By Margareta Friman, Tore Pedersen and Tommy Gärling
In this research report we propose a classification of the various TDM-measures, encompassing the specific characteristics of each, how the various measures may be distinguished from each other and to what extent they may interact, as well as how effective they are in modifying or reducing private car use. One distinction between the various TDM measures is that between coerciveness and non-coerciveness, that is whether a change is forced upon the private car users (e.g., road closures) or whether they are motivated to make a voluntary change (e.g., informational campaigns). Another partly overlapping distinction is that between top-down and bottom-up processes, where the former refers to changes that are not freely chosen, whereas the latter empowers car users to voluntarily change. A third distinction is that of time scale, that is at what times of day the measures are implemented, for instance, congestion pricing only during peak hours. The fourth distinction is spatial scale, that is where the measure is applied, for instance in the city centers. Marked-based (e.g., pricing mechanisms) versus regulatory-based (e.g., legislation) measures makes up a fifth distinction. A final distinction is that between influencing latent versus manifest travel demand. Measures that aims to impact the former typically consist of, for instance, building of new roads to reduce congestion, whereas measures that aim to impact the latter is characterized by an impact on manifest travel behaviour, for instance, limiting car access to specific areas at specific times of day.
more about travel behavior research: