USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

1996 Rideshare! evaluation

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
1996 Rideshare! evaluation survey of local area businesses : opportunities for new programs & TDM model adjustment recommendations
Alternate Title:
Rideshare! evaluation
Physical Description:
13, 5 leaves : charts ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Ridesharing -- Evaluation -- Ohio, Northern   ( lcsh )
Commuters -- Attitudes -- Ohio, Northern   ( lcsh )
Paratransit services -- Evaluation -- Ohio, Northern   ( lcsh )
Employer-sponsored transportation -- Ohio, Northern   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001926386
oclc - 35332349
usfldc doi - C01-00273
usfldc handle - c1.273
System ID:
SFS0032359:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200241Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 001926386
005 20080327155608.0
008 960831s1996 flud 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00273
2 local
035
(OCoLC)35332349
040
CBT
c CBT
d FHM
043
n-us-oh
049
FHMM
090
HE5620.R53
b N56 1996
0 245
1996 Rideshare! evaluation :
survey of local area businesses : opportunities for new programs & TDM model adjustment recommendations /
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.
3 246
Rideshare! evaluation
260
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1996]
300
13, [5] leaves :
charts ;
28 cm.
530
Also available online.
650
Ridesharing
z Ohio, Northern
x Evaluation.
Commuters
Ohio, Northern
Attitudes.
Paratransit services
Ohio, Northern
Evaluation.
Employer-sponsored transportation
Ohio, Northern.
710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
994
C0
FHM
1 8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.273



PAGE 1

1996 RIDESHARE! EVALUATION SURVEY OF LOCAL AREA BUSINESSES: OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW PROGRAMS & TDM MODEL AD.ruSTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Prepared by: Center for Urb an Transportation Research University of South Florida-College of Engineering 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, Florida 33620-5350

PAGE 2

1996 RIDESHARE! EVALUATION SURVEY OF LOCAL AREA B USINESSES: OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW PROGRAMS & TDM MODEL ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS I Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ill Characteristics of Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 IV Opportunities to Implement New Programs within the Business Community . . . . 8 V Recommendations for adjustments to FHW A 1DM Model Default Values . . . . 11 Appendix: Copy of Employer Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

PAGE 3

I Introduction The purpose of this report is to present information from the surveys of businesses that was not cove.red in the main evaluation report The information will be presented in three sections: Methodology Characteristics of responding businesses Opporwnities to implement new programs Recontntendations for adjustments to FHW A TDM model default values ll Methodology A total of 1,392 surveys were mailed to Human Resource Directors (HRDs) of employers in the RIDESHARE! (RS) service area. The employers selected were located along certain coaidors specified by RS staff as being of panicular interest, and so do not necessarily represent a balanred opinion of employers in the entire area Those areas were detlllCd by the following zip codes: ljOACA 44131,44144,44122 44143, 44114, 44115 44113, 44124, 44145 44106 SCATS 44720,44718,44702 44646,44601,44708 44663,44622,4464 7 44615 AMATS 44306, 44202, 44203 44333, 44223, 44236 44056,44224,44241 44087 EDATA 44512,44406,44446 4448Z,4442S,44S1S 44420,44502,44484 44509 Employers were aslced to provide information on the characteristics of their worksites programs that they offered to eocourag e use of contntute alternatives, and interest in developing new programs. They were also asked about their awareness of and intenlction with the RS Organization. Sample for this survey was obtained commercially from American Business Lists (ABL) of Omaha, Nebraska. The sample was drawn to maximize the number of companies in the sample with 100 or more employees. No surveys were sent to companies identified in the ABL database as having fewer than 50 employees. The responses should therefore represent the opinions, attitudes, and knowledge of larger employers in the area. A total of 255 surveys were returned for a response rate of approximately 19%. This response rate is rath e r low, but not unexpected for a non-pre-recruited and non -follow-up mail survey to loca l business executives. A substantially more expensive procedure that could be followed to encourage higher response rates would include pre-notification, survey distribution, individual identification of each survey so that returns could be tracked, follow up by phone with companies that had not returned surveys, and an offer to collect the data by phone if that would be more convenient for the respondent. 1

PAGE 4

ill Characteristics of Businesses The fU"St charts show a brief description of the companies surveyed. Companies were asked to Identify themselves by type, according to a generic SIC classification. The respondents had a distribution of types somewhat different from the total eligible sample, as shown in the chart below: Types of Employer Organizations in Northeast Ohio area 511% ----------------------------------------f---------------------------------------------1 14% [ Responding .Total Sample I Nonheaslem Ohio Area Commi.Ror 8Cudy M-v t998 It should be noted particularly that companies in retail trade UDder-responded to the survey, whereas manufacturers over-responded. While some of the differences may be due to differences in SIC classifications between the respondents (self-reported) and the original database, it seems clear that retail trade-oriented organizations did under respond. 2

PAGE 5

It would be poss i ble to re-weight the results of the survey based on SIC classification to account for the diff e rent levels of response. However, for the following reasons, CUTR has chosen not to do so : l. The businesses that responded are probably those most interested in transportation issues The cooclusion that shoul d be drawn is that retail trade organizations are less interested in transportation issues for their employees than other types of organizations. If this is the case, re-weighting the surveys would not serve any discernible purpose. 2. Only 20 responses were received from retail-oriented organizations Even if the responses are "generally" representative of retail organirntions' attitudes, the effect of any "outliers", i.e organizations that have opinions that deviate widely from the norm for this type of organization would be quite significant. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if the entire sample base were larger (say, 150 retail organizations). However given the current situation, re weighting may do as much (if not more) harm than good 3. CUTR did examine results derived from a re-weighting procedure, and found that, for the most part, even though percentages and averages did change some, the major conclusions that would be drawn from the data would not be changed. The majority of the responding employers are "white collar" offJ.Ce..related businesses, such as services, financially oriented business, and There is also a large munber of manufacturers ln the sample.

PAGE 6

Companies were also asked how many employees they had at their individual worksites The survey was designed to gamer responses primarily from companies with 100 or more employees as well as some companies with SO to 99 employees For the most part, the responses received followed that pattern. Again, results are compared with the full sample universe. Types of Employer Organizations in Northeast Ohio area 70% 60% 50% '""' 30% 20% 10% '"' ... .. Ill Responding IITotaJ Sample! Nonheast:om Ohio Aroe. Commuter Study M-.y t99e 1bis is a comparison of self-reported number of employees versus a database figure. Here there is a much greater probability of mis-classification by emp l oyee size in the original database (due to layoffs, other organizational changes, etc.). Also the percentages are reasonably close for the three categories. 1be differences here were determined to be insufficient to Wartant further investigation. 4

PAGE 7

Surveys were sent to companies in proportion to the number of companies in each LRA's area of responsibility, along the corridors specified by RS. Responses came back in very much the same magnitudes : Locations of Employer Organizations by LRA f--------------------------f ---------------------------------I Respond ing IITo1a l Sample I Nolthoutom Ohio Aroa Commucet Stucfy M.,y 1998 5

PAGE 8

The next set of charts show the level of concenuation of surveyed employers in tetms of other employers in the same buildings, and how many of the businesses are in Central Business D istricts (CBD's) and h ow many are in Corpotate/Industrial Parks The majority of businesses surveyed are in CBD's. Furthermore, 88% of all businesses surveyed said they had 6 or more othe r businesses within 'h mile of their worksite. Number of Other Employers In same Building/Industrial Park ....... -'" .......... a.-coo.,. 6 .... ;.; .. ;: .... ,_.,.. ..-ceo..,.

PAGE 9

The surveys indicate that this area has a number of highly concentrated, office-oriented businesses which provide the best likelihood for the developmeDl of successful ridesharing programs. Opportunities to implemeDl new programs within the local businesses will be discussed in the next section. 7

PAGE 10

IV Opportunities to Implement New programs within the Business Community HRD's at surveyed businesses were asked to provide information on what new programs they might be willing to consider, and for which programs they might want Ridesharing agency assistance. Businesses were specifically asked if they bad ETC's in place, and if not, if they would be willing to designate tillle to have them. The results are shown below: Status of Establishing Employee Transportation Coordinators in Northeast Ohio area Businesses Currently in Place Would Designata lime IIITotal II <100 Emps 11100+ Emps I Nol'lhooa$t Otlio Atoa Employ.r Study May 1996 91% No Interest Only 2% of businesses said they had an ETC-like position already set up. However, 16% of larger businesses, and 13% of all businesses, said they would be willing to designate tillle for an ETC position (generally 4 hours per week). Research reports that ETC's are a cornerstone of successful implementation of commute alternative programs through businesses. What the survey indicates is that in 1 of 6 contacts with larger businesses, RS might very well be able to successfully recommend a lilllited development of an ETC position.

