United States EPA • 908/1-78-002
Environmental Protection
Agency
AN OVERVIEW OF
RIDESHARING AND MASS TRANSIT
EMPLOYER INCENTIVES
Region VI
Denver, Co. March 1978
-------
Report Number:
EPA-908/1-78-002
AN OVERVIEW OF RIDESHARING
AND
MASS TRANSIT EMPLOYER INCENTIVES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
Denver, Colorado
March 1978
Environment/^. Fro',;c-
S1V.C3SO, Illinois 60304
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Air and
Hazardous Materials Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VIII, and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Document is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22161
-------
11
ABSTRACT
This report reviews the incentives currently
being used by public and private sector employers
to encourage employee use of ridesharing and mass
transit as an alternative to the single occupant
vehicle and identifies a few successful incentive
programs. The legal and institutional aspects of
employer sponsored incentive programs are discussed
in some detail. Existing carpool matching systems
and costs are briefly discussed.
-------
m
PREFACE
This report was prepared by members of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Denver Air Task Force. The Task Force was
established to assist 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 automobile emissions, reduction in single occupant
automobile 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 employer incentives.
Employer incentives are planned measures offering inducements to
employees for the use of an alternative mode of transportation other
than the single occupant vehicle.
We have attempted to identify the types of incentives programs
currently in use throughout the United States and the relative success
of these programs. We have also identified some of the legal and
institutional constraints associated with employer incentive programs.
We are convinced that employer incentives are an important part of a
total program to reduce single occupant auto use and concomitant air
pollution.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Disclaimer i
Abstract ii
Preface iii
Introduction 1
General ' '. 1
Employer Incentives 1
Summary and Conclusions 3
Objectives 5
Improved air quality 5
Gasoline conservation 5
Reduction in commuting costs ..... 6
Reduced facility costs 6
Carpool/vanpool/buspool-related incentives 9
Cost-related incentives 9
Parking costs 9
Automobile ownership costs 11
Automobile operating costs 11
Travel time incentives 13
Convenience incentives 14
Preferential parking 14
Facilities for carpoolers, vanpoolers, and buspoolers • • • "16
Adjustments to working hours
Parking restriction 18
Other incentives 18
Summary 19
Successful Carpool and Vanpool Programs 20
Carpool programs 20
Vanpool programs 23
Buspool programs 23
-------
Page
Transit-related incentives 26
Subsidized transit fares 26
Adjustment to working hours 27
Other incentives 27
Non-motor vehicle related incentives . 28
Bicycle information 28
List of residences 28
Shower facilities 28
Carpool matching methods 29
Manual matching techniques 31
Centralized matching technique 32
Locator board method. .... 33
Roster technique 33
Successful programs 34
Manpower requirement and costs 36
Legal and institutional aspects 48
Legal issues 39
Regulatory status of carpools 39
Applicability of guest statutes to members of carpools .... 40
Possibility that driver's negligence will be imputed
to passengers 40
Responsibility of sponsors of carpooling programs 41
Competitive aspects of carpooling/vanpooling 43
Government charge for parking on federal reservations .... 43
Government subsidization of public transit and parking costs . 43
Security and confidentiality of information 44
Insurance issues 45
Employer liability ......... 45
Carpooler liability 45
Carpooler insurance in Colorado 46
Compensation and the Internal Revenue Service 46
References 48
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
General
There is some type of motivation behind every decision to form
or join a carpool, vanpool, buspool, or to utilize public transit.
For most pre-energy crisis carpools, motivations were largely unplanned.
They included shortage of parking spaces, parking costs, and automobile
operating costs. During the energy crisis motivations included the
rapidly escalating price of gasoline and long lines at the service
stations. Another motivation is emerging among residents of the Denver
Metropolitan Area: improvement of the air quality of the area. Most
successful programs designed to get individuals out of the single
occupant vehicle (SOV) recognize the importance of these motivations,
but rely on planned programs of incentives to encourage carpooling,
vanpooling, buspooling, and bicycling.
Employer Incentives
Incentives are planned measures offering inducements for the use
of carpools, vanpools, buspools, public transit, bicycles, etc. The
following discussion of specific incentives is structured on the
basis of the basic motivations which a person either explicitly or
implicitly considers in making his travel decisions. These basic
motivations are:
Travel cost
Travel time
Convenience
Intangible and non-traveled related factors
In a multi-modal situation, the commuter uses these considerations
to decide whether to drive alone, take the bus, carpool, etc. However,
many commuters in the Denver area do not have a choice of means of
travel because of where their home or job is located or because of
their work schedule. Other commuters feel that service by the Regional
Transportation District is inadequate. One difficulty with trying to
encourage carpooling is that many commuters have an established habit
of driving alone. Denver "grew up" as an automobile-oriented city with
very low density development. Parking is inexpensive and even today,
congestion is minimal relative to other cities. Incentives can add
weight to arguments in favor of pooling, busriding, and bicycling by
providing benefits above and beyond those inherently involved in these
activities.
- 1 -
-------
The importance of incentives in encouraging pooling, bus riding, and
bicycling has been debated. Some experts contend they are essential
while others consider a good commuter matching system to be the key to
increased pooling. There are only a few studies which show the quantitative
effect of incentives on carpooling. A study conducted by Alan M. Voorhees
and Associates, Inc., and Behavior Science Corporation, "A Study of
Techniques to Increase Commuter Vehicle Occupancy on the Hollywood Freeway,"
November 5, 1973, showed some interesting results. Of those people who
were at least somewhat interested in car-pools, the following percentages
stated they would be likely to carpool if the proposed incentives were
provided.
Percentage of People who Would be
Proposed Incentive Likely to Carpool
Carpool parking lots near 70%
freeways
Use of company cars for carpools 63%
Gas tax rebates 61%
Free or lower parking fees 60%
Reserved freeway lanes 57%
Preferential parking 57%
In spite of many unanswered questions, incentives do seem to offer the
potential for producing higher rates of carpooling, buspooling, vanpooling,
and bicycling and should be given serious consideration by employers.
This report will discuss a number of possible incentives and identify a
few successful incentive programs.
- 2 -
-------
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
There is some type of motivation behind every decision to join a
carpool, vanpool or use mass transit. Incentives are planned measures
offering inducements to utilize these forms of transportation.
Incentives are offered by a wide variety of agencies, employers, groups,
and individuals. Travel cost is one of the most significant factors in
the decision to utilize carpools, vanpools, mass transit or other forms
of transportation. Cost-related incentives currently being used by
employers are reducing automobile parking, ownership, and operating
costs and transit eonmuting costs. Convenience-related incentives
increase the attractiveness of utilizing pools, mass transit, etc.
A few convenience incentives currently being used by employers include
preferential parking, facilities for poolers and transit users,
adjustment to working hours, and single occupant vehicle restrictions.
Other incentives include awards to employees and employer-operated
matchmaking schemes.
Carpool and buspool matching has been done in a variety of ways.
Some situations require the use of computer methods, but many others
can employ simple manual methods to great advantage. The three basic
types of matching methods currently being used are the centralized
matching technique, the locator board method, and the roster technique.
Organizations desiring to begin a matching program with the least
possible delay can start by using manual matching methods and then
shift to automated methods as the size or complexity of the job warrants.
To insure that an employer incentives program operates at its
maximum effectiveness, it is important to identify the relevant legal
and institutional issues prior to implementation. Issues that must be
understood and complied with include legal, security, compensation and
the internal revenue, and insurance issues.
In conclusion:
1. Incentives are an effective tool that employers may utilize
to induce employees to give up the single occupant vehicle
and utilize carpools, vanpools, buspools, mass transit,
bicycles, or other alternative means of transportation to
and from the employment site.
2. Significant cost savings and conveniences may occur to the
employer and employee.
- 3 -
-------
3. A well-operated matching system is almost essential to
assure effective and efficient carpool, vanpool and
buspool programs.
4. All potential sponsors and participants of ridesharing
programs should become familiar with applicable statutes
and ordinances as they relate to employer and employee
responsibilities, security of information, and insurance
requirements.
_ 4 .
-------
III. OBJECTIVES
There are a number of benefits associated with widespread use of
transportation pools; some are public benefits that accrue to society
as a whole and others are private benefits that accrue to the individuals
involved. The primary objective of this report is to identify employer
incentive measures that may ultimately lead to improving the air quality
of the Denver Metropolitan Area.
Improved Air Quality
Chief among public benefits would be improved ambient air quality.
Metropolitan Denver presently has one of the worst air quality problems
in the country. This air quality problem is critical because of the
health effects of poor air quality and the number of people affected.
The Six County Metropolitan Denver Area is presently in violation of
federal/state health standards for carbon monoxide, particulates, and
photochemical oxidants ; and violations for nitrogen dioxide are expected
by 1985. At least one study has shown that citizens of the area are
exposed to more carbon monoxide than the other 20 cities involved in
the study as shown by carbon monoxide content in the blood. 0) It is
generally acknowledged that private passenger cars are the primary source
for carbon monoxide contributing 95% and hydrocarbons contributing 84%.
Although minor improvements in air quality may result from tighter
controls on non automotive sources, any significant improvement must come
from reducing the pollutants released by automobiles. It has been
estimated that it will be necessary to reduce the total daily miles
traveled by over 50%, even with the use of cleaner catalytic
equipped cars, if the Metropolitan Denver Area is to meet standards set
for the protection of public health within the next 10 years.
Gasoline Conservation
Another important public benefit could be reduced energy consumption,
provided that vehicles no longer being used for driving to work are not
used for other trips. The Highway Users Federation estimated that
a 25% increase in carpooling would reduce the consumption of petroleum
by nearly 2 percent.(2)
'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Normal Carboxyhemoglobin Levels
of Blood Donors in the United States, EPA-650/1-73-004, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C., May,1973.
(2) Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, News Release,
August 29, 1973.
- 5 -
-------
Reduction in Commuting Costs
Another benefit of not using the SOV is the direct money savings
for the commuter. Amounts saved depend on many things such as car size,
parking costs, distance driven, etc. The Highway Statistics Division of
the Office of Highway Planning, Federal Highway Administration estimated
that the average cost of owning and operating an automobile in 1976 was
about 17.9 cents per mile for standard size, 14.6 cents per mile for
compacts, and 12.6 cents per mile for subcompacts. These costs included
depreciation, maintenance, gas and oil, parking, insurance, and taxes
(See Figures 1 and 2). Pooling reduces costs in direct proportion to the
number in the pool. Public transit,in most cases, is less expensive
than driving alone. Bus fares vary from $0.25 for circulators to $1.25
for regional long distances 1n the Denver metropolitan area.
Reduced Facility Costs
Parking facilities are a major expense for any employer. Many
companies have found effective ridesharing programs are a financially
pleasing alternative to the endlessly expanding parking lot. Through a
conscientiously-promoted program of voluntary carpooling, with preferred
parking as one incentive, and free or low cost bus service to central
points as another incentive, Government Employees Insurance Company
(GEICO) in Chevy Chase, Maryland, .found that it reduced its demand for
parking and saved a considerable amount in construction costs by not
building new facilities. The 3M Company saved $2.5 million in
construction costs for a parking facility at its headquarters in St.
Paul, Minnesota, because of its successful vanpooling program.
(3)
U.S. Department of Transportation, How to Pool It, May,1975.
- 6 -
-------
Figure 1
COST OF
OWNING AND
OPERATING
AN AUTOMOBILE
1976
SUBURBAN-BASED OPERATION
TOTAL. COSTS: CENTS PER MILE
SIZE
STANDARD*
WITH STANDARD EQUIP-
MENT, WEIOH MORE THAN
4,000 LBS. rtSCi^BJM
EMPTY. •qgpSiB^pi
COMPACT
WEIGH MORE THAN 2,700
LBS. BUT LESS THAN 3,800
LBS. EMPTY. ^f-^
^^••^^
SUB
COMPACT
WEIGH LESS THAN £700
LBS, EMPTY.
ORIGINAL
VEHICLE
COST
DEPRECIATED
«
3.B
3.8
MAINTENANCE,
ACCESSORIES.
FART'S
ft TIRES
4.8
3.4
3.1
1
GAS ft OIL
(EXCLUDING
TAXES)
3.3
8.8
1.S
E*
OARAGE.
PARKING
ft TOLLS
8B
8.1
8.1
INSURANCE
-
«
1.8
WH
STATE ft
FEDERAL
TAXES
re
1.8
.e
TOTAL
COST
17.S
14.B
18.8
NOT SHOWN IN THIS STUDY ARE THE INTERMEDIATE-SIZE CARS THAT WEIGH 3,600 - 4,000 LBS. EMPTY.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Highway Planning
Highway Statistics Division
- 7 -
-------
Figure 2
ESTIMATED COSTS OF OPERATING 1976 AUTOMOBILES
Year of
Qvne.rahj.p
1st
2nd
3rd
"•f-th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
(Cents
Standard
Size
18.73
15.^
17.79
19.23
17-Qif
17.08
19.9^
16 A 8
20.12
17.63
Per Mile)
Compact
Size
12.15
12.30
13.63
15.71
15.77
15.5^
18.20
15.29
llf.21
15.2*+
Sub-Compact
Size
9-95
9-95
10.65
1^.39
1^.03
1^.10
lif.38
15.21
13.08
lif.30
Average
17.1
lif.56
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Highway Planning
Highway Statistics Division
- 8 -
-------
IV. CARPOOL/VANPOOL/BUSPOOL RELATED INCENTIVES
A ride pool can be many things: a carpool of two or more people, a
vanpool of up to 15, or a buspool of up to 50. Carpooling is an informal
arrangement in which people share the driving to work usually on a daily,
weekly, or monthly basis. Vanpooling is a formal arrangement that
guarantees commuters a ride every day, despite such variables as vacations,
sickness, or mechanical breakdowns. A company, public agency, or other
sponsoring group buys or leases a number of vans and gives them to the
commuting employees who will be the drivers. In return for driving, those
employees get free transportation to and from work; they may also use the
van as a personal car during off-hours for a small mileage charge. The
other commuters pay a monthly transportation fee directly to the sponsoring
group. The passenger's fees reimburse the sponsors for most or all of the
costs involved in buying, operating, and maintaining the vans.
The buspool is the logical extension of the carpool or vanpool.
Buspools become economically practical when large numbers of employees
live in the same neighborhood or subdivision and can collect at a common
point or at a few points along one route. The added fuel efficiency of a
bus is a significant factor unless it is dissipated by extensive "deadhead"
travel.
This section identifies incentives presently being used by employers
to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, and/or buspooling and a few
successful programs currently underway.
Cost-Related Incentives
Travel cost is one of the most significant factors in the decision
to form or join pools, ride the bus or bicycle. Cost-related incentives
can be devised to reduce or eliminate automobile parking, ownership, and/or
operating costs. On the other hand, cost-related incentives can also be
devised to increase the cost of operating and parking a single occupant
vehicle (SOV).
Parking Costs - One of the more effective incentives to carpooling
and vanpooling is for the employer to cover all or a portion of the parking
cost for poolers. The effectiveness of this incentive depends upon current
parking charges, the likelihood of increased parking charges or surcharges,
or the opportunity to switch to alternative parking sites with no
appreciable increase in parking cost. In areas where off-street parking
or low cost parking is nearby, this incentive measure is less likely to be
successful than in central downtown areas with relatively high parking costs,
- 9 -
-------
Conversely, an increase in parking rates can similarly provide an
incentive to carpooling. A general increase in parking rates tends to
promote the use of carpools without diverting existing transit riders
to carpools.
There are several examples of successful parking cost incentives.
This type of incentive should be coordinated with incentives for mass
transit, so that people don't switch from transit to carpools and thus
increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
The Port of Portland, Portland, Oregon, has an ongoing program, whereby
the Port pays a maximum of $15 per month for parking for employees wno
commute in three person carpools 90 percent of the time, exclusive of
educational leave, sick leave, and vacation. If the carpool is four or more,
the Port pays an additional $0.14 per mile. Parking is adjacent to the
office building. A list of potential carpoolers is maintained by zip
code to avoid giving out addresses. Employees look for individuals with
the same zip code and meet on an individual basis, on company time, for
carpool arrangements. Only salaried employees participate in the program.
.Employees are reimbursed for parking every three months by. check.W The
Port is a public agency that receives revenue from taxes (Tri-County),
ship repair, and revenue bonds. It has not received any adverse puoncity
concerning the program.
A survey of employees at the King County Assessor's Office in Seattle,
Washington indicated that free parking was nearly twice as effective as
other methods in encouraging carpooling. The Assessor's Office presently
has a program that provides for free parking at private lots within a two
to three block radius of the employment site. Some 100 King County and 200
Seattle employees in carpools of three or more persons participate in the
program. (5) The City of Seattle handles arrangements for the parking
facilities.(6'
In 1973, the City of San Francis_co^ California Instituted, a 25 percent
increase in the parking tax.. This resulted, in a significant decline in the
number of all-day parkers.(7) It is believed that a substantial portion of
this reduced parking demand was a result of an increase in carpooling.
"(4)Person aT^conVersation with Ms. Messinger, Port of Portland, on
January 9, 1978.
(5) U.S. Department of Transportation, Incentives to Carpooling,
January, 1974.
(6) Personal conversation with Assessor's Office receptionist on January
10, 1978.
(7) U.S. Dept, of Transportation, Incentives to Carpooling, January, 1974.
- 10 -
-------
Traveler's Insurance, Hartford, Connecticut, provides free parking
to its carpooling employees and the Prudential Insurance Company, Boston,
Massachusetts, provides free indoor parking to carpools of 3 or more.(8)
These programs have proved to be very successful.
The parking cost incentive may be the most effective incentive to
encourage carpooling and vanpooling for agencies located in the downtown
Denver area where parking costs are relatively expensive. Federal agencies
may obtain parking spaces from private lots through the General Services
Administration.
Automobile ownership costs - As the cost of owning, insuring, and
maintaining an automobile increases, the effectiveness of incentives
related to these costs is enhanced. This type of incentive offers relief
from some or all auto or van ownership costs in exchange for organizing and
operating a carpool or vanpool.
Most governmental agencies at the federal, state, county and local
levels have a pool of motor vehicles which is used to conduct government
business. The vehicles are usually returned to a garage or lot at the
end of the day to remain idle until the next morning. This capital equip-
ment could be more effectively utilized by allowing carpooling employees
to drive the vehicles home at night. This will reduce VMT as well as
reduce costs for the individual employees. In the federal sector,
federal law (31 USC Section 638a(c)) specifically forbids the use of
government vehicles for the transportation of government employees between
their domiciles and places of work. However, there is a proposal to
change this legislation in the Department of Transportation's legislative
package presently being considered by the House Public Works and
Transportation Committee. In past hearings before the Committee, the
business sector has supported similar proposals. The State of California
Assembly, recognizing that vanpools and carpools constitute one of the
most cost-effective and energy-efficient modes of transportation,
passed Assembly Bill No. 3267 amending the State Code relating to carpools.
Effective January 1, 1977, the bill permits the state to operate carpool
and vanpool programs using county-or state-owned or leased vehicles for
county or state employees. An adequate fee is charged to fully reimburse
the county or state for such service. The pending federal legislation is
patterned after the California legislation.
(8) U.S. Department of Transportation, Incentives to Carpooling.
- 11 -
-------
The Arkansas State Highway Department In Little Rock, Arkansas,
encourages the use of departmental vehicles assigned to directors,
division heads, field personnel, etc., for carpooling. These are
vehicles that are already assigned to these individuals for overnight
use. Carpools average two to three riders per car. These vehicles
are assigned parking immediately behind the building. When a Depart-
ment vehicle is out of the city, another individual in the pool is
allowed to park his personal vehicle in the vacant space.. The system
has been in operation since 1974 and is quite successful.^'
A major problem with this carpool incentive technique is that
taxpayers tend to view use of government property as a discriminatory
benefit to government workers. This objection can be countered in
several ways:
. Public information programs to show that fuel savings from
carpooling/vanpooling is in the public interest.
. Daily recording of mileage while vehicle is not on govern-
ment business, with a pro-rata mileage charge assessed
against the poolers.
. A flat monthly assessment for the carpool based on
established mileage.
If the legislation presently before Congress is passed, the provision
of vehicles for pooling may be an effective incentive for federal employers.
A variation on the use of vehicles for a carpool is the provision,
by the employer, of vans suitable for pooling. A driver, who also may be
a paid employee of the sponsoring organization and who may be paid addi-
tionally for the responsibility of recruiting and driving pool riders,
has an active role in creating and maintaining the pool. The additional
pay is normally in the form of a free ride to work, use of vehicle during
off-hours, etc. The vehicle can be put to other uses during the day. A
more detailed discussion of vanpooling is covered in the report Vanppoling
- An Overview prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII.
Some private employers may find it cost-effective to provide company-
owned vehicles to employees who carpool or vanpool. The vehicle may be used
during the day to conduct company business. The effectiveness of this
incentive measure depends on several factors, such as expense and tax
position of the company, the availability of alternative transportation to
the members of the carpool, and the potential for forming and maintaining
a carpool under these circumstances.
(9)Personal conversation with Mr. Jim Gilbert, Arkansas State Highway
Department on February 10, 1978.
- 12 -
-------
Automobile-operating costs - This type of incentive falls into two
major categories: negative incentives which increase auto-operating
costs for SOV's and positive incentives which reduce operating costs for
carpoolers. Some of these types of incentives may be implemented by
employers, while others must be implemented by legislative bodies. This
discussion will include only those incentives which may be implemented
by employers.
Repayment of some portion of the cost of fuel and insurance is a
possible incentive. The rebate could be paid directly to the employee
by the employer upon proof of regular carpooling. One employer pays
non-drivers one dollar per day. (1°) This type of payment may not be
possible to implement in the governmental sector.
A disincentive that may be effective is to charge nonpoolers for
parking on government reservations. The Public Buildings Amendments
of 1972 (P.L. 92-313, 86 Statute 219, June 16, 1972) established the
concept of charging users of space and services their approximate
commercial value.('U However, the General Services Administration
regulations adopted do not provide for executive agencies implementing
employee parking charges above the operating expenses of a facility.
Under these regulations, where self-parking without attendants is used,
free parking is permitted. This regulation could be revised to provide
for employee parking charges.
Travel Time Incentives
The primary area in which travel time incentives can be implemented
is the journey itself. Thus, almost all travel time incentives involve
travel on public streets and are usually only implemented by public
agencies and not by employers. Examples include exclusive freeway lanes,
contra-flow freeway lanes, reserved lanes at toll plazas, etc. The
basic motivation associated with these priority techniques is reduced
travel time for high occupancy vehicle occupants. Typically, the
priority treatments are in force only during peak periods and, thus, are
applicable primarily to commuter vehicles.
(10)GCA/Technology Division, Study and Evaluation of Computer Carpool
Programs in Certain Metropolitan Areas, April, 1974.
(11) Memorandum to James Sakolosky, Chief, Field Coordination Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency from Robert Kenney, Attorney
Advisor, Office of Enforcement, EPA," EPA Parking Fees."
- 13 -
-------
Convenience
Convenience-related incentives increase the attractiveness of
carpooling, vanpooling or buspooling. There is some overlap between
convenience incentives and cost or travel time incentives, since time
and cost are often elements of convenience. In general, however, the
following incentives appeal most directly to the motorist's sense of
comfort and his desire to minimize the effort related to travel.
Preferential parking - Parking specifically reserved for carpools
and conveniently located can encourage pooling if parking is in short
supply or if the carpool parking would substantially reduce the time
or distance between parking lot and building. This procedure may be
applied by individual employers either public or private, who control
a single parking area or by coordinated management at a multi employer
site. This method offers poolers an advantage over other drivers at
the work site in terms of convenience, time savings, and comfort.
The methods of application include:
. Assignment of close-in spaces in parking lots to carpoolers and
vanpoolers.
. Assignment of reserved parking spaces to poolers.
. Assignment of parking spaces nearest street level in multi-
level parking structures to poolers.
. Assignment of sheltered parking spaces, where some parking
areas are not sheltered, to poolers.
. Assignment of all parking spaces to carpoolers and vanpoolers
only.
Preferential parking can be implemented quickly and inexpensively.
It has been proven of significant value in a large number of applications.
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, St. Louis, by reserving lots for car- ,^
poolers, has achieved a vehicle occupancy rate of 2.8 persons per car.^ '
The Connecticut Department of Transportation has reserved 245 choice
parking spaces for carpoolers.^ ' The successful NASA program,
Washington, D.C., allocates preferred spaces on the basis of car occupancy
as well as years of service. U4) The provision of 500 close-in parking
spaces has been a factor in the increase Qf-carpoolers from 400 to 1,000
(12) U.S. Department of Transportation, Incentives to Carpooling,
January ,1974.
(13) Ibid.
(14) Ibid.
- 14 -
-------
at state offices in Little Rock, Arkansas.(15) GEICO, which is located
in an area where parking is difficult to find and large lots can mean
an extra 10 minute walk from car to office, has reserved over 500
spaces for carpool vehicles in the company lot.v'6) One company in
Boston converted its executive parking lot into a preferred parking
lot for carpools. To make the point even stronger, it stanchioned
off the lot with red velvet rope and placed a uniformed guard at the ,,-v
entrance to usher in the "honored" commuters - and keep out interlopers.^ '
In the Denver area, the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center has
in place a very effective preferential parking system. The Center employs
some 3,300 people and has a parking facility which extends some distance
from the building and is totally managed by the Center's Space Manager.
The system is designed to allow the largest carpools to obtain the close-
in parking. As the carpools become smaller, the distance between the
parking space and the building becomes greater. SOV's must park a
significant distance from the building. Requirements for participating
are that a carpool must consistgQf two or more rtdiTrcpto and from work at
least 80 percent of the time.^ The system is actively enforced, with
the Space Manager having the authority to deputize personnel to write
tickets. If two tickets are received in one month, the driver is
prohibited from parking on base. The system is, to a large degree, self
enforced. When a pool loses a member, it is given two weeks to secure
another rider or lose its space.('9) Management works closely with the
local union and has its support, and carpooling was handled as a separate
amendment to the contract. The Space Manager estimates that about 40
percent of his time involves the carpool program.
Preferential parking may be a very effective tool for agencies able
to manage their parking facilities. A possible disadvantage of this
technique is opposition from those who may now have preferential treatment
on the basis of rank, seniority, or handicap, and compromises may be
required. The Air Force Accounting and Finance Center has handled this
problem, in accordance with Air Force regulations, by reserving up
to 10% of its • close-in spaces for executives (GS-14s, Master sgts,
Lt. Colonels). The local union is requesting that reserved executive
parking be reduced to less than 10%. (20)
;35l H-l- Department of Transportation, In cent ives., to .Carpool lag
(16) U.S. Department of Transportation, How to Pool It. May,19/5.
(17) Ibid.
(18) Personal conversation with Mr. Russell Kraus, Space Manager,
Air Force Accounting and Finance Center on January 6, 1978.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Conversation with Mr. Kraus.
- 15 -
-------
_ buspools - Employers and
public agencies can provide a number of facilities to encourage the
use of carpooling and vanpooling. Such facilities generally require
little capital or maintenance cost, and in some cases, already exist
and need only be designated for carpoolers and vanpoolers.
One successful method for encouraging carpools is to locate and
designate certain parking areas for use by poolers as a rendezvous
point. Many shopping center lots now are being used in this manner
either with or without agreement of the management. Employers could
take the initiative to contact and work with the management of these
lots to secure arrangements. The Denver Federal Center could be used
as a park-and-ride lot for federal employees for carpools and/or
vanpools. Arrangements could be made with the Regional Transportation
District (RTD) to provide frequent bus service between the Federal
Center and downtown Denver during the morning and evening rush hours.
Special loading/unloading areas provided for carpools, vanpools,
and buspools can be a real convenience, especially where large numbers
of personnel work in one building or where parking lots are large. The
Federal Building at 18th and Stout Streets is an excellent example of
a location where this method would be applicable. Such loading areas
could provide nearly as much convenience as preferential parking and
may not involve as many objections from people with existing parking
priviledges. The area could be a bay or simply a reserved area that
will permit standing for a short time while pool vehicles are loaded
and unloaded without interfering with the normal outflow of traffic.
The cost of these loading and unloading zones could vary from a minimal
cost for some curb paint and a sign to several thousand dollars for
additional construction of a bay outside the main traffic lane.
The employer could also provide sheltered waiting areas for
carpool, vanpool, and buspool riders as an additional inducement to
pool. These may simply be designated areas in existing buildings
convenient to pool parking, or shelters may be constructed specifically
for this purpose. The cost for this type of facility may vary from an
almost negligible cost for designating space in an existing building to
several thousand dollars for a new bus-shelter type of building.
Large employers, with company grounds and buildings having various
gates and entrances, may reserve areas for the exclusive use-of carpoDls
and vanpools. Any other gate or entrance open to employees would also
be available to poolers. This type of incentive is more effective in
situations where existing access to grounds and buildings is hampered
due to congestion or circuitious routings. The cost of this type of
incentive is almost negligible. Some federal reservations may be able
to utilize the gate and plant entrance method.
- 16 -
-------
Campuses, industrial parks, office parks, federal reservations and
other institutions having restricted internal roadway systems can permit
carpool, vanpool, and buspool use of restricted roads. This incentive
can permit door-to-door service for carpoolers. The above facilities
can also restrict roads to SOV's to encourage carpooling and vanpooling.
An effective marketing process will itself be an incentive,
because it would be convenient, personal, helpful, and otherwise
conducive to participation in the pooling program. Company provision
of bulletin boards, information kits, and pool matching systems can be
a tremendous benefit. Costs will vary depending on the service provided.
Most successful pooling programs provide a good matching service. Refer
to the Carpool Matching Methods and Existing Matching Systems sections
of this report.
Adjustments to working hours - Carpools, vanpools, or buspools may
be difficult to form if people find they are delayed in leaving work by
the need to wait for someone who leaves later or must walk substantially
further to reach the parking lot. Such delays may be especially
discouraging if they cause the person waiting to experience greater
traffic congestion in the parking lot or on the street system. Both
public and private employers can apply carpool incentives which will
permit employees greater flexibility and freedom in arranging pools
with other employees who may have different working hours.
Entire pools could be allowed to leave a few minutes early as
an incentive to avoid waiting lines in a parking lot at quitting time
or traffic congestion on the streets. A further working hour incentive
is an overall reduction in working hours for persons who pool, perhaps
applied to both ends of the work day. This type of incentive would be
more effective for employees not participating in flexitime or staggered
work hours.
Other possible incentives are shift rotation preferences for poolers
or even a day or half-day off. An alternative approach is for management
to encourage the maintenance of normal work hours, so that employees
will not be subjected to overtime and can meet their transit pools.
This has been done at the Pentagon.
The flexible-working-hours-incentiye measure would not reduce the
total number of working hours by a pooling employee, but would permit
working hours to be arranged so that starting and quitting times fall
within a specified range. This measure can be implemented for little
cost other than any initial bookkeeping charges that might be required.
On the basis of the popularity of this type of plan in companies
already applying it to all employees, it appears to be an effective
incentive. However, the implementation of flexible working hours could
- 17 -
-------
adversely affect existing carpools. Experience of the Air Force
Accounting and Finance Center is that carpools were adversely affected
for an initial two or three month period, but that after the initial
disruptions, carpooling actually increased. v'1'
Parking restriction - Pooling is encouraged if the supply of
parking is inadvertently or artifically reduced. This may be done
by regulating the number of new or existing parking spaces available.
A specific reduction in the number of parking spaces available
for non-poolers could be imposed. Local jurisdictions might permit
only carpools in designated public and/or private lots and garages
during commuter hours. Restriction might be applied on a proportional
basis, allowing some provision for single drivers on some priority
basis. This technique is employed at NASA, GSA. and several other
federal office buildings in Washington, D.C.(22)
Other Incentives
Personalized techniques could be applied to meet the special
needs of some employees. For example:
. Matching schemes designed to match smokers with non-smokers.
. Face-to-face meetings on company time for potential carpoolers
to get acquainted.
. Carpool information for new employees.
Recognition or monetary awards may be an incentive for employees
to pool, use public transit, bicycle, or walk. Examples are:
Listing of these individuals in company newspaper.
. Time off or bonuses.
. Company or agency luncheons where the company or agency head
personally recognizes these individuals.
Walker and Dunlop, a real estate firm in Washington, D.C., gives
trading stamps to carpoolers and transit riders. The Gillette Company
in Boston, Mass., kicked off its carpool program with a limerick
contest, in which four $50.00 prizes were awarded. Mutual of Omaha
gave carpoolers free breakfast for the first month of its carpool
program. Minnesota Plywood Company held a monthly drawing among its
carpoolers for 10 gallons of gasoline!23'
(21)Conversation with Mr. Kraus.
(22) U.S. Department of Transportation, Incentives to Carpooling.
(23) U.S. Department of Transportation, How to Pool It.
- 18 -
-------
Summary
Table 1 presents a summary of carpool and vanpool emolo.yer incentives
and relative cost to the employer.
Summary of Carpooling and
Vanpooling Employer Incentives
Table 1
Initial
Cost
Continuous
Cost
Cost-Related Incentives
Parking Cost
Automobile Ownership Cost
Automobile Operating Cost
Low
High
High
Low
Varies, can break-even
Low
Convenience Incentives
Preferential Parking
Facilities for Carpoolers and
Vanpoolers
Adjustments to Working Hours
Parking Restriction
Other Incentives
Low
Low/Moderate
Low/Moderate
Low
Variable
Low
Low
Moderate/High
Low
Variable
(24) U.S. Department of Transportation, Incentives to Carpooling,
January, 1974.
- 19 -
-------
Successful ._Ca_rpool and Vanpoo1_Programs
The following represents a cross section of relatively successful carpool,
vanpool, and buspool programs. Many were sponsored by employers,
some by third parties, and an increasingly greater percentage by
urban-wide ridesharing campaigns. They all feature convenient, door-
to-door service in which the total traveltime is comparable to that of
the privately driven automobile.
Carpool Programs
Carpools are one of the most effective 'ways to decrease VMTs
immediately and economically. Carpooling has been "big business"
for a long time. Even prior to the energy crisis in the winter of
1973-74, more commuters traveled in carpools than all other forms of
shared riding combined. Following are a few successful carpool programs
from around the nation. These programs utilize a variety of incentives
and carpool matching methods.
Hallmark Cards(25) - In Kansas City, Missouri, Hallmark Cards with
4,000 employees embarked on a carpool-matching program in early 1973.
Initially, a survey of existing auto occupancies found 132 cars carrying
460 Hall markers in carpools with at least three members. With apparent
room for improvement, a low-key program of carpool-matching and parking
priorities was established. Without the aid of a carpool computer
program. Hallmark collected data from 2,500 employees, hand matched the
employees, and distributed a personalized list to each participant.
While this approach was adequate, a more efficient computerized matching
system was developed. Upon joining Hallmark, each new employee is now
offered the option of entering the computerized carpool-matching system
and upon leaving, he or she is removed from the system.
Priority parking spaces at the most desirable locations are
reserved for carpools of three or more. Management, not in three-person
carpools,now parks immediately behind the carpoolers in the next best
spaces. These efforts have proved fruitful as the three-person carpools
doubled to 258 carrying 907 employees. The above figure, based on an
estimate of two-person carpools, indicates there are over one-third of
all Hallmark employees currently pooling to work in private autos.
(25) U.S. Department of Transportation, Carpool and Buspool Matching
Guide, Fourth Edition, January,1975.
- 20 -
-------
Jantzen, Inc. " _ jn /\pr-j] 1973, Jantzen, Inc., a clothing manu-
facturer, decided to make an effort toward reducing pollution. Because
there was little or no direct industrial pollution from its facilities,
the policy of aiding employees in forming carpools at all Jantzen
facilities was established. At each site, the Jantzen supervisors
distributed and collected carpool data forms, resulting in an 80 percent
response. With 3,360 employees jat seven sites in four states, carpools
increased by an estimated 30 pertfent to a current total of 45%
The participation at these sites varies. For example, 481 of the
207 employees in Los Angeles, and 35 percent of the 1,568 employees in
Portland, Oregon, are carpool ing. In July, 1974, 90% of all new
carpools were still operating.
The company believes that the individual's self-motivation is the
key to success. It's objective is to make it convenient for employees
who are interested in carpool ing to get together. Excellent matching
services were provided along with posters for bulletin boards, a few
buttons, and a pamphlet titled "What's All This Talk About Carpool ing."
Jantzen used a map board with pins representing residential location of
employees instead of computer listings, as many locations had only a few
hundred employees. Because of plentiful parking, incentives such as
preferential locations were not established.
General Dynamics '' - The auto occupancy of 6,600 General Dynamics
employees increased from 1.2 to 1.87 by June, 1974. General Dynamics is
located about 10 miles west of Fort Worth, Texas. Auto occupancy exceeds
an average of two persons after the summer vacation periods.
General Dynamics developed a grid-based carpool computer program
modeled after the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) program. One
square-mile grids were superimposed on maps and distributed to employees
along with a questionnaire and memorandum explaining the program. The
matching process was believed to be extremely important to the success
of the program. General Dynamics obtained a 96% return rate on
the questionnaires. To aid in forming carpools, tour starting shifts
were consolidated into two shifts, one at 7 a.m. and one at 8 a.m..
Since parking is convenient and plentiful, parking priorities were not
established.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWAr - On a small group basis,
carpooling was actively promoted among 72 FHWA employees arriving in
Washington, D.C., in November, 1971. The employees were informed of an
official U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) policy requiring carpools
(26) U.S. Department of Transportation, Carpool and Buspool Matching Guide.
(27) Ibfd. •• !-
(28) Ibid.
- 21 -
-------
with three or more participants as a parking permit prerequisite-.- Within
a month, 55 % selected carpools averaging 4.1 persons per car. Of
the remaining, six walked to work, five could not be matched,, and 26 took
the bus. This is an example of matching a small sample in a large metro-
politan area.
Also, in Washington, D.C., the FHWA completed its first computerized
carpool matching program in August, 1972 by distributing a personalized
computer listing to over 600 participating employees. To determine the
program's impact, a comprehensive followup questionnaire was distributed
in October, 1972. The results indicated an average auto occupancy of 3.8
among carpoolers and an overall occupancy of 2.34 for all FHWA employees.
The latter figure increased to 2.45 after a carpool -match ing program was
implemented. The unusually high before occupancy can be largely attributed
to a DOT policy requiring most employees to be in a carpool to obtain a
parking permit. Even with extensive ridesharing many employees indicated
that the carpool lists helped improve their existing carpools by allowing
them to switch members, thus making the carpools more convenient. Over
90% indicated a desire to see the matching service run periodically
every six or twelve months.
Baltimore federal employees (29) - Federal employees from various
agencies in Baltimore were asked to participate in a pilot testing of the
FHWA Carpool Matching Program. Initially, listings were produced and
distributed to over 600 participating Federal employees in July. 1973.
In November, 1973, the effort was expanded to include additional
Federal agencies' in nearby buildings. Of 6,000 employees in the survey
group, 3,600 returned carpool -matching questionnaires.
In March, a followup survey of commuting habits was completed.
Carpool ing was up 7 % from the previous July to a total of 36%
pf employees. A breakdown of other modes of transportation shows-
42 percent commuting by, other means.
Washington, D.C. ' - In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, the
Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, the Board of Trade, and
the Washington, D.C. Department of Highways and Traffic sponsored an
areawide carpool program. Given the low occupancy rate of the automobile
for commuter purposes (1.2 persons per vehicle for work trips from suburb
to suburb and 1.5 from the suburb to Washington., D.C.), carpool ing is one
of the primary measures proposed to implement the National Ambient Air
Quality standards for carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants.
129) 07ST Department of Transportation, Carpool and Buspool Matching Guide.
(30) Ibid.
- 22 -
-------
Increased carpooling resulted from the public service campaign,
carpool-matching at over 100 employment sites, and the energy crisis.
Determining the increase in carpools due to matching or advertising
has yet to be accomplished. However, one thing is certain: downward
auto occupancy trends in Washington, D.C., were broken; auto occupancy
on the Potomac River Bridges in Mays 1974 were up by 8% over
May, 1972 figures.
Vanpool Programs
Following is a discussion of a successful vanpool program.
Additional programs are discussed in the report Vanpooling - An
Overview.
In St. Paul, Minnesota, the 3M Company, with 8,000 employees,
established a "commute a van" pilot program serving areas inconvenient
to public transit or 3M's buspool program. The initial demonstration
used six popularly-sized, 12-passenger vans, and "Pool coordinators" for '
drivers who are permanent 3M personnel. Participants saved up to 115
monthly on parking costs and $75 per month on auto expenses. The 3M van-
pool program now has some 90 vans.
Buspool Programs
The buspool, sometimes called "Bus Club" or "Subscription Bus,"
represents transit service where the riders determine the operating
parameters of the service (routes, origins, destinations, etc.). The
buspool concept may include various approaches, such as charter, contract,
subscription, and user-owned buses. Buspools usually originate at a
limited number of stops, generally fringe parking areas. Collection
time is minimized and riders are'guaranteed a seat. The bus travels
nonstop to the destination, which may be a single employer or several employers
in the immediate vicinity. Thus, the outstanding feature of a buspool is
its fast, point-to-point, convenient service. The Duses can travel at
the same speed as the automobiles providing for excellent travel times,
and when bus lanes are provided, the buses may even be substantially faster
than automobiles. Buspool growth has been rapid over the past eight to
nine years. Documented examples of successful buspool experiences can
be found in the following cities:
Reston, Virginia Rochester, New York
Mantua, Virginia Tuxedo, Maryland
Columbia, Maryland Palo Alto, California
Los Angeles, California Fredericksburg, Pennsylvania
St. Louis, Missouri Detroit, Michigan
Meriden, Connecticut Omaha, Nebraska
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania San Francisco, California
(31) U.S. Department of Transportation, Buspools, January.1974
- 23 -
-------
It should be noted that buspools may not be the most efficient
pooling from an energy conservation standpoint. Single direction use
of a buspool with deadheading (a trip without passengers) may result
in an operation that would most effectively use autos or vans without
the deadheading problems since autos and vans can be parked at the end
of the trip. Another potential problem is the necessity for available
buses. In many locations, surplus buses may not be available and transit
operators may not be willing to charter buses since they already have a
peak-hour demand problem.
St. Louis, Missouri - In the greater St. Louis area, a private bus
company providing express bus service has grown from one to 22 buses 'in
15 years. Financed 100 percent from the farebox, the company provides
service from semi-rural towns 25 to 50 miles from the passenger's suburban
employer, the McDonnell Douglas Corporation. Whenjjassengers were
interviewed, their number one concern was travel ,time} wfth cost an
important second. If either of these was excessive, they would return to
carpools. By minimizing the service stops (the loading and discharging
of passengers) to an average of three per bus through well-located fringe
parking areas, the buses not only reduced total travel~time, but provided
smooth, virtually nonstop service which the passengers appreciated. This
nonstop service, in combination with comfortable seating,allowed the
passengers to sleep, which was a big favorite. This private bus company
has grown not by accident, but by a sincere effort to serve the commuters'
desires.
Res ton Commuter Bus (32) _ Over seven years ago, Reston,. a growing new
suburban community with "a population of only 3,000, initiated its first
express commuter bus to Washington, D.C., 25 miles away. Today the town
has a population of 23,500. Commuters are served daily by approximately
48 bus runs financed entirely by fares. The typical passenger is a
middle-class suburbanite, the type who supposedly will use only his private
automobile. There are various reasons for the success of the program, but
the major one is relatively fast, convenient service. According to a
November, 1971, survey, 56 percent of the passengers ranked the reduction of
travel time first in importance in- increasing ridership.
While the Reston program has proved to be an outstanding success, it
began only after residents had tried in vain to get scheduled express bus
service started in their area. Actually, the bus company's refusal to
provide scheduled service was a blessing in disguise as it led to a flexible
user-controlled contract or "buspool" operation. Routes can be improved at
will without the time-consuming scrutiny of a regulatory body, payment is
generally made by check, and the routes to and from Reston can be varied
allowing the bus to adapt to traffic conditions.
(32) U.S.D.T., Carpool and Buspool Matching
- 24 -
-------
Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) (33' - GEICO, located
in Chevy Chase, Maryland (a suburb of Washington, D.C.), responded to a
parking shortage with a carpooling and buspooling program. The company
provided buspools from park-and-ride lots at outlying shopping centers to
the GEICO office. This employer- instituted program indicates the potential
for organizing buspools at this level. The employer can provide one of the
most efficient catalysts for buspooling. The necessary factors of place
of residence and work hours are known by the employer, thereby allowing the
employer to effectively institute buspooling service for employees.
Tuxedo. Maryland - Atwoods Goldline Service in Tuxedo, Maryland
(suburban Washington, D.C.) charters buses to various groups which are
responsible for determining pickup points, destinations and schedules.
Each group is responsible for its own fare collection. The amount of bus
club business has expanded from one bus per day in 1968 to approximately
15 buses per day at the present time. Groups using the service are varied,
with rider clubs and employer-sponsored service being represented.
. National Geographic Society - 8 buses per day
. Washington Bus Riders, Fort Meade - 1 bus per day
. Congressional Secretaries Club - 2 buses per day
. EPA employees - 1 bus per day
\
. Atomic Energy Commission - 3 buses per day
Service varies by commuter group. The EPA group commutes between a
suburban shopping center and downtown Washington, D.C. (approximately a
30-mile one-way trip). The AEC group commutes between Germantown,
Maryland and downtown Washington, D.C. (a one-way distance of 40 miles).
Revenue is remitted by the bus clubs at mutually agreed intervals. The
operation is managed and controlled by Atwood Goldline Service. The
services all originated from telephone inquiries by interested parties.
Two problems of significance involved (1) the bus operators who
consider the jobs rather undesirable because of the long distance trips,
and (2) an insufficient number of buses. There have been no regulatory
or insurance problems. Atwood will continue to seek this type of business
so long as equipment is available and operators can be found to drive the
buses.
(33) U.S.D.T., Buspools
(34) Ibid.
- 25 -
-------
V. TRANSIT-RELATED INCENTIVES
Increased use of mass transit for commuting to and from places
of employment can significantly reduce vehicle miles traveled. A few
obvious benefits include less traffic congestion, increased energy
conservation, and improved air quality. This section discusses a few
incentive measures which may induce employees to use mass transit
facilities.
Subsidized Transit Fares
Payment of all or a portion of the cost of commuting by public
transit has been an effective incentive for many employers. The Port
of Portland will pay up to $16 per month (the cost of a monthly bus
pass) to employees who ride the bus 90 % of th*» .time, exclusive
of educational leave, sick leave, and vacation.'•"' The local transit
company, Tri-Met Bus System, increases the effectiveness of this
incentive with relatively good service including transit malls, symbols
for different.areas of town, senior citizen $0.10 fares and the $16
monthly pass.'36/ By providing the transit fare incentive in addition
to the parking cost incentive, the Port is not encouraging individuals
*to abandon public transit for carpools.
$ In the Denver area, a few downtown Denver employers have ongoing
public transit incentive programs. For example, the United Bank of
Denver has had a transit subsidization program in place for some time.
r. From the time the program was instituted to the present, the Bank has
paid employees the price of a one-way local fare ($0.35).(37; AS of
January,1978, the price of local fares was increased to $0.50. However,
because the Bank's budget had been submitted prior to the increase, the
subsidy remains at $0.35. Estimates as to the effect of the price increase
on bus ridership are not available at this time.
This type of incentive may be difficult to implement at the federal
level. However, if agencies begin to provide free or low cost parking for
carpools and vanpools, something must be done to minimize the possible
negative impact on public transit.
(35) Personal conversation with Ms. Messinger, Port of Portland on
January 9, 1978.
(36) Ibid.
(37) Personal conversation with Mrs. Barbara Alcorta United Bank of
Denver, on January 5, 1978.
- 26 -
-------
Adjustments to Working Hours
Work hour adjustments may benefit public transit agencies, by
spreading the commuting period over a longer period of time,
thereby allowing service to an area by more than one express bus.
Transit users could be allowed to leave a few minutes early as an
incentive. Other possible incentives are shift rotation preferences
for transit users or even a day or half-day off.
The implementation of a staggered working hours program by a
number of employers could provide for better transit services. By
staggering the peak commuting times over a longer period of time,
public transit services to some areas could be increased, providing
an incentive to ride the bus. Downtown Denver, Inc. , in cooperation
with RTD and the Denver Regional Council of Government (DRCOG), is
presently attempting to develop a staggered working hours,program with
the 500 largest employers in the Downtown Denver area.^38' The
purpose is to encourage the use of public transit for commuting to
and from the downtown area by providing more frequent bus services to
more areas of the system. The project is designed to relieve downtown
traffic congestion and improve the area's air quality.
Other Incentives
Recognition or monetary awards may be an incentive to inducing
employees to use public transit. Examples include:
. Listing of these individuals in company newspapers
. Time off or bonuses
Company or agency luncheons where the company or agency
head personally recognizes these individuals.
Walker and Dunlop, a real estate firm in Washington, D.C., gives
trading stamps to carpoolers and transit riders.
Another incentive aid is to provide bus route maps and schedules
in a convenient place for employees, and selling bus passes at the
employment site. Many employers presently provide tnese services.
(38) Personal conversation with Mr. Phil Milstein, Executive Vice
President, Downtown Denver, Inc., on January 28, 1978.
- 27 -
-------
VI. NON-MOTOR VEHICLE RELATED INCENTIVES
Other measures which may be used by employers t0 reduce VMT include
encouraging employees to bicycle or .walk. "^Employers would need-to-,-_
encourage employees to live near their places of employment
for maximum effectiveness. Incentives that may be implemented include:
Bicycle Information
As stated previously, bicycle information services could be
provided by employers. Information services would include a list of
bicycle purchase and repair shops, regional bikeway maps, registration
and licensing materials, and safety information. Safety education
programs could be provided by the employer durina working hours.
Parking racks could be provided in secure, sheltered areas.
List of residences
Employers could maintain a list of available residences within
walking distance of the office, for use by new employees in house or
apartment hunting, locating a permanent residence, and current employees
wishing to relocate.
Shower f aci1i ties
The employer could also provide facilities for bicyclers or
walkers desiring to freshen up prior to reporting to work. These
facilities would also be available for individuals after jogging or
exercising activities.
- 28 -
-------
VII. CARPOOL MATCHING METHODS
There are many ways to structure a ridesharing program. Each
program must be designed to fit the needs, goals and objectives, of
the individual company or organization. Even though informal ride-
sharing has been going on for years and methods for developing and
maintaining a ridesharing .program are not new, the recent resurgence
of interest in ridesharing has produced a new, fast-moving technology.
A comprehensive carpool, vanpool or buspool program requires an infor-
mation service which matches commuters' travel needs. Generally, it
is difficult to establish an acceptable carpool among associates due
to their widespread, random residences. By enlarging the universe of
potential matches to include virtually all employees at a specific
location, the carpool information service can bring together commuters
sharing similar travel needs, especially when other substantive
incentives to pooling are present.
In addition to a carpool/vanpool/buspool locator service, other
facets of a comprehensive carpool service are:
. Public information to inform the commuter of the benefits
of carpools and buspools;
Incentives to establish parking priorities for carpools,
and where feasible, priority lanes;
. Continuing programs to provide carpool locator assistance
for new and moving employees.
Although setting up a ridesharing program is 90 percent common
sense, a review of the steps used by others will be helpful to
anyone involved in developing a program.
The two basic categories of matching systems are manual and
computer. Manual systems may be self-service or operated by
assigned personnel. Computer systems always involve control and
matching through a centralized coordinator. Manual systems are
most suitable for small companies of 100 to 1,000 employees. (39)
Where large numbers of employees are involved, computer programs
generally prove the more effective. Many companies have started
with a manual system and later converted to computerized matching
since it is often quicker to implement a manual system. When a
company foresees doing this, care should be taken to provide for
easy conversion to' a computer system.
(39) U.S. Department of Transportation, Manual Carpool Matching
Methods, January, 1974.
- 29 -
-------
Basic advantages and disadvantages of manual systems, particularly
self-service systems, include:
. Advantages
- low cost
- quick implementation
- more personal involvement
. Disadvantages
- need continuing strong promotion and incentives
- system maintenance deteriorates without management
assistance
- locating errors occur often
- feedback is poor on what ride pools are actually formed,
so that follow-up efforts are difficult to organize.
Some advantages and disadvantages of computer-assisted programs are:
. Advantages
- quick matching of large volumes
- minimum employee effort for matching
- can be administered among a number of employers to widen
the potential numbers of poolers
- errors are minimized
- provides list of potential matches to each employee
- simplifies follow-up on no-matches
. Disadvantages
- higher startup costs than manual systems, although the
per match cost may be less
- company computer equipment may not be applicable
- not always suitable to smaller employers
- 30 -
-------
Whatever matching system is selected, one must consider the following:
. potential size of the ridesharing program
. possibility of expanding program to fit into fnu Hi employer
or community-wide programs, i.e., DRCOG
. ability of available data processing equipment to handle
pooling operation
. desired degree of control over the program
The following matching techniques will be discussed:
. manual matching techniques
. centralized matching techniques
locator board methods
. roster technique
Manual Matching Techniques
There are several satisfactory self-service manual systems which
may be used for matching employees. The three basic methods that
presently have the most widespread application are the centralized
matching technique, locator board method and the roster technique.
These methods are described in some detail in the following sections.
Carpool and buspool matching has been most successful at places
of employment. Manual methods may also be used by such groups as
neighborhood volunteer groups, home-owners and apartment dwellers,
associations, PTA's, churches, and government agencies in suburban
cities. There are only a few examples of very successful large
scale neighborhood carpool and buspool matching processes. Most
neighborhood pools are formed by informal matching between neighbors
and friends. Work-based matching systems work best because of (1)
the higher concentrations of people at work locations, making it
easier to contact potential poolers, (2) employer involvement in
matching activity, (3) the opportunity to provide tangible incentives,
and (4) existence of common problems such as parking scarcity. '^'
Many companies have never gone into the intricacies of computer
matching and still have achieved impressive results.
(40) U.S. Department of Transportation, Manual Carpool Matching Methods
January, 1974
- 31 -
-------
Centralized Matching Technique
This technique utilizes a single person or group for managing
and operating the carpool.buspool matching program. It has
responsibility for distributing questionnaires, geocoding of
questionnaires, matching potential carpoolers, monitoring and other
activities to insure a successful ongoing program.
The first step in this program involves the preparation,
distribution and collection of questionnaires. A grid system is
drawn on a large scale map of the area. The supervisor locates
the grid cell containing the residence of each participant, codes
the grid cell designation in the corner of the questionnaire, and
sorts the questionnaires into groups on the basis of grid cell
number. The supervisor records the names, addresses, telephone
numbers and working hours of all respondents within a particular
grid cell. The list is copied and distributed to all respondents
in that grid cell for their use in organizing carpools. If the
grid cell contains fewer than four persons (to allow some choice in
compatible poolers), the list is expanded to include adjacent cells
until a sufficient number of candidates is identified. Possible
parking and pool facilities are located and supplied to the list
of potential poolers. Pools are normally formed through individual
initiative once the match lists have been distributed.
The system should be monitored for effectiveness. The pool
supervisor may distribute another questionnaire asking those persons
who have formed pools to notify the supervisor. Effectiveness may
be monitored by counting the number of cars in the parking lot,
sampling the occupancy levels of cars arriving at the lot, and
tracking the number of carpools which are receiving company-offered
incentives.
Periodic surveys should be made to insure that data files are
kept up to date. Existing carpools that have vacancies should be
supplied lists of potential new members. The pool supervisor must
work closely with the personnel department to keep current on
terminations, transfers, hirings, or changes in residence or working
hours.
- 32 -
-------
Locator Board Method
A grid system is displayed on a larger map of the metropolitan
area, as with the centralized method. Employees enter their personal
information on a card, also identifying their home area, using grid
coordinates from the locator map. The individual's information card
is placed in a pigeonhole marked with the same coordinates as his home.
To find matches, he searches the box for cards of other employees living
in his area,and if suitable matches are not found, he can pull cards
from adjacent grid cells. This system is, for the most part, self-
sorting.
The system is largely a self-operated system requirina a minimum
of supervision, however, editing of the information cards to catch
errors in coding home locations is required. If there are many small
and medium-sized employers housed in the same office building, this
method could be easily applied as a cooperative project, or could be
supplied and supervised by building management. One shortcoming of
the Locator Board Method is that only one board should be used to
serve a group of employees. The board must be in a location that is
frequented by the majority of employees. Using more than one board in
a large facility may attract participants but also may dilute matching
effectiveness.
Roster Technique
The roster system is the simplest, least formalized system in use.
For smaller groups of employees (less than 100) a Roster Technique
using a numbered list of names, addresses and phone numbers, in
conjunction with numbered tacks on a map of the area, is probably
sufficient to achieve a reasonable level of pooling. A roster of
personnel is prepared which includes the same information required by
the method previously described, i.e.,,name, address, work hours,
telephone number, area of residence. This roster is posted in a
convenient location for employees. Beside each number is a map tack
with a matching number. Those employees interested in pooling write
their names, addresses and phone numbers on the appropriate spaces
on the form. They would then take the map tacks, whose numbers correspond
to the line numbers containing that information, and place the areawide
map at appropriate residential locations. To locate potential carpool
mates, an employee inspects the map and determines visually the map tack
numbers most conveniently located for pooling, then goes to the
numerical list and determines the names and telephone numbers of the
corresponding persons.
The Roster Technique requires little or no monitoring or maintenance
after the initial roster and map have been posted. Once employees have
formed carpools, their map tacks should be removed and their names
crossed out.
- 33 -
-------
Most of the operating programs are hybrid of two or
more of the methods described above. The NASA program which will
be described later, uses elements of all three methods. The
Hallmark Card Company program, which was briefly described earlier,
is an example of the pure Centralized Matching Technique.
The Roster Technique is usually considered the least expensive
in terms of manpower and direct expenditures and is most appropriate
where there are only about 100 or fewer potential carpoolers being
matched. The Locator Board Method is most effective where there
are from 100 to 2,000 potential poolers,or when used as a team effort by
a group of small to medium-sized employers located in the same
building. The Centralized Matching Technique should always be used
where the potential exists for going from manual to computerized
matching. It's major drawback is that it has a higher manpower
requirement than the other two methods.
Successful Programs
This section identifies several existing matching programs
utilizing the preceding methods and representative costs of imple-
menting and operating them.
Hallmark Card Company
This is an example of a large employer which used a centralized
manual matching method to get a carpool program working. Hallmark
began to experience a parking supply problem in 1973. Management
resorted to a carpooling program in an attempt to alleviate the
problem. Hallmark conducted a survey of its 4,500 employees and
some 2,500 responded, by returning a questionnaire which indicated
their desire to carpool, telephone numbers, and addresses, including
zip codes.
One employee worked nearly full-time for more than two months
in performing the matching process and sending lists of names to
potential carpoolers. It was often necessary to use detailed street
maps to locate the employee's residences since the questionnaire
asked only for address and zip code and in some instances, zip codes
covered large areas (many square miles). One unique feature of the
Hallmark system was the use of 8%"X11" double thickness paperboard
sheets which contained ten slots capable of holding the questionnaire.
The responses were placed in these slots so that only the names and
work telephone numbers of the respondents were showing. These were
then photo-copied and distributed to potential carpool members.
- 34 -
-------
The process resulted in a substantial expansion of carpools which
alleviated the parking shortage. As an incentive, a reserved parking
space was provided for each carpoo1, resulting in about 300 officially
registered carpools, each with a minimum of three persons per vehicle.
The fact that Hallmark is now converting to a computer-based system
suggests that a manual matching method may not be a practical method
for an organization of this size.
Pentagon Locator Board
The Pentagon Building in Washington, D.C. utilizes a self-service
Locator Board approach. The board is located in the Mall area of the
building, a high traffic area with shops and other attractions. The
board is complete with instructions and a map marked with numbered
grids. Incentives related to reserved, close-in parking have for many
years provided the motivation for carpooling.
A carpool supervisor registers the carpools and assigns parking.
The supervisor also does minor housekeeping chores, such as clearing
outdated cards from the pigeon holes and maintaining a reasonable
reservoir of blank cards.
Motorola Transportation Availability Console
An electronic Locator Board method of carpool matching hardware
(non-computerized) was developed and implemented by Motorola, Inc.
Communications Division in the Chicago area. The console consists of
an equipment enclosure with an illuminated map of the surrounding
area. The person who desires a ride or has a vacancy in an existing
carpool completes a color coded card. The card contains such informa-
tion as name, department number, plant phone extension, and starting
time. The card is inserted into a numbered slot which corresponds to
the number on the map in the vicinity of his home. A greeri light on
the map is illuminated for a driver available; a red light designates
a rider available. An employee can check the console for transporta-
tion availability at a glance.
The console is placed in a high traffic location in the plant
where it is visible to the greatest number of people. It has been
in use for about eight years and has received good support from the
employees. Prime parking locations are set aside for carpool parking.
To qualify for a space, members must present their cards at the
personnel office for validation.
- 35 -
-------
Denver Regional Council of Governments
The DRCOG utilizes a computer assisted Centralized Matching
System. Prospective carpoolers are required to complete a questionnaire
(see next page). Information from this form is keypunched, and the
prospective carpooler is located on a map. Grids are one square mile
in area. The computer supplies five names from the particular grid. If
five names are not availables the system is able to supply additional
names from an adjacent grid. The prospective pooler(s) is responsible
for making all contacts and arrangements. Approximately 13,400 individuals
participate in the program.v4'/ Turnaround time is about five working
days. DRCOG is currently improving their system in terms of turn around.
Their goal is to have "real time" matching via telephone.
Manpower Requirements and Costs
There is not a lot of data available on the manpower requirements
and costs of developing the various types of matching programs. The
Town of Vienna, Virginia implemented a home-based carpool matching
program which cost approximately $450 for composing and printing 5,200
questionnaires (8.7* each) and $325 in postage, $225 for mailing out
questions (4-1/3* each) and $100 for returned responses (20% at 10*
each). The Town's planner spent 10 days over a five-month period
organizing and executing the program, while a local service organization
provided eight person-days of effort in the matching phase of the .program.
The following typical costs and manpower-requirements for a home-
based carpool program are somewhat higher than the Vienna program:
Direct Costs
(42)
Questionnaires
Printing
Mailing Costs (Direct Mail
Permit)
Return Mail Costs
Carpool Lists
Paper
Postage
Manpower Requirements
Program Coordinator
Matching Personnel
$100 for 5,000 (2* each)
$200 for 5,000 (4-1/3* each)
$100 for 1,000 (10* each)
$ 10 for 1,000 sheets
$ 80 for 1,000 lists
10-15 workdays over three months initially
plus 1/2 workday per month for maintenance
10-15 workdays over one-two weeks
(41) Presentation by Mr. Fred Wolfe, Denver Regional Council of Governments,
at a EPA Region VIII sponsored meeting on January 31, 1978.
(42) U.S. Department of Transportation, Manual Carpool Matching Methods.
- 36 -
-------
I
co
Regional cocincTL op gooeRiQraerjts
DOUBLE UP! CARPOOL SURVEY
PRINT ONE LETTER OR NUMERAL IN EACH BLOCK - PLEASE LEAVE SPACE AFTER EACH WORD
FILL IN NUMBER:
1 . NEW POOLER
2. CHANGE I I
3. DELETION I 1
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
EMPLOYEE NAME | | | | | j | I I i I I I I I I I I I I
LAST AND FIRST
HOME ADDRESS | | | | | | |_j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
NUMBER DIR. STREET NAME ONLY-NO CITY, STATE, P.O. BOX OR RTE #
TYPE
EXAMPLE
HOME ADDRESS |0}3|2|5|6| [EJ |8[2|N|D
NUMBER
I I I I I I I I I I I M I
DI8. STREET NAME ONLY-NO CITY,STATE, P.O.BOX OR RTE # TYPE
ZIP CODE
WORK DAYS U U U U U U U
SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT
CURRENT MODE OF
TRANSPORTATION: 1.CARPOOL , ,
2. BUS, 3. DRIVE , 4. WALK, 5. OTHER I I
IN A CARPOOL DO
YOU PREFER: 1. DRIVE , ,
2.RIDE, S.EITHER!—I
DO YOU
PREFER:!. NON-SMOKING i ,
2.SMOKING, 3. DON'T CARE I 1
DIRECTION
(LEAVE BLANK IF
NOT A SPECIFIC PART
OF YOUR STREET ADDRESS)
N - NORTH
S - SOUTH
E - EAST
W - WEST
STREET TYPE
AVENUE
BOULEVARD -
BYPASS
CIRCLE
COURT
DRIVE
HIGHWAY
PARKWAY
PLACE
STREET
TRAIL
VIADUCT -
WAY
LANE
ROAD
AV
BL
BY
Cl
CT
DR
HW
PK
PL
ST
TR
VI
WY
LA
RD
TELEPHONE (WORK OR HOME)
EXT.
WORK HOURS LJ_J : LJ_J I I hi II
STARTING TIME QUITTING TIME
EMPLOYER NAME
EMPLOYER ADDRESS
ZIP CODE
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1
1
„ TsHOW 850OA. M, AS:
) AND 4:30 P. M. AS:
1 1 1 I
o
1
8
6
J
•
0
3
0
0
NUMBER
DIR. STREET NAME
I
ALL INFORMATION ON THIS SURVEY WILL BE USED ONLY FOR CARPOOL MATCHING AND FOR STUDIES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REQUIRING
GROUPING OF PERSONS BY ORIGIN AND DESTINATION. THE DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ITS USE B'' THIRD PARTIES
I DO NOT WISH CARPOOL INFORMATION, AT THIS TIME.
-------
Another program, for a plant with 400 to 500 employees, was a
hybrid employment-based system utilizing elements of the Centralized
Matching Technique and the Locator Board Method. The majority of
the program coordinator's time was devoted to the supervision of the
incentive program. The carpool/buspool locator systems were largely
self-administering.
The largest direct cost is the construction of the carpool/buspool
locator board containing the urban map and pigeonholes for completed
questionnaires. Following are costs that one
Direct Costs (43)
Questionnaires
Printing $ 5 for 500 (H each)
Map Tacks $30 for 500 (6<£ each)
Locator Board
Total Costs $250
Manpower Requirements
Program Coordinator 8 workdays over 2 months initially
1 workday per month for maintenance
Secretary 5 workdays over 2 months initially
1 workday per month for maintenance
Matching Personnel 5 mandays initially
(centralized method only)
(43) U.S. Department of Transportation, Manual Carpool Matching Methods
- 38 -
-------
VIII. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS
Legal Issues
This section identifies and briefly discusses the possible legal
implications of carpooling programs, with particular emphasis on the
law in Colorado. 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.
Regulatory status of carpools - Carpooling encompasses two basic
types of arrangements:(i) members of the group may alternate in
driving their own vehicle, or (2) one or more members may simply
contribute to the expenses. The differences in the arrangements do
not appear to be significant from the standpoint of regulatory status.
It is to be recognized that in each arrangement an element of compen-
sation or consideration is involved, insofar as the -carpool
members perform obligations in exchange for benefits; but tnat element
is not determinative of whether either arrangement is within regulatory
boundaries. The controlling factor, it would appear, is whether the
arrangement is one for business or private gain, as distinguished from
one involving the use of highways in the ordinary course of life and
business. The use of streets and highways under the former arrangement
is considered a privilege subject to government control, whereas the
latter arrangement is considered a right inherent in members of the
public.
Under Colorado law, the critical factor in determining if a
carpool or vanpool program falls within the regulatory jurisdiction
of the Public Utilities Commission (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 carpooling or vanpooling
arrangements fall within the somewhat vague statutory 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, presents 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.
- 39 -
-------
Applicability of guest statutes to members of carpools - A substantial
number of states havestatutes which, in effect, impose upon the driver
a lower standard of care towards a passenger who is a guest than to a
for-hire passenger. In a few jurisdictions, the concept has been
judicially imposed.
In the early 1970's Colorado repealed its "guest statute." This
means that there is no longer the dual standard of liability towards
passengers. A driver in the State of Colorado is expected to exercise
the accepted standard of care at all times. However, if Colorado's
workmen's compensation statute were found to cover a particular type
of carpool or vanpool program (see discussion under Responsibility of
Sponsors, below), then, where both were acting within the scope of
their employment, one employee would be barred from suing another.
Possibility that driver's negligence will be imputed to passengers -
Imputing the driver's negligence to the carpool passengers can have two
possible effects: carpool members may be jointly liable with the driver
for negligence causing injuries to third persons; carpool members may
be barred, in whole or in part, from recovering from a third person
whose negligence, together with the negligence of the carpool 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 1s 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 carpool 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 carpool 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.)
- 40 -
-------
Responsibility of sponsors of carpooling programs - There is an
absense of legal precedents bearing directly upon the question of
whether sponsors of voluntary carpooling programs may be required,
as a matter of Law, to provide assurance of any kind with respect to
vehicle or driver safety. However, the responsibility of the sponsor
will probably depend upon what kind of pooling 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 investigate questions relating
to safety and security of carpool participants in any case where, as
sponsor, it organizes and administers a voluntary carpooling program
in which drivers and passengers with common transportation 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 carpool 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 carpooling
plan has been imposed upon employees by an employer as a condition
of employment and the employer or sponsoring public agency actually
assigned employees to a specific carpool, a standard of care to make
some investigation with respect to safety matters may arguably be
implied, upon a contract or tort basis. Similarly, a labor organiza-
tion which, in conjunction with an employer, participated in the
establishment and management of a planned transportation program
of this kind, may also be exposed to liability upon this basis.
And, of course, the most likely situation in which liability would
be. imposed upon the sponsor is one in which the sponsor provides
and services the vehicle; the sponsor would necessarily be responsible,
at a minimum, for its condition.
- 41 -
-------
At least one sponsor of a computer-matching system requires
participants to sign statements releasing it from any liability in
connection with the program. This type of formal release may
represent an overbundance of caution, and may also be legally
ineffective, since a court may void a release which it believes is
unfair under the particular circumstances. Nonetheless, it is advisable
for the sponsor to explicity inform program participants of the limits
of the responsibilities it has undertaken.
Two other issues deserve note. One is the possibility that
Colorado's workmen's compensation statute would be found to cover
particular types of carpool and/or yanpool programs. Although the
general rule is that injuries sustained by an employee off the employer's
premises, outside of the fixed hours of employment, in the course of
commuting to or from work, are not compensate under the statutes, there
is a recognized exception where special circumstances are found to create
a causal connection between the conditions of employment and the resulting
injury. In a recent Colorado case, in which an employee slipped and fell
in a parking lot adjacent to her office building, it was held that, be-
cause free parking in the lot was a fringe benefit of her job, she was
entitled to receive workmen's compensation benefits. This reasoning
might be extended to cover the situation in which a carpool or vanpool
program was provided as a "fringe benefit" by an employer, as where the
company furnished the vehicle.
There is also a question regarding an employer's liability to third
persons injured because of the negligence of an employee driving a motor
vehicle for carpool or vanpool purposes. Colorado follows the common
law rule that mere ownership of a motor vehicle does not make one
responsible for the negligent acts of another to whom the vehicle is
loaned. However, if an employee is operating a vehicle within 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 respondent 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.
- 42 -
-------
Competitive aspects of carpooling/vanpooling - The issue here is
whether any action by affected transportation interests would lie either
against state or local governments, private sponsors of carpool programs,
or participants in carpool programs for interference with rights of any
bus or mass transit system, including taxi operators, under a certificate
of public convenience and necessity^ a franchise or operating permit
Although there is an absence of legal authority on this issue, it would
seem unlikely that, in states such as Colorado where carpools and vanpools
are considered to be outside the regulatory scheme, such programs would
be held to interfere with transportation interests which are subject to
^regulation.
Government charge for parking on federal reservations - The
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 (P.L.92-313, 86 Stat. 219,
June 191; 1972) established the concept of charging users of space
and services their approximate commercial value. This requirement
applied to all executive agencies furnishing such facilities. A
portion of Section 4 of this Act, (codified as 40 U.S.C. §490(k))
stated, "Any executive agency, other than the General Services
Administration, which provides to anyone space and services set
forth in subsection (j) of this section, is authorized to charge
the occupant for such space and services at rates approved by the
Administrator (of GSA)." Section 7 of the same Act provides that
such rates must also be approved by the Office of Management and
Budget. In developing regulations to implement Section 4, GSA
considered several alternative methods of applying the user charge
to federal parking facilities. The regulations adopted established
that only operating expenses of a facility should be considered in
setting employee parking charges, which is different from the
"approximate commercial charge" principle established in the law.
Under these regulations, parking attendants may be employed and
"in these instances, charges shall be made for parking to compensate
the concessionaire." Where self-parking without attendants is used,
no charges for parking are permitted.
Government subsidization of public transit and partdm-costs - At
the present time there is no federal mechanism which provides for
subsidies for those federal employees using public transit to commute
to work.
It does appear that the federal government can legally provide
parking spaces for carpools on government-owned property and can also
lease commercial space for that purpose. In most cases, parking
space is procured for federal agencies by the General Services
Administration.
- 43 -
-------
Security and Confidentiality of Information
For all intents and purposes, the security of persons participating
in carpooling should not be a significant problem when all pool members
know each other -- because they either work for the same organization
or live in the same neighborhood. For pooling on a wider scale among
persons who have no common relationships, security issues should be
considered. For example, as far as the control of information is con-
cerned during the matching process (either manual or computer) necessary
to unite potential carpoolers, there are security problems related to
the use of participant information gathered, processed, and distributed.
Presumably, if satisfactory matches are made, there are no further
security problems, except for casual use. When carpooling is used as
a backup or casual system, security problems similar to those involved
in hitchhiking are introduced.
The program sponsor should not extend the scope of the matching
program beyond that to which the participants have consented. Thus,
if participants contemplate that they will only be matched with co-
employees, their names and other data should not be fed into a
broader pool - e.g., an area-wide system 'Without their prior
authorization.
Security issues related to the control of information center
around the type of data gathered from potential participants. The
more complete the file of information, the easier it is to secure a
successful match, and the more risk there is for the'person surveyed.
Obviously, the trade-off on data gathered is related to there being
more responsibility as more data are collected, processed and
distributed.
Once the information is gathered, the problem becomes controlling
access to the data file during processing and physical distribution
of the information. Those wishing to use the information for its
intended purpose must be separated from those who wish to use it for
other purposes. This could range from individuals seeking contact
with others for the purpose of theft or assault, as well as repre-
sentatives of companies or other organizations seeking areas to the
information for marketing purposes. Under no circumstances should
the information be released for marketing purposes or for mass
campaigns and solicitations.
The supervision and control of the final data should be decided
in advance by the sponsors of the project and the project directors.
Questions of access to the data also need to be answered early in the
program. Policies on distribution should seek to protect the
privacy and security of individuals.
- 44 -
-------
In summary, security issues related to the control of information
imply that it will be necessary to limit data gathered, to limit access
to the data, and to take steps to insure that the data are disseminated
only to persons authorized by the supplier of the data and only for its
intended purpose. Methods of abstracting the data for use while
preserving sensitive facts should be adopted. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to impart anonymity to location of residence, name, working
location, and travel time for a carpooling data base. Therefore,
separation should be made on the basis that there is no need to hide
a name and address that can be found in a standard telephone directory,
but it should also be unnecessary to print out a public listing of
who leaves home at a certain time.
Insurance Issues
Employer liability - As discussed in the section on Responsibility
of Sponsors, above, there is some question regarding the employers
liability, even where he or she furnishes the vehicles for a carpool
or vanpool program - the test being one of scope of employment.
Colorado Law does require the owner of a motor vehicle to maintain a
minimum level of insurance coverage. The "no fault" provisions of a
complying policy cover anyone occupying the vehicle with the owner's
consent. However, the employer should check to be certain that the
liability coverage extends for carpool or vanpool purposes with his
or her consent. The employer would also be well-advised to discuss
the adequacy of insurance coverage with his or her insurance agent.
In the event that Congress authorizes the use of government
vehicles by federal employees for carpooling or vanpooling, it is
hoped that the legislation will clarify the applicability of the
Federal Fort Claims Act to the program.
Carpooler liability - Typical carpools are formed either with
a group of individuals taking turns as drivers or with one driver
regularly providing rides for a number of passengers. In any kind
of carpool where there is no payment of money for expenses or other-
wise, each driver's insurance offers protection on the day he or she
operates the vehicle. The primary factor a driver need consider is
the adequacy of his or her liability coverage for bodily injury or
death. (A group of three or four wage earners riding as passengers
represents a substantially greater potential for damages in the
event of a serious accident than would normal riders in a typical
family car situation.) This is a matter for each individual to
weigh, balancing the cost of insurance with the risk of loss of
personal estate. It is also a proper subject for discussion among
the carpool members, who have a legitimate, mutual concern in the
adequacy of coverage.
- 45 -
-------
Carpool insurance in Colorado - Carpools are treated the same
as individually-operated automobiles in Colorado, in that increased
rates are not charged. In either, the case where an individual is
now driving to work daily and desires to carpool or the case where
he is not presently driving to work and will begin using his
vehicle to commute, he should check with his insurance agent
regarding rate changes and recommendations for increased or decreased
coverage. Some companies in Colorado offer a reduced rate to clients
who carpool, rather than driving their own vehicles to work on a
daily basis. This rate reduction is from 10-15%, when a family car
is used to commute no more than 20% of the workdays each month.
Compensation and the Internal Revenue Service
The following statement from the Cumulative Bulletin of the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 1955-2C.B.20 (also Section 262.
Rev.Rul. 55-555) describes the IRS position with respect to
carpools:
"It has long been the position of the Internal Revenue
Service that a carpool arrangement in which 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 arrangement 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 member uses his
own automobile and his fellow members pay him a stated
sum of money for transporting them to and from work.
It is the position of the Service that money received by an
automobile 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 includablein computing the gross income
of the automobile owner for Federal income tax purposes.
The automobile expenses incurred by him in commuting be-
tween his home and place of employment are personal expenses
for which no deduction is allowed for Federal income tax
purposes. However, this Revenue Ruling is not intended to
apply to the situation where a particular car owner has
developed his carpool arrangements to the extent that he can
be said to have established a trade or business of trans-
porting workers for hire from which a profit is derived."
This current IRS position implies that, there are no significant
income tax problems with respect to carpools. However, if special
incentives, such as employee subsidies or extra payments for serving
the handicapped, are introduced, then problems may arise.
- 46 -
-------
Carpool users should also consider the following factors:
. Commuting costs are non-deductible expenses
. Since a share-cost arrangement is not a trade or business,
the use of a private auto in carpool service does not
change the auto's status as a non-depreciable cost.
. While state and local tax implications should be investi-
gated on a local level, it is not expected that the
rulings would differ significantly from the above IRS
position.
. Conflicts with IRS rules can be minimized by encouraging
only those incentives which do not generate taxable
income.
. If carpools are developed on a taxable basis, suggest
that a carpool club or other institutional framework
be created to handle taxes, insurance, regulatory reports,
and if necessary customer billing procedures.
- 47 -
-------
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Normal Carboxyhemoglobin Levels
of Blood Donors in the United States, EPA-650/1-73-004, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C., May 1973.
Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc. and Behavior Science Corporation,
A Study of Techniques to Increase Commuter Vehicle Occupancy on the
Hollywood Freeway, November 5, 1973.
Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, News Release,
August 29, 1973.
U.S. Department of Transportation, How to Pool It, May, 1975.
Personal conversation with Ms. Messinger, Port of Portland, January
9, 1978.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Incentives to Carpooling, January, 1974.
Personal conversation with City of Seattle Assessor's Office receptionist
on January 10, 1978.
Personal conversation with Mr. Jim Gilbert, Arkansas State Highway
Department on February 10, 1978.
GCA/Technology Division, Study and Evaluation of Computer Carpool
Programs in Certain Metropolitan Areas, April,'1974.
Memorandum to James Sakolosky, Chief, Field Coordination Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency from Robert Kenney, Attorney Advisor,
Office of Enforcement, EPA, Washington, D.C./EPA Parking Fees."
Personal conversation with Mr. Russell Kraus, Space Manager, Air Force
Accounting and Finance Centerson January 6, 1978.
Personal conversation with Mr. Phil Milstein, Executive Vice President,
Downtown Denver, Inc., on January 23, 1978.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Carpool and Buspool Matching Guide,
Fourth Edition, Januaryt 1975.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Buspools, January/1974.
Personal conversation with Mrs. Barbara Alcorta, United Bank of Denver,
on January 5, 1978.
- 48 -
-------
U.S. Department of Transportation, Manual Carpool Matching Methods,
January, 1975.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Legal and Institutional Issues
of Carpooling, January, 1974.
U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Cumulative Bulletin 1955-2C.B.20
(also Section 262.Rev.Rul. 55-555)
- 49 -
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-908/1-78-002
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
An Overview, of Ridesharing and Mass Transit
Employer Incentives
March 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
John W. Tucker, Jr.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Denver Air Task Force
Air & Hazardous Materials Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII
Denver, Colorado 80295
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 reviews the incentives currently being used by public and private
sector employers to encourage employee use of ridesharing and mass transit as an
alternative to the single occupant vehicle and identifies a few successful
incentive programs. The legal and institutional aspects of employer sponsored
incentive programs are discussed in some detail. Existing carpool matching
systems and costs are briefly discussed.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cos AT I Field/Group
Employer Incentives
Preferential Parking
Carpooling
Vanpooling
Buspooling
Mass Transit
Carpool Matching
Legal Aspects
Insurance
Flexible work hours
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited from NTIS
5285 Port Royal Road
\/fl
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Release Unlimited
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Release Unlimited
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITIONJ.IS -OBSOLETE
------- |