State of the Practice: Existing Public Vanpool Programs

State of the
Practice:
Existing Public
Vanpool
Programs
Operating and Administrative
Characteristics
Vanpool Boot Camp
ACT Chesapeake Chapter and
Mobility Lab
November 7, 2011
2
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
3
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.
4
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
5
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?
6
Vanpool Programs
Interviewed
Agency
City
State
King County
Seattle
WA
Number of
Vans
826
Pace
Arlington
Heights
San Diego
IL
677
CA
566
Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (MTA)
Utah Transit Authority
Houston
TX
545
Salt Lake City
UT
452
Metropolitan Transportation
Authority
(MTA)
Snohomish County
Los Angeles
CA
327
Everett
WA
313
Valley Metro
Phoenix
AZ
310
Greater Hartford Ridesharing Corp.
Windsor
CT
302
Pierce County
Tacoma
WA
270
San Diego Council of Governments
Total for Ten Systems
Total/Percent of 57 Reporting
Systems
4,588
7,772 / 59%
7
Directly Operated vs. Purchased
Transportation
No Direct Rider Subsidy,
Lower Fares vs. Direct
Rider Subsidy and no
Fare Control
Number of FTEs required
to operate a program
Program functions
Level of involvement in
day-to-day vanpool
management
Required program
funding
Pierce Transit Vanpool, Seattle, WA
8
Basic Background Information
Agency
Program Type/Owner
Year Program Started
Number of Staff
King County, Seattle WA
Directly Operated
1970s
38 FTEs
Pace, Arlington Heights IL
Directly Operated
1991
10 FTEs
The Rideshare Company,
Connecticut
Non-profit
1987
MTA, Houston TX
Purchased Transportation Private vanpools started in
1970s, public involvement
began in 1980s.
4 Senior Mgmt, 4 Customer
Svc, 4 Finance, 6 Business
Development, & 5
Operations
1 public FTE, 9 FTEs at the
master contractor, several
others part-time .
Utah Transit Authority, Salt
Lake City UT
Directly Operated
9 FTEs.
MTA, Los Angeles CA
Purchased Transportation 2007
Directly Operated
Snohomish County –
Community Transit, Everett
WA
Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ Directly Operated
Private firm in the 1980s;
UTA acquired in 1990.
2.5 FTE, another 2 LA MTA
employees used as needed.
1986
5 FTE.
Approximately 1990
1 FTE, others at contractor.
511 RideMatch Services,
San Francisco CA
Vanpools entirely private 1978
sector, but SF MTA has a
contractor run the ride
match program.
2 FTEs who work for MTC and
15 FTEs who are contracted
to operate the ride match
program.
Pierce County, Tacoma
WA
Directly Operated
11 FTEs, including 2 program
managers.
1986
9
Program Characteristics
Agency
Average
Roundtrip
Average Vanpool Fare
King County, Seattle WA
N/A
Fares vary, but a 15-passenger
van with 12 passengers and 40
mile round trip is approx. $60.
Average fare per rider is $130.
Pace, Arlington Heights IL
80 miles
The Rideshare Company,
Connecticut
35 miles
Minivans have an average fare
of $177 and full size vans have
an average fare of $139.
MTA, Houston TX
55 miles
Unknown.
Utah Transit Authority, Salt
Lake City UT
MTA, Los Angeles CA
77 miles
95 miles
Fare varies based on the size of
van and number of riders.
Unknown.
Snohomish County –
58 miles
Community Transit, Everett WA
Average vanpool fare is $60 to
$65.
Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ
64 miles
Average vanpool fare is $87.15.
511 RideMatch Services, San
Francisco CA
Pierce County, Tacoma WA
60 miles
Unknown.
65 miles
Average Fare is $80 to $85.
Incentives or Subsidy Offered
Unknown.
Guaranteed ride home, 300 personal miles
per month for the driver, free fare for drivers,
discounted fare for backup drivers.
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.
Flat subsidy of $35 per qualified rider,
average van subsidy of $350.
Drivers receive 50 personal miles per month.
Subsidizes 50% of van costs up to $400. Most
vans receive the full $400.
Free fare for drivers (not all vans), all drivers
are allowed 160 personal miles per month.
Free fare and 300 personal miles per month
for drivers. Reimbursement for two taxi rides
home per year for emergencies.
Van startup/Van save assistance ($100 per
lost seat for three months).
Free fare and up to 1,800 personal miles per
year for drivers.
10
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 nonvanpool related uses.
11
Program Rules/ADA
Compliance
Program Rules
Limited requirements for program drivers
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.
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
12
Indemnification and Insurance
MTA, Los Angeles, CA Participation Agreement
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
13
NTD Data Collection
Various Methods
Sample Survey (FTA
Approved)
In-Vehicle Daily Paper
(Convert to Web-based
input form, Excel or Fax
for Submission)
Mobile technology
based
Significant Staff Time
Requirement
Groups not reporting on
time
Reporting errors
Compiling and inputting
data
Orange County Transportation Authority, Web-based
NTD Reporting Module
14
Marketing and Branding
Strategies
Branding
Vehicle wraps
Marketing
Word-of-mouth (most
common)
Collaboration with TMAs and
TDM agencies
Direct employer outreach
Newsletters
Metro Vanpool (Los Angeles), Pierce Transit Vanpool, and Houston STAR Vanpool vehicle wraps/marketing images.
15
Overall Findings
Ownership and operation varied
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
Public programs required more staff but retain
more control
Only half had marketing budgets
Subsidies were ubiquitous
NTD data collection is difficult with a paper-based
system
Minimal participation by owner operators
16
Questions?
Shana Johnson
[email protected]
(301) 774-4566 x402
Lora Byala
[email protected]
(301) 774-4566 x401