28 Transportation Research Record 1046

The Downtown Hartford Transportation Project: Public-Private Collaboration on Transportation Improvements

FRANCES D. HARRISON, EMILY LLOYD, and JOHN H. SUHRBIER

ABSTRACT

The implementation of innovative approaches to managing transportation resources in downtown areas has frequently proven difficult. In addition, traffic, tran­ sit, parking, pedestrian, goods delivery, urban design, and economic development concerns typically are addressed in isolation rather than as part of an inte­ grated program. The Downtown Hartford Transportation Project (DHTP) was a col­ l aborative effort by public and private sector organizations to plan and im­ plement a broad range of actions in anticipation of unprecedented levels of building and employment growth in the downtown, The DHTP represents a unique model of a transportation planning process--it is multimodal in scope , involves both physical a nd management-oriented improvements, and features a process of consensus building about solutions that served to smooth the transition between planning and implementation. The key features that make the Downtown Hartford Transportation Project unique and contributed to its success are described. These features include the type and level of public and privat e sector partici­ pation, the definition of the project's scope, the process of achieving con­ sensus on solutions, and the use of information and technical analysis to guide decisions. Based on the experience of the DHTP, a set of guidelines is presented for following the Hartford example. It is concluded that although unique condi­ tions in Hartford precipitated the DHTP, many features of the DHTP could be successfully adapted in other locales that want to better manage their trans­ portation resources.

Hartford, the capital o f Connecticut, has a popula­ downtown transportation problems and to better manage tion of 135,000 and is located at the junction of the overall transportation system throughout the two interstate highways (I-91 a nd I-84) in the cen­ 1980s. tral portion of the state. Hartford is the home of The DHTP was unique in many respects. Unlike more several large insurance companies, including Aetna conventional, single mode transportation planning (more than 13,000 employees) and Travelers (9,000 efforts, it examined all components of downtown employees) . Hartford's business community has long transportation as an interactive system: traffic, been active in downtown transportation issues--due parking, transit, pedestrian flow, and goods deliv­ both to a concern for employee benefits in a highly ery. The implementation program that has been devel­ competitive environment, and to a recognition of the oped is comprehensive as well, including physical importance of good access and a pleasant downtown to projects, such as crosswalk striping and traffic maintaining retail vitality. Aetna's vanpool program, signal synchror1b:ation1 management actions, such as initiated in 1977, now operates 135 vans and is one peak-hour parking restrictions and work schedule of the largest employer vanpool programs in the changes; ongoing policy tools, such as requirements country. In 1980 the Greater Hartford Ridesharing for transportation access plans for new developments; Corporati on was formed. Supported by public and pri­ and organizational changes, such as the establishment vate sector funds, it has a membership of more than of a Transportation Management Organization to co­ 4 O companies in the Hartford area. The b istory of ordinate private sector transport.ation actions. Most public-private cooperation in Hartford laid the important, the DHTP has been conducted with a special groundwork for the Downtown Hartford Transportation concern for producing a widely accepted and imple­ Project. mentable plan of actions.

PROJECT OVERVIEW Impetus

The Downtown Hartford Transportation Project (DHTP) With more than 4 million ft' of scheduled new was organized to examine the likely impacts of un­ downtown development, both the city and the corporate precedented downtown growth on traffic congestion, community were concerned that Hartford's existing parking availability, and the street environment in transportation facilities were i nadequate to com­ an era of decreasing availability of transportation fortably serve this much additional activity. Without funding. Jointly spo·nsored by major employers and improvements to the transport<1tion system, downtown the city of Hartford, the project's purpose was to growth was likely to result in increased traffic develop and trigger implementation of a comprehensive congestion and air pollution, a worsening of an al­ program of actions to address Hartford's anticipated ready tight parking situation, and a hoatile pedes- Harrison et al. 29 trian environment--all of which could make Hartford Accomplishments a less desirable place to work and shop. In fact, a major downtown department store announced plans to The Downtown Hartford Transportation Project pro­ relocate to the suburbs, citing inadequacy of the duced a set of goals, policies, and actions that the transportation system as a major reason. city and the corporate community have endorsed and It was clear that there were no simple solutions that currently are being implemented. Clear roles to this dilemma--the shrinking availability of and responsibilities for implementing each recom­ federal funds for major investments in street and mended action have been set forth and are forming transit facility expansion precluded relying on "big the basis for currently ongoing activities. Perhaps fixes." Although a number of efforts were underway most important, the project has established working in both the public and pr iv ate sectors to manage relationships between the public and private sectors more efficiently the use of existing transportation that are proving to be crucial not only for imple­ capacity (for example, carpool and vanpool programs mentation of the action plan, but for future coordi­ and traffic engineering techniques), these efforts nated transportation planning and decision making in were not sufficiently aggressive or coordinated to Hartford. produce the kind of results needed to make a dent in Implementation of the agreed-on policies and traffic or parking problems. Further, there was a actions (see Table 1) was projected to enable the sense of frustration in both public and private planned growth in downtown employment to be accom­ sectors that past transportation planning efforts modated without a corresponding amount of growth in were not producing results in a reasonable time vehicle trips to the downtown. Because there is frame, due both to a lack of general consensus about relatively little potential to increase the street what should be done, and to the cumbersome bureau­ capacity in Hartford through either construction or cratic process necessary for getting projects off operational changes, emphasis instead was placed on the shelf, management of the existing downtown transportation In the summer of 1981, members of the corporate system, including actions to limit the increase in community acted on these concerns and initiated dis­ single occupant commuter trips and to encourage a cussions with the city about conducting a comprehen­ wide range of more efficient travel choices. The sive downtown transportation project, under joint goals of these actions is to increase central busi­ public-private direction. The project was to develop ness district (CBD) work trips by transit and ride­ a coordinated set of downtown transportation pol­ sharing modes from the present 52 percent to 61 per­ icies, an action plan of downtown traffic, parking, cent over a 3-year period (see Figure 1). If this is transit, pedestrian, and goods movement improvements, achieved, a traffic analysis indicates that there and an improved system of transportation project will be no increase in the number of intersections management. By January 1982, the project was under­ experiencing serious delays. In the absence of the way, supported by $150,000 in private sector funds, recommended actions, traffic at virtually every and in-kind contributions from the city and other downtown intersection is projected to move more public agencies. slowly than today, with almost twice as many inter-

TABLE 1 The Downtown Hartford Transportation Action Plan

Recommended Actions to be Recommended Actions to be Implemented within a Year Implemented by End of 1984

Public Sector Public Sector Peak hour parking prohibitions Signal interconnection Improved enforcement of bus stops Time of day signal phasing Peak hour delivery prohibition Eliminate selected exclusive pedestrian phases Bus stop consolidation Classify streets for parking uses Uniform Signing Require site access pion for zoning approval Designate streets pedestrian. vehicular. both Improve on-street parking enforcement (increased Restrict turns tickets) Transit fore-free zone Private Sector Increase on-street meter rotes Begin phase-out of employee parking subsidy Restructure city po,king fociuty rotes Begin phase-in of travel incentives Zebra-stripe cross-walks of major intersections Designate City Responsibility Center Joint Public/Private Strengthen multi-passenger olterncnives Private Sector Hartford Federal block pedestrian improvements Restructure privofe parking facility roles Implement target modal shore program Strengthen Downtown Council Joint Public/Private Recommended Actions to be Implemented In 2·5 Years Develop off-street delivery/pickup areas Develop off-street CO!pocl staging areas Public Sector Flextime/Staggered hours Computerized signal system Establish target modal shares Priority bus lanes Main/Stole/Asylum pedestrian/transit improvements Adopt streetscope design guidelines Joint Public/Private Develop Main Street between Peon and Gold as a Develop remote po,king facility streetscope prototype Main Street streetscope improvements Develop Transportation Management Organization Civic Center/Allyn St. connector Bushnell Pork gateways 30 Transportation Research Record 1046

nated program of these individual actions to be adopted. The DHTP provides an important model of a down­ town transportation planning process that is collab­ orative and action-oriented, Kev aspects of the 6i% DHTP--the type of public and private sector partici­ pation in the project, its scope of work, the pro­ ;:a 0 cess of "consensus-building" about actions that ~ occurred, and the kinds of information and technical analysis used--are applicable to most downtown areas E::, z where significant new economic activity is occurring,

KEY FEATURES OF THE DOWNTOWN HARTFORD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT

1981 1984 Participation

FIGURE 1 Target modal shares. There have been three types of "core" participants in the DH'.l'P: representatives of Hartford businesses, public agency personnel, and consultants (Table 2). sections causing serious delays during the afternoon Although the project was initiated and primarily peak, Implementation of the action plan would pro­ funded by the pr iv ate sector, funding was adminis­ vide 4,000 short-term parking spaces in the downtown, tered by the city, and responsibility for project and at the same time continue to provide for adequate management was assigned to the city Public Works commuter parking (Figure 2). Currently, all but 2,000 Department. The city's project manager, however, of the 18,000 off-street parking spaces are ~ull by worked out of a neutral territory--a special project 10 a.m. and only a handful are available at noon, office provided by one of the participating com­ Implementation of the action plan will contribute panies. to othei: important city, 1,tate, and federal objec­ Because past transportation planning efforts had tives, in addition to economic growth. For e,cample, suffered from a lack of consensus about recommended although the project was not directly aimed at im­ actions and from a lack of emphasis on implementa­ proving Hartford's air quality, the recommended tion, the project was set up from the beginning to actions were e stimated to reduce downtown work-trip­ involve those agencies and organizations whose co­ related carbon mono11ide and hydrocarbon emissions by operation, support (either technical or political), 14 percent relative to what otherwise would occur in or resources might be needed for implementation of 1985, as well as contribute to decreased fuel con­ the recommended action plan. Within the private sec­ sumption. tor, the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Council Of course, the individual recommendations that (a chamber-sponsored group focusing specifically on were adopted during the course of the DHTP were by the downtown) , and the Greater Hartford Rideshar ing no means new or unique, Many cities have instituted Corporation were and are key participants. These some form of access planning for new development-­ organizations were responsible for coordinating the particularly in relation to granting reductions in input from the many busines ses and groups that minimum parking requirements in exchange for Trans­ actively participated in the project. Within the portation System Management (TSM) commitments (!.l. public sector, participants included the city man­ Groups of employers or nonprofit organizations rep­ ager, the city council, and key department heads resenting the private sector have become increasingly within the city of Hartford, the Greater Hartford involved in transportation issues during the past 5 Transit District, the Connecticut Department of years (£), Traffic and parking management techniques Transportation, and the Capital Region Council of have long been applied in downtown areas. The notable Governments. aspect of the DHTP is not the individual projects A team of five consulting firms was assembled to that were recommended, but the nature of the planning perform the technical work with collective e11pertise process that occurred and that permitted a coordi- and e11perience in transportation planning, traffic

18,000 Spaces 20,800 Spaces

1981 1984 FIGURE 2 Target parking supply and use. Harrison et al. 31

TABLE 2 Major Participants in Hartford Transportation Decisions to produce a well-defined plan of action. Moreover, it allowed for substantive input from the area mer­ chants and employers, which was important to the City Regional development of a consensus about the action plan. In Court of Common Council Capitci Regional Council of Governments contrast to more commonplace corridor-level and City Manager (CRCOG) Public Works Director regionwide transportation studies, which often in­ City Ergineer Policy Boord clude the downtown only as one component, the DHTP Transportation Services Transportation Committee has been able to involve both important constituents Engineering Services Staff Management Services Greater Hartford Transit District for actions and key implementors of these actions. Operating Services Boord The result has been a transportation project equip­ Planning Director Stoff ped to develop realistic transportation policies and Transportation Planner to put into practice management-oriented as opposed to capacity-expansion strategies for coping with Finance Director Federal downtown growth. Purchases & Insurance Federal Highway Administration Accountirg & Control ();vision Office The DHTP is multimodal in scope because the ex­ Pre-Audit Regional Office pected increase in downtown activity will have Financial Management Urban Moss Transpo

FIGURE;\ Geographic scope.

Downtown Hartford Transportation Project 1982

Recommended Emphasis ol Slreel Use

- Primary Vehicular Use • • • • Heavy Pedestrian Emphasis - Balanced Emphasis (Vehicular and Pedestrian)

FIGURE 4 Recommended emphasis of street UBe. Harrison et al. 33

• Improving the downtown streetscape and ease The problem identification phase of the project of circulation for pedestrians, and was organized around five subelements of the trans­ • Providing Hartford with ongoing policy tools portation system: traffic, parking, transit, pedes­ for managing future growth, trian movement and urban design, and goods movement. The problems as per ceived by the participants formed Assembling varied types of measures into an inte­ the initial nucleus. Site observation, interviews, grated package allows each measure to be vie wed as field data collection, and projection of the impacts part of an overall policy framework, the reby of new development were conducted for each of the strengthening the implementation pros pects for five subelements, and existing and potential future individual components of the plan. Ano t her important deficiencies were summarized and presented to the aspect of packaging measures together was that in­ DHTP participants. In some instances, the technical clusion of revenue generating actions (such as analysis confirmed the perceived problems (e.g., stepped-up enforcement of on-street parking regula­ most off-street parking really was full at midday): tions and institution of employer parking charges) in other instances, project participants learned tended to make the package as a whole more palatable that perceived problems, when measured objectively, from a financial perspective. were not as intense as initially thought (e.g . , The final aspect of the DHTP's scope that is traffic congestion really was not very bad yet), In unique was the inclusion of an organizational analy­ all cases, the technical work was presented in sis of the existing transportation project implemen­ enough detail to assure its credibility. For example, tation process (4). Th is invol ved tracing the process questions about the number of additional employee by which city trans portation improvement projects trips that would be generated by new construction move from conception and initial design through the were answered at some length, with background infor­ various stage s of approvals, and finally to procure­ mation provided on the actual experiences with recent ment of nec e ssary materials and s ervi c e s for their development in Hartford and other cities. implementation. Because the r ecomme nd ed plan of As a result of this explicit process of problem action was sufficiently ambit i o us that it would identification, general agreement was reached among severely strain the existing project management and project participants that future development could implementation process in the city, it was essential push Hartford's parking and traffic problems to to identify the major sources of delay and take steps levels they considered intolerable, and that some­ to create streamlined procedures. It was also neces­ thing had to be done. Both public and private sector sary to establish an ongoing institutional mechanism participants recognized that it would be both cost­ for the public and private sectors to continue work­ prohibitive and damaging to the downtown environment ing together to successfully implement the developed to address these problems only by widening streets transportation improvements. Thus, a system of two and building more parking facilities. From the be­ parallel responsibil ity centers was recommended, ginning, there was a desire to determine what could designa·ting the city's De p artment of Publ ic Wo rks be done to supplement construction improvements by and t he Gr eater Har tford Ri desh a ring corporation as managing the transportation system's use and growth, lead project management agencies in the public and and participants made it clear that they were open private sectors, respectively (Figure 5). to considering a wide variety of management strat­ egies. Four goals for the action plan e volved out of the Process assessment of problems and constituted the agreed-on general approach for solving the identified problems: The DHTP can be characterized as a process of con­ sensus-building which involved • Reducing the inconvenience of congestion, • Managing the parking supply, 1, Identification of, and agreement on, the most Improving the s treet environment, and pressing downtown problems and needs to be addres sed, Improving public and private sector capabil­ 2, Agreement on a general approach to solving ity to manage the transportation system. the identified problems, and 3. An ~terative process of developing and screen­ As the next step, an initial list of more than 30 ing successively more detailed policies and actions policy options was drawn up that served as the basis to be taken . for a more detailed, iterative design process. As

Chamber ot Commerce City Council Policy - and Business - Community \ I Downtown Council City Manager \ I City Transportation Implement ation Transportation Responsibility and _.. Management Center ... Organization Manogem ent

