Written by: Ryan Lanyon, BA Presented at: Transportation Association of Canada, Saskatoon, October 2007

1. Smart Commute Initiative
Establishment of a Multijurisdictional Workplace-based Transportation Demand
Management Program Serving the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton
Ryan Lanyon
Project Director
Smart Commute Association
Paper prepared for presentation at the
Best Practices in Urban Transportation Planning - An Economic Enabler Session
Of the 2007 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

2. Smart Commute Initiative
Establishment of a Multijurisdictional Workplace-based Transportation Demand
Management Program Serving the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton
Abstract
The amount of vehicular traffic in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton has been
increasing for decades, with demand increases outpacing additional supply. As a
result, traffic congestion has been swelling, and gridlock is projected to worsen by 45%
over the next 30 years. In addition to increasing travel times, the additional congestion
is already costing the regional economy $1.8 billion per year.
Governments in the area do not have the financial resources available to add additional
vehicular capacity, and the problem crosses numerous jurisdictions – provincial,
regional and local. Shifting priorities for funding are also focusing more on public
transit, which has a significant lag time for meeting current needs. In response,
alternatives to increases in supply that can be implemented more easily have been
sought.
The Smart Commute Initiative was a multijurisdictional workplace-based transportation
demand management program serving the commuting population of the Greater
Toronto Area and Hamilton. Established in 2004, the Initiative formed and enhanced
eight transportation management associations (TMAs) across the region, based on the
successful experience of Ontario’s first TMA, Smart Commute Black Creek. A central
coordinating body, the Smart Commute Association, was also established, thereby
separating demand management functions into two tiers of program delivery.
Smart Commute’s programming focused on enhancing the attractiveness of existing
commuting alternatives, eliminating or reducing travel demand, and facilitating new
transportation options for the GTA and Hamilton. Core services included commuter
ridematching, an emergency ride home program, shuttle services, enhancing trip-end
facilities for cyclists and carpoolers and assisting with the establishment of more flexible
work arrangements such as telework and compressed work weeks. Marketing, media
relations and special events complemented these improvements to transportation
alternatives. Services were regionally standardized, with the flexibility to allow for local
customization.
Through careful monitoring at the workplace and regional levels, the impact of Smart
Commute was measured before and after implementation, from May 2005 to March
2007. Changes in commuter awareness levels, modal shift, single occupant vehicle
trips, vehicle kilometres travelled and environmental impacts were evident, and various
forms of evaluation took place to investigate effectiveness of service delivery
mechanisms.
2

3. Introduction
The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and Hamilton has experienced significant population
growth and economic prosperity for decades. At the turn of the millennium, the area
had a population nearing six million inhabitants, with close to three million jobs. New
residents were flocking to the GTA by nearly 100,000 per year.
With such explosive population growth, particularly in the region’s suburban areas,
urban sprawl continued relatively unabated. Both jobs and residents were moving away
from the urban cores to automobile-oriented areas in the outer regions. Between 1976
and 2001, more than 600 square kilometres of land on the fringe of the cities was
urbanized (1).
As the area grew and suburbanized, more drivers took to the streets, trip lengths
increased and traffic congestion ensued. Over 70% of major highways were congested
during peak periods, with others experiencing stop-and-go outside of regular commuting
hours (2). Gridlock was further predicted to worsen, by as much as 45% over the
coming decades (3), costing the local economy $3.0 billion per year or 1.3% of regional
gross domestic product by 2021 (2). By 2003 that number was already recorded at $1.8
billion (4).
At the same time, senior levels of government were reducing their funding for municipal
infrastructure, and revenues from property taxes were not keeping pace with growth.
Even if resources were available to build additional capacity, some areas of the GTA did
not have the physical space – or political will – to widen roads or build new ones.
Without major investments in public transit, usage rates only remained steady or
declined across the region. Alternatives to adding supply for personal vehicles, such as
demand management, were being considered.
The challenge of targeting transportation demand in a region such as the Greater
Toronto Area and Hamilton is that transportation behaviour does not follow political
boundaries. Commuters regularly travel between the 30 municipalities of the GTA and
Hamilton, as well as beyond. Still more drive into the region from neighbouring cities,
towns and villages. No single government is responsible for these trips, yet almost all
are concerned with the strain imposed on local roads and expressways.
A partial solution, however, was successfully explored through the establishment of a
multijurisdictional workplace-based transportation demand management initiative. By
establishing a two-tiered delivery mechanism and solidifying municipal and private
sector partnerships, concrete action was taken to reduce travel demand in select areas,
at a fraction of the cost of creating additional supply.
Smart Commute Initiative
The Smart Commute Initiative (SCI) was conceived as a pan-GTA and Hamilton effort
to reduce traffic congestion and the environmental impacts of single occupant vehicles
3

