Vanpooling in North Dakota: Feasibility and Operating Scenarios
< Prev | TOC | Next >

6. Program Goals and Design Considerations

6.1 Program Goals

As illustrated by Chapter 4's discussions of state and local vanpool programs, numerous options are available concerning the establishment and subsequent operations of publicly supported vanpool programs. Ultimately, however, publicly managed programs have common goals. These goals and the underlying program design considerations that contribute to their attainment are the focus of this chapter.

The primary goals of virtually all vanpool programs are fuel conservation, improved air quality, reduced traffic congestion, and reduced parking congestion. These goals have been discussed elsewhere in this study and will not be reiterated here.

It should be noted, however, that this list of goals might be expanded upon, especially in rural areas, to include the enhancement of personal mobility. Vanpooling provides a mobility option that may create mobility for some individuals or provide an alternative means of mobility for others. As such, it should be an integral part of state and local personal mobility plans.

The fact that vanpooling may be an important component in a comprehensive mobility plan and a low-cost alternative to new or expanded transit operations is confirmed by the growth in transit system vanpool programs. In 1984, public transit agencies in the United States had 447 vanpools in operation. This number grew to 1,503 in 1994 and totaled 3,932 in 2001 (Evans and Pratt, 2005). According to the National Transit Database, ridership in these programs has increased at a corresponding rate from 3.2 million daily trips in 1991 to 7.9 million in 1996 and 13.5 million in 2003 (www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/NTST/2003/HTMLFiles/2003%20National%20Transit%20Summaries%20and%20Trends.htm).

The achievement of many program goals is dependent on commuter participation. These goals cannot be achieved or maximized unless commuters participate in the program. Latter sections of this chapter will, therefore, focus on factors that encourage commuter participation, such as costs, convenience, commute times, etc.

Publicly sponsored vanpool programs have two additional goals that influence the way they are structured. These goals involve program efficiency and administrative manageability. Public trust demands that public program managers design and manage programs to run efficiently to attain the maximum benefit for related public expenditures.

The desire for maximum program efficiency must, however, be tempered by the need to make programs manageable and to work within available fiscal and human resource budgets. While some program features might create maximum benefits, reality may make those features impractical. For example, the desire to control costs by purchasing all of a program's vehicles, fuel, maintenance, and insurance might need to be reassessed given the fact that the program may only have one part-time employee and a $30,000 budget.

Chapter 4 reviewed a sampling of public vanpool programs that are being operated by a number of states and localities around the country. This review illustrated that these entities take a variety of approaches to achieve common goals. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to identifying and discussing major program factors that need to be considered when vanpool programs are being designed prior to implementation. These organizational and operational factors include:

These discussions will ultimately lead to the formation of recommendations which will be presented in Chapter 7.

6.2 Design Considerations

6.2.1 State vs. Local Control

Chapter 4 discussed seven state-level programs which promote and support commuter vanpools. This list of states is by no means all-inclusive but related discussions did illustrate that state programs may take several forms ranging from little formal involvement to a comprehensive operational, promotional, and administrative state-run programs. In many instances, states contract with local public or nonprofit entities to manage major portions of their state's commuter vanpool program.

Several factors may influence a state's decisions regarding the extent to which it wants to be involved with vanpooling. Considerations may include fuel conservation, traffic and parking congestion, air quality concerns, citizen and community needs, availability of local managers, critical mass requirements, funding, and program control. Each of these considerations will be discussed in the following paragraphs of this subsection.

As discussed earlier, traffic and parking congestion and air quality are major issues that may be influenced by vanpooling. In many states and urban areas, these are the primary reasons for having vanpool programs.

In rural areas like North Dakota, however, these issues are not major concerns. While traffic congestion may exist at certain times of the day in some of the state's larger cities, it is not a major issue, especially in comparison to virtually all of the country's large metropolitan areas. Similarly, while vehicle emissions and air quality are important in rural states, reducing polluting emissions to help bring air quality back to within acceptable levels is not necessary since air quality is already acceptable. Rural states may, therefore, need other reasons to become involved with vanpooling.

While rural states may lack many of the traditional reasons for commuter vanpools, they may have several other reasons to create vanpool programs. These reasons include enhanced personal mobility, rural community viability, and employee attraction and retention by rural employers. Even in rural states, vanpooling may create commuting options that create benefits for state residents, urban and rural communities, and employers. State involvement may, therefore, be warranted.

Despite the fact that vanpooling has the potential to benefit for both urban and rural states, it appears that many states have decided, either consciously or passively, against the creation of a state-level vanpool program. In many instances, this decision may relate to the ability of local communities to implement programs of their own.

Many communities may, for example, be able to access FTA funds without the involvement of the state department of transportation. This ability is often tied to cities or communities with populations of 50,000 to 200,000 people and also to areas with over 200,000 residents. These size categories allow them to work directly with various federal agencies. It also enables them to act somewhat independently of their state DOT and to initiate programs that may not exist at the state level. This ability may influence a state's decision concerning a statewide vanpool program. Conversely, the inability of large areas within a state to directly access federal funds may necessitate state-level involvement, assuming that there is a related need in those areas.

Critical mass is another factor that may influence state decisions regarding vanpooling. This critical mass relates to both the number of homogeneous commuters that it takes to operate a single pool and the number of pools that it takes to operate a viable multipool vanpool program with either state or contractor personnel.

In some cases, this critical mass may be achievable in a single worksite or in a single city or urban area while in other instances a program may need to encompass a larger multicounty region or even an entire state. Related determinations may serve as the basis for how vanpool programs are structured. In some areas, it may take state-level involvement to create the critical mass necessary to create program viability.

Funding is certainly an issue that will contribute to a state's decisions concerning the promotion of vanpooling. As indicated earlier, major funding sources within the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration are not specifically tied to vanpooling. Rather, states and communities are often allocated funds that may be used for a variety of programs. Vanpooling must compete with these programs to access funds. If vanpooling is not a priority of state or local policymakers, these funds will be directed elsewhere.

Initiating a state-level vanpool program requires a conscious decision by state policymakers. Once that decision is made, program design features must be crafted, one of which relates to the possible involvement of local/regional entities to administer the program.

The literature review that was conducted as a part of this research effort suggests that many of the vanpool programs in the United States are run at the local/regional level. In some instances there is some degree of state support for these programs but in others cases they are operated with little or no state involvement.

Running a statewide program with little or no local involvement may also be reflective of a desire for statewide continuity and visibility, the state's level of commitment to vanpooling, the state's ability to dedicate both financial and human resources to the program, and/or the existence of local entities which are willing and able to be involved. Other factors may also contribute to the approach taken by a state to develop and manage a commuter vanpool program.

Like North Dakota's vanpool program of the late 1970s and 1980s, states like Utah and Michigan operate programs that require little involvement by local entities. These programs are run at the state level and include overall administration, promotion, vehicle purchases, pool creations, ride-matching services, etc. Pools may be created as a result of direct contacts between the state or its contracting agent and an individual pool operator. No involvement is required on the part of local units of government, employers, etc.

Local or regional vanpool programs which operate with state support may, in some cases, represent an optimum situation. Locally run programs have the ability to tailor themselves to meet the precise needs of area commuters and employers. Adding state support to such programs may make them stronger and even more viable. Five of the seven state vanpool programs discussed in Chapter 4 require involvement by local entities such as transportation management associations (TMA) or councils of government (COG).

The fact that these programs require the involvement of local TMAs or COGs is an important consideration for rural states since they may not, as a matter of population densities, have many communities which have these types of entities in place. New Jersey's vanpool program, for example, requires that each individual vanpool be initiated with the involvement of one of the state's eight TMAs. This type of arrangement would obviously be unworkable in many rural states like North Dakota because they do not have any organized TMAs.

As indicated in Chapter 4, the state of Maine has a state-sponsored vanpool program but it contracts with the Greater Portland Council of Governments to administer the program's day-to-day activities. Even though the contract is with a specific council of government, the contract reported provides for the provision of related services on a statewide basis. The COG therefore functions much like a commercial entity and provided services outside its traditional service area.

Some of the state support for locally run programs is significant while in others it is relatively minor. In Maine's program, for example, the Maine Department of Transportation purchases program vehicles and sets rider fees. Conversely, New Jersey requires the involvement of TMAs and encourages pools to procure vehicles via authorized vendors; participating pools receive a monthly subsidy of $150. Both programs have monthly rider fees of between $52 and $54 for a person riding a total of 50 miles per day.

Colorado and Idaho are on the lower end of the spectrum in terms of state-level support that is given to local vanpool programs. Both states provide small amounts of ridesharing and technical assistance to programs that are operated within their respective state. While this involvement is indicative of a degree of state support of ridesharing in general and vanpooling in particular, it may be inconsequential in terms of the overall success of local programs.

State involvement with vanpooling, whether via a state-level program or one that coordinates with local/regional programs, helps emphasize the importance vanpooling and lends credibility to related programs. Making ridesharing and vanpooling a part of state-level policy determinations indicates that ridesharing is, in fact, important and warrants state involvement.

6.2.2 Self-Administered vs. Contractor-Operated Programs

As discussed in the preceding section, some state vanpool programs are run almost totally by state agencies or related entities. In other instances, states contract with some other entity to administer nearly all or portions of their programs. Some of these contractors are local/regional nonprofit organizations and sometimes they are private, for-profit contractors. Both approaches have benefits and disadvantages and state policymakers need to determine which approach best suits their state's needs.

Utah's UTA Rideshare program is perhaps one of the most comprehensive state-level programs in the country. The cost savings achieved through the state's intensive involvement in the program and its purchasing of vehicles, insurance, etc. makes UTA fares among the lowest in the country. The estimated fare for a person traveling a total of 50 miles per day is $50 per month or less than five cents per passenger per mile.

The attractiveness of Utah's program is reflected initially in its fare structure and more importantly in its participation numbers. In July 2005, the program had 264 pools in operation and expected to have another 23 in place by later in the year. It had 60 new potential pools on a waiting list.

North Dakota's vanpool program of the late 1970s and early 1980s would be representative of a slightly less comprehensive state-level program. Under that program, the state made funding available on an interest-free loan basis for employers and individuals who wanted to start vanpools. Vehicles were purchased by the operator, along with insurance and fuel. Maintenance was also the responsibility of the owner-operator. At the end of the vehicle's useful life (four years or 100,000 miles), the vanpool commitment was considered satisfied and the vehicle became the owner's to use as he or she pleased.

Michigan's MichiVan program also represents a less aggressive approach to state-level involvement since it contracts with a private vendor to administer the program and to supply vans and related maintenance, and insurance. Assuming comparable state and contractor cost structures, the involvement of a for-profit contractor should increase program costs to provide the required profit. This profit margin must come from either higher passenger fares and/or an ongoing subsidy that is provided by a sponsoring entity (state, city, employer, etc.).

While using a private contractor may result in higher program costs, doing so may be warranted. Newly established programs may especially benefit from the involvement of a private contractor since they lack both the economies of scale and the expertise that may be required to operate a successful program. These same attributes may also encourage the involvement of private contractors in established programs.

Two of the state programs discussed in Chapter 4, namely Maine (nine pools) and Connecticut (300 pools), contract with nonprofit organizations to provide day-to-day administrative services to their respective statewide vanpool program. Maine's program deals exclusively with one entity while Connecticut works with three services providers, each of which covers a different region of the state.

The remaining three state programs that were discussed in Chapter 4 (New Jersey, Colorado, and Idaho) work with transportation management associations or local units of government to promote vanpooling. New Jersey's program is more formalized in that it places certain operating requirements on individual pools (i.e. using certified vehicle providers and submitting monthly reports in exchange for a $150 monthly subsidy). Colorado and Idaho's programs, on the other hand, appear to be limited and largely refer inquiries to local program operators. There is little, if any, financial support provided by these states and there are no related state requirements placed on local programs or individual pool operators.