FIGURE 5 Recommended decision-making structure. 34 Transportation Research Record 1046 with the problem identification phase, special care from the start. Data collected for the project in­ was taken to include both new ideas and pending cluded traffic counts at all downtown intersections, proposals developed by the participants. This origi­ morning and midday occupancy checks at all public nal list of pelicy options was exclusive as well as off-street parking facilities, and turnover studies inclusive, reflecting a deep skepticism about the for a sample of on-street spaces. In addition, up­ feasibility of both transit expansion and "big build" to-datc information o 1:can,;it ridership was ana­ solutions. The design process also involved a large lyzed, and subjective assessments of problems related number of off-the-record briefings and discussions to pedestrian movement, urban design, goods movement, to explain the rationale behind particular strategies as well as parking, traffic, and transit were made and to discover and resolve disagreements about what on the basis of site observation. Projections of should be done before formal presentation at a public trips to be generated by new development in 3 and 10 meeting. In many cases, recommendations were modified years were made and allocated to travel modes ac­ to reflect concerns presented. It was during this cording to current shares. From the trip projec­ period, for example, that a remote parking facility tions, estimates of future parking deficits and in­ recommendation was clarified and an e·mployee parking tersection level of service were derived. charge recommendation was st.rengthened and comple­ It was also important to translate the technical mented with a range of other employee benefit op­ analysis into nontechnical language and to use exam­ tions. Other concepts , such as identification of ples that participants could understand and easily target modal shares and a target number of short-term relate to. For example, current and projected level­ parking spaces for the downtown, were developed into of-service rankings for intersections were displayed s pecific numerical recommendations during this pe­ on maps and were discussed in terms of the length of riod. delays a driver would experience. Parking conditions Some participants had concerns not about the in­ were described in terms of both the percent and ac­ tent of proposed actions, but rather about their tual number of spaces available at different times associated costsi how they would be implemented, and of day, and compared to conditions in other cities how effective they would be. As a result of these (~). kinds of concerns, further detail could be developed Because the action plan was to be comprisecl of to put certain of the proposed actions on a firmer very specific targeted measures, the data collected footing. Thus, the design process addressed both not only had to provide a good picture of what the technical issues and potential implementation prob­ problems were , but it also had to provide insights lems. Because low priority, high controversy actions into both the causes of the identified problems and were screened out, proj ect resources were not unduly the policy initiatives that might effectively address spent on analyzing measures that did not have a good them. For example, localized congestion problems chance of being implemented. These resources could were analyzed on a block-by-block basis to pinpoint be focused instead on working out necessary details causes, which included illegal parking, peak-hour for high-potential measures, which in turn helped deliveries, and passenger. pick-ups. 'l'he shortage of project participants become comfortable with the midday parking in the downtown was ti:aced, in part, evolving project recommendations. to t he fact that many Hartford employers subsidize There were five formal meetings of the project pa-r.king for their employees, thereby encouraging participants during the 11 months that the action them to drive alone into the downtown. plan was being developed. At each of these meetings Experience at the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspec­ (with the exception of the first, which was an in­ tion and Insurance Company i.ndicates the impacts of troductory session) an endorsement or "yes" vote was decreasing employee parking subsidies and increasing given by the project participants for some major transit subsidies (Hartford Steam Boiler, unpublished project milestone: agreement on the major problems, report) . In 1982 the company provided a 40 percent commitment to a set of general goals for addressing transit subsidy and charged employees an average of these problems , selection of policies to be analyzed $24 a month for parking (a 46 percent subsidy). In for each goal, and finally, commitment to pursuing a 1983 the transit subsidy was increased to 50 per­ specific set of actions. This process of obtaining cent, and the average parking charge was increased periodic endorsements was facilitated by anticipat­ to $44 a month (a 35 percent subsidy for solo drivers ing and responding to specific criticisms before and a 50 percent subsidy for car pools). The result recommendations were presented. The more informal, was an increase in bus use from 35 to 39 percent and continuing discussions were a critical component of a decrease in employee parking from 61 to 46 percent. this overall process and constituted an extremely Putting the observed conditions into perspective effective strategy for building a consensus. Most by comparing them to other cities ,was useful through­ important, a central group of visible, respected out the project for distinguishing between real and individuals who had helped to initiate the project perceived problems. For example, although congestion stayed deeply involved, taking the time to fully was perceived as being severe by many project par­ understand the technical work during each phase and ticipants, field observation showed that congestion then leading and focusing public discussion toward was quite mild compared to other cities. Similar consensus on the most important issues. kinds of comparisons, such as the relative split between transit commuters and drivers in different cities, provided participants a basis for setting Information and Technical Analysis reasonable future goals for keeping congestion down by encouraging non-drive-alone modes. Information about existing downtown Hartford trans­ Analysis of specific improvement measures focused portation conditions, and technical analysis to pre­ on an assessment of what each action could accomplish dict future conditions and the potential impacts of toward achieving the agreed-on goals (Table 3)'. In i mprovement measures played a key role in the DHTP, addition, considerable emphasis was given to devel­ 1\ solid, objective picture of transportation prob­ oping realistic cost and revenue projections, re­ lems was essential for conununicating a sense of flecting the implementation focus of the project . priority to project participants and for laying the Estimates of implementation costs were developed, groundwork for develop~ng policies . It was very revenue sources were identified, and implementation irnpor tant t:.hat he informa tion collected be timely responsibilities were assigned. Estimates of impacts and credible--any suspicion about the quality or were used to guide the technical design process and accuracy of the data could discredit the project to illustrate how a comprehensive package of small- Harrison et al. 35

