United States EPA • 908 / 1-78-001
Environmental Protection
Agency
VANPOOLING:
AN OVERVIEW
Region VIII
Denver, Co.
-------
EPA-908/1-78-001
VANPOOLING
AN OVERVIEW
by
David Kircher and Lawrence Wapensky
U. So Environmental Protection Agency
REGION VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
February 1978
firoteetioh Agtmcy
E--"tion. V, Libraiy
;jHAjutii Dearborn Street
Ohlcago, UlinQis 60604
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by members of the IL S= Environmental
Protection Agency's Denver Air Task Force. The Task Force was
established to help in the preparation of a local/state/federal
government Action Plan for dealing with Metropolitan Denver's air
pollution problems.
Since Metropolitan Denver's air pollution problems are caused
primarily by motor vehicle emissions, reduction in single occupant
vehicle use can lead to appreciable air quality improvements„ In
the short term, we see four alternate forms of transportation as
having potential to replace the single occupant vehicle for certain
trips — carpools, buses, bicycles, and -- vanpools. The purpose
of this report is to document our findings after a careful review
of the literature on the subject of vanpooling.
The thrust of the report is implementation. We have attempted
to identify the major issues and locate alternative means for
implementing programs given certain constraints (e.g. reluctance on
the part of employers to purchase or lease vans). Based on the
success with vanpooling throughout the United States, we are convinced
that vanpools are an important part of a total program to reduce
single occupant vehicle use and concomitant decrease in air pollution.
TTI.^TTVS-I-
-------
11
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, U. S0 Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VIII, and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the U» S0 Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.,
-------
111
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Although we were able to assemble a great deal of literature
on vanpooling, we would not have been able to produce this report
without the information we obtained from personal contact with
those individuals currently managing vanpool programs. We are
particularly appreciative of the enthusiastic responses to our
inquiries from Tobias Kaye (Rides for Bay Area Commuters, Inc.),
Stan Stokey (Tennessee Valley Authority), Helen Sever (3M Company),
"Al" Duke (VAN60), George Tyson (Social Security Administration),
and Gaylene Bailey (Caltrans).
Steve Baluch and Sherrie McGarry of the Federal Highway
Administration provided valuable, much appreciated information. We
also are indebted to J. Kemper Will of EPA's Region VIII Regional
Counsel staff for his authorship of the legal section.
Finally, our typist, Lucille Johnston deserves our special
thanks for typing this report.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I INTRODUCTION 1
II VANPOOL PROGRAM DESIGNS 2-5
Owner/Operator Var.pools
Company-Owned Vanpool Programs
Vanpool "Brokerage"
Government Guaranteed Vanpools
Government-Sponsored Vanpool Programs
III VANPOOL EXPERIENCE 6-12
Overview
Vanpooling in the Private Sector
Denver Area Vanpool Programs
Government Vanpool Programs
IV INSURANCE ISSUES 13-15
V LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 16-21
VI COSTS of VANPOOLING 22 - 28
A Comparison of Costs from Selected Vanpool Programs
Minimizing the Costs of Vanpooling
VII BENEFITS OF VANPOOLIN6 29-33
Participant Benefits
Societal Benefits
VIII NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF VANPOOL OPERATORS (NAVPO) 34
SUMMARY 35
REFERENCES • 36-37
APPENDIX 38 - 54
Summary of Vanpool Programs
California Ridesharing Legislation
Rides for Bay Area Commuter's, Inc. Articles of Incorporation
-------
ABSTRACT
Since its inception in 1973 at 3M Company in St. Paul, Minnesota,
vanpooling has developed into a major commuting transportation mode
throughout the nation. This report reviews the diversity of vanpool
program designs and vanpooling experience with some discussion germane
to the Denver metropolitan area. Vanpooling in the public and private
domains is surveyed. Vanpooling costs are discussed. Legal and insurance
issues pertaining to vanpooling are surveyed in some detail. A brief
discussion of the goals and purposes of the National Association of Vanpool
Operators is included.
-------
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Our attitudes about the use of the automobile have changed
since the nation became painfully aware of our critical energy supply
situation in 1973-1974. Gasoline shortages and increased gasoline
costs lead to a resurgency of carpooling and increasing mass transit
use for commuting., Also, the vanpool concept was born,
Vanpooling is a direct descendant of carpooling, having its
origins in the private sector. The 3M Company (St. Paul, Minnesota)
is credited with sponsoring the first employer-based commuter vanpool
program. The 3M Program, begun in early 1973, has since expanded to
over 90 vans carrying approximately 10% of the employees centered at
the 3M's Sto Paul facility. The idea and practicality of vanpooling
sold itself and now vanpooling is considered to be a viable, dynamic
commuter mode of transportation. Certain provisions of the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1976 will further facilitate the spreading of
vanpooling throughout the nation. This Federal legislation provides
monies to the states to encourage development of vanpool programs.
In vanpooling a large (usually 12-15 passenger) van is used
for transporting employees who live near each other to work. The van
is normally driven by one individual, unlike carpooling where the
driving is usually shared. The driver provides certain services but
rides free and has personal use of the van at nominal cost. Most van-
pool programs are sponsored by large employers, however, there are a
number of other vanpool concepts which have been proven effective.
In the following pages, the major issues surrounding vanpool-
ing are discussed. First, we examine alternative program designs
and nationwide vanpooling experience., Following this discussion,
legal and insurance considerations are addressed. Finally, costs
and benefits of vanpooling are described.
Our overall findings are then reported in a brief summary.
-------
CHAPTER II VANPOOL PROGRAM DESIGNS
The design of a vanpool program, or how it is financed and
administered, appears to be the key to how a vanpool program grows.
Successful programs require management support as well as thorough
administration.
Few programs are actually operated without some sort of subsidy.,
The subsidy may be only administrative support, e.g. vanpool matching
services, marketing, or it may be amortization of company owned vans
over a period of time assuming a zero discount rate. These subsidies
are, however, insignificant in .comparison to subsidies afforded con-
ventional transit services. Furthermore, what may appear to be a
subsidy by a private company may be more than compensated for by a
reduced need for parking spaces (which saves a company a substantial
amount of money).
We have been able to identify five different arrangements for
vanpooling: owner (or leasee) operator, company-owned or leased, van-
pool "brokerage ," government guarantee and government-owned. Although
each arrangement has its own unique benefits (as well as shortcomings),
the most widely used and successful one is the company-owned or leased
program. The number of examples of the other types of programs is
somewhat limited, however, there are many situations where the company-
owned program won't work. For this reason, we will describe each type
of program with specific examples of each along with the advantages
of that approach.
Owner/Operator Vanpools
The owner/operator vanpool system is the least structured of
any approach. The van owner or leasee assumes total financial risk in
case of any losses- He also can, within bounds, establish his own
fare structure, set his own ground rules and chose the vehicle of his
liking. The owner/operator system appears to offer the greatest degree
of flexibility. It allows an owner to operate his vehicle at less than
breakeven ridership if he wishes only to help defray the costs of van
ownership. This approach seems quite desireable to van owners who
have large families and would own a van anyway,, Given the high cost
of these vehicles (normally $8,000 - $10,000 list price) an owner/
operator approach might allow an individual to purchase a van who
normally could not afford to.
Although other options are now available, the Social Security
AdministrationfSSA)vanpool program (Baltimore, Maryland) began with
owner/operator vans. Based on a recent article on SSA's program, it
would appear that some owner/operator vanpools will remain a part of
its overall program. Owner/operator comments quite clearly indicate
satisfaction with the present arrangement.
-------
(Owner/Operator Vanpools-cont'd)
The major reason SSA's program began as an owner/operator system
is a prohibition (to be discussed later) on the use of Federal vehicles for
commuting. Until, and if, the law is changed, the owner/operator
system may be the only option for many Federal government employees,,
Company-Owned Vanpool Programs
The company-owned vanpool program is the most common and has
been the primary cause of growth in vanpool ing in the United States,,
In addition to the large programs such as 3M Company and Conoco, many
companies have programs with only a "handful" of vans in operation.
Unlike the owner/operator system, company sponsored programs do not
burden the driver with financial risks. For his service, the driver
normally receives benefits such as use of the van on weekends and
evenings (for a per mile fee), a free ride to and from work, and, in
some cases, a portion of the passenger fares. In addition to driving
responsibilities, drivers usually are responsible for van maintenance
including keeping the vehicle clean,,
There are few disadvantages of this system,, Fares are usually
quite low due to economies of scale afforded large corporations (e.g.
volume purchase, master insurance policies) and to "subsidies" (zero
discount rate, use of company facilities for gasoline and maintenance
and so on). The driver's personal use of the vehicle is often limited,
for example, vans cannot be used for long vacations.
Vanpool "Brokerage"
For want of a better term, we have called the next category
of vanpool program the "vanpool brokerage." A vanpool brokerage is
a "third" party who provides vans to vanpoolers. The brokerage might
be a private non-profit corporation or as in the case of the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA), an employee's credit union. The brokerage
serves vanpoolers who cannot procure a van through their employer.
Their employer may be too small to initiate a vanpool program, may be
prohibited by law from participating in vanpooling (e.g. government),
or may simply not be interested in pursuing a vanpool program.
An example of a private non-profit corporation to promote van-
pooling is VAN60 in Metropolitan Baltimore, Maryland. VANGO was formed
in July 1977 with the help of government funding. VANGO leases vans
and enters into an agreement with a driver. Monthly fares charged by
VANGO include: original vehicle cost, depreciation, maintenance, gas
and oil, insurance, taxes, license*, state inspection, administration
and the use of a back-up van when required.
-------
(Vanpool "Brokerage" cont'd)
Programs similar to VANGO exist or are in the formative stages.
For example, Rides for Bay Area Commuters, Inc. (San Francisco) has
recently completed its leasing agreement and is ready to beqin oper-
ation in early 1978. Other organizations in existence include, VANGO-
Hawaii and Commuter Computer (Los Angeles).
Another approach to the vanpool brokerage is used by TVA. Vans
are procured by employee credit unions which administer the financial
aspects of the program. The TVA Program has been successful, and is,
to the best of our knowledge, the largest in the country,
Government Gua ranteed Vanooo1s
In order to encourage employers to experiment with vanpooling,
the government guarantee program has been developed. An example of
this approach is the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)
Vanpool Demonstration Program,, This program is just getting underway.
