Click for next page ( 10


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 9
9 grams in major Texas cities as well as in Denver, Seattle, and switching drive-alone commuters to public transportation. other locations with pilot projects. Employee savings and parking impacts were key benefits. A multiagency report presents information on commuter SPECIFIC PROGRAMS pass programs offered by King County Metro in Seattle (12). A good summary of the U-pass program with the Univer- Several studies and articles have reported on the details of sity of Washington may be found in Dewey and Rutherford specific employer pass programs. Lambert and Beaudoin (2000) (13). The case study on King County Metro provides (2006) discuss several innovative programs implemented by updated information on both programs (see chapter five). TransLink, the regional transportation authority in Vancou- ver, British Columbia, Canada (8). The report analyzes uni- Denver's Regional Transportation District's Eco Pass versal pass, community pass, and employer pass programs program is one of the best-known examples of an employer and concludes that all of these passes can increase transit pass program that covers all employees of a participating ridership and build community partnerships. Senft (2005) employer. TCRP Report 31, Volume 2 includes a section with focuses specifically on the universal pass program imple- a detailed description of the Eco Pass program (14). The mented at the University of British Columbia (9). Denver Eco Pass program is one of three universal employer pass programs reviewed by Nuworsoo (2005) (15); the oth- White et al. (2002) report on a "go! pass" program in ers are the city of Berkeley (California) Eco Pass program Ann Arbor, Michigan, that provides a transit pass to every and the University of California Berkeley Student Class Pass employee of participating businesses (10 ). An interesting program. aspect of this program is the involvement of the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) along with the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor SUMMARY Transit Authority (AATA). The program was successful in reducing the number of private vehicles entering downtown The literature review reveals several successful examples of and in increasing transit usage. The authors note two pro- employer-based fare programs. The purposes of these pro- gram design issues that may have affected program effec- grams are to increase transit ridership and build support for tiveness and acceptance. The city and the DDA opted to pay transit throughout the community. Public-sector employers for the employer's share of the cost during the first 2 years of participate in many programs, but these programs have not the program. Although this created the desired "big splash" been a particular focus of most assessments. Thus, the litera- with extensive involvement, employers had no stake in the ture review supports one of the major reasons for this syn- program and many were reluctant to continue after the first thesis: to understand how to design employer fare programs 2 years. As a result of the number of employers involved, that attract participation by public-sector employers. AATA issued a generic pass instead of the preferred picture ID card. This led to a perception of abuse that affected the Chapters three and four present the results of a survey agency's acceptance of the program. of transit agencies regarding employer-based fare programs for public employers. Survey results provide a snapshot of Gray and Strauss (2000) describe a 100% transit subsidy the state of the art as it exists today with regard to public program in the Longwood Medical and Academic area in employer participation in these programs. Boston (11). The "Three for Free" program was successful in