CLIMATE LEADERSHIP ACADEMY
Promising Practices in
A Resource Guide for Local Leaders
Table of Contents
I. Introduction & Overview .......................................................................................................... 1
Low-Carbon Transportation: On the critical pathway to local and global climate solutions ...........................1
The Myriad Benefits of Efficient and Climate-Friendly Land-Use and Transportation ....................................3
A Flurry of Innovation and Investment in U.S. Cities, Regions and States.........................................................5
Federal Movement .......................................................................................................................................................6
Key Challenges and Needs: What are practitioners saying? .................................................................................8
About This Resource Guide ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Index of Case Studies and Themes ......................................................................................................................... 10
General Transportation Efficiency Resource ......................................................................................................... 12
II. Building Demand: Encouraging Climate-Friendly Transportation Choices ............................. 13
Case Study: San Diego I-15 HOT Lanes ............................................................................................................... 13
Case Study: King County In Motion ....................................................................................................................... 16
Case Study: San Francisco SFpark........................................................................................................................... 19
Case Study: Bay Area 511.org.................................................................................................................................. 22
Other Detailed Case Studies.................................................................................................................................... 25
Recommended Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 27
Making the Case ................................................................................................................................................ 27
Sample Ordinances ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Cross-Cutting Transportation Demand Management Resources.............................................................. 28
Younger Audiences............................................................................................................................................ 30
Parking Management........................................................................................................................................ 30
Mode-Specific Measures................................................................................................................................... 31
Other Useful Information ........................................................................................................................................ 31
Casual Carpooling Examples............................................................................................................................ 32
III. Growing Smarter: Compact Development that Saves Time, Money, Energy and Emissions... 35
Case Study: Denver FasTracks and Transit-Oriented Development ................................................................. 36
Case Study: Sacramento Blueprint ......................................................................................................................... 40
Case Study: Miami 21 ............................................................................................................................................... 42
Case Study: Burlington, Vermont ........................................................................................................................... 45
Recommended Smart Growth Resources.............................................................................................................. 47
Making the Case ................................................................................................................................................ 47
Smart Growth Policy Guides and Toolkits .................................................................................................... 48
Model Smart Growth Code and Policies........................................................................................................ 49
Recommended Transit-Oriented Development Resources ................................................................................ 50
Other Useful Information ........................................................................................................................................ 52
IV. Expanding Options: Increasing the Supply of Climate-Friendly Transportation .................... 55
Case Study: Greater Vancouver TransLink ........................................................................................................... 56
Case Study: New York City Select Bus Service ..................................................................................................... 59
Case Study: Salt Lake City TRAX............................................................................................................................ 61
Case Study: Portland’s Modern Streetcar.............................................................................................................. 65
Case Study: Minneapolis Bike Program................................................................................................................. 68
Case Study: Seattle’s Pedestrian Master Plan ....................................................................................................... 71
Recommended Resources by Mode ....................................................................................................................... 73
Transit .................................................................................................................................................................. 73
Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................................................................................... 74
Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................................................................................. 75
Bikeshare ............................................................................................................................................................. 75
Carshare .............................................................................................................................................................. 76
Other Useful Information ........................................................................................................................................ 77
V. Improving Collaboration: Working Effectively Across Agencies, Sectors, and Jurisdictions ...79
Collaboration Case Study Index.............................................................................................................................. 79
Case Study: Atlanta’s “Connect Atlanta Plan” and the Atlanta Regional Commission’s Livable Centers
Initiative ...................................................................................................................................................................... 80
Case Study: Chattanooga Revitalization................................................................................................................ 84
Case Study: Tucson Regional Transit Authority ................................................................................................... 86
Case Study: New York State Capital District Planning and Transportation Committee ............................... 88
Recommended Collaboration Resources............................................................................................................... 91
Other Useful Information ........................................................................................................................................ 91
VI. Funding: Financing Climate-Friendly Transportation and Improvements.............................93
Index of Case Studies with Funding Described .................................................................................................... 93
Case Study: Oregon’s Road User Fee Pilot Program ........................................................................................... 95
Funding Resource List .............................................................................................................................................. 97
General ................................................................................................................................................................ 97
Sector or Mode-Specific Funding.................................................................................................................... 98
Other Useful Information ........................................................................................................................................ 99
VII. Tracking Progress: Improving Greenhouse Gas Accounting of Transportation Emissions .. 101
Recommended Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 101
Other Useful Information ...................................................................................................................................... 103
About the Institute for Sustainable Communities.............................................................................................. 105
We welcome your feedback!.................................................................................................................................. 105
I. Introduction & Overview
Low-Carbon Transportation: On the critical pathway to local and global climate
“The phrase “you can’t get there from here” has a new application. For climate
stabilization, a commonly accepted target for the year 2050 would require the United States
to cut its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 60 to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Carbon
dioxide levels have been increasing rapidly since 1990, and so would have to level off and
decline even more rapidly to reach this target level by 2050…The U.S. transportation
sector cannot do its fair share to meet this target through vehicle and fuel technology alone.
We have to find a way to sharply reduce the growth in vehicle miles driven across the
nation’s sprawling urban areas, reversing trends that go back decades.”1
Transportation—that is, the ways in which we get ourselves and our stuff around—is a major source
of energy consumption and global warming pollution in the U.S. and around the world. In most U.S.
cities and metropolitan regions, transportation sources are among the top two components of their
local/regional “carbon footprint,” along with energy consumption by buildings. Nationally,
transportation sources account for close to a third of the total greenhouse gas emissions, and
emissions from those sources have been growing faster than those from any other sector; between
1990 and 2006, growth in U.S. transportation GHG emissions represented almost one-half (47%) of
the increase in total U.S. GHGs.
Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, Urban Land Institute, April 2008
Introduction and Overview | 1
The bottom line, simply put, is that we cannot meet our national climate protection goals, or meet the
global climate challenge, without creating much more climate-friendly cities and metropolitan
regions. And we can’t do so without significantly reducing the energy consumed by—and therefore
the global warming pollution produced by—transportation sources, especially cars and light-duty
So it’s no surprise that strategies for reducing global warming pollution from transportation sources
are a central component of virtually every local, regional, state and national climate protection plan
on the planet. They seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through five main action categories:
increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles; expand the use of more climate-friendly fuels (such as
electricity and some biofuels); improve the operational efficiency of transportation systems (e.g., traffic
light prioritization for buses), promote more climate-friendly driving habits (e.g. “eco-driving”); and
encourage drivers to reduce their vehicle miles traveled (that is, the total amount of driving). This
Introduction and Overview | 2
Resource Guide addresses mostly the last two categories of actions, with an especially strong focus on
reducing vehicle miles traveled through three interrelated approaches:
• “Smart growth” land-use management plans and policies that bring more people closer to
where they work, shop and play, thereby reducing their dependence on cars;
• Increased investments in more climate-friendly transportation choices such as public transit,
biking and walking that give more people safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the
• A suite of “transportation demand management” approaches—ranging from pricing strategies
to public education campaigns—that encourage more people to drive less, and to operate
their vehicles in a more energy-efficient and climate-friendly way when they do drive.
The Myriad Benefits of Efficient and Climate-Friendly Land-Use and
The good news, according to a growing body of research, is that aggressive efforts to reduce vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) can significantly reduce global warming pollution, and produce a host of other
economic, social and environmental benefits. Growing Cooler: the Evidence on Urban Development and
Climate Change, a comprehensive review of dozens of studies published by the Urban Land Institute
(ULI) in April 2008, concluded that land-use management is critical to slowing the growth in VMT,
that VMT is 20% to 40% lower in compact developments, and that a comprehensive set of
measures—from land-use policy to pricing strategies to increased transit services—is necessary to
significantly reduce VMT and associated greenhouse gas emissions.2
ULI published a follow-up study in July 2009, titled Moving Cooler: an Analysis of Transportation
Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which assessed the cost-effectiveness of a range of
strategies for reducing the amount of vehicle travel and improving the efficiency of the transportation
system and services. That analysis yielded four important conclusions:
• Innovations in vehicle and fuel technology will have a substantial impact on GHGs, but these
gains will largely be offset by increases in travel along with growth in the U.S. population;
• An integrated and multi-faceted portfolio of VMT-reduction strategies could achieve annual
GHG emission reductions in the United States of four to 18 percent by 2050;
• Such reductions would require “considerable—in some cases major—changes to current
transportation systems and operations, travel behavior, land-use patterns, and public policy
• Implementation of those strategies could save 85 to 660 barrels of oil—and $72 to $112
billion in direct vehicle costs alone—per year over a 40-year timeframe, depending on the
level of aggressiveness and the degree of success.3
Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Urban Land Institute, July 2009
Introduction and Overview | 3
A report by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) published in August 2009 agreed in large part
with the fundamental conclusions of Moving Cooler, though its estimate of the potential benefits was
more modest: VMT and related GHG reductions of one to 11 percent by 2050. In addition, the
report authors disagreed about the feasibility of achieving the proposed target density in Moving
Cooler’s analysis—doubling the density of 75% of new development—even by 2050.
But it’s not just concern about global climate disruption that has cities, regions and states throughout
the U.S. working so hard to meet that goal. More and more people—from government officials to
business owners to individual residents and households—are seeing that investments in more climate-
friendly land-use and transportation systems yield a host of other local benefits: reduced vehicle
fueling and maintenance expenses; cleaner air and water; lower infrastructure and utility costs; less
time wasted in traffic jams; and improved public health and physical fitness. For example, a transit-
oriented development (TOD) project in Charlotte, NC—a 23-acre mixed-use redevelopment along
their light rail line—reduced commute times and vehicle-generated global warming pollution by
75% while increasing property values and tax revenues 25%.4 Similarly, decades of climate-smart
land-use and transportation investments in the Portland, OR region have produced average commute
trips that are four miles shorter than the national average, producing a “green dividend” of $1.1
billion per year in driving costs and $1.5 billion per year in time saved.5
Steve Winkelman, January 12, 2009. Growing Wealthier: The Economic Benefits of Smart Growth, PowerPoint Presentation by
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting.
Joe Cortright, Portland’s Green Dividend, CEOs for Cities, July 2007.
Introduction and Overview | 4
Growing Wealthier: the Economic Benefits of Smart Growth, a new study in progress by the Center for
Clean Air Policy, will synthesize the growing literature on the myriad economic benefits of smart
growth strategies and investments—including lower infrastructure costs, increased energy efficiency of
homes and businesses (and associated cost-savings), improved public health and job creation. It will
be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the benefits and costs, from near-term, up-front
costs to long-term benefits. According to a “sneak preview” delivered at the Transportation Research
Board annual meeting in January 2009, the preliminary conclusions are that “smart growth is smart
economic policy,” and that policies and investments across sectors (land-use, transportation, energy,
etc.) and levels of government (local, state and federal) must be better aligned to realize and optimize
the economic benefits of smart growth.6
A Flurry of Innovation and Investment in U.S. Cities, Regions and States
With their eyes on this sizable and multi-faceted prize, cities, regions and states throughout the U.S.
are experimenting with, and investing in, strategies for reducing global warming pollution from
transportation sources—motor vehicles, in particular. The Sacramento and Atlanta regions, and many
others across the country, are rallying behind bold smart-growth and/or sustainable transportation
visions, goals and plans. Cities such as Miami and Kansas City are overhauling their land-use codes
with climate protection and sustainable development in mind. Denver, Salt Lake City and other cities
Growing Wealthier: The Economic Benefits of Smart Growth, PowerPoint Presentation by Steve Winkelman, Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting, January 12, 2009
Introduction and Overview | 5
are making huge investments in new light rail systems and associated transit-oriented development.
Portland, Seattle and other cities are resurrecting their streetcar networks, while New York, Chicago,
Eugene and other cities are investing in bus rapid transit (BRT)—inspired in part by success stories
emerging from places such as Curitiba, Brazil and Bogotá, Columbia. Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle
and others have aggressive strategies in place or under development to make biking and walking in
their cities easier and safer. All of these cities, and many others, are implementing aggressive and
multi-dimensional “transportation demand management” programs, from San Francisco’s
comprehensive approach to parking pricing and management to Salt Lake City’s anti-idling
More and more Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) around the country are recognizing
that they have an important role to play, and are working to integrate climate protection goals—
related to both mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (preparing for the
impacts of climate disruption)—squarely into their ways of doing business, including regional growth
management and transportation planning efforts and resource allocation decisions. The Sacramento
Council of Governments (SACOG) led a process to forge regional consensus on a vision for future
development called The Sacramento Blueprint. Other MPOs such as the Atlanta Regional
Commission have developed sustainable growth principles and then focused on providing new
funding and technical assistance to local jurisdictions to help them integrate land-use and
transportation planning to meet those principles.
Some state governments are heading in a similar direction, with the State of California leading the
way. Their recently passed smart growth legislation (SB 375) will set state-wide and regional VMT
and VMT-related GHG reduction goals, and requires MPOs throughout the state to develop
Sustainable Community Strategies describing how they’ll reach those targets through climate-smart
land-use and transportation actions and investments7. Similarly, the State of Washington recently
passed legislation (House Bill 2815) requiring per capita VMT reductions of 18% by 2020, 35% by
2035 and 50% by 2050.
Many of these examples of “promising practices” are showcased in this Resource Guide. And they
are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the experimentation, innovation and substantial investment
of time and money that’s underway in cities, regions and states throughout the U.S.
At the same time, big changes are afoot at the Federal level. Historically, Federal transportation
policies and funding priorities have not been supportive of cities and metropolitan regions seeking to
reduce the “carbon footprint” associated with historical land-use and transportation patterns. The
Brookings Institution, in a May 2008 article, outlined a number of “market and policy distortions”
that “inhibit metropolitan actors from more aggressively addressing the nation’s climate challenge”:
For more information on SB375 implementation: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm
Introduction and Overview | 6
Economy-wide problems include under-priced energy, under-funded energy
research, missing federal standards, distorted utility regulations and inadequate
information. Policy impediments include a bias against public transit, inadequate
federal leadership on freight and land-use planning, failure to encourage energy- and
location-efficient housing decisions, and the fragmentation of federal transportation,
housing, energy and environmental policies.”8
But in recent months there have been several clear signs of a new Federal perspective and approach
in-the-making. For example, billions of dollars of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) funding is being channeled to cities and metropolitan regions to support investments in
transit and other climate-friendly transportation choices. The secretaries of three key Federal
agencies—the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
and the Environmental Protection Agency—have forged a new Interagency Partnership for
Sustainable Communities “to better coordinate federal transportation and housing investments” and
“help improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation
costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide.”9 In addition, HUD’s Fiscal Year
2010 budget includes a $150 million Sustainable Communities Initiative, the goal of which is
“improved coordination of transportation and housing investments that result in more regional and
local sustainable development patterns, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and more transit-
accessible housing choices for residents.”10
In the Federal legislative arena, discussions and negotiations are underway on reauthorization of the
$286 billion national transportation program. A broad coalition of environmental, labor,
transportation and housing organizations, called Transportation for America, has come together to
push for “a new national transportation program that will take American into the 21st century by
building a modernized infrastructure and healthy communities,” including increased funding and
authority to local regions and significant investments in transit, walking and biking infrastructure. 11
In addition, the House of Representatives has passed, and the Senate will soon begin deliberations on,
a climate and energy bill that would set a national target for greenhouse gas emission reductions and
establish a “cap-and-trade” system (i.e. a carbon market) to help meet those targets. Among other
things, the bill would require the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, to establish national transportation-related GHG emission reduction goals to help
meet the national targets.
Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America, Brookings Institution, May 29, 2008.
“HUD and DOT Announce Interagency Partnership to Promote Sustainable Communities,” US Department of Housing & Urban
Development News Release, March 18, 2009.
“Budget 2010: Sustainability and Quality Places,” Jennifer Bradley, Brookings Institution, May 14, 2009
Introduction and Overview | 7
Key Challenges and Needs: What are practitioners saying?
These are all inspiring signs of progress. However, practitioners who are working hard to reduce
transportation-related carbon emissions in cities and their surrounding communities still face many
obstacles as they work with their regional, state and federal counterparts to better align goals,
priorities, policies and investments needed for success. And there are many other challenges, as well,
keeping cities and metropolitan regions from making more and faster progress.
To better understand those challenges, and to guide the scope and content of this Resource Guide, we
surveyed more than 30 practitioners from 18 U.S. cities, including sustainability directors, city
planning and transportation officials, senior staff from a variety of MPOs and state DOTs, and national
experts. While issues and dynamics vary across cities and regions, ten common challenges emerged
from our assessment:
1. Achieving smarter land-use patterns: While many cities are well aware of the multiple benefits of
compact, transit friendly development, achieving such development is easier said than done—and
next-to-impossible in some parts of the country. The challenges to practitioners include forging a
broad consensus behind a smart-growth vision, changing—and then enforcing—zoning laws,
and ensuring that denser urban centers are well-served by transit, livable and desirable.
2. Increasing the supply of climate-friendly transportation options: We can’t expect people to drive
less in the absence of plentiful, clean, safe, convenient and affordable alternatives such as buses,
light rail, and better walking and biking opportunities. Key challenges practitioners face in
expanding the supply of such choices include reaching consensus on the reallocation of existing
street space (for example to create a bus rapid transit line) and finding funding, in particular for
the more expensive infrastructure such as light rail systems.
3. Increasing demand for climate-friendly transportation options: Driving alone is the most
common mobility choice for most people in most U.S. cities for a host of reasons, ranging from a
lack of convenient and workable alternatives to a desire for privacy. Practitioners want help
honing their Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies—that is, their multi-faceted
efforts to encourage people to drive less and use other modes more—and evaluating which
strategies will achieve the biggest emissions reductions at the least cost. They are especially
interested in innovative approaches to road pricing and parking management.
4. Engaging, educating, and influencing community stakeholders: Developers, business owners,
environmental advocates, and individual residents and homeowners typically have different
perspectives on the benefits, costs and overall desirability of climate-friendly transportation and
land-use policies and practices, making for a difficult balancing act in many parts of the country.
Practitioners understand that, to be successful in reducing transportation-related carbon
emissions, they need to get better at engaging, informing and inspiring their entire communities;
they are particularly interested in learning more about effective social marketing campaigns, for
example those that use advanced Internet-based approaches (e.g. Web 2.0).
Introduction and Overview | 8
5. Accounting for greenhouse gas emissions from transportation: Tracking or modeling emissions
from transportation sources is difficult. Unlike estimating the emissions reductions from other
climate solutions like urban building retrofits, where sources are easy to track and quantify,
transportation sources are widely varied, cross political and geographic boundaries, and change
with alterations to land-use in ways that are difficult to predict.
6. Quantifying the benefits of climate-friendly land-use and transportation: Getting a better handle
on the myriad economic, environmental and social benefits of compact development and climate-
friendly mobility is key to developing, and winning broad support for, effective policies and
programs. Assessing and articulating those benefits in a credible and compelling way is difficult.
Estimating potential reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from different transportation
strategies is likewise difficult.
7. Coordinating and collaborating on land-use and transportation governance: In most regions of the
U.S., decision-making authority on land-use and transportation issues is shared across many
agencies and levels of government, making coordination extremely difficult. Cities lack direct
control over many important decisions, such as the allocation of regional bus service and federal
funding. Working collaboratively and effectively with their surrounding suburbs and with their
regional, state and federal government counterparts remains a huge challenge for local
sustainability, transportation and land-use practitioners.
8. Funding climate-friendly transportation choices: To be sure, there are low-cost and no-cost
strategies available to practitioners. But many of the needed improvements are big-ticket items, in
particular large infrastructure investments such as new bus rapid transit and light rail networks.
Key funding-related challenges for practitioners include: creating local financing options;
attracting private investment in transit-oriented development and local transportation
infrastructure development; and working effectively with their MPOs, states and the Federal
government to increase both the total amount of funding for transportation and the percentage
flowing to relatively climate-friendly modes.
9. Balancing short- and long-term investments and solutions: It’s a constant challenge to balance the
need for relatively big solutions that require more time and money to implement—for example,
investing in light rail or BRT lines and “bending the curve” on long-standing land-use
management practices and transportation habits—with the desire and need to make short-term
gains in reducing transportation-related climate pollution.
10. Gaining easier access to “promising practices,” best available information and expertise, and—
most important—each other: There is a lot of pioneering work happening in cities throughout the
U.S. and all over the world, and a lot of information being generated. Most practitioners don’t
have time to stay abreast of it all. They want help identifying and assessing good ideas and
innovative approaches, and gathering and sorting through the rapidly growing and ever-
Introduction and Overview | 9
changing pool of tools and information. Most important, they need more opportunities to
network with and learn from each other.
About This Resource Guide
This Resource Guide is a synthesis of the best information we were able to find on diverse ways of
addressing the key challenges listed above. It’s intended to help local, regional and state practitioners
do their jobs better by showcasing “promising practices” and providing easy, user-friendly access to
some of the very best information and resources available to meet those challenges.
It is not an exhaustive compilation of available information—a near-impossible task given the large
and ever-growing volume of studies, reports, websites, books and blogs on this topic. That said, this
Guide is the result of an intensive effort by the ISC team—including dozens of phone consultations
with leading experts and practitioners and a great deal of web-based research—to identify, compile,
review, sort and synthesize useful information on innovative policies, programs and practices being
deployed in cities and metropolitan regions throughout the country and available resources (tools,
studies, websites, and people/organizations).
Based on feedback and guidance from practitioners throughout the country, we’ve focused the bulk of
the guide on two types of resources: case studies on some of the leading transportation-related climate
solutions in motion or under development around the country; and menus of resources (studies,
reports, websites, etc.) that we believe practitioners will find useful.
This Resource Guide is a work-in-progress. While we have produced it initially for practitioners
attending ISC’s Climate Leadership Academy module in Chicago in September 2009, we intend to
refine and improve it in the months following the Academy, and then update it on a regular basis and
make it available to practitioners everywhere.
Index of Case Studies and Themes
The case studies that appear in this Resource Guide are based on web research, existing case studies,
and interviews of key players. Each case study is categorized in a thematic chapter, but all contain
useful information on themes covered in other chapters, as well. The index table below indicates all of
the themes discussed in each case study.
Introduction and Overview | 10
Building Growing Expanding
Demand Smarter Choices
I-15 HOT Lanes
King County, WA
In Motion Program
Bay Area, CA
New York City
Select Bus Service
Salt Lake City
Pedestrian Master Plan
Connect Atlanta Plan
Livable Centers Initiative
New York State Capital
District Planning and
Introduction and Overview | 11
General Transportation Efficiency Resource
U.S. Department of Transportation Climate Change Clearinghouse
This website is the U.S. DOT's comprehensive clearinghouse for transportation and climate change
related resources, including data, methodologies, strategies, impacts, and sample actions and policies.
Resources relevant to municipal officials as of September 2009 have been cited elsewhere in this Resource
Guide, but the site is continually updated and worth checking periodically.
U.S. Department of Transportation
Introduction and Overview | 12
II. Building Demand: Encouraging Climate-Friendly
If we build it, will they come? Not necessarily. Cities and regions across the country are deploying
aggressive and multi-faceted “transportation demand management” strategies to encourage more
people to do more walking, biking and transit-riding, and less driving. These strategies include
everything from public education campaigns to state-mandated commute trip reduction programs to
innovative road pricing and parking management measures.
But practitioners face big challenges in the TDM arena, including:
• A lack of transportation alternatives that are sufficiently safe, clean, convenient and
affordable—choices that match people’s daily schedules and needs;
• The fact that old habits do indeed die hard. Many urban and suburban dwellers have become
used to—some would say addicted to— the relative convenience, privacy and perceived
affordability of driving alone;
• Transportation-related pricing strategies, perhaps even more than other policies involving
new taxes or fees, can be especially difficult and contentious, as many people have become
accustomed to using roads, bridges and parking spaces at little or no cost.
This section of the Resource Guide showcases interesting transportation demand management
programs underway in San Diego, King County, Washington, and San Francisco.
CASE STUDY: SAN DIEGO I-15 HOT LANES
Navigating the Politics of Road Pricing
A political champion, an explicit transit line beneficiary, and a carefully crafted outreach plan enabled the
San Diego Area Association of Governments to implement one of the first congestion pricing projects in the
THE BASI CS
How it works. In 1996, San Diego converted an underutilized high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane
into a high occupancy/toll (HOT) lane. This conversion enabled HOVs to continue using the lane for
free, while opening up access to the lane by single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) that are willing pay a
toll in order to drive on it. The direction of the lane is matched to the prevailing direction of
commuting (southbound toward San Diego in the morning, northbound in the evening). The toll is
now paid via a transponder-based FasTrak system. The level of the toll can be raised or lowered in 25
cent increments based on the level of congestion in the HOT lanes, as often as every six minutes.
Since users are notified about the current level of the toll via electronic signs placed before HOV lane
on-ramps, raising the toll reduces the number of drivers choosing to use the lane, thereby helping to
maintain the free flow traffic.
Building Demand | 13
Dedicated revenue. The revenue from these tolls funds an express bus service that also uses the HOT
lane. Toll revenues are currently split between subsidizing this service, enforcement of allowed uses of
the HOT lane by the California Highway Patrol, and upkeep of the tolling system. (In recent years the
revenue has not been sufficient to cover the costs of the bus service.)
Impacts. The HOT lane project’s goals–testing an innovative concept that takes advantage of excess
capacity in HOV lanes, and raising revenue to fund a bus line in a specific corridor—were both met.
Approximately 75 percent of the weekday traffic in the
HOT lane is carpools, and the remaining 25 percent of
paying users have generated over $17 million in revenue
since 1996. FasTrak variable pricing has effectively
redistributed traffic volumes away from mid-peak
commute times, helping to alleviate congestion in the
regular lanes. However, the project that received the
new revenue has not fared as well. The new bus line has
low ridership, a problem that critics say is because it was
not conceived as part of a transit network. In addition,
other external factors have produced some funding
Next steps. A distance-based tolling system, where
drivers pay more per mile traveled, was implemented in
early 2009, and an initial evaluation shows an increase
in revenue of 30 percent. The I-15 HOT lane project is
currently expanding to four HOT lanes over a 20 mile
stretch. Direct access ramps to these lanes for buses from
Map showing Fastrack (HOT lane) corridor and
five transit centers, and BRT service to replace current the relative locations of Poway and San Diego.
(Image credit: FHWA)
express service, are also planned.
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Getting underway. Congestion pricing is a hot-button approach to raising revenue, necessitating
considerable attention to political strategy in building support for such an approach. Interestingly, San
Diego’s project found its political champion not in someone who sought to mitigate congestion or to
be a demand management innovator, but in someone who was initially interested in a light rail
facility. This was then-Mayor Jan Goldsmith, who wanted service to extend to his city of Ponway, as
had been built for the other cities in the county closer to San Diego. When Mayor Goldsmith
understood that regional funding was simply not sufficient for a light rail connection, but that the
region was eligible for federal Congestion Pricing Pilot Program funds from the Federal Highway
Administration, he became a tireless champion of congestion pricing as a means to fund a transit
connection between San Diego and Ponway, campaigning with the public through op-eds and radio
talk show appearances. (Although light rail was not economically feasible even with this new source
of revenue, express bus service was seen as a favorable alternative.)
Building Demand | 14
State and local politicking. Goldsmith became even more instrumental in advancing congestion
pricing when he was elected to the State Assembly. In that capacity he methodically marshaled
policymaker support by meeting one-by-one with key colleagues: County supervisors, legislators,
and mayors of cities along the Ponway-San Diego corridor whose residents would be affected by the
new tolls. He would bring traffic planners from the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) to help explain the proposal to these meetings. With a critical mass of elected officials
behind him, he successfully led the passage of enabling legislation despite powerful opposition. State
Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer and the Automobile Club of Southern California tried to
argue that Goldsmith intended to toll all lanes on I-15, but they were ineffective because local
policymakers in northern San Diego already understood Goldsmith’s intentions. In addition,
Goldsmith ensured that Lockyer would not oppose the bill by skillfully reframing the issue as a matter
of local prerogative. That is, if all the elected officials in his district wanted to institute a toll, why
would the state object?
When the demonstration HOT lane was due to end in 1998, Goldsmith again adeptly advocated for
its extension. The groundwork he and others laid in building a strong base of support for the HOT
lane has helped it to survive multiple rounds of legislative extension, and most recently undergo
significant evolution and expansion.
Public buy-in. In this particular case, the concept of allowing non-HOV vehicles to access an HOV
lane was publicly acceptable because the lane was widely recognized as having excess capacity. The
proposed concept of raising revenue from SOV users of the lane gained acceptance because a new
transit line would be the explicit beneficiary. SANDAG and Goldsmith devoted strategic attention to
promoting this transit line to the public through a newsletter, town hall style meetings, and the media.
SANDAG continues to measure public response and has found consistently broad support for pricing
lanes. Although FasTrak users tend to be of higher income, equity has not been perceived as a major
issue. The Federal Highway Administration even argues that because HOT users are diverted from
regular lanes, HOT lanes can reduce congestion in regular lanes and benefit everyone.
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
SANDAG I-15 Express Lanes Page:
Initial project evaluation:
Jacqueline Golob et al., 2001. I-15 Congestion Pricing Project Monitoring and Evaluation Services Task
13 Phase II Year Three Overall Report. SANDAG: 36 pp.
Building Demand | 15
Megan Smirti, et al, 2007. “Politics, Public Opinion, and Project Design in California Road Pricing.”
University of California Postprints,
David Kind, Michael Manville, Donald Shoup. 2007. “The political calculus of congestion pricing.”
Transport Policy, No., 14:111-123.
CASE STUDY: KING COUNTY IN MOTION
Changing Travel Behavior with Community-Based Social Marketing
In Motion was developed on community-based social marketing principles: a grounded understanding of
targeted audience motivators, a systematic approach to each outreach effort, and ongoing evaluation. An
innovation-minded transit agency, a consistent champion, and a creative approach to funding make this
transportation demand management program possible.
THE BASI CS
In Motion is a transportation demand management program (TDM) that encourages King County
residents within targeted neighborhoods to use healthier travel options. King County uses three key
strategies that enable cost-effective outreach to reduce single occupancy vehicle travel: strategically
choosing neighborhoods; developing messaging ‘hooks’ after systematic audience surveys; and,
engaging community outreach partners.
Getting underway. In Motion is a program of King County Metro Transit (KCM), which operates
transit coaches, vanpools, and an integrated bicycle support program on Puget Sound in Washington
State; its major service cities are Seattle and Bellevue. KCM has been implementing TDM programs
for employers since the passage of the statewide Commute Trip Reduction Act (CTR) in 1991.
However, overall travel continued to increase, and CTR programs did not effectively influence the
majority of car trips—a KCM study in 2005 confirmed that 75 percent of all trips are not work
related, similar to national averages.
In 2002, several staff members in the King County waste and transportation sectors attended
workshops on community based social marketing (CBSM). They were inspired to create their own
initiatives by the projects, results, and studies presented. KCM staff presented a residentially focused
TDM proposal to their management team, and decision makers at KCM approved a pilot project
under the condition that it be rigorously evaluated to demonstrate results. KCM then engaged Seattle-
based Taylor Consulting to develop the program to address non-work trips. The pilot took place in
2004 and In Motion continued on to deliver 10 more neighborhood-based projects through 2009.
Community-based social marketing approach. In Motion’s outreach efforts are conducted
neighborhood-by-neighborhood. Each effort, or project, lasts 10-12 weeks and features tailored
outreach to enhance relevance and increase participation. All projects promote all modes, but the
Building Demand | 16
“hook” designed to elicit a response is modified for each project. For example, the first project
encouraged the personal health benefits and community connections of walking and biking for trips
to local stores, schools, and recreation in the Madison-Miller neighborhood, based on the initial
survey that revealed residents were much more concerned about health than, say, traffic congestion.
Another project in Renton spoke more to the potential time and financial savings of avoiding the
construction impacts on Interstate 405. In addition, each project connects with local businesses to
provide community-level outreach and incentives. This provides more local ownership of the
initiative, more effective visibility in a message-dense environment, and more local business
promotion. (Chambers of Commerce is often their most willing local partners.) For the In Motion
project template, see In Motion’s “Do It Yourself Toolkit” at the link below.
Impact. The first pilot project was the most extensively evaluated to date, with the use of using weekly
trip logs, a phone survey, and bus stop counts in targeted and control neighborhoods. Subsequent
projects have been evaluated by survey and participant travel logs. In four years, KCM estimates that
participants in 11 projects have collectively reduced their driving by over 900,000 miles, avoided
44,433 gallons of fuel consumption, and avoided 431 tons of CO2 emissions. Participation levels
average between 6 percent and 10 percent for each targeted neighborhood, where individuals report
about 20 percent decreases in SOV use. This has been true for both ‘prime’ neighborhoods (with high
access to services) and more challenging, suburban neighborhoods. Other qualitative benefits
reported by participants include a heightened sense of community and healthfulness.
Cost and resources. The pilot project costs, including design and evaluation, came to about $57 per
household. Subsequent projects cost $15-$20 per household depending on the neighborhood’s
density. The program uses consultants and has internal staff amounting to about one third of a full-
time position: a primary coordinator who spends about 20 percent of her time on In Motion projects,
a full-time summer intern, a half-time intern during the school year, and about 25 percent of a
marketing person’s time over the course of a year.
Creative funding. In Motion does not have dedicated funding; initial funds came from a Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant and subsequent funding has been raised through a creative
mix of sources, e.g. allocations from general TDM grants, leveraged city funds for specific
neighborhoods, and donations from local partners that serve as participation incentives. Among In
Motion’s most creative funding approaches are construction impact mitigation contracts with the
Washington State Department of Transportation for identified neighborhoods. This approach also
enhances the relevancy of the transportation information that In Motion is providing to participants.
Another strategy In Motion has used to leverage their grant funding is to work with an employer,
Children’s Hospital, which was implementing and funding a program for its own employees. In
Motion implemented a neighborhood-based project in coordination with the Children’s Hospital’s
employee base, which contributed to message saturation to the target audience.
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Ensuring program value. KCM had (and has), what its staffers refer to as ‘enlightened management’
who are supportive of new initiatives. When provided with quantified impacts of similar efforts and
Building Demand | 17
the link to overall agency mission and goals (“mobility for the region, filling the seats,” management
was willing to try a demonstration project. Other factors that laid the groundwork for In Motion’s
acceptance include longstanding efforts to promote TDM within Washington State and KCM. KCM
benefited from an internal champion who advocated TDM efforts for over 20 years, constantly striving
to demonstrate the contribution of TDM programs to the overall goals and objectives of the larger
Community-Based Social Marketing Strategies and How In Motion Employed Them
Tool Effect In Motion Example
Commitment • Commitment causes attitude shift, • Check box to pledge to change two trips
more consistent action per week to non-drive alone; Join club
• Written more effective than oral motion
Prompts • Visual or auditory reminders to • In-home note pads
carry out the behavior; Should be • Walk and bike maps
present close in space and time to • Action posters
target behavior • Water bottles, safety lights
Norms • Guide behavior as person looks to • “Count me in” yard signs
others for clues • Business sponsor window slicks
• Explicit and noticeable • T-shirts, water bottles
Communication • Persuade, educate, and • Direct mail brochure
communicate desired behavior • Website
• Frame message to diffuse new • “Improving our community through
attitudes healthy travel choices”
• Vivid, personal, concrete • “You can do more”
• Integrate personal, community
Incentives • Motivate person to implement • Free ride tickets
desired behavior • Vouchers good for bus passes or non-bus
• Closely match incentive to desired alternative mode gear
behavior • Local business coupons to encourage
(Source: Cooper, Transportation Research Record)
Ensuring program relevance. The biggest initial challenge was making a residential, non-bus specific,
TDM program that was relevant to KCM’s core transit orientation. Staff succeeded in making the
argument to the transit-centric decision makers that every walker is a potential bus rider, and that if
they could sell the public on one alternative it would increase the likelihood that they would try
taking a bus. For programs that need management buy-in, tying the impacts of the program directly
to the objectives of the organization is important; for KCM this meant using excess capacity on buses.
For a city, these core goals may be congestion reduction or economic vitality.
Building Demand | 18
Working for effective partnerships. The biggest ongoing challenge for In Motion is effectively working
with their community partners. These partners are also key to their neighborhood-based strategy;
however, each project comes with the challenge of finding the right partners, keeping them engaged,
and working effectively with volunteers. To manage this challenge, In Motion staff constantly assesses
and reassess their community partners to find the right role for them.
Setting the stage for success. The In Motion experience shows that the selection of the first
neighborhood is important for long-term viability—staff advise other programs to ‘set yourself up for
success.’ As already mentioned, evaluation and local partnerships, to enhance neighborhood
penetration, also are key.
A sustained presence? In Motion is not a sustained program with a regular schedule; it is run on a
neighborhood-by-neighborhood project basis. For example Portland, Oregon promotes its TDM
program, Smart Trips, citywide every summer. In a similar vein, In Motion staff would like to revisit
neighborhoods in which they have previously worked to reach new residents, or revisit residents who
were not ready three years ago but may be now. The possible drawback of a continued presence is the
danger of becoming background noise.
MORE I NF ORMA TI ON A ND S OUR CES
Program website: www.kingcounty.gov/inmotion
Journal article: Cooper, C. “Successfully Changing Individual Travel Behavior: Applying
Community-Based Social Marketing to Travel Choice.”. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 2021, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C.: 2007, 89–99.
Template for In Motion’s neighborhood-based approach:
CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO SFPARK
Parking Management through a Pilot Price Signal Program
SFpark is a new project being implemented with federal Urban Partnership Program funds. It combines
innovative technologies and strategies to redistribute the demand for parking in real-time. Goals include
making parking easier, reducing congestion (by reducing circling and double parking), improving bus speed
and reliability, and transferring lessons learned to other cities.
THE BASI CS
Getting underway. San Francisco’s ability to manage its transportation needs is unique in that it is one
of the few cities in the country where one entity, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
(SFMTA), has authority over most aspects of the city’s transportation system. These include street
Building Demand | 19
design standards, bike and pedestrian accessibility, transit (buses, street cars, light rail, cable cars),
parking, and taxis. This unity of authority was enabled by a decades-old ‘transit first’ policy, early
multi-modal commitment, and a voter-passed merging of the Municipal Railway (Muni) and
Department of Parking and Traffic in 1999. This structure is important in telling the story of SFpark,
as it was partly spurred by, of all things, a transit effectiveness study undertaken by SFMTA.
This study concluded that congestion is a primary factor
reducing the reliability and speed of on-road transit,
which in turn is exacerbated by drivers double-parking
and circling to find parking. These findings dovetailed
with the push, initiated in 2005 by the then-chair of the
Transportation Authority, to develop an area road
pricing demonstration project, as well as the SFMTA’s
initiative to more actively manage its parking supply.
These efforts promised to generate revenue for the
SFMTA to operate Muni (which faces a large structural
budget deficit), relieve congestion, and clean the air.
Pursuing a parking-based strategy to congestion
management was facilitated by SFMTA’s authority over
both parking and Muni.
Local support. A parking pricing strategy was
developed based on other best practices in parking
management. Local stakeholders—including elected
officials and transit, advocate, and business groups—
were interested in or supportive of this concept for SFpark pilot pricing areas. (Image credit: SF Streetsblog)
various reasons: it promised to make parking easier and
more convenient, shifted Muni budget difficulties away from the people least able to shoulder them,
i.e., those who rode buses; it could relieve congestion, and it could generate revenue for transit. The
proposal won the support of Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors, and was blessed by
the SFMTA board in anticipation of federal funding.
Resources. The feasibility study was conducted with a U.S. DOT Value Pricing Pilot program grant
and implementation funds of $24.75 million were awarded under the U.S. DOT Urban Partnership
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
The right price. This project hinges on the documented finding that if parking is cheap, drivers are
less willing to park in an off-street, priced lot or garage and more willing to circle for free or cheap
on-street parking. One key component of the program is to make parking pricing reflect the relative
value of a space, by its location and by time of day or week. When the SFpark pilot projects are
launched in early 2010, SFMTA will adjust the price of parking every four weeks. The price for on-
Building Demand | 20
street metered parking will be able to range, based on desirability and demand, from $0.25 to $6.00
per hour, and $1.00 to $10.00 in SFMTA-owned garages and lots.
As an example, on-street parking is often at (or even over) capacity at downtown streets, whereas a
block or two outside of downtown, multiple spaces are available. Under SFpark, parking at
downtown meters is priced higher, and priced lower at the meters a few blocks away.
Role of technology. A significant portion of the federal funding is
for the purchase and installation of smart parking meters that can
monitor the effectiveness of pricing, and in addition support
various forms of payment, including coins, smart cards, credit
cards, and debit cards. SFpark is in the process of procuring these
next-generation parking meters that will help the program manage
parking pricing toward the goal of having one in ten spaces free
per block in pilot areas around the city. Pilot areas include
downtown, business, and tourist districts. In-street parking sensors
record data minute-by-minute on turnover frequency and therefore
the effect of changing pricing. These technologies enable analysis
of the effect of changing pricing, and the results in turn will allow
the program to calibrate parking prices as parking behavior and
availability evolve. In addition, handheld parking enforcement
devices help the program achieve compliance.
In-street parking sensor, 4”x4”, which
records parking space occupancy in
Clear pricing. A priority of SFpark is to maintain clarity of the real time. (Image credit: Peter DaSilva
for the New York Time.)
pricing regime so that the public can understand what its choices
are, but also to reduce backlash. For example, the program commits to price changes no more often
than once every 30 days, with adjustments of no more than fifty cents per hour. Current prices are
clearly displayed at garages, on parking meters, and are planned for the web and PDAs to enable trip
planning in advance or while en route. In conjunction, parking availability in parking garages will be
communicated via digital signs, web, PDA, and text message to inform drivers of garages that have
available spaces, so that drivers know where to go to find garage parking. Because SFMTA also
maintains the other multi-modal programs, information on alternatives to driving is also readily
Public input. As might be imagined, such a project cannot be without public concern, so the program
has launched an educational campaign and has a plan for citywide and regional policy forums,
workshops, a survey, and focus groups, and plans to address equity impacts should they arise. The
program launch will also utilize an extensive marketing and communications effort to help improve
the acceptance of SFpark.
Next steps and information-sharing. This project is still in pilot phase, and will assess preliminary
results in 2011. If effective the program, which in pilot covers approximately 25 percent of the current
on-street parking supply, will go citywide. San Francisco aims to share the data from this program
Building Demand | 21
with other cities, under the assumption that this information can help others develop and implement
more effective pricing strategies for their communities, with or without the technology SFpark is using
in their pilot program.
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
Program website: www.sfmta.com/SFpark
Feasibility Study Proposal overview:
Information on the Value Pricing Pilot program at DOT:
CASE STUDY: BAY AREA 511.ORG
Evolving into a Comprehensive Multi-Modal Trip Planner to Encourage Travel
511.org is an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) serving the San Francisco Bay Area which provides
travelers with traffic conditions, transit schedules for all the area transit agencies, rideshare matching
services, and biking information, all in one integrated website and telephone hotline. The combination of
organizational commitment, responsiveness, and data quality management has put 511.org in the forefront
of emerging ITS systems across the country.
THE BASI CS
Getting underway. Prior to 1990 each transit agency in the San Francisco Bay Area disseminated its
own schedule information. The information people could access about traffic conditions and
transportation alternatives was spotty at best and delivered by disparate entities. In the early 1990s, the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)—a regional MPO responsible for the planning,
financing and coordination of transportation in the nine county area surrounding San Francisco
Bay—came around to the idea that communicating consolidated transportation information to the
public would improve the efficiency of the transportation system.
Although the concept sounds like common sense now, at the time there was widespread skepticism
about the value of investing in systems to better deliver travel information. However, with a strong
champion in the MTC’s then-executive director, Laurence Dahms, the organization pursued and won
a federal grant for a field operational test to develop a rudimentary traveler information system. The
purpose of this original tool was to begin reporting traffic conditions on freeways, to integrate transit
information through a single phone service and to provide a data feed of the traffic information to the
private sector so that they could develop applications and services using the data.
Building Demand | 22
Concurrent efforts. Around the same time that the rudimentary traffic and transit information system
was under development, students at the University of California at Berkeley had, on their own
initiative, created a basic website showing the schedules of all the area transit operators. MTC staff saw
future potential of this web-based medium, and took over the website when the students graduated.
Beginning in the 1990s, they put other services on the web as well, including their transit trip planner,
a rideshare matching program, and a traffic conditions website. Then MTC staff realized they were
managing many separate web sites and services with the same goal, and decided to consolidate all of
them under the brand 511. Soon after, the 511.org website and its sister hotline were launched.
Resources. 511.org is entirely funded through public sources; federal funding primarily comes from
Surface Transportation Program (STP) flexible funding, with local match allocated out of state vehicle
license fees and state transit funds. The effort began with just one staff person, who did project and
contract management for the ITS field operational test. As more services were added to this travel
information function at MTC, staff expanded; currently the unit has 10 staff to manage the projects
and contracts covering traffic, transit, rideshare, and biking information.
What 511.org does. The website is organized by mode, with the most popular tools of each mode on
the front page, such as the Current Traffic Conditions map, Rideshare Matching (carpooling,
vanpooling, or bikepooling), Real-Time Departures, Get Driving Times, and Public Transit Trip
Planner. This last feature allows users to type in their origin address, destination address, and trip
criteria (including ‘leaving at___’, ‘arrive by___’, ‘fastest trip’, ‘fewest transfers’, and ‘least walking’).
With these user inputs the tool provides information for all route options available, including
schedules, trip times, operators, and total cost. Much more information is available for each mode in
its portion of the website, including
success stories, FAQs, safety tips,
services near a location, and
FasTrak ticket purchases. The home
page also has a streaming banner
for important news, which is
especially useful in times of
emergency or significant
construction, for example when the
San Francisco Bay Bridge was
closed in September 2009 for
repairs. In such situations, 511.org
provides reliable information about
current situations, impacts and
alternative travel options.
Impacts. Use of the ITS service
continues to grow over time.
Currently the website has an
Image credit: 511.org estimated 2.6 million user sessions
Building Demand | 23
every month, along with half a million phone calls on the hotline. MTC conducts periodic surveys, via
call intercept and web intercept, to evaluate the effect of 511.org travel information; only a small
percentage (1-3%) actually change their mode of travel as a result of information they receive from a
site visit, although this marginal effect may be enough on occasion to break gridlock conditions. A
much higher percentage (between 30-45%) of service users do change other aspects of their trip in
order to optimize it, for example, by using a different transit provider than they originally planned,
changing the time of departure, or taking a different route. It is certainly possible that these changes,
which clearly benefit the travelers, also have an overall fuel efficiency impact on the transportation
system, for example, due to reduced system-wide congestion. However, this is difficult to evaluate.
An unexpected benefit of 511.org has been the aforementioned usefulness of this one-stop
information portal in times of emergencies or other types of situations with widespread transportation
impacts. Other popular online road mapping and directions tools do not provide this functionality.
Because 511 serves only the Bay Area, it is able to respond quickly to post information about such
conditions. From MTC’s point of view the multi-functionality of the 511.org is a clear positive.
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Commitment to vision. The MTC Board of Commissioners, Executive Director Dahms, and 511.org
partners Caltrans and California Highway Patrol and the transit agencies all shared a willingness to
experiment with communicating travel information as an aid to managing the transportation system.
In addition, they all held a long term vision for its ultimate potential; when ITS was still in its infancy,
these partners remained committed to continuing to improve and expand its functionality as
technology evolved. It was the steady support for continuing to develop the ITS system that enabled it
to advance to new levels of usefulness for diverse travelers.
Responsive innovation. 511 staff continually scan the landscape, evaluate and revamp their tools to
adjust to new developments. For example, the current homepage, which features the most popular
tools, was just launched in July of 2009. New features still undergoing build-out include real-time
trip information as well as a personalizable service (‘My511’). These developments reflect the staff’s
ongoing assessment of how people expect 511.org to work for them. At the same time, as ITS
professionals, they keep the goal in mind of maximizing efficient use of the overall transportation
system in the region. Surveys of users reveal that most only pay attention to modes in which they are
already interested, so 511 staff continue to explore ways to promote mode-shifting as a means of
achieving greater transit efficiency. For example, the idea of including the carbon impact of trip
options is under consideration, based on the premise that people first need to be informed before they
can make informed decisions.
Less obvious to the public is 511.org’s continued work to improve software functionality. The transit
site was upgraded a year ago, to have improved trip logic, and to better support true multi-modal trip
planning capability. More recently they upgraded the rideshare matching software, such that large
employers can now use 511.org’s rideshare database to do within-company ridematching. Staff
members have also been considering how social networking and open source cell phone applications
Building Demand | 24
could facilitate casual ridesharing and how dissemination of real time transit information can be
facilitated by such platforms, whether it is harnessed by 511.org, the public, or the private sector.
Working with transit operators. At the start of the program, combining all transit information under
the 511 brand was controversial; transit operators were concerned about losing their face to the
public and their brand equity. As the effort grew however, MTC was able to build a widely
recognized brand around 511.org, benefiting transit operators by enhancing rider satisfaction, and
increasing transit operator buy-in into the program. Currently MTC is building a tool that allows the
transit agencies to integrate the trip planner on their agency-specific site, allowing them to preserve
their brand, as well as continue to provide the tool to their patrons.
Data quality. By far the biggest initial challenge was obtaining enough data of sufficient quality and
accuracy (whether it was traffic conditions or transit schedules) to be useful to the public. It took three
years to obtain enough data to launch the initial phone service. Even then, 511 faced much criticism
over the quality of information it provided, though they had not generated the original information.
Fortunately, as mentioned above, decision makers were patient enough to allow the program to ‘grow
up.’ Over time, with more interest in participation by transportation system operators, staff working
closely with data providers, and more systematic quality control, data quality has become more
consistent and robust.
The importance of marketing. In retrospect, MTC underestimated the need for a marketing strategy
and budget. The attitude early on was: “If we build it right, people will use it.” Staff questioned
whether a public agency should pursue marketing. However, they have since realized that as with any
other commodity, if people have an option to use or not use it, then it must be marketed to them
before they will even try it out to see if it is useful to them.
Modular build-out. MTC was able to inherit several pre-existing services as they constructed their ITS
system. This experience suggests that other agencies can successfully develop a comprehensive multi-
modal travel planner in an incremental way—focusing on one module or service at a time—rather
than having to build out all pieces simultaneously. In addition, modules do not have to all be
developed ‘in-house’ if other partners are available.
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
Other Detailed Case Studies
AUSTRALIA: Using the Six Principles of Persuasion to Promote Travel Behaviour Change—
Preliminary Findings of Two TravelSmart Field Experiments
This paper reports on the results of two pilot social marketing projects in Australia. Other reports
are available on the impact of these programs; the benefit of this document is the detailed
description of their individualized marketing approach. This entails providing members of the
Building Demand | 25
public with customized information about alternative transportation choices, based on surveys
about their existing transportation behavoirs and interests in other modes. This approach has been
tried in Bellingham, WA and other U.S. cities, and could be used elsewhere.
By R.K. Seethaler and G. Rose, The Urban Transport Institute, 2005, 19pp.
CALIFORNIA: Politics, Public Opinion, and Project Design in California Road Pricing
This report provides detailed analyses of four congestion pricing projects in California and the political
factors that influenced their successes or failures. The discussion provides a useful partial checklist of
potential considerations for other projects. Key success factors were that a project provided more mobility
capacity, travel time savings, and travel options, and avoided pricing facilities with no free alternatives.
By Megan Smirti, Micahel Gougherty, Alexandra Evans, Eric Morris, University of California,
LONDON: London Congestion Pricing: Implications for Other Cities
This report discusses key features of London's congestion pricing scheme, 5 years old at the time of this
report's publication, with an eye towards providing information useful for other cities, including public
and political response and criticisms. (A more comprehensive 2008 report prepared for London’s Mayor
by a consultant can be downloaded at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/report-to-mayor-chapters-
and-appendices.pdf. The more relevant sections include Impact Assessment, pp.45-60, and Conclusions
and Recommendations, pp.192-215).
By Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2006, 14pp.
SEATTLE: Way to Go Seattle
This report describes Way to Go Seattle's "One-Less-Car" demonstration study, which worked intensively
with 86 households about the benefits of owning one less car, and how they could adapt to it. It explores
the effectiveness of the campaign, and provides sections on Lessons Learned, Long-Term and Lasting
Changes (including behavior change), and Benefits Beyond the Study. An executive summary is included.
By Jemae Hoffman, Seattle Dept of Transportation, 2003, 80pp.
SEOUL: "No Driving Days" campaign
This comprehensive case study examines Seoul’s “No Driving Day,” in which participants volunteer to
leave their cars at home one day a week. It was written with a focus on its potential viability in other
cities, and includes a timeline, cost breakdown, evaluation, and lessons learned.
By Brian Chang, Columbia University, Joint U.S.-China Cooperation on Clean Energy
(JUCCCE), 2008, 7pp.
Building Demand | 26
TDM Panel of Experts Final Report
This is the final report of a panel of experts from Transportation Management Associations convened in
Boulder CO in 2002 to discuss bestbest practices in commuter Transportation Demand Management
(TDM). Cities represented include Portland OR, Burlington VT, San Francisco CA, and Bellingham
City of Boulder, 2002, 8pp.
MAKI NG THE C ASE
1. Quantifying the Business Benefits of TDM
This report provides a comprehensive overview of the business benefits of providing TDM programs
(pp7-12) and describes existing tools for calculating costs and benefits (pp.21-38). It also explains the
methods by which selected business benefits, often claimed butbut not quantified, can be and have been
calculated (e.g. reduction in costs of turnover, absenteeism, and parking).
By Philip L. Winters and Sara J. Hendricks, National Center for Transit Research at the
Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida, 2001, 91pp.
2. Economics of Travel Demand Management: Comparative Cost Effectiveness and Public
This report summarizes and evaluates six TDM programs, including programs in Seattle, Hayward,
and South Perth Australia, and describes how to use the TRIMMS model to evaluate the cost
effectiveness of TDM programs, downloadable here: http://www.nctr.usf.edu/spreadsheet/TRIMMS.zip
By Sisinnio Concas and Philip L. Winters, National Center for Transit Research at the Center
for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida, 2007, 81pp.
3. Evaluating TDM criticism
This article evaluates various criticisms of TDM and provides a useful means of understanding and
responding to such criticisms. These include claims that reduced vehicle travel harms consumers, TDM
approaches are unfair to lower-income motorists, TDM is an unjustified intervention into free markets,
it is harmful to economic development, it is ineffective, and transit improvements are excessively
expensive and unjustified.
By Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2008, 12pp.
Building Demand | 27
SAMPLE ORDI NA NCES
4. Trip Reduction Ordinances/Regulations
This website compiles almost 40 city and region-level trip reduction ordinances from Arizona,
California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, and
Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida
5. State Statutes Citing Telecommuting
This webpage provides language from several state statutes that mention teleworking which may serve as
models for local ordinances.
National TDM and Telework Clearinghouse at the Center for Urban Transportation
Research at the University of South Florida
CROSS - CU TTI NG TRA NSP OR TA TI ON DEM AND MA NA GEME NT RES OUR CES
6. Public Transportation Promotional Materials Clearinghouse
This clearinghouse includes a gallery of TDM promotion advertising materials (accompanied by brief
descriptions of how they were used); articles on how to design a strategic promotion campaign; stock
images that can be used by ad designers; and links to a range of transit websites. This project is funded
by the Florida Department of Transportation.
Marketing Institute at the College of Business at Florida State University
7. Commuter Choice Primer: An Employer's Guide to Implementing Effective Commuter
This web-based or downloadable guide provides a framework for cities, serving as employers seeking to
reduce employee vehicle miles traveled in commuting, by arranging strategies in terms of how to shift
commute modes, commute times, commute routes, and work locations.The guide includes case studies,
steps to selecting and implementing strategies, and additional resource. This guide can also be
distributed as a reference for employers within a city.
FHWA, FTA, EPA, 58pp.
8. Value Pricing Pilot Program
This website provides several useful resources for metropolitan areas looking to learn from other cities’
value pricing (also known as congestion pricing) experiences. Key pages include the project reports page,
sorted by pricing strategy or by state; planning and decision making tools for states or metros; and the
publications and resources page. The primers in particular, all less then 30 pages, are useful
publications that provide clear overviews on key topics of economic efficiency, income-based equity
impacts, non-toll pricing strategies, technologies that enable congestion pricing, and the
interrelationships between transit use and congestion pricing.
Building Demand | 28
FHWA, Updated Aug 2009
9. Designing Effective TDM Programs: ICLEI resource guide outreach and communications
This guide provides an excellent strategic framework for a city's communications and outreach strategy
by audience: municipal employees, residential sector, business sector, and youth. The examples primarily
focus on city climate change outreach and communications, but the framework can be tailored to more
ICLEI, Jan 2009, 39pp.
10. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: Community Based Social Marketing
This book, available for free online or as a download, provides a framework for creating a targeted
sustainable behavior change program. Specific examples relevant to transportation including biking,
walking, transit use, and idling reduction.
By Douglas McKenzie-Mohr
11. Public Awareness and Behavior Change in Sustainable Transport
This guide provides step-by-step advice on how to design a social marketing campaign to reduce SOV
use, including defining target groups and knowing your population, and offers some sample
interventions. This resource would be more useful for communities looking to select target populations
for a campaign, rather than communities with more experience seeking new campaign ideas. Free
registration (here: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=registers&lang=en) is
required for the free download; upon successful registration, the webpage below will show a
By Carlos F. Pardo, Sustainable Transport, 2006, 91pp.
12. Simple and Painless? The Limitations of Spillover in Environmental Campaigning
This study examines the limited results of campaigns that aim to set in motion significant changes in
many daily behavoirs by advocating for one small behavoir change to start (e.g. changing a light bulb) It
provides guidance on how meanginful 'spillover’ effects into more sustainable behaviors can be more
reliably promoted in program designs.
By Tom Crompton, PhD, World Wildlife Fund, Feb 2009, 33pp.
Building Demand | 29
YOU NGER A UDI ENCES
13. Safe Routes to School
This website provides guidelines for development of safe school routes, success stories, and other
resources gathered from Safe Routes to School programs around the country.
14. Teenage Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding Transit Use
This research report summarizes the findings from focus groups with teenagers on transit use and
provides recommendations on marketing messages to address specific perceptions that inhibit transit use
by teenagers, in particular messages that emphasize independent mobility, safety, and cost. It also
provides recommendations on how transit agencies can design programs to strategically target teenage
By Alasdair Cain, Jennifer Sibley-Perone, Amy Datz, National Center for Transit Research at
the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida, 2005,
PARKI NG MA NAG EME NT
15. Strategies to Attract Auto Users to Public Transportation
This report focuses on changing parking policy as a way to attract users to public transportation. It is
one of the few resources on parking pricing that has a framework to compare options. Key chapters are
Ch.5: Political feasibility, which includes a discussion of how to address political barriers; Ch.6:
Assessment of Parking Strategies, which is based on studies of over 30 locations and includes a helpful
summary table of the assessment’s results; and Ch.7: Implementation Guide, which includes a Decision
Form for practitioners to use in deciding which combination of pricing strategies would be the most
appropriate for their community based on availability of transit and other relevant services,
income/equity considerations, and development patterns. The publication is relatively old but much of
the guidance is still relevant. (Ch.4: The Effects of Parking Strategies on Travel Choices, is perhaps the
most dated section, as 3 of the 4 strategies assessed were based on Portland data available at the time.)
By Kenneth J. Dueker, et al, Transportation Research Board: Transit Cooperative Research
Program, 1998, 114pp.
16. Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning
This report (a summary of the book Parking Management Best Practices by the same author)
investigates problems with current parking planning practices, discusses the costs of parking facilities
and the savings that can result from improved management, describes specific parking management
strategies and how they can be implemented, discusses parking management planning and evaluation,
and describes how to develop the optimal parking management program in a particular situation. This
is a comprehensive resource that also helps make the case for parking management.
By Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2008, 30pp.
Building Demand | 30
17. Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements
This article provides some guidance on zoning for pedestrian-friendly developments, especially off-street
parking requirements. The first section discusses zoning in detail, appropriate for audiences from city
planning and zoning departments.
By Vinit Mukhija and Donald Shoup, Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer
MOD E-SP E CIFIC ME ASUR ES
This article describes strategies that encourage ridesharing, including ridematching services (which help
travelers find travel partners), and strategies that give rideshare vehicles priority in traffic and parking.
Several implementation examples are described and a resource list is included.
By Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2008
19. Strategies to Promote Bicycling
This site discusses high-level strategies to promote biking, outlined in 10 steps: designing marketing
campaigns, distributing bike route guides, capitalizing on commute trip reduction programs, supporting
the carless commute, linking group rides, conducting classes, using special events, celebrating biking,
involving children and families, and seeking partnerships. The descriptions for each strategy links to
case studies of successful deployment.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center
20. ecoDriving State and Local Action
This webpage provides sample actions that state and local governments can take to encourage efficient
driving as a means to reduce transportation emissions. EcoDriving U.S.A is an initiative of a
consortium of automakers, which enhances the credibility of the listed tips and associated energy saving
figures related to maintenance, driving, and idling.
21. ecoDriving U.S.A.
Other Useful Information
22. Commuter Financial Incentives
This article describes various financial incentives that can be used by employers to encourage use of
more efficient commute modes. These include parking cash out, travel allowance, transit benefits, and
Building Demand | 31
rideshare benefits. They are often provided as an alternative to subsidized employee parking. The article
does not provide in-depth analysis of any single strategy, but gives good examples for further reference.
By Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2008
23. People, Parking, and Cities
This article looks at the effect of parking regulations on sprawl, urbanization, and "good density" (e.g.
scaled for people) vs. "bad density"" (e.g. centered on cars) by contrasting the experiences of Los Angeles
with New York City and San Francisco.
By Michael Manville and Donald Shoup, University of California Transportation Center—
ACCESS, Fall 2004, 7pp.
24. When Old Parking Meter Poles Go, So Often Does Bike Parking
This article provides an argument that bike parking is a critical component of encouraging biking, and
describes strategies used by Oakland, Toronto, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco to
preserve or increase bike parking.
By Matthew Roth, Transportation Alternatives, July 2009
25. RITA Intelligent Transportation Systems
This searchable clearinghouse of ITS case studies and guidances includes energy and environment
topics. The case studies include information on benefits, costs, lessons learned and standards used. A
resource guide for non-RITA resources is also available.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration,
26. Commuter Choice Program Case Study Development and Analysis
This research article explores the factors influencing the success and failure of various commuter choice
programs around the country. It concludes that a strong employee transportation coordinator is critical
for program success for work sites with limited access to alternatives, but is not critical for work sites
with substantial access. Pages 26-27 provide a good, succinct set of recommendations on designing an
effective commuter choice coordinator position and program.
By Sara J. Hendricks and Ajay Joshi, National Center for Transit Research at the Center for
Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida, 2004, 108pp.
CASU AL C ARP OOLING E XAMPL ES
27. Go Geronimo's Ride Registry
This website describes a program, which ran for three years, that addressed the 'fear factor' in informal
ridesharing. Drivers and riders applied for a license from the police department to show that they were
citizens in good standing, and displayed them prominently when looking to provide or obtain a ride.
Building Demand | 32
The website includes extensive information on their fundraising, program development, launch, and
operation to inspire other communities looking to try a similar initiative.
28. Casual Car Pool News
This webpage provides information on San Francisco Bay Area casual carpooling locations, news, and
information exchange for users.
Ride Now, 2009
29. Slug Lines
This website provides information on casual carpooling (known as "slugging" in the Washington DC
metropolitan area)) including locations, maps, etiquette, and resources such as a rating system, and
Building Demand | 33
Building Demand | 34
III. Growing Smarter: Compact Development that Saves
Time, Money, Energy and Emissions
The evidence is increasingly clear that “smart growth” or “compact development”—policies,
programs and practices that channel a significant portion of new growth into existing urban centers
and away from relatively undeveloped areas such as farms, forests and green spaces—reduces climate
pollution. A comprehensive assessment of 83 of the largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., published
in 2003 by the National Center for Smart Growth, found that residents drove about 25 percent less in
the more compact regions. More recently, a study conducted in King County, WA in 2007 found that
people living in the most walkable neighborhoods drive 26 percent less than those living in the
Growing Cooler, published in 2008 by the Urban Land Institute, is the most exhaustive assessment to
date of this growing body of research; it concluded:
How does a growing country—one with 300 million residents and another 120
million on the way by mid-century—slow the growth of vehicle miles driven? ...The
body of research surveyed here shows that much of the rise in vehicle emission can be
curbed simply by growing in a way that will make it easier for Americans to drive less.
In fact, the weight of the evidence shows that, with more compact development,
people drive 20 to 40 percent less, at minimal or reduced cost, while reaping other
fiscal and health benefits.12
Those co-benefits include preservation of farms, forests and open spaces; improved air and water
quality; improved public health (because of both improved air quality and increased opportunities for
physical activity) and reduced infrastructure costs (e.g., road-building and maintenance).
Of course, “smart growth” is much easier said than done. Key challenges identified by local, regional
and state practitioners include:
• Reaching state-wide and/or regional consensus on where new growth should and shouldn’t
occur, amid many different perspectives on the impacts such choices will have on everything
from housing prices to neighborhood livability to property rights;
• Enacting and enforcing smart growth incentives and regulations that reflect that consensus, in
the face of constant—and constantly changing—economic and political dynamics; and
• Synchronizing land-use and transportation decisions—for example, balancing the need to
increase urban densities enough to make public transit viable, with the simultaneous need to
increase public transit enough to make denser urban neighborhoods accessible and
convenient places to live.
Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, Urban Land Institute, April 2008
Growing Smarter | 35
This section of the Resource Guide features examples of successful efforts to meet these and other
challenges in Denver, Sacramento, Miami, and Burlington, Vermont.
CASE STUDY: DENVER FASTRACKS AND TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
Integrating Land-Use and Transportation Planning to Transform a City
Denver’s new public transit system, currently under construction, includes the largest expansion of light rail
in the United States. Key aspects of Denver’s story include the process that area leaders mobilized to build
support—initially lacking—for building a comprehensive public transit system, their commitment to high
quality, transit-friendly development along the new transit corridors, and the coordinated strategies and
funding they have used to pursue this goal.
THE BASI CS
Getting underway. A new public transit system became a necessity in Denver due to snowballing
metropolitan growth. Current estimates suggest that 1.5 million new residents will be added to
Denver proper by 2035, an increase of over 55 percent in 30 years. Concerns about the effects that
this rapid population growth was having on urban and suburban communities peaked in the 1990s.
Traffic congestion, commute times and vehicle miles traveled were all on a steep upswing.
Community life along the streets of Denver and nearby cities was eroding as streets were widened to
accommodate traffic flow and buildings were removed for parking lots.
The launch of FasTracks was a direct response to
these metropolitan growing pains. Developed
and managed by Denver’s Regional Transit
District (RTD), FasTracks is a comprehensive plan
for transforming the public transit system that
services the greater Denver region. It includes
• 120 miles of light rail and commuter
• 18 miles of bus rapid transit service
• 57 new transit stations
Image credit: Dan Tobias
• 21,213 new park and ride spaces
The word “bold” may be an understatement for describing this transit system overhaul; today it is
often characterized as the most ambitious plan for expanding public transit in the United States.
Funding. Implementation of FasTracks is financed through a combination of federal and local
funding. The bulk of the necessary local funding was secured in 2004, when Denver voters approved
an increase in a regional sales tax that provided nearly 50 percent of the $4.9 billion price tag. The
federal government is supplying 25 percent of the remaining funding, and 25 percent is coming from
Growing Smarter | 36
Strong emphasis on Transit-Oriented Development. One of the most distinctive features of Denver’s
approach to public transit improvements is its strong and steady commitment to linking land-use and
transportation planning. Denver area cities were quick to see that construction of such a
comprehensive transit system provided unprecedented opportunities to catalyze transit-friendly,
transit-efficient development capable of absorbing substantial growth. From the early days of
FasTracks, the Regional Transit District worked closely with local jurisdictions to develop a regional
vision for this development. They united around a vision of compact, mixed-use developments that
are bikeable and walkable, in addition to being transit-friendly. They also agreed that a key priority
was to increase the supply of affordable housing, and avoid displacement of people living near the
new transit corridors as land values rose; in 2000, the median household income for Denver
households in transit zones was $35,764, roughly 30 percent below the regional average.
FasTracks progress. Six new transit corridors and extensions to three existing corridors are planned
for completion by 2017. Recently, the RTD has struggled to adjust to higher-than-expected
construction material costs and decreases in revenue from sales tax. Between 2004 and 2008, the
overall price tag for FasTracks climbed to $7.9 billion. After considering a range of pathways forward,
RTD ultimately decided more funding was essential. Voters approved a small “bailout” tax increase to
help RTD get back on track. RTD also trimmed its plans and discontinued some under-used existing
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Shared regional vision illuminates the need. Early efforts to build a unified vision of how growth and
development should unfold in the Denver region played an indispensable role in coaxing voters to
support public transit and transit-oriented development. Local jurisdictions throughout the greater
Denver area mobilized successful visioning efforts, and worked hard to make sure their plans were
mutually supportive. The resulting Metro Vision called for continued urban growth in a more cost-
effective and environmentally sound manner, by concentrating development in certain areas and
limiting its geographic spread. It also recognized that the region needed transit alternatives to remain
economically competitive. The Metro Vision advocated strongly for a new regional transit system with
35 transportation corridors, and compact, multi-use, transit and pedestrian-oriented communities
along its lines.
Blueprint Denver was the City of Denver’s effort to support the regional Metro Vision. The Mayor of
Denver appointed 46 urban leaders to join a Land Use and Transportation Advisory Committee and
craft a vision for the city itself. The process deeply engaged Denver’s residents. Nineteen open houses
and eight hands-on workshops were held all over the city. The Blueprint that resulted from all this
public conversation called for an overhaul of the City’s land-use code to promote transit and
pedestrian-friendly development as a new light rail system was constructed. The City developed its
“Poll: Sales tax hike backed for FasTracks. 64% support raise to get RTD project done by 2017, Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News ,
January 26, 2009
Growing Smarter | 37
2008 Strategic Transportation Plan (STP) to respond to this call, which promoted the idea of building
“Living Streets” for all users of the new transportation corridors.
Grassroots campaign for funding. The path to full funding for FasTracks had many fits and starts. The
first ballot measure, Guide the Ride, failed by a resounding 58 to 42 percent. But the region worked
hard to understand why the measure failed; surveys showed that the public perceived the measure as a
transportation experts’ plan with little community buy-in or understanding. Also, when late-breaking
efforts to save the plan resulted in many system add-ons that were not well-planned, voters concluded
it was bloated and unaffordable.
Based on this input, the city formed a new, broader coalition of local officials, business leaders and
environmentalists called the Transit Alliance. The Alliance created a multi-year outreach campaign to
build support for local funding which ultimately resulted in a successful ballot measure. Key
campaign strategies included:
• Focus on messages about the value of public transit for ensuring Denver’s long term
economic vitality and competitiveness;
• Collaboration with the Metro Mayor’s Caucus to build support throughout outlying
• Hundreds of public meetings to educate the public, and distribution of promotional flyers and
fact sheets to metro Denver residents with the help of thousands of volunteers;
• A mass media campaign financed with $1.7 million in funding from the Denver Chamber of
• A key primary message: for just four
pennies on a $10 purchase, FasTracks
will deliver projects on time that will
transform Denver into a livable city for
decades to come. 14
Collaborating across jurisdictions to drive
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). Early in
the construction of the new light rail system,
several large-scale developments helped
demonstrate the value of TOD to public
audiences. In Englewood City, a dying indoor
shopping center was redeveloped into a multi- Image credit: www.denver-cityscape.com
use community with a mix of civic buildings, homes, offices, and stores, all served by light rail. Since
its completion, the Southeast Corridor alone has had 18 TOD projects already built or under
construction, with a total value of $750 million.
FasTracks— Transit Collaboration in Denver: Success and Challenge. Downloadable at:
Growing Smarter | 38
Since then, RTD and the cities served by light rail have worked to coordinate their land use and transit
planning efforts in service of encouraging smart and equitable development in transit corridors:
RTD Vision and an integrated EIS process RTD has taken a number of steps including:
• Established District-wide sustainability objectives.
• Created a strategic plan with roles and responsibilities for TOD implementation by
RTD, local governments, developers and regional stakeholders.
• Sequenced its EIS process with station area planning, so input on land-use issues
such as pedestrian access would shape environmental review of the new light rail
Denver Funding Support for Station Area Planning. DRCOG created a $2 million pool
Council of with federal congestion, mitigation and air-quality funds to help local jurisdictions fund
Governments planning around new stations. Rezoning followed, allowing for denser neighborhoods
and facilitating other kinds of improvements like bike and pedestrian access.
Denver City Strategic Planning and New Land-use Regulations. Denver city and county have
and County created a TOD Strategic Plan to give visibility to city and county-wide TOD goals. The
City is also overhauling its land-use code to concentrate growth in areas of “instability”
(new areas of transit development), and maintain current levels of development in
existing residential areas.
Metro Special TOD Fund. The caucus established a fund to partner with the state Housing
Mayor’s Finance Authority on construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing near transit.
Many challenges still remain to implementing the overall goal of integrating equitable, climate-
friendly land-use and transportation. Transit-oriented development is expensive, and takes
coordination among many governments and agencies; it is difficult for light rail planning and
construction to keep pace with development opportunities. And preserving affordable housing as land
costs rise is a major hurdle. But Denver has made important strides forward.
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
Transit and Development: On the Fast Track in Denver. Bottineau Boulevard Partnership, February
2009, Part 2 or 4. Download:
“Denver Voters Gallop to Smart Growth. $4.7 billion transit system to be West’s best,”
Keith Schneider, Great Lakes Bulletin News Service, February 22, 2005. Download:
“Corridor Approaches to Integrating Transportation and Land Use,” Requested by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Standing Committee on Planning.
Prepared by ICF International, June 2009.
Growing Smarter | 39
“Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities near Transit,” Reconnecting America’s
Center for Transit-Oriented Development, April 2007.
CASE STUDY: SACRAMENTO BLUEPRINT
Using Technology, Data and Democracy to Rally a Region Behind a Smart-Growth
Through a masterful mix of robust and credible data, profuse public input, and computer-based technology,
the Sacramento region is transforming itself from a sprawling, car-dependent region into a national leader
in climate-friendly land-use and transportation management.
THE BASI CS
Overview. In 2000, Sacramento was a sprawling, car-dependent region with contentious urban vs.
suburban political tensions and air quality that was ranked 11th worst in the country by the American
Lung Association. Beginning in 2001, the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) led an
intensive, collaborative, data-driven process to turn things around. The Sacramento Blueprint—a bold
vision for growth management that promotes compact, mixed-use development and more climate-
friendly transportation choices as an alternative to low-density development —was unanimously
adopted by the SACOG Board of Directors in December 2004. The Blueprint is part of SACOG’s
Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2035, a long-range transportation plan for the six-county
region that links land-use and transportation planning with $42 billion in transportation investments.
Together, these two plans are projected to reduce the amount of driving per household by eight
percent compared to 2005 levels, which translates into a per-household reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions of 12 percent.
Signs of success. Implementation of the Blueprint is still in its early stages, but there are already some
signs of progress. For example, between 2004 and 2007, the
number of multi-family housing projects (apartments,
condominiums, townhouses) has increased by more than 500
percent, while the number of single-family houses on lots of
5,500 square feet or more is down more than 20 percent. In
addition, the Blueprint has inspired pioneering state legislation—
SB 375—which, among other things, will set greenhouse gas
Image credit: www.mognot.com emissions targets for Metropolitan Planning Organizations and
require them to develop a Sustainable Community Strategy for
meeting those targets. The Blueprint also has become a model for cities and regions throughout the
U.S. As the Wall Street Journal stated in a feature story in July 2008: “Sacramento has become one of
the nation’s most-watched experiments in whether urban planning can help solve everything from
high fuel prices to the housing bust to global warming.”
Growing Smarter | 40
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Credible data + compelling presentations = increased understanding and support. SACOG turned
itself into a “go-to” resource for credible information, and used GIS mapping and other techniques to
present compelling visual depictions of the impacts that different development choices would have on
traffic congestion, air pollution, jobs and the overall livability of existing communities and the entire
region. “It was real eye-opener,” one Sacramento-area developer said of the forecast presented at a
Blueprint workshop he attended. They also hired a polling firm to collect and present survey data on
the preferred growth management alternative that influenced the elected officials on the SACOG
Intensive public involvement and education. Over the course of the three-year process, SACOG
partnered with Valley Vision and many other nonprofit organizations to hold 38 neighborhood
workshops, two Elected Official Summits, and more than 220 special presentations to engage
historically underrepresented groups. In all, more than 5,000 people participated. In addition, the
SACOG launched an intensive public education campaign to highlight the ways in which smart
growth techniques could create more housing and transportations choices, preserve natural areas and
improve the quality-of-life in existing communities. “It sounds hokey,” says SACOG Executive
Director Mike McKeever, “but it’s about making democracy work.”
State-of-the-art modeling tools: The use of a
thought-provoking software program called
PLACE3S has been instrumental in the Blueprint’s
success. The program allows users to see, in real
time, the implications of different development
decisions on travel times, loss of agricultural lands,
and other livability factors. Perhaps most
important, it allows users to understand the
regional implications of local actions—to put their
choices into a broader context. “This mapping
work is really transformative,” says McKeever.
“People start looking at this information and their
view of what their community and their world is
really starts to change.”
A “strange bedfellows” coalition. This masterful
mix of good information, compelling presentation,
and concerted participation over time created what
Image credit: Sacramento Area Council of Governments
the Wall Street Journal called “a strange-
bedfellows coalition of ordinary citizens, politicians, developers and environmentalists” that is
supporting and facilitating effective implementation of the Blueprint, even though the SACOG lacks
the formal authority to impose requirements on its constituent jurisdictions and the development
Growing Smarter | 41
Persistence and follow-through. SACOG and its partners are making a concerted effort to help
jurisdictions and stakeholders within the region follow the Blueprint. For example, SACOG is
pushing back on development projects already in the pipeline that do not adhere to the Blueprint. In
addition they offer Blueprint Implementation Seminars for local government planning and public
works staff, and showcase examples of successful implementation on its website. The SACOG also
offers a variety of tools, educational materials and services on its website, including a form-based code
handbook, educational videos, and 3D visual simulations.
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
Sacramento Blueprint website: www.sacregionblueprint.org
Wall Street Journal article on the Blueprint process:
CASE STUDY: MIAMI 21
Regulating Smart Growth with Zoning Overhaul
Miami is instituting a complete zoning overhaul. Dubbed Miami 21, it is the largest and most
comprehensive example of form-based code to date, and the most ambitious zoning rewrite in the country. If
passed, it will codify the principles of smart growth, creating a legal framework for a pedestrian-oriented city
that can benefit citizens and developers alike. Miami’s experience provides an example of writing form-based
code on an unprecedented scale, the benefits of rezoning a city comprehensively, and the gathering of public
support through aggressive outreach and marketing.
THE BASI CS
Miami is an international center of trade, business, finance, and entertainment, and is home to one of
the largest urbanized areas in the country. The city is also growing fast: the U.S. Census Bureau
estimates 11.5 percent population growth between
2001 and 2006. The combination of wealth and
rapid growth meant that the decade has
encompassed the largest development boom in the
city’s history, although development has slowed in
the current economic climate.
Current context. Miami’s current land-use code, a
traditional “Euclidian” model last revised in 1991,
has proved insufficient in managing the degree of
growth the city has experienced. Its antiquated
parking requirements and inflexible separation
between the places where people live, work, and
shop encourages auto-dependent communities,
Image credit: City of Miami
traffic congestion, and urban and suburban sprawl.
Growing Smarter | 42
The code also requires amendments and Special Districts, and a great deal of discouraging red tape,
to address even the possibility of creating mixed-use developments. In addition, it only allows
consideration of the designated use of a development proposal, rather than factors such as
neighborhood character or walkability.
A compelling vision. Sensing that his city’s rapid growth and current development approach were
leading the city toward a less livable and sustainable future, Mayor Manny Diaz led the effort to create
a “Miami of the 21st Century”: Miami 21. He envisioned it as a grand project from the start, likening
Miami 21 in its 2005 launch to the plans that re-imagined New York, Paris, and Chicago in the 19th
and 20th centuries.
The core of Miami 21 would be the new zoning code, a foundation upon which the city would
implement the rest of its vision. The city planning department commissioned a team of consultants led
by form-based code specialists Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. The team set out to map a code
that would preserve Miami’s character and architectural integrity while achieving long-term smart
growth. The result was “a holistic approach to land-use and urban planning,” a document that lays
the framework not only for zoning, but for economic development, transportation, green space, and
historic preservation as well. In short, it uses zoning code to create a comprehensive plan for the
future of Miami.
The Process Hits a Snag. In August 2009, the Miami City Commission split the vote, 2-2, on whether
to approve Miami 21, stalling the plan. Absent from the dais was the Commission’s 5th member, who
had expressed his inclination to approve Miami 21. The vote included a surprising “no” from
Commissioner Joe Sanchez, who has been a consistent supporter but feared that specific amendments
would open the door to lawsuits. Despite this decision, both Mayor Diaz and Commissioner Sanchez
have since expressed their belief that Miami 21 will come up for another vote, and pass, as soon as
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Completely overhauling municipal code is no easy task; all aspects of the project have experienced
delays. Hearings and votes by the
Commission have been postponed
numerous times, and last month’s decision
was essentially a vote of no action.
Regardless of its outcome, however,
Miami’s experience is instructive.
Adoption of form-based code. Miami pursued form-based code in order to determine land
development based less on how it will be used, and more on physical form—the look and feel—of
development. Emphasizing the relationships of buildings to the streets, to open space, and to each
other, form-based code is imagined as a physical blueprint for how the urban landscape will look,
and as the context into which all development will fit. Miami valued that this variety of code is
oriented to the pedestrian, and provides for neighborhood centers within walking distance of all
Growing Smarter | 43
suburban zones. It enforces smart growth by concentrating development along transportation
corridors, neighborhood centers, and urban cores. It also ensures that development occurs to create
more of a ‘transition feel’ between zones. For a non-expert, the code is much easier to read and
comprehend than traditional, amendment-heavy models, allowing for ease of compliance and public
input as the code is crafted. And it provides a predictable physical result, which eases concerns about
density, infill development, and changes in the character or livability of a neighborhood.
Garnering public buy-in through aggressive outreach. Any city attempting changes to municipal
planning will encounter resistance from citizens concerned about how their neighborhoods will be
affected. To educate the public and build support for Miami 21, the city has engaged in a massive
public outreach campaign since the project launch in 2005. City officials, including the Mayor and
Planning Director, have appeared numerous times on local television and radio programs, in both
English and Spanish. The city has disseminated information and encouraged feedback through email
marketing, a comprehensive website and English and Spanish hotlines, outdoor signs and printed
materials. Every major newspaper in the region has run articles about Miami 21, and the city has
purchased ad space in several of them. In addition, coordinated neighborhood-level outreach efforts
occur through the offices of its neighborhood enhancement teams.
Perhaps the most impressive public outreach strategy has been the more than 40 public meetings,
workshops, and open houses the city has held on Miami 21 since its launch four years ago. The
planners divided the city into four distinct quadrants, drafting one at a time, which provided a more
local context for the new plan, and encouraged public involvement when the code’s draft was still in
its infancy. Not only did meeting organizers presented the benefits of Miami 21, making the case for
its implementation, but they also actively sought feedback from developers, neighborhood
associations, chambers of commerce, and concerned citizens. The initiative has also been responsive;
public concerns have been incorporated into successive drafts, helping citizens feel ownership of
Miami 21 as a point of civic pride.
A public that was initially skeptical is now more educated about how zoning code affects them, and is
generally supportive of the plan. As one indicator of this, Commissioner Sanchez and his colleagues
have received some negative feedback from the public following their vote of no-action in August.
The Miami 21 team’s efforts in garnering community support may prove to be the most important
factor in finally bringing the new form-based code to fruition.
Making the plan comprehensive. The most radical aspect of the current rezoning effort is not that it
utilizes the principles of form-based code, but that it is being completely rewritten on those
principles. This bold approach attempts to bypass the difficulties faced by more typical incremental
zoning rewrites; for example, rather than facing down residents on block-by-block impacts of small
proposals to increase density or infill, Miami 21 proposes a new comprehensive vision to its residents
to consider as a totality. This comprehensive overhaul also compresses the timeline of achieving smart
growth in Miami, by providing citywide guidance in one update.
Growing Smarter | 44
Miami 21 website: www.miami21.org
Form-Based Codes Institute: http://www.formbasedcodes.org/
City of Miami Planning Department: http://www.miamigov.com/planning/
CASE STUDY: BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Combining diverse regulatory and funding incentives to encourage infill
Burlington, Vermont has been grappling with infill development for several decades, and its long experience
with this institutionalized objective may provide insights to other cities seeking to curtail sprawl via this type
of development. Continued commitment to improvement, diverse sources to fund infill development
incentives, the aid of a key implementing partner agency, synching up planning and zoning, and flexible
approaches to parking have helped Burlington move further along the density continuum.
THE BASI CS
Context. Burlington is a fairly small city, constrained in its growth by its geography and by state law,
which established all municipal boundaries in Vermont 200 years ago. Therefore, infill development
in Burlington has long been a matter of necessity. While this may put Burlington’s efforts on a
different timeline than other cities, the challenges they face in accomplishing infill development, and
how they address these challenges, may not be all that different from how other cities do or can go
A brief history. Infill development—that is, new development within versus outside of existing city
boundaries—has been a central part of the Burlington planning process since the 1960s, particularly
for central and southern parts of the city. At that time the city was economically depressed. ‘Urban
renewal’—both in the sense of demolishing existing buildings and creating new modern ones, and in
the sense of concerted investment in the city’s potential—provided the spark needed to energize
redevelopment in key areas around the city, and to pull the community out of economic stagnation.
These efforts included an aggressive, long-term push for commercial retail, entertainment and services
in the downtown, and a pedestrian mall to increase the attractiveness of mixed-use developments near
the downtown and the attractiveness of Burlington more generally. Today, the same mechanism of
infill development is being used to meet the goal, opportunity, and responsibility of this urban center
to combat sprawl within the region and prevent the loss of the rural countryside and working
landscapes. Staff of the Burlington Planning and Zoning Office have infill as an underlying theme
throughout all of their roles, whether related to long range planning or zoning ordinances. This ‘unity
in purpose’ facilitates their progress towards urban density and mixed-use development.
Impacts. Burlington is often recognized and praised for its livability, creativity, sustainability, and
bike-friendliness. Key departmental staff throughout city government, however, rarely rest on their
laurels, and instead use these accolades to motivate the community and city staff to create a city that
Growing Smarter | 45
lives more fully up to its reputation. This organizational culture is one key to the city’s continued
progress: commitment to improvement and realistic acknowledgment of challenges and current
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Diverse funding mechanisms. With infill as the objective, Burlington pursues a wide diversity of
federal and state funds to create a ‘big bag of tricks’ to enable developer proposals for infill projects.
Some of these sources include tax increment financing, the State of Vermont Downtown Program,
Renewal Community (in the Clinton era, ‘Enterprise Community’) funds, and federal incentives for
employers to locate in downtown centers. These incentives serve as non-regulatory motivators to
complement the city’s regulatory tools.
Coordinating agency to aid implementation. The pursuit of such diverse financial incentives is
spearheaded by the Community & Economic Development Office. This office is a uniquely integrative
city development agency, in that it is responsible for all aspects of community vitality, which allows it
to coordinate development to meet multiple objectives, including livability, mixed-use development
and economic development.
Synching up planning and zoning. Although infill is a key objective for all staff in the planning and
zoning units, it often happens that a particular ordinance has some ‘hitch’ to it which prevents the
kind of development that was described in the comprehensive plan. Their strategy to counter these
often unanticipated conflicts is to aggressively make the zoning ordinance a living document, where
changes are based on need. The zoning code is not revised on a predetermined schedule; neither is
the amendment process subject to the whim and will of individual property owners.
Struggles over parking requirements. For a long time now, the biggest obstacle to downtown
development has been parking requirements. Stakeholders for a long time argued that too much was
required, so the office responded by not just reducing the requirement, but by capping it to 125
percent of the required minimum. This has had the result of keeping some businesses from locating
into targeted development areas, because the business thinks it needs more parking. Burlington has
not raised the parking maximum, and is looking instead for ways to finance better quality transit that
will be the alternative to parking that encourages relocation.
Public process and urban density. Planning staff are the first to say that Burlington still has much more
to do to achieve the efficiencies of scale that will enable premium transit and transit-oriented
development, and to prevent sprawl to neighboring communities. Much of this difficulty is financial,
and a ‘chicken or egg’ lack of density; i.e. transit is justified by dense development, but dense
development waits on transit. Further, there is public conflict over individual projects, and lack of a
Moving forward. In response to this lack of shared vision, planning staff are trying to bring the public
conversation around to a bigger-picture view, which does not look at each specific building, but
rather at how the city wants a particular area to function. The standing City Master Plan offers a high-
Growing Smarter | 46
level, long-term vision. The new planning effort seeks to add a more focused and strategic plan for
targeted areas of the city, i.e. vision for smaller scales to manifest the broad-brush vision. From there
staff seek to focus the conversation on the necessary connections that will create the desired
functionality for these targeted areas, and how pieces relate to and synergize with each other. This
public discussion should also help citizens articulate how they prefer to address emerging obstacles
and conflicts. For example, there is widespread public agreement that Burlington’s Lake Champlain
waterfront should not be wasted on car parking. This should likewise raise the question: “Where then
do we put the cars?”
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning: http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/planning
Burlington Community Economic Development Office: http://www.cedoburlington.org
Recommended Smart Growth Resources
MAKI NG THE C ASE
1. Cost Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth and Improved Transportation
Choices: An economic case for investment of cap-and-trade revenues
This report provides a good overview of the economic case for climate-friendly transportation policies,
and provides cost-per-ton CO2 emission and VMT reduction estimates for sample policies.
By Steve Winkelman, Allison Bishins, Chuck Kooshian, Center for Clean Air Policy, Jun 2009,
2. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change
This book presents comprehensive evidence in favor of smart growth, useful for making the case for
smart growth, but does not provide cost benefit analyses. (See Moving Cooler, in the Section VII
resource list, for a more quantitative treatment of costs and benefits of smart growth.)
By Reid Ewing, Keith Bartholomew, Steve Winkelman, Jerry Walters, Don Chen, Urban Land
Institute, 2008, 150pp.
3. This Is Smart Growth
This report offers an overview of successful smart growth implementation in cities, suburbs, small
towns, and rural areas. It does not provide much detail about any one place, but has many examples, a
resource list, and can be useful for communities of any size in making the case for smart growth.
Smart Growth Network
Growing Smarter | 47
4. Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized
Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions
This report analyzes the potential impact of compact development on VMT. The extensive analysis reach
similar conclusions and recommendations as Moving Cooler, but did not find overwhelmingly
conclusive evidence to support the conclusion that policies to encourage dense development alone would
have significant short term effects on their own. The authors did find however that long term effects are
significant and therefore such policies should be pursued now. The report focuses on the analyses rather
than provides data that can be used directly by policymakers, but the report findings may be useful as a
context for smart growth policy discussions.
Transportation Research Board Special Report, Sep 2009, 180pp.
5. Picturing Smart Growth: Visions for Sustainable Communities Across America
This webpage provides images on a continuum of smart growth visualizations for around 40 sites
around the country which can be used by communities to illustrate possibilities to stakeholders; for
example Miami 21 created such a document using these images (view here:
Natural Resources Defense Council
SMART GR OW TH P OLI CY GUI DES AND TOOL KI TS
6. Institutionalizing Smart Growth Principles into the Metropolitan Planning Process
This report provides guidelines for integrating smart growth into metropolitan planning processes, based
on the EPA Smart Growth Technical Assistance program-assisted planning processes of MPOs in
regions including Charlottesville VA, Dover DE, Tampa FL, and Portage IN. These case studies provide
practical insight into how specific MPOs were able to overcome their technical and political barriers to
incorporating smart growth into planning.
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 2003, 16pp.
7. Smart Growth Toolkit
This flexible web-based toolkit can be used by local officials for everything from a 10-minute exercise of
crosschecking categories of zoning and smart growth policies options with those of the municipality, to a
multi day exercise to comprehensively improve local regulations to encourage long-term smart growth.
The website includes case studies and tools such as Quick Diagnostic, Policy Audit, Code and Zoning
Audit, Audit Summary, Project Scorecards, Incentives Matrix, and Strategy Builder.
Smart Growth Leadership Institute, a project of Smart Growth America, 2009
Growing Smarter | 48
MOD EL SMAR T GR OW TH C ODE A ND P OLICI ES
8. Sustainable Community Development Code
This document provides sustainable land-use code guidance relating to several sectors; the relevant
sections on transportation, bikeability, walkability, public transit, and parking are on pp.33-66. A
section on public participation is also included (pp.67-74). Simple code language is provided for a range
of "achievement levels" in each topic area, and links to existing examples of city codes are listed.
Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute at the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law,
Jan 2009, 105pp.
9. Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation
This attractive guide serves as a roadmap for states and communities that have recognized the need for
smart growth, but are unclear on how to achieve it. It provides concrete techniques for putting 10 smart
growth principles into practices, ranging from formal legislative and regulatory efforts, to informal
approaches, plans and programs. The guide includes photographs illustrating elements of smart growth
and a matrix to identify policies that support multiple principles.
By Smart Growth Network, International City/County Management Association, 2002,
10. Getting to Smart Growth II: 100 More Policies for Implementation
This guide follows the format of the volume above to cover 100 more policies that can be mixed and
matched to fit local circumstances, visions, and values, and includes steps that can be taken by the
private sector as well.
By Smart Growth Network, International City/County Management Association, 2003,
11. SmartCode Central
This website provides free model code language in downloadable modules that use the SmartCode
framework. SmartCode is transect-based development code, and here is provided for all scales of
planning, from the region to the community to the block and building. The model code language is
designed to be locally calibrated.
12. Turning Around Downtown: Twelve Steps to Revitalization
This report provides an excellent discussion of several strategies that have been used by cities to revitalize
their downtowns: capturing the vision, developing a strategic plan, forging a public/private partnership,
making the right thing easy, establishing business improvement districts and other non-profits, creating
a catalytic development company, creating an urban entertainment district, developing a rental housing
market, pioneering an affordability strategy, focusing on for-sale housing, developing a local-serving
retail strategy, and recreating a strong office market. These steps also encourage mixed-use downtown
Growing Smarter | 49
By Chris Leinberger, The Brookings Institution, 2005, 24pp.
13. Barriers and Solutions to Land Assembly for Infill Development
This report identifies and discusses significant public, regulatory, and market-based barriers to land
assembly and infill development, and suggests strategies for overcoming them.
By Stella Tarnay, Urban Land Institute, 2004, 36pp.
14. Ten Principles for Reinventing America's Suburban Business Districts
This booklet describes ten principles that include analyzing the market, developing support, making a
strategic plan, mixing uses, creating a pedestrian-friendly place, managing parking, and allowing for
evolution. The booklet can be used to generate support from citizens and public officials for growing
suburban business districts smarter.
By Geoffrey Booth, et al, Urban Land Institute, 2002, 33pp.
15. Ten Principles for Smart Growth on the Suburban Fringe
This report is the culmination of several formative events: a forum for public officials, a workshop, and
a conference, each convened to examine development in the greenfields and solutions for better growth
in the suburbs.
By Mary Beth Corrigan, et al, Urban Land Institute, 2004, 42pp.
Recommended Transit-Oriented Development Resources
16. Transit Oriented Development: Moving from Rhetoric to Reality
This report includes a useful overview section of challenges to transit-oriented development and what
can be done to overcome these barriers by various stakeholders: TOD-related development
intermediaries, transit agencies, local government, developers and lending institutions, and community
organizations. The recommendations can serve as a framework for a TOD strategy.
By Dena Belzer and Gerald Autler, The Brookings Institution, 2002
17. Fostering Equitable and Sustainable Transit-Oriented Development
Growing Smarter | 50
This compilation of briefing papers and synthesis of an event for which this compilation was prepared
provides an excellent discussion of the challenges, and how to address them, in implementing TOD.
The papers are organized around stakeholder perspectives: public sector, investment/finance, private
sector, and foundations.
By David Wood, Allison Brooks, Dena Belzer, Shelley Poticha, Catherine Cox Blair, Kohn
Flessig, Ian R. Carlton, Katherine Pease, Living Cities, Feb 2009, 56pp.
18. Ten Principles for Successful Development Around Transit
This article outlines ten principles for successful TOD, with some brief examples from various cities to
support the arguments. It presents a concise, well-laid out "checklist" of implementing successful TOD
By Robert Dunphy et al, Urban Land Institute, 2003, 32pp.
19. Case Studies of Transit-Oriented Development
This paper presents detailed case studies of representative transit-oriented development projects
throughout mostly the west coast of North America: Los Angeles, Portland OR, Sacramento, San Diego
CA, San Francisco, San Jose CA, and Vancouver; also Atlanta, Denver, and Washington DC. It was
written for Seattle but still useful for other cities.
By Michael Dyett, et al, Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, 163pp.
20. Tools for Mixed-Income TOD
This report briefly describes tools and strategies used to create mixed-income and affordable housing
near transit, in zoning and planning (station area planning and transit district zoning, incentive-based
zoning, inclusionary housing or zoning, and parking reductions), financing (low income housing tax
credit, housing incentive program, benefit assessment district, and tax increment finance districts), and
joint development and public-private partnerships. Short case studies from across the U.S. illustrate
these tools and strategies, including in San Francisco, Massachusetts, Austin, Montgomery County
MD, Berkeley CA, and Portland OR.
By Douglas Shoemaker, Center for Transit Oriented Development, 2006, 22pp.
21. Building Transit Oriented Development in Established Communities
This technical study provides a good discussion of how to address several common challenges of
creating TOD in established car-oriented communities, including focusing TOD around park-and-ride-
lots, changes to regulations, parking management, development incentives, coordinating stakeholders,
incorporation of transit, pre-designating transit corridors, ensuring bike/ped access, adapting transit to
suburbs, location efficient mortgages, and ideas for dealing with community resistance. Four page case
Growing Smarter | 51
studies are provided for some cities that have taken steps to become transit oriented: Charlotte NC,
Denver CO, Atlanta GA, Orlando FL, and Central Puget Sound region WA.
By Julie Goodwill and Sara J. Hendricks, Center for Urban Transportation Research at the
University of South Florida, 2002, 76pp.
22. Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel
This research examines behavior and motivation of TOD residents, employees, and employers in their
mode choice and identifies best practices to promote TOD-related transit ridership.
By GB Arrington, Robert Cervero, et al, Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2008, 126pp.
23. Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit
The report examines Boston, Charlotte NC, Denver, Minneapolis, and Portland OR to better
understand the proactive strategies being undertaken to create and preserve affordable housing near
transit. Also includes lessons learned, and recommendations based on the 5 case studies. A 20pp.
executive summary is available here:
Center for Transit Oriented Development, 2007
Other Useful Information
24. Policies That Work: Governor’s Guide to Growth and Development
This web-based or downloadable guide provides department-by-department model policies that promote
smart growth at the state level. Not directly applicable to municipalities, but useful to know about for
By Smart Growth America, Governor's Institute on Community Design, July 2009, 111pp.
25. A Better Way to Zone
This book includes a framework for achieving better zoning codes over time that is based on how cities
should operate, rather than how they should look. It also takes into account how to change zoning over
time, rather than focus on what is ideal. The book provides a counterpoint to form-based zoning and
SmartCode, two other smart growth frameworks for revamping zoning codes. A description of each
chapter is available at http://abetterwaytozone.com/home/contents.
By Donald L. Elliot, Island Press, 2008, 256pp.
26. RESOURCE TO WATCH FOR: Context Sensitive Solutions: Quantification of the Benefits
Growing Smarter | 52
This three-year study evaluated the various benefits—from easily quantifiable to less quantifiable—of
context sensitive solutions. Economic impacts are included in the scope of research. The preliminary
draft final report is under review as of September 2009; the final report is anticipated for release before
the end of 2009.
By Nikiforos Stamatiadis, Transportation Research Board: National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, not yet available
Growing Smarter | 53
Growing Smarter | 54
IV. Expanding Options: Increasing the Supply of Climate-
This chart below, produced by the Sightline Institute, makes clear that some modes of transportation
are significantly less carbon-intensive—and therefore more climate-friendly—than others.
But a critical mass of people can’t be expected to seriously consider driving less without a decent
supply of safe, clean, convenient, and affordable alternatives. Consequently, many cities and regions
around the country are working hard—and investing huge amounts of human, financial and political
capital—to increase both the quantity and the quality of relatively climate-friendly transportation
options such as public transit (including buses, light rail and streetcars systems), biking and walking.
Many cities are taking unprecedented concerted action to improve bus service and make biking and
walking easier and safer. Some regions are building new light rail and/or bus rapid transit lines. A
few are resurrecting streetcar networks to augment their bus service and facilitate climate-friendly
One thing all cities and regions have in common is that growing the supply of transportation choices
isn’t easy. Practitioners face a range of challenges, including:
• Achieving consensus on which transportation choices to invest in, how much to invest, how
to pay for it, and where new routes should go;
• Coordinating across transportation service-providers;
Expanding Options | 55
• Reallocating streets, for reasons such as creating a new bus rapid transit or bike lane; and
• Finding sufficient and sustainable funding, especially for relatively expensive new
infrastructure such as light rail lines.
This section of the Resource Guide showcases several examples of innovative and effective efforts to
meet these and related challenges in Greater Vancouver, New York City , Salt Lake City, Portland
OR, Minneapolis, and Seattle.
CASE STUDY: GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSLINK
Integrated Transportation Management and Innovative Financing
Since its inception, TransLink has emerged as a unique model of regional cooperation on transportation
planning, development and implementation. This quasi-governmental regional organization is the first of its
kind to consolidate bus, rail, cycling, ferries, road networks, air quality, bridges and transportation demand
management into one authority. This case highlights governance and innovative funding features used by
the authority to expand transit services and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
THE BASI CS
A brief history. In 1996, Greater Vancouver residents rated transportation as the top issue in the
region, and 50% of them believed that better transit was the solution. This was taken into account in a
multi-year strategic planning process for the Greater Vancouver region that began in the 1990s,
where citizens, businesses and government developed the Livable Region Strategic Plan and Transport
2021 strategy to manage metropolitan growth. Out of this process TransLink was born. Formed in
1998 through negotiations between the provincial government and the Greater Vancouver Regional
District (GVRD, now Metro Vancouver - a local governmental entity established by provincial
legislation), TransLink serves as the regional transportation authority for Metro Vancouver’s 30
municipalities and 2.2 million residents. TransLink’s mandate is to plan, finance and operate a
regional transportation system that moves people and goods efficiently, and supports the regional
growth strategy, air quality objectives and economic development of the GVRD.15 The authority
streamlined transportation planning and implementation functions previously distributed between the
municipalities, provincial government and private entities into one publicly accountable authority.16
Dual authority. Most significantly, TransLink has authority over both major roads and public
transportation, such that it has the power to improve the transportation network on multiple fronts
and in an integrated fashion. As Clive Rock, then head of GVRD and TransLink’s first director of
strategic planning, said, “BC Transit wasn’t doing a bad job, but it was just transit. And it was very
Transportation in Greater Vancouver: A Review of Agreements Between the Province and TransLink, and of TransLink’s Governance Structure,
Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia. 2001. Page 13. www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/347755/TransLink.pdf
For details, see The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority – An Innovation in Transportation Governance and Funding, a Paper
prepared for the Thredbo 6 – Sixth International Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport, Councilor
George Puil; Cape Town, South Africa, September 19-23, 1999.
Expanding Options | 56
mode-specific, yet the challenges are multi-modal.” Since the creation of TransLink, transit ridership
has increased about 40 percent.
Local governance structure. The provincial government overhauled TransLink’s governance and
territory in 2007 to address the growing need for regional solutions. A new three-way governance
structure includes the Mayor’s Council on Regional Transportation, Board of Directors, and the
Regional Transportation Commissioner. The Mayor’s Council, which is comprised of mayors from
the local municipalities, appoints the commissioner and the professionals who populate the board.
This structure was intended to increase accountability and effectiveness compared with the original
structure of elected representatives and Cabinet ministers.
Climate change drivers. In 2008, the provincial government announced a C$14 billion transit plan
with more than $10 billion of new transit infrastructure by 2020.17 This plan followed the provincial
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act of 2007 with targets of 33 percent reductions below 2007 levels
by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. 18 The legislation underpins current efforts to expand regional
transit, as does the law that restructured TransLink. TransLink must develop a long-range
transportation plan with goals and strategies along with its own 10-year transportation and financial
plan to achieve the goals. By law, the plan must be fully funded showing the amount and sources of
funding needed. The first goal of Transport 2040, released in 2008, focuses on greenhouse gas
reductions as the top priority.
Creative funding. TransLink’s predecessor, B.C. Transit, needed annual funding from the provincial
government leading to unpredictable revenues and difficulty implementing long-range
improvements. The formative negotiations for TransLink between the province and GVRD focused on
balancing obligations between the two. The province provides its 35 percent share through parking
taxes, six cents per liter fuel tax, debt service on certain capital costs, and assumption of funding
obligations for hospital construction, 40 percent of which had been paid by local property taxes. The
authority’s 2009 contribution includes transit fares (C$370m), fuel taxes (C$265m), property taxes
(C$260m), a levy on hydro in the province (C$18m) and other sources.19 The hydro levy derives
from the ability of provincial government to levy taxes on energy production.
TransLink faces an almost 14 percent budget shortfall for its 2009 budget, driven by labor and
operational costs that are outpacing inflation, as well as less revenue from the fuel tax (~30 percent of
annual revenue), which is yielding less cash due to decreased driving and fuel price hikes. As in so
many other regions, this situation is forcing difficult choices about transit in the Vancouver metro
region even as population and demand grow. The authority is exploring three options to manage the
situation ranging from service cuts under a no new revenues scenario to expansion of integrated transit
options at a cost of C$450 million per year.20
The Provincial Transit Plan, Ministry of British Columbia. www.th.gov.bc.ca/Transit_Plan/index.html
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, Ministry of Environment, British Columbia. www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/codes/ggrta/index.htm
See Current Funding Sources, TransLink. www.translink.ca/en/Get-Involved/featured-Be-Part-of-the-Plan/Be-Part-of-the-Plan-
Vancouver’s TransLink Faces Serious Funding Gap, July 31, 2009. www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/07/31/vancouvers-translink-faces-
Expanding Options | 57
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
A long process. The brief history outlined above is deceptively straightforward. For other regions that
have debated the merits of big or aggressive ideas for long periods, TransLink’s story is a hopeful one.
“We thought there was a need for a new kind of approach, but this wasn’t just some dream that came
about overnight,” says Clive Rock. “The region had been trying for decades to get something off the
ground.” Tenacity, solid planning foundations, and a clear mandate from the public combined to pay
off in the long run.
Exploratory funding options. TransLink is considering a set of creative options to fund transit needs.
• Climate Friendly Revenue: One set of options includes vehicle charges similar to those
assessed in Toronto that range from flat to variable fees depending on vehicle efficiency.
Revenues would range between C$150 and $200 million annually. Other options include a
carbon tax, road user fees, property transfer fees and goods movement fees.21 The carbon tax
has the potential to yield C$2.3 billion between 2008 and 2011.22
• Transit Related Real Estate: In 2008, TransLink began using real estate development as an
option for raising revenue to cover operating expenses and
expansion costs to meet the aggressive climate and
economic development goals. This plan was developed in
lieu of raising property taxes to cover budget shortfalls.
Estimates suggest that the authority could raise C$20-36
million from real estate transactions near proposed stations
that would fund the transit system.
• Private Investment: In August 2009, Vancouver witnessed
the opening of the new Canada Line that links northern
parts of the city to southern communities and the airport.
Opened ahead of schedule at a cost of C$2 billion, this
public-private system may serve as a model for other cities.
In an attempt to minimize the costs for developing the new
line, TransLink selected a private group of industrial
companies (InTransitBC) to design, build and operate the
rail through a 35 year lease. This consortium invested
C$700 million and will collect a percentage of the fares in
hopes of making a profit while the government sets fares
and owns the line. The agreement stipulates that TransLink
must compensate the private operators should the rail fail to The newly opened Canada Line links
meet its projected 100,000 daily ridership by 2013. north and south Vancouver. (Image
See Funding Options, TransLink. www.translink.ca/en/Get-Involved/featured-Be-Part-of-the-Plan/Be-Part-of-the-Plan-
See Carbon Tax Backgrounder, TransLink (May 25, 2009)
Expanding Options | 58
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
TransLink website: www.translink.ca
How TransLink was formed: The Road Less Travelled: TransLink’s Improbable Journey from 1999 to
CASE STUDY: NEW YORK CITY SELECT BUS SERVICE
Using Bus Rapid Transit Strategies to Improve Bus Speed, Reliability and
Heavy demands on New York City’s transit system and increasing traffic congestion have made the city’s
bus service the slowest in the United States. Expanding subway service would be both time consuming and
costly—particularly as the city’s transit agency is in the midst of its worst financial crisis in 30 years. So
New York is pursuing another option: making bus transit more efficient, convenient and comfortable
through implementation of Select Bus Service—New York City’s bus rapid transit program.
THE BASI CS
Launching bus rapid transit in New York City. The
Bx12 SBS bus, serving the Fordham Road/Pelham
Parkway corridor in the Bronx, began service in
June 2008, launching a new era of bus rapid
transit (BRT) in New York City. The BX12—the
first of five Select Bus Service routes that will be in
service by the end of 2011— employs several bus
rapid transit features, including pre-boarding fare
payment, high-visibility dedicated bus lanes, and
Image credit: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc transit signal priority, as well as increased service
and distinctive branding.
New York City’s effort for bus rapid transit started in 2002. Recognizing a need to improve transit
service, the city gathered transit and traffic experts to conduct joint field surveys of a number of bus
routes and discuss bus rapid transit options for New York City. In 2004 the City of New York, the
Metropolitan Transit Agency (MTA), and the New York City Department of Transportation
(NYCDOT) conducted a pivotal study of BRT opportunities across New York City, focusing initially
on the city's highest volume routes and selecting the five pilot corridors. Transit advocates also played
a key role, raising the visibility of the issue with annual “Pokey Awards” for the slowest routes and
commissioning their own studies to promote BRT.
Building on success. Select Bus Service has been extremely well-received by riders. A New York City
Transit survey of BX12 riders found 98% were satisfied or very satisfied with the new service. Bus
speeds on this route have increased 20 percent and ridership is up by 5,000 people a day. Based on
Expanding Options | 59
this success, New York City has already begun the next phase of BRT planning. A Phase II report
released by the City and MTA in May 2009 identified 30 new potential BRT corridors across the city’s
five boroughs. The publication of the report also kicked off an intensive community engagement
process, in which transit agencies, in partnership with local communities, will select the final 8-10
corridors for BRT planning. Priorities for Phase II include reaching underserved neighborhoods,
easing difficult trips by providing service between neighborhoods or job centers that are not currently
well connected by transit, reducing subway crowding, serving growth areas, and improving SBS to
make it more rapid, reliable and convenient (i.e., new 3 door buses and real time arrival displays).
The Cost. Select Bus Service can be implemented at a fraction of the cost of adding subway lines and
in a much shorter timeframe. Phase I, including the Fordham Road/Pelham Corridor line, was funded
by MTA and the city and state Departments of Transportation. MTA allocated $20 million from its 5-
year capital program, to be augmented by funds from other sources. The cost per corridor varies
depending on length and the specific features. The cost of the Fordham Road line was low—
approximately $10.5 million for an 8.5 mile corridor. The increase in annual operating costs is
approximately $6 million, which includes new staff for maintaining fare equipment, revenue
collection and enforcement. Future routes are estimated to cost $20 million to $60 million each.
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
The need for improvements in New York City’s bus service was urgent—not only to meet demand for
reliable public transportation but also to meet the core goals of PlaNYC, the city’s sustainability plan.
While many New Yorkers still clamor for subway expansion or light rail to ease their commutes, there
has been enthusiastic support for the city’s decision to invest in BRT. Flexibility, community outreach,
and responsiveness to public concerns have been important to the success of the program.
Public input and participation help shape planning. Extensive public outreach is a hallmark of New
York’s bus rapid transit planning process. Transit officials participated in over 100 public meetings on
the first phase of the Select Bus Service, including meetings with elected officials, community
organizations, business associations and other groups. There were over 40 meetings specifically for
the Fordham Road-Pelham Parkway corridor.
For Phase II, MTA and NYCDOT have already held a series of public workshops across the city and
will incorporate public input into a final plan this fall which will identify eight to 10 new BRT
corridors. Final corridor selection will be based in part on community support (as well as ridership
potential, transit need, and geographic diversity). For each corridor selected, the MTA and NYCDOT
will then convene Community Advisory Committees (CAC) to provide guidance in the actual design
and implementation. The role of CACs, which are comprised of a broad range of stakeholders
including community boards, elected officials, riders, businesses and major area institutions, is to
provide input, keep all stakeholders up to date, and ensure that key issues are addressed.
Addressing community and rider concerns paves the way to success. Removing parking and traffic
lanes to accommodate buses does not come without some resistance. Fordham Road in the Bronx is
home to a dense shopping area and businesses there were concerned about the ability of their
Expanding Options | 60
customers and delivery trucks to get to them. Transit officials dealt with this by allowing a daily two-
hour delivery zone in bus lanes for trucks, providing additional metered parking to replace spaces
that were lost on the BRT lanes, and adding new bus stations and sidewalks to improve access. Dan
Bernstein, director of the Fordham Road Business Improvement District (BID), told the Norwood News
that BID had suggested the truck delivery time windows in numerous meetings with the DOT and
MTA, and was pleased that the suggestion had been incorporated. Bernstein added that he
appreciated being able to meet with the city in advance to work out specifics of the new plan.
“Moving people faster is great, but we want them to come here to shop,” he said.
Another concern was the pre-paid boarding system (where riders
purchase a ticket before boarding the bus). This was one of the
most important elements of the Fordham Road line because it
would significantly improve boarding times. When the new system
was launched, however, many riders were confused about how it
worked. The transit agencies made sure to have transit workers on
hand who could explain the new system and answer questions,
easing rider confusion and receptivity.
Image credit: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc
Experiment, learn and improve. Based on the success of the Bx12
SBS, New York is set to embrace BRT as a core component of its public transportation system. The
report launching Phase II of the city’s SBS program highlights several lessons that will lead to
improvements in future BRT service. Expansion plans include not only new routes but use of state-of-
the-art BRT technology such as offset bus lanes, enhanced signal priority for buses, and bus lane
barriers that keep car traffic from entering the dedicated lane. Stronger enforcement is also needed to
ensure that these new investments actually do result in faster service. To prevent illegal parking and
driving in bus lanes, the City and MTA are working with the state legislature to get approval to use
bus-mounted and roadside traffic enforcement cameras to capture video of illegally parked vehicles or
those driving in bus lanes. These images would be used to issue tickets by mail to violators. A test of
this technology focusing on taxi enforcement is currently underway in coordination with the New
York City Taxi and Limousine Commission.
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
New York City Select Bus Service Program
CASE STUDY: SALT LAKE CITY TRAX
Build It Slowly and Get It Right
Many cities would like to build light rail systems to improve mobility for residents and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and other pollutants from traffic-related congestion. But winning public support for light rail
can be an uphill battle. Salt Lake City partnered with the Utah Transit Agency to plan and build TRAX,
one of the country’s newest light rail systems. The story behind TRAX illustrates the power of a regional
Expanding Options | 61
“quality growth” strategy, the wisdom of an incremental approach to building light rail, and the critical
public trust and credibility that transit agencies earn through good management.
THE BASI CS
A Brief History. Utah is one of the fastest growing states in the nation. Its population will increase by a
million residents by the year 2030, and growth will be concentrated along the Wasatch Front, where
Salt Lake City is situated. According to the Utah Transit Agency (UTA), travel demand in this area is
growing by 4 percent a year, a pace that will cause it to double by 2030.
In the 1980s, the negative results of rapid growth were coming home to roost. I-15, the main arterial
connecting Salt Lake City to metro communities to the north and south, was regularly clogged.
Light rail was first discussed as a solution in the late 1980s, but the idea met stiff resistance. Despite
little public support, UTA began acquiring key railroad corridors and planning in earnest. When Salt
Lake began ramping up preparations for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, UTA used expected
pressures on transit to secure initial funding for light rail from the Federal Transit Agency. In 1999
the first TRAX line connecting Salt Lake City with the town of Sandy in the south began regular
Expansion. Two more lines connecting to the original line and adding travel options to and from the
university opened in 2001. Now UTA is constructing “Frontlines 2015,” which will expand the
system with new TRAX lines to the
Airport and outlying cities, and
add a new commuter rail line from
Salt Lake City to Provo. Major
feeder bus lines and multi-modal
hubs are also being launched or
Funding. TRAX has been financed
through a combination of federal
funds, local sales tax, and fare
revenue. The first line was
constructed without any tax
increases. Then in 2000 voters in
Salt Lake, Webster and Davis
counties approved a ¼-cent sales
tax hike for a major extension that
passed by wide margins (e.g., 58 percent in Salt Lake county). In 2006, voters in Salt Lake and Utah
counties approved another ¼- cent increase to complete additional expansions, including 26
additional miles of light rail, 88 miles of heavy commuter rail and nearly 40 extra station stops.
Expanding Options | 62
The $520 million, 19-mile, 23-station TRAX system currently moves 56,000 passengers a day 23
In the first four months of service, 19,000 people rode each day, surpassing ridership projections.
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
The road to a comprehensive light rail system in the Salt Lake metro area had some fits and starts, but
since the construction of the first line to Sandy, public support for increasing the reach of the lines
and their service has only increased. Three aspects of the approach the region took may offer lessons
for other places.
Creating a compelling regional vision. In the late 1990s, work began on a new vision for the future of
growth in the state, a vision that ultimately galvanized support for new light rail.
The process was the brainchild of Envision Utah, a nonprofit that formed in 1997 to convene a public
dialogue aimed at keeping “Utah beautiful, prosperous, and neighborly for future generations.”
Beginning with survey research, Envision Utah asked “our neighbors” what they wanted in their
communities to make their lives better. “We heard a common
dream: safe, close-knit communities; opportunities for our
children; time to do what matters most; and the security of a
Then, in a series of workshops, the public provided input about
visual images of different growth patterns, and gathered around
maps of their communities to plot out where and how they
wanted growth to unfold. This input created the basis for four
Image credit: Blue Roof Blog future growth scenarios, which were vetted with the public in
over 200 workshops. The winning scenario revealed walkable
communities containing nearby opportunities to work, shop, and play. Transportation modeling
showed public transit investments were needed to help bring this vision to fruition; most Salt Lake
communities should be accessible by rail.
Once a preferred growth pathway was defined, Envision Utah created a “Quality Growth Strategy” for
realizing it. Investment in improving the regional transit system became one of the paramount goals.
As Envision Utah worked aggressively with the media to disseminate the strategy, the foundation for
winning support among elected officials and voters for local rail financing gradually grew.
Building it piece by piece. Another key strategy that explains Salt Lake’s success: going slow to go
fast. Public opinion was still divided when UTA broke ground on the Sandy line. Protesters at the
23 “Rail Line Drives Utah Development,” Keith Schneider, New York Times, April 22, 2007
Expanding Options | 63
event held signs saying “Light rail kills babies.24” UTA and the three counties decided to build just
one small component of a much larger system and demonstrate to voters—especially those in
skeptical outlying communities—how it improved mobility, reduced congestion, and drove high-
quality transit-oriented development.
The strategy paid off. The very first month, ridership on the Sandy Line surpassed estimates by a
whopping 30 percent, and 45 percent of the riders were new to public transit. “Downtown Salt Lake
has a totally different feel to it. You can tell by just looking at the increased number of people walking
down the sidewalks," said Mel Pearson, chairman of the Downtown Retail Merchants Association.25
Elected officials and voters throughout the region quickly took notice. In September 2002, the
Deseret News marveled, "Now cities in outlying areas are clamoring for lines out their way….Davis
County likewise wants lines out its way. So do people in West Valley City, West Jordan, Draper and
other parts of the metro area." This incremental approach paved the way for a local sales tax increase
Managing wisely to build public trust. Throughout this journey to a rail system, UTA’s record of
exceeding expectations and bringing projects in under budget has done much to grow public support
for major rail investments. For example, at about $300 million, the first Sandy line and university spur
came in millions of dollars under budget (about $22.8 million/mile, in 2002 dollars). 26 Since then,
UTA has consistently delivered projects within or under budget, and more quickly than originally
announced. In addition, when ridership grew rapidly and began to exceed capacity, UTA acted fast to
add service and increase the length of trains. This kept the system running smoothly. Finally, UTA has
been able to demonstrate significant operating cost savings. In 2000, TRAX cost per passenger-mile
plunged to $0.15, compared with $1.04 for UTA's bus operations.27 The result of all this disciplined
management: a reservoir of public confidence that holds promise for securing funding for expansion.
