CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR INNOVATIVE TRANSPORTATION
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY ·∙ 2105 BANCROFT WAY, SUITE 300 ·∙ BERKELEY, CA 94720-­‐ 3830
PHONE: ( 510) 642-­‐ 4522 ·∙ FAX: ( 510) 642-­‐ 0910 ·∙ HTTP:// WWW. CALCCIT. ORG
FINAL REPORT
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Services
ROLE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
MARCH 2010
AUTHORS:
Krute Singa
Jean David Margulici
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 2
CONTENTS
Contents ............................................................................................................................... .............................................. 2
Key Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... ...................................... 2
Summary ............................................................................................................................... ............................................. 3
1. Introduction and Study Purpose ............................................................................................................................... ...... 6
2. Description of Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Services .............................................................................................. 8
2.1 Privately-­‐ Provided Employer-­‐ Based Commuter Bus Services .................................................................................... 8
2.2 Privately-­‐ Provided Fee-­‐ Based Commuter Bus Services............................................................................................ 12
2.3 Partnership-­‐ Based Commuter bus Services ............................................................................................................. 13
3. Benefits ............................................................................................................................... ......................................... 16
3.1 Commuter Preference ............................................................................................................................... .............. 16
3.2 Transit and Local Business Patronage ...................................................................................................................... 17
3.3 Congestion and Air Quality Mitigation ..................................................................................................................... 17
4. Challenges ............................................................................................................................... ..................................... 20
4.1 Market Entry and Endurance ............................................................................................................................... ... 20
4.2 Cost-­‐ Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................... .................... 21
4.3 Labor Protection Regulations ............................................................................................................................... ... 21
4.4 Regulatory Process ............................................................................................................................... ................... 22
4.5 Funding Opportunities and Constraints ................................................................................................................... 22
4.6 Classification ............................................................................................................................... ............................. 24
5. Commuter Buses and Vanpools ............................................................................................................................... ..... 26
6. Public Agencies and their Roles ............................................................................................................................... ..... 28
6.1 Public Transit Agency Role ............................................................................................................................... ....... 28
6.2 Local and Regional Agencies Roles ........................................................................................................................... 30
6.3 State Role ............................................................................................................................... ................................. 32
6.4 Federal Role........................................................................................................................... .................................. 35
7. Next Steps and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 37
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... ........................... 42
Appendix A. How Companies Can Initiate Commuter Bus Services for Their Employees ................................................... 43
KEY ACRONYMS
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MUNI San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
TFCA Transportation Fund for Clean Air
TDM Transportation Demand Management
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 3
SUMMARY
This study focuses on transit initiatives provided by private companies to meet regional commute travel
demand. Specifically, the research spotlights privately-­‐ provided commuter buses that operate during peak
hours and offer customer-­‐ oriented routes with limited stops and coach amenities to suburban employment
destinations. This type of service differs from those provided by intercity bus companies, including Greyhound,
which are primarily intended for destination travel rather than routine commuting. Defined here, privately-­‐
provided commuter bus service refers to the private provision of coach service to suburban employment sites
from residential areas, service that may or may not be associated with a public transit agency.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, the majority of the privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services travel from
residential areas, in both cities and suburbs, to low density employment sites of one or more companies.
Currently, three types of privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services are in operation in the Bay Area: employer-­‐
based, fee-­‐ based and partnership-­‐ based.
Several prominent companies in or nearby Silicon Valley, including Genentech, Google and Yahoo!, are providing
long distance commuter bus service exclusively for their employees and the trend is becoming popular at other
companies. The buses are provided exclusively for employees as a fully subsidized benefit, bringing those who
live in both urban and suburban areas to the companies’ suburban campus locations on a luxury coach. Routes
are typically over 20 miles in length and have a robust employee ridership. In fact, the buses have the largest
impact in reducing drive alone commuting than any of the other transportation demand management ( TDM)
programs offered. The companies value the service based on benefits including 1) recruiting from a larger pool
of applicants, 2) increasing productivity, 3) decreasing parking demand, 4) meeting city TDM requirements and
5) reducing environmental impacts. With the popularity of the employer-­‐ based commuter service,
transportation companies have also responded to demand, providing similar service but open to the public.
Additionally, several transit agencies have formed partnerships with companies or with commuters themselves
to provide long distance bus service.
Part of the success of privately-­‐ provided commuter buses is due to the flexible and direct service to employment
areas not well covered by public transit. Commuters are drawn to the bus service as it reflects their preferences
and commute routes. Even highly-­‐ paid professionals who are otherwise able to drive alone to work and afford
rising gas prices are choosing the bus for more productive use of their commute made possible by on-­‐ board
wireless internet service. By offering an attractive and convenient ridesharing option, fewer cars travel on local
streets and congested highways. The high ridership has also produced economic and environmental benefits.
Transit lines and local businesses nearby the commuter stops have experienced increased consumer activity and
the number of drive-­‐ alone trips forgone has decreased congestion and emission levels.
The relatively recent proliferation of privately-­‐ provided commuter programs in the Bay Area will require formal
recognition by public agencies. Though privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services have operated in one form or
another for the past 50 years, the same challenges to their long-­‐ term viability have persisted. The main
challenges include market entry and competition, regulatory constraints and financial hurdles. Where privately-­‐
provided commuter bus services have been successful are in markets that are not cost effective for transit
service due to the low density of both riders and land use.
Private companies and public agencies can work collaboratively to implement policy that mitigates direct
competition to ensure both sectors can provide economically efficient and viable services in their respective
niches. Transit agencies have used innovative approaches to provide peak period long distance service, including
the use of part-­‐ time drivers, peak period service reductions and selective fare increases. Transit agencies have
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 4
high labor costs due to employer-­‐ paid benefits and high wage rates relative to drivers of privately-­‐ provided
commuter service. Additionally, employment decentralization to low density areas with easy freeway access are
not well matched to traditional bus and rail lines as travel patterns between home and work are generally
indirect, dispersed and long distance. Transit services that can mimic these travel patterns at times competitive
to driving have attracted commuters and play an important role in filling the gaps in the regional transit system.
In the Bay Area, private commuter bus services have filled this role on the regional level.
Instead of providing long distance express services themselves, transit agencies can effectively promote
privately-­‐ provided commuter bus service by encouraging and facilitating private sector operations and
contracting with private operators. Transit agencies have varying opinions about privately-­‐ provided commuter
bus services. Some, including MBTA, collaborate with private operators for service to low density areas while
relieving the transit agency of operational responsibility for the services. MBTA provides example to its peer
agencies that are not as open to collaboration with private companies. While a few privately-­‐ provided
commuter bus operations do not pose a substantial threat or interference to transit operations, the proliferation
of commuter services in the Bay Area raise shows the need for increased public-­‐ private collaboration.
Public agencies should recognize the limitations in the amount of service they can cost-­‐ effectively provide and
expand their scope to include coordination assistance for all public and private transportation services to
provide a seamless system for the customer. Part of this process is to have privately-­‐ provided commuter bus
services be recognized as a transportation alternative. Public agencies can also better coordinate the orderly
development of a multi-­‐ modal urban transportation system when all services are formally integrated in to the
planning process. Some actions public transit agencies can undertake to support privately-­‐ provided commuter
bus services are listed in Table 2 of Section 7, Next Steps and Recommendations.
As commuter buses generally travel over 20 miles and go through several jurisdictions, involvement of
metropolitan planning organizations is critical to realize the benefits the private services provide. Some actions
regional agencies can undertake to support privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services are listed in Table 3 of
Section 7.
Through their funding programs and regulations, state governments can have direct influence on the actions
taken by public transportation agencies. State agencies, especially the departments of transportation, are
increasingly exploring ways to improve quality of life through air quality regulations, growth management,
transportation efficiency and public-­‐ private partnerships. Some state DOTs are approaching congestion in ways
that promote ridesharing, transit and other alternative modes and supportive land use policies. Privately-­‐
provided commuter bus services are one method to reduce drive alone trips that take up limited highway space
and state agencies can take steps that promote private transit use and acceptance. Recommendations for state
actions are listed Table 4 of Section 7.
The federal government influences transportation policy through its funding programs and regulations. The
Obama Administration has enacted the U. S. Department of Transportation Livability Initiative and the Federal
Sustainable Communities Partnership. The Sustainable Communities Partnership engages the Department of
Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development ( HUD) to provide affordable housing and more transportation options through compact land use.
The first of the six principles guiding the Sustainable Communities Partnership calls for the provision of “ more
transportation choices: develop safe, reliable and economical transportation choices to decrease household
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 5
transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and promote public health.” 1
Privately-­‐ provided commuter buses accomplish all the goals listed
under the principle and the FTA can take steps to recognize that private transit companies can also accomplish
these goals. Table 5 of Section 7 lists recommendations for the federal government to support privately-­‐
provided commuter bus service.
Conventional fixed route transit service is unable to meet all the transportation needs of a modern urban area
where decentralized residential and employment patterns lead to indirect, dispersed and long-­‐ distance travel
patterns. National, state and local strategies and action plans are needed to allow for more innovative
transportation options that fall out of the purview of public transit agencies but are complementary to fixed
route services. Advocacy, networking and policy development at the regional level is needed to increase
recognition and create opportunities for privately-­‐ provided commuter bus service, in all forms.
1 Livable and Sustainable Communities." Federal Transit Administration.
http:// fta. dot. gov/ publications/ publications_ 10935. html ( Accessed February 2010).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 6
1. INTRODUCTION AND STUDY PURPOSE
This study focuses on transit initiatives provided by private companies to meet regional commute travel
demand. Specifically, the research spotlights privately-­‐ provided commuter buses that operate during peak
hours and offer customer-­‐ oriented routes with limited stops and coach amenities to suburban employment
destinations. This type of service differs from those provided by intercity bus companies, such as Greyhound,
which are primarily intended for destination travel rather than routine commuting. Defined here, privately-­‐
provided commuter bus service refers to the private provision of coach service to suburban employment sites
from residential areas, service that may or may not be associated with a public transit agency.
Privately-­‐ provided commuter buses have been in operation in one form or the other since 1950. In particular,
the fiscal problems facing many of the public transportation industry during the 1980s presented opportunities
for expanded entry into the commuter transportation market. Despite demand, private transit service began to
decline in the 1990s as their routes were either taken over by transit agencies or could not compete with fare
subsidies. Today, few of the operators are still in business and those that have survived benefited from either
endorsement from or partnership with transit agencies.
Recently, privately-­‐ operated commuter bus services have regenerated themselves to incorporate the latest
advancements in wireless communications, alternative fuels and passenger comfort, most prominently in the
San Francisco Bay Area. This next generation of services started around 2004 and grew in response to the
demand for express travel between cities or suburbs to low density employment centers that promoted
environmental sustainability.
The providers of the service are large employers or private transportation companies. Employers consider long-­‐
distance bus service from their employees’ residential areas direct to the office to be valuable to the growth of
the company, and addressing congestion, parking demand and air quality concerns. Though the provision of
buses or shuttles have long been common to employer transportation demand management programs, service
has mainly been to the nearest regional transit stop. Few companies have provided home to work services
similar to those offered by prominent Bay Area companies including Genentech, Google and Yahoo!. The
company-­‐ provided commuter bus service is immensely popular with the employee population and has
encouraged private transportation companies to enter into the market to provide similar service open to the
public. In addition, a hybrid model also exists in the Bay Area involving transit agency collaboration with
employers, private transportation companies or with the commuter themselves.
Privately-­‐ provided commuter buses offer flexible and direct service to employment areas not well covered by
public transit. The buses are luxury coaches and many operate on alternative fuels. Seats are arranged to
facilitate laptop use and with wireless access, commuters are able to start or end their workday en route. Even
highly-­‐ paid professionals who are otherwise able to drive alone to work and afford rising gas prices are choosing
the bus for more productive use of their commute. By offering an attractive and convenient ridesharing option,
fewer cars travel on local streets and the congested highways.
The success of these services indicates the potential for more privately-­‐ operated commuter buses. Since most
conventional fixed-­‐ route systems are not well suited to handle the majority of city-­‐ to-­‐ suburb or suburb-­‐ to-­‐
suburb work trips, privately-­‐ provided commuter buses do not directly compete with transit services. Instead,
they complement transit service, filling transit gaps on a regional level by providing service to areas where public
transit is not cost-­‐ effective due to insufficient density. Commuter buses are not constrained by jurisdictional
boundaries and with limited stops, they offer competitive travel times to driving for distances 20 miles or
greater in length.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 7
This study aims to clarify the role of privately-­‐ operated commuter buses in the regional transportation system.
Section 2 will present an overview of the services and Section 3 will show how privately-­‐ provided commuter bus
services contribute to the regional transportation network. Section 4 will discuss the challenges to initiating and
maintaining commuter services. Section 5 discusses the complementary roles of vanpools and privately-­‐
provided commuter bus services. Section 6 highlights the roles of public agencies in supporting commuter buses
and Section 7 concludes with recommendations. Appendix A provides step-­‐ by-­‐ step recommendations for
companies to initiate commuter bus service.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 8
2. DESCRIPTION OF PRIVATELY-­‐ PROVIDED COMMUTER BUS SERVICES
Commuter bus services are organized by employers, commuters, transit agencies and transportation companies.
They are a demand driven, customer-­‐ oriented form of transportation designed to follow home-­‐ to-­‐ work travel
patterns, with runs in each of the morning and evening peak periods. Service is direct, stopping at a few
locations before running express to the destination. The ride itself is comfortable, and seating is usually
guaranteed. Essentially, they provide an attractive and effective mode for home to work travel not well served
by conventional transit. With its fast service and amenity orientation, the commuter bus is a viable alternative
to driving.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, commuter buses are primarily provided by public transit agencies and private
companies. Alameda-­‐ Contra Costa Transit, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans and Valley Transportation Authority
each have express buses serving the commuter market. However, these services either provide trips primarily
destined for San Francisco, or circulate within the same or directly adjacent transit jurisdiction. The majority of
privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services travel from residential areas, in both cities and suburbs, to
employment areas with such low density that transit cannot provide cost-­‐ effective service. As such, little
overlap or competition exists between them and the public transit services offered in the Bay Area.
Private companies rely on data to determine commuter origin and destination points and attract riders to their
buses. Currently, three types of privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services are in operation in the Bay Area: 1)
employer-­‐ based; 2) fee-­‐ based; and 3) partnership-­‐ based. Each type is highlighted in the following sections,
developed with information collected through interviews and research. Interviewees include Genentech,
Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! for the employer-­‐ based programs; Bauer’s Intelligent Transportation for fee-­‐
based programs; and Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District, King County Metro and the
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority for partnership-­‐ based programs.
2.1 PRIVATELY-­‐ PROVIDED EMPLOYER-­‐ BASED COMMUTER BUS SERVICES
Company sponsored transportation is hardly a novel concept, especially for large industrial companies in
isolated locations. The companies that have bus or shuttle service typically pick up employees from the nearest
regional transit stop. In the past few years however, a few companies have expanded their bus service area to
provide home to work transportation. Several prominent companies in or nearby northern California’s Silicon
Valley , including Genentech, Google and Yahoo!, are providing long distance commuter bus service exclusively
for their employees and the trend has caught on at other companies, including Microsoft in Washington, high
cost withstanding. The buses are provided exclusively for employees as a fully subsidized benefit, bringing those
who live in both urban and suburban areas to the companies’ suburban campus locations on a luxury coach.
Routes are typically over 25 miles in length and have a robust employee ridership. In fact, the buses have the
largest impact in reducing drive alone commuting than any of the other transportation demand management
( TDM) programs offered by the companies.
Several features including high amenity orientation, drive-­‐ time-­‐ competitiveness, and external factors, high
gasoline prices, delays due to congestion, have contributed to the success of the employer sponsored regional
bus service. Perhaps the most prominent feature is wireless internet access, enabling productive use of
commute time. Employees can choose to begin their work day on the 30-­‐ 40 minute ride. Working on a laptop is
comfortable, with conveniences including tables, electrical outlets and window shades. These amenities have
created demand for the commuter services even by highly skilled, highly paid professionals who can convert
unproductive time into billable hours. Wireless internet access may play a key role in attracting riders, as
evidenced by a pilot and survey conducted by King County Metro to determine whether to install wireless
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 9
internet access on their express buses. Riders considered the access an important feature for long commutes
and employers indicated their willingness to pay their employees for the time spent working on the bus. 2
The corporate commuter bus services are combined with other TDM programs to offer a comprehensive
package that alleviates concerns over having access to a vehicle for workday travel and for personal
emergencies. On campus, employers retain cars or bikes for use during the work day and some are considering
contracting with car sharing companies to provide a fleet of cars. All companies have an emergency ride/
Guaranteed Ride Home program that provides free taxi rides in case of emergencies. Employees are able to visit
one page through their company’s website to obtain information on all TDM programs. Through the page,
employees can sign up to receive notification of late buses or changes in service with text messages and emails.
Real time bus arrival information displays are located at campus bus stops.
Image 1. Employees Boarding a Commuter Bus in San Francisco
Source: California Center for Innovative Transportation
Other TDM programs offered by the companies interviewed are vanpool and carpool matching programs to
provide transportation alternatives to those employees without commuter bus service. Not all residential areas
have sufficient density to fill a bus and the companies work with their employees to form vanpools and carpools
which have wireless internet access and preferential parking on campus. The commuter buses, vanpools and
carpools, as well as public transit service together form a comprehensive network of alternative transportation
options for employees.
Providing commuter bus services is a costly venture, especially when not charging a fee. Though the exact figure
could not be acquired from the interviews due to the confidential nature of company financials, a commuter bus
program with comprehensive service in terms of routes and runs, as well as insurance, liability and contractor
expenses, can cost well into the millions annually. 3
2 King County Metro. " Metro bus riders can sample Wi-­‐ Fi as part of extended pilot project." 5 Apr. 2007.
Depending on the company, the program may not be a
substantial cost when compared to other expenses. Even if the cost is considered substantial, the companies
interviewed consider it to be a reasonable expense in exchange for the value the program brings to the
employee’s quality of life and the company’s physical and environmental footprint. Specifically, companies
http:// metro. kingcounty. gov/ up/ archives/ 2007/ wifipilot. html ( Accessed October 2009).
3 As a “ back-­‐ of-­‐ the-­‐ envelop” calculation, each passenger trip roughly costs $ 10 ( plus or minus $ 3.00-­‐$ 4.00 depending on
efficiencies).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 10
value the service based on benefits including 1) recruiting from a larger pool of applicants, 2) increasing
productivity, 3) decreasing parking demand, 4) meeting city TDM requirements and 5) reducing environmental
impacts. Each benefit is further detailed in the sections below.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
The transportation managers of Genentech, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! all stated that recruiting and
retention are among the top reasons for providing the commuter buses. The buses allow companies to recruit
from a larger labor pool as the prospective employee does not have to factor the cost of commuting to the
campus location when deciding to apply for or accept a job offer. The bus service also allows employees to live
in locations that suit their lifestyles. This mobility may not be a positive aspect when considering that the more
environmental choice is to live near work to decrease travel costs, congestion and air pollution altogether.
While this is a valid argument, the reality is that people will live where they can afford housing or in areas fitting
their preferences. Additionally, the companies have found that employees who live close to campus usually
drive as few convenient transit options are typically available to the campus, and insufficient and unsafe
pedestrian infrastructure make transit difficult to access. Nevertheless, the companies do not offer bus service
to those living within a specified radius of the campus, providing free transit passes instead to encourage local
transit use.
INFORMAL EMPLOYEE INTERACTION AND PRODUCTIVITY GAINS
The transportation managers interviewed also remarked on the sense of community fostered by the bus. Riders
come from different departments and the bus provides an unstructured way to socialize and share ideas. For
example, a few riders of the Yahoo! bus go for happy hour drinks after getting off the bus in their residential
community.
The investment in wireless internet access has paid off in terms of productivity gains. Commuters are able to
start or end their work day on the bus ride. Many employees check their email on their way to work and focus
on their projects once on campus. Vanpool and carpoolers are given wireless internet access kits to equip their
vehicles. As the Seattle Times article, Microsoft Connector: 19 Routes, 53 Buses Later found, the “ the workday
has either begun, or is extended.” 4
PARKING REDUCTIONS
For companies with limited space, TDM programs, especially the commuter buses and vanpools, reduce the
demand for parking. Genentech provides good example of a company in this situation, having to work with
limited campus space to accommodate future growth in business ventures and employee population.
Additional growth increases parking demand and with surface parking lots slated to be converted to buildings,
not enough parking could be provided on campus in the future if demand was not mitigated. Additionally,
parking would have to be provided in structures, a costly undertaking.
4 Long, Katherine. " Microsoft Connector: 19 routes, 53 buses later." The Seattle Times [ Seattle] 12 Apr. 2009.
http:// seattletimes. nwsource. com/ cgi-­‐
bin/ PrintStory. pl? document_ id= 2009025535& zsection_ id= 2003750725& slug= msshuttle12m& date= 20090412 ( Accessed
October 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 11
The financial cost of parking infrastructure is driven by a few key factors, namely the number of parking spaces
required, the cost per parking space and the ‘ opportunity cost’ of the land. Opportunity cost is the cost of using
a space for parking instead of a use with higher value and varies depending on the development context. In infill
locations, the opportunity cost can be quite high, as each on-­‐ site parking space can reduce the potential for
other uses including housing and offices. Parking garages are more costly to construct, operate, and maintain
than surface parking lots, with construction costs of over $ 29,000 per space in the suburban Bay Area, compared
to $ 2,000 per surface parking space. 5
With operating costs running $ 300 to $ 500 per space per year, structures
are a costly undertaking, especially if demand can be mitigated.
Instead of building a number of parking garages, Genentech decided to use the money to instead pay people not
to drive and park on campus. The amount per day an employee who takes an alternative mode receives is
$ 4.00. Genentech’s approach has proved cost effective as running the entire TDM program, including the
commuter bus service, is less expensive than providing and maintaining structured parking, and accommodates
the mobility needs of substantially more employees. Though parking structures will need to be provided
sometime in the future, the number needed has been reduced as a result of the TDM program.
CITY TDM REQUIREMENTS
Some companies are required to have TDM programs according to city ordinances. For example, Genentech is
located in the city of South San Francisco which enacted a citywide TDM Ordinance requiring all non-­‐ residential
developments expected to generate one hundred or more average daily trips or seeking a floor area ratio ( FAR)
bonus to obtain a certain percentage of alternative mode use. The required alternative mode use for all projects
is 28 percent and non-­‐ residential applicants who propose projects with a higher FAR are required additional
increases. 6
Classified as a business technology park, Genentech had to achieve a 30 percent alternative mode
use rate to qualify for a FAR bonus to meet their future campus growth. Due to their marketing efforts,
ridesharing services, walking and bicycling programs, Genentech achieved a 35 percent alternative mode use
rate and are actively seeking to raise the percentage. Other cities are also considering or in the process of
enacting TDM requirements to reduce congestion and emissions.
REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Genentech is not the only company that chooses to continually set higher targets for employee alternative
mode use. Many employers see it as a way to enhance employee quality of life and address environmental
concerns. Each of the interviewed transportation managers listed sustainability as a motivation behind their
TDM programs. Yahoo! in particular is changing its energy consumption practices as well as investing in
greenhouse gas reduction projects to reduce its climate impact. Their commute alternatives program is part of
their strategy of achieving carbon neutrality, particularly for their Sunnyvale, California headquarters. Their goal
by 2010 is to achieve a 30-­‐ 35 percent alternate mode use, or 1.5 employees for every one car coming to
campus. Their current alternative mode use is 25 percent.
5 EPA. " Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions." EPA 231-­‐ K-­‐ 06-­‐ 001
( 2006). http:// www. epa. gov/ piedpage/ pdf/ EPAParkingSpaces06. pdf ( Accessed October 2009).
6 South San Francisco Municipal Code, § 20.120.030 Program Requirements and Standards.
http:// qcode. us/ codes/ southsanfrancisco ( Accessed October 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 12
2.2 PRIVATELY-­‐ PROVIDED FEE-­‐ BASED COMMUTER BUS SERVICES
With the popularity of the employer-­‐ based commuter service, transportation companies have also responded to
demand, providing similar service but open to the public. While transportation companies have provided
commute routes throughout the United States for over forty years, many operations have folded due to
competition from transit agencies and decline in demand. The emerging generation of commuter oriented bus
service faces the same challenges and issues; however, the integration of technology, especially wireless
internet access, as well as the steady increase of gasoline prices and peak period congestion may contribute to
their long-­‐ term viability. Bauer’s Intelligent Transportation is an example of a charter bus company that has
entered into the commuter market. 7
Bauer’s offers a luxury coach ride, entitled Wi-­‐ Drive, equipped with wireless internet access, plush seats, tables
and laptop outlets. The service initiated in March 2009 and fares range from $ 5.00 to $ 10.00 per ride depending
on the length of the trip. The fare can be paid with pre-­‐ tax commuter checks or onboard with a credit card.
Bauer’s Transportation initiated Wi-­‐ Drive in response to the demand for high amenity commuter buses in the
Bay Area. Operating service along major commute corridors, Wi-­‐ Drive offers a service comparable to that of
Genentech, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!, but publically available. Some routes, especially those running to the
Silicon Valley area, stop near employers that do not have a commuter bus program of their own. For example,
Wi-­‐ Drive stops nearby the Cisco campus, enabling Cisco employees to have access to high quality bus service
without company contribution, other than employee pre-­‐ tax commuter benefits. One run to the area is
currently 80 percent full, comprised mainly of Cisco employees. Another route runs by Sun Microsystems and
Tyco Electronics.
Image 2. Interior of a Wi-­‐ Drive Bus
Source: California Center for Innovative Transportation
Bauer’s seeks to accomplish three major objectives with Wi-­‐ Drive: service expansion, transportation
sustainability and technology integration. Bauer’s is considering expanding their commuter operations to
regional economic centers across the United States, demonstrating the company’s view that a market exists
7 Lon Baylor, Wi-­‐ Drive Operations Manager. " Bauer's Transportation Wi-­‐ Drive." Interview by the California Center for
Innovative Transportation. October 15, 2009.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 13
even in regions with less information technology industry presence. Bauer’s is committed to greening their
fleet. Wi-­‐ Drive runs on biodiesel and the company is looking to work with bus manufacturing companies to
build more fuel efficient hybrid buses that runs on battery on local streets and while idling, and on biodiesel on
the highways. Bauer’s has also integrated technology features on their buses that respond to customer needs,
including credit card readers and online reservation systems.
Wi-­‐ Drive is less costly to operate than employer-­‐ based commuter bus programs as its ridership is not reliant on
one company’s employees. Furthermore, the company fills the drivers’ schedules throughout the day to reduce
the unit cost of the service. For example, one route between San Francisco and Silicon Valley also provides
service between Fremont BART and Sunnyvale between peak hour runs.
Bauer’s gained experience from contracting with Google and Yahoo! to run their commuter bus program before
initiating Wi-­‐ Drive. Other motorcoach companies may not have the same experience but can initiate similar
service. High gas prices, the lengthening of commutes due to traffic congestion and economic decentralization,
and the ability to use travel time productively has created demand for privately-­‐ provided fee-­‐ based services.
2.3 PARTNERSHIP-­‐ BASED COMMUTER BUS SERVICES
Several transit agencies have formed partnerships with companies or with commuters themselves to provide
long distance bus service. A few innovative programs in the United States include King County Metro’s Custom
Bus program based in Seattle, Washington, the San Francisco Bay Area’s Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and
Transportation District’s Club Bus program, and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s ( MBTA)
Commuter Bus Program.
KING COUNTY METRO CUSTOM BUS8
The Custom Bus program is a partnership between large employers and King County Metro to provide dedicated
buses from residential areas or park and ride lots directly to the worksite. The program initiated in 1979 as a
partnership between Boeing and Metro. Boeing recognized the need to provide their employees with
transportation to their new but transit-­‐ deficient location of their corporate headquarters in Everett,
Washington. By partnering with Metro, Boeing was able to provide dedicated buses that picked up employees
near their residences or at transit hubs for a direct trip to campus. Over the years, other companies partnered
with Metro to create their own Custom Bus routes, including Microsoft before it launched its own Connector
bus program in 2007. Boeing continues its partnership with Metro to this day.
Employers are required to pay the full cost of the service which includes King County Metro buses and drivers.
Metro provides the route planning, drivers, insurance and emergency response and other services. The
relationship is advantageous as the employer does not have to manage a contract with a charter bus company
to provide the same service, nor does it have to obtain insurance for providing transportation services. Most
importantly, the employer can apply for state and federal grants with the help of the transit agency to offset the
cost of the service. In order to receive these funds, the buses must be open to the public. Though most of the
riders on the Custom Buses are employees of the company funding the service, members of the public do use
the service to get to their own employment locations near the funding company’s campus.
8 Burrell, Julie. " King County Metro Custom Bus Program." Phone Interview by the California Center for Innovative
Transportation. 16 July 2009.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 14
The Custom Bus fare is based on miles and hours and covers the cost of long haul services. The employers may
choose to subsidize part or all of the employee’s fare. Custom Bus routes are treated like other bus routes in
King County Metro service, except that the destination is primarily a single employment site.
GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT CLUB BUSES
The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District ( GGBHTD) offers a Club Bus program in Marin and
Sonoma counties in northern California. The name refers to a group or “ club” of commuters are responsible for
organizing and administrating their own commuter service and contracting with a charter company through a
competitive bid process. Although GGBHTD began operating its own transit buses in 1972, the club bus program
grew due to demand for express bus service adjunct to GGBHTD service. Between 1970 and 1990, GGBHTD
approved a 50 percent subsidy for the six clubs administering 15 buses. In the 1990s, the subsidy was reduced to
30 percent, and is currently at 20 percent. 9
A waiting list of 30 persons is required to start a new club bus.
Riders commit to a month's worth of rides and pay a flat fee based on the cost less the subsidy given by
GGBHTD. Fares are collected by an elected " captain" who then pays the private operator; GGBHTD therefore is
not involved in the service contract.
The program became quite robust in the late 1970s and 1980s with six different contractors, 15 routes and 27
daily runs. In 1994, 13 bus runs served four commuter clubs with a membership of approximately 405 people. In
recent years, however, the program has declined to four lines providing runs to areas where GGBHTD provides
limited service. 10 The main challenges facing the program are increased telecommuting and new public transit
service. Another aspect of the Club Bus program that has contributed to decreased membership is the fare
structure. Members must commit to paying for rides for every weekday in a given month, even if they end up
not using the service on a day that they work at home, are on vacation or sick. 11
Although the Club Bus program is no longer at its peak, it continues to offer transportation options to locations
where frequent fixed-­‐ route service could not be justified. For example, one route provides direct service from
Novato in Marin County to the UC San Francisco Medical Center, a trip that would not be time feasible on
conventional fixed route service. Perhaps by revising its fare structure, advertising the program, or contracting
directly with employers who can also subsidize the fare, GGBHTD can promote its innovative program.
MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY COMMUTER BUS PROGRAM12
Between 1987 and 2009, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ( MBTA) provided operating subsidies
to private bus companies participating in the Commuter Bus Program. The original purpose of the program was
to provide funding to convince private providers to continue bus operations instead of reducing or eliminating
service due to financial hardship. The program enabled MBTA to respond to the need for transit in lower
density parts of the region, while relieving the Authority of direct responsibility for operating these services,
9 Murray, Gail, David Koffman, and Cliff Chambers. " Strategies to Assist Local Transportation Agencies in Becoming Mobility
Managers." TCRP 21 ( 1997). http:// onlinepubs. trb. org/ Onlinepubs/ tcrp/ tcrp_ rpt_ 21-­‐ a. pdf ( Accessed October 2009).
10 Ibid.
11 Downing, Ron. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District. E-­‐ mail interview by the California Center for
Innovative Transportation. July 2009.
12 Grogan, Mary Ellen. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. E-­‐ mail interview by the California Center for Innovative
Transportation. October 2009.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 15
which could usually be provided by the private carriers at a lower cost. The program did not contract with
private carriers, instead it provided them with a subsidy funded by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the
operation of publicly available, regularly-­‐ scheduled commuter coaches.
The Authority required that the operator design and operate the service, and commit to providing funding for all
costs above the MBTA subsidy. The operator had to provide service for a community that was part of the MBTA
district but was underserved by MBTA bus routes. However, the program specifically stated that the buses
could not compete with services operated by the MBTA. Furthermore, all carriers also had to adhere to ADA
regulations. If all the requirements were satisfied, the MBTA provided an annual subsidy limit of $ 80,000. The
program subsidized only commuter bus service open to the public, employer-­‐ based buses were not eligible.
The program was successful, with many of the carriers maintaining service for a number of years. However,
with the Massachusetts State budget deficit, inflation and the increased costs of providing service, funding for
the program’s subsidies was eliminated in fiscal year 2009, though most of the operators have continued to
provide service. An example of the rising costs of service is provided by the MBTA. At the beginning of the
program in 1987, the maximum subsidy of $ 80,000 was equivalent to 65 percent of net cost of service. Today, it
is equivalent to 20 percent of net cost of service.
Despite the elimination of the program, the requirements set forth by MBTA for the program are interesting to
note. The last Request for Proposals for the Commuter Bus Program issued in fiscal year 2008, provided a
funding agreement for three years. It stipulated the contents of the service plan, area of service and transit
connections. The service plan had to include a description of the bus route, service schedule, vehicles to be
used, fare schedule, projected passenger load and marketing plans. Additionally, the private carrier was
required to provide and regularly update a website displaying service information as well as a “ Cell Phone Alert
System” to allow service delay or change in schedule messages to be sent to multiple users with one call.
Proposers also had to be willing to participate in the Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works’
Guaranteed Ride Home Program to reassure their customers that transportation will be provided in the event of
an emergency.
The RFP was geared toward the convenience of the user, with requirements for limited stops, multi-­‐ ride tickets,
long-­‐ distance routes that connect with other modes of transportation, well-­‐ maintained signage and a customer
service representative on duty at all times the buses were in service. The privately-­‐ provided services were
allowed to stop at MBTA bus stops. Additionally, all privately-­‐ provided routes were and continue to be listed on
the MBTA website.
MBTA acknowledged the importance of privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services to serve areas that were not
financially feasible for MBTA. By providing subsidies, MBTA could stipulate requirements and conveniences,
including no duplication of MBTA transit services and regularly updated schedules posted on the MBTA website.
CONCLUSIONS
High gas prices, the lengthening of commutes due to traffic congestion and economic decentralization, and the
ability to use travel time productively has created demand for privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services. The
next step is for public agencies, including transit and metropolitan planning organizations, air quality
management districts and public utilities commissions to formally recognize these types of services, provide
guidelines on their operations and reduce difficulty in acquiring permits. Formal recognition will enable more
privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services to be offered in a way that is complementary to public transit and
meet the needs of the commuter population.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 16
3. BENEFITS
High ridership on privately-­‐ provided commuter buses has resulted in economic and environmental benefits on
both local and regional levels. Riders are drawn to the bus service as it reflects their preferences and commute
routes. Transit agencies and local businesses nearby the commute stops have experienced increased consumer
activity and the number of drive-­‐ alone commute trips forgone has decreased congestion and emission levels.
3.1 COMMUTER PREFERENCE
Studies in the mid-­‐ 1990s found that the provision of fixed-­‐ route, uniform-­‐ quality services did not dissuade
commuters from driving alone. In the Bay Area especially, commuters exhibit considerable diversity in travel
preferences. Some commuters prefer fast, comfortable services and are willing to pay a premium fare. The
studies also found that commuters are likely to switch their travel behavior given changes in travel times or
comfort levels. 13
Commuter bus services have long been provided throughout the United States. The express, limited stop
service and the comfort amenities have attracted commuters since the 1950s. With long commute distances
and rising gas prices, commuters are generally more travel cost conscious regardless of their income. The
employer-­‐ and fee-­‐ based commuter buses offer drive time competitive service, having limited stops, express
service to destinations and high occupancy status to allow use of highway high-­‐ occupancy vehicle lanes. The
added feature that has attracted riders, even well paid professionals, is the provision of on-­‐ board wireless
internet access. Commutes can be productive as riders have the ability to start or end their work day on the
bus. A study conducted by the San Francisco County Transportation Agency ( SFCTA), the “ Strategic Analysis
Report: The Role of Shuttle Services in San Francisco’s Transportation System,” found through an employer-­‐
based commuter bus passenger survey that 92 percent of respondents14 indicated that they gained productive
time by riding. 15
The employer-­‐ based commuter bus programs have gained a critical following. Google employees riding the
commuter buses list the service as the top employee perk, even over the complimentary cafeterias. The rider
survey conducted by the SFCTA Strategic Analysis Report ( SAR) found that 14 percent of employees would leave
their current employment if the bus service was discontinued. 16 One employee interviewed by the New York
Times’ article, “ Google’s Buses Help Its Workers Beat the Rush," stated that losing the bus service would amount
to “ disaster.” 17
13 Cervero, Robert. " Deregulating Urban Transportation." Cato Journal 5.1 ( 1985).
http:// www. cato. org/ pubs/ journal/ cj5n1/ cj5n1-­‐ 12. pdf ( Accessed October 2009).
14 Over 1,000 surveys collected. Responses found to be representative of larger population of employer-­‐ based commuter
bus riders.
15 San Francisco County Transportation Authority. “ Draft SAR 08/ 09-­‐ 2 Strategic Analysis Report: The Role of Shuttle Services
in San Francisco’s Transportation System.” ( 2009)
http:// www. sfcta. org/ images/ stories/ Planning/ Shuttles/ ShuttleSAR_ Draft_ PnP111709. pdf ( Accessed December 2009).
16 Ibid.
17 Helft, Miguel. " Google’s Buses Help Its Workers Beat the Rush." New York Times [ New York] 10 Mar. 2007.
http:// www. nytimes. com/ 2007/ 03/ 10/ technology/ 10google. html? pagewanted= 1&_ r= 1 ( Accessed October 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 17
3.2 TRANSIT AND LOCAL BUSINESS PATRONAGE
In San Francisco, privately-­‐ provided commuter buses stop along corridors that have local public transit
connections to ease transfers between services. The commuter buses therefore provide a complementary
service to local transit systems, encouraging ridership. Without the buses, riders would most likely be driving to
work. One route provided by Genentech travels between Glen Park BART Station in San Francisco to their
campus. The stop location encourages riders to take BART or San Francisco MUNI to the stop. The company
also provides shuttles from the nearby Caltrain stop to the campus, further encouraging employees to ride
transit. This practice is maintained by the other private providers as well.
In the Bay Area, the stop locations are typically adjacent to retail or service establishments, stimulating
economic activity when riders patronize the merchants. The SFCTA SAR rider survey results indicated that 63
percent of respondents stop at local businesses on their way to or from the commuter bus stop. 18
For example,
Yahoo bus riders organize happy hour events at establishments nearby the stops in San Francisco. Bauer’s Wi-­‐
Drive received permission to stop in shopping malls and strip malls for its suburban residential stop locations.
24 Hour Fitness reported an increase in memberships after granting Bauer’s permission to use their parking lot
and providing promotional literature that was stocked on the buses. This activity may not occur if riders drove
to work for lack of a viable transit option.
Though ridership may increase on local transit systems, transit agencies may be negatively impacted by the
commuter buses impeding transit access to the stop. Some transit agencies have mitigated any disruptions by
working with the employer-­‐ and fee-­‐ based commuter bus services on establishing stop locations. King County
Metro in Seattle, Washington, does not allow Microsoft Connector buses to stop in any transit stop, though the
agency does lease a bay at a transit center to Microsoft. Instead, the Connector has received permission to stop
at three-­‐ minute loading zones and parking lots in neighborhood commercial areas.
3.3 CONGESTION AND AIR QUALITY MITIGATION
The employer-­‐ based commuter buses provided by Genentech, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! have made the
largest impact in reducing drive alone commuting out of all transportation demand management programs
offered. Microsoft experienced a decrease in employees driving alone after the Connector service was
introduced in 2007. Before the Connector started, the mode split was 66-­‐ 34 single occupancy vehicle to
alternative modes; In 2009, the campus achieved a 62-­‐ 38 mode split, a change of four percent. Approximately
1,700 Microsoft employees ride the shuttle on a daily basis, or 3,400 roundtrip. 19 In the Bay Area, ridership of
the Genentech, Google and Yahoo! long distance buses amounts to approximately 2,600 employees a day or
5,200 roundtrip. Over the course of the year, the ridership is close to one million, a considerable amount that is
comparable to that of the smaller public transit agencies in the Bay Area, including City of Vacaville Transit
Services and Western Contra Costa Transit Authority ( WestCAT). 20
18 San Francisco County Transportation Authority. “ Draft SAR 08/ 09-­‐ 2 Strategic Analysis Report: The Role of Shuttle Services
in San Francisco’s Transportation System.” ( 2009)
http:// www. sfcta. org/ images/ stories/ Planning/ Shuttles/ ShuttleSAR_ Draft_ PnP111709. pdf ( Accessed December 2009).
19 Microsoft. “ The Microsoft Connector Fact and Figures.” July 2009.
20 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Programming and Allocations Committee. Report on TDA Triennial
Performance Audits. 2009. http:// apps. mtc. ca. gov/ meeting_ packet_ documents/ agenda_ 1337/ 4a_ TDA_ Perf_ Audits. pdf
( Accessed January 2010).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 18
Ridership on the bus services for all the Bay Area companies interviewed produces substantial benefits region-­‐
wide. The SFCTA SAR found through its benefit-­‐ impact analysis that the employer-­‐ based commuter bus services
have “ significant and widespread benefit, particularly for congestion and air quality.” 21
In terms of congestion, the SAR found that the employer-­‐ based commuter bus programs collectively reduce
327,000 solo vehicle trips to and from the employment site per year. When considering the number of
participants in the bus program and their respective commutes avoided, approximately 20 million vehicle miles
traveled ( VMT) are reduced on a yearly basis.
The air quality benefits from reducing VMT can be measured in terms of decreases in the levels of carbon
dioxide ( CO2) and other components of vehicle exhaust emissions. The SAR found that employer-­‐ sponsored
commuter bus programs reduced CO2 emissions by 8,000 to 9,500 tons per year ( assuming range of bus
manufacturing dates, in-­‐ vehicle emissions control systems, and nitrous oxide filters). Though motorcoaches also
emit CO2 when running or idling, the amount produced is considerably less than what would be generated by
the riders driving to work instead. The American Bus Association also found that motorcoaches have the lowest
carbon dioxide emissions, producing an average of 50 grams of CO2 per passenger mile. In contrast, the single
occupancy vehicle generates 378 grams of CO2 per passenger mile. CO2 emissions from various modes are listed
in Table 1.
Table 1. Average CO2 Emissions by Mode22
Mode
Average Carbon
Dioxide Emissionsa
Motorcoach 50
Vanpool 97
Commuter Rail 164
Carpool ( 2 person) 189
Light Rail 201
Domestic Air Travel 234
Transit Bus 308
Single Occupancy Vehicle 378
a Grams of emissions per passenger mile ( g/ pass-­‐ mi).
Figures for motorcoaches are based on averages for different industry segments ( charter/ tour/ sightseeing versus
commuter/ airport/ intercity fixed route service). For the other public modes, averages are based on the range of results
from individual transit agencies in the National Transit Database ( NTD) database. For private autos the averages are based
on US fleet average fuel economy of 22.5 MPG ( Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics ( BTS) Table 4-­‐ 23: Average Fuel
Efficiency of U. S. Passenger Cars and Light Trucks).
As for other tailpipe emissions, including nitrogen oxides ( NOx), reactive organic gases ( ROG) and particulate
matter ( PM), the bus programs reduced emissions ranging from one to seventeen tons per year compared to the
scenario where all the passengers drove alone to and from their employment site. 23
21 San Francisco County Transportation Authority. “ Draft SAR 08/ 09-­‐ 2 Strategic Analysis Report: The Role of Shuttle Services
in San Francisco’s Transportation System.” 2009
http:// www. sfcta. org/ images/ stories/ Planning/ Shuttles/ ShuttleSAR_ Draft_ PnP111709. pdf ( Accessed December 2009).
22 M. J. Bradley & Associates, " Updated Comparison of Energy Use & Emissions from Different Transportation Modes,"
American Bus Association, October 2008, Table 1.1, p. 4.
http:// www. buses. org/ files/ 2008ABAFoundationComparativeFuelCO2. pdf ( Accessed October 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 19
CONCLUSIONS
Though transit agencies provide service to job and residential areas outside of the central business district, they
are limited in the amount of coverage that can be cost-­‐ effectively supplied. Employment decentralization to low
density areas with easy freeway access are not well matched to traditional bus and rail lines as travel patterns
between home and work are generally indirect, dispersed and long distance. Transit services that can mimic
these travel patterns at times competitive to driving have attracted commuters and play an important role in
filling the gaps in the regional transit system. Whether this flexible and express service is provided by a private
or public entity should not make a difference if the traveling public has a viable transit option that encourages
them to leave their car at home for routine commuting trips. In the Bay Area, private commuter bus services
play an important role on the regional level and their astute routing and business standards have led to
significant reductions in traffic congestion and emissions. Additionally, they have stimulated use of local transit
and patronage of local businesses that may not have occurred if riders drove to work for lack of viable
commuter bus options.
23 San Francisco County Transportation Authority. “ Draft SAR 08/ 09-­‐ 2 Strategic Analysis Report: The Role of Shuttle Services
in San Francisco’s Transportation System.” 2009.
http:// www. sfcta. org/ images/ stories/ Planning/ Shuttles/ ShuttleSAR_ Draft_ PnP111709. pdf ( Accessed December 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 20
4. CHALLENGES
Though privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services have operated in one form or another for the past 50 years,
the same challenges to their long-­‐ term viability have persisted. The main challenges include market entry and
competition, regulatory constraints and financial hurdles. Where privately-­‐ provided commuter bus service have
been successful are in markets that are not cost effective for transit service due to the low density of both riders
and land use.