6.2.3 Vehicle Purchases and Ownership

As the discussions in Chapter 4 illustrate, vehicle purchases are handled in a variety of ways by various vanpool programs. In most instances, however, vehicles are either purchased by the program or provided by a leasing company that is hired to administer the program. Of the state programs highlighted in Chapter 4, two purchase program vans were under state purchase contracts. Most of the local programs discussed in Chapter 4 also purchase their own vehicles under contract.

Purchasing vehicles via a state contract creates substantial savings for the program and ultimately for its riders. Several program managers report savings between $2,000 and $5,000 per vehicle. Vehicles are then leased to individual pools and related costs are recovered via monthly fares charged by the program. At the end of a vehicle's useful life, the pool is given a replacement vehicle and the fully depreciated unit is disposed of and the proceeds are credited back to the program.

For programs that operate in conjunction with commercial vendors, such as VPSI or Enterprise, vehicles are typically provided by the vendor. As with most programs that purchase their own vehicles, monthly lease rates cover not only the cost of the vehicle but also fuel, maintenance, and insurance.

As described earlier, North Dakota's vanpool program of the late 1970s and early 1980s allowed pool operators to purchase vehicles from local dealers with interest-free money provided by the state. At the end of the vehicle's useful life (four years or 100,000 miles), the vanpool commitment was considered satisfied and the vehicle became the owner's to use as he or she pleased.

This type of arrangement is virtually nonexistent in today's vanpool environment. Such an approach would result in costs being significantly higher than might be achievable under state purchase contracts. Higher program costs also resulted because the residual value of depreciated vehicles belonging to pool operators rather than to the program itself.

It should also be noted that North Dakota's program required a multiyear commitment on the part of the purchasing operator. Conversely, most of today's programs allow operators and individual riders to discontinue participation on 30 days notice. Apparently, free rides, no initial investment, and a lack of long-term commitment are sufficient incentives to attract potential pool drivers in today's environment.

Given state government's purchasing power and the lack of a profit motive, a totally state-run purchase program has the potential to achieve significant cost savings – savings that may be passed on to participants in the form of lower monthly fares. Lower monthly fares, in turn, encourage continued and increased participation.

It should also be noted that some local/regional programs are as large as or larger than many of the state programs discussed in Chapter 4. Absent any benefits that might be created by governing state laws or rules, these large non-state programs may achieve the same economies of scale as their state counterparts and may, therefore, be able to offer comparable levels of service with comparable or even lower fares.

6.2.4 Fuel Purchases and Vehicle Maintenance

As is the case with vehicle purchases, virtually all of today's vanpool programs have provisions for the use of fleet credit cards which may be used to purchase fuel at designated commercial service stations and/or, in some cases, at state government fueling sites. This approach offers several advantages over the operator-pay method used in North Dakota's earlier vanpool program.

In North Dakota's 1970s and 1980s program, pool operators estimated retail fuel costs and usage and built related costs into their monthly fare calculations. Over-collections became part of the pool's financial reserve and under-collections required fare increases to recover shortages and future purchases.

This same approach is used by many vanpool programs today but it is handled at a macro-level based on costs incurred by all the program's pools and with fares set by the program rather than by individual pools. The result is less dramatic shifts in fares. The use of fleet credit cards also eliminates out-of-pocket costs and fare-related burdens for pool operators, a feature that is presumably attractive to many participants.

Government-operated programs may have a fuel-related cost advantage over programs that utilize third-party commercial vendors such as VPSI. Many programs which utilize commercial, for-profit operators charge, in effect, two monthly fares – one to cover lease costs, maintenance, and insurance and one to cover fuel costs. Fuel costs are typically reflective of retail prices.

Conversely, many government programs are often able to purchase fuel at a rate that does not include state taxes. Assuming state tax rates of 20-25 cents per gallon and a retail fuel price of $2.50 per gallon, programs can reduce overall fuel costs by up to 10% if purchases are tax exempt. Additional savings may result for programs are able to negotiate quantity discounts with select vendors.

Regarding vehicle maintenance, some programs use state or local government maintenance personnel to maintain vanpool vehicles. Programs that use third-party vendors such as VPSI typically have maintenance costs included in monthly vehicle lease rates. Programs that do not use one of these two approaches typically negotiate maintenance contracts with select vendors and have related expenses paid directly by the program, thereby avoiding out-of-pocket expenses by pool operators. Warranty work is performed by authorized vehicle dealerships.

As is the case with vehicle and fuel purchases by government-operated programs, these programs would appear to have a cost advantage related to vehicle maintenance. The basis for this advantage is the lack of a profit margin that is built into related services by commercial vendors. This cost advantage may be overcome, however, if higher costs (e.g. maintenance, personnel wages) are incurred by government service programs. If this did occur, however, it is expected that the vanpool program would reevaluate this function and begin using commercial service providers.

6.2.5 Government Money - Seed vs. Subsidy

As indicated in Chapter 4, virtually all publicly supported vanpool programs use some form of federal money for vehicle purchases, promotions, and/or administrative purposes. In some cases, a portion of this money is eventually recovered via monthly passenger fares and reused by the program. In other instances, the money represents an ongoing subsidy that is used to offset commercial lease payments.

Several programs attempt to operate on a break-even basis, except for administrative services that are provided by state or local government personnel. Some programs also specifically limit related subsidies by specifying that passenger fares must also cover administrative costs to some specified amount (e.g. the program will pay no more than 25% of related administrative expenses).

Federal Highway Administration rules allow programs to use FHWA funds to purchase vehicles if there are related provisions to recover these costs within the projected life of the vehicle. FHWA funds may also be used, without repayment, for things such as ride matching services, promotional expenses, etc.

Many of the programs discussed in Chapter 4 have existed for several years and are replacing vehicles with money collected from monthly fares. Many of the programs are also experiencing growth so additional money is needed for expansion vehicles. While fare collections may allow programs to continue on a status quo basis, an infusion of capital is needed to both start programs and to facilitate expansion. FHWA and FTA monies often cover these needs.

Some vanpool programs, such as those in operation in New Jersey and in the Twin Cities, provide ongoing subsidies to vanpools. As reported in Chapter 4, New Jersey provides participating vanpools with a $150 per month subsidy. The Twin Cities Van-Go! program pays 55% of each pool's monthly VPSI lease. This subsidy amounts of nearly $700 per pool per month.

Many programs attempt to recover their fully allocated, nonadministrative costs via month passenger fares. In some cases, programs are planning to increase fares to cover an increasing percentage of their administrative costs. Some hope to recover all administrative costs while others plan to provide an ongoing subsidy by requiring that fares cover only a specified percentage of such costs.

In each instance, state and/or local policymakers must decide how much of a subsidy, if any, they are willing and able to provide to the program. These and related decisions will ultimately impact each individual commuter and influence whether or not they will become or stay involved with the program.

6.2.6 Small vs. Large Vans - Safety, Management, and Drive Time

A review of the state and local programs discussed in Chapter 4 reveals an interesting dichotomy regarding the vehicles that are used by various systems. Systems such as the ones in operation in Boise and Missoula, for example, use high-capacity 13-15 passenger vans. Others, such as Denver's RideArrangers program, use primarily seven-passenger minivans. Several programs provide flexibility which allows pools to select whatever size vehicle best suits their needs.

Specifying a certain standard size vehicle for program use simplifies vehicle purchases and maintenance. This simplification will also ultimately impact program costs and participant fares.

Programs which use primarily large vans do so to keep passenger fares low. There is relatively little difference in cost between a seven-passenger minivan and a 13-15 passenger van. Similarly, there are few significant differences in terms of monthly operating costs. Given these minor differences, increasing vehicle occupancy from 6 to 12 paying passengers can have a significant impact on monthly fares.

Despite the fare advantage of larger vans, some programs have made a conscious decision to use smaller vehicles. This decision is based primarily on safety and pool management.

Several safety warnings have been issued in recent years concerning the use of large vans. These warnings have not been restricted to vanpool programs but, rather, have been universally issued to anyone who operates such vehicles (schools, churches, daycare programs, etc.). These concerns have prompted some vanpool programs to focus more on smaller vehicles which are reportedly safer and easier for drivers to operate.

Smaller vanpools are also easier to manage. Rather than having 13 passengers to monitor and report on, operators may have as few as six riders to keep track of. Smaller pools also impact drive times since there are fewer passengers to pick-up and drop-off every morning and afternoon. Shorter commute times are the result.

Having a smaller pool may also prompt a pool to agree that door-to-door service is possible, rather than having a few designated pick-up points. To facilitate shorter ride times, some vanpool programs do not provide door-to-door service. Rather, they require riders to meet their van at designated locations at specified times. This requirement mirrors traditional transit operations and necessitates that individual riders walk to pick-up points or to get there via transit, private automobile, etc. Using designated pick-up points may be especially necessary for pools with riders who live over a wide geographic area. Programs may similarly require that riders be dropped off at designated locations and may need to walk or use transit to get to their worksite.

Overall, vanpooling typically increases commute times relative to commuting via private automobile, especially in uncongested corridors without high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Increases of 10-12 minutes may be expected (Evans and Pratt). Riders are, therefore, sacrificing drive time minutes for things such as cost savings, more relaxing rides, etc.

Decisions regarding door-to-door service vs. designated pick-up and drop-off locations, whether they are made system-wide or by individual pools, will impact the desirability of vanpooling for individual riders. Value judgments and local conditions should be considered before final decisions are made.

6.2.7 Fares - Pricing Options and Elasticity of Demand

As indicated in the preceding paragraphs, vanpool participants typically experience longer commute times than people who commute in private automobiles. Lower commuting costs are one way to offset this negative aspect of vanpooling.

A 2005 study sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration discussed the sensitivity of vanpool ridership to fare changes. The study found that some reports and research suggest that ridership is not sensitive to fare increases while other reports found that the relationship between fares and ridership was highly elastic (Evans and Pratt).

Given the inconclusive findings of this report, it may be impossible to accurately predict how important fares are to vanpool participation. It should also be noted, however, that this FTA study focused on fare changes within existing systems; it did not pertain to the importance of fares relative to attracting new riders. While fare increases may or may not influence a rider's continued participation, fare levels may be a major influencing factor relative to a commuter's initial decision regarding participation.

A review of the programs discussed in Chapter 4 indicates that all programs take steps to keep rider costs low. Some programs provide direct subsidies to control costs while others do so via cost-saving measures such as purchasing vehicles under state contracts, using government mechanics to maintain vehicles, purchasing fuel via tax-exempt methods, and procuring insurance from government self-insurance pools. Whatever approach is used, program managers attempt to control program costs and to keep related rider fares low, thereby helping vanpools compete with private automobiles. With monthly fares for a 50 mile daily roundtrip commute varying from around $50 to over $100, some are obviously more successful than others.

Some programs also provide one-time fare incentives to entice commuters to try vanpooling. Discounted fares are typically provided, for example, during the second month of usage, thereby eliminating the possibility of someone taking advantage of the discounted fare for one month and then dropping out of the pool. Other programs offer fare-related rewards for riders who recruit new riders into the system.

In 2000, the University of Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research developed a Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide for the Florida Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (Winters and Cleland). This research identified 17 pricing strategies that are used by vanpool programs around the country. Some of the common strategy considerations identified by the study include:

This study's findings relative to pricing strategies reinforce the pricing discussions contained in Chapter 4. In summary, it appears that there is no one right way to price vanpooling services. Different programs use different approaches to match their objectives and the needs of their clients.

6.2.8 Driver Incentives

Virtually all vanpool programs provide incentives to vehicle drivers in recognition of duties and responsibilities they assume. Common incentives include free monthly rides and limited personal use of the vanpool vehicle. Responsibilities typically include driving, collecting monthly fares, submitting reports, and arranging for vehicle maintenance and cleaning. Some programs also require that drivers take a safety course prior to operating a vanpool vehicle. Some programs, such as Van-Go! in the Twin Cities, provide semi-annual cash payments to both primary and backup drivers.

As discussed earlier, North Dakota's vanpool program of the 1970s and 1980s provided a major incentive to drivers, above and beyond the fact that they rode free. Under that program, drivers were required to pay a portion of their pool's start-up costs and to both drive and administer the pool. The driver's contribution to start-up costs were eventually recovered via passenger fares and, as a major bonus, the vehicle became the property of the driver once it reached the end of its useful life (four years or 100,000 miles, whichever came first).

Except for a little-use program offered in Utah, none of the vanpool programs reviewed as a part of this study offer any incentives comparable to those that were available in North Dakota 25 years ago. They are apparently not necessary to attract and retain willing drivers or, conversely, related obligations are greater than today's drivers are willing to undertake. Today's programs do not necessitate long-term commitments.

6.2.9 Guaranteed Rides Home

One of the risks faced by vanpool drivers and riders relates to the unavailability of a personal vehicle for emergency trips during the workday. Almost all of the programs discussed in Chapter 4 have some form of guaranteed ride home feature to address this need.

Programs that operate in urban areas tend to use existing transit systems and taxi services to provide vanpoolers with access to emergency transportation services. In some cases, users must pay for the service and then seek reimbursement while in many instances the service provider may agree to bill the vanpool program for services provided, thereby avoiding any out-of-pocket costs for the commuter.

Some vanpool programs are confronted with long-distance commutes or related situations where traditional transit and/or taxi services are not available. In these instances, some program operators provide guaranteed ride home services via car rental companies.

Programs vary relative to the number of emergency trips that commuters can make. Some programs permit only two trips per year while others allow as many as eight. Some place dollar limits on expenses that may be incurred during a specified time period.

Without exception, managers of the programs discussed in Chapter 4 indicated that guaranteed ride home programs are necessary but seldom used. No managers reported concerns with their respective program or any significant cases of abuse.

6.2.10 Employer Support

According to the 2005 FTA-sponsored vanpool study referred to earlier, the success of vanpool programs is heavily influenced by the degree of employer support (Evans and Pratt). Employees are more likely to vanpool if related programs are supported by their employers.

As discussed in Chapter 3, employer support and related incentives come in a variety of forms. Some support is primarily promotional and involves publicity or providing workday opportunities for employees to gather to learn about new or existing pools, etc. Higher degrees of nonfinancial support might include things like preferential parking for vanpool vehicles and flex-time alternatives to facilitate vanpool operations.

Employers may also provide financial incentives to encourage vanpooling. Options might include employer-provided vehicles or using flexible spending account programs to access tax advantages associated with vanpooling. According to a 2000 report prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, vanpool ridership increases 0.02% for every $1 increase in monthly employer-provided subsidies (Winters and Cleland).

As indicated in Chapter 3, an employee may not participate in federal tax-related commuter benefit programs unless his or her employer participates. There are also numerous federally sponsored programs and services that are designed to encourage and facilitate employer participation in vanpool programs. Examples include the Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative and the previously discussed Best Workplaces for Commuters program (www.commuterchoice.gov). Related services are also available from the Association for Commuter Transportation (www.actweb.org) and local TMOs and TMAs.

Vanpool programs can be successful without direct employer participation but their success will not be maximized unless employers agree to be involved. As discussed in previous chapters, employer involvement benefits the program, participating employees, and, in most cases, the employer.


< Prev | TOC | Next >