The goal is to have approximately 20 vans on the road by August 1978.
The Council of Governments, using federal and state funds, will cover
any capital losses incurred by participating employers during the
first twelve months of operation. The theory is that employers and
employees will see the advantages of vanpooling and continue, and
perhaps expand, the program after the first year. Removing the financial
risks from the employer should encourage even small employers to consider
vanpooling.
Another form of government guarantee is an "abort agreement"
under a provision of the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act
(Public Law 93-239, as amended). The abort agreement provides a
mechanism whereby the Federal Government agrees to fund 90 percent of
the losses incurred should a vanpool program be forced to terminate.
Like the DRCOG's program, the guarantee is for twelve months. There is
little in the literature about the use of these abort agreements. Scott
Paper Company found that a delay of seven months occurred due to the
time it took to negotiate an agreement. Scott Paper noted that the long
delay resulted in a loss of employee interest in vanpooling.
Government-Sponsored Vanpool Programs
Because of restrictions on the use of government vehicles, there
has been very little experience with government-owned vehicle vanpool
programs. There are three examples in the literature: State of Calif-
ornia, Utah County, Utah (this program has since been scrapped) and
the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (San
Francisco, California). Other government vanpool programs that may be
underway include the States of Michigan and Minnesota. The Michigan
Department of State Highways and Transportation developed a detailed
proposal for a vanpool program in August 1976. Data from this proposal
are used later in this report in the discussion on costs. Since van-
pooling is growing rapidly, the current literature may be somewhat
out-of-date.
-------
(Gov-Sponsored Vanpool Programs -cont'd)
Government programs that are in place or contemplated almost
always require special legislation. For example, the sponsoring
efforts of the California Department of Transportation were necessary
to gain approval of Assembly Bill 3267. Legislation similar to the
California Bill is currently under consideration by the L)0 S0 House
of Representativeso If passed, this legislation would open up new
opportunities for vanpooling and carpooling for federal employees.
In the interim, federal agencies must rely on third parties for
vanpooling. for example, owner/operator or credit unions.
The key factor in obtaining enabling legislation to allow
government-sponsored vanpooling is providing assurances to the public
that vanpooling will pay for itself. The public is sensitive to how
government vehicles are used. Conversations with General Services
Administration personnel have revealed that they regularly receive
complaints from citizens when they suspect a vehicle is not being used
for "official business."
-------
CHAPTER III VANPOOL EXPERIENCE
Overview
Since 1973 a wealth of organizational and operational experience
has accumulated regarding vanpooling in the public and private sectors
of the economy„ Within the public domain, there are laws which
prohibit using government vehicles for personal commuting, however,
the State of California, as described later, changed a State Law to
permit using state-owned vehicles for commuting. There are no
Federally-owned vans in use for commuting. However, the Social Security
Administration (SSA) in Baltimore and the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) in Knoxville, support and encourage vanpool programs. They do
so by providing certain incentives, such as preferential parking for
vans. Also, the credit unions for the TVA purchased vans for ultimate
use by commuting TVA employees. A non-profit corporation, VANGO, has
been formed to "encourage vanpooling in Maryland,," This organization
is Federally-funded and makes available its services without charge.
Other non-profit corporations have been created to assist with van
procurement by government workers.
The 3M Company established the first vanpool program in 1973,
The Conoco vanpool program, although not an historical first, is never-
theless a major effort comparable in size to the 3M's program. Each
firm has about 90 vans in operation. Other organizations with a
significant effort in vanpooling are:
COMPANY LOCATION Number of vans
TVA Knoxville, Tenn 150
Commuter Computer Los Angeles area 70
Gulf Houston, Texas 34
Ralph M. Parsons Co. Pasadena, Calif 31
Cenex St. Paul, Minn 21
General Mills Minneapolis, Minn 17
Aerospace Corporation El Segundo, Calif 17
Polisar Van Coop Canada 16
Montgomery Ward & Co Chicago, 111 14
Nabisco East Hanover, N.J0 13
Vanpooling in the Private Sector
Robert Owen of 3M is given credit for conceiving the idea of
employer-sponsored vanpooling five years ago. The motivation to
institute vanpooling arose because of the lack of adequate public
transportation to and from 3M Headquarters in St, Paul, parking
space problems for privately-owned vehicles, and the energy crisis.
-------
(Vanpooling Private Sector-cont'd)
A key motivation for Conoco and other companies for establishing
vanpools was the conservation of energy. Since the 3M vanpool program
has served as a prototype for other company-owned or leased vanpool
efforts, it is described in detail. Some salient characteristics
of its effort obtained from "The 3M Commute-A-Van Program Status
Report II," are:
o 3M buys quality vans and depreciates them over four years.
The vanpooling program is operated at a breakeven point.
Riders pay monthly fees based on a fixed component
(depreciation, insurance, etc.) and a variable operating
cost (gasoline, oil, etc.) per mile.
@ The variable fee approximates 0.10<£ per mile. Generally,
a rider, depending on the distance travelled, will pay
$20 to $40 per month,
® 3M selects the pool coordinator (driver) from volunteers.
The pool coordinator is given administrative support by
3M. The pool coordinator selects the passengers, chooses
the route or decides after consultation with the riders
about central pick-up, such as, a park-and-ride location.
The pool coordinator collects the fares, provides van
maintenance and servicing and performs necessary adminis-
trative work. In turn, the driver rides free and has
personal use of the van at nominal costs in the evenings
and on the weekends.
© Vans are capable of carrying 8-15 passengers, with most
vans having a maximum load of 12 people. A back-up van
is made available for every 25 vans.
© The vanpool program is self-insured. This type of insurance
is not uncommon with respect to major companies. (Insurance
aspects of vanpooling are discussed elsewhere in this
report.)
Vanpooling works at 3M. From its inception in 1973, with a pilot
effort of six vans, the program grew to about 90 vans currently, and
expansion is likely including development of vanpool programs in
geographical locations other than St. Paul.
3M has studied its vanpool population and found, interestingly,
that about 50% of the original vanpoolers and three of its initial
pool coordinators are still in the program. Vanpooling also appeals
widely to all segments of its workforce.
Sperry Univac instituted in 1976 a contractual vanpool program
to transport employees between its four plants. Two vans and a school
bus are in use. The Company's costs are about $15 per hour per van.
It pays for the whole program. Since Sperry Univac previously paid
its employees 0.12^/mile for interplant travel, the cost per van is
not prohibitive,
7
-------
(Vanpoollng Private Sector-cont'd)
Van leasing is a financial approach to providing vans for
vanpools and is widely utilized in industry. A detailed discussion
of this is included in the costs section of the report.
Winnebago makes its own vans. In 1974, the Company began its
vanpool program with ten vehicles. The program now has 18 vans
(passenger-buses) capable of carrying 19-21 people. Winnebago operates
the program on a breakeven basis with average charges per month being
close to $28. Median commuting distance is about 70 miles roundtrip.
The driver collects the fares and receives a portion of income as well
as riding free. Some employees commute interstate from Minnesota to
the Iowa plant location without, as of 1976, experiencing regulatory
constraints. Little growth in the program is anticipated although a
waiting list of potential vanpoolers exists.
Denver Area Vanpool Programs
There is limited information available on vanpooling among
Denver based companies. Johns-Manville, Conoco, Statirol and Sundstrand
have currently or have had vanpool programs. Statirol, as of January
1978, has discontinued its vanpools. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
has a vanpool shuttle bus service between various Denver hotel/motels
and the Federal Center, and also to the airport. The service is used
mostly by transients. We have no information pertaining to any govern-
ment employee's commuting vanpools. Recently, Colorado's Governor
Lamm has instituted two vanpools for State employees.
Conoco is a leading proponent of vanpooling in the Denver Metro
area. The Company has recently increased its vanpooling effort so that
now three 8-passenger vans are in operation. One van services the
Applewood area, another the southwest area, and one the Northglenn area.
The cost per ride is about $22 per month. The Company self-insures
the program. Conoco also has two vanpools operating in Wyoming.
Johns-Manville, in implementing its vanpool effort, followed
the 3M program. Three vanpools were tried; one failed, one lost money,
and one is successful. This vanpool has ten people including the driver.
The commuting distance is approximately 35 miles one way. The cost per
passenger is determined from a fixed and a variable component. The
latter operating expense is about O.lOtf/mile. The vanpool has a break-
even load of eight people,,
Sundstrand has an inter-company van shuttle between two Company
locations. The 8-passenger van travels about 15 miles one way, six
times a day.
-------
(Denver Area-cont'd)
Statirol had two company-owned vans for vanpooling in use
for over a year but because of an economy move and geographical
dispersion of employees' residences, the Company as of January
1978 no longer has its vanpool program.
In discussions with several major private sectors employers
in the Denver area, we have learned that several companies are de-
veloping vanpool proposals for consideration by top management,,
The Bureau of Reclamation, as a service for its official
visitors, has two 15-passenger GSA-owned vans in use for its van
shuttle between hotels and motels in downtown Denver and the Federal
Center. Usually about twelve passengers ride each van daily*
Morning and afternoon service is provided. A van is used to trans-
port people to the airport in the afternoon on an "as needed" basis.
Government Vanpool Programs
Nearly all levels of government operate under laws which
prohibit the use of publicly-owned vehicles for employee commuting.
It is this basic issue that inhibits the very successful concept
begun by 3M Company as far as the public employment sector is concerned.
In some cases the law has been changed, however, in most instances
alternative van procurement avenues have been explored.
Although there are a number of government-endorsed programs in
operation, this report examines four specific ones in some detail„„„
TVA (quasi-U.S. Government), Social Security Administration (Baltimore,
Maryland), California Department of Transportation and Aerospace/Air
Force. Each of these programs is quite unique in terms of van procure-
ment.
TVA - As of early 1977, the TVA vanpooling program had approximately
150 vans, making it the largest employer-based vanpool program in the
United States. The program is still growing and is expected to reach
300-400 vans in the next few years.
The TVA program began in 1974 in Knoxville, Tennessee with a
fleet of six 12-passenger vans leased from Hertz Rent-a-Car. The
program is operated by an agreement between the TVA and TVA Employees
Credit Unions* This agreement delegates the responsibility for leas-
ing or purchasing vans and overall financial administration of the
program to the Credit Unions* This arrangement is necessary because
of TVA's quasi-government status. Use of government-owned vehicles
for employee commuting is expressly prohibited by Federal Law. Daily
program administration is provided by TVA's commuter transportation
staff who establishes and maintains vanpool membership and provides
technical assistance to credit union staff as well as to vanpool drivers,
-------
(Gov.Vanoool Programs-cont'd)
Monthly fares charged vanpool members range from $18 to $46.
Ten paying passengers are assumed in computing fares. The typical
van can accommodate 15 passengers and is equipped with an 8-cylinder
engine, front and rear air conditioning, a rear auxiliary heater,
power steering and power brakes.
As in most vanpool programs, driver's responsibilities and
benefits include:
(1) Operating and establishing vanpools.
(2) Arranging for van maintenance,
(3) Selection of alternate driver(s)0
(4) Use of the van for personal reasons at 10<£ per mile.
(5) Free transportation to and from work0
SSA - The SSA Headquarters in the Baltimore area has over 22,000
employees. Since transit service to these employees is limited, SSA
began a vanpooling program in 1976. The initial vanpool was formed
using the owner/operator concept with SSA providing help through a
fulltime vanpool coordinator,, The vanpool coordinator provides assist-
ance with van procurement, legal requirements and reserved parking.
The owner/operator concept was necessary because of the legal
constraint discussed previously regarding the use of government-owned
vehicles. Since late 1977, the SSA (as well as other Baltimore area
employees) have had the benefit of VANGO, a non-profit vanpooling
corporation. The program can be briefly described as follows.,
VANGO provides vans to groups who meet their criteria for a monthly
fee. The financial risks associated with van ownership are the burden
of VANGO rather than a private owner as in SSA owner/operator system,.
The SSA van fleet consisted of 16 vehicles as of January 1, 1978,
and is expected to grow to 21 vehicles by February 1978. The SSA
vanpool coordinator is confident that the availability of the VANGO
services will spur growth in vanpooling considering the large market
potential at SSA.
Under the owner/operator system, monthly vanpool fares range from
about $21 to $37 depending primarily upon the trip length. Some owner/
operator vanpools are not operated at a breakeven fare due to the
driver's desire to only help defray the costs of van ownership. Fares
charged by VANGO-sponsored vanpools should be comparable (perhaps
slightly higher).
10
-------
(Gov,Vanpool Program-cent(d)
California Department of Transportation - The California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans), Office of Ridesharing in Sacramento
began planning their in-house vanpooling program in the winter and
spring of 1974-1975. The first three vans began operation in July 1975.
Because some of the members of the State Board of Control
questioned the Board's authority to grant an exception to the rule, the
State vehicles could only be used for official state business and Caltrans
sponsored special legislation. Assembly Bill 3267, passed in July 1976,
became effective January 1, 1977. This Bill allows the Board of Control
to establish rules under which state-owned vehicles can be used for
other than official business. Assembly Bill 3267 is reproduced in the
Appendix of this report.
The program was initiated by the Office of Ridesharing which leased
three vans through the state bidding process. Insurance was provided
through the State's Master policy. Liability coverage is $2 million
while general coverage is $50 million.
Fares are calculated based on 11 riders per van and vary from
approximately $32 to $50 per month, depending on distances traveled.,
Round trip mileages are quite high (approximately 80 miles). Vans are
used for state business during the day and a per mile charge is credited
to the van fund.
There were 11 vans in the Caltrans program in Sacramento as of
January 1978. Eight additional vans are expected to be in operation by
1979.
Aerospace Corporation/Air Force - A vanpooling program was begun in
April 1975 by Aerospace Corporation and the Air Force Space and Missile
Systems Organization (SAMSO) in El Segundo, California. Although the
program is jointly sponsored, vans are procured through leasing by the
Aerospace Corporation. Fuel and maintenance service are partially
provided by Aerospace facilities and charged back to each van on a per-
mile basis.
The Aerospace/Air Force program had 20 vans as of early 1977.
There were 225 vanpoolers involved (175 Aerospace employees, 50 Air
-Force employees). A unique fare system is utilized. Regular riders
pay 1/3 of the total monthly fare in advance and then are assessed a
daily rate for each day they actually ride. The monthly assessment
ranges from $13 for a 50-mile roundtrip to $19 for a 120-mile roundtrip.
In addition to the monthly rate, passengers pay a daily charge of be-
tween $1.50 and $2. The system works well because of the frequent
business travel that Aerospace and Air Force personnel are involved in.
"11
-------
(Gov. Vanpool Program - cont'd)
A breakeven load of eight passengers is included in the
calculation. Unlike most vans involved in vanpooling, 18 of the
Aerospace vehicles are equipped with aircraft-style seats. This
limits the passenger capacity of the vans to eight, plus the
driver.
The program is administered by Aerospace personnel on their
own time and operates at no cost to Aerospace Corporation, The program
is self-insured for collision. Liability insurance is charged back
to the vanpool participants under a special policy.
12
-------
CHAPTER IV INSURANCE ISSUES
This topic, as well as the legal issues pertaining to vanpooling,
is quite complex. Certain large corporations, such as 3M or Conoco,
self-insure the yanpool efforts. Details on these programs have not
been well publicized. Hence, this discussion pertains to only the non-
self-insured vanpool programs. The discussion is not intended to be
definitive or exhaustive, but rather to alert potential sponsors and
participants to the major legal issues involved so that they may make
whatever further inquiries they deem necessary.
The DOT report by Frank W. Davis, Jr., et_a\_ "Insurance for Vanpools:
An Analysis of Current Issues and Progress," is the most cogent current
treatise on this topic and is liberally paraphrased or quoted herein
and in the subsequent legal section,, Other resource material has
been surveyed and is incorporated herein.
Historically, insurance companies and the courts have made decisions
about vanpools from experiences with carpool or public transit conveyances.
In many ways, vanpooling is a hybrid of both modes of transportation,
but since nearly all viable yanpool programs operate on a breakeven
financial basis, vanpooling is regarded as being closer to carpooling
than to being a public conveyance.
In carpools, frequently, the drivers/riders rotate roles. Insurance
companies recognize that in a four-passenger carpool, for example, there
is only one vehicle on the road, not four. Since one vehicle has less
chance of an accident than four, insurance companies tend to offer lower
rates (perhaps 10-20% less expensive) to carpoolers than to commuters
who drive single occupant vehicles. But insurance companies also realize
that, aside from possible liabilities to occupants of another vehicle,
a single occupant vehicle accident endangers only the driver of the
car, whereas, a carpool has a concentration of people increasing require-
ments for insurance coverage.
This situation is more complex in vanpoolSo Unlike carpools, one
person serves almost daily as the van driver. In automobile accidents,
on the average about 1,3-1.5 passengers per vehicle are affected. If
a van accident should occur, there could be 8-12 passengers involved.
Financial losses could be very high and insurance companies are extremely
concerned about catastrophic losses by concentration of liability.
For the above reason, because vanpooling is a relatively new idea,
and for various other reasons, there has been some difficulty experienced
in obtaining insurance, although the difficulty is decreasing.
The insurance industry has established new criteria for vanpool
coverage. There are now four categories of vanpooling for insurance
purposes:
13
-------
1. Shared driving pools - a group of individuals alternate
driving the pool and the insured vehicle is not driven more
than twice a week nor two weeks per month for commuting
purposes.
2. Privately-owned, shared expense pools - the pool members ride
in the same vehicle every day and contribute to the expense
incurred by the driver.
3. Employer provided pools - the pool riders are employees of
the same firm where ridership in the pool is a condition of
employment, an inducement to employment, or incidental to
employment of the riders.
4. All other pools - all other pooling arrangements whether third
party operators, multiple employment center pools or employer
pools where workmen's compensation probably will not apply.
Under this approach, the shared driving pools and the privately-
owned shared expense pools would continue to be included in the private
passenger manual] and the fact that they are used as pool vehicles
would not be a factor in their rating. If the vehicle is owned by an
individual and not used for "business purposes," then it will be rated
from the private automobile manual. The employer-provided pools and
all other pools will be listed in the commerical manual as "vanpools."
Commuting and commuter pooling are not considered a business purpose,
but if the vehicle is to be used to haul tools between work sites, used
for messenger or delivery service, and/or used in other activities in
the normal course of employment, then this use would place the vehicle
in the commercial manual. If the vehicle is owned by a company, cor-
poration or governmental agency, then it is considered a commercial
vehicle.
The employer sponsored pools are based on the premise that in
many cases the workers will be covered by workmen's compensation and
not by the vehicle liability policy. Since the legislation is not
specific on this in most states and case law is not well developed, it
is still uncertain as to how injuries will be covered. The insurance
industry, however, has been willing to insure employer pools at a
lower rate and assume the risk until such time as case law and vanpool
statistics establish a more reliable base.
In most states the van rider may be covered by a number of diverse
insurance policies, such as, disability, general or automobile liability,
uninsured motorists, workmen's compensation, automobile medical, or
hospitalization insurance.
1 Insurance Services Office Classification Manual
14
-------
The van driver needs to be adequately protected. This means
that a catastrophic umbrella coverage should be written into the
policy. The TVA credit union program requires this type of coverage
for the van and driver,,
Type Liability Limit
Bodily Injury $500,000/$500,000
Property Damage $50,000
Medical Payment $1,000
Uninsured Motorist $10,000/$20,000
Comprehensive Actual Cash Value
Collision $100 deductible
Catastrophic Liability Coverage $5,000,000
(Umbrella)
The cost for this insurance is about $50 per month per van. In Denver
this same coverage would cost between $40-60 per month per van.
The gist of this discussion on insurance is that a vanpool driver
must be adequately insured and this will be expensive. The cost of
the insurance should be passed on to the riders. Further, the rider
should ascertain that adequate insurance is provided by the driver or
the person or entity furnishing the van.
