Appendixes to TCRP Report 107: Analyzing the Effectiveness of Commuter Benefits Programs (2005) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 3-100
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 3... ...
CONTENTS APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE TRAVEL BEHAVIOR CHANGES...............A-1 APPENDIX B: SUMMARY TABLE OF TRAVEL IMPACTS FROM EMPLOYER SURVEYS .................B-1 APPENDIX C: DESCRIPTIONS OF EMPLOYER SURVEYS .................................................................C-1 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
|
From page 5... ...
A-2 There are a number of ways to look at the impact of introducing commuter benefits, and a variety of statistics reported in this report. The hypothetical example below shows how they were calculated: Consider a survey of 100 employees, who collectively take 1,000 trips per week (100 employees times two trips per day times five days per week)
|
From page 6... ...
A-3 Table A-3: Results Calculations Metric Result Calculation Methodology Change in Transit Mode Split 10 percentage points 30% - 20% =10% Change in Transit Ridership 50% increase (30 - 20) / 20 = 50% % All recipients who are new riders 33% Based on the average number of riders: (30 - 20)
|
From page 7... ...
A-4 % All riders who ride transit more frequently. This refers to the number of person who increase their ridership, whether from never riding to riding sometimes, or from riding sometimes to riding more often.
|
From page 9... ...
B-2 Table B-1: Summary of Survey Data All Employees Commuter Benefits Recipients Only Transit Ridership % of Recipients Who Avg # of Transit Trips/Week Region Survey Date Respondents Before After % Increase in Transit Ridership Are new riders Previously commuted by SOV Increased their transit ridership Before After San Jose 1997 Avg for all 10.7 % 27.4% 156% 61% 59% - - - Portland, OR 2001 Avg for all 21% 36% 71% 42% 42% - - - 1999 Any benefit 34% 90-100% paid 46% 40-60% paid 31% Pre-tax only 24% Universal pass 57% Avg for all 37.7% 49.4% 31% 24% 24% or less - - - Urban 72.5% 88.7% 22% 18% 18% or less - - - Urban fringe 63.0% 74.1% 18% 15% 15% or less - - - Denver 2003 and ongoing Suburban 17.4% 26.5% 53% 35% 35% or less - - - 1993 Avg for all 46% 54% 17% 15% 15% 19.4% 6.6 (comm) 7.8 (comm)
|
From page 10... ...
B-3 Table B-1: Summary of Survey Data All Employees Commuter Benefits Recipients Only Transit Ridership % of Recipients Who Avg # of Transit Trips/Week Region Survey Date Respondents Before After % Increase in Transit Ridership Are new riders Previously commuted by SOV Increased their transit ridership Before After Avg for all - - 34% 23% 19% - 7.8 10.3 Philadelphia - - 28/23% 19% 14/10% - 8.6/8.7 10.3/10.9 Pittsburgh - - 22% 18% 5% - 8.2 10.0 Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg 1993 Harrisburg 68% 40% 39% 5.9 9.8 Avg for all - - 21% 17% 17% or less 31% Total increase: 3.24 trips Urban - - 14% 13% - 25% Total increase: 3.03 trips San Francisco 1994 Suburban - - 40% 29% - 48% Total increase: 3.74 trips New York 2004 Avg for all - - 16% 14% - 10% commute; 24% noncommute - 1994 Avg for all - - - - - 11% commute; 15% noncommute Total increase: 0.76 trips 1990 Avg for all - - - - - 22.7% commute; 21.8% noncommute Total increase: 0.42 trips 1989 Avg for all - - - - - 16.5% commute; 14% noncommute Total increase: 0.45 trips Montgomery County (MD) 2001 Avg for all - - - 29% or above 29% - - - Notes: A dash (-)
|
From page 13... ...
C-3 LLOYD DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (PORTLAND, OR) Type of Commuter Benefit: Universal pass program (PASSport)
|
From page 14... ...
