Citation
Assessing employer transportation needs in the Denver metropolitan area

Material Information

Title:
Assessing employer transportation needs in the Denver metropolitan area
Creator:
Figliolino, Brandon T.
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of public administration)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Public Affairs, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Public administration
Committee Chair:
Boylard, Wendy
Committee Members:
Harrison, Randy

Notes

General Note:
Fall 2018

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Brandon T. Figliolino. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
Running head: ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Assessing Employer Transportation Needs in the Denver Metropolitan Area
Brandon T. Figliolino
University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs
This client-based project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver Denver, Colorado
Fall
2018


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
2
Capstone Project Disclosures
This client-based project was completed on behalf of the Denver Regional Council of Governments and supervised by PUAD 5361 Capstone course instructor Wendy L. Bolyard, PhD, and second faculty reader Randy Harrison. This project does not necessarily reflect the views of the School of Public Affairs or the faculty readers. Raw data were not included in this document, rather relevant materials were provided directly to the client. Permissions to include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repository are found in the final Appendix. Questions about this capstone project should be directed to the student author.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
3
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 5
2. Literature Review 7
3. Methodology 14
4. Results 19
5. Discussion and Recommendations 25
6. Conclusion 29
7. References 30
8. Appendix 36
Table of Figures and Appendices
Appendix A—Measurement Tables 36
Appendix B— Acronym Guide 39
Appendix C—Email Invitation to TMA Partners 40
Appendix D—Survey Link Email with Request for Participation 41
Appendix E— Employer Survey Instrument 42
Appendix F—TMA Program Manager Interview Tool 56
Appendix G—Capstone Prospectus 57
Appendix H—TMA Program Manager Interview Response Matrix 61
Appendix I—Employer Commuting Programs and Benefits 64
Appendix J—Current Employer Commuting Programs 65
Appendix K—Future Employer Commuting Programs 66
Appendix L—Hypothesis Evaluation 67
Appendix M—MPA Core Competencies 69
Appendix N—Auraria Digital Library Repository Permissions 70
Fig. 1—HI Measurement Table 36
Fig. 2—H2 Measurement Table 36
Fig. 3—H3.1 Measurement Table 37
Fig. 4—H3.2 Measurement Table 37
Fig. 5—H4 Measurement Table 38
Fig. 6—H5.1 Measurement Table 38
Fig. 7—H5.2 Measurement Table 38
Fig.8— RTD EcoPass Program Participation 20
Fig. 9—Vanpool Subsidies 21
Fig. 10— Internal Factors Influencing Employer Decisions 29
Fig. 11— External Factors Influencing Employer Decisions 30


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
4
Executive Summary
This study was designed to provide the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), and the transportation management associations (TMAs) who serve the Denver Metropolitan Area, with an updated perspective on the commuting programs and benefits employers provide to their workers. Most commuters in the United States travel by car (Judd & Swanstrom, 2014). This commuting behavior leads to negative externalities, including increased traffic congestion, poorer air quality, and stymied economic development (Berger, 1998; Habibian & Kermansah, 2013; Walraven et. al, 2016). By analyzing employer commuting programs and benefits, DRCOG can meet employer needs and reduce the negative impacts of single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use by individuals travelling to work.
To gather data, an online survey was created and distributed through TMA networks to employers within the region. Ten employers provided insights into their current and future programming needs, and their opinions about commuting programs and benefits. Results suggest that DRCOG and the TMAs should focus on promoting the RTD EcoPass program, and work with RTD to reduce costs and expand transit services to increase program participation.
In addition to sampling employers in the region, this project included interviews from program managers at the TMAs, which has not been done in past studies. The goal of these interviews was to gain insight into whether there were subarea differences between the TMAs in terms of the services offered, their strategies, and their perceptions of the role of TMAs in the future. Results show that while all TMAs focus on education and outreach, many program managers want to expand their scope to include advocating for better land use practices, which this study found to be the biggest barrier towards implementing additional commuting
programs.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
5
Assessing Employer Transportation Needs in the Denver Metropolitan Area
The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) is a planning organization made up of a collection of local governments who strive to improve the Denver Metropolitan Area through collaborative planning and policy implementation. One key area of focus for DRCOG is transportation and personal mobility (Denver Regional Council of Governments, 2018). Reducing traffic congestion through alternative modes of transportation is one of their primary goals.
In the United States, the automobile is the preferred mode of travel (Judd & Swanstrom, 2014). The desire to use cars to travel is the reason traffic congestion rises when an area’s population increases (Bhattacharjee & Goetz, 2012). According to the Colorado State Demographer’s Office, the Denver Metro Area’s population has increased by over 835,000 residents since 1998 (Colorado State Demography Office, 2016). That trend will continue based on their forecasts. By 2050, the population is expected to exceed 4.4 million people (Colorado State Demography Office, 2018). These increases will continue to cause congestion in the Denver Metro Area.
Numerous issues arise when congestion occurs. The most visible externality to congestion is the reduced quality of life for individuals living in the area (Zheng & Kahn,
2013). For example, when vehicles idle in traffic, air pollution increases, which creates health hazards for residents (Walraven, Matthijs, Spaan, & Bakker, 2016). When there are more vehicles on the roads, the risk of being involved and hurt in a car accident also increases (Denver Regional Council of Governments, 2018).
The economic vitality of an area also suffers when congestion is present. For example, a study conducted by Berger (1998) noted that business sales volumes decreased in heavily


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
6
congested areas. Detter (2015) found that when traffic congestion is too severe for consumers, they will decide not to travel to purchase goods and services, opting to remain home instead. Over time, this could negatively impact the Denver Metro Area’s economic stability, if left unaddressed.
While congestion has been mitigated through highway and road expansion in the past, environmental and financial costs make this solution no longer feasible (Ewing, Tian, & Lyons, 2018). In Colorado, the Department of Transportation has an annual budget shortfall of almost $1 billion dollars, making expansion projects too costly to undertake (Colorado Department of Transportation, 2017). Further, studies have found that when roads are expanded, driving is encouraged. While a highway or road is less congested after an expansion project is complete, over time, the congestion will return to its original levels, or worse (Arnott & Yan, 2000; Johnston et al., 2006; Litman, 2017).
Instead of combating congestion through road and highway expansion projects, more governments—including those within Colorado—are working on reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use by encouraging public transportation, ridesharing, and biking as alternatives (Henao, Luckey, Nordback, Marshall, & Krizek, 2012). To help facilitate this change, transportation management associations (TMAs) work with governments and employers to make it easier, more efficient, and safer to use these alternative modes of transportation. The services they offer are referred to commonly as transportation demand management (TDM) programs (Ferguson, 1990).
Heavy congestion occurs during peak travel times, when commuters are traveling to and from work (Zhang, Yang, Huang, & Zhang, 2005). As such, this research project aims to help DRCOG and their TMA partners identify areas where they can expand employer-based


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
7
TDM program participation to reduce work-related congestion. This was performed through a mixed-methods study that surveys both employers and TMA personnel to identify current program participation, future needs, and barriers to program expansion.
This paper begins with a literature review of studies previously conducted to evaluate TMA and TDM performance and effectiveness. Following the literature review, this study’s research questions, hypotheses, and methodology are explained. Results are then analyzed and presented. To conclude, a summary of the study, and TDM program recommendations that DRCOG and their TMA partners should consider implementing are offered.
Literature Review
Transportation demand management (TDM) programs have been in existence for the past five decades. While they are now common in many dense and large metropolitan areas, the evaluation methods with which researchers study them has yet to be standardized. Early evaluations of such programming typically involved measuring either the reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of commuters, or the number of commuters that were contacted regarding TDM programs. In the present day, researchers are mixing methods to determine more effective measures for assessment, including using mathematical modeling and stated preference over revealed preference surveys.
As cities attract new residents, traffic congestion on local streets and regional highways becomes more severe (Habibian & Kermansah, 2013). Previous studies suggest that traffic congestion in metropolitan areas is worsening. For example, a study by Schrank et al. (2015) reviewed trip data from across the United States to determine that congestion has increased nationally, regardless of city size. Congestion will continue to rise as more people obtain and use automobiles (Judd & Swanstrom, 2014). Notably, trips to work are large contributors to


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
8
congestion. Schrank et al. (2015) found that peak period commuters—individuals traveling during the morning and evening hours to and from work—spent an extra 42 hours commuting during 2014. In his analysis of commuting patterns in the United States, Mather (2008) found that 75% of working Americans drive alone to work. Only 10% of workers carpooled to their workplace, and less than 6% used public transportation.
Traffic congestion brings with it many negative externalities. The most noticeable issue with congestion is the delay commuters experience in traveling by car (de Palma & Lindsey, 2001). There are also health implications that arise with traffic congestion, including an increase in air pollution from idling vehicles, and an increase in the risk of vehicle crashes (Habibian & Kermansah, 2013; Hasnine et al., 2017). If left unaddressed, congestion can threaten the economic vitality of a city or region (Van Melderen et al., 2012; Vickerman, 2003).
The negative externalities that come from traffic congestion can be mitigated through transportation demand management programs (TDMs). Formed in the 1970s, TDMs attempted to reduce the economic costs of an oil embargo by encouraging commuters to carpool (Modarres, 1993). In the 1990s, when new air pollution regulations were added to the Clean Air Act, these programs expanded to encourage the use of public transportation (Collura, 1994; Finke & Schreffler, 2004). TDM programs are now implemented across the United States as a means of saving commuters’ money, reducing air pollution, and combating congestion (Winters & Scholtz, 2016).
TDM Programming Considerations
TDM programs can be managed by governments, employers, or a combination of both. Based on previous literature, most TDM programs utilize a combination of various incentives and deterrents to change commuting behaviors (Akar et al., 2012; Hasnine et al., 2017). It is


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
9
more common for employers to offer incentives to increase participation, than they are to discourage SOV use (Finke & Schreffler, 2004).
Program selection is particularly important for employers. Many factors are taken into consideration when deciding which types of commuting programs and benefits they offer through the TDM framework (Zhou et al., 2012). For instance, work location is an important variable. A workplace’s proximity to public transportation stops and routes affect whether the employer will offer employees an incentive to use that mode of travel (Dill & Warded, 2007; Nelson & Nygaard, 2003; “Transit fare arrangements for public employees,” 2010). Access to ample low-cost parking also impacts employers’ decisions to offer TDM programs (Nelson & Nygaard, 2003). Per Nelson and Nygaard (2003), the commuting programs and benefits also must meet the needs of many employees who commute to work, so it is typical for employers to support various modes of travel.
Evaluation Methodologies
TDMs have been a concept for reducing congestion since the 1970s, yet, researchers have yet to identify one universal method for evaluating their effectiveness (City of Boulder Transportation Department, 2012; Finke & Schreffler, 2004; Yao et al., 2018). Because there are multiple ways to test TDM program effectiveness, evaluations may not be fully reliable when applied to populations outside of the original study area. Since there has been no consistent use of one evaluation tool, the results may not be valid all the time, either.
When evaluating TDM programs, there are generally two areas that researchers examine. Direct studies look at the actual impacts of TDM programming, which could include calculating the amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or air pollution reduced, or the number of individuals who participate in programs (Finke & Schreffler, 2004). These studies use choice


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
10
data to better understand commuting behaviors (Ferguson, 2000). While effective at measuring outcomes, the variables direct studies use, including VMT and air pollution reduction, are hard to measure (Ferguson, 2000; Hasnine et al., 2017). Because these studies utilize data before and after a TDM program has been implemented, they also are time-consuming to administer (Finke & Schreffler, 2012).
Indirect studies capture data points such as the number of requests for information and the level of program awareness (Ferguson, 2000; Ungemah & Dusza, 2008). While indirect studies are less costly than direct, they can be less reliable and offer less concrete evidence of program success (Ferguson, 2000). For the purposes of the Denver Metro Area employer research project, an indirect study is proposed because the measures are most applicable to the research questions at stake.
TDMs Evaluated Based on Commuter Data
A review of the literature found numerous instances where data collected from commuters was the basis for TDM program evaluation. These studies looked at employee choices and did not take into consideration the employer’s decisions to offer commuting programs and benefits (Ko & Kim, 2017). In their study, Hasnine et al. (2017) used a combination of stated preference and revealed preference survey questions to understand the commuting patterns of 635 individuals in the Region of Peele, Canada. Akar et al. (2012) also used choice data to evaluate the effectiveness that Ohio State University’s TDM program had on students, faculty, and staff traveling to campus. While individual commuting habit data is an important component of TDM evaluation, the absence of thorough information from employers
is a limitation of the current research.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
11
TDMs Evaluated Based on Multiple Survey Population Data
One of the earlier TDM evaluation studies conducted in the United States did include employer perceptions. Collura (1994) evaluated the state of Massachusetts’s CARAVAN TDM program by utilizing surveys distributed to multiple sample populations, including employers, vanpool coordinators, and employees who participated in vanpooling. Survey results were then cross-referenced with several TDM case studies to identify areas of opportunity for CARAVAN to improve program satisfaction and increase employee participation. Results indicated that while employers who participated in CARAVAN programs were satisfied, CARAVAN needed to focus their efforts on site-specific projects to make non-single occupant vehicle (SOV) commuting more appealing to employees. This finding is reiterated in multiple TDM evaluation studies that stress the need for TMAs to micro-target benefits and programs to increase participation (Ferguson, 2000; Ko & Kim, 2017; “Transit fare arrangements for public employees,” 2010).
A more recent study of TDM effectiveness was conducted by researchers at the Denver Regional Council of Governments (2015). Researchers looked to identify: 1) the extent that employers had adopted TDM programs, 2) which TDM programs had the most potential for expansion, and 3) what conditions made it easier to implement TDM programs. Utilizing a list of employers gathered from TMAs and a human resources professionals group, they asked survey-takers online whether their organizations offered any of 11 commuting programs and benefits, or if there were any interest in offering them in the future. Based on the analysis of 264 responses, researchers found that employers who had staff of at least 50 employees, and participated in the Regional Transportation District (RTD) EcoPass Program, reduced SOV use by more than any other group. They also found that the least adopted commuting benefits or


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
12
programs included vanpool subsidies and financial incentives for non-SOV transportation to work. The study concluded with recommendations that included marketing TDM programs to human resources professionals, office managers, and sustainability coordinators of local employers. This previous study of Denver Metro Area employers offers excellent insight into survey methodology that was applied to the TDM effectiveness study presented in this research paper.
Another current survey by Winters and Scholtz (2016) evaluated the effectiveness of TDMs through employers. Their survey was designed to better understand the transportation needs of employers, as well as their attitudes towards commuting programs and benefits. They created a voluntary online survey that was distributed via listservs managed by TMAs and transportation organizations across the United States. They received 76 responses, which revealed that 60% of respondents believed that traffic congestion was a significant motivator for offering commuting programs and benefits to employees. Almost 70% of respondents believed that transportation problems will pose a challenge to their organization when they attempt to hire and retain employees in the future, which, when marketed effectively, makes participation in TDM programming more appealing. Winters and Scholtz (2016) acknowledge that one limitation of their survey methodology is that there is a risk of self-selection bias that may arise. The low response rate also impacts the reliability of the survey.
One final employer TDM survey of relevance to this study was conducted by EMC Research (2016) for a TMA based in Washington called Commute Seattle. In their study, researchers hoped to identify: 1) which commuting programs and benefits employers in four Seattle neighborhoods offered employees, 2) how that information was disseminated to employees, and 3) the demographic makeup of the decision-makers and employers participating


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
13
in TDM programs. Results from the 239 returned surveys indicated that transit passes and subsidies were the most popular commuting benefits offered to employees. Researchers found that interest in alternative programs, such as vanpooling, are site-specific, so it is important for TMAs to tailor TDM programs to employers’ worksites to increase participation. Because the survey focused on four neighborhoods, results cannot be applied to the entire City of Seattle. Land Use Policy Advocacy
TMAs educate and advocate individuals to use alternative modes of travel. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have been the primary drivers of long-range land use and transportation planning (Morcol & Zimmerman, 2007). However, their functions have diversified in recent years to include more strategic land use planning advocacy. Morcol and Zimmerman (2007) argue that because of the business interests of those who are members of TMAs, the organizations can wield powerful influence on planning efforts at the local level. General Findings
Though the research methodologies and sample populations vary amongst current TDM literature, themes can be seen through several of them. Most notable is the idea that TDM effectiveness can be improved when the benefits and programs offered under them are site-specific (Collura, 1994; Dill & Warded, 2007; Ferguson, 2000; Litman, 2003; Nelson & Nygaard, 2003). Also of note is that employees have greater participation when financial incentives are provided (Bhatt & Higgins, 1989; Ko & Kim, 2017). Another finding from Giuliano (1992) and Ferguson (2000) revealed that TDM programs have a low impact on congestion, but a positive impact on the lives of the commuters who use them. Both studies, however, are from decades ago, so their results may not reflect the current trends in TDM participation.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
14
While commuting programs and benefits have been offered by governments and employers for many years, evaluating the effectiveness of them in achieving policy outcomes remains inconsistent. Most studies look at the direct impacts that programs have on individuals who utilize them, but no vetted survey instrument has been adopted universally. This study of the employer TDM programs in the Denver Metropolitan Area will contribute to current literature by incorporating the perspectives of TMA staff. It also provides a survey tool that can be easily adapted to meet the needs of other TMA and transit organizations.
Methodology
This research utilizes a mixed-methods approach to study TDM programs being offered in the Denver Metropolitan Area. Quantitative measures capture employer TDM data, while qualitative measures assess TMA attitudes and beliefs. This is done for two reasons. First, quantitative studies lend themselves better to large sample populations (Orcher, 2014). By capturing a large sample size of employers, the data collected becomes more reliable. Second, since TMA program managers have seldom been interviewed about their opinions of TDM programs, a qualitative study will allow for more depth in the subject where current research is lacking.
Most of the previous studies conducted to test TDM effectiveness look at individual commuter patterns, as opposed to employer needs. These studies also fail to take into consideration the perspectives of TMAs. The research questions in this study help to fill the gap in the literature by cross-analyzing the beliefs and needs of employers and the TMAs that serve them.
Conducting Business to Business Surveys
Surveys to employment organizations pose unique challenges for researchers. Hak et al. (2003) note that it is important for researchers to give businesses ample notice when requesting


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
15
their participation in a survey as most employers consider survey-taking a “nonproductive cost.” This allows them the time necessary to prepare and allocate resources for the project. It is also important for researchers to identify the “most knowledgeable respondent” to improve the reliability of the study (Edwards & Cantor, 1991). Surveys should also be concise, as the quality of responses decreases the longer a survey continues (Bogen, 1996). Previous strategies for increasing response rates include: 1) relationship building between the researcher and business, 2) offering incentives, and 3) repeated follow-up, with incentives ranking less effective than the other strategies (Cycyota, 2006). Business-to-business surveys are most effective when those who are invited to participate have interest or stake in the topic (Anseel et al., 2008). Research Questions and Hypotheses
RQ1: What commuting-related benefits and programs do employers currently offer their employees?
HI: Most employers who have over 100 employees will participate in the RTD EcoPass
program.
RQ2: Which commuting-related benefits and programs would employers like to offer their employees in the future?
H2: Employers in suburban areas will want to expand carpool and vanpool opportunities, as
those services do not rely as much on transportation infrastructure to be successful.
RQ3: What barriers are inhibiting employers from expanding current commuting-related benefits and programs?
H3.1: For employers with less than 100 employees, the cost of implementing programs will be the biggest challenge to program expansion.
H3.2: Employers with less than 100 employers will not believe they have a responsibility to offer such services.
RQ4: What resources can TMAs offer employers to help reduce barriers to expanding commuting-related benefits and programs?
H4: Employers with less than 100 employees will be more likely to add additional commuting
programs and benefits if TMAs can offer ongoing administrative support.
RQ5: What are the subarea differences in TMA commuting-related benefits and program offerings in the Denver Metropolitan Area?
H5.1: TMAs in suburban-centered areas will offer more vanpool options than those in dense corridors.
H5.2: Regardless of service area, all TMAs will perform employer education and outreach.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
16
Data Collection
For this study, only primary data were collected. Because there is no standardized tool for assessing TDM programs, three previous survey instruments were modified and combined to produce the quantitative instrument for this research project (see Appendices E and F) (Denver Regional Council of Governments, 2015; EMC Research, 2016; Winters & Scholtz, 2016). By taking questions from preceding surveys, results from this survey should be more valid (Orcher, 2014). This is because in the previous studies, the instruments used were tested for their validity. The quantitative survey includes 22 questions and was distributed online. While Orcher (2014) has concerns with online surveys limiting data to only those participants with internet access, this study assumes that all employers invited to participate will have access to the internet out of necessity to conduct their business. The survey was available from October 1 through October 22, 2018.
To capture qualitative data, phone interviews were conducted using an open-ended questionnaire composed from the research questions and several broad topics within the quantitative survey instrument (see Appendix E). The qualitative survey asks nine questions. To improve the validity of each instrument, external researchers, including the client, reviewed offered feedback. The phone interviews were conducted between September 24-29, 2018. Measurement Tables
This study relied on several variables to test the hypotheses. Much of the data collected came from employer self-reported survey responses. Survey data were cross-analyzed with information gathered from phone interviews with TMA program managers. Data gathered from TMA coordinators was codified for easy extrapolation. Capturing data from multiple methods increases the validity of this study. All measurement tables are in Appendix H.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
17
Sampling Plan
Two populations are the focus of this study: employers in the Denver Metropolitan Area who currently offer commuting programs and benefits to employees, and TMA staff who administer those TDM programs. Researching and contacting businesses individually would be time-consuming and could invalidate the results due to bias or lack of randomization (Orcher, 2014). Instead, a purposive sampling method was used. Staff from the seven Denver Metro Area TMAs were asked to distribute a survey link through their networks, primarily through use of email. This created a broad net with which data were captured. It is unknown how many employers currently utilize TMAs to administer their commuting programs and benefits. As such, the ideal sample size for the study is that of DRCOG’s 2015 study, which received 264 responses. The survey instrument can be found in Appendix F.
A list of TMA program managers was provided by DRCOG. The list included the names of TDM program managers from each of the TMAs operating in the Denver Metro Area. A preliminary email from the client was sent to the program managers informing them that their participation would be requested in the future. Eight program managers were sent an email with an overview of the project and a request for a phone interview. Since program manager participation was important for collecting employer TDM data, all program managers provided by DRCOG were contacted and asked to participate.
Validity and Reliability
To the greatest extent possible, the research study is valid. Validity is maximized through several actions. First, the sample population for the employer survey comes from the TMA partners, eliminating any potential bias the researcher may have towards inviting an employer to participate. Inviting those who are interested or use commuting programs and


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
18
benefits further improves the validity of their responses, because they will better understand the topic being surveyed. The survey instrument and TMA questionnaire will remain unchanged once they are distributed to the sample population. By keeping them identical, the validity improves. Surveys that are incomplete will be discarded.
Quantitative measures must be consistent to provide accurate results (Orcher,
2014). To the greatest extent possible, the survey tool for this study is reliable. By basing questions off those that have been previously tested and utilized, the reliability of the study increases. Further, there is internal consistency in the scaling of measures that makes the tool more reliable. Wording was carefully vetted by the client to ensure that individuals who do not know the jargon or vernacular of TDM programming would be able to answer the questions with ease. The TMA questionnaire is also reliable through the researcher’s use of questions that directly relate to the research hypotheses. These steps all help to improve the reliability.
Data Analysis
The employer survey is intended to provide the following information: 1) what commuting programs and benefits are being offered, 2) which programs have the potential for expansion, 3) employer beliefs in the future of transportation in Colorado, and 4) general employer statistics, including industry and number of employees. The research questions necessitate the need for several tests. Descriptive statistics provide current and desired programming that can help TMAs better target similar employer types. It also identifies employer characteristics that may make it more or less likely for them to participate.
To analyze the TMA phone interviews, a grounded theory approach was used to codify TMA program manager responses. Descriptive statistics from the interviews compared TMAs


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
19
amongst themselves to identify similarities and differences. Lastly, gap analysis offered insights into discrepancies between the beliefs of employers and TMA program managers.
Results
Within a two-week period, eight TMA program managers were contacted via email and asked to participate in the study. Six of the eight responded, which is a response rate of 75%. Through email exchanges, a date and time was established to speak over the phone. The program managers were asked nine open-ended questions. A codified table of the program managers’ responses is represented in Appendix E. One TMA included two program managers on a conference call; all other calls were with one program manager. The range of employers actively being served by the TMAs was between 11 and 56, with a mean of 31.5 employers.
While the response rate for TMA program manager interviews was high, the number of employer surveys received was much less than expected. Ten employers participated in the survey, which is 6.7% of the desired 150 responses, and 3.7% of total responses received from DRCOG’s 2015 study. Survey-takers indicated they work in four zip codes and have a worksite workforce size of less than 50 people up to 1,000 or more. Since the employer response rate was low, results from this study cannot be generalized to the Denver Metro Area employer population as a whole. A summary of employer program offerings, and desired offerings, are shown in Appendix I.
Current Commuting Programs and Benefits
RQ1 looked to identify the programs that employers are currently offering their employees. While it was hypothesized that a majority of employers with more than 100 staff would already offer employees the RTD EcoPass, survey results indicate that is not the case. Between the ten employers, participation in the RTD EcoPass program is split. Three


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
20
respondents (30%) offer the RTD EcoPass to employees. Those employers have a workforce between 50 and 999 people at the survey-takers’ workplace location. Four respondents (40%) would like to offer the EcoPass. Their workplace locations range in employee size from 100 to greater than 1,000. Three respondents (30%), whose workplace locations have less than 499 employees, are not interested in the program. A breakdown of RTD EcoPass participation by employer workforce size is detailed in Figure 8.
RTD EcoPass
We offer this benefit We do not offer this, but would like to in the future We do not, and would not, offer this in the future Total
Approximately, how many people work at your workplace location? 50 to 99 1 0 1 2
100 to 499 1 1 1 3
500 to 999 1 1 0 2
1,000 or more 0 2 0 2
Total 3 4 3 10
Figure 8: RTD EcoPass Program Participation
When asked why their organization does not participate in the RTD EcoPass program, two respondents (20%) said that it is difficult to get to the workplace by public transit. One respondent (10%) noted that RTD does not offer adequate service times for their employees. Expense of program was the only concern for one survey-taker (10%). To increase employer participation, two respondents (20) said that RTD needs to expand service in area. While survey-takers indicated that expense was not an issue with this program, 28% (n=10) said they would be more inclined to participate if the costs of the program were reduced, or if they were offered better tax breaks for participating.
From these results, HI was rejected. A majority of employers with more than 100 employees do not have the RTD EcoPass program.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
21
Desired Commuting Programs and Benefits
The second research question (RQ2) attempted to determine which commuting programs and benefits employers would like to offer in the future. Because vanpooling services do not require a lot of intense infrastructure changes, it was hypothesized that employers in suburban areas would like TMAs to provide these services. Based on survey responses, this is not the case. None of the respondents (100%) currently offer employees vanpool subsidies, and only two respondents (20%) would like to offer the benefit in the future. When asked whether their organization offers, or would like to offer, employee assistance with forming a vanpool, four out of 10 respondents (40%) were not interested. Figure 9 illustrates the breakdown of vanpool subsidies offered by employers based on the number of employees at the survey-takers’ worksite.
Vanpool Subsidies
We offer this benefit We do not offer this, but would like to in the future We do not, and would not, offer this in the future Do not know Total
Approximately, how many people work at your workplace location? 50 to 99 0 1 1 0 2
100 to 499 0 0 3 0 3
500 to 999 0 0 1 1 2
1,000 or more 0 1 0 1 2
Total 0 2 6 2 10
Figure 9: Vanpool Subsidies
Preferential parking for vanpools also was unpopular, with six survey-takers (60%) saying their organization does not, and would not, offer this benefit. Of the six respondents who stated their organization would not offer vanpooling subsidies or preferential parking, five (83%) are in zip codes which encompass mostly suburban areas. H2 was rejected. Suburban employers are not interested in vanpooling programs.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
22
Barriers
Employer participation in TDM is not without barriers. RQ3 identified problem areas that should be addressed by DRCOG and TMAs to expand program buy-in. It was hypothesized that program costs would hurt employer participation in commuting programming. To test this hypothesis, survey questions asked respondents to identify on a Likert-scale how they ranked several factors that influence commuting programs and benefits based on level of importance. Overhead and operating costs were “extremely important” to 50% (n= 5) of the sample population. Parking issues was “not at all important” for three respondents (30%). A breakdown of the results is shown in Figure 10.
INTERNAL FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYER COMMUTING PROGRAMS AND BENEFITS
6
B
u Extremely important Very important Moderately important Slightly important Not at all important
B Employee satisfaction 2 6 1 1 0
â–  Location is convenient for offering them 2 4 2 1 1
E Overhead and operating costs 5 3 0 2 0
â–  Parking issues 1 0 0 6 3
â–  Recruitment and retention of employees 5 3 1 1 0
â–  Not listed (please specify) 1 0 0 0 0
Figure 10: Internal Factors Influencing Employer Decisions For the RTD EcoPass in particular, 28% (n=7) of respondents who do not provide the benefit said that reducing the costs could improve the likelihood of them adopting the program. Of note, the three survey-takers who represent employers with less than 100 employees said that overhead and operating costs were either “extremely important” or “very important” when


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
23
making programming decisions. H3.1 was accepted. Program costs contribute significantly to decisions regarding commuting programs and benefits.
The built environment is also a barrier towards expanding programming. Four respondents (40%) said that their worksite location needs to be convenient for offering employees commuting programs. In addition, six respondents (60%) said that parking issues are only “slightly important” when making commuting programs and benefits decisions. Traffic congestion is only “moderately important” for 50% of the sample population. For the RTD EcoPass, two respondents said they would only consider joining the program if RTD expanded services to their area. These results echo what was relayed by four (66%) TMA program managers during the phone interviews, who made comments that ample parking, poor access to transit, and an auto-oriented environment make it difficult for people to use alternative modes of travel.
Employer Responsibility
It was hypothesized that employers who have more than 100 employees would believe they have a responsibility to offer employees commuting benefits and programs that reduce vehicle use. Survey responses suggest this to be the case for a majority of employers, regardless of their workforce size. Of the 10 respondents, 60% (n= ) indicated that air pollution reduction/environmental concerns/sustainability were “extremely important” or “very important” factors when deciding which commuting programs and benefits to provide, including two of the three employers with less than 100 employees.
Other contributing factors had varying levels of significance. For instance, encouraging the use of public transportation was only “moderately important” for five respondents (50%), as was traffic congestion. For four respondents, government regulation/compliance was “not at all


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
24
important” in helping them decide which benefits to offer employees. Results are disaggregated in Figure 11.
EXTERNAL FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYER COMMUTI PROGRAMSAND BENEFITS
6
5 5 5
5 = = B
4
3 2 1
NG
E
3
8



3 3

1
u Extremely important Very Important Moderately important Sightly Important Not at all important
â–  Air pollution reduction/ environmental con cerns/su stainabilfcy 1 5 2 1 1
â–  Encourage use of public transportaion 3 1 5 1 0
â–  Governmentr egu lations/com p lian ce 0 2 1 3 4
l Government tax breaks' incentives 0 1 3 3 3
â–  T raff ic congestc n 1 3 5 1 0
Figure 11: Internal Factors Influencing Employer Decisions While protecting the environment was an influencing factor, 80% of respondents believe that using such programs and benefits as a means of hiring and retaining employees is “extremely important” or “very important.” As such, internal factors are more important to the sample population than external. H3.2 was accepted, with the caveat that corporate responsibility is not the sole major contribution factor when making commuting program decisions.
Resources
Because TMA program managers offer a wealth of knowledge about commuting benefits and programs, and employees at smaller organizations tend to perform many job duties, it was hypothesized that employers with less than 100 employees would expand services if TMAs


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
25
provided them administrative support. This was not the case for the sample population, where 100% of respondents were not interested in receiving this type of help from the TMAs. H4 was rejected. Regardless of the employer size, there is no demand for TMA administrative support. Subarea Differences between TMAs
Literature about TMAs and TDMs suggest that programs are successful when tailored to particular regions and areas (Dill & Warded, 2007). It was hypothesized that TMAs in suburban-centered areas would offer more vanpool options than those in dense corridors. This was not the case, as all six program managers (100%) indicated their organization offers some form of vanpool assistance. H5.1 was rejected. Suburban employers are not interested in expanding vanpooling programs.
It was also hypothesized that regardless of service area, the role of the TMAs would be to perform employer outreach and education. This was the case for all program managers (100%) who said that their TMA educates and informs both the public and employers about commuting programs. Of note, however, is the fact that there are varying degrees of education and outreach; one TMA focused more on infrastructure development than on education and outreach efforts (16%). H5.2 was accepted. Regardless of region, all TMAs perform education and outreach.
Discussion and Recommendations
Based on the information gathered from this study, there are several recommended courses of action that DRCOG and the TMA partners should consider taking. These actions focus on employer engagement and local advocacy. Adopting these strategies should help alleviate some of the issues that are hindering employers from expanding commuting programs
and benefits.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
26
Program Expansion Opportunities
The survey results indicate that employers are interested in providing employees with additional commuting programs and benefits. The RTD EcoPass is one such program. Since 40% of survey respondents were interested in offering the RTD EcoPass program in the future, DRCOG and the TMA partners should continue to engage with employers about the benefits of the EcoPass. An opportune time to do this may be 2019, as the RTD Board has recently voted to approve changes to the fare structure and the RTD EcoPass, in particular (Sachs, 2018).
Since these changes could reduce program costs, performing heavy outreach during this time might help employers better understand the benefits of the EcoPass, and make them more likely to participate.
While all six TMA program managers interviewed mentioned that they help employers obtain the RTD EcoPass, only one stated they help employers with transit tax benefits questions. Providing tax guidance could help educate both employers and employees of monetary benefits to reducing their SOV use. Of survey respondents, 40% indicated they want to offer this benefit to employees in the future. In the previous 2015 study, 16% also wanted to provide employees this benefit (“Denver Regional Employer Survey,” 2015). This should be a resource DRCOG and regional TMAs offer.
It should be noted that vanpooling should not be the primary focus of the TMAs and DRCOG for the foreseeable future. Although the sample size was small, 60% of respondents were not interested in providing vanpooling subsidies or preferential parking to employees.
This statistic is in alignment with the results from the 2015 study, which found that only 8% of survey-takers were interested in vanpooling subsidies.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
27
In addition, GoTober programming should continue. TMA program managers spoke favorably of the program, and 50% believed it is a successful and “easy” way to change commuting behavior. Since GoTober programming requires commuters to track their trips, the program provides TMAs and DRCOG with valuable trip data.
Advocating for Changes to Land Use Policies and Patterns
The final recommended course of action for DRCOG and the TMA partners is to advocate for changes to local and regional land use policies. This is based on the results of the TMA program manager interviews. While only one TMA (16%) focuses on infrastructure and planning, four (67%) TMA program managers indicated that land use policies hinder the expansion of multimodal transportation. Since DRCOG is a planning agency, it should continue to focus heavily on working with local municipalities to implement and improve their Metro Vision Plan. TMAs should work in tandem with DRCOG to educate local leaders about the benefits of multimodal-friendly land use policies, while continuing their primary objectives of educating commuters about the benefits of non-SOV modes of transportation.
Limitations
While the methodology of this study was established in a way that was similar to DRCOG’s 2015 study, several limitations impacted the results. The biggest limitation is employer sample size. During the phone interviews, it was discovered that the TMA program managers worked with a range of active employers from 11 to 56 at any given time. Even if every active employer contact had taken the survey, the sample size would not be comparative to the 2015 study. While interviewing TMA program managers, five of the six program managers also mentioned that other transportation surveys were being distributed to employers during the time of this sampling. As a result of multiple survey requests being sent to


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
28
employers, survey fatigue posed a challenge; employers who have already taken multiple surveys might be less inclined to take another.
Another limitation to this study was the number of times an employer was contacted. To improve survey response rates, it is suggested that researchers contact the survey-takers multiple times (Hoddinott & Bass, 1986). For this study, TMA program managers were asked to distribute the survey to their employer contacts. Although the program managers were followed-up with once during the survey window, it is unknown how many times the program managers reached out to their employer contacts. This could have affected response rate.
While some data regarding program participation seems to reflect what was learned from the DRCOG 2015 study, it is recommended that DRCOG attempt to survey the employers once more at a later date to improve the reliability of the study. If done again, DRCOG should coordinate early with TMA program managers to ensure that no other surveys are being distributed at the same time. DRCOG should also seek to gain access to the DMAs’ employer lists so they can have more control over who is being contacted and how many times. Making these adjustments should increase the sample size.
A future study might also want to explore secondary data sources, including the TMA’s website. During phone interviews, a program manager may have forgotten to mention a program they run, for example. Since the GoTober campaign was happening during this survey, program managers may have also been focusing on that program, leading to bias towards its success. Researching the program opportunities listed on the TMAs’ websites could help ensure that all programs and benefits TMAs provide to employers are accounted for in the study.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
29
Conclusion
Commuting to work is a significant contributor to traffic congestion and air pollution, due to a typical employee driving to their worksite alone (Zhang et al., 2005). The Denver Regional Council of Governments, and their transportation management association partners, work to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use by supporting employer commuting programs and benefits that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. This study aimed to provide DRCOG and TMA program managers with updated insights into which commuting programs and benefits employers currently offered, what they would like to offer, and what they are not interested in providing. Results suggest that employers would like to offer employees the RTD EcoPass, but program costs need to be reduced, and transit services need to be expanded to make them join. Vanpooling was not a popular program with the sample population. Because this study did have a smaller-than-anticipated sample size it is recommended additional study take place.
In addition to providing insights into employers in the Denver Metro Area, this study also adds to the literature surrounding transportation demand management by incorporating the attitudes and beliefs of TMA program managers. Results from the interviews suggest that campaigns like GoTober, are most effective at changing commuting behaviors. While all TMAs focus on alternative modes of transportation education and outreach, more program managers are also interested in expanding their scope of work to include advocating for better land use policies. The information gathered from this study can help both DRCOG and the seven transportation management associations in the Denver Metropolitan Area successfully increase employee use of alternative modes of transportation, and reduce both congestion and air pollution for all residents along the Front Range.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
30
References
Akar, G., Flynn, C., & Namgung, M. (2012) “Travel choices and links to transportation demand management: Case study at Ohio State University.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2319(1): pp. 77-85.
Anseel, F., Li evens, F., Schllaert, E., & Choragwicka, B. (2008) “2008: A meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey researchers.” Journal of Business and Psychology. 25(3): pp. 335-349.
“Annual congestion report.” (2016) Denver Regional Council of Governments. Retrieved from: https://drcog.org/sites/default/files/resources/2016 Congestion Report.pdf.
Berger, L. (1998) Guidance for estimating the indirect effects of proposed transportation projects. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
Bhattacharjee, S., & Goetz, A. (2002) “Impact of light-rail on traffic congestion in Denver.” Journal of Transport Geography. 22\ pp. 262-270.
Bogen, K (1996) “The effect of questionnaire length on response rates: A review of literature.” American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA. pp. 1020-1025.
City of Boulder Transportation Department. (2012) “Transportation to Sustain a Community.” City ofBoidder. Retrieved from: https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/transportation-report-on-progress-2012-1-201305291118.pdf.
Colorado Department of Transportation. (2017) “Annual Report.” Colorado Department of Transportation. Retrieved from: https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/cdot-official-annual-reports/2017-annual-report.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
31
Colorado State Demography Office. (2016) “Regional data lookup.” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. Retrieved from:
https://demographv.dola.colorado.gov/population/data/profile-regions/.
Colorado State Demography Office. (2018) “Population totals for Colorado and sub-state regions.” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. Retrieved from: https://demographv.dola.colorado.gov/population/population-totals-colorado-substate/#population-totals-for-colorado-and-sub-state-regions.
Collura, J. (1994) “Evaluating ride sharing programs: Massachusetts’ experience.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 120(1): pp. 28-47.
Cycyota, C. (2006) “What (not) to expect when surveying executives: A meta-analysis of top manager response rates and techniques over time.” Organizational Research Methods. 9(2): pp. 133-160.
de Palma, A., Lindsey, R. (2001) Transportation: Supply and Congestion, International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier, pp. 15882-15888.
Detter, H. (2015) “Satisfying transportation needs in fast-growing metropolitan areas: mobility solutions for mega-cities in developing countries.” OPEC Energy Review. 39(4): pp. 418-444.
Denver Regional Council of Governments. (2018) “About DRCOG.” Denver Regional Council of Governments. Retrieved from: https://drcog.org/about-drcog/about-drcog.
Denver Regional Council of Governments (2015) “2015 Denver Regional Employer Survey.” Denver Regional Council of Governments.
Dill, J. & Warded, E. (2007) “Factors affecting worksite mode choice: Findings from Portland, Oregon.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 1994(1): pp. 51-57.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
32
Edwards, R. & Cantor, D. (1991) “Towards a response model in establishment surveys.” Measurement Errors in Surveys. Wiley: New York. pp. 211-233.
Ewing, R., Tian, G., & Lyons, T. (2018) “Does compact development increase or reduce traffic congestion?” Cities. 72(A): pp. 94-101.
Ferguson, E. (1990) “Transportation demand management planning, development, &
implementation.” Journal of American Planning Association. 56(4): pp. 442-456.
Ferguson, E. (2000) “Travel demand management and public policy.” Ashgate Publishing: New York, NY.
Finke, T. & Schreffler, E. (2004) “Using Multiple Assessment Levels for Evaluating Transportation Demand Management Projects: Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit.” .Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Vol. 1864.
Habibian, M. & Kermansah, M. (2013) “Coping with congestion: Understanding the role of simultaneous transportation demand management policies on commuters.” Transport Policy. 30(November): pp. 229-237.
Hak, T., Willimack, D., & Anderson, A. (2003) “Response process and burden in establishment surveys ” American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA. pp. 1724-1730.
Hasnine, S., Weiss, A. & Habib, K. (2017) “State preference survey pivoted on revealed preference survey for evaluating employer-based travel demand management strategies.” The Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2651.
Henao, A., Piatowsi, D., Luckey, K., Nordback, K, Marshall, W., & Krizek, K. (2012)
“Sustainable transportation infrastructure investments and mode sharing changes: A 20 year background of Boulder, Colorado.” Transport Policy. 37: pp. 64-71.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
33
Hoddinott, S. & Bass, M. (1986) “The Dillman total design survey method: A sure-fire way to get high survey return rates.” Can Fam Physician. 32: pp. 2366-2368.
Johnston, V.; Haynes, W.; & Schultz, C. (2006) “The T-REX megaproject: Denver’s showcase for innovation and collaboration.” Public Manager. 35(2): pp. 3-8.
Judd, D. & Swanstrom, T. (2014) City Politics. 9 ed. Pearson: Boston, MA.
Ko, J. & Kim, D. (2017) “Employer-based travel demand management program: Employer’s choice and effectiveness.” Transport Policy. 59: pp. 1-9.
Mather, M. (2008) “Most U.S. workers still driving alone.” Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved from: https://www.prb.org/commuting/.
Modarres, A. (1993) “Evaluating Employer-Based Transportation Demand Management Programs.” Transportation Research. 27(4): pp. 291-297.
Morcol, G. & Zimmermann, U. (2007) “Transportation management associations: Prospects and problems for public administration.” International Journal of Public Administration. 28(13-14): pp. 1095-1116.
Nelson & Nygaard (2003) TCRP Report 87: Strategies for increasing the effectiveness of commuter benefits programs. Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C.
Sachs, D. (2018) “RTD board advances massive fare pass restructuring with discounts for riders in need.” Streets Blog Denver. September 12, 2018. Retrieved from:
https://denver.streetsblog.org/2018/09/12/rtd-board-advances-massive-fare-pass-restructuring-with-discounts-for-riders-in-need/.
“Seattle employer transportation benefits: Survey results.” (2016) EMC Research. Retrieved from: http://policies.sharedusemobilitvcenter.org/policv/860/files.
Schrank, D., Eisele, B., Lomax, T., & Bak, J. (2015) “2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard.” Texas


