TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND KINGSTON CAMPUS

This study exam.mes transportation strategies that should be considered as alternatives to use of the single occupant vehicle on and around the Kingston Campus of the University of Rhode Island. It includes the results of a URI commuter survey which was conducted in the course of this research, and it analyzes the extent to which current bus transit service is meeting the needs of the URI community. It remains doubtful that any one transportation strategy will succeed in extracting commuters from their cars; but the committed implementation of a combination of strategies holds much promise in reducing the use of the single occupant vehicle at the University.


Objectives of the Study
Numerous strategies have been formulated toward reducing the presence of, and the reliance on, the automobile at URI. Some include the use of incentives; some include the use of disincentives and restrictions; and some employ combinations of tactics. One solution, identified by RIDOT, is for members of the URI community to increase utilization of bus transit.
At the initiative of RIDOT and the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA), a two-year pilot program of expanded bus service to and from the University was begun in the Spring of 1994 in an effort to increase ridership, reduce the use of SOV's, and improve air quality in the area. This study will evaluate the level to which the increased bus service has been effective in reducing the number of SOV's on and around the Kingston Campus, and identify additional alternative transportation strategies.
The objectives of the research project are:

1.
To provide background information on the Kingston Campus, including descriptions of present and projected enrollment and facilities; and on the presence of the automobile on and around the Kingston Campus;

2.
To evaluate the extent to which increased bus transit service to and from URI has resulted in increased ridership, and discuss the resulting benefits of such increased ridership; and 3.
To discuss alternative transportation strategies for the reduction in use of SOV's, for future-use consideration.

Analysis of Current and Proposed Land Use
The layout of the Kingston Campus was analyzed with regard to existing facilities and future needs, and the relationship of the built environment to critical natural resources. This was performed using relevant literature, photographs, plans, and maps of the area. These were obtained from the URI Office of Capital Projects. In addition, interviews were conducted with key University staff involved in campus planning.  University is bounded on the north and west by expanses of undeveloped land.
As such, many of these open spaces are constrained against future development (Yu 1994: 69). The Quadrangle acts as the center for many special events, carries historical meaning, and is enjoyed by the University community. The engineering courtyard and the area east of Rodman Hall offer relief in areas otherwise heavily developed, providing access to sunlight and air to the buildings surrounding them.
These areas are likely to remain intact.
The open area to the north of Ballantine Hall was formerly a wetland -a small pond remains -and is, therefore, not suitable for future development. Similarly, the area between Heathman Hall and the White Horn Brook is constrained by a seasonal high water table and cannot support development. Further, the land in this area is considered to be glacial outwash with excellent water-bearing properties, and the protection of the aquifer beneath is recognized by the University as an utmost priority.
Its use as productive agricultural land has been deemed appropriate, and is likely to be continued in the future.
The wooded area to the north of Flagg Road is the least environmentallyconstrained of the open spaces. However, the University's property to the north is interrupted by a tract of privately-owned land, considered to be a deterrent against further expansion to the north.

Circulation and Parking
There are more than 10 miles of road and approximately 5,800 legal parking spaces on the Kingston campus (see Figure 2.2). Only 624 of the legal parking spaces are "on street"; the remainder are accommodated in the more than 40 parking lots on campus. Complaints about insufficient parking on campus are commonly heard, but the parking lot at Keaney Gym, with over 1,100 spaces, is rarely if ever full (Waldo & Lombardi 1195:8;Shaw 1995;Gordon Archibald Associates 1994: 35; and observations by author). Roughly 70 acres of land is given over to roads and parking (area calculation by author). All of this area is paved. Numerous access roads traverse the campus. Most often these roads supplement the footpaths on campus, many experiencing heavy utilization by members of the URI community walking between buildings. Not infrequently, though, these roads are also used by non-delivery, non-service vehicles.

Enrollment
Presently, there are 9,141 students registered at URI, including 2,322 students enrolled in graduate studies (Institutional Research Office 1995 Eyberry Rd.

Briar Lane
College Entrance Office 1995). The implication is that as many automobiles as new students may also arrive on campus.

Future Development
Despite the decline in enrollment, shortages of certain types of space have been identified (Yu 1994:84 (Bascom 1995).
Projects that had been planned but have smce been abandoned include the following: the construction of a 250-space parking lot between Heathman Hall and Flagg Brook; the expansion of the Keaney parking lot; and the expansion of the Fine Arts parking lot (Bascom 1995).
The elimination of these projects reflects reductions in the budget, as well as the University's stated commitment to encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation (Miller 1995).
It is likely that construction projects in the future will be clustered around the campus center, increasing the density and improving the efficiency of land use (Yu 16 1994:73). Three-to-five story buildings will be encouraged, reducing buildings' footprints and their impact upon the land.

Implications for Commuters
As has already been stated, there are no plans to change the size, shape or composition of the Kingston Campus in any significant way within the foreseeable future. It is questionable as to the effect the net increase of 392 students over the next three years will have on the URI community. It is unlikely that all 392 will commute to campus by private automobile; but assuming they did, full or near-full utilization of the parking lot at Keaney Gym would become more common. It is even mor_ e unlikey that all 392 students would be keeping the same schedule, so their impact on traffic flow remains uncertain. Therefore, unless policies or programs that facilitate change in commuter patterns are adopted at URI, commuters may expect to face an only slightly more challenging commuting pattern than they do today.

CHAPTER 3 -COMMUTER SURVEY
The purpose of conducting an on-campus survey with regard to commuting patterns was to ascertain the needs and desires of the URl community members, and to garner an understanding of the attitudes and concerns surrounding the utilization of alternative transportation modes such as carpooling and bus transit.

The Survey and Its Administration
The questionnaire was formulated with input from RID OT. To encourage response, the questionnaire was kept short. The survey form was printed on 8 1/2" x 11 " paper, a copy of which appears in Appendix A.

Findings of the Survey
The responses from each survey were coded and statistically analyzed.
Summary statistics were tabulated for each question for the overall population; selected questions were summarized for students and employees separately.
Question 1: Respondents were asked to identify their status at URI. (Respondents were asked to check one of three answers.) Of the 194 responses received, 11.64% respondents indicated they were members of the faculty or staff, and 3.03% were students.   Question 4: Respondents were asked to indicate whether they currently used RIPTA service. (Respondents were asked to check either "yes" or "no".) More than 84 percent indicated they did not use RIPT A service, 5 .1 percent indicated they did, and 10.3 percent gave no response.
Question 5: Respondents were asked to indicate the times they needed to arrive at and depart from URI daily. (Respondents were given a choice of 12 time slots.) More than three-quarters of the respondents indicated arrival at URI between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m., with the hour between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. constituting the morning peak. However, times of arrival varied between faculty/staff, and student populations. Likewise, more than two-thirds of the respondents indicated departure from URI between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m., that hour constituting the afternoon peak. Time of departure is, however, more well-defined for faculty and staff than for students, as can be seen in Table 3.4. * Adjusted to exclude those living on campus. Responses to this question were varied, and ranged from $10.00 to over $150.00.
For the purpose of analysis, 5 slots were created, spanning the range of answers received. Table 3.5 shows the slots and the percentage of population group responses allocated to each one. More than 14 percent of the respondents gave no response for this question.
Question 7: Respondents were asked to rank alternative modes of transportation m order of their preference should the cost of driving to campus alone become prohibitive. (Respondents were given 6 alternatives.) As shown in Table 3.6, respondents most frequently indicated use of the bus as their first preference. However, preferences among the student population is far more varied than those among the faculty and staff. (Complete depiction of Question 7 responses by population group and by location of commuter trip origin is shown in Appendix B.) Also, as shown in Table 3.7, those living closer to URI showed a greater interest in alternatives such as biking and walking.
Question 8: Respondents were asked to rank the level of importance they would assign to various transportation programs. (Respondents were given 8 transportation programs.)   Also, as Table 3.9 shows, and as in the responses to Question 7, those living closer to URI ranked the development of bikeways and bicycle facilities as being more important than those commuters living farther from URI.
Question 9: Respondents were asked to rank the factors that most influenced their decisions regarding alternative modes of transportation. (Respondents were given 4 factors.) As Table 3 .10 shows, the majority of respondents indicated that either time or freedom most influenced their modal decisions, while neither cost nor safety were significant factors in their modal choice. Time was only slightly more of a factor for faculty and staff than for students, while students said that freedom was only slightly more important than time.

Conclusions
The low rate of response to this survey makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the transportation needs and desires of members of the URI community as a whole. If any conclusion can be drawn, however, it is that time and freedom are of  Note: See Table 3.7 for explanation of zones. 32 the utmost importance to URI commuters. Therefore, the more comparable any transportation alternative is in terms of travel time and convenience to the SOV, the more likely that alternative is to take hold and flourish in the URI environment.
Also apparent in the results of this survey was the variation of preferred transportation alternatives and programs according to the status at the University and the origin of commuter trip lines. Faculty and staff, with regular schedules, indicated that they were more likely to take the bus than were students. Commuters from South Kingstown indicated that they were more likely to utilize bikeways, if provided. It is this variety that should be examined further in the formulation of University transportation policy and planning.

CHAPTER 4 -BUS TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
Prior to 1994, three bus routes serviced URI. There were 22 trips to and from the University on weekdays, 11 on Saturdays, and 6 on Sundays. Arrival and departure times were not convenient, routes were not direct, and frequency was inadequate (RIDOT 1993c: 3).
Bus service to URI was expanded in 1994 with funding provided under CMAQ through RIDOT as part of a two-year pilot program for the University. As such, it is important to analyze the extent to which: 1) the expanded service has resulted in increased ridership, and 2) the anticipated reductions in SOV' s and subsequent air pollutants have been realized.

Bus Service Prior to 1994
The following are descriptions of the RIPTA routes that existed until 1994.

Newport/URI
The Newport/URI route made stops in Jamestown, at the Routes 1 and 138 Park and Ride, Bonnet Shores, Narragansett Pier, Wakefield Mall, and Kingston Station.
There were ten round trips made per weekday, with service arriving at URI almost hourly between 9:15 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. Running time varied between sixty five and seventy minutes -effectively doubling the time it took to drive from Newport. Six round trips were made on Saturdays; there was no service on Sundays. No buses arrived at URI during the morning peak hour; and no buses left the campus between 12:30 and 4:00 p.m. or after 6: 10 p.m. There were four round trips made between Providence and URI on Saturdays, and six made on Sundays and holidays.
The frequency ranged between 2 and 3 hours, and service on Saturday nights ended at 7:00 p.m. in Providence.
By almost any measure, the pre-1994 RIPT A service was neither timely nor convenient.

Expanded Bus Service Since 1994
In the spring of 1993, RIDOT conducted a survey of URI students and employees to determine the demand and potential for increased bus service (RIDOT 1993c: v

Bus Ridership Analysis
The expanded RIPTA bus program is funded by the U. S It is, therefore, difficult to assess the impact that increased bus service has had on ridership. It is apparent that use of the expanded service peaked in October, 1994.
Even in that month, however, ridership on 3 of the 4 new routes fell dramatically short of what had been predicted, calling into question their efficacy in the net reduction of automobile emissions.

Problems with the Expanded Bus Service
A number of problems, possibly contributing to the lower-than-expected ridership, have been identified. These are discussed below.

Travel time
On-board travel time continues to be a discouraging factor for many commuters.  Advertising Some members of the URI community are still not aware that the expanded bus service exists. RIPT A advertises its service in the student newspaper on campus, but not everyone reads the student newspaper. Some of the survey respondents that indicated that bus service did not exist in their area are simply unaware that it does.
For example, 3 (of the 6) respondents from Westerly attachednotes to their completed survey forms indicating they would take the bus, but that there was no service in Westerly. All 3 were staff.

Inability to Meet the Needs of the URI Community
Scheduling and routing still present problems to many members of the URI community whose lives are more complex than an out-and-back commute. For example, employees with childcare issues and students who work -sometimes between classesoff campus may continue to find the frequency of service and selection of routes so onerous as to be prohibitive.

Conclusions
Further refinement of the RIPT A bus service to URI is required. What presently exists is a level of service typical of many small urban areas imposed upon a rural/suburban setting. The result reflects both overkill, as can be witnessed in the abundance of empty buses, and neglect, in that RIPT A continues to fail in providing reasonable on-board travel times.

CHAPTER 5 -TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
A recent study determined that currently nearly 17,000 trips are generated to and from the Kingston Campus daily (RIDOT 1993c: 2). The peak hour for traffic entering the campus is between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m.; the peak hour for traffic exiting the campus is between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. Delays in traffic during these hours can be as long as 90 seconds, warranting a Level of Service rating of "F" (Gordon Archibald Associates 1994: 32).
It is, however, difficult to say that Kingston currently experiences congestion at a level that is truly problematic because congestion is relative (Hyman 1993: 155;Cervero 1991: 121). It is perceived differently in Kingston than Boston. It is also perceived differently depending upon the overall length of the commute. Despite the debatability of these two issues, the facts remain that 1) URI is a major trip-generator in Washington County, 2) too many people are driving alone to URI, and 3) once on campus people are continuing to use their vehicles in frivolous and inefficient ways. The objectives of this study are to identify the transportation strategies most likely to result in reducing the use of single occupant vehicles.

Transportation Management
Traffic flow can be improved using traffic supply management and traffic 1 A study conducted in 1993 indicated that 14.5 percent of the student population goes to URI, goes home and returns to URI later that same day at least once per week (Mignault & Moreira 1993: 87). Another 22.6 percent of the student population commute to URI more than once a day twice per week; and still another 14.5 percent "double commute" between 3 and 8 times per week. engineering measures. The former includes the construction of new roads or the widening of existing roads. The later attempts to optimize the use of existing roads through such measures as traffic signal improvements and coordination, intersection widening and improvements, turn restrictions and one-way street flow, and on street parking management, among others ( Atash,et al 199 5: 17). A third method for improving traffic flow is via transportation demand management (TDM), which seeks to eliminate trips through work-at-home programs and telecommuting. Finally, traffic reduction techniques address modal choice.

Traffic Reduction Technigues
Traffic reduction techniques (TRT) aim at decreasing the volume of traffic and vehicle miles of travel by influencing the manner in which people travel to their destination (Orski 1990: 485). They seek to maintain a favorable volume-to-capacity ratio by reducing traffic volume, and avoid the more costly expansion of road capacities (Downs 1993: 42;Ferguson 1993: 442).
TRT's include strategies that can be either market-based, regulatory, or a combination of the two (Downs 1993: 43;Schonfeld & Chadda 1985: 393-4  An effective traffic reduction effort includes strategies that: 1) offer a wide choice of travel alternatives, allowing commuters to choose the option that best meets their needs; and 2) provide incentives for the usage of alternative modes of transportation (Orski 1990: 486). What follows is a discussion of the TRT's that warrant further consideration by URI, RIDOT, RIPT A, and other state governmental agencies charged with providing effective transportation alternatives.

Ride sharing
The goal of a ridesharing program is to influence and assist commuters m locating other commuters willing to share a ride to a particular destination on a regular basis. Carpooling and vanpooling are forms of ridesharing.
The establishment of a ridesharing program is a difficult undertaking. It requires both the commitment of resources by a sponsoring organization, and the daily reaffrrmation of each participant of commitment to the program itself (Ferguson 1991: 140;Stevens 1990: 563). Ridesharing is, however, the most frequently considered travel reduction option (Schonfeld & Chadda 1985: 398).
Characteristics of commuters that have been identified as contributing to the success of ridesharing programs include: · Affiliation with larger firms, companies or institutions; · Having a longer commute than 10 miles; and · Having a fixed schedule (Ferguson 1991: 132;Stevens 1990: 564-5).
Larger organizations, because of their size, have both formal and informal advantages over smaller organizations in their ability to establish and maintain successful ridesharing programs (Ferguson 1991: 132). First, they may be able to provide more accurate ridesharing information through existing data banks and staff.
Second, affiliates of larger organizations have a higher probability of finding at least one other person within the organization who lives nearby and commutes to the same place at approximately the same hours. Larger organizations can also establish explicit policies that influence affiliate behavior regarding ridesharing.
Ridesharing is cheaper for the commuter than driving alone from any distance (Schonfeld & Chadda 1985 : 400). Front-door-service vanpools are even less costly than carpools, and can reduce commuter vehicle miles travelled (VMT) up to 50 percent (Pratsch 1986: 593). Carpools are slightly less effective at reducing VMT's (Table 5.1), but are equally effective at reducing the number of SOV' s (Orski 1990: 490) and are  (Atash, et al 1995: 35).
Current relaxation of concern about energy usage and consumption works against the success of ridesharing programs. As such, the promotion of ridesharing programs may need to emphasize those rewards and incentives for participation that are not energy-related (Stevens 1990: 564-73 For a brief period, the URI Students for Social Change (URISSC) adopted a more active approach for the URI-based carpooling program. URISSC also solicited input from members of the URI community regarding their commutes, and then entered the data into a bank on computer and sought out potential carpool "matches".
Unfortunately, the approach was only as good as its initiators and, subsequent to their attrition from URI, the program reverted back to the domain of the Commuter Center.
There are several reasons why carpooling has not been more successful at URI.
Among students, the biggest obstacle to carpooling is the variability of their schedules.
The lack of fixed and regular schedules is a significant factor that negatively impacts the ability of groups to form successful carpools (Stevens 1990). Among faculty and staff, the tendency to live closer to URI offsets the advantage of generally working regular business hours.
A major shortcoming of the URI carpooling programs to date has been the lack of committed resources and advertising. Staff and computer resources should be allocated to the establishment of a carpool matching program. In addition, a campuswide advertising campaign should be initiated and maintained on an on-going basis throughout the school year encouraging carpooling and promoting the services of the carpooling program. The target population should include all members of the URI community.
Among the other large-sized state universities in New England, the University of Vermont (UVM) has an active carpooling program, which includes the promotion of the program and a reduction in the rates of parking fees assessed to program participants (Vandall 1993: 2).

Bus Transit
Bus transit has been rated high for its effectiveness in reducing commuter VMT's (Schonfeld & Chadda 1985: 395) and the numbers of SOV' s. Benefits to its users include lower automobile insurance rates, safer travel, and relief from driving stress (RIDOT 1992: 6.2). Further, the availability of bus transit can be critical to those without ownership of or access to a private automobile.
Conventional fixed route bus services are highly competitive with the private automobile in high-density urban areas, but are less so in lower-density suburban settings (Cervero 1986: 401). In such settings, the lack of frequency and directness of bus transit result in increases in wait and travel time, and impact negatively upon the commuter's decision to take the bus. Greater frequency of service can substantially diminish wait time and schedule rigidity, another major weakness of transit service (Hsu & McDermott 1977: 43), but is often not an option in areas of lower-density.
The utilization of bus transit as a traffic reduction technique has received mixed reviews, especially in more suburban areas. Beyond the questionable adequacy of route densities, issues that remain a concern include the extent to which the frequency of service required in order to deliver adequate service requires subsidization (Schonfeld & Chadda 1985: 395), and the extent to which bus transit can deliver on the promise of reduced congestion, energy consumption, and air pollution (Bae 1993: 65-74;Love 1992: 42-47

Incentives
Conventional wisdom would have us believe that people have an irrational love affair with their cars so strong that it makes them ignore alternative transportation strategies (Orski 1990: 487). Recent research suggests, however, that commuters are only exercising good common sense when they choose to drive. Surveys of suburban workers indicate that a key reason why people drive to work is because they need their cars before, during, and after work ( Cervero 1991 : 124). Close to 60 percent of suburban office workers surveyed use their cars regularly to make stops on their way to or from work, and nearly 80 percent use them regularly at lunchtime.
In urban areas, office workers can walk or use transit and have easy access to a wide variety of services and activities. For suburban workers, such is usually not the case; and in gaining access to the services they need everyday, cars save time. Thus, it is not enough to simply provide alternatives to the SOV: it is equally important to provide amenities and incentives to compensate for giving up their car.
One such amenity is the guarantee of a ride home in the event the commuter must either unexpectedly stay late or leave early (Atash et al 1995: 27;Ferguson 1990: 449;Orski 1990: 488

Disincentives and Restrictions
The most effective form of disincentive is the elimination of free parking (Orski 1990: 489). The provision of free parking is a significant obstacle to usage of alternative modes of transportation (Pratsch 1986: 594). The availability of free parking stimulates individual automobile driving and deters energy conservation (Schonfeld & Chadda 1985: 400). Studies have estimated that at least 20 percent fewer commuters drive alone when they have to pay for parking, as opposed to having parking provided to them at no charge (USDOT 1980). The elimination of free parking has been found to have the largest and most consistent impacts among traffic reduction strategies (Ferguson 1990: 452 It is expected by some that the institution of such a fee for parking at URI will do much to promote the use of alternative modes of transportation. It will also, unfortunately, effect those that can least afford to pay the fee, while wealthier members of the URI community may continue to opt for driving alone to campus -as many believe will be the case. It has also been suggested that restrictions be placed on the access roads running throughout campus, increasing control of these "service-only" roadways in an effort to create a more pedestrian-friendly auto-free zone (University Security and Parking Advisory Committee 1994: 10). Reducing the ease with which the automobile is used on campus may serve to reduce the extent to which the automobile is used on campus.
However, substantial budgetary commitment 1s required for implementation of the suggestion, resulting in its deferment.

Combining Strategies
The cumulative effects of combining several strategies are not simply additive (Schonfeld & Chadda 1985: 404). Some options may be mutually compatible, some may actually enhance each other, and some may be inseparable. Collectively, the provision of alternatives modes of transportation combined with a comprehensive program of incentives reflects a program that is greater than the sum of its parts (Pratsch 1986: 593).
Such is expected to be the case at URI, once parking fees are in place. It has not been enough to provide expanded bus service to URI without providing reasons to take the bus, as can be witnessed by the volume of empty buses. The provision of expanded bus service to URI with parking fees in place would have been a more true test of the system's capabilities of reducing the use of SOV's.
But buses should not be considered the only alternative to the SOV, especially in a state with densities that vary as significantly as they do in Rhode Island. As interesting to see will be the use of carpools in conjunction with the parking fee. An active carpooling program, including matching services and advertising, should be established along with the parking fee to provide a choice of alternative modes of transportation to the URI commuter. State agencies have been reluctant to support the provision of carpooling as an alternative to bus transit services, fearing that the success 64 of carpooling could reduce the efficiency of services provided (RIDOA 1992: 6.9); but the provision of choice may best meet the needs of the members of the URI community, and ultimately translate to fewer people using SOV's.
Additionally, an ingredient key to the success of any program, and especially pertinent to conditions at URI, is the enforcement of traffic reduction strategies and policies. At present, illegal parking is rampant on campus, obvious violations going unticketed due to a lack of enforcement officers brought about by budgetary constraints.

CHAPTER 6 -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The University of Rhode Island began as an agricultural school in an agricultural setting. Today, it is a large-sized university in a rural environment. It is the state's primary institute for secondary education, and a major employer. As such, URI is a major trip generator: the current vehicle of choice is the SOV.
When asked about the possibility of utilizing alternative modes of transportation, more than 41 percent of this study's survey respondents expressed a preference for taking the bus, if adequate service were provided. Another 24.7 percent of the survey respondents indicated that driving as far as a Park and Ride lot, and then transferring to either a bus or carpool, was their first choice of alternative modes of transportation; and still 22.6 percent more ranked carpooling as their first preference.
The sheer size of the populations at URI -both faculty/staff and studentindicates the potential for viable programs supporting alternative modes of transportation, especially when combined with a willingness to utilize other modes of transportation, if provided. Yet, because of the complexities that exist, no program to date can be declared a success.
Getting people to change their commuting habits is a difficult task. To alter personal travel behavior, it often requires the introduction of a new and/or significant factor, such as the gasoline crisis in the 1970' s, an earthquake disaster, or hosting the Olympic games. Short of such an occurrence, the most effective way of implementing change is the simultaneous introduction of many different traffic reduction strategies (Downs 1993: 43). At URI, this makes all the more sense, given the diversity or persons, needs, and schedules that must be met.

