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

Questions?Shana Johnsonsjohnson@foursquareitp.com(301) 774-4566 x402

Lora Byalalbyala@foursquareitp.com(301) 774-4566 x401

16