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 2200313Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029179452
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110919s1994 fluak o 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00274
Survey results of transportation demand management programs in the Tampa Bay Region
h [electronic resource] /
prepared for Florida Department of Transportation, District Seven, through the TMA Clearinghouse ; prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.
Tampa, Fla. :
b University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1 online resource (iv, 25,  pages) :
Description based on print version record.
Transportation demand management
Tampa Bay Region.
Dept. of Transportation.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
i Print version:
t Survey results of transportation demand management programs in the Tampa Bay Region.
d Tampa, Fla. : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, 
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
SURVEY RESULTS OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEJ.\-IENT PROGRAMS IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION September 1994 Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation, District Seven through the TJ\1A Clearinghouse Prepared by: Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, Florida 3362Q-5350 (813) 974-3120
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE# TABLES AND FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i v INTRODUCTION .... ... .... . ....... ..... ..................... 1 PROJECT GOAL ............................. ...... ..... ...... 2 THREE ASPECT S OF EVALUATION ................. ................ 3 SURVEY RESULTS .............................................. 7 COST EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS ............. ... ................. 19 RECOMMENDATIONS .... ... ............................. ... 22 APPENDIX A : Survey ........ ...... . .......................... 25 ii
TABLES AND FIGURES PAGE# Figure l:Ridematching Flowchart . . . .................. ... ..... .... S Table 1:Mode Split and Frequency ................... ... .... . ........ 8 Table 2:Did you receive a lis t of persons interested i n carpooli n g/vanpoo1ing? ........ 9 Table 3:Repeat/Referral Business Indicators .... .... : ......... ........... 10 Table 4:Alternative Use Within the Last Three Years ........................ 11 Table 5:Average Carpool/Vanpool Duration and Occupancy .................. 12 Table 6:Top reasons given for discontinuing a carpool/vanpool .................. 13 T able 7:Dld our program influence you in any way to car/van pool, or use transit? .. ... 14 Figure 2: Commuting Options Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 Figure 3:Relative and Cumulative Commuting Distance .......... ............ 18 Table 8:Effectiveness and Cost Efficiency ....... ....................... 19 . Table 9:Cost per VMT Reduced . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 10:VMT and Pollution Reduced by BACS and the TMOs .................. 21 lll
ACKNO WLEDG EMENTS The Tampa Bay Commuter Assistance Program evaluation survey was conducted and analyled by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) for the Florida Department of Transporution, District Seven. Tile project was conducted through the Florida TMA (Transporution Management Association) Clearinghouse, and was funded by the Florida Department of Transportation. CUTR thanks Bay Area Commuter S e rvices, Inc., the Tampa Downtown Partnership TMO, lhe Westsllore Alliance TMO. the F lorida Department of Transponation, and the C ity of T ampa, and Hillsborough Cou nty TOM professionals for tlleir assistance during the co urse of this study Tile following CUT R st aff assisted i n t he analysis of the survey data an d lhe p r ep a rati on of !his report: Philip L. Winters, TDM Program Manage r Daniel Rudge Stacey Bricka Ian S. Kasper Carrie Smilh Janet Becker IV
INTRODUCTION The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 stress the importance of multimodal solutions and have elevated the role of transit and transportation demand management (TDM) in the transportation planning process. Tbis legislation and new emphasis is a result of the changing commuter characteristics as well as consideration of the environment. Growing concern with traffic delays, poor air quality, and greater mobility needs have led professionals to refocus the objective of our transportation system to efficiently move quantities of people and goods rather than vehicles. As more TDM programs have been initiated in response to these concerns, there has been increased interest in measuring their performance. Performance evaluation can have one or more of the following three goals: (1) improve the commuter assistance program. (CAP) performance, practices and expectations; (2) facilitate communication between commuter assistance programs of all types based upon a common understanding of key quality and operational performance requirements; and (3) serve as a working tool for planning, training, marketing, and other uses. Funding agencies such as the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and planning agencies such as the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are interested in measurable impacts from the TDM programs. How many commuters have been placed into non..SOV modes? Has the program affected pollution by reducing vehicle trips and vebicle miles of travel? Has the peak travel period been spread over more time? At what cost have these results been acbieved? TDM programs such as Bay Area Commuter Services, the Downtown Tampa Partnership Transportation Management Organization (TMO), and the Westshore Alliance TMO need feedback on their programs to continuously improve performance. However. this feedback should recognize their obligation to member needs and be sensitive to the fact that some of their ridematching activities may not show results in the short term These activities may include inCreasing awareness and identifying areas where sidewalks and bus shelters will provide greater connectivity. Such activities se\ tbe stage for achieving desirable results over several years 1
While they may differ on their preferred measures for TDM performance evaluation FOOT and the CAPs ho ld a conunon belief that reasonable and defensible evaluations will he lp improve performance o f TDM agencies and enhance their cred.ibility as one strategy in mee ting the area s tra nspo rtation needs. To eva l uate t h e effectiveness of the CAP program in F OOT District 7, CUTR was contracted through the TMA Clearinghouse to survey a representative sample of the registrants in the databases of the three rideshare agencies. By mailing a representative number of surveys to participants of the Bay Area Commuter Services, the Westshore Alliance TMO, and the Tampa Downtown Partnership TMO services, CUTR expected to receive valuable data about the program effectiveness. The sample was chosen to be evenly distributed by the numbers of people entered into the databases over the sample time of June, 1992 through October, 1993. PROJECT GOAL The goal of this project was to collect and analyze the data to quantify the results of the conunutcr assistance programs in changing commuter travel behavior. METHODOLOGY CUTR developed a sampling plan for estimating the rate of persons placed into alternative travel modes by BACS and the TMOs. This placement rate when combined with other data would enable CUTR to calculate tbe transportation impacts (i.e., vehicle miles traveled (VMT), trips (VT), pollution, or gasoline consumption) for each agency. For the purposes of drawing the sample, CUTR estimated the rate based on the experiences of other TOM programs outside f Florida since the programs in Ta mpa did not hav e a historical basis. A survey was mailed with an enclosed, postage-paid envelope to nearly 4,000 of the more rtun 17,000 database registrants who are recognized by the agencies as ridematching candidates \ second mailing was made to improve the response rates. Presuming a 20-30% response r>tc (depend ing on the age of the data record), eleven hundred completed surveys were expected 2
Following both maiiings, CUTR received 778 completed surveys and nearly 800 undelivered, unopened surveys were returned by the Post Office due to bad addresses. A sample size of about 200 persons placed was expected; less than two dozen were received. The small sam ple size and the large variance in responses provide an error factor of fifty one percent for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated calculations, refle cted in the data presented in this repon THREE ASPECTS OF EVALUATION The project goal was to focus on the current performance results. However, understanding how those results are achieved is a key to improving performance. How the CAP approaches its mission and carries out its tasks or deploys its resources, should have a direct bearing on the results. These three evaluation dimensions approach, deployment and results provide a balanced assessment of performance. Approach refers to how the CAP addresses the goals and objectives set forth by FOOT and/ or it s Board of Directors. This includes an examination of the suitability and of th e . methods and teclmiques to meet the stated goals. It is during the approach stage that a CAP will evaluate the dependance of its strategy on quantitative information that is objective, reliable, and consistently applied. The evaluation should find evidence of unique and innovative approaches. including effectiv e adaptations of teclmiques developed and used by other commuter assistance programs. Deployment is the extent to which the commuter assistance progr am's approaches a r e applied to all relevant programs and activities. The factors used to eva lua te deployment include the effective use of the approach: in key activities (e .g., employer outreach); in the development and delivery of products and services (e.g., how the CAP selects new services); and in interactions w1th customers, employers, the Board of Directors, funders, suppliers of goods and services. nd employees. Results are the achievements of the purposes contained in the organization's goals and objecuves. 3
The factors used to evaluate results include one or more of the following: current performance levels ; performance levels relative to appropriate comparisons and/or benchmarks; rate of performance improvement; demonstration of sustained improvement and/or sustained high-level performance; and, breadth and importance of performance improvements. Prior to this project, BACS and the TMOs had few benchmarks of their past performance or from other areas within or outside of Florida by which to measure their performance. The following will discuss several of the key performance factors required to measure results. MEASURJNG RESULTS There are several contributing factors that can the desired results of reduced VMT, VT etc. The flowchart (see Figure I) identifies these factors and the following paragraphs summarize the relationships Marketing approaches such as advertising, employer outreach, public relations, advocacy of policies, and investments in amenilies such as sidewalks and bus shelters are intended to generate awareness and use of alternative modes. Many of these commuters or employers will seek information and/or assistance from BACS or the TMOs to fmd a transportation option that meets their needs. This is frequently done through the employer's Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC). Data received from these individuals and employers are entered into the database, and most of these people are registered for the ridematching system. A list is produced for the individuals to identify possible ridesharers, or a letter is printed indicating that no inatches were found. If registrants receive a good list, they may contact one or more of the people on this list, and may or may not form or join a car or vanpool. Even if the applicants do not rideshare with one of the people identified by the rideshare agency, the commute habits may still have been influenced by the actions of the CAP by encouraging commuting with a neighbor, coworker, or household member. 4
APPROACH DEPLOYMENT RESULTS Customers Service Rate F i gu r e 1 llidematching Flowchart Creative, unique Strategies Products & Services MarlIO on the matd'llist Of on Matchlist or Bus Increased Frequency of Use Was Conladad by Another CUstomer tion or lnc:reued Did Not lnk lote Action 5109 Increased Duration of Alt. Mode Transportation Benefits VMT, VT, Pollutllll Recludlon
While most of the components of the flowchart are self-explanatory, a few data items warrant further explanation. The product of the following data can be used to estimate the transportation benefits for BACS and the TMOs: Number of customers: Number of different conunuters who have used the services over the reporting period. Usually, this is not the same as the total number of customers in the database as some of them may have been registered with the CAP for longer than the reporting period. Once a standard definition (e.g., each individual who re!jllested CAP assistance over the 12 month reportinll period) is developed by FOOT, this number should be tracked by the CAP. It will be the key variable for monitoring effectiveness once the following rates are established. Service Rate: Number oftimes a conunuter contacts, or is contacted by, the service agency. If one customer is provided two rnatchlists, and later receives requested bus route nu:ormation, three services been provided to one customer over the reporting period. Customer Follow-up: Number of times the commuter is assisted to arrange an alternative mode by the service agency. This can be active coordination of a meeting or zipcode parties' or assistance for the commuter to take the initiative to contact a potential partner. Follow-up may also involve transit route information and assistance. Customer Action: Evidence that the commuter was in contact with a potential carpool partner. Contact Rate: Number of commuters served who successfully contact the individual or service agency with whom they were matched by the CAP or TMO. Even if a carpool is not formed, the number of people who follow-through and are able to contact their potential partner is relevant to the carpool process and can be evaluated. Placement Rate: Percentage of customers who form a pool or ride transit as a direct or indirect 6
result of the CAP' s efforts. The placement rate was determined from this survey of the BACS and TMOs customers. There are three types of placement rates to be identified: customer direct placement rate; customer indirect placement rate; and, general public indirect placement rate The direct placement rate focuses on those customers who change their travel behavior as a direct resul t of a CAP program or service. The customer indirect placement rate refers to those who change travel behavior but do not attribute the change to a specific service. The remaining group, the general public indirect placement rate, refers to those who are affected by marketing .of the program or take advantage of a service (e.g., use a new bikepath) that never make direct contact with the CAP. Frequency: Average number of days per week a person placed into a pool or bus actually uses this mode to commute. CAP services also shoul d strive to increase the freQI!ency of of these options. Average Carpool or Vanpool Occupancy: The average number of passengers per vehicle involved in carpools or vanpools during the reporting period. This information will show results of the CAP's efforts to increase the size of existing pools, even if no carpools are formed. Duration: The average life of the carpool, for example, may be shorter or longer than the funding period. Some studies report a carpool duration average of two years. Including pool duration as an important variable in the effectiveness equation also recognizes the need and funding required for maintaining existing pools and bus ridership . Once the placement, frequency, average occupancy, and duration rates are determined, program effectiveness can be determined by applying those rates to the number of customers and related changes to travel behavior (i.e ., reductions in VMT per person placed) SURVEY RESULTS To determine the results of the efforts of these programs, and establish baseline data for future 7
evaluations, a logical starting place is to view the frequen cy of usage of the different corrunute alternative modes encouraged and facilitated by the transportation agencies. The marketing initiatives used by the agencies should address both mode changes from single occupant vehicles, and increased frequency of these alternatives. Table 1 Mode Split and Frequency Question: Please Circle the Number of Days in a typical week that you use each of the Following Modes to get to Work. Percentages of People in Different Commute Modes Workdays WorkO Work 1-3 Days Work 4-5 Days Work 6-7 Days per week Days/wk per Week per Week per Week Commute No Same Various Same Various Same Various Frequency Travel Mode Modes Mode Modes Mode Modes Total# 3 .2% 1.7% 0 .1% 80.5% 4.8% 7 5% 2 .3% Drive Alone -0 8% 0 .1% 68.3% 4.2% 6.4% 2.2% Carpool -0.1% 0.1% 6.4% 3 .2% 0.4% 1.5% Vanpool -0.4% -2 2% 0.1% 0 .1% 0 3% Transit -----2 8% 1.5% 0.4% 0.5% Bicycle -----0.4% 0.3% -0.5% Motorcycle -0.1% .. --0.3% Walk ----0.3% -0.1% 0.5% Other -0.3% -0 .1% .3% -0.4% n=778 Three fourths of the people who responded to the survey conunute alone every day they work, though six percent drive alo ne part-time (See Table 1). Approximately one-third of the carpoolers share the ride on a p art time basis. Another positive indicator for Tampa Bay TOM professionals is the market which remains untapped o f two or three day per week ridesharers. Many people who may not want or be able to carpool four or five days a week, may be willing to try 8
ridesharing one to three days. There is also, statistically, a low percentage of cyclists, walkers, and transit riders To persuade commuters out of their SOY mode, the CAP must provide the opportunity and encouragement for the individuals t o car/van pool. The most frequent method of promoting . ridesharing i s through the matchlist which must be delivered very soo n after an individ u al expresses an interest in ridesharing. The more memorable a matchlist is the more effective it will be. The matchlist needs to make an impression on the person for whom it is intended. Sometimes it is advisable to deliver more than one matchlist per year to an applicant, to get the desired impressions. Tab leZ D id you receive a lis t of persons interested in car p ooling/van pooling? Ye, s 30.Z% . No 4 7.4% Received letter stating the TDM agency could 15.0% not find matches at this time Did Not Receive "No Matches Letter 22.6% Did Not Remember 9.8% No Response 22.4% . Less than one-third of the people surveyed remember receiving a matchlist with prospective ridesharers, although only one of every six of these pedple (5.1% of all surveys returned) attempted to contact at l east one person listed. Less than tv.:o percent of the people who returned a survey formed or joined a carpool or vanpool with people on t heir matchl i st. Close to half of the people believe they did not receive a matchlist. Nearly one third of the 9
respondents got what is called a sorry letter" which informs them that when their data was processed, no matches were found. Almost one quarter of the people surveyed reported that they had received nothing from the CAP. In other parts of the country, programs reinforce the suggestion to use alternative transportation, and to offer assistance by following the distribution of the matchlist with a phone call to the commuters they serve to improve effectiveness. Almost all of the people in the rideshare database are supposed to have received at least one matchlist, and those who received a "sorry letter" on the initial match attempt are supposed to be reprocessed every two to three months until a successful matchlist is produ ced Either the matchlists are not reaching the commuters for whom th ey are intended, or these lists are disregarded or discarded before they can be noticed by the commuter. The quality and scope of services directly affect customer retention and referral business which are far less expensive than attracting new customers. Marketing surveys have shown that customers will tell an average of ten other people, and people with positive experiences will tell five. This tool effectively gauges the quality of service and products the participating commuters believe they receive. If e ithe r the matchlist accuracy or the customer service aspects fall below the commuter's expectations, the loss of repeat and referral bus i ness to the CAP will be significant. Table 3 Repeat/Referral Business Indicators Question YES Would you use our services again? 33.7% Would you recommend our services to a friend? 46.8% NO No Resnonse 14.0% 52.3% 9.0% 44 .2% The people who would use the CAPs' services outnumbered those who would not by almost five to two. The ratio should be high er, but when weighed against the number of people who rerumed 10
a survey without completing this section, something else becomes apparent. More than half of the respondents felt neutral or realized tllat they were not qualified to make a determination on this question, perhaps because they had only minimal, if any contact with the CAP agencies. The fourteen percent-who said they would not use the services again, are people who were dissatisfied, or felt that the services would not meet their needs. When the nine percent of nonrefenals is considered, a more accurate assessment of the level of customer satisfaction can be drawn. Five out of every six people who responded would refer the services to a friend. This provides a baseline measurement of customer service expectations for future surveys. The number of people who responded to this question was higher than the number for repeat business, leading to the conclusion that although a person may not feel qualified to judge the quality of the service, the function of the services, as understood by the respondents, is favorable. Although carpooling has gotten the most attention for its practicality as a commute alternative, the agencies need to understand the wants of the commuters they serve. There are o!her initiatives which the customer may consider to accomplish the goals of the CAP to reduce pollution and traffic congestion by reducing the number of SOVs on the Tampa Bay area roadways. Table4 Alternative Use Within the Last Three Years Question: In the past 3 years, have you regularly carpooled, vanpooled, or taken the bus to work (even if you are not carpooling, vanpooling or using transit NOW)? Yes 24.3% No 67.2% No Response 8.5% Nearly one out of every four database registrants has tried a popular commute alternative regularly within the last three years, and three out of five of these people still rideshare. For almost half 11
of these individuals, carpooling was the option of choice. One of the functions of the agencies, once a car/vanpool has been established, is to wo r k to extend the duration and increase the occupancy of thes e ridesharing arrangements. The following table suggests a baseline of this data for futu re surveys. Table 5 Average CarpoolJVanpool Duration and Occupancy Duration and Occupancy: Avg. car/vanpool duration 3.1 years (n = 120) Avg. carpool occupancy 2.23 persons (n=95) Avg. vanpool occupancy 8. 87 persons (n=22) n the number of respondents who prov1ded data for thlS field The average carpool or vanpool participant has been ridesharing for more than 3 years in their current pool, indicating that once established, maintained pools should be seen as investments to reduce VMT and VT, and provide a lasting benefit to the Bay Area. These carpools and vanpools involve household members, no n-household relatives, co-worker s and a few others. Over 53 percent of the pools include members from the same household About 10 percent include non-household relatives. Co workers represent 65 percent of the pool participants, and "others" only comprise three percent of the carpools and vanpools. There is an evident marke t of people who recently used these options and/or are willing to use . these alternatives. The obstacles and inconveniences need to be identified and addressed at the same time incentives are instituted to l::eep these commuters faithful to the alternative modes. For the 40 percent who tried, and ceased ridesharing regularly, the service agency can address some of the top reasons cited for discontinuing this commute strategy. Many of the top reasons 12
. are convenience issues which may be resolved with information obtained during a followup call between the agency and the customer. Table 6 Top reas ons g iven for discontinuing a carpool/vanpool Reason Per cent of Respondents citing reason Work schedule changed 32.1% Took too much time 23.8% Bus route changed 20.2% Need car at work 16.7% Car fixed 13.1% Changed job/work site 13.1% Other ridesharers quit 10.7% Costs too much 9.5% Moved 7.1% Too stressful 5.9% Company relocated 5.9% Other ridesharers became unreliable 2.4% Other 5.9% Other issues, of course, represe n t expected situational changes which are unavoidable (see table above), and may demand immediate response from the CAP to re-enroll a participant in the program at a new address o r worksite, to overcome the obstacle. The top two reasons cited by commuters who no longer use alternatives t o the SOV can be 13
addressed by the TDM agency. When an employee's work schedule changes, if he or she contacts the agency a new matcblist can be processed to identify better car/van pool partners. The individuals for whom a carpool "took. too much time" may be kept in a rideshare arrangement by identifying potential partners with closer schedules and/or home or work sites. For the commuters who moved or changed their worksite, they need only request to change the information in the agency' s database to receive a new matchlist with better information. Frequently, as demonstrated above, there are many factors which affect the commuting habits of the surveyed employees, and the agency must be as flexible and responsive as possible. By customizing the services offered by the CAP aod meeting commuters' needs on a personal and individual basis, the car and vanpools which have been established at moderate cost can be maintained at a nominal expense According to the US Office of Consumer Affairs, the cost of obtaining a new customer is five times the cost of retaining an existing customer. Because the scope of services provided by BACS and the TMOs extends beyond ridematching it is important to remember that by affecting a change in commuter behavior, a successful end is achieved, although'the means may not easily be tracked or measured. Table 7 Did our program influence you in any way to car/van pool, or use transit? Yes No No Response 9.1% 71 72.0% 560 18.9% 147 The nine percent of survey respondents who indicated that their behavior was affected by the CAP services may not have requested rideshare services, but could have been influenced by the agencies' advertising or presentations which demonstrate the cost savings and other benefits of using alternatives to the SOV. The fact that this number of people have been influenced to try one of the alternatives, is a starting point from which to encourage continued and more frequent use 14
of the commute option. The tluust of the CAP services is focused on providing the encouragem ent and services necessary to prompt commuters in the district to rideshare or use transit regularly. The tool most frequently employed is the matchlist generated by a computer program which searches the entire database of potential ridesharers for individuals with similar commute patterns and locations. The quality of this infonnation is vital to the success of the program, as detennined by changing commuter habits. The first step for the potential ridesharer, once he/she has received this list, is to contact the people listed and try to meet with at least one of them to discuss, and possibly establish a carpool. Because of the st1.11tegy once used by some of the rideshare agencies in the Tampa Bay area, many of the respondents could not recall, or had no knowledge of their names being submitted and added to the database, or had little control to prevent this. To build a powerful database, it had been a tactic of some of the CAP services to receive entire employee databases from some of the area's .largest employers. The advantages of this system are realized in the likelihood of matching any future entries, and the ease of entering the name, address, and employer infonnation electronically, rather than the standSrd touch-typing data entry The negative result is a lar ge datahase of disinterested persons. With 47 percent of the respondents indicating they never received information from BACS or the TMOs, aQ.d the low placement rate, results of this survey clearly indicate problems with the approach that was in place at the time of the survey. Recently, these area agencies have refmed the way in which this data is collected. Now, the employees of the large, targeted employers have the option of checking a "yes" box on a brief survey they receive in the workplace if they wish to be entered into the ridematching system. Their data will only be entered if they request it. Results of this survey support thls strategic change. 15
Although the database may not continue to grow at the same rate, the data will be qualitatively better, involving only those people who will consider car and van pooling. The pool formation rate should increase because the data is better and the people on a matchlist are more likely to participate. The percentage of people in the database who are actively pooling will rise also, relative to the total database population. Carpool Vanpool Figure 2 Commuting Options Interest Transit Bike/Wal k &Already use this option Interested  lnteresled on an emergency basis 1!1 Not Interested at this time The above figure shows that the registrants have varying degrees of interest in each of the h>tcd alternatives. Although very few people currently reported working at home, the highest imcrc\t 16
. . .. was in this option. Ii benefits the commuter assistance programs to continue providing employers with telecommuting information.' -,,; ( i;;: .:',': Telecommuting is a commute option with few or no formal in-office hours other than those in the home office. There are several beneflls to this arrangement. By eliminating the trip completely, VMT and VT are reduced significantly. Secondly, an employer who implements a telecommuting program can affect more commuters in an efficient, measurable way. The telecommuters' employer will get a happier, more productive worker, and significant cost-savings may be realized in the use of both parking subsidies and office space. Despite the interest generated by employees, there are limitations which must be considered Many jobs are unsuitable for a t.elecommute arrangement, and for employees whose roles are suitable, employers and managers are resistant to initiate a telecommuting program because they feel that the employee will become less productive if not directly supervised in the office. Other issues are equipment costs in the home and the office, insurance liability, security and the loss of social aspects of the job. The Florida State Department of Management Services has a telecommuting h!III.Qbook designed for state employees which discusses many of these issues, ami provides a sample telecommute arrangement contract. 17
Figu r e 3 Relative and Cumulative Commuting Distance 2 5 .0% 100. 0 % 90. 0% 20.0% 80.0% 2 15.0% ., c u 10.0% .. 5 .0% .. 70.0% ., 60. 0% c 3 50.0% 0 .. 0 40.0% 30. 0% .!! e 20.0% u 10.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% Oto5 6tot0 11to15 16to20 21to25 26to30 311o4$ Ovet45 Travel Distance (mllos) This figure graphically represents the travel dista nces for the responden ts The individual ba r s indicate the percentage of respo n dents w h o driv e specific distances one way. The line ill ustrate s . . cumulative totals of these percentages, for example, 70% of the part i cipants drive J ess than 15 miles to work. Hal f of th e respondents commute at least eleven miles, prov i ding the bas i s for a substantial carpool market in the Tampa Bay a r ea since abo u t 69% of all carpools f a ll into this category (source: !990 Nationw i de Personal Transportatio n Study) At one end of the chart, one fifth of these peop l e are good candidates for bicycle and pedestrian alternatives due to commutes s h orter tha n f ive m iles O n the other e n d o f the commu t e spe c trum, ten percent of t he respondent 18
commuters must drive more than twenty-five miles lietween their home and workplace, providing a strong market for vanpools and telecommuting. COST EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS One objective of this effort is to provide a low cost basis for FDOT Districts to quickly evaluate the cost effectiveness of TDM programs. By converting the CAP results of placing people into HOV modes to "passenger trips" and allocating the costs of the programs to those units FDOT and others will have a basis of comparison of BACS and the TMOs to other transit altematives. Please note that this comparison is more a measure of mobility cost than trip reduction cost. Wliile the cost per trip reduced and other efficiency factors are useful for relative comparison to benchmark TDM programs, the cost per passenger trip iS a better tool for measuring agency effectiveness relative to peer agencies and the cost of operating public transit service. Table 8 Effectiveness and Cost Efficiency Total No. of Customers Customer Placement Rate (direct and indirect) Number of Persons Placed Total Expenditures for Period* Cost Per Person Cost Per Person Placed** Agency Cost Pei: Passenger Trip*** As reponed by BACS, and the Westshore and Tampa Downtown TMOs. 17,757 9.1% 1,616 $938,877 $53 $581 $1.40 *"' Assumes the average duration of those persons placed into an alternative mode is one year. Cost/pass. t rip.= Total Bxpenses/(No. of Persons Placed J' 2 trips/day x 4 days per week x S2 weeks/yr) Clearly. there are significant market differences between transit and the CAPs and this sketch planning tool should not be the sole basjs used for funds. 19
There are several issues t h at FOOT and CUTR should resolve. One i ssue is the cost bas i s of comparing cost effectiveness of CAPs to other FOOT projects. Uolike CAPs, transit age n cies offset some of their eosts through the collection of revenue. Comparing the operating costs would clearly give the misleading impression that the transit average cost per trip of $2 .16 is significantly less cost effective than CAPs. The exclusion o f some forms of revenue (e g., passe n ge r fares) for t r ansit a ppears to provide a reasonable basis for eomparison. As an alternative, FOOT might treat ooly the State and Federal grant shares for transit as a eompara t ive standard. Another issue is the acceptance of the duration rate for pool fonnation. CUTR recommends that the "investment" in the people placed into a pool or bus be spread over the life of that pool, regardless of the reporting period Table 9 Cost per VMT Reduced Total CAP Average VMT-error Average VMT Average VMT +error Budget*. 1, 197 401 2,347,845 3,545,246 $938,877 $0.784 $0.400 $0.245 . Does not mclude In-Kmd serv1ces. To quantify another meas u re of the CAPs' effectiveness, the money spent during the survey period is divided by the total VMT reduced (by those individuals influenced to carpool or ride the bus by the CAPs) to yield the cost o f reducing one vehicle mile of travel. The small sample of these influenced' individuals eombined with a large standard deviation, results in a standard error of + I -51 percent, however t h e programs' range for tbis value is between about a quarter and seventy-eight cents 20
Table 10 VMT and Pollution Reduced by BACS and the TMOs Pollution Factors VMT-Error VMT VMT +Error Pollutant Constants 1,197,401 2,347,845 3,545,246 CO-Carbon Monoxide .01690 kg/mile 20,236 kg 39,679 kg 59,915 kg NOx-Nitrous Oxides .00258 kg/mile 3,089 kg 6,057 kg 9,147 kg VOC-Volatlle Organic Compounds .00213 kg/mile 2,550 kg 5,001 kg 7,551 kg Total Kilograms 25,875 kg 50,737 kg 76,613 kg Total Pounds 56,995 lbs 111,755 lbs 168,750 lbs Total Tons 28.498 tons 56 tons 84 tons goal of the Florida Commuter Assistance Program is to reduce the pollution caused by traffic congestion. By multiplying the emissions sta n dards per mile (of the Hillsborough County MPO Air Quality Conformity Report) by the rang e of VMT red u ced Table 11 provides the total positiv e impact of the programs in FDOT District Seven. Between twe n ty-eight and eighty-four tons of emissions were reduced during the survey per iod. 21
RECOMMENDATIONS I. BACS and the TMOs sho u ld share the results of this survey with their respective Boards of Dir e ctors with the goal of continuous program improvement and fostering communication in deciding the direction of the individual agencies. The aforementioned figu.res should be used as baseline information to measure progress from one period to the n ext. 2. There is no comparable cost per VMT reduced and cost per vehicle trip reduced readily available to draw conclusions as to their relative trip reduction effectiveness to alternatives such as expanding ca p acity or add in g tra ns it service. However the cost per passenger trip ($1.40) is comparable to the cost per passenger trip for transit ($2.16 in Florida). FOOT should consider using the cost per passenger trip as one of the reporting requirements for BACS and the TMOs. 3. TDM strategies are v iable alternatives in this region. Commuter interest exists in alternat i ves to the single occupant vehicle in the Tampa Bay region. In particular, commuters seem most interested in telecommuting options. FOOT, BACS, TMOs and CUTR should exa m ine telecommuting's market potential and resultant transportation benefits 4 E mphasis on building the co mm uter database at BACS has not yet demonstrated changes in behavior. BACS should distinguish between commuters who asked to be added to t he ride-matching database, and those who simply failed to return the letter requesting not to have their names electronically entered. The latter group could be used for direct marketing of commute alternatives and future programs by the BACS and the TMOs FOOT should be prepared for a significant decline in the customer database size but should expect to see increases in the placement rate (i.e., similar number of people influence but f rom a smaller pool of customers). 22
5. In the next quarter, TMOs should channel existing resources to follow-u.P with registrants to identify those who are interested in the se(vices offered, while treating those who are not interested only as "leads" for target marketing (e.g., introduction of vanpool program). 6. BACS and the TMOs should focus strategies and tactics on each element of the alternative mode decision process (e.g., registration rate, matching rate, contact rate, placement rate, frequency, occupancy, duratkm and customer satisfaction). Each of these aspects contributes to changes in travel behavior which affect vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel. FDOT should work with these agencies to develop, fund, and monitor approaches in these areas. 7. In consultation with BACS and the TMOs, FDOT should establish common criteria for tracking program performance and jointly fund evaluations of BACS and the TMOs throughout District Seven. These evaluations should be conducted by a third-party To minimize costs, consideration should be given to co llec ting performan<;e data (e .g., placement rate, duration frequency, pool occupancy, etc.) only once every two years. A similar precedent can be found in the "waiver" process for Section 15 repo rting requirements for transit agencies. This waiver allows smaller transit agencies the option of using the previous year's ridership count as part of their federal fund reporting instead of incurring the cost necessary to collect the data yearly. If the transit agency chooses, it may still collect ridership statistics yearly, and will usually choose to do so when their ridership improves. This data will become the accepted formula factors applied to constants against which the early tracked statistics such as number of customers will be factored throughout the two year period If the agencies believe they have significantly affected these constant multipliers, they may reevalua te using methods reviewed by the TMA Clearinghouse and approved by FDOT prior t o the biannua l survey and analysis. 8. TMOs and BACS should place a higher priority on customer retention follow-up, and 23
sup port. FDOT should recognize the importance and effort r equir ed to maintain currenl market share in addition to market growth (i.e size of the database). FDOT should require TMOs and BACS to include activities in these areas and allow them the freedom t o decide how to implement these programs. 9. BACS, TMOs and FDOT should closely monitor trends and changes in market needs to improve relationships with customers knowledge of customer r equirements, and the key quality factors that encourage their participation. They should establish benchmarks for these key factors based on TD M programs in other parts of the country. 10 FDOT should explicitly recognize that some activities of BACS and the TMOs will not immediately result in changes in travel behavior (e.g., building support for the provision of amenities and policies supportive of alternative modes such as bicycling, transit, etc.). BACS and the TMOs should not lose sight that their approaches and deployment strategies are based on reaching a desired end result typically, a change in travel behavior or employer policy. It is healthy to periodically review these strategies and the ir contribution to the organ ization's goals and objectives relative to the resources alloca1ed to th em. 11. FDOT should develop informati on on the average duration of alternative mode use in Florida. Duration can have a significant impact on the benefits received and the cost effectiveness of the program. FDOT shou ld develop a system for !racking the in div iduals placed into a pool for several years 12. In consultation with FDOT, BACS and the TMOs, CUTR should review the survey met hodology to be used for future surve y s (mail, phone, or employer distribution) c,, improve response rates and protect confidentiality. 24
APPENDIX A TAMPA BAY CoMMUTER SuRvEY BAY ARE A COMMUTER SffiVICES 1. Pleose circle the number of in a typical week that you u sc each of the following modes to act !Q work. Days per w
8. In the past3 years, have you regularly carpooled, vanpooled, or taken the bus !O work (even ifyott are not carpooling, vanpooling, or ttsing tramit NOW)? 0 Yes: 0 C arpool 0 Van pool 0 Transit 0 No If "Y c s ," what i s the status o f your ridesharing? D Still carpooling/va n pooling/taking transit 0 N o l onger carpoo ling/va npooling/taking transit because: 0 w ork schedule changed 0 too stressfu l 0 moved 0 cost too much 0 company relocated 0 bus route changed 0 changed job/w ork site 0 need car at/after work 0 other rid esharer s quit 0 got a car/got car fiXed 0 other ridesharers became unreliable 0 took too much time 0 other -----------------------------------------------9. If you were to drive directly to work by yourself(with no s tops), how man y MILES would it be one way? miles one way 10. If you wert to drive directly to work by yourself(with no s tops), how many MINUTES w o ul d it bt one--way? mmutes one way THE FOU.OWING QUESTIONS PEIITAIN ONlY TO 'THOSE WHO CARPOOijYANPOOL AT LEAST ONE DAY PER WEEK. IF YOU DO NOf CARPOOljvANPOOL, PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 15. 11. On the days t h at you d rive for the carpoolfvanpool, how many additional MILES do you drive to pick up the other carpoolers/vanpoolers? ___ additional miles 0 Never drive for the carpo ollvanpool 12. How many add iti onal MILES do you drive to drop them off at t he ir worksite? ___ add i tio n a l miles 0 Never drive for carpool/vanpool 13. On t h e da y s when you ri de as a passenger in your carpooljvanpool are you: 0 Picked up at home o Drive miles to a pick-up po in t 0 Never a passenger 14. If you arc leaving a car at home because of carpooiing/vanpool ing, is i t being used by another driver who did not have another vehicle availabit before? 0 No 0 Yes 0 Never leave vehicle at home 0 Don't have a vehicle If "Yes," about how many MI LES per day, on average, does this othe r driver drive? :--miles per day About how many TRIPS per day, on average, does this other driver make? __ ..,...trips per day How many of these trips are made between 6 a .rn. and 9 a.m. weekdays? ___ trtps
YOUR ANSWERS TO TliE FOlLOWING QUESTIONS WILL HEI.l' US BE MORE RESJJONS!VE TO YOUR.NEEDS. 15. Please indicate how int er ested y o u are in each of the following commuting options by checking the appropriate box. Interested Not Already on an interested use this emerg't.ncy at this option Interested basis on(y time a. Carpooling 0 0 0 0 b. Vanpoo li ng 0 0 0 0 c Using Transit 0 0 0 0 d. Bicycling/Walking 0 0 0 0 e. W<1rking a t Home 0 0 0 0 16. When deciding to use our agency's services, how importan t is each factor? (please circle) Unimportant Neutral Im'port4.nt D elivers information in a timely manner 1 2 3 4 5 Knowledgeable 1 2 3 4 5 Co u rteous 1 2 3 4 5 Convenient 1 2 3 4 5 Responsive 1 2 3 4 5 Resolves problems qu i ckly 1 2 3 4 5 Accurate 1 2 3 4 5 17. Please circle the letter that best describes our performance: (A =ExaUtnt B =Above Averttge D = NcdJ Jmprovtment F =Terrible N=No Opinion) Deliv ers information in a t imely m a nner A B c D F N Knowledgeable A B c D F N Courteous A B c D F N Convenient A B c D F N Responsive A B c D F N Resolves problems quickly A B c D F N Accurate A B c D F N Value of servic e provided A B c D F N Overall perlormance A B c D F N 18. Wou ld you use our services again? 0 Yes 0 No 19. Would you recommend our services to a friend? 0 Yes 0 No
YOUR ANSWER S TO THE FOLLOWING QUES"IlONS ARE fOR ST;\llSTICAL ONLY AND Will Rf.\WN CONFIDENTIAL 2 0. H o w l ong have you worked 3t your current worksite ? )'tMS 21. H o w mny people art employed by your com pony ( at your worksite)? _ employ ees 22 Arc you: 0 Male 0 Fe m ale 23. How o l d are y ou? yea r s 24. Whic h of the following best describe s th e k ind of wor k you do: 0 Secrctariai/Ci e r icol 0 Production/Crofts 0 Management 0 Exe cutive 0 Maintenance 0 Sales/Servi ce 0 Profe$.Sionai/Technical 0 Other-----------------l 25. What is the highest levd of education you have completed? 0 H i gh School 0 T Khnical Sc hool 0 So me College 0 College 0 Graduate SchooV Post Graduate W o rk 26. In total, how many motor vehi cl e s, includi n g cars trucks, vans, and motor cycles, are owned or leased by members of your househo ld? household vehicles 27. How often do you h ave a veh icl e avail blc for getting t o work > 0 A l ways 0 Som e times 0 N eve r 28. What is your h o m e zip code? -----29. How long have you l iv ed a t yo u r cu rren t add r ess? years 30. Including yourself, how mon y people are i n your household? _ people 31. How mony members of you r are employed? ___ workers 32. What is your combin ed total annual household income? 0 l ess thon $20,000 0 $20,000 to $34,999 0 SSO,OOO to SM,999 0 565,000 to S79,999 0 $35,000 to S49,999 0 SSO,OOO to $99,999 0 SIOO,OOO or more 33. To w h ic h of the following ethnic groups d o y o u bel ong? Cl White, non-His panic 0 Bla c k n o n Hispanic 0 Hisp ; mic 0 Asian 0 Ocher I T!-I ANK You! l return t h is survey b y MARC H 1 7 in the cnve lo p e p r o vided. I f you have mis p lace d the envelope, mail to CUTR/USF, 4202 E. F owler A \tl:, E N B ll8, Tampa, FL 33620-5350.