reductions
“Transportation Control | Describes use Utilized high-quality Does not provide Many; not specified
Measures forthe San |andresultsofa | household travel survey | detail on model
Francisco Bay Area: travel demand data and advanced operation
Analysis of model to model modeling capabilities
Effectiveness and VT, VMT, and
Costs." Harvey, G., emission Emissions calculations
and E. Deakin. For reductions of uses standardized
Bay Area Air Quality ‘various methods, but takes Into
Management District, _ | transportation account more subtle
October 1991. measures inthe | effects of emissions
‘San Francisco generation
Bay Area
Provides succinct, clear
data on results of study,
including cost-
effectiveness estimates
Sample survey | Somewhat Requires large data | “Analysis of Indirect ‘Surveyed Uses actual survey data | Assumptions are Transit
of customer applicable to collection process to | Source Trip Activity: customers of (including customer required to translate subsidy/validation
travel patierns | multiple regions —_| generate statistically | Regional Shopping regional shopping | demographic and stated | stated preference data
and (but influenced by | significant results Centers." Prepared by | centers to preference data) ~ to expected outcome
Preferences at | local factors oi the JHK & Associates and | determine
shopping study area) Moderate to high K.T. Analytics for the | potentialimpact | Developed calculation Does not quantify
centers: cost California Air of various travel | methodologies specific to | emission reductions
Does not require Resources Board. reduction each trip reduction .
an extensive ARB-R-94/510, measures measure, using site-
computer model November 1993. specific data
Compares data between
shopping centers in
different land-use types
To cee RS Ue =

dac

dac

nae


"Impacts of Compressed Work Week on Vehicle Trips and Miles Traveled: Final Report." School of
Urban and Regional Planning, University of Southern California, for the California Air Resources Board.
Contract No. A 132-136, October 1994.

"Impacts of Congestion Pricing on Transit and Carpool Demand and Supply.” Kain, John. Harvard
University, TRB 940444, 1994.

“Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of
Experience." COMSIS Corporation. USDOT, DOT-T-94-02, September 1993.

"Improving the Effectiveness of Ridesharing Programs." Stevens, William F. Transportation Quarterly,
Vol. 44 No. 4, October 1990.

,

"Intelligent Transportation Systems Impact Assessment Framework: Final Report." Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center, September 30, 1995.

“ITS Benefits: Continuing Successes and Operationai Test Results." Prepared by Mitretek Systems for
Federal Highway Administration. Draft, September 19, 1997.

"Land Use Regulations to Promote Ridesharing: An Evaluation of the Seattle Approach.” McCutcheon,
Melody, and Jeffrey Hamm. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, 1983.

"Managing ‘Transportation Demand: Markets Versus Mandates." Giuliano, Genevieve, and Martin Wachs.
Reason Foundation. Policy Insight No. 142, September 1992.

"Meeting Clean Air Act Emissions Standards: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Car Scrappage."
DeCardy, Christopher. Harvard University, April 1994. -

“Methodological Issues in the Estimation of the Travel, Energy, and Air Quality Impacts of
Telecommuting.” Mokhtarian, Patricia L. et al. Transportation Research A. Vol. 29A, No. 4, 1995.

“Methodology for Evaluating ATIS Impacts on Air Quality." Al-Deek, H. et al. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 4, pp. 376-384, Jul/Aug 1995.

"Negative Impacts of HOV Facilities on Transit." Vuchic, Vukan R., et al. University of
Pennsylvania/University of Delaware. TRB 950543. January 1995.

“Overview of the Georgia Tech GIS-Based Modal Emissions Model." Guenstler, Randall, et al. Georgia
Tech Research Partnership. April 1997.

“Parking Subsidies and Travel Choices: Assessing the Evidence." Willsqn, Richard W. and Donald C.
Shoup. In Transportation, Vol. 17, 1990.

“Potential Contributions of Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems (IVHS) to Reducing Transportation's
Greenhouse Gas Production.” Shladover, Steven E. PATH, Institute of Transportation Studies, U.C.
Berkeley. August 1991.

"Potential Emission and Air Quality Impacts of Intelligent Vchicle-Highway Systems.” Ostria, Sergio, and
Michael F. Lawrence. In Transportation Research Record 1444, 1994.

"Ramp Metering: Does it Really Work?" Robinson, James, and Mark Doctor, FHWA/ITE 1989
Compendium of Technical Papers.


1. Introduction

Asthe importance of transportation measures and voluntary measures in air quality programs increases,
a growing body of research focuses on the quantitative evaluation and analysis of these measures. The purpose
of this work assignment is to develop a comprehensive index of methodologies used in assessing transportation
measures and other non-mandatory programs. Quantification refers to any effort to numerically evaluate
transportation measures (or other related measures) in terms of developing air quality benefits, program costs,
VMT reductions, trip reductions, and/or cost-effectiveness.

2. WA Task 2 results

The results of WA Task 2 are embodied in the extensive matrix shown in Attachment 2 (and provided
on the accompanying diskette in both WordPerfect and Excel format). The matrix lists transportation measures
and voluntary measures along with the types of methodologies used to quantify them, and a description of the
strengths and weaknesses of each methodology. In addition, the matrix lists specific reports and studies that
have utilized each methodology for a particular transportation measure, along with particular advantages and
disadvantages of the methodology as used in that particular research or evaluation study. Reports that analyze
several transportation measures were placed in each of those transportation measure categories.

ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller developed this matrix through a detailed review of transportation
measure quantification literature collected under a previous work assignment (0-04). (For more information
on that work assignment, see "Index of Transportation Measure Quantification Efforts: Final Report for Task
2 and Task 3,” prepared by Acurex Environmental Corporation for USEPA, September 30, 1997.)

The methodology matrix provides a clearly organized, easy-to-use summary of available
methodologies for evaluating a given transportation measure, strengths and weaknesses of those methodologies,
and examples of research and evaluation efforts that have utilized each of those methodologies. Local planners
using this matrix should easily be able to obtain important comparative information on transportation measures
and voluntary measures of interest to them, and on the particular methodologies used to estimate or evaluate
the travel and emissions impacts of these measures.

The completed methodology matrix covers 27 different transportation measures, and summarizes and
analyzes 38 distinct quantification methodologies, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. Note that the methodologies
listed in Figure 2 are shown in the same heirarchical order in which they appear (where applicable) within each
transportation measure. The methodology matrix describes the use of these methodologies in 102 documents.
These documents are listed in Attachment 1.

The methodology matrix reveals certain strengths and weakness of the transportation measure
quantification literature. Certain transportation measures, including HOV facilities, telecommuting, and
ridesharing, have been analyzed by many researchers, using a variety of analytical techniques. Others have not
received the same amount of attention. In particular, Intelligent Transportation Systems are only recently
moving from "crystal ball" discussions to analytically rigorous emissions quantification. In addition, shuttle
projects have received limited attention.

Similarly, certain methodologies have been used extensively in the literature. Travel demand models
have been used to provide detailed travel and emissions impact assessments for a wide variety of transportation
measures. Many planners and researchers, however, have found sketch planning tools to provide the right
balance between cost and accuracy. Advanced analytical models that integrate existing models, or that rely on

1


Transportation
Measure

Trip
Reduction
(cont.)

ems

Methodology | of Methodology | of Methodology

Factors Analyzed

Analyzing case Case-study analysis th
analysis studies of frequently does not | Demand Management: | mode split results | represent a variety of contribute to a clear split: single

transportation provide rigorous Case Studies of tor 14 medium- —_| locations, business type, | conciusion on the Occupant vehicle,

projects Is quantitative results | Medium-Sized sized employers | and transportation most effective transit, carpool

relatively easy and Employers.” that practice measures. transportation

inexpensive Effectiveness of Rutherford, G. Scott et | various forms of measure Employee

case studies may be | al. In Transportation transportation Explains ‘ansporation

Ditterent case due to local actors | Research Record 1459. | demand vasiation of policy and ‘Does not provide coordination support

studies can be ‘specific to that case management constraints for discussion of emission | time

compared to . transportation measures | benefits

determine factors (parking availabilty,

Influencing the price, public Does not contain

ettectiveness of transportation network) | cost/benefit analysis.

an transportation

measure
Policy analysis | Addresses: Unlikely to provide “Feasibility of Conducts a policy | Analyzes shortcomings + | Oraws conclusions as] Employee trip
of transpor- political feasibility | precise emission Employee Trip analysts of to indirect transportation | to feasibility of feduction
tation of transportation | estimates Reduction as a employee trip measures such as implementing
measures measure Regional reduction, anda | employee trip reduction | employee trip

implementation Transportation Control | preliminary cost reduction, but gives no

and generalized Measure.” Lupa, Mary | comparison of Provides a solid overview | precise estimation of

estimate of A. University of lilinois | employee trip of employee trip emissions

success given at Chicago. In reduction among | reduction as an evolving

local travel Transportation transportation TCM and an arena for

behavior and Research Record 1459. | measures strategic planning using

characteristics. tools such as direct

political action, classic

Relatively simple | economics,

and inexpensive implementation, pricing,

to conduct, as it and regional consensus

requires no ~ | uading

primary research

Page 139


Congestion
Pricing
(cont.)

9/30/98

Does not address

political acceptability _ | flow relationships
or tolling options
Relatively easy available for
congestion and inexpensive Research Board Paper | upon the marginal congestion pricing
price levels to perform 940977, January 1994. | cost of driving
Prices resulting from
Somewhat the study may need to
applicable to be adjusted downward
multiple regions: to minimize the
adverse impacts on
traveling
- Does not quantify
emissions
Evaluative Matrix of ‘Theoretical analysis ff "Evaluation of ‘Study evaluated | Compared eleven Unclear from this brief | Congestion relief
matrix evaluative criterla | based on models, Congestion Pricing the relative difterent evaluative report how
which details and not actual Altematives in the Twin | relationships and | pricing scenarios for the | matrix numbers were | Mode shift potential
compares congestion Cities." Lar, Adee! Z. | impacts of eleven | Twin Cities area against | quantified
congestion pricing | project data and Kenneth R. congestion pricing | one another according to Local street impacts
options could be Buckeye. Minnesota | options in the same criteria Matrix developed
applied to other Relatively extensive | Department of Twin Cities Specifically froma Alr quality
regions location-specific Transportation, January | metropolitan area | Alr quality impacts congestion pricing improvements
study conducted 1997. for 1995-96 using | measured in percent study for the Twin
Relatively flexible] from which matrix statistically reductions in Cities metropolitan Social and
in level of numbers were modeled data, hydrocarbons (PM peak | area, and thus results | geographical equity
complexity and developed public outreach —_} period only) and recommendations
number of data, and overall may only be applicable | Land use/economic
evaluation criteria feasibllity studies to Minneapolis/St. impacts
or pricing Paul area
scenarios input Public acceptability
into matrix
Technical feasibility
Revenue and costs
Operational
effectiveness

Page 31


Advantag Disadvantages »
of Methodology ‘of Methodology Factors Analyzed
Intelligent Sketch “Potential Contributions | Identifies role of | Good categorization of —_| Provides little Several subtypes of | dac
Transporta- | planning (cont) of intelligent ITS In affecting various subtypes of ITS | quantification of VMT | ITS
tion Systems Vehicle/Highway travel demand and delay reductions,
-|(cont.) ‘Systems (IVHS) to and supply and Identifies clearly how ITS |no emissions
Reducing categorizes influences short-term reductions
Transportation's subtypes of ITS travel pattems and
Greenhouse Gas teduces traffic incidents Inconclusive evidence
Production.* for effect on
Shladover, Steven E. greenhouse gases,
PATH, Institute of since long-term effects
Transportation Studies, of ITS are unknown
U.C. Berkeley. August
1991.
“Assessing the Summarizes the | Provides background for | Does not address Travel impacts ot
Emission Impacts of likely impacts of evaluating a range of ‘specific policies or
IVHS in an Uncertain | three ITS emissions impacts of ITS | programs that would | Emissions impacts
Future.” Washington, | technology Impact vehicle fleet
Simon P., Randall bundles Assesses potential ‘composition and driver
Guensler, and Daniel =| (Advanced Traffic | changes in ITS behavior
Sperling. University of | management emissions impacts due to
California Systems, future changes in vehicle | Assesses the
Transportation Center. | Advanced fleet composition and expected direction, but
Working Paper UCTC | Traverter driver behavior not the magnitude, of
No. 298, 1993. Information ITS emissions impacts
Systems, and Highlights potential
Advanced Vehicle | synergies among ITS Does not draw upon
Control Systems) | technologies and policy | data from specific
under different options existing ITS projects
sets of current
and future
assumptions
Mee ee EKER A PR NPN A ALE SHEETS RE OE or RC oe 8 em cert om -— aad 2
grove


Transportation
Measure

Local Land
Use/Urban
Design
(cont.)

9/30/98

Methodology

Advantages:

Disadvantages
of Methodology

“The Effects of Land

Study conducted In

Statistical Use of Principle Precise causality Develops an Added land use and site Land use and urban
analysis of the | Components and individual Use and Travel ‘integrated information from field Los Angeles County, | design of worksite
impacts of land | Analysis impacts of factors Demand Mariagement | database of land | observation to the and thus may be less
use generated ‘such as transit Strategies on use “Regulation XV* dataset | applicable in more TOM Incentive
characteristics | composite availability or urban | Commuting Behavior: | characteristics of the South Coast Air dense urban areas strategies
and TOM variables (groups | density on mode: Final Report." and travel Quality Management with factors such as
strategies on of land use choice cannot be Prepared by Cambridge | demand District (which included —_ | higher average density
mode choice characteristics measured due to Systematics, Inc. and | management aggregate employee and transit service.

with similar limitations of the Deakin, Harvey, (TDM) strategies | travel characteristics and

impacts) database ‘Skabardonis, Inc.for | (fora sample of | employer incentive Did not address

the U.S. Department of | employment programs) residential trip end of

‘Standard analysis | Potential for need to || Transportation, locations) to commute, midday

of variance using | conduct extensive November 1994. determine the travel, or trip chaining

Principle field research to combined impacts as factors which

components. determine land use . of TDM programs, influence mode choice

allowed characteristics at land use, and

examination of the | each sample work urban design on To simplify a

effects of land use | site. employee travel complicated data

and TOM behavior. collection process,

Incentive Cannot be used to somewhat arbitrary

strategies on determine land use indicators were used

mode choice ‘and urban design for assessment of a

Individually and in | characteristics’ site's urban design

combination. impact on a specific and land use

mode choice characteristics.

Results

transferable to

other urban areas

in terms of relative

ranking of

importance of the

land use and TOM

factors analyzed.

Factors Analyzed

dkp

Page 71


United States . Air and Radiation EPA420-R-98-018
Environmental Protection September 1998
Agency

Office of Mobile Sources

SEPA TRAQ

Transportation Air Quality Center

Index of Transportation

Measure Quantification
Efforts: Methodology
Matrix

Grling ue wt Clan A,

& Printed on Recycled Paper


Transportation
Measure

Rideshare
(cont.)

9130198

Methodology

Advantages:
Uses statistically
representative

sample population
to make estimates

of impact of
tidesharing
strategies ‘on the

of Methodology

Disadvantages
of Methodology

‘Surveys can entail
significant costs

“Revolving door”
characteristic of
ridesharing programs
can be difficult to
address with
accuracy

Relationship:
between ridesharing
participation, VMT,
and emissions
sequires additional
analysis

it surveys are
pertormed differently
in different regions,
direct comparisons:
of results may not be
valid

Survey results can
be subject to various

kinds of response
bias

‘State University at
Chico, June 1995.

“Cost-Etfectiveness of
Private Employer
Ridesharing Programs:
An Employer's
Assessment.”
Wegmann, Frederick J.
University of
Tennessee. In
Transportation
Research Record 1212,
1989.

RIDES for Bay

Area).

analyzes sample
aim of

documenting the
cost and benefits

private-sector

Methodology
distinguishes between

ongoing) to reflect thelr
different impact on travel
and emissions

Survey methodology is
generic and can be

applied to any region

Diverse study sample
included respondents.
from throughout the U.S.,
and represented
companies in central
business districts, within
city limits, and in

suburbs, from a diversity
of industry types

Disadvantages

Only quantifies
fideshare cost-
effectiveness to
employers; does not
directly quantity VMT
and emissions impact

Quantitative estimates
of ridesharing benefits
are very difticult to
make; therefore,
further follow up with a
subset of the sample
‘surveyed was required
to convert

estimates of benefits
Into annual monetary
values

Most benefits cited by
respondents were of
an intangibte nature;
theretore, the data
base necessary to
generate cost-benefit
analyses does not
exist

Survey response
fate

Statistical sampling
error

Employer ridesharing
costs, including
vanpooling and
vanpooling subsidy
costs; employer
parking costs

Ridesharing cost-
effectiveness

Ridesharing benefits

dn

kp

Page 97


‘Transportation

Measure
fee

Telecom.
muting
(cont.)

Management

Comparison
and analysis of
other studies
(cont)

Integrated
planning/
simulation
model

Advantages

Combines the
strengths of
regional
transportation
planning models.
and traffic
simulation models

Somewhat
applicable to
multiple regions

Analyst can vary
input parameters

Disadvantages |

of Methodology’

Requires very
detailed input data

Requires complex
computer mode!

Potentially high cost
touse

Report

“Assessment of Travel
Demand Management
Approaches at
Suburban Activity
Centers." Bhatt, Kiran,
and Higgins, Thomas.
K.T. Analystics. U.S.
DOT, July 1989.

“Intelligent
Transportation Systems
Impact Assessment
Framework: Final
Report." Volpe
National Transportation
‘Systems Center,
September 30, 1995

Advantages of Study

Provides a large number
studies and of case study examples
interviews TCM of both effective and
Program ineffective TCM
coordinators to Programs
provide an
overview of the =| Makes recommendations
range of to employers on how to
effectiveness of | develop a TCM program
employer-based
TCM programs: Provides a good checklist

of topics to address when

developing a TCM

Program

Describes
development and
application of an
analytical tool to
predict ITS
impacts, with a
focus on
Advanced Tratlic

Systems

Model integrates
transportation planning
and traffic simulation in
an iterative fashion, and
Includes emissions and
fuel consumption
modules

Report describes use of
model to analyze the
potential use of ITS in the
1-880 corridor in Alameda
County, Califomia,
modeling ramp metering,
traffic signal coordination,
integrated traffic
management, Incident
management, and HOV
lanes .
Emissions module uses
accepted EMFAC and
MOBILE factors

[Ratatvely nigh cost

Report does not
contain a methodology
for forecasting the
effectiveness of new
TCM plans

Only generalized
evaluation of TCM
effectiveness

and complexity

Locally specific input
data makes the |-880
results of limited use in
other areas

Factors Analyzed
Relative effective-
ness of various
transportation
measure programs

Implementation
mechanisms

Operational
Measures of
Effectiveness: VMT,
traffic volume,
average vehicle
‘speed, vehicle hours
of detay, fuel
consumption

Emission Measures
of Effectiveness:
CO, HC, NOx

Safety Measures of
Effectiveness:
personal injury
levels, property
damage, total
accidents



Date: 20 January 1999

Subject: Requested documents
From: TRAQ Center

Office of Mobile Sources
To: Barb Laurenson

Kaiser Permanente

1950 Franklin Street, 12th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612

Please find enclosed the documents that you requested through the EPA’s Transportation Air
Quality Information Request Line.

1) Quantification of Episodic Control Programs; EPA 420-R-97-006

2) Voluntary Mobile Source Programs: Crediting Innovation and Experimentation;
EPA 420-K-97-004

3) Driving Alone brochure, EPA 420-F-95-011

4) Transportation Control Measure Information Documents, EPA 420-R-92-006

5) Benefits Estimates for Selected TCM Programs; EPA 420-R-98-002 (was 94-006)

The Episodic Emissions Control Programs factsheet can be downloaded from the TRAQ Center
website at, www.epa,gov/oms/transp/traqvolm.htm in either PDF or text only format.

Quantification document (waiting to hear from Matt)

Thank you for your request.

G:ARSPD\TMIG\STI_TEAM\TRAQ\TRAQROLL\REQLETTR. WPD


Transportation
Measure

(cont.)

“TCM Analyst 1.0 and
User's Guide.”
Crawford, Jason A., ot
al. Texas

Uses MOBILESa output
data (emission factors)
as inputs to the model,
Providing more accurate
emission benefit
calculations for each
TCM

Factors Analyzed

dac



Compressed
Work Week/
Flex Time
(cont.)

9130/98

‘Advantages -;

= Disadvantages

“An Employer Pane! for

Discusses resutts

Utilizes the largest trip

i
. 4k
Factors Analyzed
Database does not Not described

Empirical
analysis of applicable to collection process to ff Evaluating the collected on reduction measure Provide exceptional
transportation | multiple regions generate statistically ] Effectiveness of Trip Southem database available in the | detall; report does not
measure significant rasutts Reduction Incentives." | Califomia wortd contain details of the
implementation | Can be replicated Glullano, Genevieve, | employment sites. level of Incentive
Programs (at moderate cost) and Wachs, Martin. In | subject to Panel method allows for | support provided to
Panels for SCAQMD assessing before-and- employees

Does not require Transportation Planning | Regulation XV, after-TCM conditions

extensive and Applications, ed. | and assesses the Only generalized

computer model T.F. Golob, et al, 1997. | relative effectiveness results

. offactiveness of are shown
trip reduction
strategies TCMs were not always:
implemented at the
time of the survey

Empirical Requires litte or | Case study results "Evaluation of Travel | Performs case Shows potential for Generally does not Not applicable in
analysis of no new data do not necessarily Demand Management | studies of the reduction in commute- eyaluate specific TCM | context of specific
transportation | acquisition apply to other Measures to Relieve | effectiveness of | based trips due to Individually; programs | transportation
measure regions Congestion." 11 transportation | implementation of TCMs | of multiple TCMs are =| measures
demonstration | Relatively ow cost Kuzmyak, J.R., and demand evaluated for
Projects | EN. Schreffler. management Provides high level of effectiveness

‘Shows actual Prepared by COMSIS =| programs detail about the specific

potential of Corp. for FHWA. Programs implemented | Does not quantify

transportation FHWAISA-90/005; emission reductions

measuress: DOT-T-90-14.

February 1990. Trip reductions based

upon vehicle
occupancy
assumptions for each
mode choice (carpool,
vanpool, transit)

Page 19

dac


Transportation
Measure

Methodology

Parking
Pricing/
Parking
Management

mode choice

Advantages:
of Methodology

applicable to
multipte regions

Analyst can vary
input parameters

travel cost data

Requires complex
computer mode!

Potentially high cost
touse

Factors Analyzed
“Transportation Pricing | Develops and Price tevel, period
Strategies for uses a highway-network and focation of
California: An comprehensive model to include level- | application
Assessment of travel demand Establishes base case by | of-service changes
Congestion, Emissions, | mode! to estimate | comparing to actua! Price elasticity
Energy and Equity the impacts of travel data Forecasts rely on
Impacts.” California Air | multipte estimations of Interrelationships
Resources Board, June | transportation Explores interrelations changes in household | between pricing
1995. Report No. 92- | measures. between pricing travel data strategies
316. Strategies
“Implementing Effective | Summarizes Excellent overview of the | Use of the model Fee level
Travel Demand broad range of range of TOMs possible; | requires local input
Management TDM measures, | provides description, Parameters to forecast
Measures: Inventory of | provides example | nature of effectiveness, | local effectiveness
Measures and case study application setting,
‘Synthesis of analyses of each, | effectiveness potential, Model does not
Experience." COMSIS | and uses and cost incorporate an
Corporation. USDOT, | computer model emissions calculation
September 1993. to benchmark the | Uses actual case studies {module
DOT-T-94-02. effectiveness of | to inform the use of a
each TOM computer model for Most analysis is at the
forecasting TDM employer-level rather
effectiveness than the area-level
Provides a road-map to
implementing TDMs
“The Effectiveness of | Describes a Model has a user manual | Use of the mode! Fee level during
Transportation Control | developed that leads the analyst requires focal input commute trip parking
Measures in Reducing | transportation step-by-step through the | parameters to forecast | times
Congestion and demand mode! Input of data for region local effectiveness;
Improving Air Quality." | that integrates ‘specific analyses default values may not
Loudon, William R., et | emissions be sufficient
al. JHK & Associates. | calculations; Contains extensive cost-
Air & Waste Provides example | effectiveness module
Management calculations from
Association Annual the model Can be used at either
Meeting & Exhibition regional or a smailer area
1993. AWMA 93-RP- or location
149.05. .
ooo i Includes exhaust and
evaporative emissions

dac

dac

dac



Disadvantages
of Study

Transportation
Measure

Advantages
of Methodology

Disadvantages

of Methodology Factors Analyzed

Methodology Advantages of Study .

Description

Local Land | Sketch
Use/Urban planning (cont.)

“Simple Methodologies | Describes Methods to quantify VT Expected reductions in | Employee
for Quantifying VT and | development of and VMT reductions from | VT and VMT from participation

Design VMT Reductions from | simple TCMs were based upon | TCMs were estimated | (percentage and
(cont.) Transportation Control! | methodologies for | relatively simple methods | based upon a general | frequency)

and Growth quantifying tor estimating emissions | survey, so fora

Management Measures | reductions in and individual TCM particular location Trip length

for Developing Local —_| vehicle trips (VT) | effectiveness developed | different assumptions
Existence/extent of

Trip Reduction and vehicle miles | prior to this report forthe | may be needed
Ordinances.” Evans, | traveled (VMT) South Coast AQMD pedestrian path
V. and D. Morrow. from TCMs, for Applicability to other system

Sonoma Technology, use in a planning: | Performance-based regions outside

seduction levels from
each TCM was collected
from other studies, and
planning-tevel analysis

Inc. Air & Waste level context; approach was developed | California timited by Existence of shower
Management Assoc. specifically rather than use report's use of facilities
1993 analyzes mandated transportation | transportation data
| pedestrian performance standards and emissions factors
improvements in the analysis which
Actual experience data were quantified using
used as much as BURDEN and EMFAC
possible: estimated trip tuns for 1994

Does not incorporate
any consideration of
cost-effectiveness

uses site-specitic data
inputs, thus offering ,, . : . .
increased precision in
emissions estimates

Ranges in VT reductions
estimates address the
interactive impacts of the

application of multiple
TCMs

Equivalency factor used
to convert VMT to VT can
account for region-
specific average trip
lengths

9130/98 Page 73


Alternative
Commute
Programs

Alternative
Transporta-
tlon-Friendly
Workplace

Process
analysis of
transportation
measure
planning and
implementation

‘Travel demand/
mode choice
‘model

Implementation of
an actual trans-
portation measure,
such as reactions
to expect from the
public and funding
sources

Provides pros and
cons of planning
and

implementation
methods.

‘Somewhat appii-
cable to multiple
ragions

Analyst can vary
Input parameters.

ATTACHMENT 2
Transportation Control Measures: Methodology Matrix

TCM Implementation
Cost can vary greatly

1995.

Requires region-
specific household
survey, land use,
socioeconomic, and
travel cost data

Requires complex
‘computer model

Potentially high cost
to use

“Trafigportation Control
Measures Analyzed for
the Washington
Region's 15 Percent
Rate of Progress Plan.”
FHWAMetropolitan
Washington Council of
Governments, February

Management
Measures: Inventory of
Measures and
Synthesis of
Experience." COMSIS
Corporation. USDOT,
September 1993.
DOT-T-94-02.

TCM measures

Summarizes
broad range of
TDM measures,
provides example
‘case study
analyses of each,
and uses
computer model
‘to benchmark the
effectiveness of
each TOM

Addresses the strengths
and weaknesses of the
bottom-up, multipie
committee planning
process used by the
cos

Provides extensive, clear
detall (and strengths and
weaknesses) of both the
evaluation tools used and
each specific TCM

Estimates VT, VMT, &
emission reductions and
cost-effectiveness

Excellent overview of the
range of TOMs possible;
provides description,
nature of effectiveness,
application setting,
effectiveness potential,
and cost

Uses actual case studies
to inform the use of a
computer model for

study of already-
performed

Use of the model
requires local input
parameters to forecast
local effectiveness

Mode! does not
incorporate an
emissions calculation
module

Most analysis is at the
employer-level rather
than the area-level

None (factors
analyzed are
applicable to each
transportation
measure analyzed
during the process)

Level of service
provided by
employer:
information,
matching services,
preferential parking,
ride home programs

al

dac


Transportation
Measure :

Employee
Commute
Subsidies
(cont)

9/30/98

Meth:

Employer TOM
‘cost-
effectiveness
model

dalogy

“Advantages °°

of Methodology

Estimates.
feduction In and
costs of daily trips
and peak period
trips

Alds employer
determination of
cost-effectiveness
of TDM measures

for thelr particular
worksite

widely from one
employer to the next

Many inputs may be
difficult for
employers or
planners to quantify

Reports on the
development of a

evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of

employer-based
TOM measures In
suburban settings

Spreadsheet-based
model is user-friendly
and readily accessible for
use at the site-specific
level; model makes
sensitivity analysis
relatively simple

Eight transportation
‘environments were
defined to represent
various combinations of
transportation service
characteristics

For employers without
access to entire range of
data necessary to
operate model, default
values are included

TDM measures they
had implemented

Does not calculate
emissions directly

Potential for regional
blas, as model was
developed in part
based on a survey of
suburban San
Francisco Bay Area
employers; model also
used the SCAQMD
Regulation XV and
Pima Association of
Governments Travel
Reduction Program
employer plan
databases

Only some TOMs
included in model
provide for estimates
of VT reductions

Use of default values
coutd diminishes
accuracy of estimates

Factors Analyzed

Suburban employer-
based TOM
measures

Dally trips and peak
period trips

Costs and cost:
effectiveness

for some users

ah

SS

Page 43


Transportation
Measure

Pricingl
Parking
Management
(cont.)

9130/98

Methodology

Advantages

Advantages of Study

Disadvantages:
of Study

Factors Analyzed

Provides Addresses the strengths | Requires an extensive | None (factors
analysis of learned during the | help quantify VT, Measures Analyzed for |comprehensive | and weaknesses of the | studly of already- analyzed are
transportation | planning and MT, of emissions the Washington evaluation of the | bottom-up, multipte performed process applicable to each
measure implementation of | reductions fromthe ff Region's 15 Percent selection and committee planning transportation
Planning and an actual transportation Rate of Progress Pian." | quantification process used by the measure analyzed
Implementation | transportation measure FHWA/Metropolitan process coa during the process)

measure, such as_ | implementation Washington Council of | performed by the

reactions to Govemments, February | MWCOG tor Provides extensive, clear

expect from the Cost can vary greatly {| 1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and

Public and funding twansportation weaknesses) of both the

‘sources measures evaluation tools used and

each specific

Provides pros and transportation measure

cons of planning evaluation method

and

implementation Estimates VT, VMT, and

methods emission reductions and

cost-effectiveness

Comparison Relatively Results are not “An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solid overview | Report does not Impacts: vehicte
and analysis of |inexpensive and | directly applicable to | Transportation Contro!_| studies that of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles
other studies simple to conduct, | other regions (they Measures, analyze a host of | of TCM options, as well | for evaluating new traveled, and

because it do not incorporate ‘| Transportation transportation as technology and policy | TCM plans, but follow- | emissions

requires no characteristics of Technologies, and measures, ‘options ‘on report focuses

Primary research | other regions) Pricing/Reguiatory technology upon these strategies | Costs

Policies." Euritt, Mark | options, and Focuses upon energy

Provides a review | Unlikely to provide A., etal. University of | policies for total | efficiency impacts in Estimates may be too

of the results precise estimates ‘Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and | addition to emissions and | rough to apply to other

Produced by for Transportation costs/benefits VMT programs in other

different HOV ResearcivTellus regions

facilities in North Institute. CTR SEDC-

America, which 1, June 1995.

could be used if

other directly

applicable

sesearch Is not

available

Identifies

advantages and

disadvantages of

several

methodologies

Page 8S

dac

dac


Transportation
Measure

Intelligent
Transporta-
tion Systems
(cont.)

‘Comparison
and analysis of
other studies

Methodology

Advantages
of Methodology

Relatively
inexpensive and
simple to conduct,
because it
requires no
primary research

Provides a review
of the results
produced by
different HOV
facilities in North.
America, which
could be used if
other directly
applicable
research Is not
available

Identifies
advantages and
disadvantages of
several
methodologies

Disadvantages
of Methodology

Results are not
directly applicable to
other regions (they
do not incorporate
characteristics of
other regions)

Unlikely to provide
precise estimates

Advantages of study

Disadvantages
* of Study

Report does not

Factors Analyzed

Provides a solld overview impacts: vehicle dac
Transportation Control | studies that of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles
Measures, analyze a host of | of TCM options, as well | for evaluating new traveled, and
Transportation transportation as technology and policy | TCM pians, but follow- | emissions
Technologies, and measures, options ‘on report focuses.
Pricing/Regulatory technology upon these strategies | Costs
Policies." Euritt, Mark | options, and Focuses upon energy
A., et al. University of | policies for total efficiency impacts in Estimates may be too
Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and | addition to emissions and | rough to apply to other
for Transportation costs/benefits VMT Programs in other
Research/Tellus regions
Institute. CTR SEDC-
1, June 1995.
“An Assessment of Examines the Provides a qualitative Report does not Impacts of Advanced | dkp
IVHS-APTS potential impacts | assessment of Intelligent | contain a methodology | Public Transportation
Technology Impacts on | of Advanced Vehicle-Highway for quantification of Systems (APTS)
Energy Consumption Public Systems technologies on | emissions from technologies on
and Vehicle Emissions | Transportation air quality and energy ‘specific transportation | vehicle emissions
of Transit Bus Fleets." | Systems (APTS) | consumption in both measures and fuel
Jolibois, Syivan C. Jr., | technologies in short and long term consumption
and Adib Kanafani. terms of vehicle Emissions ratios may
Calitomia PATH emissions, air Presents review of be based on overly Smart Traveler,
Research Report. quality, and tuel certain APTS program optimistic ridership Smart Vehicle, and
August 1994. consumption areas, specifically transit | estimates Smart Intermodal
through a operations of motorized systems:
research review, ] bus fleets
and makes
subsequent policy | Provides ratios of transit
recommendations | bus emissions to auto
emissions (per
Passenger and per
vehicle) for HC, CO,

eer

(NOx, and PM

ee are



Transportation

Compressed
Work Week/
Flex Time
(cont.)

9130/98

| Disadvantages,
‘Study:

i

Factors Analyzed

9s

dac

dac

dac

Process "Transportation Control | Provides Addresses the strengths | Requires an extensive | None (factors
analysis of Measures Analyzed for |comprehensive | and weaknesses of the _| study of alraady- analyzed are
measure roductortomine [Regons 16 Perot [estucionend” [oomnites genng [Pl enapertaon
measure ns '5 1 st ion
planning and TCM Implementation | Rate of Progress Plan." | quantification process used by the measure analyzed
implementation | transportation FHWA/Metropolitan ‘Process coa during the process)
measure, such as Cost can vary greatly | Washington Council of pertormned by the a |
reactions . Governments, February | MWCOG Provides extensive, clear
expect from the 1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and
public and funding | . TCM measures | weaknesses) of both the
sources evaluation tools used and
each specific TCM
Provides pros and evaluation method
cons of planning
and Estimates VT, VMT, &
“|implementation emission reductions and
methods cost-eftectiveness
Comparison Relatively Results are not *An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solid overview | Report does not Impacts: vehicle
and analysis of |inexpensive and | directly applicable to | Transportation Control _| studies that of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles
other studies simple to conduct, | other regions (they Measures, analyze.a hostof | of TCM options, as well | for evaluating new traveled, and
‘because it do not incorporate Transportation transportation as technology and policy | TCM plans, but follow- | emissions
requires no characteristics of Technologies, and measures, options ‘on report focuses
primary research | othar ragions) Pricing/Regulatory technology upon these strategies | Costs
Policies.” Euritt, Mark | options, and Focuses upon energy
Provides an Unlikely to provide A., etal. University of | policies for total | efficiency impacts in Estimates may be too
introduction to the | precise estimates Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and | addition to emissions and | rough to apply to other
range of results for Transportation _ costs/benefits. VMT programs in other
produced by } Research/Tellus regions
different studies, Institute. CTR SEDC-
which could be 1, June 1995.
Sect chatcable “Assessment of Travel | Surveys research | Provides a large number | Report does not Relative
research is not Demand Management | studies and of case study examples contain a methodology | effectiveness of
available Approaches at interviews TCM =| of both effective and for forecasting the various
‘Suburban Activity Program ineffective TCM effectiveness of new transportation
{dentifies Centers." Bhatt, Kiran, {coordinators to Programs TCM plans measure programs
advantages and and Higgins, Thomas. | provide an
disadvantages of KT. Analystics. U.S. | overview of the | Makes recommendations | Only generalized Implementation
several DOT, July 1989. range of to employers on how to} evaluation of TCM mechanisms
methodologies | effectiveness of {develop a TCM program | effectiveness
TCM programs Provides a good checklist |.
of topics to address when
developing a TCM
program
Page 25


Employee
Commute
Subsidies
(cont.)

9130/98

Company vanpools
incentive ." | mode choice and | effectiveness model use | Household conditions | Preferential parking
Schreffler, Eric N., and | travel demand are not extensively
Mortero, Jose. model to predict | Data requirements are accounted for Parking fees for
COMSIS Com. impacts of certain | more readily available ridesharers
California Air employer-based | than other models: Cost-effectiveness
Resources Board, transportation was not calculated Carpoo! subsidies &
February 1994. measures: User-friendly model is transportation
Contract No. A983-187. available for outside use; | Employer-leve! allowances

users guide Is also. analyses only, with
available focus upon incentive
TCMs
Survey links incentives
directly to impacts on
travel behavior
Model includes an
‘awareness sub-model!
that simulates how many
people know about the
possible TCMs available
to them
"Selection and Uses Travel Uses journey-to-work Sufficiently detailed Transit fare levels dac
Evaluation of Travel Demand census data todevelop —_| journey-to-work and travel time
Demand Management | Evaluation Model | estimates of zone-to- census data may not
Measures.° Taylor, developed by zone travel be available for all HOV lane ime
Christopher J., et al. ‘COMSIS to cities: Syracuse has | savings
TRB 971114, January | evaluate the Evaluates both area-wide | this data available due
1997. impact of Programs and employer- | to a pilot program Parking costs
transportation based programs
measures on Requires assuming Employer transit
mode choice and | Assesses revenue some estimates of encouragement level
VT for the generation potential and =| effectiveness
‘Syracuse, NY transit subsidies
metropolitan area Does not quantify

emissions reductions

Page 37


Transportation

(cont.)

Advantages: Disadvantages . i,
Measure | Methodology | of Methodology | of Methodology “: Report’ ..' | Description! | Advantages of Study” Factors Analyzed
Scrappage Vehicle fleet es standard | Requires detailed “Vehicle Scrappage: Modifies source | Use of EMFAC/BURDEN | Does not incorporate _| Age threshold for
characteri- planning mode! understanding of An Aitemative to More | code for makes analysis highly actual elasticities scrapped vehicles
zation and used by regulatory | computer model's ‘Stringent New Vehicle | California-specific | consistent with California | between scrappage
‘emissions agencies methodologies and | Standards in EMFAC/BURDEN | Air Resources Board's —_| bounty and number of | Number of total
moda! source code Califomia." Lyons, fleet fleet and emissions vehicles scrapped vehicles scrapped
High flexibility to James, etal. Sierra characterization | characterizations, which | (elasticities are
manipulaie input =| Results are not Research. For Texaco | and emissions helps compere emissions | assumed)
data teadily applicable to. inc. SR95-03-02. model to evaluate | reductions to inventory
other regions March 1995. the effect of
scrappage Allows considerable
Difficult and costly to programs on flexibility in testing
replicate emissions inthe | specific scrappage
South Coast Alr | scenarios
Basin
Compares scrappage
‘scenarios to other
‘emission reduction
altamatives (¢.9.,
reduced standards)
Light-, medium-, and
heavy-duty programs:
assessed
Process Explains lessons | Does not necessarily § “Transportation Contol | Provides Addresses the strengths | Requires an extensive | None (factors
analysis of learned during the | help quantify VT, Measures Analyzed for | comprehensive and weaknesses of the ‘study of already- analyzed are
uansportation planning and MT, oremissions fj the Washington evaluation of the | bottom-up, multiple pertormed process applicable to each
measure: implementation of | reductions fromthe § Region's 15 Percent selection and ‘commitiee planning transportation
planning and an actual transportation Rate of Progress Pian.” | quantification process used by the measure analyzed
implementation | transportation measure: FHWAMetropolitan process coa during the process)
measure, such as | implementation Washington Council of | performed by the
reactions to Governments, February | MWCOG for Provides extensive, clear
expect from the Cost can vary greatly | 1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and
public and funding transportation weaknesses) of both the
sources measures evaluation tools used and
each specific
Provides pros and - transportation measure
cons of planning evaluation method
and
implementation Estimates VT, VMT, and
methods emission reductions and
cost-effectiveness

dac

dac



Subsidies
{cont.)

transportation | acquisition apply to other Measures to Relieve effectiveness of based trips due to transportation transportation
measure tegions Congestion." 11 transportation | implementation of measure , = \measures
demonstration | Relatively low cost Kuzmyak, J.R., and demand transportation measures | programs of multiple
projects EN. Schreffier. management transportation
‘Shows actual Prepared by COMSIS =| programs Provides high level of measures are
potential of Com. for FHWA. detall about the specific | evaluated for
transportation FHWA/SA-90/005; programs implemented _| effectiveness
measures: DOT-T-80-14,
February 1990. Does not quantify
emission reductions
‘Trip reductions based
upon vehicte
occupancy
assumptions for each
mode choice (carpool,
—_ vanpooi, transit)
Sketch Simple tools can | Sketch planning “Evaluating the Develops aiid Methodologies are Requires extensive, Many; not specified
planning generate planning- | resuits are usually Effectiveness of uses a calculation | developed specifically for | region-specific
level estimates of {not the most Transportation Control for | the employer trip information to
transportation accurate, depending {Measures for San Luis | estimating the trip | reduction program accurately estimate
measure ‘on the input ‘Obispo County, reduction and air benefits and
effectiveness at parameters California." a quality benefits of | Explains calculation effectiveness of the
low cost David D., San Luis employer trip process In detail Program
Obispo Air Pollution reduction
Generalized tools Controt District, 1992. | requirements in Assumes a level of
can be somewhat San Luis Obispo program
applicable to County (a8 required by the
multiple regions measure)
Analyst can vary
input parameters

dac


Management

other studies
(cont.)

mode choice
model

Disadvantages

and analysis of

Potentially high cost

Metering: Can They
Work Together for Air
Quality?" Shoemaker,
Bill A. and Edward C.
Sullivan.
Transportation
Research Board Paper

940444. January 1994.

Management
Measures: Inventory of

Measures and
‘Synthesis of
Experience." COMSIS.
Corporation. USDOT,
September 1993.
DOT-T-94-02.

broad range of
TOM measures,

provides example
analyses of each,

[Computer model
to benchmark the

Advantages of Study
Illustrates the process of
analysis and decision-
making, as well as the
key role of analytical
modeling, required in the
‘San Francisco Bay Area
to gain approval tor HOV
lane and ramp metering
projects at the regional
level

Examines the
interrelationships, and
potentially perverse
effects, between HOV
lanes and ramp metering

Identifies need for

estimating

disaggregate mode-
specific emission
factors, inctuding

vehicle fleet

characteristics, and
identifies difficulties in

doing so

‘Use of the model
requires focal input
parameters to forecast
local effectiveness

Model does not

incorporate an
emissions calculation

module

Most anatysis is at the
employer-level rather
than the area-level

Factors Analyzed

Interrelationships
between HOV lanes
and ramp metering

Level of service

matching services,
preferential parking.
ride home programs



Describes use —_| Utilized high-quality
and results ofa | household travel survey
Subsidies model (cont.) Francisco Bay Area: | traveldemand —| data and advanced operation
(cont.) Is of model to mode! | modeling capabilities
Effectiveness and VT. VMT,
Costs." Harvey, G., emission Emissions calculations
and E. Deskin. For reductions of uses standardized
Bay Area Air Quality various. methods, but takes into
‘account more subtie
October 1991 measuresin the | effects of emissions
‘San Francisco generation
Bay Area
Provides succinct, clear
data on results of study,
including cost-
effectiveness estimates



Transportation
M

transportation
planning
Network model

Advantages
of Methodology

Can be used to
isolate the effect
on travel patterns
of different street
layouts for
Nneotraditional and
conventional
neighborhoods.

Disadvantages
of Methodology

Hypothetical
modeling exercise;
does not use actual
performance data
from existing
Neotraditional and
conventional
developments

Models do not
account for many
aspects of local land
use strategies, such
as mixed land uses,
‘street characteristics
like street and lane
width and
landscaping, and
differences in
development
densities and
Parking availability

Modeling analysis of
alocat street
network does not
account for
interaction between
neighborhood and
regional travel

‘Comparative
Assessment of Travel
Characteristics for
Neotraditional
Designs." McNally,
Michael and Sherry
Ryan. Institute of
Transportation Studies.
(In Transportation
Research Record 1400.

Description

Evaluates the
Performance:
differences of two
hypothetical
street networks
designed to
replicate a
neotraditional and
a conventional
suburban

determines that
neotraditional
street networks

Advantages of Study

Uses generalized,
hypothetical
transportation network
designs in order to
generate broad
conclusions rather than
localized network-specific
conclusions

Examines effect
neotraditional design has
on reducing vehicle
kilometers and vehicle
hours traveled

Generates results
consistent with earlier
findings by others

To isolate the impact of
the street layout, all other
aspects of the modeled
communities are held
coristant '

Olsadvantages

‘The study does not
calculate emissions
directly; transportation
impacts aré measured
in terms of vehicle
kilometers traveled,
average trip lengths,
and congestion on
finks and at
intersections

Model does not take
into account narrower
rights-of-way and
denser grid that
usually typify
neotraditional

developments;
‘assumed equal trade-
off

Because hypothetical
subarea Is only 0.5
square miles, many
assumptions need to
be made about
extemal trips

Trip generation rates,
other travel
parameters, and
friction factors which
were adopted from the
City of Irvine could
have introduced some
error, as they were
developed for a study
area larger than that
used in this exercise

Transportation
systems of
hypothetical
neotraditional and
conventional
subdivisions

Vehicle kilometers
traveled

Mean trip length by
trip type

Intersection capacity
utilization (ICU)

9/30/98

Page 67


Transportation
Measuio

Market
Incentives
(cont.)

9130/98

97

Advantages Disadvantages x Disadvantages ©
Methodology | of Methodology | of Methodology Report fofStudy ¢
Process Explains lessons | Does not necessarily | "Transportation Control | Provides. Addresses the strengths | Requires an extensive | None (factors dac
analysis of learned during the | help quantify VT, Measures Analyzed for | comprehensive and weaknesses of the study of already- analyzed ara
transportation | planning and VMT, or emissions the Washington = - evaluation of the | bottom-up, multiple performed process: applicable to each
measure implementation of | reductions from the | Region's 15 Percent selection and committee planning transportation
planning and an actual transportation Rate of Progress Plan." | quantification process used by the measure analyzed
implementation | transportation measure FHWA/Metropolitan process coG during the process)
measure, such as | implementation Washington Council of | performed by the
reactions to Govemments, February | MWCOG for Provides extensive, clear
expect from the Cost can vary greatly | 1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and
Public and funding . transportation weaknesses) of both the
sources measures evaluation tools used and
each specific
Provides pros and transportation measure
cons of planning ~ evaluation method
and
implementation Estimates VT, VMT, and
methods emission reductions and
cost-effectiveness
Comparison Relatively Results are not "Managing Compares Provides typology of Provides little detail Direct vs. indirect dac
and analysis of | inexpensive and | directly applicable to { Transportation congestion pricing | transportation measures _| about logistics of implementation
other studies simple to conduct, | other regions (they Demand: Markets with Regulation —_| and identifies effective- | implementing the
because it do not incorporate Versus Mandates.” XV for the ness and common bar- | policy Market-based vs.
requires no characteristics of Glullano, Genevieve, | Southem ders toimplementation | recommendations performance-based
Primary research | other regions) and Martin Wachs. California area; implementation
Reason Foundation. describes pros Simple side-by-side Does not quantify
Provides an Unlikely to provide Policy Insight No. 142, | and cons of each | comparison of VMT emission reductions Efficiency and equity
introduction to the | precise estimates September 1992. measure and reduction and cost- considerations
range of results discusses effectiveness for each
Produced by Implications transportation measure
different studies,
which could be Makes policy
used if other recommendations to
directly applicable Improve each
research is not transportation measure
avail
able “The Equity and Cost | Analyzes the Shows different methods | Philadelphia modeling | Rideshare promotion | dac
Identifies Effectiveness of results of surveys | of using the same model: | assumed average level
advantages and Employee Commute —_| and transportation | Travel Demand vehicle ridership tar-
disadvantages of Options Programs." measure Evaluation Model gets were reached and | Parking charge level
several Farkas, Z. Andrew. modeling studies | developed by COMSIS —_| results are only applic-
methodologies Morgan State performed for the able relative to each | Transit subsidy
University. TRB Baltimore and Provides a discussion of j scenario levels
960078, January 1996. | Philadelphia social equity considera-
regions tions based on a survey | Baltimore modeling did | Work schedule
‘of the two regions flexibility

Page 77


Congestion
Pricing
(cont)

analysis of learned during the | help quantify VT, Project: assesses the valuable lessons learned | end result measure under
transportation | planning and MT, oremissions [Lessons Leamed to process by which | during the effectiveness: VT, varying toll levels
measure Implementation of | reductions fromthe [| Date.” Frick, Karen, et | the Bay Area Impiementation of this MT, emissions and altemative
Planning and = jan actual TCM Implementation | al. Metropolitan ‘specific congestion reduced ‘commute options
implementation | transportation Transportation Pricing Task pricing TCM.
measure, such as Commission, 1996. Force examined Allocation of toll
reactions to Transportation the viability of Makes recommendations monies and equity
expect from the Research Board paper | variable tolls on | on how to develop a issues
Public and funding 961317. the San Francisco | congestion pricing TCM
sources Bay Bridge that gains the approval of
the public and public
| officials
“Transportation Control | Provides Addresses the strengths | Requires an extensive | None (factors
Measures Analyzed for | comprehensive and weaknesses ofthe =| study of alraady- analyzed are
the Washington evaluation of the | bottom-up, multiple performed process applicable to each
Region's 15 Percent selection and committee planning transportation
Rate of Progress Plan.” | quantification process used by the measure analyzed
FHWAMetropolitan process coG during the process)
[Washington Council of | performed by the
Governments, February | MWCOG for Provides extensive, clear
1995, assessing various | detail (and strengths and
TCM measures | weaknesses) of both the
evaluation tools used and
each specific TCM
evaluation method
Estimates VT, VMT, &
emission reductions and
cost-effectiveness

dao


Transportation
Measure

Telecom-
muting
(cont.)

90K

effectiveness
model

Advantages,

reduction In and
costs of daily trips
and peak period
trips.

Aids employer
determination of
cost-etlectiveness
of TOM measures:
for thelr particular
worksite

Disadvantages

Results may vary “Transportation
widely from one Demand Management
‘employer to the next | Cost-Effectiveness
Mode! for Suburban

‘Many inputs may be | Employers.” Dagang,
difficult for Deborah A. JHK &
employers or Associates. In
Planners to quantify {Transportation

: Research Record 1404.

Reports on the
development of a
model to
Individually
evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of
15 different
employer-based
TDM measures in
Suburban settings

different travel-related
characteristics of
‘suburban and urban
areas

Spreadsheet-based
model Is user-friendly
and readily accessible for
use at the site-specific
level; model makes
sensitivity analysis
relatively simpie

Eight transportation
environments were
defined to represent
various combinations of
transportation service
characteristics

For employers without
access to entire range of
data necessary to
operate model, default
values are included

Disadvantages

surveyed to develop
model were unable to
Provide detailed cost
information on the
TOM measures they
had implemented

Does not calculate
emissions directly

Potential for regional
bias, as mode! was
developed In part
based on a survey of
suburban San
Francisco Bay Area
employers; model also
used the SCAQMD
Regulation XV and
Pima Association of
Governments Travel
Reduction Program
employer plan
databases

Only some TOMs .
included in model
Provide for estimates
‘of VT reductions

Use of default values
could diminishes
accuracy of estimates
for some users

Factors Analyzed

Suburban employes-
based TOM
measures

Dally trips and peak
period trips

Costs and cost-
effectiveness



Advantages

None (factors
analysis of learned during the {help quantity VT, Measures Analyzed for | comprehensive and weaknesses of the | study of already- analyzed are
transportation | planning and VMT,or emissions — jj the Wi evaluation of the | bottom-up, multiple Performed process appticable to each
measure implementation of [reductions trom the | Region's 15 Percent selection and committee planning transportation
planning and an actual transportation Rate of Progress Plan.” | quantification process used by the measure analyzed
implementation | transportation measure FHWA/Metropolitan process coG during the process)

measure, such as [implementation Washington Council of | performed by the

reactions to Governments, February | MWCOG for Provides extensive, clear

‘expect from the Cost can vary greatly 9 1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and

Public and funding ansportation weaknesses) of both the

‘Sources measures: evaluation tools used and

each specific

Provides pros and {transportation measure

cons of planning evaluation method

and

implementation Estimates VT, VMT, and

methods emission reductions and

cost-effectiveness

Comparison Relatively Results are not “An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solid overview | Report does not impacts: vehicle
and analysis of | inexpensive and | directly applicable to § Transportation Controt | studies that of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles.
other studies simple to conduct, | other regions (they Measures, analyze a hostof | of TCM options, as well | for evaluating new traveled, and

because it do not incorporate Transportation transportation as technology and policy | TCM plans, but follow- | emissions

fequires no characteristics of Technologies, and measures, options: on report focuses:

primary research | other regions) Pricing/Regulatory technology upon these strategies | Costs

Policies.” Eusitt, Mark | options, and Focuses upon energy

Provides a review | Unlikely to provide A., et al. University of | policies tor total | efficiency impacts in Estimates may be too

of.the results precise estimates Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and | addition to emissions and | rough to apply to other

produced by for Transportation costs/benefits VMT Programs in other

different HOV ResearchyTeltus regions.

facilities in North institute. CTR SEDC-

America, which 1, June 1995.

could be used if

other directly

applicable

research is not

available -

Identifies

advantages and

disadvantages of

several

methodologies

dac


Disadvantages

Disadvantages
- of Study

WAQIIE,

dac

dac

“An Employer Panel for | Discusses results | Utillzes the largest trip Database does not
analysis of results to other Evaluating the collected on reduction measure provide exceptional
(cont.) transportation | programa tegions and Effectiveness of Trip | Southam database available in the | delail; report does not
measure conditions ts Reduction incentives.” | Califomia wortd contain details of the
implementation | Addresses travel | uncertain Gluliano, Genevieve, | employment sites level of incentive
programs behavior patterns: ‘and Wachs, Martin. In | subject to Panel method allows for | support provided to
ts not likely to Panels tor SCAQMD assessing before-and- employees
Doss not require | address total Transportation Planning | Regulation XV, __| after-TCM conditions
extensive ‘demand for and Applications, ed. | and assesses the Only generalized
computer model —_| telecommuting T.F. Golob, et al, 1997. |retative effectiveness results
effectiveness of are shown
trip reduction
Strategies TCMs were not always
implemented at the
time of the survey
Empirical Requires litle or | Case study results “Impacts of Center- Analyzes the Uses both case-study Travel mode choice Center versus:
analysis of no new data do not necessarily Based Telecommuting | Puget Sound and composite-average | impacts not Home-based
transportation | acquisition apply to other .on Travel and telecommuting approaches extensively studied telecommuting
measure regions Emissions: Analysis of | project data to
demonstration | Relatively low cost the Puget Sound determine tip, _| implemented travel diary | Study participants not | Center-based
projects Demonstration Project." | VMT, and logs rather than surveys | representative of telecommuting
Shows actual Henderson, Dennis K., | emissions general workforce versus not
potential of and Mohktasian, reduction telecommuting
tiansponation Patricia L. Institute of Household members
measuress Transportation Studies, Not included in study} Total VMT versus
University of Calitomia, fumber of cold starts
Davis, 1996. Vol. 1.

Page 111


Transportation
Measure

(cont.)

wore

Methodology

Advantages.
of Methodology

Methods to quantify VT
and VMT reductions from

effectiveness developed
prior to this report for the
South Coast AQMD

Performance-based
approach was developed
rather than use:
mandated transportation
‘standards

Actual experience data
used as much as
possible: estimated trip
feduction levels from
each TCM was collected
from other studies, and
planning-level analysis
uses site-specific data
inputs, thus offering
Increased precision in
emissions estimates

Ranges in VT reductions
estimates address the
interactive impacts of the
application of muitipie
TCMs

Equivalency factor used
to convert VMT to VT can
account for region-

specific average trip

lengths

1
{] Factors Analyzed

Participation
(percentage and
frequency)
Employer-
implemented home-
based
telecommuting

different assumptions
may be needed

Applicability to other
fegions outside
Catitomia limited by
report's use of

were quantified using
BURDEN and EMFAC
runs for 1994

Does not incorporate
any consideration of
cost-effectiveness



Measul
Trip
Reduction
(cont.)

Transportation

Advantages: Disadvantages
of Methodology
Process ‘None (tactors
anatysis of learned during the | help quantify VT, Measutes Analyzed for and weaknesses of the | study of already- analyzed are
transportation | planning and MT, of emissions the Washington evaluation of the | bottom-up, multiple process applicable to each
measure implementation of | reductions from the | Region's 15 Percent selection and committee planning transportation
planning and ‘an actual TCM implementation } Rate of Progress Plan.* | quantification process used by the measure analyzed
(implementation | transportation . FHWA/Metropolitan process coe during the process)
measure, such as | Cost can vary greatly | Washington Council of | performed by the
teactions to Govemments, February | MWCOG tor Provides extensive, clear
expect from the 1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and
Public and funding transportation weaknesses) of both the
sources measures: evaluation tools used and
each specific TCM
Provides pros and evaluation method
cons of planning
and Estimates VT, VMT, &
implementation emission reductions and
methods cost-eflectiveness
‘Comparison Relatively Results are not “An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solid overview | Report does not Impacts: vehicte
and analysis of | inexpensive and | directly applicable to | Transportation Control | studies that Of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle mites
other studies ‘simple to conduct, | other regions (they Measures, . analyze a host of | of transportation measure | for evaluating new traveled, and
because it do not incorporate: Transportation transportation options, as well as TCM plans, but fotiow- | emissions
requires no characteristics of Technologies, and measures, technology and policy on report focuses.
primary research | other regions) ‘technology options: upon these strategies | Costs
Policies.” Euritt, Mark | options, and
Provides an Untikely to provide A., et al. University of | policies for total. | Focuses upon energy Estimates may be too
introduction to the | precise estimates —_|f Texas, Austin, Center _| effectiveness and impacts in fough to apply to other
ange of results tor Transportation costs/benefits addition to emissions and | programs in other
produced by ResearctvTettus VvMT regions
different studies, institute. CTR SEDC-
which could be 1, June 1995.
used if other y
directy bi "Assessment of Travel | Surveys research | Provides a large number | Report does not Relative
research Is not Demand Management | studies and of case study examples | contain a methodology | effectiveness of
‘ Approaches at interviews TCM —_| of both effective and tor forecasting the various
‘Suburban Activity Program inettective TCM ettectiveness of few | transportation
Identities Centers.” Bhatt, Kiran, | coordinators to Programs: TCM plans measure programs
advantages and and Higgins, Thomas. | provide an
ot K.T. Anatystics. U.S. overview of the Makes recommendations | Only generalized Implementation
a o DOT, Juty 1989. range of to employers on how to | evaluation of TCM mechanisms
methodologies effectiveness of | develop a TCM program |effectiveness -
employer-based
TCM programs —_| Provides a good checklist
of topics to address when
developing a TCM
Program

dao



Index of Transportation
Measure Quantification
Efforts: Methodology Matrix

Final Report

Propered fr:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional and State Programs Division
2000 Traverwood Drive

‘Ann Arbor

Michigan 48105

Propered by:

ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
556 Clyde Avenue

Mountain View

Califomia 94043

Tel 650 961 5700

Fax 650 254 2496


Transportation

Reduction
(cont.)

Disadvantages Disadvantages +
Methodology of Mathodology Factors Analyzed
Conducts a policy | Evaluates effectiveness | Does not evaluate Cost effectiveness of
analysis of of employee trip emissions other than | employee trip
jsansportation employee trip seduction measures on ROG feduction
measure Regional eduction, anda =| improving air quality .
implementation Transportation Control! | preliminary cost | according to relief of Effectiveness of
programs Measure.” Lupa, Mary | comparison of tratfic congestion, relief employee trip
{cont.) R. University of Iitinois | employee trip of ROG, maintenance of reduction measures
at Chicago. In reduction among | personal privacy and ‘on improving air
Transportation transportation autonomy, and according quality
Research Record 1459. | measures to market-based VMT
Pricing possibilities
Calculates the
megagrams per year
seduced of the poltutant
chosen to measure the
effectiveness of the
{ransportation measure,
as well as the cost of the
strategy
Determines that
employee trip reduction
strategies cannot
successfully be
separated from related
‘mode split component
‘strategies such as transit
expansion, transit user
subsidy, and parking fees
Empirical Requires litte os =| Case study results “Evaluation of Travel Performs case —_| Shows potential tor Generally does not Not applicable in
analysis of no new data ‘do not necessarily Demand Management | studies of the reduction in commute- evaluate specific TCM | context of specific
transportation J acquisition ‘apply to other Measures to Relieve effectiveness of | based trips due to individually; programs | transportation
measure regions Congestion.” 11 transportation | Implementation of of multiple TCMs are | measures
demonstration | Relatively low cost Kuzmyak, J.A., and demand transportation measures | evaluated for
projects E.N. Schreffier. management effectiveness
Shows actual Prepared by COMSIS =| programs. Provides high level of
potential of Corp. tor FHWA. detail about the specific | Does not quantity
‘sansportation FHWA/SA-90/005; Programs implemented emission reductions
measures DOT-T-90-14.
- February 1990. Trip reductions based
upon vehicle
occupancy
assumptions for each
mode choice (carpool,
vanpool, transit)



Transportation

Aldeshare
(cont.)

9/398

Advantages
of Methodology

Advantages of Study

Disadvantages
” of Study

Factors Analyzed

Vanpoo! and buspool

kp

dac

Quartetly, vol. 37 no. 4,
1983.

Empirical Calculates the total Does not provide
analysis of County Route 14 effectiveness of a | number of vehicie trips + | emissions estimates _| incentives: rider
transportation Vanpool and Buspoo! | demonstration and vehicle miles rebate, child care
measure Demonstration Project: | vanpool and traveled reduced, by Requires costly bonus, and
implementation An Analysis of Its buspool project, | origin and destination, of | administration, emergency
programs: Effectiveness in ‘an incentive- Program participants tracking and data (guaranteed) rides
(cont.) Reducing Long based program collection efforts; home
Distance Commuter established to Phase I! follow-up project | participant program
Trips.* Blanchard, telieve congestion | to include computerized | exit information often | Program
Donna et al. ‘land improve air tracking program and incomplete pasticipation
Transportation quality along the | data collection
Research Board. July |Los Angeles Report does not Cost-effectiveness
1993. ‘County Route 14 contain details of
corridor participants’ prior
mode choice or
~ commute length
Empirical Requires little or | Case study results “Evaluation of Travel Pertonns case ‘Shows potential for Generally does not Not applicable in
analysis of no new data do not necessarily Demand Management | studies of the eduction in commute- evaluate specific context of specific
transportation | acquisition apply to other Measures to Relieve /effectiveness of | based trips due to transportation transportation
measure regions Congestion.* 11 transportation | implementation of measure individually, | measures
demonstration | Relatively low cost Kuzmyak, J.R., and demand transportation measures | programs of multiple
projects E.N. Schrettter. management transportation
‘Shows actual Prepared by COMSIS =| programs Provides high tevel of measures are
potential of Comp. for FHWA. detail about the specific | evaluated for
. | transportation FHWA/SA-90/005; Programs implemented | effectiveness
measures DOT-T-90-14.
February 1990. Does not quantity
Identities barriers emission reductions
‘to implementing
transportation Trip reductions based
measures upon vehicle
occupancy
assumptions for each
mode choice (carpool,
vanpoot, transit)
“Land Use Regulations | Evaluates the Identifies barriers to Does not quantity trip, | Availability of nearby
to Promote effectiveness of enforcing parking MT, or emissions parking
Ridesharing: An developer-based }| management practices at | reductions
Evaluation of the land use businesses; suggests Developer
‘Seattle Approach.” regulations to improvements Study was performed =| cooperation with
McCutcheon, Melody, | promote before significant data | requirements
and Jeffrey Hamm. ridesharing in existed on the
Transportation Seattle's central effectiveness of the
business district whole program

Page 9S


High-
Occupancy
Vehicle
Facilities
(cont.)

9/30/98

No
>

. Advantages i”

‘of Methodology Factors Analyzed
Case study "Assessment of High- Person movement
analysis (cont.) capacity and per-

lane efficiency of the
freeway facility
Katherine. Texas geographic coverage Effectiveness of HOV | Bus service
Transportation Institute. facilities not calculated | operating efficiencies
Prepared for Federal Provides a summary of in terms of emissions
Transit Administration, the experience to date but are generally given | Travel time savings
August 1992, with a variety of HOV in before-and-after and trip time
| projects in North person and vehicle —_| rellability
America. volume comparisons
‘and percentages Air quality and
Utilizes existing data relative to general energy impacts.
from case studies, such | traffic lanes.
as mode choice surveys Impacts on the
of HOV facility users to Compares case operation of the
draw general conclusions | studies of ongoing freeway general-
Projects of differing purpose lanes
Identifies measures of ages, and in different
effectiveness for use in locations (each with Safety
evaluating each of the unique factors such as
factors analyzed, and weather, transit Public support
provides examples of issues, and public
how the case studies opinions); thus, Cost-effectiveness
relate to the different conclusions drawn
measures could include errors in
consistency or
comparability of data
Does not provide
emissions estimates
Sketch Simple tools can | Sketch planning “TCM Analyst 1.0 and | Describes a Provides a useful and Program only models | Not stated
planning generate planning- | results are usually User's Guide." computerized felatively easy instruction | limited TCMs and
level estimates of | not the most Crawford, Jason A., et | sketch planning | manual for using TCM cannot model multiple
transportation accurate, depending | al. Texas tool, TCM Analyst | Analyst 1.0 TCM packages:
measure ‘on the Input Transportation Institute. | 1.0, including
effectiveness at parameters For the Federal Input data Uses MOBILESa output { Requires several runs
tow cost Highway re a data (emission factors) with MOBILESa to
Administration, methods of use, | as inputs to the model, obtain input emission
Generalized tools November 1994. and anoverview | providing more accurate | factors
can be somewhat . of the model's emission benefit
applicable to ‘structure and calculations for each Modeling on regional
multiple regions: calculation TCM (rather than ©
Procedures microscale) basis only
Analyst can vary
Input parameters

Page 55


Transportation
MeasureTM

Employee
Commute
Subsidies
(cont.)

9/30/98

Implementation
programs

Can be replicated
(at moderate cost)

Does not require
extensive

computer mode!

Requires large data
collection process to
generate statistically
significant resutts

"An Employer Panel for

Discusses results | Utilizes the largest trip Database does not Not described
Evaluating the collected on reduction measure provide exceptional
Effectiveness of Trip Southem database available in the | detail; report does not
Reduction Incentives.” | Califomia word contain details of the
Glullano, Genevieve, employment sites level of incentive
and Wachs, Martin. In | subject to Panel method allows for | support provided to
Panels for SCAQMD assessing before-and- employees.
Transportation Planning | Regulation XV, after-TCM conditions
and Applications, ed. and assesses the Onty generalized
T.F. Golob, et al, 1997. | relative effectiveness results
effectiveness of are shown
trip reduction
strategies TCMs were not always
implemented at the
time of the survey
“Employee Trip Evaluated the Estimates planning, Made generalized Trip reduction
Reduction Without cost and maintenance, and assumption of staff program
Goverment Mandates: | effectiveness of | voluntary Implementation, | costs needed to implementation
Cost and Effectiveness | employee trip and incentive costs for implement trip process utilized
Estimates From reduction trip reduction programs reduction programs
Chicago." Pagano, programs through Obstactes and
Anthony and JoAnn the use of an Intensive data collection, | Intensive data success factors
Verdin. University of Independent especially for cost collection requires
Minos at Chicago. evaluation of estimates, including demonstration project | Program costs and
Transportation demonstration before and after surveys | and surveys, or effectiveness
Research Board Paper | projects and interviews of application of Chicago
971281, 1997. implemented In Program administrators | area data
the Chicago area | participating in the
demonstration projects: Resutts have limited
application to other
Addresses statistical regions, as local
relationships of Chicago variables
organization type to costs | such as availability of
and outcomes, of costs _{ transit alternatives
to strategies and may have influenced
incentives, of outcomes | model results
to strategies and

Incentives, and of cost to
‘outcomes

Addresses differences in
outcome by
organizational type
(factory vs. office)

2

dac

Page 41


Advantages Disadvantages
of Methodology | of Methodology Report

Transportation Disadvantages

Factors Analyzed

Rideshare Travel demand! “Transportation Contro! | Describes a Model quantifies key Use of the model Elfect of park and
(cont) mode choice Measure Analysis developed secondary effects of requires loca! input ride lots
model (cont) Procedures.” Austin, transportation TCMs (6.9. new parameters to forecast
Barbara S., et al. demand mode! carpooling programs may | local effectiveness; Formation of new
Systems Applications | and explicitly attract transit riders default values may not | versus existing
InternationaVCalifomia | discusses the father than SOV riders) | be sufficient; carpools
Air Resources Board. | calculation Participation level data
Nov 1991. SYSAPP- ‘methodology Presents all the primary | Is required; base .
91/141. used for several | equations and variables =| cases need to maich
. transportation used to calculate the teal conditions
measures: effects of TCMs
Model does not cover

Contains a step-by-step | all TCMs, but can be
process for evaluating (modified to do so

packages of TCMs

Temporal treatment Is.
Explains mutt-attribute _| limited to on-peal/ott-
analyses as applied to peak, no spatial
multiple TCM packages =| treatment

Emissions calculations

are not explicitly

described in the same
fashion as travel

| effects

Byrn’


Work Week/
Flex Time
(cont.)

9/30/98

Compressed

mode choice
model (cont.)

Model quantifies key

“Transportation Contro! Use of the model Participation levels
Measure Analysis ~ developed secondary effects of requires local input
Procedures.” Austin, transportation TCMs (0.9. new parameters to forecast | Potential shift in
Barbara S., et al. demand model carpooling programs may | local effectiveness; commute time of day
Systems Applications + | and explicitly attract transit riders default values may not
IntemationalCalifomia | discusses the rather than SOV riders) | be sufficient;
Alr Resources Board. | calculation Participation level data
Nov 1991. SYSAPP- | methodology Presents all the primary | is requirad; base
91/141, used for several | equations and variables j cases need to match
‘transportation used to calculate the real conditions
measures effects of TCMs
Model does not cover
Contains a step-by-step | all TCMs, but can be
Process for evaluating modified to do so
packages of TCMs.
Temporal treatment is
Explains multi-attribute —_| limited to on-peak/off-
analyses as appiied to. peak, no spatial
muttiple TCM packages | treatment
Emissions calculations
are not explicitly
described In the same
fashion as travel
effects
“Selection and Uses Travel Uses joumey-to-work Sufficiently detailed Transit fare levels
Evaluation of Travet Demand census data to develop | journey-to-work and travel time
Demand Management | Evaluation Model | estimates of zone-to- census data may not .
Measures." Taylor, developed by Zone travel be available for all HOV lane time
Christopher J., et al. COMSIS to cities: Syracuse has | savings
January, 1997. TRB | evaluate the Evaluates both area-wide | this data available due
971114, impact of Programs and empioyer- | to a pilot program Parking costs
‘transportation based programs
measures on Requires assuming Employer transit
mode choice and | Assesses revenue some estimates of encouragement level
VT for the generation potential and | effectiveness:
Syracuse, NY transit subsidies
metropolitan area Does not quantity
emissions reductions

dac

Page 15


9130/98

planning (cont.)

|

“Simple Methodologies
for Quantifying VT and
'VMT Reductions from
Transportation Control
and Growth Manage-
ment-Measures for
Developing Local Trip
Reduction Ordinances."
Evans, V. and D.
Morrow. Sonoma
Technology, Inc. Alr &
Waste Management
Assoc. 1993,

Methods to quantify VT
and VMT reductions from
TCMs were based upon
relatively simple methods
for estimating emissions
and individual TCM
effectiveness developed
prior to this report for the
South Coast AQMD

Performance-based
approach was developed
rather than use
mandated transportation
performance standards

Actus! experience data
used as much as
Possible: estimated trip
reduction levels from
each TCM was collected
from other studies, and
planning-level analysis.
uses site-specific data
Inputs, thus offering
increased precision in
emissions estimates

Ranges In VT reductions
estimates address the
Interactive impacts of the
application of muttiple
transportation measures

Equivalency factor used
to convert VMT to VT can
‘account for region-
specific average trip
lengths

BURDEN and EMFAC
runs for 1994

Does not Incorporate
any consideration of
cost-effectiveness

Employee partici-
pation (percentage
and frequency)

Trip length

Bike parking facilities

Existence/extent of
bike path system

Existence of shower
facilities

Page 11


Transportation
Measure

open

Methodology

Advantages:

Olsadvantages:

Disadvantages

commuting employer characteristics characteristics
behavior in the: influence ridesharing (distance, HOV lane
| Los Angeles area available)
Employer Incentives
(flexible schedule,
preferential parking,
1 cost subsidy,
guaranteed ride
home)
| Employer.size
Empirical Somewhat Requires targe data | “An Employer Panel for | Discusses results | Utilizes the largest trip Database does not Not described
analysis of applicable to collection process to § Evaluating the collected on Teduction measure provide exceptional
transportation | multiple regions —_| generate statistically | Effectiveness of Trip | Southam database available in the | detall; report does not
measure significant results Reduction incentives.” |Califomia __ wortd contain details of the
implementation {Can be replicated Glullano, Genevieve, employment sites level of incentive
programs (at moderate cost) ‘and Wachs, Martin. In | subject to Panel method allows for | support provided to
Panels for SCAQMD assessing before-and- employees
Does not require Transportation Planning | Regulation XV, after-TCM conditions
extensive ] 2nd Applications, ed. | and assesses the Only generalized
computer mode! T.F. Golob, et al, 1997. | relative effectveness results
effectiveness of are shown
trip reduction
strategies TCMs wer- not always
- implemented at the
time of the survey

ad

dac



Transportation
Measure —

Compressed
Work Week/
Flex Time
(cont.)

9130/98

and sensitivity review of the state of the
analysis (using Practice (as of 1993)

Texas) of San Identifies weaknesses In
Diego Association | the SANDAG and SAI
of Governments | methods as well as

. |(GANDAG) TCM | strengths

Tools method and
the Systems Provides detailed sketch-
Applications Planning analysis for El
Intemational (SA!) | Paso, Texas

method;

summarized in

TAR 1472

the SANDAG and SA!
models are difficult to
quantity

‘The SANDAG and SAI
models do not fully
account for indirect
impacts and latent
travel demand

TO
Factors Analyzed
Vehicle trips

vMT

Average vehicle
speed

Emissions (HC, CO,
NOx)

Page 23

43

dd


Transportation

Rideshare
(cont.)

Disadvantages
of Methodology

Factors Analyzed

characteristics that are
favorable for ridesharing

Deseri
interaction between other
wansportation measures
(eg., HOV facilities) and

tidasharing
es eee MN

Direct vs. indirect dac
Implementation
Versus Mandates.” Market-based vs.
Giuliano, Genevieve, Southem fiers to Implementation recommendations pertormance-based
and Martin Wachs. Califomia area; implementation
leason Foundation. describes pros: ‘Simple side-by-side ‘Does not quantity
Policy Insight No. 142, | and cons of each | comparison of VMT emission reductions Etficiency and equity
September 1992. measure and feduction and cost- considerations
discusses: effectiveness for each
Implications transportation measure
Makes policy recom-
mendations to improve
each transportation
measure
“The Equity and Cost | Analyzes the ‘Shows different methods | Philadelphia modeling | Rideshare promotion | dac
Effectiveness of results of surveys | of using the same model: | assumed average level
Employee Commute and transportation | Travel Demand vehicle ridership
Options Programs." measure Evaluation Mode! targets were reached =} Parking charge level
Faskas, Z. Andrew. modeling studies | developed by COMSIS | and results are only
Morgan State Performed for the applicable relative to | Transit subsidy
University. TAB Baltimore and Provides a discussion of | each scenario levels
960078, January 1996. } Philadelphia social equity considera-
regions tions based on a survey =| Baltimore modeling did | Work schedule
of the two regions not estimate emissions | flexibility
- reductions
“The Determinants of Reviews dozens | integrates results and ‘Comments about each | Many are briefly dac
Ridesharing: Literature | of studies in a citations of many papers | study may be too brief | touched upon ;
Review.” Hwang, Keith | general in a Clear description of =| to provide clear
and Genevieve discussion of each issue impacting guidance for TCM
Giuliano. University of | ridesharing . planning
California feasons for effectiveness:
Transportation Center, Does not provide VMT
May 1990. UCTC 38. Describes effectiveness jor emissions
of programs, as wellas | reduction, only moda
employee and workplace | share data



130/98

Transportation Advantages Disadvantages Disadvantages
Measur Methodology | of Methodology | of Methodology
ae SE = z
Traffic Sketch “Potential Emission and Discussion Is Trattic flow
Management | planning (cont.) Air Quality Impacts of | term and long- assessment of the theoretical rather than
(cont.) Intelligent Vehicte- term impacts of | expected direction of empirical Vehicle trips
Highway Systems.” ITS technology impact (positive,
Ostria, Sergio, and bundles, including | negative, insignificar!, | Does not estimate the | Trip distance
Michael F. Lawrence. | traffic and uncertain) of traffic and | magnitude of travel or
in Transportation incident incident management emissions impacts Mode shifts
Research Record 1444, |management systems on travel
1994, systems, on trips, | behavior and emissions | Evaluates traffic and . | Emissions (HC, CO,
mode spiit,and | (HC, CO, NOx) incident s.anagement | NOx)
emissions at a systems mostly as an
regional and Utilizes solid a prion ITS technology bundle
corridor level reasoning to predict rather than as
impacts. individual ITS
technologies or
specific trattic
management
strategies
Process Explains lessons | Does not necessarily | “Freeway Ramp Reviews and Compares projected and | Does not evaluate the | Speed increase
analysis of tearned during he | help quantify VT, Metering Effects in assesses the _—'| actual benefits, in end result
transportation | implementation of | VMT, or emissions Denver." Corcoran, implementation, | percentages, of effectiveness In terms | Reduced VHT,
measure an actual reductions from the | Lawrence J. and system increased , of VT or VMT reduced | emissions, and
planning and transportation transportation Gordon A. Hickman. expansion, reduced VHT, reduced accidents
implementation | measure, such as | measure ITE 1989 Compendium | projected and emissions, reduced
teactions from the | implementation of Technical Papers. actual benefits of | accidents, and minimized Diversion
public and funding the freeway ramp {diversion minimization
sources, as well metering
as projected demonstration Long term nature of the
versus actual Project begunin | demonstration project,
benefits 1981 in the and subsequent
Denver ‘expansion of ramp
Provides pros and metropolitan area | metering, demonstrated a
cons of planning quantified level of
and motorist and media
implementation ‘support, as well as a
methods measure of motorist
violation rates

dil

Page 125


. “Methodology
Comparison
and analysis of
other studies

Feebate

Travel demand/
mode choice
model

Fuel Tax
Increases

9130/98

by
different studies,
which could be
used if other

directly applicable
research is not
available

Identifies
advantages and
disadvantages of
several
methodologies
Somewhat
applicable to
multiple regions:

‘Analyst can vary
Input parameters

Institute. CTR SEOC-
1, June 1995.

“Transportation Pricing
Strategies for
Califomia: An
Assessment of
Congestion, Emissions,
Energy and Equity
Impacts." Califomia Air
Resources Board, June
1995. Report No. $2-
316.

of the range (and effects)
of TCM options, as well
as technology and policy
options

Focuses upon energy
efficiency Impacts in
addition to emissions and
vMT

Establishes base case by.
comparing to actual
travel data

Explores interrelations
between pricing
strategies

‘TCM plans, but follow-
on report focuses
upon these strategies

Estimates may be too
rough to apply to other
programs in other
regions

Does not contain a
highway-network
model to include leve!-
of-service changes

Forecasts rely on

changes In household
travel data

= Ps
Factors Analyzed

dac

Tax level dac

Price elasticity
Interretationships

between pricing
strategies

Poge 47


Rideshare
(cont.)

Da

Transportation
Measure

Methodology

cost-
effectiveness
model

Advantages

reduction in and
costs of daily trips
and peak period
trips

Aids employer
determination of
cost-effectiveness:
of TOM measures
for their particular
worksite

Disadvantages:

Many inputs may be
difficult tor
employers or
planners to quantity

15 different
-based

|. | TOM measures in

‘suburban settings

different travel-related
characteristics of
‘suburban and urban
areas

Spreadsheet-based
model is user-friendly
and readily accessible for
use at the site-specific
level; model makes:
sensitivity analysis
relatively simple

Eight transportation
environments were
defined to represent
various combinations of
transportation service
characteristics

For employers without
access to entire range of
data necessary to
operate model, default
values are Included

surveyed to develop
mode! were unable to
provide detailed cost
Information on the
TOM measures they

_ | had implemented

Does not calculate
emissions directly

Potential for regional
bias, as mode! was
developed in part
based on a survey of
suburban San
Francisco Bay Area
employers; model also
used the SCAQMD
Regulation XV and
Pima Association of
Governments Travel
Reduction Program
employer plan
databases:

Onty some TDMs
Included In mode!
provide for estimates
of VT reductions

Use of default values
could diminishes
accuracy of estimates
for some users

Daily trips and peak
period trips

Costs and cost-
effectiveness

dkp

Page 101


oa)

Transportation
Measure

Intermodal

9/30/98

Empirical
analysis of
transportation
measure
demonstration
Projects

Methodology

Advantages
of Methodology

Requires little or
no new data
acquisition

Relatively low cost

‘Shows actual
Potential of
transportation
measures

Disadvantages:
of Methodology

Case study results
do not necessarily
apply to other
regions

“Evaluation of Travel
Demand Management
Measures to Relieve

er
Prepared by COMSIS
Corp. for FHWA.
FHWA/SA-90/005;
DOT-T-90-14,
| February 1990.

Studies of the
effectiveness of
11 transportation
demand
management
programs

Advantages of Stucy

‘Shows potential for
reduction in commute-
based trips due to
implementation of
transportation measures.

Provides high level of
detail about the specific
Programs implemented

evaluate specific
transportation

programs of multi
transportation
measures are
evaluated for
effectiveness

upon vehicle
occupancy

vanpool, transit)

Disadvantages

Generally does not Not applicable in

measure individually; | measures

Does not quantify
emission reductions

Trip reductions based

assumptions for each
mode choice (carpool,

Factors Analyzed

dac
context of specific
transportation

iple

Page 65

ke


Transportation

Compressed
Work Week/
Flex Time
(cont.)

9130/98

analysis of the
Impacts of land
use character-
Istics and TOM
strategies on
mode choice

examination of the
effects of land use
and TOM
incentive
strategies on
mode choice
individually and in
combination.

Results
transferable to
other urban areas
in terms of relative
ranking of
Importance of the
land use and TOM

factors analyzed.

Precise causality
and individuat
impacts of factors
such as transit
availability or urban
density on mode
choice cannot be
measured due to
limitations of the
database

Potential for need to
conduct extensive
field research to
determine land use
characteristics at
each sample work
site.

Cannot be used to
determine land use
and urban design
characteristics’

impact on a specific
mode choice

Develops an
integrated
database of land

Added land use and site
Information from field
observation to the
“Regulation XV" dataset
of the South Coast Air
Quality Management
District (which Included
aggregate employee
travel characteristics and
employer incentive
programs)

Did not address
residential trip end of
commute, midday
travel, or trip chaining
as factors which
Influence mode choice

design of worksite

TOM incentive
strategies

Page 17


Transportation
Measure

9130/98

Advantages Disadvantages Disadvantages:
of Methodology Factors Analyzed
“Evaluation of Travel Generally does not ‘Not applicable in dac
analysis of No new data do not necessarily Demand Management | studies of the teduction in commute- evaluate specific context of specific
transportation | acquisition apply to other Measures to Relieve effectiveness of | based trips due to transportation transportation
measure regions : 11 transportation | implementation of measure individually; | measuies
demonstration | Relatively low cost Kuzmyak, J.R., and demand transportation measures | programs of multiple
Projects . E.N. Schreftter. management transportation
‘Snows actual Prepared by COMSIS =| programs. Provides high level of measures ale
potential of Corp. for FHWA. detail about the specific | evaluated for
ansportation FHWA/SA-90/005; Programs implemented effectiveness
measures DOT-T-90-14.
February 1990. Does not quantify
Identifies bariers emission reductions
to implementing
twansportation Trip reductions based
measures upon vehicie
q occupancy
assumptions for each
mode choice (carpool,
vanpool, transit)
“Land Use Regulations | Evaluates the Identifies barriers to Does not quantify trip, | Availability of nearby | dac
to Promote effectiveness of | enforcing parking MT, of emissions parking
: An developer-based | management practices at | reductions ' '
Evaluation of the land use businesses; suggests Developer
‘Seattle Approach.” regulations to improvements Study was performed =} cooperation with
McCutcheon, Melody, | promote before significant data} requirements
and Jeffrey Hamm. sidesharing in existed on the
Transportation Seattle's central effectiveness of the
Quarterly, vol. 37 no. 4, | business district whole program
1983.
Transportation | Somewhat Requires large data “Cashing Out Uses . Uses actual Requires care when Vatue of parking dac
‘survey analysis | applicable to collection process: Employer-Pald Parking: | transportation transportation behavior —_| inferring applicability of | subsidy
multiple regions A Precedent tor ‘survey data to data for the Los Angeles | results to other regions
(but Influenced by Congestion Pricing?* | assess vehicle ‘region in addition to Level of cash
local factors of the ‘Shoup, Donald. tip, VMT, and available supplementary payments in lieu of
‘study area) University of Califomia, | fuel use changes | data parking subsidy
Los Angeles, 1994. if cash payments:
Can be replicated Contained in were made Requires only simple
(at moderate cost) Transporation available to calculations
Research Board SR employees in lieu
Does not require 242. of subsidized Provides rebuttals to
extensive parking arguments against cash
computer mode! payments

Fae 84


"Reducing Drive-Alone Rates at Small Employer Sites: Costs and Benefits of Local Trip Reduction
Ordinances: Pasadena Towers Case Study." Stewart, Jacqueline. In Transportation Research Record

1433, 1994.

"Rideshare Placement Mesurement: A Proposed Standard Methodology." King, Michael, and Barbara
Alderson. California State University at Chico, June 1995.

"Sacramento Regional Spare the Air 1996: A Report on Two Public Opinion Surveys." Lamare, Jude, The
Cleaner Air Partnership. 1997.

"SB 836 Evaluation Methodology: Baseline and Methodology to Measure the Effectiveness of Voluntary
Ridesharing and Other Rule 2202 Replacement Measures," Final Report. Schreffler, Eric et al, for Regional
Transportation Agencies’ Coalition. July 1997.

“Selection and Evaluation of Travel Demand Management Measures.” Taylor, Christopher J., et al. TRB
Paper 971114, January 1997.

"Simple Methodologies for Quantifying VT and VMT Reductions from Transportation Control and Growth
Management Measures for Developing Local Trip Reduction Ordinances." Evans, V. and D. Morrow.
Sonoma Technology, Inc. Air & Waste Management Assoc. 1993.

"South Coast Air Quality Management District Regulation XV Cost Survey." Emst & Young. For South
Coast Air Quality Management District, 1992.

“TCM Analyst 1.0 and User's Guide.” Crawford, Jason A., et al. Texas Transportation Institute. For the
Federal Highway Administration, November 1994.

"Testing the Impact of Alternative Land Use Scenarios Using a Travel Demand Forecasting Model." Steiss,
Todd Alan. Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Transportation Planning Division. Transportation Research
Board Paper 960898.

"The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review." Hwang, Keith and Genevieve Giuliano.
University of California Transportation Center, UCTC 38, May 1990.

“The Effect of HOV Lanes in Reducing Emissions." Bieberitz, John A. ITE 1993 Compendium of
Technical Papers.

"The Effectiveness of Ridesharing Incentives." Brownstone, David, and Thomas F. Golob. In Regional
Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 22, 1992.

"The Effectiveness of Telecommuting as a Transportation Control Measure." Sampath, Srikanth, S.
Saxene, and P. Mokhtarian. In Transportation Planning and Air Quality: Proceedings of the National
Conference, American Sociaty of Civil Engineers, 1991.

“The Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures in Reducing Congestion and Improving Air
Quality." Loudon, William R., et al. JHK & Associates. Air & Waste Management Association Annual
Meeting & Exhibition, AWMA 93-RP-149.05, 1993.

"The Effects of Land Use and Travel Demand Management Strategies on Commuting Behavior: Final
Report." Prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and Deakin, Harvey, Skabardonis, Inc. for the U.S.
Department of Transportation, November 1994.

47


‘Transportation
Measure

‘Local Land
Use/Urban

Design model

Methodology

Travel demand’
mode cholca

State-of-the-art Requires region- “The Effectiveness of | Describes a enn
method of specific household | Transportation Control | daveloped that leads the analyst requires toca! input reduction through
analyzing survey, land use, Measures In Reducing | transportation ‘step-by-step through the | parameters to forecast | new zoning controls
individual travel socioeconomic, and | Congestion and demand model input of data for region local effectiveness;
behavior travel cost data Improving Air Quality." | that integrates specific analyses detault values may not
Loudon, William R., et | emissions be sufficient
Modet's structure | Requires complex al. JHK & Associates. | calculations; Contains extensive cost-
and parameters computer model Alr & Waste provides example | effectiveness module
offer considerable Management calculations trom
insight into what | Potentially high cost | Association Annual the model Can be used at either
tactors influence |touse Meeting & Exhibition regional or a smaller area
travel mode 1993. AWMA 93-RP- or location
selection, and Does not directly 149.05.
therefore canbe | provide emissions Includes exhaust and
used to evaluate | estimates evaporative emissions
different scenarios
and details in Precision of analysis
program design —_| will depend on
accuracy of both
Travel demand growth projections:
models can be and estimates of “Testing the Impact of | Used travel Travel forecasting model | More sophisticated MT, VT, and transit } dkp
used to evaluate | "holding capacity* of | Altemative Land Use demand used was MINUTP, a land use model not ridership
combinations of targeted household | Scenarios Using a forecasting model | typical and tamiliar model | utilized due to time
transportation and employment Travel Demand ‘software to to planning agencies in | constraints Land use
measures as well | growth transter Forecasting Model.~ analyze tour the Baltimore region . altematives: “Inside
as individual zones Steiss, Todd Alan. different land use | (thus no leaming curve), | Emissions actually ‘Fixed
measures Baltimore Metropolitan | alternatives in the | and techniques for calculated for ,
Council, Transportation | Baltimore evaluating mode! output | composite of land use | "Community"
Canbe used to Planning Division. metropolitan area | had already been altematives only development and a
isolate the impact Transportation established composite scenario
of land use Research Board Paper
changes ona 960898. ‘Study compared baseline
transportation transit network
network, Projections and 1)
minimizing other Baltimore's long-range
factors such as plan without TCMs, 2)
other Plan with TCMs, 3) land
transportation use alternatives
measures separately and in
composite
Emissions can be
Peete caleulated for eachrland xg} perenne a ee

(ee memes ee ee

‘use altemative



Local Land
Use/Urban
Design
{cont.)

‘Advantages:
of Methodology

Requires little or | Case study results “Land Use Regulations Availability of nearby
analysis of No new data do not necessarily to Promote . enforcing parking ‘MT, or emissions: Parking
transportation | acquisition apply to other Ridesharing: An management practices at | reductions
measure regions Evaluation of the businesses; suggests Developer
demonstration | Relatively low cost Seattle Approach.” improvements Study was performed | cooperation with
Projects. McCutcheon, Melody, before significant data | requirements:

Shows actual and Jeffrey Hamm. existed on the

potential of Transportation effectiveness of the

(ransportation Quarterly, vol. 37 no. 4, whole program

measures 1983,

Identifies barriers

to implementing

transportation

measures
Sketch Simple tools can | Sketch planning “Transportation-Related | Based upon a Performance goals are Applicability of Transportation-
planning generate planning: | results are usually Land Use Strategies to | review of relevant | expressed as annual VT | performance goals and | related land use

level estimates of not the most Minimize Motor Vehicle | literature, case per household, annual strategy ‘Strategies

transportation accurate, depending J Emissions: An Indirect | studies, and a VMT per household, recommendations to

measure ‘on the input Source Research travel survey modal shares, and regions outside

effactiveness at | parameters Study.” Dagang, Study, this report | estimated related Califomia limited by

tow cost Deborah A. JHK & recommends vehicular emissions study's use of primarily

Associates, Inc. For community-level Califomian

Generalized tools California Air Performance Addresses differences in | communities case

can be somewhat Resources Board. June | goals, and community type, as three | studies and data

applicable to 1995. Presents ranges of performance:

multiple regions appropriate goals for urban and Performance goals,

transportation- ‘suburban areas and two | strategies, and
Analyst can vary relatedland use | ranges of performance implementation
input parameters strategies and goals for exurbarvrural mechanisms do not
implementation areas are specified inctude consideration
mechanisms, of cost-effectiveness
Recommended
community-wide Performance goal
packages of development can not
transportation-related use available
land use strategies BURDEN activity data,
address difficulty of as it is not specific
quantifying reductions in | enough to allow
VT and emissions from —_] accurate segmentation
individual strategies by type of community
applied separately or on | within a metropolitan
a site-specific basis area

dac

2


ATTACHMENT 1
Report Bibliography

The following documents were reviewed and summarized in the Attachment 2 methodology matrix.

"A Case for Freeway Mainline Metering." Haboian, Kevin A. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas. In
Transportation Research Record 1494, 1995.

"A Micro-Analysis of Land Use and Travel in Five Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area."
Kitamura, Ryuichi, et al. Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis. November, 1994.

"A Survey: and Analysis of Employee Responses to Employer-Sponsored Trip Reduction Incentive
" Schreffler, Eric N., and Mortero, Jose. COMSIS Comp. California Air Resources Board,
Contract No. A983-187. February 1994,

"Air Quality Impacts of HOV Facilities.” Chatterjee, A Aun. et al. University of Tennessee. Transportation
Research Board 960425, January 1996.

“Air Quality Offsets for Parking." Loudon, William, et al. In Transportation Research Record 1232, 1992.

"An Analysis of the Effectiveness of High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes." Dahlgren, J. W. Institute of
Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley. UCB-ITS-DS-94-2, 1994.

"An Assessment of IVHS-APTS Technology Impacts on Energy Consumption and Vehicle Emissions of
Transit Bus Fleets." Jolibois, Sylvan C. Jr., and Adib Kanafani. California PATH Research Report.
August 1994.

"An Assessment of the Land Use - Transportation System and Travel Behavior." McNally, Michael G., and
Anup Kulkarni. U.C. Irvine. TRB 971120, January 1997.

"An Assessment of Transportation Control Measures, Transportation Technologies, and Pricing/Regulatory
Policies." Euritt, Mark A., et al. University of Texas, Austin, Center for Transportation Research/Tellus
Institute. CTR SEDC-1, June 1995.

"An Economic Analysis of Scrappage.” Hahn, Robert W. American Enterprise Institute, July 1993.

“An Employer Panel for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Trip Reduction Incentives." Giuliano, Genevieve,
and Wachs, Martin. In Panels for Transportation Planning and Applications, ed. T.F. Golob, et al, 1997.

“Analysis of Indirect Source Trip Activity: Regional Shopping Centers.” Prepared by JHK & Associates
and K.T. Analytics for the California Air Resources Board. ARB-R-94/510, November 1993.

"AQMD Survey Follow-Up." Emst & Young. For South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1992.

“Assessing the Emission Impacts of IVHS in an Uncertain Future." Washington, Simon P., Randall
Guensles, and Daniel Sperling. University of California Transportation Center. Working Paper UCTC No.
, 1993.

“Assessment of High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities in North America: Executive Report." Turnbull,
Katherine. Texas Transportation Institute. Prepared for Federal Transit Administration, August 1992.


Transportation

(cont.)

Advantages:
of Methodology

Disadvantages —
of Methodology

Disadvantages
Report Description Advantages of Study : of Study
"Evaluating Travel and | Describes simple | Methodology can be Methodology relies on | Trips reduced
Air Quality Cost- methodologies used to evaluate prior participation data
Effectiveness of used to evaluate | projects or proposed provided by project Trip length
Transportation Demand | projects funded —_| future projects Proponents, which
| Management Projects * | by the AB 2766 may not alwaysbe —_| Prior travel mode
Schretfier, Eric N., vehicle Uses available EMF/.C | unbiased
Therese Costa, and segistration tee emission rates to
Carl B. Moyer. In Program in calculate ROG, PM10, EMFAC7E tactors are
| Transportation Southem NOx, and CO Calitomla-specific

Research Record 1520, } Caliiomia
1996. Study develops

standardized worksheet

to evaluate projects

‘Study polnts out

drawbacks of seit-

seported project results
“Critical Analysis of Critical analysis: Provides a thorough Many of the inputs to | Vehicle trips
Sketch-Ptanning Tools | and sensitivity seview of the state of the | the SANDAG and SAI
lor Evaluating the analysis (using practice (as of 1993) models are ditficultto | VMT
Emission Benefits of data for E! Paso, quantity
Transportation Control } Texas) of San Identifies weaknesses in Average vehicle
Measures.* Crawford, | Diego Association | the SANDAG and SAI The SANDAG and SAI | speed
Jason A., and of Govermments | methods as weil as. models do not fully
Raymond A. Krammes. | (SANDAG) TCM =| strengths account for indirect Emissions (HC, CO,
Prepared by Texas Tools method and impacts and latent NOx)
Transportation Institute | the Systems Provides detailed sketch- | travel demand
for FHWA, FHWA/TX- lications_ planning analysis lor El
92/1279-5. December | Intemational (SAI) | Paso, Texas
1993. method;

‘summarized in
TRR 1472

dt

da


‘Transportation Advantages Disadvantages’ * ee
Measure Methodology ales ti Factors Analyzed
“Travel Behavior asa | Correlates land Utilizes 1990 census and Land use access-
Function of Accessi- use and travel hectare-level tand-use be available in the ibility, mix, and
Design bility, Land Use Mixing, | behavior description data from same formatin other | balance
(cont.) affecting travel ‘and Land Use Balance: | databases for the | actual surveys for areas
behavior (cont.) Evidence from the San | San Francisco accurate characterizat- Income per house-
Francisco Bay Area.” Bay Area to ions of local populations | Results show hold member
Kockelman, Kara M. determine the and land use zones elasticities of VMT,
University of Califomia, | impact of land auto ownership, and —_| Auto ownership.
Berkeley. TRB use mix, balance, | Develops descriptive personal vehicle
970048. and accessibility | definitions for choice with respect to | Household size
on travel patterns | characterizing land use. land use accessibility,
data (accessibility, mix, mix, and balance, but | Job and population
and balance) to more do not calculate VMT | density
accurately determine the | or emission reductions
Influence of land use on | from these
travel behavior characteristics
Results may not be
heavily influenced by
local conditions
“An Assessment of the | Correlates land Uses comprehensive tist | Cannot investigate Neighborhood
Land Use - use, of indices to evaluate correlation between network
Transportation System | socioeconomic, neighborhood household income and | characteristics
and Travel Behavior." | and travel characteristics (0.9., choice of
McNally, Michael G., behavior Population density, neighborhood theme =| Socioeconomic
and Anup Kulkami. databases for number of 3-way demographics
U.C. Inine. TAB Orange County intersections, etc.) and Quantifies only trip
971120, January 1997. | neighborhoods to | cluster them into 3 rate and mode share | Land use types.
determine the distinct themes
impact of land Accessibility
use on travel ‘Studied socioeconomic
pattems demographics in
conjunction with land use
patterns to determine
which is more influential
on trip patterns
“Transit-Oriented Determined the Provides detailed Accuracy may be very | Residence and work-
Development in the minimum housing | equations used to region-specific place density
‘Sun Belt." Messenger, | and workplace calculate results
~ lectin ae Todd, and Reid Ewing. | density required ‘Does not quantity Automobile
Tanekis: jcrealeemeaneanee pes . in Transportation to support a given | Allows for interactive travel or emission ownership
Research Record 1552, | transit service effects between variables | reductions
1996. level in the Dade Rail availability
County, Fiorida | Utilizes traffic analysis
area zone data from the Parking charge

dac

dac

dac



‘Transportation Advantages
Measure of Methodology

Rideshare

(cont.) enalysis of impacts of Compressed | and after approach (with a control | may not respond as 4/40 schedule
transportation Work Week: The comparison of group) accurately well to requirements to
measure Denver Experiment.” _| travel behavior for | assesses changes in implement
demonstration Atherton, Terry J., et al. } an experimental | travel compressed work
projects (cont.) tn Transportation compressed-work week plans

Research Record 845, | week program for } Utilizes actual travel
1982. tederal diaries and surveys to
employees in track tavel pattems
Denver
identifies some non-work
travel impacts of
compressed work weeks
information was complete
and accurate due to

government workplace
focus

Statistical Utilizes farge May not assess: “Evaluation of Analyzes Utilizes large existing ‘Sample database may | Level and type of
analysis of database of causes of statistical | Employer-Sponsored | database of database for the region, | be biased (they were | direct ridesharing
employer existing employers | significance found Aidesharing Programs | surveys of increasing validity of ail clients of a Incentives
idesharing that implement in Southem Califomia." | employer- results: centralized ridesharing
initiatives: ‘wansportation Results not Ferguson, Erik T., sponsored agency) Firm size and type
measures necessarily Georgia Institute of ridesharing Assesses cost-
applicable to other Technology. in programs in effectiveness at varying | Primarily analyzes. Dollars spent on
Relatively low-cost | regions Transportation Southem Program sizes employer-based ddeshare programs
(provided data Research Record 1280, | California to Measures only
does not need to 1990. determine ~ =| Assesses interaction
be collected) relevant factors between altemative work
on effectiveness | schedules and
tidesharing
Attempts to explain
reasons behind statistical

ar unnn


Measure

Pricing!
Parking
Management
{cont.)

913098

Transportation

Methodology

‘model (cont.)

of Methodology

Advantages of Study
Uses journey-to-work

2
Factors Analyzed

Transit fare levels

pricing proposals

Evaluation of Travel Demand census data to develop and travel ume
Demand Management | Evaiuation Model | estimates of zone-to- census data may not
Measures." Taylor, zone travel . be available for all HOV lane time
Christopher J., COMSIS to cities: Syracuse has | savings
TRB 971114, January | evaluate the Evaluates both area-wide | this data availabie due
impact of programs and employer- | to a pilot program Parking costs
transportation based programs:
measures on Requires assuming Employer transit
mode choice and | Assesses revenue ‘some estimates of encouragement level
VT for the generation potential and | effectiveness
‘Syracuse, NY transit subsidies
Metropolitan area Does not quantify
emissions reductions
“Transportation Control | Describes use Utilized high-quality Does not provide Many; not specified
Measures for the San |andresuitsofa {household travel survey | detail on model
Francisco Bay Area: travel demand data and advanced operation
model to mode!_—_| modeling capabilities
| Effectiveness and VT, VMT, and
Costs.” Harvey, G., emission Emissions calculations
and €. Deakin. For reductions of uses standardized
Bay Area Alr Quality various methods, but takes into
transportation ‘account more subtle
October 1991 measures in tho | effect#o! emissions
‘San Francisco generation
Bay Area
Provides succinct, clear
data on results of study,
including cost-
: effectiveness estimates
“Transportation Pricing | Overview paper | Paper presents modeling | Use of model VMT
and Travel Behavior.” | on the effects of | results from the San developed tor San
Harvey, Greig W. In transportation Francisco Bay Area Francisco Bay Area Vehicle trips
Curbing Gridlock: system pricing on | Pricing Study using the =| may limit usefulness of
Peak-Period Fees to | activitypattems | STEP model results to other regions | Fuel usage
Relieve Traffic and travel
Congestion. Vol. 2. behavior, some Quantities VMT, trips, Study acknowledges: Emissions (ROG,
Transportation emissions results | tuel usage, ROG, CO, that the STEP mode! | CO, NOx, CO2)
Research Board NOx, and CO2 does not accurately
‘Special Report 242, account for regional
. Shows quantified travel | growth or employment
and emissions modeling | allocation, and treats
results that correspond to | time of day ina
Specific, clearly defined | simplified way

dac

dac

dn

Page 81


=O

-: Advantages: vantages: $ Disadvantages 1

of Methodology: D Factors Analyzed

Fuel Tax ‘Comparison Relatively Results are not “An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solid overview | Report does not Impacts: vehicle dac

Increases and analysis of |inexpensive and [directly applicable to | Transportation Control | studies that of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles

(cont,) other studies simple to conduct, } other regions (they Measures, analyze a host of | of TCM options, as well | for evaluating now traveled, and

because it do not Incorporate Transportation transportation ‘as technology and policy | TCM plans, but follow- | emissions

requires no characteristics of Technologies, and measures, options on report focuses:

Primary research other regions) Pricing/Regulatory technology upon these strategies | Costs
Policies." Euritt, Mark | options, and Focuses upon energy

Provides an Unlikely to provide A.,etal. University of | policies for total | efficiency Impacts in Estimates may be too

introduction to the | pracise estimates Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and | addition to emissions and | rough to apply to other

range of results for Transportation costs/penefits VvMT programs in other

produced by Researct/Tellus regions

different studies, Institute. CTR SEDC-

which could be 1, June 1995.

used If other ~

directly applicable “Transportation Pricing | Overview paper | Paper reviews empirical | Wide variability of Aggregate demand jd

research is not and Travel Behavior." | onthe effects of | results and anecdotal results reviewed limits | elasticity

available Harvey, Greig W. In | transportation from several their usefulness

: Curbing Gridlock: system pricing on | transportation pricing

Identifies Peak-Period Foes to | activitypattems | projects and studies

advantages and Relieve Traffic and travel

disadvantages of Congestion. Vol. 2. behavior, some —_| Review of existing resutts

several . | Transportation emissions results | focuses on aggregate

methodologies Research Board demand elasticity
Special Report 242,

General Travel demand/ | Somewhat Requires ragion- "Travel Markets: An | Describes a TOM | Travel market Travel market data is | Travel market dac
mode choice applicable to specific household Approach to TCM evaluation segmentation provides Jacking; requires characteristics
model multipte regions. ‘survey, land use, Effectiveness - methodology and | useful groupings with converting origin-

socioeconomic, and §f Evaluation." mode! (GRACIE) | similar consumer destination data to
Analyst can vary | travel cost data Torluemke, Donald A. | that utilizes attributes that can be travel market data
input parameters Ekistic Mobility “travel market" affected homogeneously

Requires Consultants, 1992. characteristics | by TDMs Does not show results

complicated rather than origin- of using the mode!

computer model destination data | Travel markets are more

‘to classify trips. easily understood
Potentially high cost
to use

9130/98 Page 49


‘Transportation

Employee
Commute
Subsidies
(cont.)

Comparison
and analysis of
other studies
(cont.)

reductions

“Assessment of Travel | Surveys research | Provides alarge number | Report does not Relative dac
Demand Management | studies and of case study examples | contain a methodology | effectiveness of
Approaches at interviews TCM ___| of both effective and for forecasting the various:
‘Suburban Activity program Ineffective TCM effectiveness of new | transportation
Centers." Bhatt, Kiran, | coordinators to Programs ‘TCM plans measure programs
and Higgins, Thomas. | provide an
K.T. Analystics. U.S. | overviewofthe | Makes recommendations | Onty generalized Implementation
DOT, July 1989. range of to employers on how to | evaluation of TCM mechanisms
effectiveness of | develop a TCM program | effectiveness
employer-based
TCM programs Provides a good checklist
of topics to address when
developing a TCM.
program
"Managing ‘Compares Provides typology of Provides little detail Direct vs. indirect dac
Transportation congestion pricing | transportation measures | about logistics of implementation
Demand: Markets with Regulation | and Identifies Implementing the
Versus Mandates.” XV for the effectiveness and policy Market-based vs.
Giuliano, Genevieve, | Southem common barriers to recommendations performance-based
and Martin Wachs. ‘Catifomla area; Implementation Implementation
Reason Foundation. describes pros.
Policy Insight No. 142, }and cons of each Efficiency and equity
September 1992. measure and Does not quantify considerations
discusses Simple side-by-side emission reductions
implications comparison of VMT
reduction and cost-
effectiveness for each
transportation measure
Makes policy
recommendations to
improve each
transportation measure
“The Equity and Cost | Analyzes the Shows different methods | Philadelphia modeling | Rideshare promotion | dac
Effectiveness of results of surveys | of using the same model: | assumed average level
Employee Commute and transportation | Travel Demand vehicle ridership
_ | Options Programs.” measure Evaluation Model targets were reached | Parking charge level
Farkas, Z. Andrew. modeling studies | developed by COMSIS =| and results are only
Morgan State performed for the applicable relative to | Transit subsidy
University. TRB Baltimore and Provides a discussion of | each scenario levels
960078, January 1996. | Philadelphia social equity
regions considerations based on | Baltimore modeling did | Work schedule:
a survey of the two not estimate emissions | flexibility
regions

Page 45


Alternative
Transporta-
tlon-Friendly
Workplace
(cont.)

9/30/98

‘Comparison

27

Direct vs. indirect

Provides typology of dac
‘and analysis of transportation measures | about logistics of implementation
other studies. Demand: Markets with Regulation =| and Identifies Implementing the
(cont) Versus Mandates." XV for the effectiveness and policy recommenda- | Market-based vs.
Gluliano, Genevieve, | Southem common barriers to tions.
and Martin Wachs. Califomia area; implementation implementation
Reason Foundation. describes pros. Does not quantity
Policy Insight No. 142, |and cons of each | Simple side-by-side emission reductions Efficiency and equity
September 1992. measure and comparison of VMT . considerations:
discusses reduction and cost-
implications effectiveness for each
transportation measure
Makes policy recom-
mendations to improve
each transportation
measure
"The Equity and Cost | Analyzes the Shows different methods | Philadelphia modeling | Rideshare promotion |dac
Effectiveness of resuits of surveys | of using the same model: | assumed level
Employee Commute ‘and transportation | Trave! Demand vehicle ridership
ns Programs." measure Evaluation Model targets were reached | Parking charge level
Farkas, Z. Andrew. modeling studies | developed by COMSIS —_j and results are only
Morgan State performed for the appiicable relativeto | Transit subsidy
University. TRB Baltimore and Provides a discussion of | each scenario levels
960078, January 1998. | Philadelphia ‘social equity
regions considerations based on | Baltimore modeling did | Work schedule
a survey of the two not estimate emissions | flexibility
. fegions reductions .
Bicycles Travel demand/ | Requires region- "Implementing Etfective | Summarizes Excellent overview of the | Use of the mode! Bicycle mode share | dac
mode choice. ‘specific household Travel Demand broad range of range of TOMs possible; | requires local input
model survey, land use, Management TOM measures, | provides description, parameters to forecast
Bt and | Measures: Inventory of | provides example | nature of effectiveness, | local effectiveness
Analystcan vary | travel cost data Measures and case study application setting, .
Input parameters: Synthesis of analyses of each, | effectiveness potential, | Model does not
Requires complex Experience.” COMSIS |and uses and cost incorporate an
computer mode! Corporation. USDOT, | computer mode! emissions caiculation
September 1993. ‘to benchmark the | Uses actual case studies | module
Potentially high cost | DOT-T-94-02, effectiveness of | to inform the use of a
touse each TDM computer model for Most analysis is at the
forecasting TDM employer-level rather
effectiveness than the area-level
Provides a road-map to
Implementing TOMs:

Page 7


Emissions
Fees (cont.) | mode choice

model (cont)

Employee

‘Commute mode choice
Subsidies —_ | model

appticable to
multiple regions

Analyst can vary
input parameters

Requires ragion-

Potentially high cost
to use

Special Report 242,
1994,

Francisco Bay Area
may limit usefulness of
tesults to other ragions

Study acknowledges
that the STEP model

Vehicle trips

Fuel usage

CO, NOx, CO2)

Subsidy level

Excalient overview of the | Use of the mode!
Travel Demand broad range of range of TOMs possible; | requires local input
TDM measures, | provides description, parameters to forecast | Average vehicle
Measures: Inventory of | provides example [nature of effectiveness, |} local effectiveness ridership
Measures and case study application setting,
Synthesis of analyses of each, | effectiveness potential, | Model does not
Experience." COMSIS | and uses and cost an
Corporation. USDOT, | computer model emissions calculation
September 1993. to benchmark the | Uses actual case studies | module
DOT-T-94-02. effectiveness of {to Inform the use of a
each TOM computer model for Most analysis is at the
forecasting TOM employer-level rather
effectiveness than the area-level
Provides a road-map to
implementing TOMs

Emissions (ROG,



Analyzes a large data set
aggregate-fevel comprising almost 10%
Subsidies impacts of multiple regions generate statistically | Programs on Employee | data compiled by | of Los Angeles area contradicted by more | ridesharing
(cont) personal (but likely to be significant resuits Mode Choice.” atarge Southem | workforce recent studies (6.9.,
preference and | influenced heavily Ferguson, Erk. Califomia regional study finds that large | Size of firm
workplace by tocal factors of | Personal preference | Transportation, vol 17, | ridesharing Utilizing existing agency | corporations have
conditions on =| the study area) and workplace 1990. agency; assesses | database Is a cost- better success with
mode choice conditions difficult to Impact of effective approach rideshare programs)
Can be replicated | impact through employer
{atmoderate to —_| public policy characteristics on | Less accurate than Aging data source:
high cost) employee mode =| disaggregated (employee | 1985 survey data
split by employee) data
Does not require Los Angeles area
extensive Includes cost- factors may be
computer mode! effectiveness estimations | uncharactaristic of
other regions, so
Uses actual results may not be
survey data applicable elsewhere
Employer-derived data
was acquired using
differant methods:
No estimates of
emissions impacts
Parking supply |Somewhat Requires computer} *Alr Quafity Offsets for | Develops and ‘Uses observed price and | Requires parking Price level
and demand applicable to model Parking." Loudon, uses parking ‘travel time sensitivities | database: number of
model ‘Tnultiple regions: William, et al. in supply model for spaces, location, type,
Potentially high cost} Transportation downtown Uses proven models of juse pattems
Analyst can vary jtouse Research Record 1232, | Portland to travel behavior
input parameters 1992, estimate CO Requires travel
emissions Incorporates integrated | database: time of
CO emissions model arrival, travel & work
mode split

dao


Transportation
Measure

Local Land
Use/Urban
Design
(cont.)

9/30/98

Methodology

Statistical
analysis of
factors
affecting travel
behavior (cont.)

Advantages

‘Disadvantages

Disadvantages
Advantages of Study * “ef Study
“Effect of Urban Addresses the Analyzes actual trip data_| Does not define Land use
Development Pattems influence of travel! | from a pooled sample of | exactly how urban characteristics
on Transportation patterns on interview surveys in eight | structure may affect
Energy Use.” Chesiow, | energy use, and | standard metropolitan travel characteristics | Household travel
Melvyn D., and J. Kevin | analyzes the statistical areas (SMSAs) patterns
Neels. In relationships nationwide Study sample included
Transportation between these few metropolitan Transportation
Research Record 764, | travel Focuses on variationin | areas, and was energy use
1980. characteristics fuel use between therefore unable to
and measures of | different neighborhoods —_| pinpoint the urban-
urban form and metropolitan areas —_‘| scale characteristics
that distinguished the
different metropolitan
regions
‘Study does not include
mixed land-use
scenarios, or walking
trips in travel
characteristics
analyzed
Does not address
economic and social
costs and feasibility of
implementing changes
in urban development
patterns
“The OddsonTODs: |Quantifies VMT | Identifies key Does not estimate Annual VMT per
Examining the Potential | impact of relationships between emissions impacts household
of Transit-Oriented hypothetical neighborhood directly
Development in the transit-oriented characteristics and total Household income
San Francisco Bay developments travel Results assume very
Area." Luscher, Dan. | based on widespread Neighborhood
Harvard University, regression Uses hypothetical transit- | implementation of characteristics
April 1995. analysis; oriented developments transit-oriented (density, transit
estimates costs | that are similar to actual | development accessibility,
and benefits of developments being built distance from central
transit-oriented Results may not be business district)
development; Estimates a range of applicable outside of
shorter version travel impacts per transit- | Califomia
appears in oriented development as ,
Berkeley Planning | well as for the San
Journal, vol. 9, Francisco Bay region as
1995. a whole

da

Page 69


Transportation
Measure

Reduction
(cont.)

ROIS,

Advantages:
of Methodology

Somewhat

applicable to
employer- multiple regions:
based trip
teduction Can be replicated
program {at moderate cost)
Does not require
extensive
computer model

Disadvantages:
of Methodology
Requires large data

collection process to
generate statistically
significant results

“SB 836 Evaluation
Methodology: Baseline
and Methodology to
Measure the
Effectiveness of
Voluntary Ridesharing:
and Other Rule 2202

Replacement
Measures,” Final
Report. Schrattier, Eric
et al, for Regional
Transportation
‘Agencies’ Coalition.
July 1997.

mandatory ridesharing,
thus Isolating the relative
emissions impact of
fidesharing rules

Uses existing data
sources where possible

Attempts to Identity
causality

Methodology is designed

to meet EPA requirement

for State Implementation
Plan credit

Disadvantages
of Study

sources are required

Obtaining analogous
“before” and ‘alter’
data to compare
mandatory and
voluntary ridesharing
can be difficult

Data sources and
analysis are specitic to
Southern Califomia

Factors Analyzed

Primary measures:
vehicle trips, VMT,
emissions (CO,
VOC, NOx)

Secondary
measures: average
vehicle ridership,
mode split

Page (1


Transportation
Measure

Traffic
Management
(cont.)

Methodology

Disadvantages

‘ Advantages of Study

input parameters

Empirical Reports benefits froma | Reports results but Varies depending on
analysis of Continuing Successes] and predicted ITS | variety of projects does not show Project summarized,
transportation and Operational Test | benefits identified | covering a variety of ITS | analysis methods or but can include:
measure Results.” Prepared by | froma variety of | technologies, Including _| calculations VMT, vehicle trips,
demonstration Mitretek Systems for ITS programs, ‘several traffic . vehicle speeds, fuel
projects (cont.) Federal Highway including traffic management strategies | Not all reported results | usage, emissions
Administration. Draft, | management have been validated (HC, CO, NOx)
September 19, 1997. | projects, focusing | Includes ITS and traffic | for completeness and
. on U.S. DOT- Management benefits reliability
tunded Fieid related to safety, time,
Operational Tests | throughput, cost,
and other customer satisfaction,
programs energy, and environment
resulting from
recent federal Includes example
initiatives emissions results for
electronic toll collaction
and traffic signal system
Projects in Oklahoma,
New Jersey, Los.
Angeles, and Abeline
(Texas)
Sketch Simple tools can | Sketch planning “TCM Analyst 1.0 and | Describes a Provides a useful and Program only models | Not stated
planning generate planning: | results are usually Users Guide.” computerized relatively easy instruction | limited TCMs and
fevel estimates of | not the most Crawford, Jason A., et | sketch planning manual for using TCM cannot model multiple
transportation accurate, depending | al. Texas tool, TCM Analyst { Analyst 1.0 TCM packages
measure ‘on the input Transportation Institute. | 1.0, including
effectiveness at parameters For the Federal input data Uses MOBILESa output =} Requires several runs
tow cost Highway requirements, data (emission factors) _| with MOBILESa to
Administration, methods of use, | as inputs to the model, _| obtain input emission
Generalized tools November 1994. and an overview | providing more accurate | factors
can be somewhat ‘of the modet's emission benefit
applicable to ‘structure and calculations for each Modeling on regional
multiple regions calculation TCM (rather than
procedures microscale) basis only
Analyst can vary .

dd

dac


Alternative
Transporta-
tlon-Friendly
‘Workplace
(cont)

Travel demand/
mode choice
model (cont.)

“A Survey and Analysis | Describes results | Clearly explains the Does not accurately | Guaranteed fide
of Employee of new survey process that was used: | address trip-chaining | home
Responses to data regarding survey data acquisition, | and VMT reductions
Employer-Sponsored | employee travel .| moda choice computa- (only trips) ‘Company vanpoois
‘Trip Reduction behavior; uses tion, and TCM effactive-
Incentive Programs." mode choice and | ness model use Household conditions | Preferential parking
Schveffler, Eric N., and | travel demand are not extensively
Mortero, Jose. mode! to predict | Data requirements are accounted for Parking fees for
COMSIS Corp, impacts of certain | more readily available tidesharers
Califomia Air employer-based | than other models Cost-effectiveness
Resources Board, transportation . was not calculated Carpool subsidies &
February 1994. measures: User-friendly model Is transportation
Contract No. A983-187. available for outside use; | Employer-level allowances
usere guide is also analyses only, with
‘ available focus upon incentive
TCMs
Survey links incentives
directly to impacts on
travel behavior
Model Includes an
awareness sub-model
that simulates how many
peopte know about the
possible transportation
measures available to
them
"Selection and Uses Travel Uses jourmey-to-work Sufficlently detailed Transit fare levels.
Evaluation of Travel Demand census data to develop | journey-to-work. and travel time.
Demand Management {Evaluation Mode! | estimates of zone-to- census data may not
Measures." Taylor, developed by zone travel be available for all HOV lane time
Christopher J., et al. COMSIS to . cities: Syracuse has | savings
‘TRB Paper 971114, evaluate the Evaluates both area-wide | this data available due
January 1997, Impact of Programs and employer- | to a pilot program Parking costs
transportation based programs:
measures on Requires assuming Employer transit
mode choice and | Assesses revenue some estimates of encouragement level
VT for the generation potential and | effactiveness
Syracuse, NY transit subsidies
metropofitan area Does not quantify

emissions reductions

dac


‘Transportation
Measure

Trattic
Management
(cont.)

arson

Methodology

“Transportation Control

None (lactors
Measures Analyzed for ‘Study of already- analyzed are
the Washington Performed process applicable to each
Region's 15 Percent transportation
Rate of Progress Plan.” measure analyzed
FHWA/Metropolitan during tha process)
Washington Council of
Govemments, February
1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and
transportation weaknesses) of both the
measures: ‘evaluation tools used and
each specific
transportation measure
evaluation mathod
Estimates VT, VMT, and
emission reductions and
cost-effectiveness
Comparison Relatively Results are not “An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solid overview | Report does not Impacts: vehicle
and analysis of | inexpensive and directly applicable io } s:unsportation Control | studies that of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehice miles
other studies. simple to conduct, | other regions (they Measures, analyze a host of | of TCM options, as well | for evaluating new traveled, and
because it do not incorporate Transportation transportation as technology and policy | TCM plans, but fotlow- | emissions
requires no Characteristics of Technologies, and measures, options n report focuses
primary research =| other regions) Pricing/Regulatory upon these strategies | Costs
Policies.” Euritt, Mark | options, and Focuses upon energy
Provides a review | Unlikely to provide] A., etal. University of | policies for tota! _| efficiency impacts in Estimates may be too
of the results Precise estimates. Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and | addition to emissions and | rough to apply to other
produced by for Transportation costs/benefits VMT Programs in other
different HOV ResearctyTellus fegions
facilities in North Institute. CTR SEDC-
America, which 1, June 1995,
could be used if
other directly
applicable
tesearch Is not
available
identifies
advantages and
disadvantages of
several
methodologies |

dac

dac

dkp



Subsidies planning Washington
(cont) measure implementation of }reductions from the} Region's 15 Percent selection and committee planning transportation

planning and an actua) transportation Rate of Progress Plan.° } quantification process used by the measure analyzed
implementation | transportation measure FHWA/Metropoiitan process coa during the process)

measure, suchas |implementation Washington Council of | performed by the

feactions to Governments, February | MWCOG for Provides extensive, clear

expect from the Cost can vary greatly §.1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and

public and funding transportation weaknesses) of both the

sources: measures evaluation tools used and

each specific

Provides pros and transportation measure

cons of planning evaluation method

and

implementation Estimates VT, VMT, end

methods emission reductions and

cost-effectiveness

Comparison Relatively Results are not *An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solid overview | Report does not Impacts: vehicle
and analysis of | Inexpensive and | directly applicable to | Transportation Control | studies that of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles
other studies simple to conduct, | other regions (they | Measures, analyze a host of |of TCM options, as well | for evaluating new traveled, and

because It do not incorporate ‘Transportation transportation as technology and policy | TCM plans, but follow- | emissions

requires no characteristics of Technologies, and measures, options. on report focuses

primary research | other regions) Pricing/Regutatory upon these strategies | Costs

Policies." Euritt, Mark | options, and Focuses upon energy

Provides an Unlikely to provide A., etal. University of | policies for total _| efficlency impacts in Estimates may be too

introduction to the | precise estimates Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and | addition to emissions and | rough to apply to other

range of results for Transportation costs/benefits VMT Programs in other

produced by Research/Tellus regions

different studies, Institute. CTR SEDC-

which could be 1, June 1995.

used Ii other

directly applicable

research Is not

avaliable

Wentifies

advantages and

disadvantages of

several

methodclogies



the "next generation" of travel and emissions models, will assume increasing importance in evaluating
transportation measures in the future.

3. Recommendations for further EPA research

This Work Assignment effort produced an extensive matrix for planners and policy makers to use when
they need to evaluate the travel and emissions impacts of their own existing or planned transportation measures.
Additional efforts to compile and index the existing literature on transportation and voluritary measure
quantification efforts could focus on the following areas:

© Procurement and analysis of additional documents. Because the literature on transportation
measures is developing rapidly, many valuable quantification efforts have been completed in the past
year and were therefore not available during the literature collection portion of WA 0-04. Identifying
these most recent research efforts, and preparing methodology matrix entries for them, would help keep
the methodology matrix as up-to-date as possible, particularly for those segments of the literature that
are developing most rapidly (ITS, for example).

© Preparation of methodology matrix entries for additional documents already identified. While
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller succeeded in this Work Assignment in analyzing a very large portion
of the best transportation measure quantification documents collected in WA 0-04, available funding
did not allow us to analyze all of the documents. Preparing methodology matrix entries for more
documents from WA 0-04 would create additional value and comprehensiveness for the methodology
matrix.

© Document procurement support for planners. The methodology matrix developed in this Work
Assignment will allow local planners and policy makers to identify documents that may be most useful
to them, but some of the documents may be difficult to obtain. Providing a document procurement
service that helps planners obtain documents they are interested in could provide an efficient means
of disseminating research results, and represent part of a "full-service" approach to helping local
planners. However, copyright issues would need to be carefully worked out.

@ Prepare analysis of previous research resuits targeted to SIP credit issues. In many cases, existing
tesearch results and methodologies may help planners and policy makers quantify the emissions
impacts of their own local transportation measures, but in ways that may not meet EPA’s standard for
establishing State Implementation Plan emissions credit. A focused review and critique of selected
quantification methodologies with SIP crediting requirements in mind (e.g., evaluating whether the
emissions reductions are surplus and enforceable) will help local planners in working with EPA to
create SIP-creditable transportation programs,


Transportation
Measut

Intelligent
Transporta-
tlon Systems
(cont.)

9/30/98

Advantages:
of Methodology

Disadvantages

Description

' advantages of Study

Disadvantages
of Study

ctors Analyzed

Highlights existing | Reports benefits froma | Reports results but Varies depending on
analysis of Continuing Successes | and predicted ITS | variety of pi does not show project summarized,
transportation and Operational Test | benefits identified | covering a variety of ITS | analysis methods or —_{ but can include:
measure Results." Prepared by | froma variety of | technologies catculations VMT, vehicle trips,
demonstration Mitretek Systems for ITs vehicle spaeds, fuel
projects (cont.) Federal Highway implementation | Includes ITS benefits Not all reported results | usage, emissions

Administration. Draft, | programs, related to safety, time, have been validated (HC, CO, Nox)
September 19, 1997. focusing on U.S. | throughput, cost, for completeness and

DOT-funded Field | customer satisfaction, reliability

Operational! Tests | energy, and environment

and other

programs Describes quantified

resulting from emissions impacts for

recent federal Projects in Seatte,

initiatives Boston, Oklahoma, New

Jersey, Los Angeles, and
Abeline (Texas)
includes example
emissions results for
Advanced Traveler
Information Systems,
electronic toll collection,
and traffic signal systems.
Sketch Simple tools can | Sketch planning “Potential Emission and | Discusses sho:i- | Provides a broad Initial Discussion is Traffic flow
Planning generate planning- | results are usually Air Quality Impacts of |_| term and long- assessment of the theoretical rather than
level estimates of | not the most Intelligent Vehicte- term impacts of | expected direction of empirical Vehicle trips
transportation accurate, depending | Highway Systems.” ITS technology impact (positive,
measure ‘on the Input Ostia, Sergio, and bundles on trips, | negative, insignificant, Does not estimate the | Trip distance
effectiveness at parameters Michael F. Lawrence. | mode split, and uncertain) of ITS bundles | magnitude of travel or
low cost In Transportation emissions at a ‘on travel behavior and emissions impacts Mode shifts
The relatively low Research Record 1444, | regional and emissions (HC, CO,
Generalized tools | currentlevel of ITS |] 1994. corridor level NOx) Evatuates ITS Emissions (HC, CO,
can be somewhat | deployment makes technology bundles NOx)
applicable to validation of sketch Utilizes solid @ priori rather than individual
multiple regions: Planning results reasoning to predict ITS technologies or
difficult impacts {TS-related policy
Analyst can vary options
input parameters | Requires many
‘simplifying
assumptions

| ant

Page 61


Compressed
Work Week/
Flex Time
(cont.)

Parking supply | Somewhat Requires computer Air Quality Offsets for Uses observed price and | Requires parking Time of arrival (in
and demand applicable to modal Parking.” Loudon, travel time sensitivities. : Number of | downtown area)
model multiple regions William, et al. in spaces, location, type,
Potentially high cost { Transportation downtown Uses proven models of | use pattems:
Analyst can vary | to use Research Record 1232, | Portland to travel behavior
Input parameters 1992. estimate CO Requires travel
emissions Incorporates integrated | database: time of
CO emissions model anival, trave & work

dao!


Transportation
Measure

Transporta-
tion Systems
(cont.)

Travel demand/
mode choice

model

Advantages:

applicable to
multiple regions

Analyst can vary
input parameters

Disadvantages
of Methodology Report

Requires region- “Transportation Controt

* Advantages of Study

Does not provide

Factors Analyzed

Describes use Utilized high-quality Many; not specified
specific household | Measures for the San | and results ofa | household travel survey | detail on model
survey, land use, Francisco Bay Area: travel demand data and advanced operation
socioeconomic, and | Analysis of model to mode! _| modeling capabilities
travel cost data | Effectiveness and VT, VMT, and
Costs." Harvey, G.. emission Emissions calculations
Requires and E. Deakin. For reductions of uses standardized
complicated Bay Area Air Quality various methods, but takes into
computer mode! Management District, | transportation account more subtle
October 1991. measures inthe | effects of emissions
Potentially high cost ‘San Francisco generation
to use. Bay Area
Provides succinct, clear
data on results of study,
including cost-
effectiveness estimates
“Travel, Emissions, and | Uses Appendices provide Model Is not integrated | Vehicle miles and
Consumer Benefits of | comprehensive thorough explanation of | with a land use model; | total hours traveled
Advanced Transit Sacramento modeling equations, effects of major
Technologies in the Regional Travel | assumptions and changes In Hours of delay and
Sacramento Region.’ | Demand Model variables transportation network | free flow
“| Johnston, Robert and | (SACMET 95) to are not taken in
Rodier, Caroline. estimate the Explores interrelations account Transportation mode.
University of Calitomia, | possible future between income level ‘split: single
Davis. Califomia PATH [impact of ITS on | and consumer welfare Use of the model occupant shared
Research Report, July | travel mode, requires focal input ride, transit, walk,
1996. emissions, and parameters to forecast | bike
consumer welfare local effectiveness

More research is
to generate

necessary
useful results

9/30/98

Page 59

fk


Transportation Advantages Disadvantages Disedvantages
Messure Methodology | of Methodology of Study Factors Analyzed
uae eed nbateeketen snes
Trip Ulilizes large Level and type of = [ dac
Reduction database of causes of statistical | Emptoyer-Sponsored | database of database for the region, | be biased (they were | direct ridesharing
(cont.) existing employers | significance found || Ridesharing Programs _| surveys of increasing vaiidity of all clients of a incentives
sidesharing that implement in Souther California.” | employer- fesuits centralized ridesharing
initiatives transportation Results not Ferguson, Erik T., sponsored agency) Firm alze and type
measures necessarily Georgia Institute of ridesharing Assesses cost-
applicable to other Technology. In [programs in ‘effectiveness at varying | Primarily analyzes Dollars spent on
Relatively low-cost | regions Transportation Southem program sizes employer-based rideshare programs
(provided data Research Record 1280, | Catifoméa to measures only
does not need to 1990. determine Assesses interaction
be collected) felevantfactoss | between altemative work
on ettectveness | schedules and
ridesharing
Attempts to explain
feasons behind statistical
significance of certain
factors
Sample survey | Somewhat Requires targe data "Analysis of indirect ‘Surveyed Uses actual survey data | Assumptions ere Distance of travel for | dac
of customer applicable to collection process to | Source Trip Activity: customers of (inctuding customer required to tansiate consumers
travel patterns | multiple regions —_| generate statistically || Regional Shopping regional shopping | demographic and stated | stated preference data
and (but influenced by | significant results Centers. JHK & centers to preference data) to expected outcome
preferences at | focal factors of the Associates/ K.T. determine
shopping study area) Moderate to high Analytics/Calilomia Air | potential impact | Developed caiculation Does not quantity
centers cost Resources Board. ‘of various travel | methodologies specific to | emission reductions
Does not require November 1993, ARB- |reduction each trip reduction
‘an extensive R-94/510. measures ‘Measure, using site-
compuler model ‘specific data
Compares data between
shopping centers in

ars

Page 115


Facilities
{cont.)

Transportation
: Measure ©

Travel
mode choice toward specific characteristics:
model (cont.) ‘Sacramento policy VMT, total v ehicie
proposals, and are not | hours, vehicle hours
directly transferable to | of delay, transit trips,
other areas HOV trips
EMFAC7E factors are | Emissions: TOG,
California-specific CO, NOx
‘Sufficientty detailed Transit fare levels
Evaluation of Travel Demand census data to develop | journey-to-work and travel time
Demand Management {Evaluation Mode! | estimates of zone-to- census data may not
Measures.” Taylor, developed by zone travel be avaliable for all HOV lane time
‘Christopher J., et al. ‘COMSIS to cities: Syracuse has | savings
TRB 971114, January | evaluate the Evaluates both area-wide | this data available due
| 1997, impact of programs and employer- to a pilot program Parking costs
transportation based programs
measures on Requires assuming Employer transit
if mode choice and | Assesses revenue some estimates of encouragement leva!
VT for the generation potential and | effectiveness
Syracuse, NY transit subsidies
metropolitan area Does not quantify
emissions reductions
Vehicle Calculates Requires computer “An Analysis of the Develops and Uses range of travel Assumes bottleneck of HOV
queuing model | aggregate vehicle | model Effectiveness of High | uses extensive mode (HOV or LOV) creates delay (not ‘drivers
delay (not just Occupancy Vehicte freeway queuing | sensitivities maximum flow
individual vehicle | Theoretical rather Lanes.” Oahigren, J. mode! that capacity) Initial vehicle delay
travel time) than empirical W. Institute of simulates the Addresses Impact on
Transportation Studies, | addition of HOV | route choice, travel time, Number of anes
Applicable to any | Requires many UC Berkeley, 1994. ‘or general Induced trips & growth
highway simplifying UCB-ITS-DS-94-2. purpose lanes Travel time
assumptions Incorporates Integrated elasticities
Analyst can vary emissions model
input parameters
Requires limited data
| Relatively low cost i
touse

dri


Bicycles
(cont.)

9/30/98

Empirical Somewhat Requires large data | °An Employer Panel for | Discusses results | Utilizes the largesttrip | Database does not Not described dac
analysis of applicable to collection process to | Evaluating the “| collectad on reduction measure Provide exceptional :
transportation | multiple regions generate statistically | Effectiveness of Trip | Southem database available in the |-detall; report does not
measure significant results Reduction Incentives.” | Califomia word contain details of the
Implementation | Can be replicated Giullano, Genevieve, | employment sites level of Incentive
programs (at moderate cost) ‘and Wachs, Martin. In | subject to Panel method allows for | support provided to
Panels for SCAQMD assessing before-and- employees
Does not require Transportation Planning| Regulation XV, after-TCM conditions
extensive and Applications, ed. | and assesses the Onty generalized
computer model T.F. Golob, et al, 1997. | relative effectiveness results
effectiveness of are shown
trip reduction
strategies TCMs were not always
implemented at the
time of the survey
Empirical Requires littieor | Case study results “Evaluation of Travel | Performs case ‘Shows potential for Generally does not Not applicable In dac
analysis of no new data do not necessarily Demand Mi studies of the reduction in commute- evaluate specific TCM | context of specific
transportation | acquisition apply to other Measures to Relieve | effectiveness of || based trips due to Individually; programs | transportation
measure regions Congestion." 11 transportation | implementation of of multiple TCMs are =| measures
demonstration | Relatively low cost Kuzmyak, J.R., and demand transportation measures | evaluated for
projects EN. Schreffier, management effectiveness
‘Shows actual Prepared by COMSIS =| programs Provides high level of
potential of Com. for FHWA. detall about the specific | Does not quantify
transportation FHWA/SA-80/005; Programs implemented | emission reductions
measures DOT-T-80-14.
February 1990. Trip reductions based
upon vehicle
occupancy
assumptions for each
mode choice (carpool,
vanpool, transit)
Sample survey | Somewhat Requires large data ‘Analysis of Indirect ‘Surveyed Uses actual survey data | Assumptions are Distance of travel for | dac
of customer - | applicable to collection process to ff Source Trip Activity: customers of (Including customer required to translate consumers:
travel pattems | multiple regions. generate statistically | Regional Shopping tagional shopping | demographic and stated | stated preference data
and prefer- (but influenced by | significant results ‘| Centers." JHK & centers to Preference data) to expected outcome
ences at local factors of the Associates! K.T. determine
shopping ‘study area) Moderate to high Analytics/ California Alr | potential impact | Developed calculation Does not quantify
centers cost Resources Board. ‘of various travel | methodologies specific to | emission reductions
Does not require November 1993, ARB- | reduction each trip reduction
an extensive R-94/510. measures Measure, using site-
computer model specific data
Compares data between
shopping centers in
different land-use types

Page 9


Flex Time
(cont) .

Integrated model

‘i developed, an |

Analyzes the
results of surveys
‘and transportation
measure
modeling studies
Performed for the
Baftimore and
Philadelphia
regions

of using the same model:
Travel Demand
Evaluation Model
developed by COMSIS

Provides a discussion of
social equity
considerations based on
a survey of the two
regions.

Baltimore modeling did
not estimate emissions
reductions

level
Parking charge level

Transit subsidy
levels

Work schedule
flexibility

dec

mode choice, | to simulate developed and would f Transportation Control | should be future integrated other situations:
trafic demand, mode be costly to develop | Measures: Mobility, Air | developed, but transportation and Vehicle occupancy
simulation, and | choice, traffic Quality, and Energy the performed emissions modet. rates .
emissions simulation, and Tradeoffs." Euritt, Mark | analysis uses
model emissions could A, etal. University of | current models
avoid some of the Texas, Austin, Center | sequentially
for Transportation
inherent in Research, Jul 94.
applying travel ‘SWUTC-94-60034-1
and emissions
models
sequentially
Travel demand/ | Somewhat Requires region- “Transportation Pricing | Develops and ‘Uses actual, available ‘Does not modet Price level, period dac
mode choice applicable to ‘specific household Strategies for uses a price elasticities specific travel and location of
model multiple regions ‘Survey, land use, California: An comprehensive corridors (requires application
. ]Socloeconomic, and | Assessment of travel demand Establishes base case by | additional model for
Analyst can vary —j travel cost data Congestion, Emissions, | mode! to estimate | comparing to actual this purpose) Price elasticity
input parameters Energy and Equity the impacts of travel data
Requires complex Impacts.” Califomia Air | multiple Relies on uncertain Interralationships
computer model Resources Board, June | transportation Explores interrelations forecasts of travel between pricing
1995. Report No. 92- | measures between pricing demand Strategies
Potentially high cost | 316. strategies
touse



seasonal
controls

Sample survey
analysis of

dd

talephone interviews:

Survey repondents
may not be statistically

representative of
regional population

Only uses survey data
from one smog
episode ina given
year, with no control



(cont.)

“Evaluating Travel and

Planning (cont.) Alr Quality Cost: Nes. |usedtoevaluateprior | participation
Effectiveness of used to evaluate | projects or proposed provided by project Trip length
Transportation Demand | projects funded future projects Proponents, which
Management Projects." | by the AB 2766 may not always be Prior travel mode:
Schreffier, Eric N., vehicle Uses available EMFAC | unbiased
Therese Costa, and registration fee emission rates to
Carl B. Moyer. In program in calculate ROG, PM10, EMFAC7E factors are
Transportation ‘Southern NOx, and CO Califomia-specific
Research Record 1520, | Califomia
1996. ‘Study develops
standardized worksheet
to evaluate projects
‘Study points out
drawbacks of self-
reported project results
Process Explains lessons | Does not necessarily | ‘Transportation Control | Provides Addresses the strengths | Requires an extensive | None (factors
analysis of teamed during the | help quantify VT, Measures Analyzed for | comprehensive and weaknesses ofthe _| study of already- analyzed ere
transportation | planning and VMT, oremissions | the Washington evaluation ofthe | bottom-up, multiple performed process applicable to each
measure Implementation of | reductions fromthe | Region's 15 Percent __ | selection and committee planning transportation
planning and ‘an actual TCM Implementation } Rate of Progress Pian.” | quantification process used by the measure analyzed
implementation { transportation FHWA/Metropolitan process during the process)
measure, such as | Cost can vary greatly | Washington Council of | performed by the
reactions to Govemments, February | MWCOG for Provides extensive, clear
expect from the 1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and
public and funding TCM measures weaknesses) of both the
‘sources evaluation tools used and
each specific TCM
Provides pros and evaluation method
cons of planning
and implementa- ~ Estimates VT, VMT, &
tion methods: emission reductions and

cost-effectiveness



OIE

Transportation
Meas Methodology

Trip Empirical

Reduction analysis of

(cont) transportation
measure
implementation
programs
(cont.)

Advantages -

Disadvantages

"advantages of Study

size as well as schedule
and lifestyle of
employees

Olsadvantages
of Study

Uses small data sets

therefore results vary
widely with the
behavior of a few
Individuals

Does not establish a
standard to evaluate
average vehicle
fidership results
obiained

Results may not be
transferable to other
employer sites or
tegions:

Does not quantity
emission impacts

Factors Analyzed

Program cost and
distribution of cost

Benefits to
developer, tenants
and city

Average vehicle
ridership

Page 148


Transportation

Parking
Pricing/
Parking
Management
({cont.)

9/30/98

Travel demand/
mode choice
model (cont.)

of Methodology

“Transportation Control
Measure Analysis
Procedures.” Austin,
Barbara S., et al.
Systems Applications
International/Califomia
Air Resources Board.
Nov 1991. SYSAPP-
91/141.

Describes
developed
transportation
demand model
and explicitly
discusses the
calculation
methodology
used for several
transportation
measures

Advantages of Study

Model quantifies key
secondary effects of
TCMs (@.g. new
carpooling programs may
attract transit riders

rather than SOV riders)

Presents all the primary
equations and variables
used to calculate the
effects of TCMs

Contains a step-by-step

Explains multi-attribute

analyses as applied to
multiple TCM packages

requires loca! input
Parameters to forecast
local effectiveness;
default values may not
be sufficient;
Participation level data
Is required; base
cases need to match
real conditions

Model does not cover
all TCMs, but can be
modified to do so

Temporal treatment is
limited to on-peak/off-
Peak, no spatial
treatment

Emissions catculations
are not explicitly
described in the same
fashion as travel
effects

Level of people di
affected by parking

measures

Availability of
spillover parking

Interaction with
rideshare & transit
programs

Price level

Page 79

® 49


Congestion
Pricing
(cont.)

9130/98

Comparison
and analysis of
other studies

Results are not

directly applicable to
other regions (they
do not incorporate
characteristics of
other regions)

Provides an Unlikely to provide

introduction to the | precise estimates

range of results

produced by

different studies,

which could be

used if other

directly applicable

research Is not

available

Identifies

advantages and

disadvantages of

several

methodologies

Impacts: vehicle

“An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solld overview | Report does not
‘Transportation Contro! | studies that of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles
Measures, analyze a host of | of TCM options, as well | for evaluating new traveled, and
Trensportation transportation as technology and policy | TCM plans, but follow- | emissions
Technologies, and measures, options ‘on report focuses
Pricing/Regulatory technology upon these strategies | Costs
Policies. Euritt, Mark | options, and Focuses upon energy
A. etal. University of | policies for total | efficiency impacts in Estimates may be too
Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and | addition to emissions and | rough to apply to other
for Transportation costs/benefits VMT programs in other
ResearctvTellus regions
Institute. CTR SEOC-
4, June 1995.
"Demand Elasticity Provides a survey | Survey includes both Focus on aggregate Travel demand
Under Time-Varying overview of theoretical and applied travel behavior characteristics
Prices: Case Study of |titerature on road | work Ppreciudes analysis
Day-of-Week Varying _| pricing; develops about the details of |_| Level of toll
Tolls on Golden Gate | ademand travel preferences
Bridge.’ Gifford, elasticity mode! to Gasoline price
Jonathan L. and Scott | analyze travel Results limited in
W. Talkington. George | demand under indirect applicability to | Price elasticity of
Mason University, time-varying congestion pricing on | traffic
1996. pricing using data bridges
from the Golden
‘Gate Bridge In
1979-1984
“Managing ‘Compares Provides typology of Provides little detail Direct vs. indirect
Transportation congestion pricing | TCMs and identifies about logistics of implementation
Demand: Markets with Regulation effectiveness and Implementing the
Versus Mandates." XV for the common barriers to policy Market-based vs.
Giuliano, Genevieve, | Southem implementation recommendations performance-based
and Martin Wachs. California area; implementation
Reason Foundation, describes pros: Simple side-by-side Does not quantify
September 1992. ‘and cons of each | comparison of VMT emission reductions Efficiency and equity
Policy insight No. 142. | measure and reduction and cost- considerations
discusses effectiveness for each
Implications TCM
Makes policy
recommendations to
improve each TCM.

dac

Page 33


Local Land
Use/Urban
Design
(cont.)

Factors’ Analyzed

Process Addresses the strengths | Requires an extensive | None (factors.
analysis of learned during the and weaknesses of the | study of already- analyzed are
transportation | planning and evaluation of the | bottom-up, multiple performed process applicable to each
measure implementation of | reductions fromthe [| Region's 15 Percent selection and committee planning . transportation
planning and an actual transportation Rate of Progress Plan.” | quantification process used by the measure analyzed
implementation | transportation measure FHWA/Metropolitan process coG during the process)

measure, such as_} implementation Washington Council of | performed by the

reactions to Governments, February | MWCOG for Provides extensive, clear

expect from the Cost can vary greatly | 1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and

public and funding transportation weaknesses) of both the

sources measures evaluation tools used and

each specific

Provides pros and transportation measure

cons of planning evaluation method

and

implementation Estimates VT, VMT, and

methods emission reductions and

cost-effectiveness

Comparison Relatively Results are not “An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solid overview | Report does not Impacts: vehicle
and analysis of | inexpensive and directly applicable to | Transportation Control | studies that of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles
other studies ‘simple to conduct, } other regions (they Measures, analyze a host of | of TCM options, as well | for evaluating new traveled, and

because It do not incorporate Transportation transportation as technology and policy | TCM plans, but follow- | emissions

requires no characteristics of Technologies, and measures, options on report focuses

Primary research | other regions) Pricing/Regulatory technology upon these strategies | Costs

Policies." Euritt, Mark | options, and Focuses upon energy

Provides a review | Unlikely to provide A., etal. University of [policies for total —_| efficiency impacts in Estimates may be too

of the results precise estimates Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and | addition to emissions and | rough to apply to other

produced by for Transportation costs/benefits VvMT programs in other

different HOV Research/Tellus tegions

facilities In North Institute. CTR SEDC-

America, which 1, June 1995.

could be used if

other directly

applicable

research Is not

available

Identifies

advantages and

disadvantages of Peactamees Bers iow cameos na

several

er

dac


Transportation

High-
Occupancy
Vehicle
Facilities
(cont.)

9/30/98

aa
Factors Analyzed

dn

Integrated Combines the “Intelligent Model integrates Relatively high cost Operational
planning/ strengths of Transportation Systems | development and Planning j and complexity Measures of
simulation regional Impact Assessment application of an | and traffic simulation In Effectiveness: VMT,
model transportation Framework: Final analytical toolto | an iterative fashion, and =| Locally specific input —_| traffic volume,
planning models Report.” Volpe predict ITS includes emissions and | data makes the !-860 | average vehicle

and traffic National Transportation | impacts, with a fuel consumption resutts of limited use in | speed, vehicle hours.

simulation models | Potentially high cost || Systems Center, focus on modules. other areas of delay, fue!
touse September 30, 1995 Advanced Traffic consumption

Somewhat Management Report describes use of .

applicable to Systems model to analyze the Emission Measures

multiple regions potential use of ITS in the of Effectiveness:
1-880 corridor in Alameda CO, HC, NOx

Analyst can vary County, Califomia,

Input parameters modeling ramp metering, Safety Measures of
traffic signal coordination, Effectiveness:
integrated traffic Personal injury
management, incident levels, property
management, and HOV damage, total
lanes accidents:
Emissions module uses
accepted EMFAC and
MOBILE factors

Travel demand/ | Somewhat Requires region- “Implementing Effective | Summarizes Excellent overview of the | Use of the mode! Vehicle occupancy:

mode choice applicable to specific household Travel Demand broad range of range of TOMs possible; | requires local input 2,3, or 4 or more

model multiple regions —_| survey, land use, Management TDM measures, | provides description, Parameters to forecast | people required for
socioeconomic, and | Measures: Inventory of | provides example | nature of effectiveness, | focal effectiveness HOV Iane use

Analyst can vary | travel cost data Measures and case study application setting,

input parameters ‘Synthesis of analyses of each, | effectiveness potential, Model does not Preferential parking

Requires complex. Experience." COMSIS | and uses and cost incorporate an
computer model Corporation. USDOT, | computer model emissions calculation | Average vehicle
September 1993. to benchmark the | Uses actual case studies | module ridership
Potentially high cost | DOT-T-94-02. effectiveness of | to Inform the use ofa
touse each TOM computer model for Most analysis is at the
forecasting TOM employer-leve! rather
effectiveness than the area-fevel
Provides a road-map to
imptementing TDMs

Page SI


Transportation
Measure

Advantages
of Methodology

Description -

Local Land “Transportation-Related | Based upon a Includes an extensive Transportation- dkp
Use/Urban and analysis of Land Use Strategies to | review of relevant | literature review matrix —_| transportation-related |_| related land use
Design other studies Minimize Mojor Vehicle | literature, case and annotated land use strategies strategies
(cont.) (cont.) Emissions: An Indirect | studies, and a bibliography summarizing | does not contain
‘Source Research travel survey quantifiable effectiveness | analyses of modeled | Land use and
Study." Dagang, ‘study, this report | data of transportation- or empirical data, thus | transportation
Deborah A. JHK & related land use ‘somewhat limiting characteristics’
Associates, Inc. For strategies in local, ‘scope of data included | impact on creation
California Air national, and and support of public
Resources Board. June international cases - Literature survey does | transit systems and
1995, not contain emissions | pedestrian-
Preliminary estimates of | estimates, but accessible
individual transportation- | subsequent sketch communities
related landuse related land use strategy | planning focuses on
strategies and effectiveness are emissions related to
implementation developed from the VT and VMT
mechanisms fiterature review performance goals
Utilized as a resource an
existing detailed
examination of travel
data and transportation . .
ahd land use *
characteristics in
California (by John
Holtzclaw for the Natural
Resources Defense.
Council, 1994)
Travel and land use data
from selected Portland,
Oregon, and Canadian
cities were examined to
provide a basis of
comparison for the

characteristics found in
the Californian case
studies

Page 75


ansportation Disadvantages
" of Methodology Report Factors Analyzed
Telecom- Travel demand/ ‘The Effectiveness of | Describes a Model has a user manual | Use of the mode! Participation levels
muting mode choice Transportation Control | developed that leads the analyst requires focal input
(cont.) model (cont.) Measures in Reducing } transportation Step-by-step through the | parameters to forecast
. Congestion and demand modet input of data for region local effectiveness;
Improving Air Quality.° } that integrates ‘specific analyses default values may not
Loudon, Wiliam R.,et | emissions be sufficient
al. JHK & Associates. | calculations; Contains extensive cost-
Air & Waste Provides example | effectiveness module
Management calculations from
‘Association Annual the model Can be used at either
Meeting & Exhibition regional or a smaller area
1993. AWMA 93-RP- or location
149.05.
Includes exhaust and
evaporative emissions
“Transportation Control | Describes a Model quantifies key Use of the model Work and non-work
Measure Analysis developed secondary effects of requires local input trip increases by the
Procedures.” Austin, uansportation TCMs (0.9. new parameters to forecast | telecommuter and
Barbara S., et al. demand model carpooling programs may } toca effectiveness; other household
‘Systems Applications | and explicitly attract transit riders. defauit values may not | members.
intemationaVCalifomia | discusses the father than SOV riders) | be sufficient;
Air Resources Board. | caiculation Participation level data } Satellite centers
Nov 1991. SYSAPP- methodology Presents afl the primary jis required; base
91/141. used for several | equations and vartables | cases need to match
twansportation used to calculate the teal conditions:
measures effects of TCMs:
Model does not cover
Contains a step-by-step | all TCMs, but can be
Process for evaluating modified to do so
Packages of TCMs
Temporal treatment is
Explains muiti-attribute limited to on-peak/ott-
analyses as appliedto —_{ peak, no spatial
multiple TCM packages =| treatment
Emissions caiculations
are not explicitly
described in the same
fashion as travel
. | effects
‘
1098
; oe aoe -

dac


Transportation
Measure

Telecom-
muting
(cont.)

OID

Methodology

Empirical
analysis of
transportation
measure
demonstration
projects (cont.)

Advantages Disadvantages
of Methodology | of Methodology Report
“The Effectiveness of
Telecommuting as a

Advantages of Study

Evaluates the index of

distance reduction) for
telecommuting’s success
in reducing travel

Computes and compares
travel and emissions
evaluations trom before
the telecommuting
Project's implementation,
as weil as both commute
and stay-at-home days:
once the program had
begun

Emissions analysis
Includes conversion to
vehicle-based numbers
trom person-based
telecommuting data using
“vehicle movement
profiles*

Uses accepted

EMFAC7D emission
factors

Calitomia
Telecommuting Pilot
Project data, thus may
have limited
replicability without
‘same type of data
from other
telecommuting
Projects

EMFAC7D emission
factors are Calilornia-
specific

Only addresses the
direct alr quality
impacts of
telecommuting (does
not address indirect
impacts such as net
ait quality effects of
non-transportation
energy consumed
while telecommuting)

ambient
temperature)

Factore Analyzed

Travel Factors and
Trip Characteristics
(inctuding: distance
traveled by auto,
number of hot and
cold starts, speed,
type of vehicle, and

Wage 114


Work Week/
Flex Time
(cont.)

projects (cont)

Tr Related

impacts of Compressed | and after approach (witha contro! | applicable to private | 4/40 schedule
Work Week: The of group) accurately organizations, which
Denver Experiment." _| travel behavior for | assesses changes In may not respond as
Atherton, Terry J., etal. {an experimental | travel well to requirements to
In Transportation compressed-work implement
Research Record 845, | week program for | Utilizes actual travel compressed work
1982. federal diaries and surveys to ‘week plans
employees in track travel pattems
Denver

identifies some non-work

travel impacts of

compressed work weeks

information was complete

and accurate due to

government workplace

focus
“Effects of Variable Assesses several | Case study was carefully | Study was performed | Flextime, 4/40 weeks
Work Hour Programs {impacts of a pilot | designed to achieve within a proactive and 9/80 weeks:
on Ridesharing and employer-based | easily obtainable, useful | county agency, rather
Organizational ‘voluntary “| information at the end of | than a private
Effectiveness: ACase | compressed work | the study company, which may
Study, Ventura week program in affect the results
County.’ Freas, Alyssa | Ventura County Studied the impact of
M. and Stuart M. (CWW on not only Does not assess VMT
Anderson. Commuter commutes, but also or emissions
Transportation employee performance, | reductions, only
‘Services, inc. In office performance, and } assesses ride share
Transportation ‘supervisor perspectives § | percent

aac


"Estimating the Travel and Parking Demand Effects of Employer-Paid Parking." Willson, Richard. UCTC
No. 39, University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley, 1992.

"Evaluating the Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures for San Luis Obispo County, California.”
Morrow, David D., San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, 1992.

"Evaluating the Seattle I-5 North HOV Lane 2+ Occupancy Requirement Demonstration.” Turnbull,
Katherine F. et al. Texas Transportation Institute. January 1993.

“Evaluating Travel and Air Quality Cost-Effectiveness of Transportation Demand Management Projects."
Schreffler, Eric N., Therese Costa, and Carl B. Moyer. In Transportation Research Record 1520, 1996.

"Evaluation of Congestion Pricing Alternatives in the Twin Cities.” Lari, Adeel Z. and Kenneth R.
Buckeye. Minnesota Department of Transportation, January 1997.

“Evaluation of Employee Trip Reduction Programs Based on California's Experience with Regulation XV."
Orski, C. Kenneth. Institute of Transportation Engineers, January 1994.

"Evaluation of Employer-Sponsored Ridesharing Programs in Southern California." Ferguson, Erik T.,
Georgia Institute of Technology. In Transportation Research Record 1280, 1990.

“Evaluation of Travel Demand Management Measures to Relieve Congestion.” Kuzmyak, J.R., and E.N.
Schreffler. Prepared by COMSIS Corp. for FHWA. FHWA/SA-90/005; DOT-T-90-14. February 1990.

"Feasibility of Employee Trip Reduction as a Regional Transportation Control Measure." Lupa, Mary R.
University of Illinois at Chicago. In Transportation Research Record 1459.

“Framework for Evaluating Transportation Control Measures: Mobility, Air Quality, and Energy
Tradeoffs." Euritt, Mark A., et al. University of Texas, Austin, Center for Transportation Research, ©
SWUTC-94-60034-1, July 1994.

"Freeway Congestion Pricing: Another Look." Levinson, Herbert. Transporation Research Board Paper
940977, January 1994.

“Freeway Ramp Metering Effects in Denver." Corcoran, Lawrence J. and Gordon A. Hickman. ITE 1989
Compendium of Technical Papers.

“High-Occupancy Vehicle Project Case Studies: Historical Trends and Project Experiences." Turnbull,
Katherine. Texas Transportation Institute. Prepared for Federal Transit Administration, August 1992.

“HOV Lanes and Ramp Metering: Can They Work Together for Air Quality?” Shoemaker, Bill R. and
Edward C. Sullivan. Transportation Research Board Paper 940444, January 1994.

"If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: Cross-sectional Analysis of Commuters and Bicycle
Facilities." Nelson, Arthur C., and David Allen. Georgia Institute of Technology. TRB 970132, January
1997.

“Impacts of Center-Based Telecommuting on Travel and Emissions: Analysis of the Puget Sound
Demonstration Project.” Henderson, Dennis K., and Mohktarian, Patricia L. Institute of Transportation
Studies, University of California, Davis, Vol. 1, 1996.


Transportation

Orson

Advantages:
‘of Methodology

Disadvantages
of Methodology

Contract No. A983-187.

Data requirements are
more readity available
than other models.

User-friendly model is.
available tor outside use;
users guide Is also
available

Survey links incentives
directly to impacts on
travel behavior

Model includes an
awareness sub-model!
that simulates how many
People know about the
possible transportation
measures available to
them

‘Does not accurately

address trip-chaining
and VMT reductions

(only tips)

Household conditions
are not extensively
accounted for

Cost-eltectiveness
‘was not calculated

Employer-level
analyses only, with
focus upon incentive
TCMs

| Factors Analyzed

Guaranteed ride
home

Company vanpools
Preferential parking

Parking fees tor
tidesharers

‘Carpool subsidies &
transportation
allowances

dac



Transportation
Measure

Tip
Reduction
(cont.)

Advantages Disadvantages
Methodology | of Methodology of Study Factors Analyzed
Sample survey | Uses statistically ‘Survey methodology is ‘Only quantifies cost of | Cost of ridesharing
‘of employer trip | representative significant costs Management complying with generic and can be ridesharing programs; | program (in $ per
seduction sample population District Regulation XV | South Coast Alr_ | applied to any region does not directly employee)
programcost | to make estimates | If surveys are Cost Survey,” and Quality quantify trip reductions
ot overall impact | performed difterently | “AQMD Survey Follow- | Management Regulation XV or emissions
of general trip in different regions, Ernst & Young. District compliance paperwork ‘eductions:
reduction direct comparisons For South Coast Air Regulation XV trip | allowed for an exact
Strategies such as | of results may not be ff Quality Management seduction ne definition of the “target “Accuracy of employer
employer-based =| valid ,. using employer =| population” fesponses is
trip reduction rules ‘surveys; follow-up ‘questionable.
. ‘Survey results can document All affected companies
Sample size (and | be subject to various presents results| surveyed, not just a ‘Study results do not
therefore cost) Kinds of response of on-site fepresentative sample allow characterization
canbe varied bias interviews of 17 Of the linkage between
based on level of ‘companies Methodology combines | a given company's
Statistical broad survey with spending on a tip
accuracy desired focused on-site reduction program with
Interviews to gauge the effectiveness of
‘Surveys can be validity of responses that program
done periodically
to determine
changes in
Program
ettectiveness over
time
Sketch Simple toots can | Sketch planning "Critical Analysis of Critical anatysis | Provides a thorough Many of the inputs to | Vehicle trips
planning generate planning: | results are usually Jf Sketch-Planning Tools | and sensitivity feview of the state of the | the SANDAG and SAI
level estimates of | not the most for Evaluating the analysis (using —_| practice (as of 1993) models are difficultto | VMT
transportation accurate, depending | Emission Benefits of data for El Paso, quantity
measure ‘on the Input Transportation Controt | Texas) of San- Identifies weaknesses in Average vehicle
effectiveness at parameters: Measures.” Crawlord, } Diego Association | the SANDAG and SA} The SANDAG and SAI | speed
low cost e of Govemments | methods as well as models do not tully
Raymond A. Krammes. |(SANDAG) TCM | strengths: ‘account for indirect Emissions (HC, CO,
Generalized tools Prepared by Texas Tools method and impacts and latent NOx)
canbe somewhat Transportation Institute | the Systems Provides detailed sketch- | travel demand
applicable to for FHWA, FHWA/TX- | Applications planning analysis tor El
multiple regions 92/1279-5. December | Intemational (SAj) | Paso, Texas
method;
Analyst can vary . summarized in
input parameters TRA 1472

dit

at



Transportation
Measure

Trip
Reduction

(cont.) (cont)

mode choice
model

Methodology

Comparison
and analysis of
other studies

Advantages:
of Methodology

Disadvantages
of Methodology

Addresses
feasibility and
cost of attaining
the mode shift
goal in CAA
182(d)(1)(B), and

projected results of the
Federal Clean Alr Act, so
fessons evaluated may
be relevant to other
(metropolitan areas

Califomia-specific
factors may influence
‘and limit applicability
of conclusions to other
fegions

Report does not
‘contain a methodology
tor evaluating new
TCM plans

appticable to specific household uses @ Price elasticities highway-network

multiple regions survey, land use, ‘Califomia: An comprehensive model to include level-
socioeconomic, and || Assessment of travel demand Establishes base case by | of-service changes

Analyst can vary | travel cost data Congestion, Emissions, | model to estimate | comparing to actual

input parameters ; Energy and Equity the impacts of travel data Forecasts rety on
Requires comptex Impacts.” California Air | multipte estimations of
computer model Resources Board, June | transportation Explores interrelations changes in household

1995. Report No. 92- | measures between pricing travel data

Factors Analyzed

South Coast Air
Quality Management
District Regulation
XV results to date

Long-term program
offécts Un muuas
choice

Areawide program
impact

Program costs and
effectiveness

VMT Fees Travel demand/ | Somewhat Requires region- “Transporation Pricing | Develops and (Uses actual, available Does not contain a Fee level dac
é tor

Price elasticity

Interrelationships
between pricing
‘strategies

kp



Database/
Information
(cont.)

Emissions
Fees

9130/98

ridematching
database
Program
success

Travel demand/
mode choice
model

Uses statistically
representative
sample population
to make estimates
of overall impact
of ridematching
services on
tidesharing

‘Sample size (and
therefore cost)
can be varied
based on level of
statistical
accuracy desired

Surveys can be
done periodically
to determine
changes In
fideshare
placement rates
‘over time, and
impacts of special
promotions such
as "Try Transit*

Relationship
between ridesharing
participation, VMT,,

lf surveys are
performed differently
in different regions,
direct comparisons:
of results may not be
valid

Resources Board, June
1995. Report No. 92-
316,

quantifying
fideshare
placement levels:
for ridematching
services;

discusses pilot
testing of
methodology
(note: this

Is
currently used by
RIDES for Bay
Area Commuters
in the San

Francisco Bay
Area).

Survey methodology , is
generic and can be
applied to any region

Methodology
distinguishes between
three types of rideshare
placements (trial,
maintenance, and
ongoing) to reflect their
different impact on travel
and emissions

Survey response
rate

Statistical sampling
error

Fee level asa
function of mileage,
make, modal &
model year

Price elasticity

Interretationships.
between pricing
strategies

Poge 35


“Assessment of Travel Demand Management Approaches at Suburban Activity Centers." Bhatt, Kiran, and
Higgins, Thomas. K.T. Analystics. U.S. DOT, July 1989.

“Bay Bridge Congestion Pricing Project: Lessons Leamed to Date." Frick, Karen, et al. Metropolitan
Transporation Commission. Transportation Research Board Paper 961317, 1996.

"Cashing Out Employer-Paid Parking: A Precedent for Congestion Pricing?" Shoup, Donald. University of
California, Los Angeles, Contained in Transportation Research Board SR 242, 1994.

"Comparative Assessment of Travel Characteristics for Neotraditional Designs." McNally, Michael and
Sherry Ryan. Institute of Transportation Studies. In Transportation Research Record 1400.

"Congestion Pricing and Motor Vehicle Emissions: An Initial Review." Guensfer, Randall and Daniel
Sperling. In Curbing Gridlock: Peak-Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion. Vol. 2. Transportation
Research Board Special Report 242, 1994.

"Cost-Effectiveness of Private Employer Ridesharing Programs: An Employer's Assessment." Wegmann,
Frederick J. University of Tennessee. In Transportation Research Record 1212, 1989.

"Critical Analysis of Sketch-Planning Tools for Evaluating the Emission Benefits of Transportation Control
Measures." Crawford, Jason A., and Raymond A. Krammes. Prepared by Texas Transportation Institute
for FHWA, FHWA/TX-92/1279-5, December 1993.

"Demand Elasticity Under Time-Varying Prices: Case Study of Day-of-Week Varying Tolls on Golden
Gate Bridge.” Gifford, Jonathan L. and Scott W. Talkington, George Mason University, 1996.

“Effect of Urban Development Patterns on Transportation Energy Use." Cheslow, Melvyn D., and J. Kevin
Neels. In Transportation Research Record 764, 1980. .

“Effects of Variable Work Hour Programs on Ridesharing and Organizational Effectiveness: A Case Study,
Ventura County.” Freas, Alyssa M. and Stuart M. Anderson. Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. In
Transportation Research Record 1321, 1991.

"Emissions Impacts of Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems." Washington, Simon, Randall Guensler, and
Daniel Sperling. U.C. Davis te of Transportation Studies, UCD-RP-13-93, 1993.

"Employee Trip Reduction Programs: An Evaluation.” Orski, C. Kenneth. In Zransportation Quarterly,
Vol. 47, No. 3, July 1993.

“Employee Trip Reduction Without Government Mandates; Cost and Effectiveness Estimates From
Chicago.” Pagano, Anthony and JoAnn Verdin. University of Illinois at Chicago. Transportation Research
Board Paper 971281, 1997. .

"Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy, Technical Report One: Energy, Emissions, and Social
Consequences of Telecommuting.” U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/PO-0026, June 1994.

“Environmental Considerations for Planning Advanced Traffic Management Systems." Kraft, Walter H.,
and William A. Redl. In Resource Papers for the 1994 ITE International Conference, 1994.

“Estimating an Emissions Supply Function from Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Programs." Alberini,
Anna etal. Resources for the Future, January 1994.


nN
a

Measure

Congestion
Pricing
(cont)

9/30/98

Transportation |.

elasticity model

‘Simple model
based on
economics
fundamentals,
using readily
available data,
that captures:
primary
determinants of
travel behavior

Can vary inputs to
model based on

level of comptexity
desired

‘Demand Elasticity
Under Time-Varying
Prices: Case Study of
Day-of-Week Varying
Tolls on Goiden Gate
Bridge.” Gifford,
Jonathan L. and Scott
W. Talkington. George
Mason University,
1996.

Presents correlation
between time-varying
pricing and traffic
pattems; Indirectly
Mustrates change in VT

Data used are from
actual applied day-of-
‘week varying pricing

Disadvantages
of:Stu

Results have limited
application to other
regions, as local
variables such as
limited transit
altematives may have
influenced model
results

Use of single case
study over period of
one price change
Umits results

applicability in other
situations

Elasticity estimates do
not Include costs of
travel other than toll
and gas, and include
no assessment of
possible mode shifts.

Does not quantify
emissions

‘y
Factors Analyzed

Travel demand kp
characteristica

Level of toll
Gasoline price
Price elasticity of
traffic

Page 29


Transportation

Shuttles/
Station Cars
(cont.)

9180198

of Methodology

Process
analysis of
transportation
measure
planning and
Implementation

Travel demand/

mode choice
model

Advantages

Explains lessons.
earned during the

Somewhat
applicable to
muttiple regions

Analyst can vary
input parameters

Disadvantages
of Methodology

Does not necessarily
help quantity VT,
MT, of emissions
reductions from the
transportation
measure

implementation
Cost can vary greatly

Requires region-
‘specific household
survey, land use,
socioeconomic, and

Requires complex
computer modet

Potentially high cost
touse

“Transportation Control
Measures Analyzed for
the Washington
Region's 15 Percent
Rate of Progress Plan.”
FHWA/Metropolitan
Washington Council of
Governments, February
1995.

“Implementing Effective
Travel Demand
Management
Measures: Inventory of
Measures and
Synthesis of
Experience.* COMSIS
Corporation. USDOT,
September 1993.
DOT-T-94-02.

Addresses the strengths
and weaknesses of the
bottom-up, multiple
committee planning
process used by the
coG .

Provides extensive, clear
detail (and strengths and
weaknesses) of both the
evaluation tools used and
each specific
transportation measure
evaluation method

Estimates VT, VMT, and
emission reductions and
cost-effectiveness

Excellent overview of the
range of TDMs possible;
provides description,
nature of effectiveness,

‘study of already-
performed process

Use of the mode!

fequires local input
parameters to forecast
local effectiveness

Model does not
incorporate an
emissions calculation
module

(Most analysis is at the

employer-level rather
than the area-level

Factors Analyzed

None (factors
analyzed are
applicable to each
tansponiation
measure analyzed
during the process)

Participation levels

dac

Page 109


Bicycles
(cont)

Requires parking

Parking.” Loudon, uses travel tima sensitivities | database: number of
William, et al. In supply model for Spaces, location, type,
Potentially high cost J Transportation downtown Uses proven models of | use pattems
Analyst can vary |to use Research Record 1232, | Portand to travel behavior
Input parameters 1992, - estimate CO Requires travel
emissions Incorporates Int database: time of
CO emissions model arrival, travel & work
mode split
Statistical identifies land use | Precise causality "The Effects of Land Develops an Added land use and site | Study conducted in Land use and urban
analysis ofthe Jandurban design jand individual Use and Travel integrated information from field Los Angetes County, | design of worksite
impacts ofland | characteristics impacts of factors Demand Management | database ofland | observation to the ‘and thus may be less
use that are supportive | such as transit. Strategies on use “Regulation XV° dataset j applicable in more TOM incentive
characteristics fofwalk/blke mode favallabilityor urban | Commuting Behavior, | characteristics of the South Coast Alr dense urban areas strategies
land TOM choice. density on mode Final Report.” and travel Quality Management with factors such es
Strategies on choice cannot be Prepared by Cambridge | demand District (which Included higher average density
mode cholce Standard analysis | measured due to [ systematics, inc. and =| management aggregate employes land transit service.
of variance using limitations of the Deakin, Harvey, (TDM) strategies | travel characteristics and
principle compo- database Skabardonis, Inc. for | (fora sample of | employer incentive ‘Share of work trips
nents allows: the U.S. Department of {employment programs) made by bicycle as a
examination of the | Potential forneedto | Tr locations) to percentage of the total
effects ofland use | conduct extensive November 1994, determine the trips in the data set is
and TOM field rasearch to combined impacts ‘small, making
incentive determina land use of TOM programs, Identification of work
strategies on characteristics at land use, and site characteristics
mode choice @ach sample work urban design on that encourage
individually and in | site. employee travel utilization of bikes
combination. behavior. MS difficult.
Cannot be used to
Results transfer- | determine land use . Did not address
able to other and urban design residential trip end of
urban areas in characteristics’ commute, midday
terms of ralative | Impact on a specific travel, of trip chaining
tanking of mode choice as factors which
Importance of the Influence mode choice
land use and TDM
factors analyzed. To simplify a
complicated data
collection process,
somewhat arbitrary
indicators were used
for assessment of a
site's urban design
and land use

kp


Alternative
Transporta-
tlon-Friendly
Workplace
(cont.)

9130/98

‘Travel damand/ Utilized high-quality
mode choice household travel survey | detail on model
model (cont) operation
Management District,
October 1991.
‘San Francisco generation
Bay Area
Provides succinct, clear .
data on resutts of study,
Including cost-
effectiveness estimates
Empirical Somewhat Requires large data J ‘The Influence of Analyzes Analyzes a large data set | Some findings may Level of employer
analysis of the | applicable to collection process to | Employer Ridesharing |aggregate-level | comprising almost 10% | have been contra- effort to encourage
impacts of multiple regions generate statistically | Programs on Employee | data compiled by | of Los Angeles area dicted by more recent | ridesharing
personal (but likely to be significant results Mode Choice.” |G large Southern studies (e.g., study
preference and | influenced heavily Ferguson, Erk, California ragional finds that large corp- | Size of firm
workplace by local factors of {Personal preference | Transportation, vol 17, |ridesharing Utilizing existing agency | orations have better
conditions on the study area) ‘and workplace: 1990. lagency; assesses | database is a cost- success with rideshare
mode choice conditions difficult to impact of effective.approach Programs)
Can be replicated jimpact through employer
(at moderate to public policy characteristics on | Less accurate than Aging data source:
high cost) employee mode | disaggregated (employee | 1985 survey data
‘split by employee) data
Does not require Los Angeles area
extensive Includes cost- factors may be
computer model effectiveness estimations | uncharacteristic of
other regions, so
Uses actual results may not be
survey data applicable elsewhere
Employer-derived data
was acquired using
different methods
No estimates of
emissions impacts

as

dac

Page 3


Figure 1. Transportation measures included in methodology matrix

‘Alternative Commute Programs
(Alternative Transportation-Friendly Workplace
Bicycles

Clean Fuel Fleets

iCompressed Work Week/Flex Time
Congestion Pricing

Database/ Information

Emissions Fees

Employee Commute Subsidies
Episodic/ Seasonal Controls

Feebate

Fuel Tax Increases

General

IHigh-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities |
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Intermodal

Local Land Use/Urban Design

Market Incentives .

Parking Pricing/Parking Management
Regional Land Use / Growth Management
Rideshare :
Scrappage

'Shuttles/Station Cars

" !Telecommuting

Traffic. Management

Trip Reduction

|VMT Fees



Transportation
Measure

Traffic
Management
(cont.)

WMO

Advantages
of Methodology

Analyst can vary
input parameters

Disadvantages:

of Methodology Report Description Advantages of Study of Study Factors Analyzed
Requires region- “The Effectiveness of | Describes a Model has a user manual | Use of the modet Signal timing
specific household | Transportation Control | developed that leads the analyst requires local input —_| improvements (level
survey, land use, Measures In Reducing | transportation step-by-step through the | parameters to forecast | not stated)
socioeconomic, and | Congestion and demand model Input of data for region local effectiveness;
travel cost data Improving Air Quality.” |thatintegrates —_| specific analyses default values may not
Loudon, William R.,et | emissions be sufficent
Requires complex al. JHK & Associates. | calculations; Contains extensive cost-
computer model Air & Waste Provides example | effectiveness module
Management calculations from
Potentially high cost | Association Annual the model Can be used at either
touse Meeting & Exhibition tegional or a smaller area
1993. AWMA 93-RP- or location
149.05.
Includes exhaust and
evaporative emissions
“Transportation Control | Describes a Model quantifies key Use of the model Addition of a lane
Measure Analysis developed secondary effects of requires local input
Procedures.” Austin, transportation TCMs (e.g. new Parameters to forecast
Barbara S., et al. demand model _ carpooling programs may | local effectiveness;
Systems Applications | and explicitly attract transit riders default values may not
internationalCalilomia } discusses the rather than SOV riders) | be sufficient;
Air Resources Board. | calculation Participation level data
Nov 1991, SYSAPP- methodology Presents ail the primary [is required; base
91/141. used for several {equations and variables | cases need to match
transportation used to calculate the real conditions
measures: effects of TCMs
Model does not cover
Contains a step-by-step | all TCMs, but can be
Process for evaluating modified to do so
packages of TCMs
Temporal treatment is
Explains mutti-attribute limited to cn-peak/oft-
analyses as applied to peak, no spatial
multiple TCM packages | treatment

Disadvantages

Emissions calculations
are not explicitly
described in the same
fashion as travel
effects

dac

Page 121


Transportation
Measure

Rideshare
(cont.)

ONIN

Methodology

planning (cont.)

Advantages
of Methodology

Disadvantages
of Methodology

for Quantifying VT and
\VMT Reductions from
Transportation Controt
and Growth
Management Measures
for Developing Local

Ordinances.” Evans,
V. and O. Morrow.

‘Sonoma Technology,
Inc. Air & Waste

1993

Methods to quantify VT
and VMT reductions from
TCMs were based upon
(elatively simple methods
tor estimating emissions
and individual TCM
effectiveness developed
prior to this report for the
South Coast AQMD

Equivalency factor used
to convert VMT to VT can
account for region-

‘specific average trip
fengths

Expected reductions in
VT and VMT from
TCMs were estimated
based upon a general
‘survey, 50 fora
particular location
different assumptions
‘may be needed

Applicability to other
regions outside
Califomia limited by
report's use of
twansportation data
and emissions factors
in the analysis which
‘were quantified using
‘BURDEN and EMFAC
funs for 1994

(Does not Incorporate
any consideration of
Cost-etfectiveness

Distance to and
existence of Park-n-

Ride lots

Factors Analyzed

dkp

Page 99


Transportation
Measure

High-

Methodology

Disadvantages:

} Advantages of Study

Olsadvantages
of Study

Factors Analyzed

Comparison “The Effect of HOV Describes and Compares data from Does not provide cost- | Traffic growth rates
Occupancy | and analysis of Lanes in Reducing assesses demonstration projects in | effectiveness of HOV
Vehicle other studies Emissions.” Bieberitz, | analyses of several cities lanes
Facilities (cont) John A. ITE 1993 several HOV
(cont) Compendium of demonstration Estimates include traffic | Assumes HOV lanes
Technical Papers. Projects to Inform | growth rates are constructed on all
estimates of a segments of the
HOV lane use in freeways in the
the Milwaukee Milwaukee area
area
Intelligent —_| Integrated Combines the Requires very “Intelligent Describes Model integrates Relatively high cost | Operational
Transporta- | Planning/ strengths of detailed input data Transportation Systems | development and | transportation planning ‘and complexity Measures of
tion Systems ‘simulation regional Impact Assessment application of an | and traffic simulation in Effectiveness: VMT,
model transportation Requires complex Framework: Final analytical toolto | aniterative fashion, and | Locally specific input _| traffic volume,
Planning models =| computer model Report." Volpe predict ITS Includes emissions and =| data makes the |-880 | average vehicle
and traffic National Transportation | impacts, with a fuel consumption results of limited use in | speed, vehicte hours
simutation modals | Potentially high cost | Systems Center, focus on modules. other ereas of delay, fuel
touse September 30, 1995 Advanced Traffic consumption
Somewhat Management Report describes use of
applicable to Systems ‘model to analyze the Emission Measures
multiple regions potential use of ITS in the of Effectiveness:
1-880 corridor in Alameda CO, HC, NOx
Analyst can vary County, California,
input parameters modeling ramp metering, Safety Measures ot
traffic signal coordination, Effectiveness:
integrated traffic personal injury
management, incident levels, property
management, and HOV damage, total
lanes accidents
Emissions module uses
accepted EMFAC and
MOBILE factors

da.

Pel cel

—

a TS TLE 21 AE PET | SY Ae



Bicycles Comparison Relatively Results are not “An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solld overview | Report does not Impacts: vehicle dac
(cont.) and analysis of | inexpensive and | directly applicable to { Transportation Contro! | studies that of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles
other studies. simple to conduct, | other regions (they | Measures, Transport- | analyze a host of ‘| of transportation measure | for evaluating new traveled, and
because it do not Incorporate ation Technologies, ‘transportation options, as well as TCM plans, but follow- | emissions
requires no characteristics of and Pricing/Regulatory | measures, technology and policy ‘on report focuses
primary research | other regions) Policies.” Euritt, Mark | technology options upon these strategies | Costs
A., etal. University of | options, and
Provides an Unitkely to provide Texas, Austin, Center | policies fortotal | Focuses upon energy Estimates may be too
introduction to the | precise estimates for Transportation effectiveness and | efficiency impacts in rough to apply to other
range of results . ResearcivTellus costs/benefits addition to emissions and | programs In other
produced by institute. CTR SEDC- VMT regions
different studies, 1, June 1995.
which could be
used If other "Assessment of Travel | Surveys research | Provides a large number | Report does not Relative effective- dac
directly applicable ‘Demand Management {studies and of case study examples | contain a methodology | ness of various
research Is not Approaches at interviews TCM | of both effective and for forecasting the transportation
available Suburban Activity Program Ineffective TCM effectiveness of new measure programs
Centers.” Bhatt, Kiran, | coordinators to | programs TCM plans
{dentifies and Higgins, Thomas. | provide an impiementation
advantages and K.T. Analystics. U.S. overview of the Makes recommendations | Only mechanisms
disadvantages of DOT, July 1989, range of to employers on how to | evaluation of TCM
several effectiveness of | develop a TCM program | effectiveness
thodo! employer-based
met logies o TCM programs Provides a good checklist
of topics to address when
developing a TCM
program
Requires computer | *Air Quality Offeets for Uses observed price and Vehicle emissions | dac
Fleets and demand applicable to model Parking.” Loudon, uses parking travel time sensitivities database: numberof | rates
model multiple regions: William, et al. tn ‘supply model for spaces, location, type,
Potentially high cost | Transportation downtown Uses proven models of | use patterns Number of
Analyst can vary {to use Research Record 1232, | Portland, Oregon | travel behavior alternative fueled
Input parameters 1992, to estimate CO Requires travel vehicles
emissions i Integrated | database: time of
CO emissions model arrival, trave & work
mode split

9/30/98

Page 13


Transportation Advantages: Disadvantages . Disadvantages
Measure Methodology | of Methodology of Methodology Report Description Advantages of Study of Study Factors Analyzed
Trip Empirical “Employee Trip Evaluated the Estimates planning, Made generalized Trip reduction
Reduction analysis of Reduction Without cost and maintenance, and assumption of staff program
Vt) employer- Government Mandates: | effectiveness of | voluntary implementation, | costs needed to implementation
(cont. based trip Cost and Effectiveness | employee trip and incentive costs for implement trip Process utilized
reduction Estimates From teduction trip reduction programs. reduction programs
program (cont) Chicago." Pagano, Programs through Obstacies and
Anthony and JoAnn the use of an Intensive data collection, [intensive data success factors
Verdin. University of independent especially for cost collection requires:
Illinois at Chicago. evaluation of ‘estimates, including demonstration project | Program costs and
Transporation demonstration before and after surveys and surveys, or ettectiveness
Research Board Paper | projects and interviews of appiication of Chicago.
971261, 1997. implemented in program administrators area data
the Chicago area | participating in the
demonstration projects Results have limited
application to other
Addresses statistical regions, as local
relationships of Chicago variables
organization type to costs | such as availability of
and outcomes, of costs _| transit alternatives
to strategies and may have influenced
incentives, of outcomes | model results
| to strategies and
incentives, and of cost to
outcomes
Addresses differences in
outcome by
| organizational type
(factory vs. office)
Empirical Somewhat Requires large data | “An Employer Panel for | Discusses results | Utilizes the largest trip Database does not Not described
analysis of applicable to collection process to J Evaluating the collected on reduction measure provide exceptional
\ransportation | multiple regions generate statistically | Effectiveness of Trip | Southem database available in the | detail; report does not
measure significant results Reduction incentives." | Calitomia word contain details of the
implementation | Can be replicated: Giuliano, Genevieve, employment sites. fave! of incentive
programs: (at moderate cost) and Wachs, Martin. In | subject to Panel method allows for | support provided to.
Panels for SCAQMD assessing before-and- employees
Does not require Transportation Regulation Xv, after-TCM conditions
extensive and Applications, ed. | and assesses the Onty generalized
computes moda! - T.F. Golob, et al, 1997. | relative effectiveness results
: effectiveness of are shown
tip reduction
Strategies TCMs were not always
implemented at the
time of the survey

dac



"The Effects of New High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Travel and Emissions." Johnston, Robert A., and
Raju Ceerla. In Transportation Research A, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 35-50, 1996.

"The Equity and Cost Effectiveness of Employee Commute Options Programs." Farkas, Z. Andrew.
Morgan State University. TRB 960078, January 1996.

"The Impacts of Various Land Use Strategies on Suburban Mobility.” Middlesex Somerset Mercer
Regional Council (MSM). For the Federal Transit Administration. December 1992.

"The Influence of Employer Ridesharing Programs on Employee Mode Choice.” Ferguson, Erik.
Transportation, Vol. 17, 1990.

“The Los Angeles County Route 14 Vanpool and Buspoo! Demonstration Project: An Analysis of its
Effectiveness in Reducing Long Distance Commuter Trips." Blanchard, Donna et al.’ Transportation
Research Board. July 1993.

"The Odds on TODs: Examining the Potential of Transit-Oriented Development in the San Francisco Bay
Area." Luscher, Dan. Harvard University, April 1995.

“The Travel and Emissions Impacts of Telecommuting for the State of California Telecommuting Pilot
Project." Koenig, Brett E., et al. Transportation Research, Vol 4 no. 1. pp. 13-32, 1996.

"Transit-Oriented Development in the Sun Belt." Messenger, Todd, and Reid Ewing. In Transportation
Research Record 1552, 1996.

“Transportation-Related Impacts of Compressed Work Week: The Denver Experiment.” Atherton, Terry
J,, et al. In Transportation Research Record 845, 1982.

"Transportation-Related Land Use Strategies to Minimize Motor Vehicle Emissions: An Indirect Source
Research Study." Dagang, Deborah A. JHK & Associates, Inc. For California Air Resources Board. June
1995.

“Transportation Control Measure Analysis Procedures." Austin, Barbara S., et al. Systems Applications
International/ California Air Resources Board. SYSAPP-91/141, Nov 1991.

Transportation Control Measures Analyzed for the Washington Region's 15 Percent Rate of Progress
Plan.” FHWA/Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, February 1995.

“Transportation Control Measures for the San Francisco Bay Area: Analysis of Effectiveness and Costs."
Harvey, G., and E. Deakin. For Bay Area Air Quality Management District, October 1991.

"Transportation Demand Management Cost-Effectiveness Model for Suburban Employers." Dagang,
Deborah A. JHK & Associates. In Transportation Research Record 1404.

"Transportation Demand Management: Case Studies of Medium-Sized Employers.” Rutherford, G. Scott
etal. In Transportation Research Record 1459.

“Transportation Pricing and Travel Behavior." Harvey, Greig W. In Curbing Gridlock: Peak-Period Fees
to Relieve Traffic Congestion. Vol. 2. Transportation Research Board Special Report 242, 1994.

"Transportation Pricing Strategies for California: An Assessment of Congestion, Emissions, Energy and
Equity Impacts." California Air Resources Board, Report No. 92-316, June 1995.


Transportation

Trip
Reduction
(cont.)

ony,

Methodology

analysis of the
impacts of land

use
characteristics
and TDM
strategies on
mode choice

allows
‘examination of the
effects of land use
and TOM
incentive
strategies on
mode choice
individually and
combination.

Results
transferable to
other urban areas:
in terms of relative
ranking of
importance ol the
land use and TDM
factors analyzed.

impacts of factors
Such as transit
availability or urban
‘density on mode
choice cannot be
measured due to
limitations of the
database

Potential for need to
conduct extensive
fleld research to
determine land use
characteristics at
leach sample work
site.

‘Cannot be used to
determine land use
and urban design
characteristics’
impact on a specific
mode choice

Report

“The Ettects of Land

Use and Travel
Demand Management

employee travel

Los Angeles County,
and thus may be less
applicable in more
dense urban areas
with factors such as
higher average density
and transit service.

‘Share of work trips
made by bicycle as a
percentage of the total
trips in the data set is
‘small, making
Identification of work
site characteristics
that encourage
utilization of bikes
difficult.

Did not address.
residential trip end of
commute, midday
travel, o trip chaining
as factors which
influence mode choice

To simplily a
complicated data
collection process,
‘somewhat arbitrary
indicators were used
for assessment of a
site's urban design
and land use
characteristics.

Factors Analyzed

Land use and urban
design of worksite

TOM incentive
strategies

akp



Compressed
Work Week/
Flex Time
(cont.)

Transportation |.

Factors Analyzed

Level of employer

have been effort to encourage
contradicted by more | ridesharing
recent studies (0.9.,
study finds that large | Size of firm
corporations have
better success with
rideshare programs)
Aging data source:
1985 survey data
Los Angeles area
factors may be
uncharacteristic of
other regions, so
results may not be
applicable elsewhere
Employer-derived data
| was acquired using
methods
No estimates of
emissions impacts
Analysis of Analyzes actual Potential high cost “Impacts of Evaluates the Controls for individual Does not directly Type of CWW
existing CWWiliex time: associated with Compressed Work effectiveness of | and household calculate emissions schedule
Program(s) programs - [implementing travel | Week on Vehicle Trips | CWW schedules; | characteristics to isolate | Impacts
using travet diaries and Miles Traveled: quantifies VT, independent effect of Individual and
diaries Addresses travel Final Report.” School | VMT. work schedules on VT Large sample sizeis | household
behavior patterns | Does not address: of Urban and Regional and VMT needed to provide characteristics
total demand for Planning, University of statistically robust
Can differentiate | CWWifiex time Southern Califomia, for Differentiated between results
between work and the California Alr *A140" and "9/80" CWW
nonwork travel, Applicability of Resources Board, schedules Travel diaries rely on
‘and between results to other October 1994. honest recordkeeping
weekday and regions and Contract No. A132-136. ‘Sample size (and by study respondents
weekend travel conditions is therefore cost) can be
uncertain varied based on level of
statistical accuracy

desired

dao

drt


Management
(cont.)

YAOI

Transportation

Methodology

Comparison
and analysis of
other studies
(cont)

Disadvantages
of Methodology

Advantages
of Methodology

“The Equity and Cost Shows differant methods Rideshare promotion
Effectiveness of results of surveys | of using the same model: | assumed average level
Employee Commute and transportation } Travel Demand vehicle ridership
Options Programs." measure Evaluation Model targets were reached =| Parking charge level
Farkas, Z. Andrew. modeling studies | developed by COMSIS and results are only
Morgan State performed for the applicable relative to | Transit subsidy
University. TRB Baltimore and Provides a discussion of | each scenario levels:
960078, January 1996. | Philadelphia social equity
regions: considerations based on | Baltimore modeling did | Work schedule

@ Survey of the two. not estimate emissions | flexibility

fegions feductions
“Transportation Pricing | Overview paper Paper reviews empirical | Wide variability of Aggregate demand
and Travel Behavior.” [on the effects of | resuits and anecdotal results reviewed limits | elasticity
Harvey, Greig W. In transportation trom several thelr usefulness
Curbing Gridlock: ‘system pricing on | transportation pricing
Peak-Period Fees to activity pattems =| projects and studies
Relieve Traffic and travel
Congestion. Vol. 2. behavior; some Review of existing results
Transportation emissions results | focuses on aggregate
Research Board demand elasticity

Page 7

dac

CT


Measute

Trip
Reduction
(cont.)

ISOIDS

Transportation

Methodology

Empirical
analysis of the
impacts of
personal
preference and
workplace
conditions on
mode choice

of Methodology

Advantages

multiple regions:
(but fikaly to be
influenced heavily
by local factors of
the study area)

Can be replicated
(at moderate to

high cost)

Does not require
extensive

computer model

Uses actual
‘survey dala

Disadvantages
of Methodology

Requires large data
collection process to
generate statistically
significant results

Personal preference

Analyzes a large data set
comprising almost 10%

of Los Angeles area
workforce

Utilizing existing agency
database Is a cost-

effective approach

Less accurate than
disaggregated (employee
by employee) data

Inctudes cost-
effectiveness estimations

Some findings may
have been
contradicted by more
recent studies (e.9.,
study finds that large
corporations have
better success with
rideshare programs)

Aging data source:
1985 survey data

Los Angoles area
lactors may be
unchasacteristic of
other regions, so
results may not be
applicable elsewhere

Level of employer
effort to encourage
fidesharing

Size of firm

Page 129

dac


Transportation
Measure

Advantages:
of Methodology

Methodology

Parking Travel demand/
Pricing/ mode choice
Parking ‘model (cont.)
Management

(cont.)

‘of Methodology”.

EN 57D TR ae 2 ee

Disadvantages “~

Advantages of Study.

“A Survey and Analysis Clearly explains the
of Employee of new survey process that was used: home
Responses to data regarding ‘survey data acquisition, | and VMT reductions
Emptoyer-Sponsored employee travel | mode choice (only trips) Company vanpools
Trip Reduction behavior; uses computation, and TCM
Incentive Programs.” mode choice and | effectiveness model use | Household conditions | Preferential parking
Schreffler, Eric N., and | travel demand are not extensively
Mortero, Jose. model to predict | Data requirements are accounted for Parking fees for
‘COMSIS Corp. impacts of certain | more readily available ridesharers
California Air employer-based | than other models Cost-effectiveness
Resources Board, transportation was not calculated Carpool subsidies &
February 1994. measures User-friendly model is transportation
Contract No. A983-187. available for outside use; | Empioyer-level allowances

users guide is also analyses only, with

available focus upon incentive

TCMs

‘Survey links incentives

directly to impacts on

travel behavior

Model inciudes an

awareness sub-model

that simulates how many

people know about the

possible TCMs available

to them
“Estimating the Travel | Uses a Explains the main Data set not Transportation mode
and Parking Demand multinomial logit’ | variables and equations | developed for this (solo, carpool, or
Effects of Employer- model to estimate | used to compute particular modeling transit)
Paid Parking." Willson, | the influence of probabilities effort and missing key
Richard. UCTC No. 39, | employer-paid variables such as Cars per 100
University of California | parking on the includes impact of vehicle availability per | employees
Transportation Center, | mode of complementary household
Berkeley, 1992. transportation transportation measures Elasticity of demand

used to the ‘such as rideshare Model mostly useful in | for each mode
workplace incentives and flextime metropolitan area
. where parking market
is more developed



"Travel Behavior as a Function of Accessibility, Land Use Mixing, and Land Use Balance: Evidence from
the San Francisco Bay Area." Kockelman, Kara M. University of California, Berkeley. TRB 970048.

"Travel Markets: An Approach to TCM Effectiveness Evaluation." Torluemke, Donald A. Ekistic
Mobility Consultants, 1992.

"Travel, Emissions, and Consumer Benefits of Advanced Transit Technologies in the Sacramento Region.”
Johnston, Robert and Caroline Rodier. University of California, Davis. Califomia PATH Research Report,
July 1996.

"Uncertain Air Quality Impacts of Automobile Retirement Programs." Shi-Ling Hsu and Daniel Sperling.
In Transportation Research Record 1444, 1995.

"Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto Dependence and Costs." Holtzclaw, John. For
Natural Resources Defense Council, June 1994.

"Vehicle Scrappage: An Alternative to More Stringent New Vehicle Standards in California." Lyons,
James, et al. Sierra Research. For Texaco Inc. SR95-03-02. March 1995.

q


(cont.)

Centers.’ Bhatt, Kiran, | coordinators to programs TCM plans measure programs
and Higgins, Thomas. | provide an
K.T. Anatystics. U.S. overview of the Makes recommendations | Only generalized implementation
DOT, July 1989. range of to employers on howto | evaluation of TCM. mechanisms
‘attectiveness of | develop a TCM program | effectiveness
employer-based
TCM programs. Provides a good checklist
of topics to address when
developing a TCM
Program
“Parking Subsidies and | Reviews empirical | Draws out Because most case Existence of
Travel Choices: case studies of results from a variety of || studies are trom Los | employer-paid
Assessing the the relationship —_| existing case studies to {| Angeles, results may | parking
Evidence. Wilson, between show range of impacts of | not be representative
Richard W. and Donald | employer-paid employer-paid parking of other areas Travel mode (solo
C. Shoup. in parking and solo | and solo driving driver, non-solo
Transportation, vol. 17, | commuting Range of results is driver)
1990. Case studies cover a very wide, so the
variety of locations results cannot directly
(downtown and be used to accurately
suburban), employer estimate the impacts
types (public and private) | of another program
and employee categories
(professional and clerical) | Does not quantify VMT
or emissions impacts
Case study results are
reinforced by survey
findings cited in the paper
Provides an estimated
range for the elasticity of
demand for solo driving

with respect to parking

Price

on


Rideshare
(cont.)

NOS

Travel demand!
mode choice
model (cont)

of Methodology

*A Survey and Analysis.

Clearly explains the Does not accurately Guaranteed ride dac
of Employee of new survey process that was used: address trip-chaining | home
Responses to data regarding ‘survey dala acquisition, | and VMT reductions
Employer-Sponsored + |employee travel | mode choice (only trips) Company vanpoots
Trip Reduction behavior; uses computation, and TCM
Incentive Programs.” mode choice and | effectiveness model use | Household conditions | Preferential parking
Schreffier, Eric N., and | travel demand are not extensively
Mortero, Jose. model to predict | Data requirements are accounted for Parking fees for
COMSIS Corp. impacts of certain | more readily available tidesharers |
California Air employer-based | than other models. Cost-etfectiveness
Resources Board, sansportation was not calculated Carpool subsidies &
February 1994. measures: ‘User-friendly mode! is: transportation
Contract No. A983-187. available for outside use; | Employer-tevel allowances |
users guide is also analyses only, with
available focus upon incentive
TCMs
‘Survey links incentives
directly to impacts on
travel behavior .
Model includes an
awareness sub-model
that simulates how many
People know about the
possible TCMs available
fo them
“Selection and Uses Travel Uses joumey-to-work Sufficiently detailed Transit fare levels dac
] Evaluation of Travel Demand census data to develop =| journey-to-work and travel time
Demand Evaluation Model | estimates of zone-to- census data may not
Measures.” Taytor, developed by zone wavel be available for all HOV Iane time
Christopher J., et al. ‘COMSIS to cities: Syracuse has | savings
TRB 971114, January | evaluate the Evaluates both area-wide | this data available due
1997. Impact of programs and emplioyer- | to a pilot program Parking costs
‘uansportation based programs
measures on. Requires assuming Employer transit
‘mode choice and | Assesses revenue ‘some estimates of encouragement level
VT for the: generation potential and =| effectiveness:
Syracuse, NY transit subsidies
|mavopotian area Does not quantity

emissions reductions

Page 91


Measure

(cont.)

9130198,

Transportation

‘Advantages

requires no
primary research

Provides a review
of the results
produced by
different HOV
tactlities in North
America, which
could be used if
other directly

applicable
research Is not
available

Identifies
advantages and
disadvantages of
several

methodologies

Disadvantages C
Advantages of Study of Study Factors Analyzed
Outside factors
Emissions Standards: | studies on estimates of cost- too rough to apply to | affecting scrappage
A Cost-Effectiveness sscrappage cost- | effectiveness from each | other programs in programs (0.9 1&M
Analysis of Car eftectiveness; ‘study other regions programs)
Scrappage.” DeCardy, | proposes new
Christopher. Harvard | sctappage study | Identifies reasons why 4 | Does not identify all Levels of partipation
University, April 1994. | that would Studies overestimate costs and benefits of | in scrappage
develop accurate | cost-elfectiveness of ‘Scrappage programs | programs
inputs for scrapping
calculating cosi- Does not address Sources of data (e.g
effectiveness Pertorming the proposed | potential equity for emission rates,
‘study would clarity Impacts of scrappage | MOBILE vs. actual
uncertainties in cost- testing)
effectiveness: Analyzes only HC
emissions Level of bounty
offered
Aftect of scrappage
programs on market
forces
“An Assessment of Assesses several Report does not impacts: vehicle
Transportation Controt | studies that Contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles
Measures, analyze ahost of | Focuses upon energy for evaluating new traveled, and
Transportation transportation efficiency impacts in TCM plans, but follow- | emissions
Technologies, and measures, addition to emissions and | on report focuses
Pricing/Regulatory technology vMT upon these strategies | Costs
Policies.” Euritt, Mark | options, and
A,, etal. University of | policies for total Estimates may be too
Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and tough to apply to other
for Transportation costs/benefits Programs in other
ResearctvTellus - fegions
Institute. CTR SEDC-
1, June 1995.
“Uncertain Alr Quality | Identifies and Provides a Does not propose Average annual
impacts of Automobile | analyzes the Comprehensive list of suggestions to reduce | mileage and
Retirement Programs.” | areas of Parameters needed to uncertainty" remaining lite of
‘Shi-Ling Hsu and uncertainty in calculate the cost encountered in ‘retired autos
Daniel Spetting. tn determining effectiveness of a Previous studies
Tr emission impacts | scrappage program HC, NOx and CO
Research Record 1444, | of scrappage impacts of regional emissions of retired
1995. programs Identifies the reasons: differences are not autos.
why previous estimates | thoroughly discussed
are inaccurate Annual mileage of
replacement autos
and average
emissions

Wage tvs

dac

dac


Facilities
(cont.)

relatively easy and
Inexpensive

Olfferent case
studies can be

determine factors
Influencing the
effectiveness of
an HOV strategy

Studies: Historical
Trends and Project
Experiences.” Tumbull,
Katherine. Texas
Transportation Institute.
Prepared for Federal
Transit Administration,
August 1992.

‘as mode choice surveys
of HOV facility users to
draw general conciusions

Identifies measures of
effectiveness for use In
‘evaluating each of the
factors analyzed, and
provides examples of
how the case studies
relate to the different
measures

Bus service
operating efficiencies

Travel time savings

and trip time
fellability

Air quality and
energy impacts

Impacts on the
operation of the
freeway general-
Purpose tanes.
Safety

Public support

Cost-effectiveness



Transportation Advantages: Disadvantages:
of Methodology of Mathodology
Intelligent Vehicle Calculates vehicle | Queuing model is
Transporta- | queuing model | delay and vehicle |theoreticalin nature J Evaluating ATIS analytical method | emission factors to transient emissions penetration level
tlon Systems speeds, towhich {rather than empirical J Impacts on Air Quality." | for evaluating the | estimate CO, VOC, and | associated with
(cont.) emission factors Al-Deek, H. et al. emissions Impact | NOx Impacts acceleration Road network
can be applied ItIs difficult to check [| Journal of of rerouting traffic characteristics
results of theoretical } Transportation guided with ATIS | Estimates impacts of
Applicable to any {ITS studies against Engineering, vol. 121, | (using a ATIS at different levels of Traffic incident
roadway or empirical results due Jno. 4, Jul/Aug 1995, pp. | deteriministic market penetration and in characteristics
roadway type to the relatively low 1376-384. queuing model), | different years
current level of ITS and applies the
Analyst can vary | deployment method to a Can be applied to simple
input parameters simple network. | or compiex road
Requires computer Evaluates CO, networks:
Relatively low cost | model VOC, and NOx
to use impact.
Requires many
simplifying
assumptions
Empirical Requires little or | Case study results “Environmental Reviews ‘Combines general Emissions calculation | Land use and
analysis of no new data do not necessarily Considerations for environmental discussion with case. methodology and physical features
transportation | acquisition apply to other Planning Advanced factors related to | study results from an results not presented
measure tegions Traffic Management ITS strategies, actual ITS project In great detail Emissions (CO, HC,
demonstration | Relatively low cost Systems. Kraft, and presents a NOx)
Projects Walter H., and William | case study of Evaluates changes in
Shows actual A. Red, In Resource New Jersey DOT | VMT and emissions (CO, Benefit/cost ratio
potential of Papers for the 1994 1-80 Metropolitan | HC, and NOx) at the
transportation ITE International Area Guidance corridor level
measuress Conference, 1994. Information and
| Control (MAGIC) | Includes cost/benefit
Project analysis results
Tracks changes in VMT
and emissions impacts
over time

dri

dri


Alternative | Employer TOM | Estimates Results may vary “Transportation Reports on the Focus on suburban Most emptoyers: Suburban employer-
Transporta- | cost- reduction in and — | widely from one Demand Management | development ofa | employers reflects surveyed to develop based TOM
tlon-Friendly effectiveness | costs of dally trips | employer to the next | Cost-Effectiveness model to different travel-related model ware unable to | measures
Workplace model and peak period Model for Suburban characteristics of provide detailed cost
(cont.) trips Many Inputs maybe | Employers." Dagang, | evaluate the cost- | suburban and urban Information on the Dally trips and peak
difficult for Deborah A. JHK & effactiveness of || areas ‘TOM measures they | period trips.
Aids employer employers or Associates. In 15 different had Implemented
determination of . | planners to quantify | Transportation employer-based | Spreadsheet-based Costs and cost-
cost-effectiveness - [Research Record 1404. | TDM measures In | model Is use! Does not calculate effectiveness
of TDM measures suburban settings | and readily accessible for | emissions directly
for thelr particular use at the site-specific
worksite level; mode! makes Potential for regional
sensitivity analysis bias, as model was
relatively simple developed In part
based on a survey of
Eight transportation suburban San
environments were: Francisco Bay Area
defined to represent employers; model also
various combinations of || used the SCAQMD
transportation service Regulation XV and
characteristics Pima Association of
Governments Travel
For employers without Reduction Program
access to entire range of | employer plan
data necessary to databases
operate model, default
values are Included ‘Only some TOMs
Included In model
provide for estimates
of VT reductions
Use of defauit values
couid diminishes
accuracy of estimates
for some users
9/30/98

Page S


Teansportation Advantages Disadvantages , Disadvantages
of Methodology Report Description Advantages of Study of Study
Regional Regionwide tripmaking i kp
Land Use/ transportation | isolate the effect | modeling exercise; Various Land Use (interaction transportation modeling | formulas concentrated | effects of suburban,
Growth planning: on travel pattems | does not use actual Strategies on Suburban between package, which on suburban practices | higher density,
Management Inatwork model | of different land performance data Mobility.” Middlesex ‘suburban land Incorporates land use and do not provide a | mixed use centers,
use patiems from existing Somerset Mercer use trends and elements in a GIS format | good reflection of measured in:
neighborhoods Regional Councit regional traffic with a traditional four- urban tripmaking vehicte trips, level of
(MSM). For the conditions step transportation conditions vehicle miles.
Models do not Federal Transit utilizing three Planning model traveled, level of
account for many Administration. different models Study does not delay experienced,
aspects of landuse | December 1992. of high density, | Regional transportation | calculate emissions and average speed
strategies, such as mixed-use model used to evaluate | directly; transportation
mixed land uses, centers; tested effects of the 3 mixed- impacts ase measured
street characteristics the mode's use centers (transit, in Vehicle Trips and
like street and lane transportation short-drive, and walking) | Vehicle Miles Traveled
width and effects on Trenton | includes modeting of trip
landscaping, and and New generation, distribution, | Model assumes that
difterences in Brunswick mode split, and route all new development
development 1 suburban region | assignment tocates in cities or in
densities and higher-density, mixed-
parking availability use centers
Modeling analysis of
a local street
network does not
account for
interaction between
and
regional travel |
Statistical Utilizes actual Complexity of “Using Residential Evaluates the Explores some key Evaluates VMT per Annual VMT per ot
analysis of data from travel _| relationship between | Pattems and Transit to | effects of felationships between | household, butdoes | household
factors diaries, surveys, | travel behavior and Decrease Auto neighborhood often-overlooked not estimate emissions
affecting wavel | and/orlocal and =| urban form can’ Dependence and characteristics neighborhood: impacts directly Household vehicle
behavior household make It difficult to Costs.” Holtzclaw, (density, transit characteristics and travel ownership
characteristics achieve statistically | Jone. For Natural accessibility, behavior ‘Study does not
significant results Resources Defense neighborhood account for several Neighborhood
Relatively simple Council, June 1994. shopping, and ‘Uses Innovative Potentially Important | characteristics
approach (does Causality can be pedestrian techniques to account for | neighborhood (density, transit
not require difficult to establish accessibility) on | transit accessibility, characteristics,
computer household vehicle | neighborhood shopping, | including parking
modeling) Uncertain ownership and and pedestrain availability and
applicability to VMT, based on =| accessibility Proximity to the urban | pedestrian
Some results may | multiple regions (but data from 27 center accessibility)
have applicability | can be duplicated at neighborhoods in | Uses data from a wide
toother regions —_ | moderate cost, if California. variety of Calitomia Results may not be ‘Household income
necessary) Neighborhoods, from applicable outside of
central city to suburban | California
fringe
es = = a needa



Bicycles
(cont.)