URI Program Components
Key components of a successful program aimed at reducing the number of SOV's generated by URI include the use of incentives, such as: the refinement and subsequent continuation of expanded bus service; the promotion of Park and Ride lots as alternatives to driving all the way in to campus; the establishment of an active carpooling program, including matching services and advertising; and the establishment of preferred parking lots for carpool program participants.
They also include the use of disincentives, such as: The combination of these strategies provides both "the carrot" and "the stick", as well as options for members of the URI community.

Realistic Expectations
Implementation of traffic reduction techniques at URI should be considered as part of a larger program that addresses transportation throughout the area. The regional impact of isolated traffic reduction programs have tended to be slight or negligible (Ferguson 1990: 452), as the traffic reductions achieved from an isolated program tend to get lost in the volumes of non-participatory traffic (Orski 1990: 491), and are ultimately offset within a few years by the arrival of more people, jobs, and vehicles (Downs 1993: 43). Thus, it is imperative to regionalize traffic reduction techniques if the program at URI is to have real meaning.

Program Evaluation
Evaluation of other traffic reduction programs has found a relationship between the level of effort expended on a program and the level of success it attained (Ferguson 1990: 452). Level of effort is usually identified in terms of policies, programs, and other actions to be implemented over a certain time. It can also be measured in terms of level of financial commitment made to a given program. The level of success attained by a traffic reduction program may be gauged in terms of measured changes in modal choice.
At URI, the level of success regarding program implementation would be reflected in changes in SOV utilization, carpooling, and bus ridership. However, lacking significant levels of effort, the likelihood of success is not good.

How to Proceed
Reductions in the use of SOV's benefit all the residents of and visitors to the area in which the reductions are being attained. It is a goal worth pursuing. The steps which are necessary to successful program implementation include the following: Identify the agencies and population sectors effected or involved; Establish a clear understanding/agreement among the parties involved regarding the policy issues to be addressed (ie: traffic congestion, on-campus parking, air quality, fuel consumption, etc.); Define and/or quantify the problem; Delineate alternative strategies; Evaluate the costs and benefits, and positives and negatives of each of the strategies; and Analyze the proposed program and obtain commitment from parties involved.
Once the program is instituted, its effectiveness should be monitored; and all parties should be prepared to modify the program, as needed.
Clearly, the present provision of bus service to the University does not fully constitute a traffic reduction program, though it should be a part of a traffic reduction program in the future. What is needed now is a committed, concerted, and highly coordinated effort toward reducing the use of the SOV as the vehicle of choice at URI, and the cooperation of everyone involved.

69
Appendix A

CAMPUS TRANSIT EVALUATION
Dear Member of the URI Community: I am conducting a project to develop transportation policy for URI and to evaluate RIPT A service to the University. The results will be shared with URI, RIPTA and the State. Please take a few moments to complete this survey regarding your commute. The completed survey can be returned to me by campus mail, or dropped in one of the 3 collection boxes at the Student Union: (I) at the entrance to the Ram 's Den; 2) near the travel agency on the ground floor; and (3)  Before 7-8 8-9 9-1 0 10-12 After 7 AM AM AM AM Noon Noon Need to leave URI? 12-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-9 After PM PM PM PM PM 9 PM 6. How much do you spend on gas/maintenance for your car per month? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7. Ifthe cost of driving to campus alone was to become prohibitive, and all of the following options were made available and convenient to you, what would be your preferred way of commuting to campus? Please rank. (     Appendix C