Comments on: The Trick with Carrots and Sticks http://blog.getdowntown.org/2009/08/28/the-trick-with-carrots-and-sticks/ a blog about commuting to downtown Ann Arbor and all things therein Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:37:04 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9-rare hourly 1 By: Steve Raney http://blog.getdowntown.org/2009/08/28/the-trick-with-carrots-and-sticks/comment-page-1/#comment-3820 Steve Raney Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:44:40 +0000 http://blog.getdowntown.org/?p=1715#comment-3820 Arlington is indeed a great success story. If you have a job in DC, Arlington is a great place to live. I'm not sure if it's fair to say that incentives-alone work in Arlington. For commutes to DC from Arlington, DC is extremely auto-hostile, penalizing SOV commuters in various significant ways. I wonder how the federal commute benefit increase is working? That is a huge financial carrot. That would be helpful to know. More factoids on pricing, etc: The 2009 “Moving Cooler Report” states that moving to European level gas taxes, “starting at $2.40 a gallon in 2015 and increasing to $5.00 a gallon in 2050 could result in a 28% reduction in GHG emissions.” [Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, by Cambridge Systematics, July 2009. Published by Urban Land Institute. http://www.uli.org. pg 80] Here's a comparison of US and international gas prices: http://www.cities21.org/gasPriceVsVMT.htm VTPI’s 2009 Transportation Elasticities Report is really helpful: * Parking fees are found to have a greater effect on reducing vehicle trips compared to fuel price increases, typically by a factor of 1.5 to 2.0 (USEPA, 1998). For example a $1 per trip parking charge is likely to cause the same reduction in vehicle travel as a fuel price increase of $1.50 to $2.00. [pg 18] * $4 parking charge for suburbs yield a 36.1% reduction. [pg 19, Table 15] * Shoup found that charging for parking reduces SOV by 20-40%. [pg 21] [From: Transportation Elasticities, Todd Litman, VTPI, August 26, 2009, http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf.] Arlington is indeed a great success story. If you have a job in DC, Arlington is a great place to live. I’m not sure if it’s fair to say that incentives-alone work in Arlington. For commutes to DC from Arlington, DC is extremely auto-hostile, penalizing SOV commuters in various significant ways.

I wonder how the federal commute benefit increase is working? That is a huge financial carrot. That would be helpful to know.

More factoids on pricing, etc:

The 2009 “Moving Cooler Report” states that moving to European level gas taxes, “starting at $2.40 a gallon in 2015 and increasing to $5.00 a gallon in 2050 could result in a 28% reduction in GHG emissions.” [Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, by Cambridge Systematics, July 2009. Published by Urban Land Institute. http://www.uli.org. pg 80] Here’s a comparison of US and international gas prices: http://www.cities21.org/gasPriceVsVMT.htm

VTPI’s 2009 Transportation Elasticities Report is really helpful:
* Parking fees are found to have a greater effect on reducing vehicle trips compared to fuel price increases, typically by a factor of 1.5 to 2.0 (USEPA, 1998). For example a $1 per trip parking charge is likely to cause the same reduction in vehicle travel as a fuel price increase of $1.50 to $2.00. [pg 18]
* $4 parking charge for suburbs yield a 36.1% reduction. [pg 19, Table 15]
* Shoup found that charging for parking reduces SOV by 20-40%. [pg 21]
[From: Transportation Elasticities, Todd Litman, VTPI, August 26, 2009, http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf.

]]> By: Nancy Shore http://blog.getdowntown.org/2009/08/28/the-trick-with-carrots-and-sticks/comment-page-1/#comment-3815 Nancy Shore Wed, 02 Sep 2009 04:38:13 +0000 http://blog.getdowntown.org/?p=1715#comment-3815 Great Comment Steve! In my experience there is definitely a connection between parking pricing and behavior change. If people don't have to pay for parking, they are much more likely to drive. Once they have to pay for parking, the start to consider other options. I was at a presentation today where the same was borne out in a study of employers in Arlington, VA. However, that study also showed that as transit incentives went up, use of transit also went up. I also see this in Ann Arbor. So incentives can work to change behavior, but it has to be a pretty big incentive. Great Comment Steve! In my experience there is definitely a connection between parking pricing and behavior change. If people don’t have to pay for parking, they are much more likely to drive. Once they have to pay for parking, the start to consider other options. I was at a presentation today where the same was borne out in a study of employers in Arlington, VA. However, that study also showed that as transit incentives went up, use of transit also went up. I also see this in Ann Arbor. So incentives can work to change behavior, but it has to be a pretty big incentive.

]]> By: Steve Raney http://blog.getdowntown.org/2009/08/28/the-trick-with-carrots-and-sticks/comment-page-1/#comment-3814 Steve Raney Wed, 02 Sep 2009 04:19:47 +0000 http://blog.getdowntown.org/?p=1715#comment-3814 From the field of behavioral economics, there is evidence that potential losses are more motivating than potential gains. In The Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz has a discussion of this "loss aversion" phenomenon. Schwartz cites research by Kahneman and Tversky demonstrating that, "Losing $100 produces a feeling of negativity that is more intense than the feelings of elation produced by a gain of $100.” In the book Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing, the author provides a discussion of positive (gain) and negative (loss) framing: Behavior change "messages which emphasize losses which occur as a result of inaction are consistently more persuasive than messages that emphasize savings as a result of taking action." The Irritant Theory of Driving Behavior Change There is an intuitive psychological theory as to why cashout is not very effective. High-paid office workers ignore small-benefit programs such as $4 per day cashout (being paid not to park at a suburban workplace). This “carrot” is not a sufficiently large motivator to cause commuting behavior to change. Employees will not think about the cashout on a regular basis. I believe that parking charges will "irritate" SOV commuters. These SOV commuters will think about the parking charges every day they commute. Eventually this irritant gnaws at them long enough to cause many to change behavior. Changing commuting mode choice is a significant decision because of relatively high barriers to changing away from the convenience of driving alone. This difficult decision is not a "snap decision" and may require pondering over many weeks. The same $ value of irritant/stick has a much higher impact than the same $ value of cashout/carrot. The intuitive theory is well substantiated from field results: A 1989 study found that commute carrots are less effective than sticks: "A program of transit and vanpool subsidies as well as preferential parking for carpoolers had little effect until Twentieth Century Corporation in Los Angeles raised the price of employee parking from no charge to $30 per month for solo drivers. Solo driving decreased from 90 to 65 percent after pricing." A 1990 paper found that charges changed behavior where incentives had not: "CH2M Hill in Bellevue, Washington began charging solo drivers $40 per month for parking, the amount the company pays the building owner for parking. All employees receive a $40 per month travel allowance in their paychecks. Carpoolers park for free. Walkers, cyclists and drop offs keep the travel allowance. Solo driving declined from 89 percent to 64 percent after the parking policies were put into place." Excerpts from: http://www.cities21.org/TRB_Paid_Parking2.pdf From the field of behavioral economics, there is evidence that potential losses are more motivating than potential gains. In The Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz has a discussion of this “loss aversion” phenomenon. Schwartz cites research by Kahneman and Tversky demonstrating that, “Losing $100 produces a feeling of negativity that is more intense than the feelings of elation produced by a gain of $100.”

In the book Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing, the author provides a discussion of positive (gain) and negative (loss) framing: Behavior change “messages which emphasize losses which occur as a result of inaction are consistently more persuasive than messages that emphasize savings as a result of taking action.”

The Irritant Theory of Driving Behavior Change

There is an intuitive psychological theory as to why cashout is not very effective. High-paid office workers ignore small-benefit programs such as $4 per day cashout (being paid not to park at a suburban workplace). This “carrot” is not a sufficiently large motivator to cause commuting behavior to change. Employees will not think about the cashout on a regular basis. I believe that parking charges will “irritate” SOV commuters. These SOV commuters will think about the parking charges every day they commute. Eventually this irritant gnaws at them long enough to cause many to change behavior. Changing commuting mode choice is a significant decision because of relatively high barriers to changing away from the convenience of driving alone. This difficult decision is not a “snap decision” and may require pondering over many weeks. The same $ value of irritant/stick has a much higher impact than the same $ value of cashout/carrot. The intuitive theory is well substantiated from field results:

A 1989 study found that commute carrots are less effective than sticks: “A program of transit and vanpool subsidies as well as preferential parking for carpoolers had little effect until Twentieth Century Corporation in Los Angeles raised the price of employee parking from no charge to $30 per month for solo drivers. Solo driving decreased from 90 to 65 percent after pricing.”

A 1990 paper found that charges changed behavior where incentives had not: “CH2M Hill in Bellevue, Washington began charging solo drivers $40 per month for parking, the amount the company pays the building owner for parking. All employees receive a $40 per month travel allowance in their paychecks. Carpoolers park for free. Walkers, cyclists and drop offs keep the travel allowance. Solo driving declined from 89 percent to 64 percent after the parking policies were put into place.”

Excerpts from: http://www.cities21.org/TRB_Paid_Parking2.pdf

]]> By: Dave http://blog.getdowntown.org/2009/08/28/the-trick-with-carrots-and-sticks/comment-page-1/#comment-3812 Dave Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:21:23 +0000 http://blog.getdowntown.org/?p=1715#comment-3812 Something I've thought a lot about is America's distinct dislike for regulation - which is a big reason why we're in this whole financial crisis. But it plays into a lot of other areas as well. For instance, countries like The Netherlands and Denmark put strict regulations on owning and operating an automobile, so people who don't absolutely need one often don't own one, unless they have a lot of extra money to burn. Not only that, those countries put a lot of money and effort (compared to the U.S. - but not nearly as much money as we put into our highway system) into making travel by transit or bicycle more convenient, easier, and cheaper than travel by personal automobile. What this means, is that in cities in those countries, people choose to walk, ride a bike or take public transit simply because it's more convenient for them than driving. However, in the U.S., it would be seen as scandalous by the public to "manipulate" circumstances like that - except that what they aren't telling you, is that they are manipulating circumstances like that, to make it more convenient, cheaper and easier to drive instead of use other options. It just all happens behind the scenes by tax subsidies and street planning policy and such. Something I’ve thought a lot about is America’s distinct dislike for regulation – which is a big reason why we’re in this whole financial crisis. But it plays into a lot of other areas as well. For instance, countries like The Netherlands and Denmark put strict regulations on owning and operating an automobile, so people who don’t absolutely need one often don’t own one, unless they have a lot of extra money to burn. Not only that, those countries put a lot of money and effort (compared to the U.S. – but not nearly as much money as we put into our highway system) into making travel by transit or bicycle more convenient, easier, and cheaper than travel by personal automobile. What this means, is that in cities in those countries, people choose to walk, ride a bike or take public transit simply because it’s more convenient for them than driving.

However, in the U.S., it would be seen as scandalous by the public to “manipulate” circumstances like that – except that what they aren’t telling you, is that they are manipulating circumstances like that, to make it more convenient, cheaper and easier to drive instead of use other options. It just all happens behind the scenes by tax subsidies and street planning policy and such.

]]>