Moving The Masses


Published on

This is an analysis, which I worked on with several colleagues from SDSU, on transportation solutions for San Diego commuters.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • According to SANDAG INFO, 80% of the commuters drive alone
  • Traveling from Cardiff, CA to Qualcomm would be:
  • =
  • Moving The Masses

    1. 1. Moving the Masses : Creating New Policies to Educate and Encourage San Diegans to Choose More Environmentally Friendly Means for Their Workweek Commutes. Wayne W. Longdon III Jesse Rodgers Janice Feingold Robert Van Deutekom Truman Coleman April 2010
    2. 2. Creating widespread adoption and usage of Environmentally friendly ways to commute to work…
    3. 3. … and what happens when too many people drive alone.
    4. 4. Our policies aim to decrease the number of commuters who drive alone ( S.O.V. ) to and from work by creating: Outreach Programs to: Tax Breaks  Inform businesses  Corporate tax break for about incentives. Vanpools (Lease or  Encourage employees Purchase “last mile” to use other forms of solutions. ) transportation rather  Individual tax breaks than driving alone. for Carpools (tax  Get Corporations to incentives similar to invest in “Last Mile” current vanpool Shuttle Services. incentives)
    5. 5. Market Failures Associated with Transportation  Market Power  Legal Barriers  Public Goods  Informational Asymmetry  Negative Externalities
    6. 6. Market Failures Associated with Transportation Market Power  High initial cost of vehicles for Corporate transportation programs and/or allowances for public transit.  High uncertainty of how many employees would participate in such programs if they were available.
    7. 7. Market Failures Associated with Transportation Legal Barriers  Tax requirements and administration perceived as difficult or costly for companies that might otherwise pursue incentives.
    8. 8. Market Failures Associated with Transportation Public Goods  Public transportation and carpool programs are Seventy-seven percent of undersubscribed which workers in the United makes gaining support States – more than 102 for them more difficult. million people – drive to and from work alone,  After spending $1.2 according to The Christian BILLION to construct Science Monitor, based on HOT/HOV lanes, public surveys conducted in subscription rates to use 2005. these MUST be improved upon.
    9. 9. Market Failures Associated with Transportation San Diegan's Preferred Modes of Transportation to get to Work 0% Walk 3.50% Walk 2% 0% Other 2.00% 4% 0% 0% Other Other Public 3% transportation 0.05% 6% Other Public transportation Commuter Rail (Coaster) 0.33% Transit Bus 2.87% 6% Commuter Rail (Coaster) Light Rail (Trolley) 0.32% Transit Bus Ferry (not included in policy) 0.00% Light Rail (Trolley) Carpool (evenly split with Ferry (not included in policy) van pool) 5.99% Vanpool (evenly split with Carpool (evenly split with van 79% pool) car pool) 6.00% Vanpool (evenly split with car Drive Alone 78.90% pool) Total 99.9711% Drive Alone Source:
    10. 10. Market Failures Associated with Transportation Informational Asymmetry According to a SANDAG survey only eleven percent of participants stated they work for employers that offer  Companies and incentives such as reserved parking for employees are unaware carpoolers, flexible work hours, and cash travel allowances. of transportation incentive programs for Awareness of transportation services 70% commuters. 60% 50% 40%  Employees are unaware 30% 20% of other coworkers who 10% Very Familiar 0% they can carpool with or Somewhat Familiar Not At All Familiar neighbors in their community who travel to the same destination. _369_510.pdf
    11. 11. Market Failures Associated with Transportation Texas Transportation Institute estimates Negative Externalities that… “The annual (traffic) delay per driver is  Pollution (GHG) in excess of 47 hours per year”  Direct and indirect “As a whole the US wastes more than 2.3 billion gallons of fuel each year health effects (from traffic congestion)” According to the EPA…the  Loss of productivity transportation sector accounts for approximately 33 percent of total  Wasted fuel carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The largest share  Loss of opportunity of any end-use economic sector in 2007. with family
    12. 12. Assumptions why individuals don’t utilize existing options… According to SANDAG INFO, 80% of the commuters drive alone! WHY? * Chart taken from SANDAG INFO, March-April 2000, “Attitudes about Transit and Ridesharing”
    13. 13. Assumptions why individuals don’t utilize existing options… They are unaware of their options 1-800-commute only has a 25% awareness* only has an 8% awareness* Irregular work hours of employees No incentives for Carpooling No choice According to, 73% of the people say there simply is no public transportation near them Train/Bus delays and cancellations * Statistics taken from SANDAG INFO, March-April 2000, “Attitudes about Transit and Ridesharing”
    14. 14. Individual/Employee Decisions Mass Transit ? Carpool? Drive Alone? Let’s do a test. If you live in Escondido, CA and work at Qualcomm in San Diego, CA, what is the cost of using different forms of transportation?
    15. 15. Daily Monthly Yearly Individual/Employee Decisions Daily monthly Yearly Drive Alone * $8.53 $187.57 $2,250.86 Carpool with 1 other person $4.26 $93.79 $1,125.43 Vanpool with 7 other people ** $4.02 $88.54 $1,062.48 Take Transit *** Local and Express Bus $5 $72 $816 Premium Bus $14 $100 $1,080 Trolley $5 $72 $816 BREEZE Bus $5 $59 $708 SPRINTER $5 $59 $708 COASTER $14 $144-$182 $1,728-$2,184 * Drive alone cost estimates include an average maintenance and tire cost of five cents per mile based on AAA "Your Driving Costs 2008" brochure. Cost estimates do not include full-coverage insurance, license, registration, taxes, depreciation (15,000 miles annually), vehicle loan payments, or finance charges. ** Vanpool costs are based on average lease costs and gas for an eight passenger van. The SANDAG $400 month subsidy has been applied. *** Transit prices are based on purchase of full fare adult Day or Monthly Pass. COASTER daily ticket prices reflect round trip purchase. Yearly transit costs equal Monthly Pass price x 12. Senior/Disabled/Medicare and Youth discount passes are available for those who qualify. Travel Time for Driving is 1 hour with traffic. Travel Time for Mass Transit is 1 hr. 45 minutes. * Calculated by
    16. 16. Individual/Employee Decisions Traveling from Cardiff, CA to Qualcomm would be: Daily monthly Yearly Drive Alone * $4.87 $107.18 $1,286.21 Carpool with 1 other person $2.44 $53.59 $643.10 Vanpool with 7 other people ** $3.57 $78.64 $943.68 Take Transit *** Local and Express Bus $5 $72 $816 Premium Bus $14 $100 $1,080 Trolley $5 $72 $816 BREEZE Bus $5 $59 $708 SPRINTER $5 $59 $708 COASTER $14 $144-$182 $1,728-$2,184 * Drive alone cost estimates include an average maintenance and tire cost of five cents per mile based on AAA "Your Driving Costs 2008" brochure. Cost estimates do not include full-coverage insurance, license, registration, taxes, depreciation (15,000 miles annually), vehicle loan payments, or finance charges. ** Vanpool costs are based on average lease costs and gas for an eight passenger van. The SANDAG $400 month subsidy has been applied. *** Transit prices are based on purchase of full fare adult Day or Monthly Pass. COASTER daily ticket prices reflect round trip purchase. Yearly transit costs equal Monthly Pass price x 12. Senior/Disabled/Medicare and Youth discount passes are available for those who qualify. Travel Time for Driving is 45 minutes with traffic. Travel Time for Mass Transit is 1 hr. 45 minutes. * Calculated by
    17. 17. Individual/Employee Decisions Carpooling or Mass Transit can cost you almost 50% less a year in some cases!
    18. 18. Suggested Policy Solutions: 1) Increased funding for better Marketing  Marketing, Marketing, Marketing: Every program manager that we talked with commented that the very first thing that needed to be done was to Market the self evident savings better, in more places, and more frequently, even internally.  Develop professional presentation teams to visit Business Fairs, Corporations, Community groups, Municipalities and Business Parks to better broadcast the existing incentives if employees choose more efficient commuting options.  Use these same teams to illustrate that by operating “Last Mile” shuttles for employees the productivity levels of all employees is known to rise significantly, 3) and that these efforts are known locally to be cost effective programs.4)
    19. 19. Suggested Policy Solutions: 2) Tax revenue shifts & New Tax Incentives  Work within the municipalities of SANDAG voting members to demonstrate the soundness of our policy suggestions and encourage their votes in getting SANDAG to re-purpose existing revenue streams to better serve our suggested policy mandates.  After gaining SANDAG’s support encourage them to help enact minor Tax reform Legislation to permit Carpool users to receive Tax breaks comparable to existing Vanpool Incentives. ( Or begin their own incentive programs for same.)  Use the same leveraging mechanism to gain Corporations minor Tax incentives for operating “Last Mile” shuttle services from Mass transit pick-up points.  (In interviews with the Mobility Manager of SANDAG as well as the Business Development Manager of NCTD these issues were seen as of paramount importance. As such, they encouraged these pursuits, and would support our efforts of same.)
    20. 20. Corporate Solutions : Corporate Vanpools  Lease or Purchase “last mile solutions” Mass Transit Research indicates that when “last mile” solutions exist ( to get employees from the drop-off points to the workplace ) their ridership rates increase dramatically.*  Even in current the non-incentivized market several local major corporations 4) are operating their own solutions now that NCTD/MTS has had to cease offering theirs due to budget constraints. *Mike Mason –Business Development Manager , North County Transit District
    21. 21. Government Concerns: GHG emissions reductions  2005 Executive Order S-3-05: Long-term targets for GHG emissions reductions to levels 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In San Diego County, total emissions would have to be reduced to: 6 MMT CO2E, 37 MMT CO2E (87%) below the 2020 B.A.U. (Biz-as-usual) projection and 28 MMT CO2E (83%) below 2006 levels.  2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32): To meet the targets established by AB 32, the San Diego region would have to reduce its projected B.A.U. 2020 emissions by 14 MMT CO2E or 33%. 5)
    22. 22.  To begin to achieve goals, San Diego has indentified the sources: Transportation = 46% 5)
    23. 23.  San Diego County emitted 34 million MMT CO2E in 2006  Cars & Small trucks emit 46% of GHG: 16 MMT CO2E  As can be seen * the 2nd. highest contributor to GHG emissions are Passenger vehicles. Reducing S.O.V. usage is critical. * 5)
    24. 24. Government Solutions: Outreach Program  Incorporate college interns for door to door campaign with the help of SANDAG.  Develop & deploy outreach teams to educate more businesses about incentives.  Encourage residents to use other forms of transportation instead of driving alone.
    25. 25. Implementation Strategy  New surveys, or use existing, to bolster policy arguments that major public support does exist.  Outreach Programs to educate boardrooms and bedrooms that a wide variety of more efficient, incentivized and cost effective commuting options already exist.  Adjust current tax revenue sources to permit NCTD & similar agencies fund “Last Mile” solutions where needs are indentified.  Lobby legislators to enact new Tax laws to permit our suggested Tax incentives.  Due to the State mandates cited ( AB-32 & E.O. S-3-05 ) we suggest that those goal point motivations be managed to encourage ALL relevant agencies to fund our more efficient commuting options policy goals. Their own studies note the importance and relevancy of reducing S.O.V. usage to reducing levels of GHG emissions in our communities. Funding our policy suggestions WILL move them towards those goals.
    26. 26. Implementation Timelines  First 6 months- 1 year: Major efforts with Surveys and Outreach Programs to gather data points, educate largest private & public leaders about options, and record feedback for consideration.  Year 1-2: Use collected data and professional presentations to support our policies arguments at local levels; Municipalities, community organizations and smaller businesses.  Year 2-3: Use collected support & documentation to push for Tax revenue reforms and re-focusing of existing revenue streams to support our policy’s financial needs.  Year 4: Public opinion surveys and data collections will be used to fine tune and improve the policies success rates.  Year 5: Once reforms are enacted, Marketing and Outreach efforts will continue and it’s predicted that maximum market effects will occur. Verification and final adoption result reports will be generated to guide future policy making decisions.
    27. 27. Advantages/Disadvantages Only 14 million Americans use public transportation daily while 88 percent of all trips in the United States are made by car—and many of those cars carry only one person. Part I - Corporations Measured tax breaks to help them develop and incorporate programs that incentivize employees to modify their commuting behaviors to include more sustainable, energy efficient, and less polluting habits Advantages: Tax breaks - Companies can give their employees tax-free transit commuter benefits up to $115 a month, up from $110 last year. Unfortunately, the federal government still gives higher parking commuter benefits -up to $220 a month, an increase of $5 from last year.* CASH OUT options* Ask me* Increases sense of community, morale & productivity Reduces carbon emissions Fewer vehicles on the road frees up highways, reduces stress and can lead to wellness benefits potentially lowering healthcare costs Increases employee retention lowering talent acquisition costs Disadvantages: Could create minor shortfalls to social security or other programs typically funded by payroll taxes
    28. 28. Advantages/Disadvantages Rideshare/Vanpool/ Carpool Advantages: A Vanpool tax incentive allows you to set aside up to $230 a month from employee paychecks toward vanpool costs. This lowers that person's taxable income (a benefit for them) and reduces your share of payroll taxes (FICA). If you choose to subsidize a vanpool program, you may be able to deduct this cost from your taxes and classify the deduction as an expense. Fewer vehicles on the road frees up highways Reduces carbon emissions - Increases sense of community, morale and productivity Increases employee retention lowering talent acquisition costs Disadvantages: Cost Determining what locations are best to support the largest numbers of workers Accommodating various work schedules
    29. 29. Advantages/Disadvantages Mass Transit Advantages: Reduces carbon emissions - public transportation in the United States saves approximately 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline and about 1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. Energy independence—According to, if just one in 10 Americans used public transportation daily, U.S. reliance on foreign oil would decrease 40 percent Safety—Riding a bus is 79 times safer than riding in an automobile, and riding a train or subway is even safer. Health—Studies have shown that people who use public transportation regularly tend to be healthier than people who don’t, because of the exercise they get walking to and from bus stops, subway stations and their homes and offices. Cost savings—According to an APTA study, families that use public transportation can reduce their household expenses by $6,200 annually, more than the average U.S. household spends on food every year. Disadvantages: Cost to convert mass transit vehicles to low emissions Lack of accessibility to many areas (San Diego’s mass transit system does not currently serve many areas). This may require additional vehicles on the road like shuttles, etc.
    30. 30. Advantages/Disadvantages Develop presentation programs that can be given to corporations to show them the financial and socially responsible advantages of developing more efficient commuting programs. Advantages: Pooling of resources Increased sense of community Companies may want to be sponsors Disadvantages: Identifying media vehicles and funding to reach target groups
    31. 31. Advantages/Disadvantages Part II – Individuals/ Employees Additional incentives for individuals to commute more efficiently. What does your commute cost? Using alternative transportation can cut your commuting cost in half or even more. Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA’s) Advantages: Employees can pay for commuting costs with pre-tax payroll deductions, similar to what many of you may be doing already with dependent care accounts or flexible medical accounts. Using-Public-Transit.aspx Disadvantages If you don’t use the money that you put aside during the year you lose it.
    32. 32. Rideshare Advantages/Disadvantages Advantages: Points redeemable for gift cards. Pooling of resources Increased sense of community Partner with Insurance companies for funding – FSA (flexible spending accounts) & TRA (transit reimbursement account) Increases sense of community, morale & productivity Reduces carbon emissions Less vehicles on the road frees up highways, reduces stress and can lead to wellness benefits potentially lowering healthcare costs Disadvantages: How to assemble like-minded folk to implement programs Reliability of documentation
    33. 33. Cost of Alternative Actions Likely Work-Arounds  Falsifying documentation  Vehicle breakdowns/accidents impacts more employees  Effectiveness of canvassers  Economic uncertainty may lessen motivations.
    34. 34. Key Marketing Policy Influences Commuting to and Low Fuel Prices High Fuel Prices from work. Low levels of Low usage of public Moderate usage of information for transportation and public commuting carpooling. High transportation and alternatives and few traffic congestion. carpooling. financial or PR High vehicle Moderate traffic incentives emissions. congestion. Moderate vehicle emissions. High levels of Low to moderate High usage of public information for usage of public transportation and commuting transportation and carpooling. Low alternatives and carpooling. High traffic congestion. many financial or traffic congestion. Low vehicle PR incentives High vehicle emissions. emissions
    35. 35. Key Tax Policy Influences Increased usage: Trains No Tax incentives or Tax incentives for Corp. Carpools & Buses perceived inequitable Shuttles and Carpooling Corporations buy, lease Very few Corporations Corp. operated shuttles and operate their own will afford their own will proliferate and fleet of Shuttles to ferry shuttles services as it’s ridership rates on workers from Train not quite cost effective buses and trains will Stations and major bus with a few employees. escalate as well. NCTD stops. This resolves Eliminates chances of knows this is true and the “Last Mile” issues increased cost/benefit still operates 4 FREE that otherwise ratio by attracting new shuttles at Sorrento discourage use of mass users to proven Valley despite them transit options. commute efficiency. being “loss leaders.” Employees create & use Carpools will stay at Carpool rates soar as carpooling options that present low levels of equitable Vanpool-like are perceived as being usage. Even though tax incentives less cumbersome than Carpooling can be overcome the final Vanpools, but too shown to be very cost “Freedom Factor” “Freedom restrictive” to efficient, without hurdles. Subscription self-justify without equitable incentives rates increase for financial rewards. drivers will choose the expensive public goods “Freedom Factor” first. HOV/HOT lanes.
    36. 36. Policies Evaluation Effectiveness High Our research has found that educating companies and employees about commuting alternatives & incentives will greatly increase the possibility of success. Efficiency High Current voluntary participation has led us to believe that addressing obstacles such as the lack of information and equitable incentives would be self-promoting. Equity Low Employee schedules , responsibilities and other unknowns such as whether or not someone lives within a serviceable location may limit participation by some people. Manageability Low Administering tax breaks and other documentation paperwork will require modest additional company work hours. Existing programs report this as a minor expense. Legitimacy and High Fuel prices are increasing and companies are also attempting to decrease their carbon footprint because of future cap & trade laws making our policy politically Political “sexy”. Current social and media focus on the importance of living “Greener” lives Feasibility will also help us to legislate and incorporate these policies and decisions. Coerciveness Medium While many citizens are slowly changing their driving habits we recognize that people still enjoy the independence of driving their own car, making coerciveness a present and persistent obstacle. Directness Medium While the urgency to “curb” emissions and fuel consumptions is real, our policies create incentives for practices that are currently being carried out on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, with the help of local transportation agencies to implement our outreach programs, our policy can overcome weaknesses with current efforts Automaticity High Because our policy begins as our economy recovers ,participation is expected to increase as traffic congestion increases with more people commuting to work again. Increasing fuel prices will further drive the desire to commute more cost efficiently. Visibility High Our policy will improve a sense of community by connecting employees with their fellow employees and neighbors which creates high visibility for these options. Market Medium As consumers rediscover the financial and social rewards of working together to overcome commuting inefficiencies, future legislation and improved social Transformation awareness will have a much better chance of creating lasting Mrkt. transformations.