C-4 TRIMET (PORTLAND, OR) Type of Commuter Benefit: Monthly passes and universal pass program (PASSport)
|
From page 16... ...
C-6 Comments: As shown in Table C-4, ridership increased regardless of employer location, although urban employers showed larger absolute gains while suburban employers showed larger percentage increases. It is possible that the actual changes in ridership were lower, due to a tendency for the respondents to be skewed in favor of transit ridership (in other words, employees who do not ride transit are probably less likely to respond to the survey, especially at large employers)
|
From page 17... ...
C-7 DENVER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (RTD) , 1993 SURVEY Type of Commuter Benefit: Universal pass program (Eco Pass)
|
From page 18... ...
C-8 In a one-day survey, 47.1 percent of employees commuted to work via bus, while 38.7 percent drove to work alone. Slightly more than 10 percent had carpooled or vanpooled to work, while four percent had biked or walked.
|
From page 19... ...
C-9 WASHINGTON DC AND OTHER REGIONS (SURVEY OF FEDERAL WORKERS BY GAO) Type of Commuter Benefit: Various, depending on location.
|
From page 20... ...
C-10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES (UCLA) Type of Commuter Benefit: BruinGO, a University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA)
|
From page 22... ...
C-12 MARTA PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (ATLANTA, GA) Type of Commuter Benefit: Monthly pass with volume discount.
|
From page 23... ...
C-13 The survey found that 72 percent of respondents received their pass at a discounted rate (presumably these represent both pre-tax and combination payments, although the survey question does not specify that) , while 23 percent received it free.
|
From page 24... ...
C-14 DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION (PHILADELPHIA, PA) , 2000 SURVEY Type of Commuter Benefit: Voucher (TransitChek)
|
From page 25... ...
C-15 DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION (PHILADELPHIA, PA) , 1996 SURVEY Type of Commuter Benefit: Voucher (TransitChek)
|
From page 26... ...
C-16 DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION (PHILADELPHIA, PA) , 1993 SURVEY Type of Commuter Benefit: Voucher (TransitChek)
|
From page 27... ...
C-17 Table C-13: Summary of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg Survey Findings (1993) % of Respondents Before After Comments First survey 14% SOV commuting declined by 14 percentage points (15 minus 1)
|
From page 28... ...
C-18 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA) Type of Commuter Benefit: Commuter Check vouchers.
|
From page 29... ...
C-19 Table C-14: Summary of San Francisco Survey Findings Urban employees Suburban employees All Users Comments % Recipients receiving $30 benefit who increased commute trips 30% % Recipients receiving over $30 benefit who increased commute trips 38% based on page 10 of the report. Source: Impact of the Bay Area Commuter Check Program: Results of Employee Survey.
|
From page 30... ...
C-20 TRANSIT CENTER (NEW YORK CITY) , 2004 SURVEY Type of Commuter Benefit: Voucher (TransitChek)
|
From page 31... ...
C-21 TRANSIT CENTER (NEW YORK CITY) , 1994, 1990, AND 1989 SURVEYS Type of Commuter Benefit: Voucher (TransitChek)
|
From page 32... ...
C-22 Main Findings: Table C-17: Summary of New York Area Survey Findings (1994, 1990, and 1989) % of Respondents 1994 1990 1989 Comments Commute 11.0% 22.7% 16.5% % All recipients who increased their transit ridership Non-commute 15.0% 21.8% 14% Average increase not reported; presumably; these two categories are not mutually exclusive, so figures cannot be added.
|
From page 33... ...
C-23 MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMUTER SERVICES (MD) Type of Commuter Benefit: FareShare and Super Fare/Share.
|
From page 34... ...
C-24 METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (WASHINGTON, DC) Commuter Connections, the regional commuter assistance organization, commissioned a State of the Commute 2001 survey that was published in July 2002.
|
From page 36... ...
D-2 This appendix explains the methodology used to analyze the data sets obtained from the three regions with commute trip reduction ordinances: Southern California (South Coast Air Quality Management District) , Tucson, Arizona (Pima County Association of Governments)
|
From page 37... ...
D-3 Results Table D-1: Results from the Full Data Set (Dependent Variable=Log(Future VTR)
|
From page 38... ...
D-4 Table D-2: Results from the Partial Data Set (Dependent Variable=Log(Future VTR)
|
From page 39... ...
D-5 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS Methodology To perform the analysis, individual records were combined into "observations." Each observation consisted of records from three years, to study as a group those years in which benefits were introduced or removed. Each observation therefore consisted of Year 1, a baseline year used to determine prior benefits; Year 2, the year in which benefits were introduced or removed in the plan, and the year for baseline mode share; and Year 3, the year in which the results of that change should show up in mode share data.
|
From page 40... ...
D-6 The observations were then analyzed to determine if there were individual cases where transit mode share increased, to see if there were any obvious factors that could help explain why responses varied from employer to employer. Table D-3 shows these results in seven rows: those that decreased transit mode split more than five percentage points, those that decreased between one and five percentage points, those that decreased between zero and one percentage point, those with no change, those that increased between zero and one percentage point, those that increased between one and five percentage points, and those that decreased by more than five percentage points.
|
From page 41... ...
D-7 mode share. Without controlling for other programs, VTR fell and transit ridership rose when the benefits was removed -- the opposite of our prediction.
|
From page 42... ...
D-8 Table D-5: Impacts of Introducing and Removing Vanpool and Financial Benefits in the Southern California Region Vanpool Benefits Financial Benefits Introduce Remove Introduce Remove Total number of observations 51 50 104 85 Before 81.3 79.6 80.8 80.6 VTR After 82.1 79.5 79.0 79.0 Before - - 3.4% 3.1% Transit Mode Split After - - 3.6% 3.3% Before 1.9% 1.0% 20.6% 21.7% Car/Vanpool Mode Split1 After 1.0% 0.9% 23.3% 24.3% Before - - 3.6% 2.5% Walk/Bike Mode Split After - - 3.3% 2.5% Note: For vanpool benefits, the figures reflect vanpool mode split only; for financial benefits, they combine carpool and vanpool mode split. RESULTS FROM TUCSON Tucson had the smallest data set of the three mandatory trip reduction regions.
|
From page 43... ...
D-9 Table D-6: Impacts of Introducing or Removing Transit Benefits Sorted by Change in Transit Mode Split in Tucson Introducing Removing With or Without Other Transportation Programs Without Other Transportation Programs With or Without Other Transportation Programs Without Other Transportation Programs % Change <-5 2 11.1% 0 - -5 to -1 6 6.7% 4 7.9% -1 to 0 6 1.6% 3 0.6% 0 0 - 0 - 0 to 1 3 1.0% 1 0.2% 1 to 5 4 5.4% 2 5.2% Number of Employers with %age Point Change in Transit/ Starting Transit Mode Share > 5 0 - 0 - As shown in Table D-7, relatively few worksites in Tucson introduced or removed vanpool or financial benefits. Both introducing and removing financial benefits results in very slight changes in VTR and mode share for transit, carpooling and vanpooling, and walking/bicycling.
|
From page 44... ...
D-10 RESULTS FROM WASHINGTON STATE In Washington State, 137 employers added transit benefits, but only one who added them without changing any other benefits. (While the original analysis of this data set showed six such employers, staff in Washington State determined that only one of these constituted a true such case; the others proved to contain errors in data coding that made them invalid.)
|
From page 45... ...
D-11 Table D-9: Impacts of Introducing Financial Benefits in Washington State Carpool Benefits (Financial) Intro.
|
From page 47... ...
E-2 Dear _____________: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research project. The purpose of this study is to assess the effects of commuter benefits programs on transit agencies (in terms of ridership, revenues, and costs)
|
From page 48... ...
E-3 Note: For simplicity, this questionnaire sometimes refers to employer "pass programs" or "commuter benefits" programs. We recognize that your commuter benefits program may involve sales to employers of passes, tickets, farecards, vouchers, or other options.
|
From page 49... ...
E-4 4. Are there any eligibility requirements (e.g., minimum orders, minimum number of employees)
|
From page 50... ...
E-5 9. If you have information available, please fill in approximate: Percent of total riders using employer passes: ______% Percent of transit fare revenue coming from employer pass sales ______% 10.
|
From page 51... ...
E-6 12. Do you have any information regarding what types of services are used by participating employees?
|
From page 52... ...
E-7 System Ridership and Revenues 16. To what extent do you believe the commuter benefits program has increased ridership or helped maintain existing riders?
|
From page 53... ...
E-8 Staff Time and Resources: 19. How much agency staff time goes toward managing and administering the commuter benefits program (in terms of full-time equivalent employees/FTEs)
|
From page 54... ...
E-9 24. Could you provide an estimate of how much it costs to handle cash transactions within the system – in terms of total time and resources, or cost per transaction, to collect and transport cash and farecards?
|
From page 55... ...
E-10 28. Has the program caused any problems for the agency?
|
From page 56... ...
F-1 APPENDIX F: TRANSIT AGENCY CASE STUDIES Case study write-ups of the eight transit agencies interviewed. Note that all figures on the annual fare revenue and farebox collections are from the 2001 National Transit Database.
|
From page 57... ...
F-2 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, WASHINGTON, DC Interview conducted on July 24, 2003 Contact: Lorraine Taylor, Manager, Sales Program Agency Profile The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) provides bus (Metrobus)
|
From page 58... ...
F-3 Program Participation Current Participation. Current participation is shown in the table below: Table F-1: Participation in WMATA Programs Metrochek SmartBenefits Total Time Period: July 2003 for enrollment; FY 2003 (July 2002 to June 2003)
|
From page 59... ...
F-4 Participation and overall ridership/revenues WMATA staff reported that approximately 30 percent of all passenger revenue comes from employer pass sales. In 2001, for example, WMATA received $117 million of total fare revenue of $375 million from Metrochek and SmartBenefits.
|
From page 60... ...
F-5 and revenues more than doubled from $53.3 to $116 million. The disparity between the percentage increase in riders and revenue is explained by the jump in per-employee spending from $41 in 2000 to $70 in 2003 There were no fare increases for eight years until June, 2003.
|
From page 61... ...
F-6 Overall impact of program The program is considered "very successful." It generates a good deal of revenue -- 30 percent of total passenger revenues -- and helps in planning because Metrochek and SmartBenefits sales are an early indication of ridership.
|
From page 62... ...
F-7 METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MARTA) Interview conducted on September 5, 2003 Contact: Tanya Mayfield, Partnership Program -- Marketing Specialist Agency Profile The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA)
|
From page 63... ...
F-8 Program Participation Current Participation. Current participation is shown in the table below: Table F-4: Participation in MARTA Program Partnership Program Time Period: July, 2003 Number of Employers Enrolled 43 Number of Employees Enrolled 30,707 Number of Passes Sold 30,707 Value of Passes Sold $1,612,117 Revenue from Passes Sold $1,499,932 While MARTA officially counts only 43 Partners, eight of these are TMAs who in turn distribute passes to their member employers.
|
From page 64... ...
F-9 Employer Profiles Employer types. MARTA staff indicated that the Partnership Program attracts a wide variety of employers; their Web site notes some of the major ones, including Coca-Cola, Emory University and Hospital, BellSouth, and Georgia Pacific.
|
From page 65... ...
F-10 advertise the program internally, MARTA's marketing budget can remain low. MARTA has made minor changes such as adding stops or slightly changing existing routes in response to employer and employee demand.
|
From page 66... ...
F-11 KING COUNTY METRO, SEATTLE, WA Interviews conducted: Jeff Wong, Market Development Planner and FlexPass Program Manager, July 12, 2003 Lois Watt, Lead Customer Service Coordinator, July 18, 2003 Caleb Swift, Program Manager, Voucher Program, August 19, 2003 Agency Profile King County Metro provides bus service within the Seattle metropolitan area. It is the largest of the region's transit providers; other service providers include Everett Transit, Community Transit in Snohomish County, Intercity Transit in Olympia, Pierce Transit in Pierce County, Sound Transit (express bus and commuter rail)
|
From page 67... ...
F-12 use the term "discount;" they prefer the term "incentive." A key difference is that most incentives are one-time offers; discounts are presumed to be ongoing.) The incentive varies from employer to employer, depending on how long the employer has been in the FlexPass program, their location in King County, and available funding.
|
From page 68... ...
F-13 Table F-6: Participation in King County Metro Commuter Benefits Programs Consignment Retail Program Phone/Mail Program FlexPass UPass GoPass Commuter Bonus Voucher Bonus Plus Voucher Total Number of Employers Enrolled 200 (approx.)
|
From page 69... ...
F-14 Program Participation Current Participation. Current participation is shown in Table F-6 on the preceding page.
|
From page 70... ...
F-15 Table F-7: Change in Participation for FlexPass, UPass, and Vouchers Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20031 # of Employers 2 5 12 25 34 74 107 122 130 145 156 2 Fl ex Pa ss % annual increase 150% 140% 108% 36% 118% 45% 14% 7% 12% 8% # of Employees3 Data not available 41,432 42,575 43,828 45,454 46,737 46,000 U Pa ss % annual increase 3% 3% 4% 3% NA Annual sales ($000) Data not available $730 $753 $1,387 $2,746 $5,229 $5,715 $3,894 C om m .
|
From page 71... ...
F-16 Employer Profiles Employer types. All industries are represented in the various commuter benefits programs, with participation higher in urban centers.
|
From page 72... ...
F-17 addition, the U.S. Department of Transportation serves as a third-party administrator for Federal agencies ($113,920 average per month)
|
From page 73... ...
F-18 Effects of program Staff indicated that the retail program reduces fare transactions and cash handling to a high degree, but could not supply any figures. Guaranteed Revenues.
|
From page 74... ...
F-19 have very different tax implications. Only occasionally, Metro will exchange Bonus Plus vouchers for regular Commuter Bonus vouchers on an exception basis.
|
From page 75... ...
F-20 DENVER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (RTD) , DENVER, CO Interview conducted on July 18, 2003 Contact: Susanne Henry, Senior Research Analyst Agency Profile Denver RTD is the public transportation system for the seven-county service area near Denver, CO, which includes 38 municipalities in all of Boulder, Broomfield, Denver and Jefferson Counties, and parts of Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas Counties.
|
From page 76... ...
F-21 participating employers must purchase Eco Passes for all of their employees; 2) small companies that want to be part of the program are subject to minimum contract amounts, depending on the service level area of the company.
|
From page 77... ...
F-22 Program Participation Current Participation. Current participation is shown in the table below: Table F-11: Participation in Eco Pass Eco Pass Time Period: July 2003 Number of Employers Enrolled 1,041 Number of Employees Enrolled 78,614 Number of Passes Sold 78,614 Value of Passes Sold $82,544,700 Revenue from Passes Sold $8,052,030 The value of the passes sold refers to the amount that companies would have paid if they sold all of these passes as Regional Valupasses, which cost $1,050 per year.
|
From page 78... ...
F-23 The reduction in the number of employers joining the program in 1997 and 1998 was caused by changes in the contract minimums for small employers. Denver RTD increased the minimum dollar amount for contracts with small companies because, prior to the change, companies with only one employee could join the program and receive a significantly discounted pass.
|
From page 79... ...
F-24 Employer-paid or pre-tax. Denver RTD does not track whether employers provide the benefit free of cost to their employees, pay for a portion of the benefit, or allow employees to pay for the passes using a pre-tax deduction.
|
From page 80... ...
F-25 Employers participating in the Eco Pass program also are able to participate in the Denver Regional Council of Government's Guaranteed Ride Home Program. The cost of this service to Denver RTD is $3 per Eco Pass, except for Eco Passes used by employers at the airport.
|
From page 81... ...
F-26 METRO TRANSIT, MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL, MN Interview conducted on July 23, 2003 Contact: Robert Gibbons, Director of Customer Services and Marketing Agency Profile Metro Transit is the public transportation service for the Minneapolis/St.
|
From page 82... ...
F-27 suppose ridership increases to 35 percent by the end of the second year. The price rises gradually from 25 percent to 35 percent of employees over the three-year period (for example, year 3 would be based on 28 percent ridership, year 4 on 32 percent, and year 5 on 35 percent)
|
From page 83... ...
F-28 because the program uses the same type of fare cards that are sold at retail outlets. However, based on the Metropass experience, it is estimated that ridership from TransitWorks!
|
From page 84... ...
F-29 Revenues. Metro Transit is unsure about the impact of its employer programs on revenues.
|
From page 85... ...
F-30 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, SAN JOSE, CA Interview conducted on July 28, 2003 Contact: Scott Haywood, Sales Program Manager Agency Profile Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) provides transit service throughout Santa Clara County, and partners with other systems for bus and rail service between Santa Clara County and the counties of Alameda, Santa Cruz, San Mateo and San Francisco.
|
From page 86... ...
F-31 To join the program, employers sign an annual agreement. The program operates on a calendar year.
|
From page 87... ...
F-32 Employer Profiles Employer types. VTA also does not collect information on the types of employers participating in the Eco Pass program, although they do know that some of the biggest participants are high-tech companies, hotels, city governments, and the county government.
|
From page 88... ...
F-33 Staff Time and Resources: VTA has 2.5 full-time employee equivalents for their Eco Pass program, who perform administrative, marketing, and finance-related tasks. In addition to the resources and services provided in-house at VTA, the agency contracts with another agency to provide paratransit services.
|
From page 89... ...
F-34 VALLEY METRO, PHOENIX, AZ Interview conducted on July 23, 2003 Contacts: Talaya Sapp, Business Development Supervisor Alex Potter, Business Outreach Coordinator Agency Profile Valley Metro is the umbrella service for the Phoenix metropolitan region, with approximately 12 participating municipalities. Each of those jurisdictions funds a separate transit service, so they receive the amount of service that they pay for (i.e., it is not funded regionally)
|
From page 90... ...
F-35 Both programs allow ordering via phone, fax, e-mail, and automatic re-enrollment. Valley Metro is starting up an online ordering system, but it is not currently available.
|
From page 91... ...
F-36 Employer Profiles Employer types. All types of employers participate in the commuter benefits programs, including those in the high-tech, hospitality, medical, administrative, legal and industrial sectors.
|
From page 92... ...
F-37 Marketing. Valley Metro's marketing budget is $650,000 annually, which includes $500,000 for Rideshare and $150,000 for general transit advertising.
|
From page 93... ...
F-38 CAPITAL METRO, AUSTIN, TX Interview conducted on August 14, 2003 Contacts: Dolly Camachol-Watson Agency Profile Capital Metro operates within the Austin, TX metropolitan area. Average weekday ridership is 117,000 in a service area with a population of 600,000 people.
|
From page 94... ...
F-39 Changes in participation. Participation in Commute Solutions has remained steady, with only one new employer joining in the past few years.
|
From page 95... ...
F-40 Effects of program The program, because of its small size, has had no impact on the transit agency, either positive or negative. Staff reported that it has had a low degree of impact on cash handling, and that they have made no changes in service in response to the program.
|
From page 96... ...
G-1 APPENDIX G: TRANSIT AGENCY DATA TABLES: PARTICIPATION, REVENUES, AND COSTS The following pages contain tables of the data used in comparing the transit agency programs.
|
From page 97... ...
G-2 Table G-1: General Background Transit Agency Program Type Description Staff Time (FTE) Comments WMATA Metrochek Stored value card/voucher WMATA Smart Benefits Electronic version Total for WMATA 4 MARTA MARTA Partnership Program Monthly pass with volume discount 1 King County Metro Flex Pass Universal pass 2 to 3 Depends on time of year King County Metro UPass Universal pass 0.2 King County Metro GoPass Universal pass King County Metro Consignment Retail Pass Monthly pass King County Metro Phone/Mail Program Monthly pass King County Metro Commuter Bonus Voucher Voucher 1 to 1.4 King County Metro Bonus Plus Vouchers Rewards program Total for King County (low est)
|
From page 98... ...
G-3 Table G-2: Employer and Employee Participation Transit Agency Program Type Participating Employers Participating Employees 1 Staff per X employers 1 Staff per X employees Comments Employees per Employer 2003 2003 (rounded to nearest 10) WMATA Metrochek 3,349 189,067 60 WMATA Smart Benefits 623 18,933 30 Total for WMATA 3,972 208,000 990 52,000 50 MARTA MARTA Partnership Program 300 30,707 300 30,710 100 King County Metro Flex Pass 200 39,000 70 14,180 200 King County Metro UPass 1 46,000 5 124,320 46000 King County Metro GoPass 7 2,600 6080 King County Metro Consignment Retail Pass 200 6,000 King County Metro Phone/Mail Program 500 to 600 King County Metro Commuter Bonus Voucher 390 N/A King County Metro Bonus Plus Vouchers 150 N/A Total for King County (low 1450 141,600 280 26,920 (high est)
|
From page 99... ...
G-4 Table G-3: Revenues Program Type Value of Passes Revenue as % of Value % Ridership from Employer Programs % Revenue from Employer Programs Monthly Revenues per CB Rider Annual Revenues per CB Rider Metrochek $177,000,000 same 100% $78 $936 Smart Benefits $13,800,000 same 100% $61 $729 Total for WMATA $190,800,000 same 100% 25% 30% $76 $917 MARTA Partnership Program $20,000,000 $21,496,000 93% 11% $54 $651 Flex Pass $6,500,000 NA 6 to 8% 8 to 10% $14 $167 UPass $10,000,000 NA 10% 14% $18 $217 GoPass $680,000 NA 0.5% 0.50% Consignment Retail Pass Phone/Mail Program Commuter Bonus Voucher $5,800,000 NA Bonus Plus Vouchers $954,000 NA Total for King County (low est) $27,000,000 NA 20% 35% $16 $193 (high est)
|
From page 100... ...
G-5 Table G-4: Costs Transit Agency Program Type Estimated Staff Costs Marketing Other Resources Comments Total costs (estimated) Costs as % of Revenue WMATA Metrochek $210,000 $300,000 $700,000 for general transit ads is separate $510,000 0.3% WMATA Smart Benefits 0.0% Total for WMATA $210,000 $300,000 $0 $510,000 0.3% MARTA MARTA Partnership Program $68,000 $0 $0 $68,000 0.3% King County Metro Flex Pass $115,000 to $162,000 $3,000 $0 $118,000 to $165,000 2.2% King County Metro UPass $14,000 $0 $0 $14,000 0.1% King County Metro GoPass $0 0.0% King County Metro Consignment Retail Pass $115,000 $0 $0 King County Metro Phone/Mail Program $0 $0 King County Metro Commuter Bonus Voucher $68,000 to $95,000 $0 $68,000 to $95,000 1.4% King County Metro Bonus Plus Vouchers $0 0.0% Total for King County (low est)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.