15
-------
CHAPTER V LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS OF VANPOOLING
As mentioned previously, within governmental sectors there are
legal restraints on using publically-owned vehicles for personal
transport of employees between residences and work locations. For
example, Federal Law 31 USC 638(a)(c) prohibits the use of Federal
funds for providing"transportation of officers and employees between
their domiciles and places of employment...." Because of this language,
no Federal agency provides commuting transportation for its employees.
However, agency supported vanpool efforts do exist. For example,
employees of the Social Security Administration in Baltimore and the
TVA in Knoxville commute to and from work in vans owned or financed
by their credit unions.
The State of California was sufficiently concerned and motivated
about means of cutting down on vehicular pollution and conserving energy
that it amended a law to authorize use of "state-owned vehicles as
commute vehicles in a carpool or vanpool program." The Governor
approved the law on July 8, 1976. Caltrans, described elsewhere in
this report, supervises the eleven van program.
Vanpooling is widely employed and is growing in the private
sector. The legal restraints, so prominent in the government sector,
are not operative in the private domain. However, a number of legal
questions about vanpooling have been encountered.
1, Liability of the Driver
The seminal issue here is the legal definition of vanpooling.
If it is "common carriage," then "extreme care" for the safety
of passengers is required of the driver. If it is "contract
carriage," then "ordinary care" is required. If yanpooling is
regarded as personal use of a privately-owned vehicle, then, in
Colorado, the driver is also under an obligation to exercise
ordinary care for the passenger's safety.
The vanpooler will not be required to exercise the very high
degree of care required of a common carrier because the vanpooler
is not a common carrier. The accepted and well recognized defin-
ition of a common carrier, as stated by the court in the case of
State ex rel. Public Utilities Commission of Utah v. Nelson (1925),
238p.237, is as follows:
"... a common or public carrier is one who, by virtue of his
business or calling or holding out, undertakes for compensation
to transport persons or property, or both, from one place to
another for all such as may choose to employ him. Running through
the cases is a recognition of the dominant element of public
service, serving and carrying all persons indifferently who apply
0808"
for passage
16
-------
There are practically no cases dealing with vanpool liabilities.
One case that is in point involved a person who transported his own
child to and from school each day and carried other children for
compensation. A child was injured, and the lower court applied the
standard of care required of common carriers. The Superior Court of
Pennsylvania reversed the lower court, holding the driver to be a
private carrier operating under special contract. The correct degree
of care required of private carriers is ordinary care. Lazor v. Banas,
(1934) 174 A.817.
It is unlikely a vanpool would be considered a "common carrier"
in Colorado since the Colorado statute defines "common carrier" as
"indiscriminately accepting and carrying for compensation passengers
or property..." C.R.S. 1973, 540-1-102(3).
Usually, a Public Utilities Commission (PUC) or the equivalent has
not regarded vanpooling as a public conveyor in the sense of a public
bus or taxi system, in part because vanpools frequently operate on a
financial breakeven basis, not as a profit making entity. In Colorado
the PUC has regarded carpooling as "casual transportation;" most likely,
vanpooling will also be so viewed by the PUC.
Under Colorado law, the critical factor in determining if a car-
pool or vanpool program falls within the regulatory jurisdiction of
the PUC appears to be whether or not it involves transportation for
compensation. The PUC has not promulgated any regulations nor issued
any guidelines or policy statements to aid in determining whether car-
pooling or vanpooling arrangements fall within the somewhat vague statutary
language. However, it is presently taking the position that the sharing
of expenses does not of itself constitute compensation. An arrangement
whereby the driver obtains some special benefit, such as the use of a
company or government vehicle in the evenings and on weekends, present
a closer question. Perhaps the most that can be said is that the PUC
has not, thus far, shown any eagerness to become involved in regulating
these types of programs.
On the other hand, judicial decisions would not relieve vanpoolers
from ordinary negligence. As previously discussed, a person who carries
a specific group of passengers to and from work pursuant to a contract to
that effect and in exchange for compensation is a private carrier. As
a private carrier, vanpool drivers are responsible for exercising
ordinary care for the safety of their passengers. In many states, it
would be significant if the vanpool would be considered as a private
passenger vehicle, since "guest" statutes would then require only
"slight care" of the driver. However, Colorado does not have a "guest"
statute so that even if the vanpool were treated as a private passenger
vehicle, the driver would still be under a duty to use "ordinary care.,"
17
-------
2. Possibility that Driver's Negligence will be Imputed to Passengers
Imputing the driver's negligence to the vanpool passengers can
have two possible effects: vanpool members may be jointly liable
with the driver for negligence causing injuries to third persons;
and vanpool members may be bacred, in whole or in part, from re-
covering from a third person whose negligence, together with the
negligence of the vanpool driver, causes them injuries.
The theory of imputed negligence is variously predicated upon
concepts of joint enterprise or joint venture, on the basis of
which each member of the enterprise is held responsible for the
negligent operation of the motor vehicle (regardless of which
member is the driver or who owns the vehicle)„ Imputed negligence
rests upon a showing that the vehicle was operated for a common
purpose and that each member of the joint enterprise had an equal
right (whether or not exercised) to control the operation of the
vehicle.
It is unsettled whether vanpool arrangements fall within the
above category, subjecting members to the possible consequences of
imputed negligence. Whether or not the doctrine is applicable may
well depend upon the particular vanpool arrangement, (It should be
noted, however, that it is generally held that the negligence of
the driver will not be imputed to the passengers for the purpose
of barring recovery by them for personal injuries resulting from
the driver's negligence.)
3. Responsibility of Sponsors of Vanpooling Programs
There is an absence of legal precedents bearing directly upon the
question of whether sponsors of voluntary vanpooling programs may
be required, as a matter of law, to provide assurance of any kind
with respect to vehicle or driver safety. However, the responsi-
bility of the sponsor will probably depend upon what kind of pool-
ing arrangement the sponsor organizes — the less mandatory the plan,
the less likelihood of sponsor liability. Thus, it is unlikely that
the sponsoring agency would be held to a standard of care to investi-
gate questions relating to safety and security of vanpool participants
in any case where, as sponsor, it organizes and administers a voluntary
vanpooling program in which drivers and passengers with common trans-
portation interests are identified and matched but are not assigned
or in any way compelled by the sponsor to participate.
Although it would not appear that an agency or an employer which
simply sponsors or renders limited assistance in the development of
a vanpool program would, as a general rule, have responsibility to
take any steps to secure passenger safety, a standard of care may be
imposed upon the sponsor if the nature of the program is such that
there is reason to believe that the participants may rely upon some
effort by the sponsor to determine whether the transportation offered
by the program is reasonably safe. For example, if the vanpooling
18
-------
plan has been imposed upon
of employment and the employer
assigned employees to a specifi
some investigation with respect
implied, upon a contract or tor
zation which, in conjunction wi
establishment and management of
this kind, may also be exposed
of course, the most likely
imposed upon the sponsor is one
services the vehicle; the spon
at a minimum, for its condition
employees by an employer as a condition
or sponsoring public agency actually
c vanpool, a standard of care to make
to safety matters may arguably be
basis. Similarly, a labor organi-
th an employer, participated in the
a planned transportation program of
to liability upon this basis. And,
situation in which liability would be
in which the sponsor provides and
or would necessarily be responsible,
tie
Two other issues deserve note
workmen's compensation statute
of vanpool programs. Although
tained by an employee off the e
fixed hours of employment, in
are not compensable under the s
where special circumstances are
between the conditions of
a recent Colorado case, in whic^i
parking lot adjacent to her
free parking in the lot was a f
entitled to receive workmen's
might be extended to cover the
was provided as a Irfringe benef
furnished the vehicle.
One is the possibility that Colorado
ii/ould be found to cover particular types
he general rule is that injuries sus-
ijnployer's premises, outside of the
course of commuting to and from work,
tatute, there is a recognized exception
found to create a causal connection
emplojyment and the resulting injury. In
an employee slipped and fell in a
offh'ce building, it was held that, because
inge benefit of her job, she was
impensation benefits,, This reasoning
ituation in which a vanpool program
it" by an employer, as where the company
CDI
It has been held that where there
by the employer to furnish tran
injury is sustained by the empl
such injury is covered by workm
employer promoted vanpool arrangement
express or implied contract on
transportation is an open quest
On the other hand, if there i
the part of the employer to pro
and an employee is injured whil
employee, the cases generally to
provide protection.,
There is also a question rega
persons injured because of the
motor vehicle for carpool or va
common law rule that mere owner
one responsible for the neglige
is loaned. However, if an empl<
is an express or implied contract
portation to the employee, and an
jyee on the way to or from work, that
n's compensation. As to the typical
, whether this involves an
he part of the employer to provide
on.
5 no express or implied contract on
ide transportation for its employees,
riding to or from work with a fellow
Id that the compensation acts do not
ding an employer's liability to third
legligence of an employee driving a
ipool purposes. Colorado follows the
ship of a motor vehicle does not make
it acts of another to whom the vehicle
yee is operating a vehicle within
19
-------
the scope of his or her employment, even if it is not the employer's
vehicle, the employer will be held responsible for the negligent
acts of the employee, under the doctrine of resppndeat superior,
(This in no way relieves the employee of his or her responsibility;
rather, the injured third person may sue either or both.) Thus,
the employer's liability will depend upon whether the carpool or
vanpool arrangement is such that the driver can be said to have been
performing services necessarily incidental to his or her employment
so as to bring his or her actions within the scope of employment.
Complex legal and insurance questions have evolved around the
Fellow Servant Doctrine. The crux of this doctrine is that an employer
is not liable for "injuries caused solely by the negligence of a fellow
employee." This common law doctrine limits "vicarious" liability of
the employer for negligence caused by employers occurring in place of
scope of their employment. In using a company van in transporting
employees to or from work, and if an accident should occur, then the
employer would not be held liable. The Fellow Servant Doctrine impacts
workmen's compensation coverage. If commuting travel is a part of the
employer's responsibility and if an accident occurred, the injured
person would be partially covered by workmen's compensation and this
would limit the liability of the insurance company. In most states,
unless otherwise contracted, commuting travel to and from work is not
a responsibility of the employer and has not been covered by Workmen's
Compensation Law. However, as of late December 1977, the Insurance
Services Office in Colorado has said that workmen's compensation
benefits would apply to an employee if a commuting accident occurred
in a company furnished van for vanpooling,
4. Waiver/Limitation of Liability
The major concern of insurance companies involves the liability
of the van driver to the passengers. Because of this concern, the
possibility of limiting this liability by adding a limitation of
liability clause to the standard rider contract was investigated.
Unfortunately, no reliable method was discovered by which a driver
can limit the liability contractually„ (Each state is a separate
jurisdiction and the rule is for each state to be examined separately
to determine the rule of law applicable in each jurisdiction.)
It is possible of course to draft a clause that would serve to
limit the driver's liability to the riders and include the clause
in the ridership contract. The major question is whether a court
of law, when faced with a defense to a tort suit based upon the
contractual limitation of liability, would give legal effect to the
clause. Generally, agreements that purport to release a party from
liability are not favored. For instance, a New York court stated
the general rule: "The general principle that contracts breaking
down common-law liability and relieving persons from just penalties
20
-------
for their negligent and improper conduct are not favored."
Johnson v. Fargo, 4th Dept. 1904, 98 App. Div. 436, 90 N.Y.S. 725.
5. Compensation/Internal Revenue [Service Issues
. |
The following statement from the Cumulative Bulletin of the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Rul. 55-555) describes the IRS
"It has long been the position
a carpool arrangement in which
1955-2C.B.20 (also Section 262. Rev.
position with respect to carpools:
of the Internal Revenue Service that
the members share the responsibility
for furnishing transportation to and from their places of work and
each takes his turn at driving his own automobile is not an arrange-
ment which gives rise to taxable income or deductible expenses. The
Service has been asked whether! the same rule applies to a .carpool
arrangement in which only one piember used his own automobile and
his fellow members pay him a sjtated sum of money for transporting
them to and from work. !
It is the position of the Servjice that money received by an auto-
mobile owner from fellow employees for transporting them to and from
work constitutes reimbursement by them for their share of the
personal expenses incurred in the operation of the automobile for
their mutual convenience. Such money is not includible in computing
the gross income of the automobile owner for Federal income tax
purposes. The automobile expenses incurred by him in commuting
between his home and place of employment are personal expenses for
which no deduction is allowed for Federal income tax purposes. How-
ever, this Revenue Ruling is not intended to apply to the situation
where a particular car owner has developed his carpool or vanpool
arrangements to the extent that he can be said to have established
a trade or business of transporting workers for hire from which a
profit is derived."
No doubt the same ruling would apply to vanpools. This current
IRS position implies that there are no significant income tax pro-
blems with respect to vanpools
such as employees subsidies or
However, if special incentives,
extra payments for serving the
handicapped are introduced, then problems may arise.
Vanpool users should also consider the following factors:
. Commuting costs are non-dedjuctible expenses.
. Since a share-cost arrangement is not a trade or business, the
use of a private auto in vanpool service does not change the
auto's status as a non-depreciable cost.
. While state and local tax implications should be investigated on
a local level, it is not expected that the rulings would differ
significantly from the abovje IRS position.
. Conflicts with IRS rules can be minimized by encouraging only
those incentives which do not generate taxable income.
. If vanpools are developed o!n a taxable basis, a vanpool club or
other institutional framework might be created to handle taxes
insurance, regulatory reports, and if necessary, customer billing
procedure.
21
-------
CHAPTER VI COSTS OF VANPOOLING
The costs associated with vanpooling are basically the same as
those associated with the private motor vehicle., Fixed costs include
interest, depreciation, insurance, license, taxes, safety inspection
fees and parking,. Variable costs include gasoline, oil, maintenance
and tires. Vanpool fares are normally established to cover these
costs. Establishment of fares is a function of the program design
(as discussed previously).
In order to gain some insight as to the actual costs associated
with vanpool programs, data from four sources have been summarized in
Tables I and II. Each program is somewhat representative of a different
approach to program administration.
The Conoco program is a typical example of the approach used in
company-sponsored vanpool programs.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is an example of the "third
party" approach. In TVA's case, employees credit unions provide the
financial backing for the program.
The data from Michigan illustrate the costs involved in a
government-sponsored vanpool effort using leased vanSo The data from
University of Tennessee are generalized figures arrived at during the
course of developing a report for the Urban Mass Transportation Adminis-
tration.
22
-------
CHAPTER VI
A Comparison of Costs from Selected Vanpool Programs
The fixed vanpool costs summarized in Table I vary over a
considerable range ($125 to $287 per month)„ The situation can be
explained by an examination of the actual items included in the cost.
Most estimates do not include administrative expenses, for example,
some include salvage value, others (TVA) do not. Another item of
significance is the initial purchase price assumed for the vehicle.
Vehicle prices have increased substantially over the last four years,
affecting lease costs as well as interest and depreciation costs.
The key to the Table is probably the subsidy issue., Most
employers provide administration. Some add insurance and other items.
Not included in this Table are those van uses that help defray the
fixed costs. Some employers use the vehicles during the day for
business purposes and reimburse the van fund. Finally, some employers
chose leasing which eliminates the need for front end money but in-
creases the fixed cost. Minimizing fixed costs is an important
objective, particularly for shorter trips.
Table II presents a summary of variable costs associated with
vanpool operation. Unlike fixed costs, operating expenses vary over
an incredibly small range ($0.093 to $0.11 per mile).
Table III presents a summary of monthly fares charged vanpoolers
for each of the four selected programs., These fares demonstrate the
greater desirability of vanpooling for long commutes. The cost per
mile decreases substantially as the round trip distances increase.
Three of the four programs presented in Table III have fare
structures that are similar (i.e. Conoco, TVA, University of Tennessee).
The Michigan fares are higher for two reasons: (1) the fixed van
costs are high, and (2) breakeven ridership is lower than it could be.
Minimizing the Cost of Vanpooling
Minimizing the cost of vanpooling is essential if riders are to
be attracted and become permanent vanpoolers. Although cost is not
the only attraction to a potential vanpooler, it is, nevertheless, of
significant concern. As the previous discussion indicated, fixed costs
are the major expense and have, along with the number of passengers
carried, the most significant effect on fare structure. Insurance,
interest and depreciation are the largest fixed expenses.
23
-------
TABLE I
Comparison of Fixed Vanpooling Costs
from
Selected Vanpooling Programs
Monthly Expense
($ rounded)
Expense Conoco TVA Michigan
Parking 30
Interest « 62
Depreciation 95 148 2002
Administrative — 23
Insurance ' — 51 50
License — 3 8 3
Safety Inspection
Univ. of Tennessee
—
37
121
—
32
2
—
TOTAL
125
287
258
192
Source: See "References" at the end of this report.
1. Insurance costs are highly variable. Nonprofit vanpool corporations appear
to be particularly burdened with high insurance costs. The Commuter Computer
Corporation of Los Angeles pays $1,750.00 for each van each year for insurance
($146/month)0 Even with this high insurance cost added to other expenses, this
corporation has 70 vans in operation.
2, This figure is the lease cost.
3. Includes license and taxes.
24
-------
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF VARIABLE VANPOOLING
COSTS FROM SELECTED VANPOOLING PROGRAMS
Expense
Gasoline
Oil
Maintenance
Ti res
TOTAL
Conoco
0.061
0.013
0.015
0.007
0,096
Per
TVA
0.07
_ 1
0.02
0.02
0.11
Mile Expense
Michigan
0.065
0.010
Oo015
OoOlO
0.10
($)
Univ. of Tennessee
0.06
0.003
0.015
0.015
0.093
Source: See "References" at the end of this report.
1 Included in other expenses.
25
-------
TABLE III
A COMPARISON OF MONTHLY FARES FOR
SELECTED VANPOOL PROGRAMS
Dally Mileage
(Round Trip)
20
30
40
50
60
70
MONTHLY FARES ($)
Conoco
21
23
25
27
29
31
TVA Michigan2 Univ.
33
35
39
42
27. 501 46
49
of Tennessee
25
27
30
33
35
38
1 Fares were not reported by mileage except for the average trip.
It was reported, however, that fares range from $18 to $46
per month.
2 Assumes nine (9) passenger per van and 21 working days per month.
26
-------
Depreciation and Interest:
These two variables usually go together since they are included
in both leasing and time purchase of vehicles. Even if vehicles are
purchased for cash, the time value of the money invested as well as
depreciation must be considered.
Typical lease arrangements are described in the "Vanpool
Implementation Manual."
@ Leases can be open or close-ended (i.e. price of vehicle
is guaranteed at the end of the least), with or without
maintenance, insurance and licenses, and with or without
option to buy at the end of the lease,,
e Lease rates vary with the financial risk the lessor is
expected to assume. Where the lessee is willing to assume
all the risk, lease rates are almost identical to automobile
finance charges.
© A decision to lease will depend on (a) availability of an
interested, aggressive lessor; (b) lessee cash position;
(c) tax options (e.g. use of investment tax credit); and
(d) ability to dispose of vehicles at the end of their
useful lives.
Within the Denver area, new fully equipped vans can be leased
for three years at about $180-225 per month. A sizeable penalty exists
for terminating the lease sooner than agreed to. One year leases cost
is frequently quoted at approximately $400 per month. The lease cost
often includes accelerated depreciation such as sum of the year digits
depreciation for tax purposes. All contracted leasing services permit
allocation of lease payments to van purchase, if desired. Insurance
is not usually included in lease costs.
Since lease costs and monthly finance payments are nearly identical,
the key concern is salvage value. The Conoco approach to monthly cost is
definitely the least cost approach to depreciation and interest. Vans
are purchased and amortized over 48 months assuming a realistic salvage
value. Although Conoco does not assume a discount rate in its calcu-
lation, doing so would still provide a monthly depreciation and interest
cost considerably less than a leasing arrangement.
27
-------
Insurance:
Insurance costs vary over a wide range,, Monthly rates of
between $32 and $146 are found in the literature,, This wide range
of rates apparently is attributable to two major factors:
(1) the reluctance of insurance companies to cover third
party vanpool operations (liability is difficult to
establish under third party conditions) and,
(2) geographical variation in established rates0
Wherever possible, vanpool insurance costs should be minimized
by including them under a master policy or through "self" insurances
Currently, insurance rates are in a state of fluXo Rates should
become more stable, and lower, as insurance companies gain more
experience with vanpooling.
Breakeven Ridership:
Two additional factors in determining fares are the size of
the van (e.g. 12 or 15 passenger) and the assumption made for break-
even load (e.g. 8 passengers, 10 passengers). To minimize costs,
the van capacity should closely approximate the breakeven load.
For example, a 15-passenger van should not be used to transport 8
passengers. Furthermore, the breakeven load should be established
as high as practical.
28
-------
CHAPTER VII BENEFITS OF VANPOOLIN6
Vanpooling has been almost universally successful. In fact, it
is very difficult to find examples of programs that have failed. The
success of vanpooling can be attributed to the benefits it provides.
The magnitude of these benefits are a function of the previous mode
used for work travel, If, for example, all vanpool members were former
single occupant vehicle commuters, reductions in fuel consumed, air
pollutant emissions and traffic are decreased by approximately the number
of participants in the vanpool.
Participants in vanpooling benefit the most, but there are societal
benefits as well. Vanpool riders benefit primarily because of reduced
commuting costs and freedom from driving (i.e. the opportunity to read
or work during the trip to and from work). Furthermore, vanpooling has
proven in practice to be a safe mode of travel. The vanpool driver also
benefits economically since he normally receives free transportation and
use of the vehicle on non-workdays and evenings. In some instances, the
driver receives fare revenues beyond the breakeven passenger load.
Societal benefits include reduced air pollution, reduced gasoline
consumption, less traffic congestion and reduced need for highway and
transit construct!'on„ In employer-based vanpooling programs, the
employer benefits as a result of decreased demand for parking., In addi-
tion, congestion surrounding plant locations is decreased and the program
provides an added employee fringe benefit which helps maintain a quality
workforce.
Participant Benefits
Rider/driver benefit estimates are available for most employer-
sponsored vanpool programs. Conoco estimates that the former drive alone
commuter saves between $26 and $84 per month depending upon trip lengtho
Other reports, such as the University of Tennessee publication, "How To
Put Together A Vanpool" agree with the Conoco findings., In fact, some
would indicate that Conoco's figures are conservatively low and that
savings of over $200 per month would apply to long commutes (e.g. 100
mile round trip).
Vanpool travel is quite safe. Frank W. Davis, ejt al_ in "Insurance
for Vanpools: An Analysis of Current Issues and Progress," reports
the following findings:
29
-------
Vehicle Category Deaths * Accidents**
(1975) 11974)(1972-1974)
Buses (all) 0.15 23.0 21.4
City 57.3 56.5
Suburban 26.3 25.3
School 14.10 16.9
Passenger Cars
(taxi excluded) 1.40 63.6 7.49
Vanpools 3.76 3.78
*per 100 million passenger miles
**per 1 million vehicle miles
Statistically, of common vehicular modes of transportation, vanpooling
has the lowest accident rate compared to buses and passenger cars.
As of May 1977, fortunately, there had not been a single serious van-
pool accident.
Societal Benefits
Societal benefits are more difficult to calculate because the
results are a function of former commute mode. Most of the programs
seem to attract former drive alone commuters and carpoolers. Because
vanpooling works best for long commutes (15 miles or more one-way
distance) mode shifts from transit to vanpool do not appear to be
common. Thus, the net result of vanpooling is virtually always reduct-
ions in energy consumed, air pollution emitted and traffic congestion.
A report published by the Congressional Budget Office in December
1977, entitled "Urban Transportation and Energy: The Potential Savings
of Different Modes" concludes, "Of all the urban transportation modes,
vanpools can probably make the greatest contribtuion to energy savings
on a per passenger-mile basis." The results of that report are presented
in Table IV.
Other estimates of benefits to society have been made for several
vanpool programs by their sponsors. In their second status report, 3M
estimated that their program saves over 190,000 gallons of gasoline per
year and reduces vehicular travel by 2.25 million miles annually.
30
-------
TABLE IV
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS BY TRAVEL MODE
IN BTU'S PER PASSENGER MILE
Single-Occupant
Automobile
Average Automobile
Carpool
Vanpool
Dial-a-Ride
Heavy Rail
(old)
Heavy Rail
(new)
Commuter Rail
Light Rail
Bus
Operating
Energy
Intensity
11,000
7,860
3,670
1,560
9,690
2,540
3,570
2,625
3,750
2,610
Line-
Haul
Energy
14,220
10,160
4,740
2,020
12,310
3,100
4,550
2,890
4,280
2,820
Modal
Energy
14,220 a/
10,160 a/
5,450
2,420
17,230
3,990
6,580
5,020
5,060
3,070
Program
Energy
(Net Savings)
N/A
N/A
4,890
7,720
(12,350) b/
N/A
(980) b/
970
30
3,590 c/
N/A = Not applicable
a/ By definition, there are no access energy requirements for automobile,
so modal energy equals line-haul energy.
b/ Energy loss.
£/ For new express bus service. Conventional bus service would show
smaller savings.
31
-------
Furthermore, the program reduced the demand for parking spaces at 3M
offices by more than 735. A summary of the benefits of 3M's program
is presented in Table V.
Conoco has developed generalized per van figures for benefits.
According to their calculations, a vanpool saves approximately 8,000-
9,000 gallons of gasoline per year. Vehicular travel is reduced by
approximately 81,000 miles per year by one vanpool. Conoco's estimate
for air pollution reduction is about four tons per year per vanpool„
We have not developed our own figures since benefit calculations
are only as accurate as the before and after data used. Conoco's and
3M's figures are reasonable approximations when prior commuting was
either drive alone or carpool. Care must be taken if mode shifts
from large carpools or mass transit occur.
32
-------
TABLE V
3M COMMUTE-A-VAN PILOT PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF OVERALL BENEFITS
Benefits to 3M:
Benefits to Users:
reduced congestion at 3M
installations
reduced demand for parking
reduced capital expenditures
for auto related facilities
more efficient use of land at
3M installations
save money
reduced risks and tension of
commuting
greater availability of car for
use by family members thereby
increasing their mobility and
social-economic opportunities
reduced congestion and parking
demand in and around 3M
installations
reduced congestion on streets
and highways
reduced land use for auto
related facilities
positive effect on the environ-
ment - less air and noise
pollution
reduced energy consumption
Reproduced from The 3M Commute-A-Van Program Status Report II, January 1977
Benefits to Non-User:
Benefits to General Public:
33
-------
CHAPTER VIII NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF VANPOOL OPERATORS
(NAVPO)
Vanpooling has proven itself to be a popular viable widespread
movement. There was sufficient interest among vanpoolers to
join together in national organization.
In 1976 the National Association of Van Pool Operators (NAVPO)
was formed. As of November 1977, this organization consisted
of about 170 dues paying members.
The NAVPO has several objectives, among them are:
• Deregulate vanpooling at Federal level and
in the 50 states.
• Double the number of vanpool programs by
the end of 1978.
• Work to have uniform insurance requirements for
vanpools at the lowest possible rates0
• Strengthen government commitment to vanpooling0
• Involve labor organizations in supporting
vanpooling.
The NAVPO tries to influence Congressional legislation favorable
to vanpooling., For example, it recently endorsed a 20% investment
tax credit for van purchases. Congress did not favorably act on
this proposal.
The NAVPO provides general, utilitarian information and data on
vans for use by companies and individuals. For example, it has
compared various types of vans available for vanpooling, pointing
out features of each van.
This organization is a positive, national growing force for
vanpooling.
34
-------
SUMMARY
Vanpooling works. Since 1973 there has been steady impressive growth
in vanpooling throughout the nation. Industry, state government, and
federally affiliated or endorsed non-profit vanpool organizations are all
actively involved in vanpool programs.
Vanpooling provides a number of direct benefits to the user:
convenient, safe and inexpensive commuting travel. Energy is saved and
vehicular pollution is minimized. The sponsoring entity can save on
providing parking spaces and associated maintenance and tax costs. Positive
public relations accrue to the provider of the van.
In the private sector there are fleets of company owned vans in com-
muting service. Conoco and 3M are leaders in vanpooling. A large number
of employers lease vans for commuting employees. Other van acquisition
arrangements are encountered.
Within the Denver metro area, Conoco and Johns-Manville have ongoing
vanpool programs. Sundstrand has a van shuttle service between its plants.
The Bureau of Reclamation provides shuttle service from hotels-motels in
Downtown Denver and the Federal Center for official visitors. The State
of Colorado has recently acquired two vans for use by commuting state
employees.
In the public domain there are restrictions which often prohibit use
of government leased or owned vans for personal commuting. The California
Legislature amended State law to authorize use of state owned vehicles for
commuting. In the federal sector, the TVA has a large, viable vanpool
fleet in operation which is controlled and owned by TVA Employee Credit
Unions. The Social Security Administration in Baltimore endorses the
VAMGO programs, which involves purchasing vans through a non-profit cor-
poration.
Five different vanpool arrangements exist: owner (or leasee) operator,
company-owned or leased, vanpool brokerage, and government guarantee and
government-owned.
Legal and insurance issues are particularly complex and important.
Vanpooling is a hybrid between carpooling and public conveyances, although
decidely more like carpooling than public transportation. It is most im-
portant that the driver and rider understand insurance coverage.
Vanpooling is economically competitive with or less expensive than
other means of transportation. Vanpool riders pay a monthly fare usually
calculated from fixed and variable costs of owning or leasing and operating
the van. Monthly cost per rider is about $20 to $40, depending on the dis-
tance traveled.
In summary, vanpooling is a new exciting concept in commuting and a
viable solution to reducing motor vehicle air pollution.
35
-------
REFERENCES
Articles of Incorporation of Rides for Bay Area Commuters, Inc.
