State of the Practice: Existing Public Vanpool Programs - Research Part 1: by Shana Johnson -...
-
Upload
mobility-lab -
Category
Education
-
view
651 -
download
0
description
Transcript of State of the Practice: Existing Public Vanpool Programs - Research Part 1: by Shana Johnson -...
State of the Practice: Existing Public Vanpool Programs
Vanpool Boot CampACT 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
2
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.
3
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
4
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?
5
Vanpool Programs Interviewed
6
Agency City State
Number of Vans
King County Seattle WA 826Pace Arlington
HeightsIL 677
San Diego Council of Governments
San Diego CA 566
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
Houston TX 545
Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City UT 452Metropolitan Transportation Authority(MTA)
Los Angeles CA 327
Snohomish County Everett WA 313Valley Metro Phoenix AZ 310Greater Hartford Ridesharing Corp.
Windsor CT 302
Pierce County Tacoma WA 270Total for Ten Systems 4,588
Total/Percent of 57 Reporting Systems
7,772 / 59%
Directly Operated vs. Purchased Transportation
7
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
8
Agency Program Type/Owner Year Program Started Number of StaffKing 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.
Basic Background Information
9
Agency Average Roundtr
ip
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.
Program Characteristics
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.
10
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
11
Indemnification and Insurance
12
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
13
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
14
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
15