National Commuter Transportation Survey
People and ProgramsDOT-T-90-19 July 1990
National Commuter U.S. Department of Transportation Survey Transportation People and Programs July 1990 The cover photo is provided courtesy of Seattle METRO. Click HERE for graphic. National Commuter Transportation Survey People and Programs Final Report July 1990 Prepared by Sandy Spence Association for Commuter Transportation 808 17th Street, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Prepared for Office of Traffic Operations Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Distributed in Cooperation with Technology Sharing Program Research and Special Programs Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 DOT-T-90-19 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY SECTION I-1 The Survey Itself I-1 The Report Format I-1 Career Information I-2 Area served I-2 Employees at location I-3 Program Information I-3 Functions of commuting programs I-4 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 1-1 Definitions 1-1 Characteristics of the staff 1-1 Career information about the respondent 1-2 Program Information 1-2 Commuter Profile 1-3 Budget Information 1-4 Program Growth 1-4 PRIVATE COMPANIES 2-1 Definition 2-1 Characteristics of the staff 2-1 Career Information about the respondent 2-2 Program Information 2-2 Commuter Profile 2-3 Budget Information 2-4 Program Growth 2-5 PUBLIC AGENCIES 3-1 Definition 3-1 Characteristics of the staff 3-1 Career Information 3-2 Program Information 3-2 Commuter Profile 3-3 Budget Information 3-4 Program Growth 3-4 APPENDIX Non-profit organizations Section I: General Information About Respondent & Staff A-1 Section II: Career Information (Respondent Only) A-2 Section III: Organizational Information A-3 Section IV: Program Information A-4 Section V: Budget Information A-7 Section VI: Program Growth A-7 Private companies Section I: General Information About Respondent & Staff A-10 Section II: Career Information (Respondent Only) A-11 Section III: Organizational Information A-12 Section IV: Program Information A-13 Section V: Budget Information A-16 Section VI: Program Growth A-16 Public Agencies Section I: General Information A-19 Section II: Career Information (Respondent Only) A-20 Section III: Organizational Information A-21 Section IV: Program Information A-22 Section V: Budget Information A-25 Section VI: Program Growth A-26 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table A. Profile of Respondents I-1 Table B. Salary by organization type I-2 Table C. Type of area served I-2 Table D.(1) Characterize service area in which program operates I-3 Table D.(2) Average number of employees at location I-3 Table E. Average years in operation I-3 Table F. Reasons for establishing and continuing programs I-4 Table G. Functions undertaken with regard to commuting programs I-4 Table H. Incentives available to ridesharers I-5 Table I. Commuter population served I-6 Table J. Estimated annual program cost (in dollars) I-6 Table K Relative age of organizations I-6 Table L. Change in commuter population involved in program I-7 Table M. "What do you expect in the next five years" I-7 Figure 1-1 Employee Age (non-profit) 1-1 Table 1-1 Professional Experience (years)(non- profit) 1-2 Figure 1-2 Occupations of Commuters (non-profit) 1-3 Figure 1-3 Sources of Funding (non-profit) 1-5 Figure 1-4 Estimated Annual Expenditures (non-profit) 1-5 Table 1-2 Financial Data From Selected 990 Forms (non-profit) 1-6 Figure 2-1 Employee Age (private) 2-1 Table 2-1 Professional Experience (years)(private) 2-2 Figure 2-2 Occupations of Commuters (private) 2-3 Figure 2-3 Estimated Annual Expenditures (private) 2-4 Figure 3-1 Employee Age (public) 3-1 Table 3-1 Professional Experience (years)(public) 3-2 Figure 3-2 Occupations of Commuters (public) 3-3 Figure 3-3 Sources of Funding (public) 3-5 Figure 3-4 Estimated Annual Expenditures (public) 3-5 NATIONAL COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION SURVEY: PEOPLE AND PROGRAMS The National Commuter Transportation Survey was made possible by a grant from the Federal Highway Administration. Surveys were mailed to 586 people involved in commuter transportation nationwide. 228 surveys were completed for a 39% response rate. The survey Itself The survey was designed to find out who the commuter transportation professionals are, what types of organizations they work for, the scope of services which they provide, financial information about the program and future directions of the field. Initially, the survey asked the respondent to identify the category of organization which they worked for or to return the survey uncompleted if their organization did not fit the given categories. The survey was divided into six sections: Section I: General Information About Respondent, Section II: Career Information (Respondent only) , Section III: Organizational Information, Section IV: Program Information, Section V: Budget Information and Section VI: Program Growth. The Report Format The report begins with an overview of survey respondents, including profiles by organization type and by region. The term "respondent" refers to the person who completed the survey. The term "staff" indicates those people who work in the indicated program. Summary and comparative data is included in this section. Questions have been chosen for analysis according to their value of comparison. A brief explanation accompanies each set of data. The second, third and fourth sections analyze the three categories of: non-profit, private and public organizations individually. These sections deal with the questions which were not examined in the first section. The appendix contains the answers to all the questions on the survey which were analyzed. In a few cases analysis was impossible due to a limited response. Table A. Profile of Respondents Regional Number of respondents Percent of total East 51 22% Midwest 51 22% West* 126 56% * Respondents from California represented 76% of this category. Organization category Public agency 124 54% Private company 65 29% Non-profit organization 39 17% Career Information The people who worked for private companies had the highest salaries of those responding to the survey. Table B. Salary by organization type Low High Avg. Non-profit $21,000 $65,000 $41,423 Private $21,000 $100,000 $48,720 Public $17,000 $65,000 $34,659 Area served The respondents were asked to characterize the service area which they served. In most cases these service areas were comprised of at least two of the possibilities listed. In all three categories urban and suburban areas were served more than rural areas. The private and public respondents served similar numbers of urban and suburban populations. In contrast, 85% of the non-profit organizations served the suburbs but only 38% served urban populations. Table C. Type of area served Urban Suburban Rural Other Non-profit 38% 85% 13% Private 69% 69% 28% 5% Public 78% 62% 59% 2% I-2 Table D. Characterize service area in which program operates Pub. Pri. Non. Region/metropolitan area 56% 15% 28% Company/organization/employment site 12% 58% 23% Business district/multi-tenant site 4% 8% 33% County 24% 3% 13% City 19% 11% 3% State 14% 5% 3% Other 6% 3% 3% Employees at Location Private companies employ the greatest number of people at one location. Table D. Average number of employees at location Non-profit 1,087 Private 4,245 Public 916 Program Information The years for which the organization had been in operation ranged from zero (due to begin operation 2/90) to 28. Table E. Average years in operation Public agency 8.5 Private company 5.5 Non-profit organization 5.0 The reasons for establishing the programs varied by organizational category. Most of the public companies were established as a government response to the oil crisis. However, the private companies were largely created as a result of an ordinance in California. (75% of the private companies responding are located in California) An interest by local politicians and employers was the leading reason for the existence of non-profit organizations. I-3 With the exception of the private companies, the reasons for continuing the programs differed from the reasons for establishing them. Top among these was the deterioration of air quality combined with the need to serve an ever growing commuting population. Table F. Reasons for establishing and continuing programs "Why was the program established?" Pub. Priv. Non. Fuel shortage 54% 27% 28% Interest by local politicians/employers 46% 12% 46% Demands of employees/commuters 23% 29% 10% Ordinance or regulatory mandate 16% 63% 38% Insufficient or inefficient land use 23% 23% 33% Air quality growth/land use 35% 24% 26% Traffic congestion 40% 26% 41% Shortage of parking facilities 19% 20% 8% "Why has the program continued?" Fuel shortage 3% 0% 0% Interest by local politicians/employers 49% 22% 51% Demands of employees/commuters 42% 40% 48% Ordinance or regulatory mandate 23% 77% 44% Insufficient or inefficient mass transit 31% 29% 46% Air quality growth/land use 52% 37% 53% Traffic congestion 60% 42% 64% Shortage of parking facilities 26% 20% 18% Functions of commuting programs Promotion and administration of the program itself were two of the most prevalent activities reported. The non-profit organizations put a higher priority on match/referral services and direct service than did the other types of organization. Table G. Functions undertaken with regard to commuting programs Pub. Pri. Non. Administration 86% 95% 74% Promotion 86% 86% 95% Planning 85% 83% 79% Match/referral services 77% 82% 87% Budget 71% 88% 64% Evaluation 69% 70% 74% Direct services 49% 68% 67% Subsidization 24% 61% 46% I-4 Evaluation Respondents were asked to comment on methods of evaluation used. Written surveys and phone interviews are used to determine the success of the program. Reports are made monthly, quarterly, semiannually, annually and biannually with most being done annually. Measurement standards used include; Federal Highway Administration-Performance Standards for Ridesharing Projects, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Average Vehicle Reduction, and regulation XV requirements. Measurements taken include: number of applications generated, number of applications returned, placement rate, vehicle occupancy, number of requests for information, percentage of employee base participating, employee attendance and types of incentives producing results. Calculations performed include: dollars spent versus participation, number of vehicles eliminated due to ridesharing, vehicle miles saved, pollution removed and energy savings. Incentives and benefits Respondents were asked to list commuter benefits, parking incentives and incentives available to ridesharers. In the first two cases the responses were consistent over the three categories. However, there was a marked discrepancy between the types of incentives available to ridesharers. The private and non-profit organizations offered cash incentives in the form of subsidized fares; the public entities did not. Table H. Incentives available to ridesharers Pub. Pri. Non. Free rides for the driver 44% 57% 44% Driver retains van for weekend use 44% 49% 46% Flextime 27% 45% 33% Free parking 27% 72% 36% Guaranteed ride home 13% 58% 41% Subsidized fares for buses/transit 17% 48% 31% Subsidized fares for vanpools 19% 48% 36% Commuter population served The numbers of commuters served varied greatly between the private companies and the other two groups. This reflected the fact that the "population" for the private companies consisted of their own employees whereas the other two groups served a larger community. I-5 Table I. Commuter population served Low High Average Public 172 7,000,000 408,982 Private 80 22,500 4,962 Non-profit 120 6,000,000 329,284 Budget information The non-profit organizations had the highest program budget by nearly a two to one margin over the public and private groups. This despite the fact that the public institutions serve a larger population. Table J. Estimated annual program cost (in dollars) Low High Average Public 2,000 1,209,630 122,018 Private 6,500 441,200 139,146 Non-profit 19,200 2,500,000 231,763 PROGRAM GROWTH Respondents were asked to comment on the growth of their programs over the past year and five years. Of the 228 organizations responding, 91 of them or 40% have been in operation less than five years. It is important to keep this in mind when evaluating the results in this section. Table K. Relative age of organizations Less than 5 years Total Percent Non-profit 22 39 56% Private 36 65 55% Public 33 124 27% --------------------------------------------------------------- Total 91 228 40% I-6 Table L. Change in commuter population involved in program Past year Pub. Pri. Non. Reporting increase 50% 57% 44% Reporting decrease 13% 11% 10% No response or no change 37% 31% 46% Average increase 43% 27% 26% Average decrease 18% 21% 7% Five years Reporting increase 46% 35% 44% Reporting decrease 13% 15% 3% No response or no change 41% 34% 53% Average increase 89% 39% 105% Average decrease 21% 24% n/a Future expectations Consistent with the increased commuter population, both the population served and the program budget have increased. Most of the respondents reported achieving some or all of their goals. As the population continues to grow, the pressure on existing programs will continue to build with more commuters seeking alternate forms of transportation. Table M. "What do you expect in the next five years?" Pub. Pri. Non. Increase in use of carpools, vanpools etc. 82% 77% 85% Increase in use of transit 54% 43% 67% Increase in telecommuting 14% 20% 30% Tech. solutions to commuter mobility probs. 13% 11% 24% Stay the same 8% 2% 6% I-7 Non-profit organizations Definition For the purposes of the survey, non-prof it organizations were defined as, "non-profit organizations engaged in rideshare or commute management activities, including Transportation Management Associations". These were divided between Transportation Management Associations (41%), Private ridesharing organizations (23%), and Other non-profits (36%). Of those responding, 71% had 501(c)(3) status, 21% had 501(c)(4) and 8% had 501(c)(6). Characteristics of the staff of a typical non-profit organization Women have a predominant role in non-profit organizations, filling 68% of the positions. The average respondent is 43 years old and supervises a staff of five between the ages of 30 and 40 (Figure 1-1). Of those responding, 85% have a BA or MA degree. Academic training was primarily in Business/Accounting(12%) and Liberal Arts(26%) with the remainder being divided over a wide variety of fields. The staff concentrated their studies in Business/Accounting (20%), Liberal Arts (20%) and marketing (16%). Click HERE for graphic. 1-1 Career information about the respondent Most of those responding have senior management positions (56%). Less than half this number are considered mid-level management (26%), followed by supervisors (13%) and non-entry level team members(3%). The salary range was from $21,000 to $65,000 with the average being $41,423. These executives both formulate and approve budgets and report to the Board of Directors (54%), a Senior Executive (36%) or the Chief Executive Officer (10%). On average there is not a great depth of experience in the field of transportation. The typical executive has had six years of transportation experience, three with the current employer and three years prior to that. Table 1-1 Professional Experience (years) Low High Average Years with current employer .16 19 4 Yrs. working on commuter issues with current employer 0 10 3 Yrs. of prior transport. experience 0 20 3 The survey found that most of the respondents had experience in ridesharing (79%). This far exceeded those who had worked in the fields of transit (47%), general transportation planning (42%) or parking (42%). Program Information These organizations have been in operation between six months and nineteen years with the average being five years. They were established as a response to traffic congestion (41%) and an interest by local politicians and employers (46%). They have continued as a result of continuing traffic congestion (64%), deteriorating air quality and a steady rate of development (53%). Promotion is the primary function undertaken by non-profit commute programs. There is also a heavy emphasis on match/referral services (87%), planning (79%), administration (74%) and evaluation (74%). Carpools (92%) are the top commuter program among nonprofit organizations. This is followed by rideshare matching services (82%), and vanpools (82%). 1-2 There are a wide variety of commute benefits offered to employees of non-profit organizations. Top among these is a matching/ formation program for car and van pools (69%). This is followed by flexible hours (56%), transit information (56%) , guaranteed rides home (41%) and "other" (23%) benefits which are described in the Appendix. Parking incentives and rideshare incentives are offered to employees. The most common parking incentives are free parking (49%) and preferential parking for pool vehicles (23%) while 46% offer no parking incentives. Incentives are also offered to ridesharers. Most common among these is allowing the driver to retain the van for weekend use (46%). Other incentives which are often offered are; allowing the driver to ride free (44%), guaranteeing rides home (41%), and subsidizing fares for vanpools and/or buses(31%). Commuter Profile Commuters were characterized by occupation. The categories were: a) manufacturing/assembly/laborer b) clerical/office worker c) technical/professional/management d) other Figure 1-2 shows the predominance of the third category of commuter. Click HERE for graphic. 1-3 Budget Information Funding for non-profit organizations comes almost equally from the state government (22.5%) and developer or property managers (20.7%). Private companies (14.5%) and the federal government (12.2%) also make significant contributions. Figure 1-3 illustrates this distribution. The categories, county, regional and donations, are represented in the figure by the category miscellaneous. As shown in Figure 1-4 this revenue is primarily spent on marketing (42.3%) and administration (30.6%). Miscellaneous expenditures include; lease/rental of vans, charter of subscription buses, mass transit subsidies and other. The revenue and expenses of several non-profit organizations are detailed in Table 1-2. TMAs have been separated from other nonprofits for clarity. Program Growth The responses in this section indicate the overall growth of the commuter field. The population served, budget allocated and staff size have all grown in the last five years. Ninety four point four percent of the respondents had achieved some or all of their goals. 1-4 Click HERE for graphic. 1-5 Click HERE for graphic. 1-6 Private companies Definition For the purposes of the survey private companies are defined as "private companies or other organizations that operate commute programs for their employees". Most of these were categorized as private corporations (88%) with the remainder being divided between, private hospitals (5%), academic institutions (5%), private non-profit corporations (2%) and developers (2%). Characteristics of the staff of a typical private company There are slightly more women than men who work in the commuter programs of private companies. The average respondent is 41 years old and supervises a staff of eight between the ages of 40 and 50. (Figure 2-1) 61% of those responding had a BA or MA degree. Academic training was primarily in Business/Accounting (32%) with the remainder being divided over a wide variety of fields. Click HERE for graphic. 2-1 Career information about the respondent Most of those responding were mid-level managers (48%). Less than half this number were considered supervisors (22%), followed by non-entry level team members (11%) , "other" (9%), senior management (6%) and entry level (3%). The salaries ranged from $21,000 to $100,000 with the average being $48,720. Most of the respondents both formulate and approve budgets and report to a Senior Executive. On average there is a lack of experience in the field of transportation. The typical respondent has had three and a half years of transportation experience, three with the current employer and six months prior to that. Table 2-1 Professional Experience (years) Low High Average Years with current employer .25 33 11 Yrs. working on commuter issues with current employer 0 10 3 Yrs. of prior transport. experience 0 7 .5 The survey found that most of the respondents had experience in ridesharing (72%). This far exceeded those who had worked in the fields of Parking (35%), General Transportation Planning (23%) or Transit (22%). Program Information The programs have been in operation between 1 month and 16 years with the average being 5.5 years. Most of them were established due to an ordinance or regulatory mandate (63%). Other reasons included demands of employers/commuters (29%), fuel shortage (27%), traffic congestion (26%) and air quality growth/land use (24%). Administration is the primary function undertaken by commute programs in private companies. There is also a heavy emphasis put on budgeting (88%), promotion (86%) and planning (83%). Carpools (92%) are the top commuter programs among private companies. This is followed by rideshare matching services (82%) and vanpools (69%). 2-2 There are several different commuter benefits offered to employees of private companies. Top among these is a matching/formation program for car and vanpools (85%). This is followed by transit information (80%), flexible hours (60%), guaranteed rides home (59%) and vehicles for car, bus and/or van pooling (43%). Parking incentives and rideshare incentives are offered to employees. The two most common parking incentives are preferential parking for pool vehicles (77%) and free parking (75%). Incentives are also offered to ridesharers. Most common among these is free parking (72%). Efforts to encourage ridesharing also include free rides for the driver (57%) and guaranteed rides home. Commuter Profile Commuters were categorized by occupation. The categories were: a) manufacturing/assembly/laborers b) clerical/office worker c) technical/professional/management d) other Figure 2-2 indicates that nearly half the commuters were reported to be clerical workers. Click HERE for graphic. 2-3 Budget information There was insufficient data on the funding sources for the private companies. Topping the list of expenditures is administration and management with 30.3% of the total budget (Figure 2-3). The other 2/3 of the budget are primarily spent on the lease or rental of vans (26.8%) and unspecified ("other") expenditures (25.9%). Policy formulation/planning, government relations, studies and data collection, owner-operated vehicle charges and charter of subscription buses were combined to form the miscellaneous category. Click HERE for graphic. 2-4 Program Growth The responses in this section indicate the overall growth of the commuter field. Fifty five percent of the private companies are less than five years old which makes it difficult to accurately evaluate the changes over that period. However, in contrast to the other two categories, private companies reported an overall decrease in the commuting population in their service areas both over the past year and five years. Despite this decrease, the respondents predicted an increase in the use of carpools and vanpools in the next five years, probably because such a high percentage of the respondents will be required to encourage such programs by regulatory mandate. Eighty six percent of the respondents reported achieving some or all of their goals. 2-5 Public agencies Definition For the purposes of the survey, public agencies were defined as "public agencies with rideshare, commute management, or transit responsibilities". Agencies represented were: regional other than transit agencies (22%), city (22%), state (21%), transit agencies (13%), county (12%), other (8%) and federal (2%). Characteristics of the staff of a typical public agency Among the respondents there is almost an equal number of men (49%) and women (51%). The staff is more heavily weighted in favor of women, 55% to 45%. The average respondent is 39 years old and supervises a staff of 4 between the ages of 30 and 40 (Figure 3-1). Seventy six percent have a BA or MA degree. Academic training of the respondent was divided almost equally between Business and Accounting (13%), Liberal Arts (13%), Planning (15%), Public Administration (10%) and Other (11%). The average staff had concentrated their studies in Engineering (24%) and Planning (20%). Click HERE for graphic. 3-1 Career information about the respondent The majority of those responding are mid-level management (34%) with similar figures in the categories of: non-entry level team members (19%), supervisors (15%), senior management (13%) and other (13%). Salaries range from $17,000 to $65,000 with the average being $34,659. The respondents, 23% of whom are Planners, both formulate and approve budgets and report to a Senior Executive (61%) or Chief Executive Officer (30%). Of the three categories, the public agency employees have the greatest depth of transportation experience. The average respondent has had eight years of commuter experience, five years with the current employer and three years prior to that. Table 3-1 Professional Experience (years) Low High Average Years with current employer .25 35.5 8 Yrs. working on commuter issues with current employer .25 27 5 Years of prior transport. exper. 0 20 3 The survey found that most of the respondents had experience in ridesharing (85%). other areas of experience were general transportation planning (56%) and transit (55%). Program Information These organizations have had lifespans ranging from one month to twenty years, with the average being eight and a half years. They were established primarily because of the fuel shortage (54%). To a lesser degree, interest by local politicians/employers (46%) and traffic congestion (40%) were reasons for the formation of commuter transportation programs. Administration, promotion and planning are the primary functions undertaken with regard to commute programs. There is a lesser but clear emphasis on match/referral, budget and evaluation. Carpools are the top commuter program with 90% of the respondents reporting activity in this area. Rideshare matching services and vanpools are also widespread. 3-2 There are a variety of commute programs offered to employees of public agencies. Top among these is a matching/formation program for car and vanpools. This is followed by transit information, flexible hours, "other" and a $15 transit/pass/token/etc. Included in the "other" category are facilities for bikers, child care and free bus transport for employees and immediate family members. Parking incentives and rideshare incentives are also offered to employees. The most common parking incentive is free parking (51%) while 29% offer no parking incentives. The two most common rideshare incentives are free rides for the driver (44%) and allowing the driver to retain the van for weekend use (44%). other incentives which are less widespread are flextime (27%) and free parking (27%). Commuter Profile Commuters were categorized by occupation. The categories were: a) manufacturing/assembly/laborers b) clerical/office worker c) technical/professional/management d) other Figure 3-2 illustrates nearly an equal share of management and clerical commuters. Click HERE for graphic. 3-3 Budget Information State (32.2%) and Federal (30.2%) governments are the main sources of funding for public programs. City (16.7%) governments also make a significant contribution. Other significant categories are shown in Figure 3-3. The miscellaneous category consists of employers/private companies, developers/property managers, donations and "other". Administration and management claim the largest portion of the budget (30.2%). Closely grouped behind this item are marketing and promotion (19.6%), mass transit subsidies (18.4%) and policy formulation/planning (12.4%). Figure 3-4 illustrates the relative weight of the budgetary categories. The miscellaneous section represents a combination of categories; including, database maintenance, lease/rental of vans, owner-operated vehicle charges and "other". Program Growth The responses in this section indicate the overall growth in the commuter field. The population served, budget allocated and staff size have all grown in the last five years. Eighty seven percent of the respondents had achieved all or some of their goals. Nearly all of the public agencies predicted an increase in the use of carpools and vanpools. 3-4 Click HERE for graphic. Non-profit organizations SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT RESPONDENT AND STAFF Sex of respondent Men 32% Women 68% Men on staff 32% Women on staff 68% Average age of respondent. 43 Age of staff 20-29 26% 30-39 34% 40-49 25% 50-59 11% 60+ 4% Academic degree obtained(respondent only) BA 49% MA 36% AA 13% None 2% Academic discipline Respondent Staff Business/Accounting 12% 20% Demography/Sociology 6% 8% Economics 3% 0% Engineering 3% 4% Government/Political Science 3% 8% Liberal Arts 26% 20% Marketing 3% 16% Planning 9% 4% Public Administration 3% 8% Transport. Management 0% 4% Other 32% 8% A-1 SECTION II: CAREER INFORMATION(Respondent only) Title Executive Director 31% President 15% Salary Low High Average $21,000 $65,000 $41,423 Number of people supervised Low High Average 0 45 5 Level non-entry level team member 3% supervisor 13% mid-level management 26% senior management 56% Budget responsibilities@ No budget responsibility 3% Formulation of budgets 84% Approval of budgets 18% (Some respondents formulate and approve budgets) "To whom do you report?" Board of Directors 54% Chief Executive Officer 10% Senior Executive 36% Years with current employer Low High Average 2 months 19 years 4 years Years working on commuter issues with current employer Low High Average 0 10 3 years Years of prior transportation experience Low High Average 0 20 3 years A-2 Areas of Transportation Experience@ Ridesharing 79% Transit 47% General Transportation Planning 42% Parking 42% Other 21% SECTION III: ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION Type of organization@ Transportation Management Association 41% Non-profit other 36% Private rideshare organization 23% Non-profit designation 501(c)(3) 71% 501(c)(4) 21% 501(c)(6) 8% Characterize area served@ Urban 38% Suburban 85% Rural 13% Characterize the service area in which program operates Region/metropolitan area 28% Business district/multi-tenant site 33% Company/organization/employment site 23% County 13% City 3% State 3% Other 3% Number of employees at location(avg) Low High Average 1 15,000 1,087 A-3 SECTION IV: PROGRAM INFORMATION Years in operation Low High Average 6 months 19 years 5 years "Why was the program established?"@ Interest by local politicians/employers 46% Traffic congestion 41% Ordinance or regulatory mandate 38% Insufficient or inefficient mass transit 33% Fuel shortage 28% "Why has the program continued?"@ Traffic congestion 64% Air quality growth/land use 53% Interest by local politicians/employers 51% Demands of employees/commuters 48% Insufficient or inefficient mass transit 46% Ordinance or regulatory mandate 44% Functions undertaken with regard to commute programs@ Promotion 95% Match/referral services 87% Planning 79% Administration 74% Evaluation 74% Types of commuter programs@ Carpools 92% Rideshare matching services 82% Vanpools 82% Coord. with other ridesharing organizations 72% Transit 72% Referrals to owner-operated vanpools 62% Staggered hours/flextime 62% A-4 Commute benefits provided for employees@ Matching/formation program for car/vanpools 69% Flexible hours 56% Transit information 56% Guaranteed ride home 41% Other 23% (This includes; prize drawings, drawing for a free lunch, range from 50% to free bus pass; rack, locker, shower and towel for bikers, employee shuttle, vanpool subsidy and a transportation allowance.) Parking incentives for employees@ Free parking 49% None/not applicable 46% Preferential parking for pool vehicles 23% Incentives available to ridesharers@ Driver retains van for weekend 46% Free rides for the driver 44% Guaranteed ride home 41% Subsidized fares for vanpools 36% Subsidized fares for buses/transit 31% Commuter population served Low High Average 120 6,000,000 329,284 Segment of total commuting population in: Carpools 13.77% Vanpools .67% Buspools .02% Segment of total commuting population placed in: Carpools 2.83% Vanpools .30% Buspools .09% A-5 Daily round trip distance in miles(avg): Carpool 34 Vanpool 70.7 Buspool 49.8 Length of time that matched applicant stays in carpool, vanpool or buspool Average stay for those responding (years) 4.5 Unknown 49% Occupations of commuters Manufacturing/assembly/laborers 17.7% Clerical/office worker 32.6% Technical/professional/management 38.6% Other 11.1% Workshifts for which program operates All shifts 68% "Does company deal with reverse commutes?" Yes 46% No 54% Number of vehicles in program which are: Minivans 3.2% Vans 95.1% Coachettes .07% Buses 1.6% Vehicle accessibility to disabled persons Accessible 12% Inaccessible 88% @ Multiple responses were given, top choices listed A-6 SECTION V: BUDGET INFORMATION Estimated annual program cost Low High Average $19,200 $2,500,000 $231,763 Annual expenditures for following functions (as percentage of total) Marketing/promotion 42.3% Administration/management 30.6% Policy formulation/planning 3.5% Government relations 3.4% Studies and data collection 7.9% Database maintenance 9.3% Mass transit subsidies 1.1% Lease/rental of vans .30% Owner-operated vehicle charges 0 Charter of subscription buses .13% Other 1.3% Sources of funding/revenue(percentage of total budget) City 8.7% County 2.0% Regional government .5% State government 22.5% Federal government 12.2% Employers/private companies 14.5% User generated (i.e. fares) 0 Developer/Property manager 20.7% Donations 2.9% Other 16.0% PART VI: PROGRAM GROWTH Change in commuter population involved in program (past year) Reporting increase 46% Reporting decrease 10% No answer or no change 44% Average increase 26%* Average decrease 7% *An anonymous respondent reported a 1000% increase . Including this figure results in an average percent increase of 93% A-7 Change in commuter population involved in program (five years) Reporting increase 44% Reporting decrease 3% No answer or no change 53% Average increase over past five years 105% Change in program budget Reporting increase 44% Reporting decrease 10% No answer or no change 46% Average increase 39% Average decrease insufficient data Change in commuting population in service area (past year) Reporting increase 69% Reporting decrease 0 No change 13% No answer 18% Average increase 13% Change in commuting population in service area (five years) Reporting increase 64% Reporting decrease 0 No change 3% No answer Average increase 33% Average increase in staff Past year by 3.2 to 5 Five years by 5 to 10.2 Average staff turnover (three years) 8.0 people have filled 6.3 positions A-8 Reasons why employees left higher pay 30% better benefits 3% moved 14% returned to school 4% left the field 20% other 29% Achievement of goals Achieved all goals 27.7% Achieved some goals 66.7% Achieved few goals 5.0% "What do you expect in the next five years?"@ Increase in use of carpools, vanpools etc 85% Increase in use of transit in area 67% Increase in telecommuting 30% Tech solutions to commuter mobility problems 24% Stay the same 6% (Note: Fractions of people caused by the fact that commuter issues may be addressed by a part-time employee or only a fraction of the time by a full time employee. In many cases five years of data was not available.) A-9 Private companies SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT RESPONDENT AND STAFF Sex of respondent Men 48% Women 52% Men on staff 46% Women on staff 54% Average age of respondent Low High Average 25 55 41 Age of staff 20-29 8% 30-39 32% 40-49 46% 50-59 10% 60 and over 4% Academic degree obtained AA 11% BA 43% MA 18% none 28% Academic discipline Respondent Staff Business/Accounting 32% 27% Demography/Sociology 2% 0 Economics 6% 3% Engineering 3% 0 Government/Political Sci. 3% 0 Liberal Arts 8% 10% Marketing 5% 7% Planning2% 0 Public Administration 2% 3% Transport. Management 0 0 Other 20% 50% A-10 SECTION II: CAREER INFORMATION (Respondent only) Title Those responding ranged from a Human Resource Secretary to a Vice President Salary Low High Average $21,000 $100,000 $48,720 Number of people supervised(avg) 8 Level of responsibility entry level 3% non-entry level team member 11% supervisor 22% mid-level management 48% senior management 6% other 9% (Includes professional, salaried staff and professional administrator) Budget responsibility@ No budget responsibility 11% Formulation of budgets 92% Approval of budgets 8% "To whom do you report?" Board of Directors 0 Chief Executive Officer 6% Senior Executive 87% Other 7% Years with current employer Low High Average 3 months 33 years 11 years Years working on commuter issues with current employer Low High Average 0 10 3 Years of prior transportation experience Low High Average 0 7 6 months A-11 Areas of transportation experience@ Ridesharing 72% Parking 35% General Transportation Planning 23% Transit 22% No experience 22% SECTION III ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION Type of organization Private corporation 88% Private hospital 5% Academic institution 5% Private non-profit corporation 2% Developer 2% Characterize the area served@ Urban 69% Suburban 69% Rural 28% Other (Included interstate and global areas) 5% Characterize the service area in which program operates@ Company/organization/employment site 58% Region/metropolitan area 15% Business district/multi-tenant site 8% City 11% State 5% Other 3% County 3% Number of employees at location Low High Average 3 20,000 4,245 A-12 SECTION IV: PROGRAM INFORMATION Years in operation Low High Average 1 month 16 years 5.5 years "Why was the program established?"@ Ordinance or regulatory mandate 63% Demands of employers/commuters 29% Fuel shortage 27% Traffic congestion 26% Air quality growth/land use 24% "Why has the Program continued?"@ Ordinance or regulatory mandate 77% Traffic congestion 42% Demands of employees/commuters 40% Air quality growth/land use 37% Insufficient or inefficient mass transit 29% Functions undertaken with regard to commute programs@ Administration 95% Budget 88% Promotion 86% Planning 83% Match/referral services 82% Evaluation 70% Direct services 68% Subsidization 61% Types of commuter programs Carpools 92% Rideshare matching services 82% Vanpools 69% Transit 58% Coordination with other ridesharing orgs. 57% Consulting 57% Staggered hours/flextime 51% A-13 Commuter benefits offered to employees@ Matching/formation program for car/vanpools 85% Transit information 80% Flexible hours 60% Guaranteed ride home 59% Vehicles for car/bus/vanpooling 43% Parking incentives for employees@ Preferential parking for pool vehicles 77% Free parking 75% Parking spaces allocated by vehicle occupancy 31% Parking spaces allocated by rank 28% Pick up/Dropoff areas for ridesharing vehicles 18% None/not applicable 11% Incentives available to ridesharers@ Free parking 72% Free rides for the driver 57% Guaranteed ride home 58% Driver retains van for weekend use 49% Subsidized fares for buses/transit 48% Subsidized fares for vanpools 48% Commuter population served (avg) Low High Average 80 22,500 4,962 Segment of total commuting Population in: Carpools 6.4% Vanpools 4.8% Buspools .7% Segment of total commuting population placed in: Carpools 2.2% Vanpools 3.9% Buspools .5% A-14 Daily round trip distance(miles) Carpool distance 22.7 Vanpool distance 66.1 Buspool distance 76.0 Average length of time that matched applicant stays in carpool. buspool or vanpool Average stay for those responding 2.7 years Unknown 66% Occupations of commuters Manufacturing/assembly/laborers 21.5% Clerical/office worker 44.6% Technical/professional/management 31.4% Other 2.5% Workshifts for which Program operates All shifts 50% Daytime only 50% "Does company deal with reverse commutes?" Yes 21% No 79% Number of vehicles in program which are: Minivans 6.2% Vans 92.3% Coachettes 0 Buses 1.4% Vehicle accessibility to disabled persons Accessible 18% Inaccessible 82% @ Multiple responses were given, top choices listed A-15 SECTION V: BUDGET INFORMATION Estimated Annual Program Cost Low High Average $6,500 $441,200 $139,146 Annual expenditures for following functions (as percentage of total) Marketing/promotion 8.4% Administration/management 33.3% Policy formation/planning 1.0% Government relations .03% Studies and data collection .4% Database maintenance 60.5% Mass transit subsidies 3.6% Lease/rental of vans 29.5% Owner-operated vehicle charges 0 Charter of subscription buses 0 Other 28.5% Breakdown of funding/revenue sources insufficient data Average book value of fleet 871,800 Cost to organization of: Fuel 38.2% Vehicle maintenance 26.5% Taxes 3.0% Insurance 14.5% Labor/drivers .5% Other 17.3% SECTION VI: PROGRAM GROWTH Change in commuter population involved in program (past year) Reporting increase 57% Reporting decrease 11% No answer or no change 31% Average increase 27% Average decrease 21% A-16 Change in commuter population (five years)* Reporting increase 35% Reporting decrease 15% No answer or no change 34% Avg. increase 39% Avg. decrease 24% Change in Program budget Reporting increase 46% Reporting decrease 3% No answer or no change 51% Avg. increase 69% Avg. decrease 24% Change in commuting population in service area (past year) Reporting increase 34% Reporting decrease 8% No change 29% No answer 29% Average increase 18% Average decrease 21% Change in commuting population in service area (five years) Reporting increase 37% Reporting decrease 8% No change 18% No answer 37% Average increase 22% Average decrease 29% Change in staff* Past year increase by 1.5 to 4.3 decrease by 1.3 to 1.3 Five years increase by 1.6 to 3.4 A-17 Average staff turnover* (three years) 2.6 people filled 1.9 positions Reasons why employees left higher pay 14% better benefits 0 moved 26% returned to school 5% left field 19% other 36% Achievement of goals Achieved all goals 12% Achieved some goals 74% Achieved few goals 14% "What do you expect in the next five years?"@ Increase in use of vanpools, carpools 77% Increase in use of transit 43% Increase in telecommuting 20% Tech. solutions to commuter mobility 11% Maintain status quo 2% * Fractions of people caused by the fact that commuter issues may be addressed by a part-time employee or only a fraction of the time by a full-time employee. @Multiple responses were given, top choices listed A-18 Public agencies SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION Sex of respondent Men 49% Women 51% Men on staff 45% Women on staff 55% Average age of respondent 39 Age of staff 20-29 25% 30-39 36% 40-49 25% 50-59 10% 60 and over 3% Academic degree obtained AA 9% BA 48% MA 28% PHD 1% None 21% Academic discipline Respondent Staff Business/Accounting 13% 10% Demography/Sociology 6% 5% Economics 0 3% Engineering 6% 24% Government/Political Science 1% 10% Liberal Arts 13% 8% Marketing 3% 7% Planning 15% 20% Public Administration 10% 6% Transport. Management 1% .6% Other 11% 7% A-19 SECTION II: CAREER INFORMATION(Respondent only) Title Planners 23% Salary Low High Average $17,000 $65,000 $34,659 Number of people supervised (avg) 4 Level of responsibility entry level 6% non-entry level team member 19% supervisor 15% mid-level management 34% senior management 13% other 13% Budget responsibilities@ No budget responsibility 14% Formulation of budgets 83% Approval of budgets 13% "To whom do you report?" Board of Directors 6% Chief Executive Officer 30% Senior Executive 61% Other 3% Years with current employer Low High Average 3 months 35.5 years 8 years Years working on commuter issues with current employer Low High Average 3 months 27 years 5 years Years of prior transportation experience Low High Average 0 20 years 3 years A-20 Areas of transportation experience@ Ridesharing 85% General transportation planning 56% Transit 55% Parking 41% Highways 36% Paratransit 31% SECTION III: ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION Type of organization Regional other than transit 22% City 22% State 21% Transit agency 13% County 12% Other 8% Federal 2% Characterize area served@ Urban 78% Suburban 62% Rural 59% Other (multi-county) 2% Characterize the service area in which program operates@ Region/metropolitan area 56% County 24% City 19% State 14% Company/organization/employment site 12% Business district/multi-tenant site 4% Other(included multi-county and regional) 6% Number of employees at location Low High Average 1 25,000 916 A-21 SECTION IV: PROGRAM INFORMATION Years in operation Low High Average 1 month 20 years 8.5 years "Why was the program. established?"@ Fuel shortage 54% Interest by local politicians/employers 46% Traffic congestion 40% Air quality growth/land use 35% Insufficient or inefficient mass transit 23% Demands of employees/commuters 23% Shortage of parking facilities 19% "Why has the program continued?"@ Traffic congestion 60% Air quality growth/land use 52% Interest by local politicians/employers 49% Demands of employees/commuters 42% Insufficient or inefficient mass transit 31% Shortage of parking facilities 26% Functions undertaken with regard to commute programs@ Administration 86% Promotion 86% Planning 85% Match/referral 77% Budget 71% Evaluation 69% Types of commute programs@ Carpools 90% Rideshare matching services 81% Vanpools 76% Coordination with other ridesharing orgs. 65% Transit 58% A-22 Commute benefits provided for employees@ Matching/formation program for car/vanpools 73% Transit information 64% Flexible hours 56% Other& 27% $15 transit/pass/token/etc. 19% &Other benefits include the following: Bicycles, bicycle lockers, racks and maps provided Showers for bikers Child care 9-80 work schedule Free bus transport for employees and immediate family members Cash incentives for ridesharing Time off for ridesharing Guaranteed parking space Vanpool driver stipend Light rail station at front door Pool cars for official business Parking incentives for employees@ Free parking 51% Preferential parking for pool vehicles 38% None/not applicable 29% Parking places allocated by vehicle occupancy 26% Other 15% Other parking incentives include: five spots for employees of the month, space for bus operator, spaces for dispatchers, parking decals for senior management and first priority to handicapped drivers. Many listed first come-first serve as the manner by which spaces were assigned. Incentives available to ridesharers@ Free rides for driver 44% Driver retains van for weekend use 44% Flextime 27% Free parking 27% None/not applicable 23% Commuter population served Low High Average 172 7,000,000 408,982 A-23 Percent of total population in: Carpools 3.8% Vanpools 1.1% Buspools .1% Percent of total population placed in: Carpools .4% Vanpools .04% Buspools .002% Daily round trip distance in miles(avg): Carpools 38 Vanpools 63 Buspools 70 Average length of time that a matched applicant stays in a carpool, vanpool or buspool Average stay for those responding 2 years Unknown 53% Occupations of commuters Manufacturing/assembly/laborers 21.5% Clerical/office worker 38.81% Technical/professional/management 32.5% Other 7.2% Workshifts for which program operates All shifts 71% "Does company deal with reverse commutes?" Yes 70% No 30% Number of vehicles in program which are: Minivans 3.0% Vans 94.2% Coachettes 0 Buses 3.0% A-24 Vehicle accessibility to disabled persons Accessible 25% Inaccessible 75% @Multiple responses were given, top choices listed SECTION V: BUDGET INFORMATION Estimated annual program cost Low High Average $2,000 $1,209,630 $122,018 Annual expenditures for following functions (as percentage of total) Marketing/promotion 19.6% Administration/management 30.2% Policy formulation planning 12.4% Government relations 1.0% Studies and data collection 4.2% Database maintenance 4.4% Mass transit subsidies 18.4% Lease/rental of vans .9% Owner-operated vehicle charges .8% Charter of subscription buses 0 Other 8.1% Sources of funding/revenue (percentage of total budget) City government 16.7% County government 4.7% Regional government 5.5% State government 32.2% Federal government 30.2% Employers/Private companies .6% User generated(i.e. fares) 5.7% Developer/Property manager .2% Donations 0 Other 4.1% Average book value of fleet $551,088 A-25 Cost to organization of: Fuel 21% Vehicle maintenance 15% Taxes .4% Insurance 19% Labor/drivers 35% Other 9% SECTION VI: PROGRAM GROWTH Change in commuter Population involved in program (past year) Reporting increase 50% Reporting decrease 13% No response or no change 37% Average increase 43% Average decrease 18% Change in commuter population (five years) Reporting increase 46% Reporting decrease 13% No response or no change 41% Average increase 89% Average decrease 21% Change in program budget Reporting increase 43% Reporting decrease 6% No response or no change 52% Change in commuting population in service area (past year) Reporting increase 56% Reporting decrease 4% No change 21% No response 19% Average increase 10% Average decrease 8% A-26 Change in commuting population in service area (five year) Reporting increase 58% Reporting decrease 6% No change 12% No answer 24% Average increase 20% Average decrease 12% Change in staff Past year increase by 4.8 to 15.4* decrease by 1.6 to 4* Five years increase by 6.4 to 11 decrease by 1.6 to 3 Average staff turnover (three years) 4.7 people filled 3.7 positions* Staff left for higher pay 31% better benefits 4% moved 15% returned to school 6% left field 9% other 25% Achievement of goals@ Achieved all goals 9% Achieved some goals 77% Achieved few goals 12% Achieved no goals 2% "What do you expect in five years?"@ Increase in use of carpools, vanpools etc 82% Increase in the use of transit 54% Increase in telecommuting 14% Maintain status quo 8% Technological solutions to commuter mobility 13% problems *Fractions of people caused by the fact that commuter issues may be addressed by a part-time employee or only a fraction of the time of a full time employee. @Multiple answers given, top choices listed A-27 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse manufacturers or products. Trade names appear in the document only because they are essential to the content of the report. This report is being distributed through the U.S. Department of Transportation's Technology Sharing Program. DOT-T-90-19 DOT-T-90-19 TECHNOLOGY SHARING A Program of the U.S. Department of Transportation The cover photo is provided courtesy of Seattle METRO.