4.1 MARKET ENTRY AND ENDURANCE
One challenge is identifying where privately-­‐ provided service will best serve commuter needs. Successful
operations understand where their customers are located and how to moderate their competition.
Privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services generally operate best in specialized markets: traditional central
business districts ( CBD) with congested highway access and high parking costs; large employment sites in low-­‐
density areas that require long commutes; or a combination of the two. In the Bay Area, a combination market
exists. A large number of commuter buses come into San Francisco, the Bay Area’s CBD. Commuter services
into San Francisco are mainly provided by transit agencies, including the Alameda-­‐ Contra Costa Transit District,
the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Golden Gate Transit and the San Mateo County Transit District. Additionally,
the dispersed employment locations have created commute sheds with distances typically between 20 to 30
miles. With limited transit access to these areas, the suburb-­‐ to-­‐ suburb or city-­‐ to-­‐ suburb market is largely
untapped, and more difficult to define when both the origin and destination are not in centralized locations.
Employer-­‐ based privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services have access to employee zipcode data can therefore
build routes between areas with high employee residential densities and their suburban campus. Fee-­‐ based
services can access data on commute sheds to build long-­‐ distance routes. Bauer’s Wi-­‐ Drive has established this
type of service, with routes between San Francisco and Silicon Valley employment areas that are on average 30
miles. One of Bauer’s strategies is to locate stops near large Silicon Valley employers that do not offer their
employees a commuter bus service. As mentioned previously, one route with a stop in front of the Cisco
campus has ridership that is mainly composed of the company’s employees living in San Francisco.
Market entry is further limited by operational issues. A few concerns public transit agencies have raised are
directed towards the use transit stops or hubs for loading or idling, creating conflicts with transit vehicles and
safety protocols. The providers have generally been responsive to agency requests to modifying their route and
stop locations. However, issues still remain for long-­‐ term operations of the services and San Francisco in
particular is considering various options to reduce conflicts including shared stops, dedicated shuttle zones and
shared parking for layovers. 24
City residents of the neighborhood streets along the commuter bus routes have
also raised concerns over noise and safety impact of large coach buses traveling down narrow local streets.
Again, the private operators responded by changing their routes to run along major corridors. In order to avoid
conflicts, the private operators and public officials should collaborate on route and stop locations before service
is initiated.
24 San Francisco County Transportation Authority. “ Draft SAR 08/ 09-­‐ 2 Strategic Analysis Report: The Role of Shuttle Services
in San Francisco’s Transportation System.” 2009
http:// www. sfcta. org/ images/ stories/ Planning/ Shuttles/ ShuttleSAR_ Draft_ PnP111709. pdf ( Accessed December 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 21
Transit agencies may create obstacles for fee-­‐ based services, either by preventing private operators from
providing service or offering subsidized fares for commuter services against which private operators cannot
compete. For example, Hartford, Houston and Los Angeles each had a sizeable network of private, unsubsidized
commuter bus services in the mid-­‐ 1980s. The success of the service prompted new entrants into the market,
including transit agencies. The transit agencies’ competitive service offered at subsidized fares hindered further
expansion of private services and by 1995, many of the private providers had gone out of business. 25 Transit
agency fares reflect government provided subsidies, sometimes at 50 percent or more, and are difficult to
compete against even if the private provider offers a higher level of service. These subsidies are for the most
part only available to transit agencies. If private bus operators are providing a commuter service that is
complementary to public transit and that is out of agency purview in terms of distance or destination, then
funding should be considered. In the long-­‐ run, access to public funds will ensure that the private operators can
continue providing service at affordable fares as well as developing new routes. 26
Ultimately, funds should help
provide viable transit services for the public regardless of the entity providing the service.
4.2 COST-­‐ EFFECTIVENESS
Achieving a cost-­‐ effective fee-­‐ based commuter service is a difficult objective for private operators. Generally,
commuter services generate demand in one direction and operate only during morning and evening peak hours,
leaving drivers idle between runs. Commuter services that use vehicles for only a few hours a day make only
modest progress towards capital recovery, especially for new or fairly new buses.
However, operators that are able to successfully integrate commuter service with charter or other contract
service can offset costs. For example, Bauer’s Wi-­‐ Drive route from San Francisco to Silicon Valley doubles as a
connector route from the Fremont BART station to Silicon Valley between the morning and evening peak runs.
Bauer’s therefore lowers its hourly costs and labor is more cost-­‐ effective as drivers are productive between peak
hours.
4.3 LABOR PROTECTION REGULATIONS
In the long-­‐ run, sustained operations of privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services, transit agencies and private
operators may have to collaborate to jointly provide commuter service or more formally complement each
other’s services. If pursuing a contracting partnership, labor protection regulations, including Section 13( c) of
the Federal Transit Act, have to be considered. Under Section 13( c), an agency that receives federal mass transit
funds must protect all covered mass transit employees. 27
Section 13( c) was originally included as part of the
federal transit legislation in 1964 to ensure the collective bargaining rights in the public acquisition of private
systems and to protect employees who might be harmed by technological innovations funded by federal grants.
Transit agencies argue that the regulation restricts efforts to achieve benefits through partnership efforts,
especially if transit agencies want to incorporate contracted services such as commuter routes. Contracting
25 Cervero, Robert. " Fostering Commercial Transit: Alternatives in Greater Los Angeles." The Reason Foundation 146 ( 1992).
http:// reason. org/ files/ 8039a618f197e2c8bbfe21b2ac4cd285. pdf ( Accessed October 2009).
26 Giuliano, Genevieve and Roger F. Teal. " Privately Provided Commuter Bus Services: Experiences, Problems and
Prospects," in Urban Transit: The Private Challenge to Public Transportation. C. A. Lave, ed., Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass.,
1985, pp. 151-­‐ 179.
27 U. S. Department of Labor. " Mass Transit Employee Protections, ( Section 13( c)) of the Federal Transit Act."
http:// www. dol. gov/ compliance/ laws/ comp-­‐ masstransit. htm ( Accessed October 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 22
commuter bus services can reduce operating expenses as contracted drivers have lower wage rates and less
costly benefit packages. 28 More flexibility in labor agreements is one solution that several transit agencies have
implemented. New Jersey Transit’s labor agreement enables all newly inaugurated service and ten percent of
ongoing services to be contracted. 29
This flexibility can allow private transportation companies to provide long
distance service for transit agencies cost-­‐ effectively.
4.4 REGULATORY PROCESS
Private bus operators are licensed and regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC). Fee-­‐ based
services apply for a Passenger State Corporations ( PSC) permit while free employer-­‐ based services are classified
as Charter-­‐ Party Carriers ( TCP). The application process for both is relatively straightforward and usually takes
three months for the CPUC to approve. The majority of applications are accepted.
As part of the certification process, the PSC applicant has to include a list of all public transit agencies whose
jurisdictions the commuter bus will be traversing. A copy of the application must be sent to each of the transit
operators listed and a certificate of service has to be presented with the submitted application showing that the
transit agencies have received notification. Transit agencies may file protests against some aspect of the
proposed service. In the case of Bauer’s Wi-­‐ Drive service, several transit agencies filed protest for reasons
including competition and interruption of transit operations at the stops identified. To resolve the issues, the
application process took seven months to be approved, four months longer than usual. Bauer’s modified its
route structure and stop locations to gain approval from the agencies.
The PSC application process for commuter bus service can be overwhelming, especially if the agencies claim
unfair competition. The applicant has to prove that the overall quality of service in the region will materially
improve. Any of the reviewers can block entry if forceful enough or if the applicant does not make the
appropriate changes to their route structure to accommodate the protesting agency’s demands. This process,
though trying to protect transit agency jurisdiction, can impede innovation and the emergence of privately-­‐
provided transportation services.
4.5 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
Privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services are currently ineligible for public funds for a variety of reasons.
Employer-­‐ base services that are available only to employees not the general public, are not eligible for public
funds. Fee-­‐ based services are open to the public but since they are provided by a private company, they are for
the most part ineligible to receive public funds unless they partner with a public agency. Despite being for-­‐
profit, the cost to providing the service is high and subsidies are needed for the longevity of long-­‐ distance
commuter services at affordable fares.
Though private transportation companies are eligible for some federal funding, they have to partner with a
public agency to receive the funds. The Federal Transit Administration’s Buses and Bus Related Equipment and
Facilities programs ( 5309, 5318 grants) allocates funds on a discretionary basis for new and replacement buses,
related equipment and facilities. Eligible recipients are states, municipalities, public agencies certain public
28 Murray, Gail, David Koffman, and Cliff Chambers. " Strategies to Assist Local Transportation Agencies in Becoming Mobility
Managers." TCRP 21 ( 1997). http:// onlinepubs. trb. org/ Onlinepubs/ tcrp/ tcrp_ rpt_ 21-­‐ a. pdf ( Accessed October 2009).
29 Ibid.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 23
corporations, boards and commissions established under state law. However, private companies engaged in
public transportation and private non-­‐ profit organizations are eligible sub-­‐ recipients if they are included in a
program of projects submitted by the designated public authority acting as the direct recipient of a grant. 30
The FTA Large Urban Cities ( 5307) grant allocates federal resources to urbanized areas ( population over
200,000). Qualified projects are planning and capital investments in bus and bus-­‐ related activities, construction
of maintenance and passenger facilities. Operating assistance is not an eligible expense. The regional
metropolitan planning organization ( MPO) works with the region's transit operators to determine how these
funds are prioritized. There are currently 22 operators in the Bay Area that request FTA Section 5307 funds. 31
Since the funds do not sufficiently cover transit agencies needs, distributing them to private transportation
companies could be a sensitive issue, detracting from the share available to transit agencies.
In the Bay Area, locally-­‐ funded grants do allow private companies to apply directly without partnership with a
public agency, although eligibility relies on a few service requirements. Transportation Fund for Clean Air
( TFCA) from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD) provides grants to implement cost-­‐
effective projects in the Bay Area that will decrease motor vehicle emissions and improve air quality. Non-­‐ public
entities can apply for TFCA grants, directly or via a public agency, to implement certain clean air vehicle projects
only. Private commuter bus operators can apply as either a shuttle program or as a regional rideshare service.
If applying as a shuttle program, funds are granted for routes to or from a rail station, airport or ferry terminal.
The destination cannot be a single employer’s campus; two or more employers must be served by the shuttle.
For example, a commuter bus that picks up commuters from the Glen Park BART Station in San Francisco and
transports them to a suburban office park with multiple employers may be eligible. Additionally, the applicant
must submit documentation to the transit agencies along the route demonstrating that the route does not
duplicate or conflict with existing transit service. 32
These funds are more suitable to fee-­‐ based privately-­‐
provided commuter bus services.
The other option for private commuter bus operators is to apply as a regional ridesharing project. Ridesharing
service must be composed of riders from at least three Bay Area counties. However, applications for projects
that provide a direct or indirect financial transit or rideshare subsidy exclusively to employees of the project
sponsor are not eligible. 33
The policies and conditions of most of the funding sources do not encourage private companies to provide
commuter bus services. As highlighted earlier, privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services do provide valuable
long distance with measureable decreases in emissions and congestion. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority ( MBTA) found privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services to be complementary to their own service,
and gave operating subsidies to encourage private operators to continue providing commuter bus services when
many were reducing or eliminating service due to financial hardship. Revising federal, state and local grant
requirements to include provisions for privately-­‐ provided commuter services may encourage more companies to
enter into the market to provide options for commuters not traveling to areas conveniently served by public
30 Federal Transit Administration. " Grant Programs." http:// www. fta. dot. gov/ funding/ grants_ financing_ 263. html ( Accessed
October 2009).
31 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. " Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) Funding Sources, Programs, and
Planning." http:// www. mtc. ca. gov/ funding/ FTA/ ( Accessed October 2009).
32 Transportation Fund for Clean Air ( TFCA) Regional Fund Fiscal Year 2009// 2010, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
( 2009). http:// www. baaqmd. gov/ Divisions/ Strategic-­‐ Incentives/ Transportation-­‐ Fund-­‐ for-­‐ Clean-­‐
Air/~/ media/ AED74C09715C4F36A65E70831FE3A822. ashx ( Accessed October 2009).
33 Ibid.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 24
transit. Some requirements may be that the company complement, not directly compete with, local transit
services or provide routes that are 20 miles or greater in length traveling to low-­‐ density suburban locations.
4.6 DESIGNATION
Though commuter bus services, both employer-­‐ based and fee-­‐ based, are not new types of programs, the
proliferation of the services in recent years plus their desire to be more formally recognized has called into
question how to correctly classify the services. The employer-­‐ based services do not operate for profit and are
offered as part of the employee benefit package to reduce drive alone rates and assist the company in recruiting
and retaining a talented workforce. Fee-­‐ based services do operate for profit, and their designation is perhaps
harder to define. By charging a fare and being open to the general public, they act more like a privately-­‐ run
transit system.
Employer-­‐ based commuter bus programs are part of the company’s broader transportation demand
management ( TDM) program. TDM is an all-­‐ inclusive term given to a variety of measures used to improve the
efficiency of the existing transportation system. TDM products and services include encouragement to use
alternatives to driving alone such as ridesharing services ( carpools and vanpools), transit, biking, and walking. 34
King County Metro’s Custom Bus is part of the Washington State Department of Transportation Commute Trip
Reduction ( CTR) program which seeks to reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and petroleum consumption
through employer-­‐ based programs.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, the employer-­‐ based commuter buses are not currently considered for ridesharing
funds under the 511 Regional Rideshare Program. 511 offers incentives for vanpool creation, including free
wireless internet access and $ 300 to $ 900 in gas cards for new vans, and additional gas cards to help cover the
fare of a lost participant. 35
No particular law or code prevents employer-­‐ based commuter bus services from
receiving Bay Area rideshare subsidies. However, eligibility is currently defined for carpool and vanpools only,
thus limiting employer-­‐ based commuter buses, which provide similar service although on a larger scale, from
receiving funds.
Fee-­‐ based services may need to be designated as a private transit service in order to remain viable. Though
private companies operate on a for profit basis, subsidies would be needed to operate the buses. As MBTA
showed, the costs for running long distance express bus services have gone up considerably over the years,
based on the increasing cost of buses, technologies and amenities. Ultimately, privately-­‐ provided commuter
buses should be formally recognized in the regional transportation system, regardless of their designation.
CONCLUSIONS
Transit agencies have different opinions about privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services. Some, including
MBTA, collaborate with private operators for service to low density areas while relieving the transit agency of
operational responsibility for the services. MBTA provides example to its peer agencies that are not as open to
collaboration with private companies. While a few privately-­‐ provided commuter bus operations do not pose a
substantial threat or interference to transit operations, the proliferation of commuter services in the Bay Area
34 Victoria Transport Policy Institute. " Ridesharing TDM Encyclopedia." http:// www. vtpi. org/ tdm/ tdm34. htm ( Accessed
October 2009).
35 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “ Vanpooling.” http:// rideshare. 511. org/ vanpooling/ vanpool_ incentives. asp
( Accessed October 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 25
raise shows the need for increased public-­‐ private collaboration. The benefits from the commuter services in
terms of responding to commuter needs, promoting local transit use and decreasing congestion and emissions
are substantial enough to warrant formal consideration in the regional transportation system.
With open dialogue and cooperation, the privately-­‐ provided commuter buses, both employer-­‐ based and fee-­‐
based services, can operate in a way that enhances transit and local communities. Transit and private
commuter bus providers can work together to determine the best route and stop locations to facilitate all
operations and ease the application process with the CPUC.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 26
5. COMMUTER BUSES AND VANPOOLS
Commuters have other alternative travel options besides privately-­‐ provided commuter buses and conventional
transit. Carpool and vanpools also offer a flexible service to and from the worksite. Over the years, vanpools in
particular have been increasingly encouraged through public subsidy and incentive programs as the preferred
commuter option for one-­‐ way trips exceeding twenty miles, where public transit is inadequate and congestion
or parking problems exist.
With the ideal trip length being twenty miles or more, and service most suitable in areas with congestion and
few viable transit options, the market for both vanpool and privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services are
similar, with a few key distinctions. The main differences have to do with ridership and drivers. To be cost-­‐
effective, commuter buses typically need two to three times the density of travel demand. Vanpools need seven
to twelve passengers and can serve low density areas. The low ridership requirement also allows for a more
personalized service, with 20 to 60 percent of vanpool riders picked up and dropped off at home. 36
As the vans
are driven by commuters, operational costs are lower than that of services with hired drivers.
Vanpools are formally recognized as a separate non-­‐ rail mode making them eligible for FTA Urbanized Area
Formula ( 5307) Funds. A stipulation for receiving funds is that vanpool programs are subject to the same
requirements identified in the federally required National Transit Database ( NTD) reporting system. The
reported revenue miles and passenger miles are used in a formula allocation of the urbanized area formula
funds. 37 Each vanpool revenue mile ( the mileage accumulated when passengers are in a van) generates
eligibility for a certain amount of federal aid. Based on the national NTD totals, Congress each year develops
unit values to determine what amounts are used in the formula to apportion funds. 38
Privately-­‐ provided
commuter bus services should receive the same designation, being a service similar to vanpools.
Vanpool funds are received by the public agency coordinating ridesharing programs. For example, the King
County Metro Rideshare Operations program uses 5307 funds to provide vans, rider support services,
maintenance, insurance, fuel, tires and training. 39 In the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
( MTC) runs a regional rideshare program and provides ridematching, carpool and vanpool assistance and
subsidies for new vanpools with funding from the Federal Highway Administration’s Congestion Mitigation Air
Quality program, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air and county
congestion management agencies. 40
36 Evans, John E., and Richard A. Pratt. Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: Chapter 5— Vanpools and
Buspools. Rep. no. 95. Washington, D. C.: Transit Cooperative Research Program-­‐ Transportation research Board, 2005.
511 Rideshare does not purchase vans; vanpool riders or their employers
buy or lease a van themselves. Using funding sources other than 5307 funds for vanpools may be more for
political than logistical reasons. As the amount of 5307 funds allocated to the Bay Area is not enough to cover
transit operator needs, redistributing the funds to include vanpools is a sensitive issue especially if distributed
based on performance. As vanpools generate high passenger miles with low operating expenses, the program
http:// onlinepubs. trb. org/ Onlinepubs/ tcrp/ tcrp_ rpt_ 95c5. pdf ( Accessed October 2009).
37 VPSI. " National Transit Database." http:// www. vpsiinc. com/ Home/ SubMenu. asp? MMID= 3& SMID= 35& OID= 261
( Accessed October 2009).
38 Ibid.
39 King County Metro. " Metro Rideshare Operations." http:// transit. metrokc. gov/ tops/ van-­‐ car/ van-­‐ car. html ( Accessed
October 2009).
40 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “ About 511 Regional Rideshare Program.”
http:// rideshare. 511. org/ global/ about_ rideshare. asp ( Accessed October 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 27
would generate the most funds, detracting from the share available to transit agencies. As vanpool ridership
grows, 5307 funds for the program may be pursued in the future. 41
Vanpools provide a valuable service in the commuter market. However, this type of service may not be
convenient for all riders and professions when workloads do not allow consistent start and end times every day.
Furthermore, when one rider opts out of the vanpool, the remaining riders have to cover the cost of the empty
seat, increasing their monthly fee unless they find a replacement.
Commuter buses are a ridesharing solution that can allow schedule flexibility and fixed fares. Most of the
privately-­‐ provided commuter bus programs in the Bay Area offer two to three runs in both the morning and
evening peaks. Riders are able to retain a flexible schedule depending on workload and meeting schedules. For
fee-­‐ based services, fares do not fluctuate if a passenger decides to opt out of taking the bus. Buses are also
driven by a professional, eliminating the need for an employee to drive. Many of transportation managers of
the employer-­‐ based commuter bus programs remarked that vanpool programs are difficult to start as the
question of who will be driving is always raised as an issue. However, they do help start vanpool or carpools for
employees living in areas with insufficient density for a bus. The complete system therefore is comprised of a
network of buses, vanpools and carpools.
Large cities are more ideally suited to commuter bus service rather than vanpools due to residential density and
parking shortages. In San Francisco in particular, finding an on-­‐ street parking space for a van is difficult.
Providing a commuter bus instead allows for ridesharing without putting employees through the hassle of
hunting for a parking space every weeknight.
Privately-­‐ provided commuter buses and vanpools each have their strengths but their limitations allow
cooperative operations. Privately-­‐ provided commuter buses are well suited to areas with high rider density
going to low density employment sites with trip lengths averaging 20 miles or more. Vanpools are valuable in
providing a cost-­‐ effective and energy-­‐ efficient commuter travel option between low density areas.
41 Heinrich, Susan. “ 511 Rideshare.” Phone Interview by the California Center for Innovative Transportation. October 2010.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 28
6. PUBLIC AGENCIES AND THEIR ROLES
The continued success and likely growth of privately-­‐ provided commuter programs in the Bay Area will require
more formal recognition by public agencies. Private companies and public agencies can work collaboratively to
implement policy that mitigates direct competition to ensure both sectors can provide economically efficient
and viable services in their respective niches. The majority of the privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services in
the Bay Area travel from residential areas, in both cities and suburbs, to low density employment sites of one or
more companies. As such, little overlap or competition exists between them.
6.1 PUBLIC TRANSIT AGENCY ROLE
The continued decentralization of metropolitan areas and changes in family and work patterns are steadily
eroding traditional markets for transit and limiting opportunities for service expansion. Privately-­‐ provided
commuter buses have been successful in the Bay Area mainly due to their appropriate response to travel
demand. Providing express service from city and suburban areas low density suburban employment locations
on a comfortable bus equipped with wireless internet access understands exactly what highly-­‐ skilled commuters
need in terms of travel time, quality of service and productivity.
Transit agencies have used innovative approaches to provide peak period long distance service, including the
use of part-­‐ time drivers, peak period service reductions and selective fare increases. Transit agencies have high
labor costs due to employer-­‐ paid benefits and high wage rates relative to drivers of privately-­‐ provided
commuter service. Additionally, the peak period, long-­‐ distance only feature of commuter bus service requires
deadheading and unproductive use of both labor and vehicle. Private operators are able to provide peak period
express services at lower cost due to the lower wage rates as well as combining commuter service with other
charter or contract service. In light of significant transit agency budget shortfalls, costs for long distance express
service are difficult to justify. SamTrans in 2009 cut several express routes between San Mateo County and San
Francisco to bridge its budget gap.
As an alternative to providing long distance express services themselves, transit agencies can effectively
promote privately-­‐ provided commuter bus service by the following actions: 42
1. Encourage and facilitate private sector operations
􀁸 Working with providers to set rules on stop locations, route structure and safety to guarantee
smooth operations of both public and private service
: Instead of a contracting partnership that may have
13( c) implications, the transit agency can encourage the private sector to respond to commuter
demands and provide new types of services. This encouragement and facilitation can be accomplished
in a variety of methods including:
􀁸 Acting as a broker by passing along requests for worksite service to a private bus company
􀁸 Actively marketing privately-­‐ provided commuter services as part of the consumer’s travel
options
􀁸 Leasing new or extra equipment to private companies that lack the capital to purchase new
buses
42 Teal, Roger F., Genevieve Giuliano, and Mary E. Brenner. " Transit Agency Use of Private Sector Strategies for Commuter
Transportation." Institute of Transportation Studies UC Irvine ( 1983).
http:// www. its. uci. edu/ its/ publications/ papers/ ITS/ UCI- ITS- WP- 83- 1. pdf ( Accessed October 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 29
􀁸 Renting space at bus transfer terminals and park and ride lots to private commuter service.
Renting space can be made more attractive to companies if transit agencies include marketing
of the services that are publically accessible
2. Contract with private operators
: The transit agency can contract with a private provider for fixed route
or long distance commute bus service. Some private operators are able to combine their commute
service with their charter business, utilizing labor and vehicles throughout the day and reducing the unit
cost of service. Capital costs may be lower for private operators but the difference may be negligible
compared to grants transit agencies receive for offsetting capital and maintenance costs.
A potential issue with contracting with private operators is Section 13( c). If a transit agency contracts a
route to a private provider, it cannot eliminate jobs as a result of the change. Therefore private
operators can be most easily contracted for service expansion. The labor protection provisions in 13( c)
do not apply to service expansion as it does not affect current employees. However, some transit union
contracts have limitations on the amount of contracting permitted.
Encouraging and facilitating private sector operations rest on formal recognition of the service as
complementary to conventional transit. At the very least, public transit agencies, regional planning agencies and
private providers must be transparent when communicating and collaborating. As more companies engage in
commuter services, either as an employee benefit or for profit, agencies should consider addressing the service
as a legitimate program that reduces congestion and emissions on their local streets and on the freeways that
cut through their communities. Increasing the visibility of private operators meets the needs of particular
market segments outside the agency’s purview. Fixed-­‐ route transit service cannot serve all needs in a
decentralized economic landscape, and encouraging private sector involvement can provide flexible
transportation services that respond to customer preferences. In private industry terms, public transportation
agencies would be diversifying and broadening their missions to effectively facilitate their customers’ mobility.
As mentioned earlier, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ( MBTA) provided operating subsidies to
private bus companies to encourage the private operators to provide commuter bus services. The program
enabled the MBTA to respond to the need for transit service in lower density parts of the region, while relieving
the Authority of the direct responsibility for operating these services.
Another good example of encouraging and facilitating private sector operations is shown through the King
County Metro and Microsoft partnership. King County Metro considers commuter bus service by Microsoft’s
Connector complementary to public transit service. 43 Compared to Metro ridership, around 365,000 average
daily boardings, the number of commuters taking the Connector is not a significant reduction in their ridership. 44
The Connector averages a daily ridership at 3,400 over 55 routes or 0.9 percent of Metro’s daily boardings. 45
43 Long, Katherine. " Microsoft Connector: 19 routes, 53 buses later." The Seattle Times [ Seattle] 12 Apr. 2009.
Microsoft’s transportation staff worked with King County Metro to integrate Metro and Microsoft Connector
service to form a cohesive network. If good public transit service is already present in the proposed corridor,
Microsoft will not provide Connector service and employees are encouraged to ride transit using their universal
http:// seattletimes. nwsource. com/ cgi-­‐
bin/ PrintStory. pl? document_ id= 2009025535& zsection_ id= 2003750725& slug= msshuttle12m& date= 20090412 ( Accessed
October 2009).
44 King County Department of Transportation. " Metro estimates biggest ridership gain in 10 years." 23 Jan. 2008.
http:// www. kingcounty. gov/ transportation/ kcdot/ NewsCenter/ NewsReleases/ 2008/ January/ nr012308_ ridership. aspx
( Accessed October 2009).
45 Microsoft. “ The Microsoft Connector Fact and Figures.” July 2009.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 30
transit pass, offered free by Microsoft. However, if service is slow or inconvenient in the corridor, a Connector
route may be considered. 46
Microsoft also participates in monthly meetings with the seven transit agencies in
the region, fostering transparency and collaboration. Microsoft’s participation also indicates that the agencies
consider the commuter service as legitimate and valuable in the region.
The Connector service does not compromise King County Metro transit operations. Connector buses are not
allowed to use on-­‐ street transit stops, but are allowed to use a bay at Metro’s bus transit center through a lease
agreement. This arrangement was established before the Connector service was initiated, showing that
Microsoft was upfront with their service intentions. Microsoft works with businesses and churches to establish
stops in white curb zones and parking lots and have been successful in procuring these partnerships.
By diversifying the services in their retinue, Metro acts as a mobility manager, a term used by the Federal Transit
Administration ( FTA) and other practitioners. 47 Mobility management involves fostering and organizing a
network of diverse transportation services and providers to satisfy customer needs, moving beyond establishing
and operating traditional fixed route transit systems. This means incorporating vanpools, carpools and
commuter services provided either through public agencies or private companies into the agency’s
transportation network. The role of the transit agencies therefore shifts from solely being a transit provider to
one that acts similar to a travel agent by brokering customer needs with a variety of service providers and
providing one-­‐ stop customer information on all available travel services. 48
Like Metro, Bay Area transit agencies can take actions to more formally support private companies providing
commuter bus services. The partnerships can be mutually beneficial. Acting as a broker for transportation
requests or simply acknowledging privately-­‐ provided service as another transit alternative are steps to address
the mobility needs of the regional commuter population. Private companies benefit from greater visibility as
well as the opportunity to partner with agencies to apply for federal CMAQ funds to help subsidize costs. CMAQ
funds do not decrease the amount of funds available to transit agencies, and are applicable to privately-­‐
provided commuter bus services as they provide congestion and air quality relief similar to carpool, vanpool and
last mile shuttle programs.
6.2 LOCAL AND REGIONAL AGENCIES ROLES
Local governments, including cities and counties, and regional agencies, including metropolitan planning
organizations and air quality management districts, are responsible for creating, maintaining or regulating most
of the physical environment for transit. Their purview includes the road network, operational guidelines for
transportation, land use patterns and development plans.
Local agencies maintain regulations that directly relate to the institutional environment in which most public
transportation organizations function, including road weight restrictions, curb space regulations and noise
mitigation. In San Francisco particularly, the intercity coach bus models used by the private bus operators have
elicited noise and safety complaints from the public living along the routes that travel down narrow streets. City
46 Frosh, Lynn, Puget Sound Transportation Services Manager. " Microsoft Connector." Telephone Interview by the California
Center for Innovative Transportation. 29 June 2009.
47 Federal Transit Administration. " Mobility Management Resources."
http:// www. fta. dot. gov/ planning/ metro/ planning_ environment_ 2366. html ( Accessed October 2009).
48 Murray, Gail, David Koffman, and Cliff Chambers. " Strategies to Assist Local Transportation Agencies in Becoming Mobility
Managers." TCRP 21 ( 1997). http:// onlinepubs. trb. org/ Onlinepubs/ tcrp/ tcrp_ rpt_ 21-­‐ a. pdf ( Accessed October 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 31
agencies can work with the transit agency and private operators to create route and stop guidelines for current
and new services. As both employer-­‐ and fee-­‐ based operations become more commonplace, operating
guidelines will have to be created to mitigate any noise, safety and operational impacts to the public. Creating
guidelines with input from all stakeholders is the most effective manner in reaching consensus.
On both the local and regional level, funding can be set aside to pursue innovative strategies that reduce drive
alone trips. This funding can be used toward service, technologies and transportation demand management
programs, including privately-­‐ provided commuter buses. These funds can be garnered through impact fees on
development, special sales taxes or other assessments. Counties in California have used sales taxes to build high
occupancy vehicle lanes, create a trust fund for paratransit and support general transit services. On a regional
level, a portion of federal and state funds can be allocated specifically for projects that improve travel choices in
congested corridors or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
On a broader level, local and regional agencies can promote privately-­‐ provided commuter buses, both
employer-­‐ and fee-­‐ based, as well as other rideshare and transportation demand management strategies, by
requiring trip reduction programs for all companies with more than 50 or 100 employees.
As the metropolitan planning organization and the air district for the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission ( MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD) can encourage privately
provided commuter bus services on a regional level. Encouraging and incentivizing private companies to provide
commuter buses can help to accomplish some strategic goals, including:
􀁸 Improving the mobility of suburban commuters and responding to suburban needs
􀁸 Providing more customer friendly service that responds to commuter demands
􀁸 Increasing the effectiveness of the entire transit program
􀁸 Supporting federal, state and local congestion and air quality regulatory policies, including the Clean Air
Act’s Congestion Management amendment; Assembly Bill 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006; and the Sustainable Communities Strategy for Senate Bill 375, Redesigning Communities to
Reduce Greenhouse Gases
MTC can incorporate privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services into regional transportation program and
encourage more employer-­‐ and fee-­‐ based commuter bus services. As private companies are not able to apply
for federal or state funds without partnering with a public agency, formally recognizing their contribution to the
region’s congestion relief efforts can help them procure CMAC or 5307 funding. The funding would help offset
the high costs of long distance service and could go towards reducing fares. Another alternative is to revise the
511 Rideshare program to include information on and incentives for privately-­‐ provided commuter buses,
especially those that are fee-­‐ based. MTC has already integrated last mile and community shuttle service route
and schedule information onto their 511 transit trip planner, and should consider integrating fee-­‐ based
commuter buses as well.
BAAQMD can incorporate language into its TFCA requirements to allow funding for employer-­‐ and fee-­‐ based
commuter bus services more specifically instead of stipulating that the service to be accessible for multiple
employment destinations or open to the public.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 32
6.3 STATE ROLE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION REGULATIONS49
Private bus operators are licensed and regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC). Vanpools
seating 15 or fewer passengers and operated by a driver headed to work are exempt from California Public
Utilities Commission ( CPUC) certification requirements. Firms which operate and underwrite commuter bus
services for their own employees are similarly exempt. CPUC maintains regulations for private for-­‐ profit
vanpools and subscription intercity buses seeking entry into the marketplace. 50
The CPUC has an open entry policy for Passenger Stage Corporations ( PSCs) which are defined as intercity
services that transport passengers between points on an individual fare basis, with examples including fixed-­‐
route bus services and " share-­‐ ride" airport shuttle services. The PUC rarely denies a Certificate to Operate
application preferring that the market regulate the supply of carriers. Public transit agencies and other private
transportation companies have the opportunity to file protest on grounds of unfair competition or service
disruptions. Currently, the CPUC takes three months to review a submitted application. Steps are being taken
to streamline the process, with staff approving applications instead of the Commissioner. This will allow for a
considerable reduction in time taken to process applications.
Though the PSC application is relatively straightforward, achieving transit agency consent as a requisite for
approval can cause delays in processing. This requirement is to ensure that fee-­‐ based privately-­‐ provided
commuter services do not undermine transit services. Transit agencies can delay or even damage the
application if competition or operational conflicts are perceived. Given the diversity of travel demands in the
United States and especially in the Bay Area, it is unlikely that the transit provider would face direct competition.
Furthermore, private transportation companies cannot compete with transit fare subsidies and typically will not
design a route that is comparable to that of a transit agency’s.
Relaxing entry requirements for PSCs in terms transit agency approval would encourage more companies to
offer fee-­‐ based commuter services and provide traveling public with diverse transportation options. However,
the CPUC would maintain clear guidelines on safety, driver qualifications and general operating practices.
STATEWIDE TDM PROGRAM
Statewide transportation demand management ( TDM) programs require employers to support and encourage
travel alternatives. A TDM program on a statewide level can also help to formally recognize all types of
privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services as a method to decrease the number of single occupancy commute
trips.
TDM programs have typically been implemented on a regional basis in California. In 1992, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District ( BAAQMD) passed Regulation 13, Transportation Control Measures, stipulating trip
reduction requirements for large employers. The regulation established trip reduction requirements for public
and private employers with 100 or more employees per work site, and established a specific implementation
49 Wuerstle, Paul. " California Public Utilities Commission." Phone Interview by the California Center for Innovative
Transportation.
50 Cervero, Robert. " Fostering Commercial Transit: Alternatives in Greater Los Angeles." The Reason Foundation 146 ( 1992).
http:// reason. org/ files/ 8039a618f197e2c8bbfe21b2ac4cd285. pdf ( Accessed October 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 33
schedule. 51 After businesses complained about the perceived rigidity of the law, California Legislature
suspended the regulation in 1996 with SB 437, prohibiting air districts, congestion management agencies, and
other public agencies from requiring an employer to implement an employee trip reduction program unless the
program is expressly required by federal law. 52
Currently, BAAQMD promotes voluntary employer-­‐ based trip reduction programs through their Transportation
Control Measures ( TCM) listed in their 2000 Clean Air Plan and the 2005 Ozone Strategy. The TCM maintains
that MTC will continue to administer the regional ridesharing program funded by BAAQMD’s Transportation
Fund for Clean Air ( TFCA). 53
WASHINGTON STATE DOT COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION LAW
Washington State Department of Transportation ( DOT) offers a successful example of requiring commute trip
reduction on a statewide level. Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction ( CTR) Law was adopted by the
1991 Legislature as part of the Washington Clean Air Act. 54 The objective is to improve air quality, reduce traffic
congestion and decrease the consumption of petroleum fuels through employer-­‐ based TDM programs. All
counties with a population over 150,000, and each city or town containing a major employer is required to
adopt an ordinance to implement a commute trip reduction plan. 55 The law applies to employers with 100 or
more full-­‐ time employees at a single worksite who are scheduled to begin their workdays between 6: 00 and
9: 00 a. m. 56 Currently, around 1,110 worksites and 560,000 commuters statewide participate in the CTR
Program. 57
One year before, 1990, the Washington State legislature adopted the Growth Management Act ( GMA). The
GMA requires state and local governments to manage Washington’s growth by identifying and protecting critical
areas and natural resource lands, designating urban growth areas and preparing comprehensive plans to
discourage uncoordinated and unplanned growth. 58
Though no legal ties existed between the GMA and CTR
laws at the time of adoption, linkages are now being created. For example, CTR is encouraging localities to have
consistent parking management policies.
One of the successful features of the CTR law is flexibility. Employers are not penalized if they demonstrate a
“ good faith effort,” as defined in the law. If a good faith effort is shown but the employer did not meet the
commute trip reduction goals, or if the employer failed to make a good faith effort, the DOT and jurisdiction
works collaboratively with the employer to make modifications to their commute trip reduction program.
Flexibility is also seen in the design of the TDM programs. Employer TDM programs are customized according to
location: suburban employers have different set of TDM options than city employers. However, all employers
are, at a minimum, required to have 1) a transportation coordinator; 2) regular distribution of alternate
51 http:// www. arb. ca. gov/ drdb/ ba/ curhtml/ r13-­‐ 1. htm
52 http:// info. sen. ca. gov/ pub/ 95-­‐ 96/ bill/ sen/ sb_ 0401-­‐ 0450/ sb_ 437_ cfa_ 950713_ 135859_ asm_ comm. html
53 http:// www. baaqmd. gov/ Divisions/ Planning-­‐ and-­‐ Research/ Plans/ Clean-­‐ Air-­‐ Plans/ Prior-­‐
Plans/~/ media/ 11A3AB3ABFE44283ADFD7FD7F6DDC3D9. ashx
54 Chapter 202, Sections 10 to 19
55 Washington State Department of Transportation Revised Commute Trip Reduction Law, Appendix A.
http:// www. wsdot. wa. gov/ NR/ rdonlyres/ 086BE670-­‐ E436-­‐ 4078-­‐ 9189-­‐ 85FAFC0779CE/ 0/ AppendixA. pdf ( Accessed October
2009).
56 Washington Clean Air Act. Commute Trip Reduction ( CTR) Law ( 1991).
http:// www. wsdot. wa. gov/ NR/ rdonlyres/ 251C6614-­‐ 9E0C-­‐ 4E89-­‐ 99A4-­‐ 14161E4E6EAF/ 0/ SEC1. pdf ( Accessed October 2009).
57 Washington State Department of Transportation. " Commute Trip Reduction Program Overview."
http:// www. wsdot. wa. gov/ TDM/ CTR/ overview. htm# goals ( Accessed October 2009).
58 Washington State. " The Growth Management Act." http:// www. gmhb. wa. gov/ gma/ ( accessed October 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 34
commute program information to employees; 3) an annual review of employee commuting and reporting of
progress toward meeting the single-­‐ occupant vehicle reduction goals; and 4) implementation of programs to
achieve the commute trip reduction goals adopted by the jurisdiction. 59
Washington State funds the CTR program from their Multi-­‐ Modal Account, allocating $ 5.5 million every two
years, of which $ 3.9 million is given to local agencies to administer the program. Employers receive some of this
money through their localities to partially fund their worksite TDM programs. For example, Microsoft funds its
TDM program entirely but receives some public money for their efforts. The remaining $ 1.6 million funds CTR’s
technical assistance, measurement and data collection tools, and other support programs. CTR has also created
a tax credit program for employers who provide financial incentives to their own employees for ride sharing,
public transportation, car sharing, or non-­‐ motorized commuting. Employers can take the credit against the state
business and occupation tax or the public utility tax. 60
The program has experienced success. Employers support the program, so much so that they rallied against the
governor-­‐ proposed elimination of CTR. The percentage of employees who drove alone to work to CTR
worksites declined from 71 percent in 1993 to 66 percent in 2007. In central Puget Sound, the CTR program
decreased 19,200 vehicle trips every morning, reducing morning peak travel delay by an estimated 18 percent
on average in the region. 61
STATEWIDE TDM IN CALIFORNIA?
As mentioned earlier, SB 437 prohibits air districts, congestion management agencies, and other public agencies
from requiring an employer to implement an employee trip reduction program in California. In response, many
cities have instituted their own voluntary programs or have required trip reduction programs for companies
seeking density bonuses. For example, the city of South San Francisco enacted a citywide TDM Ordinance that
requires all non-­‐ residential developments seeking a floor area ratio ( FAR) bonus to obtain an alternative mode
use. 62 The City of Los Angeles TDM Ordinance sets out comparable requirements according to FAR. 63
One way to support Assembly Bill 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a comprehensive
program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-­‐ effective reductions of
greenhouse gases, is to suspend SB 437 and allow regional agencies to create trip reduction programs.
Alternatively, the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) can follow Washington State DOT’s
example and work with businesses to establish a statewide commute trip reduction program that does not
penalize businesses for noncompliance. Instead, Caltrans or local agencies can work with those businesses that
do not reach their target to create programs that are more effective. Incentives, tax credits and funding can
help motivate businesses create programs for their employees by bringing down costs. The budget shortfalls in
2008-­‐ 2010 may not be the most opportune time to create a trip reduction program with incentives though
laying the foundation for the program should be considered on a statewide level.
59 Keith Cotton, WSDOT Public Transportation Urban Programs Manager. " WSDOT Commute Trip Reduction." Interview by
California Center for Innovative Transportation. May 28, 2009.
60 Ibid.
61 Washington State Department of Transportation. " Commute Trip Reduction Program Overview."
http:// www. wsdot. wa. gov/ TDM/ CTR/ overview. htm# goals ( Accessed October 2009).
62 South San Francisco Municipal Code, § 20.120.030 Program Requirements and Standards.
http:// qcode. us/ codes/ southsanfrancisco ( Accessed October 2009).
63 City of Los Angeles. “ Transportation Demand Management ( TDM) Ordinance.” Section 98.0411 of the Municipal Code
( Chapter IX). http:// www. triangletdmplan. com/ ordinances/ LA_ TDM_ Ordinance. pdf ( accessed October 2009).
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 35
6.4 FEDERAL ROLE
The Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) can play an important role in supporting privately-­‐ provided commuter
bus programs through encouraging new management opportunities for transit agencies, revising laws and
providing funding. Mobility management is a concept promoted by the FTA and other transportation
practitioners to encourage transit agencies to expand their purview from traditional fixed route transit systems
to fostering and organizing a network of diverse transportation options. Options include carpooling and
vanpooling, and providing transit options that are not traditional fixed routes, such as privately-­‐ provided
commuter buses, shuttles and demand-­‐ responsive services. As a mobility manager, the transit agency can
expand mode choice by providing complete transit information on all travel options instead of just the bus or rail
system under its purview, being a one-­‐ stop center for all regional systems, including those operated by the
private sector. FTA can provide guidance and incentivize more transit agencies to pursue this role.
Another method to encourage private-­‐ sector participation in providing transit services is by revising Section
13( c) of the amended 1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act. This labor protection clause guarantees that transit
employees will not be adversely affected by any program involving federal transit grants. 13( c) also guarantees
pay clauses and places prohibitions on part-­‐ time employment. Decreasing the difficulties with contacting
between public and private transit providers can allow for more commute-­‐ oriented service that benefit
customers.
Perhaps the most significant impediment to privately-­‐ provided commuter bus service transit is the lack of
federal subsidies available directly to private operators. Subsidies open only to the public sector leaves private
bus operators at a disadvantage in developing new services, unless they partner with a transit agency which may
be difficult if 13( c) regulations impede collaboration or if the agency perceives competition. 64
Federal regulations and funding allocations discourage diversity in the transportation market. To a degree,
these practices are inconsistent with the goals of mobility management. Allowing transit agencies to have
greater flexibility in contracting services without 13( c) issues can provide service diversity to commuters at lower
operating costs. Allocating funding to private commuter bus operators can also allow more companies to enter
into the market. Though the funds stipulate that the service receiving public money be open to the public,
special provisions should be considered for employer-­‐ based commuter bus services. Open only to employees,
they still reduce a significant number of trips. Limiting ridership to employees protects company classified
information when work is being conducted to or from the office. If service was open to the public, employees
would be limited in the type of work they could do; working on sensitive project information may not be suitable
if a member of the general public in the adjacent seat can easily see the employee’s laptop. Therefore, special
provisions within the funding requirements should be considered for employer-­‐ based commuter services that
allow them to receive funds based on the trip reduction impacts even though their ridership pool is restricted.
CONCLUSIONS
Changes are needed to not only to encourage privately-­‐ provided commuter bus services but also to formally
recognize their supplementary support of the regional transportation system. Public authorities should take
64 Giuliano, Genevieve and Roger F. Teal. " Privately Provided Commuter Bus Services: Experiences, Problems and
Prospects," in Urban Transit: The Private Challenge to Public Transportation. C. A. Lave, ed., Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass.,
1985, pp. 151-­‐ 179.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 36
steps to ensure that the development of these services is facilitated, and that flexibility is allowed to provide for
efficient and economical use of public and private transportation resources on a regional level. Privately-­‐
provided commuter bus services, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area, should not be kept solely afloat by
determined employers and private operators.
Privately-­‐ Provided Commuter Bus Service March 2010
California Center for Innovative Transportation – University of California, Berkeley 37
7. NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Privately-­‐ provided commuter buses play an important role in the regional tr