TABLE 3 Estimated Traffic Volume Impacts of Recommended tion improvements. The Downtown Council in associa­ Program tion with the Greater Hartford Chamber of Commerce had sponsored several studies, which provided many Effect on Peak ideas for consideration by the DHTP, and both groups Action Hour Traffic Volume had been involved in raising funds for and setting 1981 Base 11,000 vehicles up the Greater Hartford Ridesharing Corporation 1 1984 Increase + 2,500 ( + 23%) year before the DHTP began. These activities, com­ Eliminate Employer Parking Subsidy - 750 ( - 7%) bined with the substantial commitment on the part of a number of Hartford employers to vanpool programs, Employer Program to Increase Transit/ -500 ( - 4.5%) RideshOre Use to 62% of Work Trips paved the way for the type of public-private cooper­ Flextime to l Hour - 380 ( - 3.5%) ation that characterized the DHTP. Although every city has its own unique character­ Convert 2.000 Additional Spaces - 250 ( - 2%) to Short-Term Use ( - 750 and + 500) isti cs, history, politics, and problems, subsequent experience in San Antonio (6) and elsewhere indicates Restrict Peak Hour On-Street Parking - 112 ( - 1%) that certain features of the DHTP can be successfully 1984 With Recommended Action Plan 11,508 ( +5%) adapted in other locales that want to better manage their transportation resources. The sources of impetus for the DHTP--major down­ town development plans, a s hortage of parking, grow­ scale improvements could have a noticeable impact on ing traffic congestion, tight transportation funding, congestion. While some parts of this analysis were major downtown employers seriously considering an modeled in detail, an appropriate mix of "back-of­ exodus to the suburbs--can provide the necessary the-envelope" techniques and experience with similar basis for a DHTP-like project, even in downtowns measures in other cities also were used in order to where public-private collaboration on transportation provide the participants an understanding of the problems has been limited or nonexistent. likely impacts of a policy. The following general guidelines can be used by cities that want to pursue a similar approach to that taken by Hartford in developing and implement­ Implementation Focus ing transportation improvements.

The developed action plan was designed to focus on Organizing a Public-Private Collaborative Effort those actions having a high probability of effective implementation and to provide project participants a The following steps should be taken to organize a clear understanding of their specific responsibil­ public-private collaborative effort: ities for implementing the agreed-on recommendations. This includes an estimated budget for each action and 1. Find the right people to direct the project. a 1-, 2-, and 3- to 5-year timetable. The assignment The involvement of effective leadership from both of responsibility was an effort, at the request of the private and public sectors is central to a proj­ both the public and private sector participants, to ect of this nature, which involves considerable put project participants on the spot. lobbying, support-building, and opening of new com­ Overall, this approach is proving to be success­ munication channels . Having the right people from ful. At this time, the private sector is well under­ the start can be critical to assembling the critical way with implementation of the initiatives for which mass necessary for a successful project. People with they have either exclusive responsibility or share leader ship experience and contacts in both sectors implementation responsibility with the public sector. can be especially valuable. This includes a major funding commitment to the Down­ 2. Share sponsorship and direction of the project town Council and a substantial effort, coordinated between public and private sectors. Public-private by the Greater Hartford Rideshar ing Corporation in collaboration can be initiated by either the public its expanded capacity as the downtown Transportation or private sector, as long as both public and private Management Organization, to develop policy consensus sectors invest in the project and have shared re­ among major employers. The public sector, assigned sponsibility to direct it and ensure that it is re­ prime responsibility for 12 actions as well as sponsive to the concerns of both. This will increase shared responsibility with the private sector for the likelihood that the proj.ect will produce a uni­ other actions, has also taken important implementa­ fied plan of action to which both public and private tion initiatives, though at a slower pace than the sectors are strongly committed. private sector. 3. Involve all parties having potential resources The city council directed the city manager to or responsibilities f or project implementation . To centralize transportation responsibilities in the ensure that the project will produce a·ctions that city, as recommended, and has recently approved the are practical and implementable, it is important to closing of one block of State Street to facilitate obtain the involvement of all potential implementers development of an improved pedestrian space in the of the proposed actions. Although it may not be pro­ vicinity of the Old State House. Funding for other ductive to have everyone involved in a formal and measures has been secured and the city has initiated substantive way, an effort should be made to period­ detailed engineering design for the designated street ically touch base with all relevant parties to improvements related to pedestrian and transit move­ eliminate unanticipated barriers. ment. 4. Take advantage of "neutral experts." People with expertise in design and implementation of transportation management measures can play a criti­ FOLLOWING THE HARTFORD EXAMPLE cal role in the project not only by contributing technical expertise and knowledge about how similar measures have worked in other c ities, but by serving Transferability as neutral mediators among involved parties. In Hartford, there were unique conditions that pre­ cipitat ed the DHTP. The business community had long Dehning the Scop-e of Work been i nvolved in transportation issues and wa s will­ ing and able to commit resources toward transporta- To define the scope of work: 36 Transportation Research Record 1046

