Birmingham area rideshare program evaluation

Birmingham area rideshare program evaluation

Material Information

Birmingham area rideshare program evaluation final report
Day Wilburn Associates
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Birmingham Regional Planning Commission
Place of Publication:
Atlanta, Ga
Day Wilburn Associates
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps ; 28 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Ridesharing -- Alabama -- Birmingham Metropolitan Area ( lcsh )
Regional planning -- Alabama -- Birmingham Metropolitan Area ( lcsh )
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
"September, 1995".
General Note:
"Prepared for: Birmingham Regional Planning Commission ..."
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Day Wilburn Associates, Inc., in association with Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, 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:
028525506 ( ALEPH )
174536806 ( OCLC )
C01-00025 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.25 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has 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 2200277Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 028525506
005 20110909145212.0
008 071017s1995 gauab b 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00025
b B57 1995
0 245
Birmingham area rideshare program evaluation :
final report /
prepared by Day Wilburn Associates, Inc., in association with Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
Atlanta, Ga. :
Day Wilburn Associates,
1 v. (various pagings) :
ill., maps ;
28 cm.
"September, 1995".
"Prepared for: Birmingham Regional Planning Commission ..."
Includes bibliographical references.
Also available online.
z Alabama
Birmingham Metropolitan Area.
Regional planning
Birmingham Metropolitan Area.
2 710
Day Wilburn Associates.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Birmingham Regional Planning Commission.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


Final Report Birmingham Area Rideshare Program Evaluation Prepared for: Birmingham Regional Planning Commiss ion Magnolia Office Park, Suite 220 2112 lith Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 35256-4799 (205) 251-8139 Prepared by: Day Wilburn Associates, Inc. 1795 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 245 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 249 7550 Ia associatioa with: Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, Florida 33620-5350 Date: September 199 5


DWA-----TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Introduction and Background ............................ 1 1 2 Rideshare Program Overview .............. ............ 2-l Historical Activities and Expenditures ..................... 2-1 Existing Program Description ............. : ................. 2-2 Peer System Review . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . 2 I 0 3 Demand Analysis ................................................ 3-1 Modal Choice ............................................. 3-1 Housing Distribution ......................................... 3 2 Employment Distribution ............... . .. ............. 3-3 Other Relevant Information .................................. 3-4 4 Conchuions and Recommendations ................................ 4-l Cum:nt Program Observations ............................... 4-1 Program Recommendations ......... ........................ 4-2 Conclusions ................ .................. .. .. .. .. . 4-8 Appendix A Sample Applications and Forms Appendix B-TDM Summaries for Four Peer Cities Appendix C Section 15 Data for Peer Cities Appendix D Literature Review I Peer Cities Review Bibliography


DWA----LIST OF TABLES Table Name After Page I Cost Effective ness Survey Employer TOM Programs ................ 2-11 2 Results of Chicago Employee Commute Options Demonstration Project . 2-19 LIST OF FIGURES [jpre Name I Planning Districts ................................................ 3-1 2a Single Occupant Vehicle Commutes (1990 U.S. Census Data) ...... ..... 3-1 2b Carpool Coinmutes (1990 U.S Census Data) .......................... 3-2 2c Transit Commutes (1990 U.S. Census Data) ........................... 3-2 2d Alternative Modes Commutes (1990 U.S. Census Data) ................. 3-2 3a Household Distribution (1992 BRPC Estimates) ... .................. 3-3 3b Household Distribution (2015 BRPC Estimates) ............ ........... 3-3 3c Household Distribution Net Change (1992 and 2015 BRPC Estimates) ..... 3-3 3d Household Distribution Percent Change (1992 and 2015 BRPC Estimates) . 3-3 4a Employment Distribution (1992 BRPC Estimates) ...................... 3-3 4b Employment Distribution (2015 BRPC Estimates) .................... .. 3-3 4c Employment Distribution Net Change (1992 and 2015 BRPC Estimates) .... 3 3 4d Employment Distribution Percent Change (1992 and 2015 BRPC Estimates) 3-3


DWA----Section 1 Introduction and Background Ridesharing can be a cost effective method to help reduce traffic congestion and air pollution by reducing the number of single occupant vehicle work trips. The fmal report for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Study for the Birmingham Non-Attainment Area identified vanpool operations as the most cost-effective transportation control measure for hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions. The Alabama Department ofTransportation(ALD01) has identified "full service" rideshare activities as a high priority in managing congestion in the regio n On a more personal level for the potential participant, ridesharing saves money, reduces wear and tear on vehicles, can enliven tedious commutes and help eliminate a considerable amount of driver frustration, a situation which has become the hallmark of peak hour driving in most major cities. The benefits afforded by a well-managed ridesharing program are substantial. For most commuters, however, ridesharing typically does not offer the same level of convenience as solo driving, due to differing schedules, the effort required to find people who live and work in the same general area and development patterns which emphasi2e low density suburban and exurban commen:ial office parks and residential communities. In addition to these factors, which are quantifiable, other intangib l e elements frequently work to discourage ridesharing. Many commuters prefer the freedom of being behind the steering wheel of their own vehicle capable of altering the route, changing the radio station, adjusting the air conditioner or controlling countless other environmental variables without having to give prior notice or obtain approval. The morning and evening drives provide a guaranteed block of "personal" time, when it is possible to organize thoughts and contemplate the day's activities. Carpooling and vanpooling may inhibit this, depending on the personalities of participants. Despite the nwnerous obstacles and perceived drawbacks to ridesbaring, such programs can be effective if properly tailored to meet the convenience and comfort requirements of potential riders. Carefully selected routes can minimize the increase in travel times usually associated with carpooling and vanpooling. The ability to use high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes may actually translate into a reduction in trip times, particularly for long distance travel to and from the central business district of major urban areas Allowing the flexibility to rideshare only part time and providing a "guaranteed ride home" program helps alleviate commuter concerns about schedule ,_, September 1995 (dwh)c:lm;sqobs'bMmridelteoon wo6


DWA-----variability, usually cited as the primary reason for nonparticipation in such programs Rider agreements, either formal or informal, can minimize conflicts between who are on-time and those who nm late, smokers and non-smokers, talkative individuals and those who would prefer to read the newspap er, and other potential sources of disharmony Recognizing the benefits of an effective rideshare program, the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission (BRPC) has funded a rideshare program, administered by the Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority, for the past several years using Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. These funds are allocated under the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (!STEA), the federal appropriations bill, to regions which do no t meet federal air quality standards. The Binningharn region has recently passed standards which will allow it to be redesignated from a marginal non-anainment area for ozone to a maintenance area, meaning CMAQ funds earmarked for the metropolitan area may be reallocated by the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT). The BRPC is currently negotiating with the ALDOl' to reach an agreement concerning the continued use of existing CMAQ funds for those activities determined to be cost-effective and which provide significant benefit to air quality. This study was undertaken with the intent of providing guidance for the continued funding of rideshare activities by the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the BRPC The report contains a review of historical and current information related to the rideshare program, including financial data, ridership, marketing activities, services provided, personnel and associated issues impeding or stimulating usage. Available socioeconomic data related to commuting behavior were analyzed to identify the general demand for rideshare activities and make recommendations on future program activities. Potential vehicle miles of travel reduced were calculated using methodology outlined in a report prepared for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Study, conducted in 1994. 1 Septembe-r 1m wve


DWA----Section 2 Ridesbare Program Overview An initial undertaking of this study was to review all available docwnentat ion and to conduct discussions with relevant staff of the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission {BRPC), the Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority (BJCTA) and the Alabama Department of Transportation related to the rideshare program. Historical data, current information and future directions, goals and expectations were all considered. This review, combined with insight gained through a comparison of programs in similar sized cities, formed the basis for evaluating overall program effectiveness. Historical Activities and Expenditures A rideshare program has been in exjstence in the Birmingham area for approximately 20 years, beginning with a small carpool program established in t 975 and managed by the BRPC. After a brief time, the service was contracted out to Commuter Services, Inc., which managed the proi!ram untill978, when responsibility was transferred to the BJCTA. The co1p0rate vanpool program was initiated in 1980, but vans were not received for distribution to employers until t 984. Pri.mary emphasis on participation was focused on major downtown employers. Although downtown continues to be a principal target area for the overall rideshare program, suburban development in the southern portions of the metropolitan area, particularly along the US280 corridor, has resulted in a dramatic shift in regional commuting patterns. The program has responded through increased emphasis on employers located in these areas, while maintaining participation by those located in or near the traditional urban core. The size of the vanpool fleet has grown continuously and now includes 26 operational vehicles. In the program's early days under the BJCTA, as many as four people were assigned full-time to the program, with responsibilities including marketing, monitoring, ride matching, bookkeeping and general administration. Over the years, personnel allocation dwindled continuously and, since l 982, there has been only a single BJCTA staff member overseeing the rideshare program on a part-time basis. Less than 50% of this person's time is estimated to be dedicated to the rideshare program. This staffmg level is considerably less than rideshare operations in other areas of the United States. 2 September 1 99S (dwh ]e:\misqobs'lbhamride'lleport. wp6


DWA----Doy \\>llbum _...., loc. Historically, funding has come from two sources. For several years the program was partially financed through gasoline overcharge funds, distributed through the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA). Th e se funds were e>iliausted in the early 1990s. A second source of funds has been from the Surface Transportation Program (STP) of the I n termodal Surface Transportatio n Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The ALDOT is responsible for distributing these d o llar s on an annual basis to the appropriate jwisdictions or operating agencies. The annual authorization amount has been erratic over th e years, but since the early 1990s has steadied and shown significant increase: Grant Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990-1991 1992 1993 1994 Authorization Amount s 0.00 s 25,098.50 s 0.00 s 23,575.80 $ 0.00 $ 32,856.00 (one co m bined grant over two year period) $ 60 000.00 $ 60,000.00 $120,000.00 (current fiscal year operating funds) The BRPC has tentatively allocated a total of$250,000 to the rideshare program in its Transportation Improvement Program for the fiscal years 1996 to 1999. These funds will be available for either planning purposes or capital acquisitions, depending on the specifics of how contracts are structured. Existing Program Description Despite a reduction in staff time assigned responsibilities related to the promotion and administration of ridesharing activities the program bas shown consistent growth. With more stable funding levels and increased public awareness of the benefits of ridesharing over the past several years, the program is poised to continue its stated mission of"reducing energy consumption and traffic congestion and improving air quality through the encouragement and promotion of the use of carpools and vanpools." 2 2 September 1995 (dwh)c;\m;sejobs\bllamride\tepotl. wp6


DWA----, ... Goals and Objestjves To guide the rideshare program's overall direction, the BJCT A has defined a set of specific goals and objectives. With few exceptions, these have either been met or reflect ongoing policies and practices designed to encourage the citizens of the Birmingham area to participate in ridesharing. Listed below are each goal and a partial list of objectives required to achieve that goal: 2-3 Establish a partnership with the business community to facilitate the implementation of creative solutions to the transportation i ssues facing the area. Identify {a total ofl ar/east/5 companies based upon the number of employees and the severity of transportation problem {to target for participation in a rides hare program]. Recruit at least I 5 employee transportation coordinators and meet individually with each [as needed to implement rideshare groups]. Conduct employer needs assessment survey {for each potential employer participant]. Conduct transportation workshops I breakfast meetings for employers in which the need to conserve energy via ridesharing will be presented as a solution. Implement appropriate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that will reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles traveling through high density areas during peak traffic periods. Conduct a TDM market survey, including an employee survey and management survey, to assess the potential for implementing various TDM techniques. Based on the TDM survey. identify and implement appropriate strategies to reduce peak period traffic congestion. Identify targeted travel markets and develop transportation management strategies that address each market's needs. Provide services such as preferential parking programs to facilitate commute mode changes. Explore the development of a coordinated alternative work hour program for employers participating in the rideshare program. Install and administer an on-site ride matching system to supply commuters with up-todate personalized commute opportunities information. Provide personalized assistance to participat ing companies and employees. Conduct new hire briefing meetings and offer immediate assistance as needed September 1995 ( dwhfc:lmiscjobslbhamrideveportwp6


DWA----2-4 Create a central rideshare information clearinghouse for employers and commuters regarding commute options and local and national transportation issues and programs. Design and distribute area specific commute management marketing materials including brochures, flyers, posters, etc Increase public awareness of the need to rideshare in order to reduce traffic congestion by conducting promotional a c tivities s uch as ridesharingfairs, exhibits and displays at key locations. Participate in various transportation related planning organization s and commiuees. Establish liaison with state, county and municipal officials .on transportation issues. Sponsor seminars to enhance employers' understanding of transportation issues. Develop and install "Rideshare InformaJion" highway signs. Develop a rideshare slide pres entation. Assist individual employers in their traffic mitigation efforts through the implementation of common cost-effective programs that satisfy regulatory requirements. Identify regulatory requirements. Develop awareness and commitment to the long-term support of ridesharing and its contribution to traffic reduction. Organize monthly meetings and conduct presentations with employers and employees to provide effictive networking, report progress, gain consensus and commitment on strategies and receive feedback. Establish the participation of major employers and business complexes in the service area having SO or more employees. September 1995 ( dwh ]c:lmis

DWA----llly\\llbum--.,.Joe. Work witb public policy makers to assure ridesbare improvements are made in tbe area. Participare in rhe Merropoliran Planning Organizarion 's (MPO) process Conduct MPO presenrations to assure support of ridesharing and to encourage inclusion of ride sharing in the Transportarion Improvement Program (TIP) for rhe Birmingham merropolitan area. Monitor and evaluate tbe progress of tbe ridesbare program. Conducr annual analysis. Develop monthly and quarterly progress reports and Bud&etin& The BJCT A is required to submit quarterly progress reports and invoices to the ALDOT for reimbursement of expenses related to administering tb e rideshare program. Th e progress reports detail specific al;tivities undertaken during the reporting period, but the invoiced amount is not presented by expense type (administration, marketing, matching services, etc.). No documentation was found to exist from which estimates of the amount dedicated to each category could be determined. From discussions with BJCTA, it is estimated tbat no more than $10,000 per year is dedicated to promotional activities, an amount which is between I 0 and 15 percent of the annual allocated amount over the past tbree years. The majority of the balance is dedicated to general administration. To implement the rideshare matching database required an initial investment of approximately $17,000. U nder the Section 15 program, transit agencies are required to report fiscal, ridersbip, safety, vehicle. mileage and labor information on an annual basis to the Federal Transit Administration. Summary tables show that operating expenses during 1993, the latest year for which data is available, totaled slightly less than $122,000 Half of this amount was covered under the ALDOT administered grant. with the remainder offset by fares charged to vanpool riders. Fares are assessed per vehicle on a monthly basis and are dependent on the average round trip length and the number of patrons. As of June, 1995, sixteen vehicles were producing revenue for the BJCTA, at an average monthly fare of $878. This revenue enables the overall vanpool program to operate at a profit with income being used to add or replace fleet vehicles on an irregular basis. 2 5 September 1 m (dWh]c:lmiscjobslbhamridelrepott wee


DWA----Services and Activities As of June, 1995, the rideshare program had a total of27 vans in its fleet One vehicle was =ently involved in an accident and is out of service. lbree are assigned to the Horizon 280 Association's Regional Mobility Team, an association of employers located along the US280 corridor in southern Jefferson County and northern Shelby County, and seven are either currently available or are designated as backup vehicles, resulting in only 16 vehicles in operation producing revenue for the BJCT A. Detailed information on each vehicle is shown below: ::w.: Em pla yer 8901 1989 Tyson Foods 8902 1989 Tyson Foods 890 3 1989 Tyson Foods 8904 1989 Unassigned 8905 1989 Tyson Foods 8906 1989 Unassigned 8907 1989 Out o f service 8908 1989 Unassigned 8909 1989 Tyson Foods 8910 1989 Urwsigned 8911 1989 Tys on Foods 8912 1989 Unassigned 8913 1989 Unassigned 8914 1989 Unassigned 9401 1994 UAB 9402 1994 Tyson Foods 9403 1994 Liberty NaJional 9404 1994 Tyson Foods 9405 1994 Tyson Foods 9406 1994 Tyson Foods 9407 1994 H 280 Association 9408 1994 Nwses Plus 9409 1994 H 280 Association 9410 1994 H-280 Association 9411 1994 Pritchard Industries Daily Round IriR tdilfiil&fi 72 109 9 2 nla 109 n/a nla nla 108 n/a 9i nla nla n/a 116 60 24 103 98 103 n/a 231 nla nla 40 Msmlbb: Fare $ 676.47 $ 945.09 $ 821.67 nla s 945 09 n/a nla nla $1010.43 nla s 857. 97 nla nla nla $ 957.63 $ 665.55 $ 439.47 $ 901.S3 $ 916.05 $ 901.53 nla $2288. 1 6 nla nla $ soo.oo September 1995 (dwh)e:wiscjobs'bhamride\report wp6


DWA-----Vans purchased during 1994 were I 5-passenger vehicles with a V8 engine, 4 speed automatic transmission and power brakes. Standard safety features and equipment included an 82 decibel back up alarm, floor to ceiling grab rail along the side door, seat belts, flares, a triangle kit, five pound fire extinguisher, first aid kit and 6 ton jack. Each was also equipped with amenities such as carpeted flooring, tinted windows AMIFM stereo with cassette folding ann rests and intermittent windshield wipers. Five vans were acquired during 1994 for a joint private I public partnership between the BJCTA and the Horizon 280 Association's Regional M o bility Team BJCTA purchased the vehicles through funds allocated in the region's Transportation Improvement Program and has wor ked with the Regional Mobility Team to identify appropriate corporate participants. Three vehicles have been assigned to date. Each dedicated vehicle is painted white and displays the logos of the transit authority, Horiz on 280 Association and the participating corporation. The BJCT A has worked with finns to implement payroll deduction programs or provide subsidies for employees who use a vanpool. The response has been varied, with some adopting the stance that transportation is solely the employee's responsibility and others establishing payroll deductions, but not providing a direct subsidy. No fini1 currently subsidizes vanpool participa!ion for its employees, but one corporation has i ndicated willingness to provide a financial incentive for employees considering this commute option. Any subsidies provided would not be considered as taxable mcome. Th e process of establishing a corporate vanpool involves conducting a survey to determine feasibility. A questionnaire, developed by the BJCTA in cooperation with the potential participating company, is usually distributed via paychecks or by departm e nt heads. lnfonnation solicited from the form includes home address, work hours (including the variability of those hours), interest in being a driver and locations of convenient parking areas in their neighborhood in which to meet other riders. Based on the results of the survey, the BJCTA can reject or accept an application. If sufficient demand exists for formation of a vanpool, potential drivers are asked to submit an application containing information on driving histoty and insurance. A copy of this form is included in Appendix A Once selected, the driver must attend a defertsive driving school and submit a monthly report to the BJCTA, a copy of which is also included in Appendix A Drivers do not have to contribute to the monthly fare and are allowed up to ISO miles per month of personal use Although the transit authority is responsible for all regular maintenance, the driver must make 2 7 Septembe, 1995 (dwh ]e:lmlscjobslbhamride\re1>ott. wp6


DWA----!loy Wilborn AJooo ;,..,Jo<. arrangements to bring the vehicle in every 3,000 miles. During these preventative maintenance inspections, every major system of the vehicle is checked, including the engine, fluid levels, air conditioner and heating, brakes, electrical units, wheels, seat belts and the exhaust system. All riders attend a vanpool formation meeting to discuss fare structures and routes and to answer any questions. Vanpool participants are requ ired to sign a rider agreement, included in Appendix A. This agreement stipulates guidelines related to punctuality, fare payment, withdrawal from the program, termination of the vanpool service, responsibility for personal items and liability for vehicle damage caused directly by the rider. Although the driver is required to carry vehicle insurance as mandated by the State of Alabama, vanpool participants are covered under the same insurance policies applicable to those using the transit authority's bus service. Information about vanpooling and carpooling is available to the public through a widely publicized 521-RIDE telephone hotline. According to BJCTA staff, the authority receives an average of I 0 to 15 calls per day requesting rideshare matching services. If a caller is interested in vanpooling, information on participating employers, driver contacts, fares, routes and starrup procedures can be provided immediately over the phone. If a carpool match is desired, the caller is entered into a computerized database developed by OnLine Systems. The database currently includes general information such as name, home address, work address, phone numbers and times of travel for approximately 1,500 people. Matches are made based on home and work ZIP codes and desired travel times and can usually be provided to the caller either immediately or later that day. If a match is made, the caller is provided with a name and phone number and allowed to make contact directly with tlie potential fellow carpooler. The computer system can provide at least one potential rideshare match about 50% of the time. It should be possible to increase this match rate, although the current success rate is reasonable given the size of the database and its configuration. The software used has two primary drawbacks which limit its effectiveness. First, the software was initially intended for use in matching rides for demand responsive paratransit service. This results in several extraneous fields which are unnecessary and complicates data entry and interpretation for operators unfamiliar with the software. Secondly, there is no method to track ridesharing matching success over time. Once an interested party is provided with the requested information, it is not possible to the database entries or to indicate whether or not a carpool was successfully formed. Even if fields did exist which permitted the database to track successful matches and pool stability, there is not sufficient staff availability to maintain contact with rideshare participants once potential matches have been established. The database is SepteiOOor I 995 (dwh]e:lrNscjo bslbh amrido\repOII.wp6


DWA-----purged of inactive entries on an annual basis. Other agencies do not purge their database, but simply deactivate such entries and attempt to regenerate interest as new services or products are introduced. The BJCTA has had a considerable amount of contact with potential corporate vanpool participants. Most advertising, due to limited financial and staff resources, is accomplished by word of mouth rather than through published documents, however. The program does benefit from occasional stories in the local media, but coverage is inconsistent and may not always be completely complimentary. On rare occasions, employers have been invited to recruitment breakfast meetings, where the benefits of ridesharing are extolled and corporate participation is encouraged. The transit authority has worked in close cooperation with Horizon 280, an organization of employers located in the U.S. 280 corridor in southern Jefferson County and northern Shelby County. Dealing with a group such as this, which represents dozens of employers in a particular corridor, allows the more efficient use of resources and could represent an attraCtive market for rideshare services. As additional TMAs form in future years, it seems likely that Horizon 280 members' employees will be a prime target for participation in the rideshare program. In working \vith employers, the BJCTA makes staff time available to assist in the selection and training of on-site rideshare coordinators, although these activities have been extremely limited to this point. The authority can provide literature related to ridesharing and suggest ideas to encourage employee participation, such as subsidies, preferential, more flexible work hours and a guaranteed ride home program. The guaranteed ride program would ensure that an employ e e has access to a company vehicle or taxi service in the event that he or she needs to leave at an unexpected time on a day when they shared a ride. To date, participants in the Birmingham ptogram do not have this as an incentive, but establishment of such a program is a priority with th e BJCT A Other programs across the country often have established agreements with private providers which allow employees to ride free a certain number of times and receive reimbursement either from the sponsoring agency or the employer. Although the number ofvanpools in operation and ridership fluctuates continuouly, some average numbers can be determined from the quarterly statuS reports submitted to the ALDOT. With 18 to 19 vanpools typically in operation at or near capacity some 230 to 250 vehicles are removed from the roadway system daily. This translates into a reduction of approximately 400,000 vehicle miles of travel monthly, or about 6 million miles over the course of a year. Using methodology outlined in the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Study Final Report, this reduces 2 September 1 995 [dwhJe:\mlscjobslbllsmride\teport wl)6


DWA-----hydrocarbon emissions by 15.6 tons and No, emissions by 16.9 tons annually. Two factors will offset some of the potential pollutant reductions, however. First, vehicles which remain at home may be used by another family member for trips whlch may have occurred by a different mode or not at all. Secondly, not all trips will be entirely eliminated, as the group may use some central gathering point rather than providing door-to-door services. Short trips from cold starts contribute a disproportionate amount of pollutants since combustion engines operate most inefficiently during such siruations. Peer Systems Review To help establish a basis for evaluating the Birmingham TOM program, a review of the literarure was conducted to assess how TOM programs are being evaluated today. Extensive interviews with TOM program managers in several peer cities were held to see how their programs were planned, managed, and evaluated. A review of the literature on TOM program evaluation research found several att emp ts to determine the of vehlcle trip reduction efforts at the employer level. These attempts have had mixed results. A national research project team encountered difficulties in measuring program effectiveness and costs from the data available Some employers had no baseline measures while others did not track costs explicitly for the rideshare program. A demonstration project of TOM program implementation at seventeen employers in Chlcago found only weak evidence of obvious cause and effect associations. One of the findings of significance from the national study suggests that employers appear to view the benefits and goals of their programs differently than public agencies. Most employers cited employee benefits as vital to their programs, whlle public agencies were more focused on trip reduction and hard targets such as program objectives. However, the peer public agencies that were interviewed as part of this task place more emphasis on tracking items that reflect their strong commitment to custome r service and continuous improvement, rather than the transportation benefits that accrue to the community. When they do measure performance, the agencies tend to evaluate performance on a project by project basis rather than conduct an overall assessment A few of the peer programs will be collecting information on the transportation benefits of the program as a result of recently enacted requirements of their respective funding agencies. 2 Septembef 1 (dwt\}e:'lnlsc:foMlbhamride\repott wo8


DWA----!mplementiDI! Effective Travel Demand Maoaaement Measures An empirical review of22 employers was conducted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for the Federal Highway Administration in 1993, with findings summarized in a report entitled Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: A Series on TDM. The study found that the support of carpooling, financial incentives, restricted parking and parking charges were the most important factors in effective employer-based TOM programs. Other important factors include the existence of a legal requitement, support of transit and support of vanpooling. Employer size, location density, general marketing and support, and alternative work arrangements were among the least important factors. Table I summarizes the impacts found by employers and describes the types of strategies used. IDMModel The TDM Model software developed for the Federal Highway Administration builds on the of the above research and allows for an estimate of impacts at the corridor, areawide or employer level. The TDM Model can evaluate the impact of individual strategies or various combinations of strategies involving multiple employers of different typeS and sizes, under different legal/regulatory conditions, and with possible inclusion of systemwide measures such as transit improvements or high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. These TDM strategies are separated into two groups: areawide and employer-based. Areawide strategies are those which are assumed to be implemented by a local government or transportation agency, such that they become available for all travelers who choose to use them. Employer-based strategies, on the other hand, are actions which are assumed to be implemented by employers. The latter strategies are affected by the type of employer and the degree to which those employers agree to "participate" in the implementation of those strategies. 2 Sep1emb&r 1995 (dwll)e:.,.,iscjobslbhamride\repon. wp6


Table 1 Cost Effec t iveness Survey Emp l oyer TDM Programs Site Trip Reduction TDM Strategies Applied Annual Net Cost (per day one-way trip) I. Travelle" I nsurance 3930 Resnicted Parking -$54,600 Hanford,CT (47.9%) Charge for Parlrtatl()n Ertgiactn a n d Assoclado" for Commuter T ra sporudon for fT A lc fHW A


Tabl e I Cos t Effective n ess S u rvey Employer TDM P rogram s S i t e Trip Reduction TDM Strat eg i es Appli e d Annual Net Cos t day onew ay 7. Pac ific Bell 1394 Bishop Ranch, CA (27.8%) 8. Hartford Steam 197 Boi ler (26 5%) Hartford, CN 9 Swedish Hospital 387 Seattle WA (26. 1 %) 1 0. Bellevue City Hall 127 BeUevue, WA (25. 8 %) II. San Diego Trust & 76 Savings (22.7%) San Diego, CA No t FHWA Cste Shl4y No informadoa oa employer adflit istl'ldonlprognm costs Rtprtstats v.t c or lt11d trip) Restricted Parlting S239,768 -Full-time Onsite ($0.34) C oordinator $913,070 Rideshare Matching (S1.29) Program (Savings, not Vanpool Program net COSt) Contract Shuttle -Relocation Assist. Flextime Restricted Parking s 163,296 -Charge for Park ing, wllnvened Fee Structure (S 1.59) Vanpool & Transit Subs i dies Restricted P arking -$673,800 Charge for Parlting Carpool & Transit Subsidy (-$3.32) Contract Transit Subsidy Guarantee Ride Home -Flexible Work Hours Charge for Parlting -$54, 084 -Free Parlting for HOVs Priority HOY Parking (-$0 82) A l ternate Mode Subsidies -Parking Subsidy, Higher for s 1 60 ,140 HOY's Transit Subsidy ($4 04) Ride Matching -F l exible Work Hours ..... Souru: lmplccnffoc Trnsporlt lioo Dtm1Dd l\olantgcmcJU P rtstt11td by Ute llt$1hU1t Engl aetrs and Auociatioa for (or FT A & FHW A.


Table 1 Cost Effective nes s Survey Employer TDM Programs Site Trip Reduction TDM Strategies Applied 12. Pasadena City Hall 90 Parking Fees Pasadena,CA (21.0%) Parking Subsidy/HOVs Transp. Allowance Free Transit Pass Vanpool Subs i dies Bike/Wall< Subs idies Guarantee Ride Home Childcare Subsidy 13. TransAmerica 377 Charge for Parking Los Angeles, CA (20. 0%) -HOY Parking D i scounts&: Subsidies Vanpool Assistance Preferential Parking -Transit Subsidy 14. ARCO 341 Charge for Parking D owntown, L.A. (19 .1%) Transp. Allowance CPNP Parking Subsidy Vanpool Subsidy Active RIS Program Guarantee Ride Home IS. Varian 490 On-Site, Discount Palo Aho, CA (17 .7%) Transit Pass Sales Award Program for T ransit/HOY users Transp. Coordinator -Bike/Wall< Facilities 16.AT&T 486 Resaicted Parking Pleasanton, CA (13.4%) Rideshare Promotion &: Matching Preferential Parking -Flextim e 17. V enrura County Gov't 325 "Bonus Point Subs i dy Venrura County, CA (13.0%) Guarantee Ride Home Preferential Parking Bike/Walk Facilities Nor FHWA Cut Study No iuforNrio 01 employer admhabtndON'prognm cons Repn:seets marktt val c or lud Annual Net Cost (per day one-way trip) $ 165,000 ($3.51) s 384,900 (-s 1.95) S 187,341 ($ 1.05) $ 102,123 ($0.40) -$ 64 940 (.S 0.26) -$306,270 (-$ 1.20) s 223,500 ($ 1.31) Sourtt: l p&tmtndn t:Tnntportadoll Dtroand Maoagcau:nt Proau au. PrtKattd by tbt lntlitutt ofTr .. sportatloll Englaftrt and A.uodadon for Comr.utu Tn.11sporudon for FT A & FKW A.


T a b l e 1 C ost E ffectiveness SurveyEmployer TDM Programs Site Trip Reduction 18. COMSIS Corporatio n 10 Silver Spring (10.5%) Montgomery Co ,. MD 19. 3M Company I 1 30 St. Paul MN (9.7%) 20 Allergan 7 6(7.0% ) Irvine, CA 21. UCLA 828 Los Angeles, CA ( 5.5%) 22. Chevron 76 Concord, CA (3,7%) Noc FHW A Caae Study .. ... No l.nformadon oa trnploytr admi tbtrarioalpros;ranl costs Reprutnts "'arkcl wal t ot bad TDM Strategies Applied Restricted Parking -Transp. Allowance CP & TR Subsidies w / County Match Van pool Assistance Staggered Work Hours Subsidiud Vanpool Program I 00% Transit Sub -Preferential Parlcing Paid Holiday HOY Incentive -Comprehensive Employer Support Measures Flexible Work Hours Restricted Parking Charge for Parking Vanpooling Program (65 Vans) Carpoo l Ma!ching Campus Shuttle Service Park-N-Ride Service Transit Shuttle Serv i ce Vanpool Assistanc e Rideshare Matching Preferential Parlcing Employer Support Flexible Work Hours Annual Net Cost (per day o ne-way t r ip) -$1, 300 (-$0.24) Unknown s 197,950 (S 4 99) $ 1 766,289 (S 4 09) s 1,079 049 (S 2.50 ) s 38 600 (S 0.97) ... . Sour: Tntu portlrioa O t mand Manegtmu1 Program s. Prntlntd by llle lftSti1Utc ofTnut;SporcarJo. Eaaiaten a1td Assodado a for Co,.moltr Tnatponario.n f or FT A & F'HW A


Area-wide Strate&ies include; Employer-based Strategies include: Transit Service Improvements Transit Support Measures Transit Fare Subsidies Carpool Support Measures HOVLanes Vanpool Support Measures Parking Charges and/or Subsidies Preferential Parking or other Miscellaneous Taxes or Fees Transit/HOY Time Savings Miscellaneous Travel Time Parking Charge s and/or Subsidies Penalties/Savings Flexible and Staggered Work Hours Compressed Work Weeks T elecomrnuting The TOM Model was originally designed to evaluate TOM programs at the corridor or activity center level, in order to allow for collective solutions of transportation and traffic problems in a specific impact area. It requires input data in the form of "trip tables", such as are used in the traditional planning process of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The TOM Model may be linked with the traditional 4-step planning process to perform a more focused analysis of travel demand and modal split, since the choices of travelers among alternatives are influenced by the various TOM strategies. After testing several TOM scenarios, the traffic impact of the preferred TOM packages are sent back to the 4-step process through the modified trip tables to determine impact on specific transportation system links. The TOM Model furnishes outputs to the user in two basic types: 2 Outputs directly related to evaluation of the TOMscenario being tested in the model. The following measures of effectiveness for each scenario relative to the starting conditions are reported : Modal split (percentage of trips by travel mode) -Number of private vehicle trips Number of person trips -Average vehicle occupancy Vehicle miles of travel Revised trip table information to return to the transportation planning/traffic simulation process for overall analysis of traffic impacts. September 1995 (dWh)c:\misqobs\bhamride\report. wp6


Employee Commute Options Demonstration ProjeJ:t Among the more recent and comprehensive evaluations of TDM program implementation is !he Employee Commute Options (ECO) demonstration project in Chicago. Seventeen employers agreed to participate in !he project. The project cons i sted of four phases: I) establishing !he baseline lhrough a 5 day survey, 2) writing a plan to comply wilh !he Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990' s objective of a 25 percent increase in !he area's baseline average vehicle occupancy, 3) monitoring and evaluating the compliance plan, and 4) conducting a final evaluation Eight general categories of expenses were used to estimate !he cost-effectiveness of the program : I. Travel time for !he IDM program administrator (i.e., to and from project coordin ation meetings, etc.) 2. Meeting Time (phone or in person onECO project) 3. Support Services (correspondence, mailings, application processing, computer time, etc.) 4 Survey Distribution and Processing 5. Compliance Plan Development (Executive decisions on plan elements, review of survey for plan ingredients, completing and filing of plan) 6. Compliance Plane Implementation (Monitoring of plan elements, plan oversight, focus group meetings, public affairs, etc.) 7. Production (graphics, photos, flyers, brochures, posters, etc ) 8. Otheriterns such as travel expenses, seminar registration and outside contracted services (e.g., calculations of awards earned purchase of prizes), as well as extraordinary expenses for car, van, shuttle or transportation subsidies/allowances, e t c. Based on the results, shown in Table 2, the Chicago demonstration team concluded that "the experience appears to have been similar to the California envirorunent with only weak evidence of obvious cause and effect associations They noted, however, that the two participants who bad a clearly articulated incentive program and strong upper level management commitment experienced the highest levels of average passenger occupancy (APO) improvement. Overall, Chicago's demonstration project indicated tha t "some trip reductions are possible with employee programs, that these reductions do come at a cost, but that these costs are not necessarily as extreme as some have pronounced." Previous studies in California had employers reporting an average cost of$! 05 per employee The cost for the Chicago participants ranged from under $2 to $115 with most of the employers spending between $20 to $50 per employee per year. 2-17 1 99$ (ctwh)c: \m i ujobs'l> hamride\report. wp6


Iable2 Results of Chicago Employee Commute Options Demonstration Project Employtr No. of Butllac Current tmployta APO APO ViUaae of Atllnaton 253 1.13 1.31 BaxiCT lm 1.04 1.05 EJ. Colt>. 1.23 1.26 Clarlt IS9 3.52 3.76 City of Chicago-2S7 1.10 1.37 Soecr DcVry lmdUitcOf 146 1.04 NA Envi.rondyne EngineeB 141 3.*6 3 39 fdPro, lnc. 1,777 1.23 1 .19 Hewlett Pt'**td I 344 1.02 1.06 Illinois Dept. of 439 1.10 1.08 Rehab. 620 1.04 I. OS Melro. W"':r Diit. 193 1.16 1.18 Nottbeastem Illinois 789 l.Sl 1.41 Ptecisk)n Twbt Drill. 193 1.11 1.13 PI Predsion Twist Drill 691 J.lO 1.24 lndusrrial Dr Shure Brothers 461 1.24 l.ll 1,119 1.18 1.19 1.117 1.03 NA .t Allstate 4,200 1.10 NA' 2 AOilUilizrd $86.86 1.56 I S.!E, $41.40 .. S39A7 $32.19 $17.37 I $36.<9 $10.76 SJJ4.Sl $20.87 SSM Soe $20,j0 S62.lS $6.87 SS2.15 COJI per lYe Cost to Remove Chln&t la APO I Ca. $1,933 $1,087 I ., I $1.32S I SJS9 sus $940 See\'e See above NA NA NA, negative AP0 NA. nqalive APOch..,.. NA.. neaa&ivc APO .... AJ'O u .,, $1.408 NA, negati"c AP0 Aro $8,898 $1,483 SIS,6S6 $10,438 NA. ncptive APO $1,344 SJSJ See above Sec above NA. necMive APO $110. NA. negative AP0 NA. neaa&ive change APOcbange NA, neglbve APO September 1995 ( dwh Jc;'ro;scjobS\bhamriR. wp6


DWA-----Transit Cooperative Research Project B-4: Cost Effectiveness ofiDM This project involved in-depth employer and public agency interviews and focus group research to identify the factors l eading to successful and cost-effective employer-based IDM programs. The project team is to use the results of the research to develop guidance documents that will assist employers and public agencies in the development of more cost-effective programs. A national cross-section offorty-nine employers representing various industries and worksite locations were interviewed. Information was obtained on each employer's location, programs, policies, costs, and results. Generally, the project team encountered difficu l ties in measuring program effectiveness and costs from the data available. Some employers had no baseline measures while others did not track costs explicitly attributable to the TDM effon. However, the project team noted two fllldiogs of significance: I. Employers appear to view the benefits and goals of their programs differently than public agencies Most employers cited employee benefits as vital to their programs. while public agencies were more focused on trip reduction and hard targets as program objectives 2. Public agency involvement appears to be an important factor in successful TDM programs. Over half of the employers surveyed enjoyed a medium-to-high level of public agency Interaction, indicating that expanded public agency roles can yield significant positive results. The project team is currently preparing the public agency guidance document. IMA Evaluation Criteria An example of the trend to more comprehensive but flexible evaluations is Florida's TMA Evaluation Criteria. The criteria are a set of seven basic, interrelated, results-oriented requirements An assessment thus provides a profile of strengths and areas for improvement rel ative to the seven areas. In this way, the assessment directs attention to processes and actions that contribute to the desired results. 2 St9tember 1995 [dwh)e:\mlsciobs\bhamridt\tepon -wp&


DWA-----The support of transportation management association s also commonly referred to as transportation management organizations (TMO), by the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) is part of the Florida strategic plan to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and protect the environment As part of the cond i tion for funding, the TMA "shall utilize the Department's TMA Self Evaluation program on an annual basis. Results of the evaluation will be reported to the District office annually." The TMA Performance Criteria are the basis for assessing TMA performanc e and for giving feedback to the TMA and FOOT. The Criteria are designed to help TMAs enhance their performance through focus on dual, results-oriented goals : 1. delivery of ever-improving value to customers, resulting in greater use of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle by commuters; and 2. improvement of overall TMA operational performance (e.g., lower cost per person served). The criteria focus principally on seven key areas ofTMA performance, given below. Improvements iJ:! these key results areas contribute significantly to the TMA's overall performance. The resulting indicators also recognize the importance of contributions to improving other transportation operators or suppliers I. Corp o rate Leadership and Involvement 2. Suitability of Goals and Objectives 3. Development and Deployment of Strategic Plan 4. Financial Management Systems 5. Degree of External Visibility 6 Effectiveness of Programs 7 Measure of Commuter and Member Satisfaction 2 Septe,_ m [dWh]c:lmlsslbhamride.._ wc6


DWA ___ _____;,__ The criteria s focus is on requirements that produce results not on dictating procedures or imposing organizational structures Through this nonprescriptive approach, TMAs are e n couraged to dev e lop and demonstrate creative, adaptive and flexible approaches to meeting basic requirements. The nonprescriptive nature of the requirements thus fosters incremental and breakthrough improvements. The selection ofteclutiques, systems and organizational structure usually depends upon many factors such as TMA size, service area, the TMA's stage of develo p ment, and employee capabilities. The criteria are flexible to account for these conditions The TMA, in cooperation with their FOOT District office and/or regional commu ter assistance pr o gram, s elect s which data i tems, p r ocesses, and performance measures best describe its mission and accomp l ishments. TMAs will need to complete the evaluation in the coming months Additional l nfoanation Appendix B includes summaries of the TOM operations and management, marketing efforts, program evaluation efforts and future directions for four peer cities. Appendi x C provides up to four years of selected financial and performance data for all systems reporting vanpool data as part of their Section IS reporting requirements Appendix D is the bibliography for this literature review and peer cities review. 2 September 1 995 (ctwhJc:>miscjobs\bhamrfdeVepott.wp&


DWA----Sect i o n 3 D e mand A n a l ysis In order to analyze properly the effectiv eness of the Birmingham Rideshare Program and make recommendations on service improvements, it is necessary to review data related to regional commute patterns. The choice to use a mode of transportati on other than a single occupant vehicle is dependent on numerous interrelated factors which are extremely difficult to quantify and model, particularly within the limited scope of this evaluat ion project Ridesbare participation will be influenced by income, work schedules, access ro and ability ro drive a personal vehicle and the intangible personality traits and beliefs of regional residents Some general conclusions can be drawn from a review of a select few variables, however For the purposes of this study three data sets were evaluated and used as a basis for recommendations presented in Section 4. These were: I) current modal choice, 2) current and future household distribution and 3) current and future.employment distribution. While the first variable reflects, to some degree, the general willingness or need of residents within a specific geographic area to use various modes of transportation, !he other two variables provide a general indication of the beginning and end points of commute trips The intent of this analysis was not to develop detailed trip generation tables between defined origin and destination points, but ralher ro provide a broad overview of the potential for increased ridesbare services and the corrido rs or market which should be targeted for promotional activities. Plaruting districts defined by the Birmingham Regional Plaruting Commission (BRPC) were used to analyze all data This permitted ease of e valuation and provided the level of generality dictated by the needs of this study without being s o l arge as tO render results meaningless Approximate boundaries of the BRPC plaruting districts in Jefferson and Shelby Counties are shown in Figure I. Mod al Choice As in most m etr opolitan areas, residents of the B irmingham region are heavily dependent on !he single occupant vehicle (SOV) as the primary mode of transportation between home and the work place. Figure 2a shows that dependency on SOVs is the least within the City of Birmingham, where 3 1 September 1995 ( dwh)c : lmis

: 21 1 S5 PLANNING PISTB!CIS 1 Control AIM 18 Z FlvePolntoSoutll 17 Beuomor1Br1ghton 3 Southolclol A-loiCrootwood 18 South -IOxmoor 4 Ealtfatt. I Wooodtnn 19 Hoover I Vestavia 5 Tamntl Airport 20 T,_..l. e 1 North Blnnlnghwn 21 Warrior I Sayw 7 Pritt City I Ensloy 22 Mulllony Forko I Nortll Johns a _,End I MldfloCd S1 N-ot Shelby t Homewood SZ Hoovr 10 MOW!101n B-53 Nortllom Shelby 11 lronclaloi!Mds Sa Pelham I Alabaster I Holono 12 e.nter Point/ Rotbuck S.S Montevallo 13 Garclondalolfultondalo S8 MlddleShtlby 14 Adamovfllel Graysville S7 Harperovfllel WllsonviUe 15 Pleaaant Grove I ttu.ytown S8 Southern Shelby 1-49 S7 SHELBY COUNTY B irmingham Area Rideshare Program Evaluation Study Planning Districts Figure 1 DWA


LEGEND 0 74.9% or Jea drtv. alone lit 75.0% to 84.9% drive alone II 85.0% more drive atone Planning % Drtvlno Ptannlng % Dttvl"9 District AlRDI 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 47.4% 70.2% 82.0% 8 0 .9% 72.4'4 63.4% 72.9'4 73.7% 8&.5% 90. 4 % 83.2% 84.7% 85.4% 85.1% 85.4% Dlltdct Alm\1 ,. 17 18 19 20 21 22 51 52 S3 54 S5 58 S7 58 79 72.1o/, 8 $.7o/, 88.9'4 86.2Y 79. 1% 81.5% 88. 7 V 90.8-t. 8-<.5% 81.2o/, 76.8Y. 81. 9Y. 77.0'4 80. 9o/ 1-65 Birmingham Area Rideshare Program Evaluation S tudy Sing l t Oupant Vebiclt Commutts 1990 U .S. CtMus Data Figure 2a DWA


DWA-----lower average income, higher density development patterns and more comprehensive mass transit service contribute to less than 75% using this mode. In the districts immediately surrounding the City, characterized by lower density suburban development and more affluent residents, the rate of SOV usage is considerab ly higher. In rural areas well removed from the urban core, reliance on SOVs decreases slightly. 11lis trend is attributable to the extremely long commute distance and the willingness of residents in these areas to rideshare to reduce costs and the monotony of the trip Also, the greater the travel distance, the less the impact of having to make additional stops to pick up other riders. Figure 2b confinns that ridesharing is m ost prevalent within the City of Birmingham and outlying rural portions of the metropolitan area. As expected, districts with the highest percentage of SOV s have the lowest percentage of commuters participating in carpooling or vanpooling. Residents within the City of Birmingham and immediately adjacent areas have the additional option of mass transit bus service offered by the Binningham Jefferson County Transit Authority. Figure .2c shows that usage is highest in the urban core and areas to the east and west along the 1-20/59 corridor. Districts more than six or seven miles rrorth or south of I-20/59 repon extremely low or nonexistent usage rates, due to the lack of coverage in these areas and the relative prosperity of suburbanites. Finally, Figure 2d displays information related to the percent of residents who ride a bicycle or walk to work, or work at home. There is little insight to. be gained from these data aside from the fact thai percentages are significantly higher within the urban core due to lower trip distances required for using bicycling and walking as a commute mode. Most districts outside of downtown or Five Points South repot1 percentages within a fairly narrow band of two to four percent. Housing Distribution The BRPC provided the following estimates of households for the Birmingham metropolitan area. Estimates for 1992 and 2015 are based on the 1990 U.S. Census, with appropriate growth rates based o n recent trends and BRPC knowledge of likely future development patterns These are the most current figures available. (dWh)c:\mlscjobS'bhamrideVeS)OI't .oe


LEGEtlD 0 9.9% leu carpool 1m 10.0% to 14.9% c.arpool 11115.0% or more earpoot Planning ,..,..., Cllld" f 11.4% 2 11.9% 3 11.9% 1'-1'11 5 21.3% 6 23.0% 7 19.0% 8 18.4% 9 9.5% 10 8.8% 11 12.7% 12 12.0% 1l 11.8 % 14 12.6 % fS 11 .9% ...... IXI( Ptannlng Percent Jlllllrk:l S:CamooiJog fS 14.9% 17 19.6% 18 12.1% 19 7 .3'11 20 10.8'11 21 17.5% 22 15.8'11 Sf 8.9'11 52 5.6% 53 13 W so 10.3 % 55 16.9% 56 13.9 % 57 19.7'1. 58 15.6'1. 1-85 Binningham Area Rideshare Program Evaluation Study Carpool Commutes 1990 U.S. Census Data Figure2b DWA


L E GEND 0 0.9%orleHu..transit fiJ 1.0% to us. transit: Ill 5.0% ot more use trans it Planning %Using Plann i ng Dllld" I mnll& Qiltri;l 1 15. 1 % 16 2 1 .6% 17 3 2. 0 % 11 4 2.3 % 1 9 5 3 .5% 20 6 8.6% 2 1 7 4 .7% 22 8 4.8 % S 1 9 0 .7% S 2 10 0.0 % $ 3 11 1 .2% S4 12 D.6% s s 1 3 0 0% 56 14 0 1 % 57 15 0 .4% s a 1)9( 1 -65 21 S7 $6 S5 %Uiln g lr:IDill 2.2 % 2.9% 0.5 % 0 0 % 0.3Yo 0.4 % 0 5 % 0. 0 % 0 0% 0 0 % 0 1% O O Y o O .OY. 0 3% 0 6 % t -59 $3 S7 sr B inningham Area Program Evalu ation S tudy Trans i t C ommutes 1 99 0 U S Census Data F i g u r e 2 c DWA


1 LEGEN D 0 2. 4 % M '"-use a lttmatlw modes IIJ 2.5% to 4.9% usatt.mattv. moda II $ .0% o r more un alternative modes Pllnnfng %Using Planning AllMQdl District 1 19.1% 18 2 18.3% 17 3 4.0 % 1 8 4 2.7 % 19 5 2.9% 20 6 5.1% 2 1 7 3.3% 22 8 3 .2% 51 9 3 3% 52 10 2.7Y. 5 3 11 2.6% S4 12 2.7% 55 13 2.7% sa 14 2 2% 57 15 2.4% sa 1-65 %Using A l l MfHitt 3.3% 5.(% 1.7Y, 3.8% 2.8% 3 0% 2.1Y, 2 5% 3.8 % 2.1Y. 3.5% 8.4% 4.2% 3.0% 3.0% ALTERNA T1VE MODES INClUDE BICYCL I N G WAlKING AND WORKING AT HOM E Binningham Ma Rideshare Program Evaluation Sludy Alternative Modes Commutes 199 0 U S. Cea.sus Data F i gure2d DWA


DWA-----Jefferson County Shelby County TOTAL 1992 Households 258,000 40.100 298,100 20 I 5 Households 270,000 78.800 348,800 Figures 3a and 3b show the number of households by BRPC planning district for the years 1992 and 2015, respectively The net change during this interval is displayed in Figure Jc, while Figure 3d shows the percent change. In general, these figures demonstrate that the Binningham area is a typical metropolitan region which can expect the majority of growth to occur along the periphery of the urbanized area. While the older neighborhoods closer to the traditional urban core and along the I-20/59 corridor will continue to be home to a significant number of'residents, these areas can expect to lose population. Districts on the eastern and southern fringes of the metropolitan area will experience tremendous growth. both in tenns of net gain and percent gain. It is interesting to note that every district within Shelby County is forecast to experience more than a 50% increase in the number of households before 2015, with those along 1-65 more than doubling. Employment Distribution The BRPC provided the following estimates of employment for the Birmingham metropolitan area. Estimates for 1993 and 2015 are based on the I 990 U.S Census, with appropriate growth rates based on recent trends and BRPC knowledge of likely furure development patterns. These are the most current figures available. Jefferson County Shelby County TOTAL 1993 Employment 326,700 38.600 365,300 2015 Employment 392,000 68,000 460,000 Figures 4a and 4b show the total employment by BRPC planning district for the years 1993 and 2015, respectively. The net change during this interval is displayed in Figure 4c, while Figure 4d shows the percent change. Most employment is currently concentrated within the urban core, to the south along U.S. 31 and 1-65 and to the northeast in the busy Center Point I Roebuck area. The downtown area is forecast to lose ground in employment, while the other two commercial centers should maintain their starus within the metropolitan area. The U.S. 31 and 1 -65 area will grow the most rapidly, however, as development is expected to continue to be intense in the vicinity of 3-3 Sel)tOmber 1995 ldwh)e:\mlscjobs\bhamridevepon,wp6


LEGEND 0 7,499 or fewer households fiJ 7,500 to 14,H8 hOUMholda 1115,000 or mo,. householda Planning Pr.nnlng Diatdct HQUitbo!ds O!stdet 1 1 567 16 2 6,220 17 3 13,251 18 4 12,085 19 5 6,321 20 8 8,297 21 7 21,900 22 8 23,825 S1 9 10, 784 S2 10 14,078 S3 1 1 5,565 54 12 24,598 55 13 10 ,708 56 14 9 ,263 S7 15 13 ,926 sa ... l)9' 1-65 S6 HQUitholdl 11.800 7,528 28.910 9,434 8 813 4,6>11 3,705 7,248 3,737 10,025 4,919 1,6>10 4 ,6>12 4, 1!57 S!J S7 sr B i rmingham Area Rid eslw-c Evaluation S tu d y Household Distributioa 1992 BRPC Estimates Figure 3a DWA


LEGEND 0 7,499 or fewer househOlds fiJ 7,500 to 14,Ht houuftofct. 1115..000 or mo,. Planning Planning Clatd" 1 1,601 16 2 6,678 1T 3 11.699 18 9,798 ,, 5 4,797 20 6 6,678 21 7 17, 241 22 8 19,713 51 9 10, 837 52 10 18.'06 53 11 6,031 M 12 25.583 55 13 14,023 56 14 11,501 57 15 16,048 58 1-65 Householill 5,640 8,849 10,438 31,741 16,962 10,685 5,128 9,"" 13,767 10.S38 17,727 8,666 3,939 7 ,485 7,091 S7 st Binningham Area Rideshare Program Evaluation Study Houstbold Distribution 2015 BRPC Estimatos Figure 3b DWA


LEGEND 0 Loss of hoUMholds rm 0 to 2,99t MW households II 3,000 or mont new households Plannlng Net Planning p!str1ct HoustboJds District 1 34 16 2 458 17 3 .552 18 .287 19 5 -1,524 20 5 ,719 21 7 4,659 22 8 -4 112 51 9 53 82 10 4,328 53 ,, -S4 12 985 55 1 3 3,315 56 14 2.238 57 15 2,122 58 1-65 Net Change Household .000 ,951 2,908 4,839 7,528 2,072 487 5,749 8,519 6,899 7 ,702 3,747 2.299 2,843 2,934 S7 Binningham Area Rideshare Program Evaluation Study Household Dislribution Nel Cbeaco 1992 and 2015 BRPC Eslimatn Figure 3c DWA


LEGEND 0 t.oos of hO

LEGEND 0 0 to 7,411 employment l'IJr.soo to emJIIo,ment 15,0000< ___ Pt.nnlng Tour Planftint Dlltdct EmplqyJDttl Dtstrict 1 :14,147 11 2 31,512 17 3 32,791 18 4 8,400 It 5 11,121 20 8 14.463 21 7 lUte 22 8 17,0H 51 I 27,111 S2 10 12.&22 $3 11 t,4Z7 S4 12 11,81) 55 13 4 ,317 sa 1 4 .reo $7 1S 7,313 sa ............ .. 21 S7 ss TEmQioymtnt I ,.US 9 ,453 8 539 45,737 4 ,731 1 987 2,037 5 570 8,492 2,881 12,17S 2,435 1.231 2,063 3,795 1!1 S6 .. S7 Sl Binningham Area R.ide$hare Program Evaluation Study Employmtn1 Dis1ributlon 1993 BRPC srlmates Figu re4a DWA


LEGEND 0 Net lose of employment II 0 to 4,191 lnctNM in II 5,000 or men lncrnse I n employment Planning Not Chango Planning Net Change Qllldrll EmR10:m1Dl Dllld:GI 1 ,283 18 7$0 2 7 500 17 1,500 3 .500 18 11,613 ,450 1t 15,9011 5 2,000 20 3 5$0 6 313 21 7$0 7 22 281 8 1,500 S1 5.713 9 5 000 52 6,197 10 18,2$0 S3 3,352 11 1,200 s. 9,179 12 3,000 55 1 ,41i 13 1,8$0 56 922 14 600 57 657 15 1,$00 sa 1,871 115 Binningham Area Program Evaluation Study Employment Distribution Net Chan& 1993 and 2015 BRI'C Estimates Figure 4c DWA


LEGEND 0 Loss of emp4oyment a 0.0% to 49.9% lnc.rease In employment II 50.0% ot mo,.lnereaM In tmployment. P&anning Net Change Planning NetCI>ango Dlald!&l EmRiszxmtal glstriSil 1 -3.8% 18 11.7% 2 23.7% 17 15.9% 3 -7.6% 18 171.4% .3% 19 34.8% 5 18.0% 20 75.0.,.. 6 2.2% 21 37.7% 7 .9% 22 13.8% 6 -8.8% 51 103.5% 9 18.4% 52 73.0% 10 128.7% 53 111.3'/ 11 12.7% 54 75.4'/o 12 15.9% S5 58.3% 13 42.9% 56 74.9% 14 12.6% 57 31.8'4 15 20.3% sa '9.3% Qpt I .OS Birmingham Area Rideshare Program Evalua1ion S1udy Employment Distribution Pen:ent 1993 and 2015 BRPC Estimaln Figure 4d DWA


DWA-----Riverchase Galleria and points south. The U.S. 280 corridor from 1-459 south through Inverness will continue to increase in prominence as a employment center within the metro region. Both planning distriCts around these corridors are predicted to more than double in total employment by 20 I 5. The highest growth rate, however, will occur in southern Bessemer and Oxmoor. This district is inunediately adjacent to the new Mercedes Benz facility in Vance and spinoff development from this massive installation is expected to be dramatic in the far western limits of Jefferson County along 1-20/59 and 1-459. Other Relevant Information The Alabama Department of Transportation is currently conducting a Congestion Management Study for the Birmingham Metropolitan Planning Area. As part oftbat study's requirements, the locations and sources of congestion are being identified and quantified and potential solutions will be recommended. Although the study is ongoing; some important information has already been produced which has direct relevance to this study. An initial study task was to determine the problems which cause or exacerbate congestion. A: total of 13 problems were identified and will be the foundation for determining strategies and projects for implementation. These problems were: 0 I. Congestion due to incidents 02. Congestion due to roadway construction 03. Air quality non-attainment 04. Underutilized mass transportation services and facilities OS. Congestion due to motorist information and guidance 06. Congestion due to capacity on freeways, ramps and interchanges 07. Congestion due to capacity on arterials and collectors (through multip l e jurisdictions) 08. Adverse effect of institutional coordination and barriers 09. Congestion and accidents due to roadway planning, design, operations and maintenance Qand use controls, access management, traffic signal design installation and operations, signage, marking) I 0. Congestion due to special events II. Congestion due to truck traffic 12. Congestion due to major public, private and commercial developments 13. Congestion and accidents due to motorist education and traffic law enforcement SOI>tembef1995 [clwh)c:lmisc)obs\bllamriclolteport.


DWA----Dl)' \\-11bum ,\s:sO(iatts.lM, Based on these problems, a total of 29 user services, defined by the National Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Committee, were evaluated for their potential to reduce congestion in the Binningham region. Ridesharing and matching services were detennined to be very applicable for alleviating five of the problems, somewhat applicable for seven of them and not applicable for one of the listed problems The applicability was used to rank the user services, with the result that ridesharing and matching services had an overall priority ranking of ninth among the 29 services. Two other user services similar to or associated with an effective ridesharing program, travel demand management and public transportation management, ranked fourth and sixth, respectively Also as part of the Congestion Management Study, the worst locations for l:ongestion were identified based on both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Qualitative measures included discussions with the study's advisory and oversight commitee and interviews with local business and political leaders. Quantitative measures included traffic volwnes and roadway capacities. Both processes resulted in similar lists, which featured nwnerous "hot spots. Five corridors are preeminent in both perceived and actual congestion. These are, in no particular order: I) U .S. 280 south of the Elton Stephens Expressway, 2) I-65 south of downtown, 3) U S. 3\ through Homewood and Hoover, 4) U.S. 78 west of 1-20/59 through Adamsville and 5) 1-20/59 in the downtown area. The three non-Interstate facilities are all characterized as being through routes leading toward the urban area and passing through densely developed suburban areas The Long Range Transportation Plan for Jefferson and Shelby Counties indicates that all or portions of these corridors have been targeted for improvement although some are not anticipated for several years in the future. Improvements programmed or planned for these corridors are: 3 us 280 1-65 widen from existing four lanes to six lanes between the Elton Stephens Expressway and 1-459, improve interchange (included in 5 year Transportation Improvement Program) -convert to a controlled access facility between Elton Stephens Expressway and Hugh Daniel Drive (originally planned for 16 to 20 year scenario, but recommended that priority be increased to 6 to 10 year scenario). interchange improvements at Lakeshore Parkway (included in 5 year Transportation Improvement Program) September 1 995 {dwh)c:\m;ocjob$'bhamr\

DWA-----interchange improvements at 1-20159 (6 to 10 year scenario) widen from existing six lanes to eight lanes between Green Springs Highway to U .S.31 South (II to 15 year scenario) -widen from existing six lanes to eight lanes between 1-459 and Alabama Hwy. 119 (16 to 20 year scenario). -widen from existing four lanes to six lanes between Alabama Hwy. 119 and U.S. 31 South in Alabaster ( 16 to 20 year scenario). us.)/ widen from existing four I six lanes to six I eight lanes between 1-65 South and Cahaba River, interchange improvements at 1-459 (included in 5 year Transportation lmrprovement Program). widen from existing four lanes to six lanes between Massey Road and I -65 South ( 6 to I 0 year scenario). -widen from existing four lanes to six lanes between Cahaba River and Alabama Hwy. 119 (16 to 20 year scenario). US. 78 widen from existing four I six lanes to six I eight lanes between ARC Corridor X and 1-20/59 (6 to 10 year scenario). /-20/59 interchange improvements at 1-65 (6 to 10 year scenario). -widen from existing six I eight lanes to eight I ten lanes between 26th Street and I st Avenue North ( 6 to I 0 year scenario) As Birmingham continues to grow, new congestion points will arise as others are mitigated. At present, these four corridors present the greatest transportation difficulties in the Birmingham region. All have been targeted for improvement in the coming years and there are additional improvements and new construction slated for adjacent and intersecting roadways wbich may directly benefit traffic on these primary congested routes. At the minimum, this information provides a rationale for focusing transportation demand management efforts along certain corridors and in particular areas, at least for the foreseeable future. In addition to these roadway improvement projects, the Long Range Transportation Plan also identifies the need for estabusbing park/ride lots in each of 13 corridors. Three lots would be located in each corridor and express bus services implemented to downtown These Jots could be used for ridesharing participants 10 meet with commuting partners. Each of the five critical corridors Septembef 1995 {dwhfc:lmiscjobsllll>amrldo\lot>O

DWA-----discussed above are targeted. The plan also acknowledges that high occupancy vehicle lanes must be considered in three conidors: 1) l-65, 2) l-20/59 and 3) U.S. 280 If implemented, carpools and vanpools would be eligible to use these facilities during peak hours and would benefit from potentially significant reductions in travel times. This time savings would be a definite incentive for commuters to explore the possibility of ridesharing. Currently, HOV lanes are planned for consideration only as these facilities are widened. SeptemMr t995 {ctwh }c:\tnit.c:jObs\bhamrideVepor1.wp6


DWA-----Section 4 Recommendations and Conclusions This section begins with an overview of general observations made during the course of this study. It is followed by more specific recommendations, grouped into general categories. Finally, this document concludes with a brief statement of the program's appropriate future direction and masston. Current Program Observations From a review of the most recent Section 15 data, other available documentation and discussions with relevant staff, it appears the Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority has done adequately in tenns of utilizing resources available for its rideshare program. Each agency is required to submit annual data related to annual operating expenses, ridership and services. For !he compar _able programs analyzed, detailed information for which is contained in Appendix C. the Birmingham vanpool program typically does better than average when operating cost per unit of performance is cilculated One measure calculated was operating cost per vehicle in service. While this value may be skewed for if a large number of vehicles are purchased in a given year, or if a large number are rendered idle for whatever reason, Section 15 reports indicate each additional vehicle operated adds about $8,500 to $9,500 to the agency's budget. It is simplistic and inappropriate to imply that an agency can implement one new vanpool for each $9,000 increase in its budget. Rather, this figure should be interpreted as a measure of performance provided by agencies which have significantly different budgets and vanpools in operation. Calculations for the Birmingham program result in a value between $7,500 and $8,000 per vanpool in operation. lbis value represents the incremental cost of administering the service and acquiring the vehicle, with the day-to-day operating and maintenance costs typically covered by fares charged to patrons. Two other measures which corroborate the BJCT A's performance are operating expense per vehicle revenue mile and operating expense per passenger trip. In both cases, the BJCTA system comes in under the nationwide average for similar systems. The range of operating expense per vehicle revenue mile generally falls between $0.20 and $1.00 and the Binningham program measures in at 4-1 19'95 {dwh)c:lm;sejot>lbhamridelrepo

DWA----$0.32. For operating expense per passenger trip, typical values fell between$ I .00 and $3.00. The BJCTA vanpool program reported a per trip cost of$1.08. While the level of service may be above average when weighed against operating costs, there are some deficiencies which need to be addressed. Since the primary purpose of this and other vanpool programs is to provide a good level of service, administration, marketing and documentation sometimes are given only token emphasis, particularly if budgets are extremely tight. This appears to be the situation with the BJCTA. During the course of this study, it became apparent that little formal documentation existed upon which to evaluate the program. A great deal of the information in this document was obtained through discussions with pertinent staff. What documentation did exist was spotty, ofvarying quality and difficult to access because it is not stored at one central location for easy retrieval. The resulting inability to quickly produce facts and figures validating its existence and proving its effectiveness is seen as a tremendous drawback to the program's future. Program Recommeodalioos First and foremost. it is apparent that a lack of staff time seriously hampers the Birmingbam ridesbare program. Most other comparable programs have two or three people with full or part time responsibilities related to ridesharing activities If the BJCT A were to fund two positions, with those persons devoting at least 3/4 of their time to the rideshare program, some dramatic results should be anticipated. One person could be given primary responsibilities for managing the operation: evaluating system effectiveness, preparing documentation, maintaining the matching database and other general administrative duties. The other could devote their time to marketing activities and working with employers to implement and improve rideshare programs. Computet Match Services As mentioned in Section 2 of this document, there is no way to track the formation and stability of carpool formations when people request rideshare matching. Additional fields could be added to the database to record information supplied to callers. Form letters, perhaps with a postage paid return postcard, could be sent periodically to people contained in the database. The postcard would allow the collection of information related to whether a carpool was successfully formed, how long it remained in operation, reasons for its dissolution and general program suggestions. It could also serve the dual purpose of being a way to purge the database on a regular database. The letter would advise that those not replying would be "deactivated" in the rideshare matching system. Deletion Septembef 1995 (ctwh)c:ltnisc:jol>s'bhamridelre1>ort.wp8


DWA----would occur only after a reasonable subsequent time period of if future notifications of additional services are ignored. 1be cost of such improvements could be marginal, depending on whether the rideshare program staff possesses the appropriate computer skills. Incorporati on of these improvements would increase the ability of the computer matching system to become an effective componen t of the overall rideshare program. Demand Estimates I Services Provided Calculating a theoretical number of vanpools which could be operated efficiently in the Bimlingharn anea is a difficult v enrune. The same can be said for carpool formation. There are many interacting quantitative variables which impact rideshare usage, such as cost, reliability and convenience of th e service, overall transportation system congestion and parlcing availability. Qualitative factors such as public awareness and perception, which derives heavily from marketing efforts of the operating agency, are also key s to utilization. A 1990 report by Commuter T ransportation Services In c., identified three criteria which are critical in determining the viability ofvanpooling in a given area. First, vanpooling beComes a viable option for commuters if the one-way distance traveled is greater than 20 miles. Secondly, the travel time must exceed 3 0 minutes. Finally, the maximum distance all participan ts must be from each other ateitheror bo th ends of the trip must be three miles or less. Appro x imately eight percent ofwodcers nationwide meet the criteria for vanpool COIDJ1lUtlng. According to journey -t o-work data from the 1990 U.S. census for J efferson and Shelby Counties, the total employm. ent population is approxima t e ly 450, 000 If the Birmingham area can be conside red typ i cal this translates into a potential market of36,000. On average, only one person in ten of the potential market will actually co nsider switching to a vanpoool, meaning the realistic market for vanpools in the area is about 3,600 people. Given that the Birmingham program experiences a fairly good usage rate of its fleet and that similar sized cities are able to operate larger fleets, it seems reasonable to expect that with the proper staff and budget, the system should be able to fill two to three limes as many vans ( 40 to 60) as it is doing currently. A I 00"/o market penetration, at an average van occupancy o f I 2 per vehicl e would require the dedication of300 vehicles. The program in King County (Seattle), Washington operates over 500 vanpools in a metropoli tan area which is slightly less than twice that ofB. irmingbam s in terms of population. While the Se attle area has a terrific reput ation as being conducive to alternative Sptember 1995 (dwf>)c:\miscj<>bt\l>hamlidoWpolt. wpfl


DWA-----transportation modes. and results there may not be directly applicable to other cities, it does demonstrate that the Birmingham metropolitan area can support a significant increase in BJCTA's vanpool fleet. To achieve this, however, there must be some improvements to the efficiency of the program. During the course of this study, no justification was found for any modifications to such issues as vehicle ownership, driver screen ing driver training, insurance or liability issues. No unusual problems have occurred under the current procedures and policies. A few of the v ehicles have been involved in accidents, but the BJCT A carefully monitors drivers' past and current driving records and does not hesitate to remove drivers if there is an abnormally high threat of dangerous incidents. ActiYities According to the final report for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Study, every vanpool running at capacity reduces hydrocarbon emissions by 0.87 tons and No, emissions by 0.94 tons annually. Every time a two person carpool is formed by two commuters who previou5ly drove alone, the atmosphere is cleansed of 11.8 kilograms of HC and 9.4 kilograms of NO,. Such reductions can translate into major air quality improvements if a significant portion of commuters can be removed from single occupant vehicles. Not only does removal of vehicles from the roadway network reduce emissions, but those remaining on the system will be able to travel at a higher average speed. Studies have shown that HC emissions are reduced dramatically at higher speeds, while No, emissions actually increase slightly above speeds of25 miles per hour. While the interaction between HC and No. in the formation of ozone is extremely complex, it is generally believed that HC is the primary precursor to ozone formation if the ratio betwen HC and No, is less than 10. If the ratio is greater than 20, then No, is the most likely precursor. If air quality readings report values between I 0 and 20, the region should still concentrate on reducing HC emissions, but also must make attempts to reduce No. emissions simultaneously. Values measured in Birmingham are typically in the 9 to 12 range, so HC can be identified as the primary culprit in the degradation of air quality attributable to ozone. Therefore, measures which increase overall travel speed should translate into benefits for air quality. With this in mind, attention should be given to those corridors where congestion is extremely high and travel speeds are low. Section 3 of this document identified five primary corridors where congestion is at unacceptable l evels: I) U.S. 280 south of the Elton Stephens Expressway, 2) I-65 September 199S (

DWA----south of downtown, 3) U.S. 31 through Homewood and Hoover, 4) U.S. 78 west ofi-20/59 through Adamsville and 5) 1-20/59 in the downtown area. Priority should be given to establishing vanpools which operate to businesses located along these corridors. Additionally, commuting routes which must utilize these corridors between major residential areas and businesses, should also receive preferential treatment in the BJCTA's recruitment efforts. The 1-65, 1-20/59 and U.S. 280 corridors have the additional benefit of being considered for high occupancy lanes, a feature which will certainly increase the attractiveness of ridesharing. Employer Based Traospo.nation Activities Increasing the direct involvement of employers involves additional marketing activities, although the focus 'viii be more on facilitating vanpooling or encouraging its further expansion at location s where an interest has already been expressed, rather than attempting to instill that interest. Individual companies or transportation management associations should have a contact person within the vanpool program who can be called upon to provide assistance and guidance. This contact person would be available to train an on-site transportation coordinator and encourage employers to provide employees with a guaranteed ride home program. The on-site coordinator would be responsible for organizing groups of employees into pools, securing vehicles from the BJCTA and promoting the program within the organization. Such activities could include working with management to implement more flexible work schedules and designating preferential parking areas or providing subsidies for vanpools and carpools. Currently, the ability of the BJCT A rideshare program staff to provide such services is severely limited. It is likely that many companies with the proper desire may simply lack the knowledge to implement internal transportation demand management programs. Having a reliable source for advice could provide the necessary incentive. Providing support in this manner for emp loyers would allow the rideshare program to reach a greater market with less direct involvement on the part of the BJCTA. Evaluation and One important element that the current program is lacking is the ability to successfully document its successes and failures. Although the BJCTA is required to submit a quarterly status I progress report to the Alabama Department of Transportation, these reports are usually comprised of a simple bullet listing detailing how many vanpools were in operation, how many employers the program 4-5 September 1995 (dwh)c:'lnisc:tobs\bhamrideVeport. wp6


DWA----staff met with and o ther marketing exercises. No procedures are in place to evaluate the program, other than the required estimates of vehicle miles of travel reduced. If additional staff time were available, several activities could be undenaken to improve this deficiency An additional method to track the program s effectiveness would involve swveying drivers whe n they bring vans in for rou t i n e main t enance or when they submit monthly progress reports. Information collected could include problems encountered during the previous period, how they were resolved and general comments. Improvements made to the computeri z ed rides hare matching database would also connibute greatly to the ability of the BJCTA to monitor the success o f the program. Legislatjvs: Issues During the course of this srudy, no justification was found for any modifications to state laws regarding sovereign immunity and limitation of liability. Existing regulations appear to sufficiently address such c o n cenis and the BJCTA has experienced no major liability problems to date related to the vanpooling program. Fundin& Over the past several years, the ridesbare program has operated with grants averaging $60,000 per year, with additional expenses covered by vanpool fares. At the existing level of service, the dedication of one staff persoo primarily to rideshare activities would require additional annual funding of $20,000 to $30,000 Increasing fares to cover !his cost may be denimental to ridership. so governmen t grants should be the firs t avenue of funding pursued. An additional annual $5,000 to $10,000 dedicated to marketing activities would allow this person to be most effective a t increasing vanpooling in the Birmingham area As public awareness of the program increases, it will probably become necessary to add a second staff person to manage the day-to-day operations of the program, so the other can place more emphasis on marketing and public relations. Adding a second person would require an additional S!S,OOO to $25,000 in the program's annual budget Septembtt 1m {dwh]c:\tnisqobt\bhlmticN:\ftCort ...,e


DWA-----If the program is nm effectively, the demand for vanpool service will increase and more vehicles must be added to the BJCTA's vanpool fleet. It was determined that the incremental cost for each van in operation was approximately $8,000, although a sizeable portion of this amount would include administrative and staffing costs. The BJCTA should establish definitive goals related to the number ofvanpools operated under the program. Sufficient staff time and additional funds for marketing activities must be dedicated for the program to expand beyond its current level. To double the number of vanpools within three years and triple it within five years, the five year budget shown below should be sufficient. These estimates assume the first staff member is hired during Year 1 and the second during Year 2. Grant amounts include costs associated with marketing, while fare revenue reflects additional vanpools in operation. 1 2 3 4 5 Total Expenses $150K to $170K $180K to S220K $210K to $260K $250K to $300K $290K to $350K Additional Recommendations Grants $90K to SlOOK $lOOK to $120K $110K to $130K $!20K to S140K $130K to $!50K Fare Revenue $60Kto$70K $80K to $lOOK $lOOK to $130K $130K to $160K Sl60K to $200K A few additional recommendations could prove beneficial. BJCTA staff should take a more active role in the establishment of facilities, procedures and policies which will directly or indirectly encourage ridesharing. Park and ride lots, HOY lanes and preferential parking policies are all examples of desirable elements, the encouragement of which could fall under the marketing responsibilities of rideshare program staff. Another option to increase the number of vanpools which merits investigation is the provision of incentive payments for referrals which lead to the formation of new vanpools. One agency reports that payments up to $50 per referral are offered. September 1995 (dwhJc:\m;scjobo\l>hamrideVOI)Oit. wp6


DWA-----Concl usio ns The Birmingham ridesbare program appears to be relatively efficient and worthwhile of public funds received, b u t suffers from a lack of staff time to support and promote its operation. Stable funding levels and the ability to devote additional personnel are key to transforming the program from a conven i ent transportation alternative for a few to a regional program which contributes to a substantial reduction in traffic volumes and a corresponding improvement in air quality September 1995 ( dw h )c:lmis

DWA-----Appendix A Sample Applications and Forms


Sirmingham-Jeffe!Son County 1iansit Authority VANPOOL DRI:VER APPLICATION Type of Application: Date o! Application. ______________ __ II Driver [J Saclc-up Driver 1. (Firstl (Middle) (Lase.) 2. Home (Number) (Street.) (C.ity) (Stac.e) (Zip) 3. Telephone. ____ ( Work ) (Home ) (Month) (Day) (Year) 5 Company's Name, ____________________________________________ ___ (Address) (Departmenc./ 6. Work Hours, ________________________________________________ __ 7 .Driver'sLicenseNUmber. ________________________________ __ (Stac.e) S.LengthofBmployment. __________________________ ______________ ___ 9. How Much Travel/Overtime Is Required? ________________________ __ 10. Des=ibe Van Driving Bxperience, ___________________________ ___ 11. Describe Overnight Parking For Van (garage, carport, on-street.) 3105 8th -""enve NOtth Post 0/fice Box 10212 Sitmingham, Alabama 3520 2.0212 Xl5322-n01


12. Has an insurance company ever refused to insure or cancelled your policy? ___ No Yes (Explain; give date and reason) 13. Have you ever had your automobile driver's license suspended or revoked? No Yes (Explain) ________________________ __ 14. Have you ever been involved in an auto accident while operating a private or business vehicle resulting in property damage, bodily injury or death? No Yes (Explain) _________ This is co certify that the above informacion is true and correct. Any falsification of information will result in termination of participation in the Vanpool Program. Signature


VAN RELEASE AND llETt1RN CHECKLIST Driver-----------------'"'ileage when leased------License No. Van No ate leased ----,,-This checklist is to be used when a vehicle is to be leased or upon termination of a lease. The following items are to be checked off as being present at the time the van is leased and returned. First Aid Kit Fire Extinguisher SpareT'lfe Wheel Flares Jack Safety TriUigle Tank of Gas Keys (gas and ignition) Operator's manual and warranty records Leased Returned Damage to van, if any when leased-------------------WSTA Rldesbaring Coordinator -------:--------------VAN RE'l1lRN ONLY Fee due for van lease (if any) Charges for vehicle damage or missing items TOTAL FEES AND CHARGES Amount paid at time of van return s Balance due ---------------S Damage to van if any: Date:: ________________ WSTA Ridesbaring Coordinator-----------------------


VANPOOL REVENUE AND EXPENSE REPORT river _________ ..,.c. ____________ Vanpoolll----MontttL ___ ,ga_ l rigin/Destination ----------------------Work Phone--------Name l l I ; ; I ) . . T ota l passenger revenue "Backup D river Opera tin Ex KPenses Date .. Odometer .. rota I Oceratlna nses :ASE AMOUNT DUE :SS OPERATING EXPENSE .US PERSONAL MILES Address . Expe nse .. ... .. ... . . -. -4 .. .. . -. . . ' . x 25'imile -----------TOTAL DUE----------i ver Signatur"-----------Amount -Amount Paid & Due Driver .. .. . .. .. .. . -. .. .. -" . -. . .. .. .. Date Submitted Date Approved Approved By:


lAlLY LOG Calendar month-----------------19 eg i nning odometer read i ng ________ Driver / Coord inator-----------------Regular' Occa1ionl .. I c ;:; i ,. .!! .. i r !t 9 i i 3 e ;; -9 e c 0 ;; c 0 !t .!! 0 e ., ;; oli a 8 l. 0 0 2 -... ., ... ., .. .... ., "' 0 .. ., .. ., .. .... .. ------I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 9 10 II 12 t3 ,. 15 te -17 18 19 10 ll l2 13 1 4 lS l6 17 1 8 !9 lO


MAXPOOL CORPORATE V ANPOOL PROGRAM DRIVER AGREEMENT The tollowtng tenns ot this Agteement are designed to promote the cooperaUon essential to the operatton ot a success1u1 vanpool. The Ddve r agrees to : I. 23 4. 6 7. 8. 9 10. II. 12. 13 14 . 15. 16. 17. 18. Maintain a valid driver's license as required by the State of Alabama. Ptovtde etttcienttransportatton to and trom work. ptcklng up and dlscha:rglng riders In accordance with the mutually established route and schedule. Al!ernplto maintain the vanpool at lis maximum ridership consistent with the provisions ot the MAXPOOI. prognun. Coordinate malnlenance. cleaning. and servidng ot the van as prescribed by MAX POOL. Also. the driver will pwchase gasoline tor the vcm with reimbursement on a monthly basis bY MA.XPOOL or directly by the riders. U a payroll deduction plan is not available. collect ,the established monthly tares trom all riders no later than the fiJ:st ol th& month tor which the tares are being paid and !orward all tares collected each month to MAXPOOL by check or money order. (Only lull payments are acceptable.) Ke.p daily and monthly records as required. submlltlnq them as scheduled. Malnla!n at least one back-up driver at au times. Coordinate with MAXPOOL the development of rules lor the day-to-day operatton of the vanpool tegardlng smoldng. radio playing. sealing arrangements. allowable walling lime. absence nollllcallon. etc. Complete a Defensive OriVirlg Course Be pW1C!Ual. Ptornptly nolily the riders ot mechanical tailure and auemate transportatton anangaments. Nollty MAXPOOL of any changes In ridership Insure that personalllabWIY does not exceed the limits of the Insurance poUcy covertnQ the vehicle in operatton and In torce at the time ot any occurrence requU!rlg such a claim. Nollty MAXPOOL lmmedlately of anY accidents and complete the required accident forms Operate the van In a sate manner In accordance with all applicable lnsulance polfdes. laws. ordinances. rules and regula!fons Any cllallon or vtolallon ot appllcable laws and oldlnancas wllll:le the respom!biWy of the clrtver. U the van Is In voM!d In a V1ofatton tor which th., driver a citation. MAXPOOL must be nolllled Immediately. Ploof 01 resolution mustl:le sent lo MAXPOOL within thirty (30) days. Aclcnowledge that there are no provisions tor norffial rider coveroge on vehicles Involved In non-commute accidents Since the riders Will not l:le uslnq the vehicle tor non

19. Drive the von only on hcad-Sillfaced pubUc streets and highways and other normal access roads and drtveways 20. Return the van to MAXPOOL. when required. in the same condil!on as when deliVered (normal wear and tear accepted). The Drtver agrees NOT t o : I. Use the van to carry dders tor hire. 2. Install or remove accessories lrom the van. 3 Permit any person except a back-up driver qpproved by MAX to drtve the van. 4 Take or operate the van outside the conllnenlallimils ot the United States 5 Transport groups. other than regular vanpoollidea and mernDers ot his/her Immediate family. regularly. 6 Use the van tor a trip beyond a 150-mlle radius 11om hislher home without sped!lc qpproval in advance 11om MA.XPOOL. 7. Use the von to pull tra!lers nor attach tra!ler hitches to the von. 8. Use the van tor any Weqal purposes. This Agreement shall be eUec!lve as o! the date ol its signing and shall conUnue in Ioree W'llll MAJO'OOL ts given a 30<1ay wrtHen notice. A Driver or Back-up Driver may terminate this Agreement tor any reason MAXPOOL may terminate this Agreement due to low ridership. it operation of the vonpool becomes inconslslenl wtth evaluation crtterta. and/or the program Is terminated MAXPOOL may terminate an lndtv!dual Drtver or Back-up Drtver tor causinq an ar::ddenl: !allure to abide by the program' s poUdes; unaulholited personal use ot the van: failure to ablde by the terms ot this Agreemenl: or tor other good cause. Termination notWcation shall be mailed to the last provided addreso;. The Driver shall cooperate tully in returning all vanpool records and materialS. the van, and all keys thereto within 24 hours ot termination. I understand and accept the condlllons and rules ol this Agreement. Vanl'ool, -------and/orRoulotl'rom ________ To --------


MAXPOOL CORPORATE VANPOOL PROGRAM RIDER AGREEMENT The tezms ol this Agreement are designed to promote the cooperatton essenllal to the operal!on ol a success!Ul vanpool. The Rider agrees to: I Be punctual and ready tc leave at the designated Ume and loca!lon. 2. Nouty the driver prompUy (the evening before. II Jios<:;ble) II a 11c1e Is not needed. 3. Forward tare to the driver no later than the !liSt 01 the month tor which the tare Is belnq paid. II a payroll dec!uc!!on plan IS not avatlable. (Only tuJl payment IS acceptable.) 4 Comply with any notlc:es of rale inaeases or service termination made by MAXPOOL. 5. Assume sole !e$p0rulbllily lor loss ol or clamaqe to the lider"s pei:SOl\al property while aboard the van. 6. Be pe!SOnally Uable tor any damage caused by him/her to any part or swtace 01 the vehicle. Reirnbulsemenl shall be made to MAXPOOL by the lider to Cl)Ver the damages inCUIIed. This Agteemenl shall be el!ecttve as of the dale ol ils signing and shall conllnue in Ioree until .MAXPOOLia ten a 30-day 4

DWA-----Appendix B TDM Summaries for Four Peer Cities


TIDEWATER REGIONAL TRANSIT Norfolk, Virginia Operations and Management The regional transportation demand management (TDM) program for the Virginia Beach-Norfolk area is operated and managed by Tidewater Regional Transit (TRT). Over 1,323,000 people live in the area and it is economically dominated by the Navy and the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The area is currently a marginal non-attainment area but there is the possibility that they will be reclassified as a moderate non-attainment area. The TDM program currently has three full-time employees including two-part time marketing coordinators to help conduct promotions at employer sites and park and ride facilities. The TDM program is located within the service development department of the transit agency. The TDM Program Manager reports directly to the service development manager, but an MPO study has recommended the TDM Program Manager report directly to the executive director There also is a TDM Advisory Task Force that has been recently formed and includes local politicians and technical representatives from VDOT, VDRPT, Planning District Commission, City of Virginia Beach, and three employers. The Advisory Task Force meets quarterly. Not every locality is represented; TRT chose representatives from various markets (city and suburb) and tho5e who have represent specialized needs (hospital, community college, and Navy). There also is an HOV ad hoc committee. The current proposed budget for the TRT program is $676,000, excluding office overhead. Approximately, $200,000 will be for marketing. Project budgets are prepared by the TDM Program Manager, with input from the City of Virginia Beach's TDM coordinator and PENTRAN. The budget is shared with the working committee and sent to the MPO for approval. Overall, the ridesharing and vanpool programs have been shrinking slightly due to limited funding in the past Over the last 6 months, there has been an upward trend in transit ridership due to route restructuring and the elimination of the zone fare. The area has a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane facility that is expanding. However, ample, affordable parking exists in this low density area. Marketing Effom The nature of the TRT's TDM products and services is extensive and largely targeted to commuter needs in specific corridors or areas of the region. TRT focuses its outreach efforts in areas with high traffic congestion and to employers who are relocating or are located along one of their two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane corridors. Septembe<1995 (dwh(c:m;sc:jobt'bhamridelreport. wp6


. TRT considers their key customer requirements for their TOM products and services in terms of time incentives (relative time savings of non-SOV mode), cost, convenience, and reliability SERVICE Offers Now Ridesharing Promotion at employer sites Yes Develop and process employee surveys Yes Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) Yes, if applicable (not all sites have Training ETCs) Trip reduction plan preparation Yes Advocacy Yes Periodicals/Printed Materials Yes Computerized Ridematching Yes Personalized ridematching Yes Guaranteed Ride Home/Emergency Ride Home Yes Vans for Vanpooling Yes Third-party vanpools No, but promote private vanpool s Van pool fonnation assistance Yes Vanpool Driver Training Yes Vanpool financial incentives Yes Transit information Yes Transit pass sales Yes Shuttle services No, but promote Navy's shuttle Parking information Yes Parking Management assistance Yes TRT' s current ridematching system consists of a database of about I 500 commuters, most of whom are searching for a ride. The database is updated quarterly. If there is a poor response, TRT will follow-up with a telephone call. In the future, TRT will be transitioning to a geographic information system based system that is under development for VDRPT by the Washington (DC) Council of Governments. September 1 995 [dWh (e:lmiscjc4>slllllamridolreport. wo6


TRT's guaranteed ride home program excludes "home" from its name in recognition that many trips may not be destined for home (e.g., hospital, day-care, park and ride lot). The guaranteed ride program requires a co-payment equal to the cash fare for express bus service ($1.50). The rider signs the chit which the taxi operator submits for reimbursement. The Guaranteed Ride program is serviced by 4 taxi operators. Though the vanpool fleet operated by TRT is small (12 vans), they provide support to 150-175 private vanpools. TRT offers several financial incentives for vanpools including: I. 30 day free trial 2. 6 month deep discount (lst-3rd months are free and in the 4th-6th months the cost covers the insurance ($120 per month) plus $0.11 per mile for maintenance.) 3. Drivers who refer another driver receive $50 off the next month's lease payment for the first referral and $75 for two referrals. 4 New vanpools started by private providers will be given $500 for the first month, $300 for the second month, and $100 for the third month. 5. TRT will provide financial assistance to existing vanpool operators on an as-needed basis to help cope with Joss of riders The Commuter Check also is used for marketing the employer-provided commuter subsidies of up to $60 per month per person for vanpoolers as well as transit riders. ETC training and other types of educational opportunities are offered though the frequency is low. TRT staff participate in Try Transit Day, Earth Day, and the Navy's Energy day . The transit system offers a "guaranteed connection," meaning riders who miss a connection can request another vehicle to be dispatched to provide a ride. This guarantee is promoted to transit patrons by bus drivers who are given incentives to distribute this infonnation. When connections are missed, TRT can use the data to re-examine the timing and routings to reduce such incidents. Another example ofTRT's customer-orientation is their response to van driver complaints about the inconvenience of the maintenance faciltity's location and the quality of the maintenance. TRT investigated the maintenance problems and opened a satellite maintenance facility to meet the concerns of the drivers. The TOM program communicates its plans and progress on a regular basis to the working committee ( once per month), Advisory Task Force (quanerly) and makes presentations to the members of the MPO's Technical Committee. A speaker's bureau is in development. Currently, the TOM program has no identity of its own. In the near future, they expect to use mass communications to create general awareness, target specific audiences with special programs, and cultivate public-private alliances for special promotions. September 'm (dwll)c:\mioqOI>slbhomridelrepon. woe


