State of the Practice: Existing Public Vanpool Programs - Research Part 1: by Shana Johnson - Foursquare

State of the Practice: Existing Public Vanpool Programs Vanpool Boot Camp ACT Chesapeake Chapter and Mobility Lab November 7, 2011 Operating and Administrative Characteristics

Research Background
Analysis of potential for a regional, publicly supported vanpool program
Study through DRPT for GWRC, NVTC, and PRTC
Final results being presented to appropriate boards and commissions
One component of the project consisted of a state of the practice review

State of the Vanpool Industry
68 vanpool programs report to NTD (2010)
Vanpool industry emerged in response to the 1970s energy crisis.
Many private sector firms started vanpool programs for their employees.
Public involvement in vanpools began mostly in the 1980s.
Why is the public sector involved in vanpooling?
Vanpool programs that report to National Transit Database earn additional Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307) for their regions (for large UZAs).
Fare “buy down” incentives for riders have led to dramatic vanpool program growth.
Provides transit in areas where traditional transit (i.e., commuter bus, commuter rail) are limited or absent.
Leverages investments in HOV facilities.

How is our region different?
Vanpooling grew without any centralized program
Federal workers, HOV lanes
No primary provider – many large and small operators
More decentralized organization than in other regions
Regional agencies and local governments are all involved

Multi-Region Vanpool Incentive Program: Questions for Peers
How do other regions operate vanpool programs? What are some vanpool program best practices that are applicable in Northern Virginia?
What program rules are required?
How do we market and brand a Multi-Region Vanpool Program?
What incentives are needed to induce rider participation?
What incentives are needed to induce vanpool operator participation?
What technologies exist to facilitate NTD data reporting?
What are the potential risks? How can participating agencies be fully indemnified?
How should a Multi-Region Vanpool Incentive Program be structured?

Vanpool Programs Interviewed Agency City State Number of Vans King County Seattle WA 826 Pace Arlington Heights IL 677 San Diego Council of Governments San Diego CA 566 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Houston TX 545 Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City UT 452 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Los Angeles CA 327 Snohomish County Everett WA 313 Valley Metro Phoenix AZ 310 Greater Hartford Ridesharing Corp. Windsor CT 302 Pierce County Tacoma WA 270 Total for Ten Systems 4,588 Total/Percent of 57 Reporting Systems 7,772 / 59%

Directly Operated vs. Purchased Transportation
No Direct Rider Subsidy, Lower Fares vs. Direct Rider Subsidy and no Fare Control
Number of FTEs required to operate a program
Program functions
Level of involvement in day-to-day vanpool management
Required program funding
Pierce Transit Vanpool, Seattle, WA

Basic Background Information Agency Program Type/Owner Year Program Started Number of Staff King County, Seattle WA Directly Operated 1970s 38 FTEs Pace, Arlington Heights IL Directly Operated 1991 10 FTEs The Rideshare Company, Connecticut Non-profit 1987 4 Senior Mgmt, 4 Customer Svc, 4 Finance, 6 Business Development, & 5 Operations MTA, Houston TX Purchased Transportation Private vanpools started in 1970s, public involvement began in 1980s. 1 public FTE, 9 FTEs at the master contractor, several others part-time . Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City UT Directly Operated Private firm in the 1980s; UTA acquired in 1990. 9 FTEs. MTA, Los Angeles CA Purchased Transportation 2007 2.5 FTE, another 2 LA MTA employees used as needed. Snohomish County – Community Transit, Everett WA Directly Operated 1986 5 FTE. Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ Directly Operated Approximately 1990 1 FTE, others at contractor. 511 RideMatch Services, San Francisco CA Vanpools entirely private sector, but SF MTA has a contractor run the ride match program. 1978 2 FTEs who work for MTC and 15 FTEs who are contracted to operate the ride match program. Pierce County, Tacoma WA Directly Operated 1986 11 FTEs, including 2 program managers.

Program Characteristics Agency Average Roundtrip Average Vanpool Fare Incentives or Subsidy Offered King County, Seattle WA N/A Fares vary, but a 15-passenger van with 12 passengers and 40 mile round trip is approx. $60. Unknown. Pace, Arlington Heights IL 80 miles Average fare per rider is $130. Guaranteed ride home, 300 personal miles per month for the driver, free fare for drivers, discounted fare for backup drivers. The Rideshare Company, Connecticut 35 miles Minivans have an average fare of $177 and full size vans have an average fare of $139. Drivers of large vans are not charged a fare, and participants may receive up to four emergency rides home per year. Cash reward for recruiting new, full-time riders and cash incentive for reporting data on time. Reduced monthly fare when taking vacation or extended leave. MTA, Houston TX 55 miles Unknown. Flat subsidy of $35 per qualified rider, average van subsidy of $350. Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City UT 77 miles Fare varies based on the size of van and number of riders. Drivers receive 50 personal miles per month. MTA, Los Angeles CA 95 miles Unknown. Subsidizes 50% of van costs up to $400. Most vans receive the full $400. Snohomish County – Community Transit, Everett WA 58 miles Average vanpool fare is $60 to $65. Free fare for drivers (not all vans), all drivers are allowed 160 personal miles per month. Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ 64 miles Average vanpool fare is $87.15. Free fare and 300 personal miles per month for drivers. Reimbursement for two taxi rides home per year for emergencies. 511 RideMatch Services, San Francisco CA 60 miles Unknown. Van startup/Van save assistance ($100 per lost seat for three months). Pierce County, Tacoma WA 65 miles Average Fare is $80 to $85. Free fare and up to 1,800 personal miles per year for drivers.

Funding and Use of 5307
Directly Operated Programs
Operating Expenses: Fares cover 100% of operating costs in all programs interviewed.
Capital Expenses: 5307, CMAQ (expansion), Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC).
Administrative Expenses: 5307, CMAQ (marketing), some programs use farebox revenue.
Purchased Transportation Programs
Startup subsidy funding, marketing, and administration funding for purchased transportation programs (Houston, Los Angeles), including: CMAQ (marketing), JARC, 5307, local sales tax dedicated to transit (Houston, pre-1996).
5307 Use: Programs can be supported entirely with the additional 5307 increment.
Houston uses 5307 increment earned to support rail expansion.
Los Angeles uses 5307 to provide the rider subsidies, among other non-vanpool related uses.

Program Rules/ADA Compliance
Program Rules
ADA requirements (Agency provides vehicle in purchased transportation programs).
Open to the public
Primarily focus on how payments are made, when and how to report data, and the requirements to become a vanpool.
Limited requirements for program drivers
8 agencies interviewed required only driving record checks
2 agencies interviewed required driver physicals
1 agency interviewed also required a criminal background check and driver training course
Credit checks are often required for vanpool bookkeepers
Limited program rule enforcement required

Indemnification and Insurance
Vanpool Participant Agreement – Indemnifies Agency
Many of the directly operated programs insured through state or agency transit insurance, although some maintain a cash reserve
Minimum level of insurance required for purchased transportation or contracted programs ranges from $500,000 to $1 million per accident
MTA, Los Angeles, CA Participation Agreement

NTD Data Collection
Various Methods
Sample Survey (FTA Approved)
In-Vehicle Daily Paper (Convert to Web-based input form, Excel or Fax for Submission)
Mobile technology based
Significant Staff Time Requirement
Groups not reporting on time
Reporting errors
Compiling and inputting data
Orange County Transportation Authority, Web-based NTD Reporting Module

Marketing and Branding Strategies
Branding
Vehicle wraps
Marketing
Word-of-mouth (most common)
Collaboration with TMAs and TDM agencies
Direct employer outreach
Newsletters
Metro Vanpool (Los Angeles), Pierce Transit Vanpool, and Houston STAR Vanpool vehicle wraps/marketing images.

Overall Findings
Ownership and operation varied
Public programs required more staff but retain more control
Rules were left up to individual vanpools
Other than requirement to make the vanpool public and adhere to ADA
Marketing relies on word of mouth
Only half had marketing budgets
Subsidies were ubiquitous
NTD data collection is difficult with a paper-based system
Minimal participation by owner operators

Questions?
Shana Johnson
[email_address]
(301) 774-4566 x402
Lora Byala
[email_address]
(301) 774-4566 x401

State of the Practice: Existing Public Vanpool Programs - Research Part 1: by Shana Johnson - Foursquare

by Mobility Lab

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 114

Statistics

State of the Practice: Existing Public Vanpool Programs - Research Part 1: by Shana Johnson - Foursquare Presentation Transcript

http://mobilitylab.org	113
http://paper.li	1