Funding and Institutionalizing Emerging

Forms of TransportationShana Retherford Johnson, AICP

November 18, 2012AASHTO Annual Meeting

Key Questions

Why are these emerging modes important? What is the role of the private sector? What is the role of the public sector? How are emerging forms of transportation funded now? What might the potential impact be of additional funding for

emerging forms of transportation

Work Trips by Mode -- 2009

Data/slide credit: Cynthia Burbank, AMPO Annual Conference, Sept. 12, 2012

San Francisco MTC cost per passenger trip: $0.63 – Ridesharing Program $8.34 – Transit

SFO, LA, DC, Denver, NY, Massachusetts total spending: $ 0.023 billion – Ridesharing

programs $ 14.000 billion - Transit

capital & options

Ridesharing, Bikesharing, and Transit Public Subsidies

Ridesharing/Transit Data Credit: Cynthia Burbank, AMPO Annual Conference, Sept. 12, 2012

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

100% Cost Recovery

18%: ART (local bus)

Arlington County, VA Capital Bikeshare Farebox Recovery (2011)

Per-passenger GHG Emissions of Transportation Options

Data Source: Hodges, Tina, Public Transportation’s Role in Responding to Climate Change, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Jan. 2009Information Source: Grant, Michael. “Vanpooling: Opportunities for Reducing GHG Emissions” Presentation to the ACT Vanpool Conference, April 2010.

Trip Reduction & Environmental Benefits

Capital Bikeshare members (18,000 – Nov 2011) reduce nearly 5 million driving miles per year

Atlanta Clean Air Campaign 16 million car trips eliminated from metro Atlanta roadways and more than 200,000 tons of pollution not released into the air.

Arlington County Commuter Services (Arlington, VA) reduces 40,100 vehicle trips on an average workday – while the the average lane of interstate highway carries approximately 4,000 – 6,000 vehicles in the rush period.

68 vanpool programs report to NTD (2010) Vanpool industry emerged in response to the 1970s energy

crisis. Many private sector firms started vanpool programs for their employees. Public involvement in vanpools began mostly in the 1980s.

Why is the public sector involved in vanpooling? Vanpool programs that report to National Transit Database earn

additional Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307) for their regions (for large UZAs).

Fare “buy down” incentives for riders have led to dramatic vanpool program growth.

Provides transit in areas where traditional transit (i.e., commuter bus, commuter rail) are limited or absent.

Leverages investments in HOV facilities.

State of the Vanpool Industry

No Direct Rider Subsidy, Lower Fares vs. Direct Rider Subsidy and no Fare Control

Number of FTEs required to operate a program

Program functions Level of involvement in

day-to-day vanpool management

Required program funding

Directly Operated vs. Purchased Transportation

Pierce Transit Vanpool, Seattle, WA

Agency Program Type/Owner

Year Program Started

Number of Staff Incentives or Subsidy Offered

King County, Seattle WA

Directly Operated

1970s 38 FTEs Unknown.

Pace, Arlington Heights IL

Directly Operated

1991 10 FTEs Guaranteed ride home, 300 personal miles per month for the driver, free fare for drivers, discounted fare for backup drivers.

The Rideshare Company, Connecticut

Non-profit 1987 4 Senior Mgmt, 4 Customer Svc, 4 Finance, 6 Business Development, & 5 Operations

Drivers of large vans are not charged a fare, and participants may receive up to four emergency rides home per year. Cash reward for recruiting new, full-time riders and cash incentive for reporting data on time. Reduced monthly fare when taking vacation or extended leave.

MTA, Houston TX Purchased Transportation

Private vanpools started in 1970s, public involvement began in 1980s.

1 public FTE, 9 FTEs at the master contractor, several others part-time .

Flat subsidy of $35 per qualified rider, average van subsidy of $350.

Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City UT

Directly Operated

Private firm in the 1980s; UTA acquired in 1990.

9 FTEs. Drivers receive 50 personal miles per month.

MTA, Los Angeles CA

Purchased Transportation

2007 2.5 FTE, another 2 LA MTA employees used as needed.

Subsidizes 50% of van costs up to $400. Most vans receive the full $400.

Snohomish County – Community Transit, Everett WA

Directly Operated

1986 5 FTE. Free fare for drivers (not all vans), all drivers are allowed 160 personal miles per month.

Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ

Directly Operated

Approximately 1990

1 FTE, others at contractor.

Free fare and 300 personal miles per month for drivers. Reimbursement for two taxi rides home per year for emergencies.

511 RideMatch Services, San Francisco CA

Private Sector 1978 2 FTEs who work for MTC and 15 FTEs who are contracted to operate the ride match program.

Van startup/Van save assistance ($100 per lost seat for three months).

Pierce County, Tacoma WA

Directly Operated

1986 11 FTEs, including 2 program managers.

Free fare and up to 1,800 personal miles per year for drivers.

Directly Operated Programs Operating Expenses: Fares cover 100% of operating costs in all programs

interviewed for the Northern Virginia Vanpools Incentive Program Study. Capital Expenses: 5307, CMAQ (expansion), Job Access and Reverse Commute

(JARC). Administrative Expenses: 5307, CMAQ (marketing), some programs use farebox

revenue. Purchased Transportation Programs

Startup subsidy funding, marketing, and administration funding for purchased transportation programs (Houston, Los Angeles), including: CMAQ (marketing), JARC, 5307, local sales tax dedicated to transit (Houston, pre-1996).

5307 Use: Programs can be supported entirely with the additional 5307 increment. Houston uses 5307 increment earned to support rail expansion. Los Angeles uses 5307 to provide the rider subsidies, among other non-vanpool

related uses.

Funding and Use of 5307

Avego – Dynamic Ridesharing App Passenger View

Dynamic Ridesharing

Dozens of Apps/Dynamic Ridesharing Firms (Zimride, Carticipate, RideAmgios, PickupPal)

Ridesharing Software firms incorporating dynamic capabilities.

Focused Pilot Programs (All Avego) Go520 – Washington State

DOT WeGoMil – Northern Virginia

Regional Commission WeGoSonoma

Bikesharing Systems

City Open Date Bikes Stations

New York/Brooklyn Spring 2013 10,000 600

Chicago Spring 2013 5,000 500

Los Angeles Fall 2012/Spring 2013

4,000 400

Long Beach   2,500 250

Washington DC/Arlington County, VA / Alexandria, VA

9/20/2010 1,525 179

Minneapolis/St. Paul 6/10/2010 1,200 145

Miami Beach 3/15/2011 1,000 105

Portland Spring 2013 750 74

Boston 7/28/2011 725 83

Denver 4/22/2010 510 53

San Francisco Fall 2012 500 50

Madison 5/22/2011 350 35

Chatanooga 7/23/2012 300 30

Baltimore 2013 300 30

Broward County 12/14/2011 275 26Table Source: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/promote/bikeshare.cfm?/bikeshare

Capital Bikeshare Trips

Capital Bikeshare Trip Characteristics (2011) 1,364,435 total trips system-wide

in 2011 1.4 million bicycle miles system

wide Average Trip Distance (Arlington

Trips) -1.3 miles all users, 1.2 miles annual members, 1.8 miles casual members

Average trip length: Average trip was 22 minutes (4th Qtr. 2011). 

If trips over 60 minutes are excluded, the average Capital Bikeshare trip is only 13 minutes long

Alternative Mode Choice % of Arlington Members

Bus or Metrorail 42%

Walk 30%Drive or ride in a personal vehicle 9%Would not have made this trip 6%

Personal bike 5%

Taxi 4%

If Capital Bikeshare had not been available, how would you most likely have made this trip?  

Variety of funding for capital costs. Some innovative sources include: Private foundations, public health grants, addition of

bikeshare stations in the financial plans of larger transit and highway projects

Bikesharing Funding

System Capital OperatingB-Cycle (Boulder) - Corporate donations

- Private foundations- Individual donations- Federal stimulus- State transit funds- Add-on to roadway projects

- User fees- Station sponsorship- State grants

Hubway (Boston) - Bus and Bus Livability grant- CMAQ grant- State capital grant- Station sponsorship

- Advertising- Public Health Commission

grant- CMAQ grant- User fees used to pay

contractorNice Ride (Minneapolis)

- Corporate foundation- FHWA non-motorized transportation

funds- Convention Center- Private and non-profit investors

- User fees- Station sponsorship

Chicago - CMAQ grant - User fees- Station sponsorship- Advertising- Possible use of CMAQ grant

New York - Corporate sponsorship- Private grants

- User fees- Advertising- City funds and bonds- State and federal

loans/grantsParis Vélib’ - Advertising firm with street furniture

contract- Advertising firm with street

furniture contract

Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Replacement Bicycles

$59,756 $42,406 $8,828 $160,475 $268,587 $474,573 $116,812 Bicycle Parts Replacement

