ISSN 1055- 1425
November 2007
This work was performed as part of the California PATH Program of the
University of California, in cooperation with the State of California Business,
Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation, and the
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible
for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California. This
report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Final Report for Task Order 5109
CALIFORNIA PATH PROGRAM
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass
Program in San Diego
UCB- ITS- PRR- 2007- 16
California PATH Research Report
Louis Rea, Sherry Ryan
San Diego State University
CALIFORNIA PARTNERS FOR ADVANCED TRANSIT AND HIGHWAYS
Prepared for:
California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways ( PATH)
University of California, Berkeley
1357 South 46th Street, Building 452
Richmond, CA 94804
Prepared by:
Louis Rea, Ph. D. and Sherry Ryan, Ph. D.
San Diego State University Foundation
5250 Campanile Drive
San Diego, CA 92182- 1931
November 12, 2007
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass
Program in San Diego
Final Report
Page i Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table of Contents Page
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Purpose and Background...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Report Organization........................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Literature Review.................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Legislative Origins of Mobility Pass Programs in the United States.............................. 3
2.2 Mobility Pass Program Characteristics........................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Mobility Pass Transportation Services and Car- Sharing ........................................ 4
2.2.2 Mobility Pass Program Operators........................................................................... 6
2.2.3 Mobility Pass Funding Mechanisms....................................................................... 7
2.3 Travel Outcomes Associated with Mobility Pass Programs........................................... 8
2.4 Summary of Literature Review Findings...................................................................... 16
3.0 Methodology.................................................................................................................... .... 17
3.1 Recruitment and Study Sample Characteristics............................................................ 17
3.1.1 Compass+ Program Description ........................................................................... 17
3.1.2 Study Recruitment ................................................................................................ 18
3.1.3 Study Sample Characteristics ............................................................................... 20
3.2 Mail- Out / Mailback Surveys........................................................................................ 21
3.3 Focus Groups ................................................................................................................ 21
3.4 Telephone Exit Surveys ................................................................................................ 22
4.0 Attitudes about Transportation, Transit and the Compass+ Pass Program ................. 23
4.1 Pre- Program Attitudes about Transit ............................................................................ 23
4.2 Pre- Program versus In- Program Attitudes about Transit.............................................. 23
4.3 Attitudes about the Compass+ Pass Program ............................................................... 25
4.3.1 Overall Satisfaction............................................................................................... 25
4.3.2 Other Attitudes...................................................................................................... 26
4.3.3 Attitudes about Compass+ Pass Program Characteristics .................................... 26
5.0 Changes in Travel Behavior from Pre- Program to In- Program .................................... 28
5.1 Change in Drive Alone Travel...................................................................................... 28
5.2 Change in Mode Share.................................................................................................. 31
5.3 Change in Trip Purpose by Mode Share....................................................................... 33
6.0 Focus Group Results ........................................................................................................... 35
6.1 Sorrento Valley Focus Group ....................................................................................... 35
6.1.1 Sorrento Valley Participants’ Previous Travel Behavior...................................... 35
6.1.2 Sorrento Valley Participants’ Travel Behavior under the Program ...................... 35
6.1.3 Summary of Key Findings for Sorrento Valley Participants ................................ 38
6.2 Centre City Focus Group .............................................................................................. 38
6.2.1 Centre City Participants’ Previous Travel Behavior............................................. 38
6.2.2 Centre City Participants’ Travel Behavior under the Compass+ Pass Program... 39
6.2.3 Centre City Participants’ Overall Impressions of the Compass+ Pass Program .. 40
6.2.4 Summary of Key Findings ( Centre City):............................................................. 40
7.0 Compass+ Pass Program Pricing....................................................................................... 41
7.1 Exit Survey Analysis Results........................................................................................ 41
7.2 Compass+ Pass Program Pricing Recommendations ................................................... 42
8.0 Summary of Key Findings .................................................................................................. 43
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 45
Page ii Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Appendices
Appendix A SANDAG Recruitment Efforts........................................................................................... 49
Appendix B Study Sample Socio- Economic Characteristics ................................................................. 50
Appendix C Pre- Program Survey ........................................................................................................... 51
Appendix D In- Program Survey ............................................................................................................. 52
Appendix E Focus Group Discussion Guide .......................................................................................... 53
Appendix F Exit Survey ......................................................................................................................... 54
Appendix G Open Ended Responses: Why Study Participants Do Not Use Transit More Frequently .. 55
Appendix H Open Ended Responses: Overall Impressions of the Program and Suggestions for
Improvements................................................................................................................... . 56
Appendix I Detailed Trip Purpose by Travel Mode Results ................................................................. 57
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Recruitment Results ................................................................................................................ 20
Table 3.2 Focus Group Details................................................................................................................ 22
Table 4.1 Composite Importance Index ( Reasons for Choosing a Travel Mode) ................................... 24
Table 4.2 Comparison of Transit Attitudes Mean Responses
from Pre- Program and In- Program Surveys............................................................................ 25
Table 4.3 Attitudes about the Compass+ Pass Program.......................................................................... 26
Table 5.1 Mean Trip Length ( Miles) and Number of Trips for all Drive Alone Travel by Study
Participant Pre- Program versus In- Program............................................................................ 28
Table 5.2 Mean Daily Drive Alone Miles of Travel by Study Participant
Pre- Program versus In- Program.............................................................................................. 29
Table 5.3 Change in Drive Alone Trip Lengths and Miles Traveled
Pre- Program versus In- Program.............................................................................................. 31
Table 5.4 Mode Share Summary Pre- Program versus In- Program ......................................................... 32
Table 5.5 Change in Mode Share Pre- Program versus In- Program ........................................................ 32
Table 5.6 Percent Change in Mode Share by Trip Purpose From Pre- Program to In- Program .............. 33
List of Figures
Figure 3- 1 Project Study Areas within the City of San Diego .................................................................. 19
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
iii
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thanks Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways ( PATH), the
California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), and the San Diego Association of
Governments for their generous contributions to this research project. We would also like to
express appreciation to Flexcar who supported the evaluation of the Compass+ Pass Program.
Several San Diego State University students also deserve special credit for their assistance,
including Derek Toups and Bridget Enderle.
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
iv
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to assess the effectiveness on individual travel behavior as a result
of using combined car- sharing and transit passes. This assessment was based upon participation
in a mobility pass program or Compass + Pass Program that was implemented in late 2004 in the
San Diego region. Program participants were highly satisfied for having an alternative to the
drive- alone commute. This key finding points to the fact that there is some level of latent
demand for alternatives to the drive alone commute, especially in corridors with heavy peak hour
congestion. Also of significance is the finding that Program participants improved their views
and impressions of nearly all characteristics of transit as a result of their participation in the
Program. This research supports regional transportation policy- making in San Diego as well a
comparable cities across California and the nation.
Key Words: car- sharing, mobility pass program, travel behavior.
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
v
Executive Summary
Introduction
The purpose of this research is to assess the effectiveness on individual travel behavior as a result
of using combined car- sharing and transit passes. This assessment was based upon participation
in a mobility pass program or Compass + Pass Program that was implemented in late 2004 in the
San Diego region. The Program provided users with unlimited transit system access and limited
monthly car- sharing privileges. This research contributes to a small, but growing body of
literature regarding the potential of such a mobility pass program to achieve positive mobility
outcomes
The literature review associated with this study demonstrates that mobility pass programs are a
viable means for reducing negative impacts of drive alone travel behavior. Critical to this
strategy is integration of a broad array of public and private travel modes and services. To
design effective programs thus requires agencies to partner with complementary private and
public operators. By diversifying travel choices through collaboration, transit agencies are able
to attract individuals who are traditionally adverse to public transport.
Methodology
The Compass+ Pass Program was implemented in two project study areas in the San Diego
region: Centre City ( downtown San Diego) and Sorrento Valley ( a suburban employment
center). There were a total of 29 study participants who were recruited by the San Diego Area
Association of Governments ( SANDAG) and these participants completed 100 program surveys.
The surveys are comprised of 1,108 trips that were documented and described by the
participants.
Each participant completed a Pre- Program survey which was intended to establish the
participants’ demographic profile as well as their current travel behavior before participation in
the Compass+ Pass Program, including total daily trips by trip type and mode, and
origin/ destination information. The information obtained from the Pre- Program survey served
as a baseline from which to measure changes in travel behavior as participation in the Program
occurred. A majority of the study sample are White ( 80%), over 40 years old ( 60%), college-educated
( 80%), earning more than $ 75,000 per year ( 55%), car- owners ( 93%), and childless
( 65%). Compared to the overall San Diego County population, our sample of participants is
more White, older, more educated, and has higher incomes.
Participants were required to complete monthly surveys and associated travel dairies. The five
monthly In- Program surveys questioned participants about their daily trips, trip type, mode of
travel, and satisfaction with the Compass + Pass Program. Participants were asked to complete a
travel diary for three weekdays during each survey month. Participants received their travel
dairy each month by mail and were asked to return the completed diaries in a pre- addressed,
stamped envelope.
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
vi
Two focus groups were conducted with participants in the Compass + Pass Program. The
purpose of these focus groups was to elicit information regarding previous travel behavior
patterns, travel behavior while participating in the Program, transit usage, impressions of car-sharing,
and overall impressions of Program effectiveness.
An exit telephone survey asked participants for their opinions and attitudes about the Compass+
Pass Program, their car- sharing experiences, and their willingness to pay for the pass.
Summary of Findings
The key findings of the Compass + Pass Program study are as follows:
1) Program participants had an overwhelmingly positive response to the Compass+
Pass Program. Program participants were exceedingly thankful for having an alternative
to the drive alone commute to work. This finding points to the fact that there is some
level of latent demand for alternatives to the drive alone commute, especially in corridors
with heavy peak hour congestion and where commutes take up to an hour or more, as was
the case for most Sorrento Valley participants before participation on the Program.
2) Program participation resulted in improved attitudes toward transit usage. One
interesting, secondary finding from this study is that Program participants expressed
improved attitudes toward almost all characteristics of transit after participating in the
Program. In other words, as non- transit users, before they started program participation,
they had relatively negative impressions of transit. After participating in the Program,
which caused them to start using the transit system, their impressions of transit improved.
This finding again points to the fact that people want alternatives to driving. It also
suggests that if they have not used transit before, they may have unduly negative
impressions of transit. It is also noteworthy that the Compass+ Pass Program was pivotal
in making transit a viable alternative for study participants, whose work locations were
typically too far from the nearest train station to conveniently use the system without
access to a Flexcar vehicle.
3) Participation in the Program significantly reduces drive alone travel. This finding
is central to the argument that mobility pass programs can be effective at shifting travel
from SOV to transit and non- motorized trip- making. Drive alone travel decreases about
50%, from roughly 42 miles/ day by participant to just 23 miles/ day per participant on
average. Another important travel behavior finding is that walking and bicycling mode
shares increase with participation in the Program, from a combined share of 6% before
program participation to 10% during program participation. Mobility pass programs,
therefore, can also lend to healthier lifestyles where more physical activity is achieved
through the replacement of driving trips with walking and biking trips.
4) Price- breaks may be key to initially attracting mobility pass users. Participants
were satisfied with the very minimally discounted rates associated with the Compass+
Pass Program, and they were generally unwilling to pay a higher monthly fee for the
same service provision. About half of the respondents are not willing to pay additional
monthly fees for service enhancements beyond the level provided in the Compass+ Pass
Program. The other half of the respondents are willing to pay minimal monthly fees for
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
vii
service enhancements that largely include using the Flexcar more extensively during the
workday.
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Study Purpose and Background
This research contributes to a small, but growing body of literature that examines the
effects of a relatively new mobility solution on individual travel behavior. This new mobility
solution is a combined car- sharing and transit pass program, often referred to as a mobility pass
program. Such a program, called the Compass+ Pass Program ( Program) was implemented in
late 2004 in the San Diego region. The Program provided users with unlimited transit system
access and limited monthly car- sharing privileges. The purpose of this research is to assess the
potential for such a program to bring about broad, regional transportation benefits, as well as to
examine the optimal packaging of such a program for enhanced consumer satisfaction.
This study utilized before/ after surveys and focus group methodologies to document
specific changes in Program participants’ travel behavior ( mode choice, trip lengths, and trip
purpose) as well as to document attitudes and perceptions toward the Program. The mail-out/
mail- back surveys contained traditional travel diary questions for randomly selected travel
days per month per participant so that the entire month was covered by all participants. The
focus group sessions attempted to ascertain participants’ attitudes toward the Program’s
effectiveness, its structure, and its successes and/ or failures.
This research contributes important information about the potential of such a mobility
pass program to achieve positive mobility outcomes. The research supports regional
transportation policy- making in San Diego as well as comparable cities across California and the
nation. Given present difficulties expanding roadway and highway capacity, along with forecast
population and travel increases over the next 30 years, transportation decision- makers need to
build their understanding of alternative transportation measures, such as that provided through
the Compass+ Pass Program. These types of alternative transportation solutions will gain
considerable importance in the coming decades as California cities attempt to deal with
population growth, congestion, and limited infrastructure- building capabilities.
1.2 Report Organization
This report is organized according to the following sections:
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
2
2.0 Literature Review – This chapter summarizes findings from a review of ninteen currently
existing mobility pass programs in the United States and Europe, describing
transportation services, operator characteristics, and funding mechanisms.
3.0 Methodology – This chapter describes the methodologies and key data collection
techniques employed.
4.0 Results: Attitudes toward Transit and the Compass+ Pass – This chapter describes Pre-
Program attitudes toward transit, a comparison of Pre- Program and In- Program attitudes
toward transit, and finally attitudes toward the Compass+ Pass Program. Results are
based upon the survey data and the focus groups.
5.0 Results: Changes in Travel Behavior from Pre- Program to In- Program – This chapter
describes changes in travel behavior as a result of participation in the Compass+ Pass
Program, including drive alone trip lengths, drive alone vehicle miles traveled, mode
splits, and trip purpose by mode share.
6.0 Pricing – This chapter summarizes the results of the telephone exit survey where
participants were asked about their willingness to pay for the Compass+ Pass.
7.0 Summary of Key Findings – This chapter outlines study findings and policy
recommendations.
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
3
2.0 Literature Review
This chapter summarizes characteristics and outcomes associated with a relatively new
transportation pricing mechanism commonly referred to as the mobility pass. Mobility passes
are a single- fare media that grant users access to multiple modes of travel, especially transit and
car- sharing. Transportation agencies have implemented such payment programs with the hope
that the increased ease of payment and simultaneous access to a variety of travel modes will
increase usage of non- single occupant vehicle ( SOV) modes of travel. This section begins by
reviewing the travel demand management ( TDM) policy context in which mobility pass
programs originated, then describes the key attributes of current mobility pass programs in the
United States and abroad, and finally, summarizes previous findings related to travel behavior
impacts of mobility pass programs.
2.1 Legislative Origins of Mobility Pass Programs in the United States
Mobility pass programs generally originated during the 1970’ s when policy makers were
concerned with diminishing air quality and efforts to reduce the negative effects of drive alone
vehicular travel. These policies in totality are referred to as TDM policies and incorporate a
range of implementation strategies that either decrease the demand for solo driving or encourage
non- SOV travel alternatives. Such policies include SOV user fees such as smog fees, congestion
pricing, and parking fees; or improvements to non- SOV modes so that they become competitive
with SOV travel in terms of travel time and convenience.
Mobility pass programs in the United States can be traced to the imposition of federal and
state transportation control measures ( TCMs) pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, and to a prior law passed in California, known as “ Regulation XV”. Until 1995, the Clean
Air Act ( CAA) stipulated that businesses employing 100 or more persons must administer
incentive and disincentive programs designed to reduce employees’ solo driving commute miles
and to track and report employee usage statistics. This CAA provision, referred to as the
Employee Commute Options ( ECO) program, mandated that employers implement TDM
strategies such as subsidized transit passes, vanpool programs, and cash benefits to employees.
Mobility pass programs emerged as a TDM response to the ECO requirements. Noting the
laboriousness, costliness, and unenforceability of the ECO requirement, in December of 1995,
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
4
Congress repealed the compulsory aspect of the ECO program and conferred discretion to states
to implement ECO programs ( Green, 1995).
Preceding CAA Amendments, California’s 1987 Regulation XV legislation required
large employers in the Los Angeles ( South Coast) Air Basin to implement immediate programs
aimed at reducing their workforces’ drive- alone commute trips. Regulation XV was also
criticized as a costly unfunded mandate with minimally effective requirements and a narrow
focus. One specific criticism was that the legislation dismissed the impacts of smaller
employers, which constituted a much larger workforce en masse ( Green, 1995). Ultimately
Regulation XV was also repealed. Despite federal and state deregulation, ECO programs have
retained merit and utility among state and municipal governments, adopting them as effective
mechanisms for achieving air quality and congestion relief standards ( Green, 1995). In the past
ten years, mobility pass programs have become increasingly prevalent due to smart technology
applications and the emergence of a new public- private travel mode called car- sharing.
2.2 Mobility Pass Program Characteristics
This paper summarizes characteristics of nineteen ( 19) mobility pass programs in the
United States and Europe, in an effort to begin to associate program components with successful
travel behavior outcomes. Key mobility pass program characteristics reviewed in this section
include transportation services– especially car- sharing– provided through each program, program
operators, and program financing mechanisms.
2.2.1 Mobility Pass Transportation Services and Car- Sharing
Of the nineteen ( 19) mobility pass programs examined, sixteen ( 16) offered users at least
two transportation services, while ten of the programs offered three or more transportation
services. Bus and light rail transit were the most common transit services incorporated into the
mobility pass programs. Another common attribute of mobility pass programs is that they
bundle car- sharing services with public transit services. Ten of nineteen programs reviewed in
this paper incorporated car- sharing as one of the transportation services covered by the pass.
Car- sharing is characterized by short- term car rental where members subscribe to a
service which provides access to a fleet of “ shared” cars. The subscriber reserves the car in
advance and is billed on a monthly basis for actual hours and miles driven. This type of ‘ pay- as-you-
drive’ pricing converts the fixed cost of car ownership into a variable cost, and exposes the
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
5
user to actual trip- related expenses ( Brook, 2003; UITP, 2002). All expenditures associated with
driving – including financing, insurance, fuel, and maintenance– are accounted for in a single fee.
Some researchers have claimed this pricing scheme makes the true costs of driving more
apparent to the motorist and thereby promotes rational travel mode choices ( Millard- Ball et al,
2005; Jussiant, 2002).
Car- sharing has expanded rapidly throughout Europe over the past twenty years, and is
now beginning to mature in Canada, the United States, and in parts of Asia. The latest car-sharing
census reports that as many as 348,000 persons are registered with car- sharing
organizations worldwide ( Shaheen, Cohen, and Roberts, 2005). The largest market is in Europe,
with an estimated membership of 213,424, followed by North America ( 117,656), Asia ( 15,700),
and Australia ( 1,130) ( Shaheen and Cohen, 2007).
Research has shown that car- sharing programs can have a positive influence on travel
behavior, such as reductions in vehicle- miles- traveled ( VMT) ( James, 2005; Shaheen, 2001).
Among City CarShare users in San Francisco for example, participants displayed a 2% decrease
in VMT over a two year period, while the non- participant control group members reported a 49%
increase in VMT over the same period ( Cervero and Tsai, 2003). Carsharing enrollment has
been attributed with boosting transit use, since it can facilitate access to and from the transit
station. A study of CarSharing Portland members during their first year of membership showed
a significant increase in the frequency of bus use, walking, and bicycling by program participants
( Katzev et al., 2000). Studies have also shown diminishing car ownership rates among car-sharing
members. In a Seattle Flexcar study, for example, approximately 60% of study
participants claimed that participation in the Flexcar program helped to avoid the purchase of a
vehicle ( Vance, R. et al., 2004).
The key objective of mobility pass programs is to connect the flexibility of car- sharing
with traditionally less flexible modes like bus, light rail or commuter rail transit. Transportation
agencies and planners hope that combining access to two modes for a single fare will have a
complementary effect on both modes– increasing enrollment in car- sharing programs and also
improving the convenience and therefore usage of public transit. These mobility pass programs
have been the focus of significant previous research, such as those conducted by UC Berkeley’s
PATH research center in 2000 and 2004 ( Shaheen et al, 2000; Shaheen et al, 2004).
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
6
2.2.2 Mobility Pass Program Operators
Wagner and Shaheen ( 1998) defined transportation partnership management as a business
framework in which mobility service providers partner with one another, and with other non-mobility
businesses, such as merchant businesses to offer a combined mobility package that
enhances their products and services. Wagner ( 2004) suggests that “ operational partnership
management” will optimize the efficient delivery of innovative mobility services like car- sharing
in conjunction with more conventional transportation service. Partnerships can occur in at least
three settings: 1) between two or more mobility service providers; 2) between mobility providers
and non- mobility providers ( e. g., financial, merchant, or other partner); and 3) with groups of
users or entire communities that value transit services ( e. g., ECO pass programs).
Seventy ( 70%) percent of the programs reviewed are operated through partnering
agencies. While regional and local transportation agencies lead in managing programs and
operating transit, they engage private transport operators, such as Flexcar, collaborating
governmental agencies, businesses, and residential communities to execute diverse programs.
By design, employer- based ECO programs require some degree of involvement from the
businesses that contract with transportation agencies to provide mobility to employees.
Residential mobility programs offer mobility options collectively to tenants or households, thus
also necessitating engagement of residential building owners or neighborhood associations.
Universities will often partner with transportation agencies to offer university mobility pass
programs. Of the nineteen programs summarized here, non- transport affiliates were found to be
instrumental in funding, promoting and even spurring programs; however, transportation
agencies primarily implement and operate programs.
The International Association of Public Transport ( UIPT, 2005) emphasizes the
importance of engaging a variety of organizations to bring about mobility solutions:
As flexibility has become the key concept for the 21st century, mobility has replaced
transport – individual and public. In order to provide seamless mobility to their
customers, public transport companies are providing an ever broader mix of
mobility services by building new alliances with actors such as car- sharing
operators, taxis, etc…
Engaging an array of partners is mutually beneficial, typically resulting in superior mobility
services and better positioning a region to stimulate change in individuals’ travel behaviors.
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
7
2.2.3 Mobility Pass Funding Mechanisms
A review of the nineteen mobility programs indicates that funding strategies commonly
rely on a mix of subsidization and revenue generation. Only two of the nineteen programs
utilized grants from external agencies to initiate their mobility program. Fifteen of the programs
had some form of subsidization to stimulate program participation. With regard to ECO
programs, transportation agencies frequently apply a discounted pricing structure based upon
factors such as the number of employees, employer location, and transit system characteristics.
Although bulk rates can reduce individual transit passes from 10 percent to 99 percent in some
circumstances, agencies have found that adopting mobility programs is economically
advantageous. At least two of the fifteen programs that subsidize prices have succeeded in
completely offsetting those costs by increasing net revenues with substantially higher transit
sales. The majority of programs that reduce rates partially counterbalance cost through increased
sales.
It is also common for employers, landlords, developers and universities to contribute to
the cost of participation in the mobility pass program. These entities utilize mobility options to
incentivize alternative travel modes and to mitigate parking requirements. Schreffler ( 1996)
explains, “ the reasons for implementing cost effective ECO programs go far beyond regulatory
compliance… programs can solve site- specific problems, such as tight parking, accessibility,
recruitment, absenteeism and retention; … ECO programs are not as costly to employers as some
studies indicate.”
Assembling and selling public transit passes as an amenity within residential
developments has led to the consideration of mobility pass programs as part of the array of
transportation mitigations mechanisms, such as their inclusion into a developer congestion
mitigation toolbox, as a requirement for obtaining development project approval, or as a
comprehensive traffic and parking reduction strategy within a city’s General or Comprehensive
Plan. Employers and residential developers may be willing to fund improvements to the
transportation network if they can derive direct measurable benefits as a result.
Private transportation companies, such as Flexcar, also supplement mobility program
costs in order to expand rider usage rates. In three of the nineteen mobility pass programs, car-sharing
companies discounted user rates or provided a lump sum to a transportation agency to
advance a collaborative multi- modal program.
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
8
Table 2.1 summarizes nineteen mobility pass programs in terms of transportation
services provided, operators, and funding mechanisms.
2.3 Travel Outcomes Associated with Mobility Pass Programs
Studies have suggested that effective mobility pass programs can stimulate growth in car-sharing
usage, increase overall local transit usage, boost transportation agencies’ net revenues
and decrease VMT. Researchers claim that mobility pass programs reconcile the gap between car
and transit use ( Britton et al, 2000; Cooper Howes & Mye, 2000). Reports on the nineteen
programs delineated in Table 2.1 indicate that transit usage increased substantially after
implementing a mobility pass program, with some agencies reporting 50 to 500 percent increases
in overall transit ridership since the adoption of mobility programs. Of the four mobility pass
program typologies represented, residential and employee- based programs experienced the
greatest gains in annual participation rates; however, residential- based programs engage the
smallest overall number of people. A program’s success also appears to vary based upon the size
of the target population. Whereas a residential ECO program in San Jose grew from twenty- five
to 3,433 individuals in four years, Washington D. C.’ s SmarTrip card sales increased from
500,000 to 1.2 million in the year after integrating bus transit access with parking and rail
( Gheewala, 2003; Joshi, 2005). Reduced VMT, resulting from increased shifts from driving to
transit and car- sharing, has also been reported as a positive effect of mobility pass programs.
One program study found program participant VMT declined by 32 percent and that carsharing
increased by 27 percent ( Lloyd TMA, 2005).
Table 2.2 summarizes mobility pass program usage statistics reported by the nineteen
programs described in this paper.
Page 9
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 2.1
Mobility Pass Program Characteristics
Program Operator Funding Source Transportation Services
Employer Transit Pass Programs
FlexPass
Seattle, WA
King County
Metro ( KCM) and
Flexcar
Corporation
KCM stimulates program enrollment by offering employers a
substantially reduced introductory group rate. Following
initiation, the pricing policy incrementally increases employer
charges. By subsidizing prices, FlexPass generated $ 3.4
million in employer sales with $ 500,000 in KCM funds
( Hansen, 2000). Also, to foster a nexus between Flexcar and
FlexPass use, KCM regularly offers promotional discounts
( Millard- Ball et al, 2005).
Unrestricted access to KCM Transit and Sound Transit bus
systems; unlimited use of Sound Transit Sounder commuter
rail service; supplemental travel modes including Vanpool,
VanShare, Community Transit, " Home Free Guarantee" and
Flexcar are offered to FlexPass participants at subsidized rates
( KCM, 2006).
ECO Pass
Denver/ Boulder,
CO
Regional Transit
District ( RTD) in
collaboration with
the cities of
Denver and
Boulder
RTD designates an annual rate to participating companies
based on an assessment of each organization’s total employee
population, location and accessibility to transit services. The
pricing structure is intended to produce one- third of total costs
associated with operating the RTD bus routes that service ECO
Pass areas ( Whitson, 2002; Evans et al., 1998; McKay, 2001).
Unlimited RTD bus travel on local, express and regional
routes that serve the Denver/ Boulder metropolitan area;
Denver International Airport Skyride service; Light Rail
access ( RTD, 2006). Within the City of Boulder and Denver,
RTD holds agreements with taxi companies to provide ECO
Pass participants emergency rides home when RTD services
are not operating ( McKay, 2001; RTD, 2006).
Eco Pass
San Jose, CA
Santa Clara Valley
Transportation
Authority ( VTA)
SCVTA charges organizations between $ 5 and $ 80 per
employee annually, which is proportionally equivalent to 1% to
19% of the traditional annual transit pass. Within this range,
companies' costs are defined by location and total employee
population ( Shoup, 2005).
All VTA bus and rail lines; applicable seven days a week
without restrictions on number of rides ( Shoup, 2004).
PassPort
Portland, OR
Lloyd District
Transportation
Management
Association
( TMA) and TriMet
public transit
agency in
collaboration with
CarSharing
Portland and
Flexcar
( Dankmeyer and
Kellogg, 2000).
The Lloyd District TMA utilized a $ 16,000 CMAQ grant to
develop the program. However, these funds are exhausted.
( Millard- Ball et al, 2005). TriMet, allocated a $ 5,000 grant
toward enabling twenty PassPort participants to join
CarSharing ( now Flexcar). This was achieved by subsidizing
the security deposits of those riders ( Dankmeyer and Kellogg,
2000).
PassPort holders have unlimited access to bus and MAX ( light
rail) services. PassPort participants who simultaneously
enroll in the Flexcar program also have unrestricted access to
Flexcar vehicles within the TMA region during standard
business hours. ( Millard- Ball et al, 2005).
Page 10
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 2.1
Mobility Pass Program Characteristics
Program Operator Funding Source Transportation Services
EcoPASS
Winnipeg,
Manitoba, CA
City of Winnipeg's
Winnipeg Transit
authorized by
Winnipeg City
Council ( the
subsidies)
At minimum, the program generates net revenue of $ 115,000
annually. This supplants the $ 30,000 initial implementation
costs and annual $ 5,000 promotional costs to Winnipeg Transit
budgets. Revenue is engendered by a policy based on cost-sharing
ratios with 3: 1 as the basis. Essentially, employer
rebates are contingent upon the percentile discount employers
extend to employees. Typically, employers provide a 30% to
50% discount to employees, thus gaining a 10% or greater
rebate from the city. ( Transport Canada, 2004).
Bus travel via the Winnipeg Transit system ( Transport
Canada, 2004).
ECO Pass
San Diego, CA
Metropolitan
Transit System
( MTS)
MTS employs a hierarchical pricing structure, in which
participating agencies accrue price reductions based on their
count of employee enrollees. Utilizing this structure, 2006
monthly passes are discounted 10% ( purchasing 25- 50 passes)
to 30% ( purchasing greater than 500) ( MTS, 2005). Annual
passes are offered at 20% to 50% off of the traditional price.
For annual enrollment, MTS offers a three month trail- period
enabling employers to adjust their estimated employee
participation, and thus, bulk price. Despite discounts, the net
revenue of fare sales has grown due to the ECO Pass program
( Larwin, 2001).
The ECO Pass mirrors the traditional MTS monthly and
annual passes thus offering unlimited rides on bus and San
Diego Trolley transit lines. The pass also supplements the
MTS Premium Commuter bus costs along with the Coaster if
upgraded for a minimal charge ( MTS, 2006).
Residential Transit Pass Programs
Home- Based
Transit,
Vancouver, WA
City of Vancouver,
Vancouver
Housing Authority
( VHA) and Flexcar
As a pilot program, ten qualifying households are awarded a
mobility welcome package when they enter into an annual
lease with the VHA. The collection includes an area bicycle
map, multiple daily transit passes, and a Flexcar account
purchased by VHA. Furthermore, the three administering
agencies provide participants with five Flexcar usage hours
monthly for six months ( Millard- Ball, 2005).
Flexcar carsharing and C- Tran transit use ( the quantity and
extent of daily transit passes is undisclosed according to
Millard- Ball, 2005).
Home- Based
Flexcar
Subsidies,
Seattle, WA
City of Seattle,
King County
METRO and
Flexcar
Corporation
The City of Seattle, implementing their One Less Car
Challenge program, incentivized participants and Flexcar by
devoting $ 30,000, amounting to 50% of the initiation costs and
enrollment fees ( Millard- Ball et al, 2005).
The program's incentive structure is two- tiered. The
transportation benefits coincide with the degree to which
participants " challenge" themselves to reduce automobile
travel. Level one participants are provided confined Flexcar
subsidies, transit information and Bikestation membership
discounts. The subsequent level expands Flexcar usage to
equivalent of $ 75 per month for a year and augments Flexcar
access with annual METRO bus passes ( Rutherford and
Vance, 2003).
Page 11
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 2.1
Mobility Pass Program Characteristics
Program Operator Funding Source Transportation Services
Neighborhood
Eco Pass,
Denver, CO
Regional Transit
District ( RTD)
RTD analyzes cost and service requirements to identify an
individual price for each neighborhood. Neighborhood
residents satisfy the fee dictated in their RTD contract through
fundraising or by allocating neighborhood association dues
toward payment. As a requisite, neighborhood associations or
local governmental agencies represent neighborhoods in their
contractual agreement with RTD. Some governmental entities,
such as the City of Boulder, promote Eco Pass enrollment
through subsidies, organizing and outreach assistance ( RTD,
2005; Whitson, 2002).
Because residents receive annual RTD bus passes, they
acquire unrestricted use of regional and local standard and
express routes ( RTD, 2005).
Residential Eco-
Pass, San Jose,
CA
Valley
Transporation
Authority ( VTA)
The program enables residential property managers,
associations and developers to purchase annual transit passes
for all residential occupants for a reduced bulk rate ranging
from $ 20 to $ 80 per transit pass. Prices are contingent upon
location and population size ( Russo, 2001).
Derived from the Eco- Pass employer program implemented in
1996, the Residential Eco- Pass offers identical service to
residential communities ( Scholl, 2002).
Apartment Pass
Program,
State College,
Pennsylvania
The Centre Area
Transportation
Authority ( CATA)
CATA's program furnishes apartment complex owners with
free transit passes for all their residents at a substantially
reduced annual rate, approximately $ 100 per complex.
Apartment owners, particularly in denser, transit accessible
areas, tout this incentive as an amenity to entice potential
renters ( Shoup, 2005).
Through the Apartment Pass, tenants gain access to all centre
line bus routes that serve their residing apartment complex
( CATA, 2006).
University- Based Transit Pass Programs
U- PASS,
University of
Washington
The University of
Washington
administers the
program in tandem
with King County
transit agencies.
Revenue from U- PASS enrollment charges amount to half of
program expenditures. The remainder of funding is derived
from University of Washington parking fines, fees and related
funds ( Luten, 2004).
Enrollees gain unrestricted use of all KCM transit lines,
Sound Transit bus systems and Sound Transit Sounder
Commuter rail service. To complement transit, UW
incorporates ride matching services, vanpool subventions and
provides free parking to carpool and vanpool vehicles.
Infrequent parking permits are also discounted for U- PASS
participants ( Luten, 2004). Further, staff and faculty can
utilize the Guaranteed Ride Home program on an emergency
basis ( Quinn, 2002).
Page 12
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 2.1
Mobility Pass Program Characteristics
Program Operator Funding Source Transportation Services
Student ECO
Pass, University
of Colorado-
Boulder Campus
Regional Transit
District ( RTD)
Authorized by an majority affirmative student vote, a $ 15
charge affixed to semester tuition fees funds the student ECO
Pass program ( McKay, 2001).
The student ECO Pass service specifications are equivalent to
the employer and residential- based ECO Pass services.
Carsharing
Subsidies and
FlexPass,
Portland State
University
Portland State
University ( PSU),
TriMet Transit and
Flexcar
PSU subsidizes transit passes for students by 30% and for
employees by two- thirds. Regarding the carsharing program,
Flexcar relinquishes PSU employees' $ 35 enrollment fees. In
return, PSU purchases and disburses through lottery twenty
Flexcar memberships to student housing residents. Flexcar
usage for employee members is purchased collectively by PSU
for $ 2,000 a month ( Millard- Ball et al, 2005).
FlexPasses encompass all TriMet bus routes, MAX light rail
services and Portland Streetcar. To supplement, daily parking
passes are discounted for FlexPass enrollees. Additionally,
Flexcar participants have access to eight Flexcars throughout
or near campus for four hours per day maximum. Program
eligibility for PSU employees is contingent on three factors:
They must be full- time; have purchased a transit pass; have
not purchased a parking pass ( Millard- Ball et al, 2005).
University- Based
Subsidies,
Wisconsin
The Milwaukee
County Transit
System ( MCTS)
and Community
Car Inc.
Subsidized by MCTS, transit passes are paid for by a charge
incorporated into student tuition costs at four universities and
colleges in the Milwaukee area ( SEWRPC, 2005). Community
Car extended a $ 10,000 discount to the University of
Wisconsin at Madison to purchase 200 preliminary university
employee carsharing memberships ( Millard- Ball et al, 2005).
The program synthesizes unlimited rides on the MCTS transit
system and some amount of Community Car carsharing at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Integrated Mobility Services ( Smart Card) Offerings
SmarTrip,
Washington, D. C.
Washington
Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority
( WMATA)
WMATA invested in smart card technology as a multifaceted
strategy to improve transit efficiency, de- emphasize consumer
cost, engender convenience and hence, enhance the
marketability of multimodal transit ( Joshi, 2005). ( The product
is intended to generate revenue and replenish initial investment
expenses)
The smart card is applicable to all WMATA bus routes, rail
lines and parking structures. The smart cards can be
replenished and are equipped to store discounts and
incentives. Integrating additional transportation systems into
SmarTrip and coalescing the card with other card mediums,
are both objectives of WMATA ( Maxey and Benjamin, 2001).
WMATA is also pursuing card linkages with Flexcar, Zipcar
and hopes to synthesize SmarTrip with D. C. driver's licenses
( Millard- Ball et al, 2005).
Page 13
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 2.1
Mobility Pass Program Characteristics
Program Operator Funding Source Transportation Services
TransLink/
Commuter
Carshare,
Vancouver, B. C.,
Canada
TransLink and
Cooperative Auto
Network ( CAN), a
prominent
carsharing
company.
Commuter Carshare was initially funded by a $ 50,000
matching grant allotted by the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities ( Millard- Ball et al., 2005).
Initially, the pilot program granted participants carsharing
privileges restricted to travel to and from work. Due to the
rigidity of this format, the successive program enables
participants to access carsharing vehicles on non- business
hours as well ( Millard- Ball et al., 2005).
Zürimobil and
Zuger Pass Plus,
Zurich,
Switzerland
Verkehrsbetriebe
Zürich ( VBZ)
Zurich's transit
operating agency
and area
transportation
companies.
Collaborating agencies and companies offer discounts as a
marketing mechanism to stimulate consumer interest. The
popularity of Zürimobil and Zuger Passes have made
discounted prices economically viable ( Wagner, 2004).
Zürimobil integrates carsharing, car rental and a regional
transit pass. The successive pass, Zuger Pass Plus, further
expands modal options by augmenting the Zürimobil modes
with discounted taxi, bicycle and other non- transit incentives
( Wagner and Schmeck, 1998).
Bremer Karte
Plus AutoCard,
Bremen, Germany
BSAG, the City of
Bremen's public
transportation
agency. Also, the
city's carsharing
company, Cambio
StadtAuto Bremen
( Glotz- Richter,
2002).
Bremer Karte holders pay thirty euros per month for their
annual transit pass. For an additional thirty euros per year,
customers can purchase the integrated Bremer Karte Plus
AutoCard ( Glotz- Richter, 2002).
Bremer Karte Plus AutoCard synthesizes the annual Bremen
Karte transit pass with Cambio carsharing into an electronic
key card medium. The standard Bremen Karte offers
unlimited usage on all transit lines and extends free ridership
to cardholders' family members during non- business hours.
The Bremer Karte Plus AutoCard incorporates access to the
Cambio carsharing fleet and insurance while utilizing Cambio
cars ( Glotz- Richter, 2002).
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
Page 14
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 2.2
Mobility Pass Program Usage Outcomes
Program Usage/ Travel Outcomes
Employer Transit Pass Programs
FlexPass
Seattle, WA
Excluding the University of Washington ( U- Pass program), 150 affiliate
organizations provided 80,000 employees with FlexPass access in March of 2002.
( Hansen, 2002).
ECO Pass
Denver/ Boulder, CO
Since the program's inception, RTD transit usage has increased annually from
between 50% to 200% throughout regions of the Denver/ Boulder metropolitan area
( Whitson, 2002).
PassPort
Portland, OR
Total transit trip calculations escalated by 95% over the eight years since the program
commenced. Paralleling increased ridership, single driver vehicle trips declined by
32%. Furthermore, due to PassPort Lloyd District Flexcar membership increased by
27% ( Lloyd TMA, 2005).
Eco Pass
San Jose, CA
In 2003 117,617 employees participated in the Eco Pass program. This statistic
represents the peak of a consistent program expansion since its origin in 1996 with
18,819 enrollees ( Gheewala, 2003).
EcoPASS
Winnipeg, Manitoba,
CA
On average, participating organizations experienced 45% increases in employee
public transit enrollment. Collectively, these statistics account for a 500% overall
increase of Winnipeg monthly transit pass sales. The EcoPass program is attributed
with bolstering net revenues by 30% and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions by
approximately 150 tonnes per year according to Transport Canada ( 2004).
ECO Pass
San Diego, CA
Since the program commenced in 2003, enrollment has expanded to reach revenue of
$ 410,000 for the 2006 fiscal year. These funds were generated through the
enrollment of twenty- one organizations representing approximately 800 employee
participants. ( Jessica Krieg, MTS Marketing Coordinator, 1/ 20/ 06).
Residential Transit Pass Programs
Home- Based Transit,
Vancouver, WA
The intent was to engage ten households. However, in November 2005, the
collaborators had identified only five households that meet the legal program
requisites ( Millard- Ball, 2005).
Neighborhood Eco
Pass, Denver, CO
In 2005 RTD reported that 4,500 individuals from twenty- one area neighborhoods
utilized the program.
Residential Eco- Pass,
San Jose, CA
When initiated in 1999, the program engaged twenty- five patrons living in one
residential community. By 2003 the program had multiplied to seventeen residential
sites, extending the service to 3,433 individuals ( Gheewala, 2003).
Apartment Pass
Program, State
College, Pennsylvania
On November 11, 2006 Apartment Pass Program participation accounted for 49.7%
of total year- to- date ridership. This percentage encompasses enrollees from twelve
area apartment complexes ( Eric Bernier, CATA, 11/ 13/ 2006).
Home- Based Flexcar
Subsidies, Seattle, WA
By November 2003, eighty households had engaged in the One Less Car Challenge
( Rutherford and Vance, 2003).
Page 15
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 2.2
Mobility Pass Program Usage Outcomes
Program Usage/ Travel Outcomes
University- based Transit Programs
U- PASS, University of
Washington
UW recorded a 24% increase from 1991 to 2001 in U- PASS utilization, equating to
45,454 passes in 2001 ( Quinn, 2002). Correspondingly, the university body has
increased by 8,000 persons since 1983. However, despite population increase,
parking demand has declined and there are currently fewer parking spaces than
existed in 1983 ( Nuworsoo, 2005).
Student ECO Pass,
University of
Colorado- Boulder
Campus
Usage statistics resided at approximately 300,000 trips annually prior to the
program's inception. Conversely, 2 million trips are taken annually by students since
the program was implemented ( Whitson, 2002).
Carsharing Subsidies
and FlexPass,
Portland State
University
A 2003 survey of PSU students reveals that more than 30% of students utilize a form
of public transportation with 40% of those students indicating a subsidized transit
pass as their means of accessing transit ( Renkens, 2003).
University- Based
Subsidies, Wisconsin
The University of Wisconsin, Madison's ridership enumeration equaled 812,000 in
1996. Over 1996, the program's inaugural year, that number rose to 1,653,000
representing a 104% increase ( Brown, Hess & Shoup, 2001).
Integrated Mobility Services ( Smart Card Offerings)
SmarTrip,
Washington, D. C.
In June of 2004, WMATA SmarTrip card sales exceeded 500,000. However, after
establishing compatibility with the Metrobus system, smart card sales rose to 1.2
million in 2005 ( Joshi, 2005).
TransLink/
Commuter Carshare,
Vancouver, B. C.,
Canada
The first project lured only three participants who cited weekend inaccessibility as a
fundamental flaw of the program. Due to lack of interest and dissatisfaction, the
pilot program was abandoned prior to the intended concluding date. In 2005
Translink and Cooperative Auto Network developed a revised program to supplant
the first failed effort ( Millard- Ball et al., 2005).
Zürimobil and Zuger
Pass Plus, Zurich,
Switzerland
Carsharing users diminished their usage of fleet vehicles by 20% between 1996 and
1998 by utilizing the program's integration of alternative travel modes ( UITP, 2002).
Bremer Karte Plus
AutoCard, Bremen,
Germany
Bremer Karte Plus AutoCard has prompted an increase of 23% in monthly or annual
transit pass purchases amongst carsharing users ( Moses, 2002). Further, one study
indicates that in addition to broader transit usage, 8.5% of new participates within the
program's first year expelled of their personal vehicle and 26% elected the smartcard
in lieu of purchasing a personal car ( Jussiant, 2002).
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
Page 16
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
2.4 Summary of Literature Review Findings
Our review demonstrates that mobility pass programs are a viable measure for reducing
negative impacts of drive alone travel behavior. Critical to this strategy is integration of a broad
array of public and private travel modes and services. To design effective programs thus
requires agencies to partner with complementary private and public operators. By diversifying
travel choices through collaboration, transit agencies are able to attract riders who are
traditionally adverse to public transport. Another pragmatic measure that is widely utilized is the
engagement of non- transportation related businesses, organizations and groups. Incentivizing
these entities through reduced group rates, for example, has proven successful in luring
organizations and their constituencies to adopt mobility programs. Further, mobility programs
typically rely on diverse public and private funding sources to initiate and maintain
implementation. In some instances, broadening ridership rates through incentives has proved to
be economically advantageous.
As evidenced in this paper, the benefits derived from mobility programs generally are
substantial, whereas mobility pass programs specifically offer even greater benefits. To meet
policy objectives aimed at altering travel behavior, coalescing carsharing with transit enables
agencies to derive the evidenced impacts of car- sharing as well as the affects of integrated
mobility programs.
Page 17
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
3.0 Methodology
The Compass+ Pass Program was implemented in two project study areas in the San
Diego region: Centre City ( downtown San Diego) and Sorrento Valley. Centre City and
Sorrento Valley communities were selected to test the applicability and success of the Compass+
Pass Program in two different land use environments: a high- density, transit- oriented subcenter,
and a suburban employment center. Centre City is rapidly growing and developing into San
Diego’s first urban village. Downtown’s population and activity density, the pedestrian friendly
land- use design, and the breadth of transit services available make the area a primary candidate
for multi- modal transportation management solutions. Alternatively, Sorrento Valley is San
Diego’s largest suburban employment center and a regional congestion hotspot. It was
anticipated that car- sharing could help mitigate Sorrento Valley’s congestion by shifting SOV
travelers to the Coaster commuter rail system. Figure 3- 1 displays the Sorrento Valley and
Centre City study areas within the San Diego region.
3.1 Recruitment and Study Sample Characteristics
3.1.1 Compass+ Program Description
The Centre City Compass+ Program users were charged $ 92 for a monthly Compass+
Pass which entitled them to unlimited use of the Metropolitan Transit System ( MTS) bus and
light rail service, as well as 5 hours per month of Flexcar usage. The standard membership
initiation of $ 35 was also waived by Flexcar for Compass+ Program participants. Purchasing
these two services separately ( a monthly transit pass from MTS and 5 hours of Flexcar service)
would cost approximately $ 104. Thus, the program’s cost structure in the Centre City study area
offered very little incentive to study participants ( under $ 10), which dramatically reduced the
investigator’s ability to recruit commuters into the study.
The Sorrento Valley Compass + Pass Program users were charged $ 149 for a monthly
pass, which entitled them to a 3- zone Coaster Commuter Rail Pass from the North County
Transit District ( NCTD), and 2 hours per day of Flexcar use. The $ 35 membership initiation fee
was waived by Flexcar. Preferential parking was not provided at the Coaster Stations nor at the
work sites. Purchasing these two services separately would cost approximately $ 212, reflecting
a discount of about $ 63. Thus, the program’s cost structure in the Sorrento Valley study area
Page 18
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
was more attractive in terms of financial incentive, providing some explanation for the higher
recruitment rates in Sorrento Valley compared with the Centre City study area.
3.1.2 Study Recruitment
The San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG) was largely responsible for
study participant recruitment. SANDAG’s recruitment in Sorrento Valley utilized the RideLink
database to contact employers, introduce the Compass+ Pass Program, and then pursue
additional communication if the employers were interested. SANDAG marketing staff did on-site
presentations at central locations once they had accumulated several interested employers.
In the Centre City study area, SANDAG purchased a mailing list of 13,000 downtown residents
and used this to send promotional materials. SANDAG marketing staff also held meet’n greets
at several strategic downtown locations. Appendix A provides a list of all recruitment efforts, in
chronological order, as carried out by SANDAG.
Table 3.1 displays study participant recruitment as it occurred over the course of the
study. As shown, a total of 31 participants were successfully recruited. The study sample size
was smaller than the original study design outlined due to unanticipated problems with offering
the Compass+ Pass at a discounted rate. Flexcar also restricted vehicle placement in the Sorrento
Sorrento Valley Study Area
Centre City Study Area
Figure 3- 1: Project Study Areas within the City of San Diego Source: SANDAG, 2007
0 1.5 3 6 Miles
City of San Diego
I- 5
I- 15
I- 805
I- 8
Page 20
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 3.1
Recruitment Results
Month Number of Participants
Recruited Study Area
March 2005 7 Sorrento Valley
April 2005 10 Sorrento Valley
May 2005 2 Sorrento Valley
June 2005 0 Sorrento Valley
July 2005 1 Centre City
August 2005 1 Centre City
September 2005 2 Centre City
October 2005 0 Centre City
November 2005 0 Centre City
December 2005 0 Centre City
January 2006 0 Centre City
February 2006 4 Sorrento Valley ( 2)
Centre City
March 2006 4 Sorrento Valley ( 2)
Centre City ( 2)
TOTAL 31
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
Valley study area which prohibited a large number of interested employees in the Sorrento
Valley from participating.
3.1.3 Study Sample Characteristics
Of the 31 participants originally recruited, two dropped out before a Pre- Program survey
was completed. There were, therefore, a total of 29 study participants, who completed 100
surveys over the course of the study. Appendix B provides summary statistics for the socio-economic
questions asked in the Pre- Program survey, including questions about education level,
employment status, age, race/ ethnicity, household income, household size, and car ownership. A
majority of the study sample are White ( 80%), over 40 years old ( 60%), college- educated ( 80%),
earning more than $ 75,000 per year ( 55%), car- owners ( 93%), and childless ( 65%).
Page 21
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
3.2 Mail- Out / Mailback Surveys
To gauge changes in attitudes and travel behavior resulting from participation in the
Compass+ Pass Program, the research team conducted a mail- out/ mail- back longitudinal survey
beginning the month prior to program participation ( Pre- Program survey). Five monthly surveys
were administered to study participants while they were engaged in the Compass+ Pass Program
( In- Program Survey). The Pre- Program survey established the participants’ demographic
profiles, as well as their current travel behavior before participation in the Compass+ Pass
Program, including total daily trips by trip type and mode, and origin/ destination information.
The Pre- Program survey also questioned participants about their attitudes toward public transit.
The Pre- Program survey is provided in Appendix C. The information obtained from the Pre-
Program survey served as a baseline from which to measure changes in travel behavior as
participation in the program occurred. Full participation in the Compass+ Pass Program required
completion of the monthly survey and associated travel diary.
The five monthly In- Program surveys questioned participants about their daily trips, trip
type, mode of travel, and satisfaction with the Compass+ Pass Program. Participants were asked
to complete a travel diary for three weekdays during each survey month. Participants received
their travel diaries each month by mail and were asked to return the completed diary in a pre-addressed,
stamped envelope. The In- Program survey is provided in Appendix D.
3.3 Focus Groups
Two focus groups were conducted with participants in the Compass+ Pass Program. The
purpose of these focus groups was to elicit information regarding previous travel behavior
patterns, travel behavior while participating in the Program, transit usage, impressions of car
sharing, and overall impressions of Program effectiveness. The focus group discussion guides
are provided in Appendix E.
All Program participants were contacted and invited to a lunchtime focus group held in
their respective study areas. Lunch was served as an incentive to attendance and to avoid
conflict with work schedules. Eight of twenty- four Sorrento Valley participants attended the
focus group held in Sorrento Valley, while four of five Centre City participants attended the
focus group held in Downtown San Diego. The eight participants who comprised the Sorrento
Valley focus group were employed at the following businesses: Intuit ( 5), RF Micro Devices
( 1), and Luce forward ( 2). The four participants who comprised the Centre City focus group
Page 22
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
were employed at Booz Allen Hamilton ( 1), Shaw Environmental ( 1), C- 13 Salon ( 1), and one
participant was self- employed. Even though the Downtown focus group was small, it
represented the universe of study participants in the Downtown area, and was valuable for its
facilitation of group interaction and discussion.
Table 3.2 summarizes details about when and where focus groups were held, as well as
sample sizes of the two focus groups.
Table 3.2
Focus Group Details
Sorrento Valley Centre City
Date 4/ 28/ 05 2/ 24/ 06
Time 12: 00PM 12: 00PM
Place
Intuit
6220 Greenwich Drive
San Diego, CA
SANDAG
401 B Street Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Moderators Louis Rea, Ph. D.
Sherry Ryan, Ph. D.
Louis Rea, Ph. D.
Sherry Ryan, Ph. D.
Number of
Participants 8 4
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
3.4 Telephone Exit Surveys
An exit telephone survey asked participants for their opinions and attitudes about the
Compass+ Pass Program, their car- sharing experiences, and their willingness to pay for the pass.
The exit survey is provided in Appendix F.
Page 23
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
4.0 Attitudes about Transportation, Transit and the Compass+
Pass Program
Participants of the Compass+ Pass Program were asked about their attitudes and
perceptions regarding transit, transportation in general, and the Compass+ Pass Program in
particular. These attitudes were elicited from participants prior to their participation in the
Program through the Pre- Program Survey. Also, participant attitudes were elicited during the
Program through the In- Program Survey. The Pre- Program and In- Program surveys are attached
in the Appendices C and D respectively.
4.1 Pre- Program Attitudes about Transit
Eight- six ( 86%) percent of the participants had used transit prior to their participation in
the Compass+ Pass Program. However, such transit usage was generally not recent. Based upon
previous transit use, the Coaster and Light Rail Transit ( LRT) rank highest in terms of
satisfaction ( 74 percent are satisfied with their previous experience on these modes). The bus
ranks lowest in terms of satisfaction with only 42 percent being satisfied with their previous
experience.
Participants were asked why they have not used transit regularly in the San Diego region.
The open- ended responses to this questionnaire are shown in Appendix G. These responses can
be summarized with the following points:
• Not able to get from the Coaster Station to work
• Travel time is too long
• Car is safer, faster, and more convenient
• Scheduling inflexibility regarding transit
4.2 Pre- Program versus In- Program Attitudes about Transit
Participants in both the Pre- Program and In- Program surveys indicated the transportation
characteristics that most influence their modal choice. Respondents were asked to indicate the
most important characteristic with a “ 1” and the second most important characteristic with a “ 2”.
The information obtained from this question was used to develop a Composite Importance Index.
This Index is calculated as follows: the frequency of the characteristic rated as most important is
weighted by a factor of 2 and the frequency of the characteristic rated as the second most
important was weighted by a factor of 1. Then, the weighted frequencies are summed.
Page 24
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 4.1 compares the composite indices for Pre- Program as well as In- Program
participants over various transportation characteristics.
Table 4.1
Composite Importance Index
( Reasons for Choosing a Travel Mode)
Pre- Program In- Program
Convenience 341 Convenience 57
Travel Time 25 Travel Time 45
Reliability 8 Cost 29
Safety 7 Safety 24
Cost 3 Reliability 20
Parking 2 Parking 18
Cleanliness 1 Comfort 8
Environment 1 Environment 3
~ ~ Privacy 2
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
Notes:
1. The Composite Importance Index was calculated as follows: the frequency of the characteristics rated as
most important was weighted by a factor of 2 and the frequency of the characteristic rated as the second
most important was weighted by a factor of 1. Then, the weighted frequencies were summed.
For both Pre- Program and In- Program participants, convenience and travel time have the
highest composite indices. It is noteworthy that transportation reliability is third in importance at
the Pre- Program level but falls to fifth during the In- Program. Also, while cost is less important
among Pre- Program participants, it becomes third in rank among In- Program respondents.
Table 4.2 shows attitudes toward transit for both Pre- Program as well as In- Program
participants. The attitudes are expressed for various transit characteristics as mean scores. The
means are based on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is very satisfied and 5 is very unsatisfied.
Page 25
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 4.2
Comparison of Transit Attitudes
Mean Responses from Pre- Program and In- Program Surveys
Pre- Program In- Program Percent
Change
Wait Time 2.371 1.86 - 22%
Total Travel Time 2.81 2.24 - 20%
Comfort 2.27 1.95 - 14%
Cost 2.41 2.10 - 13%
Cleanliness 2.04 1.81 - 11%
Convenience 3.04 2.71 - 11%
On- Time Performance 1.74 1.57 - 10%
Safety 1.93 1.81 - 6%
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
Notes:
1. Means are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is very satisfied and 5 is very unsatisfied.
The most important finding is that satisfaction increases for every transit characteristic as
participants move from the Pre- Program to In- Program status. This increase in satisfaction level
is particularly high regarding “ wait time” ( 22 percent change in satisfaction) and “ total travel
time” ( 20 percent change in satisfaction).
4.3 Attitudes about the Compass+ Pass Program
4.3.1 Overall Satisfaction
Participants were highly satisfied with the Compass+ Pass Program. They rated the
Program with a mean score of 1.25 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very satisfied and 5 is very
unsatisfied. Further, 100 percent of the participants were either very satisfied or somewhat
satisfied with the Compass+ Pass Program and nearly all participants preferred the Coaster/ car-sharing
commute to their previous drive alone commute. The reasons for this preference include
less stress, ability to relax, avoiding traffic congestion, and saving energy and money. Appendix
H provides the text of all responses to the open- ended In- Program survey question asking for
participants’ overall impressions of the Compass+ Pass Program and suggestions for
improvement.
Page 26
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
4.3.2 Other Attitudes
Participants rated their commuting travel time as 1.9 with over 60 percent indicating that
their travel time is either much more satisfactory or somewhat more satisfactory than their
previous method of commuting.
Participants rated their satisfaction with cost of the Compass+ Pass Program as 1.64 with
over two- thirds indicating that they are either much more satisfied or somewhat more satisfied
than they are with the cost of their previous commuting mode.
Similarly, participants rated their level of satisfaction associated with commuting stress at
1.27 for the Compass+ Pass Program with over 95 percent indicating that they are either much
more satisfied or somewhat more satisfied than with the stress conditions associated with their
prior commute.
4.3.3 Attitudes about Compass+ Pass Program Characteristics
Participants were asked to indicate their assessment of various characteristics associated
with the Compass+ Pass Program. Table 4.3 reports mean scores for the various characteristics.
The means are based on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is very positive and 7 is very negative.
Table 4.3
Attitudes about the Compass+ Pass Program
Program Characteristic Mean
Response
Effect on Environment 1.45
Flexcar Location at Station 1.91
Personal Time Available During Commute 2.09
Flexcar Location at Work 2.14
Ability to Make Spontaneous Trips 3.71
Ability to Respond to Emergencies 4.79
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
Notes:
1. Means are based on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is very positive and 7 is very negative.
It is clear that participants rated the Program’s effect on the environment ( 1.45) and
Flexcar Location at the Station ( 1.91) quite highly. Personal time available during the commute
( 2.09) and Flexcar Location at Work ( 2.14) were rated moderately positive. However,
participants were much less satisfied with the ability to make spontaneous trips ( 3.71) and the
Page 27
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
ability to respond to emergencies ( 4.79). Since the Compass+ Program provide only limited
ability to use the Flexcar during the workday, participants most likely felt some level of
insecurity at not having unconstrained access to a vehicle in the event of an emergency situation
requiring unanticipated travel.
Page 28
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
5.0 Changes in Travel Behavior from Pre- Program to In-
Program
This section provides an analysis of changes in travel behavior from Pre- Program to In-
Program, as reported through the monthly surveys. Three key travel behavior variables are
examined in this section: drive alone travel, mode share, and trip purpose by mode share.
5.1 Change in Drive Alone Travel
Table 5.1 displays the mean trip lengths and number of trips for drive alone travel across
all survey months, as well as a weighted average for the In- Program values ( see Table 5.1, Note
1).
Table 5.1
Mean Trip Length ( Miles) and Number of Trips for all Drive Alone Travel by Study Participant
Pre- Program versus In- Program ( N= 29)
Pre- Program In- Program1 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5
ID Miles Trips Miles Trips Miles Trips Miles Trips Miles Trips Miles Trips Miles Trips
1 13.3 16 8.8 27 6.3 6 3.9 9 13.8 12
2 2.0 1 5.0 3 5 2 5 1
3
4
5 13.9 12 2.8 18 2.7 6 2.8 6 2.8 6
6
7
8
9 27.3 8 13.3 12 12.4 7 14.6 5
10 15.5 8 7.5 38 4.6 7 7 8 6.8 8 8.9 7 10.1 8
11 8 1
12 6.5 38 14.3 6 4.6 9 4.2 10 5.9 13
13 26 7 2.5 2 2.5 2
14 14.1 7 23.9 12 26.9 8 18 4
15 35.5 8 34.8 8 34.8 8
16 9.1 14
17
18 33 1
19 33 4 3.0 9 3 5 3 4
20 66.3 6 27.6 12 42.2 6 13 6
Page 29
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 5.1
Mean Trip Length ( Miles) and Number of Trips for all Drive Alone Travel by Study Participant
Pre- Program versus In- Program ( N= 29)
Pre- Program In- Program1 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5
ID Miles Trips Miles Trips Miles Trips Miles Trips Miles Trips Miles Trips Miles Trips
21
22
23 6.9 4
24
25
26 1.2 2 6.2 6 3.3 3 9 3
27 6.4 4 6.4 4
28
29 18 4 17 2 17 2
30 26.5 4 8.4 8 26 2 2.5 6
31 17.7 6 6.3 12 5.6 6 7 6
32 12.3 6 2.6 15 1.2 5 2 9 15 1
33 40 3 12.5 18 12.5 6 13 6 12 6
34
35 12 6
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
Note:
1. The In- Program mean trip length is a weighted average. It is calculated for each participant and is based upon the
mean trip length for each month of In- Program participation.
Table 5.2 displays the mean drive alone miles traveled per day by study participants for
all survey months, as well as a weighted average for the In- Program values ( see Table 5.2, Note
1).
Table 5.2
Mean Daily Drive Alone Miles of Travel by Study Participant
Pre- Program versus In- Program ( N= 29)
Pre- Program In- Program1 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5
ID Miles Days Miles Days Miles Days Miles Days Miles Days Miles Days Miles Days
1 71 3 26.4 9 12.7 3 11.7 3 55 3
2 .7 3 2.5 6 3.3 3 1.7 3
3
4
5
Page 30
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 5.2
Mean Daily Drive Alone Miles of Travel by Study Participant
Pre- Program versus In- Program ( N= 29)
Pre- Program In- Program1 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5
ID Miles Days Miles Days Miles Days Miles Days Miles Days Miles Days Miles Days
6
7
8
9 72.7 3 26.7 6 29 3 24.3 3
10 41.3 3 19 15 10.7 3 18.7 3 18 3 20.7 3 27 3
11 2.7 3
12 20.5 12 28.7 3 13.7 3 14 3 25.7 3
13 60.7 3 1.7 3 1.7 3
14 33 3 47.8 6 71.7 3 24 3
15 94.7 3 92.8 3 92.8 3
16 42.3 3
17
18
19 44 3 6.8 4 7.5 2 6 2
20 132.7 3 55.2 6 84.4 3 26 3
21
22
23 9.3 3
24
25
26 .8 3 3.2 6 3.3 3 3.01 3
27 12.8 2 12.8 2
28
29 24 3 34 1 34 1
30 35.3 3 16.8 4 52 1 5 3
31 35.3 3 25.1 3 334 1 21 2
32 24.6 3 4.9 8 2.9 2 6.1 3 5 3
33 40 3 25 9 25 3 26 3 24 3
34
35 24 3
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
Note:
1. The In- Program mean daily miles of drive alone travel is a weighted average. It is calculated for each participant and
is based upon the mean daily miles of drive alone travel for each month of In- Program participation.
Page 31
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 5.3 shows before- after summary statistics developed from the data presented in
Tables 5.1 and 5.2, including mean drive alone trip length by study participant and mean daily
miles traveled by study participant.
Table 5.3
Change in Drive Alone Trip Lengths and Miles Traveled
Pre- Program versus In- Program ( N= 29)
Pre- Program In- Program Percent
Change
Weighted Mean Trip Length
( Miles / Drive Alone Trip) 20.11 9.92 - 51%
Weighted Mean Daily Miles Traveled
( Drive Alone Miles / Day) 41.51 22.92 - 45%
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
Notes:
1. Weighted means based upon all participants.
2. Weighted means based upon all participants over five months of participation.
As shown in Table 5.3, mean drive alone trip length decreases by fifty- one percent as a
result of participation in the Program. This finding suggests that study participants are likely
using their personal vehicle for shorter non- work trips, rather than the longer drive alone trip to
work. The findings also importantly indicate that the Program is facilitating a shift from SOV to
non- SOV modes of travel. The findings related to mean daily miles of drive alone travel further
support this shift, showing a decrease of forty- five percent in mean drive along miles traveled by
participant, from 41.5 drive alone miles on average per day to just about 23 drive alone miles on
average per day. The Program has the potential to shift travel from the SOV mode to non- SOV
modes, thereby imparting benefits to a region in terms of reduced traffic congestion, parking
impacts, and air pollution.
5.2 Change in Mode Share
Table 5.4 displays percent mode share and total number of trips by mode for each of the
survey months.
Page 32
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Table 5.4
Mode Share Summary
Pre- Program versus In- Program ( N= 29)
Pre-
Program In- Program1 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5
ID % Trips % Trips % Trips % Trips % Trips % Trips % Trips
Drive Alone 68 176 27 302 28 102 26 87 27 63 24 27 40 23
Flexcar - - 26 295 26 95 27 91 28 65 29 32 21 12
Carpool 14 36 9 98 10 37 8 26 11 26 7 8 2 1
Bus 6 16 4 38 3 11 4 13 4 10 2 2 3 2
Train 6 15 24 276 23 88 26 87 25 58 27 30 22 13
Walk 5 14 8 84 9 32 8 27 4 10 7 8 12 7
Bicycle 1 2 2 15 1 5 1 3 1 3 4 4 - 0
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
Note:
1. The In- Program mode share percentages represent a weighted average. It is calculated for each mode and is
based upon the mode shares for each month of In- Program participation.
Table 5.5 displays the percent change in mode share by mode for the Pre- Program and
the weighted averages of the In- Program values.
Table 5.5
Change in Mode Share
Pre- Program versus In- Program ( N= 29)
Pre- Program In- Program Percent
Change
Drive Alone 68% 27% - 60%
Flexcar ~ 26% ~
Carpool 14% 9% - 38%
Bus 6% 4% - 33%
Train 6% 24% + 300%
Walk 5% 8% + 60%
Bicycle 1% 2% + 100%
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
Page 33
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
As shown in Table 5.5, drive alone, carpool and bus travel decrease as a result of
program participation, while train, walking, and bicycle travel increase as a result of program
participation. These findings support the effectiveness of the Compass+ Pass Program to shift
travel to more sustainable modes, as well as potentially increase program participant’s physical
activity through walking and bicycling.
5.3 Change in Trip Purpose by Mode Share
Table 5.6 summarizes the percent change in mode share by trip purpose from the Pre-
Program to In- Program survey, where the In- Program values represent a weighted mean of all
In- Program months. Appendix I provides the detailed month to month mode share information
by trip purpose.
Table 5.6
Percent Change in Mode Share by Trip Purpose
From Pre- Program to In- Program ( N= 29)
Work Personal Eating
Out
To
Transit Shopping Return
Home Recreation School Pick- up
Drive Alone - 81% - 4% - 43% + 183% + 66% - 36% + 22% 0% - 60%
Carpool - 53% + 91% no trips - 83% no trips + 31% no trips 100% + 45%
Bus + 100% + 183% + 8% 0% - 67% 0% - 100% no trips no trips
Train + 275% no trips no trips + 33% no trips + 100% no trips no trips no trips
Walk + 300% + 400% no trips - 100% no trips + 100% + 125% no trips no trips
Bicycle + 400% no trips no trips + 100% no trips + 500% no trips no trips no trips
Source: SDSU School of Public Affairs, 2007
The work and eating trip show the most dramatic decrease in drive alone travel.
Participation in the Program actually generates increases in the drive alone mode for some trip
purposes such as to transit, for shopping and recreation. In terms of transit ( both bus and train),
participation in the Program generates increases in this travel mode for all trip purposes, with the
exception of shopping by bus and recreation by bus. The work trip purpose showed the greatest
percentage increase in transit usage (+ 275%), followed by the personal business trip using bus
(+ 183%). In terms of non- motorized travel ( walking and bicycling), the Program produced
Page 34
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
increases across all trip purpose types, with the work and return home trip by bicycle showing
the greatest percentage increases (+ 400 and + 500%, respectively).
Page 35
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
6.0 Focus Group Results
6.1 Sorrento Valley Focus Group
6.1.1 Sorrento Valley Participants’ Previous Travel Behavior
Focus group participants were asked about their commuting patterns prior to starting in
the Program, and specifically what their likes and dislikes were about their previous commute.
• The Sorrento Valley focus group participants commute from North County communities,
with 3 participants commuting from the City of Oceanside, 4 participants commuting
from the City of Carlsbad, and 1 participant commuting from the City of San Clemente in
Orange County. All commuted by driving alone. One participant had tried carpooling,
but didn’t use this mode regularly.
• Before participating in the Program, focus group participants tended to commute between
1 hour and 1.5 hours each way, for a total of 2 to 3 hours daily commute. The group
generally disliked their drive alone commute and felt it caused a lot of stress in their
lives, including marital discontent, lack of energy, and lack of regular exercise.
• Several participants had adjusted their work schedule to avoid congestion on the I- 5. For
example, a few participants would not come into work until 10AM or 11AM, and then
would stay at work late. They viewed this as somewhat problematic, and not conducive
to a productive workday. Some made other adjustments to avoid congestion, like
shopping and dinner on Friday evenings near work because the 5PM to 6PM commute
period would be exceptionally bad.
• One participant said he enjoyed driving and was not bothered by his drive alone
commute. He said he enjoyed his satellite radio and was very comfortable in his upscale
car during the commute.
6.1.2 Sorrento Valley Participants’ Travel Behavior under the Program
Focus group participants were asked about their commuting patterns since joining the
Program, including their likes and dislikes, and changes in length of commute. They were also
asked specific questions about their impressions of transit and car sharing.
Page 36
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
General Likes
• The majority of focus group participants felt their commute experience had improved
after participation in the Program. Improvements included a greater sense of relaxation,
time for reading and working on the train, less wear- and- tear on their automobiles,
monetary savings in terms of gas and maintenance costs, a more regulated work schedule,
increased time for exercise, leaving the house later in the morning, less tired at the end of
and the day because of reduced commute stress, and reduced parking stress at the
worksite.
• One participant said he had been “ waiting 30 years to get out of his car,” and that the
Compass+ Pass Program with the combined train and Flexcar finally made that possible
for him.
• Another participant said he exercised more since joining the Program since he no longer
has his car with him at work during the day. Instead of going out to lunch during the day
in his own car, he takes a walk.
General Dislikes
• Focus group participants had fewer “ dislikes” than “ likes” about their new commute.
Some of the dislikes included a longer commute, missing the comfort and privacy of their
own car, wait times at the Coaster stations, lack of parking at the Coaster stations, need to
schedule with other people for the commute, periods of sitting on train not moving
because of lack of double tracking, poor capacity scheduling for the Coaster ( 5 train cars
at the 5: 40PM departure time northbound from Sorrento Valley which are not crowded,
only 4 cars at the earlier northbound departure time which are very crowded),
inconvenient parking at the Coaster stations.
Impressions of Transit
• Most participants liked using the Coaster. They liked having time to do other things
during their commutes, rather than driving a vehicle.
• Most participants would drive to Coaster station and park, but a few were dropped off at
the Coaster station by a spouse. Parking was continually cited as a problem at the
Oceanside coaster station. The Poinsettia Coaster station does not have parking problems
like Oceanside. The Oceanside Coaster station felt less safe than the Carlsbad station.
Page 37
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
One participant saw vandalism at the Oceanside station which made her feel
uncomfortable. Another participant suggested covered wait areas at the Coaster stations.
• Most thought the Coaster was very reliable, but some said that Amtrak caused frustrating
wait times on the track while waiting for trains to pass ( since there is no double tracking).
• Most said that seating on the Coaster was adequate and only rarely had to stand. .
• One participant said NCTD should look into “ quiet trains” because of noise on the train,
and that the trains need more storage space for briefcases and other items, and that
wireless internet connection would be a benefit for train riders, as well as real- time
information at the Coaster stations about the train schedule.
• One participant wanted coffee for commuters at the stations.
• The participants generally felt the pricing was fair for the combined Coaster ticket and
car sharing usage. One participant said that distanced- based pricing would be fairer.
Impressions of Flexcar
• Most participants felt the Flexcar vehicles were reliable. Focus group participants had
only experienced one incident where the car would not start. They said the Flexcar
Company was very responsive to this malfunction and had another car to them very
quickly.
• Preferential parking for Flexcar vehicles at the station locations and at the worksite would
be a definite benefit.
• One participant said the Flexcar vehicle had very little power and would like to see more
upscale Flexcar vehicles.
• About half of the participants felt they needed more Flexcar time on the Compass+ pass.
They were hesitant to use the Flexcar during the day for errands because there is so little
weekly time ( 2 hours).
• Another participant suggested having incentives like extra Flexcar hours if you find
someone to join the Program. Being able to use tax- deferred dollars ( like with health
insurance, etc.) would be a good incentive.
• Flexcar needs a website where participants can direct people who are interested in the
Program. ( In actuality, Flexcar does indeed have a website.)
Page 38
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
6.1.3 Summary of Key Findings for Sorrento Valley Participants
The key findings of the Sorrento Valley focus group are as follows:
• Participants generally felt that the Program lowered the stress of commuting to and from
work.
• There is general agreement that commute times have decreased.
• There is general dissatisfaction with parking availability at the Oceanside Coaster Station.
• Participants dislike having to wait on the Amtrak due to single tracking area. Participants
also complained that Amtrak trains were always late and caused delays for the Coaster
trains.
• There is general agreement that having only four cars on the Coaster train makes for
crowded conditions, however, all felt that five cars would be sufficient.
• There is general satisfaction with the Compass+ cards, although several participants
noted issues with card malfunction.
• Regarding amenities on- board the Coaster train and at the station, there is strong interest
among the participants for power outlets, signage with real- time train schedule
information, preferential parking for Flexcar, and more covered waiting areas.
• There is general agreement that the pricing is fair.
• Some participants would like a prorated type ticket for sporadic use.
Several of these findings are similar to the focus group findings conducted for the CarLink I
and II studies, such as commute stress reduction, emphasis on the need for preferential parking,
and concern about the loss of flexibility in responding to emergencies during the work day
( Shaheen et al, 2000; Shaheen et al, 2004).
6.2 Centre City Focus Group
6.2.1 Centre City Participants’ Previous Travel Behavior
Focus group participants were asked about their commuting patterns prior to starting in
the Program, and specifically what their likes and dislikes were about their previous commute.
• Centre City focus group participants tended to utilize non- auto travel modes for the
commute to work. Of the four focus group participants, one biked to work before
Page 39
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Program Participation, another used transit, another walked to work, and the fourth
participant used a car to drive to work.
• Participants cited several dislikes associated with driving, including gas consumption, a
dislike of driving, lack of parking downtown, lost time while driving, and high cost of car
ownership.
6.2.2 Centre City Participants’ Travel Behavior under the Compass+ Pass Program
Focus group participants were asked about their commuting patterns since joining the
Program, including their likes and dislikes, and changes in length of commute. They were also
asked specific questions about their impressions of transit and cars haring.
• Two of four focus group participants were able to get rid of a second car as a result of
their participation in the Program. One participant was considering cancelling his
insurance policy since he used his car so little.
• Some participants cited longer travel times to work since joining the Program.
• Some participants felt that using Flexcar is cheaper than renting a car, especially for
longer distances.
• One criticism of the Program is that the user is paying for the service while the vehicle is
sitting at the destination. This discouraged Flexcar usage for some participants. Transit
makes more sense under circumstances where the vehicle will be parked at the
destination for a relatively long period of time. There should be locations at certain
destinations where the Flexcar vehicles can be deposited so the user isn’t charged.
• Participants cited efforts to re- organize their travel patterns to group non- work trips at the
ends of days or on one particular day of the week. Some participants relied upon the
Flexcar vehicle primarily for non- work trips.
• Some participants said the pricing should be lowered to attract more Flexcar and
Compass+ Pass Program users.
• One participant suggested the concept of “ roll- over” hours like that offered by cell phone
companies, so Compass+ users don’t lose their hours.
• Some participants switched from non- motorized modes of travel to bus travel.
• Participants felt there should be more vehicle locations downtown and around San Diego.
Page 40
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
6.2.3 Centre City Participants’ Overall Impressions of the Compass+ Pass Program
• Participant experience with Flexcar customer service was mixed. One participant cited
excellent customer service. When she couldn’t get into a vehicle, a Flexcar
representative was there to assist her within 10 minutes. Another participant had a bad
customer service experience with a Flexcar representative over the phone. The
participant said there was a very rude Flexcar agent on the phone with him when he was
trying to get information.
• Flexcar vehicles seem old. They should get hybrids and SUVs. SUVs would be useful
for trips to Home Depot and other large retailers.
• Two of four participants felt the Program could be better priced. Two felt the Program
resulted in travel cost savings overall.
6.2.4 Summary of Key Findings ( Centre City):
The key findings of the Centre City focus group are as follows:
• Participants generally felt that the Program was priced well, and that they wouldn’t be
willing to pay more for the Program.
• There is general agreement that commute times increased with Program participation.
• The Centre City participants already had the propensity to use non- single- occupant
modes of travel. Most were familiar with transit- oriented urban areas and enjoyed using
transit and not being auto- dependent.
Page 41
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
7.0 Compass+ Pass Program Pricing
This summarizes the results of the exit survey where participants were asked a series of
questions related to the pricing of the Compass+ Pass Program. A total of ten participants
responded to the telephone exit survey.
7.1 Exit Survey Analysis Results
Respondents were asked how much they were paying for the Compass+ Pass Program
and how much more they would be willing to pay for the Program. They were paying a median
monthly fee of $ 116 ( range of $ 40 to $ 150) for the services they were receiving. However, they
would be willing to pay a median of $ 35 more for the same Program ( range of 0 to $ 100).
Respondents mentioned that they particularly enjoyed the use of the Flexcar vehicle as well as
the overall convenience afforded by the Compass+ Pass Program. They were able to avoid I- 5
traffic and they were able to enjoy reading time aboard the train.
During the Compass+ Pass Program, participants had ten hours per month of Flexcar use
during the workday. Respondents were asked how much more they would be willing to pay for
additional use of the Flexcar. The following results were obtained:
• Additional 10 hours per month of Flexcar use: 5 respondents would pay nothing
more; the remaining respondents would pay a range of $ 15 to $ 60 more for the
additional 10 hours.
• Unlimited Flexcar Use during Workday: 5 respondents would pay nothing more;
one person would pay up to $ 400 more, and the remaining 4 respondents would pay a
range of $ 10 to $ 35 more for unlimited Flexcar use during the workday.
• Unlimited Flexcar Use on Weekends: 8 respondents would pay nothing more; one
respondent would pay $ 10 more and another would pay $ 50 more for unlimited
weekend use.
• Designated Flexcar Parking Spot near Entrance to Workplace: 7 respondents
would pay nothing more; the other 3 respondents would pay a range of $ 8 to $ 30 for a
designated parking spot.
Page 42
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Sorrento Valley participants were asked how much more per month they would be
willing to pay for Program enhancements. The following results were obtained:
• Access to Flexcar in neighborhood ( for Commute to Coaster in Morning): 7
respondents would pay nothing more for this service; one respondent would pay $ 20;
another would pay $ 25.
• Reserved Parking for One’s Own Vehicle ( when arriving at Train Station in
Morning): 5 respondents would pay nothing for this service; the other 4 respondents
would pay in the range of $ 15 to $ 25 for this service.
• Designated Flexcar Parking near Coaster Platform: 5 respondents would pay
nothing for this service; the other 4 respondents would pay in the range of $ 5 to $ 25
for this service.
Respondents mentioned that they also would be willing to pay for a way to gain access to
AMTRAK and travel north of Oceanside; others would pay for more flexible hours in the use of
Flexcar and a coffee cart at the Flexcar Station.
It was determined that the undiscounted monthly fee to provide the Compass+ Pass
Program services to participants would rise to $ 250. No respondent would be willing to pay
$ 250 for the same program. In fact, no respondent would pay as low as $ 230 to receive the same
program benefits. To continue their participation in the same level of program, participants
would be willing to pay a median monthly fee of $ 155 – a range of $ 0 to $ 220.
7.2 Compass+ Pass Program Pricing Recommendations
In general, participants were satisfied with the discounted rates associated with the
Compass+ Pass Program and they were generally unwilling to pay a higher monthly fee for the
same service provision. About half of the respondents are not willing to pay additional monthly
fees for service enhancements beyond the level provided in the Compass+ Pass Program. The
other half of the respondents are willing to pay minimal monthly fees for service enhancements
that largely include using the Flexcar more extensively during the workday.
Page 43
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
8.0 Summary of Key Findings
This research uncovered several key findings as follows:
􀂃 Program participants had an overwhelmingly positive response to the Compass+
Pass Program. Program participants were exceedingly thankful for having an
alternative to the drive alone commute to work. This finding points to the fact that
there is some level of latent demand for alternatives to the drive alone commute,
especially in corridors with heavy peak hour congestion and where commutes take up
to an hour or more, as was the case for most Sorrento Valley participants before
participation on the Program.
􀂃 Program participation resulted in improved attitudes toward transit usage. One
interesting, secondary finding from this study is that Program participants expressed
improved attitudes toward almost all characteristics of transit after participating in the
Program. In other words, as non- transit users, before they started program
participation, they had relatively negative impressions of transit. After participating
in the Program, which caused them to start using the transit system, their impressions
of transit improved. This finding again points to the fact that people want alternatives
to driving. It also suggests that if they have not used transit before, they may have
unduly negative impressions of transit. It is also noteworthy that the Compass+ Pass
Program was pivotal in making transit a viable alternative for study participants,
whose work locations were typically too far from the nearest train station to
conveniently use the system without access to a Flexcar vehicle.
􀂃 Participation in the Program significantly reduces drive alone travel. This
finding is central to the argument that mobility pass programs can be effective at
shifting travel from SOV to transit and non- motorized trip- making. Drive alone
travel decreases about 50%, from roughly 42 miles/ day by participant to just 23
miles/ day per participant on average. Another important travel behavior finding is
that walking and bicycling mode shares increase with participation in the Program,
from a combined share of 6% before program participation to 10% during program
participation. Mobility pass programs, therefore, can also lend to healthier lifestyles
where more physical activity is achieved through the replacement of driving trips
with walking and biking trips.
Page 44
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
􀂃 Price- breaks may be key to initially attracting mobility pass users. Participants
were satisfied with the discounted rates associated with the Compass+ Pass Program,
and they were generally unwilling to pay a higher monthly fee for the same service
provision. About half of the respondents are not willing to pay additional monthly
fees for service enhancements beyond the level provided in the Compass+ Pass
Program. The other half of the respondents are willing to pay minimal monthly fees
for service enhancements that largely include using the Flexcar more extensively
during the workday.
Page 45
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Bibliography
Baldassare, M., Sherry R. & Katz, C. ( 1998). Suburban attitudes toward policies aimed at
reducing solo driving. Transportation, 25, 99- 117.
Bernier, E. ( 2006). CATA apartment pass programs. Personal communication, November 13,
2006.
Britton, E. et al. ( 2000). Carsharing 2000: Sustainable transport's missing link. The Journal of
World Transport Policy & Practice, 5( 3).
Brooke, D. ( 2003). Carsharing: Start up issues and new operational models. Paper presented at
the Transportation Research Board 2003 Annual Meeting, Washington, D. C.
Brown, J., Hess, D. B., & Shoup. D. ( 2001). Unlimited access. Transportation, 28( 3).
Cervero R. & Tsai, Y. ( 2003). San Francisco City carshare: Second- year travel demand and car
ownership impacts. Presented at the Transportation Research Board 2004 Annual
Meeting. Washington, D. C.
Cooper, G. Howes, D. & Mye, P. ( 2000). The missing link: An evaluation of CarSharing
Portland Inc. Prepared for Public Policy Research, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality. Portland, Oregon.
Daney, M. ( 2002). Liberty station redevelopment project. Letter to Mr. Walter Heiberg, Vice
President McMillin Land Development. MTDB: December 18, 2002.
Dankmeyer, I. & Kellogg, E. ( 2000). CarSharing Portland, Inc. Business and Industry: Founders
of a New Northwest, 15- 18.
Evans, H. & Bregman, S., et al. ( 1998). Funding Strategies for Public Transportation. Transit
Cooperative Research Program Report 31( 1): Transportation Research Board National
Research Council. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Evans, H., et al. ( 1998). Funding Strategies for Public Transportation Casebook. Transit
Cooperative Research Program Report 31( 2). Washington, D. C.: Price Waterhouse LLP.
Gheewala, S. ( 2003, August 22). Despite VTA woes, Eco Pass program continues to grow.
Mountain View Voice.
Glotz- Richter, M. ( 2002). Bremer Karte plus AutoCard: Experiences from Bremen. Public
Transport International, 51( 6), 16- 17.
Green, K. P. ( 1995). Looking beyond ECO: Alternatives to employer- based trip reduction.
The Reason Foundation, Policy Study No. 185.
Page 46
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Hansen, M. ( 2002). Metro commute partnerships: King County Metro Transit. Paper
presented at Better Environmentally Sound Transportation ( BEST) Conference,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Harms, S. & Truffer, B. ( 1998). The emergence of a nation- wide carsharing co- operative
in Switzerland: A case study for the project strategic niche management as a tool for
transition to a sustainable transportation system. Report prepared for the European
Commission, Bruxelles DG- XII, Switzerland.
James, K. ( 2005). Car sharing picks up speed. From Deutsche Welle- World. Website:
http:// www. dw- world. de/ dw/ article/ 0,1564,1688970,00. html.
Joshi, A. ( 2005, December). Innovations at work: Fare collection – WMATA’s SmarTrip,
cashless parking. Mass Transit.
Jussiant, L. ( 2002). Combined mobility and carsharing. Public Transport International, 51( 6), 12-
15.
Katzev, R. et al. ( 2000). The effects of carsharing on travel behaviour: Analysis of carsharing
Portland’s first year. World Transport Policy & Practice 6( 3), 20- 26.
King County Metro ( KCM) ( 2006). King County Metro Online. Website:
http:// transit. metrokc. gov/.
Krieg, J. ( 2006). ECO pass. Personal communication, January 20, 2006.
Larwin, T. ( 2001). ECO PASS program pricing structure and test marketing program: First
reading. San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, Board of Directors
Meeting, September 27, 2001, Agenda Item No. 30.
Luten, K. ( 2004). Mitigating traffic congestion - the role of demand- side strategies. Research
sponsored by the Association for Commuter Transportation ( ACT), in partnership with
the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Office of
Operations.
Lloyd District Transportation Management Association ( Lloyd TMA) ( 2005). Annual report
2005: See where we take you. Report prepared for 2005 Lloyd District TMA Annual
Meeting.
McKay, P. ( 2001, May 31). The truth about cars and trucks: Reinventing our wheels. The Ottawa
Citizen.
Metropolitan Transit System ( MTS) ( 2006). Employer benefits. From MTS. Web site:
http:// www. sdcommute. com/ Rider_ Information/ Programs/ Employer_ Services/
Index. asp.
Millard- Ball, A., et al. ( 2005, November). Carsharing: Where and how it succeeds. Transit
Cooperative Research Program ( TCRP) Report 108. Washington, D. C.
Page 47
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Moses ( 2002). Car- sharing + public transport in partnership. Moses Project Information Bulletin,
2, 19.12.02. Report sponsored by the European Commission under the Fifth Framework
Programme.
Moving the Economy ( MTE) ( 2005). From Integrated Mobility Systems. Web site:
http:// www. movingtheeconomy. ca/ content/ mte_ imsAbout. html
Muheim, P. ( 1998). CarSharing: The key to combined mobility. Swiss Federal Office of Energy.
Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication. Bern,
Switzerland.
Nuworsoo, C. ( 2005). Discounting transit passes. Access: The Magazine of Transportation
Research at the University of California, 26.
Quinn, L. ( 2002, March 7). Universal pass programs. University of Washington, Transportation
Office. Paper presented at Better Environmentally Sound Transportation ( B. E. S. T.)
Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Regional Transit District ( RTD) ( 2005). RTD Neighborhood Eco Pass Resource Guide ( Boulder
edition).
Renkens, J. ( 2003). PSU student transportation survey, spring 2003: Summary report.
Portland State University. Portland, Oregon.
Russo, R. ( 2001). Parking & housing: Best practices for increasing housing affordability and
achieving smart growth. Report sponsored by the Non- Profit Housing Association of
Northern California, Inc. Berkeley, California.
Rutherford, G. S. & Vance, R. ( 2003). Flexcar Seattle carsharing program. TransNow:
Transportation Northwest. From TRIS Online. Web site:
http:// ntlsearch. bts. gov/ tris/ record/ tris/ 00980092. html.
Scholl, L. ( 2002). Transportation affordability for low- income populations: A review of the
research literature, ongoing research projects, and San Francisco bay area
transportation assistance programs. Public Policy Institute of California Working Paper.
Schreffler, E. N. ( 1996, September 15- 18). How costly and cost effective are ECO programs?
Compendium of Technical Papers for the 66th Institute of Transportation Engineers
( ITE) Annual Meeting, 384- 388.
Shaheen, S. et al ( 2000). CarLink – A smart carsharing system field test report. University of
California, Berkeley; Institute of Transportation Studies. UCB- ITS- PRP- 2000- 10.
Shaheen, S. ( 2001). Commuter- based carsharing: Market niche potential. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1760, 178- 183.
Page 48
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Shaheen, S. et al ( 2004). Carlink II: a commuter carsharing pilot program final report.
University of California, Berkeley. Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways. UCB-ITS-
PRP- 2004- 23.
Shaheen, S., Cohen, A. & Roberts, J. D. ( 2005). Carsharing in North America: Market
growth, current developments, and future potential. Presented at the Transportation
Research Board 2005 Annual Meeting, Washington, D. C.
Shaheen, S. & Cohen, A. Worldwide carsharing growth: an international comparison.
Downloaded from innovativemobility. org on 10/ 19/ 07.
Shoup, D. C. ( 2004, 2005). Eco passes: An evaluation of employer- based transit programs.
University of California Transportation Center ( UCTC) Paper No. 727.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission ( SEWRPC) ( 2005). Regional
transportation plan development and evaluation. Preliminary Draft 2035 Regional
Transportation System Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin. Report No. 49, Ch. VIII.
Transport Canada ( 2004). EcoPass: Employer- sponsored transit passes. Urban Transportation
Showcase Program, Case Study No. 17.
Traynor, R.( 2003). Regional car sharing demonstration project – mobility pass pilot program.
San Diego Association of Governments, Transportation Committee Meeting, August 15,
2003, Agenda Item No. 7.
Union Internationale des Transports / International Association of Public Transport ( UITP)
( 2005). UITP carsharing Platform Brochure [ English edition].
UITP ( 2002, December 4- 5). Bremen paper. Presented at the UITP Workshop: Public Transport
and Carsharing: Together for the Better.
Vance, R. et al. ( 2004). Flexcar Seattle member attitude and usage survey. Presented at the
Transportation Research Board 2004 Annual Meeting. Washington, D. C.
Wagner, C. ( 2004). CarSharing: Success factors and challenges. carsharing as part of a new
mobility industry cluster. Paper presented at the 2004 World Carsharing and Sustainable
Mobility Conference, Rome, Italy.
Wagner, C. & Shaheen, S. ( 1998). Car sharing and mobility management: Facing new challenges
with technology and innovative business planning. World Transport Policy & Practice,
4( 2), 39- 43.
Whitson, R. ( 2002). Group pass programs: Go Boulder fact sheet. Paper presented at Better
Environmentally Sound Transportation ( B. E. S. T.) Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada.
Appendix A
SANDAG Recruitment Efforts
Effectiveness of the Mobility Pass Program
in San Diego
Marketing Time line
Speaking @ Business Associations
• Presentation Mobility Switzerland w/ Conrad Wagner
May 26, 2004 1: 00 p. m.- 3: 00 p. m.
Conrad Wagner is the founder of Mobility Switzerland and gave a presentation
describing the success and challenges that were faced while introducing the new
mobility mode. In attendance were representatives from Privacy Rites Clearing
House, Downtown San Diego Partnership, City of San Diego, San Diego
Chamber of Commerce, Austin Veum Robbins Partners, Kimley Horn, UCSD,
and San Diego Downtown Residents Group. There was time after for attendees to
ask questions.
Recruitment Luncheons
Employer SV
• Employers SV ( ICW/ AA)
October 18, 2004 11: 30 a. m.
HR people and business representatives for businesses located in Sorrento Valley
were invited to attend an introductory luncheon of the Compass+ program. 12
businesses sent representatives. All who agreed to distribute a survey to there
employees in order to find out if there is interest in the program from the
employees at their work site.
• SANDAG Employer Seminar
March 24, 2005
HR people and business representatives for businesses located in Sorrento Valley
were invited to attend this day long seminar. One of the break- out sessions was a
Compass+ information session. 6 people attended the session where a power point
presentation was given explaining the project. 2 of the businesses were interested
and requested that we follow up with them. Neither business ended up
participating in the project.
• Arden Realty
April 20, 2005
Arden Realty has numerous buildings in the Sorrento Valley area. The HR person
or representative from each of the businesses in these buildings was in attendance
at this meeting. A brief condensed presentation was delivered to the group and
information was given to each businesses representative to take back to their
employees
Individual SV Employers
• Biosite
November 16, 2005
Three company representatives were present and discussed the possibility of
Biosite utilizing Compass+ as a commuting option for their employees. Biosite
was planning for a move and trying to coordinate a program like Compass+ so
their employees could commute to their new worksite with ease. What was
determined in the meeting was that Biosite would not be moving within the time
frame of the study making their site unqualified for the program.
• Kleinfelder:
January 6, 2005 12: 00 P. M.
Four people attended the meeting. At the meeting a power point presentation was
given, questions were answered, and each person received a packet. I left 4 extras
with their Human Resources person to distribute to any other employees who may
be interested in the program but could not attend the meeting, etc. 3 People who
attended joined the program. 2 completed the entire six months. The participant
who dropped out dropped out because there was not room in the car for his wife
to become a program participant and ride in the same vehicle as her husband.
• Luce Forward:
January 4, 2005 12: 00 P. M.
Six people attended the meeting. At the meeting a power point presentation was
given, questions were answered, and each person received a packet. I left 6 extras
with their Human Resources person to distribute to any other employees who may
be interested in the program but could not attend the meeting, etc. 2 people who
attended joined the program and completed the six months.
• Neurocrine:
January 19, 2005 11: 00 A. M.
Four people attended the meeting. At the meeting a power point presentation was
given, questions were answered, and each person received a packet. I left 2 extra
packets with their Human Resources person to distribute to any other employees
who may be interested in the program but could not attend the meeting, etc. No
one from Neurocrine joined the program.
• Instromedix:
January 21, 2005 12: 00 p. m.
Ten people attended the meeting. Instromedix provided lunch for those employees
who attended. At the meeting a power point presentation was given, questions
were answered, and each person received a packet. I left 5 extra packets with their
Human Resources person to distribute to any other employees who may be
interested in the program but could not attend the meeting, etc. No one from
Neurocrine joined the program. Two people were very interested but one had
already purchased a monthly COASTER pass so he did not qualify and we could
not start a car with just one rider.
• ICW/ American Assets
January 11, 2005 12: 00 p. m.
Three people attended the meeting. At the meeting a power point presentation was
given, questions were answered, and each person received a packet. I sent
personalized emails to those employees who had filled out the survey. I left 10
extra packets with their Human Resources person to distribute to any other
employees who may be interested in the program but could not attend the
meeting, etc. No one from ICW or American Assets joined the program.
• Intuit
March 18, 2005 12: 00 p. m.
8 people attended the meeting. At the meeting a power point presentation was
given, questions were answered, and each person received a packet. I left 10 extra
packets with two different employees who had people in mind that might be
interested. Seven people who attended the meeting participated in the program
and completed all six months. Two other Intuit employees learned about the
program from their co- workers joined and completed the six months as well.
• Scripps Clinic
May 24, 2005
Met with their HR person who had attended the SANDAG employee seminar and
had already heard the Compass+ presentation. This meetings purpose was to get
Scripps to sponsor a Flexcar. She agreed and said she would allow us to
administer a survey to all of her employees and once the results were compiled we
would return to give a presentation to interested employees.
• Scripps Clinic
March – April
Met with Ricardo Arellano the administrative assistant at the Scripps Clinic on Valley
Center Drive. Presented the Compass+ Project to him and provided him with
materials to distribute. There was a second meeting to further discuss the project and
guide him along the steps he needed to take to proceed. Due to the high amount of
employees coming into the building and lack of interest because of cost, Scripps
decided it would be more beneficial to start up a shuttle service.
PUBLIC EVENTS
• Princess Pub and Grille
April 26
Flexcar conducted a recruitment event and distributed Compass+ materials to
interested Flexcar members. A different Compass+ package was offered to Flexcar
members. Product would be $ 60 instead of $ 92 with 5 as opposed to 10 free hours of
Flexcar use.
• The Wine Cask
April 20
Flexcar conducted a recruitment event and distributed Compass+ materials to
interested Flexcar members. A different Compass+ package was offered to Flexcar
members. Product would be $ 60 instead of $ 92 with 5 as opposed to 10 free hours of
Flexcar use.
• Karl Strauss Luncheon
March 20
13 people representing TKG, The Omega Group, Cardinal Health Torrey View,
Cardinal Health ( Wateridge), Southwest Fisheries, and Pfizer Group attended the
luncheon. Presentation was given and Compass+ packets were provided for attendees
to distribute to employees at their work location. 3 people signed up but were not
able to participate due to the lack of a 4th.
• Shaw Environmental Meeting
January 27
Meeting with Mich Williams an employee and Debra Morris the Facilities Manager at
Shaw. Debra agreed to post information on bulletins and offer Compass+ as an
alternative commute mode to any employees who may be compatible with the
program. Mich signed up for the downtown Compass+ Project.
• NOAA’s Fisheries
January- February
Gave brief presentation and distributed materials to 5 NOAA’s Fisheries employees.
They signed up within a week of the meeting. Met with an additional 3 employees
who signed up and started the second station car at NOAA’s.
Public Relations:
P. R. Event/ Attention Grabber
• Luce Forward ( Redbull promo)
January 28, 2005 12: 00- 2: 00 p. m.
In the lobby of the Luce Forward building the SANDAG tradeshow booth was set
up next to a Redbull Booth. An email was sent out inviting all people in the
building to stop by the lobby to receive a free Redbull and Compass+
information. A Compass+ flyer was handed to each individual who stopped by the
booth and a packet was given to them if they requested it. Redbull donated the
drinks.
• Gen Probe ( Redbull promo)
February 7, 2005 12: 00- 2: 00 p. m.
In the courtyard/ lunch area of the Gen Probe campus the SANDAG tradeshow
booth was set up next to a Redbull Booth. Two emails were sent out inviting all
employees to stop by the booth to receive a free Redbull and Compass+
information. A Compass+ flyer was handed to each individual who stopped by the
booth and a packet was given to them if they requested it. Redbull donated the
drinks. Because of the high level of interest shown by a number of employees
Gen Probes Human Resources person agreed to set up a Compass+ presentation.
• Cortez Hill Apartments
February 2, 4: 00- 6: 00 p. m.
In the courtyard of the Cortez Hill Apartment complex a table was set up where
free Uncle Biffs Cookies were distributed along with Compass+ information.
Flexcar was given a parking spot at the complex. Invitations to the event were
placed on each resident’s doorstep and flyers were hung above the mailboxes.
Two residents stopped by to receive more information.
• The Heritage Apartments
March 16, 2005 4: 00- 6: 00 p. m.
In the front entrance of The Heritage Apartments a table was set up where free
Uncle Biffs Cookies were distributed along with Compass+ information.
Announcemen