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
UTA website: http://www.rideuta.com/projects/frontlines2015/overview.aspx
Envision Utah website: http://www.envisionutah.org
(See especially the organization’s report “The History of Envision Utah”)
Detailed chronology of light rail initiative: http://utahrails.net/uta/uta-trax.php#chronology
“ All Aboard,” The Economist, Aug 31st 2006
“Light Rail Ridership Growing Nationwide,” Center for Transportation Excellence website at http://www.cfte.org/trends/trends.asp
“ Salt Lake City: Light Rail's a Hit,” Light Rail Progress – November 2002 http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_slc001.html
Expanding Options | 64
CASE STUDY: PORTLAND’S MODERN STREETCAR
Transforming Urban Growth
Through a combination of creative approaches to funding, institutionalizing local involvement, and securing
political support, Portland is managing to reduce vehicle traffic, develop rundown neighborhoods, and
increase local jobs by investing in streetcar development.
THE BASI CS
Putting the right context in place. Portland was not always the bustling metropolis it is today. In the
1960s the city suffered from the rise of suburban sprawl. In an effort to turn this trend around,
Portland emphasized cooperative planning for transit and land-use. Two illustrative efforts were the
creation of TriMet—the regional transit agency responsible for planning and operations—and the
decision to invest in regional light rail service instead of freeways. Portland Streetcar represents a
further turning point in city planning, and has led to an increase in, and support of, both residential
and business growth.
Getting underway. The idea of reintroducing streetcars in
Portland resulted from the 1998 Central City Plan. Streetcars
were seen as a way to encourage infill and catalyze housing
development. In the early 1990s, Portland’s downtown was
comprised of historic neighborhoods and areas spotted with
obsolete industrial sites. It was ill-equipped to handle the 54
percent population growth expected by 2030. The City
conducted a Streetcar Feasibility Study and established a
Image credit: www.inekon-trams.com
Streetcar Citizens Advisory Committee in 1990, a process
which eventually resulted in the installation of a modern
streetcar in the city.
Impacts. Today, Portland’s central city has achieved significant levels of development and is capable
of not only handling the population increase, but also of fostering additional economic growth. This
has been attributed in large part to the reintroduction of the streetcar in 2001, which also services
areas surrounding downtown and connects people to the regional light rail and bus systems. In fact,
the streetcar has spurred approximately 100 projects worth $2.3 billion in development along the
service line. The projects included over 7,000 housing units and 4.6 million square feet of office and
retail space. Because this new development is occurring where there is easy street car access,
developers can allocate space and resources to more and better quality development instead of
Ridership is over three times the projected amount; 2009 levels are up to 12,000 riders per day,
contributing to the decline of vehicle use in Portland, while such use has increased in American cities
Expanding Options | 65
Further, Portland Streetcar has created a new U.S. industry and brought new jobs to Oregon. In
2008, United Streetcar (a subsidiary of Oregon Iron Works) began manufacturing U.S.-built
streetcars. Previously, all Portland streetcars were made in the Czech Republic, but thanks to a 2006
exclusive technology transfer agreement between the Czech transportation company that
manufactured the previous Portland streetcars and Oregon Iron Works, streetcars can now be built in
the U.S. With help from Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, Portland secured a $4 million contract
to build a prototype American streetcar. This contract has created over 20 new positions at Oregon
Iron Works and will lead to more hires as the company grows and orders increase. American-made
streetcars stimulate manufacturing, construction and operation jobs tied to their production and use.
Building on success. Portland’s streetcar success in the Pearl District is leading to expansion in other
underdeveloped areas of the city. As early as 2001, replication of the successful Pearl District streetcar
began to see its way into other district development strategies. In 2003, the Office of Transportation
conducted a study on extending the streetcar to the Lloyd and Central Eastside Industrial districts. The
“Loop Project” is an extension now being built to provide transit connections to both light rail
(MAX) and bus services and add 28 streetcar stop locations. Public support for mass transit is on the
rise, because it is seen as an attractive way to reduce traffic and revive neighborhoods. Streetcars are
also an affordable alternative to the more expensive light rail lines that are typically designed to reach
Expanding Options | 66
the suburban community, and which often require more physical space. The design of the Portland
Streetcar project, on the other hand, allows room for future development of surrounding streets, and
local supporters and businesses see the streetcar as a more attractive alternative to bus routes, and one
that will also spur development.
Resources and financing. Aside from the federal government contract to build the streetcars
themselves, the vast majority of funds for the initial segment of the Loop Project were from local
sources. Some of the funds were generated by increasing parking prices (from $0.75 to $0.95 an
hour) and issuing bonds against the future parking revenue. The city also instituted a local property
tax, under the Local Improvement District (LID) program, on property owners along the proposed
streetcar line, and used tax increment financing. This city-level revenue allowed considerable local
control and flexibility in planning and implementing the streetcar project. Another innovative
approach to raising revenue was the creation of a sponsorship program for vehicles and stops, where
advertisers are allowed minimum one-year displays versus the shorter sponsorship periods on the
MAX or bus lines.
The development cost of the Loop Project is significantly higher than the initial line; this will be paid
for through a U.S. Department of Transportation allocation matched by Local Improvement District
funds, Portland Development Commission urban renewal funds, regional sources, system
development charges, and state sources.
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Size matters. Each streetcar is 66 feet long, which is 10 to 30 feet shorter than a typical light rail car,
and is always operated as a single car. This design allows streetcars to follow regular traffic patterns,
without being given priority over vehicle traffic or having to adjust to traffic signals. This minimizes
costs and limits disruption to the current traffic or parking set-up. The small size also helps reduce
construction costs by allowing stations and stops to be smaller than light rail stations.
Turning lack into opportunity. Although the areas in which Portland intended to install the first
streetcar initially lacked infrastructure and amenities, officials saw the existence of large, unused tracts
of industrial land close to downtown Portland as a significant redevelopment opportunity. Further,
this opportunity presented itself as housing demand was on the rise. Although community buy-in was
sought from the beginning, lower population density in the redevelopment area may have contributed
to the lack of community opposition.
Gaining buy-in through community involvement. Portland cultivated public support over the life of
the pilot streetcar project by actively engaging with the local community. The city’s Office of
Transportation appointed Citizen Advisory Committees prior to each project to provide feedback on
planning, design and operation. For future extensions of the streetcar, the elected regional
government, Metro, has sought buy-in through the formation of a steering committee, which
comprises local officials in the areas of development and Project Advisory Committees made up of
citizens and local stakeholders.
Expanding Options | 67
Coordinated development. The success of the initial project has triggered the development of a City-
wide Streetcar System Plan (SSP) that will identify potential corridors for future expansions of the
system. This planning effort is being managed by the Bureau of Transportation, in coordination with
the Bureau of Planning, Metro, TriMet, the Portland Development Commission and ODOT. They are
coordinating the SSP with the City’s comprehensive land-use plan and the regional High Capacity
Transit System Plan. The SSP effort is governed by a System Advisory Committee appointed by the
Commissioner-in-charge of Transportation, and has been presented to local communities for
feedback. The System Advisory Committee will present its recommendations to the Planning
Commission and the City Council. This truly cooperative effort has led to Portland Streetcar’s success.
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
City of Portland, Bureau of Transportation, http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation
Portland Streetcar, Inc., http://www.portlandstreetcar.org
Burgess, Edward and Ashley Rood. Environmental Defense Fund, “Reinventing Transit: American
Communities Finding Smarter, Cleaner, Faster Transportation Solutions,”
http://www.edf.org/documents/9522_Reinventing_Transit_FINAL.pdf, 2009, pgs. 13-14.
Reconnecting America, “Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities near Transit,”
May 2007. http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/reports/137, April 2007, pg. 136-160.
CASE STUDY: MINNEAPOLIS BIKE PROGRAM
Coordination and Integration to Achieve Bikeability
Minneapolis’s bike program provides an example of how a city can achieve year-round bikeability in a
northern climate by strategic build-out of facilities and coordinating with a broad cross-section of players
THE BASI CS
Getting under way. Minneapolis did not
become a year-round biking city overnight,
and its ups and downs are perhaps obscured
by the current reputation for bikeability. The
city’s on-street bike program has its origins in
the oil crunch of the 1970s, when
Minneapolitans pushed for less costly and Stone Arch Bridge, the first bike and pedestrian project in
energy-intensive ways to get to work. Minneapolis built with TEA-21 funds (Image credit: Howard
Increased competition on existing pedestrian
facilities between pedestrians and bikers led to the creation of Minneapolis’ first bike lane. However,
it was not in existence for long: the community was not familiar with bike lanes, and discontent over
lost parking spaces led to its demise.
Expanding Options | 68
Nevertheless the lessons of that period were not lost once Minneapolis, enabled by dedicated funding
in the last federal transportation funding bill, revisited day-to-day bikeability in the late 1990s. The
early projects were strategically chosen for appeal (in particular the historic Stone Arch Bridge,
below) and linkage with Minneapolis’s robust network of off-street facilities (primarily located in the
city’s ring of parks assembled in the 1910s). These provided visible proof of demand and workability,
and other bikeways soon followed.
Since then, solid analyses—available to the public—have underpinned the build-out of bike facilities.
Data gathering efforts include annual origin and destination bike counts performed throughout the
city. The data are used to reveal gaps in the bicycling network. In addition to bike lanes and trails, the
bike program’s comprehensive website identifies bike facilities and encourages community members
to use them. Website visitors can view previous and upcoming plans, general and winter biking tips,
bike maps, biking information for visitors, information on the trail maintenance program and issue
reporting, detour announcements, description of bike parking initiatives, details of the guaranteed
ride home program, how to manage bike theft, descriptions of new projects, events, and how to
subscribe to email updates.
Coordination. Bike facilities on the
ground touch multiple government
jurisdictions and aspects of public
life, and so must be the product of
many levels of coordination and
collaboration. Minneapolis’ 10-year
transportation planning process
coordinates with its Bicycle Master
Plan, as well as the Pedestrian
Master Plan and Streetcar Feasibility
Study. In turn, the transportation
plan (called “Access Minneapolis”)
coordinates with the city master
plan, by identifying specific actions
that the city needs to take with its
partner agencies in order to In these two maps from the 2001 (left) and draft 2008 (right) Master Bike Plans,
planned facilities for bikes and pedestrians in light blue and pink (left) have become
implement it. To identify and move reality in dark blue and red (right). (Proposed new facilities in 2008 are in violet.)
(Image credit: City of Minneapolis)
forward with specific facilities, early
collaboration with community
members and nonprofits is par for the course. In one case the city must work with the organization
Transit for Livable Communities, since this non-profit acts as the pass-through for $21 million of
federal funds to the city and judges where the money should be spent. In building facilities, project
managers understand that they must coordinate not only engineering needs but also development of a
maintenance plan, which assigns responsibility for snow and ice control, surveillance, and lighting. In
addition to providing bike lanes, the city also works with developers, building owners, and area
Expanding Options | 69
transit to increase the amount of bike parking available through a 50 percent cost share program, a
critical component of encouraging ridership.
Resources. Capital money for building out Minneapolis’s bike facilities comes from federal DOT
funding or earmarks from its senior congressmen, in particular Congressman Oberstar, who is chair
of the House Transportation Committee. To promote biking, the city has four staff bike ambassadors;
the coordinator position is paid by the Transit for Livable Communities funding mentioned above.
Results. As of the 2007 American Community Survey, Minneapolis’ share of bike commuters ranked
2nd in the country at 3.8 percent, an increase of 2.5 percent in 2006. An estimated 25 percent of these
riders commute year-round. Minneapolis has a truly interconnected trail network, with hundreds of
miles of bikeways. Perhaps the more impressive result, however, is that over the last decade
integration of bike accessibility considerations into all street projects has become the norm for city
planners and engineers. Projects are not allocated between ‘bike planners’ and ‘street planners’;
bikeability is part of everyone’s job. The culture of the city, public involvement, and commitment of
city officials at all levels, have enabled in this integration.
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Public engagement. From the first bike lane project in the 1970s, the city has learned that involving
the public early in a project, no matter how technically meritorious, is critical for project success. This
lesson has a renewed sharpness for more recent projects, as all of the ‘easy’ projects have already been
built, and 100 percent connectivity is still to be achieved. Early projects were successfully ‘sold’ to the
public with the factual information of bike traffic counts and map overlays to show network gaps.
Now officials are facing unprecedented levels of scrutiny regarding remaining connectivity projects
that require negotiation for multiple rights of way and are relatively expensive per mile. In several
cases the staff has had to abandon projects where it was simply not possible to safely or reasonably
accommodate all modes. Sometimes public input facilitates this choice, as with one project in which
only a couple of public meeting attendees were in favor of a bike lane; everyone else saw the
boulevard and street trees as too important. In other cases backlash in response to decisions to invest
or not invest in a bike facility has been significant, but the staff tends to understand this is just part of
the reality of their task.
Complete Corridors. Staff members take an overall approach of working towards “Complete
Corridors,” where all modes and livability considerations are incorporated into a ‘travelshed’, rather
than trying to make all streets “Complete Streets.” This is not only a matter of necessity, but an
innovative way to address the challenges of a city built for cars first and non-motorized modes
Cultivate Congressional Support. Minneapolis clearly benefits greatly from having senior
Congressional representatives in key positions that can deliver money for bike facilities. There is also
no denying that a city culture amenable to biking has been important to relatively high ridership.
However, the breadth of the bike program, which includes attention to all necessary aspects of biking
Expanding Options | 70
in Minneapolis (such as winter conditions, safety, perception, parking, and public engagement in
planning facilities) is not just an outcome but a factor in the city’s bicycling-friendly environment.
What to Build First. Minneapolis’s initial strategy in building out its bike network was to get the
biking arterials in place; that is, the offstreet “Grand Round” network that would provide access
literally around the city to streets with and without dedicated bike lanes. These offstreet facilities were
also more expensive and harder to argue for with the public. Critics have argued that more focus on
building out the on-street network would have achieved results more cheaply and easily, although it
is not perfectly clear which strategy would have been more successful in garnering higher ridership.
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
Minneapolis bike program website: “Bicycling in Minneapolis”
CASE STUDY: SEATTLE’S PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
A concerted and multi-faceted effort to make walking easier, safer and more
Seattle’s multi-dimensional Pedestrian Master Plan is one good example of a city taking deliberate and
strategic action to make walking an easier, safer and more common transportation choice. The Plan features
a mix of policies, programs, infrastructure investments and public education campaigns that have the
potential to bolster Seattle’s reputation as one of America’s most pedestrian-friendly cities.
THE BASI CS
Overview: After years of important but mostly piecemeal efforts to
make walking in Seattle easier and safer, the Mayor and City
Council made pedestrian safety a major priority in 2007, in part due
to a tragic car-pedestrian accident in 2006 that took the life of a City
Council staffer. Two years later, the draft Pedestrian Master Plan is
complete, with mission statement (“make Seattle the most walkable
city in the nation”); goals, objectives and strategies; a toolbox (an
on-line resource that can be used by City staff, partner agencies, Image from draft Seattle Pedestrian Master
developers, and the public to inform projects, programs, and
policies related to the pedestrian environment and experience); and performance measures. The Plan
is a web-based tool “to coordinate resources and provide information about pedestrian-related
projects, pedestrian concerns, neighborhood resources and important tools to get more people
walking in Seattle.”
Status. A public comment period on the draft Pedestrian Master Plan occurred earlier this year. The
draft will be modified and strengthened based on public review, and then on-going stewardship of
plan implementation will become the responsibility of the Seattle Pedestrian Advisory Board, a
Expanding Options | 71
diverse, 12-member panel appointed by the Mayor and City Council. Meanwhile, “early
implementation” is underway and progress is being made. For example, in recent years the City has
been adding nearly 50 blocks of sidewalks per year, compared with less than 10 blocks per year prior
to 2002. The Brookings Institution recently ranked Seattle as one of the nation’s most
pedestrian-friendly cities, but full implementation of this plan will no doubt enhance this
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
High-level political support and a concerted effort. Walking can—and often does—get lost in the
shuffle of urban transportation choices unless the political leadership makes it a priority and there is a
concerted effort to make improvements. In Seattle, the Mayor made pedestrian access and safety a
priority beginning in 2005 with the release of a 10-point plan that included a public education
campaign and proposed stepping up enforcement of existing traffic and pedestrian laws. And the City
Council in early 2007 passed a resolution initiating the Pedestrian Master Plan process.
A multi-faceted, portfolio approach. Seattle’s Pedestrian Master Plan features a mix of policies, public
education campaigns, and infrastructure investments. Policies include increased enforcement of
pedestrian and traffic violations, and the “Complete Streets” ordinance adopted by the City Council in
2007, which commits the City to actively consider how streets can be improved for pedestrians,
bicyclists and other transit users when it is planning, designing and constructing transportation
infrastructure projects. This may include adding street and sidewalk lighting and other safety
measures, or making road and bridge enhancements that improve their usability for walking and
biking. The public education campaign includes the installation of safety-oriented signs and
billboards in busy pedestrian corridors, and public service announcements to alert drivers and
pedestrians of the three intersections at which pedestrian-car accidents are the most common.
Infrastructure investments have also been made, funded in part by a nine-year, $365 million levy for
transportation maintenance and improvements, known as Bridging the Gap, which was passed by
Seattle voters in 2006. Improvements include annual construction of about 40 blocks of sidewalks
and about 150 curb ramps, additional crosswalks at 50 intersections, and 560 new pedestrian
countdown signals that tell pedestrians how much time they have to cross the street.
Stakeholder engagement. Seattle established a diverse stakeholder group called the Pedestrian Master
Plan Advisory Group to guide the planning effort. The group met regularly for nearly two years,
working closely with project staff to create a framework for the plan. The broader public was also
engaged; more than 1,400 people responded to a Walking Preferences Survey that asked people why
and where they do and don’t walk, and what might encourage them to walk more. In addition, the
city convened interdepartmental and interagency (local, regional and state) teams to build more
collaborative relationships for plan development and implementation.
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
Expanding Options | 72
Children playing on a sidewalk dominate toy cars in this image from the draft Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan
Recommended Resources by Mode
TRA NSI T
1. RESOURCE FOR MAKING THE CASE—Moving Minds: Conservatives And Public
This book is a collection of studies by two renowned conservative transit advocates. These studies
provide arguments to enlist conservative support for public transportation. Studies included in the book
are: Conservatives and Mass Transit: Is It Time for a New Look?; Does Transit Work? A Conservative
Reappraisal; Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critiqu;, Bring Back the Streetcars!; A
Conservative Vision of Tomorrow’s Urban Transportation; How Transit Benefits People Who Do Not
Ride It: A Conservative Inquiry; Winning Transit Referenda: Some Conservative Advice; A National
Defense Public Transportation Act: A Conservative Proposal for Energy Independence; Good Urban
Transit: A Conservative Model; and The (Unexpurgated) Report of the National Surface Transportation
Commission: A Conservative Analysis.
By Paul Weyrich and William Lind, Reconnecting America
2. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit
This report provides descriptions and discussions of the lessons learned from 26 BRT systems all over
the world, including 12 in the United States and two in Canada. Issues of relevance to cities exploring
BRT are also discussed, including performance, costs, and prospects for BRT.
Transportation Research Board: Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2003, 62pp.
Expanding Options | 73
3. National BRT Institute
This website provides links to key reports and presentations on BRT planning, funding options,
designing BRT systems, increasing ridership through vehicle and station design, and evaluations of
existing BRT services in the U.S.
4. Strategies for an Intra-Urban Circulator System
This report highlights key characteristics for developing tailored, effective intra-urban circulator systems,
and critical operating strategies.
By Victoria Perk, Martin Catala, Joel Volinski, Jennifer Flynn, Marlo Chavarria, National Center
for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of
South Florida, 2005, 96pp.
5. Reinventing Transit: American Communities Finding Smarter, Cleaner, Faster
This webpage provides case studies of 13 successful, creative transit solutions in metro areas. The full
44-page report is also available, at
By Edward Burgess and Ashley Rood, Environmental Defense Fund, Apr 2009
6. RESOURCE FOR MAKING THE CASE -The Rail Transit Debate
This article provides an excellent summary of the main arguments against rail transit, and some of the
counter-arguments that have been made to address these concerns. This document can be a useful
reference for city officials looking to anticipate public reaction to proposed rail transit projects.
By Glenn Pascall, Discovery Institute: Inquiry Magazine, 2001, 24pp.
PED ESTRI AN F ACILI TIES
7. Sample Pedestrian Plans
This website links to numerous pedestrian plans, compiled to provide easy access to a number of good
examples. Included are statewide, regional, and local examples.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center at the University of North Carolina Highway
Safety Research Center
Expanding Options | 74
8. Pedestrian Planning Activities
This webpage describes, step by step, a strategic planning approach for improving pedestrian facilities in
a given community. Appropriate for communities that have not previously undertaken comprehensive
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center at the University of North Carolina Highway
Safety Research Center
9. RESOURCE FOR MAKING THE CASE -Walkability Improvements
This webpage provides a good overview of various ways to improve walking conditions and encourage
pedestrian transportation. The page includes information useful for advocacy, and links to numerous
case studies and examples of successful implementation.
By Todd Litman,, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2008
BIC YC LE FA CILI TIES
10. Sample Bicycle Plans
This website links to numerous bicycle plans, compiled to provide easy access to a number of good
examples. Included are statewide, regional, and local examples.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center at the University of North Carolina Highway
Safety Research Center
11. Creating a Roadmap for Producing and Implementing a Bicycle Master Plan
This document lays out the process for creating a comprehensive bike plan.
By Peter Lagerwey, National Center for Bicycling & Walking, June 2009, 31pp.
12. Cycling Improvements
This webpage provides a good overview of various ways to improve cycling conditions and encourage
cycling activity. The page includes information useful for advocacy, and links to numerous case studies
and examples of successful implementation. An article on bike/transit integration is available here:
By Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2008
BIK ES HAR E
13. Bicycle Sharing Systems Worldwide: Selected Case Studies—Version 1.1
This report provides a high-level synopsis of how to implement bike sharing systems. It includes
information about several popular systems including membership demographics, usage information,
Expanding Options | 75
implementation costs, rental costs, bike share technology (bike, kiosk, locking mechanism), and
implementation statistics. Free registration required to download.
CARS HAR E
This article examines a variety of car-sharing models, including many in North America. It introduces
pricing models, various case studies, and links to a number of car-sharing organizations.
By Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2008
15. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
This exhaustive report examines development and implementation of car-sharing services. Issues
addressed in the report include the roles of carsharing in enhancing mobility as part of the
transportation system; the characteristics of carsharing members and neighborhoods where carsharing
has been established; and the environmental, economic, and social impacts of carsharing. The report
also focuses on car-sharing promotional efforts, barriers to car-sharing and ways to mitigate these
barriers, and procurement methods and evaluation techniques for achieving car-sharing goals. Other
resources included in the report include sample Requests for Proposals, zoning ordinances related to car-
sharing, and tips on how to encourage partnerships to initiate car-sharing programs.
By Adam Millard-Ball, Gail Murray, Jessica Schure, Christine Fox, Transportation Research
Board: Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2005, 264pp.
This website is a clearinghouse of information for cities that would like to have or would like to improve
their car-sharing services. It lists and links to nonprofit and for profit carshare programs in cities
around the world, and provides sample RFPs for car sharing services from six cities and one state. The
website also provides an extensive list of resources, carsharing news articles, and a small directory of
industry suppliers, such as consultants and technology providers.
Updated August 2009
TE LEW OR K
17. Telework Resource Center
This website is a clearinghouse of resources, success stories, technology, research studies, leaders, federal
agency information, and legislative perspective. The host is also a resource for networking with others
interested in or implementing telework.
Expanding Options | 76
18. Telework Case Studies
This webpage provides a list of over 60 employer-based case studies from Washington, the greater
Washington DC region, Oregon, Arizona, Minnesota, Colorado, California, Florida, and
National TDM and Telework Clearinghouse
Other Useful Information
19. Bike/Ped—Case Study Compendium
This compendium compiles over 100 case studies of bike and pedestrian initiatives from across the U.S.
and abroad, and includes all of the case studies scattered throughout the bikinginfo.org and
walkinginfo.org websites. Project categories are: Comprehensive, Education, Engineering,
Encouragement, Planning, and Other. Each case study provides a context for the program or project, a
description of the pedestrian and/or bicycle issues faced, as well as how the community sought to
address their concerns, and contact information for the initiative. A results section describes the
successes and lessons learned from the planning or implementation of each activity. Data is provided
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center at the University of North Carolina Highway
Safety Research Center, Jan 2009, 258pp.