Identifies some important

Cross-sectional Analyzed a Bikeway miles per
analysis of perform (i considerable database of 18 factors affecting bicycle | factors that could 100,000 population
bicycle facilities | database is database US cities to use, as well as several —_| Influence bicycle use
available) determine which | that do not affect bicycle Terrain type
Study results do not factors most use ‘Cannot predict
necessarily apply to Influence effectiveness of new =| Annual rain days
other regions: Increased bicycle facilities
use Percent students
Does not perform
before-and-after Mean high-
analysis of actual in- | temperature
use facilities
Requires larger
database to perform
more rigorous analysis
Sketch Simple tools can | Sketch planning Develops and Methodologies are Requires-extensive, Many; not specified
planning generate planning: | results are usually uses a calculation | developed specifically for | region-specific Infor-
level estimates of | not the most methodology for | the bicycle facility mation to accurately
transportation accurate, depending estimating the trip | Improvement program estimate benefits and
measure effective- | on the input reduction and alr effectiveness of the
ness atlowcost =} parameters quality benefits of | Explains calculation Program
bicycle facility process In detail
Generalized tools Improvements In, Assumes a level of
can be somewhat ‘San Luis Opispo Program participation
applicable to County (as required by the
multiple regions measure)
Analyst can vary
Input parameters

dar



Transportation
Measure

[Employee

Commute Los Angeles County,
Subsidies incentives and one or and thus may be less
(cont.) more land use site applicable In more TDM incentive
characteristics | composite availability or urban || Commuting Behavior: | characteristics characteristics. dense urban areas strategies
and TOM variables (groups | density on mode Final Report.* and travel with factors such as
strategies on of land use choice cannot be Prepared by Cambridge | demand Added land use and site | higher average density
mode choice characteristics measured due to Systematics, inc. and =| mans it Information from field and transit service.
with similar limitations of the Deakin, Harvey, (TDM) strategies | observation to the
impacts) database ‘Skabardonis, Inc. for (fora sample of | “Regulation XV" dataset | Did not address:
the U.S. Department of | employment ‘of the South Coast Air residential trip end of
Standard analysis | Potential for need to | Transportation, locations) to Quality Management commute, midday
of variance using | conduct extensive November 1994. determine the District (which included —_| travel, or trip chaining
Principle field research to combined impacts | aggregate employee as factors which
components: determine land use of TOM programs, | travel characteristics Influence mode choice
allowed _ characteristics at fand use, and employer incentive
examination of the | each sample work urban design on | programs) To simplify a
effects of land use | site. employee travel complicated data
and TOM behavior. collection process,
Incentive Cannot be used to somewhat arbitrary
strategies on determine land use indicators were used
mode choice ‘and urban design for assessment of a
Individually and in | characteristics’ site's urban design
combination. impact on a specific and land use
mode choice characteristics.
Results
transferable to
other urban areas
in terms of relative
tanking of
7 importance of the
land use and TOM
factors analyzed.

90/98

Page 39


Transportation
Measure

Pricing/
Parking
Management
(cont.)

Pe

Samm 811 IM mT

Advantages Disadvantages
Factors Analyzed
“Analysis of Indirect Uses actual survey data | Assumptions are Parking fee level da
‘survey analysis Source Trip Activity: customers of (including customer required to tansiate
(cont) Regional Shopping regional shopping | demographic and stated | stated preference data | Amount of other
Centers." Prepared by | centers to Preference data) to expected outcome | nearby parking
JHK & Associates and | determine
K.T. Analytics for the | potential impact | Developed calculation _| Does not quantify Proximity of potential
Calitomia Air of various travel methodologies specific to | emission reductions high-occupancy
Resources Board. eduction @ach trip reduction preferred parking
ARB-A-94/510, measures measure, using site-
November 1993. "| specific data
Compares data between
shopping centers in
different land-use types
‘Sketch ‘Simple toots can} Sketch planning “TCM Analyst 1.0 and | Describes a Provides a useful and Program only models} Not stated dac
Planning generate planning: | results are usually User's Guide." computerized relatively easy instruction | limited TCMs and
level estimates of | not the most Crawiord, Jason A., et} sketch planning manual for using TCM cannot model multiple:
transportation accurate, depending | al. Texas tool, TCM Analyst f Analyst 1.0 TCM packages
measure etfective- | on the input Transportation institute. | 1.0, including
ness atlowcost | parameters For the Federal input data Uses MOBILESa output | Requires several runs
‘Highway requirements, data (emission tactors) with MOBILESa to
Generalized tools Administration, methods of use, | as /nputs to the model, obtain input emission
can be somewhat [Novonbor 1994. and anoverview | providing more accurate | factors
applicable to of the model's emission benefit
multiple regions ‘structure and calculations for each Modeling on regional
calculation TCM {rather than
Analyst can vary procedures microscale) basis only
\nput parameters “Critical Analysis ot [Critical analysis | Provides a thorough Many of the inputs to | Vehicie tips a
Sketch-Planning Tools | and sensitivity review of the slate of the | the SANDAG and SAI
tor Evaluating the analysis (using Practice (as of 1983) models are difficultto | VMT
Emission Benefits of |_| data for El Paso, quantity
Transportation Control | Texas) of San Identifies weaknesses in Average vehicia
Measures." Crawford, | Diego Association | the SANDAG and SAI The SANDAG and SAI | speed
Jason A., and of Govemments | methods as well as. models do not fully
Raymond A. Krammes. | (SANDAG) TCM = | strengths account for indirect Emissions (HC, CO,
Prepared by Texas Toots method and impacts and latent NOx)
Transportation Institute | the Systems: Provides detailed sketch- | travel demand
for FHWA, FHWATX- | Applications planning analysis for Et
92/1279-S. December tntomavonal (SAI) | Paso, Texas
1993.
summaized in
TAR 1472
wen axe AD CEE Lol
(A BRR Ot * _—


Transportation
* Measure. ’,

Compressed
Work Week/
Flex Time
(cont.)

Sketch

planning (cont.)

Expected reductions In

VT and VMT from

VMT Reductions from | simple TCMs were based upon | TCMs were estimated | (percentage and
Transportation Control | methodologies for | relatively simple methods | based upon a general
and Growth quantifying for estimating emissions | survey, so fora
Measures | reductions in and individual TCM Particular location
tor Developing Local vehicie trips (VT) | effectiveness different assumptions | implemented
Trip Reduction and vehicle miles | prior to this report for the | may be needed alternative work
Ordinances.’ Evans, | traveled (VMT) South Coast AQMD week schedule
V. and D. Morrow. from TCMs, for Applicability to other
Sonoma Technology, [use inaplanning- | Perlormance-based tegions outside
inc. Alr & Waste level context; ‘approach was developed | Califomia limited by
Management Assoc. developed rather than use feport’s use of
1993, ‘originally for the =| mandated transportation | transportation data
South Coast Alr | performance standards _| and emissions factors
Basin In the analysis which

Actual experience data ‘were quantified using

used as much as. BURDEN and EMFAC

possible: estimated trip] runs for 1994

reduction levels from

each TCM was collected | Does not incorporate

from other studies, and —_| any consideration of

planning-level analysis cost-effectiveness

‘uses site-specific data

inputs, thus offering

increased precision in

emissions estimates

Ranges In VT reductions

estimates address the

Interactive Impacts of the

application of multiple

TCMs

Equivalency factor used

to convert VMT to VT can

account for region-

specific average trip

lengths



Transportation
Measure

Traftic
Management
(cont.)

OOM

Advantages Disadvantages Disadvantages
Methodology | of Methodology of Methodology Description
‘Travel demand! “Transportation Control | Describes use __| Utilized high-quality
mode choice Measures for the San and results of a household travel survey | detail on model
model (cont) Francisco Bay Area: travel demand data and advanced operation
Analysis of mode! to model} modeling capabilities
Effectiveness and VT, VMT, and
Costs.” Harvey, G., emission Emissions calculations
and €. Deakin. For reductions of uses standardized
Bay Area Air Quality various methods, but takes into
Management District, transportation account more subtle
October 1991. measures In the | effects of emissions
: San Francisco generation
Bay Area
Provides succinct, clear
data on results of study,
including cost-
etfectiveness estimates
Freeway May be applicable {Assumptions are “A Case for Freeway Uses INTRAS INTRAS model simulates | Does not clearly Ramp metering
throughput to actual corridors, | required that may Mainline Metering.” freeway model to | vehicles as separate explain fundamental intervals
model given accurate heavily Impact the Haboian, Kevin A. measure the units rather than groups, | principle behind
knowledge of key results Parsons Brinckerhott impact of ramp improving simulation effectiveness of Mainline meter
assumptions Quade & Douglas. In metering and freeway metering activation thresholds
Transportation treeway Provides average vehicle
Low to moderala Research Record 1494, | (mainline) ‘speeds on the freeway Does not assess
cost 1995. metering to for several scenarios and | Impact of vehicles
improve vehicle | metering configurations —_ diverting around
travel times and Metering point
reduce traffic
delay Does not calculate
VMT or emission
reductions
Does not discuss ways
to counter political
resistance to freeway
metering
Parking supply | Somewhat Requires computer “Air Quality Offsets for { Develops and Uses observed price and | Requires parking Average speed of
and demand applicable to model Parking.” Loudon, uses parking travel time sensitivities database: number of | vehicics
model multiple regions William, et al. in ‘supply model for spaces, location, type,
Potentially high cost | Transportation downtown Uses proven models of | use patterns
Analyst canvary | touse Research Record 1232, | Portland to travel behavior
input parameters 1992. estimate CO Requires travel
emissions Incorporates integrated —_| database: time of
CO emissions mode! arrival, travel & work
mode split

dac

dac

dac



Alternative
Transporta-
tlon-Friendly
Workplace
(cont)

9/2079

Explains lessons

analysis of teamed during the
transportation | planning and
measure Implementation of selection and committee planning transportation
planning and an actual ‘quantification process used by the measure
implementation | transportation [AfMetropol process coa during the process)
measure, such as Washington Council of | performed by the
Teactions to Governments, February | MWCOG tor Provides extensive, clear
expect from the 1995. assessing various | detall (and strengths and
Public and funding transportation weaknesses) of both the
sources measures evaluation tools used and
each specific TCM
Provides pros and evaluation method
cons of planning
and implementa- Estimates VT, VMT, &
tion methods emission reductions and
cost-effactiveness
‘Comparison Relatively Results are not “An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solid overview | Report does not impacts: vehicle
and analysis of | inexpensive and {directly applicable to | Transportation Contro! | studies that of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles
other studies simple to conduct, | other regions (they || Measures, analyze a hosto! | of transportation measure | for evaluating new traveled, and
because it do not Incorporate Transportation transportation options, as well as TCM plans, but follow- | emissions
requires no characteristics of Technologies, and measures, technology and policy ‘on report focuses
primary research | other regions) Pricing/Regulatory technology upon these strategies {| Costs
Policies." Euritt, Mark | options, and .
Provides an Unlikely to provide A., etal. University of | policies fortotal | Focuses upon energy Estimates may be too
introduction to the } precise estimates Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and | efficiency impacts In rough to apply to other
range of rasults for Transportation costs/benefits addition to emissions and | programs in other
produced by Research/Tellus vMT regions
different studies, Institute. CTR SEDC-
which could be 1, June 1995, .
Serty aetcable “Assessment of Travel | Surveys research | Provides a large number | Report does not Relative
research is not Demand Management | studies and of case study examples | contain a methodology | effectiveness of
available Approaches at interviews TCM =| of both effective and for forecasting the various
‘Suburban Activity program ineffective TCM effectiveness ofnew | transportation
Identifies Centers.” Bhatt, Kiran, | coordinators to programs TCM plans measure programs
advantages and and Higgins, Thomas. | provide an
disadvantages of K.T. Analystics. U.S. overview ofthe] Makes recommendations | Only generalized implementation
several DOT, July 1989. range of to employers on how to | evaluation of TCM mechanisms.
methodotogies effectiveness of || develop a TCM program | effectiveness -
employer-based
TCM programs Provides a good checklist
of topics to address when
developing a TCM
Program



High-

Vehicle
Facilitles

Occupancy

travel demand,
Mode choice,
traffic

emissions

Model is GIS-based, and

‘simulation, and

‘Not transferable to
other situations

Vehicle occupancy



Transportation Advantages Disadvantages : Disadvantages
Measure Methodology | of Methodology | of Methodology Report Description .| Advantages of Study of Study Factors Analyzed
Telecom- Process Explains lessons { Does not necessarily | “Transportation Control | Provides Addresses the strengths | Requires an extensive | None (factors dac
muting analysis of teamed during the |help quantify VT, Measures Analyzed for | comprehensive and weaknesses of the | study of already- analyzed are
(cont.) transportation | planning and VMT, or emissions the Washington: evaluation of the | bottom-up, multiple performed process applicable to each
measure implementation of | reductions fromthe } Region's 15 Percent selection and committee planning transportation
planning and an actual transportation Rate of Progress Plan.” | quantification Process used by the measure analyzed
implementation | transportation measure FHWA/Metropolitan process coG during the process)
measure, such as | implementation Washington Council of | performed by the
reactions to Governments, February | MWCOG for Provides extensive, clear
expect from the Cost can vary greatly | 1995. assessing various | detail (and strengths and
public and funding transportation weaknesses) of both the
sources measures, evaluation tools used and
each specific .
Provides pros and ransportation measure
cons of planning evaluation method
and
implementation Estimates VT, VMT, and
methods emission reductions and
cost-effectiveness
Comparison Relatively Results are not “An Assessment of Assesses several | Provides a solid overview | Report does not impacts: vehicle dac
and analysis of |inexpensive and | directly applicable to | Transportation Control | studies thal of the range (and effects) | contain a methodology | trips, vehicle miles
other studies ‘simple to conduct, } other regions (they Measures, analyze a hostof | of TCM options, as well | for evaluating new waveled, and
because it do not incorporate Transportation transportation as technology and policy | TCM plans, but follow- | emissions
requires no characteristics of Technologies, and measures, options ‘on report focuses
primary research | other regions) Pricing/Regulatory technology upon these strategies | Costs
Policies.” Euritt, Mark options, and Focuses upon energy
Provides a review | Untikely to provide | A., et al. University of || policies for total _| efficiency impacts in Estimates may be too
of the results Precise estimates Texas, Austin, Center | effectiveness and | addition to emissions and | rough to apply to other
produced by for Transportation costs/benelits VMT Programs in other
different HOV ResearctvTellus regions
facilitles in North Institute. CTR SEDC-
America, which 1, June 1995.
could be used if
other directly
applicable
research is not
available
Identifies
advantages and
disadvantages of
several T
methodologies

9130198 Page 119


Transportat
Measure

Rideshare
(cont.)

AOIIR

lon

Comparison
and analysis of
other studies
(cont.)

Methodology

Advantages

“Assessment of Travel | Surveys research | Provides a large number | Report does not Relative
Demand Management | studies and of casa study examples | contain a methodology | effectiveness of
Approaches at interviews TCM —_| of both effective and for forecasting the various
‘Suburban Activity program Ineffective TCM effectiveness of new _| transportation
Centers.” Bhatt, Kiran, | coordinators to programs TCM plans measure programs
J and Higgins, Thomas. | provide an
K.T. Analystics. U.S, overview of the Makes recommendations | Only generalized Implementation
DOT, July 1989. range of to employers on how to | evaluation of TCM mechanisms
eftactiveness of | develop a TCM program | effectiveness
employer-based
TCM programs Provides a good chechist
of topics to address when
developing a TCM
- program
“Parking Subsidies and | Reviews empirical | Draws out analogous Because most case Existence of
| Travel Choices: case studies of |_| results froma variety of} studies are fromLos | employer-paid
Assessing the the relationship _| existing case studies to | Angeles, results may | parking
Evidence.” Willson, between ‘show range of impacts of | nol be representative
Richard W. and Donald | employer-paid employer-paid parking of other areas Travel mode (solo
CG. Shoup. in Parking and solo | and solo driving driver, non-solo
Transportation, vol. 17, | commuting Range of resuits is driver)
1990. Case studies cover a very wide, so the
variety of locations results cannot directly
(downtown and be used to accurately
suburban), employer estimate the impacts
types (public and private) | of another program
and employee categories
(professional and clerical) | Does not quantify VMT
or emissions impacts
Case study results are
reinforced by survey
findings cited in the paper
Provides an estimated
range for the elasticity of
demand for solo driving
with respect to parking
price

dan

Page 104


] Transportation

AIDS

Methodology

Advantages

of other
transportation
measures that
impact older
vehicles, such as
UM and emissions
fees .

Disadvantages

Level of precision
most applicable to
small-scale
Programs, as models
of this type usuatly
will not capture price
effects on the used-
car market following
withdrawal of a large
fraction ofthe.
existing old vehicles

Models of this type
are theoretical rather
‘than empirical, and
therefore may not
accurately
characterize
participation rates
‘and other aspects of
seal-world behavior

Remaining lite and

Uses available

Advantages of Study

Disadvantages
of Study

Operating costs not

Factors Analyzed

Fleet composition

of Scrappage.” Hahn, | number and value | EMFAC7E emission Inctuded in economic
Robert W. American | of old vehiclesto |rates assessment Vehicle ‘Gold Book”
Enterprise institute, determine costs value
July 1993. and benefits of Uses available fleet EMFAC7E factors are
scrappage composition figures Calitomia-specitic Replacement vehicte
Program characteristics
Uses available "Gold Assumes unknown
Book" vehicle value human factors and Variable discount
figures behaviors rates
Interaction with 1&M
Programs
“Estimating an Study develops | Analysis is based on Survey data used is Individual owner
Emissions Supply methodology extensive surveys of old | specific to scrappage | behavior and
Function from which predicts vehicle owners and Program in Delaware | vehicie’s remaining
Accelerated Vehide participation vehicle emissions testing | 1992-93, so results life
Retirement Programs." |rates, expected _| data collected through a | may not be applicable
Alberini, Anna et al. remaining lite, particular scrappage to other regions and Minimum willingness
Resources for the and an emissions | program Programs to accept bounty
Future, January 1994. {supply function at amount; also
‘altemative offer | Study develops empirical | Sample of owners determined by blue
prices for several | measure of the link ‘surveyed did not book value, condition
types of pre- between vehicle Tepresent a random of car, and past and
1980s vehicle condition and expected =| sample of the future costs of
scrap programs =| remaining life, and population of pre-1980 | operating the car
owner's estimation of vehicle owners
vehicle vaiue to
. determine costs and Scope of data on
emission reduction emissions of scrapped
potential of program vehicles is limited as
only a sample of
‘Study conducts surveys | vehicies valued at less
of participants and non- | than the bounty
Participants for amount offered were
information about tested
remaining life and usa..6
of scrapped vehicle Assumes that
scrapped vehicie

replacement is from
“average” fleet in
terms of emissions

levels

kp

Page 105


Figure 2. Heirarchy of quantification methodologies included in matrix

CaTnnaun—

10
I
12

13
14
15
16
17
18

19
120
21
22
123

24
125
[26
27
28
29

30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Modeling

Integrated travel demand, mode choice, traffic simulation, and emissions model
Integrated planning/simulation model

Travel demand/mode choice model

Modal emissions model

Conventional transportation planning network model
Vehicle queuing model

Freeway throughput model

Travel cost model

Demand elasticity model

Economic scrappage supply curve model

Vehicle fleet characterization and emissions model
Emission dispersion model (used for freeways)

[Statistical and empirical analysis

Statistical analysis of average speed of congestion pricing scenarios

Use of economic theory to estimate congestion price levels ”

Statistical analysis of the impacts of land use characteristics and TDM strategies on mode choice
Empirical analysis of the impacts of personal preference and workplace conditions on mode choice
Statistical analysis of factors affecting travel behavior

Parking supply.and demand model

Analysis of existing program(s) using travel diaries

Empirical analysis of employer-based trip reduction program
Empirical analysis of transportation measure implementation programs
Empirical analysis of transportation measure demonstration projects
Statistical analysis of employer ridesharing initiatives

|Sample survey analysis

Sample surveys of ridematching database program success

Sample survey of customer travel pattems and preferences at shopping centers
Sample survey of employer trip reduction program cost

Sample survey analysis of existing program(s)

Transportation survey analysis

Sample surveys

|General ti is

Macro-level analysis

Evaluative matrix

Cross-sectional analysis of bicycle facilities

Sketch planning

Employer TDM cost-effectiveness model

Case study analysis

Policy analysis of transportation measures

Process analysis of transportation measure planning and implementation
Comparison and analysis of other studies



Uses observed price and

Disadvantages

Requires parking

Factors Analyzed

Pricing! and demand applicable to model Parking.” Loudon, ‘uses parking travel time sensitivities | database: number of
Parking model muttiple regions: Witiam, et al. tn ‘supply model for spaces, location, type,
Management Potentially high cost [Ts ‘downtown Uses proven mode's of || use pattems
(cont.) Analyst can vary | to use Research Record 1232, | Portland to travel behavior
. input parameters 1982. estimate CO Requires travel
. emissions incorporates Integrated —_| database: time of
CO emissions model artival, trave & work
mode spiit
Empirical Somewhat Requires large data || ‘An Employer Panel for | Discusses results | Utilizes the largest trip Database does not Not described
analysis of applicable to collection process to | Evaluating the collected on reduction measure provide exceptional
‘ranspontation | multiple regions generate statistically } Effectiveness of Trip Southem database avaiable in the | detail; report does not
measure ‘significant results Reduction incentives.” | Califomia word . | contain details of the
implementation | Can be repticated Glullano, Genevieve, fj employment sites. level of incentive
Programs (at moderate cost) and Wachs, Martin. In | subject to Panel mathod allows for | support provided to
Panels for SCAQMD assessing before-and- employees:
Does not require Transportation Planning | Regulation XV, after-TCM conditions
extensive and Applications, ed. and assesses the Only generalized
computer model T.F. Golob, et al, 1997. | relative effectiveness results
ottectiveness of are shown
trip reduction
strategies =~ TCMs were not always
implemented at the
time of the survey
“Reducing Drive-Alone | Evaluates the Attitudinal survey Uses small data sets | Program cost and
Rates at Small cost effectiveness | includes the influences of | therefore results vary | distribution of cost
Employer Sites: Costs | of a buliding- building tenant company | widely with the
and Benefits of Local based trip size as well as schedule | behavior of a few Benefits to
Trip Reduction reduction plan and lifestyle of Individuals developer, tenants
Ordinances: Pasadena | implemented in employees: and city
- Towers Case Study.” compliance to a Does not establish a
Stewart, Jacquetine. In | local ordinance iu standard to evaluate | Average vehicle
Transportation Pasadena, average vehicle tidership
Research Record 1433, | Califomia ridership results
1994, obtained
Results may not be
transferable to other
Ea SATPIOVEF sites or : eer
, fegions
Mee te “AUER itt
- . Does not quantify

emission impacts

dac

dac


NSN

~~

Congestion
Pricing
{cont.)

9/30/98

Travel demand/
mode choice
model (cont.)

Excellent overview of the

dac

Travel Demand broad range of range of TDMs possible; | requires local Input impact
Management TOM measures, | provides description, parameters to forecast
Measures: Inventory of | provides example | nature of effectiveness, | focal effectiveness Cost-effectiveness
Measures and case study application setting,
Synthesis of analyses of each, | effectiveness potential, | Model does not
Experience." COMSIS |and uses and cost an
Corporation. USDOT, | computer model emissions calculation
September 1993. ito benchmark the | Uses actual! case studies | module
DOT-T-94-02, effectiveness of | to Inform the use of a
. leach TOM computer model for Most analysis is at the
forecasting TOM empioyer-level rather
effectiveness than the area-level
Provides a road-map to
implementing TOMs
“The Effectiveness of | Describes a Model has a user manual | Use of the mode! Participation level dac
Transportation Control | developed that leads the analyst requires local Input
Measures In Reducing transportation step-by-step through the | parameters to forecast
Congestion and demand model Input of data for region: local effectiveness;
Improving Alr Quality.” | that Integrates specific analyses default values may not
Loudon, William R.,et emissions be sufficient
al. JHK & Associates. | calculations; Contains extensive cost-
Air & Waste provides example | effectiveness module
Management catculations from
Association Annual tha model Can be used at elther
Meeting & Exhibition regional or a smaller area
1993. AWMA 93-RP- or location
149.05.
Includes exhaust and
evaporative emissions:
“Transportation Control | Describes use Utilized high-quality Does not provide Many; not specified | dac
Measures for the San |andresultsofa | household travel survey | detail on model
Francisco Bay Area: travel demand data and advanced operation
Analysis of Model! to model modeling capabilities
Effectiveness and VT, VMT, and
Costs.” Harvey, G., emission Emissions calculations
and E, Deakin. For reductions of use standardized
Bay Area Air Quality various methods, but take into
Management District, | transportation account more subtle
October 1991. measures inthe | effects of emissions
San Francisco generation
Bay Area -
Provides succinct, clear
data on results of study,
including cost-
affactiveness estimates

Page 27


Transportation

demonstration
projects (cont)

Advantages

of Methodology

Disadvantages:
of Methodology

Advantages of Study

Utilizes existing data
from telecommuting pilot
Projects to draw general
conclusions on travel, air
quality and energy
impacts in short and long
term

Selected pilot projects
evaluated represented a
mix of telecommuting
Project evaluation
methodologies and
varied geographic
coverage

Presents an ideal method
for evaluating the

transportation impacts of
telecommuting programs

projects In different
locations (each with
unique factors such as.
weather, transit
issues, and trattic
congestion levels);
therefore, conclusions
drawn could include
errors of comparability
of data

Pilot projects chosen
disproportionately
represent westem
Us.

Only one pilot project
included in study
quantified emissions
(used Calitomia
EMFACTE and
BURDEN7E emissions
Inventory models)

Differences in data
and methodologies
trom pilot projects
Influences precision in
evaluation of a number
of factors

Travel impacis:
commute, total
weekday, and

household travel

Energy impacts:
transportation,
household and net
energy

Alr quatity impacts

Potential long-term
impacts



‘Transportation

Rideshare

AWK

Advantages

‘Analyst can vary
input parameters

Disadvantages |

of Methodology

travel cost data

Requires complex
computes model

Potentially high cost
touse

Report Description
“Implementing Effective | Summarizes:
Travel Demand broad range of
Management TDM measures, parameters to forecast | employer:
Measures: Inventory o! | provides example | nature of effectiveness, | local effectiveness Information,
Measures and ‘case study application setting, matching services,
Synthesis of analyses of each, | effectiveness potential, | Mode! does not preterential parking,
Experience." COMSIS | and uses and cost incorporate an tide home programs
Corporation. USDOT, | computer model emissions calculation
September 1993. to benchmark the | Uses actual case studies | module Average vehicle
DOT-T-94-02. effectiveness of | to inform the use of a tidership
each TOM computer model for Most analysis is at the
. forecasting TOM employer-level rather
effectiveness than the area-level
Provides a road-map to
implementing TOMs
“The Effectiveness of | Describes a Mode! has a user manual | Use of the mode! Employee incentives
Transportation Control | developed that leads the analyst fequires tocal input
Measures in Reducing | transportation step-by-step through the | parameters to forecast
Congestion and demand mode! —_| input of data for region _| local effectiveness;
Improving Air Quality.’ | that integrates —_| specific analyses defauit values may not
| Loudon, William A. emissions be sufficient
al. JHK & Associates. | calculations; Contains extensive cost-
Air & Waste provides example | effectiveness module
Management calculations from
Assocation Annual the model Can be used at either
Meeting & Exhibition regional or a smaller area
1993. AWMA 93-RP- oF location
149.05.
Includes exhaust and
evaporative emissions

dac

Page 89


Utilizes data from
existing study on
changes in travel
behavior as input to
analysis

Statistical analysis is
falrly simple and could be
replicated for any data
sets from travel demand
and emission rate models:

Incorporates uncertainty
associated with the use.
of speed correction
factors