$27,556 $44,518 $65,065 $91,558 $96,813 $87,780 $50,547 Station Replacement

- -

$1,158,124

$1,167,907 $2,464,585 $293,499 $178,844

TOTAL $87,312 $86,924

$1,232,017

$1,419,939 $2,829,985 $855,851 $346,203

Bikeshare State of Good Repair

Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018CAPTIAL EXPENDITURES            

New Capital Equipment and Installation $1,333,732 $161,838 $142,248

-

-

-

New Station Site Planning and Pad Construction $66,274 $6,430 $5,848

-

-

-

Replacement Stations and Bicycles $12,039 $30,706 $52,161 $222,688 $343,991 $492,877

TOTAL $1,412,046 $198,974 $200,256 $222,688 $343,991 $492,877

CAPTIAL REVENUES

Decal Fee $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

$1,236,000 - - - - -

TOTAL $1,436,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000

CAPITAL PLAN BALANCE $23,954 $1,026 ($256) $ (22,688)

$(143,991)

$ (292,877)

Arlington County Capital Bikeshare Plan – 2013-2018 CIP, 2019-2025 Capital Needs

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)

CMAQ Funding by Project Type, 1992-2010

5% 5% 5

%

6%

9%

34%

36%

Shared Ride

Demand Management

Pedestrian / Bicycle

Traffic Flow Im-provements

STP/CMAQ

Inspection Mainte-nance / Transporta-tion Control Measures

Transit

$30 billion invested since 1992

Information Source: FHWA, MAP-21 Webinar Series, Overview of MAP-21 provisions on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program, September 13, 2012 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/docs/13sep_cmaq.pdf

Performance measures for traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions.

States are required to establish targets for these measures within 1 year of the final rule on national performance measures.

Each MPO with a transportation management area of more than one million in population representing a nonattainment or maintenance area is required to develop and update biennially a performance plan to achieve air quality and congestion reduction targets. 

USDOT and EPA will assess emission reductions, air quality and health impacts of actions funded under the CMAQ program since the enactment of SAFETEA-LU.

CMAQ & MAP-21

Common TDM Funding Sources

TDM Funding Measure Description

Parking pricing Dedication of public parking revenues to transportation programs. Notably, in the Bethesda, MD area, parking fees have been a significant, stable source of revenue for the Transportation Management District and other TDM programs.

Special parking taxes Imposition of taxes specifically tailored to commercial parking transactions or parking facilities.

Road pricing Road tolls and congestion fees used to fund a variety of transportation programs, including roadway facilities, transit improvements and TDM programs.

Fuel tax increases and surcharges

Dedication of a portion of fuel tax revenues to special transportation programs (e.g., one percent dedicated to non-motorized facilities) or an additional, optional tax is imposed to fund those programs.

Carbon taxes Special taxes designed to limit carbon dioxide emissions.Transportation impact fees

Fees paid by developers based on the transportation costs imposed by their projects, including payments for roadway improvements, “in lieu fees” for public parking facilities, funds used to establish a Transportation Management Association, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, or other programs to mitigate local traffic impacts.

Special property taxes Also termed “local improvement districts” these taxes are imposed in areas served by transportation programs and services.

Vehicle impact mitigation fees

Fees on registered vehicles are used to pay for programs and projects that serve motorists and mitigate the negative impacts caused by vehicle traffic. For example in California, about $14 million in revenues from vehicle registration fees are allocated yearly for TDM programs.

Business/employee assessments

Special assessments on area businesses based on floor area, revenues, or number of employees, typically for the purpose of funding Transportation Management Associations.

Adapted from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute’s TDM Encyclopedia, Financing Options, Options For Funding Transportation Programs, available online at: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm119.htm.

Other TDM Funding Sources

Transit Fare Commission Revenues

Non-Transportation Grant Programs

Private Foundations New Advertising,

Sponsorship, and Partnership Opportunities

Arlington County Commuter Store and Mobile Commuter Store

What is the role of State DOTs?

Help find new sources of funding!

Rationalize services and connect providers

Technical assistance and planning requirements (esp. mid-range plans)

Integrate TDM agencies into corridor-level TDM activities

Table Source: NCHRP Research Results Digest 348: State Department of Transportation Role in the Implementation of Transportation Demand Management

Most Common TDM Activates Reported of State DOTs

Shana Retherford Johnson, AICPsjohnson@foursquareitp.com

301-774-4566 x402

Special thanks to Cynthia Burbank (PB) and Michael Grant (ICF) for their assistance with

this presentation!

Thank you!