5. Employer Receptivity

Vanpool program success is enhanced by employer participation (Evans and Pratt, 2005). In an attempt to determine employer receptivity to vanpooling, more than 50 of North Dakota's largest employers were surveyed regarding business locations, numbers of employees, commuting distances, work schedules, etc. On-site visits were subsequently held with employers that provided affirmative or non-negative responses to the survey. This chapter presents the findings of this survey and related information gleaned during the on-site visits.

5.1 Survey Participants

Survey participants were selected based on Job Service North Dakota information concerning employee numbers and related information obtained from local chamber of commerce websites. Fifty-six employers were identified for participation in the survey. All are relatively large employers with more than 100 employees. Some are located in urban areas and some are situated in small cities or rural areas. Employer worksites included each of the North Dakota cities with populations of 4,500 or more. Some large employers were omitted from the survey based on the understanding that their employees are seasonal or work variable hours.

Questionnaires were mailed in late May of 2005 and a reminder request was sent approximately one month later. A copy of the initial questionnaire and cover letter are presented in Appendix A.

5.2 Survey Responses

Twenty-seven employers responded to the vanpool survey. This total represents a response rate of 48.2%. Of the 27 responses, 20 entities provided positive or non-negative responses to questions concerning their possible involvement in vanpool promotional efforts and/or the provision of incentives to participating employees. Unless otherwise indicated, the information presented in this subsection is based on the responses received from these 20 respondents.

The 20 survey respondents employ over 9,100 people in North Dakota and operate 38 worksites around the state. Three of the respondents have over 500 employees at single locations. The group includes employers with worksites in 10 of North Dakota's 13 largest cities. Two of these respondents are based in cities with populations of fewer than 750 residents.

Businesses were queried concerning the number of employees that commute more than 15 miles one-way. The 15-mile threshold was used since that was commonly considered to be the distance at which vanpooling became competitive with private automobiles. A recent study sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration suggests that 20 miles may be a more appropriate threshold (Evans and Pratt). This differential is considered inconsequential for the purposes of this study.

As summarized in Table 5.1, five respondents reported having 10-24 employees who commute more than 15 miles and four indicated that 25-49 of their employees commute a comparable distance. Three respondents have between 50 and 100 employees who travel over 15 miles to get to work and five reported having over 100 employees who commute more than 15 miles one-way each day. Of these employers with over 100 long-distance commuters, two indicated that they have 450-500 employees who travel more than 15 miles to work.

It therefore appears that many of the responding businesses have the critical mass of long-distance commuters that is required to make vanpooling feasible.

Businesses were also asked about employee work schedules and the need to work unscheduled overtime. Eight of the 20 respondents said that 50-100% of their employees work regular shifts with little unscheduled overtime. Of the remaining 12 respondents, three said that less than 10% of their workers are on regular shifts with little overtime; five have 10-24% of their workers on regular shifts and four more have 25-49% of their workers on regular shifts.

Unpredictable work schedules are a detriment to participating in vanpools. As was the case with commuting distances, it appears that many of the respondents have large numbers of employees who work regular shifts with little unscheduled overtime. This situation lends itself of vanpooling.

The majority of respondents, 11 of 20, said that they did not know if their company would be willing to promote vanpooling to their employees while eight said that they would be willing to be directly involved in promotional efforts. One expressed an unwillingness to promote vanpooling but did indicate a willingness to provide incentives to employees who did vanpool.

Concerning incentives, eleven of the 20 respondents identified incentives that they would consider providing incentives to employees who vanpool. Some respondents identified multiple incentives. This may be considered a strong willingness to promote and support vanpooling. Table 5.2 identifies incentives that employers may be willing to provide to participating employees.

To further assess employer receptivity to the concept of vanpooling, SURTC attempted to schedule on-site visits with all survey respondents that submitted non-negative responses. The findings of these visits and related employer contacts are discussed in the remaining pages of this chapter.

5.3 Site Visits

As indicated earlier, 20 of North Dakota's major employers responded to a SURTC survey and provided positive or non-negative replies regarding vanpooling. In an attempt to gather further information and to explain possible program options, SURTC contacted each of these employers by mail and offered to visit their work site for related discussions. Follow-up phone calls were made to entities that did not respond to these written invitations.

Seventeen of the 20 survey respondents initially identified as candidates for an on-site visit responded to either the initial written invitation or a subsequent telephone contact. Related phone conversations with two of these employers indicated that it was unlikely that vanpooling would be a viable commuting option for their employees given the nature of the work environment (seasonal employment, etc.) or employee commuting patterns (short distances). On-site visits were not scheduled with these employers.

As a result of these contacts, on-site visits or telephone interviews were conducted with 15 employers. These visits were held to further describe various ways that vanpools might operate and to assess what approaches might be most attractive to potential employer participants.

On-site visits were conducted from September through November 2005. Phone interviews were conducted when scheduling conflicts made on-site visits unworkable. By way of introduction, company representatives were briefed on the rapid growth of state and national vanpool programs in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was explained that North Dakota's program was discontinued in the mid-1980s as a result of falling fuel prices and interest rates and the completion of several major energy plant construction projects in western North Dakota. Vanpool numbers also declined nationwide.

Interview participants were then told that vanpooling has seen national resurgence in recent years and that SURTC and the North Dakota Department of Commerce are investigating the feasibility of reestablishing a vanpool program in North Dakota. It was explained that the survey and interview process was being used to assess the compatibility of vanpooling with employment and commuting patterns and to hopefully design a program that meets the needs of both employers and their employees.