Office of the Secretary of State, State of California
September 1977
Assembly Bill No. 3267
State of California, July 1976
"Demonstration Vanpool Project Sacramento Metropolitan Region First
year Evaluation," Caltrans (California Department of
Transportation) Office of Ridesharing, September 1976
"Vanpooling -an-Idea Whose Time Has Come," The Orange Disc vol.23,No.3,
The Magazine of the Gulf Companies, Pittsburgh, PA 15230
January-February 1978
Vanpooling a Commuting Alternative That Works
Continental Oil Company, Houston, Texas
February 1977
"Transit in Smaller Cities: Ride-Sharing Brokerage," Municipal Innovations
International City Management Association, Washington, D.C.
July 1977
The 3M Commute-A-Van Program, Status Report II
3M Company, St. Paul, Minneapolis
January 1977
"Proposal for a State Employer Vanpool Program"
Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation
August 1976
Literature from the National Association of Van Pool Operators (NAVPO)
Knoxville, Tennessee 1977
"Knoxville's Ridesharing Success Story," Planning
December 1977
"Sharing a Ride to Work," Tennessee Valley Perspective, Vol. 7,
Summer 1977
Insurance for Vanpools: An Analysis of Current Issues and Progress
Frank W. Davis et.al
Transportation Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
May 1977
Vanpooling Go Via Van, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN
August 1976
36
-------
REFERENCES
"Assessing Demand for Ride Sharing Services," Traffic Quarterly
Joseph Jo Petrocelll and Thomas L. BeTT
July 1977
"Urban Transportation and Energy: The Potential Savings of Different Modes"
The Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office
Washington, D, C. 1977
"Marketing Plan to Accelerate the Use of Vanpools"
U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, D0 C.
December 1977 CR-04-60437-00
"Vanpool Executive Summary"
U. S. Federal Energy Administration, Washington, D. C.
February 1977 CR-04-60623
"Vanpool Implementation Manual"
U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, Do C,
February 1977 CR-04-60437-00
"How to Put Together a Vanpool"
U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, D. C.
December 1977 NP-22775 UC-96
"Vanpooling: A Summary and Description of Existing Vanpool Regulations"
Ira Forstater and Ed Twomey, U»S0 Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. January 1976
"Everybody Wins With Vanpooling"
U. S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C.
Fall 1976
"Legal and Institutional Issues of Carpooling"
U. S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D0 C.
January 1974
"TSM and Federal Highway Funds"
Federal Highway Administration Newsletter No.l
U. S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D0 Co
November 1977
"Vanpools," U»S0 Department of Transportation, Washington, D0 C.
February 1977
Literature from VANGO, Linthicum, MD 1977
37
-------
SUMMARY OF VANPOOL PROGRAMS - Reported in "Vanpooling: A Summary and
Description of Existing Vanpool Programs" by Ira Forstater and
Ed Twomey, Environmental Protection Agency in 1976
SPONSOR
Aerospace Corp,
El Segundo, CA
Allan M. Voorhees
ans Associates
Mclean, VA
American Can Co.
Greenwich, CT
Cal trans
Sacramento, CA
Cenex
St. Paul, Minn
Chrysler
Detroit, Mich
Continental Oil Co.
Houston, TX
Cooper & Woodruff
Amarillo, TX
Corning Glass Works
Corning, No Yo
Erving Paper Mills
Brattleboro, VT
General Mills
Minneapolis, Minn
ORGANIZATION
TYPE
Suburban private
Company
Suburban private
Company
Suburban private
Company
Urban Government
Agency
Suburban private
Company
Urban private
Company
Urban private
Company
Rural private
Company
Small Town
Private Company
Rural private
Company
Suburban private
Company
VAN
PROVISION
Lease
Lease
Purchase
Lease
Lease
Manufacture
own vehicles
Purchase
Purchase
Purchase
Purchase
Purchase
ROUTES
1-Way
10-38
door to door
15
35
30-50
4-51
door to door
5-35
10-35
average of 50
Park-n-Ride
25-60
25-40
9-55
park-n-ride &
door to door
FARES
1/3 monthly
2/3 daily
$20/month
$32/month
$28.60/35.40
per month
$.085 per mile
$26-$39
per month
$20-$40
per month
NONE
$1.20 per day
regardless of
$1.00 per day
regardless of
$12.60/32.55
per month
INSURANCE
Self- insured with
Commercial liabil-
ity $56/
Special Van
Policy
Special Van
Policy
Special Van
Policy
c
(
Self-insured
Under Fleet
Policy
miles
miles
Under Fleet
Policy
-------
Summary (cont'd) - 2 -
Golden Gate Bridge
San Francisco, CA
Gulf Research and
Development
Pittsburgh, PA
Hoffmann-LaRoche
Pharmaceutical
Nutley, NoJo
Honeywell Corpor,
Minneapolis, Minn
Modnar
Atlanta, GA
Montgomery Ward
Chicago, 111
Nabisco
East Hanover, No Jo
Polaroid Corp,
Boston, MasSo
Prudential Insurance
Newark, .ft Jo
Ralph MO Parsons
Pasadena, CA
Reston Commuter Bus
Reston, VA
Sarnia Commuter Van
Cooperatives(Polisar)
Sarnia, Ontario
Scott Paper Company
Urban Government
Agency
Suburban private
Company
Suburban private
Company
Suburban private
Company
Urban-suburban
private operator
Urban private
Company
Suburban private
Company
Suburban private
Company
Urban private
Company
Suburban private
Company
New Town Community
Organization
Rural -Urban
Community
Organizations
Urban private
Company
Lease
Lease
Lease
with option
to buy
Lease
Purchase
Lease
Lease
Lease
Purchase
Lease
Purchase
Purchase
Lease
46
30-40
9-60
20-39
10-35
15-45
15-60
30
23-36
25-55
25-30
door to door
6 -8
and 35-40
13-23
Monthly:
$26-$29
$15-$30
per month
Average
$25 per month
About $30
per month
Average
$25 per month
For
50/mi route
$46 per month
i
Approx.l7<£
per mile
Bi-weekly
$17-$20
Monthly
$42-$44o50
Fees of
$2 - $3
per week
$24-$29
per month
Special Van Policy
Self-Insured
Special Van
Policy
$440 per year
Special Van
Policy
Self-insured w/added
coverage under fleet
CTi
CO
Special Van Policy
$750 per year
Under fleet policy
self-insured/con ision
Self-insured
Special Van
Pol icy- $780 per yr.
Under Fleet Policy
$480 per year
-------
Summary (cont'd)
- 3 -
Southern Calif.
Commuter Bus Service
Los Angeles, CA
Sperry Flight System
Phoenix, AZ
Sperry Univac
Minneapolis, Minn
Tektronix
Portland, Oregon
Texas Instruments
Dallas, TX
Tennessee Valley
Aurhority
Knoxville, Tenn
3M
St. Paul, Minn
Utah County
Provo, Utah
Winnebago Industries
Forest City, Iowa
Urban-Suburban
private transit
corporation
Suburban private
Company
Suburban private
Company
Suburban private
Company
Suburban private
Company
Urban
Government
Agency
Suburban private
Company
Small Town
Government Agency
Small Town
Private Company
Purchase
and
Lease
Lease
Contract operator
provides vans and
drivers
Lease
Purchase
Lease
Purchase
County Owned
Manufacture
own vans
18-65
Few to one
19-33
130
per day
per van
Continuous
12/hrs ea day
30-65
Park-n-
Ride
20-70
25-76
20-23
Few to one
Average
about 35
Average of
$11 per week
$26 - $31
per month
NONE
NONE
$6.25-$10
per week
$22-$28
per month
$16.25-$48
per month
$.022 per mile
$5.45-$7.30
per week
Under Fleet
Policy
Contractor
carries policy
Self- insured
Special Van c
Policy "*
$532 per year
Under fleet
Policy $480/yr
Special Van
Policy $225/yr
Self- insured with
added liability
coverage
-------
Assembly Bill No. 3267
CHAPTER 382
An act to amend Sections 13950, 13951, and 25305 of the
Government Code, relating to carpools.
[Approved by Governor July 8, 1976. Filed with
Secretary of State July 9, 1976.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 3267, Calvo. Carpools.
Existing law permits state and local agencies to purchase automo-
biles for the use of their employees in the conduct of official business,
and requires that rules and regulations be adopted to govern the use
of such vehicles.
This bill makes findings and declarations about energy consump-
tion, air pollution, traffic congestion and parking, and amelioration
of such problems by using carpools and vanpools. The bill would
permit the state to operate such programs and would define "county
business" and "state business" to include the operation of county or
state-owned or leased vehicles in a carpool or vanpool program for
county or state employees, provided that an adequate fee is charged
to fully reimburse the county or state for such service.
The bill would require the State Board of Control to prescribe rules
and regulations governing the procedures to be used in the operation
of state-owned vehicles as commute vehicles in a state carpool or
vanpool program.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that:
(a) Increased energy consumption, air pollution, traffic
congestion and parking constitute a serious problem in the State of
California, particularly in urban areas.
(b) The increased use of carpools and vanpools will contribute to
conservation of fuel, improvement of air quality, and more effective
use of existing streets, highways and parking facilities.
(c) Carpools and vanpools constitute one of the most
cost-effective and energy-efficient modes of transportation.
(d) Cities, counties and the state employ a large number of
people, many of whom work in, and commute to, urban areas where
the problems associated with traffic congestion, parking, energy
consumption and air pollution are greatest.
(e) It is in the public interest, and a public purpose, for cities,
counties and the state to provide a carpool and vanpool program for
their employees. It is therefore the purpose of this act to provide the
2 3267 20 12
41
-------
Ch. 382
authority for cities and counties to establish carpool and vanpool
programs.
SEC. 2. Section 13950 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
13950. State-owned motor vehicles shall be used only in the
conduct of state business. State business shall include the operation
of state-owned vehicles as commute vehicles in a carpool or vanpool
program authorized by a state agency, provided that a daily, weekly,
or monthly fee is charged that is adequate to reimburse the state for
the cost of providing such vehicles for such purpose. No state officer
or employee shall use, or permit the use of, any state-owned motor
vehicle other than in the conduct of state business.
SEC. 3. Section 13951 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
13951. The State Board of Control shall prescribe rules and
regulations which:
(a) Define the use of state-owned motor vehicles which
constitutes use in the conduct of state business and distinguish such
use from misappropriation for private use;
(b) Prescribe the procedure for determining and collecting from
the employee responsible for the misuse the actual costs to the state
attributable to misuse of state-owned motor vehicles and the
disposition of such collections;
(c) Prescribe the records and reports to be kept and made by state
agencies relating to the use of state-owned motor vehicles to the end
that misuse may be discovered with a minimum of recordkeeping;
(d) Govern the storage of state-owned motor vehicles in those
locations where storage space, under the jurisdiction of the
Department of General Services, is available for storage of
state-owned motor vehicles;
(e) Prescribe the procedures to be used in the operation of
state-owned vehicles as commute vehicles in a state carpool or
vanpool program.
SEC. 4. Section 25305 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
25305. When in its judgment the public interest requires, the
board may purchase automobiles for the use of county officers and
county employees whose duties require frequent trips on county
business. By ordinance the board shall adopt rules and regulations
governing the use of the automobiles and the imposition of proper
penalties upon any person driving, operating, or using the
automobiles contrary to the rules and regulations of the board. The
board may purchase necessary automobiles and assign them to
county boards and commissions or members thereof whose duties
require frequent and adequate transportation in and about the
county on county business.
County business shall include the operation of county-owned or
county-leased vehicles as commute vehicles in a carpool or vanpool
2 3267 35 15
42
-------
Ch. 382
program authorized by the county for county employees, provided
that a daily, weekly, or monthly fee is charged that is adequate to
reimburse the county for all costs of providing, operating and
maintaining vehicles for such purpose. The board of supervisors shall
establish rules, regulations and procedures to be used in the
operation of county-owned or county-leased vehicles in a county
carpool or vanpool program for county employees.
The use of automobiles provided by the county pursuant to this
section is in lieu of any other mileage allowed by law. The board may
allow officers and employees using county automobiles their actual
and necessary expenses when traveling on county business.
o
2 3267 40 16
43
-------
, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE i
I, MARCH FONG EU, Secretary of State of the State
of California, hereby certify:
That the annexed transcript has been compared with
the record on file in this office, of which it purports in he
a copy, and that same is full, true and correct.
/.V U77';V£SS \VJ1LHEO1'\ \ < xeeute
this certificate and affix the Great
Seal of the State uf California thK
44
SEC/STATE FORM CE-1O7 ?^EV 1-751
-------
826017
H N D O *""' r"
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION «™H PWG EU. *••.<•.. ' ' ">
By JAMES f HAK.',.;.
OF
RIDES for bay area commuters, Inc.
I
The name of this corporation shall be: Rides for bay
area commuters, Inc.
II
The purposes for which this corporation is formed under
the provisions of the laws of the State of California are
exclusively charitable and educational as herein set forth,
the specific primary purposes for which it is formed cf.ing
set forth in sub-paragraph (a) of this Article II:
(a) The specific activity in which the corporation is
primarily tc engage is providing ride-shanna service:-
and other transportation related services to citizens
in the (ten) San Francisco bay area counties of
Alameda, Contra Costa,; Mar in, Napa, San Francisco, San
Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, and Santa Cruz.
(b) To solicit, collect, receive, acquire, hold and
invest money and property, both real and personal,
received by gift, contribution, bequest, devise or
otherwise; to sell and convert property, both real and
personal, into cash; and to use the funds of this
corporation and the proceeds, income, rents, issues
and profits derived from any property of this corporation
for any of the purpose.s for which this corporation is
formed;
45
-------
(c) To act as trustee under any trust created to
furnish funds for the principal objectives of this
corporation and receive, hold, administer and expend
funds and property subject to such trust;
(d) To purchase or otherwise acquire, own, hold, sell,
assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of, mortgage,
pledge, or otherwise hypothecate or encumber, and to
deal in and with shares, bonds, notes, debentures or
other securities or evidences of indebtedness of any
person, firm, corporation or association and, while the
owner or holder thereof, to exercise all rights, powers
and privileges of ownership;
(e) To purchase or otherwise acquire, own, hold, use,
lease (either as lessor or lessee), sell, exchange,
assign, convey or otherwise dispose of and mortgage or
otherwise hypothecate or encumber real and personal
property;
(f) To borrow money, incur indebtedness, and tc secure
the repayment of the same by mortgage, pledge, deed of
trust, or other hypothecation of property, both real
and personal;
(g) To enter into, make, perforra and carry out contracts
of every kind for any lawful purpose without lint as tc
amount, with any person, firm, association or corporation,
municipality, county, parish, state, territory, government
(foreign or domestic) or other municipal cr governmental
subdivision; and
(h) To do all things necessary, expedient or appropriate
to the accomplishment of any of the objects and purposes
for which this corporation is formed, and generally to
exercise all of tis power as are new or may hereafter
be conferred by law upon nonprofit corporations under
the laws of the State of California.
The foregoing statement of purposes shall be construed
as a statement of both purposes and powers, and the purposes
and powers stated in such clauses, except where otherwise
46
-------
expressed, shall be in nowise limited or restricted by
reference to or inference from the terms or provisions of
any other clauses, but shall be regarded as independent
purposes and powers.
Notwithstanding any of the above statements of purposes
and powers, this corporation shall not engage in activities
which in themselves are not in furtherance of the purposes
set forth in sub-paragraph (a) of this Article II.
Ill
This corporation is organized pursuant to the General
Nonprofit Corporation Law of the State of California.
IV
The County in the State of California, where the princi-
pal office for the transaction of the business of this
corporation is to be located in San Francisco County.
V
The powers of this corporation shall be exercised, its
properties controlled, and its affairs conducted by a Board
to be known as the Board of Directors. The names and addresses
of the persons who are appointed to act in the capacity of
directors until the election of their successors are as
follows:
47
-------
NAME
John Balshaw
John B. Derby, Jr.
Carter C. Reaves
ADDRESS
1680 Kearny Court
Petaluma, CA 94952
4783 Oak Twig Way
Carmichael, CA 95608
118 Canon Drive
Orinda, CA 94563
The number and tenure of office of directors, their
powers and dutxes may be fixed or changed frcir. time to time
by amendment of the Articles of Incorporation of this corpora-
tion, or by amendment of the By-Laws of this corporation
duly adopted by the vote or written assent of a majority of
the voting members of the Board of Directors.
48
-------
VI
The authorized number and qualifications of members of
this corporation, the different classes of membership, if
any, the property, voting and other rights and privileges of
members and their liability for dues and assessments and the
method of collection of dues and assessments shall be as set
forth in the By-laws, provided, however, that any By-law
fixing or changing the liability of the members of this
corporation for dues and assessments may be adopted, amended
or repealed only by the vote or written consent of a majority
of the voting members of this corporation.
VII
The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicate:
to charitable and educational purposes meeting the require-
ments for exemption provided by §214 of the California
Revenue and Taxation Code. No part of the net income or
assets of this organization shall ever inure tc the benefit
of any director or officer or member thereof or to the
benefit of any private persons. Upon dissolution or winding
up of the corporation, its assets remaining after payment
of, or provision for payment of, all debts and liabilities
of this corporation, shall be distributed to a non-profit
corporation or corporations, fund or funds, or foundation or
foundations, which are organized and operated exclusively for
49
-------
charitable and educational purposes and which have estab-
lished their tax exempt status under §501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and which are qualified for exemption
from taxation under §23701 (d) of the California Revenue and
Taxation Code. If this corporation holds any assets on a
trust, or the corporation is formed for charitable purposes,
such assets shall be disposed of in such manner as nay be
directed by decree of the Superior Court of the county in
which the corporation has its principal office, on petition,
therefore, by the Attorney General or by any person concerned
in the liquidation in a proceeding in which the Attorney
General is a party.
VIII
No substantial part of the activities of this corpora-
tion shall consist of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise
attempting, to influence legislation, nor shall this corpora-
tion participate in, or intervene in (including the publish-
ing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on
behalf of any candidate for public office.
IX
Notwithstanding any other provision in these Articles
of Incorporation, the corporation shall be subject to the
following limitations and restrictions:
50
-------
(a) The corporation shall distribute its income for
each taxable year at such time and in such manner as not to
become subject to the tax on undistributed income imposed by
§4942 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
(b) The corporation shall not engage in any act of
self-dealing as defined in §4941(d) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954.
(c) The corporation shall not retain any excess busi-
ness holdings as defined in §4943(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954.
(d) The corporation shall not make any investments in
such manner as to subject it to tax under §4944 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
(e) The corporation shall not make any taxable expend-
itures as defined in §4945(d) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, for the purposes of forming this
corporation under the laws of the State of California, we,
the undersigned, constituting the incorporation of this
51
-------
corporation and the persons named herein as the first direc-
tors of this corporation, have executed these Articles of
Incorporation this 14th day of September , 1977
\ .- *- ' -
,-~\
, ^
' f
52
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS,
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO)
On this 14th day of September , 1977,
<\s
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
State, personally appeared John Balshaw, John B. Derby, Jr.,
and Carter C. Reaves, known to me to be the persons whose
names are subscribed to the foregoing Articles of Incorpo-
ration and acknowledged to me that they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
MA
v«~'} ••/ "' •• • ' •- ""' ''"'."','.„
/\vv ' :HI
'. S
't/A^AJTi'-clu
^iiiut;
(SEAL)
53
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-908/1-78-001
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
Vanpooling: An Overview
March 1Q.1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
David ICircher and Lawrence Wapensky
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report is intended to provide information on vanpooling as it exists in
the United States. It is not a comprehensive treatise, rather the report
emphasizes key features of vanpooling, with special attention beinq paid
to implementation of vanpool programs and legal and insurance issues per-
taining to vanpooling. Organizations in industry and government who are con-
sidering implementing or expanding vanpool programs will find the report
useful.
Topics covered are vanpool program designs, vanpooling experience, insurance
and legal issues, vanpooling costs, benefits, and the National Association
of Vanpool Operators.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Vanpooling
Commuting
Ride Sharing
Transportation
Energy Conservation
Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited from NTIS
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Release Unlimited
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Release Unlimited
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
54
------- |