&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Radiation
EPA420-S-98-GG5
July 1998
Office of Mobile Sources
TRAQ Technical Overview
Transportation Air Quality Center
Transportation Control Measures:
Guaranteed Ride Home
EPA's main strategy for addressing the contributions of motor vehicles
to our air quality problems has been to cut the tailpipe emissions for
every mile a vehicle travels. Air quality can also be improved by
changing the way motor vehicles are used—reducing total vehicle miles
traveled at the critical times and places, and reducing the use of highly
polluting operating modes. These alternative approaches, usually
termed Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), have an important
role as both mandatory and optional elements of state plans for
attaining the air quality goals specified in the Clean Air Act. TCMs
encompass a wide variety of goals and methods, from incentives for
increasing vehicle occupancy to shifts in the timing of commuting trips.
This document is one of a series that provides overviews of individual
TCM types, discussing their advantages, disadvantages, and the issues
involved in their implementation.
) Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Guaranteed Ride Home
Contents
O Background
© Costs and Benefits
© Implementation
O Equity Issues
0 Recent Examples
(D Sources
9 On-line Resource
Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) is a Transportation Control
Measure (TCM) that ensures a person who does not drive
alone has access to an appropriate means of transportation in the
case of an unforeseen circumstance. The intent is to overcome
one of the barriers to selecting options other than single occupant
driving by offering participants a low cost or no cost ride if this
should become necessary.
A GRH program may offer rides by taxi, company
vehicle, private shuttle, auto rental, or transit passes. These rides
may either be offered without cost to the participant or require a
co-payment. GRH programs may limit the number of trips
offered to each participant over a certain time period, or the total dollar amount allowed for
reimbursement. GRH programs may operate at the employer, municipal, or regional level.
1. Background
The Transportation Research Board found 11 GRH programs in operation in 1989. Since
then, several areas have implemented some form of this measure. For example, Baltimore,
Maryland instituted a GRH pilot program in 1992 that was evaluated and found to be well
received by participants. The program is believed to have retained users of transportation modes
such as mass transit and ridesharing who otherwise may have returned to a single occupancy
vehicle (SOV) mode. However, the impact of the program on the use of non-SOV options is
uncertain.
2. Costs and Benefits
The purpose of the GRH measure is
to retain and increase transit and
ridesharing (and potentially bicycle and
pedestrian use as well) by removing the
barrier of not having access to
transportation in the event of an emergency,
which prevents many people from
foregoing SOV travel. To the extent that
SOV users switch to a non-SOV
transportation mode and emissions decline
as a result of a GRH program, the air quality
Is to
retain and increase transit and 'ridesharing
$ /«.*•* /*«•*» ^ SMT^ *
(and potentially bi^de and pedestrian use
having access to transportation in the event
of an emergency, frhtch presents many
people from foregoing SOV travel.
benefits can be determined. Participants are usually
-------
Guaranteed Ride Home
Page 2
surveyed to identify the past travel mode and the role of the GRH program in helping to decide
their current mode of transportation. A GRH measure is seldom implemented alone; it is often
one element of a larger ridesharing program. Thus, the benefits of this particular measure alone
may be hard to estimate.
The total cost of a GRH program equals administrative costs plus the cost of the ride
received by participants. Administrative costs include processing reimbursements, marketing the
program, and evaluation of the program, if performed. Reimbursement costs depend on the
number of participants and whether participants are expected to provide a co-payment. A Los
Angeles GRH program found that 1 percent of 6,000 eligible participants used the program over
the course of one year, at an average reimbursement cost of $46 per participant. In Baltimore, the
average reimbursement for 287 reimbursed trips was $31.91. Limiting the number of times a
participant can take advantage of the program can keep costs down and prevent abuse of the
program. However, this may also discourage participation and reduce the incentive to switch
from SOV trips.
3. Implementation
A GRH measure requires no
infrastructure to initiate and start-up is
relatively quick. GRH may work best
when implemented either by large
employers or a private/public partnership
because this would allow administrative
costs to be divided among participants. In the Baltimore GRH program, employers were
members of a non-profit association called the BWI Business Partnership, Inc. that represents
businesses and agencies in the vicinity of BWI airport on several issues. The partnership collects
annual dues from members to carry out activities. Funds from these dues were used to operate
the GRH program. In other areas, GRH programs are operated by a local government agency
such as the county. Employers can offer GRH programs as well. GRH start-up may begin with a
survey of employees of current commute mode and interest level in a GRH program.
The program must be clear about what types of situations are eligible for a GRH. For
instance, an employee reimbursement for using GRH when working late might be limited to
cases where a supervisor approved overtime. In the case of a family emergency, proof might be
required for reimbursement. It is also important to indicate who is eligible to participate, how
often, any limitations on distance traveled, and limitations on personal stops. Many programs
extend GRH only to registered carpoolers or vanpoolers who use that mode of travel at least a
minimum number of times per week or month.
-------
Guaranteed Ride Home
Page 3
GRH programs can be most easily
where there are
The effects of this measure are apparent almost immediately after implementation. In
some instances, agreements can be arranged between transit providers (taxi fleets, transit
agencies) so participants can use a voucher or pass. In other cases, participants must pay up front
and then get reimbursed. The key to program success is to effectively communicate to SOV
users that the program will provide a guaranteed ride if they need one, and therefore they can
disregard this barrier to ridesharing or transit use.
A GRH is usually implemented in conjunction with an employer or area-wide rideshare
program, in which potential carpool and vanpool participants and/or transit users can register or
call a phone number to obtain information on
the available commute options. A GRH
measure may not be effective in increasing
carpooling if not promoted in conjunction with
a ridematching service or where available
transit exists. Although no programs were
found that allowed bicyclists or pedestrians to
take advantage of a GRH program, this could be an aspect of the measure.
Results on GRH effectiveness from existing programs are hard to determine. A baseline
survey of travel mode and a follow-up survey are necessary to determine the effectiveness of the
program. An analysis of the Baltimore GRH program found 114 participants used the GRH
service 287 times in 12 months. Overall commute behavior before and after the one-year GRH
program remained essentially unchanged. A slight increase in use of transit and ridesharing
modes and a slight decrease in SOV mode were found. Evidence indicated that the GRH
program retained some users of non-SOV modes who might have returned to an SOV mode
without the GRH program. One potential result of a GRH measure may involve participants
switching from transit to ridesharing, if transit fares are not reimbursable.
4. Equity Issues
GRH is designed to switch SOV drivers to other means of travel. However, those already
using other means of transportation are normally eligible to participate. A GRH program can be
designed to benefit all employees or potential participants of an organization. A limitation on
mileage or total cost may negatively effect those who live farther away from the employment
site. If transit riders are not eligible for reimbursement, demographic groups that depend more
on mass transit as their primary means of transportation will be excluded.
5. Summary of Recent Examples
The Baltimore example discussed above has been documented and evaluated. The
program was initially a one-year pilot. Upon completion of the pilot, the program was adopted
-------
Guaranteed Ride Home ;-V Page 4
as a permanent measure. Additional programs are operating in:
*»• Tucson, Arizona
*»• San Francisco, California
*+• Montgomery County, Maryland
^*- Denver, Colorado
>•»• Palo Alto, California
**• Bellevue, Washington
Limited data is readily available on these programs. The U.S. Department of
Transportation has found little existing data on GRH programs, as most areas implementing them
do not have a strong baseline for examining the effects of the measure. GRH is a part of a larger
rideshare program in many areas, often included in an overall strategy to decrease the number of
SOV trips to and from work.
A Washington Post article in the Fairfax Weekly section on June 19, 1997, included the
following examples of how GRH helped out two individuals in the Washington D.C. area:
**• William Fong, 29, got a free cab ride from his Washington office after his wife
called him to tell him that she was in labor. Fong normally takes a carpool to work.
"It gives you peace of mind," said Fong, whose first child Victoria, now is three
months old. "You can be sure you will get home on a timely basis if you need to."
**• Theodore Garman of Martinsburg, West Virginia was given a free rental car to
make the trip home from Washington after getting a call that his wife had fallen and
injured herself. He normally takes a MARC train.
6. Sources
[1] Evaluation of the Baltimore Guaranteed Ride Home Program, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C. Final Report (December 1994).
[2] U.S. Department of Transportation. Guaranteed Ride Home Factsheet. Obtained from the
U.S. DOT/FTA Internet web site (www.fta.dot.gov).
-------
Guaranteed Ride Home . Page 5
[3] Eric Lipton, "A Free Ride When it really Counts", Washington Post, Fairfax Weekly (June
19, 1997).
7. On-line Resource
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Mobile Sources has established the
TCM Program Information Directory to provide commuters, the transportation industry, state and
local governments, and the public with information about TCM programs that are now operating
across the country. This document and additional information on other TCMs and TCM
programs implemented nationwide can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/omswww/transp/traqtcms.htm
------- |