The TDM program manager cited the Association for Commuter Transportation, the Transportation Research Board's annual HOV conference, and training and technical assistance programs offered by VD RPT as key sources of information. Program Evaluation The data used to measure the TDM program's performance includes park and ride lot usage, number ofHOV express bus riders, vehicle occupancies at approximately 20 selected intersections, employer outreach contacts HOV lane usage, and the number of call-ins. TRT is are very sensitive to consumer feedback and conducts public transit forums at local libraries or other locations to obtain community input. For example, the guaranteed ride program and mid-day services were the outgrowth of the concerns raised by clients. It also has resulted in a discount ticket program: TRT introduced a ten-ticket discount for $10, a $5 savings from the face value. TRT benchmarks its programs and services by establishing baseline conditions before introducing a new service and measuring performance at 6 months and again at 12 months after new service is introduced. They have not compared their performance with other vanpool programs, although VDRPT has conducted evaluations of the ridematching effortS of all the ridesharing programs in Virginia in the past. Strategic PlaaaingiFuture Directions TRT has developed a strategic plan for the TDM program. Near-term and longer-term requirements and expectations are determined by just listening. niey provide more follow-up to custome..S:and conduct special surveys on a project-by-project basis. They rely on the MPO to show where congestion will be to identify future needs. A I 0 member working committee with representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation, Virginia Department of Rail and Transportation, City ofVuginia Beach, and the Naval Base meets monthly to discuss issues and plan for the merger of the transit agency with PENTRAN, the transit agency servicing the Hampton Roads area. Staffing will expand to include 2 additional marketing coordinators and the budget will include support for a person in PENTRAN's service area and the City of Virginia Beach. TRT has a good rapport with the MPO. The MPO conducts special studies around specific corridors, provides data on employer locations and sizes, etc. The MPO also is looking to the TDM program to provide data to the congestion management system. September 1995 (dwh]c:lmiscjobo\l>hamridelleport.wpS


TRT expects to become less reliant on state financial support from VDRPT, which provides state aid for ridesharing and transportation efficiency improvement funds (TEIF) for transit agency activities. TRl's TOM program expects to be diversifYing funding sources by using STP, CMAQ, and othe r sources to fund specific projects. TRT is helping organize the Hampton Public Transportation Alliance, currently a group of 120 public transit advocates who hope to raise public awareness and support of public transportation alternatives. Septoml>ef\995


Operation3 and Management LYNX TRANSIT Orlando, Florida The regional transportation demand management (TOM) program for the Orlando area is operated and managed by Lynx, the regional transit agency. Over 887,000 people live in the area and it is economically dominated by Disney World, Universal Studios, and other resort attractions. The area is cwtently an attaiiUllent area but there is language in the local development orders that require unspecified trip reduction efforts. The TDM program currently has two full-time employees, including the manager of mobility assistance and the mobility assistance coordinator, although other transit personnel are available on an as-needed basis to help conduct promotions at employer sites. The TDM program is located within the planning development department of the transit agency. The manager of mobility assistance reports directly to the director of planning. The current proposed budget for the TDM program at Lynx is about $150,000 excluding capital costs for the vans and consultant services contract for the entire transit agency. Project budgets are prepared by the manager of mobility assistance. Additional costs such as market research on levels of awareness of the organization are drawn from other department budgets Other hwnan and financial resources within Lynx are available if necessary Overall, ihe vanpool program has grown steadily interest in iidematching is Jaigely dependent on the efforts of the two transportation management associations in the area. The area has a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) Jane facility that is poorly enforced. Marketing Efforts The nature of the Lynx's TDM products and services is extensive and largely targeted to two different markets: those who work at one of the attractions (high turnover) and those who work elsewhere. Lynx is positioning itself as a "one-stop shop" for mobility information in the region. Instead of having a transit sales force and a TDM sales force, Lynx employees are being trained to cross-sell. Another example is their moving to a single telephone number for information. Lynx considers key customer requirements for their TDM products and services in terms of prompt response for carpool matching and quick delivery and price issues for vanpooling. Most of the employer outreach is conducted by either the transit sales staff or in support of the efforts of the Downtown Orlando Transportation Management Association or the University Activity Center Transportation Association. S011tembe< 1995 {dwhjc:lmil<:jobslbh.,ride""po

SERVIC E Offers Now Ridesharing Promotion at employer sites Yes Develop and process employee surveys Yes Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) No Training Trip reduction plan preparation No Ad v ocacy Yes Periodicals/Printed Materials Yes Computerized Ridematching Yes Personalized ridematching Yes Guaranteed Ride Home/Emergency Ride Home No offered through Downtown OrlandoTMA Vans for Vanpooling Yes Third party vanpools Yes Vanpool formation assistance Yes Van pool Driver Training No Vanpool financial incentives Yes occasionally Transit information Yes Transit pass sales -Yes Shuttle services Yes Parking information No Parking Management assistance Yes though not many employers request assistance Other: Amenities planning Yes Lynx's ridematching system consists of a database of 600-700 commuters, most of whom are searching for a ride immediately. Every month Lynx sends a letter to those who have been registered with the program for six months. Unles s a card is returned requesting to stay in the database, the record is deleted. 1995 [dwll)c:lmis<:jol>s\bham ride'teport. wp6


Lynx does not have a guaranteed ride home program, but uses the program offered by the Downtown Orlando TMA. The vanpool fleet operated by Lynx and supported by VPSI is moderately sized (53 vans). Most of the vans are IS-passenger vehicles with nearly half of the vans with bench seating. The other half of the fleet is equipped with individual highback seats. Those with bench seats are being phased out. The lead time to acquire the vans can take as long as six months. Lynx does not provide the home address on the matchlist and allows the individual to choose to list either his or her home or work phone number. The mobility manager noted that employers were more than willing to give complete addresses of information on their employees. The transit system offers a guaranteed back-up van and VPSI has been willing to "rescue" van groups when they breakdown. All this information is provided to the van group when the vehicle is delivered. Lynx does not regularly report progress to the groups other than Lynx's Board of Directors (monthly) and the Florida Department of Transportation (quarterly). The mobility manager cited the Association for Commuter Transportation as one source of TOM information. Prognm Evaluation In Florid3, all commuter assistance service agencies like i.ynx that receive state funding are required by the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) to monitor and report to the FOOT Disttict office the following data each fiscal quarter. Like most commuter assistance programs in Florida, Lynx is beginning to develop plans for collecting this information. Number of Commuters assistanceThis is the number of people who request assistance including carpool matchlist, vanpool matchlist or formation assistance, transit route and/or schedule information, telecommuting information and bicycle route and/or locker/rack information. Number of commuters modes This is the number of people who actually use the information provided to change from their current single occupant vehicle (SOY) mode to a nonSOY mode. Number of vans jn service (where applicable) Reports the number of commuter vans on the road and/or the number of vanpoolers. S&pCember 1995 {dwhlc:mscjo .. ll>hamrldeWport.wp6


Number of vehicle trips eliminatedUsing follow-up survey data or actual data, Lynx is to multiply the frequency of alternative mode use by the estimated number of commuters using a shared mode or telecommuting. Vehicle miles eliminated Using follow-up survey data, commuter assistance programs such as Lynx are to estimate VMT reduction by multiplying the average trip l ength by the frequency of use and multiplying that product by the number of commuters switching modes. Employer contacts Report the number of employer contacts by the following categories: number contacted by letter/fax, number contacted by phone, numbet contacted in person, and number of follow-up calls or visits When reporting these figures Lynx must include the number of employees at each site. accomplishments These measures include new transit services initiated/improved, educational programs initiated, transportation planning initiatives, guaranteed ride home projects initiated, and other implementation activities. Parl

Strategic Planning/Future Directions Over the past few years, Lynx has worked towards creating a preeminent, distinctive image through advertising and design and no longer suffers from low awareness and public support. In the near term, Lynx is making the transition to more promotion of specific services. The TOM program has been more focused on commuters but they expect to increase focus on employers in the future. In comparison to baseline information obtained several years ago Lynx has significantly increased name recognition and advertising recall, improved the perception of service quality, and established the community's willingness to pay taxes for ttansit service. Lynx is one of two sites to document experiences as a mobility management operation. They have applied for a Section 26 grant to determine how they can tie-in private sector providers and what common needs exist. Since Orlando was the site of the TravTek experiment, an Intelligent Transportation System project, several years ago, Lynx bas been working on integrating advanced technologies includ ing global positioning systems, Smartcards, and geographic information systems. September 1 995 (dwh)c:\m ;scjobo\bhamride\tepo rt. wp6


UPTOWN TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL Charlotte, North Carolina Operations and Management The Uptown Transportation Cowtcil (UTC) is the transportation demand management (TOM) program for the central business district (CBD) of Charlotte and is operated and managed by the Charlotte Uptown Development Corporation (CUDC), a downtown organization responsible for business development Over 455,000 people live in the area and the CBD is dominated by national headquarters for NationsBank and First Union. The area is currently an attainment area but there bas been rapid growth in the CBD, with nearly 53,000 employees in a 2.5 square mile area and low office vacancy rates. The TOM program currently has one full-time employee, although the City of Charlotte provides some of the TOM services and supplies vans for the program. The TOM program is located the transportation management group of the economic development department of the agency. The transportation manager reports directly to the chairman of the board. The current proposed budget for the TOM program at UTC is about $310,000, including the c osts to operate a downtown shuttle and express service Project budgets are prepared by the manager and reviewed, revised, and approved by the Board at the annual planning session. Marketing Efforts The nature of the UTC's TOM products and services is extensive and largely targeted to downtown commuters and members of the CUDC. UTC positions itself as a very responsive, personalized source for mobility information in the CBD. UTC describes their key customer requirements for their TOM products and services in terms of pers onalized service and an insistence for quick response (i.e., same day service) to member and commuter requests. September 199$ woe


SERVICE Offers Now Ridesharing Promotion at employer sites Yes Develop and process employee surveys Yes Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) Yes alot of technical assistance Training provided to ETCs Trip reduction plan preparation Yes under special circumstances such as a relocating company Advocacy Yes Periodicals/Printed Materials Yes Computerized Ridematching No City offers Personalized ridematching Yes Guaranteed Ride Home/Emergency Ride Home Yes Vans for V anpooling No -brokers the C ity's vans Third-party vanpools No Vanpool formation assis(!Ulce Yes V anpool Driver Training No V anpool financial incentives Yes occasionally Transit information Yes Transit pass sales Yes Shuttle services Yes Parking information Yes Parking Management assistance Yes UTC provides personalized ridernatching assistance, often responding with a minimum of three names by the end of the day Under the guaranteed ride home program, a presigned voucher is distributed by the employer to employees. Taxi operators submit the vouchers to UTC for reimbursement. Costs are split between the employer and UTC. A ride is guaranteed within 15 minutes during the peak. Se9 tember 1995 [dwh)c:lmlscjobsll>l>a mrid o lreport.wp6


The transportation manager cited the American Public Transit Association, Transportation Research Board, and the National Parking Association as valuable sources of information on transportation issues. Promotional efforts succeed because they do their homework upfront and require members to fund the service. Program Evaluation UTC evaluation depends on the project UTC monitors how long it takes to answer an inquiry, the nwnber of employees from each company who use the service and the nature of the inquiry. Generally, the adoption of alternative technology (e.g., commute information via voice mail) "goes against the grain". Direct project evaluations are conducted and include quarterly on-board surveys for transit services. Members regularly receive a "how-are-w e doing" checklist. The list focuses on perceived value of programs (e.g., shuttle service) and the overall process (e.g., timing and length of meetings). An evaluation of the promotional elements of the program is not conducted. Generally, pro jects have particular performance standards to meet and the fact that employers pay for the services tends to maximize their promotional effort Strategic Planning/Future Directions . In late 1990, UTC, with assistance from the Charlotte Department of Transportation, conducted a study of transportation system options for uptown Charlotte. The study formed the basis of the program and approach. UTC has monthly meetings with the DOT and meets quarterly with the assistant city manager. Because of the extensive development in the area, a lot of traffic data is available ftom those studies and used by UTC for planning purposes. One key to their success is that almost all contracts for service contain a 30 day notice to terminate without cause. They have built a solid list of good vendors and ask for lengthy professional and personal references for new potential vendors. September 1995 (dwh)c:ltrOscjobolbhamridelreport.wp6


SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT TDM PROGRAM Melbourne, Florida Operations and Management Space Coast Area Transit (SCAn is located in Brevard County, Florida (including the Melbourne Tirusville-Cocoa Metropolitan Statistical Area) and is the local commuter assistance program for the entire county. The program consists of a nationally-acclaimed vanpool program, a carpooVridesbare matching assistance program and a ttansit commuting program. The SCAT TDM program operates in an attainment area for air quality and has a population base of 417,740. SCAT has chosen a customer service focus and places most of its program emphasis on serving employees and commuters rather than employets. The SCAT vanpool program has a commuter vanpool fleet of 51. The vanpool program is handled by Van Pool Services, Inc. (VPSI) under contract to SCAT, which is a department within the Brevard County government. U nder a unique arrangement, Brevard County government purchases the vans, leases them to VPSI for$1.00, who then leases them to commuters in SCAT's county-wide service area VPSl and SCAT, through the same arrangement, also provide 28 human service agency vans as part of the local transportation disadvantaged/paratransit program. Eight other vans are kept as back-up vehicles when the leased vans are out-of-service for maintenance programs. Insurance and maintenance as well as driver training are covered in the lease agreement vanpoolers have with VPSI. VPSI has provided a mix of vehicle choices for vanpools in Brevard and currently operates seven, eight, eleven and fifteen passenger vans. Vehicle selection is left to the vanpool commuters. Those wtio place the highest value on comfort opt for the eight and eleven passenger vans which have only "captain s chair" seating. Those that are concerned about cost are selecting fifteen passenger bench seat vans. The TDM program is comparatively small, with only one staff person with 22 years of experience, who splits time between the TDM program and m3naging the satellite office for the transit system. VPSI has on-site staff housed within the TDM program office suite, and is made up of two employees. Collectively, the three employees handle all assistance requests and place applicants into van pools. The TOM program has an annual budget of $65,000, of which $30,000 is devoted to marketing. The TDM program coordinator develops the annual budget, with assistance from the transit agency director, and the budget is approved by the County Commission. Locally, the TDM program maintains an open relationship with the local government, including the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Director of the Transit Agency is a voting member of the technical advisory committee as is the VPSI vanpool administrator. As part of the county government system, the transit agency takes seriously the interrelationship between local transportation plans and transit agencyrrDM program plans. The MPO approves all TDM program Seotember 1995 (dWh)e:lmis<:jOI>slbllamridelreport.wpS


plans coordinates planning efforts, and shares information when working on projects of mutual interest. SCAT makes monthly progress reports to the MPO. Marketing Efforts SCAT TOM program marketing efforts are somewhat limited. Employers in the service area have ample free parking, congestion is minimal, and a variety of housing types, in various price ranges are available in close proximity to most worksites. About I 0-15 site visits are made each year to local employers. Most of these visits are to reinforce the efforts of existing participants. TOM program staff al so make presentations at local public meetings. Other outreach activities include establishing rideshare road signs, and direct advertising of the program on existing vanpools as well as on fixed-route buses. When commuters request assistance from SCAT, they are asked how they heard about the program. The majority point to the vanpool and bus advertising as what led them to make the call for assistance. SCAT also recognizes the need for continued training, and TOM program staff attend TOM training programs, national TOM conferences, and other professional development opportunities. SERVICE Ridesharing Promotion at Employer Sites Develop and process employee surveys ETC Training Trip reduction plan preparation Advocacy Periodicals/Printed Materials Computerized Ridematching Personalized Ridematching Guaranteed Ride Home Program Vans for V anpooling Third Party V anpools Vanpool Formation Assistance Van pool Driver Training Vanpool Financial Incentives Transit Information Offers Now Yes, however e xtremely limited Yes, very limited No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes . September \ 995 [dwll]c:vnlscjobslbhamride\report wp6


SERVICE Offers Now Transit Pass Sales Yes Shuttle Services No Parking Infonnat ion No Parking Management Assistance Yes Program Evaluation In keeping with the customer service focus of the lDM program, user satisfaction research is a key component. Once a year, all vanpool riders are surveyed to d e termine satisfaction levels, while drivers are surveyed every time they bring a van in for scheduled maintenance. As part of their lease agreements, VPSI and SCAT agree to provide back-up vehicles when vans are undergoing maintenance or repair, exchange equipment when the van proves to be too small or too large for the number of riders, and will work one-on-one with existing vanpools when new riders are being added. Complaints receive personalized attention. If necessary and requested, a patron will be placed in to a different van, provided one exists. Once a Brevard County commuter is placed in a van, SCAT and VPSI will do whatever it takes to keep them in vanpools. According to SCAT, most complaints are personality conflicts between two pool members and do not involve service or equipment. With its limited budge( (approximately $60,000 annwilly), the lDM program relies on VPSI to track performance measures. This is accomplished by comparing available data from Section 15 reports to see where the vanpool program stacks up against other public vanpool programs. Areas in which the vanpool program "loses ground" are researched to find out why and, if necessary, changes are made to enhance the program. Finally, to make lDM program services seamless, VPSI is housed in the lDM programs office suite where customer needs and other information are routinely shared. In fact, lDM program staff and VPSI staff refer to their arrangement as a family dedicated to serving the commuter. To that end. commuters requesting assistance are given personalized attention by whoever makes first contact with them. Strategic Planning/Future Directions Future directions for the lDM program are also customer driven. Following customer concerns about the lack of places to meet for pooling purposes, a 130 space park and ride lot is in the works SCAT is also examining new rideshare matching software and hopes that the new system will be able to assist them in program evaluation. They are also tracking current federal .legislation on operating subsidies to determine what impact the changes will have on the program and customer Se-ptember 19'M [dwhlc:lmiscjobslbbamrideltepon .


requirements. Despite the uncertainty, SCAT and VPSI are confident that new vanpools will be added during the year and have ordered additional vans As always, the vans will be of mixed sizes and equipment so that customer requirements can be met. In addition, some older vans wiU be replaced so that existing vanpools can have equipment that meets their changing needs. Soptember 1995 (dWh jc:lmlscjobslbhamride\teport.WJ)6


DWA----o.y -.wa. .... 7 ,lit. Appendix C Section 15 Data for Peer Cities


Sec 15 Data bv y -Na m e Austin Cap Met AusUn Cap Met Austin Cap Met AuaUn Cap Met Section 15 Year 1880 1881 1 892 1 993 tm:a City, State Austin, TX Austin, TX Austin, TX Austin TX SqMiles 273 273 273 273 Pop u lation 562,008 562 008 562,008 562,008 Pop Ranking 54 54 54 54 Are a lltati5li!