As indicated earlier, on-site or telephone interviews were held with 17 employers. Participants and related employment statistics are summarized in Table 5.3.

A focal point of each interview was to determine whether or not the employer had concentrations of employees who live in common locations at least 15 miles from the work site, who work similar hours, and who are full-time, non-seasonal workers. In many instances, it appears that there may be the critical mass necessary to permit the establishment of one or more commuter vanpools.

One employer in Wahpeton provided SURTC with a computer printout which identified where each of its employees lives. Even though most of the employer's workers live in Wahpeton-Breckenridge, numerous employees commute from Fergus Falls (23 miles) and Hankinson (27 miles). It therefore appears that the potential may exist for the creation of one or more commuter vanpools. Related discussions were initiated with each employer. While each company representative indicated that he or she believed that similar concentrations may exist within his or her workforce, more in-depth verification would be required.

Several employers indicated that their employees work 4-10 hour days each week or that they work 12 hour shifts that result in seven work days during each two-week period. In most instances, however, workers tend to work with the same group of coworkers and overtime tends to be on an extra-day basis rather than at the end of a regular workday. Vanpooling is compatible with these work patterns.

Several employers pointed out that some employees might be resistant to vanpooling based on the fact that they perceive the need to have a personal automobile to run lunchtime or after-work errands. This need appears to be especially prevalent in situations where employees live in small communities and commute to a worksite located in a larger city. These employees reportedly conduct a significant amount of their personal business (grocery shopping, banking, etc.) in the city where they work.

Researchers pointed out that some of these needs might be addressed by using the van to schedule lunchtime trips within the community. Individual vanpools could also establish their own rules to provide for scheduled stops (e.g. a 30-minute stop at a local retailer every Wednesday). These accommodations would have to be made selectively, however, since they would be attractive to some riders while others might view them as a deterrent.

Employers and researchers also discussed the need for some form of guaranteed ride home program to provide riders with a way home in case of emergency. Without exception, employers agreed that such a feature would make vanpooling more appealing.

For employer worksites that are located in larger communities, it was agreed that the best ways to provide emergency transportation might be via taxi. If taxi service was unavailable, using rented vehicles from rent-a-car companies or automobile dealers was considered a viable option.

A few of the employer worksites identified in Table 5.3 are remote and are not conducive to the use of taxis or rented vehicles to provide emergency trips home. In most of these situations, the employers indicated a willingness to consider the use of company vehicles to provide corresponding transportation.

Each employer was asked if they had a flexible spending plan in place which allowed workers to pay for things such as childcare and medical expenses on a pre-tax basis. In all cases, they did. SURTC researchers then explained that federal law makes vanpool expenses an allowable deduction under such plans and that employees and employers could both realize related tax savings. All were unaware of this ability and felt that it would encourage participation.

Preferential parking for vanpools was also discussed. In most instances, on-site parking is not a problem so preferential parking was not considered a significant incentive by most employers. Many did indicate, however, that a preferential parking place and possibly a winter electrical plug-in might be made available for vanpool vehicles.

In addition to the topics discussed in the preceding paragraphs, employers were asked a variety of questions concerning other features they would like to see if the state reestablished a vanpool program. There was unanimous concurrence that technical assistance should be available for both employers and participating commuters and that program personnel should also be available to help promote the program. Employers seemed willing to help educate employees concerning vanpooling and to promote participation via worksite posters, information meetings, etc.

Employers were also receptive to the idea that vanpools should not involve long-term commitments on the part of employers or riders. The concept of including insurance and maintenance expenses in monthly lease rates was also endorsed.

One participant indicated that his company had sponsored employee vanpools in the late 1970s and 1980s. That program was eventually discontinued because of liability concerns. As explained in earlier chapters, similar actions were common nationwide and the number of employer-sponsored vanpool programs has diminished significantly. There has been a corresponding increase in government-sponsored programs which are either operated directly by a government agency or indirectly by a government agency through a commercial contractor.

One company indicated that it might be willing to subsidize vanpool operations. This willingness was directly tied to recruiting difficulties and the potential need to provide transportation services in order to attract workers from farther distances. Government subsidies could entice more employees to consider vanpooling as an option to commuting via personal automobile. The level of subsidy required is unknown; trail and error may be required to determine what price would make people willing to give up the convenience of commuting alone.

As indicated in Chapter 4, the Fargo-Moorhead Council of Governments implemented a vanpool program in September 2005. SURTC researchers made Fargo-area employers aware of this program during the interview process discussed in the preceding pages. That information was reportedly disseminated to company employees and resulted in a number of inquires to F-M COG regarding its program. It therefore appears that interest does exist regarding vanpooling, both by North Dakota employers and their workers.

In summary, 11 of the employers that were interviewed as a part of this study indicated that vanpooling may hold potential for their workers. These employers employ approximately 5,550 people in North Dakota and operate 19worksites in the state. It does appear, therefore, that there is a potential market for vanpooling in North Dakota.

It is also anticipated that additional employers and individual commuter groups would participate in the program if it established. It is also worth noting that there are several major energy-related construction projects being proposed for western North Dakota (ethanol plants, biodiesel plants, electrical generating facilities, etc.). This situation is very similar to the one that existed when North Dakota initiated its original vanpool program in the late 1970s. If any of these facilities become a reality, multiyear construction programs and long-distance commutes may be involved. These projects would, in all likelihood, create additional demand for a state vanpool program.