Institutional problems have been identified as being the most serious obstacles to implementing programs to reduce traffic congestion, reduce air pollution, and conserve energy. This report, therefore, will be of special interest to transportation professionals and administrators, at all levels of government, who are attempting to implement programs to meet these goals. Institutional barriers to cooperative programs for implementing complex packages of congestion-reducing techniques are identified. Incentives and penalties are suggested to obtain essential participation of existing institutions. Peak-period traffic congestion continues to be a widespread urban transportation problem despite the availability of technologically feasible solutions. Research reported in NCHRP Report 169 revealed that the most effective congestion-reducing (C-R) programs were those combining several of these techniques into coordinated implementation packages. These packages, designated by the names of their primary techniques, were (1) Changes in Work Hours, (2) Pricing Techniques, (3) Restriction of Access, (4) Changes in Land Use, (5) Prearranged Ride Sharing, (6) Communications Substitutes for Travel, (7) Traffic Engineering, and (8) Transit Treatment. Implementing these C-R packages and similar packages to obtain compliance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 calls for the cooperation of a number of independent public agencies and private organizations. Barriers to such cooperation are vested interests, inadequate funds, legal and regulatory constraints, and failure to provide an effective organizational structure for joint implementation. The research agency, Remak/Rosenbloom, documented experiences of 18 cities in carrying out joint-agency transportation projects. In addition, case studies in Jacksonville, Seattle, Houston, and Dallas were conducted. Institutional problems found were grouped into three categories as they relate to (1) individual techniques selected for the package, (2) needs to coordinate activities of independent agencies, and (3) site-related problems. Findings and recommendations in the form of incentives and penalties are presented in tabular form for respective techniques in category 1. For categories 2 and 3, general guidelines are presented. An example application of these results to a metropolitan planning organization is provided. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting