DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND

MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR UNICROSS STAFF

BY

UGBE, AUGUSTINE ADAUMBE

18/CEN/224

A PROJECT REPORT SUMMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE
OF BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (B. ENG) IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF CROSS RIVER, CALABAR

SUPERVISOR: ENGR. DR. ANDERSON. A. ETIKA

OCTOBER, 2024
 CERTIFICATION

Ugbe, Augustine Adaumbe, undergraduate student in the Department of Civil

Engineering with Registration Numbers 18/CEN/224, has satisfactorily completed the

requirements for the research titled: Development of Transportation demand plan for

UNICROSS staff, for the degree of Bachelor of Engineering (B.Eng.) in Civil

Engineering.

The work embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted or presented in

full or in parts for any other diploma, degree or public presentation of this or any other

university.

................................................
Ugbe, Augustine Adaumbe
(Student)

................................................ ................................................
Engr. Dr. Anderson .A Etika Engr. Dr. Nkpa M. Ogarekpe
(SUPERVISOR) (HEAD OF DEPARTMENT)

ii
 DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR UNICROSS STAFF

BY

UGBE, AUGUSTINE ADAUMBE

18/CEN/224

A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF
ENGINEERING (B. ENG) IN CIVIL ENGINEERING, CROSS RIVER
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, CALABAR

OCTOBER, 2024

Ugbe, Augustine Adaumbe Signature________ Date_________

(Student)

Engr. Dr. Anderson A. Etika Signature________ Date_________

(Supervisor)

Engr. Dr. Ofem P. Enang Signature ________ Date_________

(Project coordinator)

Engr. Dr. Nkpa Ogarekpe Signature ________ Date_________

(Head of department)

Engr. Prof Elvis Micheal Mbadike Signature _________ Date________

(External Examiner)

iii
 DEDICATION

This research work is dedicated to Jehovah Jareh for his grace and mercies, my parents

and siblings for their unwavering love, supports and words of encouragement.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To the creator of the whole universe, the giver of life and my provider who has made

everything possible in due time and has endowed in me the wit to carry out this

research work to the very end.

I am obligated to my project supervisor and mentor Engr. Dr. Anderson A. Etika, the

head of department in person of Engr. Dr. Nkpa M. Ogarekpe, my parents and sponsors,

Mr. and Mrs. Ugbe Mathias Asang, colleagues and friends who have contributed

immensely, the faculty of engineering and the department of civil engineering for the

tutelage and nurturing until completion of this research work, more so, for inculcating

in us the required knowledge and the ingenuity for problem solving skills.

v
 ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the design and implementation of a comprehensive

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan tailored specifically for the
University of Cross River state (UNICROSS) staff. The plan aims to reduce the costs of
transportation, and promote sustainable transportation options. Through a combination
of surveys, data analysis, and stakeholder engagement, the study identifies commuting
patterns, preferences, and challenges faced by UNICROSS staff. Based on these
findings, the TDM plan proposes a range of strategies including incentives for
improved public transit access, flexible work schedules, and enhanced bicycle and
transportation facilities for the staff. The study evaluates the potential impacts of these
strategies on staff commuting behavior, environmental sustainability, and difficulties
been faced particularly when coming to work. Ultimately, this research provides a
roadmap for the development and implementation of an effective TDM plan tailored to
the specific needs and preferences of university staff, aiming to foster a more
sustainable and efficient transportation culture within the university community.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page - - - - - - - - - i

Certification - - - - - - - - - ii

Dedication - - - - - - - - - iii

Approval page- - - - - - - - - iv

Acknowledgment - - - - - - - v

Abstract .- - - - - - - - - vi

Table of contents - - - - - - - - vii

List of tables - - - - - - - - - ix

List of figures - - - - - - - - - x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study - - - - - - 1

1.2 Research Problem - - - - - - - - 2

1.3 Significance of Study - - - - - - - 3

1.4 Aims and Objectives of the study - - - - - 3

1.5 Research scope - - - - - - - 3

1.6 Research Limitations - - - - - - - 4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction - - - - - - - - 5

2.2 TDM strategies - - - - - - - 7

2.3 Effectiveness of TDM - - - - - - - 14

2.4 Opportunities and barriers of TDM - - - - - 18

2.5 Framework of TDM - - - - - - - 19

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction - - -- - - - - - 22

vii
3.2 The study Area - - - - - - - 23

3.3 Sample/Data collection - - - - - - 24

3.4 Sampling . - - - - - - - 25

3.5 Data Analysis - - - - - - - - 26

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction - - - - - - - - 27

4.2 Demographics and socio-economic characteristics - - - 27

4.3 Currents transport Habits - - - - - - 31

4.4 Transport preferences and needs - - - - - - 39

5.0 Alternative transport option - - - - - - 43

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions - - - - - - - - 48

5.2 Recommendations - - - - - - - 49

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

viii
 LISTS OF TABLES

Table 1: TDM strategies and their level of effectiveness - 16

Table 4.1 Respondents demographics - - - - 28

Table 4.2 Transport Habits Characteristics - - - - 32

Table 4. 3 Option - - - - - - - 35

Table 4.4 Difficulties - - - - - - 38

Table 4.5 TDM Initiative - - - - - 44

Table 4.6 Alternative Mode - - - - - 44

Table 4.7 Sustainable transport Options - - - - 46

ix
 LISTS OF FIGURES

Figure1. Framework of TDM - - - - - - 20

Figure 4.1 Works day on Campus - - - - - 29

Figure 4.2 Commute route Area of respondent - - - - 30

Figure 4.3 Various mode of trip distribution - - - - 34

Figure 4.4 Commuting Time - - - - - - 36

Figure 4.5 Frequency of difficulties - - - - - 38

Figure 4.6 Satisfaction levels of current transport - - - 39

Figure 4.7 Frequency of public transportation usage - - - 43

Figure 4.8 Transport incentives - - - - - - 44

1
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has emerged as a critical approach to

address the challenges associated with urban mobility, traffic congestion, and

environmental sustainability. It encompasses a set of strategies aimed at optimizing the

use of transportation infrastructure, reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips, and

promoting alternative modes of transportation. As urban centers and institutions grapple

with the complexities of transportation, the need for effective TDM strategies has

become increasingly apparent. The university of cross river state, formerly known as

Cross River University of technology, (CRUTECH).It was established in 2002 by the

then Governor Donald Duke by merging three higher institutions: The polytechnic of

calabar, the College of Education, and the Ibrahim Babangida college of Agriculture.

The calabar campus, considered as the main campus of the institution, which is located

in Calabar South Local Government Area of Cross River State in Southern Nigeria,

presently there are over 21,000 students and over 1000 staffs teaching and non-teaching

who travel to campus nearly every day. UNICROSSS has experience a recent surge of

on-campus growth which impacts personal mobility to campus. Mobility has become a

greater challenge. The number of student and staffs need to travel greater distances

before getting to the campus.

This paper sets the stage for understanding the significance of TDM in addressing

transportation challenges and hints at the potential benefits of such strategies for

development a transportation demand management plan for UNICROSS staff as a case

study.

2
1.2 Research problem

The recent deplorable economy situation in the country due to subsidy removal that

lead to the exorbitant price in premium motor spirit (PMS). However, the research work

entails the possibly ways to reduce variability and increase flexibility amongst

UNICROSS staff.The work looks critically on the challenges associated with

implementing transportation demand management (TDM) strategies in term of

Behavioral Change; Encouraging individuals to shift from single-occupancy vehicles to

alternative modes of transportation, commute trip reduction, providing transit passes to

workers (UNICROSS STAFF), outreach to employers to increase the use of telework

and compressed work weeks, often which requires significant behavioral change, and

can be difficult to achieve. Funding and Resources; Implementing TDM measures may

require financial resources and ongoing support, which can be challenging to secure,

particularly in budget-constrained environments. Infrastructure; Adequate infrastructure

for alternative transportation modes, such as public transit, cycling lanes, and

pedestrian walkways, may be lacking or in need of improvement, posing a challenge to

TDM implementation. Stakeholder Engagement; TDM initiatives often involve

multiple stakeholders, including employers, local governments, and transportation

agencies. Engaging and coordinating these stakeholders can be complex, data and

Evaluation, Accurately measuring the effectiveness of TDM strategies and their impact

on transportation behavior requires robust data collection and analysis, which can be

resource-intensive.

Addressing these challenges requires comprehensive planning, collaborative efforts,

and a commitment to promoting sustainable transportation alternatives.

iii
1.3 Significance of the Research

The research work will help to explore ways on which variability can be reduced and

then manage the unavoidable variability by building-in flexibility. Gaining flexibility

brings about effectiveness for UNICROSS staff to carry out their daily routines, saves

time and unnecessary delays not just to students but as well the general public. More

so,for the system to be built in a flexible way, it is expensive, this research entails ways

on how it could be attain.

1.4 Aim and objectives of the study

Aim

To develop a transport demand management plan for UNICROSS staff

Objectives

 The objective of the study is to obtain information required to develop a

transport demand management plan for UNICROSS STAFF.

 To conduct asurvey to support the study in terms of identifying transport

demand patterns of permanent, temporary and floating population as well as

vehicle origin and destination for UNICROSS STAFF.

 Outreach to employers to increase the use of telework and compressed work

weeks.

 Introduction of carpooling and ride-sharing services for staffs who share a

similar commute.

1.5 Research scope

University of Cross River State also known as UNICROSS is a state-owned tertiary

institution with four campuses spread across four local Government Areas of the state.

The university was formerly known as the Cross River University of Technology

(CRUTECH). The change of the tertiary institution’s name was to enable the varsity

iv
function as a conventional university, which provides the opportunity to offer more

professional courses rather focusing on tech-related courses.For this research the

calabar campus is chosen and it is the main area of concentration. This research focuses

on how transport demand management can be developed for UNICROSS staff thereby

providing more flexible routines to work schedules and militating invariability.

During data collection, staffs will be interviewed as well as questionnaires will be

issued out. Hence, the study will rely on the information obtained from staffs as input

to draw study findings.

1.6 Research limitations

Limitation encountered will be stated afterwards as the study progresses in the cause of

combing of relevance data for the study.

v
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Transportation demand management (TDM) is the act of transforming travel behavior,

usually to avoid more costly expansion of the transportation system. TDM is not

panacea, but it can help ease some transportation problems. TDM requires the

cooperation of many sector, who may include developers; landowners; employers;

business associations; and municipal, county, regional,and state levels of government.

TDM organizational forms, including transportation management associations, trip

reduction ordinances, and negotiated appear to work best. TDM evaluation appear to

work best. TDM evaluation is difficult, because reductions in trip generation rates, i.e.,

relative changes in travel demand, are not easy to measure. Evidence suggests that

TDM can be applied in a wide variety of situations, with equally variable, and

sometimes quite good, overall results(Ferguson, Erik. 1990.). TDM strategies that often

have proven to be effective include on-site employee transportation coordination,

parking management provisions, and alternative work schedules.

Transportation (or Travel) Demand Management (TDM) is primarily aimed at

decreasing the percentage of commuters who travel by vehicle and commuters who use

public transits (Winters, 2000). Alternatives to public driving include biking, walking,

public transit, carpooling, vanpooling, and telecommuting.

Improving infrastructure for commuting by bike and on foot is considered a non-

motorized strategy while promoting other tools for transportation are regarded as

motorized strategies (Litman, 2010). Regardless of the level of its effectiveness, it is

shown that all these strategies can reduce demand for driving alone and miles travelled

to work.

vi
Research shows TDM has a positive impact on both the entity that conducts TDM and

the entire community, including the local transit agency and citizens (Zali, Abizadeh,

&Bagherinia, 2013).

Cambridge Systematics, 1999; APTA, 2010; Smart Growth America, 2013) by creating

jobs, increasing local government tax revenues, increasing business income, and

reducing road costs. Fiscal sustainability effects include reducing personal costs for the

automobile and its incidental expenses (Litman, 2013; Weisbrod& Reno, 2009; APTA,

2007).

 Second, TDM decreases fuel usage as it reduces driving, and in turn, improves air

quality. The environment improves due to reduced energy consumption and carbon

emissions (Davis & Hale, 2007; Shapiro, Hassett, & Arnold, 2002).

 Third, TDM reduces traffic congestion by decreasing the number of automobiles

and miles traveled, leading to time and cost savings (Litman, 2013; APTA, 2007;

Anderson, 2013).

 Fourth, TDM has beneficial impacts on health. Positive healthcare effects include

improved physical and mental health, and safety. Given the appropriate infrastructure

for walking and biking, non-motorized commuting is safer and healthier than driving

(Litman, 2010; Litman, 2012).

 Sixth, TDM directly reduces demand for, and thus the cost of, providing parking

(Stanford, 2013; Litman, 2013; Walker Parking Consultants, 2011).

In summary, the literature shows that the economic benefits of active transportation

include:

 Reduction in road construction, repair and maintenance costs

 Reduction in costs due to greenhouse gas emissions

vii
 Reduction in health care costs due to increased physical activity and reduced

respiratory and cardiac disease

 Reduction in fuel, repair and maintenance costs to user

 Reduction of costs due to increased road safety

 Reduction in external costs due to traffic congestion

 Reduction in parking subsidies

 Reduction of costs due to reduced air and water pollution

 Increased productivity and a reduction of sick days and injuries at the workplace

(Campbell &Wittgens, 2004).

2.2. TDM Strategies

University TDM strategies include, but are not limited to the following: parking

management; transit incentives; enabling and promoting bicycle and walking;

encouraging car sharing and ride sharing; expanding campus housing; and

telecommuting (Toor&Havlick, 2004).

Through these strategies, TDM programs are designed to maximize the benefits of

reducing invariability arriving on campus.

Each strategy has its own goal: parking management tries to directly reduce parking

demand on campus; transit incentives aim to encourage the use of public transportation;

enabling and promoting walking, biking, and car pool/sharing aim to encourage each

mode for commuting respectively. However, the impact of each strategy on reducing

invariabilty on campus is not mutually exclusive. Each strategy has an interdependent

relationship. Increases in transit use are also associated with decreases in parking

demand and strategies for walking, biking, and carpooling/sharing supplement transit

use (Toor & Havlick, 2004). As Siegel (2000) notes, since people can’t always

viii
commute by the same mode every day, options need to be flexible, varied, and offered

on a continual basis

2.2.1 Moderate Public transit fare

Public transit fare management is a key element in university TDM plans, Increasing

demand for transportation puts pressure on universities staffswho commute from far

distance to campus, and enforcement to foresee and manage the prices to fare to

commuters.

The growing dilemma of incessant prices without consideration on campus requires

universities to make difficult decisions to enforce and place groups of person to enforce

considerate rate of public transit fare. Studies suggest easy or low-cost public means

like shuttle services, staffs bus to convey staffs to work availability encourages more

use, and fare prices in public transit fare bring about flexibility to work schedules and

hither invariability.

Public transit fare management mainly tries to decrease the fare, and thus, saving costs

to universities. Universities may adopt one of two approaches to campus policies to

moderate fare in transportation.

One is the political approach that relies on rules and regulations of the prices policies. It

regulates time, location, and eligibility for the universities community to afore. This,

arguably, is the approach that has primarily been used at other universities. The other is

an economic approach, which depends on market mechanisms, based on price

adjustment. It focuses on the economic assumption that flexible prices can balance

demand. In particular, Shoup (2008) emphasizes the role of performance-priced parking

prices. Performance- priced control measures to charging higher prices for the more

convenient and desired in a more moderate rate. Different means have their prices

enroute to campus allow parking users to calculate their cost of parking and make better

ix
decisions, based on their own preferences (Walker, 2011). This strategy is relatively

low in cost to implement; however, controlling demand for transit through price-based

to monitor to discourage hike in price of public transit available because members of

the university who can afford to pay high.

Price control is more affectedby this strategy. This is why it is also important to provide

other low-cost and efficient options for people to commute to campusStrategy. This is

why it is also important to provide other low-cost and efficient options for people to

commute to campus.

2.2.2 Transit Incentives

Many universities offer incentives such as free or subsidized public transit access to

students, faculty, and staff. The aim of transit incentives is to reduce the demand for

parking, but also increase students’ affordable access to school, housing, and

employment, and has the side effect of improving air quality. Free or subsidized transit

also helps universities attract students by reducing the cost of attending college while

also increasing transportation equity (Brown, Hess, &Shoup, 2001). It’s also valuable

for employee recruitment. Universities that provide Unlimited Access (UA) programs

have experienced large increases in bus ridership and decreases in solo driving (Meyer

&Beimborn, 1998; Williams &Petrait, 1993). For example, Brown, Hess, and Shoup

(2003) show that when University of California at Los Angeles implemented BruinGo,

the use of transit increased by 56 percent during BruinGo’s first year and drive-alone

rates fell by 20 percent. Combining UA with performance-priced parking could create

even larger reductions in driving alone and miles travelled (Shoup, 2008).

In addition, reduced fares, improved service, mental maps, and residential relocation,

could increase transit ridership in terms of travelling together, and in turn, reduce

automobile ownership (Brown et al., 2001). Reduced fares can increase students’

x
willingness to buy UA permits and thus, use transit services more frequently. Reduced

or free fares in some universities are provided through subsidies from parking revenues

and mandatory student fees. Mandatory purchasing in particular allows transit agencies

to offer discounted fares to universities because it avoids the problem of adverse

selection.

The University of Colorado employs the mandatory policy to reduce fares of UA, and

it is evaluated positively (Brown et al., 2001). People who conceive that public transit

service works for them, use the service more.

Residential relocation by students seeking easier transit access could also increase

transit ridership.

Research shows that providing real-time information at transit stops and stations has

the potential to increase ridership (Trans Link, 2010, p. 6). The quality of transit

facilities at stations, such as signage, travel information, and amenities, can also attract

new riders (Trans Link, 2010, p. 6). The most important determinant of user

satisfaction with a transit stop or station is frequent, reliable service in an environment

of personal safety, and only indirectly, the physical characteristics of that stop or station

(Taylor, Iseki, Miller, & Smart, 2009, p. v). A generally accepted threshold level of

service for transit-oriented developments is frequencies of 15 minutes or better during

most of the day (Trans Link, 2010, p. 8). Higher densities generally support greater

levels of transit service. One thing to note is that UA may decrease the demand for

ridesharing or car sharing (Brown et al., 2001). Although UA could have a negative

impact on other alternatives, the diversity of alternatives and its benefits should not be

underestimated.

xi
xii
2.2.3 Bicycling and Walking Increased walking and biking can reduce parking

demand and lead to cost savings for universities, as well as improve financial

sustainability for individuals, health, safety, campus 12 aesthetic appeal, and students’

engagement on campus (Brown et al., 2003; Litman, 2012; Litman, 2013).

Infrastructure for non-motorized transportation can also improve a campus’ aesthetic

appeal. Increased spaces for people encourage more face-to-face meeting of people on

campuses. As urban design affect citizens’ behavior, this could motivate students’

engagement on campus (Zali, Abizadeh, &Bagherinia, 2013).

To promote walking and biking, it is necessary to provide access and infrastructure.

Pucher, Dill, and Handy (2010) found that various strategies can improve the level of

bicycling, including the availability of a bicycle in the household (the single strongest

predictor of bicycling for transportation), bike lanes, secure and sheltered bike parking,

shower facilities, and programs such as bike-to-work days. They conclude as well that

overall “a comprehensive approach produces a much greater impact on bicycling than

individual measures that are not coordinated” (p. S122, emphasis added). Issues

important for walking include personal safety, whether the streetscape is attractive and

interesting with diverse views, and the presence of destinations (Pikora et al., 2002). It

is also not sufficient to construct bicycling or pedestrian infrastructure only on

university campuses. To provide sustainable modes of non-motorized transportation,

municipalities also need to improve infrastructure. Given the variance in urban

infrastructures, the costs for and benefits of promoting walking and biking on campuses

cannot be easily generalized.

xiii
xiv
2.2.4 Carpooling and Ride Sharing

Car sharing refers to sharing “vehicles owned by a separate organization and shared

among a number of different users, who may use them at different times” (Millard-Ball

et al., 2005, p. 2-1). Ride sharing, also called carpooling, occurs when “privately owned

vehicles are shared for a particular trip” (Millard-Ball et al., 2005, p. 2-1). Fewer trips

by single occupants decreases parking demand and negative environmental impacts

(Millard-Ball et al, 2005).

Factors for successful car sharing and ride sharing include having positive community

attitudes toward car/ride sharing, active partners, and previous experiences. First,

Millard-Ball et al. (2005) suggest “persons with high regards for environmental values

are likely to be attracted to car-sharing, as are persons who have a strong focus on

travel costs” (p. 4-35). Community attitudes toward environmental values are positively

xv
associated with successful implementation of car sharing. One barrier of car sharing is

“a lack of understanding about how and where it works, and skepticism over the extent

to which it can help partner organizations reach their goals” (p. 7-20). In this case,

communications could be effective for influencing attitudes. Second, support from

partner organizations, engaged in car sharing helps promote its long-term success

(Millard-Ball et al., 2005).

Partner organizations are composed of any entity that helps with car sharing, including

local governments and business sectors. The level of support by partner organizations

can be critical to the success or failure of car sharing and ride sharing. For instance,

students who do not live on campus need to share ride information with other residents.

Collaboration between universities and cities could promote the use of sharing. Third,

the previous experience of members in car sharing is positively linked to current

participation (Zhou, 2013). Although the influence of previous experience weakens

over time, it is important for participants to have a positive car sharing/ride sharing

experience.

2.3 Effectiveness of TDM

Cost-benefit analysis can be utilized to measure the effectiveness of TDM strategies.

Quantifying the costs and benefits of each strategy is critical to conducting a cost-

benefit analysis. However, it is difficult to exactly measure strategies in

quantitative and monetary terms. Also, it is difficult to generalize because

measuring costs and benefits depend on different environments. One cost-effective

xvi
 scenario is a combination of transportation alternatives, drawing on TDM

strategies. Toor and Havlick (2004) suggest possible TDM strategies that could be

applied to campuses and the tools for implementing the strategy with its

effectiveness (seeTable1). Each tool is not limited to only one strategy, and also, its

effectiveness is not limited to only one level. Depending on the type of strategy, the

effectiveness of the tools can change. Also, a change of environment can change

the effectiveness and costs to implement.

Thus, this table can be employed as a kind of general checklist for establishing

effective TDM.

xvii
Table 1.TDM Strategies and Their Level of Effectiveness

Strategies Tools Effectivenes Cost of

s at reducing implement
vehicles,
vehicles mile
driven or
vehicle trips
 Transportation High Low/High
allowance Medium Low/High

 Parking cash-out Medium Neutral

Medium Neutral

Transit-Oriented  Tax incentives Medium Neutral

 Discounted transit Medium Neutral

passes High High

High High
 Pre-tax benefit for High High
faculty/staff

 Student transit pass

 Parking permit rate

increase

 Unlimited access

 Employee transit pass

 Bicycle accessories Marginal Low

(e.g., free helmets)
Bicycle-oriented Marginal Low
 Commuter club
Marginal Low
Medium Low/High
 Transportation
allowances High Neutral

 Parking cash-out

 Parking permit rate

increase

xviii
  Discounts at retailers Medium Low/High
Medium Low/High
Walking-Oriented  Commuter club
Medium Low/High
 Transportation Medium Low/High
allowance Medium Low/High

 Parking cash-out

 Tax incentives

 Preferential parking Low Low

rates Low
Low/Medium
 Empty seat subsidy Low/Medium Low
Ridesharing- for carpools Low/Medium Low
Oriented
 Pre-tax payments Low/Medium Low
High Low/High
 First time rate High Low/high
incentive
Low/Medium Medium
 Prize and promotional High Neutral
events
Medium Medium
 Transportation
allowances

 Bus and car loan

program

 Carpool subsidy

 Parking permit rate

increase

 Commuter

xix
2.4 Opportunities and Barriers of TDM

There are some factors in terms of opportunities or barriers that facilitate the

success or failure of TDM implementation. Opportunities include funding resources,

leadership, partnership, and political acceptability (Gärling & Schuitema, 2007;

Jaffe, 2013; Litman, 2013; Taylor, 2007; Zali et al., 2013). Barriers are the flip sides

of opportunities.

In other words, fewer opportunities can be barriers to implement TDM

strategies. First, funding resources are critical to TDM strategies in universities.

Funding can be collected from student fees, parking revenues, grants, or other

resources. Second, facilitative leadership matters to better implementation of TDM

strategies.

Leadership is also associated with local partnership. Local partnership among

colleges, towns, and transit agencies makes a better quality transportation system.

Finally, the adoption and implementation of certain strategies depends on political

acceptability. Political acceptability is affected by political culture and public

attitudes (Gärling & Schuitema, 2007).

From these perspectives, it is expected that coercive tools for implementing

TDM strategies, such as prohibiting car use, are difficult to implement because of

public opposition and political infeasibility. Tools that are non-coercive and

encourage voluntary participation are more acceptable (Taylor, 2007, p. 183).

Coercive combined with non-coercive measures are likely to become most

effective (Gärling & Schuitema, 2007). The higher the effectiveness of TDM

strategies, the larger the population that will use the services. This means that the

effective and acceptable TDM strategies affect the behavior of citizens, and in turn,

increase the opportunities of implementing those strategies (Zali et al., 2013).

xx
2.5 Framework for TDM

A framework for TDM strategies that can be applied to a campus are

categorized into four parts: parking management, transit service, enabling and

promoting walking and biking, and car sharing and ride sharing. Each strategy has the

same goal of reducing cars on campus

There are a number of tools for implementing strategies, such as financial incentives,

price adjustments, and communication campaigns.

Although there is no rule of thumb in selecting strategies and tools, it is

important to consider factors that make TDM in universities successful or not.

Funding resources, political acceptability, collaborative partnerships, and leadership

promoting the success of TDM all are important factors. Finally, well-designed

combinations of TDM strategies reinforce opportunities for improving TDM.

xxi
Figure 1: Frame work of TDM

Strategies Costs Benefits

 Parking Management  Infrastructure costs  College’s cost savings of

 TransitService  Transaction costs constructing parking surface

 Walking and Biking  Operating costs  Airquality

 Carand Ride Sharing  Monitoring costs  Safety

 Evaluation costs  Health

 Incentives or Subsidy  Aesthetic appeal

 Students’engagement

 Attract more students

 Economic development

 Individuals’ cost savings of

buying and maintaining autos

Building on the literature review above, our focus in this research is to examine the

costs, benefits, and challenges of enabling and supporting sustainable modes of

transportation—public transit, biking, walking, carpool/ride share—compared to

parking for single-occupancy vehicles at UNICROSS. Previous research has focused

primarily on the direct fiscal cost savings from building parking on campus (Brown

et al., 2003). Brown, Hess, and Shoup (2003) only measure the return on investment

of unlimited passes to students.

Although the findings show that costs of building automobile parking are more than

spending on unlimited passes, they do not measure the other costs for TDM

comprehensively. Other existing research has paid attention to only one side in terms

of costs or benefits (Litman, 2013; Bushell et al., 2013). We include this but also add

xxii
to it by estimating the indirect costs and savings from implementing TDM—related

to health, the environment, community and other indirect costs/benefits. This

comprehensive evaluation to TDM would make a contribution to deciding on

investments in TDM.

xxiii
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The basic tool used for gathering data in this research is a questionnaire. The

questionnaire is designed and administered to respondents-who are staff of the

University of Cross River state within and other residing afar the study area. They were

met at their offices and others around the school environs.

Figure 2.Shows a step-by-step process on how the data is collected.

Design a Questionnaire

Interview the staffs

Data Analysis

Make Inference

Conclusion

xxiv
A set of questions is developed based on the aim and objectives of this research.

Interview to the staffs, this entails introduction and reading out those questions to the

respondents, some respondents were given the questionnaire to fill and then later

collected and meticulously study the key points based the answers provided.

After reading-out the questions to the respondents to others all their responses are

noted. Afterwards those responses that correspond to the research scope are sorted out

and recorded. Inference was made, this is careful understanding and discussion of the

responses gotten from the respondents.

Conclusion, when results have been discussed the next step is to finally make

deduction out of the findings. This means at this stage the aims and objectives of the

research will have been achieved and recommendations could be made.

3.2 The Study Area

The research in this project deals with Development of a Transportation Demand plans

for UNICROSS staff. The university is located in Calabar south Local Government of

Cross River, with over 3000 staffs (both teaching and non-teaching staffs) and about

18500 students, measure route leading to the university are EkpoAbasi, Musagha, and

New airport etcetera. Flashpoints where survey in other to get recent and existing data

in other to development, plan and implement an effective TDM.

xxv
3.3 Sample/Data Collection

A traffic survey questionnaire will be design and administered to staff at various

Lecture halls, offices, school environs and theatres. There will be three sections to the

questionnaire. The first section contained socio-economic questions such as gender,

age, income and residential area. The second section was specifically designed for

staffs that lived off-campus.

The staffs were asked on how long it takes to get to their usual bus stop, waiting time

at bus stop, cost to campus, number of stops trips per day and choice of mode to

campus.

The third section was use to rate the transportation system and the riding comfort to

Campus.

In modeling the choice of mode used to campus, location, income, time to bus-stop,

waiting time at the bus stop, cost to school and numbers of trips per day were

considered as the independent variables. The alternatives for staffs travel mode used in

this study include taxi-cabs, mini-bus, private cabs and the university transit bus. These

xxvi
four modes were identified as the main commute modes to the campus. The analysis of

the results was aided by two software packages - Microsoft Excel, Software for Social

Scientist (SPSS) was used for in modeling the choice of mode used to campus,

location, income, time to bus stop, waiting time at the bus stop, cost to school and

numbers of trips per day were considered as the independent variables. The alternatives

for staffs travel mode used in this study include taxi-cabs, mini-bus, private cabs and

the university transit bus.

3.4 Sampling

Preservation strategies can be thought of as falling into two categories. The

methods in the first category address the goals of fixity and variability, and viability,

and include techniques such as copying data to new media of the same type(media,

refreshment), copying data to newer media (media migration), and maintaining

multiple, frequently verified copies of data. These activities are often referred to as

“bit-level” or “passive” preservation.

The methods in the second category attempt to address the goals renderability

and authenticity, and are unique to the preservation realm. Format migration and

emulation are often touted as the two main, even competing, digital preservation

strategies.

In fact, a number of different strategies are available to preservationists, and

multiple approaches are often used together to good effect (technology, emulation,

universal virtual machine, format migration, format normalization etcetera). When

strategies addressing renderability are employed, it is called “full” or “active”

preservation.

xxvii
3.5 Data Analysis

After issuing the questionnaire results were inserted into SPSS software where

the results were analyzed, proportions and percentages of the respondents were

generated. Output of the SPSSsoftware was transferred to Microsoft Excel where tables

and charts were generated for presentation.

xxviii
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents and discusses the results obtained from the study. It

comprises of findings on the respondents’ bio – data, university union, work days on

campus, areas, current transport habits, transport preferences and needs, alternative

transport options, for transport demand management.

In the course of the study a total of 100 questionnaires were administered and same

number was retrieved. The success of retrieving 100 percent of the administered

questionnaire is attributed to on spot response from the respondents.

4.2 Demographics and Socio-economics Characteristics

For the purposes of analysis, role within the university was on staff only, their

various unit was divided under union held in the university of cross river, which may

influence housing location, chosen mode of transportation etc. The basic information of

the respondents which includes the age, gender, union, working day and Areas are

shown in Table 4.1.

xxix
 Table 4.1: Respondents demographics

No of Percentage Attributes (%)

Respondents

Male 62 62.0

Sex

Female 38 38.0

18-25 2 2.0

Ages 26-35 10 10.0

(years) 36-45 38 38.0

45-55 41 41.0

55+ 9 9.0

ASUU 28 28.0

Union SSANU 41 41.4

NASU 20 20.2

NAAT 10 10.1

From the data above on Table 4.1, the respondents under each of the characteristics

shows that 62% of the respondents were Male, 2% of the age ranging from 18-25, 10%

under age 26-35, 38% from 36-45, the highest respondents with 41% aged within 45-55

and 9% under age 55+.

In a university they are various faculties and units to deliberate with, for this study, the

units/departments are summarized into unions for easier and better understanding of a

typical

xxx
Nigeria University. From the data obtained, 28.3% were under ASUU, 41.4% of

SSANU, 20.2% of NASU, and 10% of NAAT.

There may be specific policies, but generally, staff are expected to be on campus five

(5) days a week unless otherwise specified. Assessing the issue, the deplorable

economy, price of fuel and high cost of transportation fare was key aim to look at,

particularly to reduce workings days on campus based on respondent’s discretion.

typically work days on campus

70 64
60
Frequency

50

40

30
19
20
10
10 4
3
0
5 DAYS 4 DAYS 3 DAYS 2 DAYS 1 DAY
Work days

Figure 4.1. Work days on campus

The data gotten from respondents shows that 64% usually work on campus for five

days, 19% work for four days, 10% for three days, 3% for two days and lastly 4% for

just a day on campus.

Respondents information was as a results of the costs of fuel, they also added that the

exorbitant

prices and cost of conveying themselves on campus is been determined by how their

work schedules is, matters arising and crucial activities geared up and requires a very

urgent attention.

xxxi
Several areas in which respondents commute to and from to the university community,

however, to meet with the second objective of the study as well as identifying the

characteristics of each commute areas was thus summarized.

summary of commute routes

50.0
43.4
40.0
30.0
Frequency

20.0 20.2 17.2

10.0 12.1
6.1 AREA Valid Percent
0.0 1.0
TH S O IS IS IS
ILE UY AX AX AX
OU M B Y R
LS 8 PA TR BO AN
CA AK EN G A RI
M A M
A
R LIA E TT
PA

Areas in calabar metropolis

Figure 4.2. Commute route areas of respondents

From the data, respondents who normally uses the aforementioned areas, calabar south

has the Akpabuyo, 17.2% commute from parliamentary axis, 6.1% within Etta Agbor

axis and 1.0% from Marian axis respectively.

The highest respondent’s choice area is as result of nearness to the university

community, claims had it that, it is sited within the same suburban commute area, for

commuters residing in calabar south, their claims were that living close to this area is

economical and reduces cost, adequate time and flexible works schedules thereby

militating invariability.

The fuel subsidy removal have drastically affected commute location lately,

respondents further added that the cost has become so high to and from their various

destinations from the normal fare they usual pay for each trip.

xxxii
4.3 Currents Transport Habits

The key findings on transport habits highlight the need for a multimodal transportation

system that promotes walking, cycling, and public transportation, while reducing

reliance on driving and ride-hailing, and leveraging technology and policy interventions

to support sustainable transportation options.

The main modes of transportation used by respondents in a typical day are walking,

driving, taking public transportation, cycling, and ride-hailing.

 Walking benefits (exercise, no cost, and environmental benefits), drawbacks (time-

consuming, limited distance).

 Driving: benefits (convenience, flexibility) drawbacks (cost, traffic congestion,

environmental)

 Public transportation: benefits (affordable, reduces traffic congestion) draws

(limited routes, schedules).

 Cycling: benefits (exercise, environmental benefits, costs-effective), drawbacks

(safety concerns, limited distance).

Transport habits have a significant impact on the environment, with driving and ride-

hailing contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and traffic congestion,

while walking, cycling, and public transportation offer more sustainable alternatives.

The summary of this section is presented in Table 4.2

xxxiii
 Table 4.2. Transport Habits Characteristics
Mode No of RespondentsPercentage (%)
Private car 44 44.0%
Taxi 13 13.0%
Bus 33 33.0%
Motorcycle 1 1.0%
Tricycle 7 7.0%
Walking 2 2.0%

Option
Primary 83 83.0%
Secondary 14 14.0%
Travel time
Above 1hour 25 25.0%
45mins 38 38.0%
30mins 22 22.0%
20-5mins 14 14.0%
5mins 1 1.0%
Factor influencing choice
Cost 50 50.0%
Convenience 23 23.0%
Travel time 8 8.0%
Mode 9 9.0%
Safety 10 10.0%
Difficulty
Cost 29 33.3%
Accessibility 27 31.0%
Safety 4 4.6%
Travel time 6 6.9%
Convenience 13 14.9%
Others 8 9.2%

xxxiv
4.3.1 Modes of travel

Form the study, (44%) of the respondents opted for private cars, their factors

that contribute to people’s preference for private cars as a mode of transportation. Their

factors include convenience. Flexibility, and personal, private cars offer door-to-door

service, reducing the need to walk or wait for public transportation, and allow for more

control over travel time, comfortable seating, climate control, and amenities such as

music and storage space and travel time. Private cars allow adhering to a fixed

schedule, and enable making stops or changing routes as desired. The combination of

convenience, comfort, flexibility, and personal space makes private cars a preferred

option for many of the respondents.

However, (13%) of respondents opted for taxi, availability was their measure

claims and direct routes to their immediate area, more so, some said taxis offer door-to-

door service, eliminating the need for transfer or walking to station, taxis are often

readily available at any time of the day or night, providing flexibility for travelers and

lastly, taxis drop passengers directly to their destination without unnecessary stops,

saving time and effort.

Apparently, mini-buses has superseded the use of taxis lately, in Nigeria public

transit today, the use of mini-buses has been a better option, (33%) out of the

respondents claimed, their reason were buses are better mode of transportation due to

their ability to carry more number of passengers, reducing the number of vehicles on

the road and subsequently decreasing traffic congestion and air pollution, buses are

generally more affordable than personal costs and no need for individual vehicle

maintenance, making them a more cost-effective option for many people, access to

people who may not be able to afford or maintain personal vehicles, promoting social

equity and connecting communities. Improve means like the use of electric bike has

xxxv
made cycling easy and less expensive. Findings suggested that cycling (1.0%) could be

a better option particularly during this times of constant fluctuations of fuel price and

high of maintenance of vehicles etc. Tricycles options got (7.0%), this mode was an

alternative to other means to ease travel, most at times respondents uses this option to

complete their commute after one or two drops. The survey done indicates that (2%) of

the staffs trips are done by walking, some staff who reside nearby opt to walk to

campus because of the surge price in transit and high cost of maintaining vehicles,

segments of the university of cross river (unicross) staffs pack their vehicles and walk

around campus to meet up with their work schedules, tasks and activities of the

university community.

Increased walking and biking can reduce parking demand and lead to costs savings for

universities, as well as improve financial sustainability for individuals, health, safety,

campus aesthetic appeal, and staffs engagement on campus (brown et al..,

2003;Litman,2012; Litman, 2013). To promote walking and biking, it is necessary to

provide access to infrastructure. Putcher, Dill, and Handy (2010) found that various

strategies can improve the level of bicycling, including the availability of a bicycle in

the household (the single strongest predictor of the bicycling, for transportation).

Mode of transportation
40.0 44.0
20.0 33.0
percentage

0.0 13.0
7.0 2.0
XI 1.0
R S
CL
E LE NG
CA TA BU Y C I
TE CY IC A LK
IV
A O R TR W
PR OT
M
Modes

Percent

Figure 4.3 various mode of trip distribution

xxxvi
4.3.2 Options

We can see that majority of the respondents (83.0%) uses primary mode. Findings

entails that the main method or system used by respondents to travel from their

commute location. This is typically the most frequently used or relied upon form of

transport for daily trip to the university Community. (14%) under the secondary

category are additional or supplementary methods used to supports or complement the

primary mode. These are often used for shorter distances, specific purposes, or when

the primary mode is unavailable.

Table 4.3: options

Primary mode 83.0%

Secondary mode 14%

4.3.2 Travel time

From the Table above, respondents who commute trips time of above an hour is (25%),

45mins had (38 %), 30mins (22%), 5-20mins with (14%) and 5mins (1%) respectively.

Respondents claims were that the cost of travel is influenced by several factors, some

expressed that the experienced difficulties and to others they opposite was the case,

considering their difficulties, monetary value of the mode of transportation, such as the

price of fuel and expensive charges in transport fare, ease and comfort of travelling

from one place to another includes, factors such as the unavailability of transportation

options, frequency of departures, actual time spent in transit, as well as additional time

spent waiting for departures, checking in on buses, loading, traffic road conditions,

weather and the absence of amenities.

xxxvii
 The convenience of travel can be influenced by other factors, such as traffic

congestion, road closures and inclement weather can all impact travel time. Mode of

transportation, driver behavior, and deplorable roads conditions. Respondents gave

instances, travelling by car can be more convenience for short distances, safer than

walking or cycling. However, factors like driver fatigue, speeding can all impact travel

time.

Frequency
5-20 MIN
14%

ABOVE 1
HOUR
25%
30 MIN
22%

45 MIN
38%

Figure 4.4 commuting time

4.3.3 Factors Affecting Modes of Transportation

The main categories of factors that affect modes of transportation are economic,

environmental, social, technological and political.

 Economic factors include: cost of fuel, cost of infrastructure, and cost of vehicle

maintenance, cost of labour, and economic growth. These factors influence the

choice of transportation mode, with cheaper options often being preferred.

 Environmental factors include: climate change, air pollution, noise pollution,

and natural disasters. These factors influence the choice of transportation mode,

with more environmentally friendly options.

xxxviii
  Social factors include: population growth, urbanization, lifestyle, and cultural

preferences. These factors influence the choice of transportation mode, with

options that cater to social needs often.

 Political factors include: government policies, regulations and investments in

transportation infrastructure. These factors influence the choice of

transportation mode, with options that align with government policies.

From findings (50%) of the respondents obviously frowns at fuel price evolution in

Nigeria from 1993 to 2024- fuel subsidies and its effect on transportation. For decades,

Nigerians have observed the fluctuating journey of fuel prices, spanning from a humble

6 kobo in 1993 to a staggering 617 naira per liter in 2023. This historical narrative

unveils the intricate dance of economic policies, global market forces, and political

decisions, delving into the profound impact these fluctuations have had on the nation’s

transportation which includes public transportation. Fuel subsidy has played a recurring

role in Nigeria’s economic story, acting as both a support system and a source of

controversy. Originally designed to shield citizens from the direct impact of global oil

market changes, the subsidy has evolved into a complex mechanism influencing every

other sector in the country. (23%) of the respondents are affected by the influencing

choice of transport mode based on factors like ease of access, availability, and user-

friendliness, leading to a preference for options that offer the least hassle and most

comfort.

Travel time impacts transportation by affecting the efficiency and attractiveness of

different of different transport modes with shorter travel times generally being more

desirable, this factor varies, it may be more faster, slower or even shorter. (9.0%) mode

of transport is been affected by determining the capacity, speed, cost, and

environmental impact, accessibility with different modes offering varying levels of

xxxix
efficiency, comfort and convenience. Safety considerations affect transportation mode

and route, with safer option being preferred to minimize the risk of accidents and

ensure the well-being of passenger (10.0%) opted for this.

4.3.3 Difficulty Faced and Frequency

Table 4.4 Difficulties

Percentage

(%)

Yes 71%

No 28%

Respondents face difficulties getting to work due to lack of transportation options, the

rate each difficulties is analyzed below

DIFFICULTIES
40
30 35
20
20 17 17
10
Percentage

0 9
l y a r th th )
ar
e ye on on en
R a m m oft
es a a or
e
i m ce ce m
lT t on on k(
ra ou an ee
ve th w
S e Ab e a
or ce
M On

Figure 4.5 Frequency of difficulties

Lack or absence of transportation options can lead to social, economic, and

environmental difficulties, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations of the

study area and limiting their access to essential services. Outlining this difficulties,

(35%) of respondents faced

xl
Difficulties severally in a year, (20%) about once a month, (17%) has two corresponded

value of more than once a month and once a week accessing transports facilities.

Delays as a results of waiting for transit means, thereby reducing the ability to attend

work or training program on time. Findings shows that unicross staff faced difficulties

(9%) of them opted for rarely, it is on this note that strategies be put in place to militate

this difficulties.

4.4 Transport Preferences and Needs

Public transport users have diverse mobility needs and preferences on how to meet

those needs. While this is consistent with typical standards for the university

community, less is known about the structure of these preferences, how different they

are, especially with regard to innovation in public transport. Previous research works

have been successful in bringing together and developing a comprehensive set of state-

of-the-art innovations that could potentially valuable for transport for public transport.

4.4.1 Satisfaction in Current Transportation Option

An initial respondent profile would suggest that majority of the respondents were

dissatisfied (31.0%) with the current transportation option, very dissatisfied (19.0%),

satisfied (16.0%), neutral (24.0%), very satisfied (2.0%) respectively.

35
30
25
20
15 31
24
10 19
16
5
2 4
0
l d l d l ld l d rs
e fie tra fie fie he
sfi s u s s ot
ati ati Ne ati ati
S S ss is
ry Di yD
Ve e r
V

Figure 4.6 satisfaction levels of current transport

xli
To meet the first objective of this study, namely transport demand management (TDM),

innovations among staffs based on their preferences and needs. Findings prioritized

significant differences in user preferences along their current option. Understanding the

differences of what users like and the level of satisfaction that the population

preferences among users is of paramount importance in demystifying which option

would be more effective, exceed the average satisfaction such that it can fly and for

which segments of the university community.

4.4.2 Amenities or Improvement That Enhance Transportation Experience

 Infrastructure: Emerging economics needs good transport infrastructure in

order to meet growing demands of public transportation. Good transportation

greatly enhances growth and contributes for even stronger economic

performance .Ekpudjureni (2012) asserts that ease of doing business or trip for

work purpose, leisure etc.

Is an important indicator in attracting investments and quality of transport infrastructure

plays a pivotal role in determining ease of commuting.

However as per a report on “reforming road transport infrastructure in Nigeria

“published in 2012, Nigeria is ranked very low in quality of its transport infrastructure.

The Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) is an autonomous body which takes

up all works pertaining to roads planning, construction and maintenance of Nigeria

roads. Other infrastructure include, walking; amenities that and enhance or improve

walking include, pedestrianized zones, sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian bridges, and

street lighting. Cycling; bikes lanes, bike-share systems, bike parking facilities, and

cycling paths Driving; improve driving include parking facilities, traffic management

systems, highway etc.

xlii
Public transportation include city-ride, bus shelter, public transportation hubs, and real-

time transport information systems. Findings suggests that (39.0%) shows that there

have not been any historical infrastructure to meet current needs. As the campus has

evolved from place of service to a place of destination and a home to thousands for

staffs. For the current frequency of transit loads on the system. Now is the time to bring

the university transportation system standard, and provide a more sustainable, safe

destination that supports learning and continued growth. Comprehensive list of this

infrastructure amenities can help enhance and improve transportation options.

 Policies: Implementing policies that increase the frequency and reliability of

public transit services, expanding routes to underserved areas, ensuring

accessibility, reduction in the price of fuel and transport fare, for the data

obtained (31.0%) made claims to these experiences, additionally, introducing

stricter safety regulations, increasing the presence of security personnel,

advanced surveillance and monitoring systems, can improve or enhance a better

transport experience.

 Incentives: Many universities offer incentives such as free or subsidized public

transit access to students, faculty, and staff. The aim of transit incentives is to

bring affordable access to school, housing, and has the side effect of improving

quality. Free or subsidized transit also helps universities attract students by

reducing the cost of attending college while also increasing transportation

equity (Brown, Hess, and Shoup, 2001).it’s also valuable for employee

recruitment. Universities that have provide unlimited Access programs have

experienced large increases in bus ridership.

Research shows that (2.0%) of respondents claims the aforementioned and provision of

transport incentives programs would help to transform their transportation experience.

xliii
xliv
4.4.3 Carpooling or Ride Sharing

Car sharing refers to sharing “vehicles owned by a separate organization and shared

among a number of different users, who may use them at different times”(Millard-ball

et al., 2005, p. 2-1). (Ride sharing, also called carpooling, occurs when “privately

owned vehicles are sharedFor a particular trip” (Millard-ball et al., 2005, p. 2-1).

Factors for successful car sharing and ride sharing include having positive community

attitudes toward car/ridesharing, active partners and previous experiences. First,

Millard-ball et al. (2005) suggest “persons with high regards for environmental values

are likely to be attracted to car-sharing, as are persons who have a strong focus on

travel costs”(p.4-35). From findings (57.0%) opted for this option, and suggested that

they would participate in a carpool or ride-share program if it were available,

information with respondents included creating a designated carpooling spots and more

ridesharing option would be a better practices to enhance their transport experience.

4.4.4 Public Transportation Option

Study shows that the university has no public transportation option. Furthermore, their

claims were that the bus services available was just to convey staff during ceremonies

and events they would attend. Respondents expressed their levels of interest of public

transportation option and wish for adequate policies and amenities for improvement

and establishment. Considering the overall likelihood, (39.0%) of every day and

(25.0%) opted for several times a year which corresponds to more adequate usage on

daily basic.

xlv
 45.0

40.0 39.0

35.0

30.0
25.0
25.0

20.0
17.0
15.0
11.0
10.0

5.0 4.0
1.0
0.0
Rarely Several About once More than Once a Everyday
Times a a month once a week (more
year month often)

Percent

Figure 4.7 Frequency of public transportation usage

5.0 Alternative Transport Options

The primary goals are to optimize resource utilization, improve staffs satisfaction, and

Enhance operational efficiency. Common strategies include enrollment management,

course scheduling optimization, facility usage planning, and financial aid allocation.

5.1.1 University of Cross River Transport Demand Management Initiatives

Obliviously from the data analyzed (91.0%) of the respondents indicates that the

university (unicross) have never had a TDM initiatives. The number of yeses supersede

the staggering infinitesimal (2.0%). However, the key aim of this research work is to

develop a TDM plan for the university staff.

xlvi
 Percent

Yes 91.0

No 5.0

Nil 4.0

Total 100.0
Table 4.5 TDM Initiative

5.1.2 Alternative transportation modes

The primary modes of alternative transportation include walking, cycling, carpooling,

using public transportation.

The data obtained shown below

Percent

Yes 49.0

No 43.0

Nil 8.0

total 100.0

Table 4.6 alternative mode

Table 4.6. shows the alternative transport options, these responses include the

following; like walking is great because it’s improves one’s health, and helps reduce

traffic and pollution, cycling is another option, its zero-emission mode of

transportation that provides numerous health benefits, including, improved

xlvii
cardiovascular and very cost effective mode of transportation. Carpooling reduces the

number of vehicles on the road, which in turn reduces

traffic congestion, maintenance can be split among the passengers. Using public

transportation reduces the number of vehicles on the road.

It also provides a cost-effective mode of transportation, as cost of fuel and vehicle

maintenance is spread among the passengers.

5.1.2 Incentives to encourage use of alternative transportation

60.0 57.0

50.0
40.0
30.0
19.0
20.0 13.0
10.0 3.0 3.0
1.0 1.0
0.0
A L AL ED ED ED ED ED
CI CI S S S S S
AN A N BA BA BA BA BA
N IN CE
- L- ILL
- -
FI F A M A ON
N- AN TE GO SK ITI
NO RM G N
R FO CO
PE RE

INCENTIVES Percent

Figure 4.8 transport incentives

Findings showed in table 4.7 that (57.0%) had the highest under the option of financial

incentives like car loans programs, increment in wages and salaries, public transport

passes etc., (13.0%) opted for non-financial scheme like flexible work hours to

accommodate public transportation schedules, offering telecommuniting options, or

creating a supportive culture that values sustainable commuting practices. (19%)

recognizes and suggested for rewarding employees who consistently use alternative

transportation methods, such as offering bonuses, gifts private cars or additional time

off for those who meet certain commuting goals.

xlviii
(3.0%) under team-based, suggestions like setting up competitions and challenges

where teams earn rewards based on the collective reduction of their carbon footprint

through alternative transportation.

Goals based had (1.0%) specific targets to reach out for and rewarding individuals or

teams who achieve these goals with prizes or recognition where claims for this option.

(1.0%) attested to the fact that workshops or training sessions have always be organized

but this wasn’t adequate. (3.0%) responses for recognition based, comments were

highlighted on option like acknowledging individuals or team who make significant

efforts to use alternative transportation. Respondents further added that empowering

individuals to use alternative transportation confidently would be more terrified.

5.1.3 Sustainable Transportation Options

Table 4.7 Sustainable transport options

Percent

Yes 31.0

No 60.0

Nil 9.0

Total 100.0

From the data in table 4.8 the number of NO is the more concern of the majority (60%)

is likely to relate to the perceived disadvantage or challenges of switching to more

sustainable transportation options. (31.0%) of people are in favor of switching to more

sustainable transportation options. (9.0%) are undecided or did not respond to the

question about switching to more sustainable option.

xlix
Potential reasons from majority were concerns about cost, deductions of salaries to

meet up their transport needs, infrastructure, or lack of information about the benefits

of sustainable transportation. Moreover, responses why a small portion of respondent

Include environmental concerns, long-term cost savings, health benefits, with personal

values regarding sustainability.

l
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATONS

5.1 Conclusions

From the research carried out and findings deduced, the following conclusions are

made:

Based on the review of the literature

 Many universities are adopting TDM and the benefits of enabling and

promoting multimodal transportation appear to outweigh the costs.

 Related specifically to transit: free and reduced-cost bus passes lead to greater

transit use. Transit-oriented design/development and encouraging people to live

in transit-accessible corridors can help to increase use.

 Related to carpooling, factor for successful car sharing and ride sharing include

having positive community attitudes towards car/ride sharing, active partners,

and previous positives experiences.

 Issues important for walking include personal safety, whether the streetscape

was attractive and interesting with diverse views, and the presence of

destinations to walk to.

Based on data from the study findings:

 Most staff are not oriented on transportation habits, preferences, needs and

options.

 Addressing design issues that encourage sustainable transportation option is

needed on and off campus

 Adequate policies should be put in place particularly by authorities can make

difference in implementing TDM.

li
  The staggering cost of fuel price should be reduced, the subsidy removal has

drastically affected mobility

 Traffic congestion, overcrowding and fluctuating tariff

 Delays in payment of salaries and wages

 Limited public transportation options and inadequate infrastructure for non-

motorized transport

 Difficulties in accessing transport facilities and lack of infrastructure in certain

areas

5.2 Recommendations

From the research carried out and findings deduced, the following conclusions are

made:

Based on the review of the literature

 Many universities are adopting TDM and the benefits of enabling and

promoting multimodal transportation appear to outweigh the costs.

 Related specifically to transit: free and reduced-cost bus passes lead to greater

transit use. Transit-oriented design/development and encouraging people to live

in transit-accessible corridors can help to increase use.

 Related to carpooling, factor for successful car sharing and ride sharing include

having positive community attitudes towards car/ride sharing, active partners,

and previous positives experiences.

Establish consistent, continuous educational outreach that supports safe use of the

transportation system and invokes an increasing change in culture that recognizes

everyone’s individual responsibility to create a safe system for all.

 Telecommuting and work for home should be introduced.

 Government intervention in investing in bigger buses to ease congestion.

lii
  Public-private partnership to funds infrastructure development, public education

campaigns to promote behavioral change, and investments in alternative

transportation.

 Adequate staff’s quarter should be made available to ease mobility.

FURTHER RESEARCH

Based on the findings above further research could be launched:

(i) Transportation Demand Management For Unicross Of Cross River State

(ii) Sustainability, cost and benefit of constructing walking and cycling infrastructure in

a typically Nigeria university.

liii
 REFERENCES

Abiola, O. S AndAyodeji, J. d (2012). Travel demand model for a typical Nigeria

university.Dept. of civil engineering, university of agriculture, Abeokuta,
Nigeria.

APTA. (2003). The benefits of public transportation: The route to better personal
health.
AmericanPublicTransportationAssociation.Retrievedfromhttp://www.apta.com/
resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/better_health.pdf

APTA. (2007). Public transportation: Benefits for the 21st century. American Public
TransportationAssociation.Retrievefrom
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/
twenty_first_century.pdf

APTA. (2010). Public Transportation takes us there. American Public Transportation

Association.
Balsas, C. J. L. (2003). Sustainable transportation planning on college campuses.
Transport Policy, 10, 35–49.

Brown, J., Hess, D. B., &Shoup, D. (2003). Fare-free public transit at universities: An
evaluation. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, 69-82.

Bushell, M. A., Poole, B. W., Zegeer, C. V., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2013, October).
Costs for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure improvements: A resource for
researchers, engineers, planners, and the general public. UNC Highway Safety
Research Center. Retrieved from:
Cambridge Systematics. (1999). Public transportation and the nation's economy:
Economic
developmentresearchgroup.Retrievedfromhttp://www.apta.com/resources/
reportsandpublications/Documents/vary.pdf

Cambridge Systematics. (2002). The benefits of public transportation: An overview.

Reichman FrankleInc.Retrievedfrom
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/ben_overvie
w.pdf
Campbell, R., & Wittgens, M. (2004). The business case for active transportation: The
economic benefits of walking and cycling. Prepared for Better Environmentally
Sound Transportation.
Davis, T., & Hale, M. (2007). Public transportation's contribution to U.S. greenhouse
gas reduction:Fromsciencetosolutions.Retrievedfrom
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/climate_cha
nge.pdf

Grant, F. L. (2008). The journey to campus: Commute mode choice for University of
Nebraska at Omaha students. Master’s Thesis. University of Nebraska at
Omaha.
Jaffe, E. (Producer). (2013). Why people choose cars, even when mass transit would
serve them better. Retrieved from

liv
 http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/02/why-people-chose-cars-
even-when-metro-would-be-faster/4566/.

Katzev, R. (2003). Car sharing: A new approach to urban transport problems. Analyses
of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1): 87-109.
Litman, T. (2010, March). Quantifying the benefits of nonmotorized transportation for
achieving mobility management objectives. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Retrieved from:
http://mail.artshenkman.com/cs/groups/content/@webottawa/documents/pdf/
mdaw/mdy3/~edisp/con056214.pdf.

Litman, T. (2012). Evaluating public transportation health benefits. Victoria Transport

Policy Institute Retrieved from http://www.vtpi.org/tran_health.pdf

Litman, T. (2013). Evaluating public transit benefits and costs: Best practices
guidebook (pp. 1-130). Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf.
Litman, T. (2014). Evaluating active transport benefits and costs: Guide to valuing
walking and cycling improvements and encouraging programs. Victoria
Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf.

Meyer, J., & Beimborn, E. A. (1998). Usage, impacts, and benefits of innovative transit
pass program. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 1618(1), 131-138.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook. Sage.

Millard-Ball, A., Murray, G., Schure, J. T., Fox, C., & Burkhardt, J. (2005). Car-
sharing: Where and how it succeeds. TCRP Report 108. Transit Cooperative
Research Program. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Pikora, T., Giles-Cortia, B., Bulla, F., Jamrozika, K., & Donovan, R. (2003).
Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of
walking and cycling. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1693–1703.

Ferguson, Erik. 1990. Transportation Demand Management: Planning, development

and implementation.
Journal of the American Planning Association: 442-456.

Schmitt, A. (2013b, April 17). Transport U: Stanford turns green

commuting into greenbacks. Streetsblog USA. Retrieved from:
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/04/17/transport-u- stanford-turns-green-
commuting-into-greenbacks/.

Shapiro, R. J., Hassett, K. A., & Arnold, F. S. (2002). Conserving energy

and preserving the environment: The role of public transit. American
Public Transportation Association. Retrieved from
http://www.gobrt.org/aptaenergyreport.pdf.

lv
 Shoup, D. (2008). The politics and economics of parking on campus. In S.
Ison & T. Rye (Eds.), The implementation and effectiveness of transport
demand measures: An international perspective (pp. 121-149). Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Siegel, J. B. (2000, December). An evaluation of the carpool program at the University

of Florida.
Masters Thesis, University of Florida.

Smart Growth America. (2013). Building better budgets: A national

examination of the fiscal benefits of smart growth development. Smart
Growth America. Retrieved from
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/building-better-
budgets.pdf.

Sobush, H. (n.d). Designing a preferential carpool parking program to

effectively reduce parking demand and traffic congestion on University
campuses. Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South
Florida. Retrieved from
Verdis. (2014). UNO sustainability master plan report.
Toor, W., & Havlick, S. (2004). Transportation and sustainable campus communities:
Issues, examples, solutions. Island Press.

Trans Link. (2010). Transit-oriented communities: A literature review on the

relationship between the built environment and transit ridership. Trans Link.
Retrieved from
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/plans_and_projects/transit_oriented
_communities/transit_oriented_communities_literature_review.ashx.

Walker Parking Consultants. (2011). Parking management plan Omaha

Downtown Improvement District. Omaha, Nebraska. Retrieved from:
Winters, P. L. (2000). Transportation demand management. Transportation in the New
Millennium. Retrieved from:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/millennium/00123.pdf. Walker Parking
Consultants. (2011). Parking management plan Omaha Downtown
Improvement District. Omaha,Nebraska.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.mapacog.org/images/stories/SSH_Publications/Final_Parking_Man
agement_Plan_MAPA010712_Final.pdf.

Weinberger, R. et. al. (2008, October). Guaranteed parking – Guaranteed driving.

Retrieved from: http://transalt.org/files/news/reports/guaranteed_parking.pdf.
Weisbrod, G., & Reno, A. (2009). Economic impact of public transportation
investment. American Public Transportation Association. Retrieved from
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/economic_i
mpact_of_public_transportation_investment.pdf

Williams, M. E., & Petrait, K. L. (1993). U-pass: A model transportation management

program that works. Transportation Research Record (1404).

lvi
Winters, P. L. (2000). Transportation demand management. Transportation in the New
Millennium. Retrieved from:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/millennium/00123.pdf.
Zali, N., Abizadeh, S., & Bagherinia, A. (2013). New urbanism and urban design:
Tools for changing behavioral patterns of the citizens. International Journal of
Natural & Engineering Sciences, 7(1), 31-36.
Zhou, J. (2013). Study of employee carsharing on the university campus. Journal of
Urban Planning and Development, 139(4), 301-310.
Ekpudjureni,B.2012transportation
planningnigeria.[online]available:http://www.academia.ed
u/3540937/transportation_planning_nigeria

lvii
 APPENDIX

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Cross Rivers State

Transport Demand Management for UNICROSS Staff Questionnaire

Introduction

We are conducting a study titled "Transport Demand Management for UNICROSS

Staff" aimed at understanding and improving the transportation options available to

our staff members. This study is part of a broader initiative to promote sustainable and

efficient transportation within our university community.

The primary goal of this questionnaire is to gather insights into the current travel

patterns, preferences, and challenges faced by UNICROSS staff. Your participation is

crucial as it will help us identify key areas where we can implement effective transport

demand management strategies. These strategies are designed to reduce traffic

congestion, lower environmental impact, and enhance the overall commuting

experience for all staff members.

Demographics

1. Sex- Male □ Female □

2. 18-25 □ 26-35 □ 36-45 □ 45-55□ 55+□

3. Which university union are you a member of ASUU □ SSANU □ NASU □ NAAT □

4. What is your primary department or unit within the university? ___________

5. How many days per week do you typically work on campus? 5 days □ 4 days □

3 days □ 2 days □ 1 day □

6. Which area of Calabar metropolis do you live? Calabar South □ 8 Miles □

Akpabuyo □ Parliamentary Axis (Ikot Ansa, Akai Effa, MCC) □ Etta Agbor Axis

(Akim, IBB, Atimbo, Etc) Marian Axis (Big quo, Ediba) □

lviii
PART B: CURRENT TRANSPORT HABITS

7. What is your mode of transportation to and from the university? Please tick

Modes Primary Secondary

Private car

Taxi

Bus

Motorcycle

Tricycle

Walk

others

I don’t access to

transportation

8. Approximately how long is your commute one way? Above 1hour □ 45mins □

30mins □ 20-5mins □

9. What factors influence your choice of transportation? Cost □ Convenience □ Travel

time Mode□ Safety□

10. Have you experienced any difficulties with your current mode of transportation?

Yes □ No □ If yes, please state the difficulty ---------------------------------------------------

11. How frequently do you face difficulties getting to work due to a lack of

transportation options? Please Tick

Rarely □

lix
Several times a year □

About once a month □

More than once a month □

Once a week or more often □

PART C: TRANSPORT PREFERENCES AND NEEDS

How satisfied are you with your current transportation options? ✓Tick

Very satisfied □

Satisfied □

Neutral □

Dsatisfied □

Very dissatisfied □

12. What amenities or improvements could enhance your transportation experience?

______________________________________________________________________

Would you be willing to participate in a carpool or rideshare program if it were

available? Yes □ No □

If the university were to provide public transportation options, how likely would you

be to use them?

Please tick

Rarely □

Several times a year □

About once a month □

More than once a month □

Once a week or more often □

Every day □

lx
PART D: ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORT OPTIONS

14. Are you aware of any current university transport demand management initiatives?

Yes □ No □

15. How interested would you be in using alternative transportation modes such as

cycling, walking, or telecommuting? Yes □ No □ if yes, what mode would it be?

______________________________________________________________________

What incentives could the university provide to encourage you to use alternative

transportation?

✓Please tick

Financial incentives (cash incentives) □

Non-financial incentives □

Performance-Based incentives □

Team-based incentives □

Goal-Based incentives □

Skill-Based incentives □

Recognition-Based incentives □

17. Do you have any concerns about switching to more sustainable transportation

options?

Yes □ No □ if yes, please state the other options

______________________________________________________________________

PART E: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

18. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions that could help us

understand your transportation needs better.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lxi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for participating in this survey. Your feedback is crucial in helping us

improve transportation services for the university community.

lxii
Meaning of some phrase used above;

Ride-sharing: The practice of arranging for travel in a private vehicle driven by its

owner, free or a fee, especially by means of a website or app.

Carpooling: The activity of a group of people travelling together in car, especially to

work or school: carpooling saves on travel expenses.

Telecommuting: The practice of working from home, making use of the internet,

email, and the telephone.

THANK YOU!

lxiii