Travel demand management


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Travel demand management

  1. 1. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT Measures, behavioral impact and user responsePresented by : Pranav Mishra , M.Tech. 2nd semester, RCGSIDM, IIT Kharagpur
  2. 2. Introduction Congestion..?? …this figure says it all.
  3. 3. Losses due to traffic congestion..?? Cost Time•Cost of transporting products. •Delay for passengers.•Cost of travel. •Delay for employees.•Cost of business •Increased accident potential Life Health •Increased carbon-dioxide emission. •More pollution. •More diseases. •Mental tension.
  4. 4. How to reduce traffic congestion..?? Road development More alternate modes•Building new roads. •More public transport systems.•Widening existing roads. •Develop waterways wherever possible.• Bring private participation •Expand Railway network. •Implement Metro Rails Really…??? Is it feasible..? What happened to existingWhat happened to existing roads? modes? Do we have spaces to widen? Do we have enough resource to develop new modes?
  5. 5. Vicious loop of traffic congestion Congestion The number of Public pressures to movements increase capacity increases New capacityThe average length of movements increases Movements are more easy Urban sprawl is favored
  6. 6. Traditional measures Alternate modes Road development•Huge investment ,energy •Where the congestion is maximum,and other resources are there is hardly any spaces available torequired to develop, widen the road.operate and maintain. Constraints – space, energy, finance, environment. AN ALTERNATE APPROACH•Instead of increasing the capacity of transportation system, use theexisting system efficiently.•Instead of increasing supply to meet demand, control demand tomeet available supply.
  7. 7. Travel Demand Management Paradigm shift TDMFrom •It aims at reducing the demand atPREDICT and PROVIDE first place, rather than extendingTo facilities to meet for ever growingPREDICT and PREVENT demand. CONGESTION REDUCING MEASURES Supply side Demand side•Efficient use of existing •Managing the existing demand.facilities. •Controlling the growth of demand.•Increasing the supply •Cutting down the existing demand.
  8. 8. TDM measures PULL MEASURES PUSH MEASURES•Traffic management. •Increasing vehicle occupancy.•Improvement of •Influencing time and need of travel.alternative modes. •Creating deterrence by introducing•Integrated multi mode charges.transport system. •Imposing restrictions.•New technologies. •Land use and urban planning•Pull measures aims at Demand sideattracting the road users to •Reducing the vehicle by modalalternative modes, whereas change and HOV.push measures tries to •Redistributing the vehicles bydemoralize car users. changing time and space of travel.
  9. 9. TDM measures PULL MEASURES Integrated multi mode transport system Traffic management• Park and Ride facilities; •Efficient use via traffic• Kiss and Ride facilities. eng. Measures New technologies Improvement of alternative modes • Intelligent Transportation• Public transportation; System.• Para-transit; • Low emission vehicle.• Bicycle/walking. • New underground delivery system.
  10. 10. TDM measures PUSH MEASURES Increasing vehicle occupancyCarpools and vanpools;Public and private transit, including bus pools.Non-motorized travel, including bicycling and walking. Influencing time and need of travel•Compressed work weeks, in which employees work a full 40-hourwork week in fewer than the typical 5 days.•Flexible work schedules, which allow employees to shift their workstart and end times (and thus travel times) to less congested timesof the day.
  11. 11. TDM measures PUSH MEASURES Introducing charges•Parking surcharges placed on parking lots .•Congestion pricing.•Increased tax on fuel.•Vehicle ownership taxation. Imposing restrictions• No entry to highly congested areas.• Time restriction for parking.• On street parking control.
  12. 12. TDM measures PUSH MEASURES Land use policy and urban planning•Compact city.•Intensive development with mixed land uses.•Transit oriented development.•Location of major trip-intensive land uses in areas well served bypublic transport .•Providing a mix of local services within walking distance of theirsurrounding neighborhood
  13. 13. Effectiveness of TDM measures Traditional measures•Increasing the supply and adding to the existing facilities isconsidered most effective in reducing congestion but are also mostexpensive and difficult to implement, operate and maintain. TDM measures•Though these are significantly cheaper and easier to implement andmaintain, there is much controversy and speculations about strength,role and effectiveness of TDM solutionsStudies are being done to understand the impact of TDM measures on user behavior and response to verify it’s effectiveness.
  14. 14. Behavioral impact of TDM measures Behavioral studies•TDM measures, when enforced, it impacts the normal behavior ofroad user.•These impacts are studied and predicted using behavioral theories.•It is important to understand how these measures affects thecommuter’s travel options with respect to time, cost andconvenience.•A conceptual framework is prepared to determine •if TDM measures will affect car use or not? •If it does, how?
  15. 15. Behavioral impact of TDM measures Conceptual framework Individual factors Goal adjustment and Public information implementation plan Trip chain TDM measures Travel options attributesEffect on other users Situational factors
  16. 16. Behavioral impact of TDM measures Components of frameworks TDM measures Travel choice•Road pricing •Stay home•Parking fees •Car pooling•Improved service of public •Telecommutingtransport •Chain purpose, destination, departure•Improved walk paths times. Trip chain attributes Individual factors Situational factors•Travel cost •Income •Weather•Travel time •Attitude •Time pressure•Convenience •Work situation •Weekday•purpose •Travel pattern •Family structure
  17. 17. Behavioral impact of TDM measures Behavioral study•TDM measures affects trip chain attributes that leads to a differenttravel choice.•Change in trip chain attributes may also lead to formation of goal byroad user, and travel choice to be made, will be the one that isnearest to his goal.•Push measures may lead to formation of goal, but forimplementation, policy makers should introduce attractive pullmeasures.•Public information of pull measures may also lead to formation ofpositive goals.•Individual and situational factors are not influenced by TDMmeasures but majorly influences the goal, implementation and travelchoice.
  18. 18. Behavioral impact of TDM measures Conclusions of Behavioral study•Type of measures required to break a habit may not be same asrequired to yield a new habit.•A push measure may influence road user to reduce car use, but dueto lack of available beneficial alternatives, car user may not showpositive result.•Similarly, informing road user about pull measure may attract themto non motorized or public transport, but user may not be willing tochange his travel pattern.•Push measures may be helpful to break the habit and pull measureshave potential to attract user to form new habits.Hence, it is advised to use both push and pull measures together to achieve significant change in travel behavior.
  19. 19. User response to TDM measures Study of user response•As it is evident from studies that different measures have differentimpact on users.•So we can say that response of users for different measures will bedifferent too.•To study this user response, set of car users were asked questions onthree different hypothetical scenarios •One push measure ( Increased tax on fuel) •One pull measure ( reduced cost and increased frequency of public transport ) •Combination of these two measures. This difference in response is not only with respect to different measures implemented but also the on the extent to which a measure is implemented.
  20. 20. User response to TDM measures Previous studies•Estimates of transport elasticity provides information on the extentto which travel demand is sensitive to price changes and to changesin public transport services •10% increase in fuel price causes between 1% – 3% car use reduction (Dargay, 2007). •10% increase in bus fare has been found to lead a 4% reduction in travelling (dargay & Hanley, 2002). •a 10% increase in service frequency led to an average increase of 5% in ridership (Evans, 2004).Studies have shown that a combination of one push measure and two pullmeasures led to a slightly higher reduction in distance travelled by car comparedto the measures evaluated individually.
  21. 21. User response to TDM measures Objectives are to find out: •To what extent car users expected to reduce their car use in response to the TDM measure. •In response to the TDM measures, which car reducing strategies would be used by user. Methodology :•Questionnaire given to identify car users with similar characteristics.•Then three separate questionnaires for three different scenarioswere given to three different sets of respondents.•The policy package was described in detail and possible monetary,time, convenience and environmental benefits of respective measureswere stated.
  22. 22. User response to TDM measures Results•Expected car use reduction in response to the TDM measure. Pull measure Push measure combination % of weekly car use 19 26 30 % of annual car use 20 18 25•Combined measure reduces significantly higher than pull measurefor weekly car use•Combined measure reduces significantly higher than push measurefor annual car use•There is no significant difference in individual measures for annualcar use. Hence, combined push and pull measures displays significant reduction in car use, compared to individual measures.
  23. 23. User response to TDM measures Results :•In response to the TDM measures, which car reducing strategieswould be used by user.
  24. 24. User response to TDM measures Results :•Group evaluating pull measure ( improved public transport ), •They will switch to public transport only, specially for shorter distances. •For longer distances, they were reluctant to reduce car use.•Group evaluating push measure ( raised tax on fuel ), •They would prefer walking/bicycling for shorter distances. •For moderate distances, they would prefer public transport. •One in five, still preferred to use car.•Group evaluating combined measure, •They preferred cycling/walking and public transport equally for shorter distances. •For greater distances, they preferred public transport.
  25. 25. Inferences•Travel demand management measures can be effective in reducingcongestion, if implemented properly.•Not only the choice of measures, but also the extent to which themeasure to be applied, is crucial for effectiveness of measures.•A combination of push-pull measures yields better results in car usereduction than individual measures.
  26. 26. References•Garling T, Eek D, Loukopoulos p, Fujii S, Stenman O J, Kitamura R, Pendyala R, Vilhelmson B, 2002, Aconceptual analyses of the impact of travel demand management on private car use, Transport policy 9,59-70.•Eriksson L, Nordlund A M, Garvill J, 2010, Expected car use reduction in response to travel demandmanagement measures, Transportation research F 13, 329-342•Loukopoulos P, Jacobson C, Garling T, Schneider C M, Fuji S, 2003, Car user responses to travel demandmanagement measures: Goal intentions and choice of adaptive alternatives, International Conference ontravel behavior and research, Lucerne.•Victoria transport policy institute, [Internet, www], Address : [Accessed on 29mach 2012]• NSW Government, Transport: roads and maritime services, [Internet, www], Address:, [Accessed on 29 march2012]• Auckland transport, [Internet, www], Address: , [Accessed on24 march 2012]