4. through the implementation of transportation demand management strategies targeting
regular commuters. Objectives of the SCI included reductions in vehicle kilometres
travelled, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants from transportation, as well as
the proportion of travel undertaken by single occupant vehicle drivers.
Established as a partnership between the Regions of Halton, Peel, York and Durham,
as well as the Cities of Toronto, Hamilton and Mississauga, the members of the
Initiative recognized that an effective solution needed to address travel behaviour
beyond municipal borders. At the same time, a more localized approach was required
to develop the necessary relationships and for sufficient political buy-in. In response, a
two-tiered delivery structure was envisioned, with a regional coordinating body
supporting up to ten new and existing transportation management associations (see
Figure 1)
Local and regional resources, however, were insufficient for effective program delivery.
Municipal partners then looked to the federal government for assistance, and were
granted $2.5 million in supportive financing under Transport Canada’s Urban
Transportation Showcase Program. The Program would allow for a three-year
demonstration project beginning in May 2004 and ending by March 2007. A key factor
of the funding was the establishment of lessons learned from the implementation of a
regionwide and multijurisdictional transportation demand management program.
Governance
Due to the large number of partners in the Smart Commute Initiative, a governance
structure was established to ensure equal accountability, liability and responsibility.
Administratively, York Region is the lead municipality of the SCI, and signatory of the
contribution agreement with Transport Canada. In order to share this obligation equally
with the other participating municipalities, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was
signed (see Figure 2).
The MOU also outlined three major committees to oversee the Initiative (see Figure 2).
Each of these groups is connected through the Smart Commute Association (SCA),
which acted as the project manager for the Initiative. As such, the SCA was the central
point of contact and coordinating body for all committees, liaised with and facilitated
communication between transportation management associations, and managed the
reporting process to relay progress and results to Transport Canada and municipal
funders.
The first group, the Steering Committee, was responsible for overseeing the direction,
development and financial management of Smart Commute. The management of the
Smart Commute Association was also a major responsibility. This Committee consisted
of one representative from every one of the partner municipalities, and made most
decisions by consensus. Each member also linked the efforts and accountability of their
respective transportation management associations to the overall project governance
(see Figure 3).
4

5. The second group outlined in the MOU is the Technical Committee. Similar to the
Steering Committee, this body is also made up of representatives from partner
municipalities, in addition to TMA staff and other municipal engineers and planners from
the GTA who share their expertise at this level. The Technical Committee serves to
direct Smart Commute programming and services, and provides an opportunity for
communication and sharing of best practices between TMAs and municipal TDM efforts.
Finally, an Advisory Committee of community representatives was established through
the memorandum. This included members from local transit providers, academics,
environmental organizations and other stakeholders. The Committee met twice per
year to discuss the overall role of Smart Commute and to provide additional expertise
on program implementation.
Two-tiered Operations
Smart Commute was envisioned to operate as a two-tiered structure offering services at
both the local and regional levels. Locally, transportation management associations
would be established in areas with significant levels of employment. Up to 10 TMAs
were to be created, with at least one within the boundaries of each partner municipality.
In areas with a larger employment base or various clusters, more than one association
was proposed. Each TMA would then work closely with employers in its service area,
allowing for significant relationships to foster, and solutions to be customized to the local
context. By the end of the Initiative, eight associations were established and two
remained as proposed.
This model of establishing a transportation management association was based on the
successfully implementation of Ontario’s first TMA, then known as Smart Commute
Black Creek. Black Creek was born from a partnership between the City of Toronto and
the Toronto Board of Trade in 1999, and had worked with York University and
surrounding businesses since 2001. Early results showed that the TMA, in conjunction
with other campus initiatives, had significantly reduced the number of single occupant
vehicles destined for the York campus – from 70% to 60% of all trips by 2002. The
University was then able to defer the construction of two parking structures, saving
more than $30 million.
Regional services of the Smart Commute Initiative would be offered by a new
organization – the Smart Commute Association (SCA). In addition to its role as the
project manager and coordinator, the SCA would serve to provide more broad-based
outreach and awareness of Smart Commute through advertising and media campaigns,
while also taking advantage of economies of scale and centralizing some services. This
included research and development of Smart Commute programming, such as a fully
automated, online ridematching service and program modules supporting various
modes of sustainable transportation like public transit, vanpooling as well as cycling and
walking. Table 1 below provides a further distinction between the local and regional
functions of Smart Commute.
5

6. Table 1: Regional and Local Smart Commute Functions
Activities SCA (Regional Tier) TMA (Local Tier)
Marketing and Education • Regional marketing, • Local and workplace
media and events marketing, media and
events
Commuter Services • Centralized services • Use of services
• Module development • Customized modules
Monitoring and Evaluation • Standards and tools • Employee surveys
• Regional commuter • Data collection
surveys • Data presentation to
• Compilation of data members and partners
Research and Development • Innovation and best • Pilot projects
practices • Steer research
Programming
At the core of the Smart Commute Initiative is the ability to enhance the attractiveness
of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. In many instances, options such as
cycling, carpooling or taking transit to work may be viable, but the allure and
convenience of driving alone reinforces commuter behaviour. By working with
employers and educational institutions, Smart Commute attempted to improve the
desirability of these more sustainable modes of transportation, by reducing barriers and
improving benefits that arise from their use.
In other cases, efforts were made to shift commuter travel times outside of the
traditional peaks or ‘rush hours’ by working with employers to increase the flexibility of
start and finish times. Additional work arrangements might include compressed work
weeks or teleworking, leading to outright trip elimination. Table 2 provides a list of the
various tools and services used to encourage commuter behaviour change at the
workplace.
6

7. Table 2: Smart Commute Programming
Target Mode or Behaviour Tools and Services
Carpooling • Online ridematching service (Carpool Zone)
• Preferential parking
• Cash incentives
• Emergency Ride Home or commuter insurance
Vanpooling • Assistance with employer-provided vanpools
• Preferential parking
• Emergency Ride Home or commuter insurance
Transit • Volume incentive programs
• Route-planning assistance
• Shuttles to/from rapid transit
• Emergency Ride Home or commuter insurance
Cycling • Improved bicycle parking
• Showers and change rooms
• Flexible dress codes
• Education and skills training
Travel time shift • Flexible start and finish times
• Compressed work weeks
Trip elimination • Full- and part-time telework
• Compressed work weeks
Three key services offered by Smart Commute are of particular note. The first, an
online ridematching service known as the Carpool Zone, was a signature offering to
local commuters. Previously, a number of smaller ridematching services existed in the
GTA and Hamilton, each serving the population of a few employers or one to two
municipalities. With the introduction of the Carpool Zone, significant effort was made to
coordinate ridematching activities in this central location, creating an economy of scale
that would result in a greater chance of linking carpoolers together. The service was
offered free to the general public, with enhanced features available to participating
employers and institutions. After 16 months of operation, more than 6,000 commuters
had signed on with the service, forming more than 500 carpools.
The second service offered by Smart Commute was the Emergency Ride Home (ERH)
program. Available online to member or partner workplaces, ERH acts like commuter
insurance. When an employee chooses to commute by carpool, transit or other modes
and needs to leave work suddenly for an emergency, a free taxi ride (or possible car
rental) is provided by the program. Unanticipated overtime or other situations that might
leave an employee without the means to return home are also eligible, providing peace
of mind that transportation is available even when their car is left at home.
Finally, another key reason many employees choose to drive alone to work is so that
they have the flexibility to leave the office at lunch time. In areas where few services
7

8. are directly accessible on foot, a lunch-time shuttle provides the mobility desired to get
to local restaurants and shopping destinations. Shuttle services can also support other
modes such as bridging the gap between a rapid transit station and an employer’s
worksite.
Further supports to Smart Commute programming include a great deal of outreach to
local commuters through marketing, communications and special events. Printed
materials such as brochures helped to raise awareness of Smart Commute and
commuter options, as do employer e-mail bulletins and posters. More importantly,
special events and contests, such as the Clean Air Commute and the Commuter
Challenge, successfully engaged employees in considering, and even testing,
sustainable ways of getting to work.
Through the Smart Commute Association and the Technical Committee, most
programming was developed as a package and distributed through a collection of
modules known as the TMA Toolkit. This resource was developed by standardizing the
programming already created by TMAs in the Greater Toronto Area such as Smart
Commute Black Creek, and by learning from best practices across North America.
Each local Smart Commute could then adjust the toolkit to fit the unique needs of the
community and workplace, customizing service delivery where necessary.
The Toolkit includes tools and techniques for operating a transportation management
association from planning to evaluation. A feasibility and planning study template
allowed for a consistent approach to evaluating TMAs, along with development supports
such as assistance with business planning, and branding tools that created a common
look-and-feel. Examples of recruiting techniques are included, as well as case studies,
facts and quotations to assist with building a business case. In addition to the tools and
services that facilitate modal shift mentioned above, the Toolkit also comprises
standards and techniques for monitoring and evaluating program impacts.
Delivery and Partnerships
Establishing eight entirely new organizations to implement transportation demand
management solutions across the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton was no easy feat,
and required the input and involvement of a number of stakeholders. First and foremost
the partnership between municipalities and Smart Commute Black Creek provided an
important support network that allowed the lessons of the past to be shared, and new
learnings to be passed on.
Municipal government involvement was often deeper, as many of the towns, cities and
regions served as incubators for their local transportation management associations.
Efforts began with urban planners and engineers working with local businesses to
facilitate discussion, generate interest and attain a certain level of commitment to
working together. From there, some TMAs spun out of local governments to local
boards of trade, chambers of commerce or new non-profit organizations. Table 3
provides a summary of the delivery models used across the GTA and Hamilton.
8

9. Table 3: Local Smart Commute Delivery Models
Local Smart Commute Delivery Agency
Hamilton Municipal initiative – City of Hamilton
Halton Municipal initiative – Halton Region
Mississauga New incorporated non-profit
Brampton-Caledon New incorporated non-profit
North Toronto, Vaughan Existing incorporated non-profit
(formerly Black Creek)
Northeast Toronto Delivered by North Toronto, Vaughan
404-7 Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce and
Markham Board of Trade
Central York Newmarket Chamber of Commerce
With varying delivery models in existence, the Smart Commute Initiative was able to
take a preliminary investigation into the advantages and disadvantages of each method
of implementation. Like other aspects of Smart Commute, local context is the most
important factor in choosing between the options. The presence of a strong chamber of
commerce or board of trade that matches the service area provides an existing
audience of businesses that may already be concerned about traffic congestion. A non-
profit organization, however, can be established for any area, including those that span
political boundaries, and allows for focused service delivery. Municipal governments,
on the other hand, can provide stability and security to a program with access to
community leaders and the development approvals process. For longer-term benefits
of each model, further experience and research is required.
The Smart Commute Association, like many of the local Smart Commutes, was also a
creation of the Initiative. Similarly, it was incubated within the municipalities – financially
a part of York Region, housed by the City of Toronto, and supported with services from
Peel, Durham and Halton Regions with the Cities of Hamilton and Mississauga. The
original vision for the Association was that it, too, would become an incorporated non-
profit. Recent opportunities in the GTA and Hamilton, however, have created other
possibilities for the organization.
Of all the partnerships formed within the Smart Commute Initiative, the most significant
were those created between TMAs and their member or partner employers. Without the
creation of strong relationships and the support of employers, program delivery at local
workplaces would be extremely difficult. In most cases, employers not only paid a fee
to Smart Commute, but they were also significantly involved in implementation.
Access to employee communication channels was almost always controlled by
company management, and their approval was required before surveying commuters or
marketing Smart Commute. With some workplaces, involvement in the Initiative went
beyond the worksite to the management of the TMA. Employers such as Enbridge Gas
Distribution, University of Toronto at Mississauga, Canadian Automobile Association,
9

10. Husky Injection Molding Systems and Knoll each sits on their respective Smart
Commute Boards of Directors or Steering Committees and actively makes decisions to
guide the direction of the transportation management association.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Transportation demand management initiatives are still relatively new and unproven in
Canada, so a key element of the Smart Commute Initiative was to monitor the
implementation of the program and to evaluate results. A detailed framework was
established to review program impacts at both the employer and regional levels. For
each employer, the following process was used to assess the performance of Smart
Commute. A minimum of one year between baseline and follow-up measurements is
considered ideal for ensuring true program impacts:
1. Establish baseline conditions by conducting the following:
a. Employee commuting survey
b. Site assessment
c. Vehicle and occupancy count (more than 1,000 employees only)
2. Track outreach mechanisms such as the list below:
a. Brochure distribution
b. Incentive distribution
c. Communications
d. Events
3. Measure change from baseline conditions by conducting the following:
a. Follow-up employee commuting survey
b. Follow-up site assessment
c. Follow-up vehicle and occupancy count (if applicable)
At the regional level, a similar strategy of establishing baseline conditions and
measuring follow-up results against them was established. Results were to be
monitored in two areas – observed behaviour change, and reported behaviour and
attitudinal change.
Observed behaviour change would be tracked through changes measured between a
regionwide travel behaviour study called the Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS).
Conducted once every five years, the TTS is considered by local planners and
engineers to be the most accurate reporting of modal split and transportation behaviour.
Unfortunately, the schedule of the survey would not accurately capture the effects of
Smart Commute. The 2001 TTS survey would have to form the baseline results, which
were taken long before implementation began in 2004. The follow-up TTS survey,
conducted in 2006, would not include the peak of the program’s delivery through late
2006 and into 2007.
10

11. Another mechanism for capturing observed behaviour change, the Cordon Count
Program, also followed a schedule that did not accurately encapsulate Smart
Commute’s implementation timeline. Since most TMAs in the Smart Commute Initiative
did not launch until 2005 or 2006, it would be premature to determine impacts from
screenline counts. While cordon count data can show auto occupancy, transit modal
share and vehicle counts over a 14-hour period at selected screenlines in the GTA,
there is no data available for Hamilton. Cordon counts typically do not capture active
modes or local trips, either, as these may occur entirely between screenlines.
In addition, a Commuter Attitudes Study was conducted in May 2005 to establish the
primary mode of transportation reported by GTA and Hamilton commuters, as well as
their attitudes and opinions toward Smart Commute and sustainable means of getting to
work or school. A follow-up survey was conducted in November 2006 with 1,000 local
commuters, but with only 18 months between surveys little change was recorded
outside of the margin of error. One notable exception, however, was that the use of
carpooling as a primary mode of transportation increased by five percent. Concurrently,
commuter awareness of the Carpool Zone, Smart Commute’s flagship service,
registered at 17%.
Finally, the results of Smart Commute service use are measured directly from the user
base in the Carpool Zone. At monthly intervals, all users who are registered in a
carpool on the system are sent a short ‘three-click survey’ by electronic mail. This
survey verifies if the user did indeed carpool, how many passengers were in the vehicle,
and how many days per month the carpool operation. The online system then
calculates reductions in commuter trips, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollutants and
vehicle kilometres travelled based on the user’s home and work locations.
Impacts
Smart Commute Initiative efforts to shift commuter behaviour have successfully reduced
the environmental impacts from single occupant vehicle use in the Greater Toronto Area
and Hamilton commutershed by an estimated 14,500 tonnes of greenhouse gas
emissions for 2006-07, and 17,400 tonnes between 2004 and 2007. More than 100
tonnes of air pollutant emissions were also prevented. Impacts on the transportation
system were reduced by nearly 62,800,000 vehicle-kilometres travelled in the final year
of the Smart Commute Initiative, and 75,750,000 since May 2004. These reductions
resulted from the elimination of 1.19 million single occupant vehicle trips in 2006-07,
and 1.27 million trips overall.
Results from Smart Commute are concentrated within specific areas or worksites of the
GTA and Hamilton. For reasons stated above, overall system impacts are not yet
measurable. Reductions in transportation demand achieved through the Initiative may
also have been offset by increases in commuting distances or modal shift to driving
alone in other areas. Furthermore, since many employer programs did not begin until
2006, results from after surveys have not yet been tabulated.
11

12. Lessons Learned
As part of Transport Canada’s Urban Transportation Showcase Program, learning from
the experience of establishing a multijurisdictional TDM program is a major component
of the Smart Commute Initiative. Lessons of notation were recorded at both the local
and regional levels, on specific items and for overall implementation. The following
sections describe the insights obtained concerning time, commitment, communication
and cooperation, customization versus consistency, and monitoring and evaluation.
Lessons Learned: Time
A number of lessons have been learned about the amount of time required to properly
assess, develop and implement a transportation management association, as well as
the time required to effectively monitor change. The timing of implementing a two-tier
structure for program delivery also provided some insights into how modules and
services may have been delivered more effectively.
Based upon experiences across the GTA and Hamilton, the investment required for
developing a TMA is much greater than was originally anticipated – a minimum of 16
months is required. The timeline below outlines the amount of time for each stage of
development:
• 6-12 months: Municipal approval or endorsement to investigate TMA feasibility
• 4-16 months: Investigation of TMA feasibility, including stakeholder engagement
• 6-9 months: Agreement with host organization or non-profit incorporation
(may be undertaken parallel to launch planning)
• 6-12 months: Stakeholder commitment and initial planning to public TMA launch
The timeline for implementing a Smart Commute program with an employer is separate
from TMA development, but may be conducted concurrently. A minimum of 10 months
is required to recruit a new employer, set a baseline and offer services to commuters; in
some cases, an employer will choose to not move forward beyond a baseline survey. In
other instances, where an employer has approached a TMA and is ambitious to move
forward, this timeline can be compressed:
• 2-9 months: Recruitment of new employer
• 2-9 months: Commitment of new employer and planning for baseline
measurements
• 3-12 months: Measurement of baseline, analysis of results and approval
• 3-6 months: Planning and initial launch of new services such as Carpool Zone
• On-going: Implementation of new services, improvements and continued
promotion
12

13. Because the formation and implementation phases of the Smart Commute Initiative
required more time than anticipated, the process of monitoring impacts has been
premature. Where some follow-up surveys have been conducted, results have shown
little change, or only represent an initial impact from the program launch. Proper
assessment of transportation demand management initiatives requires a longer
timeframe of sustained implementation to assess effectiveness – at least two years.
This would allow sufficient time for the program to integrate into normal business
operations, and provide better insight into whether Smart Commute has been able to
effect sustainable change.
Since the development timing of the Smart Commute Initiative was inconsistent across
the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton, supporting initiatives such as program modules
and services were not always developed at the most effective time. For example, two
TMAs existed prior to the Smart Commute Association, and therefore had developed
their own suite of services and program branding. While the SCA worked to integrate
existing materials into transferable tools for new and developing TMAs, this was not
always possible due to inconsistency between the established Smart Commutes, or
inapplicability of what was already created. While the SCA caught up to existing TMAs,
they often felt that their needs were not being fulfilled at the regional scale. For more
effective two-tier service delivery, establishment of the regional tier and supports for
TMAs is essential prior to development of multiple TMAs.
Lessons Learned: Commitment
As a multijurisdictional initiative, Smart Commute required commitment from various
municipalities at a level that was nearly unprecedented in the GTA and Hamilton. This
commitment was secured via a memorandum of understanding that successfully
outlined the roles and responsibilities of the partner municipalities. This MOU worked
very well to create a framework for overall Smart Commute Initiative governance and
management.
For TMAs that were operated by an organization outside of the municipality,
commitments were established through MOUs, previous agreements, and partnerships.
Roles and responsibilities, including funding, were generally outlined in these
arrangements. Commitment to implementation methods was generally not included,
leaving a patchwork of service delivery. For example, not all TMAs committed to the
Smart Commute branding, providing various brand images. Furthermore, not all
worksites were established on the Carpool Zone, leaving two ridematching services in
operation throughout the Initiative. Finally, requirements for monitoring and reporting
were not always identified with TMAs, leaving room for negotiation on the details,
accuracy and timing of reports.
Lessons Learned: Communication and Cooperation
The last issue involving commitment was addressed largely through communication and
cooperation. Over time, much of the inconsistency amongst the various TMA
13

14. operations was recognized and addressed through discussion and negotiation, and
good will amongst all partners. Much of this was facilitated by the Smart Commute
Association and the Technical Committee, through either group meetings or one-on-one
discussions. Early in the implementation of the Smart Commute Initiative,
communication gaps were identified and the SCA played a role in keeping partners as
up-to-date as possible on items such as reporting requirements and processes for
acquiring Transport Canada funding.
Further improvements in communication were still possible, largely with additional time
and resources for one-on-one consultation and engagement, as well as more formal
channels such as a Smart Commute Initiative newsletter and facilitated sessions. A
closer working relationship between the SCA and TMAs on program modules may have
also been beneficial. A balance, however, is always required as some partners felt
overburdened by regional activities at many times.
Lessons Learned: Customization versus Consistency
The challenge with delivering a regional initiative in an area of more than six million
people is that a one-size-fits-all model will not work across the varied municipalities and
urban areas. While local customization is necessary, an overall consistency must be
maintained to provide cohesion to the Smart Commute program as a whole. While
services may have been delivered through various operating models that differed from
TMA to TMA, they largely appeared coordinated and synchronized to the general
commuting public.
Each transportation management association was assessed, planned and implemented
independently, resulting in different organization models across the GTA and Hamilton.
TMAs were launched as municipal initiatives, through incorporated non-profits, and as
services offered by a local board of trade or chamber of commerce. While early in the
development of the TMAs, no clear model had emerged to fit all areas of the Smart
Commute Initiative. Considering the local context, including relevant stakeholders and
the benefits they could bring to the project, and then choosing the appropriate model
remained the best approach.
Program delivery of the Smart Commute Initiative also required local customization.
The TMA Toolkit, a collection of tools and services for TMA program development and
implementation, was designed to be a menu that each TMA could customize. For
example, the local Smart Commute could choose which program modules to offer to
employers – cycling and walking, alternative work hours, shuttles, etc. – each module
was created to stand alone. Within each module were a number of templates that could
then be customized at the TMA or employer level, again offering an economy of scale
and certain level of consistency, but also flexibility. A key lesson is that it is not enough
for a regional body to create a module or tool, offer initial training, and then hand it off to
TMAs. Direct assistance in customization must also be made available, since TMAs
may have lacked the resources to do so, and the SCA needed to have more practical
experience with and evaluation of modules and tools developed.
14

15. Of all tools and services developed in the TMA Toolkit, the most challenging was the set
of branding tools created for local Smart Commutes. The initial Smart Commute
wordmark was inherited from Smart Commute Black Creek, and enough had been
invested that the logo could not be redesigned. Instead, a complete visual identity was
built around it with only minor adjustments. Where a branding exercise such as this
could take 12 months, development was condensed into three months without a full
understanding of how the Smart Commute brand would be used. The result is that as
some TMAs later neared program implementation they felt the brand did not exactly
meet their needs. While an overhaul of the brand is not necessary, a review of the
brand standards would have been useful to determine where increased flexibility could
have been achieved, and a more solid commitment from all parties to the remaining
elements solidified.
Lessons Learned: Monitoring and Evaluation
Finally, a number of important insights have been gained into the process of monitoring
employer-based and region-wide transportation demand management programs, as
well as the value of obtaining results.
In some cases, obtaining permission and buy-in from an employer to conduct a survey
is a difficult process. While some employers immediately see the value of conducting
an employee commuting survey, others feel that their employees are already
oversurveyed, and another questionnaire is only an expensive use of employee time.
Standardizing data collection and review across the region was an important step for
ensuring that results are comparable between various employers and TMAs. The need
to customize, however, requires that standards be flexible; some employers enforced
strict limits on questions or even changed wording. Ultimately, the employer has the
final approval of the survey.
Beginning the Smart Commute Initiative with a mandated framework for evaluation
greatly assisted in ensuring that this important aspect of the project was not lost, and
that monitoring was a consideration for every aspect of implementation. Knowing
upfront what indicators were required for reporting was especially useful for the Carpool
Zone – it was possible to determine what information to ask of registrants and what
reports to generate at the outset. Certain indicators, however, were vague and left to
interpretation.
Measuring project activities, such as media impressions, events and surveys, was a
fairly simple process, but time-consuming. Project benefits, however, were less easy to
determine, and almost impossible to isolate to the Smart Commute Initiative outside of
the Carpool Zone. Double counting may have also occurred with different forms of
measurement. Fluctuations in gas prices, changing social and environmental concerns,
media coverage and employee or workplace relocation are all significant factors that
affect commuter behaviour, and could have assisted with Smart Commute efforts, or
15

16. made demand management activities more difficult. This challenge is not unique to the
Smart Commute Initiative, but applies to transportation demand management programs
across North America.
As outcomes were tabulated for the Smart Commute Initiative, it was immediately
demonstrated that the project did indeed have an impact in the GTA and Hamilton.
Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants could now be linked back
to targets set in municipal environmental plans. Reductions in vehicle-kilometres
travelled and trips reduced fed directly into the objectives of municipal transportation
master plans. With quantitative results now available from Smart Commute, the value
of the program became entrenched in the minds of many local politicians. As an
effective – and now proven - means of fighting traffic congestion and reducing
environmental emissions, the Smart Commute Initiative is well-positioned to become a
sustained and necessary element of municipal and regional service delivery in the
Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton.
Conclusions
The Smart Commute Initiative was a successful demonstration of the implementation of
regional transportation demand management strategies to combat traffic congestion
and environmental degradation. Key to the success of the Initiative was its ability to
reach beyond municipal boundaries through partnerships between municipalities, and a
two-tiered delivery mechanism that engaged regional stakeholders and allowed for
economies of scale along with local customization.
Careful monitoring lead to the establishment of measured results showing that
objectives of reducing single occupant vehicle use and vehicle kilometres travelled were
achieved. The prevention of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants was also
realized. Tools and services used to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, transit use,
cycling and alternative work arrangements were effective in attaining these results, but
isolating impacts achieved from Smart Commute irrespective of external factors was not
possible.
Finally, participating employers and the business community also found value with
Smart Commute. A survey of members and partners found that four out of every five
employers rated services as excellent or very good. Furthermore, the transportation
management association model of addressing traffic congestion has received wider
buy-in from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, who passed a motion in 2006 calling
for provincial funding and involvement in programs like Smart Commute.
While the involvement of Transport Canada in the Smart Commute Initiative has come
to a close, transportation demand management strategies continue to be implemented
through the TMAs and SCA. Adjustments to the governance, delivery mechanisms and
division of responsibilities will continue, as municipal partners and other stakeholders
continue to learn from the establishment of Smart Commute.
16

17. Figure 1: Proposed and Operational Local Smart Commutes (TMAs)
Central York
Durham
North Toronto, (proposed)
Durham
Vaughan
(formerly Black Creek) York
Peel
Toronto
404-7
Brampton- Northeast Toronto
Halton
Caledon Downtown Toronto
(proposed)
Mississauga
Hamilton
Halton
Hamilton
17

18. Figure 2: Smart Commute Initiative Memorandum of Understanding Participating
Municipalities
Figure 3: Governance of the Smart Commute Initiative
18

19. Figure 4: TMA Representation and Accountability
19

20. References
1. Cheah, L., et al. Smart Commute Initiative – Greater Toronto’s Showcase for
Transportation Demand Management. 2003.
2. Toronto Board of Trade, The. A Strategy for Rail-Based Transit in the GTA. July
2001. Toronto: The Toronto Board of Trade. p.4
3. Conference Board of Canada, The. The Premier’s Leaders Forum on Strategic
Growth. August 2005. Canada: The Conference Board of Canada. p.2
4. McCallion, H. (Panel Chair). Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel Report. April
2003. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Toronto. Online:
http://www.pir.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/cma_4_35904_1.html.
20