Implementing a statewide Rideshre and Vanpool program in Arizona / final report 610 
|
|
Implementing a Statewide Rideshare and
Vanpool Program in Arizona
Final Report 610
Prepared by:
Center for Transportation and the Environment
1401 Peachtree Street, Suite 440
Atlanta, GA 30309
Eric N. Schreffler, Transportation Consultant
13580 Samantha Avenue
San Diego, CA 92129
Transportation Management Services
234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400
Pasadena, CA 91101
June 2008
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
in cooperation with
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or
policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This
report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that
may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report.
The U. S. Government and The State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA- AZ- 08- 610
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
5. Report Date
June 2008
4. Title and Subtitle
Implementing a Statewide Rideshare and Vanpool Program in
Arizona
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors
Eric N. Schreffler, Jennifer Gregory, Wendy Morgan, Peter Valk
8. Performing Organization Report No.
10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
The Center for Transportation and the Environment
1401 Peachtree Street, Suite 440
Atlanta, GA 30309
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR- PL- 1-( 69) 610
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
FINAL
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Project Manager: John Semmens
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
This research investigated the potential for a statewide ridesharing and vanpool program for
Arizona. By performing a literature review, surveying other state DOTs and conducting a needs assessment,
the research investigated the need for, logistics of, and funding options for a statewide ridesharing and
vanpooling program. The product of this research is an implementation plan that includes four
recommendations for the organization and deployment of ridesharing and vanpooling services in two target
areas along with assessments to identify future priority areas and potential roles for AzDOT in fostering
statewide services. The implementation plan has four recommendations for AzDOT:
1. Flagstaff – The team recommends that AzDOT assist with the start- up of a ridesharing initiative in
the Flagstaff area. The team recommends that the Chamber of Commerce undertake employer
outreach and help coordinate ridesharing services offered by the Metropolitan Planning Organization
( MPO) and the local transit authority.
2. Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City – The team recommends that a more detailed feasibility
study be conducted for these three cities in Mohave County. While the need for ridesharing services
is fairly apparent, the means to coordinate and provide these services are not.
3. Identification of Future Priority Areas – The team recommends periodic assessments be made with
local chambers of commerce, key local agencies, and AzDOT district offices to determine if
conditions warrant the offering of ridesharing services to address congestion and mobility issues in
key corridors or areas.
4. Role of AzDOT in Fostering Statewide Services – Several supporting activities are available for
AzDOT to undertake to facilitate the growth of carpooling and vanpooling in non- urban areas. First,
AzDOT can support a statewide ridematching service similar to that provided by Valley Metro to
Tucson and Flagstaff. AzDOT can also assist with new vanpool acquisition. Furthermore, AzDOT
can provide technical assistance to areas interested in creating a new ridesharing program with
guidance and funding for start- up. AzDOT can also convene ridesharing program managers from
around the state for networking, training, and technical assistance.
17. Key Words
Ridesharing, Vanpool, Carpool
18. Distribution statement
Document is available to the
U. S. public through the National
Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia, 22161
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
67
22. Price
23. Registrant’s Seal
SI* ( MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons ( 2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
mg
( or “ t”)
mg
( or “ t”)
megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
1.102 short tons ( 2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE ( exact) TEMPERATURE ( exact)
º F Fahrenheit
temperature
5( F- 32)/ 9
or ( F- 32)/ 1.8
Celsius temperature º C º C Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
º F
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot- candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot- candles fc
fl foot- Lamberts 3.426 candela/ m2 cd/ m2 cd/ m2 candela/ m2 0.2919 foot- Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/ in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/ in2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ................ 1
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................. 5
TASK 2 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ .. 5
Literature Research Methodology.................................................................................................................... ... 6
The Growth and Outlook for Ridesharing and Vanpools..................................................................................... 6
Types of Vanpool Operations..................................................................................................................... ......... 6
Vanpool Program Funding and Financing Techniques....................................................................................... 7
Important Elements of Successful Rideshare and Vanpool Programs ................................................................. 9
Incentives ............................................................................................................................... ............................. 9
Other Strategies ............................................................................................................................... ................... 9
Planning, Implementation, and Coordination of Rideshare Programs.............................................................. 11
The Benefits of Ridesharing and Vanpooling..................................................................................................... 12
Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ................................... 13
CHAPTER 3 – STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SURVEYS................................................ 15
TASK 3 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 15
Introduction of the State Department of Transportation ( DOT) Survey ............................................................ 15
Methodology ............................................................................................................................... ...................... 15
Statewide Ridesharing Policies and Programs .................................................................................................. 17
Non- Metropolitan Focus.......................................................................................................................... ......... 19
Program Funding........................................................................................................................ ...................... 19
Ridesharing Support and Coordination ............................................................................................................. 20
Program Implementation and Delivery.............................................................................................................. 21
Encouraging Employer Involvement.................................................................................................................. 22
Marketing and Promotion of Program............................................................................................................... 23
Most/ Least Effective Program Elements ............................................................................................................ 23
Vanpooling Programs....................................................................................................................... ................ 24
Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ................................... 27
Other Contacts ............................................................................................................................... ................... 28
CHAPTER 4 – INFORMATION GATHERING AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN ARIZONA....................... 29
TASK 4 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 29
TASK 4 DELIVERABLE ............................................................................................................................... ............. 30
Introduction................................................................................................................... .................................... 30
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN......................................................................................................... 35
TASK 5 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 35
TASK 5 DELIVERABLE ............................................................................................................................... ............. 36
1. Implementation Plan – Flagstaff Area ........................................................................................................... 36
2. Coordination Study and Pilot – Kingman, Bullhead City, and Lake Havasu City area................................. 40
3. Identification of Future Priority Areas .......................................................................................................... 42
4. Role of AzDOT in Fostering Statewide Services ............................................................................................ 43
Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ................................... 44
APPENDIX A – LIST OF CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE................................................................................. 45
APPENDIX B – PRELIMINARY SURVEY........................................................................................................... 51
APPENDIX C – FOLLOW- UP CONTACT ........................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX D – SUMMARY OF FACT FINDING MEETING ( BULLHEAD CITY,
LAKE HAVASU, AND KINGMAN)......................................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX E – SUMMARY OF FACT FINDING MEETING ( FLAGSTAFF)................................................ 61
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
AzDOT Arizona Department of Transportation
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
CMR Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulation
CoDOT Colorado Department of Transportation
CTE Center for Transportation and the Environment
CTR Commute Trip Reduction
DOT Department of Transportation
ERH Emergency Ride Home
ESTC Eric Schreffler, Transportation Consultant
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HOV High- Occupancy Vehicle
JARC Jobs Access Reverse Commute
MEOT Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation
MiDOT Michigan Department of Transportation
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NAIPTA Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority
NAU Northern Arizona University
NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
NTD National Transit Database
OhDOT Ohio Department of Transportation
RPC Regional Planning Commission
RTC Regional Transportation Commission
SPR State Planning and Research
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TMA Transportation Management Association
TMI Transportation Management Initiative
UTA Utah Transit Authority
VA Virginia
VDRPT Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
VEDA Vermont Economic Development Authority
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of SPR 610 - Implementing a Statewide Rideshare and Vanpool Program in
Arizona is to investigate the potential of a statewide rideshare and vanpool program in
Arizona. A team of people from The Center for Transportation and the Environment, Eric
N. Schreffler, Transportation Consultant, and Transportation Management Services
completed the project for the Arizona Department of Transportation ( AzDOT). . The
project involved the following task deliverables: a literature review, a survey of state
departments of transportation ( DOTs), a needs assessment, and an implementation plan.
For the first task, the literature review, the team examined existing information on
effective rideshare and vanpool programs, such as incentives to try and to use carpools
and vanpools, work hour flexibility for rideshare users, and easy- to- use services to find
rideshare partners. The team also examined relevant research on the logistical operations
of rideshare and vanpool programs, such as organizational structure, staff roles and
responsibilities, and vanpool formation and fares.
Using the information collected in the literature review as a guide, the team then
developed and administered a survey to DOT agencies across the country. The survey
gathered data on the current role of state DOTs in the implementation and delivery of
rideshare programs and services. Nine DOT agencies or similar organizations
participated in the survey. The findings revealed that rideshare programs and services are
typically funded and managed at the regional or local level and not at the state level.
State DOTs that are involved in ridesharing programs largely focus their efforts in several
key areas, including: vanpool fleet acquisition or loans, pooled insurance, and statewide
contracts; referral of calls to a statewide phone number for an appropriate regional or
local program; and integration of ridesharing into state- wide plans or policies.
In the next step, the team gathered information on the need and support for ridesharing
and vanpooling services in key areas around the state outside of Maricopa and Pima
Counties. After identifying, contacting, and interviewing people in a select number of
areas throughout the state, the team identified two target areas— Flagstaff and the
Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area— as most suitable for the development
and deployment of rideshare and vanpool programs.
The final task was to develop an implementation plan for AzDOT to follow. The plan that
was developed has the following four recommendations: :
1. Flagstaff – The team recommends that AzDOT assist with the start- up of a
ridesharing initiative in the Flagstaff area. The team recommends that the
Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce undertake employer outreach and help
coordinate ridesharing services offered by the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning
Organization ( FMPO) and the local transit authority. This action will provide the
needed marketing for the ridematching system acquired from Valley Metro in
Phoenix. The new partnership between the Chamber, the Flagstaff MPO, and
2
Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority, ( NAIPTA)
can also promote and form vanpools for commuters with long distance commutes.
2. Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area – The team recommends that a
more detailed feasibility study be conducted for these three cities in Mohave
County. While the need for ridesharing services is fairly apparent, the means to
coordinate and provide these services are not. Therefore, the team recommends
conducting a feasibility study and pilot project to test the demand for commuter
services.
3. Identification of Future Priority Areas – The team recommends periodic
assessments be made with local chambers of commerce, key local agencies, and
AzDOT district offices to determine if conditions warrant the offering of
ridesharing services to address congestion and mobility issues in key corridors or
areas.
4. Role of AzDOT in Fostering Statewide Services – Several supporting activities
are available for AzDOT to undertake to facilitate the growth of carpooling and
vanpooling in non- urban areas. First, AzDOT can support a statewide
ridematching service similar to that provided by Valley Metro to Tucson and
Flagstaff. AzDOT can also assist with new vanpool acquisition. Furthermore,
AzDOT can provide technical assistance, guidance and start- up funding to areas
interested in creating a new ridesharing program. AzDOT can also convene
ridesharing program managers from around the state for networking, training, and
technical assistance.
These general recommendations, pilot study, and implementation plan provide AzDOT
with a guideline to implement rideshare and vanpool programs in non- metropolitan areas
of Arizona as well as engage in new activities to support the implementation of statewide
services. With this plan in place, AzDOT should have the proper tools and guidance to
increase services to commuters, reduce traffic congestion, and improve air quality in
Arizona.
3
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
SPR 610 - Implementing a Statewide Rideshare and Vanpool Program in Arizona
provides the Arizona Department of Transportation with an implementation plan for a
statewide rideshare and vanpool program. The research for this project primarily
investigates the potential for a rideshare and vanpool program in the non- metropolitan
areas of Arizona where established rideshare programs do not exist. In addition, the
research examines the feasibility of a statewide rideshare and vanpool program in
Arizona, specifically the demand for services, operation logistics, and funding options.
The need for this research can be attributed to the growing number of commuters in areas
outside of Maricopa and Pima counties in Arizona. Their increasing numbers and
lengthening of commutes create problems that rideshare and vanpool programs can
mitigate. For example, such programs could reduce travel costs for the commuters,
decrease congestion on roads not designed for heavy traffic, and offer residents more
options for their travel needs.
The project team, consisting of members from The Center for Transportation and the
Environment, Eric N. Schreffler, Transportation Consultant, and Transportation
Management Services, developed a series of tasks to complete before creating an
implementation plan for AzDOT. This report describes these tasks and the products the
team generated in doing them.
Its concluding chapter, the Implementation Plan, is organized in four sections: the
implementation plan for the Flagstaff area; the pilot for the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake
Havasu City area; the identification of future priority areas; and the role of AzDOT in
fostering statewide services.
4
5
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
TASK 2 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY
The project team reviewed the literature to establish what is known about rideshare and
vanpool programs and, more importantly, to identify if and what type of additional
research may be needed. The literature review primarily focused on the elements of
effective ridesharing and vanpool programs, including: incentives to try or to use
carpools or vanpools, work hour flexibility for rideshare users, and easy- to- use services
for finding rideshare partners. Regarding vanpools specifically, the literature review
pointed to using the Federal Transit Administration’s ( FTA) Capital Cost of Contracting
to reduce vanpool lease costs. Furthermore, the literature review included an examination
of a peer program in the State of Washington that funds a Vanpool Investment Program
to capitalize new vanpools by transit agencies throughout the state. Washington State also
supported the statewide expansion of RideshareOnline. com, a free, statewide service for
potential carpoolers and vanpoolers. 1
After conducting the literature review, the project team arrived at the following
conclusions:
• Finding: Rideshare programs have many logistical elements, such as organizational
structure, staff roles and responsibilities, and vanpool formation and fare structure.
Action: Develop a comprehensive list of the elements to be considered in
implementing a statewide rideshare program and a plan of action for addressing them.
• Finding: Vanpooling, specifically, appeals to commuters traveling 15 or more one-way
miles to their worksite.
Action: Identify key corridors throughout the state where commuters are likely to
travel 15 or more miles to work.
• Finding: Existing literature describes four general types of vanpools prevalent in the
industry.
Action: Determine which vanpool system, or mixture of systems, is most suitable for
AzDOT.
• Finding: Many vanpool programs use creative funding sources to supplement more
traditional federal government funding.
Action: Determine the funding sources and financing techniques most appropriate for
the AzDOT program.
• Finding: Existing research points to several important elements critical to program
operations from management and staffing to paid media and public relations.
Action: Establish a budget that ensures proper allocation of funds to operate an
effective program.
• Finding: Financial incentives and disincentives and targeted public education and
marketing are important in inducing participation.
Action: Develop a strategy to market the program and encourage ridership through
the use of incentives and supporting strategies.
1 King County Metro, http:// rideshareonline. com/, accessed June 10, 2008.
6
Literature Research Methodology
This literature review is a synthesis of published research studies believed to be most
critical to the development of a statewide ridesharing and vanpool program, with
particular emphasis on vanpooling. While it is typical for a literature review to evaluate
the findings of various authors, this document stops short of providing such an analysis.
The focus of the literature review is to underline the logistical and funding elements that
need to be included in the ridesharing and vanpool implementation plan and to establish a
framework for future research that needs to be conducted to develop the plan. As such,
the review examines relevant research on ridesharing, and in particular the different types
of vanpools in operation across the country, key elements of notable vanpool programs,
potential funding sources and techniques, and the planning, implementation, and
coordination questions that must be considered in establishing a program.
The Growth and Outlook for Ridesharing and Vanpools
Offering ridesharing alternatives to commuters is one of many transportation demand
strategies. According to the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute’s Online
Transportation Demand Management ( TDM) Encyclopedia, “ ridesharing is one of the
most common and cost- effective alternative modes, particularly in areas that are not well
served by public transit.” Success is dependent on the number of people participating in
the rideshare program— the more people who are registered in the program, the greater
the opportunity of finding rideshare partners. In general, rideshare programs typically
provide services to find carpool and/ or vanpool partners, engage in program marketing,
and may also provide incentives. 2
Mitigating Traffic Congestion: The Role of Demand- Side Strategies defines carpooling
and vanpooling under mode choices for travelers. According to the publication,
carpooling provides the most flexibility of ridesharing options and is more informal than
vanpooling. Trips appropriate for carpooling are those that are at least 10 miles or take
more than 20- 30 minutes. Carpoolers typically travel in privately owned vehicles with
two or more passengers who are often family members, friends, or co- workers. Research
shows vanpooling generally best serves those with commutes of at least 15 miles.
Vanpooling is also an appealing option for trips between suburbs as well as trips with
origins and/ or destinations in smaller communities that have fewer transportation
alternatives because of location or lower density development or both. 3
Types of Vanpool Operations
Existing literature describes four general types of vanpool operations prevalent in the
industry, as outlined below. The pros and cons of each will be important to consider
when selecting the most appropriate type of vanpool operation for AzDOT. The project
team used the state DOT interviews and the knowledge and experiences they share to
2 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, On- line TDM Encyclopedia, Congestion Reduction Strategies
( May 2005), Ridesharing ( May 2006), http:// www. vtpi. org/ tdm/, accessed April 1, 2008.
3 Association for Commuter Transportation, “ Mitigating Traffic Congestion: The Role of Demand- Side
Strategies,” prepared for FHWA, Report No. FHWA- HOP- 05- 001, October 2004.
7
help determine which vanpool system, or mixture of systems, would be most suitable for
AzDOT. 4
1. “ Owner/ operator – individuals who buy/ lease a vehicle for vanpooling. The
downsides of this type of operation are issues with affordable insurance and
adequate coverage.”
2. “ Employer – companies who buy/ lease vehicles for use by their employees. The
costs associated with employer owned/ leased vehicles make this a less attractive
option for most employers.”
3. “ Private operator – third- party vanpool providers. These are private organizations
that operate vanpool services for commuters, companies, and government
agencies. The largest of these providers is VPSI with approximately 3,500
vehicles across 60 cities.” Enterprise Rent- A- Car, among others, also operates
vanpool services. Valley Metro, in Maricopa County, and the Pima Association of
Governments in the Tucson area have arrangements with third party vanpool
providers.
4. “ Public transit – Transit systems have tried stimulating participation in
vanpooling usually by either building their own vanpooling operation or teaming
with a private operator.”
Vanpool Program Funding and Financing Techniques
The TDM Program Comparison Study 5 ( written by a member of the project team)
identified several potential funding sources available for Transportation Demand
Management ( TDM) programs, with the most often used being federal funding in the
form Congestion Mitigation Air Quality ( CMAQ) funds. Funding, however, can come
from the state, local sources, or the private sector. An example of a program using state
money occurs in Phoenix where a portion of Arizona’s State Air Quality Fund is used for
TDM activities. State statute Money for the State Air Quality Fund comes from an annual
$ 1.50 air quality fee charged on all registered vehicles.. Another example included in the
literature is the statewide employer- based Commute Trip Reduction ( CTR) program in
Washington State which includes a rideshare tax credit. 6
Funding can also come from a local source, like a local sales tax, developer fees or tax
increment funding, or a private sector donation. For example, “ in Houston, TDM
programs are supported by a portion of a local sales tax imposed on the area served by
4 Winters, P. and F. Cleland. “ Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide.” Florida Department of
Transportation Research Center, 2001.
5 Center for Transportation and the Environment, “ TDM Program Comparison Study.” Georgia Department
of Transportation. February 2006.
6 Commute Trip Reduction Task Force. “ CTR Task Force 2005 Report to the Washington State
Legislature.” Washington Department of Transportation, Public Transportation and Commute Options
Office, February 2006.
8
the city’s transit system.” TDM programs in Atlanta and Washington, D. C. receive
funding from private client members obtaining services from these programs. 7
The Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide offers a list of traditional and creative
financing techniques to start or expand a vanpool program. 8 The project team explore
these techniques, listed below, in more detail in the chapter on the survey of state DOTs
and provide guidance on the type of funding and financing structure most suitable for
them. A brief description of each is included.
• Capital Cost of Contracting – Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) policy that
allows for allocation of more federal resources for vanpooling. FTA has specific
guidelines and procedures for eligible expenses.
• Capital Leasing – FTA rule whereby “ recipients may acquire tangible assets by
lease, and all eligible lease costs may be reimbursed as capital expenses.”
• Toll Revenue Credits for Local Match – Provision under TEA- 21 that, under
specific circumstances, allows transit agencies to use revenue from toll facilities
as local match.
• Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Funds – Allows funding for various vanpool-related
activities meeting well- defined criteria under CMAQ guidance.
• Conditional Sale – “… transaction where the vehicle provider retains a security
interest in the vehicle.”
• Municipal Lease Purchase – “… financing method that allows transit agencies to
purchase equipment on an installment basis at tax- exempt interest rates.”
• Take Over Existing Employer- Operated Vanpool Program – Strategy in which a
public agency acquires an existing system with an established base of riders.
• Customer Financing – State Tax Incentives: Individual and Employer – Options
available at the state level to provide incentives to vanpool riders and/ or
employers supporting vanpool programs.
• Customer Financing – Federal Tax Incentives: Employer – Internal Revenue
Service ( IRS) provision ( Section 132 ( f)) that allows employers to subsidize
employees’ cost of commuting up to a certain level and allows employees to use
pre- tax dollars to cover qualified transportation fringe benefits.
• Advertising Revenue – Vans are “ wrapped” by advertisers with fees used to
finance a portion of operating expenses.
• Timesharing – Concept of cooperative fleet management to use vehicles during
idle times.
• Resource Sharing – Transit agency staff trained to conduct warranty repairs on
vehicles.
• Use State Contracts to Purchase – Purchasing off state contracts to save both
money and time.
• Financial Matching Program – Leveraging public dollars with private sector
subsidies.
7 Center for Transportation and the Environment, “ TDM Program Comparison Study.” Georgia Department
of Transportation. February 2006.
8 Winters, P. and F. Cleland. “ Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide.” Florida Department of
Transportation Research Center, 2001.
9
• Rent it – Option to rent vehicles if there is a fluctuation in demand.
• Prepayment Inducements – Use of pre- sold passes to maintain costs when vans
are trying to find replacement riders.
Once funding is secured, the distribution of the funds across the program becomes an
important consideration. Research points to several important elements, from
management and staffing to paid media and public relations that should be considered for
inclusion in program operations. 9 The following elements and their composition within
the overall budget for other ridesharing and vanpool programs are explored in greater
detail in the chapter on the state DOT survey.
• Management
• Staffing
• Employer Outreach and Services
• Incentives
• Education
• Paid Media
• Public Relations
Important Elements of Successful Rideshare and Vanpool Programs
Overall, ridesharing programs tend to be most successful when paired with other TDM
strategies, such as financial incentives, and when they are widely promoted over larger
geographic regions ( e. g., a regional program as opposed to an individual worksite or
locality). 10 Other strategies often help increase the success of ridesharing as well. The
Victoria Transportation Policy Institute’s Online TDM Encyclopedia11 highlights some
options to consider:
Incentives
• Empty seat subsidies;
• Fare subsidies by employers or transit agencies; and
• Other financial rewards for shifting to rideshare.
Other Strategies
• Increased flexibility ( e. g., allow vanpoolers to use the mode 2- 3 days a week
as opposed to everyday);
• Targeted, direct marketing;
• Premium quality service options ( e. g., work stations on vanpools);
• Transfers to transit services;
• HOV priority and preferred parking; and
• Rent cars the same as vanpools are rented.
9 Center for Transportation and the Environment, “ TDM Program Comparison Study.” Georgia
Department of Transportation. February 2006.
10 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, On- line TDM Encyclopedia, Congestion Reduction Strategies
( September 2007), Ridesharing ( May 2006), http:// www. vtpi. org/ tdm/, accessed April 1, 2008.
11 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, “ Ridesharing( May 2006),” On- line TDM Encyclopedia,
http:// www. vtpi. org/ tdm/, accessed April 1, 2008.
10
In addition, research highlights the need for well- publicized programs to engage as many
commuters as possible in rideshare arrangements.
In relation to vanpooling, Vanpool Growth in the Atlanta Region: Is There a Secret
Recipe? 12 included in the literature review and written by one of the Project Consulting
team members, summarizes four successful vanpool programs across the nation. A
summary of some of the more common elements of the programs is included below:
• Creative funding sources and techniques to supplement more traditional federal
government funding. Reporting vanpool miles to the National Transit Database
( NTD) with the purpose of generating significant FTA 5307 revenue for the vanpool
subsidies and other purposes. State and local surcharges and taxes to help meet
federal match requirements. Use of FTA’s Capital Cost of Contracting to help bring
down costs.
• Incentives to encourage participation, like buying down the cost of vanpool seats and
allowing drivers to use vans for personal use and to ride for free.
• Funding dollars programmed specifically to promote awareness of the program and
to educate potential riders of the benefits.
• Other supporting strategies to help sell and promote the program. Supporting
strategies can be a significant selling point, and research shows that programs
offering at least some additional benefits are oftentimes more successful than those
that do not. The Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide13 includes the following list of
strategies:
• Priority HOV facilities;
• Preferential parking;
• Flexible work hours;
• Guaranteed Ride Home;
• Reduced parking charges;
• Insurance ( for owner- operators);
• New start vanpools subsidies; and
• Employer- subsidies.
Another vanpool program worth noting that was not included in Vanpool Growth in the
Atlanta Region: Is There a Secret Recipe? is the Vanpool Investment Program
administered by the State of Washington. “ The program is statewide with a focus on
congested corridors and in areas where opportunities for providing roadway capacity are
limited and expensive. The funds are for public transit agencies and can be used only for
capital costs associated with putting new vans on the road and for incentives for
12 ESTC, Vanpool Growth in the Atlanta Region: Is There a Secret Recipe, prepared for the Center for
Transportation and the Environment. DATE
13 Winters, P. and F. Cleland. Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide. Florida Department of
Transportation Research Center, 2001.
11
employers to increase employee vanpool use. Transit operators invest in other areas of
the program such as public awareness, operational enhancements, customer outreach, and
technology enhancements.” The vanpool program is largely funded by the state
legislature, which allotted $ 30 million to expand vanpooling statewide in the 10- year
transportation plan. 14
An important element of this program was the expansion of RideshareOnline. com, a free
statewide service for potential vanpoolers and carpoolers. Targeted financial incentives
and employer outreach have also helped to increase the van occupancy rates.
Planning, Implementation, and Coordination of Rideshare Programs
While there are several benefits associated with ridesharing programs, there are many
logistical concerns that need to be addressed in program planning and implementation.
The review of existing literature brought out many of these issues, which will be
investigated in more detail as part of the state DOT interviews.
Rideshare programs can be implemented by a variety of organizational structures,
including individual employers, Transportation Management Associations, universities,
transit agencies, and transportation agencies. 15 Because of the potential for several
players, thoughtful coordination among them is critical to the success of the program.
The groups involved must have a plan for leveraging resources to support program
elements, such as carpool and vanpool matching services, incentives, and program
marketing.
Additional concerns with vanpools include locating a sufficient number of riders and
back- up drivers ( vanpool formation), setting a fare structure, collecting payments from
riders, and establishing a fixed schedule. 16 Below is a list of additional logistical ques-tions
that will be important to answer during development of the implementation plan:
• What policies can be implemented to help AzDOT provide statewide ridesharing
services and vanpool programs?
• What are the potential sources of funding and funding techniques to support
statewide ridesharing services and vanpool programs? How should the funding
be programmed and allocated among the various expenditures?
• What is the most efficient type of vanpool operation?
• What should the strategy be to encourage ridesharing and vanpool ridership,
including promotion and educating the potential market?
14 Commute Trip Reduction Task Force. CTR Task Force 2005 Report to the Washington State
Legislature. Washington Department of Transportation, Public Transportation and Commute Options
Office, February 2006.
15 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, On- line TDM Encyclopedia, Congestion Reduction Strategies
( May 2005), Ridesharing ( May 2006), http:// www. vtpi. org/ tdm/, accessed April 1, 2008.
16 Winters, P. and F. Cleland. Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide. Florida Department of
Transportation Research Center, 2001.
12
• What other services, either existing or proposed, should be provided to help
support ridesharing services and vanpool programs?
• How many staff people and hours will be needed to administer the program?
What are the staff responsibilities and roles?
•
The Benefits of Ridesharing and Vanpooling
While there are many logistical issues associated with establishing a ridesharing and
vanpool program, there are also a great number of benefits that can encourage support
from funding agencies. For example, the cost per passenger mile is generally lower for
ridesharing than any other motorized mode of transportation. 17 Additionally, the literature
notes that successful “ vanpool programs can attract 5- 10% of commute trips of more than
20 miles in length and this mode share can grow to 15- 25% if the program receives
support from employers, financial incentives, and direct marketing.” There are also
individual benefits to be communicated to potential drivers, riders, employers, and the
community. The Project Consulting team believes these are important to highlight in the
literature review because they help sell the value of establishing a vanpool program,
especially when the logistical issues seem overwhelming. Potential benefits include
providing transportation to others in the household, providing safe, dependable, and
reliable transportation to work, reducing training costs as employers recognize increased
employee retention, and reducing wear and tear on infrastructure. Other benefits noted in
the Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide18 for each group are included below:
Vanpool Driver
• Reduces need to purchase a personal vehicle
• Receives use of vehicle for personal trips
• Obtains lower vehicle insurance rates
• Reduces household’s vehicle maintenance costs
• Requires no long term commitment
Vanpool Rider
• Reduces stress
• Increases access to job markets
• Saves money on commuting costs, such as gasoline, and wear- and- tear on
personal vehicles
Employer
• Reduces the need for additional parking
• Increases access to labor markets
• Increases productivity, reduces absenteeism and tardiness
• Provides an effective, low- cost recruitment tool
17 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, On- line TDM Encyclopedia, Congestion Reduction Strategies
( May 2005), Ridesharing ( May 2006), http:// www. vtpi. org/ tdm/, accessed April 1, 2008.
18 Winters, P. and F. Cleland. Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide. Florida Department of
Transportation Research Center, 2001.
13
Community
• Serves communities not served by transit such as bus and rail
• Requires fewer passengers than a bus
• Increases federal and state funds to transit
• Reduces rush- hour congestion
• Improves air quality
• Reduces dependence on fossil fuels
Conclusions
As mentioned previously, an important objective of this initial task was to provide a
stepping- stone for more detailed research that needs to be conducted in order to develop
an implementation plan for a statewide ridesharing and vanpool program for AzDOT.
Specifically, the logistical and funding elements outlined in the previous sections will be
used to help guide interviews with state DOTs and key Arizona employers and
commuters. It is also the Project Consulting team’s goal to use the interviews with state
DOTs to gather more information on statewide rideshare activities as the team was
unable to identify published feasibility studies to include in this literature review. To that
end, the following bullets summarize the Project Consulting team’s conclusions from the
existing literature and offer topic areas and suggestions for proceeding in the next phase
of research.
• Finding: Rideshare programs include many logistical elements, such as
organizational structure, staff roles and responsibilities, and vanpool formation and
fare structure.
Action: Develop a comprehensive list of the elements to be considered in
implementing a statewide rideshare program and a plan of action for addressing it.
• Finding: Vanpooling, specifically, appeals to commuters traveling 15 or more one-way
miles to their worksite.
Action: Identify key corridors throughout the state where commuters are likely to
travel 15 or more miles to work.
• Finding: Existing literature describes four general types of vanpools prevalent in the
industry.
Action: Determine which vanpool system, or mixture of systems, is most suitable for
AzDOT.
• Finding: Many vanpool programs use creative funding sources to supplement more
traditional federal government funding.
Action: Determine the funding sources and financing techniques most appropriate for
the AzDOT program.
• Finding: Existing research points to several important elements critical to program
operations from management and staffing to paid media and public relations.
Action: Establish a budget that ensures proper allocation of funds to operate an
effective program.
14
• Finding: Financial incentives and disincentives and targeted public education and
marketing are important in inducing participation.
Action: Develop a strategy to market the program and encourage ridership through
the use of incentives and supporting strategies.
15
CHAPTER 3 – STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SURVEYS
TASK 3 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY
The project team developed a survey in consultation with AzDOT to explore current
experience with statewide programs and DOT support for ridesharing and vanpooling.
Nine state DOTs participated in the survey. The team selected the DOT agencies to
survey based on their knowledge of statewide rideshare programs, responses from the
State Planning and Research ( SPR) 566 project, and inquiries to national ridesharing
resources.
While the state DOT survey did not uncover extensive information on statewide and non-urban
programs, it did provide information on the types of activities typically undertaken
by state DOTs in the area of rideshare and vanpool support. Furthermore, it should be
noted that state DOT involvement in rideshare has diminished in the past 10- 20 years as
funding has shifted from state control to a more regional focus, especially with
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding, which supports a majority of ridesharing
efforts in the U. S. Many state DOTs, including California and Michigan, which once
broadly supported ridesharing, are now largely inactive participants and rely heavily on
regional or county level administration of programs.
However, the two activities that are still supported by some state DOTs are statewide
ridematching or information and vanpool acquisition. In the case of the former activity,
some states that support statewide ridematching contract this service to one of the
regional programs located in a metropolitan area ( e. g., Ohio and North Carolina).
Moreover, some still maintain a state- wide toll free phone number and refer these calls to
the closest regional program. In the case of vanpools, some states offer interest- free loans
( Vermont), vanpool acquisition ( Michigan), subsidy program ( Virginia), or rural vanpool
programs ( North Carolina). From the review of the survey findings, the project team
determined the current role of state DOTs in ridesharing and vanpooling to be:
• Vanpool fleet acquisition or loans, pooled insurance, and/ or subsidies
• Referral of calls to statewide rideshare information number to appropriate region
• Limited coordination and technical assistance among programs within the state
• Integration of ridesharing into statewide policies, plans, and programs
Introduction of the State Department of Transportation ( DOT) Survey
The following sections present the results of surveys conducted with state DOTs and
other agencies responsible for implementing ridesharing and/ or vanpooling programs. It
is the second of a three- step process created by the project team to develop a statewide
ridesharing and vanpooling program implementation plan for the State of Arizona.
Methodology
The project team selected agencies to survey based on its knowledge of statewide
rideshare programs, responses from the SPR 566 project, and inquiries to national
16
ridesharing resources. CTE contacted representatives of each agency requesting that
they either complete a telephone or paper survey. All agencies received an electronic
version of the survey. Contacts at two states’ agencies, Oregon and New Jersey, declined
participation in the survey.
State Organization/
Agency Surveyed
Organization/ Agency Description
Colorado Department of
Transportation
Functions as funding pass through agency; review
project scopes and budgets ( project selection
committee member); provides technical support
Massachusetts MassRIDES Administers statewide TDM program on behalf of
Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation
Michigan Department of
Transportation
Administers statewide vanpool program and other
alternative mode programs
New Mexico Mid- region Council of
Governments
Currently working on study to develop a
statewide ridesharing program
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Administers statewide rural vanpool program;
manages eight urban TDM programs
implemented in service areas throughout the state
Ohio Mid Ohio Regional
Planning Commission
Hosts statewide ridesharing database; administers
TDM programs for largest metropolitan planning
organization in the state
Utah Utah Transit Authority Administers state’s TDM programs
Vermont Vermont Economic
Development Authority
Administers statewide interest free loan vanpool
program
Virginia Department of Rails and
Public Transportation
Funds statewide vanpool subsidy program and
implements Telework! VA
It might be useful to discuss the history of state involvement in ridesharing over the past
30 years to help understand the current role. In 1974, an emergency act of Congress
allowed states to use federal- aid funds to finance rideshare programs in response to the
oil embargo. As such, state DOTs, which largely controlled federal- aid monies, were
instrumental in developing and funding rideshare programs. For example, California
DOT ( Caltrans) maintained annual contracts with private non- profit organizations across
the state to deliver ridesharing services and set performance standards and program
targets. Caltrans also developed a standardized method for estimating the impact of
programs in terms of commuter placement into ridesharing modes.
However, with the advent of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
( CMAQ) funding in the early 1990s, control of funds available for ridesharing shifted
from states to Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPOs). Today, most regional
ridesharing programs are funded, managed, and/ or overseen by the regional MPO or
another local agency. In most states, this has resulted in state DOTs reducing the state
role in rideshare funding or coordination.
17
Statewide Ridesharing Policies and Programs
Policies
Most of the agencies and organizations participating in the survey provide some level of
statewide ridesharing and/ or vanpooling support. Three respondents cited a specific
statewide policy or regulation. In addition, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Utah mentioned
the inclusion of ridesharing in their state’s Long Range Transportation Plan as a strategy
to manage and operate the statewide transportation system more efficiently ().
Of the three respondents citing specific regulations, two said the regulations in their states
( Massachusetts and Utah) related to employer based trip reduction programs and have a
more urban focus. Regulations in the other ( Vermont) are related to providing an
economically viable option to transport workers and has a more rural focus. The
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, through the implementation of
Massachusetts Rideshare Regulation ( 310 CMR 7.6), requires businesses of a certain size
to develop plans and evaluate progress on reducing commuter drive- alone trips.
Similarly, Utah has implemented a state statute to improve air quality through the
reduction of vehicle trips ( Utah Code Title 19, Chapter 02). Vermont’s ridesharing policy
gives the Vermont Economic Development Authority ( VEDA) power to facilitate the
purchase of vans by private entities for the purpose of ridesharing arrangements ( 10
V. S. A § 280 g). Eligible groups can purchase the vans using low- interest or interest- free
loans provided by VEDA and the Vermont DOT.
The respondents were asked how important ridesharing regulations and inclusion of
ridesharing in state transportation plans are to statewide ridesharing program success.
States with employer based trip reduction program regulations said that the regulations
are not widely enforced. Only a small number of employers are concerned with failing
to comply. As a result, the regulations provide little assistance to the organizations
working with employers to implement ridesharing programs. States that include
ridesharing in state transportation plans believe it can be helpful to establishing statewide
support and funding, especially if the plan includes specific and measurable actions to
implement ridesharing.
Programs
As mentioned above, most agencies and organizations participating in the survey provide
some level of statewide ridesharing and/ or vanpooling assistance. Statewide support
largely depends on the funding available, the number of organizations providing
transportation demand management ( TDM) programs throughout the state, and the desire
among the state and TDM organizations to participate in a statewide program. Below are
some examples of the varying levels of support that are provided.
Colorado – Colorado DOT ( CoDOT) does not administer any statewide TDM
programs and instead relies on three local MPOs to implement TDM programs.
CoDOT functions as the funding pass- through agency and also reviews the
project scopes and budgets as a member of the CMAQ funding project selection
committee for each MPO. CoDOT also provides technical support to
18
organizations and individuals across the state regarding TDM activities and
strategies. While the MPOs promote programs separately, the vanpool
coordinators at each MPO do meet monthly to discuss programs and also
participate in joint marketing efforts for vanpooling initiatives when appropriate.
Massachusetts - Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation ( MEOT) is a
strong supporter of a statewide ridesharing and vanpool program. A private
contractor implements the statewide program ( MassRIDES) on behalf of MEOT.
The primary component of the program is employer outreach, with supporting
services such as hosting and administering a statewide rideshare database and
Emergency Ride Home program. MassRIDES also reaches out to transportation
management associations ( TMAs) and other organizations that provide
ridesharing and vanpooling services throughout the state in an attempt to
coordinate programs. However, coordination among the various organizations
can be a challenge, given the limited federal and state funding for TDM programs
and the varying interests of the groups involved.
North Carolina - The North Carolina DOT ( NCDOT) rideshare program is
another example of a state playing a strong support role for ridesharing services.
NCDOT relies on the existing TDM organizations to provide the majority of these
services. NCDOT provides statewide support through TDM program start- up
funding and management of existing TDM programs across the state. NCDOT
also provides funding to a well- established TDM organization to host a statewide
rideshare database. NCDOT partners with this organization and other TDM
organizations across the state to market statewide online ridesharing services
( ShareTheRideNC. org). The website provides seamless marketing and promotion
for rideshare programs across the state.
In addition, NCDOT administers a statewide rural vanpool program in
conjunction with urban vanpool programs operated by other TDM providers in
the state. A private vanpool vendor operates NCDOT’s rural vanpool program
with non- CMAQ funds ( Jobs Access Reverse Commute funds). The TDM
providers in other areas of the state use more traditional funding sources to
administer the local vanpool programs.
Michigan – Several years ago Michigan DOT ( MiDOT) supported a more
centralized ridesharing program; however, after state reassignments of funding,
most of the ridesharing activities are now provided by local rideshare
organizations. MiDOT does administer a statewide vanpool program implemented
by a private vanpool vendor ( with the exception of the Western Corridor of the
state - RapidVan Program). MiDOT’s vanpool program ( MichiVan), which uses
CMAQ funds as its primary funding source, focuses on providing vanpool
services in the more urbanized areas of the state. While MiDOT does not have a
statewide ridesharing program and no real resources to motivate coordination
among the various local rideshare organizations, it has maintained a certain level
of program unity statewide. MiDOT accomplishes this through its toll free
19
information line and website, both of which direct interested individuals to the
appropriate local rideshare agency in the state. MiDOT also administers a
Carpool Parking Lot Program that provides more than 200 carpool parking lots at
locations across the state.
Ohio – Prior to 2000, Ohio DOT ( OhDOT) sponsored a centralized statewide
rideshare program. In 2000, OhDOT relinquished administration and oversight of
the statewide program to Ohio MPOs. Prior to relinquishing administration and
oversight duties, OhDOT played a significant role in overseeing the ridesharing
programs throughout the state. OhDOT provided federal funds for the operation
of locally directed ridesharing programs and required each to participate in joint
marketing of carpool and vanpool services ( including the VanOhio Program).
Little coordination exists among these groups today. Ride Solutions– the largest
local rideshare agency servicing Ohio– does receive CMAQ funding to host the
statewide rideshare database, but only a small amount of funding is available to
promote it as a statewide resource.
Utah - Utah is an example of a state with only one TDM provider – the Utah
Transit Authority ( UTA). UTA is responsible for administering all ridesharing
and vanpooling services in Utah, with very little support from any other agencies.
While the programs are considered statewide, the size of the service area for the
UTA programs is governed to a great extent by the type of funding used to
operate the programs. Moreover, the vanpool program, which is funded by both
state and federal resources, is a truly statewide program. However, the
ridesharing program, which is primarily funded with federal CMAQ dollars, does
not extend beyond the counties eligible to receive CMAQ funding.
Non- Metropolitan Focus
For the most part, the ridesharing and vanpooling services provided by the agencies
participating in this survey are available in both urban and non- urban areas. Most
agencies allow the market to drive the location and concentration of programs, and, as a
result, the majority of programs are concentrated in the more urban areas of their states.
The focus of attention for the non- urban programs is more on transporting workers and
elderly residents and less on mitigating air pollution and traffic congestion. Three
agencies implementing programs in non- urban areas of the state commented that these
programs have seen minimal success ( Interest Free Vanpool Loan programs in Vermont
and Utah, Rural Vanpool Program in North Carolina). The Mid- Ohio Regional Planning
Commission ( RPC), however, has found the rural programs they offer to be particularly
successful. The rural programs allow the Mid- Ohio RPC to provide low- income
residents access to jobs and to form partnerships with organizations it might not reach
otherwise.
Program Funding
Most of the agencies surveyed justify requested ridesharing and vanpool program funding
by providing participation information and data on travel and emissions reductions to
funding agencies. Consequently, these agencies find it easier to gain funding support. The
20
primary funding source used to support ridesharing and vanpooling is Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funding.
Some of the agencies surveyed distinguish between funding sources for urban and non-urbanareas.
In these cases, CMAQ funds are concentrated in the more urban areas, while
other federal, state, and local sources are used to fund the non- urban areas. North
Carolina DOT, for example, uses Jobs Access Reverse Commute ( JARC) funds matched
with state operating funds to pay for its rural vanpool program. The Utah Transit
Authority uses local sales tax revenues in conjunction with CMAQ funds to supplement
vanpool services in urban areas of the state and provide vanpool services in less urban
areas ( non- CMAQ eligible areas).
Most survey participants did not have information to share on funding allocations by
expenditure type ( staffing, incentives, paid media, etc.) For the two agencies providing
this information, nearly 60% is allocated to management and staffing ( including program
administration and staff outreach). Allocation of the remaining funds varied significantly
between the two agencies, largely because the services they provide are quite different.
For example, Utah’s program allocates $ 100,000 of its budget to vanpool maintenance.
Massachusetts, the other agency that provided funding allocation by expenditure type,
does not have a vanpool maintenance budget because it relies on private vanpool vendors
to operate vanpools in the state.
Ridesharing Support and Coordination
With the exception of Utah Transit Authority, the state transportation agencies
participating in this survey rely heavily on local rideshare or TDM organizations to
implement ridesharing and vanpooling programs in local service areas across the state.
Employers and other local organizations assist in marketing and promoting ridesharing
and vanpool programs. In North Carolina, the statewide vanpool program utilizes the help
of local health and human service organizations to market and promote the rural
statewide vanpool program. Through the MassRIDES Partnership Program, MEOT
encourages employers to provide incentives to employees, such as transit subsidies,
preferential parking for high- occupancy vehicles ( HOVs), and promotional incentives.
Utah Transit Authority credits a large amount of its vanpool program’s success to
employers providing Commuter Choice subsidies to employees.
The level of support provided by the various agencies and organizations involved varies
significantly. Utah Transit Authority employs nine full- time staff to operate its statewide
ridesharing and vanpool program ( one program director, four rideshare marketing
specialists, one carpool/ vanpool matching specialist, one vanpool maintenance person,
one accounting coordinator, and one safety vehicle coordinator). In Massachusetts, the
state has one part- time staff member who manages the statewide program contract, while
the private contractor for the statewide program employs 15 full- time staff members.
Michigan DOT employs one full- time staff person, with supplemental support as needed,
to manage the statewide vanpool program and other ridesharing support programs. North
Carolina DOT has approval to use CMAQ funding to hire one full- time staff person to
21
manage the various TDM programs across the state; however, the person has not been
hired yet. Both believe one staff person is sufficient, given that a private vendor operates
their statewide vanpool programs and local rideshare organizations provide outreach for
ridesharing and vanpooling programs. The staff at each local rideshare organization
varies across both states; some may employ one staff person while other larger programs
may employ up to seven staff.
States with multiple rideshare and vanpool service providers try to coordinate activities as
much as possible. However, they do find it difficult to consistently coordinate activities
because of the varying markets and programs offered. North Carolina and Michigan
provide the best examples of seamless statewide ridesharing and vanpooling programs,
even though the programs are not offered by one organization statewide.
Role of State in Ridesharing
As mentioned previously, all the state transportation agencies surveyed provide some
level of support for ridesharing and vanpooling programs. The support has become more
decentralized over the past several years. For the most part, state transportation agencies
rely on local MPOs, transit agencies, and other groups to provide localized ridesharing
services. There are primarily three reasons for the decentralization: 1) a lack of state
funding or a state funding channel to support a statewide program; 2) MPOs have more
direct control over federal funds that can be used for ridesharing; and 3) local agencies,
like MPOs, believe they can more effectively develop and implement transportation
services in their local service areas.
In areas where state funding is available, state transportation agencies will help promote
local area programs. The coordination between the state and local area programs seems
to work particularly well in North Carolina and Michigan, and to a lesser extent in
Massachusetts. In North Carolina, program success is likely due to the fact that the state
plays a key role in funding many of the established local area TDM programs. In fact,
North Carolina’s reliance on a local TDM organization to administer the statewide
database and website and on local TDM organizations to populate the database
underscores the importance of local involvement in programs. Michigan does not have a
statewide rideshare database; however, Michigan DOT’s website and toll free telephone
line directs commuters to the appropriate local rideshare agency, giving the appearance of
a more seamless program.
MEOT, which administers its own statewide rideshare database, has found it challenging
to coordinate resources among the local area TDM programs across the state ( including
local area support of the statewide database). The lack of support is likely due to the lack
of funding provided to local area programs by MEOT.
Program Implementation and Delivery
All but two of the organizations surveyed have been providing ridesharing and/ or
vanpooling services for 20 years or more. All survey respondents said interest has grown
over time, although some mentioned that some programs have been harder to get off the
22
ground than others. Every agency and organization participating in the survey
implements and delivers programs differently.
In North Carolina, local TDM program agencies determine the TDM services provided
and set service area boundaries. The local TDM programs across the state promote
services differently; however, advertising and marketing is similar. TDM programs near
each other periodically meet to coordinate activities. The statewide rural vanpool
program is offered in the areas outside the established TDM program service area
boundaries to avoid competition with established local TDM programs. NCDOT
procures and evaluates the contract for the statewide vanpool program, while the
contractor operates, markets, and promotes the program.
In Massachusetts, all implementation and delivery activities of the statewide TDM
program are the responsibility of the statewide TDM contractor under the direction of
MEOT. Optimizing available transit options, the effectiveness of incentives, and
responding to the employee recruiting/ retention needs of the business community
determine services offered. All travel options programs are available equally to any
employer or traveler, regardless of whether the employer/ traveler is inside a metropolitan
area or not.
MassRIDES attempts to work with other organizations providing TDM services across
the state, however, coordination among the groups can be a challenge. MassRIDES is
finding greater success working with communities outside established TMA service
areas. Ideally, MassRIDES would employ staff in these locations to provide more
personalized service and to gain local knowledge and presence, while implementing the
statewide program and other programs as needed.
In Michigan, service areas and services offered are determined by the market and the
ability to use CMAQ funds. The local rideshare agencies provide ridesharing services,
marketing, and incentives in their respective service areas. In Utah, the TDM programs
are applied throughout the state, with a focus in urban areas of the state covered by
CMAQ funds ( five counties). In Virginia, the TDM services offered vary by local needs;
all programs are implemented by local TDM agencies except Telework! VA, which is a
state program.
Encouraging Employer Involvement
All of the organizations participating in the survey view employer involvement as critical
to program success, especially in more urbanized areas. In more urban areas, the
messages are focused on traffic congestion issues and employee frustrations with
traveling to and from work. In rural areas, the messages often focus on travel to and from
work for commuters who may have no other transportation available. For example, the
Mid- Ohio RPC believes that working through human resource agencies to reach
commuters who might not be able to travel to and from work otherwise and providing
retention/ relocation guidance to employers are key program elements.
23
Michigan DOT, North Carolina DOT, UTA, and Mid- Ohio RPC use the Commuter
Choice Tax Incentive to encourage employer involvement. Massachusetts creates formal
partnerships with employers to promote involvement, recommending the employers
provide transit subsidies, preferential parking for HOVs, and other promotional
incentives to encourage employee participation. Employer based trip reduction policies
in Massachusetts and Utah also help encourage employer involvement to some extent.
Marketing and Promotion of Program
As mentioned previously, local rideshare agencies promote programs locally in
Michigan. Michigan supports the local programs through a toll free hotline and website,
both of which direct interested individuals to the appropriate local rideshare agency.
Michigan has a large transit program, and ridesharing is viewed as an arm of this
program. While none of the traditional TDM programs receive public transit funds, they
do receive some benefits of the funds through public transit marketing. Public transit
agencies use it as an opportunity to market not only transit, but ridesharing and other
TDM programs.
Face- to- face outreach and electronic communication are the primary methods of
marketing and promotion for many of the organizations participating in the survey.
Outreach may take place at an employer worksite event, a transportation fair, or through
direct contact with existing rideshare database applicants. Websites, newsletters, and
direct email correspondence are the primary means for electronic communications.
While only a few of the organizations have funding available for paid media ( primarily
radio), all market programs through public relations. Utah employs very little marketing,
relying on word of mouth and the 410 vans on the road to raise awareness and interest in
the program.
Most/ Least Effective Program Elements
When asked about the most and least effective program elements, the agencies and
organizations participating in the survey offered the following:
Most effective program elements
• Employer outreach and employer partnerships
• Customer service
• Employer related tax incentives ( Commuter Choice)
• Guaranteed Ride Home/ Emergency Ride Home services
• Flat rate structure for vanpool
• Electronic communication ( Internet rideshare application submittal, online
ridematching, and websites)
• In rural areas specifically, providing low- income residents access to jobs, keeping
vanpool rates stable, and forming partnerships with local human resource
agencies
24
Least effective and most challenging program elements
• Getting policy leaders and business executives to understand the value of TDM
programs
• Securing funding and competing for transportation dollars ( public transit funding
competition specifically)
• Competing with other commute alternatives, like commuter rail lines
• Limited funding available to provide incentives to encourage program use
• Coordination with other TDM providers
• Growing TDM programs in rural areas
• Vanpool formation and maintaining ridership at required levels
Vanpooling Programs
Operations
Five state agencies administer statewide vanpooling programs. Two are the sole vanpool
provider for the state ( Vermont and Utah). Vermont’s circumstances are unique in that
they operate a vanpool loan program and require the entity purchasing the van ( group of
private individuals or company/ employer) to handle all aspects of vanpool operation. The
Utah Transit Authority administers all aspects of the statewide vanpooling program.
UTA chooses to run all aspects of the vanpool program because of the capital assets
associated with owning the vans. UTA also collects National Transit Data ( NTD) reports
and annual insurance premiums from riders. However, the funds generated and insurance
premiums are placed in UTA’s general fund and are typically not used to fund vanpool
operations.
The three other state agencies administer vanpool programs in conjunction with other
organizations providing vanpooling services in the state. Michigan provides vanpool
services statewide with the exception of the Western Corridor of the state ( RapidVan
Program). Although Massachusetts’ program is statewide, other organizations across the
state also provide vanpool services within local territories. North Carolina administers a
statewide vanpool program in the rural areas of the state, while transit providers in three
other service areas operate separate local vanpool programs.
All three agencies rely on private vanpool vendors to administer the program. Two of the
states have informal agreements with private vanpool vendors to administer vanpool
programs. Each Ohio MPO has a memorandum of understanding with a private vanpool
vendor that outlines the relationship of the vanpool vendor and the respective MPO.
In Massachussetts, MassRIDES has established a Vanpool Alliance, an agreement
between MassRIDES and the various vanpool vendors across the state. The agreement
states that MassRIDES will be a vanpool vendor neutral partner. Primarily through its
employer outreach program, MassRIDES promotes vanpooling and coordinates vanpool
formation activities with commuters and vendors. MassRIDES provides all employers a
one- page description of the various services offered by each vanpool vendor. All
vanpoolers are eligible for the state’s Emergency Ride Home ( ERH) program; the
MassRIDES Vanpool Coordinator administers ERH and other vanpool benefits,
25
including verification for personal automobile insurance discounts. MEOT believes the
Vanpool Alliance is the most efficient and effective type of vanpool operation, as it
creates a competitive marketplace for vehicle variety and for pricing options.
Michigan DOT and North Carolina DOT have contracts with one private vanpool vendor
to operate their statewide vanpool programs. Both DOTs rely on the vanpool vendors’
expertise, working closely with the vendors to establish work plans, goals, and planned
expenditures. The DOTs believe allowing a private vendor to administer the statewide
program is the most efficient and cost effective way to implement the program ( decreases
administrative cost by avoiding the need to employ a staff person at each location
throughout the state). The state DOTs are involved with approving routes, review of
invoices, review of ridership, and reviewing monthly reports. The contractor is
responsible for the qualification and pricing of routes.
In Virginia, vanpools are formed through the various local agencies providing TDM
services. For the exception of one transit agency that administers its own vanpool
program, the local agencies refer potential vanpoolers to private vanpool vendors
available in the area. Most of the Virginia vanpools are owner/ independent – one of the
largest such fleets in the nation travels the I- 95 corridor. Virginia Department of Rail and
Public Transportation ( DRPT) provides assistance through the Vanpool Assistance
program ( VanSave/ VanStart) and is also working to set up a vanpool insurance pool.
Financing Techniques
The primary funding source used to support vanpooling for the states participating in the
survey is CMAQ funding. Other federal sources of funding include Jobs Access Reverse
Commute ( JARC) funds. North Carolina DOT, for example, uses JARC funds matched
with state operating funds to pay for its rural vanpool program. The Utah Transit
Authority uses local sales tax revenue in conjunction with CMAQ funds to supplement
vanpool services in urban areas of the state and provide vanpool services in less urban
areas ( non- CMAQ eligible areas).
Some of the agencies surveyed distinguish between urban and non- urban funding
sources. In these cases, CMAQ funds are concentrated in the more urban areas, while
other state and local sources are used to fund the non- urban areas. North Carolina uses
federal JARC funds and state funds to pay for 50% of the costs for its vanpool program.
Employer subsidies and rider fares make up the remaining 50% of the cost.
In Ohio and Massachusetts, where the states have a memorandum of understanding with
private vanpool vendors, the private vendors finance vanpool operations. The Mid- Ohio
RPC and MEOT use a small portion of CMAQ funding to help form and maintain
ridership on the vans.
With the exception of Utah Transit Authority, none of the agencies surveyed are using
National Transit Database ( NTD) funding to support vanpooling; however, several
mentioned that they are trying to implement it. Virginia is trying to work out an NTD
reporting agreement with the transit agency servicing its area, but is having difficultly
26
with the transit agency insurance requirements. Virginia wanted to use the NTD
reporting to help reduce the costs of vanpooling to riders. When they realized this option
may not be feasible, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation began
researching the creation of a vanpool insurance pool to offer competition and increase
availability of coverage. Another big obstacle for Virginia is the Federal Transit
Administration’s reluctance to use data from owner/ independent vanpools. Hampton
Roads Transit does record mileage for NTD and the Greater Richmond Transit Company
is doing the same.
Strategies to Encourage Vanpool Formation/ Ridership
The type of incentives and supporting services provided to vanpoolers also varied among
those participating in the survey. MassRIDES offers financial incentives that support
new vanpool formation, as well as short- term rider referral and new passenger rewards.
MassRIDES analyzes travel origins for each worksite and targets vanpooling where
density, distance, and schedules make it a viable option ().
Michigan DOT provides assistance through its website and toll free hotline, while the
local rideshare agencies provide direct outreach and administer TDM programs. NCDOT
meets with employers and has also used home- based outreach to promote the statewide
vanpool program but does not directly offer incentives to vanpoolers. NCDOT does not
currently use the statewide rideshare database to help form vanpools, as the state is too
large to support such an effort. The database would have to see significant growth in
order to match potential vanpoolers.
In Utah, UTA takes a more hands- off approach to vanpool formation due to the current
high level of interest in the program. Typically, interested commuters call UTA’s
vanpool program and UTA places them on a waiting list. When UTA sees that enough
people could make a possible route, they give the names to the other interested
vanpoolers and the potential vanpoolers are responsible for calling each other and
creating the vanpool. UTA credits program success to the large number of federal
employers who use the Commuter Choice Tax Incentive.
Twenty- two of the 32 vanpools in the Mid- Ohio Regional Planning Commission service
area are federal employee vanpools, most of which receive the Commute Choice Tax
Benefit Incentive. The large fleet of federal employee vanpools helps in vanpool
formation and maintaining ridership. Matchlists and a 3- month referral subsidy ($ 50
referral prize) are the primary strategies used by the Mid- Ohio RPC to form and maintain
vanpools. The RPC will use other incentives, such as a vanpool subsidy for one month or
an empty seat subsidy, as needed ().
The strategies used in Virginia to encourage vanpool ridership vary by market distance to
core destination work areas and availability of HOV lanes with adequate park and ride
lots. In some cases, private vanpool vendors independently market vanpools in close
coordination with local TDM agencies. Incentive programs to form and maintain
ridership are also popular ( VDRPT VanStart/ VanSave program).
27
Costs to Riders/ Fare Structure
Vanpool fares typically include the lease, maintenance, insurance, and licensing costs of
the van. Some vendors set rates per vehicle and others set rates per rider. Most providers
vary pricing by days in operation, van capacity, number of riders, and miles traveled.
Only one state participating in the survey offers a set fee ( flat rate) for vanpoolers;
Michigan offers a flat rate structure with three different pricing arrangements.
Some of the programs require riders to pay 100% of costs, while other programs are able
to reduce the costs to riders by using available funding sources or by encouraging
employers to participate in programs to reduce the costs to riders. For example,
vanpoolers participating in the North Carolina statewide rural vanpool program pay a fare
ranging from $ 3-$ 7/ day. A large number of employers in Utah and Virginia subsidize
the costs of vanpooling for riders by participating in the Commuter Choice Tax Incentive
program. Virginia, through its VanStart/ VanSave program, is able to temporarily reduce
vanpool costs for commuters starting a new vanpool or saving an existing one.
Minimum Number of Riders
Most agencies have minimum requirements for vanpool ridership, varying by the overall
ridership capacity of the van. In most cases, if ridership drops below the vehicle’s
established ridership, the existing riders may pay higher rates and/ or vendors or the
sponsoring organization may choose to provide a short- term subsidy. At least one state
has a clause in its contract with vanpoolers allowing the vanpool group to withdraw from
its contract if the vanpool becomes too expensive due to decreased ridership.
North Carolina has a five rider minimum for its rural vanpools urban area vanpools have
a seven rider minimum. After the number drops below the minimum, the route is placed
on probation for 60- 90 days. If the number of riders does not increase, then the vanpool is
dropped. Vanpoolers participating in Michigan’s state program have a 30- day grace
period to find replacement riders; if they are unable to find riders, they must downsize or
terminate the vanpool. Michigan relies on its private vanpool contractor and the riders
themselves to find vanpool replacements. Virginia uses the Van Save portion of its
statewide incentive program to offer assistance to vanpools that are dropping below
minimum ridership levels.
Conclusions
The survey of state DOTs revealed some key trends that might assist Arizona DOT
determine the need for and role for the state in ridesharing services for non- urban areas:
• In general, states no longer directly manage and fund ridesharing services as they
may have 20 years ago. Funding and management tends to be centralized at the
regional level, largely due to CMAQ.
• Few states maintain or manage specific non- urban programs, the exceptions being
vanpool acquisition and maintenance of a statewide toll- free number.
• Some states fund activities, such as vanpooling, in non- urbanized areas that are
not eligible for CMAQ funding.
28
• Statewide ridematching services, when offered, are operated by a regional
program under contract to the state.
• Therefore, the current role for state DOTs tends to be focused in a few key areas,
including:
• Vanpool fleet acquisition or loans, pooled insurance, and statewide
contracts
• Referral of calls to statewide phone number to appropriate regional
program
• Limited coordination of regional programs, based largely on historical ties
• Integration of ridesharing into statewide plans or policies.
As such, the current role of state DOTs in ridesharing might best be described as
facilitative and supportive, especially in assuring vanpool services are available in all
parts of the state.
Other Contacts
Massachusetts
Vanpool Alliance
Martin Murphy
( 617) 892- 6084
North Carolina
Rural Statewide Vanpool Program
Byron York, President of 2Plus, Inc.
( 919) 363- 0021
Triangle Transit Authority
John Tallmadge
( 919) 485- 7430
Vermont
Vermont Agency of Transportation
Karen Songhurst
( 808) 828- 1078
Virginia
Commuter Connections
Nicholas Ramfos
( 202) 962- 3313
29
CHAPTER 4 – INFORMATION GATHERING AND NEEDS
ASSESSMENT IN ARIZONA
TASK 4 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY
The next step involved an assessment of the need for ridesharing and vanpool services in
key corridors and communities throughout Arizona. Overall, the Project Consulting team
aimed to develop a prioritized list of communities that might have a need for these
services and be interested in helping facilitate needed services. More specifically, the
team worked to identify, contact, and interview representatives from a select number of
areas within the state.
The steps undertaken to locate these prioritized areas were:
1. Sent a “ qualifying” questionnaire of need and interest to a list of chambers of
commerce provided by AzDOT.
2. From the six responses to this questionnaire, conducted follow- up telephone
interviews with five chambers ( Flagstaff, Kingman, Bullhead City, Lake Havasu
and Copper Basin). All except the Copper Basin chamber, perceived real and
immediate problems with traffic and mobility that ridesharing and vanpooling
services might help solve.
3. From these two sets of inquiries, recommended two priority areas to AzDOT for
future assessment: a) Flagstaff ( Coconino County) and b) the Kingman/ Bullhead
City/ Lake Havasu City area ( Mohave County).
4. Held in- person meetings with chamber staff and local agencies in Bullhead City
and Flagstaff to elicit a more detailed discussion on the need for, interest in, and
support for ridesharing and vanpooling services.
After the needs assessment was conducted, the project team concluded that two areas –
Flagstaff and the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area – exhibited similar
characteristics and needs:
• Both have traffic congestion on local and regional roads, especially during peak
commute times and when large numbers of visitors travel into the areas.
• Both areas have growing commute- related issues as both affordable housing and
employment locate further from each city’s core area.
• Both areas have transit services that provide a basic level of service for residents,
commuters, and visitors. Unmet needs include some travel by the elderly,
residents with cars that transit cannot conveniently serve, and some commuter
services, like that to employment centers outside the core cities.
30
• Both areas have contemplated ridesharing services in the past, either in terms of
vanpool opportunities ( Mojave County) or ridematching ( Northern Arizona
Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority, NAIPTA).
• Both have been working with AzDOT to explore mobility issues: the tri- city
Mohave area in terms of coordinated transit services and Flagstaff in terms of
access to statewide ridematching services.
• Both areas voiced considerable need for and interest in offering ridesharing
services. The need in the tri- city Mohave area seems to be for the coordination
of new and existing services between the cities that might be consolidated with a
ridesharing program. The need in the Flagstaff area seems to be the organization
of employers and marketing efforts for existing and new services.
After the needs of Arizona were assessed and the target areas identified, the
recommendation of the project team was to develop implementation plans for each area
( Flagstaff and the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area) for the development
and deployment of ridesharing and vanpooling services.
TASK 4 DELIVERABLE
Introduction
The overall purpose of this research is to investigate the potential for a statewide
ridesharing and vanpool program for Arizona, specifically in non- metropolitan areas
where established ridesharing programs don’t already exist.
This research will investigate the need for, logistics of, and funding options for a
statewide ridesharing and vanpooling program. The final product of this research is an
Implementation Plan that includes key corridors, start- up considerations, staffing, and
operational guidelines, as well as funding options for capitalizing the statewide program.
Task 4 involved five steps intended to gather information on the need and support for
ridesharing and vanpooling services in key areas around the state ( outside of Maricopa
and Pima Counties). This task involved the identifying, contacting, and interviewing
people in a select number of areas in the state. Each step is enumerated below and
described in more detail in the remainder of this chapter. The chapter concludes with
some overall findings and preliminary recommendations for the implementation plan.
Step 4.1 Qualifying Potential Contacts
Step 4.2 Screening Contacts
Step 4.3 Short- list of Prospects
Step 4.4 Site Interviews with Prospects
Step 4.5 Summary of Findings from Prospects
31
Step 4.1 – Qualifying Potential Contacts
The AzDOT research and transit staff serving on the projects’ Technical Advisory
Committee provided the project team with a list of chambers of commerce in key
corridors and in non- metropolitan areas that might have a need for rideshare and vanpool
services. The list of chambers and contacts is included in Appendix A.
From this list, a brief qualifying questionnaire ( Appendix B) was sent in November 2006
via e- mail to the list of chambers of commerce for which valid contacts were available.
The questionnaire was sent by AzDOT in order to maximize the response rate. The
questionnaire included 10 questions to assess perceptions, needs, and funding
possibilities.
Step 4.2 – Screening Contacts
The following six chambers of commerce responded to the initial qualifying survey:
• Flagstaff
• Kingman
• Bullhead City
• Lake Havasu
• Eloy
• Copper Basin
A set of questions ( Appendix C) to assess the need for and disposition toward rideshare
and vanpool services was sent in January 2007 to the six contacts that responded to the
initial inquiry. These questions were sent to help in conducting telephone interviews with
the parties in AzDOT’s research into rideshare service needs. The questions probed local
issues and characteristics, such as: 1) the perceived severity of traffic congestion and
commute issues, 2) the need for ridesharing services and the potential role of area
employers, 3) past efforts to address commuting and mobility issues, and 4) potential
forums and partners to support ridesharing and vanpooling services.
Interviews were conducted with representatives of five of the chambers of commerce.
The original contact for Eloy’s chamber was no longer employed there and a referral was
not available. A representative of the Copper Basin Chamber of Commerce stated in a
telephone interview that there were not really any traffic problems in the area and it had
an insufficient number of large employers to warrant ridesharing and vanpooling services
except perhaps for the correction facility in nearby Florence.
Step 4.3 - Short- List of Prospects
The responses received from the four areas made two things apparent. First, real
congestion and mobility problems exist in these areas and ridesharing was favorably
perceived as one solution. Second, commonality of issues and contiguousness of the
three cities in Mojave County warranted their being considered together.
32
In assessing whether sufficient need and interest existed to go the next step and warrant
face- to- face interviews, the following criteria were considered to assess the need for
transportation management partnerships: 19
• Sufficient population and density
• Presence and nature of congestion
• Well- defined geographic area
• Growth in population and employment
• Accessibility to transit, parking and other mobility options
• Existence of a “ champion” to spearhead the effort
• Existence of a core group or existing organization to undertake effort
• History of public/ private partnerships to tackle area issues
• Commitment to provide human and financial resources
Based on the responses to the questionnaire and consideration of the above criteria, the
project team recommended to AzDOT that Flagstaff and the Kingman/ Bullhead
City/ Lake Havasu City area be studied further.
Step 4.4 - Site Interviews
Upon approval by AzDOT for further study of these two target areas, the consulting team
set up face- to- face meetings in Bullhead City and Flagstaff in March 2007. Staff from
the Bullhead City and Flagstaff chambers organized each meeting.
The meeting in Bullhead City included representatives from Kingman, Bullhead City,
Lake Havasu City and Laughlin, Nevada. Representatives from each of the chambers in
the tri- city area, as well as representatives from the county and from transit service
providers attended the meeting. Appendix D is a summary of this meeting, including
results from preceding telephone contacts and a list of attendees.
Growth in Mojave County and travel in and between these three cities and to Laughlin
have clearly created some substantial mobility needs that are not being fully met with
existing transit services. The current closing of the roads across the Hoover and Davis
dams exacerbates this problem. Perhaps the greatest unmet need is for non- commute
trips that cannot be conveniently served with transit. Participants in the meetings were
enthusiastic about the prospects for a coordinated approach to shared rides for all three
cities. However, the nature and specifics of those shared ride services clearly needs more
definition.
The meeting in Flagstaff included representatives from the chamber and from the
Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transit Authority. Appendix E is a summary
of this meeting, including findings from the telephone interview with the Flagstaff
chamber and a list of attendees.
19 ESTC, TMS, et al, “ Research and Recommendations on ARC Support to Local Transportation
Management Programs: Part 1 Study Report,” prepared for the Atlanta Regional Commission, September,
2001.
33
The situation in Flagstaff was somewhat different in that commuting issues were a
greater impetus for this community. Employers in the region have some difficulty
recruiting employees who face long- distance commutes to affordable housing areas,
including on the Navajo Nation. Likewise, city employees park on- street downtown,
taking parking spaces from visitors and shoppers. Efforts are already underway to
procure and install a ridematching system, but the marketing and support for that service
has not been arranged. A partnership of key private and public interests to support
ridesharing and vanpooling seems ripe in Flagstaff.
The Governor’s executive order ordering AzDOT to study Arizona’s mass transportation
options20 was discussed at both meetings to provide clarification between the two efforts.
Some confusion existed due to the convening of meetings on that initiative at about the
same time as the meetings for this project were held. Contact was made with the
consultant who was conducting the meetings regarding the executive order to clarify the
purpose of each effort.
The summary of each group interview was circulated to the meeting organizers ( Bullhead
City and Flagstaff chambers) for comments. No substantive comments or corrections
were received.
Step 4.5 - Summary of Finding
The interviews with interested parties in Bullhead City ( tri- city area?) and Flagstaff were
very informative in helping assess the need and potential support for ridesharing and
vanpooling services in each area. Several commonalities exist between the two areas:
• Both experience traffic congestion on local and regional roads, especially during
peak commute times and when large numbers of visitors travel into the areas.
• Both areas are experiencing growing commute- related issues as both affordable
housing and employment locate further from each city’s core area.
• Both areas have transit services that provide a basic level of service for residents,
commuters, and visitors. Unmet needs include some travel by the elderly and
those with cars that transit cannot conveniently serve and for some commuter
services, like that to employment centers outside the core cities.
• Both areas have contemplated ridesharing services in the past, either in terms of
vanpool opportunities ( Mojave County) or ridematching ( NAIPTA).
• Both have been working with AzDOT to explore mobility issues: the tri- city area
in terms of coordinated transit services and Flagstaff in terms of access to
statewide ridematching services.
20 “ Executive Order 2007- 02: Expanding Arizona’s Transportation Options.” Arizona Administrative
Register 13( 4): 212- 213, January 26, 2007.
34
• Both areas voiced considerable need for and interest in offering ridesharing
services. The need in the tri- city area seems to focus on the coordination of new
and existing services between the cities that might be consolidated with a
ridesharing program. The need in the Flagstaff area seems to be organizing
employers and marketing existing and new services.
• The project team senses that the Flagstaff area is slightly more ready to take on
ridesharing and vanpooling services. However, the Implementation Plan, which is
the final chapter of this study, includes specific recommendations for each of the
two areas. Chapter 5 has implementation plans for both areas ( pending approval
by AzDOT) to include detailed start- up activities for Flagstaff comprised of: 1)
demand for rideshare and vanpool services 2) identification of needed services, 3)
start- up considerations, 4) staffing and funding needs, and 5) operational
guidelines as well as developmental activities for the Kingman/ Bullhead
City/ Lake Havasu area.
35
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
TASK 5 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY
After conducting background research and a needs assessment, the project team
developed four recommendations for AzDOT. The broad recommendations are presented
first, followed by a more detailed explanation and guidelines for each recommendation.
The recommendations are as follows:
1. Flagstaff – The team recommends that AzDOT assist with the start- up of a
ridesharing initiative in the Flagstaff area. The team recommends that the
Chamber of Commerce undertake employer outreach and help coordinate
ridesharing services offered by the Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO)
and the local transit authority. This action will provide the needed marketing for
the new ridematching system acquired from Valley Metro in Phoenix. The new
partnership between the Flagstaff Chamber, the Flagstaff MPO, and NAIPTA can
also promote and form vanpools for commuters with long distance commutes.
2. Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area – The team recommends that a
more detailed feasibility study be conducted for the three cities in Mohave
County. While the need for ridesharing services is fairly apparent, the means to
coordinate and provide these services are not. Therefore, the team recommends
conducting a feasibility study and pilot project to test the demand for commuter
services.
3. Identification of Future Priority Areas – The team recommends periodic
assessments be made with local chambers of commerce, key local agencies, and
AzDOT district offices to determine if conditions warrant the offering of
ridesharing services to address congestion and mobility issues in key corridors or
areas.
4. Role of AzDOT in Fostering Statewide Services – AzDOT can undertake several
supporting activities to facilitate the growth of carpooling and vanpooling in non-urban
areas. First, AzDOT can support a statewide ridematching service similar to
that provided by Valley Metro to Tucson and Flagstaff. AzDOT can also assist
with new vanpool acquisition. Furthermore, AzDOT can provide technical
assistance to areas interested in creating a new ridesharing program with guidance
and funding for start- up. AzDOT can also convene ridesharing program
managers from around the state for networking, training, and technical assistance.
A detailed explanation of each recommendation is the focus of the remaining sections of
this report. The first recommendation outlines an implementation plan for Flagstaff.
Second, the process for undertaking a more detailed feasibility study and pilot in Mohave
County is presented. The final section outlines the activities that AzDOT can do to
identify future areas that have potential for successful ridesharing programs as well as
provide support to ridesharing services statewide.
36
TASK 5 DELIVERABLE
1. Implementation Plan – Flagstaff Area
As noted earlier in response to the needs assessment conducted, Flagstaff appears to be
poised for the implementation of a ridesharing and vanpool program. Some activities
have already taken place. The Flagstaff MPO has noted the need for ridesharing and
NAIPTA is negotiating an Intergovernmental Agreement ( IGA) with AzDOT and Valley
Metro to acquire access to an online ridematching database. The Chamber noted the need
to link employers and workers, including government and university worksites and
outlying private employers such as Nestle, WL Gore, and the Walgreen Distribution
Center. Vanpooling options for long- distance commuters from Winslow and the Navajo
Nation may also be an opportunity area.
The team recommends the start- up of a “ transportation management initiative.” Such an
initiative is not a formal, new organization, such as a Transportation Management
Association; rather it is a collaborative program among existing public and private
organizations. The key is providing a tangible link between commuters and other
travelers, such as visitors, and mobility options. The Chamber can provide the conduit to
employers and NAIPTA can provide needed services, including ridematching, vanpool
acquisition, and transit information. NAIPTA has the services to offer and needs new
avenues to market those services, while the Chamber has existing relationships with
employers and can champion the cause.
This implementation plan includes:
• Structure of transportation management initiative and staffing
• Services to be provided
• Other activities to be undertaken
• Roles and responsibilities
• Work plan outline
• Budget and funding sources
• Benefits of implementation
• Schedule
Structure of the Flagstaff Initiative
The team recommends the formation of an informal public/ private alliance for the
specific purpose of coordinating, marketing, and providing rideshare and vanpool
services. This “ transportation management initiative” ( TMI) should be an alliance
between the Flagstaff Chamber, representing employers and commuters and NAIPTA,
which provides commuter options, including the new online ridematching software. The
formation of transportation management initiatives has been successfully used by Florida
DOT to foster new partnerships without forming new organizations.
A memorandum of understanding ( MOU) between the chamber, NAIPTA, and AzDOT
would suffice to clarify roles, responsibilities, services, and resource allocation. The
Chamber can also convene an advisory group to oversee and advise the initiative and
37
provide some buy- in from key stakeholders. A work plan can be developed to guide the
first year start- up activities, outreach, and service delivery. A more marketable name for
the program can be developed in the first year as well. Afterward, presuming a success-ful
start- up, annual work plans, staffing requirements, and budgets can be developed.
Staffing
Staffing would be shared between the Chamber and NAIPTA, but the team recommends
that the “ face” to the employer, commuter, resident, and visitor be the Chamber
Coordinator, with referral to services from NAIPTA and others. The Flagstaff TMI staff
would report to the Chamber’s Executive Director and its transportation committee or
government affairs director. A close working relationship would be formed between
TMI staff at the Chamber and NAIPTA staff responsible for transit information and two
new services, ridesharing matching and vanpool provision. The start- up and initial
service provision will require a half- time position at the Chamber and staffing equivalent
to one day per week at NAIPTA.
Services to be Provided
The Flagstaff TMI would provide the following services to employers ( public, private,
and educational), commuters, residents, and visitors:
• Employer outreach ( contacting and educating employers)
• Employer services ( information for employers to provide employees)
• Carpool and vanpool formation ( identifying potential groups)
• Parking information for downtown Flagstaff
• Visitor information ( how to get around without a car)
• Commuter ridematching ( online ridematching)
• Transit information
• Vanpool acquisition
While the last three services would be provided by NAIPTA, the Flagstaff TMI would
coordinate all activities and services so that information is seamless to the requestor and
user.
Other Activities
The new alliance could also serve as a voice for transportation demand management
solutions in transportation and growth plans, new development site plan review,
transportation projects, and transit service planning. Given the tie of the Flagstaff TMI to
the end traveler, this could provide a unique and helpful perspective on the ability to
increase vehicle occupancy or avoid travel at the most congested times and places.
Roles and Responsibilities
As noted above, the two key players in this new initiative are the Flagstaff Chamber of
Commerce and NAIPTA. It might be useful to think of the Chamber as the coordinator
and “ retail” outlet for information and services, much of which will be provided by
NAIPTA. The Chamber can provide in- kind resources in the form of office space,
clerical support, and staff coordination. The Chamber can also conduct employer
38
outreach with its members and others and coordinate with other chambers through the
Northern Arizona Chamber Coalition.
NAIPTA can host the ridematching service, provide transit services in the region, and
acquire vans for vanpool groups. A MOU can define these roles and specific
responsibilities during start- up and initial service delivery.
The two other key organizations are the Flagstaff MPO, ( which, along with the City of
Flagstaff, has considered the need for a ridesharing program for several years) and
AzDOT Public Transportation Division. The FMPO can assess the integration of
ridesharing and vanpooling into future transportation plans and AzDOT can provide
technical assistance and start- up funding.
Work Plan Outline
The start- up work plan for the Flagstaff TMI should be developed in concert with the
MOU between the Chamber and NAIPTA and any funding agreements with AzDOT or
others.
The elements of the start- up work plan should include:
• Program structure and coordination ( MOU)
• Program identity and branding
• Program start- up tasks and schedule
• Program staffing responsibilities
• Marketing and promotion
• Employer outreach
• Commuter services
• Reporting and oversight
• Outline of three- year business plan
Assistance with the work plan and TMI organization can be found in the national TMA
Handbook, available from the Association for Commuter Transportation. 21
Budget and Funding Sources
Three key budget elements for the Flagstaff TMI and the services it promotes should be
considered: staffing, marketing, and service acquisition.
Staffing for the first 6- 12 months, as stated earlier, would likely require a half- time
position at the Flagstaff Chamber and about 8- 10 hours per week of staff time at
NAIPTA to coordinate ridesharing service delivery. The cost of these labor resources is
locality specific, but nationally, start- up labor costs might be $ 35,000 ( half time including
fringe benefits). The cost of the additional staff time at NAIPTA could easily be
21 CUTR, TMA Handbook: A Guide to Successful Transportation Management Associations, Association
for Commuter Transportation, 2001. http:// www. nctr. usf. edu/ clearinghouse/ tmas. htm, accessed April 1,
2008.
39
obtained from that agency, but assuming a one- quarter time position, the cost would be
about $ 20,000, including fringe benefits. Finally, management time for the Chamber and
NAIPTA staff responsible for these positions could total another $ 20,000 for
coordination and management. In total, the first year labor costs would approximate to
$ 75,000.
Marketing, not including staff time, includes creative work for a new program on written
materials, web- design, and materials production. The costs for these activities will be
highest in the first year of start- up and will be far less in additional years. The first year
costs are estimated to be $ 50,000.
Finally, service acquisition includes procurement of the ridematching system and vanpool
vehicles. If NAIPTA is a qualifying agency, then it can use the FTA’s Capital Cost of
Contracting provisions to lease the vans and, more importantly, count vanpool miles in
Sec. 5307 NTD reporting. The ridematching system has already been obtained, but
vanpool acquisition might need some state seed funding before the 5307 revenue is
realized.
Therefore, first year labor costs are approximately $ 125,000. Vanpool acquisition is an
additional cost. In most urban areas, CMAQ funds are used to fund ridesharing activities.
However, in other areas that are not eligible for CMAQ, more traditional highway and
transit funds are used. For Flagstaff, sources of funding might include:
• Federal or state highway funds ( e. g., Surface Transportation Program)
• AzDOT transit funding
• Local funds from the FMPO, NAIPTA, the city
• In- kind resources from the Chamber, including office space, equipment, and
clerical support
Benefits of Implementation
The benefits of the proposed Flagstaff Transportation Management Initiative are several,
and include:
• Addresses growth concerns about traffic and quality of life issues
• Provides a service to residents, workers, and visitors
• Addresses unmet transit needs to outlying areas
• Helps reduce parking demand in downtown Flagstaff and at Northern Arizona
University ( NAU)
• Reduces the cost of meeting growth in travel demand with new or enhanced road
capacity
• Provides AzDOT with a pilot process for fostering other initiatives in the state
While these benefits are rather difficult to quantify, the cost effectiveness of demand
management solutions, when compared to other techniques, is generally very favorable. 22
22 ESTC, Alternative Modes as an Air Quality Strategy, prepared for ADOT, Final Report 566, June 2004.
40
Schedule
The general schedule for the first year can be divided into four quarters, once adequate
resources are identified and committed:
First Quarter
• Develop generalized program description and roles
• Develop and seek approval of MOU
• Assemble advisory committee
• Hire and train part- time staff at chamber
• Develop first year work plan
Second Quarter
• Develop program identity and branding concept
• Publicize program to other stakeholders, employers, and the community
• Initiate employer outreach activities
Third Quarter
• Initiate marketing and promotion of program and ridematching
• Initiate specific events at worksites
• Draft three- year business plan and funding options
Fourth Quarter
• Intensify vanpool formation activities
• Develop specific marketing materials ( e. g., downtown parking)
• Prepare first year annual report
2. Coordination Study and Pilot – Kingman, Bullhead City, and Lake Havasu City
area
While the need for transportation management services for commuters, residents, and
visitors was apparent from the needs assessment, the means for coordinating and
providing needed services were less obvious in Mohave County. The two, main, unmet
needs are for commuters that are traveling to large employment centers in Kingman and
Laughlin, Nevada, and for resident trips to medical institutions, retail centers,
courthouses, and other destinations that cannot be conveniently served with existing
public transit.
The large size of the service area and the multiple jurisdictions and service providers
involved make coordination both necessary and somewhat problematic. The discussions
held in Bullhead City formed a consensus on the need for services and for some
centralized coordination and marketing, but a logical focal point or champion did not
emerge.
41
The region is already exploring the need for transit coordination and ways to satisfy
unmet transit needs. 23 These needs might be partially resolved by some ridesharing and
vanpool recommendations as well. At a minimum, the need for rideshare and vanpool
services needs to be assessed in light of the intercity transit pilot recommended for the
three cities as part of the Rural Transit Needs Study.
Therefore, the team recommends that in lieu of an integrated service delivery
arrangement, as is being recommended for Flagstaff, two key activities take place as next
steps for the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area. These activities include a
more detailed Mobility Service Coordination study and a pilot commuter services project
for employees in neighboring Laughlin, Nevada.
Pilot Project
First, with regard to the pilot project, the need for commuter services for the gaming and
related worksites in Laughlin seems very apparent. As most of the casino workers live in
Arizona, the impact on traffic across the Laughlin Bridge, on Topock- Davis Dam Road,
and the regional road system is significant. A commuter services program targeted to
casino workers could have a measurable impact on these roads around shift changes.
Representatives from Bullhead City and the Southern Nevada Transit Coalition cited the
potential for working with casinos in a collaborative fashion. This collaboration would
also assist these employers to recruit and retain employees and, perhaps, reduce tardiness
due to traffic congestion.
The pilot would test the willingness of employers and employees to use commute
management services as well as the ability for the cities and transportation providers to
coordinate projects. Experience from a successful pilot project could be applied to other
large employers ( e. g., Wal- Mart, Sterilite, the Duval Mine, the private correctional
facility) and employment centers ( e. g., hospital complexes, the community college and
county administrative center and courts). The pilot could also be a precursor to or part of
any mitigation efforts associated with the Laughlin Bullhead City Bridge Project.
The pilot project could be funded with a challenge grant from AzDOT to match funds
allocated by local partners ( including Laughlin, the Regional Transportation Commission
( RTC) of Southern Nevada, and Nevada DOT, and the casinos) or become part of the
mitigation efforts associated with the new bridge project, thus being eligible for the use
of federal funds.
Coordination Study
A more detailed feasibility study focused on coordination mechanisms for Mobility
Services in Mohave County could be undertaken concurrent with or after the commuter
services pilot project. The coordination study would explore the activities that need to be
coordinated to offer mobility services within and between the three cities. Data collected
in a central database could prove valuable in coordinating rides between the three cities
23 The Regional Connector study, Tri- City Transit Implementation Plan, and the ongoing Rural Transit
Needs Study
42
for work travel and other group rides. More importantly, it would assess the various
mechanisms for coordinating these services. Coordination activities would include:
• Commuter services ( ridematching, vanpooling, and transit)
• Resident mobility services ( shopping, medical, other)
• Information services ( on- line, telephone)
• Marketing and outreach activities ( including program branding)
• Administration and reporting
Coordination mechanisms worth consideration include: a) one city, chamber, or transit
provider coordinating services, b) a program operated by the county, c) a collaborative
program with shared staff, but seamless service delivery, d) creation of a new entity to
coordinate and provide services, or e) use of a contractor to manage the program.
The Mobility Services Coordination study should result in a recommendation and
preliminary work plan for the creation of a coordinated Mobility Services program for the
three cities. The work plan would include similar information to that in the Flagstaff
TMI implementation plan found in the preceding section.
The coordination study would cost approximately $ 50,000 if performed by a consultant
and should be undertaken by someone familiar with the existing entities and needs in the
region. This study could be funded with traditional planning funds. The coordination
study could also be conducted by an ad hoc group of affected chambers and public
entities with some technical assistance from AzDOT or from other commute management
organizations in the state ( at Valley Metro and the Pima Association of Governments).
The benefits of undertaking the pilot and the coordination study would be to: 1) mitigate
the impact of commuter traffic generated by the Laughlin gaming and related worksites,
and 2) refine the process for identifying and planning for rideshare and vanpool programs
in non- metropolitan areas of Arizona.
ENHANCED ROLE FOR AZDOT TO SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Two other key recommendations are offered by the project team to support and
encourage rideshare and vanpool programs in non- metropolitan areas in Arizona that are
experiencing growth and its negative impacts on traffic, air quality, energy, the
environment, and quality of life. The first recommendation is to conduct periodic surveys
of local stakeholders in other areas ( other than Mohave and Coconino counties) to assess
the changing needs for these services and the conditions that warrant their consideration.
The second recommendation is to provide some statewide support services to foster and
maintain effective ridesharing and vanpooling services throughout Arizona.
3. Identification of Future Priority Areas
AzDOT might consider replicating the initial survey that was used in the needs
assessment section of this study. That survey was administered via e- mail to Chambers
of Commerce of smaller cities throughout the state. The same survey could also be sent
to cities, planning organizations, and transit operators. The team recommends the survey
be repeated approximately three to five years from now ( 2009- 2011) to gauge interest
43
and need in areas other than Maricopa, Pima, Mohave, or Coconino Counties. These
areas might include the cities of Yuma, Gila Bend, Prescott, Green Valley, the US 89
corridor through the Navajo Nation, State Route 82 in the southeast, and the Copper
Basin in Pinal County.
As provided in the needs assessment the conditions under which these rideshare and
vanpool programs tend to be successfully initiated include:
• Sufficient population and density
• Presence and nature of congestion
• Well- defined geographic area
• Growth in population and employment
• Accessibility to transit, parking, and other mobility options
• Existence of a “ champion” to spearhead the effort
• Existence of a core group or existing organization to undertake the effort
• History of public/ private partnerships to tackle area issues
• Commitment to provide human and financial resources
While these factors are currently present in the Flagstaff and the Kingman/ Bullhead
City/ Lake Havasu City area, the population, employment, and traffic growth in Arizona
will likely lead to other area candidates in the near future.
4. Role of AzDOT in Fostering Statewide Services
Finally, AzDOT can further support these emerging programs and existing Travel
Reduction Programs by considering several new or enhanced activities:
• AzDOT could help expand a statewide, on- line ridematching system by
supporting its acquisition and implementation in other urban areas and by
supporting requests for information and matches from areas not covered by two
existing programs. AzDOT could undertake support and maintenance itself or
allow an existing program, such as Valley Metro, to maintain the statewide
database.
• Second, AzDOT can assist new programs in acquiring vans for vanpools.
Several states have created pooled leasing programs that are reimbursed through
user fares and Section 5307 monies generated with vanpool miles. Alternatively,
AzDOT can provide technical assistance to local programs to help in vanpool
lease arrangements by educating them on lease options and funding sources.
• Next, AzDOT can provide technical and financial assistance in program start- up
and pilot projects. AzDOT staff and its on- call contractors can provide technical
assistance. Financial assistance might be in the form of formation grants or
challenge grants that require a match and diminish in value during each phase of
start- up and implementation. Many states have provided such start- up grants for
studies and initial organizational tasks.
44
• Finally, AzDOT could provide for statewide ne
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| TITLE | Implementing a statewide Rideshre and Vanpool program in Arizona / final report 610 |
| CREATOR | Schreffler, Eric N. |
| SUBJECT | Transportation--Arizona; Van pools--Arizona; Ridesharing--Arizona; Car pools--Arizona; |
| Browse Topic |
Transportation |
| DESCRIPTION | 69 pages (PDF version). File size: 623.689 KB. Prepared by The Center for Transportation and the Environment for the Arizona Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration under contract no. SPR-PL-1(69)610. |
| Language | English |
| Contributor | Center for Transportation and the Environment; Transportation Management Services; Arizona. Dept. of Transportation. |
| Publisher | Arizona. Dept. of Transportation. |
| TYPE | Text |
| Material Collection |
State Documents |
| Acquisition Note | Publication or link to publication sent to reports@lib.az.us; http://azdot.gov/TPD/ATRC/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ610.pdf |
| RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
| DATE ORIGINAL | 2008-06 |
| Time Period |
2000s (2000-2009) |
| ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born digital |
| Source Identifier | TRT 1.2:R 42 |
| Location | 233598844 |
| DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | AZ610.pdf |
| DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library. Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
| File Size | 623.689 KB |
| Full Text | Implementing a Statewide Rideshare and Vanpool Program in Arizona Final Report 610 Prepared by: Center for Transportation and the Environment 1401 Peachtree Street, Suite 440 Atlanta, GA 30309 Eric N. Schreffler, Transportation Consultant 13580 Samantha Avenue San Diego, CA 92129 Transportation Management Services 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400 Pasadena, CA 91101 June 2008 Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation 206 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 in cooperation with U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U. S. Government and The State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. FHWA- AZ- 08- 610 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 5. Report Date June 2008 4. Title and Subtitle Implementing a Statewide Rideshare and Vanpool Program in Arizona 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors Eric N. Schreffler, Jennifer Gregory, Wendy Morgan, Peter Valk 8. Performing Organization Report No. 10. Work Unit No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address The Center for Transportation and the Environment 1401 Peachtree Street, Suite 440 Atlanta, GA 30309 11. Contract or Grant No. SPR- PL- 1-( 69) 610 13. Type of Report & Period Covered FINAL 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Arizona Department of Transportation 206 S. 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Project Manager: John Semmens 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract This research investigated the potential for a statewide ridesharing and vanpool program for Arizona. By performing a literature review, surveying other state DOTs and conducting a needs assessment, the research investigated the need for, logistics of, and funding options for a statewide ridesharing and vanpooling program. The product of this research is an implementation plan that includes four recommendations for the organization and deployment of ridesharing and vanpooling services in two target areas along with assessments to identify future priority areas and potential roles for AzDOT in fostering statewide services. The implementation plan has four recommendations for AzDOT: 1. Flagstaff – The team recommends that AzDOT assist with the start- up of a ridesharing initiative in the Flagstaff area. The team recommends that the Chamber of Commerce undertake employer outreach and help coordinate ridesharing services offered by the Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO) and the local transit authority. 2. Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City – The team recommends that a more detailed feasibility study be conducted for these three cities in Mohave County. While the need for ridesharing services is fairly apparent, the means to coordinate and provide these services are not. 3. Identification of Future Priority Areas – The team recommends periodic assessments be made with local chambers of commerce, key local agencies, and AzDOT district offices to determine if conditions warrant the offering of ridesharing services to address congestion and mobility issues in key corridors or areas. 4. Role of AzDOT in Fostering Statewide Services – Several supporting activities are available for AzDOT to undertake to facilitate the growth of carpooling and vanpooling in non- urban areas. First, AzDOT can support a statewide ridematching service similar to that provided by Valley Metro to Tucson and Flagstaff. AzDOT can also assist with new vanpool acquisition. Furthermore, AzDOT can provide technical assistance to areas interested in creating a new ridesharing program with guidance and funding for start- up. AzDOT can also convene ridesharing program managers from around the state for networking, training, and technical assistance. 17. Key Words Ridesharing, Vanpool, Carpool 18. Distribution statement Document is available to the U. S. public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 22161 19. Security Classification Unclassified 20. Security Classification Unclassified 21. No. of Pages 67 22. Price 23. Registrant’s Seal SI* ( MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA AREA in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 VOLUME VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3 NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3. MASS MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb T short tons ( 2000lb) 0.907 megagrams ( or “ metric ton”) mg ( or “ t”) mg ( or “ t”) megagrams ( or “ metric ton”) 1.102 short tons ( 2000lb) T TEMPERATURE ( exact) TEMPERATURE ( exact) º F Fahrenheit temperature 5( F- 32)/ 9 or ( F- 32)/ 1.8 Celsius temperature º C º C Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit temperature º F ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION fc foot- candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot- candles fc fl foot- Lamberts 3.426 candela/ m2 cd/ m2 cd/ m2 candela/ m2 0.2919 foot- Lamberts fl FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf lbf/ in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/ in2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ................ 1 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE................................................................................................ 3 CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................. 5 TASK 2 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ .. 5 Literature Research Methodology.................................................................................................................... ... 6 The Growth and Outlook for Ridesharing and Vanpools..................................................................................... 6 Types of Vanpool Operations..................................................................................................................... ......... 6 Vanpool Program Funding and Financing Techniques....................................................................................... 7 Important Elements of Successful Rideshare and Vanpool Programs ................................................................. 9 Incentives ............................................................................................................................... ............................. 9 Other Strategies ............................................................................................................................... ................... 9 Planning, Implementation, and Coordination of Rideshare Programs.............................................................. 11 The Benefits of Ridesharing and Vanpooling..................................................................................................... 12 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ................................... 13 CHAPTER 3 – STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SURVEYS................................................ 15 TASK 3 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 15 Introduction of the State Department of Transportation ( DOT) Survey ............................................................ 15 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... ...................... 15 Statewide Ridesharing Policies and Programs .................................................................................................. 17 Non- Metropolitan Focus.......................................................................................................................... ......... 19 Program Funding........................................................................................................................ ...................... 19 Ridesharing Support and Coordination ............................................................................................................. 20 Program Implementation and Delivery.............................................................................................................. 21 Encouraging Employer Involvement.................................................................................................................. 22 Marketing and Promotion of Program............................................................................................................... 23 Most/ Least Effective Program Elements ............................................................................................................ 23 Vanpooling Programs....................................................................................................................... ................ 24 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ................................... 27 Other Contacts ............................................................................................................................... ................... 28 CHAPTER 4 – INFORMATION GATHERING AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN ARIZONA....................... 29 TASK 4 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 29 TASK 4 DELIVERABLE ............................................................................................................................... ............. 30 Introduction................................................................................................................... .................................... 30 CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN......................................................................................................... 35 TASK 5 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 35 TASK 5 DELIVERABLE ............................................................................................................................... ............. 36 1. Implementation Plan – Flagstaff Area ........................................................................................................... 36 2. Coordination Study and Pilot – Kingman, Bullhead City, and Lake Havasu City area................................. 40 3. Identification of Future Priority Areas .......................................................................................................... 42 4. Role of AzDOT in Fostering Statewide Services ............................................................................................ 43 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ................................... 44 APPENDIX A – LIST OF CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE................................................................................. 45 APPENDIX B – PRELIMINARY SURVEY........................................................................................................... 51 APPENDIX C – FOLLOW- UP CONTACT ........................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX D – SUMMARY OF FACT FINDING MEETING ( BULLHEAD CITY, LAKE HAVASU, AND KINGMAN)......................................................................................................... 56 APPENDIX E – SUMMARY OF FACT FINDING MEETING ( FLAGSTAFF)................................................ 61 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AzDOT Arizona Department of Transportation Caltrans California Department of Transportation CMAQ Congestion Mitigation Air Quality CMR Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulation CoDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CTE Center for Transportation and the Environment CTR Commute Trip Reduction DOT Department of Transportation ERH Emergency Ride Home ESTC Eric Schreffler, Transportation Consultant FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HOV High- Occupancy Vehicle JARC Jobs Access Reverse Commute MEOT Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation MiDOT Michigan Department of Transportation MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NAIPTA Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority NAU Northern Arizona University NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation NTD National Transit Database OhDOT Ohio Department of Transportation RPC Regional Planning Commission RTC Regional Transportation Commission SPR State Planning and Research TDM Transportation Demand Management TMA Transportation Management Association TMI Transportation Management Initiative UTA Utah Transit Authority VA Virginia VDRPT Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation VEDA Vermont Economic Development Authority 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of SPR 610 - Implementing a Statewide Rideshare and Vanpool Program in Arizona is to investigate the potential of a statewide rideshare and vanpool program in Arizona. A team of people from The Center for Transportation and the Environment, Eric N. Schreffler, Transportation Consultant, and Transportation Management Services completed the project for the Arizona Department of Transportation ( AzDOT). . The project involved the following task deliverables: a literature review, a survey of state departments of transportation ( DOTs), a needs assessment, and an implementation plan. For the first task, the literature review, the team examined existing information on effective rideshare and vanpool programs, such as incentives to try and to use carpools and vanpools, work hour flexibility for rideshare users, and easy- to- use services to find rideshare partners. The team also examined relevant research on the logistical operations of rideshare and vanpool programs, such as organizational structure, staff roles and responsibilities, and vanpool formation and fares. Using the information collected in the literature review as a guide, the team then developed and administered a survey to DOT agencies across the country. The survey gathered data on the current role of state DOTs in the implementation and delivery of rideshare programs and services. Nine DOT agencies or similar organizations participated in the survey. The findings revealed that rideshare programs and services are typically funded and managed at the regional or local level and not at the state level. State DOTs that are involved in ridesharing programs largely focus their efforts in several key areas, including: vanpool fleet acquisition or loans, pooled insurance, and statewide contracts; referral of calls to a statewide phone number for an appropriate regional or local program; and integration of ridesharing into state- wide plans or policies. In the next step, the team gathered information on the need and support for ridesharing and vanpooling services in key areas around the state outside of Maricopa and Pima Counties. After identifying, contacting, and interviewing people in a select number of areas throughout the state, the team identified two target areas— Flagstaff and the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area— as most suitable for the development and deployment of rideshare and vanpool programs. The final task was to develop an implementation plan for AzDOT to follow. The plan that was developed has the following four recommendations: : 1. Flagstaff – The team recommends that AzDOT assist with the start- up of a ridesharing initiative in the Flagstaff area. The team recommends that the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce undertake employer outreach and help coordinate ridesharing services offered by the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization ( FMPO) and the local transit authority. This action will provide the needed marketing for the ridematching system acquired from Valley Metro in Phoenix. The new partnership between the Chamber, the Flagstaff MPO, and 2 Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority, ( NAIPTA) can also promote and form vanpools for commuters with long distance commutes. 2. Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area – The team recommends that a more detailed feasibility study be conducted for these three cities in Mohave County. While the need for ridesharing services is fairly apparent, the means to coordinate and provide these services are not. Therefore, the team recommends conducting a feasibility study and pilot project to test the demand for commuter services. 3. Identification of Future Priority Areas – The team recommends periodic assessments be made with local chambers of commerce, key local agencies, and AzDOT district offices to determine if conditions warrant the offering of ridesharing services to address congestion and mobility issues in key corridors or areas. 4. Role of AzDOT in Fostering Statewide Services – Several supporting activities are available for AzDOT to undertake to facilitate the growth of carpooling and vanpooling in non- urban areas. First, AzDOT can support a statewide ridematching service similar to that provided by Valley Metro to Tucson and Flagstaff. AzDOT can also assist with new vanpool acquisition. Furthermore, AzDOT can provide technical assistance, guidance and start- up funding to areas interested in creating a new ridesharing program. AzDOT can also convene ridesharing program managers from around the state for networking, training, and technical assistance. These general recommendations, pilot study, and implementation plan provide AzDOT with a guideline to implement rideshare and vanpool programs in non- metropolitan areas of Arizona as well as engage in new activities to support the implementation of statewide services. With this plan in place, AzDOT should have the proper tools and guidance to increase services to commuters, reduce traffic congestion, and improve air quality in Arizona. 3 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE SPR 610 - Implementing a Statewide Rideshare and Vanpool Program in Arizona provides the Arizona Department of Transportation with an implementation plan for a statewide rideshare and vanpool program. The research for this project primarily investigates the potential for a rideshare and vanpool program in the non- metropolitan areas of Arizona where established rideshare programs do not exist. In addition, the research examines the feasibility of a statewide rideshare and vanpool program in Arizona, specifically the demand for services, operation logistics, and funding options. The need for this research can be attributed to the growing number of commuters in areas outside of Maricopa and Pima counties in Arizona. Their increasing numbers and lengthening of commutes create problems that rideshare and vanpool programs can mitigate. For example, such programs could reduce travel costs for the commuters, decrease congestion on roads not designed for heavy traffic, and offer residents more options for their travel needs. The project team, consisting of members from The Center for Transportation and the Environment, Eric N. Schreffler, Transportation Consultant, and Transportation Management Services, developed a series of tasks to complete before creating an implementation plan for AzDOT. This report describes these tasks and the products the team generated in doing them. Its concluding chapter, the Implementation Plan, is organized in four sections: the implementation plan for the Flagstaff area; the pilot for the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area; the identification of future priority areas; and the role of AzDOT in fostering statewide services. 4 5 CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW TASK 2 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY The project team reviewed the literature to establish what is known about rideshare and vanpool programs and, more importantly, to identify if and what type of additional research may be needed. The literature review primarily focused on the elements of effective ridesharing and vanpool programs, including: incentives to try or to use carpools or vanpools, work hour flexibility for rideshare users, and easy- to- use services for finding rideshare partners. Regarding vanpools specifically, the literature review pointed to using the Federal Transit Administration’s ( FTA) Capital Cost of Contracting to reduce vanpool lease costs. Furthermore, the literature review included an examination of a peer program in the State of Washington that funds a Vanpool Investment Program to capitalize new vanpools by transit agencies throughout the state. Washington State also supported the statewide expansion of RideshareOnline. com, a free, statewide service for potential carpoolers and vanpoolers. 1 After conducting the literature review, the project team arrived at the following conclusions: • Finding: Rideshare programs have many logistical elements, such as organizational structure, staff roles and responsibilities, and vanpool formation and fare structure. Action: Develop a comprehensive list of the elements to be considered in implementing a statewide rideshare program and a plan of action for addressing them. • Finding: Vanpooling, specifically, appeals to commuters traveling 15 or more one-way miles to their worksite. Action: Identify key corridors throughout the state where commuters are likely to travel 15 or more miles to work. • Finding: Existing literature describes four general types of vanpools prevalent in the industry. Action: Determine which vanpool system, or mixture of systems, is most suitable for AzDOT. • Finding: Many vanpool programs use creative funding sources to supplement more traditional federal government funding. Action: Determine the funding sources and financing techniques most appropriate for the AzDOT program. • Finding: Existing research points to several important elements critical to program operations from management and staffing to paid media and public relations. Action: Establish a budget that ensures proper allocation of funds to operate an effective program. • Finding: Financial incentives and disincentives and targeted public education and marketing are important in inducing participation. Action: Develop a strategy to market the program and encourage ridership through the use of incentives and supporting strategies. 1 King County Metro, http:// rideshareonline. com/, accessed June 10, 2008. 6 Literature Research Methodology This literature review is a synthesis of published research studies believed to be most critical to the development of a statewide ridesharing and vanpool program, with particular emphasis on vanpooling. While it is typical for a literature review to evaluate the findings of various authors, this document stops short of providing such an analysis. The focus of the literature review is to underline the logistical and funding elements that need to be included in the ridesharing and vanpool implementation plan and to establish a framework for future research that needs to be conducted to develop the plan. As such, the review examines relevant research on ridesharing, and in particular the different types of vanpools in operation across the country, key elements of notable vanpool programs, potential funding sources and techniques, and the planning, implementation, and coordination questions that must be considered in establishing a program. The Growth and Outlook for Ridesharing and Vanpools Offering ridesharing alternatives to commuters is one of many transportation demand strategies. According to the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute’s Online Transportation Demand Management ( TDM) Encyclopedia, “ ridesharing is one of the most common and cost- effective alternative modes, particularly in areas that are not well served by public transit.” Success is dependent on the number of people participating in the rideshare program— the more people who are registered in the program, the greater the opportunity of finding rideshare partners. In general, rideshare programs typically provide services to find carpool and/ or vanpool partners, engage in program marketing, and may also provide incentives. 2 Mitigating Traffic Congestion: The Role of Demand- Side Strategies defines carpooling and vanpooling under mode choices for travelers. According to the publication, carpooling provides the most flexibility of ridesharing options and is more informal than vanpooling. Trips appropriate for carpooling are those that are at least 10 miles or take more than 20- 30 minutes. Carpoolers typically travel in privately owned vehicles with two or more passengers who are often family members, friends, or co- workers. Research shows vanpooling generally best serves those with commutes of at least 15 miles. Vanpooling is also an appealing option for trips between suburbs as well as trips with origins and/ or destinations in smaller communities that have fewer transportation alternatives because of location or lower density development or both. 3 Types of Vanpool Operations Existing literature describes four general types of vanpool operations prevalent in the industry, as outlined below. The pros and cons of each will be important to consider when selecting the most appropriate type of vanpool operation for AzDOT. The project team used the state DOT interviews and the knowledge and experiences they share to 2 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, On- line TDM Encyclopedia, Congestion Reduction Strategies ( May 2005), Ridesharing ( May 2006), http:// www. vtpi. org/ tdm/, accessed April 1, 2008. 3 Association for Commuter Transportation, “ Mitigating Traffic Congestion: The Role of Demand- Side Strategies,” prepared for FHWA, Report No. FHWA- HOP- 05- 001, October 2004. 7 help determine which vanpool system, or mixture of systems, would be most suitable for AzDOT. 4 1. “ Owner/ operator – individuals who buy/ lease a vehicle for vanpooling. The downsides of this type of operation are issues with affordable insurance and adequate coverage.” 2. “ Employer – companies who buy/ lease vehicles for use by their employees. The costs associated with employer owned/ leased vehicles make this a less attractive option for most employers.” 3. “ Private operator – third- party vanpool providers. These are private organizations that operate vanpool services for commuters, companies, and government agencies. The largest of these providers is VPSI with approximately 3,500 vehicles across 60 cities.” Enterprise Rent- A- Car, among others, also operates vanpool services. Valley Metro, in Maricopa County, and the Pima Association of Governments in the Tucson area have arrangements with third party vanpool providers. 4. “ Public transit – Transit systems have tried stimulating participation in vanpooling usually by either building their own vanpooling operation or teaming with a private operator.” Vanpool Program Funding and Financing Techniques The TDM Program Comparison Study 5 ( written by a member of the project team) identified several potential funding sources available for Transportation Demand Management ( TDM) programs, with the most often used being federal funding in the form Congestion Mitigation Air Quality ( CMAQ) funds. Funding, however, can come from the state, local sources, or the private sector. An example of a program using state money occurs in Phoenix where a portion of Arizona’s State Air Quality Fund is used for TDM activities. State statute Money for the State Air Quality Fund comes from an annual $ 1.50 air quality fee charged on all registered vehicles.. Another example included in the literature is the statewide employer- based Commute Trip Reduction ( CTR) program in Washington State which includes a rideshare tax credit. 6 Funding can also come from a local source, like a local sales tax, developer fees or tax increment funding, or a private sector donation. For example, “ in Houston, TDM programs are supported by a portion of a local sales tax imposed on the area served by 4 Winters, P. and F. Cleland. “ Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide.” Florida Department of Transportation Research Center, 2001. 5 Center for Transportation and the Environment, “ TDM Program Comparison Study.” Georgia Department of Transportation. February 2006. 6 Commute Trip Reduction Task Force. “ CTR Task Force 2005 Report to the Washington State Legislature.” Washington Department of Transportation, Public Transportation and Commute Options Office, February 2006. 8 the city’s transit system.” TDM programs in Atlanta and Washington, D. C. receive funding from private client members obtaining services from these programs. 7 The Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide offers a list of traditional and creative financing techniques to start or expand a vanpool program. 8 The project team explore these techniques, listed below, in more detail in the chapter on the survey of state DOTs and provide guidance on the type of funding and financing structure most suitable for them. A brief description of each is included. • Capital Cost of Contracting – Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) policy that allows for allocation of more federal resources for vanpooling. FTA has specific guidelines and procedures for eligible expenses. • Capital Leasing – FTA rule whereby “ recipients may acquire tangible assets by lease, and all eligible lease costs may be reimbursed as capital expenses.” • Toll Revenue Credits for Local Match – Provision under TEA- 21 that, under specific circumstances, allows transit agencies to use revenue from toll facilities as local match. • Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Funds – Allows funding for various vanpool-related activities meeting well- defined criteria under CMAQ guidance. • Conditional Sale – “… transaction where the vehicle provider retains a security interest in the vehicle.” • Municipal Lease Purchase – “… financing method that allows transit agencies to purchase equipment on an installment basis at tax- exempt interest rates.” • Take Over Existing Employer- Operated Vanpool Program – Strategy in which a public agency acquires an existing system with an established base of riders. • Customer Financing – State Tax Incentives: Individual and Employer – Options available at the state level to provide incentives to vanpool riders and/ or employers supporting vanpool programs. • Customer Financing – Federal Tax Incentives: Employer – Internal Revenue Service ( IRS) provision ( Section 132 ( f)) that allows employers to subsidize employees’ cost of commuting up to a certain level and allows employees to use pre- tax dollars to cover qualified transportation fringe benefits. • Advertising Revenue – Vans are “ wrapped” by advertisers with fees used to finance a portion of operating expenses. • Timesharing – Concept of cooperative fleet management to use vehicles during idle times. • Resource Sharing – Transit agency staff trained to conduct warranty repairs on vehicles. • Use State Contracts to Purchase – Purchasing off state contracts to save both money and time. • Financial Matching Program – Leveraging public dollars with private sector subsidies. 7 Center for Transportation and the Environment, “ TDM Program Comparison Study.” Georgia Department of Transportation. February 2006. 8 Winters, P. and F. Cleland. “ Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide.” Florida Department of Transportation Research Center, 2001. 9 • Rent it – Option to rent vehicles if there is a fluctuation in demand. • Prepayment Inducements – Use of pre- sold passes to maintain costs when vans are trying to find replacement riders. Once funding is secured, the distribution of the funds across the program becomes an important consideration. Research points to several important elements, from management and staffing to paid media and public relations that should be considered for inclusion in program operations. 9 The following elements and their composition within the overall budget for other ridesharing and vanpool programs are explored in greater detail in the chapter on the state DOT survey. • Management • Staffing • Employer Outreach and Services • Incentives • Education • Paid Media • Public Relations Important Elements of Successful Rideshare and Vanpool Programs Overall, ridesharing programs tend to be most successful when paired with other TDM strategies, such as financial incentives, and when they are widely promoted over larger geographic regions ( e. g., a regional program as opposed to an individual worksite or locality). 10 Other strategies often help increase the success of ridesharing as well. The Victoria Transportation Policy Institute’s Online TDM Encyclopedia11 highlights some options to consider: Incentives • Empty seat subsidies; • Fare subsidies by employers or transit agencies; and • Other financial rewards for shifting to rideshare. Other Strategies • Increased flexibility ( e. g., allow vanpoolers to use the mode 2- 3 days a week as opposed to everyday); • Targeted, direct marketing; • Premium quality service options ( e. g., work stations on vanpools); • Transfers to transit services; • HOV priority and preferred parking; and • Rent cars the same as vanpools are rented. 9 Center for Transportation and the Environment, “ TDM Program Comparison Study.” Georgia Department of Transportation. February 2006. 10 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, On- line TDM Encyclopedia, Congestion Reduction Strategies ( September 2007), Ridesharing ( May 2006), http:// www. vtpi. org/ tdm/, accessed April 1, 2008. 11 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, “ Ridesharing( May 2006),” On- line TDM Encyclopedia, http:// www. vtpi. org/ tdm/, accessed April 1, 2008. 10 In addition, research highlights the need for well- publicized programs to engage as many commuters as possible in rideshare arrangements. In relation to vanpooling, Vanpool Growth in the Atlanta Region: Is There a Secret Recipe? 12 included in the literature review and written by one of the Project Consulting team members, summarizes four successful vanpool programs across the nation. A summary of some of the more common elements of the programs is included below: • Creative funding sources and techniques to supplement more traditional federal government funding. Reporting vanpool miles to the National Transit Database ( NTD) with the purpose of generating significant FTA 5307 revenue for the vanpool subsidies and other purposes. State and local surcharges and taxes to help meet federal match requirements. Use of FTA’s Capital Cost of Contracting to help bring down costs. • Incentives to encourage participation, like buying down the cost of vanpool seats and allowing drivers to use vans for personal use and to ride for free. • Funding dollars programmed specifically to promote awareness of the program and to educate potential riders of the benefits. • Other supporting strategies to help sell and promote the program. Supporting strategies can be a significant selling point, and research shows that programs offering at least some additional benefits are oftentimes more successful than those that do not. The Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide13 includes the following list of strategies: • Priority HOV facilities; • Preferential parking; • Flexible work hours; • Guaranteed Ride Home; • Reduced parking charges; • Insurance ( for owner- operators); • New start vanpools subsidies; and • Employer- subsidies. Another vanpool program worth noting that was not included in Vanpool Growth in the Atlanta Region: Is There a Secret Recipe? is the Vanpool Investment Program administered by the State of Washington. “ The program is statewide with a focus on congested corridors and in areas where opportunities for providing roadway capacity are limited and expensive. The funds are for public transit agencies and can be used only for capital costs associated with putting new vans on the road and for incentives for 12 ESTC, Vanpool Growth in the Atlanta Region: Is There a Secret Recipe, prepared for the Center for Transportation and the Environment. DATE 13 Winters, P. and F. Cleland. Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide. Florida Department of Transportation Research Center, 2001. 11 employers to increase employee vanpool use. Transit operators invest in other areas of the program such as public awareness, operational enhancements, customer outreach, and technology enhancements.” The vanpool program is largely funded by the state legislature, which allotted $ 30 million to expand vanpooling statewide in the 10- year transportation plan. 14 An important element of this program was the expansion of RideshareOnline. com, a free statewide service for potential vanpoolers and carpoolers. Targeted financial incentives and employer outreach have also helped to increase the van occupancy rates. Planning, Implementation, and Coordination of Rideshare Programs While there are several benefits associated with ridesharing programs, there are many logistical concerns that need to be addressed in program planning and implementation. The review of existing literature brought out many of these issues, which will be investigated in more detail as part of the state DOT interviews. Rideshare programs can be implemented by a variety of organizational structures, including individual employers, Transportation Management Associations, universities, transit agencies, and transportation agencies. 15 Because of the potential for several players, thoughtful coordination among them is critical to the success of the program. The groups involved must have a plan for leveraging resources to support program elements, such as carpool and vanpool matching services, incentives, and program marketing. Additional concerns with vanpools include locating a sufficient number of riders and back- up drivers ( vanpool formation), setting a fare structure, collecting payments from riders, and establishing a fixed schedule. 16 Below is a list of additional logistical ques-tions that will be important to answer during development of the implementation plan: • What policies can be implemented to help AzDOT provide statewide ridesharing services and vanpool programs? • What are the potential sources of funding and funding techniques to support statewide ridesharing services and vanpool programs? How should the funding be programmed and allocated among the various expenditures? • What is the most efficient type of vanpool operation? • What should the strategy be to encourage ridesharing and vanpool ridership, including promotion and educating the potential market? 14 Commute Trip Reduction Task Force. CTR Task Force 2005 Report to the Washington State Legislature. Washington Department of Transportation, Public Transportation and Commute Options Office, February 2006. 15 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, On- line TDM Encyclopedia, Congestion Reduction Strategies ( May 2005), Ridesharing ( May 2006), http:// www. vtpi. org/ tdm/, accessed April 1, 2008. 16 Winters, P. and F. Cleland. Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide. Florida Department of Transportation Research Center, 2001. 12 • What other services, either existing or proposed, should be provided to help support ridesharing services and vanpool programs? • How many staff people and hours will be needed to administer the program? What are the staff responsibilities and roles? • The Benefits of Ridesharing and Vanpooling While there are many logistical issues associated with establishing a ridesharing and vanpool program, there are also a great number of benefits that can encourage support from funding agencies. For example, the cost per passenger mile is generally lower for ridesharing than any other motorized mode of transportation. 17 Additionally, the literature notes that successful “ vanpool programs can attract 5- 10% of commute trips of more than 20 miles in length and this mode share can grow to 15- 25% if the program receives support from employers, financial incentives, and direct marketing.” There are also individual benefits to be communicated to potential drivers, riders, employers, and the community. The Project Consulting team believes these are important to highlight in the literature review because they help sell the value of establishing a vanpool program, especially when the logistical issues seem overwhelming. Potential benefits include providing transportation to others in the household, providing safe, dependable, and reliable transportation to work, reducing training costs as employers recognize increased employee retention, and reducing wear and tear on infrastructure. Other benefits noted in the Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide18 for each group are included below: Vanpool Driver • Reduces need to purchase a personal vehicle • Receives use of vehicle for personal trips • Obtains lower vehicle insurance rates • Reduces household’s vehicle maintenance costs • Requires no long term commitment Vanpool Rider • Reduces stress • Increases access to job markets • Saves money on commuting costs, such as gasoline, and wear- and- tear on personal vehicles Employer • Reduces the need for additional parking • Increases access to labor markets • Increases productivity, reduces absenteeism and tardiness • Provides an effective, low- cost recruitment tool 17 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, On- line TDM Encyclopedia, Congestion Reduction Strategies ( May 2005), Ridesharing ( May 2006), http:// www. vtpi. org/ tdm/, accessed April 1, 2008. 18 Winters, P. and F. Cleland. Vanpool Pricing and Financing Guide. Florida Department of Transportation Research Center, 2001. 13 Community • Serves communities not served by transit such as bus and rail • Requires fewer passengers than a bus • Increases federal and state funds to transit • Reduces rush- hour congestion • Improves air quality • Reduces dependence on fossil fuels Conclusions As mentioned previously, an important objective of this initial task was to provide a stepping- stone for more detailed research that needs to be conducted in order to develop an implementation plan for a statewide ridesharing and vanpool program for AzDOT. Specifically, the logistical and funding elements outlined in the previous sections will be used to help guide interviews with state DOTs and key Arizona employers and commuters. It is also the Project Consulting team’s goal to use the interviews with state DOTs to gather more information on statewide rideshare activities as the team was unable to identify published feasibility studies to include in this literature review. To that end, the following bullets summarize the Project Consulting team’s conclusions from the existing literature and offer topic areas and suggestions for proceeding in the next phase of research. • Finding: Rideshare programs include many logistical elements, such as organizational structure, staff roles and responsibilities, and vanpool formation and fare structure. Action: Develop a comprehensive list of the elements to be considered in implementing a statewide rideshare program and a plan of action for addressing it. • Finding: Vanpooling, specifically, appeals to commuters traveling 15 or more one-way miles to their worksite. Action: Identify key corridors throughout the state where commuters are likely to travel 15 or more miles to work. • Finding: Existing literature describes four general types of vanpools prevalent in the industry. Action: Determine which vanpool system, or mixture of systems, is most suitable for AzDOT. • Finding: Many vanpool programs use creative funding sources to supplement more traditional federal government funding. Action: Determine the funding sources and financing techniques most appropriate for the AzDOT program. • Finding: Existing research points to several important elements critical to program operations from management and staffing to paid media and public relations. Action: Establish a budget that ensures proper allocation of funds to operate an effective program. 14 • Finding: Financial incentives and disincentives and targeted public education and marketing are important in inducing participation. Action: Develop a strategy to market the program and encourage ridership through the use of incentives and supporting strategies. 15 CHAPTER 3 – STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SURVEYS TASK 3 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY The project team developed a survey in consultation with AzDOT to explore current experience with statewide programs and DOT support for ridesharing and vanpooling. Nine state DOTs participated in the survey. The team selected the DOT agencies to survey based on their knowledge of statewide rideshare programs, responses from the State Planning and Research ( SPR) 566 project, and inquiries to national ridesharing resources. While the state DOT survey did not uncover extensive information on statewide and non-urban programs, it did provide information on the types of activities typically undertaken by state DOTs in the area of rideshare and vanpool support. Furthermore, it should be noted that state DOT involvement in rideshare has diminished in the past 10- 20 years as funding has shifted from state control to a more regional focus, especially with Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding, which supports a majority of ridesharing efforts in the U. S. Many state DOTs, including California and Michigan, which once broadly supported ridesharing, are now largely inactive participants and rely heavily on regional or county level administration of programs. However, the two activities that are still supported by some state DOTs are statewide ridematching or information and vanpool acquisition. In the case of the former activity, some states that support statewide ridematching contract this service to one of the regional programs located in a metropolitan area ( e. g., Ohio and North Carolina). Moreover, some still maintain a state- wide toll free phone number and refer these calls to the closest regional program. In the case of vanpools, some states offer interest- free loans ( Vermont), vanpool acquisition ( Michigan), subsidy program ( Virginia), or rural vanpool programs ( North Carolina). From the review of the survey findings, the project team determined the current role of state DOTs in ridesharing and vanpooling to be: • Vanpool fleet acquisition or loans, pooled insurance, and/ or subsidies • Referral of calls to statewide rideshare information number to appropriate region • Limited coordination and technical assistance among programs within the state • Integration of ridesharing into statewide policies, plans, and programs Introduction of the State Department of Transportation ( DOT) Survey The following sections present the results of surveys conducted with state DOTs and other agencies responsible for implementing ridesharing and/ or vanpooling programs. It is the second of a three- step process created by the project team to develop a statewide ridesharing and vanpooling program implementation plan for the State of Arizona. Methodology The project team selected agencies to survey based on its knowledge of statewide rideshare programs, responses from the SPR 566 project, and inquiries to national 16 ridesharing resources. CTE contacted representatives of each agency requesting that they either complete a telephone or paper survey. All agencies received an electronic version of the survey. Contacts at two states’ agencies, Oregon and New Jersey, declined participation in the survey. State Organization/ Agency Surveyed Organization/ Agency Description Colorado Department of Transportation Functions as funding pass through agency; review project scopes and budgets ( project selection committee member); provides technical support Massachusetts MassRIDES Administers statewide TDM program on behalf of Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation Michigan Department of Transportation Administers statewide vanpool program and other alternative mode programs New Mexico Mid- region Council of Governments Currently working on study to develop a statewide ridesharing program North Carolina Department of Transportation Administers statewide rural vanpool program; manages eight urban TDM programs implemented in service areas throughout the state Ohio Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission Hosts statewide ridesharing database; administers TDM programs for largest metropolitan planning organization in the state Utah Utah Transit Authority Administers state’s TDM programs Vermont Vermont Economic Development Authority Administers statewide interest free loan vanpool program Virginia Department of Rails and Public Transportation Funds statewide vanpool subsidy program and implements Telework! VA It might be useful to discuss the history of state involvement in ridesharing over the past 30 years to help understand the current role. In 1974, an emergency act of Congress allowed states to use federal- aid funds to finance rideshare programs in response to the oil embargo. As such, state DOTs, which largely controlled federal- aid monies, were instrumental in developing and funding rideshare programs. For example, California DOT ( Caltrans) maintained annual contracts with private non- profit organizations across the state to deliver ridesharing services and set performance standards and program targets. Caltrans also developed a standardized method for estimating the impact of programs in terms of commuter placement into ridesharing modes. However, with the advent of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ( CMAQ) funding in the early 1990s, control of funds available for ridesharing shifted from states to Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPOs). Today, most regional ridesharing programs are funded, managed, and/ or overseen by the regional MPO or another local agency. In most states, this has resulted in state DOTs reducing the state role in rideshare funding or coordination. 17 Statewide Ridesharing Policies and Programs Policies Most of the agencies and organizations participating in the survey provide some level of statewide ridesharing and/ or vanpooling support. Three respondents cited a specific statewide policy or regulation. In addition, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Utah mentioned the inclusion of ridesharing in their state’s Long Range Transportation Plan as a strategy to manage and operate the statewide transportation system more efficiently (). Of the three respondents citing specific regulations, two said the regulations in their states ( Massachusetts and Utah) related to employer based trip reduction programs and have a more urban focus. Regulations in the other ( Vermont) are related to providing an economically viable option to transport workers and has a more rural focus. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, through the implementation of Massachusetts Rideshare Regulation ( 310 CMR 7.6), requires businesses of a certain size to develop plans and evaluate progress on reducing commuter drive- alone trips. Similarly, Utah has implemented a state statute to improve air quality through the reduction of vehicle trips ( Utah Code Title 19, Chapter 02). Vermont’s ridesharing policy gives the Vermont Economic Development Authority ( VEDA) power to facilitate the purchase of vans by private entities for the purpose of ridesharing arrangements ( 10 V. S. A § 280 g). Eligible groups can purchase the vans using low- interest or interest- free loans provided by VEDA and the Vermont DOT. The respondents were asked how important ridesharing regulations and inclusion of ridesharing in state transportation plans are to statewide ridesharing program success. States with employer based trip reduction program regulations said that the regulations are not widely enforced. Only a small number of employers are concerned with failing to comply. As a result, the regulations provide little assistance to the organizations working with employers to implement ridesharing programs. States that include ridesharing in state transportation plans believe it can be helpful to establishing statewide support and funding, especially if the plan includes specific and measurable actions to implement ridesharing. Programs As mentioned above, most agencies and organizations participating in the survey provide some level of statewide ridesharing and/ or vanpooling assistance. Statewide support largely depends on the funding available, the number of organizations providing transportation demand management ( TDM) programs throughout the state, and the desire among the state and TDM organizations to participate in a statewide program. Below are some examples of the varying levels of support that are provided. Colorado – Colorado DOT ( CoDOT) does not administer any statewide TDM programs and instead relies on three local MPOs to implement TDM programs. CoDOT functions as the funding pass- through agency and also reviews the project scopes and budgets as a member of the CMAQ funding project selection committee for each MPO. CoDOT also provides technical support to 18 organizations and individuals across the state regarding TDM activities and strategies. While the MPOs promote programs separately, the vanpool coordinators at each MPO do meet monthly to discuss programs and also participate in joint marketing efforts for vanpooling initiatives when appropriate. Massachusetts - Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation ( MEOT) is a strong supporter of a statewide ridesharing and vanpool program. A private contractor implements the statewide program ( MassRIDES) on behalf of MEOT. The primary component of the program is employer outreach, with supporting services such as hosting and administering a statewide rideshare database and Emergency Ride Home program. MassRIDES also reaches out to transportation management associations ( TMAs) and other organizations that provide ridesharing and vanpooling services throughout the state in an attempt to coordinate programs. However, coordination among the various organizations can be a challenge, given the limited federal and state funding for TDM programs and the varying interests of the groups involved. North Carolina - The North Carolina DOT ( NCDOT) rideshare program is another example of a state playing a strong support role for ridesharing services. NCDOT relies on the existing TDM organizations to provide the majority of these services. NCDOT provides statewide support through TDM program start- up funding and management of existing TDM programs across the state. NCDOT also provides funding to a well- established TDM organization to host a statewide rideshare database. NCDOT partners with this organization and other TDM organizations across the state to market statewide online ridesharing services ( ShareTheRideNC. org). The website provides seamless marketing and promotion for rideshare programs across the state. In addition, NCDOT administers a statewide rural vanpool program in conjunction with urban vanpool programs operated by other TDM providers in the state. A private vanpool vendor operates NCDOT’s rural vanpool program with non- CMAQ funds ( Jobs Access Reverse Commute funds). The TDM providers in other areas of the state use more traditional funding sources to administer the local vanpool programs. Michigan – Several years ago Michigan DOT ( MiDOT) supported a more centralized ridesharing program; however, after state reassignments of funding, most of the ridesharing activities are now provided by local rideshare organizations. MiDOT does administer a statewide vanpool program implemented by a private vanpool vendor ( with the exception of the Western Corridor of the state - RapidVan Program). MiDOT’s vanpool program ( MichiVan), which uses CMAQ funds as its primary funding source, focuses on providing vanpool services in the more urbanized areas of the state. While MiDOT does not have a statewide ridesharing program and no real resources to motivate coordination among the various local rideshare organizations, it has maintained a certain level of program unity statewide. MiDOT accomplishes this through its toll free 19 information line and website, both of which direct interested individuals to the appropriate local rideshare agency in the state. MiDOT also administers a Carpool Parking Lot Program that provides more than 200 carpool parking lots at locations across the state. Ohio – Prior to 2000, Ohio DOT ( OhDOT) sponsored a centralized statewide rideshare program. In 2000, OhDOT relinquished administration and oversight of the statewide program to Ohio MPOs. Prior to relinquishing administration and oversight duties, OhDOT played a significant role in overseeing the ridesharing programs throughout the state. OhDOT provided federal funds for the operation of locally directed ridesharing programs and required each to participate in joint marketing of carpool and vanpool services ( including the VanOhio Program). Little coordination exists among these groups today. Ride Solutions– the largest local rideshare agency servicing Ohio– does receive CMAQ funding to host the statewide rideshare database, but only a small amount of funding is available to promote it as a statewide resource. Utah - Utah is an example of a state with only one TDM provider – the Utah Transit Authority ( UTA). UTA is responsible for administering all ridesharing and vanpooling services in Utah, with very little support from any other agencies. While the programs are considered statewide, the size of the service area for the UTA programs is governed to a great extent by the type of funding used to operate the programs. Moreover, the vanpool program, which is funded by both state and federal resources, is a truly statewide program. However, the ridesharing program, which is primarily funded with federal CMAQ dollars, does not extend beyond the counties eligible to receive CMAQ funding. Non- Metropolitan Focus For the most part, the ridesharing and vanpooling services provided by the agencies participating in this survey are available in both urban and non- urban areas. Most agencies allow the market to drive the location and concentration of programs, and, as a result, the majority of programs are concentrated in the more urban areas of their states. The focus of attention for the non- urban programs is more on transporting workers and elderly residents and less on mitigating air pollution and traffic congestion. Three agencies implementing programs in non- urban areas of the state commented that these programs have seen minimal success ( Interest Free Vanpool Loan programs in Vermont and Utah, Rural Vanpool Program in North Carolina). The Mid- Ohio Regional Planning Commission ( RPC), however, has found the rural programs they offer to be particularly successful. The rural programs allow the Mid- Ohio RPC to provide low- income residents access to jobs and to form partnerships with organizations it might not reach otherwise. Program Funding Most of the agencies surveyed justify requested ridesharing and vanpool program funding by providing participation information and data on travel and emissions reductions to funding agencies. Consequently, these agencies find it easier to gain funding support. The 20 primary funding source used to support ridesharing and vanpooling is Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funding. Some of the agencies surveyed distinguish between funding sources for urban and non-urbanareas. In these cases, CMAQ funds are concentrated in the more urban areas, while other federal, state, and local sources are used to fund the non- urban areas. North Carolina DOT, for example, uses Jobs Access Reverse Commute ( JARC) funds matched with state operating funds to pay for its rural vanpool program. The Utah Transit Authority uses local sales tax revenues in conjunction with CMAQ funds to supplement vanpool services in urban areas of the state and provide vanpool services in less urban areas ( non- CMAQ eligible areas). Most survey participants did not have information to share on funding allocations by expenditure type ( staffing, incentives, paid media, etc.) For the two agencies providing this information, nearly 60% is allocated to management and staffing ( including program administration and staff outreach). Allocation of the remaining funds varied significantly between the two agencies, largely because the services they provide are quite different. For example, Utah’s program allocates $ 100,000 of its budget to vanpool maintenance. Massachusetts, the other agency that provided funding allocation by expenditure type, does not have a vanpool maintenance budget because it relies on private vanpool vendors to operate vanpools in the state. Ridesharing Support and Coordination With the exception of Utah Transit Authority, the state transportation agencies participating in this survey rely heavily on local rideshare or TDM organizations to implement ridesharing and vanpooling programs in local service areas across the state. Employers and other local organizations assist in marketing and promoting ridesharing and vanpool programs. In North Carolina, the statewide vanpool program utilizes the help of local health and human service organizations to market and promote the rural statewide vanpool program. Through the MassRIDES Partnership Program, MEOT encourages employers to provide incentives to employees, such as transit subsidies, preferential parking for high- occupancy vehicles ( HOVs), and promotional incentives. Utah Transit Authority credits a large amount of its vanpool program’s success to employers providing Commuter Choice subsidies to employees. The level of support provided by the various agencies and organizations involved varies significantly. Utah Transit Authority employs nine full- time staff to operate its statewide ridesharing and vanpool program ( one program director, four rideshare marketing specialists, one carpool/ vanpool matching specialist, one vanpool maintenance person, one accounting coordinator, and one safety vehicle coordinator). In Massachusetts, the state has one part- time staff member who manages the statewide program contract, while the private contractor for the statewide program employs 15 full- time staff members. Michigan DOT employs one full- time staff person, with supplemental support as needed, to manage the statewide vanpool program and other ridesharing support programs. North Carolina DOT has approval to use CMAQ funding to hire one full- time staff person to 21 manage the various TDM programs across the state; however, the person has not been hired yet. Both believe one staff person is sufficient, given that a private vendor operates their statewide vanpool programs and local rideshare organizations provide outreach for ridesharing and vanpooling programs. The staff at each local rideshare organization varies across both states; some may employ one staff person while other larger programs may employ up to seven staff. States with multiple rideshare and vanpool service providers try to coordinate activities as much as possible. However, they do find it difficult to consistently coordinate activities because of the varying markets and programs offered. North Carolina and Michigan provide the best examples of seamless statewide ridesharing and vanpooling programs, even though the programs are not offered by one organization statewide. Role of State in Ridesharing As mentioned previously, all the state transportation agencies surveyed provide some level of support for ridesharing and vanpooling programs. The support has become more decentralized over the past several years. For the most part, state transportation agencies rely on local MPOs, transit agencies, and other groups to provide localized ridesharing services. There are primarily three reasons for the decentralization: 1) a lack of state funding or a state funding channel to support a statewide program; 2) MPOs have more direct control over federal funds that can be used for ridesharing; and 3) local agencies, like MPOs, believe they can more effectively develop and implement transportation services in their local service areas. In areas where state funding is available, state transportation agencies will help promote local area programs. The coordination between the state and local area programs seems to work particularly well in North Carolina and Michigan, and to a lesser extent in Massachusetts. In North Carolina, program success is likely due to the fact that the state plays a key role in funding many of the established local area TDM programs. In fact, North Carolina’s reliance on a local TDM organization to administer the statewide database and website and on local TDM organizations to populate the database underscores the importance of local involvement in programs. Michigan does not have a statewide rideshare database; however, Michigan DOT’s website and toll free telephone line directs commuters to the appropriate local rideshare agency, giving the appearance of a more seamless program. MEOT, which administers its own statewide rideshare database, has found it challenging to coordinate resources among the local area TDM programs across the state ( including local area support of the statewide database). The lack of support is likely due to the lack of funding provided to local area programs by MEOT. Program Implementation and Delivery All but two of the organizations surveyed have been providing ridesharing and/ or vanpooling services for 20 years or more. All survey respondents said interest has grown over time, although some mentioned that some programs have been harder to get off the 22 ground than others. Every agency and organization participating in the survey implements and delivers programs differently. In North Carolina, local TDM program agencies determine the TDM services provided and set service area boundaries. The local TDM programs across the state promote services differently; however, advertising and marketing is similar. TDM programs near each other periodically meet to coordinate activities. The statewide rural vanpool program is offered in the areas outside the established TDM program service area boundaries to avoid competition with established local TDM programs. NCDOT procures and evaluates the contract for the statewide vanpool program, while the contractor operates, markets, and promotes the program. In Massachusetts, all implementation and delivery activities of the statewide TDM program are the responsibility of the statewide TDM contractor under the direction of MEOT. Optimizing available transit options, the effectiveness of incentives, and responding to the employee recruiting/ retention needs of the business community determine services offered. All travel options programs are available equally to any employer or traveler, regardless of whether the employer/ traveler is inside a metropolitan area or not. MassRIDES attempts to work with other organizations providing TDM services across the state, however, coordination among the groups can be a challenge. MassRIDES is finding greater success working with communities outside established TMA service areas. Ideally, MassRIDES would employ staff in these locations to provide more personalized service and to gain local knowledge and presence, while implementing the statewide program and other programs as needed. In Michigan, service areas and services offered are determined by the market and the ability to use CMAQ funds. The local rideshare agencies provide ridesharing services, marketing, and incentives in their respective service areas. In Utah, the TDM programs are applied throughout the state, with a focus in urban areas of the state covered by CMAQ funds ( five counties). In Virginia, the TDM services offered vary by local needs; all programs are implemented by local TDM agencies except Telework! VA, which is a state program. Encouraging Employer Involvement All of the organizations participating in the survey view employer involvement as critical to program success, especially in more urbanized areas. In more urban areas, the messages are focused on traffic congestion issues and employee frustrations with traveling to and from work. In rural areas, the messages often focus on travel to and from work for commuters who may have no other transportation available. For example, the Mid- Ohio RPC believes that working through human resource agencies to reach commuters who might not be able to travel to and from work otherwise and providing retention/ relocation guidance to employers are key program elements. 23 Michigan DOT, North Carolina DOT, UTA, and Mid- Ohio RPC use the Commuter Choice Tax Incentive to encourage employer involvement. Massachusetts creates formal partnerships with employers to promote involvement, recommending the employers provide transit subsidies, preferential parking for HOVs, and other promotional incentives to encourage employee participation. Employer based trip reduction policies in Massachusetts and Utah also help encourage employer involvement to some extent. Marketing and Promotion of Program As mentioned previously, local rideshare agencies promote programs locally in Michigan. Michigan supports the local programs through a toll free hotline and website, both of which direct interested individuals to the appropriate local rideshare agency. Michigan has a large transit program, and ridesharing is viewed as an arm of this program. While none of the traditional TDM programs receive public transit funds, they do receive some benefits of the funds through public transit marketing. Public transit agencies use it as an opportunity to market not only transit, but ridesharing and other TDM programs. Face- to- face outreach and electronic communication are the primary methods of marketing and promotion for many of the organizations participating in the survey. Outreach may take place at an employer worksite event, a transportation fair, or through direct contact with existing rideshare database applicants. Websites, newsletters, and direct email correspondence are the primary means for electronic communications. While only a few of the organizations have funding available for paid media ( primarily radio), all market programs through public relations. Utah employs very little marketing, relying on word of mouth and the 410 vans on the road to raise awareness and interest in the program. Most/ Least Effective Program Elements When asked about the most and least effective program elements, the agencies and organizations participating in the survey offered the following: Most effective program elements • Employer outreach and employer partnerships • Customer service • Employer related tax incentives ( Commuter Choice) • Guaranteed Ride Home/ Emergency Ride Home services • Flat rate structure for vanpool • Electronic communication ( Internet rideshare application submittal, online ridematching, and websites) • In rural areas specifically, providing low- income residents access to jobs, keeping vanpool rates stable, and forming partnerships with local human resource agencies 24 Least effective and most challenging program elements • Getting policy leaders and business executives to understand the value of TDM programs • Securing funding and competing for transportation dollars ( public transit funding competition specifically) • Competing with other commute alternatives, like commuter rail lines • Limited funding available to provide incentives to encourage program use • Coordination with other TDM providers • Growing TDM programs in rural areas • Vanpool formation and maintaining ridership at required levels Vanpooling Programs Operations Five state agencies administer statewide vanpooling programs. Two are the sole vanpool provider for the state ( Vermont and Utah). Vermont’s circumstances are unique in that they operate a vanpool loan program and require the entity purchasing the van ( group of private individuals or company/ employer) to handle all aspects of vanpool operation. The Utah Transit Authority administers all aspects of the statewide vanpooling program. UTA chooses to run all aspects of the vanpool program because of the capital assets associated with owning the vans. UTA also collects National Transit Data ( NTD) reports and annual insurance premiums from riders. However, the funds generated and insurance premiums are placed in UTA’s general fund and are typically not used to fund vanpool operations. The three other state agencies administer vanpool programs in conjunction with other organizations providing vanpooling services in the state. Michigan provides vanpool services statewide with the exception of the Western Corridor of the state ( RapidVan Program). Although Massachusetts’ program is statewide, other organizations across the state also provide vanpool services within local territories. North Carolina administers a statewide vanpool program in the rural areas of the state, while transit providers in three other service areas operate separate local vanpool programs. All three agencies rely on private vanpool vendors to administer the program. Two of the states have informal agreements with private vanpool vendors to administer vanpool programs. Each Ohio MPO has a memorandum of understanding with a private vanpool vendor that outlines the relationship of the vanpool vendor and the respective MPO. In Massachussetts, MassRIDES has established a Vanpool Alliance, an agreement between MassRIDES and the various vanpool vendors across the state. The agreement states that MassRIDES will be a vanpool vendor neutral partner. Primarily through its employer outreach program, MassRIDES promotes vanpooling and coordinates vanpool formation activities with commuters and vendors. MassRIDES provides all employers a one- page description of the various services offered by each vanpool vendor. All vanpoolers are eligible for the state’s Emergency Ride Home ( ERH) program; the MassRIDES Vanpool Coordinator administers ERH and other vanpool benefits, 25 including verification for personal automobile insurance discounts. MEOT believes the Vanpool Alliance is the most efficient and effective type of vanpool operation, as it creates a competitive marketplace for vehicle variety and for pricing options. Michigan DOT and North Carolina DOT have contracts with one private vanpool vendor to operate their statewide vanpool programs. Both DOTs rely on the vanpool vendors’ expertise, working closely with the vendors to establish work plans, goals, and planned expenditures. The DOTs believe allowing a private vendor to administer the statewide program is the most efficient and cost effective way to implement the program ( decreases administrative cost by avoiding the need to employ a staff person at each location throughout the state). The state DOTs are involved with approving routes, review of invoices, review of ridership, and reviewing monthly reports. The contractor is responsible for the qualification and pricing of routes. In Virginia, vanpools are formed through the various local agencies providing TDM services. For the exception of one transit agency that administers its own vanpool program, the local agencies refer potential vanpoolers to private vanpool vendors available in the area. Most of the Virginia vanpools are owner/ independent – one of the largest such fleets in the nation travels the I- 95 corridor. Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation ( DRPT) provides assistance through the Vanpool Assistance program ( VanSave/ VanStart) and is also working to set up a vanpool insurance pool. Financing Techniques The primary funding source used to support vanpooling for the states participating in the survey is CMAQ funding. Other federal sources of funding include Jobs Access Reverse Commute ( JARC) funds. North Carolina DOT, for example, uses JARC funds matched with state operating funds to pay for its rural vanpool program. The Utah Transit Authority uses local sales tax revenue in conjunction with CMAQ funds to supplement vanpool services in urban areas of the state and provide vanpool services in less urban areas ( non- CMAQ eligible areas). Some of the agencies surveyed distinguish between urban and non- urban funding sources. In these cases, CMAQ funds are concentrated in the more urban areas, while other state and local sources are used to fund the non- urban areas. North Carolina uses federal JARC funds and state funds to pay for 50% of the costs for its vanpool program. Employer subsidies and rider fares make up the remaining 50% of the cost. In Ohio and Massachusetts, where the states have a memorandum of understanding with private vanpool vendors, the private vendors finance vanpool operations. The Mid- Ohio RPC and MEOT use a small portion of CMAQ funding to help form and maintain ridership on the vans. With the exception of Utah Transit Authority, none of the agencies surveyed are using National Transit Database ( NTD) funding to support vanpooling; however, several mentioned that they are trying to implement it. Virginia is trying to work out an NTD reporting agreement with the transit agency servicing its area, but is having difficultly 26 with the transit agency insurance requirements. Virginia wanted to use the NTD reporting to help reduce the costs of vanpooling to riders. When they realized this option may not be feasible, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation began researching the creation of a vanpool insurance pool to offer competition and increase availability of coverage. Another big obstacle for Virginia is the Federal Transit Administration’s reluctance to use data from owner/ independent vanpools. Hampton Roads Transit does record mileage for NTD and the Greater Richmond Transit Company is doing the same. Strategies to Encourage Vanpool Formation/ Ridership The type of incentives and supporting services provided to vanpoolers also varied among those participating in the survey. MassRIDES offers financial incentives that support new vanpool formation, as well as short- term rider referral and new passenger rewards. MassRIDES analyzes travel origins for each worksite and targets vanpooling where density, distance, and schedules make it a viable option (). Michigan DOT provides assistance through its website and toll free hotline, while the local rideshare agencies provide direct outreach and administer TDM programs. NCDOT meets with employers and has also used home- based outreach to promote the statewide vanpool program but does not directly offer incentives to vanpoolers. NCDOT does not currently use the statewide rideshare database to help form vanpools, as the state is too large to support such an effort. The database would have to see significant growth in order to match potential vanpoolers. In Utah, UTA takes a more hands- off approach to vanpool formation due to the current high level of interest in the program. Typically, interested commuters call UTA’s vanpool program and UTA places them on a waiting list. When UTA sees that enough people could make a possible route, they give the names to the other interested vanpoolers and the potential vanpoolers are responsible for calling each other and creating the vanpool. UTA credits program success to the large number of federal employers who use the Commuter Choice Tax Incentive. Twenty- two of the 32 vanpools in the Mid- Ohio Regional Planning Commission service area are federal employee vanpools, most of which receive the Commute Choice Tax Benefit Incentive. The large fleet of federal employee vanpools helps in vanpool formation and maintaining ridership. Matchlists and a 3- month referral subsidy ($ 50 referral prize) are the primary strategies used by the Mid- Ohio RPC to form and maintain vanpools. The RPC will use other incentives, such as a vanpool subsidy for one month or an empty seat subsidy, as needed (). The strategies used in Virginia to encourage vanpool ridership vary by market distance to core destination work areas and availability of HOV lanes with adequate park and ride lots. In some cases, private vanpool vendors independently market vanpools in close coordination with local TDM agencies. Incentive programs to form and maintain ridership are also popular ( VDRPT VanStart/ VanSave program). 27 Costs to Riders/ Fare Structure Vanpool fares typically include the lease, maintenance, insurance, and licensing costs of the van. Some vendors set rates per vehicle and others set rates per rider. Most providers vary pricing by days in operation, van capacity, number of riders, and miles traveled. Only one state participating in the survey offers a set fee ( flat rate) for vanpoolers; Michigan offers a flat rate structure with three different pricing arrangements. Some of the programs require riders to pay 100% of costs, while other programs are able to reduce the costs to riders by using available funding sources or by encouraging employers to participate in programs to reduce the costs to riders. For example, vanpoolers participating in the North Carolina statewide rural vanpool program pay a fare ranging from $ 3-$ 7/ day. A large number of employers in Utah and Virginia subsidize the costs of vanpooling for riders by participating in the Commuter Choice Tax Incentive program. Virginia, through its VanStart/ VanSave program, is able to temporarily reduce vanpool costs for commuters starting a new vanpool or saving an existing one. Minimum Number of Riders Most agencies have minimum requirements for vanpool ridership, varying by the overall ridership capacity of the van. In most cases, if ridership drops below the vehicle’s established ridership, the existing riders may pay higher rates and/ or vendors or the sponsoring organization may choose to provide a short- term subsidy. At least one state has a clause in its contract with vanpoolers allowing the vanpool group to withdraw from its contract if the vanpool becomes too expensive due to decreased ridership. North Carolina has a five rider minimum for its rural vanpools urban area vanpools have a seven rider minimum. After the number drops below the minimum, the route is placed on probation for 60- 90 days. If the number of riders does not increase, then the vanpool is dropped. Vanpoolers participating in Michigan’s state program have a 30- day grace period to find replacement riders; if they are unable to find riders, they must downsize or terminate the vanpool. Michigan relies on its private vanpool contractor and the riders themselves to find vanpool replacements. Virginia uses the Van Save portion of its statewide incentive program to offer assistance to vanpools that are dropping below minimum ridership levels. Conclusions The survey of state DOTs revealed some key trends that might assist Arizona DOT determine the need for and role for the state in ridesharing services for non- urban areas: • In general, states no longer directly manage and fund ridesharing services as they may have 20 years ago. Funding and management tends to be centralized at the regional level, largely due to CMAQ. • Few states maintain or manage specific non- urban programs, the exceptions being vanpool acquisition and maintenance of a statewide toll- free number. • Some states fund activities, such as vanpooling, in non- urbanized areas that are not eligible for CMAQ funding. 28 • Statewide ridematching services, when offered, are operated by a regional program under contract to the state. • Therefore, the current role for state DOTs tends to be focused in a few key areas, including: • Vanpool fleet acquisition or loans, pooled insurance, and statewide contracts • Referral of calls to statewide phone number to appropriate regional program • Limited coordination of regional programs, based largely on historical ties • Integration of ridesharing into statewide plans or policies. As such, the current role of state DOTs in ridesharing might best be described as facilitative and supportive, especially in assuring vanpool services are available in all parts of the state. Other Contacts Massachusetts Vanpool Alliance Martin Murphy ( 617) 892- 6084 North Carolina Rural Statewide Vanpool Program Byron York, President of 2Plus, Inc. ( 919) 363- 0021 Triangle Transit Authority John Tallmadge ( 919) 485- 7430 Vermont Vermont Agency of Transportation Karen Songhurst ( 808) 828- 1078 Virginia Commuter Connections Nicholas Ramfos ( 202) 962- 3313 29 CHAPTER 4 – INFORMATION GATHERING AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN ARIZONA TASK 4 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY The next step involved an assessment of the need for ridesharing and vanpool services in key corridors and communities throughout Arizona. Overall, the Project Consulting team aimed to develop a prioritized list of communities that might have a need for these services and be interested in helping facilitate needed services. More specifically, the team worked to identify, contact, and interview representatives from a select number of areas within the state. The steps undertaken to locate these prioritized areas were: 1. Sent a “ qualifying” questionnaire of need and interest to a list of chambers of commerce provided by AzDOT. 2. From the six responses to this questionnaire, conducted follow- up telephone interviews with five chambers ( Flagstaff, Kingman, Bullhead City, Lake Havasu and Copper Basin). All except the Copper Basin chamber, perceived real and immediate problems with traffic and mobility that ridesharing and vanpooling services might help solve. 3. From these two sets of inquiries, recommended two priority areas to AzDOT for future assessment: a) Flagstaff ( Coconino County) and b) the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area ( Mohave County). 4. Held in- person meetings with chamber staff and local agencies in Bullhead City and Flagstaff to elicit a more detailed discussion on the need for, interest in, and support for ridesharing and vanpooling services. After the needs assessment was conducted, the project team concluded that two areas – Flagstaff and the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area – exhibited similar characteristics and needs: • Both have traffic congestion on local and regional roads, especially during peak commute times and when large numbers of visitors travel into the areas. • Both areas have growing commute- related issues as both affordable housing and employment locate further from each city’s core area. • Both areas have transit services that provide a basic level of service for residents, commuters, and visitors. Unmet needs include some travel by the elderly, residents with cars that transit cannot conveniently serve, and some commuter services, like that to employment centers outside the core cities. 30 • Both areas have contemplated ridesharing services in the past, either in terms of vanpool opportunities ( Mojave County) or ridematching ( Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority, NAIPTA). • Both have been working with AzDOT to explore mobility issues: the tri- city Mohave area in terms of coordinated transit services and Flagstaff in terms of access to statewide ridematching services. • Both areas voiced considerable need for and interest in offering ridesharing services. The need in the tri- city Mohave area seems to be for the coordination of new and existing services between the cities that might be consolidated with a ridesharing program. The need in the Flagstaff area seems to be the organization of employers and marketing efforts for existing and new services. After the needs of Arizona were assessed and the target areas identified, the recommendation of the project team was to develop implementation plans for each area ( Flagstaff and the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area) for the development and deployment of ridesharing and vanpooling services. TASK 4 DELIVERABLE Introduction The overall purpose of this research is to investigate the potential for a statewide ridesharing and vanpool program for Arizona, specifically in non- metropolitan areas where established ridesharing programs don’t already exist. This research will investigate the need for, logistics of, and funding options for a statewide ridesharing and vanpooling program. The final product of this research is an Implementation Plan that includes key corridors, start- up considerations, staffing, and operational guidelines, as well as funding options for capitalizing the statewide program. Task 4 involved five steps intended to gather information on the need and support for ridesharing and vanpooling services in key areas around the state ( outside of Maricopa and Pima Counties). This task involved the identifying, contacting, and interviewing people in a select number of areas in the state. Each step is enumerated below and described in more detail in the remainder of this chapter. The chapter concludes with some overall findings and preliminary recommendations for the implementation plan. Step 4.1 Qualifying Potential Contacts Step 4.2 Screening Contacts Step 4.3 Short- list of Prospects Step 4.4 Site Interviews with Prospects Step 4.5 Summary of Findings from Prospects 31 Step 4.1 – Qualifying Potential Contacts The AzDOT research and transit staff serving on the projects’ Technical Advisory Committee provided the project team with a list of chambers of commerce in key corridors and in non- metropolitan areas that might have a need for rideshare and vanpool services. The list of chambers and contacts is included in Appendix A. From this list, a brief qualifying questionnaire ( Appendix B) was sent in November 2006 via e- mail to the list of chambers of commerce for which valid contacts were available. The questionnaire was sent by AzDOT in order to maximize the response rate. The questionnaire included 10 questions to assess perceptions, needs, and funding possibilities. Step 4.2 – Screening Contacts The following six chambers of commerce responded to the initial qualifying survey: • Flagstaff • Kingman • Bullhead City • Lake Havasu • Eloy • Copper Basin A set of questions ( Appendix C) to assess the need for and disposition toward rideshare and vanpool services was sent in January 2007 to the six contacts that responded to the initial inquiry. These questions were sent to help in conducting telephone interviews with the parties in AzDOT’s research into rideshare service needs. The questions probed local issues and characteristics, such as: 1) the perceived severity of traffic congestion and commute issues, 2) the need for ridesharing services and the potential role of area employers, 3) past efforts to address commuting and mobility issues, and 4) potential forums and partners to support ridesharing and vanpooling services. Interviews were conducted with representatives of five of the chambers of commerce. The original contact for Eloy’s chamber was no longer employed there and a referral was not available. A representative of the Copper Basin Chamber of Commerce stated in a telephone interview that there were not really any traffic problems in the area and it had an insufficient number of large employers to warrant ridesharing and vanpooling services except perhaps for the correction facility in nearby Florence. Step 4.3 - Short- List of Prospects The responses received from the four areas made two things apparent. First, real congestion and mobility problems exist in these areas and ridesharing was favorably perceived as one solution. Second, commonality of issues and contiguousness of the three cities in Mojave County warranted their being considered together. 32 In assessing whether sufficient need and interest existed to go the next step and warrant face- to- face interviews, the following criteria were considered to assess the need for transportation management partnerships: 19 • Sufficient population and density • Presence and nature of congestion • Well- defined geographic area • Growth in population and employment • Accessibility to transit, parking and other mobility options • Existence of a “ champion” to spearhead the effort • Existence of a core group or existing organization to undertake effort • History of public/ private partnerships to tackle area issues • Commitment to provide human and financial resources Based on the responses to the questionnaire and consideration of the above criteria, the project team recommended to AzDOT that Flagstaff and the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area be studied further. Step 4.4 - Site Interviews Upon approval by AzDOT for further study of these two target areas, the consulting team set up face- to- face meetings in Bullhead City and Flagstaff in March 2007. Staff from the Bullhead City and Flagstaff chambers organized each meeting. The meeting in Bullhead City included representatives from Kingman, Bullhead City, Lake Havasu City and Laughlin, Nevada. Representatives from each of the chambers in the tri- city area, as well as representatives from the county and from transit service providers attended the meeting. Appendix D is a summary of this meeting, including results from preceding telephone contacts and a list of attendees. Growth in Mojave County and travel in and between these three cities and to Laughlin have clearly created some substantial mobility needs that are not being fully met with existing transit services. The current closing of the roads across the Hoover and Davis dams exacerbates this problem. Perhaps the greatest unmet need is for non- commute trips that cannot be conveniently served with transit. Participants in the meetings were enthusiastic about the prospects for a coordinated approach to shared rides for all three cities. However, the nature and specifics of those shared ride services clearly needs more definition. The meeting in Flagstaff included representatives from the chamber and from the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transit Authority. Appendix E is a summary of this meeting, including findings from the telephone interview with the Flagstaff chamber and a list of attendees. 19 ESTC, TMS, et al, “ Research and Recommendations on ARC Support to Local Transportation Management Programs: Part 1 Study Report,” prepared for the Atlanta Regional Commission, September, 2001. 33 The situation in Flagstaff was somewhat different in that commuting issues were a greater impetus for this community. Employers in the region have some difficulty recruiting employees who face long- distance commutes to affordable housing areas, including on the Navajo Nation. Likewise, city employees park on- street downtown, taking parking spaces from visitors and shoppers. Efforts are already underway to procure and install a ridematching system, but the marketing and support for that service has not been arranged. A partnership of key private and public interests to support ridesharing and vanpooling seems ripe in Flagstaff. The Governor’s executive order ordering AzDOT to study Arizona’s mass transportation options20 was discussed at both meetings to provide clarification between the two efforts. Some confusion existed due to the convening of meetings on that initiative at about the same time as the meetings for this project were held. Contact was made with the consultant who was conducting the meetings regarding the executive order to clarify the purpose of each effort. The summary of each group interview was circulated to the meeting organizers ( Bullhead City and Flagstaff chambers) for comments. No substantive comments or corrections were received. Step 4.5 - Summary of Finding The interviews with interested parties in Bullhead City ( tri- city area?) and Flagstaff were very informative in helping assess the need and potential support for ridesharing and vanpooling services in each area. Several commonalities exist between the two areas: • Both experience traffic congestion on local and regional roads, especially during peak commute times and when large numbers of visitors travel into the areas. • Both areas are experiencing growing commute- related issues as both affordable housing and employment locate further from each city’s core area. • Both areas have transit services that provide a basic level of service for residents, commuters, and visitors. Unmet needs include some travel by the elderly and those with cars that transit cannot conveniently serve and for some commuter services, like that to employment centers outside the core cities. • Both areas have contemplated ridesharing services in the past, either in terms of vanpool opportunities ( Mojave County) or ridematching ( NAIPTA). • Both have been working with AzDOT to explore mobility issues: the tri- city area in terms of coordinated transit services and Flagstaff in terms of access to statewide ridematching services. 20 “ Executive Order 2007- 02: Expanding Arizona’s Transportation Options.” Arizona Administrative Register 13( 4): 212- 213, January 26, 2007. 34 • Both areas voiced considerable need for and interest in offering ridesharing services. The need in the tri- city area seems to focus on the coordination of new and existing services between the cities that might be consolidated with a ridesharing program. The need in the Flagstaff area seems to be organizing employers and marketing existing and new services. • The project team senses that the Flagstaff area is slightly more ready to take on ridesharing and vanpooling services. However, the Implementation Plan, which is the final chapter of this study, includes specific recommendations for each of the two areas. Chapter 5 has implementation plans for both areas ( pending approval by AzDOT) to include detailed start- up activities for Flagstaff comprised of: 1) demand for rideshare and vanpool services 2) identification of needed services, 3) start- up considerations, 4) staffing and funding needs, and 5) operational guidelines as well as developmental activities for the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu area. 35 CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TASK 5 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY After conducting background research and a needs assessment, the project team developed four recommendations for AzDOT. The broad recommendations are presented first, followed by a more detailed explanation and guidelines for each recommendation. The recommendations are as follows: 1. Flagstaff – The team recommends that AzDOT assist with the start- up of a ridesharing initiative in the Flagstaff area. The team recommends that the Chamber of Commerce undertake employer outreach and help coordinate ridesharing services offered by the Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO) and the local transit authority. This action will provide the needed marketing for the new ridematching system acquired from Valley Metro in Phoenix. The new partnership between the Flagstaff Chamber, the Flagstaff MPO, and NAIPTA can also promote and form vanpools for commuters with long distance commutes. 2. Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area – The team recommends that a more detailed feasibility study be conducted for the three cities in Mohave County. While the need for ridesharing services is fairly apparent, the means to coordinate and provide these services are not. Therefore, the team recommends conducting a feasibility study and pilot project to test the demand for commuter services. 3. Identification of Future Priority Areas – The team recommends periodic assessments be made with local chambers of commerce, key local agencies, and AzDOT district offices to determine if conditions warrant the offering of ridesharing services to address congestion and mobility issues in key corridors or areas. 4. Role of AzDOT in Fostering Statewide Services – AzDOT can undertake several supporting activities to facilitate the growth of carpooling and vanpooling in non-urban areas. First, AzDOT can support a statewide ridematching service similar to that provided by Valley Metro to Tucson and Flagstaff. AzDOT can also assist with new vanpool acquisition. Furthermore, AzDOT can provide technical assistance to areas interested in creating a new ridesharing program with guidance and funding for start- up. AzDOT can also convene ridesharing program managers from around the state for networking, training, and technical assistance. A detailed explanation of each recommendation is the focus of the remaining sections of this report. The first recommendation outlines an implementation plan for Flagstaff. Second, the process for undertaking a more detailed feasibility study and pilot in Mohave County is presented. The final section outlines the activities that AzDOT can do to identify future areas that have potential for successful ridesharing programs as well as provide support to ridesharing services statewide. 36 TASK 5 DELIVERABLE 1. Implementation Plan – Flagstaff Area As noted earlier in response to the needs assessment conducted, Flagstaff appears to be poised for the implementation of a ridesharing and vanpool program. Some activities have already taken place. The Flagstaff MPO has noted the need for ridesharing and NAIPTA is negotiating an Intergovernmental Agreement ( IGA) with AzDOT and Valley Metro to acquire access to an online ridematching database. The Chamber noted the need to link employers and workers, including government and university worksites and outlying private employers such as Nestle, WL Gore, and the Walgreen Distribution Center. Vanpooling options for long- distance commuters from Winslow and the Navajo Nation may also be an opportunity area. The team recommends the start- up of a “ transportation management initiative.” Such an initiative is not a formal, new organization, such as a Transportation Management Association; rather it is a collaborative program among existing public and private organizations. The key is providing a tangible link between commuters and other travelers, such as visitors, and mobility options. The Chamber can provide the conduit to employers and NAIPTA can provide needed services, including ridematching, vanpool acquisition, and transit information. NAIPTA has the services to offer and needs new avenues to market those services, while the Chamber has existing relationships with employers and can champion the cause. This implementation plan includes: • Structure of transportation management initiative and staffing • Services to be provided • Other activities to be undertaken • Roles and responsibilities • Work plan outline • Budget and funding sources • Benefits of implementation • Schedule Structure of the Flagstaff Initiative The team recommends the formation of an informal public/ private alliance for the specific purpose of coordinating, marketing, and providing rideshare and vanpool services. This “ transportation management initiative” ( TMI) should be an alliance between the Flagstaff Chamber, representing employers and commuters and NAIPTA, which provides commuter options, including the new online ridematching software. The formation of transportation management initiatives has been successfully used by Florida DOT to foster new partnerships without forming new organizations. A memorandum of understanding ( MOU) between the chamber, NAIPTA, and AzDOT would suffice to clarify roles, responsibilities, services, and resource allocation. The Chamber can also convene an advisory group to oversee and advise the initiative and 37 provide some buy- in from key stakeholders. A work plan can be developed to guide the first year start- up activities, outreach, and service delivery. A more marketable name for the program can be developed in the first year as well. Afterward, presuming a success-ful start- up, annual work plans, staffing requirements, and budgets can be developed. Staffing Staffing would be shared between the Chamber and NAIPTA, but the team recommends that the “ face” to the employer, commuter, resident, and visitor be the Chamber Coordinator, with referral to services from NAIPTA and others. The Flagstaff TMI staff would report to the Chamber’s Executive Director and its transportation committee or government affairs director. A close working relationship would be formed between TMI staff at the Chamber and NAIPTA staff responsible for transit information and two new services, ridesharing matching and vanpool provision. The start- up and initial service provision will require a half- time position at the Chamber and staffing equivalent to one day per week at NAIPTA. Services to be Provided The Flagstaff TMI would provide the following services to employers ( public, private, and educational), commuters, residents, and visitors: • Employer outreach ( contacting and educating employers) • Employer services ( information for employers to provide employees) • Carpool and vanpool formation ( identifying potential groups) • Parking information for downtown Flagstaff • Visitor information ( how to get around without a car) • Commuter ridematching ( online ridematching) • Transit information • Vanpool acquisition While the last three services would be provided by NAIPTA, the Flagstaff TMI would coordinate all activities and services so that information is seamless to the requestor and user. Other Activities The new alliance could also serve as a voice for transportation demand management solutions in transportation and growth plans, new development site plan review, transportation projects, and transit service planning. Given the tie of the Flagstaff TMI to the end traveler, this could provide a unique and helpful perspective on the ability to increase vehicle occupancy or avoid travel at the most congested times and places. Roles and Responsibilities As noted above, the two key players in this new initiative are the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce and NAIPTA. It might be useful to think of the Chamber as the coordinator and “ retail” outlet for information and services, much of which will be provided by NAIPTA. The Chamber can provide in- kind resources in the form of office space, clerical support, and staff coordination. The Chamber can also conduct employer 38 outreach with its members and others and coordinate with other chambers through the Northern Arizona Chamber Coalition. NAIPTA can host the ridematching service, provide transit services in the region, and acquire vans for vanpool groups. A MOU can define these roles and specific responsibilities during start- up and initial service delivery. The two other key organizations are the Flagstaff MPO, ( which, along with the City of Flagstaff, has considered the need for a ridesharing program for several years) and AzDOT Public Transportation Division. The FMPO can assess the integration of ridesharing and vanpooling into future transportation plans and AzDOT can provide technical assistance and start- up funding. Work Plan Outline The start- up work plan for the Flagstaff TMI should be developed in concert with the MOU between the Chamber and NAIPTA and any funding agreements with AzDOT or others. The elements of the start- up work plan should include: • Program structure and coordination ( MOU) • Program identity and branding • Program start- up tasks and schedule • Program staffing responsibilities • Marketing and promotion • Employer outreach • Commuter services • Reporting and oversight • Outline of three- year business plan Assistance with the work plan and TMI organization can be found in the national TMA Handbook, available from the Association for Commuter Transportation. 21 Budget and Funding Sources Three key budget elements for the Flagstaff TMI and the services it promotes should be considered: staffing, marketing, and service acquisition. Staffing for the first 6- 12 months, as stated earlier, would likely require a half- time position at the Flagstaff Chamber and about 8- 10 hours per week of staff time at NAIPTA to coordinate ridesharing service delivery. The cost of these labor resources is locality specific, but nationally, start- up labor costs might be $ 35,000 ( half time including fringe benefits). The cost of the additional staff time at NAIPTA could easily be 21 CUTR, TMA Handbook: A Guide to Successful Transportation Management Associations, Association for Commuter Transportation, 2001. http:// www. nctr. usf. edu/ clearinghouse/ tmas. htm, accessed April 1, 2008. 39 obtained from that agency, but assuming a one- quarter time position, the cost would be about $ 20,000, including fringe benefits. Finally, management time for the Chamber and NAIPTA staff responsible for these positions could total another $ 20,000 for coordination and management. In total, the first year labor costs would approximate to $ 75,000. Marketing, not including staff time, includes creative work for a new program on written materials, web- design, and materials production. The costs for these activities will be highest in the first year of start- up and will be far less in additional years. The first year costs are estimated to be $ 50,000. Finally, service acquisition includes procurement of the ridematching system and vanpool vehicles. If NAIPTA is a qualifying agency, then it can use the FTA’s Capital Cost of Contracting provisions to lease the vans and, more importantly, count vanpool miles in Sec. 5307 NTD reporting. The ridematching system has already been obtained, but vanpool acquisition might need some state seed funding before the 5307 revenue is realized. Therefore, first year labor costs are approximately $ 125,000. Vanpool acquisition is an additional cost. In most urban areas, CMAQ funds are used to fund ridesharing activities. However, in other areas that are not eligible for CMAQ, more traditional highway and transit funds are used. For Flagstaff, sources of funding might include: • Federal or state highway funds ( e. g., Surface Transportation Program) • AzDOT transit funding • Local funds from the FMPO, NAIPTA, the city • In- kind resources from the Chamber, including office space, equipment, and clerical support Benefits of Implementation The benefits of the proposed Flagstaff Transportation Management Initiative are several, and include: • Addresses growth concerns about traffic and quality of life issues • Provides a service to residents, workers, and visitors • Addresses unmet transit needs to outlying areas • Helps reduce parking demand in downtown Flagstaff and at Northern Arizona University ( NAU) • Reduces the cost of meeting growth in travel demand with new or enhanced road capacity • Provides AzDOT with a pilot process for fostering other initiatives in the state While these benefits are rather difficult to quantify, the cost effectiveness of demand management solutions, when compared to other techniques, is generally very favorable. 22 22 ESTC, Alternative Modes as an Air Quality Strategy, prepared for ADOT, Final Report 566, June 2004. 40 Schedule The general schedule for the first year can be divided into four quarters, once adequate resources are identified and committed: First Quarter • Develop generalized program description and roles • Develop and seek approval of MOU • Assemble advisory committee • Hire and train part- time staff at chamber • Develop first year work plan Second Quarter • Develop program identity and branding concept • Publicize program to other stakeholders, employers, and the community • Initiate employer outreach activities Third Quarter • Initiate marketing and promotion of program and ridematching • Initiate specific events at worksites • Draft three- year business plan and funding options Fourth Quarter • Intensify vanpool formation activities • Develop specific marketing materials ( e. g., downtown parking) • Prepare first year annual report 2. Coordination Study and Pilot – Kingman, Bullhead City, and Lake Havasu City area While the need for transportation management services for commuters, residents, and visitors was apparent from the needs assessment, the means for coordinating and providing needed services were less obvious in Mohave County. The two, main, unmet needs are for commuters that are traveling to large employment centers in Kingman and Laughlin, Nevada, and for resident trips to medical institutions, retail centers, courthouses, and other destinations that cannot be conveniently served with existing public transit. The large size of the service area and the multiple jurisdictions and service providers involved make coordination both necessary and somewhat problematic. The discussions held in Bullhead City formed a consensus on the need for services and for some centralized coordination and marketing, but a logical focal point or champion did not emerge. 41 The region is already exploring the need for transit coordination and ways to satisfy unmet transit needs. 23 These needs might be partially resolved by some ridesharing and vanpool recommendations as well. At a minimum, the need for rideshare and vanpool services needs to be assessed in light of the intercity transit pilot recommended for the three cities as part of the Rural Transit Needs Study. Therefore, the team recommends that in lieu of an integrated service delivery arrangement, as is being recommended for Flagstaff, two key activities take place as next steps for the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area. These activities include a more detailed Mobility Service Coordination study and a pilot commuter services project for employees in neighboring Laughlin, Nevada. Pilot Project First, with regard to the pilot project, the need for commuter services for the gaming and related worksites in Laughlin seems very apparent. As most of the casino workers live in Arizona, the impact on traffic across the Laughlin Bridge, on Topock- Davis Dam Road, and the regional road system is significant. A commuter services program targeted to casino workers could have a measurable impact on these roads around shift changes. Representatives from Bullhead City and the Southern Nevada Transit Coalition cited the potential for working with casinos in a collaborative fashion. This collaboration would also assist these employers to recruit and retain employees and, perhaps, reduce tardiness due to traffic congestion. The pilot would test the willingness of employers and employees to use commute management services as well as the ability for the cities and transportation providers to coordinate projects. Experience from a successful pilot project could be applied to other large employers ( e. g., Wal- Mart, Sterilite, the Duval Mine, the private correctional facility) and employment centers ( e. g., hospital complexes, the community college and county administrative center and courts). The pilot could also be a precursor to or part of any mitigation efforts associated with the Laughlin Bullhead City Bridge Project. The pilot project could be funded with a challenge grant from AzDOT to match funds allocated by local partners ( including Laughlin, the Regional Transportation Commission ( RTC) of Southern Nevada, and Nevada DOT, and the casinos) or become part of the mitigation efforts associated with the new bridge project, thus being eligible for the use of federal funds. Coordination Study A more detailed feasibility study focused on coordination mechanisms for Mobility Services in Mohave County could be undertaken concurrent with or after the commuter services pilot project. The coordination study would explore the activities that need to be coordinated to offer mobility services within and between the three cities. Data collected in a central database could prove valuable in coordinating rides between the three cities 23 The Regional Connector study, Tri- City Transit Implementation Plan, and the ongoing Rural Transit Needs Study 42 for work travel and other group rides. More importantly, it would assess the various mechanisms for coordinating these services. Coordination activities would include: • Commuter services ( ridematching, vanpooling, and transit) • Resident mobility services ( shopping, medical, other) • Information services ( on- line, telephone) • Marketing and outreach activities ( including program branding) • Administration and reporting Coordination mechanisms worth consideration include: a) one city, chamber, or transit provider coordinating services, b) a program operated by the county, c) a collaborative program with shared staff, but seamless service delivery, d) creation of a new entity to coordinate and provide services, or e) use of a contractor to manage the program. The Mobility Services Coordination study should result in a recommendation and preliminary work plan for the creation of a coordinated Mobility Services program for the three cities. The work plan would include similar information to that in the Flagstaff TMI implementation plan found in the preceding section. The coordination study would cost approximately $ 50,000 if performed by a consultant and should be undertaken by someone familiar with the existing entities and needs in the region. This study could be funded with traditional planning funds. The coordination study could also be conducted by an ad hoc group of affected chambers and public entities with some technical assistance from AzDOT or from other commute management organizations in the state ( at Valley Metro and the Pima Association of Governments). The benefits of undertaking the pilot and the coordination study would be to: 1) mitigate the impact of commuter traffic generated by the Laughlin gaming and related worksites, and 2) refine the process for identifying and planning for rideshare and vanpool programs in non- metropolitan areas of Arizona. ENHANCED ROLE FOR AZDOT TO SUPPORT PROGRAMS Two other key recommendations are offered by the project team to support and encourage rideshare and vanpool programs in non- metropolitan areas in Arizona that are experiencing growth and its negative impacts on traffic, air quality, energy, the environment, and quality of life. The first recommendation is to conduct periodic surveys of local stakeholders in other areas ( other than Mohave and Coconino counties) to assess the changing needs for these services and the conditions that warrant their consideration. The second recommendation is to provide some statewide support services to foster and maintain effective ridesharing and vanpooling services throughout Arizona. 3. Identification of Future Priority Areas AzDOT might consider replicating the initial survey that was used in the needs assessment section of this study. That survey was administered via e- mail to Chambers of Commerce of smaller cities throughout the state. The same survey could also be sent to cities, planning organizations, and transit operators. The team recommends the survey be repeated approximately three to five years from now ( 2009- 2011) to gauge interest 43 and need in areas other than Maricopa, Pima, Mohave, or Coconino Counties. These areas might include the cities of Yuma, Gila Bend, Prescott, Green Valley, the US 89 corridor through the Navajo Nation, State Route 82 in the southeast, and the Copper Basin in Pinal County. As provided in the needs assessment the conditions under which these rideshare and vanpool programs tend to be successfully initiated include: • Sufficient population and density • Presence and nature of congestion • Well- defined geographic area • Growth in population and employment • Accessibility to transit, parking, and other mobility options • Existence of a “ champion” to spearhead the effort • Existence of a core group or existing organization to undertake the effort • History of public/ private partnerships to tackle area issues • Commitment to provide human and financial resources While these factors are currently present in the Flagstaff and the Kingman/ Bullhead City/ Lake Havasu City area, the population, employment, and traffic growth in Arizona will likely lead to other area candidates in the near future. 4. Role of AzDOT in Fostering Statewide Services Finally, AzDOT can further support these emerging programs and existing Travel Reduction Programs by considering several new or enhanced activities: • AzDOT could help expand a statewide, on- line ridematching system by supporting its acquisition and implementation in other urban areas and by supporting requests for information and matches from areas not covered by two existing programs. AzDOT could undertake support and maintenance itself or allow an existing program, such as Valley Metro, to maintain the statewide database. • Second, AzDOT can assist new programs in acquiring vans for vanpools. Several states have created pooled leasing programs that are reimbursed through user fares and Section 5307 monies generated with vanpool miles. Alternatively, AzDOT can provide technical assistance to local programs to help in vanpool lease arrangements by educating them on lease options and funding sources. • Next, AzDOT can provide technical and financial assistance in program start- up and pilot projects. AzDOT staff and its on- call contractors can provide technical assistance. Financial assistance might be in the form of formation grants or challenge grants that require a match and diminish in value during each phase of start- up and implementation. Many states have provided such start- up grants for studies and initial organizational tasks. 44 • Finally, AzDOT could provide for statewide ne |
|
|
| A |
|
| B |
| C |
|
| D |
| E |
| F |
| G |
| H |
| I |
| J |
| L |
| M |
|
| N |
| O |
| P |
|
| R |
| S |
|
| T |
|
| U |
| V |
| W |
| Y |
|
|