FTA-MA-26-0006-96-1 DOT-VNTSC-PTA-9511 TransitChek@ in the U.S. Department New York City and of Transportation Philadelphia Areas Federal Transit Administration Research and Special Programs Administration Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142-l 093 Final Report October 1995 Office of Research, Demonstration, This document is available to the public through the National and Innovation Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Service Innovation Division Washington, DC 20590 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FormAp roved OMB No. &WI88 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES CWERED 4. TITLE AND SUSTITLE FUNDING NUMBERS U.S. Department of Transportation REPORT NUMBER Research and Special Programs Administration DOT-VNTSC-PTA-95-11 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 9. SPONSORINC/MMITDRINC AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS 10. SPONSORING/MDNITORRllC U.S. Department of Transportation AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Federal Transit Administration FTA-MA-26-0006-96-1 Service Innovation Division Washington, DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES 120. DISTRIBUT1tM/AVAILASILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 13. ABSTRACT (Haximn 200 words) This report docunantr the history and current operation of the TransitCheka programs in the New York City and Philadelphia areas, evaluates their impacts on local comuters and operators, and assesses hou well they have achieved the goals of the implementing organizations, the Federal Transit Atiinistration (FTA), and the perticipating operators and aployers. Both program have made progress toward increasing transit ridership, reducing comuter dependence on the automobile, inproving cnployee mobility, reducing cash fare psyment for operators, and fostering cooperation among operators ad the transportation and business cormmities. The progrwns enable employers to compensate employees with benefits in a aore cost-effective mamer than a conventionsl salary increase, because the value of TransitCheka vouchers given to cnployees is a tax deductible business expense. Employees receive a tax-free benefit that subsidizes their cumute to work. As more cnployers enroll, TransitCheka has the potential to convert significant w&t-s of riders to transit in a noncoercive nay, and contribute toward regimal compliance with the 199G Amen&nents to the Clean Air Act. 15. NWEER OF PAGES &aZf%T%S, employer-provided transportation benefit, transportation fringe benefit, transportation subsidy, Transit 164 Centerg, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 16. PRICE CODE 17. SRCURITY CLASSIFICATIO) 18. SECURITY CLASSIFlCATIO(I 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPCRT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified ~ Unclassified Unclassified Standard-_-. - -..- .Form -. .. -298 . - tPav-. - - - - 2-891 ‘z~~sm&ed by ANSI Std. a$;18 - PREFACE This evaluation was prepared by the Research and Special Programs Administration’s John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), Office of Research and Analysis, Service Assessment Division, for the Federal Transit Administration, Office of Research,Demonstration, and Innovation. The FTA project sponsor, JosephGoodman, TRI-12, provided overall direction for the work. The project was performed under Project Plan Agreement TT-627, Regional Mobility Program Support. This report documents the history and current operation of the TransitChek” programs in the New York City and Philadelphia areas, evaluates their impacts on local commuters and operators, and assesses how well they have achieved the goals of their implementing organizations, the FTA, the participating operators, and employers. The Volpe Center appreciates the cooperation and contributions to this report by the many people contacted in the New York and Philadelphia areas. In New York’s TransitCenterW special thanks goes to Larry Filler, Executive Director, and to Mark Carter, Business Operations Manager, for cheerfully and efficiently providing valuable insights and a wealth of information for this report. In the Philadelphia area, Paul Pezotta and Rita Dommermuth, formerly the Associate Director and Marketing/Program Manager, respectively, of the Transportation Planning Division of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, were extremely helpful in the initial stages of information gathering for this report. More recently the author appreciates the cooperation of Thomas Shaffer, Transportation Planner, Stacey Bartels, TransitChek Marketing Manager of the Office of Commuter Services, and Collie Andrews, Marketing Assistant, in answering numerous questions and updating program information. 111 METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) 1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in) 1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in) 1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft) 1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1 .l yards (yd) 1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi) AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE) 1 square inch (sq in, ir?) = 6.5 square centimeters (cs) 1 square centimeter (c&) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, i$) 1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, y&) 1 square yard (sq yd. y&) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2) 1 square mile (sq mi. miz) = 2.6 square kilometers (km2) 10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres 1 acre = 0.4 hectare (ha) = 4.000 square meters (rr$ MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) 1 ounce (02) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (02) 1 pound (lb) = .45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb) 1 short ton = 2.000 pounds (lb) = 0.9 tonne (1) 1 tonne (1) = 1,000 kilograms (kg) = 1 .l short tons VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) 1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz) 1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (I) = 2.1 pints (pt) 1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (I) = 1.06 quarts (qt) 1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (I) 1 liter (I) = 0.26 gallon (gal) 1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (I) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft. ft3) 1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (I) 1 cubic meter (ma) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3) 1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (I) 1 cubic foot (cu ft. ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT) ((x - 32)(5/9)]“F = y”C [(9/5)(y + 32)J”C = x”F QUICK INCH-CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION INCHES 0 1 2 3 4 5 I I 1 I I t I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I CENTIMETERS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 QUICK FAHRENHEIT-CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION “F -40” -22“ -4” 14” 32” 50” 68” 86” 104” 122” 140” 158” 176” 194” 212” I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I “C 40” -30” -20” -10” 0” 10” 20” 30” 40” 50” 60” 70” 80” 90” 100” For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and Measures. Price $2.50. SD Catalog No. Cl 3 10286. updated9/29/95 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ExEcuTIvEsuMMARY.......................................xi 1. INTRODUCTION. ........................................ l-l 1.1 OVERVIEW.. ..................................... l-l 1.2 TRANsITCHEK’ OVERVIEW ........................... l-l 1.2.1 Program Goals ................................ 1-2 1.2.2 TransitChek’ Sites ............................. l-2 1.2.3 TransitChek’ Development ........................ l-2 1.3 EVALUATION OVERVIEW ............................. l-3 1.3.1 Evaluation Objectives ............................ l-3 1.3.2 Evaluation Methodology .......................... l-3 1.3.3 Evaluation Criteria ............................. l-3 1.3.3.1 Transit Usage ........................... l-5 1.3.3.2 Financial Impacts ......................... l-5 1.3.3.3 Mobility of Employees ..................... l-5 1.3.3.4 Functional Characteristics .................... l-6 1.3.3.5 Physical Impacts ......................... l-6 1.3.3.6 Other Impacts ........................... l-6 2. TRANSITCHEK’INTHENEWYORKCITYREGION ................. 2-l 2.1 BACKGROUND .................................... 2-l 2.1.1 Description of the New York City Region ............... 2-l 2.1.1.1 Location .............................. 2-l 2.1.1.2 Mass Transportation ....................... 2-l 2.1.1.3 Other Transportation ....................... 2-3 2.1.1.4 Demographics ........................... 2-3 2.1.1.5 Environmental Issues ...................... 2-4 2.1.2 History of TransitCenteru Development ................. 2-4 2.1.2.1 Port Authority Motivation ................... 2-4 2.1.2.2 Transit Fringe Benefit ...................... 2-4 2.1.2.3 Formation of ELTO ....................... 2-4 2.1.2.4 Emergence of TransitCenter, ................. 2-5 2.2 TRANSITC -TODAY ............................ 2-7 2.2.1 Organization and Staffmg ......................... 2-7 2.2.2 Funding and Expenses