Click for next page ( 27


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 26
Although records of individual program actions implemented were not assembled, the sense is that they were dominantly focused on providing information, making employees aware of their options, and offering and publicizing a guaranteed ride home (Hillsman, 2009). An interesting supplemental analysis from the Maricopa County/CATS assessment looked at the potential cumulative benefit from multiple marketing and support measures. Many employers were found to have implemented multiple measures of this category. Table 19-3 shows the percent change in APO in relation to the total number of measures, and also the number of those measures that were "non-information" in nature (Teal, 1993). The tabulation suggests a very modest APO improvement when the number of measures increases from 6 to 8 (APO from 5.0 percent to 5.7 percent), and again from 8 to 10 measures (APO from 5.7 percent to 6.6 percent). However, since the number of measures that are non-information is also increasing to the same extent as total measures, one is left to wonder if the very modest effect is coming solely from non-information measures. The other side of this coin is the potential inference that the primary marketing and support program effect is that associated with the information measures. Perhaps the major point to be made is that simply adding more marketing and support measures to a core marketing/support program does not appreciably enhance its bottom-line effectiveness, though in many cases it will likely add to program costs. Table 19-3 Association between Multiple Marketing and Support TDM Measures and APO Changes Total Measures Non-Information Measures APO Change Number of Plans 5 or more 2 or more 5.0% 93 6 or more 3 or more 5.0% 88 8 or more 5 or more 5.7% 54 10 or more 7 or more 6.6% 16 Source: Teal (1993). Response to Employer Transportation Services It is relatively uncommon for employers or institutions in the United States to become involved in the physical transportation of their employees, and more likely that they will simply encourage them to use alternatives that are available in the marketplace. In some circumstances, however, no meaningful travel alternatives are available, such as at a remote business campus where transit does not directly serve the site. In such cases, some employers have taken the initiative to provide tangible transportation services for their employees. They may do this by: Arranging for bus service to the site under contract or other agreement with a public or private transit provider, or paying to augment the level or quality of a pre-existing service. Arranging for shuttle service to connect with a rail transit station beyond walking distance. Assisting in the startup, operation, maintenance, or cost sharing of a vanpool program. 19-26

OCR for page 26
Making company fleet vehicles available for use by employees for ridesharing or site-based uses, such as travel to business meetings, errand running, or emergency trips home. It may be argued that other types of strategies also serve as transportation services in which the employer is directly involved, such as assisting with rideshare matching, providing bike facilities and showers and/or preferential parking for carpools, or offering a guaranteed ride home. However, because these strategies generally entail less direct, physical involvement of the employer, they have been included among support actions in this chapter's typology, reflecting how they are generally regarded among TDM practitioners. Not all employers/institutions that provide transportation services are characterized by remote/ campus locations. Some become involved simply because transit service to their site or from partic- ular employee concentrations is too limited. Some become involved in vanpool programs, as a spe- cial example, even when they are located in an urbanized setting near transit, simply because they feel it best suits their company ethic or policies, or because they judge more employees can be served effectively through such a program. Employer Transportation Services Insights from the 82-Program Sample Table 19-4 examines the employers in the 82-program sample that had transportation services as part of their TDM program. As with the support actions assessment, the table is developed from information displayed in Appendix Table 19-A. It shows the average VTR associated with partic- ular groups of employers and the number of employer examples in each category. For convenience, the employer transportation efforts are divided into four groups: those who pro- vided transit assistance, those who provided vanpool assistance, those who provided both transit and vanpool assistance, and those who provided company vehicles for employee use. The last two columns summarize and compare the programs of all employers providing services with those who did not. Finally, trip reduction impacts are presented in relation to such elements as transit availability, restricted parking, parking fees, level of support program, modal subsidies, and the alternative work arrangements of telecommuting and CWW. This is done to gauge the importance of transportation services in relation to other program strategies or site conditions and of any syn- ergistic effects of combining these actions/conditions. One thing Table 19-4 indicates is that 34 of the employers in the 82-program sample, or 41 per- cent, offered one or more types of transportation service. Of these, four programs exclusively pro- vided transit service assistance, 11 exclusively offered vanpool assistance, 11 provided both, and 11 allowed use of company vehicles. Of this latter group of 11, eight provided for use of motor vehicles, two provided loaner bicycles, and one provided both. In addition, three of the 11 sites offering company vehicles did so in combination with other transportation services: two provided for company motor vehicle use in conjunction with vanpool assistance, and one provided both motor vehicles and bicycles in conjunction with transit assistance. In general, the programs where employers offered transportation services have better performance than those that did not. Looking at the summary row in Table 19-4 marked "All," it may be noted that the average VTR of the 34 employers who provided transportation services is 21.6 percent, in comparison to 13.6 percent for the 48 employers who did not provide services. Among the differ- ent types of transportation services provided, programs offering company vehicles for uses sup- portive of not driving to work alone rank highest, with an average VTR of 24.6 percent. These are followed by vanpool assistance at 21.3 percent, and transit and transitplus-vanpool at 18.9 per- cent and 18.8 percent, respectively. 19-27

OCR for page 26
Looking at the combination of these transportation service programs with other employer TDM elements or site conditions yields the following insights: Transit Availability. Not surprisingly, the largest number of instances where employers offered transportation services is where transit availability was low. Seventeen of the 34 employers provid- ing services fell in this category, and virtually all of them attempted to compensate for the absence of transit by providing vanpool assistance, either by itself (six employers, averaging 18.6 percent VTR), or in combination with transit (seven employers, averaging 16.1 percent VTR). The best-performing programs in this low transit availability category are the six that provided use of company vehicles, averaging 21.8 percent VTR. As a whole, the programs in this low transit availability category only account for an average VTR of 15.5 percent--below the average of 16.9 percent for the overall sam- ple of 82 sites, and only 4.4 percentage points better than the average of 11.1 percent for the 22 pro- grams in this category that offer no services. 19-28

OCR for page 26
Table 19-4 VTR Percentages Related to Employer Transportation Services Provided VTR by Type of Transportation Service (Sample Size) Transit & Company All with No Other Conditions Transit Vanpool Vanpool Vehicles Services Services All 18.9% 21.3% 18.8% 24.6% 21.6% 13.6% (4) (11) (11) (11)* (34) (48) Transit Availability High 35.3% 24.4% 27.2% 33.5% 28.8% 23.6% (2) (4) (3) (2) (11) (13) Medium 14.1% 25.6% 12.6% 15.0% 21.0% 8.0% (1) (1) (1) (3) (6) (13) Low <0 18.6% 16.1% 21.8% 15.5% 11.1% (1) (6) (7) (6)* (17) (22) Restricted Parking Yes 35.3% 28.4% 23.1% 20.7% 27.9% 20.3% (2) (6) (5) (5)* (17) (19) No 2.6% 12.8% 15.2% 17.2% 15.4% 9.3% (2) (5) (6) (6)* (17) (29) Parking Fees Yes 35.3% 34.1% 23.6% 36.6% 31.4% 18.2% (2) (5) (4) (5)* (15) (16) No 2.6% 10.7% 16.1% 14.6% 13.9% 11.3% (2) (6) (7) (6)* (19) (32) Level of Support High n/a 21.7% 25.6% 33.5% 26.5% 12.4% (0) (6) (5) (6)* (15) (17) Medium 15.8% 12.8% 12.9% 14.0% 15.5% 16.2% (3) (2) (5) (5)* (14) (19) Low 28.2% 26.3% 14.1% n/a 24.2% 11.2% (1) (3) (1) (0) (5) (12) Modal Subsidies Yes 28.2% 25.4% 25.4% 30.8% 26.7% 14.7% (3) (9) (7) (8)* (24) (40) No 0.0% 13.4% 7.3% 8.3% 9.4% 6.0% (1) (3) (4) (3)* (10) (8) Telecommuting Yes 28.2% 9.6% 14.5% 21.9% 18.3% 14.6% (1) (2) (3) (4)* (9) (8) No 15.8% 23.9% 20.4% 26.2% 22.9% 13.4% (3) (9) (8) (7)* (25) (40) Compressed Work Week Yes 20.5% 22.2% 15.4% 24.2% 23.0% 16.2% (3) (3) (2) (7)* (12) (16) No 14.1% 21.0% 19.5% 25.4% 23.2% 12.0% (1) (8) (9) (4)* (22) (32) Note: Asterisked samples (*) include cases combined with other transportation services. Sources: Derived from the Table 19-A sources (see Appendix A). 19-29

OCR for page 26
A surprisingly large number of employers (11) located in areas with high existing transit service availability are found to have engaged in providing transportation services. Examining the cases in this group, reasons seem to include: 1. The employer is very large, with a widely-scattered regional employment base, and either exist- ing transit service doesn't extend far enough or cannot spread wide enough to serve employees. 2. The employer has felt, despite the generally good transit service, that it needed more capacity or more route coverage than the public transit agency is able to provide. 3. The employer has felt a particular kinship with some service, such as vanpools, for reasons unique to the organization. Programs in this high transit availability category have an average VTR of 28.8 percent, which is quite high but still only 5.2 percentage points greater than those programs that had high transit availability but did not offer additional transportation services. Restricted Parking. Sites where parking supply was restricted have higher overall VTR rates, and programs that provided transportation services in conjunction with restricted parking also perform better than those that do not. Sites with restricted parking that provided transportation services aver- age a 27.9 percent VTR, which is 7.6 percentage points higher than comparable sites with restricted parking but no transportation services (20.3 percent VTR). Where parking was not restricted, pro- grams offering transportation services outperform those without services by a similar margin, 6.1 per- centage points, or 15.4 percent versus 9.3 percent. The overall effect of restricted parking as a condition corresponds with a greater difference in VTR than the difference related to transportation services. Having restricted parking averages about twice the impact of providing services. Nevertheless, there is clear evidence that providing services makes a significant difference. Parking Fees. The influence of parking pricing is similar to that of restricted parking, only more so. The difference in VTR at sites with parking fees between programs that provided transporta- tion services and those that did not is 31.4 percent versus 18.2 percent, or 13.2 percentage points. Meanwhile, for comparable programs where parking was not priced, those that provided trans- portation services average 13.9 percent VTR versus 11.3 percent for those without services, or only a 2.6 percentage point difference. Similarly, the difference between programs with transportation services that had parking fees versus those where parking was not priced is 17.5 percentage points, whereas programs that did not provide services have only a difference of 6.9 percentage points between situations were parking was priced versus not priced. Hence, not only do services make an important difference, the effect is accentuated when combined with parking fees. Employer Support. Examining the relationships between transportation services and employer support programs yields somewhat inconclusive findings. Programs with transportation services at both high and low levels of employer support appear to perform quite well, both overall and in relation to programs at the same support level but without transportation services. Programs with services and high support average 26.5 percent VTR, or 14.1 percentage points higher than those without services (12.4 percent). Similarly, programs with low support but offering services aver- age 24.2 percent VTR compared to 11.2 percent for those without services, a difference of 13 per- centage points. This suggests that transportation services are very important in this relationship, and that the level of employer support seems to be relatively unimportant to the outcome if ser- vices are offered. This conclusion must be tempered, however, by the small sample size of 5 obser- vations in the services/low support category and the curious result for programs with medium support. With medium support there is no major or logical difference between programs that offered 19-30

OCR for page 26
transportation services and those that did not, and both cases are below the average 16.9 percent VTR for the sample. One thing that can be said is that the data in this table provide weak justifica- tion at best for expanded levels of employer support. Modal Subsidies. The combining of modal subsidies with transportation services produces a set of outcomes that are similar to those with parking pricing. Transportation services programs which were paired with modal subsidies produce an average VTR of 26.7 percent, compared to only 9.4 per- cent for those without modal subsidies, a difference of 17.3 percentage points. This compares to a difference of only 8.7 percentage points between situations where modal subsidies were or were not provided within programs not including transportation services (14.7 percent versus 6.0 per- cent VTR). Also noteworthy is that programs that provided modal subsidies exhibit a much bigger difference in VTR performance with versus without transportation services--26.7 percent against 14.7 percent, or a 12.0 percentage point difference--than when no subsidies were offered, namely 9.4 percent with transportation services versus 6.0 percent without, or only a 3.4 percentage point difference. The synergy between transportation services and modal subsidies is both obvious and strong. Telecommuting. An inference that can be drawn from the VTR comparisons in Table 19-4 is that work hours strategies like telecommuting may conflict with the modal shift objectives of trans- portation services. Where telecommuting was offered along with transportation services, the result is a VTR which--when computed on the basis of mode shifts alone--is 4.6 percentage points lower than when telecommuting is not provided. It may be that when employees are released from the expectation of traveling to the worksite each day, it becomes harder to conform to the schedule dis- cipline of using an alternative mode, particularly ridesharing. Despite that possible effect, the presence of a telecommuting program may still reduce overall vehi- cle trip making through its elimination of physical commute trips in an amount equal to the aver- age number of days per week that the telecommuting individuals do not go to their employment site. TDM regulatory programs typically provide credit for these reductions in their trip generation formulas, which account for total trips by mode over a 5-day cycle. Unfortunately, data from the 82-program sample drawn upon here is insufficient to calculate a trip generation reduction for telecommuting, since neither the percentage of employees who telecommuted nor the number of days per week they did so is known.7 The only positive observation that can be made given data limitations is that even with the possi- bly adverse mode choice effects of telecommuting, programs that offered transportation services appear to perform better than those without services. It is also important to point out that overall evidence on the mode choice effects of telecommuting is mixed, as suggested by the examples pro- vided under "Response to Alternative Work Arrangements"--"Additional Research Evidence on Alternative Work Arrangements"--"Telecommuting." Compressed Work Weeks. A slightly less ambiguous result is produced in combination with CWW, another alternative work hours strategy, even though the same 82-program sample data limita- tions apply. Programs offering transportation services perform just about the same in terms of mode shifts with or without the presence of CWW (about 23 percent VTR computed on the basis of mode shifts alone). This would suggest that, in the presence of transportation services, the gain 7 For additional discussion of this limitation in the 82-program sample, and its implications, see the final para- graph of the "Analytical Considerations" subsection in the "Overview and Summary." 19-31

OCR for page 26
in trip reduction that comes from fewer work days is not cancelled out by mode shifts. As with telecommuting, CWW programs that offered transportation services have higher VTRs than those not providing services. It does not appear, however, that transportation services and CWW have a synergistic relationship. Additional Evidence of Transportation Services Effects Employer-Assisted Transit Service. Two types of employer intervention with transit service are observed. One is supplementing existing fixed-route bus service with additional service or routes, and the other is operation of shuttle services to either connect with regional rail transit service or to provide midday circulation. Table 19-5 lists a number of employers from the 82-program sample that achieved fairly substan- tial vehicle trip reductions in conjunction with providing one or more transportation services. Of course, there are many other aspects of these particular exemplary programs that may have led to their performance, such as parking conditions, financial incentives, and employer support, and these characteristics are also summarized in the table. This presentation is provided to offer some insight as to what elements may contribute to the success of these service-oriented programs. The "Type of Services" column of Table 19-5, as the heading suggests, indicates the type of trans- portation service offered by each particular employer or institution at the time the information was compiled. The first two examples, Puget Sound Blood Center and Swedish Hospital, are neighbor- ing medical establishments in Seattle's First Hill area. This area, which lies on the fringe of the CBD, has above-average transit service. However, these employers took steps to coordinate with each other and the transit operator, Metro, to bring more service to the area. Parking in the area is lim- ited, which affects access not only by employees but also by patients and visitors. The increased transit service was matched by employee transit subsidies and other financial incentives as part of the arrangement with Metro to ensure ridership. The results were vehicle trip rates of 42.4 percent and 28.2 percent, respectively, below the average for the surrounding area, indicating very effec- tive vehicle trip reductions. P. L. Porter and Pacific Bell had programs that focused mainly on vanpooling, but also provided transit or van shuttle service to distant rail transit stations. Even though they are in remote loca- tions with free parking, the combination of the transportation services with subsidies resulted in vehicle trip rates of 0.67 and 0.73, which are 23 percent and 21.5 percent lower, respectively, than their adjacent areas. 19-32

OCR for page 26
Table 19-5 Exemplary Employer Transportation Services Programs Transit Support Type of Financial Employer Type Size Setting Availability Level Services a Parking b Incentives c VTR d Puget Sound Blood Medical 200 CBD Fringe High Medium TR R, P, D T, O 42.4% Center Swedish Hospital Medical 2,250 CBD Fringe High Low TR R, P, D T, A 28.2% Univ. of Washington University 17,400 CBD Fringe High High TR, VP R, P, D T 62.0% e Sears (Hoffman Estates) Comm./Svc. 5,400 Exurban Low High TR, VP T 42.4% P.L. Porter Ind./Manuf. 230 Campus Low Medium TR, VP T, V 23.0% Pacific Bell (San Ramon) Utility 6,900 Exurban Low High TR, VP R 21.5% So. California Gas Utility 1,800 Exurban Low High VP, CV R, P, D T, A 47.4% Travelers Insurance Prof./Office 10,000 CBD High Low VP R, P, D T, V 42.4% Atlantic Richfield Prof./Office 2,000 CBD High High VP R, P, D V, A 34.5% 19-33 Bonneville Power Utility 100 CBD Fringe Medium Medium VP R, P, D T 25.6% Rockbestos Ind./Manuf. 400 Exurban Low Low VP 29.0% Johnson & Higgins Prof./Office 180 CBD High High CV R, P T 44.2% City of Simi Valley, CA Gov't. 150 Suburban Low High CV T, A, O 43.5% CH2M Hill (Bellevue) Prof./Office 400 Sub CBD Medium Medium CV R, P, D T, C, A 38.9% Bellevue City Hall Gov't. 650 Office Park Medium Medium CV R, P, D T, V, A 30.0% Wm. H. Mercer Prof./Office 120 CBD High High CV P, D T 22.7% Notes: a Codes: TR = Transit, VP = Vanpool, CV = Company Vehicles. b Codes: R = Restricted, P = Priced, D = HOV Discounts. c Codes: T= Transit Subsidy, V = Vanpool Subsidy, C = Carpool Subsidy, A = Travel Allowance, O = Other Monetary. d VTR = vehicle trip reduction, defined as the percentage by which the vehicle trip rate (vehicle round trips per 100 employees commuting) for the program is less than the vehicle trip rate for the control population. e See accompanying text and also case study "University of Washington's U-PASS Program -- Seattle, Washington" Footnote 21. Sources: Derived (see Appendix Table 19-A) from Comsis (1994), Comsis and ITE (1993), Rutherford et al. (1994), and Comsis et al. (1996).

OCR for page 26
Sears, upon relocation of its headquarters operations to Hoffman Estates in the outskirts of Chicago, arranged for contract transit service for its employees, many of whom realized long commutes. Subsidy was paid through the employees to the transit provider. In conjunction with its vanpool program, Sears achieved a vehicle trip rate of only 0.53, 42.4 percent lower than the average for the surrounding area. The Sears example is somewhat of a special case, given the relocation involved, though a similar situation applies to the Pacific Bell example as well. (Further background on the Sears Hoffman Estates program is found in the case study, "Pace Vanpool and Subscription Bus Programs in Suburban Chicago," in Chapter 5, "Vanpools and Buspools.") The University of Washington, involving students as well as faculty and staff, also presents a spe- cial case. Located on a campus that is somewhat removed from downtown Seattle, it made arrange- ments with transit operator Metro to provide up to 6,000 hours of additional service to the campus per year. To support this commitment of service, the University has carefully managed its parking supply and prices, and in addition has offered attractive subsidies to students and staff through Metro's U-PASS program. The result is a vehicle trip rate on the order of 0.27 to 0.29 per person for the campus. This rate has been calculated as being 62 percent lower than the surrounding area (Comsis, 1994), or 31 percent lower than the before-program University rate. The University of Washington program is covered further in the case study, "University of Washington's U-PASS Program--Seattle, Washington" (see "Case Studies" section including Footnote 21). Shuttles and Circulators. Although they are not purely employer-provided transit services, there are many examples where cooperative efforts have been made to institute shuttle services to either close a gap in existing service, formalize a connection with regional transit, or improve internal cir- culation and thus reduce auto dependency. Table 19-6 lists ten such services that were staged as demonstration projects under the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's regional TDM program. This group of examples is selected for presentation because of special evaluation data that were obtained for the projects, permitting assessment of the services' impact on diverting SOV trips and subsequent claimed vehicle trip reduction. The table also shows annual cost for the service and the resulting cost per VTR as a measure of effectiveness. (No information on the physical magnitude of the services is available.) Daily ridership on these services ranged from 11 to 239 riders and costs ranged from $5.15 to $75.60 per VTR. Perhaps what is most interesting about these services is the degree of prior SOV use for the commute, ranging from a low of 33 percent prior SOV mode share among users up to 75 percent or more. One-half of all the cases are in the over-75-percent category. Data are insufficient to ascertain how frequently the former SOV users actually used the shuttle, or the extent to which the feeder service or the internal circulation element is most critical to the modal shift (Comsis and Pansing, 1997). Employer-Assisted Vanpool Service. There are numerous ways that employers can get involved in providing a vanpool option for their employees. Perhaps the simplest is offering a subsidy, although the evidence from the 82-program sample is that, by itself, that approach is not particu- larly effective (as discussed in the "Response to Incentives and Disincentives" subsection below). What does seem to have more impact is when employers get materially involved in the facilitation and administration of a vanpool program, relieving employees of major logistical burdens. 19-34

OCR for page 26
Table 19-6 Effectiveness of Transit Shuttle Services Tested as Demonstration Projects in the Los Angeles Area Daily Prior Cost Shuttle SO V Annual Annual Annual per Service/Description Use Use a VTR b VMTR c Cost VTR All-Day Shuttles Children's Court Shuttle: Employee and 239 33% 16,760 835,380 $333,524 $19.90 visitor shuttle between rail station and court complex PVTA Metrolink Shuttle: Subscription 21 76% 3,840 23,040 $48,691 $12.68 service for commuters to Pomona/Claremont stations preferential parking Mid-Day Shuttles Santa Clarita Shuttles and Shelters: City- 11 77% 1,984 15,872 $56,822 $28.64 implemented mid-day circulator between industrial park and town center West Hollywood Sunset Shuttle: TMA- 70 51% 6,250 9,950 $275,625 $44.10 supported shuttle service along Sunset Blvd. Peak Period Shuttles Hollywood Connection: Feeder service for 90 76% 66 1,970 $84,542 $5.15 employees linking with bus and Metrolink Burbank Media District Shuttle: TMA- 165 78% 30,888 617,760 $193,050 $6.25 provided service between Burbank Media District and Metrolink 12th Council District Taxi Voucher: Free 73 55% 19,200 364,800 $138,040 $7.19 taxi feeder between Metro and employment sites Lincoln Corridor Shuttle: Commuter 40 66% 6,256 67,220 $259,249 $41.44 service between Pacific Palisades and El Segundo Burbank Flat Fare Taxi: Home-work taxi 34 78% 6,365 19,094 $88,155 $13.85 service for Media District employees Westside RUSH: 5 TMA-sponsored shuttles 84 46% 9,246 36,523 $698,998 $75.60 to fill gaps in existing service Notes: a Percentage of users reporting their prior commute mode as single occupant vehicle (SOV). b Vehicle Trips Reduced (round trips). c Vehicle Miles of Travel Reduced. Source: Comsis and Pansing (1997). 19-35

OCR for page 26
Effective vanpool involvement includes taking the lead in procuring vehicles, either through lease or purchase; underwriting a service arrangement with a vanpool provider; offering use of com- pany vans for use by vanpool units; providing or cost sharing in van maintenance, fueling, or insurance; and, perhaps most importantly, being a strong advocate for the program. The strong vanpool system performers in Table 19-5 are all marked by solid corporate/institutional backing of the vanpool program. Organizational leadership views the program as an important benefit for employees, a demonstration of their loyalty, and not coincidentally, a means for acquiring and retain- ing employees, particularly when the site is remotely located and travel there is viewed as a burden. In the case of Sears and Pacific Bell, the vanpool program was an important element facilitating relocation of large operations from an urban site to a remote exurban area. The sense is that the vanpool and related programs were key to the viability of the move. At the other extreme are employers like Atlantic Richfield Company in downtown Los Angeles or Travelers Insurance in downtown Hartford that opted for vanpool programs in spite of locations near good public tran- sit service. They may have concluded that including a vanpool alternative was the only way to fully serve all of their employees. It should be noted that not all successful vanpool programs are limited to large employers. The programs of P. L. Porter (230 employees), Bonneville Power (100 employees), and Rockbestos (400 employees) are examples of modest size employers that have been very effective with a well- executed vanpool effort. Nor are vanpool programs necessarily limited to commute populations with long trip lengths, although longer trips are usually the primary market. The vanpool chapter in the 1993 Federal Highway Administration report on Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures describes an interesting program at the Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles where vanpools were used to serve a variety of employee travel markets. As of 1990, 15 percent of Aerospace's employees were using vanpools (another 19 percent used carpools), thanks to attractive pricing and treatment. The company enabled lower fares by 12-year amortiza- tion of vehicles, and maintenance was performed by the company. Preferential parking was a meaningful perk given the large size of the workforce (6,000 employees). But perhaps most inter- esting is that 13 of the 60 vanpools had average trip lengths in the 10 to 20 mile range, which is fairly short for vanpools. Vanpooling was motivated by the company's extensive support as well as the fact that many of the employees lived in clusters across the region, enabling easy assembly of travel groups (Comsis and ITE, 1993). TCRP Report 95, Chapter 5, "Vanpools and Buspools," pro- vides additional information on this service. Use of Company Vehicles. An increasing number of employers are offering company fleet vehi- cles to employees as an inducement to use alternative modes for commuting. In most instances the company vehicles are made available for midday business trips. This was the case with Johnson & Higgins, City of Simi Valley, CH2M Hill, Southern California Gas, and Wm. H. Mercer, in Table 19-5. The City of Bellevue, Washington, at the time offered a slightly different twist-- allowing employee groups of three or more to use the vehicles for commuting (a practice since discontinued). Each of these listed sites achieved a notable vehicle trip reduction, although it would appear that parking conditions, transit availability, and financial incentives also played a significant role in each program's performance. Nevertheless, providing for the employee's travel needs once at the work site, particularly in pedestrian-unfriendly areas like office parks or sub- urban strip developments, can alleviate a major impediment to the decision to forego having one's car at the workplace. Car Sharing. An alternative to offering use of company or fleet vehicles involves utilizing quickly executed short-term vehicle rentals from a private vendor, known as car-sharing. Registered users 19-36

OCR for page 26
reserve a car online or by phone, walk to a conveniently located available vehicle, and access it with an electronic key card. The user is subsequently billed for all transactions. An introduc- tion to car sharing is provided in Chapter 14, "Road Value Pricing," under "Response by Type of Strategy"--"Response to Vehicle Use Pricing Systems." The concept has been popular for some time outside the United States as a residential-based service, particularly in urban areas where car ownership is difficult. Increasingly, however, employers are finding value in car-sharing to help address employee transportation issues, including not only mobility for midday business travel, but as a means to reduce parking demand and traffic asso- ciated with employee vehicle use. TCRP Report 108, "Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds," presents examples of employers in the Seattle, Washington, CBD and CBD fringe area who have successfully incorporated car-sharing strategies into their TDM programs (Nelson\Nygaard and Westat, 2005): The Seattle Times has used car-sharing to reduce parking demand following sale of several of its surface parking lots. Of employees surveyed in advance of the program, 15 percent stated that access to a car during the day would help them not to drive to work. Swedish Medical Center has employed car-sharing as a commute trip reduction strategy and as a way to provide transportation between its six campuses. Staff calculated that car-sharing was cheaper than either a shuttle or paying parking and mileage expenses. Swedish allows all employees access to car-sharing for business purposes, and also allows personal use by those who have not obtained a parking permit. The Defender Association used car-sharing to eliminate one-half of its 20 parking spaces, thereby qualifying it for a Metro transit incentive, FlexPass. This allowed it to absorb the cost of continuing to provide transit passes to its employees while also applying savings to costs of the FlexCar car-sharing service (Nelson\Nygaard and Westat, 2005). Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) may have the potential to become brokers in the use of car-sharing services by providing memberships for employers and integrating those programs with transit and other TDM strategies. Portland's Lloyd District TMA built on its "PASSport" employer transit pass to fund the PASSport+ program, which allows unlimited use of FlexCar vehicles in the TMA district during business hours for PASSport holders who sign up for car-sharing (Urban Transportation Monitor, 2002). Back-to-back car-sharing demonstration projects conducted in the San Francisco Bay area between 2001 and 2003, branded CarLink, provide more travel behavior change information and addi- tional support for the potential of this strategy. In CarLink I (JanuaryNovember 1999), 54 individ- uals from San Francisco, Oakland, and the East Bay enrolled in a program involving 12 compact rental cars. The vehicles were based in premium parking spaces at the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station and, except for accommodating 10 home-based "traditional" commuters, were set up to serve travel needs of employees at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Three separate user groups were involved: home-based users commuting to the BART station, work-based com- muters reverse-commuting to Lawrence Livermore via the BART station, and shared vehicle day users at the worksite. Each group paid a distinct fee according to duration of car use, with fees including fuel, insurance and maintenance costs. Travel behavior analysis for CarLink I showed an increase in rail transit (BART) mode share of 23 percent, a reduction in drive-alone mode share of 44 percent, and a decrease in average daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT) of 18 miles (Shaheen and Rodier, 2005). 19-37

OCR for page 26
CarLink II was a more expansive test, involving 19 cars and 107 participants, and running for 12 months (July 2001June 2002). The experiment was located in Palo Alto in conjunction with Caltrain commuter rail service and the employment base of Stanford Research Park (150 research and technology companies and 23,000 employees). Workplace involvement was, however, lim- ited to 6 employers. Again, three distinct categories of users shared the CarLink vehicles: 1. Home-based users, who lived in or near Palo Alto, and for a fee of $300 a month were able to drive a CarLink vehicle to the Caltrain California Avenue station each weekday morning before taking a train to work and then home again at night, while also having access to the vehicles on evenings and weekends. 2. Work-based commuters, who were employees at Stanford Research Park and, for a fee of $50/month, used the vehicles parked at the California Avenue station to shuttle between Caltrain and the worksite. 3. Work-based day users, employees of the participating employers at Stanford Research Park, who were able to use the vehicles for personal and business trips during the day under a sub- scription package to employers of $300/month per vehicle. Table 19-7 shows what appear to be rather impressive results from the CarLink II experiment. Using before-and-after surveys along with 3-day travel diaries, the researchers determined a fairly significant decline in driving alone as a commute mode. SOV use for all or part of the home- to-work commute dropped from 37.5 percent to 12.5 percent for the home-based users, and from 64.1 percent to 41.2 percent for the work-based commuters and day users. Correspondingly, use of Caltrain--obviously as the primary commute mode--increased from 56.3 percent to 100 per- cent for the home-based group and from 35.9 percent to 56.9 percent for the work-based group. At the same time, however, rates of carpooling and bicycling dropped for both groups, and use of bus/shuttle declined for the work-based group, reflecting the greater convenience of CarLink. Also, many participants still used personal vehicles to access transit on their non-CarLink terminus. The VMT results for CarLink II showed that VMT for round-trip commuters was reduced by 23 miles per day as members shifted to Caltrain. The VMT reduction was entirely produced, however, by the work-based commuters/employees, as detailed in Table 19-7. Meanwhile, travel times increased by an average of 31.5 minutes per day, while commuter stress reportedly decreased. Almost 6 percent of program participants sold or stored a personal vehicle, while none leased or purchased a per- sonal vehicle (Shaheen and Rodier, 2005). 19-38

OCR for page 26
Table 19-7 Before and After Commute Mode Shares and VMT for CarLink II Participants Change in Mode Share Mode Shares and VMT Mode Shares and VMT (Percentage Points) and Before After Change in VMT Modes HB a WBb All HB WB All HB WB All (n = 15) (n = 92) (n = 107) (n = 8) (n = 51) (n = 59) Drive Alone 37.5% 64.1% 60.2% 12.5% 41.2% 37.3% -25.0% -22.9% -22.9% Carpool 12.5 10.9 11.1 0.0 11.8 10.2 -12.5 0.9 -0.9 Bus/Shuttle 25.1 22.8 23.2 37.5 13.7 15.3 12.4 -9.1 -7.9 Caltrain 56.3 35.9 39.6 100.0 56.9 62.7 43.7 21.0 23.1 Bike 12.5 5.4 6.5 0.0 3.9 3.4 -12.5 -1.5 -3.1 Walk 43.8 22.8 25.9 50.0 52.9 52.5 6.2 30.1 26.6 Other 6.3 2.2 3.7 12.5 11.8 11.9 6.2 9.6 8.2 CarLink 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 56.9 62.7 100.0 56.9 62.7 VMT c 10.4 34.4 30.8 11.6 7.2 7.8 1.2 -27.2 -23.0 Notes: Unlike most presentations of mode share data, this tabulation treats each component mode of a multi-mode trip separately. Thus a trip from work to home via CarLink, Caltrain, and walking is entered into the tabulation as one CarLink trip, one Caltrain trip, and one walk trip. Since many participants already took more than one mode to commute, the total percentages of mode use sum to more than 100 percent both before and after CarLink. a HB = Homebased Users. b WB = Workbased Commuters and Day Users. c Total Drive Alone, Carpool, and CarLink VMT. Source: Shaheen and Rodier (2005). An important factor that cannot be tested in a limited-scale pilot program such as this is the market penetration a full-scale program could achieve. The market for the home-based users and the work- based commuters in a transit-linked program like CarLink II would be limited by the extent of the transit service residential and employment commutersheds involved and the proportions and quantities of daily commutes actually oriented to the transit line. The market would also be limited by the degree of employer interest, an aspect of TDM effectiveness examined in the "Voluntary Versus Regulatory Employer Motivation" subsection of the "Underlying Traveler Response Factors" section. Finally, it should be noted that all reports encountered of workplace-based car-sharing successes come from areas where transit service is quite strong. Transportation Brokerage. For lack of a better term, there are occasions when either an area-wide organization or a large employer takes on the role of transportation broker, in which it attempts to provide for the transportation needs of commuters in an environment where alternatives to driving are very limited. Historical examples of employers adopting this approach include the 3M Corporation in the Twin Cities and CONOCO in Houston (Pratt and Copple, 1981; Enoch and Zhang, 2008). 19-39