Click for next page ( 145

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 144
When asked to identify reasons for changing commute mode, no respondent cited attendance at a Transportation Day at the workplace as a primary reason for doing so. Rather, 10 percent said it was because their work schedule had changed, 12 percent attributed it to a change in residence, and another 12 percent linked it to buying or selling a car. Of those who specifically changed mode from driving alone, the top reasons were that a carpool/vanpool option opened (14 percent), driving alone was too expensive or hard on the vehicle (8 percent), the car became unavailable as an option due to mechanical condition or competing uses (5 percent), or the carpool/vanpool offered more con- venience (5 percent). Meanwhile, those who shifted mode to driving alone cited loss of a carpool/ vanpool member (11 percent); discovery that taking the bus was inconvenient/uncomfortable (9 per- cent); need for use of the car en route to, from, or while at work (5 percent); or that the company moved (2.4 percent), ridesharing was stressful (2.4 percent), or parking became available (1.6 percent). In a very generic sense, however, being exposed to the marketing and informational materials-- either at a Transportation Day or through receipt of the Commuter Information Package--influenced a somewhat higher percentage of commuters to change modes. Of the 292 survey respondents who saw the information, 100 (54 percent) changed modes, versus only 86 of 295 (46 percent) who did not see the information. Nevertheless, it appears that the only conclusion that can be reached from these findings is that some connection exists between exposure to the marketing materials and a shift in mode. Whether or not the persons who sought this information were also those who were actively looking for an alternative cannot be satisfactorily determined from the data. More . . . Somewhat complicating results for this evaluation is the fact that an economic recession took place in 199192, which had a major effect on rates of hiring and termination. The downturn in activity was felt to diminish the perception and concern about traffic. However, at the same time the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments brought new interest in employer trip reduc- tion programs, the New York metropolitan area having received a "severe" nonattainment rating with respect to ozone. It is unclear to what extent these two potentially counterbalancing events impacted the study results or interacted with each other. Source: SG Associates, Inc., and Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc., "Cross Westchester Expressway Corridor Transportation Systems Management Program." Final Report. Westchester County Department of Transportation (March, 1993) Spielberg, F., Bloch, A., Bogacz, G., and Johnson, V., Evidence of the Effectiveness of Employer Sponsored Transportation Days. Unpublished [1993]. University of Washington's U-PASS Program--Seattle, Washington Situation. The University of Washington's (UW) Seattle campus occupies 643 acres in the University District, about 3 miles north of downtown Seattle, across Lake Union and Portage Bay. As of 2005, student enrollment was about 39,000 and faculty and staff was about 22,000, compared to about 27,900 and 17,000 in 1991. The size of this operation, the demand it was placing on the local trans- portation system, the desire to grow, and the trends in demand for campus parking, led university officials to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) in 1983. The purpose was to expand travel options for students, faculty, and staff and thus shift them away from single-occupant vehi- cle travel. Specific goals included maintaining 1983 traffic volumes to and from campus during peak periods and limiting on-campus parking supply to 12,300 spaces, while ensuring that spillover into the surrounding neighborhoods would not result. Subsequently, in the course of developing of a 1989 General Physical Development Plan for the campus, university officials realized that growth plans would result in a significant increase in vehicle trips, along with a loss of about 1,700 surface 19-144

OCR for page 144
parking spaces. A task force formed to develop a new TMP to address this concern seized on the importance of combining transportation incentives (mostly in the from of cheap and available transit) with complementary disincentives (higher parking fees) in the new plan. Actions. The core strategy of the new TMP was the U-PASS, a universal pass providing cardhold- ers with a range of transportation options and incentives. U-PASS began as a 3-year pilot program in 1991, and based on its proven success, has continued to this day. In 2005 the U-PASS could be purchased at a price of $41 per quarter by students and $57 per quarter by faculty and staff. The pass provides holders unlimited rides on any of the regional or local transit services, reduced carpool and free vanpool parking, vanpool subsidies (up to $40 monthly), discounted "occasional" parking per- mits, ridematching services, local merchant discounts (including bicycle equipment and services), emergency ride home (for employees), subsidized use of FlexCar carsharing services, and access to Night Ride evening neighborhood shuttle service. UW uses more than 90 percent of its annual U-PASS budget ($13 million in 2005) for the purchase of service through contracts with local public transportation providers. The large number of riders and consistency of revenue has led transit providers to greatly increase the amount and quality of transit service to the campus. Managing parking is a key element of the TMP, and the pricing of parking is a major component of the U-PASS program. The introduction of U-PASS was accompanied by a 50 percent increase in the cost of parking. The University has maintained a policy of controlling the rise in U-PASS fees and keeping them significantly lower than the cost of parking. In 2005, the cost of a U-PASS for employees is about one-fourth the cost of a parking permit. The cost of quarterly parking per- mits has increased from $108 in 1991 to $233 in 2005 (116 percent), while gate-issued daily park- ing has increased from $4 to $10 (150 percent), and parking at the Montlake lot has gone up from $1.25 to $4 per day for cash payments (220 percent) and $2.62 for those who choose to debit the charge to their university Husky CardTM. Meanwhile, the cost of a student U-PASS has only increased by 105 percent, from $20 to $41 per quarter, and for employees by 111 percent, from $27 to $57 per quarter. Eligibility for U-PASS includes students registered in state-funded courses, or those taking degree- credit courses on the Seattle campus through UW Extension. Faculty and staff employed in per- manent positions and working at least half-time, temporary and hourly employees working at least 3 days per week, Visiting Scholars, and retirees employed on campus 40-percent-time or at least 3 days per week, are also eligible for U-PASS. During 2005, the average number of U-PASSes in use was 44,156, an increase of 21 percent from the time the program was introduced in 1991. Eighty-six percent of students and 54 percent of employees participated in the program in 2005. Analysis. Travel patterns of faculty, staff, and students are measured through a biennial survey, conducted in the fall of even-numbered years. The results are compiled into biennial U-PASS reports and related evaluations for use in university administration and by other interested parties. Results. Despite a 22 percent growth in the employee and student population, university-related peak hour traffic remains below 1990 levels, and more than three-quarters of the campus popula- tion travels to campus in a mode other than driving alone. Commute mode shifts, especially the shift from driving alone to public transit, are given primary credit for the traffic mitigation. As seen in Figure 19-2, prior to the U-PASS program (survey in 1989), 33 percent reached the campus by driving alone, 21 percent by public transit, 23 percent by walking, 10 percent by carpool/vanpool, 8 percent by bicycle, and 4 percent by other means. By 2004, the drive-alone rate had dropped to 23 percent, while public transit increased to 38 percent. Carpool/vanpool remained the same at 19-145

OCR for page 144
10 percent, while bicycle (6 percent), walk (22 percent), and "other" (1 percent) dropped slightly. Assuming that "other" is either driver-serve-passenger or taxi, a vehicle trip rate in 2004 of 29 per 100 may be computed and compared with a rate of 42 in 1989. This gives a VTR of 31 percent.21 Figure 19-2 Commuting mode choices at the University of Washington before and after U-PASS program implementation The effect of the parking pricing strategy, along with the other U-PASS elements, has meant a 41 percent reduction in the number of SOV parking permits since program inception. The number of parking spaces used has declined as faculty, staff, and students have shifted away from driving alone. Despite the university's major growth, the total number of parking spaces has held about the same at roughly 11,500, while the average utilization rate has gone from 87 percent in 1990 to 72 percent in 2005. More . . . Funding for U-PASS in 2005 totaled $12,955,500, of which 49 percent was derived from user fees, 41 percent from parking fees, 3 percent from parking fine revenue, and 7 percent from 21 This computation conservatively uses an arbitrary 2.0 average carpool/vanpool occupancy for both 2004 and 1989. A less conservative assumption of 2.5 average carpool/vanpool occupancy in both years would give 2004 and 1989 vehicle trip rates of 28 and 41, respectively, and a VTR of 32 percent. In either case, the reduction is roughly one-half the 62 percent trip rate differential calculated in TCRP Project B-4, based on comparison of University travel data to the surrounding area's work commute mode split as reflected in the 1990 CTPP. The 62 percent is what has been used, for consistency, in the various analyses involving the 82-program sample. However, the newer 31 or 32 percent VTR estimate, made with benefit of before-and- after survey data, is clearly the more applicable/reliable. 19-146