    37. 37. Uncertainties  Predicting public behavior if some low cost oil source is found is nearly impossible, but if history is a guide and lower cost gas results, then the motivation to take mass transit may diminish. However, we believe that once well organized and maintained Rideshare & “Last Mile” services are established in the public mind their inherent cost effectiveness, GHG reduction and personal benefits ( free time etc.), will finally overcome this persistent issue and relegate it to past concerns.  We can not predict with certainty that most Corporations will jump into the “Last Mile” Shuttle Parade and offer this kind of service. However, after interviewing many top level managers in these fields, it is our belief that this WILL come to pass. It’s a well know fact that by supplying employees ( especially low waged) with dependable and less stressful commuting options their productivity increases markedly. 1)  It is also somewhat uncertain that Carpooling rates will increase with new Tax incentives but many studies suggest that the “buy-in” benefits are so close to being realized that almost ANY additional financial reward will be enough to overcome the oft cited “Freedom Factor”. 2)
    38. 38. Assumptions:  Gas prices will not decrease.  Carpooling ridership rates WILL increase with new Tax or Corporate rewards Incentives as many studies predict.  The “First Mile” issues ( the mile from & to home) will be comparatively easy to overcome. It’s assumed that once the programs overall cost effectiveness is realized every effort will be made by the adoptees to find solutions with spousal drop-offs, bus- to-train station routes, neighborhood rideshares, walking to bus stops etc. etc.  All commuting programs WILL institute industry standard “Guaranteed Ride Home” services. (GRH) These ensure that employees will know that if they miss their ride or connection for some unforeseen reason they WILL get a free or cheap ride home, at least 3-5 times per year.  All Marketing efforts will affect all demographics equally.  Any incremental increase in “Last Mile” solution options WILL result in the industry assumed increased ridership rates and that this increase will affect both bus and rail options equally.
    39. 39. FUNDING Sources for Policy Goals  NCTD & MTS revenues: By increasing “Last Mile” solutions we will increase ridership rates on Coaster Trains as well as on their connecting bus routes.  Increasing mass transit ridership rates by only 10% will increase their revenues by a collective $49 million, which could be returned into “Last Mile” shuttle services to drive ridership rates up even further.*  By enlisting SANDAG’s assistance & GHG mandates we intend to also increase TDA’s contributions by using .5% additional Percentage of existing sales tax ($221 mil.) Transient Tax ( $173 mil. ) and TransNet ($36 mil.) revenue. **  These minor revenue stream adjustments could fund SANDAG with an additional $2.1 million to use towards Marketing costs and initiating Carpool subsidies.  These are all solutions without tax increases * American Public Transportation Association Aug 21 2009 ** San Diego County General Fund Budget Report 2009
    40. 40. Non-Monetized Impact of Findings What happens if we adopt environmentally friendly ways to commute to work…? Environmental  Lower CO2 Emissions/lower fossil fuel consumption  Less traffic congestion  Less use of open land for highways also decreasing encroachment on wildlife Social  Increased Employee Retention by Employers – Employers that are able to offer their employees this unique "perk" makes their commute faster, more affordable and more enjoyable. This employee benefit may help recruit and retain the best employees.  Increase sense of community - carpooling doesn't have to be a sacrifice of this independence. Rather, it can be an effective symbol of collaboration: sharing a ride is an opportunity to spend time with friends, or to get to know new people. .  Lower health care costs  Financial Savings – Employers and Individuals
    41. 41. Impact of Findings What happens if we don’t adopt environmentally friendly ways to commute to work…? Environmental  CO2/ Fossil Fuel Consumption - The USA is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases worldwide. The personal automobile is the single greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road add up to a planet-wide problem.US emissions increased to billion tons of CO2 in 2004, 16% higher than emissions in the late 90's. Exhaust from all combustion engines combine to produce local adverse effects on the health of car users and all innocent bystanders. If every commuter car in the U.S.carried just one more person, we'd save eight billion gallons of gas a year. 95% of a car's energy goes towards moving the car itself, and only 5% to moving the passenger. Traffic congestion wastes three billion gallons of gas a year.  Increasing congestion, lack of room to build new roads - While unemployment kept morning commutes lighter than normal, traffic was up nearly every other hour of the day as individuals hit the roads in search of work or other trips – a 25 percent increase.  Climate change - Continued climate change could have widespread impacts on California’s economy and ecosystems, and on the health of its citizens. Social  Loss of transit worker jobs due to underutilization of system.  Continued rise in health care costs due to pollution - The list of detrimental health effects from vehicle air pollution sounds like a little shop of horrors. Outdoor air pollution from cars, SUVs, trucks, and buses: Cause acute respiratory problems, temporary decreases in lung capacity, and inflammation of lung tissue, impair the body’s immune system, reduce the release of oxygen to body tissues, increase a person’s risk of cancer-related death, contribute to birth defects, low birth weight, and infant deaths, harm blood vessels in healthy individuals, make healthy active children 3 to 4 times more likely to develop asthma.  Lack of community. Nww
    42. 42. Baseline Costs  I-15 & I-5 Expansion costs of approximately $1.2 Billion is assumed to be an enormous Public Goods cost whose subscription rates MUST be improved dramatically in order to justify those expenditures.  Besides aforementioned Tax revenue allotments SANDAG’s expenditures for marketing is $200k & Vanpool subsidies approximately equal $4 mil. *  Countywide GHG emissions** are about 34 million MMT of CO2E 6 million MMT of that is of that is attributable to passenger vehicles only.  Average Carbon Offset costs equal $15/MMT X 6 = $90 million ***  In 2007 San Diegans wasted 52 hours in traffic delays costing $960.00 per commuter in lost wages **** X .6 million commuters = $576mil. / year  Total Baseline Costs / year approximately equals $670.2 million * Interview with SANDAG Mobility Program manager Kimberly Weinstein 4/15/2010 ** San Diego County Green House Gas Inventory –Executive Summary -2008 *** **** Texas Transportation Institute 2009
    43. 43. Our Policy Benefits  Our policies are all paid for by minor shifts in existing Tax revenue streams and by increasing ridership rates on existing mass transit services.  Increasing those ridership rates and incentivizing new Carpooling riders to decrease S.O.V. ( Single Occupancy Vehicles) usage by only 10% in the first 2.5 years will save our San Diego communities $67 million / year  Our modest 5 year plan is to attempt to decrease S.O.V. commuting by 20%. If we are successful we will have saved our community $335 million, and generated significant revenue streams in mass transit services  These monies can then be re-purposed into providing more routes and services thus increasing their usage rates even more. They can also be used to support their own FREE “Last Mile” Shuttle services that proved so successful in the recent past at encouraging mass transit commuting options.
    44. 44. Monitoring Policy Effectiveness  All participants in existing programs are required to document their ridership rates and these can be accessed to compare past with present values.  Ridership rates from existing NCTD, MTS & SANDAG sources are easily obtainable to compare.  State tax board figures could be tapped to gather the numbers and amount of tax incentives requested by individual as well as corporate participants.  Although less accurate ( for a number of reasons) current GHG emissions collecting techniques would continue to be used to see if our policy suggestions have measureable affect on San Diego regional air quality figures.
    45. 45. Resources/ Bibliography  Individual/Employee Decisions    SANDAG INFO, March-April 2000, “Attitudes about Transit and” Ridesharing  Corporate & Government Sections:  1)  2) I-15 Interregional Partnership Studies:  3) TDM Encyclopedia Victoria Transport Policy Institute 1-26-2010  4) Interviews with Dept. Managers at Biogen Idec, Callaway Golf, Genentech, Intuit, Qualcomm and SAIC  5) San Diego County Green House Gas Inventory –Executive Summary -2008