PAGE 11

A summary of programs offered and what might be considered is also displayed in the chart below: Status of Existing and Potential Commute Alternative Programs By Employer Size Offer any Percent of Employers whic h: -------------------------------1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------l WO
PAGE 12

Specific programs that employers would consider setting up are s hown in the chart below: . .... Commute Alternative Programs that Employers Would Consider Offering 15% A--------------------------------------1 Only 27% of businesses would consider offering any programs. For those companies, about 33% (or about 9% of AlL businesses) would be willing to offer programs such as coupon books/discounts, subsidies for using transit, a GRH program, preferred pool parking, and so forth. About 1 in 10 businesses that would consider offering programs (2-4% of all businesses) would like RS help to set up the programs, particularly for GRH, the coupon books/discount incentives, transit subsidies, and so forth. There was very little difference between large and small businesses on their interest in having RS help set up programs. 10

PAGE 13

V Recommendations for adjustments to FHWA TDM Model Default Values The FHW A TOM model makes a number of assumptions about how many businesses will panicipate in various types of incentive programs, based on the results of surveys in California with a few adjustments from nationwide results. The RIDESHARE! program has to opportunity to customize the TDM m odel assumptions by using the results of these surveys The TDM model essentially provides two default values: one for business under 100 employees, and one for businesses with 100 or more employees. The results from the surveys will be presented in the same fashion. The sections that can be customized are listed be l ow, together with the corresponding result. The results were obtained by adding together the number of businesses that currently offer the programs with 1h of the businesses that "would consider" offering the program. Additionally an alternative assumption is provided if all the employers who said they "would consider" the program are added in. It should be noted that these values are averages for the entire area in corridors specified by the LRA's. Certain subareas (either geographic, or by certain types of businesses) may have differing participation rates. 1. Level of Employer Support (ETC's, and so forth) Always set to Level 1. Under 100 employees: Set partic i pation to 5% (including all that would consider: 9%) Default value i s 4% 100 or more employees : Set to 10% (including all that would consider : 18%) Default value is 37% Only 13% of employers indicated a willingness to establish ETC's (part time), and even fewer (11% to 12%) indicated that they would consider (or already offered) a GRH program 2. Employer participation in preferential parking for vanpools/carpools 13%) Under 100 employees: Set participation to 8% (including all that would consider: Default value is 1% 100 or more empl oyees: Set to 8% (including all that would consider: 11%) Default value is 7% 3 Employer participation in transit subsidies 12%) Under 100 employees: Set partic i pation to 6% (including all that would comider: Default value is 1% 100 or more employees: Set to 7% (including all that would consider : 11 %) Default value is 7% 11

PAGE 14

4. Employer participation in carpool or vanpool subsidies Under 100 employees: Set participation to 4% (including all that would consider: 8 %) Default value is 1 % 100 or more employees: Set to 3% (including all that would consider: 5%) Defauit value is 7% 5 Employer participation in guaranteed ride home Under 100 employees: Set participation to 5% (including all that would consider: 8%) 100 or more employees: Set to 8% (including all that would consider: 13%) 6. Employer participation in compressed work weeks Under 100 employees: Set participation to 17% (including all that would consider: 20%) Default value is 4% 100 or more employees: Set to 18% (including all that would consider: 20%) Default value is 37% Set employee eligibility to 37% (for all participating employers) 7. Employer participation in telecommuting Under 100 employees: Set participation to 11% (including all that would consider: 13%) Default value is 4% 100 or more employees: Set to 11% (including all that would consider: 13%) Default value is 37% Set employee eligibility to 27% (for all participating employers) TDM model default values suggest the following breakdown for telecommuters: 6.4% telecommute 1 day per week 12.8% telecommute 2 days per week 19.2% telecommute 3 days per week 25.6% telecommute 4 days per week 32.0% telecommute 5 days per week 12

PAGE 15

Appendix: Copy of Employer Survey 1 3

PAGE 16

NORTHEAST OHIO AREA E!vfPLOYER TRANSPORTATION SURVEY Please fill out and return this s urvey by May 29, 1996. 1 Which of the following categories best describes your organization? (check ONE) Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing Construction Transportation Public Utilities Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Services (business, personaQ 0 (1) CJ (2) CJ (3) CJ (4) 0(5) Mining Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Public Adnin 0(6) 0(7) 0(8) 0 (9) 0(10) 2. Is your organization located in : a central business district? 0 Yes (1) a corporateAndustrial park? OYes (1) Cl No (2) 0No(2) 3. Does your organization share a building or corporateflndustrial park wilh: (check ONE) 1-5 other employers 0 (1) 10-25 other employers CJ (2) No other employers [] (5) 6-9 other employers OVer 25 other employers [] (2) 0(4) (-I.e., you have your own building !halls not located In a corporateAndustrial park) 4. Not including the building or corporateflndustrial park where your organization is located, how many other employers are l o cated within Yz mile? (check ONE) None [] (1) 1-5 CJ (2) 6 or more Cl (3) 5. How ma ny employees do you have at Ibis location? (Check ONE) Lessthan5 20-49 0 (1) 5-9 [] (2) 0(4) 50-99 0(5) 500 or more 0 (T) 10-19 0 (3) 100-499 0 (6) 6 How many parking places does your organization proVide for your employees? (Check ONE) 7. Less than 5 20-49 0(1) [] (4) 5-9 5099 500ormore 0(2) [] (5) OfT) How much do your employees pay to park in those spaces? (Put 0.00 if parking is free) 10-19 100-499 0(3) [] (6) S __ __ perday 8. How far is the nearest alternate par king that your employees can use? (Check ONE) Under 114 mile Y, mile to 1 nile [] (1) 0(3) 114 to Y, mile OVer 1 nile 9. How far is the nearest bus stop from your worksite? (Check ONE) Under 114 mile Y, mile to 1 mile CJ (1) CJ (3) 10. And is the bus stop : (Check all that apply) 114 to Yo mile OVer 1 nile [] (2) 0(4) 0(2) 0(4) Shattered 0 (1) WoU-lit 0 (2) Located on a paved lighted sidewalk that connects to your site 0 (3)

PAGE 17

1 1 NORTHEAST OHIO AREA Elv!PLOYER TRANSPORTATION SURVEY What percentage o f your organization s employees are: currently eligibl e for : (Put o if you do n o t offer tile program) Flextime % Compressed work weeks (4 days/40 hours, 9/80, etc ) __ % Telecommuting % currently participatin g in: (Put 0 if you if you don' t o ffer t he prog ram o r n o one participates) % _ % _ % 1 2. For the following faciHties, p l ease cheek all o f t hose that are available at or near (1/4 mile or less) your site: Medical servi ces CJ (1) Ban ki ng CJ (2) Snack Bar CJ (3) Dry Cleaners CJ (4) Post Office CJ (5) Dentist CJ (6) General Retail Convenien c e Exercise Sho p ping CJ(7) Store CJ (8) Facil ity CJ (9) Res t aurant/ Child Care Cafeteria 0(10) Facility CJ(11 ) 13. S o me compan ies designate an empl oye.. as an Employee Transportation Coord i nat o r" (ETC). An ETC has the respons i bility of: designing and coordinating programs/incentives for employe e s to use commute a Hematives -informing e m ployees of the programs and incentives. Does your organi zation h ave an ETC? CJ Yes (1) (GOTO Q .14) CJ No (2) (S KI P TO Q, 15) 14. How much employee time does your organization designate for your ETC? (Check ONE) None CJ (0) 20 hrslwk CJ (3) (SKIP TO Q. 1 6) 4 hourslwk CJ (1) 30 hrs/wk CJ (4) 1 0 hrs/wk CJ (2) 40 hrs/wk CJ (5) 1 5. How much employee time woul d your organizati o n be willing to designate for an ETC? (Check ONE) Nona 20 hrslwk CJ (0) CJ (3} 4 hourslwk CJ (1) 30 hrs/w k CJ (4) 1 0 hrs/wk CJ (2) 40 hrs/wk CJ (5) 16. And if no-cost training could be provided how much training would your organization allow your ETC to attend? (Check ONE) None 3 dayslyr CJ (0) CJ (3) 1 day/year CJ (1) 4 dayslyr CJ (4) 2 dayslyr CJ (2) 5+ dayslyr CJ (5) 1 7 How many other locations does your organization have in the Northeast Ohio Area? Nona 5-9 (Check ONE) CJ (0) 0(3) 1 CJ (1) 10 or more a (4) 2-4 CJ (2)

PAGE 18

!f
PAGE 19

.1 :; .. NORTHEAST OHIO AREA FMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION SURVEY 18. How many employees do you have working at other locations within the Northeast Ohio Area? (Chec k ONE) None 10-19 100 499 0(0) 0(3) 0(6) 1-4 20-49 500+ iJ (1) iJ (4) 0(7) 5-9 0 (2) 50-99 (J (5) 19 Please make a check mark by the statement which best describes your knowledge of the Ridesharel Agency (Check ONE) You have heard of Rldesharel but don' know what they do 0 You are familiar with some of Rideshare's activities 0 You have a sound working knowledge of Rideshare!'s programs iJ You have never heard of Rideshare! 0 20. Please make a check mark by each of the following statements that correctly describes your organization's interaction with the Ridesharel Agency (Check all that apply) Your organization has been contacted by Ridesharel 0 Rldesharel Has made a presentation to your organization 0 Rideshare!'s activities have had a significant impact on your organization's ridesharing programs 0 Your organization intends to contact the Rideshare! Agency in the near future 0 21. Please CIRCLE THE NUMBER that best reftects your opinion of how effective the Ridesharel agency's activities are: Not at all Effective Extremely Effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not familiar with Rideshare! 0

PAGE 20

NORTHEAST OHIO AREA EMPWYER TRANSPORTATION SURVEY 22. What types of programs or amenities: a) does your organi z ation currently offer y o ur e m p loy ees for commuting purposes? b) did a ridesharing agency h elp you s e t up? c) woul d you r organ ization consider offering as incentives for use of commute atternatives ? d) would your organization l ike to get assistance in implementing from the Rides hare! Agency? Would K k e to get assistance R i desharing Woul d from rideshartng CurrenUy agency helped to consider agency to offer se t up program offering Implement (Chec k all (Check a ll (Ch eck all (Ch eck aU bat iii!HIV) !bit illllllll 11!!1 al!l!lxl tha t !!l!l!l:tl Bike rac k s or lock ers 0 0 0 CJ S h owers & clothing s t orage 0 0 CJ 0 Flextime work schedules 0 CJ CJ CJ Compressed work weeks (4 daye/40 hours, 9 days/80 hrs, etc.) CJ CJ CJ CJ ADow employees to wor k at home CJ CJ CJ CJ Helping to provide a shuttle to/from remote parking facil ities CJ CJ CJ CJ Helping to provide a shuttle to lunch places/ banks/dry cleaners durtng the day CJ CJ CJ CJ Reserved parldng spac es for va np ools/carpools CJ CJ CJ CJ S ub sidies for mass transit or shuttle use CJ CJ CJ CJ Carpoollvanpool subsidies CJ CJ CJ CJ Guaranteed Ride Home program, which provides an 80% discount on a taxi ride for users of commute anematives who have emergencies CJ CJ CJ 0 Company c ars for employee business travel durtng the day CJ CJ CJ CJ Additional vacation days as a reward for us i ng c ommute atternatives CJ CJ CJ CJ Coupon books /discounts as a reward for using commute atternatives 0 CJ CJ CJ Providing Free ti ckets to sports events, movies symphony, etc as a reward for using commute alternatives CJ CJ CJ CJ This survey is completely anonymous and confidential. However, if you would like to receive additional information about commute atternative programs, or about the resuns of this survey, please prov ide the Information fisted below: Organization: Contact Name: Address: Wo u ld l i ke to receive : (chec k all tha t apply) Information about Commute Attemative programs CJ Resutts of the survey 0 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR llME IN FILUNG OUT THIS SURVEY. THE RESULTS WIL L BE USED TO REDUCE TRAFFIC AND PARKING PROBLEMS IN THE NORTHEAST OHIO AREA. Should you have any questions regarding this survey, please c o ntact: Dan Rudge at C U TR (813) 974-3120, or Maribeth Josue at NOACA (216) 241-2414