Travel Demand Management

TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT

Measures, behavioral impact and user response

Presented by : Pranav Mishra , M.Tech. 2nd semester, RCGSIDM, IIT Kharagpur

Introduction

Congestion..??

…this figure says it all.

Losses due to traffic congestion..??

Time•Delay for passengers.•Delay for employees.•Increased accident potential

Health

•Increased carbon-dioxide emission.•More pollution.•More diseases.•Mental tension.

Cost•Cost of transporting products.•Cost of travel.•Cost of business

Life

How to reduce traffic congestion..??

Really…???

What happened to existing roads?

Do we have spaces to widen?

More alternate modes

•More public transport systems.•Develop waterways wherever possible.•Expand Railway network.•Implement Metro Rails

Road development

•Building new roads.•Widening existing roads.• Bring private participation

Is it feasible..? What happened to existing

modes?Do we have enough resource

to develop new modes?

Vicious loop of traffic congestion

CongestionCongestion

Public pressures to increase

capacity

Public pressures to increase

capacity

New capacityNew capacity

Movements are more

easy

Movements are more

easyUrban sprawl is favored

Urban sprawl is favored

The average length of

movements increases

The average length of

movements increases

The number of

movements increases

The number of

movements increases

Traditional measures

AN ALTERNATE APPROACH•Instead of increasing the capacity of transportation system, use the existing system efficiently.•Instead of increasing supply to meet demand, control demand to meet available supply.

Road development

•Where the congestion is maximum, there is hardly any spaces available to widen the road.

Alternate modes•Huge investment ,energy and other resources are required to develop, operate and maintain.

Constraints – space, energy, finance, environment.

Travel Demand Management

TDM

•It aims at reducing the demand at first place, rather than extending facilities to meet for ever growing demand.

Paradigm shiftFromPREDICT and PROVIDEToPREDICT and PREVENT

CONGESTION REDUCING MEASURES

Demand side

•Managing the existing demand.•Controlling the growth of demand.•Cutting down the existing demand.

Supply side•Efficient use of existing facilities.•Increasing the supply

TDM measures

PUSH MEASURES

•Increasing vehicle occupancy.•Influencing time and need of travel.•Creating deterrence by introducing charges.•Imposing restrictions.•Land use and urban planning

PULL MEASURES

•Traffic management.•Improvement of alternative modes.•Integrated multi mode transport system.•New technologies.

Demand side•Reducing the vehicle by modal change and HOV.•Redistributing the vehicles by changing time and space of travel.

•Pull measures aims at attracting the road users to alternative modes, whereas push measures tries to demoralize car users.

TDM measures

Improvement of alternative modes

• Public transportation;• Para-transit;• Bicycle/walking.

Traffic management•Efficient use via traffic eng. Measures

PULL MEASURES

Integrated multi mode transport system

• Park and Ride facilities;• Kiss and Ride facilities.

New technologies• Intelligent Transportation

System.• Low emission vehicle.• New underground

delivery system.

TDM measures

Influencing time and need of travel

•Compressed work weeks, in which employees work a full 40-hour work week in fewer than the typical 5 days.•Flexible work schedules, which allow employees to shift their work start and end times (and thus travel times) to less congested times of the day.

PUSH MEASURES

Increasing vehicle occupancy

Carpools and vanpools; Public and private transit, including bus pools. Non-motorized travel, including bicycling and walking.

TDM measures

Introducing charges•Parking surcharges placed on parking lots .•Congestion pricing.•Increased tax on fuel.•Vehicle ownership taxation.

PUSH MEASURES

Imposing restrictions• No entry to highly congested areas.• Time restriction for parking.• On street parking control.

TDM measures

Land use policy and urban planning

•Compact city.•Intensive development with mixed land uses.•Transit oriented development.•Location of major trip-intensive land uses in areas well served by public transport .•Providing a mix of local services within walking distance of their surrounding neighborhood

PUSH MEASURES

Effectiveness of TDM measuresTraditional measures

•Increasing the supply and adding to the existing facilities is considered most effective in reducing congestion but are also most expensive and difficult to implement, operate and maintain.

Studies are being done to understand the impact of TDM measures on user behavior and response to verify it’s effectiveness.

TDM measures

•Though these are significantly cheaper and easier to implement and maintain, there is much controversy and speculations about strength, role and effectiveness of TDM solutions

Behavioral impact of TDM measures

Behavioral studies

•TDM measures, when enforced, it impacts the normal behavior of road user.•These impacts are studied and predicted using behavioral theories.•It is important to understand how these measures affects the commuter’s travel options with respect to time, cost and convenience.•A conceptual framework is prepared to determine • if TDM measures will affect car use or not?• If it does, how?


Conceptual framework

TDM measures Trip chain attributes Travel options

Public information

Situational factorsEffect on other users

Goal adjustment and implementation plan

Individual factors

Trip chain attributes

•Travel cost•Travel time•Convenience •purpose

TDM measures•Road pricing•Parking fees•Improved service of public transport•Improved walk paths

Components of frameworks

Situational factors

•Weather•Time pressure•Weekday•Family structure

Travel choice•Stay home•Car pooling•Telecommuting•Chain purpose, destination, departure times.


Individual factors

•Income•Attitude•Work situation•Travel pattern

Behavioral study•TDM measures affects trip chain attributes that leads to a different travel choice.•Change in trip chain attributes may also lead to formation of goal by road user, and travel choice to be made, will be the one that is nearest to his goal.•Push measures may lead to formation of goal, but for implementation, policy makers should introduce attractive pull measures.•Public information of pull measures may also lead to formation of positive goals.•Individual and situational factors are not influenced by TDM measures but majorly influences the goal, implementation and travel choice.


Conclusions of Behavioral study•Type of measures required to break a habit may not be same as required to yield a new habit.•A push measure may influence road user to reduce car use, but due to lack of available beneficial alternatives, car user may not show positive result.•Similarly, informing road user about pull measure may attract them to non motorized or public transport, but user may not be willing to change his travel pattern.•Push measures may be helpful to break the habit and pull measures have potential to attract user to form new habits.


Hence, it is advised to use both push and pull measures together to achieve significant change in travel behavior.

Study of user response•As it is evident from studies that different measures have different impact on users.•So we can say that response of users for different measures will be different too.•To study this user response, set of car users were asked questions on three different hypothetical scenarios• One push measure ( Increased tax on fuel)• One pull measure ( reduced cost and increased frequency of

public transport )• Combination of these two measures.

User response to TDM measures

This difference in response is not only with respect to different measures implemented but also the on the extent to which a measure is implemented.

Previous studies•Estimates of transport elasticity provides information on the extent to which travel demand is sensitive to price changes and to changes in public transport services• 10% increase in fuel price causes between 1% – 3% car use

reduction (Dargay, 2007).• 10% increase in bus fare has been found to lead a 4% reduction in

travelling (dargay & Hanley, 2002).• a 10% increase in service frequency led to an average increase of

5% in ridership (Evans, 2004).


Studies have shown that a combination of one push measure and two pull measures led to a slightly higher reduction in distance travelled by car compared to the measures evaluated individually.

Objectives are to find out:•To what extent car users expected to reduce their car use in response to the TDM measure.•In response to the TDM measures, which car reducing strategies would be used by user.


Methodology :•Questionnaire given to identify car users with similar characteristics.•Then three separate questionnaires for three different scenarios were given to three different sets of respondents.•The policy package was described in detail and possible monetary, time, convenience and environmental benefits of respective measures were stated.

Results•Expected car use reduction in response to the TDM measure.

•Combined measure reduces significantly higher than pull measure for weekly car use•Combined measure reduces significantly higher than push measure for annual car use•There is no significant difference in individual measures for annual car use.


Pull measure Push measure combination

% of weekly car use 19 26 30

% of annual car use 20 18 25

Hence, combined push and pull measures displays significant reduction in car use, compared to individual measures.

Results :•In response to the TDM measures, which car reducing strategies would be used by user.


Results :•Group evaluating pull measure ( improved public transport ), • They will switch to public transport only, specially for shorter

distances.• For longer distances, they were reluctant to reduce car use.

•Group evaluating push measure ( raised tax on fuel ),• They would prefer walking/bicycling for shorter distances.• For moderate distances, they would prefer public transport.• One in five, still preferred to use car.

•Group evaluating combined measure,• They preferred cycling/walking and public transport equally for

shorter distances.• For greater distances, they preferred public transport.


•Travel demand management measures can be effective in reducing congestion, if implemented properly.

•Not only the choice of measures, but also the extent to which the measure to be applied, is crucial for effectiveness of measures.

•A combination of push-pull measures yields better results in car use reduction than individual measures.

Inferences

•Garling T, Eek D, Loukopoulos p, Fujii S, Stenman O J, Kitamura R, Pendyala R, Vilhelmson B, 2002, A conceptual analyses of the impact of travel demand management on private car use, Transport policy 9, 59-70.

•Eriksson L, Nordlund A M, Garvill J, 2010, Expected car use reduction in response to travel demand management measures, Transportation research F 13, 329-342

•Loukopoulos P, Jacobson C, Garling T, Schneider C M, Fuji S, 2003, Car user responses to travel demand management measures: Goal intentions and choice of adaptive alternatives, International Conference on travel behavior and research, Lucerne.

•Victoria transport policy institute, [Internet, www], Address : http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/ [Accessed on 29 mach 2012]

• NSW Government, Transport: roads and maritime services, [Internet, www], Address: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/traveldemandmanagement/index.html, [Accessed on 29 march 2012]

• Auckland transport, [Internet, www], Address: http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Transport/RLTS/Chapter%208.pdf , [Accessed on 24 march 2012]

References