20. Strategies For Walkable Commercial Development
This chapter of Envision Utah's "Quality Growth Toolbox" focuses on ways to create a more walkable
commercial center. It includes examples though no comprehensive case studies. The information is well
organized, relating to several useful approaches, and provides an example of how one state has
integrated walkability into a broader plan.
Envision Utah, 2002, 29pp.
Expanding Options | 77
Expanding Options | 78
V. Improving Collaboration: Working Effectively Across
Agencies, Sectors, and Jurisdictions
Transportation and land-use management are inherently complex and cross-disciplinary challenges
that cut across geographic and political boundaries—which is why related public policy decisions are
often among the most difficult, time-consuming and contentious in many cities, regions and states.
To be successful, cities, regions and states must collaborate closely, effectively, and constantly.
The challenge exists on many levels. Within cities, local governments must coordinate better across
their own departments and with key community-based stakeholders including developers, affordable
housing and environmental advocates, and neighborhood organizations. Local governments must
also establish and maintain a high-level of coordination and collaboration with the surrounding
suburbs, regional planning and transit agencies (including but not limited to MPOs), and state and
Federal Government counterparts.
Collaboration Case Study Index
This Resource Guide highlights promising examples of working “beyond borders” in Atlanta,
Tucson, Chattanooga, and the New York State Capital District. The index below indicates which
other case studies in this Resource Guide feature a collaborative theme, and who the players were.
With non- Across With With
Public Within city
governmental neighboring region/ transit
partners jurisdictions state agencies
I-15 HOT Lanes
King County, WA
In Motion Program
Bay Area, CA
New York City
Select Bus Service
Improving Collaboration | 79
With non- Across With With
Public Within city
governmental neighboring region/ transit
partners jurisdictions state agencies
Salt Lake City
Connect Atlanta Plan
Livable Centers Initiative
New York State Capital
District Planning and
CASE STUDY: ATLANTA’S “CONNECT ATLANTA PLAN” AND THE ATLANTA REGIONAL
COMMISSION’S LIVABLE CENTERS INITIATIVE
Driving Investment Towards Compact, Livable Communities
Atlanta has seen wide swings in growth patterns in the past few decades—from dramatic flight to the
suburbs, to a period of resurgence in downtown Atlanta neighborhoods. Two complimentary efforts–one by
the city’s transportation agency and one by Atlanta Regional Commission–are shaping this growth so it
produces vibrant, walkable communities rich in transportation choices. Although the work is slow going,
these initiatives are putting smart plans in place that hold potential for reshaping the urban and suburban
CONNE C T A TLA NTA PLA N: THE BASI CS
In December 2008, the Atlanta City Council unanimously approved a comprehensive transportation
plan for the whole City. This comprehensive plan was a first; Atlanta had previously done
transportation planning at the corridor and the neighborhood scale, but had never taken a
comprehensive look at the City’s whole transportation system.
Getting started. The decision of City officials to create a city-wide, multi-modal transportation plan
was a response to rapid growth in Atlanta’s neighborhoods. Population increases were bound to put
Improving Collaboration | 80
pressure on Atlanta’s existing transportation network, and only a careful and comprehensive effort to
enhance residents’ mobility would enable Atlanta to absorb new growth gracefully. So the City’s
transportation office was asked to evaluate every aspect of the transportation system—roads and public
transit as well as biking and walking—and recommend ways to make Atlanta “a more desirable and
exciting place in which to live, learn, work, shop, and play.”
To accomplish such an extensive analytical task (the Plan cost $1.6 million to produce), the planning
team divided the City up into areas with different functional characteristics: nodes (activity centers),
districts (Atlanta's single family residential neighborhoods), and corridors (areas connecting nodes).
The transportation needs of each type of area were carefully inventoried. An extensive public
dialogue on plan goals and recommendations was also conducted.
Plan highlights. A key consideration drives the recommendations of the Connect Atlanta Plan:
Atlanta’s highway-dominated road system was designed primarily to facilitate flow between the City
and its suburbs, and it must continue to do that; however, the nature of the existing road network
does not support the mobility and economic vitality of Atlanta’s urban communities.
The Plan makes many recommendations about the road network—proposing the construction of 73
new streets to increase connectivity and economic activity, and the widening of 22 existing streets to
enhance capacity. But recommendations also include downsizing streets that currently are too wide
and too fast to support neighborhood life, or turning one-way streets two-way. Other
• Guidelines on construction of sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities in new developments;
• Proposals for 200 miles of bike lanes to connect activity centers and neighborhoods; and
• Ninety-five (95) miles of rail transit and high-frequency bus transit are recommended in the
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Addressing the systemic to the nuts and bolts. One distinguishing
feature of the Connect Atlanta Plan is the way it balances
recommendations for long-term and expensive improvements to the
City’s transportation system with many ideas for small fixes that can
improve mobility and enhance neighborhoods in the short term.
The full spectrum of improvements is depicted in detailed maps of
every part of the City. While major infrastructure projects are yet to
be funded, the maps communicate the City’s expectations about
improvements developers should make as their projects
incrementally transform the urban landscape. Over time, as Atlanta
residents see how even small changes like new sidewalks or biking
amenities can improve mobility and quality of life, they may be more
Image credit: www.decaturga.com
inclined to advocate for the big ticket items.
Improving Collaboration | 81
Bringing the public along from the get-go. Transportation plans often put public involvement at the
end of the process. The “Connect Atlanta” took a very different approach. The Connect Atlanta team
sounded out Atlanta residents about what goals should drive the planning process before it began, in
seven visioning workshops held throughout the City. In addition, the public was asked to contribute
at each subsequent step of analysis. This deep commitment to participation was a big reason why the
Plan garnered so much City Council support.
Getting out ahead of the curve. Atlanta didn’t let resignation
over the obvious lack of existing funding for a thorough
upgrade of the City’s transportation system stop the
momentum for pinpointing what a better system would look
like. Instead, the City decided that having a technically
rigorous and widely supported plan was an essential step
toward changing the level of federal and state funding
available for Atlanta’s road and transit projects. This
Image credit: www.phillipblaiklock.com
strategic move gives Atlanta a very strong leg to stand on as
priorities for funding evolve.
THE LIV A BLE CE NTERS I NI TIA TIVE : THE BASICS
The impetus. The Livable Centers Initiative was the brainchild of the Atlanta Regional Commission
(ARC), a regional planning agency for a 10-county metropolitan area that includes the City of
Atlanta. The program helps local governments build better connections between current and future
land-use planning and transportation infrastructure that already exists or is on the horizon. The
program casts a wide net—seeking to help not only big urban areas like Atlanta, but also cities,
communities and counties of all sizes that are grappling with how to manage growth and create
Launched in 1999, the program was created to help the Atlanta metro region address sudden changes
in growth pressures that left many communities reeling. A long-standing approach to zoning that
favored large lot sizes and low densities had begun creating traffic congestion and associated air
quality problems in many of the metro region’s most desirable communities. As these trends
intensified, many people and businesses opted to move back into Atlanta proper, or farther out
beyond the reach of suburban sprawl; for example, the population grew 250% in 7 years in one
Atlanta neighborhood28. Yet many of these urban neighborhoods, like their suburban counterparts,
lacked walkable, mixed-use development and access to transit. The goals of the Livable Centers
Initiative were to spur smarter and more sustainable growth throughout the Atlanta metro region,
reduce driving, improve livability and stem the decline in air quality.
Wide range of completed projects. Since 1999, the Livable Cities Initiative (LCI) has disbursed more
than $1 million annually in competitive planning grants to help communities more effectively use
“Transit Oriented Development in Four Regions,” Gloria Ohland, the Great American Station Foundation, April 2004
Improving Collaboration | 82
existing or planned improvements in transportation infrastructure to revitalize town centers and key
This grantmaking focus guides communities to achieve smarter and more sustainable growth by
incentivizing them to link land-use planning to transportation investments. Plans produced with LCI
grants must align with the program’s core goals by enhancing streetscapes and sidewalks,
emphasizing the pedestrian, improving transit access, and expanding housing options. They must
also be developed with extensive public participation.
One of the more well known projects receiving ARC planning assistance was the award-winning
Atlantic Station. One of the largest brownfields redevelopments in U.S. history, the Atlantic Station
project transformed a former 2000-employee steel mill into a large mixed-use community with over
5000 homes, including everything from single family residences to retail district lofts to
condominiums in large multi-family towers. The project is fully transit friendly –in 2006, residents
drove an average of 8 miles a day, compared with a 20-county regional average of 32 miles.
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
The power of planning grants guided by clear goals. There is little doubt that the vision and the
financial assistance that the Atlanta Regional Commission has provided to local jurisdictions both big
and small has catalyzed many projects on the ground, as well as needed revisions to land-use policy.
The results speak for themselves. A 2009 Implementation Report shows results from 102
communities that have been awarded more than $8.5 million in planning grants:
• 762 projects have been completed, many with national reputations for sustainable design;
• A total of 86,000 new residential units are completed or on the way;
• Almost every LCI community has incorporated its LCI-funded study into its comprehensive
• Two thirds have passed special LCI zoning districts, and more than 80% have design
guidelines to ensure livable, walkable environments; and
• The communities themselves believe they now have enhanced livability.
The program has clearly been very successful in enabling communities to head down a redevelopment
pathway that channels growth into urban centers with existing infrastructure, and away from
undeveloped areas where it causes sprawl.
Coordinated use of federal dollars. The ARC’s support for local jurisdictions does not end with the
planning grants. The Commission has used its federal transportation funds to help communities bring
new visions to fruition. Once communities finish an LCI plan, they can apply for implementation
funding through the regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Since its inception, the
program has awarded more than $129 million toward the funding of local transportation projects.
Jim Durrett, Executive Director of the Livable Communities Coalition, said he believes the program
Improving Collaboration | 83
has “done more to lay the groundwork for metropolitan region-wide smart growth and
transportation-efficient land-use than any other program in the country of which I am aware.29
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
CASE STUDY: CHATTANOOGA REVITALIZATION
Transforming a Downtrodden Downtown and Nearby Neighborhoods into a
City officials started with a grassroots effort to forge a strong and clear regional vision, and followed up
with an effective strategic planning process and strong implementation that has featured an unusually high
degree of collaboration between governments (local, regional, state and federal), nonprofit organizations, and
the private sector. Other keys to Chattanooga’s success appear to be a clear and concerted focus on people-
and pedestrian-oriented development; the existence of a “catalytic development company”; and a streamlined
and user-friendly approach to planning and design.
THE BASI CS
“Chattanooga’s story is about getting many factions, both public and
private, to work together to move a city in a new and different direction.
The ‘Chattanooga Way’—public-private partnerships, strong planning,
bold implementation, and constant input from the public—could be
replicated in other communities lacking the natural assets possessed by
Clear and strong regional vision. Chattanooga’s visioning process began
in the mid-1980s, supported by the city but led by a nonprofit
Image credit: Auburn School of
organization called Chattanooga Vision. Chattanooga Vision’s only Architecture
request to stakeholders was that all participants commit to being “hopeful
and helpful.” About 1,700 people participated in the process, which included polling, research and
countless meetings. The process led to a broad consensus that Chattanooga needed to re-embrace its
major asset: the Tennessee River.
Effective strategic planning process. Chattanooga’s civic leaders instituted an intensive strategic
planning process to turn that vision into reality, the 21st Century Waterfront Plan, which was
National Award for Smart Growth Achievement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008
“Chattanooga, Tennessee: A Restoring Prosperity Case Study,” David Eichenthal and Tracy Winderknecht, Metropolitan Policy
Program, Brookings Institution, September 2008
Improving Collaboration | 84
completed in 2005. The primary goal was to make a walkable connection to the Tennessee River.
They established 14 task forces. These were organized around desired outcomes, including improving
the streetscape, putting in place a clean circulator bus system, creating a river walk to integrate
downtown and connect neighborhoods with the river, building an aquarium, and developing
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Strong focus on people- and pedestrian-oriented development. Two core principles for revitalizing
Chatanooga emerged from the visioning process: reconnecting to the river, and planning and
developing for people rather than cars. These principles became the main filter through which major
policy and investment choices were made. The city convinced the state to give Chattanooga the
Riverfront Parkway, a four-lane state highway that cut between the planned aquarium and the
riverfront. Once given ownership, the city promptly reduced the Parkway to two lanes, and shifted
other four-lane roads that ran perpendicular to
the river into two-lane, pedestrian-friendly
avenues. A vehicle bridge was turned into a
footbridge to connect the northern and southern
banks of the river for pedestrians. Chattanooga
did not just rebuild infrastructure; they created
pedestrian-friendly environments with help
from organizations such as the Trust for Public
Lands; invested in parks, public art, and
pedestrian greenways on both sides of the river;
Image credit: University of Tennessee
and implemented an electric shuttle bus service.
Effective public-private partnerships. Chattanooga’s success is punctuated by a number of effective
public-private partnerships. Since 1986, Chattanooga has leveraged an initial $12 million in public-
private investment into $1.5 billion in private development, including signature projects such as the
Tennessee Aquarium and a 10-mile recreational greenway along both sides of the river. For example,
in 1994 the city donated riverfront property to the RiverCity Company, a private nonprofit developer,
enabling them to build a $3.1 million project that featured 41 middle-income rental units. This
project was the first multi-family housing development built in Chattanooga in 20 years.
To raise money for implementing the 21st Century Waterfront Plan, then-Chattanooga Mayor Bob
Corker organized a joint fundraising campaign with the Tennessee Aquarium, the Hunter Museum of
American Art, and the Children’s Discovery Museum. This collaborative effort raised $42 million in
just 90 days from private donors, which was combined with public funding to create the $120 million
fund needed for plan implementation.
The existence of a “catalytic development firm.” The RiverCity Company has been instrumental in
Chattanooga’s turnaround. Thanks in part to incentives from the city, they took above market-rate
risks to get initial redevelopment projects underway, and successfully demonstrated to the private
sector that there was demand for such projects.
Improving Collaboration | 85
Streamlined and user-friendly planning and design. Chattanooga is committed to excellent and
participatory urban planning and design, but also to inventing systems that are easier to navigate for
developers and residents alike. For example, they created the Planning and Design Studio to provide
one-stop shopping for problem-solving with, and approvals from, Chattanooga’s regional planning
authority. The Studio defines design standards for public agencies and developers, and offers
technical assistance. It has created streamlined guidelines and a consistent language for design
priorities that keeps design at the forefront of redevelopment activities while at the same time making
the system easier to use.
For more information
River City Company website: http://www.rivercitycompany.com/
Chattanooga Area Chamber of Commerce site on the initiative:
CASE STUDY: TUCSON REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Building towards Collaboration between Neighboring Towns
Over the past five years, the Tucson region has been working to develop and
implement a 20-year, $2.1 billion regional transportation plan. This region
offers insights into how neighboring jurisdictions can overcome historic
tendencies and collaborate to advance transportation objectives.
THE BASI CS
Overview. Moving people between greater Tucson’s downtown,
surrounding communities and locations such as the University of Arizona
has vexed decision makers as far back as the 1970s. Between 1982 and
2003, the population of southern Arizona grew by a whopping 60 percent.
As population increased to over one million, the greater Tucson region
experienced substantial congestion.
Like many developing cities, citizens in Tucson resisted increasing their tax Image credit: Regional
burden to pay for transportation improvements. Efforts were made in 2002 Transportation Authority
and 2003 to plan and fund essential components both by the city and transit
advocates, but voters repeatedly rejected proposals to raise taxes.
Given the unfavorable relationships between the various jurisdictions, regional transportation
planning remained difficult. In 2003, the Arizona legislature responded by introducing legislation to
create the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) with representatives from the elected bodies of Pima
County, South Tucson, Tucson, Marana, Oro Valley, Sahuarita, the Tohono O’odham Nation and the
Pascua Yaqui Indian Tribe. The RTA’s primary purpose is to build consensus among the regional
jurisdictions leading to safe, efficient and quality transportation alternatives.
Improving Collaboration | 86
By the end of 2005, the need for regional transportation planning had become pressing, leading to
RTA Board support for a regional plan. By mid-2006, after more than a decade of trying, the voters of
Pima County approved the 20-year, $2.1 billion regional transportation plan and ½ cent excise tax.
Of this amount, 27 percent or $534 million was allocated to fund climate-friendly bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit developments such as the modern streetcar. Fifty eight percent was allocated for roadway
corridor projects, nine percent for safety, and six percent environmental and economic vitality. After
five unsuccessful votes, an extensive public outreach effort finally led to citizens approving the
measure by a margin of 3 to 2.31 After two years of revenue collection, 141 projects were under
development with 48 completed by the end of 2008. Although primarily a road transportation plan,
passage of the plan served as a watershed event, enabling the expansion of climate-friendly modes as
Building a culture of collaboration. Through the planning process, the region benefitted from the
collaboration of a 35-member citizen advisory committee that oversaw development of the regional
plan as well as a technical/management committee composed of transportation experts and
jurisdictional representatives. Between July and November 2005, the RTA and its citizen committee
conducted an extensive public involvement process entailing 27 open houses and presentations to
more than 200 groups. Members of the citizens
committee contributed over 2000 hours to ensure public
accountability. Through this public engagement process,
members of the business, environmental and government
sectors came to agreement on the regional plan. As an
indicator of this commitment to public involvement, the
RTA plan included 14 changes based on public input.32
A campaign sponsored by Yes! for Regional Transportation
Image credit: Regional Transportation Authority
to pass the transportation plan and funding stream,
garnered over $1 million in private contributions (e.g.,
Tucson Association of Realtors, New Car Dealers Association and Southern Arizona Home Builders
Association, environmental organizations and others) to reach out to voters through public outreach
that included commercials, fliers, mailings and roadside signs. By the end, the initiative had attracted
the support of businesses, construction, real estate, car dealers and materials industries.33
Parallel efforts help reinforce the spirit of collaboration. While the RTA was advancing its first plan,
other transportation planners were improving their coordination as well. In 2005, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) launched a demonstration program to encourage regions in the
U.S. to increase multi-agency collaboration through the development and implementation of a
Voters Greenlight $2.1 Billion Road Plan: Transportation Measure Passes on Fifth Trip to Polls. Andrea Kelly and Erica Melter, Arizona Daily
Star, May 17, 2006.
See RTA Plan Accountability. www.rtamobility.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=314&Itemid=154
Kelly and Meltzer.
Improving Collaboration | 87
regional concept for transportation operations (RCTO).34 According to the FHWA, a RCTO is a
management tool that provides a strategic framework to guide collaborative efforts to improve
transportation system performance through management and operations strategies. Along with
Portland, OR and Detroit, Tucson was awarded a grant to develop and implement a RCTO over two
years. Tucson’s efforts under the RCTO helped demonstrate to PAG and related state agencies the
benefits of developing common objectives and performance measures, and implementing a strategic
approach for coordinated operations.35
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Try, try again. Bringing stakeholders together to produce a viable plan requires patience, persistence
and leadership. The time and effort exerted by the RTA, the Yes! campaign and the two advisory
committees were all important factors in the hard-won agreement on the regional strategy. Both
advisory committees passed the plan unanimously and when the plan came before the member
jurisdictions of the RTA, it passed in all eight of them.
Concessions for collaboration. Sometimes it takes something more, however, for a community to
overcome historical patterns of disaccord. A key turning point involved voting rights of RTA
members. Originally weighted towards the county representation and the more populous community
of Tucson, these two jurisdictions voluntarily reduced their influence to a one entity-one vote
representation. This decision demonstrated to the surrounding communities that Tucson and the
county were committed to truly regional decision making, which proved to be the good faith needed
for real collaboration, since exhibited by RTA jurisdictions.
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
Regional Transportation Authority—www.rtamobility.com
CASE STUDY: NEW YORK STATE CAPITAL DISTRICT PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
Creative Use of Funding and Authority to Put Vision on the Ground
THE BASI CS
Adopting a broad stewardship role. The Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) is the
designated MPO for the Albany-Schenectady-Troy metropolitan area, encompassing four counties
and 78 municipalities in update New York. As of 2005, the area had about 800,000 residents.
See The How: Case Studies Advancing Planning for Operations. US Department of Transportation.
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations Fosters Planning for Operations in the Tucson Metropolitan Area. US Department of
Transportation Case Study. April 2009.
Improving Collaboration | 88
CDTC initially pursued a conventional mission for a metropolitan
planning organization: developing long range transportation plans
for the Capital region. But over time, the agency has sought a much
broader role. They bring the region’s leaders together to forge a
vision of “quality growth” that integrates transportation and land-use
goals, and then offer services and grant funds to local jurisdictions to
help them contribute to and actualize that vision.
The agency has a small professional staff funded primarily via the
Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Agency, and
member agencies. CDTC describes its mission as exploring and
addressing issues critical to the future of the Capital District, and
supporting planning efforts that are action-oriented, answering questions such as:
1. How will the expectations and role of the transportation system be different in the year 2015
from what they are today?
2. What type of future development patterns should be encouraged through strategic
3. How can the transportation system be managed or improved to enhance the quality of life,
protect the environment and sustain economic vitality in the region?
4. What are the financial requirements to provide the desired system and how can they be
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Promoting Sustainable Growth Principles. The CDTC’s New Visions regional transportation plan was
adopted in 1997, and updated in 2000 and 2004. The plan has been a critical platform from which
CDTC works towards integrating land-use development and transportation improvements across the
The plan’s architects began by organizing a broad-based dialogue with key stakeholders to define
critical “performance goals” for the Capitol Region. Some were focused exclusively on the
transportation system (e.g. improving service quality, reducing accidents, and reducing per capita
resource requirements for the whole transportation system.) Others, however, defined the character
of the region that residents wanted, such as strong urban, suburban and rural communities, and
economic and social interactions that support growth while improving environmental quality.
CDTC then developed a back-casting analysis, using modeling to see if these goals could be achieved
by 2015 at anticipated growth and given planned transportation improvements. They concluded that
the only way to achieve the goals was to slow the growth in vehicular travel by one third to one half,
largely by changing the way that regional growth unfolds.
Improving Collaboration | 89
This new understanding of what was needed to reach regional
goals profoundly impacted CDTC’s transportation plan. New
Visions advocated strongly for integrating environmental, fiscal,
land-use and community issues into transportation decisions.
The Plan also committed CDTC to using the “tempered” traffic
forecasts for planning and project design work—those that
assumed the lower growth in vehicular travel needed to meet the
region’s long term goals—instead of the standard trend forecasts
that most agencies use.
Combining transportation and land-use support. CDTC offers a
suite of services that help jurisdictions contribute to the
realization of the Capital Region’s vision. Under their
Cover of Capital District master plan
Community and Transportation Linkage Planning Program they brochure: “Choosing Our Future: New
provide grants and technical assistance to local jurisdictions to Visions 2030 Update””
complete joint regional-local planning studies that integrate
transportation and land-use. The Linkage program springs from the premise that “good site and
community design are essential to achieving regional transportation system goals.” Funded
communities work closely with CDTC staff, or with consultants under contract to CDTC. The
organization believes its work to be one of the most ambitious efforts nationwide to really put into
practice the policies that have been adopted by the region’s counties, cities, towns and villages. It
ensures that there is a prominent region-wide perspective in the mix as cities and suburbs wrestle with
critical local planning issues.
The legacy to date amounts to 61 collaborative, jointly funded studies over the past nine years,
sponsored by 37 urban, suburban and rural municipalities, not-for-profits and other public entities.
A total of $4.0 million in federal, state and local funds have been deployed, with the federal dollars
coming from FWHA “PL” funds as well as TIP project-related CMAQ and STP funds. This has,
according to CDTP’s website, “ ‘[l]eveled the playing field’ to allow local governments to compete
fairly with the state for highway repair and upgrade funds,… funded dozens of “spot” bike and
pedestrian accommodations, sidewalks and trails… [and] put a priority on operating the system,
leading to the first advanced regional transportation management center, road patrols and transit—
highway information connections.”
Leaving territoriality at the front door. CDTC does its work in a complex institutional environment,
in which many non-profit, business-related and public organizations see a role for themselves in
defining where the region needs to head. A good measure of CDTC’s effectiveness, credibility and
influence seems to relate to their response to this complexity.
Rather than seeking an exclusive role in the work of regional visioning and planning, this MPO has
celebrated and encouraged the many overlapping dialogues, and even funded such fora. CDTC has
concluded that overlapping dialogues reflect that many people are engaged in thinking about the
region’s future, which is to be encouraged. They have carved out a role for themselves as facilitator,
Improving Collaboration | 90
interpreter of common themes in support of smarter regional growth, and doer of initiatives that are
best led by an MPO, such as putting together growth scenarios, or freeing up resources to support
local jurisdictions that are seeking to do their part.
Capital District Transportation Committee website: http://www.cdtcmpo.org/
(Search in particular for “Interesting Practices at CDTC”)
Recommended Collaboration Resources
1. Planners and Politics
This book profiles eight planners who successfully advanced good planning practices in their
communities with their given political contexts. City planners profiled are from Arlington Heights IL,
Boulder CO, Chapel Hill NC, Dallas TX, Liberty MO, Philadelphia PA, Pittsburg PA, and San
Francisco CA. Political contexts include the wider community and elected leaders.
By Roger Waldon, American Planning Association, 2007, 59pp.
Download Available on Amazon and other online bookstores.
2. Environmental Innovation: Keys to Successful Collaborative Problem-Solving
This webpage summarizes 7 keys to successful collaborative problem solving, based on EPA experience
and academic research. a shared problem; a convener of stature; a committed leader; representatives of
substance; a clearly-defined purpose; a formal charter; and a common information base. Collaborative
efforts to solve environmental problems are more likely to succeed when these seven factors are present.
U.S. EPA, Feb 2009
Other Useful Information
3. Corridor Approaches to Integrating Land Transportation and Land Use
This report of successful, transferable innovations includes notable practices from a number of state
DOTs (New Jersey, Utah, Maine, and Virginia) and other agencies (in Chicago and Denver) that have
broadened the scope of transportation planning and design in order to improve the management and
function of regional transportation corridors and support communmity quality of life goals. Some of the
strategies used by jurisdictions include access management, multimodal options, transit service
improvements, rezoning to increase density, requiring development to compliment transportation
corridors and controlling land-uses adjacent to transportation facilities. The final six case studies were
chosen based on rigorous and clearly described criteria. It is aimed at state DOTs but includes local
government participation case studies.
By ICF International, Transportation Research Board: National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Jun 2009, 94pp.
Improving Collaboration | 91
4. The Role of State DOTs in Support of Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
This report examines roles state DOTs can play to reduce barriers to transit-oriented development. This
resource is more appropriate where there is a TOD champion at the state DOT.
Transportation Research Board: National Cooperative Highway Research Program 2006,
5. Greenhouse Gas Reduction through State and Local Transportation Planning
This report uses seven case studies to evaluate how states and local areas use transportation planning in
pursuit of GHG reductions. The report's executive summary synthesizes lessons learned across the case
studies that describe the actors, a history of plan development, results to date, and lessons learned.
By William M. Lyons, Scott Peterson, Kimberly Noerager, The DOT Center for Climate
Change and Environmental Forecasting, 2003, 95pp.
6. The New Mobility/Climate Emergency Project
This project, online since 1999, seeks to network international practitioners on 'new mobility' solutions
and has developed several electronic tools for spreading such information. The site can be difficult to
navigate; the links to Café (discussion space) and Knoogle (a search tool that filters Google searches by a
list of respected sources) are a good place to start.
Improving Collaboration | 92
VI. Funding: Financing Climate-Friendly Transportation
There certainly are relatively low-cost ways to reduce carbon emissions from transportation sources,
such as adjusting traffic signals to give public transit priority, and “eco-driving” campaigns that
encourage people to operate their vehicles in a more energy-efficient and climate-friendly way. But
many of the solutions, in particular those involving the development of new infrastructure, are costly.
Recent studies, such as the previously mentioned Growing Cooler and Moving Cooler reports, make a
strong case that the benefits of investment in climate-friendly transportation and land-use
management systems outweigh the costs. Still, practitioners are challenged to come up with the
capital costs to build transit lines, increase bus service, and otherwise grow the supply of climate
friendly transportation. The funding-related challenges include the following:
• Creating new local and regional revenue streams to finance expanded climate-friendly
transportation choices such as transit, biking and walking infrastructure;
• Attracting private investment in climate-friendly transportation infrastructure and transit-
oriented development; and
• Working more closely and effectively with MPOs, state governments and the Federal
Government to increase total funding and channel a higher percentage of available funding to
climate-friendly transportation choices and land-use management practices.
Many states and MPOs—and the Federal Government itself—are rethinking their transportation and
funding priorities. And many cities, regions and states around the country are coming up with
interesting new approaches to generate locally-derived revenue. For example, in recent years voters
in the Denver and Salt Lake City regions have supported major investments in new light rail systems.
Portland and Oregon State are experimenting with a VMT tax—that is, a tax based on the amount of
driving done. Both Portland and Seattle have had success in securing private sector funding for local
streetcar lines (e.g., through local improvement districts), and attracting private investment in transit-
oriented development along those lines. And Seattle has increased parking fees as part of a broader
revamping of its approach to the management of the supply and demand of parking spaces in the city.
Index of Case Studies with Funding Described
The pilot VMT tax in Portland is described in the section below, and other approaches to funding
climate friendly transportation and land-use strategies are described briefly throughout this Resource
Guide. The index below summarizes references to funding approaches that appear in other sections
of the Guide.
Funding | 93
Local Regional State Federal
I-15 HOT Lanes
King County, WA
In Motion Program
Bay Area, CA
New York City
Select Bus Service
Salt Lake City
New York State
Grant or earmark
Funding | 94
CASE STUDY: OREGON’S ROAD USER FEE PILOT PROGRAM
A Promising Alternative to the Gas Tax with Potential Driving Impacts
In June 2006, almost 300 Portland OR area drivers became part of an experiment that demonstrated how
innovative use of technology could make it possible to tax people based on the number of miles they drive
rather than on the amount of gas they consume. While mileage-based fees are not a unique idea, Oregon’s
program was innovative because it was the first to integrate the gas tax with mileage fees to allow for a
gradual phase-in of a new system. The pilot had also had an unexpected effect: when people became more
aware of their road usage and its costs, they started considering transportation alternatives.
THE BASI CS
State takes action to shore up highway funds. Eighty percent of Oregon’s state highway money comes
from its gas tax. After repeated efforts (and failures) to increase the state gas tax, the state legislature
decided in 2001 to explore the road less traveled and authorized the formation of a twelve-member
Road User Fee Task Force charged with finding an alternative source of transportation revenue. After
meeting nine times and considering 28 different options, the task force settled on a pilot program to
test the “Oregon Mileage Fee Concept” which would replace the gas tax with a fee based on miles
driven and collected at fueling stations. The Oregon DOT launched the 12-month pilot program in
April 2006 in the Portland metro area to test a system that could potentially be implemented
How it worked. Oregon recruited nearly 300 volunteer motorists in
the Portland area—and one independent owner of two gas
stations—to participate in the ground-breaking study. Participants,
who each received $300, had their cars wired with a GPS- type
device that would track their driving while within state boundaries,
and then during regular visits to the participating gas stations the
information would be electronically transmitted at the pump where
the mileage tax was collected (and gas tax deducted) when buying
Results hold promise—and challenges—for the future. Oregon
reported the pilot program to be a success, and concluded from the
pilot that a mileage fee can be integrated with the gas tax system and
current service station operations. Congestion-based fees may also
be easily incorporated. However, though successful at a pilot scale,
more development is necessary before the system could be
implemented more widely. While refinements to the technology
are clearly needed, the biggest obstacle to implementing this system Image credits: Chris Smith, Portland Transport
at a state, regional or national level is not technology but the need
for broad political, industry, and public support.
Funding | 95
The State was not alone in defining the program as a success. Participants also found the idea of
paying a mileage fee at the pump in place of the gas tax attractive and convenient, and were
convinced of the fairness of the system (drive more, pay more; regardless of fuel economy). Ninety-
one percent of participants said they would have been willing to keep the on-vehicle equipment and
continue paying the mileage fee rather than the gas tax if the system were extended to allow them to
buy gasoline at any service station statewide. The drivers also showed a surprising 12 percent
reduction in total miles driven. Several of the participants also said that a member of their household
began using alternative transportation modes to save money.
Costs. The bulk ($2.1 million) of the funding for the study was provided by the Federal Highway
Administration Value Pricing Pilot Program, because the congestion-pricing component was also
evaluated at the request of the Federal Highway Administration. The State of Oregon contributed
$771,000 in matching funds. ODOT estimated that capital costs for statewide implementation would
be approximately $1.6 million.
FOOD F OR THOUGHT
Replicability. Oregon readily admits that even though the pilot demonstrated the validity of the
“Oregon Concept,” the state does not intend to pursue full-scale implementation. Refining the
technology would require millions of dollars, as would equipping vehicles and gas stations with the
new technology. More significantly though, the program also requires the broad cooperation of
motorists, automobile manufacturers, and gas distributors. Oregon ultimately concluded that the only
way this program can really take off is if a consortium of states works together, or the federal
government or a state with huge market influence (like California) takes the lead. The final report
from the Oregon study said, “The timeline to broad scale implementation of the Oregon Mileage Fee
Concept can be short or long, depending upon the commitment of resources and political will.”
As revenues from the gas tax dry up, policy makers are increasingly motivated to explore alternatives.
A number of states (Idaho, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and
Minnesota) are considering some form of a mileage-based fee system already, but ultimately large
scale implementation will probably require federal action and national standards. The findings from
the Oregon study provide considerable advances in understanding what it would take to make a
mileage fee system work at a large scale.
Using the technology. Figuring out the technology was a big part of the pilot study. University
partners designed Oregon’s system, which officials say worked for the study but needs further
refinement and development. However equipping all existing cars with such technology could be
logistically difficult and would certainly be expensive. Implementing such a program seems more
likely if phased into new vehicles; but this would require having parallel systems for old and new cars
until the current fleet turned over in about 20 years.
Privacy. The Oregon study raised huge concerns about privacy among drivers who didn’t want the
government monitoring their driving (and who expressed concerns about how else the data might be
Funding | 96
used). Privacy and data security issues would have to be addressed prior to statewide or national
implementation. Other schemes have been proposed that would be less politically risky in this
regard—requiring mileage reporting during annual inspections, for example—though they carry their
Transition to more fuel-efficient vehicles. There was some perception that the switch to mileage fees
would discourage the movement to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Oregon officials said it is too early to
know whether this would be the case but said they believe that the technology could be modified to
charge lower fees for more efficient vehicles.
Industry cooperation is key. The pilot was initially planned for Eugene, Oregon, but the state had to
move the study to Portland because none of the gas stations in Eugene would cooperate. Corporate
franchised service stations were not willing to allow ODOT access to their proprietary point-of-sale
(POS) systems in order to test the pay-at-the-pump concept. Neither could ODOT interest any
independent service station owners in Eugene. Other concerns included the privacy issues around
sharing information about their customer base. These issues suggested that the gas and automotive
industries both need to be closely involved in developing a system that would work for everyone.
Behavior change and revenue. Climate-friendly transportation strategists have noted the effect of the
study on the behavior of the participants. However the net effect on an important purpose of this
strategy—raising highway revenue—is unknown.
FOR M ORE I NF ORMA TION
Pricing Pilot Final Report:
Funding Resource List
1. Local Option Transportation Taxes in the United States (Part One: “Issues and
This report provides an excellent synthesis of local option taxes, based on key findings from the
authors' 50 state study (full state-by-state findings available here:
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=its). Key varieties of local
option taxation discussed include fuel taxes, vehicle taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and
employment taxes. The report also discusses key political and economic issues of these options and
compares them with regards to equity, stability, transportation relevance, and typical applications.
By Todd Goldman, Sam Corbett, Martin Wachs, University of California at Berkeley,
Institute of Transportation Studies, 2001, 41pp.
Funding | 97
2. State and Local Transportation Resources: Grants and Funding
This webpage lists the available federal sources of funding relevant to environmentally-friendly
SEC TOR OR MODE -SPE CIFIC F UNDING
3. Transit—Finding Solutions to Fund Transit
This report describes state and local revenue options to fund mass transit, including transportation-
based revenues (gas taxes, rental car tax, license/registration or title fees, tire tax, vehicle battery tax,
weight-mile truck fee, toll roads and congestion pricing) and development fees (development impact
fees, storm water fees, and real estate transfer fees).
By Phineas Baxandall, Ph.D., U.S. PIRG, Aug 2007, 23pp.
4. Transit—Capturing the Value of Transit
This report provides a comprehensive review of the impact of transit on property values, and
discusses various value capture strategies such as assessment districts, tax-increment financing, joint
development, and development impact fees.
By Center for Transit Oriented Development, U.S. DOT Federal Transit Administration,
5. Smart Growth—Regional, State, and Local Funding Opportunities
This webpage provides links to state and region-specific grants for which smart growth projects may
U.S. EPA, Updated Aug 2009
6. Smart Growth—National Funding Opportunities
This webpage provides links to nationwide grants for which smart growth projects may be eligible,
including governmental and foundation funding.
U.S. EPA, Updated Aug 2009
7. Smart Growth—Transportation Funding
This webpage lists the federal sources of funding available relevant to smart growth.
Funding | 98
8. Bike/Ped—Funding Revenue Sources
This website provides an overview of various sources of revenue for bike/ped facilities: government
(federal, state, and local), private sector (land trusts and businesses), community fundraising and
creative partnerships and foundations. For all but the last category, bulleted examples of how other
communities have successfully won/developed these revenue types provide food for thought.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center at the University of North Carolina
Highway Safety Research Center
9. Bike/Ped—Funding Examples and Case Studies
This website links to eight case studies of how bike/ped projects around the country accessed
funding. Case studies are provided for the following sources: regional (Alameda County CA,
Phoenix AZ Charleston SC), mixed (Cleveland OH), new local tax (Olympia WA), federal grant
(Trumansburg NY), local government (Portland OR), and foundation grant (Orlando FL).
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center at the University of North Carolina
Highway Safety Research Center
10. Bike/Ped—Bicycle and Pedestrian Provisions of the Federal Aid Program
This webpage lists federal funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian projects.
U.S. DOT FHWA
11. Telework—CMAQ and Telecommute Programs
This website describes federal funding available for telecommuting programs, and gives brief
examples of success from Houston TX, Philadelphia PA, and the Washington DC Metropolitan
Other Useful Information
This coalition of elected and appointed government officials, non-profit organizations, advocacy groups,
and other groups campaigns for the next federal transportation spending bill to be one that enables a
“world-leading, sustainable transportation system.” The website serves as an advocacy resource and
provides updates on the status of the transportation bill.
13. Alternative Funding Strategies for Improving Transportation Facilities
This report to the North Carolina DOT explores a variety of alternative funding strategies for
transportation facility improvements, including transportation corporations, transportation improvement
Funding | 99
districts, tax increment financing, impact fees, transportation concurrency, and state programs for
achieving fair share mitigation of transportation impacts. Although not specific to creating revenue
streams for transportation choices other than roads, some of these strategies may be adapted to that
By Kristine M. Williams, Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of
South Florida, 2006
14. Financing the New Urbanism—Summary
This report summarizes the results of a study on how real estate lenders, developers, and investors view
the investment climate for New Urbanist projects. The conclusions are based on interviews conducted
with several members of each profession relating to their impressions of the investment climate for three
scenarios: an infill project in a mixed-use, urban setting; a mixed-use project in an established suburb;
and a mixed-use neighborhood in a greenfield. A handful of recommendations based on this research
are also provided.
By The Wharton (Business) School at the University of Pennsylvania, 2001
15. Implementable Strategies for Shifting to Direct Usage-Based Charges for
This report identified a range of alternative VMT fee mechanisms at the state level that could be
implemented immediately in selected locations and fully deployed nationally by 2016. From this range
of alternatives, several were selected for more detailed description and evaluation.Researchers concluded
that the most promising options were metering mileage based on fuel consumption, based on a device
combining cellular service and a connection to the onboard diagnostics port, and metering mileage based
on a device featuring a GPS receiver. Particular attention was given to administrative and enforcement
costs, institutional considerations, and implementation strategies.
By the RAND Corporation, University of Minnesota, Betty Serian, and ICF International,
Transportation Research Board: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Sep
16. Transportation Energy Efficiency Funding Opportunities in the 2009 ARRA
This report describes funding opportunities under the 2009 ARRA. The report includes project
descriptions and successful examples of state/municipal collaboration, integrating land-use and
transportation planning, and multi-modal state, regional and local opportunities.
By Sarah Black, ACEEE, May 2009, 3pp.
Funding | 100
VII. Tracking Progress: Improving Greenhouse Gas
Accounting of Transportation Emissions
Robust, credible and consistent tracking of greenhouse gas emissions – that is, establishing a baseline
and then tracking progress over time – is as challenging as it important. Nations and companies have
the benefit of standard protocols for doing such GHG accounting; cities and regions do not for
Tracking emissions from local and regional transportation sources – and evaluating the GHG impacts
of transportation and land-use actions and investments – is especially tricky, in large part because
those sources are numerous and mobile, raising a number of challenges related to data-collection and
where to draw boundaries.
Many cities, regions and nongovernmental organizations are working to meet these challenges.
Future iterations of this Resource Guide will feature information on new GHG accounting tools,
standards and methodologies, as well as case studies of leading GHG accounting efforts at the local
and regional level. In the meantime, below are some resources that cities and regions seeking to
improve their transportation-related GHG accounting practices will find useful.
1. Moving Cooler
This book (purchasable as hard copy or pdf) provides cost benefit anlayses on the effectiveness and
reasonable outcomes of more than 20 transportation policy scenarios. Examples of policies covered
include pricing of parking, freeways, and fuel taxes; deregulation of land-use policies; public
transportation; ride-sharing and HOV lanes; workplace and commuter choices; non-motorized
transportation; regulatory measures; intelligent transportation systems, and policies for heavy-duty
vehicles. (See "Growing Cooler" for more qualitative information on the wider benefits of smart growth.)
By The Moving Cooler Collaboration, Urban Land Institute, 2009, 160pp.
2. CCAP Transportation Emissions Guidebook
This downloadable interface provides transportation policy analysis assistance with policy briefs,
emissions calculator, and policy comparison matrix.
Center for Clean Air Policy, 2002
3. CCAP Guidebook Emissions Calculator—Part 1: Land Use, Transit & Travel Demand
This spreadsheet provides default values and emission factors to aid in the calculation of emission
impacts of policies. It is available as a component of resource #2 above or at the website below.
Center for Clean Air Policy, 2002
Tracking Progress | 101
4. MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator)
This site describes and links to EPA's draft of a new emission modeling system that will replace
MOBILE6 and NONROAD. It will estimate emissions for on-road and nonroad mobile sources, cover a
broad range of pollutants, and allow multiple scale analysis. A final version is anticipated in late
2009.This model is highly recommended by the Transportation Research Board for regional or local
transportation plan or program analysis (see Methodological Resources below).
EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), Apr 2009
5. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles
This article provides sources, citations, and assumptions that can be used to calculate emissions from
several transportation modes by occupancy.
By Clark Williams-Derry, Sightline Institute, 2008
6. Emission Facts: Calculating Emissions of Greenhouse Gases: Key Facts and Figures
This webpage provides some basic figures with which a 'bottom-up' inventory of carbon dioxide
emissions from the operation of passenger vehicles can be calculated.
U.S. EPA Mobile Sources Unit, Updated Feb 2009
7. Transportation Impacts and 'Smart Growth' Initiatives
This report describes the impact of rigorously selected state and MPO-level smart growth initiatives:
Florida, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Montgomery County MD, New Jersey, Portland OR, and Seattle WA,
and provides recommendations for monitoring impacts of similar initiatives.
By Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and Elizabeth Deakin, Transportation Research Board::
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2004, 265pp.
8. The Transportation and Environmental Impacts of Infill versus Greenfield Development:
A Comparative Case Study Analysis
This analysis compares the travel, public infrastructure costs, environmental impacts, multi-modal
orientation and community accessibility impacts of infill vs. greenfield development at three sites: San
Diego CA, Montgomery County MD, and West Palm Beach FL. The methodology can be used by
others in making the case for infill development.
By Hagler Bailly Services, Inc. and Criterion Planners/Engineers, U.S. EPA, 1999, 35pp.
Tracking Progress | 102
9. Measuring the Air Quality and Transportation Impacts of Infill Development
This report summarizes three regional infill development scenarios to illustrate how regions can
calculate the air quality and transportation benefits of infill.
U.S. EPA, 2007, 77pp.
10. Increases in Greenhouse-Gas Emissions from Highway-Widening Projects
This report analyzes the net long terms emissions impact of adding lanes in two regions. It also provides
an overview of the methodology used to calculate emissions that can be used to guide analyses
By Clark Williams-Derry, Sightline Institute, 2007, 9pp.
11. Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Analysis Techniques for Transportation Projects
This study determined which of 17 transportation GHG analysis tools—popular as of early 2006—
was the most recommended for a range of applications, including two appropriate for this audience:
regional or local transportation plan or program analysis (p.23), and transportation project or strategy
analysis (p.25). This document also provides some guidance on how to supplement the most
recommended tool (EPA MOVES—see Quantitative Resources above) with others, e.g. to provide a
different level of detail that include travel speeds and vehicle stock, and what assumptions can be used
in the absence of local data.
By ICF Consulting, Transportation Research Board:: National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, 2006, 64pp.
Other Useful Information
12. Transportation in a Cap & Trade System
This article makes the argument that capping transportation fuels is feasible by placing the burden of
tracking on suppliers, not consumers or regulators.
By Eric de Place, Sightline Institute
Tracking Progress | 103
13. RESOURCE TO WATCH FOR: CCAP Travel Data and Modeling Recommendations to
Support Climate Policy and Performance-Based Transportation Policy
This report provides guidelines for tracking travel data to improve state and local transportation
policymaking. The supplemental memo noted as forthcoming in the document may be a highly useful
document to be on the lookout for.
By CCAP VMT & Climate Policy Dialogue, Center for Clean Air Policy, Jan 2009, 4pp.
Tracking Progress | 104
This Resource Guide was developed for the Climate Leadership Academy on Promising Practices for
Transportation Efficiency that took place on September 21-23, 2009. The Guide was made possible
by funding from the Blackstone Ranch Institute, the Rockefeller Foundation and Surdna Foundation.
The authors and research team of this Guide are Steve Nicholas, Elaine Wang, Sarah McKearnan, Ed
Delhagen, Tom Wilson, Betty Weiss, Joyce Peters, Bonnie Smoren and Kelsy Raap with the Institute
for Sustainable Communities (ISC) team. Elaine Wang of ISC was the project manager and also led
the research team. The design and layout is by ISC’s Sarah Woodard.
This Resource Guide was shaped in consultation with over fifteen cities across North America. Many
individuals contributed to the development of this Resource Guide, including Neha Bhatt of National
Association for City Transportation Officials, Scott Bernstein from the Center of Neighborhood
Technologies, Steve Winkelman of Center for Clean Air Policy, Geoff Anderson of Smart Growth
America, and Todd Litman at Victoria Transport Policy Institute. In addition thanks go to the many
people who reviewed the case studies presented here: Carol Cooper of King County Metro; Jay
Primus of San Francisco MTA; Melanie Crotty of Bay Area MTC; Mike McKeever and Raef Porter at
Sacramento Area COG; David White of the City of Burlington; Patricia Webb and others at
TransLink; Donald Pflaum of the City of Minneapolis; and Andy Dunning at Pima County RTA.
About the Institute for Sustainable Communities
Since its founding in 1991 by former Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin, ISC has led 72
transformative, community-driven projects in 20 countries. ISC specializes in developing and
delivering highly successful training and technical assistance programs that improve the effectiveness
of communities and the leaders and institutions that support them.
We welcome your feedback!
This Resource Guide is a work-in-progress. It will be converted into a web-based resource and
continually updated to provide valuable resources to public, private and nonprofit sector leaders
working to improve and increase climate-friendly mobility opportunities and land-use in their cities
and states. If you have comments on the guide, or ideas for how to improve it, please send them to
Steve Nicholas at the Institute for Sustainable Communities at email@example.com.
Acknowledgments | 105