Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)
Programs That Encourage Employees to Use Efficient Commute
Options
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TDM Encyclopedia
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
August 27, 2007
This chapter describes Commute Trip Reduction programs, which encourage more efficient commute travel. These programs provide encouragement, incentives and support for commuters to use of alternative modes (such as walking, cycling, ridesharing, public transit and telework), alternative work hours, and other efficient transportation options.
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) (also called Employee Trip Reduction or Vehicle Trip Reduction) programs give commuters resources and incentives to reduce their automobile trips. CTR programs typically include some of the following TDM strategies:
· Commuter Financial Incentives (Parking Cash Out and Transit Allowances).
· Parking Management and Parking Pricing.
· Alternative Scheduling (Flextime and Compressed Work Weeks).
· Telework (allowing employees to work at home, and using telecommunications to substitute for physical travel in other ways).
· TDM Marketing and Promotion.
· Walking and Cycling Encouragement.
· Walking and Cycling Improvements.
· Bicycle Parking and Changing Facilities.
· Transit Encouragement programs.
· Produce a Transportation Access Guide, which concisely describes how to reach a worksite by walking, cycling and transit.
· Worksite amenities such as on-site childcare, restaurants and shops, to reduce the need to drive for errands.
· Company travel reimbursement policies that reimburse bicycle or transit mileage for business trips when these modes are comparable in speed to driving, rather than only reimbursing automobile mileage.
· Company vehicles, to eliminate the need for employees to drive to work in order to have their cars for business travel.
· Proximate Commuting, which allows employees to shift to worksites that are closest to their home (for employers who have multiple work locations, such as banks and other large organizations).
· Special Event Transport Management, for example, to provide special employee travel services during special events, peak shopping periods, roadway construction projects or Emergencies.
· Worksite locations that reflect Location-Efficient Development principles.
CTR programs must be able to meet employees’ diverse and changeable needs. Many employees can use transportation alternatives part-time, if given suitable support and incentives. For example, many employees can carpool, telecommute or flextime two or three days a week. Some employees can bicycle commute part of the year.
Some jurisdictions mandate CTR programs for certain types of employers, such as those with more than 50 daytime employees at urban worksites. These have been criticized as “laws forcing workers to give up their cars,” but that is not quite true. Such laws only require employers to develop a program with suitable incentives, taking into account location and employee requirements. They do not require individual employees to change their commute pattern.
USEPA’s
Commuter Choice program (www.commuterchoice.gov)
has
established National Standards of Excellence in Commuter Benefits, and the
Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative (CCLI) awards. To meet National Standard
of Excellence employers must offer:
· Guaranteed ride home.
· Employer-paid Transit/Vanpool Benefits where the employer provides at least $30 per month in benefits or the full value of commuting costs.
· Parking Cash Out where the employer provides the option of cash instead of parking. CCLI requires the employer to offer at least $30 per month and at least 75% of the actual saved costs of parking to classify this option as a primary benefit.
· Telecommuting as a primary benefit requires the employer to meet or exceed a 6% average participation rate as expressed as the percent of employees telecommuting on an average day (e.g., 10% of employees who telecommute an average of 2 days per week would not meet the standard).
· Employer-defined benefits can allow employers to use other strategies to achieve the standards. Employers must achieve demonstrable benefits the Federal Commuter Choice Team must agree if an option is to qualify.
Other TDM
incentives are treated as supporting strategies to these primary activities.
These include:
· Ridesharing or carpool matching.
· Shuttles from transit stations.
· Preferred parking for carpools/vanpools.
· Secure bicycle parking, showers and/or lockers.
· Financial incentives for bicyclists or walkers.
Commute Trip Reduction programs may be encouraged or required by local, regional or state/provincial policies. Trip Reduction Ordinances (TROs) require developers, employers, or building managers to provide incentives for occupants or employees to use alternative modes (www.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse/tro.htm). Programs and ordinances can be implemented state/region wide or by local jurisdictions, and take many different forms. Ordinances can require a certain reduction in trips with penalties and rewards set for achievement or nonattainment of goals.
For ease of administration, mandatory TROs often apply only to large employers (those with at least 50 or 100 at a worksite), although this limits their effectiveness since the majority of employees in most areas work for smaller companies. Smaller employers can form a Transportation Management Association to provide CTR services in a particular commercial district or mall. Many transportation planning and transit agencies provide support for CTR programs. Developers may implement CTR programs in exchange for reduced parking requirements.
To establish a Commute Trip Reduction program, a business usually develops corporate goals and objectives, policies and procedures, and services and benefits. Travel Surveys are important help plan and evaluate programs. CTR programs may be managed by an in-house Employee Transportation Coordinator, a specialized transportation services company, or a local Transportation Management Association. Organizations such as the Association for Commuter Transportation provide resources for developing such programs and training staff.
Some governments make special efforts to implement commute trip reduction programs within their own agencies as a way to demonstrate leadership and as an opportunity to develop tools and experience that can be transferred to non-government organizations. For examples see the Greening Government guide at www.greeninggovernment.gc.ca, Federal House In Order “Commute and Business Travel” emission reduction program information at www.fhio.gc.ca/commuting/commuting.htm, and Skinner and Cohen, 1996.
Models are now available which can predict the travel impacts of a specific Commute Trip Reduction program, taking into account the type of program and worksite. These include the TRIMMS (Trip Reduction Impacts of Mobility Management Strategies) Model (www.nctr.usf.edu/abstracts/abs77704.htm), Commuter Model (USEPA, 2005), the CUTR_AVR Model (www.cutr.usf.edu/tdm/download.htm), the Business Benefits Calculator (BBC) (www.commuterchoice.gov) and the Commuter Choice Decision Support Tool (www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/PrimerDSS/index.htm).
Various performance indicators can be used to Evaluate CTR program effectiveness:
· Mode Split: The portion of trips currently made by Single Occupant Vehicle,
transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking.
· Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO): Number of people traveling in private vehicles
divided by the number of private vehicle trips. This excludes transit vehicle
users and walkers.
· Average Vehicle Ridership: All person trips divided by the number of private
vehicle trips. This includes transit vehicle users and walkers.
· Vehicle Trips or Peak Period Vehicle Trips:
The total number of private vehicles arriving at a worksite (often called “trip
generation” by engineers).
A comprehensive CTR program typically reduces peak-period automobile trips by 5-20% at a worksite (Comsis, 1993; Winters and Rudge, 1995; Rye, 2002), and more if supported by regional TDM strategies such as transit improvements. Impacts vary depending on program design, geography and employee demographics. In large urban centers, trips tend to shift to transit and walking, while in lower-density areas more trips shift to carpooling and cycling. Although a large Central Business District (CBD) can usually achieve the lowest Single Occupant Vehicle commute rates, they often start with relatively low rates, so suburban sites can often achieve comparable trip reductions.
A British study of CTR programs found that “Averaged overall, these organisations managed to reduce the numbers of cars arriving at their sites by more than 14 per 100 staff- more than an 18% reduction in the number of cars that were previously there. Sixteen of the travel plans cut car use by more than 10%, five by more than a fifth and two by more than 50%.” (DTLR, 2002) Hendricks and Joshi (2004) identified specific factors that affect CTR program effectiveness. They found that the degree of management support and the presence of an Employee Transportation Coordinator is important if a worksite is located outside a major business district, but are less critical in a CBC.
The table below shows the predicted trip reduction impacts of various TDM strategies. The Trip Reduction Tables provide more technical information on the travel impacts of various financial incentives. One study estimates that CTR programs can reduce about 4.1% of total vehicle trips and 3.3% of total vehicle mileage in a region (Apogee, 1994).
Table 1
|
TDM Strategy |
CBD |
Within 660ft of Transit Station |
Elsewhere |
|
Rideshare Vehicle Preferential Parking |
10% |
5% |
5% |
|
100% Transit/Rideshare Subsidy |
35% |
25% |
10% |
|
50% Transit/Rideshare Subsidy |
20% |
15% |
10% |
|
Vanpool Program |
10% |
10% |
10% |
|
Worksite Showers and Lockers |
5% |
2% |
2% |
|
Guaranteed Ride Home |
2% |
2% |
2% |
|
Onsite Childcare |
5% |
5% |
5% |
Values indicate how much commute travel is predicted to decline in response to these strategies.
Several studies have tried to identify what features contribute most to CTR program effectiveness (Modarres 1993; Giuliano, Hwang and Wach, 1993; Lopez-Aqueres, 1995). Below are some conclusions from this research:
· The more incentives a program includes, the more effective it is likely to be. The most effective programs include both travel choice improvements and incentives to reduce driving.
· Commuter Financial Incentives (Parking Cash Out, transit benefits, parking fees, etc.) tend to be the most effective strategies.
· Guaranteed Ride Home and marketing programs can significantly increase the effectiveness of other strategies, although they have little effect by themselves.
· Proximity to quality transit service tends to increase program effectiveness, although worksites that lack public transit can have effective programs based on Ridesharing and Cycling encouragement.
· CTR efforts tend to be more effective at worksites located within convenient walking distance of shops and public services, because at less Accessible locations employees often drive to work so they have a car to run errands during breaks.
· Occupation constraints can limit program effectiveness. Some types of work require employees to have an automobile, although this can be address if employers have a vehicle pool or Carshare Services available for business trips.
· Executive commitment can affect program effectiveness. If employees perceive support from top company officials they are more likely to participate in trip reduction efforts (Poulenez-Donovan and Ulberg, 1995).
· Support or resistance from labor organizations can affect program effectiveness (Rankin, 1995).
Table 2 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
3 |
|
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
2 |
Often includes flextime. |
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
1 |
May include efforts to
improve local access. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
2 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
2 |
|
|
Increased cycling. |
2 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
2 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
2 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Shifting commute travel from peak period automobile trips to alternative times and modes can provide a variety of benefits (Concas and Winters, 2007).
CTR Programs can benefit employees by increasing their travel options, reducing travel stress and by providing financial savings. Some studies show that many workers place a high value on having commute alternatives (Novaco and Collier, 1994). Even people who generally enjoy driving do not necessarily want to drive to work every day. At the margin (i.e., relative to current levels of vehicle travel), many consumers would probably prefer to drive somewhat less, provided that they had good mobility alternatives with adequate comfort, convenience and prestige.
CTR Programs can benefit employers by reducing their parking
costs or freeing up parking for customers. Programs that improve travel choices
or provide financial benefits tend to improve employee morale and recruitment,
and reduce employee turnover. For example, employee turnover at the Calvert
Group (an investment firm) declined from 25% to 12% after a comprehensive
package of commute benefits were introduced, and other surveys find that
telecommuting reduces employee turnover by 16% (EPA, 2001).
The SMART Trip Reduction Manual published by Pollution Probe (2001) provides information on calculating the benefits of CTR programs to employers and employees. The study Business Benefits of TDM (Winters and Hendricks, 2001) identified the following benefits that CTR programs can provide to employers:
· Reduced Overhead Costs. Increased competition and need to build shareholder value place more pressure on businesses to lower their cost of doing business as well as increase revenues and/or margins. Strategies such as telecommuting and parking management can make a difference. Telecommuting can reduce office space requirements. Parking management can eliminate the need to build additional parking.
· Enhanced Employee Recruitment and Retention. A shrinking labor force has increased competition for qualified applicants. Similarly, the cost of replacing an employee in productivity and direct costs can be very expensive.
· Expanded Employee Benefits at Low/No Cost. Employers can take advantage of changes in the federal tax treatment of commute-to-work fringe benefits to benefit employees and reduce costs. Employers can now provide employees with a tax-free benefit and/or offer to subtract the cost of transit, vanpool, or parking as a pre-tax payroll deduction option.
· Enhanced Corporate Image. Employers with environmental image problems and/or difficulties with their neighbors often seek to mitigate the problems using a combination of trip reduction strategies.
· Reduced Localized Transportation Problems. Employers are well-aware of the value of banding together to address common problems. More employers are joining transportation management associations (TMAs) to address access and mobility problems in their immediate area.
· Expanded service hours. Work hour schedules such as flextime, staggered work hour programs, compressed work week programs enable organizations to provide additional coverage with the same total number of employers
· Lower absenteeism and tardiness. Employees may earlier time commitments to their carpool partner or to meet the bus. Telework may allow work to be accomplished when travel to the office isn’t possible.
· Increased employment opportunities for the disabled and others unable to meet traditional work hours. Telework provides an alternative to having to physical transport.
· Reduced employee stress. Employee health is significantly related to the distance and duration of the trip. People who are exposed to high levels of traffic congestion arrive at work with higher blood pressure than people who are not exposed. The more sensitive long distance commuters are to the effects of commuting on family life, the greater the inclination to try alternatives to solo driving.
· Enhanced employee productivity. One of the oft-cited benefits of telework is productivity increase.
CTR is particularly effective at reducing traffic congestion, since commute trips are the largest share of peak-period travel. It can reduce road, on-street parking and traffic service costs. It can also help reduce pollution and crash risk, and increase demand for alternative modes, providing economies of scale. By reducing road and parking facility requirements it supports more efficient land use, such as Clustering and more pedestrian-oriented streetscapes (New Urbanism).
Costs include program administration expenses and any additional employee time requirements (CTR Task Force, 2001). Administrative costs typically average $1-8 per employee-month to cover program planning, marketing, management, and evaluation activities (Modarres, 1993; Lopez-Aqueres, 1994). A survey by Pollution Probe (2001) found that the American employers with successful CTR programs spend an average of US$156 annually per employer, with the majority spending US$33 to $89. Three Canadian companies spend an average of CA$48 annually per employee. However, there are also savings and benefits to businesses that may offset much of these costs (Winters and Hendricks, 2003).
Some costs and benefits are economic transfers, in which costs to one group are offset by benefits to another. For example, Parking Pricing increases costs to automobile commuters but provides additional revenue to businesses. Commute Financial Incentives (such as Parking Cash Out and transit benefits) represents an economic transfer from employers to employees, and often substitute for other employee benefits such as free parking. These financial incentives typically average $20-65 per month per employee.
Table 3 Benefit Summary
|
Objectives |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
3 |
Reduces automobile
commuting. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
3 |
Reduces automobile
commuting and parking requirements. |
|
Consumer Savings |
2 |
Often includes new benefits
for non-drivers, but may include higher parking fees for motorists. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Usually increases commute
choices. |
|
Road Safety |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. |
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel.
Encourages higher-density development. |
|
Community Livability |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Equity impacts vary depending on how programs are implemented. CTR programs can increase horizontal equity by giving non-drivers a benefit comparable to free parking provided to drivers. CTR programs may be considered unfair if policies do not apply equally to all employees (Poulenez-Donovan and Ulberg, 1995), particularly if they involve negative incentives. CTR programs can benefit lower-income and transportation disadvantaged employees by improving travel choices and providing financial benefits to non-drivers, but may be regressive if parking fees increase without offsetting benefits.
Table 4 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
2 |
Gives non-drivers benefits
comparable to drivers. |
|
Individuals bear the costs
they impose. |
1 |
Involves subsidy, but
usually equal or less than existing parking subsidies. |
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
3 |
Lower-income employees tend
to use alternative modes. |
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
3 |
Benefits non-drivers. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
2 |
Improves access to
employment by non-drivers. |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
CTR programs can be implemented almost anywhere, although they tend to be most effective where there are significant traffic congestion, parking or pollution problems, and so they are most common in employment centers within large urban areas. They are also effective in resort communities, commercial centers and campuses.
Table 5 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |