Transportation System Management

(TSM) & Transportation Demand

Management (TDM)
Agenda
 Introduction

 Objectives of TSM and TDM

 Key Differences between TSM

and TDM

 Challenges and Limitations

 Case Studies

 Conclusion
 1. Transportation system
management (TSM)
• focuses on optimizing the performance of existing transportation infrastructure without
major new investments.

• Main Goals:
 to enhance effi ciency

 Safety

 reliability of transportation network

TSM strategies are usually low-cost, quick-to-implement, and designed to

maximize the use of current roadways and transit systems.
 Key TSM strategies

• Traffi c signal coordination: adjusting traffi c signal timings to reduce stops and delays,
especially during peak hours .

• Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): Using technology like cameras, sensors,

and real-time data to manage traffi c flow and provide information to drivers (e.g.,
electronic message signs).

• HOV (High-Occupancy Vehicle) Lanes: Creating lanes reserved for vehicles with
multiple passengers to encourage carpooling and reduce congestion.

• Incident Management: Quickly responding to accidents or breakdowns to clear the road

and reduce traffi c disruption.

• Access Management: Controlling the number and location of driveways and

intersections to improve traffi c flow and safety.
2. Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
• focuses on reducing the demand for travel, especially single-occupancy vehicle
trips, by encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation, shifting travel
to off-peak times, or reducing the need for travel altogether.

• Main Goals:
 decrease congestion & lower emissions

 promote sustainable transportation options

 Key TDM Strategies

• Carpooling and Ridesharing Programs: Encouraging people to share rides through

apps, incentives, or dedicated carpool lanes.

• Public Transit Enhancements: Improving the quality, coverage, and convenience of

public transportation to attract more riders.

• Telecommuting and Flexible Work Hours: Encouraging remote work or flexible

work hours to reduce peak-time travel.

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Expanding bike lanes, bike-sharing programs,

sidewalks, and crosswalks to make non-motorized travel safer and more appealing.

• Parking Management: Limiting parking availability or increasing parking fees in

congested areas to discourage car use.
Key Differences Between TSM and TDM:
Aspect TSM TDM
Focus Optimizing existing Reducing travel demand
transportation systems and shifting travel
behavior
Primary Goal Improve traffic flow and Reduce congestion and
safety environmental impact

Main Strategies Signal coordination, ITS, Carpooling, public

HOV lanes transit, telecommuting

Investment Level Low to moderate cost Can range from low to

high cost
 Challenges and Limitations (TSM)
1.Short-Term Solutions:
 Limitation: TSM strategies often focus on immediate improvements rather than long-
term solutions. They may temporarily reduce congestion but do not address
underlying demand growth.
 Example: Traffi c signal optimization can reduce delays, but if traffi c volumes
continue to grow, congestion issues will eventually resurface.

2.Infrastructure Constraints:
 Limitation: TSM relies heavily on existing infrastructure. Enhancing traffi c flow
without expanding capacity can only go so far, especially in areas with outdated or
deteriorating infrastructure.
 Example: Adaptive traffi c signals can help manage traffi c, but if roads are narrow or
poorly maintained, the benefits are limited.
3. High Implementation and Maintenance Costs:
 Limitation: Advanced technologies like adaptive signal control and real-time traffi c monitoring
systems can be expensive to implement and maintain, particularly in large urban areas.
 Example: Cities may struggle to justify the cost of complex TSM systems if the expected
improvements do not match the financial investment.

4. Dependence on Technology:
 Limitation: TSM strategies often rely on technology that can malfunction or become outdated.
System failures can disrupt traffi c flow and negate the benefits of TSM interventions.
 Example: Failure in communication networks or sensors can lead to incorrect signal timing,
worsening traffi c instead of improving it.

5. Limited Impact on Travel Behavior:

 Limitation: TSM focuses on managing traffi c flow rather than changing travel behavior. It does
not significantly alter the number of vehicles on the road.
 Example: Ramp metering can improve freeway flow, but it does not reduce the overall number
of cars, which limits its long-term effectiveness.
 Challenges and Limitations (TDM)
1.Behavioral Resistance:

•Limitation: TDM strategies require changes in individual behavior, which can be

diffi cult to achieve. People may resist using public transport, carpooling, or
telecommuting due to convenience, habit, or cultural factors.

•Example: Despite incentives for carpooling, many prefer the convenience and
privacy of driving alone.

2. Equity Concerns:

•Limitation: Some TDM measures, such as congestion pricing or parking fees, can
disproportionately affect lower-income individuals who may not have access to
alternative transportation options.

•Example: London’s congestion charge is effective in reducing traffi c, but it can be a

financial burden for those who cannot afford the fee or alternative transport.
 3. Limited Control Over External Factors:

• Limitation: TDM strategies can be undermined by external factors such as economic growth, fuel prices,
or changes in land use patterns, which can increase travel demand beyond the capacity of TDM
measures.

• Example: Economic booms often lead to increased car ownership and travel, which can overwhelm TDM
efforts like telecommuting programs.

 4. Dependence on Public and Political Support:

• Limitation: Successful implementation of TDM often requires strong public and political support. Policies
like road pricing or restricting vehicle access can face significant opposition.

• Example: Attempts to introduce congestion pricing in some cities have failed due to public opposition,
limiting the scope of TDM interventions.

 5. Inconsistent Eff ectiveness:

• Limitation: The effectiveness of TDM strategies can vary widely depending on local conditions, such as
the availability of public transport, cultural attitudes, and enforcement of policies.

• Example: Bike-sharing programs are popular in cities with strong cycling cultures but struggle in areas
 Case Studies about TSM
 1.Adaptive Traffi c Signal Control – Los Angeles, USA

• Description: Los Angeles implemented an adaptive traffi c signal control system

across its road network. The system adjusts traffi c signal timings based on real-time
traffi c conditions collected through sensors and cameras.

• Key Strategy: Traffi c signal optimization.

• Impact: Reduced travel time by approximately 12%, improved traffi c flow, and
reduced vehicle emissions due to less idling.

• Challenges: High initial setup costs and ongoing maintenance of the technology
infrastructure.
2.Ramp Metering – Minneapolis-St. Paul, USA

•Description: The Twin Cities implemented ramp metering on highway entrance ramps, which
regulates the flow of vehicles entering the highway during peak times to smooth traffi c and
reduce congestion.

•Key Strategy: Ramp metering.

•Impact: Reduced freeway congestion, improved traffi c speeds by 35%, and decreased travel
times by 22%.

•Challenges: Public acceptance was initially low, but visible improvements helped gain support.

3. Incident Management System – Atlanta, USA (NaviGAtor)

•Description: The “NaviGAtor” system in Atlanta monitors traffi c incidents and coordinates rapid
response to clear accidents, broken-down vehicles, and other obstructions on the roads.

•Key Strategy: Incident management.

•Impact: Improved incident response times, reducing the average clearance time of incidents,
which helped keep traffi c moving smoothly.

•Challenges: Dependence on continuous funding for system upgrades and personnel training.
 Case Studies about TSM
1.London Congestion Charge – London, UK

•Description: London introduced a congestion charge in 2003, charging vehicles

entering the city center during peak hours to reduce traffi c congestion.

•Key Strategy: Pricing strategy (congestion charging).

•Impact: Reduced vehicle entries by around 30%, increased public transport use,
and significantly lowered emissions in the city center.

•Challenges: Public opposition initially, and the need for continuous updates to the
charging system to keep up with changing traffi c patterns.
2.Carpool and HOV Lanes – Houston, USA

•Description: Houston implemented High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to prioritize carpools,

buses, and vanpools on major freeways.

•Key Strategy: Carpooling and ride-sharing incentives.

•Impact: Increased vehicle occupancy rates, reduced travel times for high-occupancy vehicles,
and promoted carpooling.

•Challenges: Enforcing HOV rules and balancing lane space with general traffi c lanes

3.Mobility as a Service (MaaS) Pilot – Helsinki, Finland

•Description: Helsinki tested a MaaS system integrating multiple transport modes into a single
platform, allowing users to plan, book, and pay for all types of transport (buses, bikes, taxis, car
rentals) in one app.

•Key Strategy: Integration of various transport modes and payment systems.

•Impact: Reduced car ownership and increased use of public and shared transport options.

•Challenges: Technical integration of diverse transport providers and ensuring a seamless user
experience.
 Conclusion
 Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) are essential strategies for improving transportation efficiency, reducing
congestion, and enhancing overall mobility without relying on extensive new
infrastructure. TSM focuses on optimizing the existing transportation network through
technology and operational improvements, while TDM aims to shift travel behavior to
reduce demand, such as encouraging public transport, carpooling, or telecommuting.

 While both approaches offer cost-effective and sustainable solutions, they also face
limitations like high implementation costs, behavioral resistance, and dependence on
existing infrastructure. Combining TSM and TDM can create a more balanced and
adaptable approach to urban mobility challenges, ultimately leading to more efficient,
environmentally friendly, and resilient transportation systems.
References:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2013). Integrated Corridor Management:
Implementation Guide.

Meyer, M. D. (1999). Demand Management as an Element of Transportation Policy: Using

Carrots and Sticks to Influence Travel Behavior. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 33(7-8), 575-599.

Zhao, Y., & Yu, L. (2014). Performance Evaluation of Adaptive Traffic Signal Control System: A
Case Study in Los Angeles. Transportation Research Board.

Litman, T. (2021). Transportation Demand Management: Strategies, Implementation, and

Benefits. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). (2009). Traffic Incident Management Handbook.

Shiftan, Y., Albert, G., & Keinan, T. (2012). The Impact of an Advanced Traveler Information
System on Travel Behavior: A Case Study of Haifa, Israel. Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies, 20(1), 38-51.
Thank you