We are all here on earth to help others; what on earth the others are here for I don’t know.W. H. Auden, poet, 1907–1973
One of the greatest impediments to carpool and vanpool formation can be finding suitable partners with similar work schedules, origins, and destinations. Facilitated ride share matching can overcome this obstacle by enabling commuters who are interested in ride sharing to enter their travel preferences into a database and receive a list of potential ride share partners. The success of these programs is largely determined by the number of participants and, in turn, the number of potential matches that can be made. Ride share programs may be administered through individual employers, but are often most effective when coordinated through a transportation management association or other larger-scale program.
Shared-vehicle programs are gaining wider and wider application across the globe. Carsharing enables commuters to use non-car modes for most trips while retaining driving options for work-related trips. It allows users to access a car and pay based on use, taking away the burdens of ownership, parking, maintenance, and acquiring liability insurance. According to extensive research conducted by Susan Shaheen at the University of California, Berkeley, round-trip carsharing has an overall net effect of decreasing car ownership. Even while some driving increases, other users decrease their driving trips, leading to an overall driving decline that removes an average of eight to thirteen private cars from the road. Vehicles placed near transit stations help bridge last/first mile gaps in the conventional transport network, supporting investment in public transit and a shift away from private car use.
Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) provides a limited amount of free taxi rides or use of carshare vehicles for unplanned trips home (e.g., working late past the last scheduled bus, carpool passenger with sick child at school) by employees who commit to non-driving commute modes. Statistics on such programs indicate that although they tend to have relatively low employee utilization rates, they have very high satisfaction rates from participants, providing a high benefit at low cost. Originating as an employer-based benefit, GRH is increasingly offered through regional planning and transportation organizations.
Highly successful TDM programs often have a strong local or regional champion and leader. Some regions have dynamic political leaders who eloquently make the case for collective action in managing travel demand. In other places, a major institution leads by example, encouraging other area employers or traffic generators to join in the effort.
In 2010, the city of Rochester, Minnesota, USA, adopted a comprehensive mobility plan that included aggressive mode-split goals for 2030. The Mayo Clinic, recognizing its prominent role in the city’s economy and the value that the city’s goals held for the clinic, partnered with the city to establish a voluntary member-based organization to implement a series of commuter-benefit programs, including an extensive commuter-bus system. The Mayo Clinic has continued to collaborate with the city on a bicycle master plan and a bike-share feasibility study.
Equally important to leadership is defining measurable goals and regularly evaluating progress toward them. We cannot manage what we do not measure, goes the adage. Today’s leading regions set mode-split targets, define strategies and policies to achieve them, establish appropriate measures for performance, and standardize data collection and reporting schedules and responsibilities. This not only helps clarify the purpose of TDM investments and initiatives, but, by highlighting what has been the most/least successful, it also improves the effectiveness of future efforts.
Cities are dominated by “durable infrastructure” that allows land use to evolve over time in response to changing populations, interests, and market demands. Some of the most dramatic and effective TDM programs have anticipated cumulative growth impacts and established expectations and requirements for development to incorporate appropriate TDM measures. Establishing clear, consistent, and predictable policies can ensure equitable review and approval processes for diverse developments, whether they occur next year or next decade, and reduce the ultimate cost and traffic consequences of growth. The best examples have adopted comprehensive public policies and established development review processes that require TDM for all major developments that include bold strategies like maximum parking allowances and funding for bicycle infrastructure.
Uncertainty is a tremendous deterrent to change. One of the largest obstacles to non-SOV travel is the lack of information on alternate-mode options. Many commuters simply do not know the range of travel options available to them, their cost, how to use them, or when they are available.
Disseminating information broadly is a major challenge and can require substantial funds, but it can also bring about the largest return on investment. Advertisements and promotional campaigns, such as carpool days, commute challenge weeks, or ride share months can encourage commuters to try different modes once or twice, which is sometimes all it takes to change behavior.
Technology has been an enormous boon in encouraging and enabling management of travel demand. Travellers now have available to them an array of trip-time and cost calculators—many of which include environmental or social-cost calculations as well. Emerging tools include dynamic ride sharing and other social media connections. These convenient tools allow travellers to determine the right mode of travel for them on that particular day according to their particular needs.
One challenge, however, is that every system seems to have its own website, forcing travellers to consult multiple sources in order to plan their trip most efficiently. Several cities however, have begun to integrate information across a variety of modes and systems including public transport, bicycle, taxi, and driving. In November 2012, the Regional Transportation Authority of Chicago launched a dedicated website and app that combine the information of multiple public transport providers, as well as weather and traffic updates and information on major area attractions.
Social marketing and incentive programs are proving increasingly popular and effective at promoting non-SOV travel. Social marketing seeks to influence individuals’ behavior to achieve a broad social good (in the case of TDM, reducing SOV trips). Awareness and educational programs, workshops, and community-outreach efforts may take the form of promotional campaigns similar to product advertising.
Incentive programs build on this marketing effort to frame non-motorized, public transport, and high-occupancy travel as a social norm, by offering prizes or cash rewards to residents who use non-SOV modes. In Seattle, Washington, USA, the Metro’s bi-annual Wheel Options campaign gives commuters a chance to register and win a large variety of prizes for getting to work any way other than driving alone. The county’s In Motion programs extend this opportunity to residents in general.
The weekly “no driving day” program in Seoul, South Korea, is another leading example. People can get free parking, reduced-cost car washing, reduced taxes, and avoid congestion charges if they use alternative transport at least one day every week. Participants receive stickers for the rear windows of their car, which is monitored using radio-frequency-identification (RFID) technology to assess compliance. According to the city, the program reduced traffic volumes by 3.7 percent since 2003 with a CO2 reduction of 10 percent, and fuel savings amounting to USD$50 million.