EPA’s Local Government Climate and Energy 

Strategy Series

The Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series provides a comprehensive, straightforward overview of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction strategies that local governments can employ. Topics include energy efficiency, 

transportation, community planning and design, solid waste and materials management, and renewable energy. City, 

county, territorial, tribal, and regional government staff, and elected officials can use these documents to plan, implement, 

and evaluate climate and energy projects. 

Each document in the series provides an overview of project benefits, policy mechanisms, investments, key stakeholders, 

and other implementation considerations. Examples and case studies highlighting achievable results from programs implemented in communities across the United States are incorporated throughout the series.

EPA’s State and Local Climate and Energy Program developed this particular document on Transportation Control 

Measures (TCMs) jointly with EPA’S Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ). OTAQ serves as the Agency’s 

primary source for information, tools, and other resources that identify emission reduction strategies, national policies, 

regulations, incentive-based programs, funding sources, calculators, and other types of assistance to help states and local 

areas reduce emissions from transportation sources. More information on TCMs and other transportation and air quality 

topics can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/index.htm. 

While each strategy document stands on its own, the entire series contains many interrelated strategies that can be 

combined to create comprehensive, cost-effective programs that generate multiple benefits. For example, efforts to improve 

energy efficiency can be combined with transportation and community planning and design programs to reduce GHG 

emissions, decrease the costs of energy and transportation for businesses and residents, improve air quality and public 

health, and enhance quality of life. 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLIMATE AND ENERGY STRATEGY SERIES

All documents are available at www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/resources/strategy-guides.html.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

■ Energy Efficiency in Local Government Operations

■ Energy Efficiency in K-12 Schools 

■ Energy Efficiency in Affordable Housing

■ Energy-Efficient Product Procurement

■ Combined Heat and Power

■ Energy Efficiency in Water and Wastewater Facilities

TRANSPORTATION

■ Transportation Control Measures

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DESIGN

■ Smart Growth

■ Urban Heat Island Reduction

SOLID WASTE AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

■ Resource Conservation and Recovery

RENEWABLE ENERGY

■ Green Power Procurement

■ On-Site Renewable Energy Generation 

■ Landfill Gas Energy 

Please note: All Web addresses in this document were working as of the time of publication, but links may break over time 

as sites are reorganized and content is moved.
CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ________________________________________________________________ii

Executive Summary________________________________________________________________ iii

1. Overview _________________________________________________________________________1

2. Benefits of Transportation Control Measures ____________________________________2

3. Transportation Control Measures ________________________________________________5

4. Key Participants _________________________________________________________________11

5. Foundations for Program Development ________________________________________ 14

6. Strategies for Effective Program Implementation ______________________________ 15

7. Costs and Funding Opportunities ______________________________________________ 18

Costs ____________________________________________________________________________ 18

Funding Opportunities______________________________________________________________ 18

8. Federal, State, and Regional Policy and Program Resources____________________ 21

9. Case Studies____________________________________________________________________ 23

City of Bellevue, Washington—Commute Trip Reduction _________________________________ 23

Program Initiation ______________________________________________________________ 24

Program Features_______________________________________________________________ 24

Program Results ________________________________________________________________25

City of Santa Monica—Transportation Control Measures__________________________________26

Program Initiation ______________________________________________________________26

Program Features_______________________________________________________________ 27

Program Results ________________________________________________________________ 27

10. Additional Examples and Information Resources _____________________________ 28

11. References ____________________________________________________________________ 30
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed 

their time and expertise to the development and review of this guide for the Local Government Climate and Energy 

Strategy Series. The following contributors provided significant assistance in bringing this document to fruition:

EPA—Leila Cook, Nicole Lents, Brian Ng, Mark Simons, Megan Susman, and Emma Zinsmeister.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development—Audrey Buehring, Michael Freedberg, Regina Gray, Richard 

Santangelo, and Edwin Stromberg.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Developing and Implementing 

Transportation Programs

Transportation accounts for 33 percent of U.S. carbon 

dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuel, 

and can account for a significant portion of a local 

government’s or household’s budget. Additionally, 

transportation generates air pollution (criteria pollutants and air toxics) that endangers public health. 

Efforts to improve the efficiency of transportation, 

reduce personal vehicle use, and encourage alternative 

forms of transportation help reduce air pollution and 

GHG emissions, improve energy security and independence, and save money.

Local governments can improve the efficiency of their 

own fleets by minimizing fuel consumption and emissions through reducing vehicle use, purchasing clean 

and efficient vehicles, and increasing their use of more 

efficient alternative fuels. Local governments can also 

employ strategies that reduce transportation-related 

air pollution in their jurisdictions by reducing vehicle 

use and encouraging more efficient use of transportation facilities. This document describes the process of 

developing and implementing transportation control 

measures, using real-world examples. 

Transportation Control 

Measures

Transportation control measures (TCMs) are strategies 

that reduce transportation-related air pollution, GHG 

emissions, and fuel use by reducing vehicle miles traveled and improving roadway operations. Vehicle use 

can be reduced through less-polluting transportation 

alternatives, such as public transit, and strategies that 

decrease the need for vehicle trips, such as telecommuting. TCMs may also focus on making travel more 

efficient by carefully managing the transportation 

system. This document describes how various TCMs 

can reduce the demand for fuels, decrease GHG emissions and local air pollutants, and reduce infrastructure 

and travel costs for the community, residents, and local 

businesses. It is designed to be used by city planners, 

local transportation managers and agencies, mayors 

and city councils, metropolitan planning organizations, 

regional planning agencies, and employers.

Readers of this document should come away with an 

understanding of the issues and steps involved in developing and implementing TCMs, as well as an awareness 

of the challenges and opportunities presented.

This information document describes the benefits of 

TCMs (Section 2); types of TCMs (Section 3); key 

participants and their roles (Section 4); policy mechanisms that local governments have used to support 

TCMs (Section 5); implementation strategies for effective TCMs (Section 6); costs and funding opportunities 

(Section 7); federal, state, and regional policy and 

program resources (Section 8); and finally, two case 

studies of local governments that have successfully 

implemented TCMs (Section 9). Additional examples of 

successful implementation are provided throughout the 

document.

Background on this Document

Section 108 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, 

requires EPA to prepare, and make available from time 

to time, information regarding the formulation and 

emission reduction potential of TCMs. In addition, 

many state and local government agencies are currently 

seeking information on how TCMs can support their 

efforts to reduce GHG emissions and conserve energy. 

This document has been developed to provide a source 

of information on the development, implementation, and effects of TCMs. It is intended to provide a 

comprehensive, straightforward overview of TCMs that 

have been implemented for a variety of reasons, such 

as reducing GHGs and criteria air pollution emissions, 

conserving fuel and reducing energy costs, improving 

public health, and enhancing quality of life. State, city, 

county, territorial, tribal, and regional government planning staff, elected officials and other decision-makers 

can use this information to learn about the experiences 

with TCMs of other areas. In addition, those experiences may inform decisions about the applicability and 

effectiveness of these strategies. 

The information in this document was collected in 

2007 and 2008 (with updates and revisions to some of 

the information in 2009 and 2010) based on a literature review of case studies, project reports, guidance 

documents, and other transportation policy tools and 

resources. Several resources came from federal sources, 

including the Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Department of Transportation. The document also 

draws on research from non-governmental institutions that specialize in transportation policy, including 

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series Executive Summary iii
the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, the Center 

for Clean Air Policy, the Brooking Institution, and 

Resources for the Future. Project-specific information 

came from published case studies, project documents, 

news articles and project websites. Examples cited 

in the document were chosen to illustrate a range of 

options available to local governments from across 

the country and from jurisdictions of various sizes. 

Particular attention was paid to gathering examples 

for which information on concrete, quantifiable results 

(e.g., reduced travel time, decreased fuel use, emissions 

reductions, etc.) were reported. Project-specific information was supplemented by quantitative information 

from research studies on the effectiveness of several 

types of TCMs. Information on results from individual 

projects and/or TCM strategies was taken directly from 

the documents reviewed; no independent verification 

of results was conducted. 

Relationships to Other 

Documents in the Strategy 

Series

Local governments can use other documents in this 

series to develop robust climate and energy programs 

that incorporate complementary strategies. For 

example, local governments may combine transportation control measures with smart growth strategies 

and energy-efficient affordable housing to develop 

integrated plans for community development that 

strategically utilize public transit, take advantage of 

existing infrastructure, and make housing affordable 

for residents with a range of incomes, all while reducing GHG emissions and air pollution. Local governments can also reduce their own transportation-related 

energy use and GHG emissions by operating efficient 

fleets and implementing other measures to improve 

energy efficiency in local government operations.

See the box at right for more information about these 

complementary strategies. Additional connections to 

related strategies are highlighted in the document.

RELATED STRATEGIES IN THIS SERIES

■ Community Planning and Design: Smart Growth

Smart growth involves development that serves the 

economy, the community, the environment, and public 

health. Smart growth principles favor the strategic location of transit services in residential or commercial areas, 

complementing efforts to use TCMs to reduce a community’s vehicle miles traveled, transportation-related 

energy use, and GHG emissions.

■ Energy Efficiency: Energy Efficiency in Affordable 

Housing

Energy costs can contribute substantially to the overall 

financial burden of housing, and can make housing 

unaffordable for many families. Lower home energy use, 

combined with TCMs that reduce the need for personal 

vehicle use, can lead to substantial reductions in the total 

energy-cost burden of low-income residents.

■ Energy Efficiency: Energy Efficiency in Local 

Government Operations

Local governments can implement energy-saving 

measures in existing local government facilities, new 

and green buildings, and day-to-day operations. Many 

local governments are improving the energy efficiency of 

traffic operations by replacing conventional traffic signals 

with energy-efficient, light-emitting diode traffic signals, 

which complements the use of TCMs by further reducing 

transportation-related energy use and GHG emissions.

iv Executive Summary Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
Transportation 

Control Measures

1. OVERVIEW

NOTE: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) believes that there is great value in sharing this 

survey of information. However, many of the actions 

described here have not been determined to be best practices for all communities and situations. The multiplicity 

of actions discussed in this document may have different 

benefits that depend on a jurisdiction’s transportation 

infrastructure, commuting and other transportation 

patterns, funding availability, and other contextual 

factors. 

Many local governments are adopting Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) to address a variety 

of social, economic, and environmental issues. When 

properly implemented, TCMs can reduce demand for 

fuels, decrease GHG emissions, local and regional air 

pollutants, and reduce infrastructure and travel costs 

for the community, residents, and local businesses. 

TCMs can also influence behavior and lead to changes 

in transportation choices. These changes can both 

increase the quality of life and reduce costs for individuals and employers. 

For the purpose of this document, a TCM is defined 

broadly as a strategy that reduces transportationrelated air pollution by reducing vehicle use and 

encouraging more efficient use of transportation 

facilities.1

 Vehicle use can be reduced through strategies that decrease the need for vehicle trips, such as 

1 EPA notes that this document may include more strategies than are defined 

as TCMs for State Implementation Plans and other purposes. First, Clean Air 

Act section 108(f) identifies 16 types of TCMs, which are focused on improving traffic flow; reducing single occupancy vehicle travel, cold start emissions, 

and vehicle idling; increasing use of ridesharing, transit, and non-motorized 

modes; encouraging flexible work schedules; and encouraging early retirement of pre-1980 vehicles. Additional types of strategies can also be TCMs 

as determined by the Administrator in consultation with the Secretary of 

Transportation. This statutory provision can be viewed at: http://www.law.

cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007408----000-.html. 

Second, transportation agencies also need to ensure timely implementation of 

approved SIP TCMs, as defined in the transportation conformity regulation 

(40 CFR 93.101 and 93.113). The transportation conformity regulation’s definition of TCMs applies only to those measures that are in an approved SIP, are 

eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws, and are 

not vehicle technology-based, fuel-based, and maintenance-based measures 

that control the emissions from vehicles under fixed traffic conditions. For 

more information on including TCMs in State Implementation Plans, please 

see the discussion in Section 8, Federal, State, and Regional Policy and 

Program Resources.

TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES

Transportation control measures (TCMs) are a variety 

of strategies that reduce vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) and improve roadway operations to reduce air 

pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and fuel use from 

transportation, including:

• Public transportation improvements

• Congestion relief projects

• Incentives to encourage bicycling and walking

• Expanded commuter choices

• Workplace flexibility to reduce commuting 

• Value pricing

The most appropriate and effective TCMs will vary from 

community to community depending on a number 

of factors, such as local capacity and the existing 

infrastructure. However, developing a comprehensive 

plan that includes a range of complementary TCMs will 

help to maximize the benefits that are realized.

telecommuting, and strategies that provide viable 

and less-polluting transportation alternatives (e.g., 

public transit, walking, and bicycling) when trips are 

necessary. TCMs that focus on reducing congestion 

reduce emissions by making travel more efficient. 

For example, reducing congestion lowers emissions 

by avoiding unnecessary vehicle idling. TCMs often 

target routine transportation needs, such as commuting to work, where 75 percent of all trips are made 

by single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) [U.S. DOT, 

Undated (a)].

This information document provides information on how local governments have planned and 

adopted TCMs. It includes an overview of measures, 

benefits, costs, sources of funding, and examples and 

case studies. Additional examples and information 

resources are provided at the end of this document 

in Section 10, Additional Examples and Information 

Resources. Please note that the benefits resulting from 

TCMs will vary from location to location based on 

site-specific factors, such as existing development 

patterns, fleet mix, and average vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT). Implementing the same TCMs in two different communities may yield very different results, 

thus the examples presented in this document are 

meant to be illustrative of what particular communities have achieved given their local conditions. 

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 1. Overview 1
Local governments can combine TCMs with other 

strategies covered in the Local Government Climate 

and Energy Strategy Series to develop comprehensive, 

robust programs that provide integrated social and 

environmental benefits. For example, local governments can integrate TCMs, smart growth strategies, 

and energy-efficient affordable housing to put development in locations that are well-connected to the region 

by public transit, take advantage of existing infrastructure, and are affordable for residents with a range of 

incomes. The cost of living in these locations is lower 

because they offer more transportation options and 

are closer to housing, jobs, and services. Development 

in these locations allows people to drive less, which 

reduces GHG emissions and air pollution. Please see 

the strategy documents on smart growth and energy 

efficiency in affordable housing for more information 

on these complementary strategies.

2. BENEFITS OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

CONTROL MEASURES

TCMs can produce significant environmental, 

economic, and social benefits by helping local 

governments:

■ Reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality.

Through strategies such as reducing the number of 

miles traveled by SOVs, TCM policies can reduce emissions from vehicles (Johnston, 2006; Litman 2007). 

The specific amount of emission reductions varies by 

the type of TCM policy, how broadly it is applied, the 

type of pollutant, and the time period. Some resources 

are available to help cities estimate reductions in emissions from TCM strategies and/or reductions in VMT 

(CCAP, 2008; Litman 2007; ICLEI, Undated). These 

types of tools, along with the results of modeling studies and retrospective evaluations of TCM programs, 

illustrate some of the emissions benefits from TCM 

strategies:

ӹ In 2004, Resources for the Future evaluated five 

pilot city “ecommute” telework projects in Denver; 

Washington, DC; Houston; Los Angeles; and 

Philadelphia, and concluded that between 3,600 

and 5,300 teleworkers (spending 35 percent of 

their days teleworking) could collectively reduce 

25 tons of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions annually (Walls and Nelson, 2004). Another 

study of telecommuting programs in California 

found that individual telecommuters reduced 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 69 percent 

and particulate matter (PM) by 78 percent (Walls 

and Safirova, 2004).

ӹ A modeling study by the Puget Sound Regional 

Council examined the impact of tolling on major 

highways and arterials in the region and concluded 

that such tolls would reduce congestion and travel 

time and lead to a region-wide 10 percent reduction in CO2

 emissions, a 5 percent reduction in 

NOx, an 8 percent reduction in PM, and an 11.5 

percent reduction in VOCs (PSRC, 2009).

ӹ A 2008 study by the Brookings Institution concluded that nationwide pay-as-you-drive auto insurance—which provides a financial incentive to drive 

fewer miles—would have the same effect as a $1.00 

per gallon gas tax and could reduce nationwide 

CO2 emissions by 2 percent and oil consumption 

by 4 percent (Bordoff, 2008a).

ӹ A tool developed by the Center for Clean Air 

Policy to estimate the benefits of TCM measures 

estimates that public transit service improvements 

that lead to a 10 percent increase in transit ridership in a municipality that sees 5 million trips per 

day could result in annual CO2, NOx, PM10, and 

PM2.5 reductions equivalent to the annual emissions of nearly 3,000 passenger vehicles (U.S. EPA 

2009).

2 2. Benefits Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
■ Reduce energy and travel costs. TCMs can save individuals, employers, and local governments money on 

energy and other transportation costs. Employers who 

reduce employee parking demand can realize savings 

through reduced parking infrastructure costs. One 

study estimates that employers could save $360–$2,000 

per parking space annually, depending on the land, 

construction, and operations costs for their location 

(suburban or urban) and type of parking (surface, 

structured, or underground) (U.S. EPA, 2005a). One 

way employers can reduce parking demand is by helping employees form carpools and vanpools through 

efforts such as rideshare matching. In the San Francisco Bay Area, employees using vanpools have reported 

saving up to $3,000 or more a year per person on gas, 

car maintenance, and wear and tear (U.S. EPA, 2005e). 

For lower-income workers, the savings in transportation costs can be significant and may allow them to 

rent or buy homes in more convenient locations, such 

as those with access to public transit (see EPA’s Local 

Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series: Energy 

Efficiency in Affordable Housing for more information). 

TCMs can also reduce congestion and total VMT, 

which can lead to significant fuel savings. For example, 

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimates that 

42.5 million gallons of fuel were wasted in 2005 due to 

congestion in Denver, Colorado [U.S. DOT, Undated 

(b)]. Eliminating this waste would reduce CO2

 emissions by nearly 374,000 metric tons [U.S. EPA, Undated 

(c)], which would equate to 8.5 percent of the transportation-related GHG emissions reported for 2005 in 

Denver’s GHG inventory and 13.5 percent of emissions 

associated with cars, light trucks, and SUVs in the city 

(Ramaswami et al., 2007). Although there is no “silver 

bullet” for alleviating congestion, a variety of TCMs 

can be implemented to improve traffic operations and 

promote alternative forms of transportation, resulting 

in reduced fuel consumption, emissions reductions, 

and energy savings for drivers and fleet owners. 

■ Demonstrate leadership. Public agencies can lead by 

example by adopting TCM programs for their own 

operations that they hope to see adopted by the private 

sector, such as telecommuting, flextime, compressed 

workweeks, staggered work hours, and incentives for 

public transportation and ridesharing. 

In 2006, the City of Bellevue, Washington, 

made a choice to lead by example and 

strengthen the incentives for city employees 

to rideshare and use transit by offering free Flexcar 

(now Zipcar) services to employees who left their 

cars at home. Shared cars were made available for 

errands and unexpected meetings in response to 

employees’ concerns that leaving their cars at 

home might leave them stranded during the day. 

By partnering with Flexcar, the city helped 

increase the number of shared cars stationed at 

central parking locations and, as a result, a 

number of private businesses also signed up to use 

Flexcar services to promote ridesharing among 

their employees. The free use of shared cars for city 

employees was part of a larger Commute Trip 

Reduction (CTR) Plan designed to reduce the 

number of SOV trips and VMT in Bellevue (Auto 

Channel, 2006). (More detailed information on 

Bellevue’s comprehensive CTR Plan and the results 

it has achieved can be found in Section 9, Case 

Studies.)

■ Increase community choices and reduce traffic 

congestion. TCMs can reduce traffic congestion by 

reducing the number of SOVs on the road and making 

travel more efficient. Compressed workweeks, flextime, 

park-and-ride services, ridesharing, and telecommunicating are all effective TCM strategies—especially for 

commuters. 

In 1992, the Chattanooga Area Regional 

Transportation Authority created a free 

downtown shuttle system with 11 zero-emissions electric buses to help reduce traffic and 

improve air quality in downtown Chattanooga, 

Tennessee. The system allows people to park at 

either the north or south end of downtown and 

take the shuttle to their destinations rather than 

drive through the core of the city (Travel Matters, 

2002). As of 2007, this service has recorded more 

than 11 million passenger trips and run nearly 2 

million miles, avoiding an estimated 65 tons of 

pollutants (Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority, 2009).

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 2. Benefits 3
While these kinds of efforts can avoid emissions from 

the vehicles of drivers who choose to travel by other 

means (or not at all), consideration must be given 

to “induced demand” when estimating the benefits. 

Induced demand occurs when improvement in travel 

conditions makes it more attractive for drivers to use 

roadways, offsetting some of the initial congestion 

and air quality benefits of TCMs (see the text box 

Accounting for Indirect Effects of Reducing Congestion

on page 4). The evaluation of strategies that change the 

actual or perceived generalized cost of travel should 

explicitly consider how households and businesses will 

likely respond to these changes over time.

ACCOUNTING FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS OF REDUCING 

CONGESTION

Benefits from policies that reduce highway congestion 

may be partially offset by additional driving that occurs 

in response to the improved travel conditions. This 

additional travel is known as “induced demand” and can 

be an important consideration in estimating the travel 

and emissions impact of TCMs and other transportation 

system improvements. Because reductions in congestion 

brought about by these strategies can be partially offset 

by additional travel from drivers who are attracted to the 

less congested roads, careful analysis of the direct and 

indirect travel activity effects of a project is warranted. 

The induced travel is likely to come partly from changes 

in travel patterns (new trips and longer trips), and partly 

from shifts of travelers from other times of day, routes, 

and modes (such as transit). Accurate project evaluation 

must consider the impact of induced demand; otherwise 

the benefits may be overestimated. 

Once properly accounted for, minimizing induced 

travel often depends on the quality of alternatives and 

complementary strategies for implementation. If the 

alternatives to traveling in congested conditions are 

inferior, a high time savings or price benefit is needed 

to change traveler behavior. In contrast, if alternatives 

are attractive, they are more likely to be successful, 

resulting in less induced demand and lower congestion. 

A comprehensive TCM program that includes a 

combination of disincentives to peak-period driving and 

improvements to alternative modes is the best method 

for minimizing induced demand for travel and sustaining 

congestion relief over a longer timeframe. 

■ Improve public health and quality of life. Setting 

aside the car keys and choosing walking, bicycling, or 

public transit provides health and other benefits for 

community residents. Research suggests that metropolitan counties in which a greater number of people 

commute to work by foot, bike, or public transportation (which typically involves at least a few blocks of 

walking or biking at the beginning and end of the trip) 

have lower rates of obesity than those where active 

transportation is less common (Tiemann et al., 2008). 

Apart from the direct health benefits of increased 

exercise for those who walk or bike, reductions in 

transportation-related air pollution lead to lower 

health risks throughout the community—especially to 

vulnerable, lower-income populations that tend to be 

disproportionately affected by pollution. Participants in 

alternative commuting programs also tend to experience decreased stress and increased productivity (U.S. 

EPA, 2005d; U.S. DOE, Undated). 

An organization in Atlanta, Georgia, called 

the Commuter Club was established by the 

Cumberland Community Improvement 

District to help provide transportation alternatives 

for the Cumberland Galleria office market. One of 

the key benefits of bicycling, walking, and other 

transportation alternatives that the Club describes 

for employers and employees is improved productivity and a working environment that allows businesses to more easily recruit and keep the right 

people (Commuter Club, Undated).

4 2. Benefits Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
3. TRANSPORTATION 

CONTROL MEASURES

Local governments can implement a range of TCMs 

that reduce pollution, traffic congestion, and fuel use 

by providing alternatives to using personal vehicles 

or supporting more efficient use of vehicles. These 

measures include:

■ Make public transportation available and encourage 

its use. Making public transportation—such as buses, 

subways, and trains—faster, affordable, convenient, 

and reliable is one of the most important ways that 

municipalities can encourage people to reduce the use 

of their cars. Investing in infrastructure upgrades (e.g., 

dedicated bus lanes, new park-and-ride facilities, and 

transit lines), improvements in service delivery, incentive programs, and communication and outreach are 

all ways in which municipalities can encourage use of 

public transportation. The Center for Clean Air Policy 

uses a rule of thumb that a 1 percent increase in public 

transit service levels (e.g., extended operating hours 

or increased public transit coverage) increases average 

ridership by 0.5 percent (CCAP, 2008). 

New York City has long recognized the benefits of public transit, and fully one-fourth of 

daily travel in the city is by public transport 

compared with 2 percent for the nation as a whole. 

In the late 1990s, the New York City Transit 

(NYCT) System saw increases in transit use by 52 

percent for buses and 26 percent for subways. An 

analysis conducted in 2002 found that, in addition 

to economic factors (e.g., a booming economy and 

increasing gas prices), a number of transit 

program activities drove the increase in use, 

including the introduction of discounted MetroCard fare cards for frequent users, free transfers 

between bus and subway, service expansion, and 

renovation of transit stations. NYCT estimates that 

the changes in fare policies led to an average 22 

percent reduction in fares (Pucher, 2002). 

Although the reduction in fares meant less revenue per person for NYCT, this was offset by the 

increase in ridership.

Another effective way for municipalities to increase 

the use of public transportation is to encourage 

development around transit, fostering a convenient 

and affordable lifestyle where housing, jobs, stores, 

restaurants, and entertainment are all in close proximity to one another and transit. This practice, commonly 

referred to as transit-oriented development, supports 

neighborhood-scale, compact, mixed-use development within walking distance of public transportation (Federal Transit Administration, Undated), and 

exemplifies many of the principles of smart growth. For 

more information on these principles and strategies for 

achieving the benefits of smart growth, see EPA’s Smart 

Growth strategy document in the Local Government 

Climate and Energy Strategy Series.

Atlantic Station, in the heart of midtown Atlanta, Georgia, is a $2 billion smart growth project 

on a 138-acre brownfield site [U.S. EPA, Undated (c)]. The multi-use development is designed to 

give residents and workers a variety of transportation 

benefits, including short trips and the option of walking, biking, or taking public transit. EPA’s pre-development analysis estimated that Atlantic Station 

would reduce VMT by 50 percent compared with 

similar developments in suburban greenfield sites 

(U.S. EPA, 1999). Surveys of actual use suggest even 

more dramatic reductions, particularly on the residential side. The average Atlantic Station resident 

travels 8.6 miles per day, compared with the regional 

average of 32.4 miles per day. Nineteen percent of 

trips made from Atlantic Station are by public transit, 

and 80 percent of trips that stay within the 130-acre 

site are made by foot (Atlanta Regional Commission, 

2008).

COMPLETE STREETS ORDINANCES

More than 25 jurisdictions across the country have 

adopted Complete Streets ordinances that encourage 

walking and bicycling through measures such as street 

and sidewalk lighting, pedestrian and bicycle safety 

improvements, street trees, public transit facilities, and 

other measures. The ordinances were developed by 

the National Complete Streets Coalition, a nonprofit 

organization. The Complete Streets Act of 2009 

(S. 584/H.R. 1443) was introduced in Congress to begin 

the legislative process that would lead to adoption of 

these nine measures by states and MPOs.

Source: Complete Streets, Undated.

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 3. Transportation Control Measures 5
■ Encourage bicycling and walking. Particularly for 

short trips, bicycling and walking can be viable alternatives to vehicle use, with additional benefits of improving health and making neighborhoods more vibrant. 

To support walking and bicycling, municipalities can 

provide bicycle racks, shower and/or locker facilities, 

and bicycle or walking maps. Many cities use street 

marking to define bike lanes, and some cities provide 

dedicated bicycling and walking trail systems. In addition, municipalities encourage biking and walking by 

improving safety features, such as crosswalks, sidewalks, and streetlights. Another option is to convert 

abandoned railways into multi-use trails, commonly 

referred to as rails-to-trails. Many of these trails—such 

as the Minuteman Bikeway in eastern Massachusetts, 

which connects directly to Boston’s mass transit 

system—are used heavily by commuters and can 

reduce VMT (Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 2007). 

Boulder, Colorado, is designated as a Platinum Bike Friendly Community by the 

League of American Bicyclists. The city has 

instituted a Safe Routes to School program; one 

school reported that 75 percent of its students now 

walk or bike to school—a 620 percent increase 

from before the program started. More than 4,000 

people participate in Boulder’s annual Bike to 

Work Day. The city employs a Complete Streets 

approach when considering major transportation 

facility enhancements, and at least 95 percent of 

arterials in Boulder have bike lanes or trails on 

them. The city recently completed two major 

underpasses for bikes, and offers online bike 

mapping. A total of $3.1 million, 15 percent of 

Boulder’s 2004 transportation budget, was dedicated to support bicycle mode operations/maintenance and enhancement activities. In 2003, biking 

accounted for 21 percent of commute trips and 14 

percent of all trips in the community—up from 

10.6 percent and 9.1 percent, respectively, in 1990. 

Bike use and other non-automotive modes have 

limited the growth in VMT in Boulder to about 1 

percent annually since 1990 (League of American 

Bicyclists, 2008). 

■ Expand commuter choices. Regular commuting 

accounts for a significant percentage of VMT in many 

municipalities, and a range of measures can help 

encourage people to ride together or reduce their need 

to commute. Local governments can lead by example 

and promote commuter choice programs by providing 

incentives for private companies (e.g., tax incentives) 

and developing the necessary supporting infrastructure, such as park-and-ride lots. It is important to note 

that commuter choice programs require willingness 

and flexibility on the part of management, personnel 

departments, and information technology departments. The benefits of such programs are worker satisfaction and retention and long-term cost savings. Challenges can include paying the upfront costs to establish 

programs, and potential employee fraud (e.g., using 

free carpool parking space for non-carpool vehicles) 

(U.S. EPA 2005a). Commuter choice measures include 

the following approaches:

ӹ Rideshare matching. Many regional rideshare 

programs offer free services to employers and 

employees to help match up people interested in 

carpooling and vanpooling. These services have 

been greatly advanced by online offerings, such 

as electronic lists of rideshares and their locations 

(U.S. EPA, 2005d; 2005e). 

MetroPool, in the mid and lower Hudson 

Valley region of New York State, offers 

two types of matching services for its 

commuters. Its traditional ride-matching 

service informs people about less expensive 

and environmentally friendly commuting 

alternatives. MetroPool also participates in the 

first incentive-based ride-matching program 

in the United States, NuRide, which allows 

commuters to track their “green trips” 

(carpooling, vanpooling, riding public transportation, walking, biking, and telecommuting) and earn rewards, including coupons for 

restaurants and retail companies. MetroPool’s 

contribution has added more than 3,200 

NuRiders in the last three years. Between 

Earth Day 2007 and Earth Day 2008, MetroPool helped eliminate more than 5 million 

VMT by 10,000 employees who shared 138,800 

rides, avoiding 1,800 metric tons of CO2

 equivalent emissions (MetroPool, 2009). 

6 3. Transportation Control Measures Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
ӹ Vanpool service. Similar to carpooling, but for a 

larger number of passengers per vehicle, vanpool 

programs use vans to take an established group 

of employees to and from work. Vanpools are 

especially well-suited for longer commutes (e.g., 

20 miles or more per round trip). Depending on 

the municipality, vehicles and services are often 

provided by employers or third-party companies. 

Vanpool operating costs are typically divided 

among vanpool members, who find that the 

savings they gain from avoided costs for gasoline, 

maintenance, and parking for personal vehicles 

more than cover their vanpool costs. Some local 

transit companies provide vans for vanpool 

programs as a complement to transit services. 

Employers can provide vanpool services directly to 

employees or encourage employees to participate 

in vanpools by providing information on local 

vanpool programs, providing reduced or free 

parking for vanpool vehicles, or through reward 

programs (U.S. EPA, 2005e).

At an annual operating cost of $5.6 

million, King County Metro Transit in 

the Seattle, Washington area provides 

vans for public commuter vanpools and pays 

for van maintenance, insurance, fuel, and tires. 

It also provides services to connect potential 

vanpool users (U.S. EPA, 2005e). King County 

Metro owns and operates this service with 

more than 840 vans, making nearly 2.3 million 

trips per year. More than 6,000 people use the 

vans every day, reducing area road traffic by at 

least 5,000 vehicles (King County Metro Transit, 2007).

ӹ Emergency ride home services. To address a key 

barrier to carpooling, vanpooling, and transit 

promotion programs, some local and regional 

governments have established emergency ride 

home programs. These programs help alleviate the 

concerns of potential carpoolers and vanpoolers 

by offering rides on an emergency basis to employees who participate in commuter alternatives 

programs and could be stranded at work in case of 

emergencies. 

Commuter Connections in the Washington, DC metro area offers guaranteed 

rides home to its residents in participating counties in the event of an unexpected 

personal emergency or unscheduled overtime. 

From July 2005 to June 2008, the program 

provided more than 25,000 rides, equaling a 

reduction in more than 8,600 daily trips and 

more than 227,000 VMT (Commuter Connections, 2009). 

ӹ Workplace flexibility programs. Flexibility 

programs can reduce commuting trips and expand 

commuting choices. These approaches include 

telecommuting and flexible scheduling to avoid 

heavy commute times. Municipalities can consider 

providing incentives (e.g., tax credits and subsidies) to encourage these programs. For example, 

municipalities can develop financial incentives 

for businesses that offer or encourage transportation alternatives and/or workplace flexibility (e.g., 

telecommuting, flexible work hours). Tax credits, 

matching funds, subsidies, and assistance with 

outreach and marketing are all ways to encourage the private sector to adopt telecommuting 

programs and promote transportation alternatives 

by other means. 

Since August 2008, through the Working 

4 Utah initiative, the State of Utah has 

changed its standard workweek to extend 

state government services for 10 hours a day, 

but only 4 days a week. The purpose of this 

initiative is to make a positive impact in the 

state government’s energy consumption, 

customer services, employee recruitment and 

retention, and environmental impact. As of 

February 2009, the State of Utah estimated 

that it would save more than $200,000 in 

custodial service costs during the year and 

documented a 10–20 percent reduction in 

energy use within half of its facilities. The state 

also has reported reduced absenteeism among 

its employees and reduced use of leave time. 

The initiative is expected to reduce GHG emissions by nearly 12,700 metric tons of CO2

equivalent per year, equivalent to the annual 

emissions of 2,300 personal vehicles (Working 

4 Utah, 2009). 

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 3. Transportation Control Measures 7
ӹ Employee financial incentives. Employee financial 

incentives are strategies that encourage alternative 

commute modes to reduce SOV use in employee 

travel. Some common methods include providing 

monetary incentives to use non-SOV methods of 

commuting, including subsidies for transit use or 

cash allowances in lieu of parking benefits (i.e., 

parking cash- outs); offering discounted transit 

and rideshare benefits; and eliminating or reducing corporate subsidies for SOV use, such as for 

employee parking or SOV-based corporate travel. 

These strategies can increase the affordability of 

alternative commute options for employees and 

lead to greater employee satisfaction through 

improved commutes. Employers can also realize 

savings through reduced parking facility costs 

(Litman, 2008).

■ Develop transportation management improvements.

Even when people do not choose alternatives to driving their cars, transportation system management can 

reduce driving time, VMT, and emissions through 

more efficient vehicle flow. While these improvements 

can generate induced demand (described in the text 

box Accounting for Indirect Effects of Reducing Congestion on page 4), where smooth-flowing traffic attracts 

new drivers to the roadways, not all of them produce 

this type of effect. For example, transponders installed 

on public transit vehicles can control traffic signals and 

allow a transit vehicle to travel through many intersections without stopping. This efficiency improvement 

can encourage use of transit without increasing the 

number of drivers on the road. Examples of transportation systems management include:

ӹ Improve traffic signalization. Local public works 

departments can implement improvements in 

traffic signals to reduce congestion and reduce fuel 

consumption. Improvements include updating 

signals to support more sophisticated flow strategies, timing and coordinating signals to reduce 

idling, and removing signals at intersections that 

no longer need them. 

The City of Los Angeles’ Department of 

Transportation developed its own Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) to 

adjust traffic signal timing to respond to realtime traffic demands. The system allows for 

greater intersection operational capacities by 

reducing time spent idling. The ATCS reduced 

travel time by nearly 13 percent, reduced average stops by about 30 percent, and decreased 

average delays by about 20 percent (U.S. DOT, 

2007; RITA, 2001).2

ӹ Improve transportation infrastructure and reduce 

congestion. Reducing congestion may require 

building broader roadways to accommodate high 

occupancy vehicle (HOV) or high occupancy/

toll (HOT) lanes, facilities for collecting tolls, 

roundabouts at intersections, and a range of other 

infrastructure investments. Other strategies that 

reduce congestion through roadway improvements 

include converting two-way streets to one-way 

streets, restricting left turns on two-way streets, 

and separating turning vehicles with median-strip 

turn lanes. In some cases, these changes require 

altering signage and lane markings; in other cases, 

such as widening roads, they may require more 

substantial infrastructure changes (U.S. EPA, 

1998b). 

An example of a substantial investment 

in infrastructure is the multi-modal 

Transportation Expansion (T-REX) Project in Denver, Colorado, which is upgrading 

travel on the I-25 corridor [U.S. DOT, 

Undated(c)]. The project will increase mobility 

on the highway itself by expanding lanes, 

replacing bridges, and reconstructing eight 

interchanges. It will enhance the region’s light 

rail system by adding 19 miles of double-track 

light rail, building 13 stations with 6,000 parking spaces, and adding 34 light rail vehicles to 

its fleet (FHWA, 2006). The project, which has 

now been completed, has encouraged similar 

investments. Additional light rail lines and 

stations are currently under construction, 

while others are being planned.

2 These improvements are based on a study performed shortly after 

implementation of the ATCS; longer-term effects were not estimated.

8 3. Transportation Control Measures Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
ӹ Enhance incident management systems. Incident 

management systems focus on quickly clearing 

roadways of accidents and stalled vehicles. These 

systems typically include roving tow or service 

vehicles, motorist aid call boxes, contingency 

planning, and other means for quickly responding 

to incidents (U.S. EPA, 1998b). Traffic incidents 

account for about one-quarter of all congestion 

on U.S. roadways, and for every minute that a 

freeway travel lane is blocked during a peak travel 

period, four minutes of travel delay results after 

the incident is cleared (National Traffic Incident 

Management Coalition, Undated). Since traffic 

incident management helps to minimize and 

prevent congestion, these systems can reduce fuel 

consumption by more than 1 percent annually and 

save 2,600–7,700 gallons of gasoline per incident, 

thereby reducing associated vehicle emissions [U.S. 

DOT, Undated(d)]. 

The Chicago Incident Management 

Program was an early example of a 

program to reduce congestion due to 

incidents such as traffic accidents and stalled 

vehicles. When the Kennedy Expressway began 

to reach near-capacity volumes during peak 

periods in the early 1960s, the Illinois Department of Transportation assigned 20 people in 

pickup trucks to patrol it and keep travel lanes 

open by clearing them of disabled vehicles. By 

the 1990s, the program had an annual operating budget of $3.5 million funded from state 

motor fuel taxes and employed 60 people, 

covering 80 miles of expressway system 24 

hours a day (U.S. EPA, 1998b). The program 

saves motorists an estimated 9.5 million vehicle-hours of delay at a value of $95 million per 

year (U.S. EPA, 1992).

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 3. Transportation Control Measures 9

ӹ Design intelligent transportation systems (ITS).

Intelligent transportation systems use technologies 

for traffic surveillance and monitoring, communications, and control systems to manage traffic flows 

by responding to changes in volume, congestion, 

and other signals. Examples include traffic signal 

controls that adjust to traffic conditions, traveler 

information systems that disseminate real-time 

information on traffic conditions on transit and 

roadways, and electronic toll collection systems 

(U.S. EPA, 1998a; Puentes, 2001). Social networking and mobile computing technologies are emerging tools through which local governments can 

communicate timely information on traffic conditions and commuting options to further promote 

transportation efficiency.

The New Mexico State Highway and 

Transportation Department (NMSHTD) 

incorporated ITS into its redevelopment 

of the “Big I” interchange in Albuquerque. For 

this project, NMSHTD employed ITS in the 

form of a mobile traffic monitoring and 

management system to help move large 

numbers of vehicles through an extensive 

construction area. Mobile traffic monitoring 

and management systems use electronics and 

communications equipment to monitor traffic 

flow and provide delay and routing information to drivers and agency personnel (U.S. 

DOT, 2004). The project included the 

construction of 45 new bridges and 111 miles 

of road reconstruction over the two-year duration of the project, at a total cost of around 

$293 million (Road Traffic Technology, Undated). Benefits of the ITS included reduced 

effects of construction on traffic mobility and 

safety, accurate emergency vehicle assessment, 

reduced response and clear rate for incidents, 

and public satisfaction about traffic information during construction (ADDCO SMART 

Work Zone, Undated; Road Traffic Technology, Undated).
ITS technologies have also been used effectively 

in providing real-time information to users of 

public transportation and in enhancing transit 

system operations, by integrating technologies for 

fare collection, intramodal and intermodal transfers, automatic vehicle location and scheduling, 

headway control (i.e., maintaining a safe distance 

between vehicles), and use of bus fleets. By using 

ITS for more efficient transit fleet management, 

the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority 

reported a 23 percent improvement in schedule 

adherence, allowing the authority to reduce the 

fleet size by 2 percent and reassign vehicles to 

service other transit routes (U.S. DOT, 2000). The 

Chicago Transit Authority found that using ITS 

for fare collection through the use of stored-value 

cards and fare integration for inter-modal transfers 

increased transit ridership by 2 to 5 percent (U.S. 

DOT, 2000).

■ Use value pricing to encourage drivers to factor 

the full cost of transportation into their decisions.

Municipalities can work cooperatively with their 

state governments and private insurance providers 

to promote transportation alternatives by ensuring 

that drivers incorporate cost considerations into their 

transportation decisions. Setting appropriate road 

fees and downtown parking taxes, and offering payas-you-drive auto insurance are all ways for drivers to 

“pay as they go” and experience more realistic costs of 

their choices about individual vehicle trips and miles 

traveled. 

Note that while most TCMs raise concerns about 

possible impacts on social equity, pricing measures 

are often perceived to have the greatest potential for 

inequities. However, the actual impacts on lowerincome motorists depend on many factors, such as 

how revenues are used, how prices are structured, the 

quality of travel alternatives available, and the extent 

to which those individuals use toll roads or downtown 

parking. Equity concerns can be integrated into road 

pricing programs by including discounts or free passes 

for lower-income households.

Value pricing approaches include:

ӹ Roadway and congestion pricing. These programs 

charge drivers directly for their use of roadways, 

particularly during times of high volume traffic. 

They also raise revenue that can be used for related 

programs, such as alternative modes of transportation, and for improved infrastructure. 

An example of roadway pricing is the use 

of High Occupancy/Toll (HOT) lanes in 

the Houston, Texas area. Drivers with 

only one passenger in the car pay a $2.00 toll 

and a $2.50 monthly fee to use High Occupancy Vehicle lanes—normally restricted to cars 

with one driver and two passengers. Users of 

this service essentially pay for faster, more reliable travel (Burris and Stockton, Undated). 

A variant on roadway pricing is congestion pricing, 

which increases costs at times of high road use or 

in congested locations (Litman, 2006) to better 

distribute traffic demand and encourage a shift 

to modes other than the automobile. Congestion 

pricing that is applicable throughout a defined 

zone or area (e.g., in downtown areas), such that 

all travelers entering and driving within the zone 

are charged a fee, is categorized as “area-wide 

pricing.” Similar in concept is “cordon pricing,” 

whereby travelers crossing predetermined points 

in the road network (cordons) are required to pay 

a charge upon entry or exit. The charge may vary 

by time of day or vehicle characteristics, and may 

be in effect all day, during peak hours only, or may 

vary dynamically with the level of congestion. An 

all-day area-wide congestion-pricing program in 

London, England, has reduced congestion there by 

25 percent (London, UK, Undated). A recent study 

concluded that the adoption of a congestion pricing approach in Washington, DC, could “result in 

less road congestion and provide a much-needed 

local revenue source” (Safirova, et al., 2006).

ӹ Value pricing through parking and other taxes.

Parking fees, gas taxes, and other taxes are ways to 

ensure that drivers more accurately realize the cost 

of the infrastructure they use. When faced with 

these costs, some drivers seek alternative modes of 

transportation. Revenue from these taxes can be 

used for infrastructure upgrades or other complementary municipal activities. 

10 3. Transportation Control Measures Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
ӹ “Pay-as-you-drive” vehicle insurance adjusts 

rates based on how much people drive, so that 

those who drive less pay less, thus providing a 

financial incentive to reduce vehicle use. One 

study estimates that a nationwide pay-as-you-drive 

system would cause driving to decline by 8 percent, 

netting society the equivalent of $50 billion to $60 

billion per year by reducing accidents, congestion, 

GHG emissions, and local pollution. Specifically, 

it could reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 2 

percent and oil consumption by about 4 percent 

(Bordoff, 2008b). 

Auto insurance agencies must have their insurance 

policies and rate plans approved by state regulators. However, current regulations in several states 

either explicitly prohibit pricing insurance per mile 

or require legislative reforms to make it possible. 

States and municipalities can work collaboratively 

with private auto insurance companies to test and 

demonstrate the benefits of these insurance plans 

by implementing pilot programs using funds available from the federal Value Pricing Pilot Program 

(under SAFETEA-LU) and other government or 

private sources. 

A coalition of local government agencies 

and local nonprofit groups recently 

sponsored (and partially funded) an 

effort in the Seattle area to pilot a pay-as-youdrive insurance program with an insurance 

company (Sightline Institute, 2007). For this 

pilot program, King County, Washington, was 

awarded $1.9 million in Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) discretionary funds 

in March 2007, which was supplemented by 

$1.2 million in state and local funds. As of late 

2009, the state of Washington did not permit 

pay-as-you-drive insurance, but a bill to 

reform existing legislation was recently introduced in the State Senate (Bordoff, 2008b; 

Washington Senate Democratic Caucus, 

Undated).

4. KEY PARTICIPANTS

A number of institutions and individuals are instrumental in influencing and making choices about 

TCMs. These key participants include: 

■ Mayors or city councils. Local political leadership can 

provide the policy direction and funding to implement 

programs that encourage transportation alternatives. 

In 2007, the mayor of Los Angeles launched 

the 30/30 left turn arrow initiative with Los 

Angeles City Council members and the 

general manager of the Los Angeles Department 

of Transportation (LADOT). The purpose of the 

program was to help reduce traffic congestion by 

installing 30 left turn arrows at city intersections 

in 30 business days. Designed to improve the flow 

of traffic and improve safety on city streets, the 

30/30 plan is expected to cut excessive wait times 

at left turn pockets, decrease traffic collisions by 

up to 66 percent, and reduce commute times for 

LA drivers. Since the mayor took office in July 

2005, LADOT has installed a total of 189, or 41 

percent, of the city’s 460 left turn arrows. The 

30/30 initiative was just one of a number of 

programs envisioned by the mayor to help address 

congestion in the city, such as banning rush hour 

road construction, synchronizing traffic lights, and 

towing illegally parked cars on major streets (City 

of Los Angeles, 2007). 

■ Regional, state, and federal agencies and legislators.

Because local transportation systems are linked to 

regional, state, and federal transportation networks, 

entities beyond municipalities are often involved. At 

the same time, large-scale local transportation infrastructure (e.g., bridges, tunnels, etc.) often requires 

large infusions of state and federal funding. For 

example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 allocated several billion dollars to existing federal transportation repair and improvement 

programs as part of an effort to help stimulate the 

U.S. economy. Some of these additional funds can be 

used by state and local governments to support TCMs 

(U.S. Government, 2009). (For more information on 

transportation related funding, see Section 7, Cost and 

Funding Opportunities.)

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 4. Key Participants 11
The City of Sacramento used financial and 

technical assistance provided through the 

state-level California Fuel Efficient Traffic 

Signal Management Program to improve its 

signalized traffic control systems. This work 

involved changing signals in outlying areas from 

pre-timed signals to traffic-actuated signals (U.S. 

EPA, 1998a). 

Studies supported by state or federal funding can also 

help other levels of government become involved in 

local transportation projects. The FHWA’s Value Pricing Program, for example, funded a variable tolling 

feasibility study that led to the decision to implement 

variable tolls for trucks on the northeastern Illinois 

Tollway System. Under this system, rates for trucks 

increased from $1.25 to $4.00 at most toll plazas, but 

trucks traveling at off-peak hours (between 10:00 p.m. 

and 6:00 a.m.) paid only $3.00 (FHWA, 2009).

■ Local transportation agencies. Local transportation 

agencies play a key role in the quality of public transit, 

transportation system management (e.g., traffic signals, 

traffic circles), and the “rules of the road” for vehicles. 

Many specific mechanisms for implementing TCMs 

are in the hands of local transportation agencies. 

Ventura County Transportation Commission 

(VCTC) in California encourages public 

transit ridership within its Ride Share 

program. In addition to providing assistance with 

carpooling opportunities and identifying parkand-ride lots, VCTC registers participants for the 

free county-wide Guaranteed Ride Home 

program. This program overcomes concerns that 

commuters may not be able to rely on public transportation for all their needs. Offering rideshare 

assistance also provides commuters a greater range 

of commuting options; for example, commuting 

by transit one way. The VCTC also offers employer 

discounts for mass transit, ride matching, and 

RideGuide commuter planners for vanpools and 

carpools based on where commuters live and work 

(VCTC, Undated).

■ Local and regional planning organizations. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), regional 

planning agencies (RPAs), and others play a key role as 

transportation planning agencies for cities or regions. 

They conduct the planning required under federal law 

for cities to receive federal transportation funds, and 

run near-term capital improvement programs. They 

often work with state and local air quality agencies to 

coordinate transportation and air quality planning to 

assure compliance with air quality improvement goals. 

These organizations and agencies are often instrumental in pursuing smart growth policies that reduce transportation emissions, such as changing development 

rules and zoning regulations. However, not all MPOs 

and RPAs have authority over development rules and 

zoning regulations. (EPA’s Smart Growth strategy 

document in the Local Government Climate and Energy 

Strategy Series describes a number of examples of how 

planning agencies are involved in promoting TCMs.) 

MPOs and RPAs also often provide services to help 

employers start, implement, and maintain commuter 

choice and telework programs. Other municipal institutions involved in these programs are city and county 

transportation agencies, transportation management 

associations (TMAs), and transportation management 

organizations (TMOs). These organizations provide 

information, support, and in some cases, resources, 

such as rideshare matching. 

Ann Arbor, Michigan’s TMA, known as 

getDowntown, offers a complete menu of 

TCM services to the Ann Arbor community. 

In 2008, this TMA engaged in extensive outreach 

to downtown employers and started a bimonthly 

“Commute Chat Lunch” program, which invites 

employers to network and learn more about 

commuting options. To improve awareness of its 

program, getDowntown provides a blog, Web site, 

e-newsletter, and contests. Some of getDowntown’s 

newest programs include initiating Zipcar services 

for downtown employees, a NightRide service, 

customized commuter counseling, a new Express 

Commuter Bus and rideshare program, and preferential parking for carpools and vanpoools. 

Other ongoing programs include bike locker 

service, a bike fest, a green commute campaign, a 

commuter challenge, bus pass marketing and 

vending, and outreach to the University of Michigan (getDowntown, 2008). 

12 4. Key Participants Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
■ Other local agencies. Many municipalities choose to 

lead by example by making sure that local agencies are 

implementing transportation control measures that can 

then lead to broader adoption throughout the community. For example, police departments can encourage 

bicycling by putting officers on bikes, or local agencies 

can encourage telecommuting and subsidize employee 

public transportation costs. Agency motor pools can 

encourage the use of “flex car” programs rather than 

having a city fleet. 

The city of Pleasanton, California, offers $2 

per day to city employees who leave their car 

at home and use a commute alternative. This 

program has prevented more than 20,000 trips per 

year, which translates into a savings of over 12,000 

gallons of fuel, or more than 109 metric tons of 

CO2

 emissions (U.S. EPA, 2005c).

■ Employers. Employers play an important role in 

influencing the commuting habits of their employees. 

Employers can choose to invest their own resources 

in encouraging alternatives such as public transit, 

carpooling, and telecommuting, or can take advantage 

of public programs that subsidize employees’ use of 

transportation alternatives. For example, a company 

can provide cash incentives to employees who 

commute to work via carpools or vanpools. 

California state law requires certain employers that provide subsidized parking for their 

employees to offer cash allowances in lieu of 

parking spaces to incentivize alternative commute 

modes. A 1997 review of eight case studies of 

employers in southern California offering these 

cash-out programs revealed that solo driving to 

work fell by 17 percent, carpooling increased by 64 

percent, transit ridership increased by 50 percent, 

walking and bicycling increased by 33 percent, and 

commuter parking demand fell by 11 percent. 

These mode shifts reduced total VMT for commuting by 12 percent, with a range from 5 to 24 

percent for the eight firms (Shoup, 1997). 

■ Nonprofit organizations. In many cities, nonprofit 

organizations are dedicated to influencing transportation demand in order to improve the environment, 

health, and livability of communities. 

Seattle’s bicycle promotion program, for 

example, benefits from the active support 

and engagement of nonprofit stakeholder 

groups, including the Cascade Bicycle Club, a 

strong and active advocacy group that campaigns 

for local legislation supporting bicycle infrastructure, and several strong, independent neighborhood and citizen groups that lobby for bicycle 

programs [U.S. EPA, Undated(a)].

■ Private sector. Some TCMs rely on companies in 

specific sectors to offer incentives. For example, insurance companies can offer customers pay-as-you-drive 

car insurance (described in Section 3, Transportation 

Control Measures) that ties the cost of insurance 

directly to the number of miles driven, thus lowering costs for those who drive less. In the examples of 

pay-as-you-drive auto insurance cited previously, the 

willingness of the insurance companies to offer this 

kind of insurance was critical to implementing this 

TCM strategy.

■ Drivers. Ultimately, the effectiveness of TCMs comes 

down to the behavior of drivers and their choices about 

whether and how to use their personal vehicles. Incentives can encourage drivers to reduce their vehicle use 

or seek alternatives; such measures can be strengthened with disincentives for personal vehicle use, such 

as increasing fuel taxes and parking fees. 

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 4. Key Participants 13
From August 2008 to May 2009, King County, Washington, partnered with the Washington State Department of Transportation, the 

Cascade Bicycle Club, and REI (an outdoor outfitter) and instituted a “green bikes” program to 

provide an incentive to get drivers out of their 

cars. The goals of the program were to introduce 

new riders to bicycling as a safe and reliable form 

of transportation to work, thereby reducing drivealone trips and the associated pollution, increasing 

health and fitness, and providing a sense of workplace community and camaraderie. The program 

purchased 200 bicycles and worked with more 

than 20 companies in the county to provide them 

to employees who pledged to reduce their drivealone commuting by 60 percent through bicycling 

to work. Employees meeting their pledges by the 

end of the program earned sole ownership of their 

bicycles. More than 120 people met their targets 

and earned their bikes. Together, all new riders 

biked more than 111,000 miles and made more 

than 9,000 bike trips. The program was considered 

so successful that a second phase was planned for 

spring 2010 (Green Bike Project, Undated; King 

County, 2009).

5. FOUNDATIONS FOR 

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

A variety of mechanisms can be employed to implement transportation control measures, including:

■ Mayor or executive initiatives. With the ability to 

direct the executive branch of city government and the 

public visibility of their office, mayors have a unique 

role to play in promoting TCMs. This can include 

directing city departments to lead by example, directing funds to key projects, and influencing action more 

broadly through communication and outreach. 

■ Local government resolutions. Local entities that pass 

resolutions, such as city councils, can influence the 

operations of city government through their oversight 

and budget functions, and can promote TCMs that set 

the “rules of the road” for city residents. City councils 

in large cities with significant transportation challenges 

can also influence state and federal transportation 

programs that provide a great deal of transportation 

funding. 

In August 2008, the Chicago City Council 

passed the “Resolution to Support 21st 

Century Transportation For America,” which 

notes the council’s support for “investment for 

transportation that contributes to dynamic and 

accessible communities where more residents can 

walk, bike, or take transit” and calls on the federal 

government and the Illinois State Legislature to 

support a transportation infrastructure investment plan that “expands clean, efficient transportation choices for Americans” (Chicago City 

Council, 2008).

■ Local ordinances. Local ordinances passed by city 

councils or citizens can provide funding or mandates 

to study or implement TCMs. 

In Alameda County, California, a voterapproved ordinance required the development 

and operation of new value-priced HOV lanes 

for the “Sunol Grade” portion of Interstate 680. As a 

result, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Alameda County’s Congestion Management 

Agency, Caltrans, and the FHWA initiated a fouryear demonstration project (SACOG, 2005).

“Blue Ribbon” panels. Blue Ribbon panels of experts 

and prominent citizens can provide a high-profile way 

to advance TCM policies and draw on the ideas and 

experience of leading thinkers in academia, government, the private sector, and nonprofit organizations. 

14 5. Foundations Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
6. STRATEGIES FOR 

EFFECTIVE PROGRAM 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Municipalities may face barriers in implementing 

TCMs. These barriers include a lack of local capacity and funding, especially for large infrastructure 

projects. They also include people’s reluctance to alter 

their transportation choices, especially if it involves 

perceived direct cost increases, uncertainties, or 

risks. Finally, barriers can include a lack of public, 

agency, and company understanding of what TCMs 

are intended to accomplish compared with traditional 

transportation strategies such as capacity expansion. 

As municipalities seek to deploy TCMs, they can use a 

number of individual and coordinated strategies that 

address these barriers to implementation and enhance 

the effectiveness of these measures. These strategies 

include: 

■ Pursue complementary programs. Many TCMs work 

better if combined with other TCMs. For example, 

carpooling programs complement parking cash-out 

programs by giving employees ready opportunities 

(and cash) to change commuting habits. Similarly, 

emergency ride home programs are often a necessary complement for commuter alternative programs 

because they address commuters’ concerns that they 

will be left stranded in an emergency. Municipalities 

can also combine transportation measures with their 

smart growth programs. For more information see 

EPA’s Smart Growth strategy document in the Local 

Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series. 

COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS AT SOUTH FLORIDA 

COMMUTER SERVICES

Commuter programs often bundle services and programs 

to provide commuters with multiple options and 

services that work together to encourage transportation 

alternatives. For example, South Florida Commuter 

Services (SFCS) provides an emergency ride home 

program to any commuter who carpools, vanpools, rides 

transit, bicycles, or walks to work at least three times a 

week. This service strengthens SFCS’s other programs that 

help link commuters to carpools and vanpools, find parkand-ride lots, and otherwise encourage transportation 

alternatives.

Source: South Florida Commuter Services, 2008.

■ Implement TCMs that provide revenue sources.

TCMs often involve new costs for local governments, 

whether for infrastructure, increased enforcement, or 

for new services, such as emergency ride home services. However, certain TCMs—such as roadway pricing 

or parking taxes—can be revenue sources used to offset 

costs elsewhere. These TCMs can actually save costs 

for individuals and companies. For example, increasing 

downtown parking taxes is one strategy that can reduce 

congestion in a city’s core while providing revenue for 

the local government. 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, passed a parking 

tax increase in 2008 with the prospect that it 

would generate $6 million in new income for 

the city. The revenue raised was committed to 

environmental and transportation priorities for 

the city, such as park improvements and street 

repaving (Weyrich, 2008). 

■ Select TCMs that are appropriate to the local transportation context. Certain TCMs are more appropriate for highly dense urban areas, while others are more 

suitable for rural areas with long commute times. 

For example, vanpools are most appropriate in areas 

with long commute distances and limited availability 

of public transit (U.S. EPA, 2005e), while parking 

cash-out programs are most appealing to employers 

who lease their parking spaces and can save money by 

releasing unused spaces (U.S. EPA, 2005c). 

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 6. Strategies 15
In response to the 1998 Voluntary Ozone 

Action Program, which encouraged state 

agencies and major corporations to reduce 

vehicle miles traveled by 20 percent, and a consolidation of two downtown facilities that created 

employee parking shortages, the Georgia Power 

Company in Atlanta decided to expand its employee transportation programs. The company built on 

its existing downtown transit subsidy program to 

develop a regional commute options program that 

could accommodate the diverse commuting needs 

of its employees, while helping to reduce Atlanta’s 

worsening traffic congestion and air pollution. The 

new program included vanpools, fleet vehicles, 

free transit passes, telecommuting, and a range of 

other alternatives. By 2003, just five years into the 

program, the company was supporting more than 

50 vanpools to downtown and regional offices. The 

longest documented vanpool trip was 160 miles 

round-trip. The company reports that more than 

1.2 million VMT are avoided each month. Participation in the programs has remained steady, with 

13 percent of employees carpooling or vanpooling 

(ACT, 2004).

■ Encourage behavioral responses. Many TCMs 

encourage desired behaviors—such as choosing public 

transit or bicycling as a commuting strategy instead 

of driving a SOV—rather than mandating behaviors. 

Consequently, their success depends on the ease with 

which people can alter their behavior. Municipalities 

can help by making change as easy as possible; for 

example by providing resources for ride matching to 

encourage carpooling or introducing people to innovative commuting alternatives (U.S. EPA, 2005a). 

SmartTrips is a comprehensive approach to 

reduce drive-alone trips and increase biking, 

walking, and public transit in targeted 

geographic areas of Portland, Oregon. It incorporates the innovative and highly effective “individualized marketing” methodology, which handdelivers packets of information to residents who 

wish to learn more about public transportation. 

The program is based on the assumption that 

people will change their travel behavior if provided with information about the full range of transportation options. Key components feature biking 

and walking maps and organized activities, which 

encourage people to discover how many trips they 

can easily, conveniently, and safely make without 

using a car. SmartTrips has been implemented 

successfully in four neighborhoods of approximately 20,000 residents each. Each project has 

yielded a reduction of 9 to 13 percent in drivealone car trips by all area residents, with a corresponding increase in walking, bicycling, and transit mode shares in the SmartTrips areas 

(WalkingInfo.org, Undated). The annual CO2

reduction is approximately 21,300 metric tons per 

neighborhood, equivalent to the annual emissions 

of approximately 3,905 passenger vehicles. The 

program costs $550,000 per neighborhood promotion (C40 Cities, Undated). 

■ Enhance workplace flexibility to reduce commutingrelated travel. Similar to employer-sponsored 

programs to provide commuter choices, workplace 

flexibility programs can also reduce commuting trips. 

These approaches include telecommuting and flexible 

scheduling to avoid heavy commute times. Municipalities can lead by example by providing workplace flexibility for their employees. 

■ Consider multiple funding options. Competing 

transportation funding priorities and lack of municipal 

control over funding allocations force local governments to locate multiple funding opportunities. Infrastructure to support TCMs—such as park-and-ride 

lots or signal control systems—often have to compete 

for scarce state and federal funding against other transportation priorities. For more information, see Section 

7, Costs and Funding Opportunities. One strategy that 

municipalities can employ is to use local funding to 

leverage state and federal funds for transit and other 

transportation projects. 

16 6. Strategies Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
San Diego, California, used such a strategy in 

2004, when voters approved a 40-year extension of TransNet, which is a half-cent sales 

tax to fund transportation projects. San Diego uses 

funds generated by the tax to attract matching 

state and federal transportation funding for highway and street improvements and public transit 

(SANDAG, Undated).

■ Allow sufficient time for development and implementation. Although many TCMs do not require 

large new infrastructure, they often still take time and 

tax the capacity and expertise at the local level. For 

example, it can take five to 10 years from planning 

to completion to implement highway information 

management systems, such as ramp metering (U.S. 

EPA, 1998b). 

■ Conduct communications and outreach. Communications and outreach is a key strategy to influence 

the behavior of drivers. “How to” guides for public 

transit can encourage its use. “Bike to work” and “bike 

to school” days can encourage alternative modes of 

transportation that ideally last beyond a single day. 

Advertising the availability of carpool and vanpool 

opportunities can increase use. Municipalities can also 

conduct outreach to their employees in order to lead by 

example. 

As part of its communications and outreach 

strategy to encourage bicycling as a transportation alternative, the Seattle Department of 

Transportation provides residents with a free bicycling map that shows bike lanes, shared use paths, 

and streets commonly used by bicyclists throughout the metropolitan area. The maps also contain 

advice and regulations related to safe bicycling 

(Seattle Department of Transportation, Undated).

■ Incorporate TCMs into transportation and land use 

plans. Transportation and land use planning have a 

large impact over time on both the amount and type 

of demand for transportation. For more information, 

see EPA’s Smart Growth strategy document in the Local 

Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series. 

An example of a city with a long history of 

growth management plans that emphasize 

the development of light rail, transit, walking, and bicycling is Portland, Oregon. Portland’s 

urban growth boundary, codified in state law and 

local/regional planning, has resulted in more 

compact development and reduced transportation 

impacts. Although Metro Portland’s population (1.58 million) has grown by 50 percent since 

1973, its land area has grown by only 2 percent 

(Tammemagi, 2008.) Portland now has the lowest 

total VMT of any comparable city in the United 

States, and has seen dramatic improvements in air 

quality during the last 30 years (Anderson, 2000). 

Metro (the regional government covering Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties, and 

the 25 cities in the Portland region) includes the 

following policy provisions in its regional plan: 

urban form, regional and local street design, 

regional motor vehicle system, regional public 

transportation system, regional bicycle system 

connectivity, pedestrian system connectivity, 

transportation supply management, and transportation demand management (Metro, 2004). 

■ Lead by example. Public agencies can lead by example 

by adopting TCMs that municipalities hope to see 

adopted by the private sector. TCMs that local governments have included as part of their own operations 

include telecommuting, flex time, compressed workweeks, staggered work hours, and incentives for public 

transportation. 

In 2000, Hennepin County in Minnesota 

decided to lead by example by updating its 

20-year-old employee transit incentives 

program. The county replaced payroll deductions 

for a discounted bus pass with a pre-tax employee 

transportation program to cover bus and parking 

costs. The county also offered a 40 percent 

discount on transit pass purchases. These changes 

led to 1,900 additional employee transit pass 

purchases in three years (the county employs 

approximately 13,000 people). The pre-tax benefits 

saved the county money that it used to help pay for 

the discounted bus passes (ACT, 2004).

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 6. Strategies 17
7. COSTS AND FUNDING 

OPPORTUNITIES

This section provides information on the costs of 

TCMs and describes funding opportunities for 

addressing these costs.

Costs

TCM costs vary widely by measure, from relatively 

low-cost information campaigns to large infrastructure 

investments in park-and-ride lots, HOV lanes, and 

traffic signal upgrades. Even for similar projects, costs 

can vary depending on scope, location, and other 

project-specific variables. In 1999, EPA published a 

study that examined the costs of a number of TCM 

projects funded by the Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality Implementation Program (see the Funding Opportunities subsection for information on this 

program), which illustrates the variability of costs (U.S. 

EPA, 1999). Results included:

■ Shared ride projects. Costs ranged from $16,000 for a 

park-and-ride facility in Maryland to $1.7 million for a 

regional vanpool program in Texas.

■ Bicycle and pedestrian projects. Costs ranged from 

$27,000 for a bike rack incentive program in Illinois to 

$298,000 for a bicycle network plan for Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania.

■ Transportation system management projects. Costs 

ranged from $7,000 for a signal systemization project 

in Maryland to $1.4 million to extend HOV lanes on 

Interstate 84 in Hartford, Connecticut.

Costs also vary according to who pays. While many 

TCMs are paid by local, state, or federal funds, costs 

of some TCMs are paid by drivers or employers. For 

example, congestion pricing or parking taxes are paid 

by drivers. Parking cash-outs, commuter transit passes, 

and the costs of telecommuting infrastructure are 

typically paid for by employers (although potentially 

with offsetting costs savings and tax benefits). For 

example, the per-employee average investment to 

establish an employee as a telecommuter ranges from 

$1,000–$5,000 (U.S. EPA, 2005d).

Funding Opportunities

Federal funding for TCMs is available from U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) programs, and 

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides an 

online resource on innovative financing for constructing, operating, and maintaining public transportation 

systems, which can be accessed at http://www.fta.dot.

gov/funding/grants_financing_173.html. 

Note that many of the DOT programs listed below 

received additional monies through the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; see the text 

box American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

on page 21 for more information. All of these DOT 

programs are authorized in law under the 2005 Safe 

Accountable Flexible Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

■ Surface Transportation Program. Initially adopted 

in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), this DOT program, 

administered by FHWA, provides states and localities 

with funding for projects on any federal-aid highway, 

and allows funding to be “flexed” to FTA for transit 

capital projects and intercity bus facilities. The program 

allocates funds based on a formula and is flexible as to 

the use of the funds, including uses such as vanpools as 

well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/stp.htm

■ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) 

Improvement Program. DOT’s CMAQ improvement 

program, administered by FHWA, provides billions of 

dollars in funding to states, MPOs, and transit agencies 

for surface transportation and related projects that 

reduce congestion and improve air quality. Like the 

Surface Transportation Program, CMAQ funds can 

also be flexed to FTA for transit projects, including 

covering transit operations for the first three years of 

new service. TCMs eligible for CMAQ funding include 

improving traffic flow, enhancing transit services, and 

providing other transportation alternatives. 

Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

cmaqpgs/index.htm

18 7. Costs and Funding Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
■ Transportation Enhancement (TE) Activities 

Program. This FHWA program funds transportationrelated projects that add value for communities or the 

environment over and above normal environmental 

mitigation requirements. The list of eligible activities 

includes the provision of facilities for pedestrians and 

bicycles, safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists, and preservation of abandoned 

railway corridors (including the conversion and use of 

the corridors for pedestrian or bicycle trails). 

Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/

guidance.htm

■ FTA grants and financing. FTA operates a number of 

grant programs to help communities support public 

transportation, including grants for planning, facility 

construction, and operations. FTA grant funding also 

allows for joint development efforts and bike/pedestrian improvements that are physically or functionally 

linked to a transit facility. Each year, FTA apportions 

funds appropriated by Congress to local and state 

government entities, including transit agencies, according to formulas and Congressional earmarks. FTA 

also manages discretionary grant programs under 

which funds are distributed based on certain criteria. 

Examples of FTA grant programs include:

Formula Programs:

ӹ Metropolitan and Statewide Planning 

ӹ Urbanized-Area (large and mid-size cities)

ӹ Rail and Fixed Guideway Modernization 

ӹ Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons 

with Disabilities 

ӹ Other than Urbanized-Areas (state-administered 

for rural transit service)

ӹ New Freedom (accessible transportation for people 

with disabilities beyond federal requirements)

ӹ Job Access and Reverse Commute

Discretionary Programs:

ӹ Major Capital Investments (New Starts/Small 

Starts)

ӹ Bus and Bus Facilities

ӹ Clean Fuel Buses

ӹ Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in the Parks

ӹ Tribal Transit

Web sites: http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants_financing.

html (information on FTA), http://www.fta.dot.gov/

funding/grants_financing_263.html (information on 

FTA grant programs)

■ Transportation Infrastructure Finance. Established 

by the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act of 1998, this DOT program offers 

secured direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines 

of credit for eligible transportation projects of national 

or regional significance. It is intended to supplement 

federal funding by attracting private and other investment. Credit assistance can be awarded to state departments of transportation, transit operators, special 

authorities, local governments, and private entities. 

Web site: http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/

■ State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs). Established by 

DOT under the 1995 National Highway System Designation Act as a pilot program, SIBs operate similarly 

to a private bank by providing seed capital for projects 

and a range of loans and credit enhancements. Funds 

can be used to finance eligible surface transportation 

projects, including both highway construction and 

transit capital projects. 

Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativefinance/

sib.htm

In June 2009, EPA, DOT, and the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) formed 

the Partnership for Sustainable Communities to help 

improve access to affordable housing, develop more 

transportation options, and lower transportation 

costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide. Through a set of guiding livability 

principles and a partnership agreement that will guide 

the agencies’ efforts, this partnership will coordinate 

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 7. Costs and Funding 19
funding for federal housing, transportation, and other 

infrastructure investments to protect the environment, promote equitable development, and help to 

address the challenges of climate change. One funding 

opportunity arising through this partnership is HUD’s 

Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program, 

which will offer $40 million in competitive challenge 

grants to local communities that collaborate on housing, transportation, and environmental planning 

efforts. Additional funding opportunities may arise 

through this partnership. (See Section 8, Federal, State, 

and Regional Policy and Program Resources, for more 

information on the partnership.)

In addition to federal funding, many states provide 

grant funding for local transportation, often from state 

fuel taxes. Some of these state grants (similar to some 

federal grants) require a local match. Local governments can also use local revenue from sales or parking 

taxes, tolls, and other direct sources, in addition to 

general revenues and reserve funds, to fund TCMs. 

Sometimes local governments join partnerships with 

other public and private entities for financing transportation projects. Municipal financing, such as the 

issuance of bonds, can also serve as a source of TCM 

funding. 

The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) authority 

constructed the rail extension to the San Francisco International Airport using funds raised 

by issuing bonds against future sales tax revenues and 

fare revenues. The San Francisco Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission also plans to 

issue bonds backed by bridge toll revenues to fund 

BART rail extensions and other transit improvements in the region (BATA, 2006).

Other innovative local financing sources for TCMs 

include transportation impact fees and special property 

taxes based on capturing the increase in the value of 

land around transit facilities. Transportation impact 

fees require that developers pay a fee based on the 

transportation costs imposed by their projects, which 

can then be used to pay for walking and cycling 

improvements, or to fund other TCMs that can be 

applied locally. 

The City of Portland, Oregon, used several 

innovative financing strategies to help fund the 

Portland Streetcar system, which opened in 

2001. The city covered some of the initial costs of the 

system through tax increment financing, in which the 

Portland Development Commission issued bonds 

against future property taxes to be paid by new development along the streetcar line. Portland also created 

a “local improvement district,” which assessed a onetime property tax from businesses within the district 

based on their size and proximity to the streetcar line 

(Portland Office of Transportation, 2008).

20 7. Costs and Funding Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 

In an effort to help stimulate the economy, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in March of 

2009. ARRA contained billions of dollars in one-time allocations for transportation and infrastructure projects through a number of 

new and existing DOT and DOE programs, which can be used to support TCMs. Some of the funding mechanisms that received monies 

from ARRA include:

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

• Surface Transportation Program (STP): $27.5 billion. The majority of these funds have been distributed to state departments of 

transportation for use in highway or public transit projects. Priority has been given to projects that can be completed in three years 

in economically distressed areas. 

• Passenger and freight rail programs through the Capital Assistance to States program and a new High Speed Passenger Rail 

program: $8 billion. These funds have been designated for distribution with a 100 percent federal share. A state rail plan has not 

been required to receive funds.

• Public transit programs: $8.4 billion. These funds have been split among formula grants for capital projects ($6.9 billion); rail 

modernization ($750 million); and the New Starts/Small Starts programs ($750 million), which support locally planned and 

implemented major investments in building new fixed guideway transit systems or extended existing systems. ARRA also made 

available $100 million for a discretionary program to support transit capital projects that would result in GHG reductions or 

reduced energy use.

• Supplemental discretionary grants (also known as Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER, 

Grants): $1.5 billion. These funds have been designated for projects with national, metropolitan, or regional significance with an 

intermodal focus. Eligible projects include interstate and bridge maintenance and repair, freight and passenger rail, intermodal 

ports, and public transportation. 

For more information, see: http://www.dot.gov/recovery/, http://www.fta.dot.gov/index_9440.html, and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

economicrecovery/index.htm.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

• Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants: $3.2 billion. These funds have been designated for state, local, and tribal 

projects that reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions and improve energy efficiency. One of the 14 categories of eligible 

projects covers the development and implementation of transportation programs and includes TCMs that conserve and reduce 

energy used in transportation.

For more information, see http://www1.eere.energy.gov/recovery/.

Source: Transportation for America, 2009 and U.S. DOE, 2009.

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 8. Policy and Resources 21

8. FEDERAL, STATE, AND 

REGIONAL POLICY AND 

PROGRAM RESOURCES

Policies and programs at the federal, state, and regional 

levels can support implementation of TCMs by local 

governments and influence which TCMs are most 

appropriate for a given location. Some of the policies 

and programs described below are statutory requirements that help encourage certain TCMs, while others 

may help to fund TCM activities.

■ Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan credit for 

TCMs. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), areas that do 

not meet air quality standards must be covered by State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) that establish a plan for 

reducing emissions. Under current rules, TCMs that 

meet certain CAA requirements to ensure accountability and effectiveness (see footnote on page 1) are eligible 

for SIP “credit.” These TCMs include employer-based 

transportation management programs, work schedule 

changes, rideshare incentives, parking management, 

and a variety of other efforts (U.S. EPA, 1997). SIPs can 

include both voluntary and mandatory TCMs. 

Including TCMs in an approved SIP can help provide 

access to federal transportation funding and gain 

support for these activities at the state and federal 

levels. Note that TCMs in SIPs must be implemented 
on the schedule established in the SIP. If a TCM falls 

behind schedule and the area still intends to implement 

it, the MPO must demonstrate that past obstacles to 

implementation have been identified and overcome, 

and that state and local agencies with funding authority 

are giving the delayed TCM maximum priority. 

■ Federal and state tax codes. The federal tax code 

includes provisions to encourage alternatives to 

commuting. For example, the tax code includes taxfree transportation fringe benefits of up to $230 per 

month per employee for transit/vanpool expenses 

or parking, or $20 for bicycle expenses (Transportation for America, 2009). These tax provisions save 

employers the payroll tax they would pay to provide 

employees with equivalent amounts of cash, and save 

employees the income tax they would pay on this 

added income. In some states, tax codes encourage 

commuting alternatives. 

Maryland, Georgia, Minnesota, Delaware, 

and other states provide employer tax credits 

for offering commuter benefit programs 

(U.S. EPA, 2005b). Oregon provides a tax credit for 

employer investment in telecommuting (e.g., 

purchasing and installing office and computer 

equipment) (U.S. EPA, 2005d). 

■ Partnership for Sustainable Communities. In June 

2009, EPA, DOT, and HUD formed this partnership to 

coordinate their funding and better support sustainable communities. EPA, DOT, and HUD will work 

to assure that their programs maximize the benefits 

of their combined investments in communities for 

livability, affordability, environmental excellence, and 

the promotion of green jobs of the future. HUD and 

DOT will work together to identify opportunities to 

better coordinate their programs and encourage location efficiency in housing and transportation choices. 

HUD, DOT, and EPA will also share information and 

review processes to facilitate better-informed decisions 

and coordinate investments. For more information and 

updates see http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/index.html.

■ State traffic mitigation laws. Some states mandate 

that businesses of a certain size develop and implement 

employee commuting reduction strategies.

In 2006, the Washington State Legislature 

passed the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) 

Efficiency Act, which requires local governments in those counties experiencing the greatest 

automobile-related air pollution and traffic 

congestion to develop and implement plans to 

reduce SOV trips. The Commute Trip Reduction 

program has found that employees commuting to 

participating worksites made nearly 26,000 fewer 

vehicle trips each weekday morning in 2007 than 

when they entered the program. The percentage of 

people who drove alone to work to CTR worksites 

declined from 71 percent in 1993 to 66 percent in 

2007. The absence of about 26,000 vehicles on the 

state’s roads each weekday morning in 2007 

reduced gasoline consumption by nearly 8 million 

gallons, saving commuters some $23 million. It 

also reduced criteria pollutants by nearly 4,000 

tons, and emissions of CO2-equivalent greenhouse 

gases by nearly 77,700 metric tons—equal to the 

annual emissions from more than 14,000 cars 

(WSDOT, Undated). (For information on how 

Bellevue in King County, Washington has 

complied with the state’s CTR mandate, see 

Section 9, Case Studies.)

■ Regional transportation planning. Collaboration 

between neighboring local governments can be an 

effective means of addressing traffic patterns and 

transportation demands that cross jurisdictions. By 

engaging in regional transportation planning, local 

governments can leverage their resources and develop 

methods of transportation control that may be more 

efficient and practical than creating wider and faster 

roadways within their borders (which can be costly 

and limited in effectiveness, due to induced demand.) 

Regional transportation planning also enables local 

governments to take a more holistic approach to transportation planning by using the principles of smart 

growth to create “smart transportation” plans that 

address the factors influencing transportation demand.

In addition, the federal government requires state 

departments of transportation and MPOs to develop 

long-range transportation plans and short-term 

transportation programs. Transportation projects must 

be included in these plans and programs in order to 

receive federal funding. For areas with a population 

higher than 200,000, federal regulations require a 

congestion management process (which would likely 

include TCMs) as part of the planning process. 

22 8. Policy and Resources Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
Anticipating that the region will grow by more 

than 1.7 million residents within the first half 

of the 21st century, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), representing six counties and 22 cities in northern California, initiated the 

Sacramento Blueprint Project in 2002. The goal of 

the project was to examine current land use and 

future growth patterns and plan where and how the 

region should grow through the year 2050. In a series 

of workshops, regional conferences, Web-based 

dialogues, and surveys, more than 5,000 citizens in 

the region helped to create and refine the Preferred 

Blueprint Scenario, which promotes compact, mixeduse development and more transit choices as an alternative to low density development. SACOG estimates 

that by 2050, this scenario could reduce the number 

of trips made by car by 10 percent, reduce vehicle 

miles traveled per day from 47.2 to 34.9, and reduce 

emissions of CO2

 and fine particulates by 15 percent 

(SACOG, 2007). In 2008, this scenario was incorporated in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 

2035 to provide a smart growth framework for 

investing $42 billion in transportation infrastructure 

over 28 years (SACOG, 2008). 

■ U.S. EPA State and Local Climate and Energy Program. 

This program assists state, local, and tribal governments in meeting their climate change and clean energy efforts by providing technical assistance, analytical 

tools, and outreach support. It includes two programs: 

ӹ The Local Climate and Energy Program helps 

local and tribal governments meet multiple 

sustainability goals with cost-effective climate 

change mitigation and clean energy strategies. 

EPA provides local and tribal governments with 

peer exchange training opportunities and financial 

assistance along with planning, policy, technical, 

and analytical information that support the reduction of GHG emissions.

ӹ The State Climate and Energy Program helps 

states develop policies and programs that can 

reduce GHG emissions, lower energy costs, 

improve air quality and public health, and help 

achieve economic development goals. EPA 

provides states with and advises them on proven, 

cost-effective best practices, peer exchange opportunities, and analytical tools.

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/ 

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 9. Case Studies 23

9. CASE STUDIES

The following case studies describe two TCM programs 

implemented by local governments. Each case study 

describes how the program was initiated, key program 

features, and results.

City of Bellevue, Washington—

Commute Trip Reduction

The City of Bellevue in Washington has implemented 

a wide range of TCMs—including a strong employerbased program—as part of its CTR plan. These 

measures help the city address its transportationrelated environmental issues while reducing VMT and 

SOV use. 

PROFILE: BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON

Area: 31 square miles

Population: 117,000

Structure: The City of Bellevue’s Transportation 

Department runs the Commute Trip Reduction 

(CTR) program as part of its mission to provide 

a safe and efficient transportation system that 

supports livable neighborhoods and a vital 

economy in partnership with the community. 

Program Scope: The CTR program mandates 

employer-based commuter programs to help 

reduce VMT and SOV use. These goals are 

supported by a comprehensive suite of TCMs, 

including policy and regulatory activities, service 

and facility improvements, employer outreach, 

construction mitigation projects, and Growth and 

Transportation Efficiency Centers. 

Program Creation: The program was created in 

response to the State of Washington’s Commute 

Trip Reduction Act in 1991, mandating CTR for 

the nine most populous counties, including 

Bellevue’s King County. 

Program Results: Bellevue’s CTR efforts have lead 

to important drops in drive-alone rates citywide 

for CTR worksites (12% from 1993-2007) and for 

worksites of all sizes in the downtown area (7% 

from 2000-2008).
PROGRAM INITIATION

In 1991, the State of Washington instituted the 

Commute Trip Reduction Act, which applies to the 

most populous counties/growth areas (including 

Bellevue’s King County) in Washington State.3

 This 

program requires that applicable local governments 

adopt CTR ordinances and support local employers in 

implementing CTR. Employers within those jurisdictions are required to develop a commuter program 

designed to achieve reductions in vehicle trips.

With state funding, technical assistance, and programmatic guidance, Bellevue’s ordinance, issued in 1993, 

identifies which commuters are affected (private and 

public employers with 100 or more affected employees 

at a single worksite, with certain exemptions), program 

components (a transportation coordinator, information 

distribution to employees, commuter surveys, etc.), 

what types of commute trip reduction measures may 

be included in the program, and how travel impacts are 

measured and reported. 

PROGRAM FEATURES

The City of Bellevue set an overall jurisdiction goal 

of 10 percent reduction in drive-alone rates and 13 

percent reduction in VMT by 2011 for more than 60 

CTR sites (City of Bellevue, 2008a). The city provides 

employer-specific goals and support, which aggregate 

into the larger program goal. The 2008 update of the 

City of Bellevue CTR Plan includes a comprehensive 

range of complementary CTR strategies, covering policies and regulations, services and facilities, employer 

outreach, and special programs for the mitigation of 

construction activities (City of Bellevue, 2008a). 

3 The state of Washington updated this legislation through the Commute Trip 

Reduction Efficiency Act of 2006, focusing the areas in which the program 

applies (originally to nine counties, reduced to only the areas with greatest 

congestion delay) and clarifying certain elements of the program and employer 

requirements that arose during the first 15 years of its implementation.

24 9. Case Studies Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series

Bellevue has identified activities to improve existing 

policies and regulations to support the CTR program 

and its goals, including: 

■ Re-examining the density bonus scheme for development in the downtown area. 

■ Cataloguing the parking inventory of the city in the 

downtown area. 

■ Evaluating and promoting voluntary parking management strategies to employers, including a shift from 

parking subsides to transit benefits. 

■ Incorporating multi-modal street design features 

through the Great Street Project, which advances 

attractive pedestrian environments.

■ Assessing land use and transportation policy concurrency to ensure that transportation planning and land 

use planning match in their goals and plans. 

The city’s CTR plan examines existing services and 

facilities and identifies a number of opportunities for 

reducing commuter VMT, such as: 

■ Adding new high occupancy vehicles lanes on I-90.

■ Installing transit signal priority signals on select transit 

routes. 

■ Exploring the feasibility of a bus rapid transit route 

between Bellevue and Redmond, Washington. 

■ Continuing ridesharing support services through King 

County Metro, including marketing for ride-matching, 

carpooling, and vanpooling.

■ Collaborating with Flexcar to increase awareness of 

car sharing services available, including an employer 

matching effort to help share in the subscription fees. 

Since employers play a central role in the CTR 

program, a significant element of the city’s plan focuses 

on outreach and support to companies covered by CTR 

mandates. Specific outreach efforts strategies covered 

in the plan include:

■ Providing training to transportation coordinators at 

employer worksites. 
■ Offering mini-grants to employers to hold transportation fairs. 

■ Requiring preferential parking for carpools and 

vanpools in specific buildings. 

■ Creating off-the-shelf marketing materials, promoting 

commuting options. 

■ Providing housing assistance through the “You Can 

Live in Bellevue” seminars. 

■ Initiating a Commuter Club, an incentive-based 

program to reward commuters who use alternative 

modes. 

Aware that many of its planned construction activities 

will have impacts on the city’s transportation system, 

Bellevue has incorporated strategies into its CTR plan 

to lessen the number of daily trips through areas with 

construction activities and reduce the adverse effects 

of construction on commuting. Special programs for 

the mitigation of construction activities have been 

designed to promote VMT reductions and discourage 

SOV use, including:

■ Working with King County to support its promotions 

during construction periods, such as Neighborhood 

in Motion programs (similar to Portland’s SmartTrips 

program described on page 16), area transit subsidies 

promotions, general marketing, and carpool incentive 

programs. 

■ Holding a “Battle of the Sites” promotion to have 

employers compete against one another to reduce their 

drive-alone rates. 

The state revised the CTR Act in 2006 to allow jurisdictions the option of designating and planning for 

areas of dense population and employment, known 

as Growth and Transportation Efficiency Centers 

(GTECs). The GTEC program originated from the 

recognition that the CTR program, although very 

successful, could not fully address larger congestion 

issues in dense urban areas due to its focus on large 

employers. The 2008–2011 Downtown Bellevue 

Growth and Transportation Efficiency Center plan 

provides a customized downtown-wide trip reduction 

program designed to complement Bellevue’s other 

CTR efforts by targeting additional populations, such 

as employers with fewer employees, the retail and 

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 9. Case Studies 25

hospitality industry, and downtown residents. The state 

awarded Bellevue $300,000 in 2008 for this effort (City 

of Bellevue, 2008b).

The City of Bellevue funds its CTR initiatives through 

a variety of sources, including the state CTR grant 

program, local jurisdiction operating funds and capital 

investment program funds, employer contributions, 

transit matching grants, construction mitigation transportation demand management funds, and the GTEC 

funds. The city’s total estimated program expenses 

from FY2008–2012 are slightly under $1.6 million 

and average approximately $400,000 annually (City of 

Bellevue, 2008a).

PROGRAM RESULTS

Over the last 10 years, the city has achieved some 

impressive results from its CTR programs. Citywide, 

the drive-alone rate in CTR-affected worksites dropped 

from 75 percent in 1993 to 63 percent in 2007 (City 

of Bellevue, 2010). From 2000–2008, the drive alone 

commute rate at worksites of all sizes in the downtown 

area decreased from 68 percent to 61 percent (City of 

Bellevue, 2009). 

Assuming continued success, the city estimates there 

will be more than 2,500 additional non-drive-alone 

commuters on local and regional roadways during the 

peak morning commute by the end of 2011. If all CTR 

sites meet their targeted goal of a 13 percent reduction 

in VMT, more than 136,000 vehicle miles traveled will 

be also be removed during the peak morning commute 

by the end of 2011. These results will help to lower 

congestion on both local and regional roadways, as 

well as potentially avoid the consumption of more than 

6,800 gallons of fuel and eliminate more than 59 metric 

tons of CO2

 emissions over four years—equivalent to 

the annual emissions of 11 passenger vehicles (City of 

Bellevue, 2008a).
City of Santa Monica—

Transportation Control 

Measures

The southern California city of Santa Monica has 

implemented TCMs—including ridesharing and parking cash-out—as a strategy for improving air quality 

and reducing traffic congestion. These measures join an 

effective transit system and other activities to address 

transportation-related environmental issues in the city. 

PROFILE: SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA

Area: 8.26 square miles

Population: 84,000

Structure: The city of Santa Monica established 

its Planning and Community Development 

Department (PCDP) to deal with transportation 

issues. The city’s TCMs are implemented by the 

Transportation Management Division (TMD), in 

the PCDP. 

Program Scope: A ridesharing program 

implemented by the TMD focuses on providing 

alternatives to commuters through ridesharing. 

A mandatory parking cash-out program, also 

operated by TMD, applies to all business above 

50 employees. These and other programs are 

reinforced by the city’s award-winning public 

transit system.

Program Creation: The ridesharing and cashout programs were authorized by city and state 

law in the early 1990s; from 1987 to 2000, the 

city’s transit system won the American Public 

Transportation Association’s “Outstanding 

Transportation System” award four times.

Program Results: Santa Monica’s TCMs have led 

to increasing trends in average vehicle ridership 

and transit ridership. However, it should be noted 

that traffic and congestion issues still remain a 

problem for the city.

PROGRAM INITIATION

The Santa Monica Planning and Community 

Development Department has identified the following transportation and air quality issues as major 

challenges for southern California [Santa Monica, 

Undated(a)]:

■ Motor vehicle emissions account for 70 percent of 

the smog in southern California. 

■ In the South Coast Air Basin—where Santa Monica 

is located—90 percent of employees commute to 

work by car. 

■ In total, California drivers spend 1.2 billion hours 

stuck in traffic each year.

To address these issues, Santa Monica undertook 

a number of efforts in the early 1990s to reduce 

congestion and emissions, including:

■ Developing a ridesharing program following the 

passage of the city’s 1990 Transportation Management Ordinance 1604, which required employers to 

provide information and resources for ridesharing;

■ Instituting a mandatory parking cash-out program 

under California State Law AB2109, passed in 1992; 

and

■ Continuing to operate and enhance its awardwinning public transit system, characterized by its 

signature “Big Blue Buses.”

26 9. Case Studies Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
PROGRAM FEATURES

Santa Monica’s ridesharing program focuses on 

providing alternatives to commuters driving to and 

from work. Under Ordinance 1604, which authorized the program, employers with 10–49 employees are required to provide each of their employees 

with information about air quality, ridesharing, 

and other transportation alternatives. Employers 

with 50 or more employees are required to implement a variety of incentives and strategies for ridesharing. An annual survey tracks each employer’s 

progress in reducing single occupancy vehicle 

commuting trips. As an employer in the city, the 

city government participated in the program and 

sought to reach the city’s average vehicle ridership 

goal of a minimum of 1.5 people per vehicle.

The city helps residents locate ridesharing opportunities through the CommuteSmart program, 

which serves the five-county region of which 

Santa Monica is a part. This service allows riders 

to find carpools and vanpools in their area. It 

also provides resources such as bicycle maps, 

trip planners, traffic updates via real-time traffic 

information, and a guaranteed ride home program 

(CommuteSmart, Undated).

Under Santa Monica’s parking cash-out program, 

employers of 50 or more employees that lease 

their parking and subsidize any part of their 

employee parking must offer their employees the 

opportunity to give up their parking spaces and 

seek alternative commute modes. As an incentive 

to relinquish their parking spaces, the employer 

pays the employees the cost of the spaces, and the 

employees can use these funds to make independent transportation arrangements of their choice 

[U.S. EPA, Undated(b)].

Santa Monica also continues to upgrade its 

public transit system. It has won the American 

Public Transportation Association’s “Outstanding 

Transportation System” award four times since 

1983 (Big Blue Bus, 2008) for being a role model 

of excellence, leadership, and innovation that has 

greatly advanced public transportation. The city 

is currently focusing on upgrading buses with 

efficient technology and cleaner-burning fuels 

as they become available. Nearly one-half of its 

current fleet of 210 buses is fueled by Liquefied 

Natural Gas (LNG), which is 75 percent cleaner 

burning than diesel-fueled buses [Santa Monica, 

Undated(b)]. 

PROGRAM RESULTS

In its 2008 “Sustainable City Report Card,” Santa 

Monica gave itself a medium grade on transportation [Santa Monica, Undated(b)]. The report card 

highlights the city’s advocacy for regional transportation planning and infrastructure, increased use of 

renewable and alternative fuels in the city fleet, and 

increasing trends in average vehicle ridership and 

transit ridership as strengths. The average vehicle 

ridership was 1.59, exceeding the city’s plan target 

of 1.5, and almost 100 percent of the city’s public 

transit fleet was alternatively fueled. The city’s new 

bike valet parked more than 16,000 bikes in 2008 

(Santa Monica, 2009). 

At the same time, however, Santa Monica noted 

that traffic and congestion issues remain a 

problem. Tourism and the availability of ample 

downtown parking continue to put pressure on 

the city’s transportation grid. Approximately 13 

percent of the city’s intersections have unacceptable levels of transit service (Santa Monica, 2005a), 

and bicycling and walking infrastructure are below 

city targets. The City aims to provide 30 percent 

of arterials with bike lanes/routes, but as of 2005 

only 3 percent had these features (Santa Monica, 

2005b). 

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 9. Case Studies 27
10. ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES AND INFORMATION RESOURCES

Title/Description Web Site

Local Examples of TCMs

Berkeley’s Bicycle Boulevards – Bicycle Boulevards are Berkeley’s network of http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.

bicycle priority streets, where all types of vehicles are allowed, but the roadway aspx?id=6650 

is modified as needed to enhance bicycle safety and convenience. Bicycle 

boulevards are the backbone of the city’s network of 50 bikeways.

commuter challenge—Seattle – This nonprofit organization provides www.commuterchallenge.org

information, technical assistance, and incentives to employers and employees to 

help reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled in Seattle.

city of Santa monica, transportation management programs –These programs http://santa-monica.org/planning/transportation/

include municipal parking cash-out and other initiatives to reduce commuter- abouttransmanagementtmo.html

related travel.

denver regional council of governments, ridearrangers – RideArrangers is a http://www.drcog.org/index.

service to businesses and individuals to provide resources for carpool matching, cfm?page=RideArrangersh

vanpools, and other commuting alternatives.

downtown minneapolis carpool and vanpool resources – This Web site http://www.mplstmo.org/pages/commuter_

provides an example of a municipal program and resources to promote carpool carpool.html 

and vanpools.

King county metro, Employer commute Services – This Web site describes http://metro.kingcounty.gov/cs/employer/

county-level commuter support services. empcommute.html 

Information Resources on TCMs

american public transportation association – This organization works to http://www.apta.com 

ensure that public transportation is available and accessible for all Americans in 

communities across the country.

american telecommuting association – The American Telecommuting http://www.yourata.com/index.html 

Association is a membership organization whose members are telecommuting 

employees and their employers.

association for metropolitan planning Organizations – This association provides http://www.ampo.org/ 

resources and links to Metropolitan Planning Organizations, which have a 

responsibility for planning, programming, and coordinating federal highway and 

transit investments.

Best workplaces for commuters – This EPA-sponsored program encourages http://www.bestworkplaces.org/ 

employers to provide commuter alternatives and provides resources on how to 

implement such programs.

center for clean air policy transportation and Emissions guidebook – This http://www.ccap.org/guidebookAccess/login.php 

guidebook and associated calculator can help municipalities calculate the cost 

savings, fuel reductions, and emissions reductions from TCM policies.

clean air council green commute program – Through this program, the Clean www.cleanair.org/Transportation/

Air Council provides information on telecommuting as a means to reduce air 

pollution.

commuterchoice.com – This Web site is a resource for employees to connect to http://www.commuterchoice.com 

commuter choice service providers in their areas.

national complete Streets coalition – This organization is a coalition of groups http://www.completestreets.org/early.html

that support municipal “complete streets” ordinances to promote biking, walking, 

and other transportation alternatives. 

28 10. additiOnal rESOurcES Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
10 ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES AND INFORMATION RESOURCES (cont.)

Title/Description Web Site

congestion mitigation and air Quality improvement program – This program http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/

provides federal funding to states, metropolitan planning organizations, and index.htm

transit agencies to improve air quality and reduce congestion, including through 

TCMs.

fHwa and fta: transportation planning capacity Building program – This http://www.planning.dot.gov/default.asp

program provides training, and technical assistance to state, local, regional, 

and tribal governments; transit operators; and community leaders responsible 

for planning for the capital, operating, and maintenance needs of the surface 

transportation system. 

fta: transit and Environmental Sustainability – This Web site provides links to http://www.fta.dot.gov/sustainability

information on transit’s role in sustainability and FTA’s sustainability activities 

(including grant programs).

gil gordon associates – Gil Gordon Associates maintains a Web site with a wide http://www.gilgordon.com

variety of information, including links to research articles and "how-to" tips on 

telecommuting.

midwest institute for telecommuting Education – This consultant group http://www.mite.org

provides expertise in strategic planning, manager/employee training, and policy 

development to assist successful implementation of telecommuting work 

arrangements.

moving cooler: an analysis of transportation Strategies for reducing http://www.movingcooler.info/

greenhouse gas Emissions – This report published by the Urban Land Institute 

describes an integrated, multi-strategy approach to reducing transportationrelated GHG emissions.

national transportation demand measures and telework clearinghouse – This http://www.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse

clearinghouse provides a research and information on transportation demand 

measures and telecommuting.

State implementation plans under the clean air act – TCMs can be a strategy http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/

for reducing emissions in areas that do not meet national ambient air quality general/vmep-gud.pdf 

standards.

State of california, parking cash-out legislation – This legislation describes http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/tsaq/cashout/

the state’s parking cash-out program, which “requires certain employers who cashout.htm

provide subsidized parking for employees to offer a cash allowance in lieu of a 

parking space.”

Online transportation demand measure (tdm) Encyclopedia – Published by the http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/ 

Victoria Transport Policy Institute, this resource provides information on a range 

of TDM policies, costs, and benefits.

telework coalition – This coalition is a membership organization that supports http://www.telcoa.org/ 

telework through research, education, technology, and legislation.

telework connecticut – Sponsored by the Connecticut Department of http://www.telecommutect.com 

Transportation, this resource helps employers design, implement, and maintain a 

telecommuting program.

telework resource center – This center provides free information and assistance http://www.mwcog.org/commuter2/resources/

to help local organizations start or expand telework programs. teleworkcenters.htm 

travel advisory news network – This network provides real-time information on http://traffic.tann.net/ 

traffic and road conditions in selected metropolitan areas to reduce congestion 

by informing drivers.

work at Home Success website –This Web site provides information and http://www.workathomesuccess.com/telecomm.

resources for those seeking to work at home. htm

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 10. additiOnal rESOurcES 29
11. REFERENCES

ADDCO SMART Work Zone. UNDATED. “The Big 

I Interchange, Albuquerque, NM” Available: http://

www.cotrip.org/its/ITS%20Guidelines%20Web%20

New%20Format%201-05/Web%20Solutions%20Packages/ITS%20Solution%20Packages%20-%20Web%20

Copy/Work%20Zone%20Safety/ADDCO%20Big-I%20

Case%20Study.pdf. Accessed 3/26/09. 

Anderson, Glen. 2000. Growth Management 

and Healthy Cities. National Conference of State 

Legislatures.

Atlanta Regional Commission. 2008. Atlantic Station 

Monitoring and Evaluation Update: Annual Assessment. 

Prepared by the Center for Transportation and the 

Environment / Lanier Parking Solutions. Available: 

http://www.atlanticstation.com/concept_green_projectXL08.php. Accessed 2/1/10. 

Association for Commuter Transportation (ACT). 

2004. Mitigating Traffic Congestion: The Role of Demand 

Side Strategies. Available: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/mitig_traf_cong/index.htm. Accessed 8/26/08.

Auto Channel. 2006. Flexcar Expands Fleet, Partners with City to Make It Easier to Commute to 

Bellevue. Available: http://www.theautochannel.com/

news/2006/06/13/011095.html. Accessed 2/6/09.

Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA). 2006. Long Range 

Plan, December 2006. Available: http://bata.mtc.ca.gov/

pdfs/BATA_Long-Range_Plan.pdf. Accessed 2/3/10.

Big Blue Bus. 2008. About Us. Available at: http://www.

bigbluebus.com/aboutus/index.asp. Accessed 11/11/08.

Bordoff, Jason E. 2008A. “Insurance Pricing Can Cut 

Gas Use.” Hartford Courant. (July 29, 2008). Available: 

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0729_payd_

bordoffnoel.aspx.

Bordoff, Jason E. 2008B. “Pay-As-You-Drive Auto 

Insurance: A Simple Way to Reduce Driving-Related 

Harms and Increase Equity.” The Brookings Institution. 

Available: http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/07_

payd_bordoffnoel.aspx. Accessed 3/26/09. 

Burris, Mark W., and Bill R. Stockton. UNDATED. Hot 

Lanes in Houston: Six Years of Experience. Available: 

http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%207-3%20Burris.

pdf. Accessed 4/18/08.

C40 Cities. UNDATED. SmartTrips informs and incentivizes Portland residents about alternative forms of 

transportation. Available: http://www.c40cities.org/

bestpractices/transport/portland_alternative.jsp. 

Accessed 7/28/09. 

Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). 2008. Transportation Emissions Guidebook, “Part One: Land Use, 

Transit & Travel Demand Management.” Available: 

http://www.ccap.org/guidebookAccess/login.php. 

Accessed 4/15/08.

Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority. 2009. Downtown Electric Shuttle. Available: http://

www.carta-bus.org/routes/elec_shuttle.asp. Accessed 

3/26/09.

Chicago City Council. 2008. Resolution to Support 

21st Century Transportation for America. Available: 

http://www.uspirg.org/issues/transportation/moreand-better-transit/transportation-principles-signers. 

Accessed: 9/7/08.

City of Bellevue. 2008A. Commute Trip Reduction 

Plan: “February 2008 Update.” Available: http://www.

ci.bellevue.wa.us/pdf/Transportation/commute_trip_

reduction_plan_revised.pdf. Accessed 9/11/09.

City of Bellevue. 2008B. Connect Downtown: Downtown Bellevue Growth and Transportation Efficiency 

Center: “February 2008.” Available at: http://www.

ci.bellevue.wa.us/gtec.htm. Accessed 9/11/09

City of Bellevue. 2009. 2008 Mode Share Survey 

Summary Report. Available: http://www.ci.bellevue.

wa.us/modeshare_survey.htm. Accessed 9/11/09.

City of Bellevue. 2010. Email dated 6/23/10 from 

Michael Ingram, AICP senior planner, Bellevue Transportation Department, to Emma Zinsmeister, U.S. EPA 

State and Local Climate and Energy Program. Calculations supplied to the City of Bellevue by the Washington State DOT (which oversees CTR program data).

30 11. References Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
City of Los Angeles, Office of the Mayor. 2007. Mayor 

Villaraigosa and New Transportation Chief Launch the 

30/30 Left Turn Arrow Initiative. Available: http://lacity.

org/mayor/stellent/groups/electedofficials/@myr_ch_

contributor/documents/ contributor_web_content/

lacity_004604.pdf. Accessed 8/27/08.

Commuter Club. UNDATED. Available: http://www.

commuterclub.com/. Accessed 8/25/08.

Commuter Connections. 2009. Transportation Emission Reduction Measure (TERM) Analysis Report: FY 

2006-2008. Available: http://www.mwcog.org/commuter2/ pdf/2008%20TERM%20Analysis%20FINAL%20

Report%20012709.pdf. Accessed 3/27/09.

CommuteSmart. UNDATED. Available: http://www.

commutesmart.info/carpool-vanpool.asp. Accessed 

7/11/08.

Complete Streets. UNDATED. Available: http://www.

completestreets.org/. Accessed 7/16/08.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. 

Colorado’s T-REX: Mega, Multi-Modal, Design-Build. 

Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl/successstory.

cfm?id=5. Accessed 4/24/10.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Illinois Tollway Value Pricing Pilot Study. Available: http://

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/projects/involving_tolls/priced_roadways/priced_tollways/

il_tollway_vppstudy.htm. Accessed 4/24/10.

Federal Transit Administration. UNDATED. Transit 

Oriented and Joint Development. Available: http://

fta.dot.gov/publications/publications_11007.html. 

Accessed 2/1/10. 

getDowntown. 2008. 2007–2008 Program Accomplishments. Available: http://www.getdowntown.org/

opencms/export/sites/getdowntown/about/getDowntownAccomplishments2008.pdf. Accessed: 3/27/09. 

Green Bike Project. UNDATED. Green Bike Celebrates 

Successful Phase I. Available: http://www.greenbikes.

net/index.html. Accessed 7/29/09.

ICLEI. UNDATED. Cities for Climate Protection. 

Available: http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=800. 

Accessed 2/6/08.

Johnston, Robert A. 2006. Review of U.S. and European 

Regional Modeling Studies of Policies Intended to Reduce 

Motorized Travel, Fuel Use, and Emissions. Victoria 

Transport Policy Institute. 

King County Metro Transit. 2007. 2007 Annual 

Management Report. Available: http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/reports/2007/2007-QMRyearend.pdf. 

Accessed 07/29/09. 

King County. 2009. Green Bike Project. Available: 

http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/

NewsCenter/TransportationToday/2008/tt082508_

greenbikes.aspx. Accessed 9/24/09.

League of American Bicyclists, 2008. Boulder, Colorado: Platinum Level. Available: http://www.bikeleague.

org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/communities/

bfc_boulder.php. Accessed 3/30/09.

London, UK. UNDATED. Available: http://www.tfl.gov.

uk/roadusers/congestioncharging. Accessed 7/11/08.

Litman, Todd. 2006. “London Congestion Pricing: 

Implications for Other Cities,” Victoria Transport Policy 

Institute. Available: http://www.vtpi.org/london.pdf. 

Accessed 4/18/08.

Litman, Todd. 2007. “Win-win Emission Reduction 

Strategies.” Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Available: http://www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf. Accessed 

4/18/08.

Litman, Todd. 2008. “Commuter Financial Incentives: 

Parking Cash Out, Travel Allowance, Transit and 

Rideshare Benefits.” Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Available: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm8.htm. 

Accessed 9/10/09. 

Metro. 2004. Regional Transportation Plan 2004. 

Available: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/

by.web/id=236. Accessed 3/27/09. 

MetroPool. 2009. Program Summary. Unpublished. 

Accessed 3/27/09.

National Traffic Incident Management Coalition. 

UNDATED. Benefits of Traffic Incident Management. 

Available: http://www.transportation.org/sites/ntimc/

docs/Benefits11-07-06.pdf. Accessed 4/13/09. 

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 11. References 31
Portland Office of Transportation. 2008. Portland 

Streetcar Workbook: A Meeting and Discussion Guide 

for District Working Groups. Available: http://www.

portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=194588. 

Accessed 2/3/2010.

Pucher, John. 2002. “Renaissance of Public Transport in 

the United States?” Transportation Quarterly. Vol. 56, 

No. 1, pp 33-49. Winter 2002. Available: http://www.

vtpi.org/tqtransi.pdf. Accessed 8/25/08.

Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). 2009. “Metropolitan Planning Organization Analysis of Managed 

Lanes and Climate Change.” Presentation at the Transportation Research Board 2009 Conference (January 

14, 2009). 

Puentes, Robert. 2001. “An Intelligent Transportation 

Policy.” The Brooking Institution. Available: http://

www.brookings.edu/articles/2001/winter_transportation_puentes.aspx. Accessed 4/18/08.

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. 2007. Benefits of RailTrails. Available: http://www.railstotrails.org/ourWork/

trailBasics/benefits.html. Accessed 2/3/10.

Ramaswami, Anu, Bruce Janson, Tim Hillman, 

Jennifer Wendrowski, Mark Reiner, Mike Posner. 

2007. Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the City and County 

of Denver. Available: http://www.greenprintdenver.org/

docs/Denver_GHG_Inventory_Report.pdf. Accessed 

4/24/10.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

(RITA). 2001. In Los Angeles, Adaptive Signal Control 

Systems Improved Travel Time by 13 Percent, Decreased 

Stops by 31 Percent, and Reduced Delay by 21 Percent. 

Available: http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/ID/CA4E16B4E7167BCF8525725F0073EBF3?

OpenDocument&Query=Home. Accessed 2/3/10.

Road Traffic Technology. UNDATED. Big I Reconstruction, Albuquerque, NM, USA. Available: http://www.

roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/big_i/. Accessed 

3/26/09. 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments 

(SACOG). 2007. “Special Report: Preferred Blueprint 

Alternative,” June 2007. Regional Report. Sacramento 

Area Council of Governments. Available: http://www.

sacregionblueprint.org/sacregionblueprint/the_project/

BP_Insert_JUN_2007.pdf. Accessed 3/31/2010.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments 

(SACOG). 2008. Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 

2035. Available: http://www.sacog.org/mtp/2035/finalmtp/. Accessed 7/28/09. 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments 

(SACOG). 2005. SACOG Issue Paper on Highway 

Lane Pricing and Tolls. Available: http://www.sacog.

org/calendar/2006/02/16/board/pdf/24-Issue%20

Paper%20Highway%20Pricing%20&%20Tolls%20

-%20Attach.pdf. Accessed 8/27/08.

Safirova, Elena, Sébastien Houde, Conrad Coleman, 

Winston Harrington, and D. Abram Lipman. 2006. 

“Long-Term Consequences of Congestion Pricing: A 

Small Cordon in the Hand Is Worth Two in the Bush.” 

RFF Discussion Paper. Available: http://www.rff.org/rff/

Documents/RFF-DP-06-42.pdf. Accessed 4/18/08.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 

UNDATED. TransNet: Frequently Asked Questions. 

Available: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/

projectid_255_8344.pdf. Accessed 8/26/08.

Santa Monica. UNDATED(A). Air Quality Facts. Available: http://www01.smgov.net/planning/

transportation/tmoairqualityfacts.html. Accessed 

7/11/08.

Santa Monica. UNDATED(B). Sustainable City Progress 

Report. Available: http://www.smgov.net/Departments/

OSE/Categories/Sustainability/Sustainable_City_Progress_Report/Sustainable_City_Progress_Report.aspx. 

Accessed 7/11/08.

Santa Monica. 2009. Transportation Summary of 

Sustainable City Progress Report. Available: http://www.

smgov.net/Departments/OSE/Categories/Sustainability/Sustainable_City_Progress_Report/Transportation/

Transportation.aspx. Accessed 3/27/09. 

Santa Monica. 2005A. Traffic Congestion for Sustainable 

City Progress Report. Available: http://www.smgov.

net/Departments/OSE/Categories/Sustainability/

Sustainable_City_Progress_Report/Transportation/

Traffic_Congestion.aspx. Accessed 3/27/09

Santa Monica. 2005B. Bike Lanes for Sustainable 

City Progress Report. Available: http://www.smgov.

net/Departments/OSE/Categories/Sustainability/

Sustainable_City_Progress_Report/Transportation/

Bike_Lanes.aspx. Accessed 3/27/09

32 11. References Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
Seattle Department of Transportation. UNDATED. 

Bicycle Maps. Available: http://www.seattle.gov/

transportation/bikemaps.htm. Accessed 8/22/08.

Shoup, Donald. 1997. Evaluating the Effects of Parking Cash Out: Eight Case Studies. Available: http://

www.arb.ca.gov/research/abstracts/93-308.htm. 

Accessed 3/27/09. 

Sightline Institute. 2007. “Pay-as-You-Drive Pilot 

in Washington.” The Daily Source. Available: http://

daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/03/29/

pay-as-you-drive-pilot-in-washington. Accessed 

4/18/08.

South Florida Commuter Services. 2008. Available: http://www.1800234ride.com/index.php. 

Accessed 7/18/08.

Tammemagi, Hans. 2008. “Progressive Portland—a 

model for smart growth with many lessons for 

Vancouver.” The Vancouver Sun. 11/21/08. Available: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/

features/going_green/story.html?id=fe857884-

fb3a-4fc9-accb-d96193fd3f89. Accessed 3/27/09. 

Tiemann, Thomas, Paul Miller, Erica Lamanna. 

2008. “Active Transport, Public Transportation, 

and Obesity in Metropolitan Areas of the United 

States.” Elon University Department of Economics 

Working Paper Series, Working Paper 2008-07. 

Available: http://org.elon.edu/econ/WPS/wp2008-

07.pdf. Accessed 2/3/10. 

Transportation for America. 2009. Full Summary 

of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009. Available: http://t4america.org/pressers/2009/02/17/full-summary-of-the-americanrecovery-and-reinvestment-act-of-2009/. Accessed 

5/14/09. 

Travel Matters. 2002. “Case Study: Chattanooga, 

Tennessee.” Transit and Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Reduction. Available: http://staging.travelmatters.

org/about/chattanooga?sid=ziaizhaz. Accessed 

8/18/08.

U.S. DOE. UNDATED. Questions and Answers: 

What is Telework? Available: http://humancapital.

doe.gov/resources/DOEEmp.ppt. Accessed 8/12/08.

U.S. DOE. 2009. Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

Block Grant Program. Available: http://www1.eere.

energy.gov/wip/eecbg.html. Accessed 4/24/10.

U.S. DOT. 2007. Intelligent Transportation Systems 

for Traffic Signal Control. Available: http://www.

its.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/14321_files/a1019-

tsc_digital_n3.pdf. Accessed 8/18/08.

U.S. DOT. 2004. “Intelligent Transportation 

Systems in Work Zones.” U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Available: http://www.its.dot.gov/jpodocs/

repts_te/14320.htm. Accessed 7/3/08.

U.S. DOT. 2000. “Benefits Assessment of Advanced 

Public Transportation System Technologies, 

Update 2000.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Available: http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/

EDLBrow/@101!.pdf. Accessed 11/2/09.

U.S. DOT. UNDATED(A). Journey to Work Profiles 

for Large Metropolitan Areas. Available: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw8.htm. Accessed 

7/3/08.

U.S. DOT. UNDATED(B). Annual Wasted Fuel Due 

to Congestion. Available: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/

table_04_27.html. Accessed 7/3/08.

U.S. DOT. UNDATED(C). Highways for Life. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl/successfacts.

cfm?id=5. Accessed 7/3/08.

U.S. DOT. uNDATED(D). Intelligent Transportation 

Systems for Traffic Incident Management. Available: 

http://www.its.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/14288_

files/14288.pdf. Accessed 7/3/08.cessed: 4/13/09. 

U.S. Government. 2009. “Where is your money 

going?” Recovery.gov. Available: http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/investments. Accessed 3/26/09.

U.S. EPA. UNDATED(A). Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Programs. Available: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

stateresources/policy/transp/tcms/bicycle_ped.pdf. 

Accessed 8/24/08.

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 11. References 33
U.S. EPA. uNDATED(B). Parking Cash out Program Case 

Study. Available: http://epa.gov/oar/recipes/cashout.

html. Accessed 8/7/08.

U.S. EPA. UNDATED(C). Atlantic Station (Atlantic Steel 

Site Redevelopment Project). Available at: http://www.

epa.gov/dced/topics/atlantic_steel.htm. Accessed 

2/1/10. 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Traffic Flow Improvements. Available 

at: http://www.epa.gov/OTAQ/stateresources/policy/

transp/tcms/traff_improv.pdf. Accessed 1/13/09.

U.S. EPA. 1997. Memorandum: Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction 

Programs in State Implementation Plans. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/general/

vmep-gud.pdf. Accessed 7/11/08.

U.S. EPA. 1998A. “Transportation Control Measures: 

Intelligent Transportation Systems,” TRAQ Technical 

Overview, Transportation Air Quality Center, EPA420-

S-98-012. (7).

U.S. EPA. 1998B. “Transportation Control Measures: 

Traffic Flow Improvements,” TRAQ Technical Overview, Transportation Air Quality Center, EPA420-

S-98-012, July 1998. (6).

U.S. EPA. 1999. Project XL and Atlantic Steel Supporting 

Environmental Excellence and Smart Growth. Office of 

Policy EPA 231-R-99-004.

U.S. EPA. 2005A. “Carpool Incentive Programs: Implementing Commuter Benefits as One of the Nation’s 

Best Workplaces for Commuters.” Best Workplaces for 

Commuters, EPA Office of Air and Radiation, November 2005. (3). Available: http://www.bestworkplaces.

org/pdf/carpool_June07.pdf. Accessed 07/27/09. 

U.S. EPA. 2005B. “Commuter Tax Benefits: Implementing Commuter Benefits as One of the Nation’s Best 

Workplaces for Commuters.” Best Workplaces for 

Commuters, EPA Office of Air and Radiation, November 2005. (1). Available: http://www.bestworkplaces.

org/pdf/taxbenes_07.pdf. Accessed 07/27/09. 

U.S. EPA. 2005C. “Parking Cash out: Implementing 

Commuter Benefits as One of the Nation’s Best Workplaces for Commuters.” Best Workplaces for Commuters, EPA Office of Air and Radiation, November 2005. 

(5). Available: http://www.bestworkplaces.org/pdf/

ParkingCashout_07.pdf. Accessed 07/27/09. 

U.S. EPA. 2005D. “Telework Programs: Implementing 

Commuter Benefits as One of the Nation’s Best Workplaces for Commuters.” Best Workplaces for Commuters, EPA Office of Air and Radiation, January 2005. (2). 

Available: http://www.bestworkplaces.org/pdf/

telework_07.pdf. Accessed 07/27/09. 

U.S. EPA. 2005E. “Vanpool Benefits: Implementing 

Commuter Benefits as One of the Nation’s Best Workplaces for Commuters.” Best Workplaces for Commuters, EPA Office of Air and Radiation, November 2005. 

(4). Available: http://www.bestworkplaces.org/pdf/

vanpoolbenefits_07.pdf. Accessed 07/27/09. 

U.S. EPA. 2009. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Available: http://www.epa.gov/

cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html. 

Accessed 01/13/09. 

VCTC. UNDATED. Ventura County Transportation 

Commission. Available: http://www.goventura.org/. 

Accessed 8/13/08.

Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI). 2007. 

“Rebound Effects: Implications for Transport Planning.” TDM Encyclopedia. Available: http://www.vtpi.

org/tdm/tdm64.htm. Accessed 4/18/08.

WalkingInfo.org, UNDATED. Portland SmartTrip. 

Available: http://www.mayorsinnovation.org/

pdf/PortlandSmartTrips.pdf. Accessed 7/28/09. 

Walls, Margaret and Peter Nelson. 2004. “Telecommuting and Emissions Reductions: Evaluating Results 

from the ecommute Program.” Discussion Paper 04-42. 

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Walls, Margaret and Elena Safirova. 2004. “A Review 

of the Literature on Telecommuting and Its Implications for Vehicle Travel and Emissions.” Discussion 

Paper 04-44. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

34 11. References Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
Washington Department of Transportation 

(WSDOT). UNDATED. Commute Trip Reduction 

Program Overview. Available: http://www.wsdot.

wa.gov/TDM/CTR/overview.htm. Accessed 3/30/09. 

Washington Senate Democratic Caucus. UNDATED. 

Reducing Transportation Emissions. Available: http://

www.sdc.wa.gov/issues/clean-energy/03.htm. Accessed 

4/26/10.

Weyrich, Noel. 2008. “Finally, a mayor not befuddled 

by FUD.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. July 27, 2008.

Working for Utah. 2009. Working 4 Utah: Initiative 

Performance Report Interim Draft. February 2009. 

Available: http://www.utah.gov/governor/docs/

Working4UtahInterimReport.pdf. Accessed 8/10/09.

Transportation Control Measures | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 11. References 35