1. Address the pressing concerns of downtown valuable for fueling the project with ideas, and for employers and of public agencies responsible for reducing the uncertainty and natural hesitancy about downtown transportation system planning and opera­ implementing new kinds of strategies. tion. Framing the project in terms of the "hot is­ sues" on everybody's agenda (in Hartford, the park­ ing shortage was an issue) will ~ttr;:ict the inter-i:st Building a Consensus and involvement necessary to make the project more than just a "paper study." In building a consensus, \tis necessary to 2. Be comprehensive enough to account explicitly for the interrelationship among transportation sys­ 1. Employ a phased strategy of consensus build­ tem components. The key to successful downtown ing, starting with general agreement on what the transportation system management is recognizing and problems are , and moving toward agreement on specific addressing conflicts among different users (pedes­ actions. The set of actions ultimately agreed on trians, cars, buses, parkers) and maximizing the should evolve inexorably from agreement on ·the major people-moving capacity of the system. Failure to problems to be addLessed, the general approach to be address the problems and capabilities of any of the taken to addressing them, and the policy framework system components may close key opportunities to to be adopted . This sequence involves project par­ solve problems of another related component. ticipants in an important learning process beginning 3. Pay attention not only to "one-shot" actions, with a clear understanding of the problems, an ex­ but also to continuing policies and institutional ploration of alternative soluti 1)$ 1 elaboration of mechanisms required for effective ongoing management the strengths and weaknesses of eaoh proposal, and of the transportation system. It is important that the building of confidence that the final recommen­ the project result in a set of commitments to imple­ dntions are the result of a careful and systematic ment a specific set of actions in order to demon­ assessment of opportunities. strate that the public-private partnership is indeed 2. Encourage extensive informal discussions among an effective mechanism for getting things done. participants. Formal meetings of project participants Management of a downtown transportation system, how­ serve an impoi:tant function, but the real work of ever, is an ongoing process that must continually be eliciting honest opinions and resolving concerns, adjusted to respond to changing downtown conditions, for a variety of reasons, is best done "behind the particularly as downtown development occurs. There­ scenes." Project participants can use informal, small fore, it is important to establish a policy framework group discussions to be more specific about interests for future transportation decision making along with and concerns, and project staff have the time in corresponding institutional mechanisms in both the this setting to provide a detailed discussion of a public and private sectors to carry out the agreed­ particular point. Building an effective consensus on polices. involves marshaling a great deal of technical analy­ sis to address problems that have many sma:11 compo­ nents. Discussing each aspect in enough detail to Assembling the Necessary Information satisfy the legitimate concerns of each individual participant i n a large, foi.mal meeting is likely to In order to assemble the information needed be extremely tedious for most participants during those portions of the meeting when their own personal l . Ose high-quality , up-to-date data . Good qual­ interests are not being addressed. The result is an ity information on transportation conditions is es­ obscuring of the larger, more important issues. sential for both developing appropriate management Smaller meetings are an ideal forum for this type of s'trategies and for developing the necessary support detailed discussion. for implementing strategies . Thus , using out-of-date 3. Use a screening process to eliminate low­ information, data collected in previous studies that priority or unpopular actions from consideration. have been challenged on technical gi:ounds , or col­ Although it is important to start off with a wide lecting only limited information when "the whole pic­ range of alternatives for consideration, it is ture is needed (e.g. , counting the cars in only a wasteful of project resources and damaging to the small sample of parking facilities) may cut costs project' s credibility and support to prolong con­ but can seriously impair the project's credibility sideration of alternatives that would be inei:fective , and ability to achieve a consensus about actions to i nfeasible , or the target of Lnsurmountable opposi­ be taken . Although existing data may be available tion. This does not mean , hqwever, that all alterna­ and useful, selective and care£ully designed new tives that may be controversial should be eliminated . data col lection will almost always be necessary . For example, in Hartford , the recommended phasing-in 2 . Assemble information that is relevant to of employer parking charges has been extremely con­ policies and management strategies that may be troversial but was nevertheless included as a recom­ considered . While data collection is traditionally mendation not only because project participants conducted before policies and other potential solu­ agreed that it would be an extremely effective strat­ tions start to be developed, anticipating the kinds egy, but also because major employers were ready to of policies and transportation management measures explore alternatives to continued employer-provided that may be appropriate allows a data colJ.ection parking subsidies . effort to be structured to provide polic_y-sensi tive 4 . Include strategies with revenue generating information. For example, if traffic signal. synchro­ potential to offset costs of other strategies in the nization appears to be needed, an effort might be recommended package. Parking fees are becoming an made during data collection to quantify the range of increasingly importan t transportation revenue source delay that could be avoided through ins ti tut ion of in cities and can be used both to adequately pr ice this type of maasure. If on-street parking enforce­ the use of scarce downtown land resources a nd to ment is perceived as a problem, violation rates could support other strategies aimed at improving the be observed and the potential benefits of stepped-up pedestrian environment or encouraging use of alter­ enforcement (greater turnover, increased parking native travel modes to the downtown. Inclusion of avail ability for shoppers) could be quantified. revenue-generating measures in a comprehensive down­ 3, Make relevant information from other cities town transportation action plan can significantly available. Information about how other cities are add to the implementation potential of the package coping with similar transportation problems is in- as a whole, Transportation Research Record 1046 37

Using these guidelines, the Hartford experience TRB, National Research Council, Washington, can serve as a useful model for approaching similar D.C., 1983, pp. 42-49. transportation problems in other cities. 3. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., TAMS, Moore-Heder, The Urban Partnership, and Brophy and Associates, Inc. Program of Actions for Downtown Hartford. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Technical Memorandum 3. 3. Hartford, Conn., Oct. 1982. This paper is based on work performed during 1982 as 4. The Urban Partnership and Cambridge Systematics, part of the Downtown Hartford Transportation Proj­ Inc. Project Management. DHTP Technical Memoran­ ect, a collaborative public-private effort performed dum 4.2. Hartford, Conn., July 1982. by Cambridge Systematics under contract to the city 5. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., TAMS, Moore-Heder, of Hartford. Other firms participating in the Hart­ The Urban Partnership, and Brophy and Associates, ford project included TAMS, Moore-Heder Architects, Inc. Existing Transportation Conditions and Pres­ The Urban Partnership, and Brophy and Associates. ent, Three Year, and Ten Year Deficiencies. DHTP The findings and recommendations presented, thus, Technical Memoranda 1.3, 1.4, and 1.6. Hartford, represent work of the entire consultant team as well Conn., May 1982. as the many private and public sector participants. 6. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Brophy and Asso­ ciates, Arrow Associates, and Segal/DiSarcina Associates. Tri-Party Downtown Transportation REFERENCES Initiative: Recommended Program of Actions. City Planning Department, San Antonio, Tex., Dec. l. S.A. Smith and S.M. Tenhoor. Model Parking Code 1984. Provisions to Encourage Rideshar ing and Transit Use (Including a review of experience). FHWA, u.s. Department of Transportation, 1983. 2 . E. Schreffler and M.D. Meyer. Evolving Institu­ tional Arrangements for Employer Involvement in Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Transportation: The Case of Employer Associa­ Social, Economic and Environmental Factors of Trans­ tions. In Transportation Research Record 914, portation.

Urban Development Models for the San Francisco Region: From PLUM to POLIS

POULICOS PRAST ACOS

ABSTRACT

Most of the operational urban development models were designed 15 years ago and do not reflect the planning concerns of the 1980s. PLUM (Projective Land Use Model), the land use system developed for the Bay Area in 1970, suffers from conceptual and operational limitations that hinder its use. A new model, which is structurally and behaviorally different from the traditional Lowry models, was designed at the Association of Bay Area Governments. The new model, referred to as POLIS (Projective Optimization Land Use Information System), is based on microeconomic behavioral principles, it is formulated as a mathematical programming problem and considers job location, housing selection, and trip making in an integrated fashion.

Urban modeling is the science that attempts to rep­ planners in evaluating policy alternatives and resent in mathematical terms the location and inter­ predict and prescribe the future. actions of activities within a metropolitan urban A transportation planning process that focused on environment. The origins of the field can be traced comprehensive planning and long-range capital in­ back to the early 1960s when the growing problems of vestments for transportation facilities, coupled cities and the widespread use of automobiles in with a massive increase in federal assistance to every aspect of everyday life necessitated the de­ state and local governments, led to the design of velopment of analytical tools that could assist urban development models for several metropolitan