  • PAGE 84

    Austin Capital Metro Transit Vanpool Performance Indicators Vanpools Operated In Maximum Servic e IM.C ... 4 11 Dtrectl" Op.erUM an4 fwdiM4 VM...,tl .. .. .. .... ,.., .... ... Operating Expense Per Passe nger Mile our---------------------------, . .... ................. ... ,, --r o.-4 1110 n1 '* Operating Expanse Par Vehicle Revenue Mile r---------------, ..... I !.flO ... . ... l .... ... t G.f'tto '"' 1 .. 1 1 M l Operating Expenses for Vanpools ............ .---------------""""""] ltoDI ... ... ... .. .. .......... J 1tl0 .. , .. Unllnktd Pa11enger Tripi Per Vehicle Rtv1nue Mile ... r----------------------, Q_IQI o...ol ........ .. o.' . . . . . . . . . ... no a ..

    PAGE 85

    Sec. 15 Data bv y, -... at Blrmghm Blrmghm B lrm ghm Name Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Section 15 Year 1991 1992 1993 !J[biiOiZ!l AU:i City, State Birmingham, AL Birmingham, AL Birmingham, AL Sq Miles 399 399 399 Population 622,074 622,074 622,074 Pop Ranking 47 47 47 S!:Nie AU:il Sta!li!lcs Square Miles 1,074 1 074 1,074 Population 651,525 651, 525 651,525 lleb QQI!Illted iD MaK Sllllr:icl DirecUy Operated VP 16 16 16 Pun;hased VP 0 0 0 Characteristic: Operative Expenses $94,366 $100,19 2 $121,947 Capital Funding $0 0 $0 Annual Passenger Miles 5,713,920 5,866,785 5,553,364 Annual Veh Revenue Miles 380, 416 387,855 378,368 Annual Unlinked Trips 119,340 114,944 Avg Weekday T rips 454 468 449 Annual Veh Revenue Hra 0 0 0/W FIXed Guideway Oir Rte M iles 0 0 0 0 Total Fleet 21 21 21 Avg Fleet Age in Years 3 4 4.7 Veh Operated in Max Svc 16 16 16 Peak to Base Ratio n/a n/a NIA Percent Spares 31% 31% 31% Performance Meaau ... a: Setvlce Efficiency Operating Exp/Veh Rev M ile $0 25 $0 26 $0 .32 Operating Exp/Veh Rev Hour $ 0 00 $0.00 $0 .00/W Cost Ettec!lveoess Operating Exp/P assenger M ile $0 02 $0 02 $0 02 Operating Exp/Unlinke
    PAGE 86

    Birmingham-Jefferson County Vanpool Performance Indicators Vanpools Operated In Maximum Service Cln,lucM I 0jleti1M toflf Pult" IMf \l'lft,..r-1 .--------------------------, .. .. .. .. . . ,\to '"' .... '"' Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile r---------------------, I Q.J I I , , , f . . . . tO. Of I , , , , uto a Operotln g hpense Per Vehicle Revenue Mile I n .40 et.H' u..-! I .. .. .. to..o: i 10. :l(t; o.c;oiiO ,.., "" '"' Operating Expenses for Vanpools '" YMMiol\4 1 IGOr-----------------------0 .... . . . . ... .. .. ''" '"a tltJ Unlinked Peutngtr Ttlpt fttr Vehic:le Revtnut Mile ... r---------------------, 0.10' Cl.OI (LJ a a

    PAGE 87

    Sec. 15 Data bv y u tume CCT CCT CCT CCT Section 15 Year 19110 1991 1992 199 3 Aru Statis1i!

  • PAGE 88

    Cobb County Transit Vanpool Performance Indicators Vanpools Operated In Maximum Service !nc!Ydu Dh'tt( 0P.,I114 l Ad f'vrc:MIH VMpooiN Operating Expenses for Vanpools lA Tflfln41 "' .. I I .... .. ... .. -.... .. 0200 .. ,. ttoal ... ... ... .... Operating Expense Per Vehicle Revenue Mile 18to 1HI 1M2 liiU 11.10 .. n.oo . oo 11.00 10.001 IO.c:'1110 1H1 tH2 1ttl Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile .. Unlinked Pauanger 11'ips Per Vehicle Revenue Milo' 04>r------------------------------, 2.00r--------------------------, t.ooL to.tal I.OOt O.tota. ....... IO.otl , '- , IMO 1n1 1H2 '"' ... 1tt0 1 .. 1 1M2 1et.t NObiUIIC ........ I

    PAGE 89

    ------. -. NarM Charlotte (CTS) Charlotte (CT S ) C harlotte ( C TS) Char lotte (C T S) S ection 15 Y ear 199 0 1 99 1 199 2 199 3 Are a City, State Ch a rlotte, NC Charlotte NC C h arlo tte, NC Charlotte NC Sq M iles 242 242 242 242 Population 4 55,597 455 597 455 597 455,597 Pop Ranking 65 65 65 65 Area Squ are M iles 178 178 178 217 Populatio n 383,837 383 ,837 383,837 473 400 Qpeca t ed iO MaK Directly Operated VP 1 5 17 16 18 Purchased VP 0 0 0 0 Characteristics: Operative Expenses $ 38,63 1 $51,968 $50,567 $102,337 Capilal Fundi n g $0 $0 8 4 4 4 $74,223 Annual Passenger Mil e s 1231041 2,792 496 2,649 024 2,986 938 Annual Vel\ R e venue Miles 1 19013 248,97 6 24 5 ,952 287,784 > 98280 115,920 Annual Unlin k ed T rips 114, 408 127,5 1 2 Avg Weekday Un l in ked Trips 390 460 454 506 Annual Veh Revenue Hrs 6048 8,568 9 072 11,592 Fixed Guideway Dit Rte M i les 0 0 0 0 0 Tota l F leet 18 18 18 22 Avg Fleet Age in Ye a rs n/a 3 4 4.5 Veh Opera ted in Max Svc 15 17 1 6 1 8 Peak to Base Ratio n/a n/a n/a N/A P e r cent S p a res 20% 6% 12% 22% Perfonnance Meas u res: Sendee Effic i ency Ope ra ting ExpNeh Rev M ile $0. 3 2 $0.21 $0.2 1 $ 0 .36 Operating ExpNeh Rev Hour $8.39 $8.07 $ 5 57 $ 8 .83 Cos t Effectiveoess Operating E x p/Passenger Mi l e $0.03 $0.02 $0.02 $0.03 Operating Exp/Unlinked Passgr Trip $0.39 $0.45 $0.44 $0.80 Unlinke d Passgr T r ipsNeh Rev M ile $0.80 $0.47 $0.47 0.44 Unlinked Passgr Ho u r $16.30 $13 .5 3 $12.61 11 .00 Page 4

    PAGE 90

    Charlotte Area Transit Vanpool Performance Indicators Vanpools Operated In Maximum Service tl"clw4et OlttC-1tr -.dl l'llte ..... lll ..... ... .. .. . . .. .. .. ,\. ... .... .... Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile ..... . . . . . . . . . . t C U I , , , ,L,------------------------:7C __________ _J tHO ' '"J O perating Expense Per Vehicle Re v enue M i l e I IAOr-----------------------------, U ..IO tUO .... t o eo' .... .... IH1 ltN IMI Operating Expenses for Vanpools ;M::""::'"::"'::"=----------------------------, ... ... uool uoo : . . ... ":1 . . . . . . . . . 1 1.0 .. UN I M S Unlinked Pa11enger Ttipt Per Vehi c le Revenue Mile ..... --------------, . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O.Cf..o ltl1 lH:t IMJ

    PAGE 91

    Sec 15 Data bv y Name Douglascty Dougl as Cty Douglas Cty D ouglas Cty Section 1 5 Year 1 990 1 991 1992 1993 Urbanized ArealitaUstis;:; Cily, Sta t e AUanta, GA Atlan t a GA At l anta, GA Atlanta, GA Sq Miles 1,137 1,137 1,137 1 137 Population 2 ,157,806 2,157,806 2,15 7 ,806 2,157,806 Pop Ranking 12 12 12 12 S!atisti!;;a Square Miles 201 201 201 201 Populalion 77,600 77 600 77,600 76, 300 lleb 0Ralllad io Max Direct l y Opaated VP 8 9 9 10 Purchased VP 0 0 0 0 Charac t eris tics: Operalive E xp e nses $87,880 $101,955 $108,949 $11 1,926 Capital Fun d ing $0 $0 47,223 $0 Annual Passenger M i les 771754 1,001 725 992 685 1,034,335 Annual Veh Revenue M iles 100722 131, 423 135 ,011 145,033 1 Annual Unlinked Trips 33583 41,968 42 437 4 4 ,497 Avg Week day Unli n ked Trips 131 163 164 174 Annual Veh Reven u e Hrs 5169 6,249 6,675 7,384 Fixed Guideway Dir R t e Mi les 0 0 o 0.0 Total Fleet 9 11 12 12 Avg Flee t Age in Years nla 3 2 3.3 Veh Operated i n M ax Svc 8 9 9 10 Pea k to Base Ratio nla nla nla N/A Percent Spares 12% 2 2 % 33% 20% Performance Measures: ElficienQ Operating ExpiVeh Rev M i l e $0.87 $1.37 $0.81 $0 77 Operat ing E x piVeh Rev Hour $ 17.00 $54.99 $16 32 $15.16 Cost Elfectiveoess Operating Exp/Passenger M ile $0. 1 1 $0.19 $0.11 $ 0 .11 Operating Exp/Unlinked Passgr Trip $2.62 . $5.00 $2 57 $2.52 liellli'e UnUnked Passgr Trips/Veh Re v Mile $0 .30 $0 .27 $0.31 0 .3 1 Unl i nked Passgr TripsNeh Re11Hour $8 50 $10.99 $6 36 6 03 Page6

    PAGE 92

    Douglass County Transit Vanpool Performance Indicators Vanpools Opetated In Maximum S ervi c e 11M'-"' OtN w.41 P\l ftfiIM va.,eot .a Operating Expenses f o r Vanpools I" TIIOIIIIOWI.I .... ,:;.;.==:.:.... __________ ., .. .. . . ... .. .. ... .. .. 1 0 .. ... ,\.o .. .... Operating Expense Per Veh icle Revenue Mile 1110 1 .. 1 1Nt I H J ..... ..... ti.OO .... .... t O...OJ . .... Operating Expense Pe r Passenger Mila I ttl 1tU Ill Un&lnked Pastenger Tripa Per Vehicle lhvenue Mile Otor-------------------------, tO--Ill e O.I I ' ..... . . . . . . . . . . G.JOJ l t n t I H J 1-0ftto tltt llt:t IH.J

    PAGE 93

    Sec_ 15 Data bv y -King County Klng County King County Klng County Section 15 Year 1990 1991 1992 1193 Urbanized Atea StalisUk:! City, State SeaHiw, WA Seattle, WA SeatUe, WA SeaHte. WA Sq Miles 588 588 588 588 Population 1744086 1744086 1744086 1,744,086 Pop Ranking 18 18 18 18 Atea Sl&ll51lc5 Square Mites 3913 3913 2128 2 128 Population 2473740 2473740 1482600 1 587,700 llllb Oge(llled in Max Servi!
    PAGE 94

    Seattle Metro Vanpool Performance Indicators Vanpools Operated In Maximum Service CIMkul" '*catv OpNt..s """"' .... ,. .. l toOt -. 1 1 ........., ... ... .. ... -,.., '"' .... Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile" n t tl. l .. tO. I . UtO tttt 1 .. ): Nou. Ctlno Operating Expense Per Vehicle Revenue M ila' ) oo.--------------, .... .... 11.10 u .oot I .... tO.fMO IHI tH2 tnl ... Operating Expenses for Vanpools* ,, .. .. .. u: .. .,' .. Hill 1182 119:1 0 Unlinked P11senu r Tllpe Per Vehicle Aevenue Mile ooo.----------------, 0 .101----------0.40 0.20 ... 11$0 ... lltl ..

    PAGE 95

    Sec. 15 Data bv Year Name LYNX LYNX Section 15 Year 1992 1993 !,![baoized Area Statl5tlcs City, State Orlando, FL Orlando,FL Sq MHes 395 395 1Population 887,126 887,126 Pop Ranking 37 37 Sellli!lll At:llil Stali5U!Oli 379 2,700 Population 768,429 1,163,613 Veh Olll:tated In Mu Directly Operated VP 0 0 Purchased VP 18 29 Characterl$tlca: Operative Expenses $37,753 $125,753 Capital Fundlng 503,084 $238 ,385 Annual Passenger Miles 2,670,329 3,966,779 Annual Veh Revenue Miles ) 448 ,104 Annual Unlinked Trips 100,518 Avg Weekday Unlinked Trips 263 332 Annual Veh Revenue Hrs 8,064 14,085 Fixed Guideway Dir Rle Miles 0 0.0 Total Fleet 35 45 Avg Fleet Age I n Years 0 0.8 Veh Operated in Max Svc 18 29 Peak to Base Ratio nla NIA Percent Spares 94% 55% Perfonnance Measures: :lelllice Efficiency Operating Exp!Veh Rev Mlle $0.13 $0 28 Operating Exp/Veh Rev Hour $4.68 $8 .93 Cost Effectiveness Operating Exp!Passenger Mile $0.01 $0 .03 Operating Exp!Unlinked Passgr Trip $0.50 $1.25 :lelll" flledivlllli:U Unlinked Paugr Tnpa/1/eh Rev Mile $0. 26 0 22 Unlmked Pas19r TnpiNeh Rev Hour $9. 38 7 .14 Page9

    PAGE 96

    LYNX Transit Vanpool Performance Indicators Van p o ols Operated In Maximum Servi c e IIJ't:lw-' u Dlt.c;.t l y Opow11M ttlll P'llrcllH4 ............ .. .. . 101 .... .... ... ... Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile ............ ............... t0.11 ----------- oa. .1 -::::::J INO 1 .. 1 lila t-.J OperetJng Expense Per Vehicle Revenue Mile Operating Expenses for Vanpools M ,hONi fl41 ... . ... .... .... ttool 1.0 t tlt .. ,..., Unlinked Pe .. enger Tripi Per Vohl cle Revenue Milt 0...01 --. . . . Q.tQI ' O..tO J O.fno .. 1NJ

    PAGE 97

    Sec. 15 Data bv y, ... u, Name MTA MTA MTA MTA Section 15 Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 Area City, State Nashville, TN NashviUe, TN Nashville, TN NashviUe, TN Sq Miles 484 484 484 484 Population 573,294 573,294 573,294 573,294 Pop Ranking 52 52 52 52 AUla Square Miles 529 529 529 529 Population 528,103 528,103 528,103 528,103 lll:b !:l!lllllll!1 io ServiQII Directly Operated VP 17 16 16 16 Purchased VP 0 0 0 0 Characteristics: Operative Expenses $95,597 $85,169 $271,207 $81,349 Capital Funding $0 $0 0 $0 Annual Passenger Miles 4328402 4,617,774 3,554,048 3,398,717 Annual Veh Revenue Miles 426397 443,126 417,388 368,654 Annual Unlinked Trips 89778 89,328 63,904 68,149 Avg Weekday Unlinked Trijls 336 344 0 0 Annual Veh Revenue Hrs 10958 10,981 1 0,793 9,528 Fixed Guideway Dir Rte Miles 0 0 0 0.0 Total Fleet 20 20 25 20 Avg Fleet Age in Years nla 2 3 0.0 Veh Operated in Max Svc 17 16 16 16 Peak to Base Ratio nla nla nla NJA Percent Spares 18% 25% 56% 25% Performance Measures: Service Efficiency . Operating Exp/Veh Rev Mile $0.22 $0.19 $0.65 $0.22 Operating Exp/Veh Rev Hour $8.72 $7. 76 $25.13 $8.54 Cost Effectiveness Operating Exp/Passenger Mile $0.02 $0.02 $0 08 $0.02 Operating Exp/Unlinked Passgr Trip $1.06 $0. 95 $4 24 $1.19 Service Etlllctiv!lD!ISS Unlinked Passgr TripsNeh Rev Mile $0. 20 $0.20 $0.15 0.18 Unlinked Passgr TripsNeh Rev Hour $8. 20 $8.13 $5.92 7.15 Page 11

    PAGE 98

    Metro Transit Authority (Nashville) Vanpool Performance Indicators Vanpools Operated I n Maximum Service ... f.ll DlrUiy O ... reiM 111cl hrra!eHcl Ylnpooftl ,. .. .. .. .. .... "' ... ... Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile 10.11" 10.1' . . . . . . . . . 1 0.00 I , ', \.o 1ttl '"2 .. J Operating Expense Per Vehic l e Revenue Mile tiM I IUO, 11. .... .... .... IQ20 .... .... .. .. ... Operating Expenses for Vanpools .... ::::':'----------------------------------, .... .. .. ,_, uoo .... noo} .... ., ,\to 1tt1. t '"' Unlin ke d Pa11enger T ripa Per Vehicle Re venue Mila ooor-------------------------,'O.tO l (1.2Q .. 1..0 .. , .. 2 tee,

    PAGE 99

    """"""' I V ......... .... ..,. I Nam e OCTA OCTA OCT A O CTA S ection 15 Year 1990 1 991 1 9 9 2 1993 City, State Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles CA Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles, CA Sq M i l es 1 966 1,966 1,966 1,966 Population 11,402,946 11,402,946 11,402,946 11,402,946 Pop Ranking 2 2 2 2 Are a Square M i l e s 797 797 797 797 Populatio n 1 ,932,709 2,453,277 2,453,277 2,566,275 V ab Olltlt:al e!l io Max DirecUy Ope rated VP 5 1 2 12 12 Purchased VP 0 0 0 0 CharacteristiC$: Operat ive E x penses $9 7,14 6 $ 108 59 4 $90,314 $9 1,000 Capttal Funding $0 $0 0 $0 Annua l Pass enger M i les 173073 543,160 996,2 50 539,414 Annual Veh Revenue Miles 4 42 98 94 947 184 096 117,175 Annua l Unlin ked Trips 5854 27,4 3 2 35, 328 27,64 8 Avg Weekday Unli n k e d Trips 21 108 132 108 Annual Veh Revenue Hrs 2 790 2 916 4 763 2 ,374 Fixed Guideway Oir Rte M i l es 0 0 0 0.0 Total Fleet 5 1 3 13 13 Avg Fl e et Age i n Y ears nla 2 3 3 .6 Veh Oper ated I n Max S v c 5 12 12 12 Peak to Base Rati o nla nla nla NIA P ercent S pares 0% 8% 8% 8 % P erformance M easu res : Service E ffichlocy Operating Exp/Veh Rev Mil e $ 2 .19 $1. 1 4 $0.4 9 $0.78 Operating ExpNeh Rev Hour $34. 82 $ 3 7 24 $18.96 $ 3 8.33 Cost Effoc!jyeness Operating Exp/Passenger $0.56 $0 20 $0.09 $0.17 O p era t ing Exp/Unlinked Passgr Tr i p $16 59 $3 96 $2.56 $3 29 Seetti
    PAGE 100

    Orange County Transi t Vanpool Performance Indicators Vanpools Operated In Maximum Se rvice D"UCIV OpetloiM Ad f'WfCfiUM """'I'OOI.t) ,. .. .. .. .. .... .... ... ... Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile" our------------------------, ... IHO 1 .. 1 liN tJ Mlol l 5UII Cl!oll'lf l Operating Expense Per Veh icle Revenue MUe I t:UO,-----...,-----------, tO.ftto tttl 1N2 .. NOll I Mil 011"-1 Operating Expenses for Vanpools '"' ... ... ... ... tiOO -Unlinked Pittenger Trlpt P e r Vehicle Revenue Mile atol 0.40. . . 4fttO .. , .. ,

    PAGE 101

    ...................... ,.,.. .. ,.,.. .... """"'' Name P i e r c e Transit P i erce Transit Pierce Transi t P ierce Transit Section 15 Year 1 990 1 99 1 1992 1993 Area City, Slate Tacoma, WA Tacoma, WA Tacoma, WA Tacoma WA Sq MUes 233 233 233 233 Population 497,210 497, 210 497,210 497,210 Pop Ranking 60 60 60 60 Ama Square Miles 275 275 275 275 Population 472,000 472,000 472,000 575,000 lll:b QQII!ill!ld ia Mal! Directly Operated VP 11 35 45 61 Purchased VP 0 0 0 o C h arac t eristics: Operat ive Expenses $69,099 $133,204 $205 086 $286,868 Capi la l Funding $0 $0 0 $0 Annual Passenger Miles 815000 2,157,500 4 ,768,647 7,654,750 Annual Veh Revenue Miles 81000 250, 250 526 ,012 820,0001 J Annual Un l inked Trips 31750 79, 250 158,17 6 219,750 Avg Weekday Unlinked Tr ips 127 317 633 879 Annual Veh Revenue Hrs 2250 4,500 13,000 21,000 Fixed Guideway Dlr Rte Miles 0 0 0 0 .0 Tolal Fleet 1 3 42 62 70 Avg Fleet Age in Years nla 1 1 2.2 Veh Opera ted in Max Svc 11 35 45 61 Peak to Base Ratio nla n/a nla WA Percent Spares 18% 20% 38% 15% Performa n c e Measures: Efficie n cy Operating ExpNeh Rev Mile $0.85 $0.53 $0.39 $0.35 Operating ExpNeh Rev Hour $30.71 $29.60 $15. 78 $13. 65 Cost EHectiven!ISs Operating Exp/Passenger Mile $0.08 $0.06 $0. 04 $0.04 Operating Exp/UnUnked Passgr Trip $2.18 . $1.68 $1.30 $1.31 Unlinked Passgr TripsNeh Rev Mile $0 .40 $0.32 $0.30 0 .27 Unlinked Passgr TripsNeh Rev Hour $14.10 $17.61 $12.17 10.46 ------------Page 13

    PAGE 102

    Pierce Transit Vanpool Performance Indicators Vanpools Operated I n Maldmum Service IIM'-4 CMte c d y O-' aAIII "''"-"" VM...., ,. .. .. -... .. ... Operating Expense Per Vehicle Re venue Mile I --r---------------------------, tuo: . . . . . ti,CIIII ... to.40: . . . . to.:ao: Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile IO.fttO INI IMI lttJ ou,--------------------------, tOI.Ifl tO. I .... -... -. -. ......... --.. Hto 1tt1 1M2 a Operating Expenses for Vanpools ... unu ... . .... ., .. ... 1110 '"' 2 ... s Unlinked Paa .. nger Trlpt Ptr Vthlclt R t venue Milt ......... .... ........ .... o. . -. . . . . . . . . Cl20i . . . -. ... 1110 1111 IMJ .. _,

    PAGE 103

    --Sec. 15 Data bv Y Name SCAT SCAT SCAT SCAT Section 15 Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 Area City Slate Cocoa,'FL Cocoa, Fl Cocoa,Fl Cocoa, Fl Sq Miles 233 233 233 233 Population 305,978 305,978 305,978 305,978 Pop Ranking 83 83 83 83 Square Miles 427 427 427 427 Population 398,978 398,978 398,978 417,740 lleb Ogel:lll!!!l iD MaK Se[llicll Directly Operated VP 55 0 0 0 Purchased VP 0 44 67 69 Characteristics: Operative Expenses $248,565 $328,071 $306 ,98 2 $346,188 Capilal Funding $0 $0 524,069 $513,946 Annual Passenger Mites 8947782 .11,994,265 13,593,561 14,621, 780 Annual Veh Revenue Miles 909690 1,256,365 1,448,533 1,554,150 Annual Unlinked Trips I 172627 194,489 217,966 258,029 Avg Weekday Unlinked Trips 685 772 862 1,028 Annual Veh Revenue Hrs 36288 50,117 57,781 62,163 Fixed Guideway Dir Rte Miles 0 0 0 0.0 Total Fleet 55 68 75 80 Avg Fleet Age in Years n/a 3 3 2 0 Veh Operated in Max Svc 55 44 67 69 Peak to Base Ratio n/a n/a 1 2.4 Percent Spares 0% 55% 12% 16% Perfonnance Measures: Service Efficieoc;y Operating Exp/Veh Rev Mile $0.27 $0.26 $0 .21 $0.22 Operating Exp/Veh Rev Hour $6 85 $6.55 $5.31 $5.57 Cgst E!fectiveoess Operating Exp/Passenger Mile $0.03 $0.03 $0.02 $0.02 Operating Exp/UnHnked Passgr Trip $1.44 $1.69 $1.41 $1.34 U n lin ked Passgr TripsNeh Rev M ile $0.20 $0.15 $0.15 0 .17 Unlinked Passgr TripsNeh Rev Hour $4.80 $3.88 $3 .77 4.15 Page 14

    PAGE 104

    Space Coast Area Transit Vanpool Performance Indicators Vanpools Operated In Maximum Service IIIIIC.Iucllt Olrutly o,.,u.d .,._4 Pluth_, ............. I 10 .. . .. .. ,. .. .. ... Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile our----------------------------, 10.1.1 - tQ.) I o , , . . . . . . . 11110 .. liN \tU Operating Expense Per Vehicle Revonuo Milo ..... U.JO tl,Ci .. .,, ... --. --.. I ; o.10l tQ,401 t0.20 UIU .... '"' Operating Expenses for Vanpools '::":: .. ____________________________ ____ -, .... .... tJOO .. .. .. .. 11e0 1.. I N I lttJ Unlinked Pauenger Trip a Pat Vehi cle Ra vanue Mil e r-----------------------, CLtOI Cl
    PAGE 105

    "" ....... '""' _IW,.,_ ., s, 50, y .... g Name Spokane T rans Spokane T rans Spokane Trans Spokane Tra ns Tidewater (TRT) Section 15 Year 1890 198 1 1992 1993 1990 Umaoiz!lll e.rea City, Slate Spokane, WA Spokane, WA Spokane, WA Spokane, WA Norfolk, VA Sq Miles 114 114 114 114 664 Population 279,038 279,038 279,038 279,038 1,323,098 1 Pop Ranking 95 95 95 95 241 ServiCe Area Statistlcs Square M il es 360 371 371 373 253 1 Population 325,500 331, 210 331,210 332 ,703 1 Veb OQI:!iited io Max Servil:a I Directly Operated VP 9 12 18 25 18 Purchased VP 0 0 0 0 0 Choraeterlstlcs: Operative Expenses $ 74,717 $79,731 $102.273 $128,740 $207,513 Capital Funding $0 $0 101,127 $164 ,302 $0 Annual Passenger Miles 712260 887,631 1 ,205,736 1,388,209 3111696 AMual Veh Revenue Miles 90219 116 ,590 162,305 195,140 285337 Annual Unlinked Trips 30746 44,004 62, 127 73,108 98784 Avg Weekday Unlinked Trips 115 167 233 278 392 Annual Veh Revenue Hrs 2981 3 798 5 242 6 188 10080 FIXed Guideway O lr Rle Miles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tolal Fleet 10 13 19 27 22 Avg Fleet Age in Years nla 6 5 3 7 nla Veh Operated In Max Svc 9 12 18 25 18 Peak lo Base Ratio nla nla nla N/A n/a Percent Spares 11% 8% 6% 8% 22% Performance Meaourn: ServiCe Elfil:jeoc;x Operating Exp!Veh Rev $0.83 $0.68 $0. 63 $0 .68 $0. 73 Operating E>

    PAGE 106

    Spokane Transit Vanpool Performance Indicators Va n p o ol s Operated In Maximum S ervice ,,.u,_u OlrMll'J 011 ............ ,._,,dl .. ecf 'tllollll .... to : .. .. .. .. 10 .... .... .. Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile I Ur------------------------, ... .... -...... -. -. -. . 1 ''" ,... 1112 ,.., Operating Expense Per Vehicle Re venu e M ila t VIO'r------------0 t t.JOI n.eo' o to tOM t640' ... o.cs10 '"' .. l .... Operating Expenses for Vanpools .. ............ ... .... . . . -. . ... toO; i .. .. 1100 ... .... ltU Unlinked Passenger Trip Ptr Veh icle Revenue Milt 0.101 . . . . G.40l - Q201 . 0
    PAGE 107

    ""'"""'' I OJ ...... I-Name T ide w a t e r (T R T) Ti dewater ( T RT) T idewa ter (TRT) Sect ion 15 Y ea r 1991 199 2 1 993 At&a City Stale Norfolk, VA Norfo lk, VA Norfolk. VA Sq M iles 664 664 664 Populati on 1,323,098 1,323,098 1 ,323,098 Pop R anking 24 24 24 S!l!llice All:a Squ are Miles 253 253 2 53 Pop u lation 910,000 910,000 310, 000 Veb io M ill! S!!!lll!
    PAGE 108

    Tidewater Regional Transit Van pool Performance Indicators Vanpools Operated In Maximum Service ClMIUclu DII'.C:tfr 1nd ,.,,oh ... d .. .. .. .. . .. ,. .... ... .... ,.., Operating Expense Per Passenger Mila r--------------------------, .. ................... . ICUI 1 0.01 tMO lttl liN l.J Operating Expense Per Vehicle Revenue Mile n .o ..... ... .... -. . -. . . ... i 10.20, .... ... ... Operating Expenses for Vanpools "'"::"::"'::' :'":: =------------------------------., ... . ... - ... r-' ....... .. ........ .... ,\eo .... ... .... Unlinked P1111nger Tripe Pr Vehicle Revenue Mile oor-----------------------------------, o.eo' . . . . . . . .. r... -j o. aoJ ... 1 110 .. , .. 2 ..

    PAGE 109

    Name !Square Miles OperaledVP !Purchased VP Expenses Capital Funding Annual Passenger Miles Annual Veh Revenue M iles Annual Unlinked Trips Weekday Unlinked Trips Annual Veh Revenue Hrs Fixed Guideway Die Rte Miles T .... Fleet ExpNeh Rev Mile ExpNeh Rev Hour Cost Effectiven e ss Exp/Passenger M ile !Operating Exp/Unlinked Passgr Trip Se!Yice Effecljyeoess Unli nked Passgr TripsNeh Rev M ile Rev Hour Pace Pace 1992 Chicago, IL Chicago, IL n/a 1,585 6,792,087 3 762 2 616,301 75 0 $563 451 2,700,000 4,820 ,498 588,572 } 133,137 518 16,816 0 99 0 75 32% $0.96 $33.51 $0.12 $4.23 $0.23 PageS Year

    PAGE 110

    Pace Suburban Bus Vanpool Performance Indicators Vanpools Operated In Maximum Service (ll\ .. D IIMII'( 0,.,11*11 M4 P'wd'iaMcl v.tlpoclll .. ... .--------------, :/: .. ... .. .. ... .... '"' ,.., NOll ktle Chatllt Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile" r------------------------------, IO.S l . . . . . . . 10)1 . ... lttO .. lteJ: ,.., Mole Sule Cfl "' Operating Expense Par Vehicle Revenue Mile' :::: : .. : : : : ... z. .. ltll tMl tiN Ntll lc.llle th1 Operating Expenses for Vanpools* ...... tl,l001 1 1 ,000' ... \'" '"' nea 1tU Nott S4alt Qlane Unlinked Peueng:er l)lpt Per Vehicle Revenue M i le o.o: 0.40: 0.10------... 1tt0 .. , .. 1 ttal

    PAGE 111

    DWA-----Appendix D Literature Review I Peer Cities Review Bibliography

    PAGE 112

    Bibliography Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. TMA Evaluation Criteria. Tampa, Florida. 1995 Center for Urban Transportation Resean:h, University of South Florida. Brevard County Transit Development Plan 1995-1999-Final Report. Tampa, Florida. August 1994. Charlotte Uptown Development Corporation. A Visionazy Pro1U3JD for the Center Cjty. Charlotte, North Carolina. 1992 Charlotte Uptown Development Corporation. Transportation System Qwions for Uptown Charlotte. Charlotte, North Carolina. December 1990 Chicago Area Transportation Study. Employee Commute Options Demonstration Project. Survey Phase Report. Chicago, October 1992. Chicago Area Transportation Study. Employee Commute Options MonitorinK & Evaluation Phase Report. Chicago. November 1993. Demonstration Proiect. ,_ Chicago Area Transportation Study. Employee Commute Options Demonstration Project. Re-suryev & final Evaluation Phase Report. Chicago. February 1994. 0 Chicago Area Transportation Study. Employee Commute Options Demonstration Project. Cost Analysis Report. Chicago. February 1995. Christiansen, Torben and Roy Young. Employer-Based Trip Reduction ProiQ!Ds: An Evaluation at the Employee LevelPhase I. Los Angeles. July 1992 Clayton, Mary, Transportation Manager, Charlotte, North Carolina. Personal interview. August I 0, 1995. COMSIS. TCRP Proiect B-4: Cost Effectiveness of lDM Strateiies: Emplover Technical Memorapdum. Silver Spring, Maryland. April6, 1995. Green, Elaine. Planner, BirminghamJefferson Transit, Birmingham, Alabama. Personal interview. August 8, 1995. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Implementin i Effective Travel Demand ManaKemeru Measures: A Series on JDM. Washinston, DC. June 1993. August1995 (ctwh)c:\miscjol>s\bllamride\tej)Ofl .wp6

    PAGE 113

    JHK & Associates. Cost-Effectiveness Study ofTSM Measures in Suburban Settines. Emeryville, CA. March 1992. Joslin, Ann. Manager of Mobility, Lynx, Orlando, Florida. Personal interview. August!O, 1995. Lewellen, Judy, Rideshare Coordinator, Space Coast Area Transit, Melbourne, Florida. Personal interview. August I 0, 1995. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. Con11estion Mitillation and Air QuaHty Improvement ProiWW Study for tbe Birmineham Non-Attainment Area. Birmingham, Alabama. October 1994. Russell, Carol. TOM Program Manager, Tidewater Regional Transit, Norfolk, Virginia Personal interview. August 10, 1995. The Breen Consonium. Fares, Record Ke<:ping and Startyp Policies for the Boulder Vanpool Prollram San Francisco, March 1992. The Breen Consonium. an Effective Yanpool ProllWII for Boulder County. San Francisco, August 1991. Tidewater Regional Transit. Reeional Transportation Demand Manallement PxollW!I.(draft) Norfolk, Virginia 1995 Tidewater Regional Transit Tidewater Transponation District Commission: A Multi-Service Provide Public Transportation Alleru;y. Norfolk, Virginia. Aprill991 Washington State Department of Transportation. An Analysis ofFacJors Accountinll for Successes and Failures in the and Utilization ofEmplpyeriDM ProllW!Is by Employees. Final Technical Report WA-RD 359.1. Olympia, Washington. March 1995. Weslin Consulting Services. Lynx Strate&ic Plan: Buildjne a Market Driven Public T!j!!!SportaJion System for Central Florida Orlando, Florida March 1993. US Department of Transportation. Eya!ntion of Travel Demand Manawoerit Measures to Relieve Coneestion. FHWA-SA90-005 Washington, DC. February 1990. US Department of Transportation "Revised Guidance on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program" memorandum to regional Federal Transit Administrators, regional Federal Highway Administrators, and Federal Lands Highway Program Administrator. Washington, DC. July 13, 1995 August 1 995 (dwh )C:Imlscjobo\l>hamrldelteport. wp6

  • printinsert_linkshareget_appmore_horiz

    Download Options

    Choose Size
    Choose file type
    Cite this item close


    Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


    Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


    Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


    Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.