Chapter Four: Rideshare Subsidy Grants - $1 Million
All CTR-affected employers were eligible to apply for Rideshare Subsidy grants. This included public sector employers who provide subsidies to their employees, but are not eligible for the B&O tax credit program.
CTR-affected employers were eligible for a grant if subsidies for alternative commuting was provided to employees. Employers that began or intended to begin a new subsidy program, or that wished to enhance an existing program, on or after January 1, 1998, were eligible to apply for grant funds. Enhancing a program meant (a) increasing the subsidy amount, or (b) making the program available to more employees.
Employers were required to maintain a record of the amount of subsidies paid.
Grant monies were not be used to offset existing subsidies.
Employers that paid B&O or Utility taxes were not be eligible to receive this grant until the Ride Share Tax Credit limit was reached.
No employer could receive more than $100,000 from this program, or more than $100,000 when combined with the Ride Share Tax Credit. The grant amount, which could not exceed $60 per employee per calendar year, was calculated as follows:
- For rideshare vehicles with at least two employees, applicants were to multiply the amount paid to the employee by 30 percent.
- For rideshare vehicles with three or more employees - including buses, bicyclists and walkers - applicants were to multiply the amount paid to the employee by 50 percent.
Appendix B lists the 52 grant recipients, the amount allocated by WSDOT, and a key result for each grant.
As mentioned in previous sections, WSDOT required grant recipients to submit quarterly project status reports. This section describes results from the Rideshare Subsidy grant program, lists key lessons learned and suggestions for improvement, and concludes with three examples of successful Rideshare Subsidy Grant projects.
A total of 52 employers were awarded funds through the Rideshare Subsidy Grant. More than 50 percent of these employers were ineligible for the B&O Rideshare tax credit. Eighty thousand dollars were awarded to employers who sought reimbursement after the B&O Rideshare Tax Credit reached its $1.5 million annual cap. Eleven employers were directed by the Department of Revenue to WSDOT for this purpose. Seven employers took advantage of the Rideshare Subsidy grant program who were not affected by the Commute Trip Reduction law. These included organizations like University Village Management (see page 23) and Yuns Co, a small business in Seattleís International district that requested a total of $60 to offset the cost of a cross-sound Metro pass for one of their employees.
In the final status reports submitted to WSDOT, recipients indicated whether or not they had met their original goals and objectives. As Chart 8 indicates, 85 percent did accomplish original goals and objectives while only 15.4 percent did not. Compared to the Employer Services Grant, more rideshare subsidy grant recipients achieved their original goals and objectives.
Chart 8
Information provided by recipients indicate a number of reasons why this program was a success. First, many grant recipients have developed comprehensive CTR programs, so goals were more attainable. Second, direct rideshare subsidiesócompared to other activities like promotions or prize drawingsóare very effective at increasing CTR program participation. Third, Employer Services grants went to a wider array of projects, some of which were experimental in nature. The nature of those projects may have increased the potential for not meeting original expectations.
Grant recipients were asked how important the grant program was in relation to the goals they had established for themselves. As Chart 9 illustrates, almost half of the recipients agreed the grant was extremely important, while 2.1 percent felt the grant was not important.
This is a slightly lower rating than the Employer Services Grant. One explanation for a lower rating is that many Rideshare Subsidy grant beneficiaries were using grant dollars to enhance existing programs. Therefore, importance of grant dollars to overall success may be slightly less.
Chart 9
*Note: Four recipients did not answer question.
The matching dollars put forth by grant recipients made up 84 percent of total expenditures. The manner by which employers calculated this match amount varied, but many employers made significant budget allocations to support grant implementation. A large portion of total employer matches was from King County Government, who reported a match of $1.29 million. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle reported a $410,000 match. Pierce Transit in Lakewood provided a $300,000 match, and the Evergreen State College in Olympia dedicated $100,000 to support a transit pass pilot program.
Chart 10
Employers also were asked to count the number of employees participating in their CTR programs during the course of the grant. The mode split of these employees shows that transit was the most common mode used by employees at these worksites. This mode split may reflect the number of employers who entered into Flexpass contracts in 1998 and 1999. (It should be noted that the King County Government calculation includes all 13,000 Flexpass recipients as transit riders. This is more than 50 percent of the total for all employers.)
Chart 11
Source: WSDOT Rideshare Subsidy Grant Final Reports
As with the Employer Services Grant, feedback from quarterly and final reports was helpful in understanding the impacts of the grant program. WSDOT asked all grant recipients to list important lessons they learned and advice they would offer others. Below is a list of customer commentsóoften their exact wordsó about what makes a CTR program supported by a Rideshare Subsidy grant successful.
Offer substantial incentives. Offering employees incentives in the form of direct payments or transit passes is the best way to get more employees to choose alternatives to driving alone. Promotional items are good for peaking interest, but regular payments are far more effective at making a program successful over a long period of time. However, offering employees $5 or $10 per month may not motivate employees to change daily commute habits, especially if they consider alternative modes to be an inconvenience. The amount of money offered needs to be significant, about $40 per month.
Use incentives to reduce parking demand. Several employers indicated that they were experiencing parking shortages. By providing incentives, employers were able to reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and ultimately save a significant amount of money on new parking costs.
Form a CTR committee. Many employers were challenged by the amount of time required to administer a comprehensive CTR incentive program. Compiling statistics, making sure employees are meeting the minimum requirements for continued incentive payments, and simply answering questions of interested employees takes time. It is imperative that grant applicants consider forming a team to administer the grant, which may reduce individual workloads and improve customer service.
Use employee survey data to build a new program. The biannual CTR Employee Surveys contain valuable information about CTR resources that employees need or would like. This information could be used when designing an incentive program, as it serves as a form of market research that will enable grant recipients to maximize grant impact.
Develop comprehensive tracking sheets. If using tracking sheets or monthly calendars to gather data on the program, it should include each employeeís work phone number, commute distance between home and work, daily mode choice, and other information needed to compile quarterly or final reports. If the measurement tools are well designed, they can provide a rich source of data that will support future CTR activities, meet reporting requirements, and convince management to offer the program when the grant dollars are no longer available.
Ask for employee feedback. Several employers stated that they intended to conduct post-grant employee surveys to determine what worked, what needed improvement, and any feedback employees may have to offer.
Choose a Flexpass program that reflects characteristic of worksite. Each subscribing employer is offered a number of ìflexibleî transportation options so employers can choose the best ìfitî for their worksite or worksites. For example, if the worksite attracts a large number of workers who may work for less than a year - like the employers at the University Village (see page 23) - quarterly rather than annual pass may be a better choice. This will reduce the cost to the employer if the pass cannot be recovered when an employee leaves.
Offer transit passes. Several employers who offered monthly transit passes found that giving employees cash payments or vouchers for the purchase of these passes did not work as well as dispensing the passes at the worksite. In other words, offering an in-house pass distribution made the program more attractive to people because it reduced the extra trip to the transit center that the employee would have to make on their own time. This extra customer service can make a big difference to people with busy schedules.
Offer a Guaranteed Ride Home program. Many employees are reluctant to use alternative transportation modes because they are concerned that they would be unable to get home if a family emergency arose or if they had to work late. Guaranteed Ride Home provides a valuable insurance policy that removes the risk of being ìstuckî when unforeseen circumstances arise. These programs provide an important psychological safety net and are rarely abused by employees.
Use simple marketing. It is imperative that information about a new incentive program be simple, easy to understand, and easily accessible to all employees. A CTR incentive program that is perceived as too complex or hard to understand by employees is a program that wonít generate much interest. Therefore, keep the message simple and repeat it often.
All grant recipients had an opportunity to complete an evaluation about WSDOTís administration of this grant program. The majority of employers felt WSDOT did a good job administering the Rideshare Subsidy Grant program. In addition, there was nearly unanimous support from employers for continuing this grant program. One recipient believes this program allowed them to make the first substantial changes to their CTR program in five years. Many others said that the extra incentive dollars attracted a number of employees who merely needed a little more enticement to join their worksite CTR program. Another comment made by a grant recipient was that the rideshare subsidy grant should continue to be available to small worksites that are not affected by the law. Thousands of employers in Washingtonís nine CTR counties have less than 100 full-time employees. The cumulative SOV reduction derived through a grant program available to these smaller employers in the nine CTR counties would be quite substantial.
Grant recipient suggestions for future rideshare subsidy grant programs:
- More time to implement projects, evaluate projects, and make necessary adjustments. Many employers hope future grant programs would have a longer timeframe to implement and evaluate their projects - particularly because changing people's commuting habits is a gradual, long-term process.
- On-going reimbursement for rideshare subsidies. When the grant dollars were exhausted and the employer chose not to continue the funding level without these additional resources, some employeesówho had changed their commute habits because of a greater subsidy - reverted to their old ways when the subsidy level dropped after June 30, 1999. Therefore, offering a grant program each year would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who changed their commute habits because of the new incentive.
- WSDOT training on grant programs designed to reduce single occupant commuting. Though the 1998-99 CTR Enhancement Program marked the first time WSDOT has offered a grant program of this type, many valuable lessons were learned. Hopefully, this document will serve as the foundation for future training on what it takes to implement a successful grant project.
<- Chapter Three: Employer Services Grants
-> Appendices