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
34
A&M Transportation Institute. Retrieved
from: https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobilitv-scorecard-2015.pdf
Tanadtang, P., Park, D., & Hanaoka, S. (2005) “Incorporating uncertain and incomplete subjective judgments into the evaluation procedure of transportation demand management.” Transportation. 32(6): pp. 603-626.
“Transit fare arrangements for public employees.” (2010) Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC.
“Transportation management associations.” (2018) Texas A&M Transportation Institute. College Station, TX. Retrieved from: https://mobilitv.tamu.edu/mip/strategies-pdfs/travel-options/technical-summarv/Transportation-Management-Associations-4-Pg.pdf.
Ungemah, D. & Dusza, C. (2008) “Transportation benchmark management survey.” Transportation Research Record. 2118: pp. 55-66.
Van Melderen, L., Jourquin, B., Thomas, I., Verhetsel, A., & Witlox, F. (2012) “On the
mobility policies of companies: What are good practices? The Beligan case.” Transport Policy. 21: pp. 10-19.
Vickerman, R. (2003) “Transport in integrating Europe: sustainable development and cohesion.” Investigaciones Regionales 3: pp. 163-174.
Walraven, E., Spaan, M., & Bakker, B. (2016) “Traffic flow optimization: A reinforcement learning approach.” Engineering Applications ofArtificial Intelligence. 52: pp. 203-
212.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
35
Way to Go (2018) “GoTober Challenge.” Way to Go. Retrieved from: https://wavtogo.org/gotober.
Winters, P. & Scholtz, W. (2016) “2016 employee benchmarking survey.” Best Workplaces for Commuters. Retrieved from: http://actweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ACT-BWC-Emplover-Benchmarking-final-report-without-appendices-2016.pdf
Winters, P. & Scholtz, W. (2018) “2018 employee benchmarking survey.” Best Workplaces for Commuters. Retrieved from: https://www.bestworkplaces.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Emplover-Benchmark-Survev-2018-FINAL2.pdf.
Yao, B., Yan, Q., Chen, Q., Tian, Z., & Zhu, X. (2018) “Simulation-based optimization for urban transportation demand management strategy.” Simulation. 94(7): pp. 637-647
Zhang, X., Yang, H., Huang, H., & Zhang, M. (2005) “Integrated scheduling of daily work
activities and morning-evening commutes with bottleneck congestion.” Transportation Research Policy Part A: Policy & Practice. 39(1): pp. 41-60.
Zheng, S. & Kahn, M. (2016) “China’s bullet trains facilitate market integration and
mitigate the cost of megacity growth.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110(14): pp. 1248-1253.
Zhou, J., Wang, Y., & Schweitzer, I. (2012) “Jobs/housing balance and employer-based travel demand management program returns to scale: Evidence from Los Angeles.” Transportation Policy. 20: pp. 22-35.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
36
Appendix A—Measurement Tables
HI: Most employers who have over 100 employees will participate in the RTD EcoPass program.
Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source
IV: Participation in RTD EcoPass program Aggregate measure of survey-takers’ responses Nominal Self-reported survey question asking whether employer offers this benefit, would like to offer it, or does not offer it and does not plan on offering it
DV: Employer location size The number of individuals employed at worksite Nominal Self-reported survey question asking the number of employees at worksite
Figure 1: Hypothesis 1 Measurement Table
H2: Employers in suburban areas will want to expand carpool and vanpool opportunities, as those services do not rely as much on transportation infrastructure to be successful.
Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source
IV: Participation in vanpool programs Aggregate measure of survey-takers’ responses Nominal Self-reported survey question asking whether employer offers this benefit, would like to offer it, or does not offer it and does not plan on offering it
IV: Participation in carpool programs Aggregate measure of survey-takers’ responses Nominal Self-reported survey question asking whether employer offers this benefit, would like to offer it, or does not offer it and does not plan on offering it
DV: Employer location zip code The physical environment around the workplace Nominal Self-reported survey question asking where the survey-takers’ office is located
Figure 2: Hypothesis 2 Measurement Table


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
37
H3.1: For employers with less than 100 employees, the cost of implementing programs will be the biggest challenge to program expansion.
Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source
IV: Willingness to offer RTD EcoPass program Aggregate measure of survey-takers’ responses Nominal Self-reported survey question asking whether employer would like to offer the RTD EcoPass benefit in the future
IV: Willingness to offer vanpooling program Aggregate measure of survey-takers’ responses Nominal Self-reported survey question asking whether employer would like to offer subsidized vanpoolingbenefit in the future
DV: Employer location size The number of individuals employed at organization worksite Nominal Self-reported survey question asking the number of employees at worksite
Figure 3: Hypothesis 3.1 Measurement Table
H3.2: Employers with less than 100 employers will not believe they have a responsibility to offer such services.
Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source
IV: Employer responsibility The belief that the employer needs to reduce SOV-use by offering commuting programs and benefits Nominal Self-reported survey question asking employers whether they believe they need to offer more commuting benefits and program
DV: Employer location size The number of individuals employed at organization worksite Nominal Self-reported survey question asking the number of employees at worksite
Figure 4: Hypothesis 3.2 Measurement Table


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
38
H4: Employers with less than 100 employees will be more likely to add additional commuting programs and benefits if TMAs can offer ongoing administrative support.
Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source
IV: Need for administrative assistance The belief that the employer could use TMA administrative support to expand programs Nominal Self-reported survey question asking whether TMA support could help them increase commuting programs and benefits
DV: Employer location size The number of individuals employed at organization worksite Nominal Self-reported survey question asking the number of employees at worksite
Figure 5: Hypothesis 4 Measurement Table
H5.1: TMAs in suburban-centered areas will offer more vanpool options than those in dense corridors.
Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source
IV: Vanpool program offerings The number of TMAs who offer vanpool services Nominal Interview question asking TMA coordinators what programs are offered
DV: TMA service area The area in which the TMA operates Nominal DRCOG website detailing TMA service areas
Figure 6: Hypothesis 5.1 Measurement Table
H5.2: Regardless of service area, all TMAs will perform employer marketing and outreach.
Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source
IV: Marketing efforts The number of TMAs who provide employers with non-SOV marketing materials, tools, and information Nominal Interview question asking TMA coordinators what programs are offered
IV: Outreach efforts The number of TMAs who actively seek out new employer participants Nominal Interview question asking TMA coordinators what programs are offered
DV: TMA service area The area in which the TMA operates Nominal DRCOG website detailing TMA service areas
Figure 7: Hypothesis 5.2 Measurement Table


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
39
Appendix B—Acronym Guide
1. DRCOG—Denver Regional Council of Governments
2. MPO—Metropolitan planning organization
3. TDM—Transportation demand management
4. TMA—Transportation management association
5. SOV—Single occupancy vehicle
6. VMT—Vehicle miles traveled


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
40
Appendix C—Email Invitation to TMA Program Managers
Hi [TMA Program Manager],
My name is Brandon Figliolino, and I am a graduate student at the University of Colorado Denver’s School of Public Affairs. For my final graduate assignment, I am researching employer commuting programs offered in the Denver Metro Area with the goal of identifying participation trends and attitudes about particular programs. I am reaching out to you today to see if you, or someone on your team, would be willing to assist me with my research. Your assistance with this project can help organizations like yours increase commuting program participation in your region.
If you can help, I would love to schedule a time for us to briefly chat over the phone about your TMA during the next week or two. If possible, I would also greatly appreciate your help in distributing a brief survey to your network of employer participants. Once the project is completed, I will share my findings with you and your team.
Since this is a graduate school assignment, I do have tight deadlines to meet. I am hoping to complete interviews and distribute my employer survey no later than October 5. If you could please reply to this email before then, I look forward to scheduling time to chat with you.
I thank you in advance for your time and assistance, and look forward to working with you on this project!
Sincerely,
Brandon Figliolino
Graduate Student, School of Public Affairs
Brandon.figliolino@ucdenver.edu
720-507-6752


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
41
Appendix D—Survey Link Email with Request for Participation
Hi [TMA Program Manager],
I wanted to thank you again for helping me with my commuting benefits project! In case you have not already distributed the link to your select employer partners, I wanted to share an email template below that you can use and customize. I apologize for not thinking of it earlier!
The survey link will shut down on October 21. After that, I’ll be running statistics on the results and hope to send you a final copy of the project mid to late November.
Thank you again for your continued support!
Sincerely,
Brandon Figliolino
Graduate Student, School of Public Affairs
Brandon.figliolino@ucdenver.edu
720-507-6752
Hello [Employer],
I am reaching out to you today to ask for your help completing a brief survey. Brandon Figliolino, a graduate student at the University of Colorado Denver, is conducting a study of employer-provided commuter programs in the metro area. Based on our previous work together, I’m hoping you’ll be willing and able to answer Brandon’s survey, which is linked below.
Brandon will be sharing his results with me, and I’m happy to share them with you as well. Brandon’s survey results should be very useful in evaluating how commuting programs can benefit employers and employees.
The survey link is open and available until October 21. If you have any questions, you can reach Brandon directly by emailing him at brandon.figliolino@ucdenver,edu.
Denver Metro Area Employers Commuting
Benefits: https://ucdenver.col.qualtrics.com/ife/form/SV 6zFXXaluCuYdphr Sincerely,
[TMA Program Manager]


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
42
Appendix E—Employer Survey Instrument
Denver Metro Area Employer Commuting Benefits Survey
Start of Block: Default Question Block
Q1 INTRODUCTION & INFORMED CONSENT Hello. You have been selected to participate in a transportation survey. This study is being conducted by Brandon Figliolino, a graduate student at the University of Colorado Denver. The purpose of this survey is to identify commuting programs and benefits employers currently offer their employees, what they would like to offer in the future, and what barriers they face to
expanding programs and benefits.
Responses will help transportation planners better meet the commuting needs of employees in the Denver Metro Area. Your responses will remain both anonymous and confidential. Participation in this survey is completely voluntary; you may withdraw at any time. While there is no compensation for taking this survey, your input is much appreciated. Completing the
survey will take no more than ten minutes.
Should you have any questions, please contact Brandon Figliolino by emailing him at brandon.figliolino@ucdenver.edu or by calling 720-507-6752.
Q2 The following is a list of employee commuting programs and benefits. For each response, please indicate whether your organization offers the benefit or program. If your organization does not, please indicate whether your organization would be interested in offering it in the
future.
If your organization has multiple workplaces, please base your responses on your workplace
location.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
43
We offer this to employees (1) We do not offer this, but would like to in the future (2) We do not, and would not, offer this in the future (3) Do not know (4)
RTD EcoPasses 0) o o o o
Maps showing bus and light-rail locations (20) o o o o
Vanpool fare subsidies (2) o o o o
Assistance with forming a vanpool(3) o o o o
Preferential parking for vanpool users (4) o o o o
Preferential parking for carpool users (5) o o o o
Electric vehicle charging stations (6) o o o o
Fleet vehicles (7) o o o o
Discounts for a carshare membership (including Car2Go, Zipcar, etc.) (13) o o o o
Ability for employees to set aside pre-tax income to spend on transit or vanpool fares (8) o o o o


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
44
Guaranteed Ride Home for employees who have not used their car to get to work (9) o o o o
Flexible scheduling to let employees set their start and end times (10) o o o o
Compressed scheduling to let employees work full-time hours in fewer days (4-10s, 4-5-9s, etc.) (ID o o o o
Ability to telecommute regularly (12) o o o o
Discounts for a bikeshare membership (including B-Cycle, Zagster, etc.) (14) o o o o
Secure, covered bike parking (17) o o o o
Maps showing bike routes (19) o o o o
Showers and lockers (18) o o o o
Not listed (please specify) (16) o o o o


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
45
Q5 Are commuting programs and benefits offered to all employees at your organization? Yes (1)
No, only full-time employees are eligible (2)
No, it depends on the employee's position (3)
Not sure (4)
Q6 In your opinion, to what extent are the following internal factors motivators for providing
employees at your organization commuting programs and benefits?
Extremely important (1) Very important (2) Moderately important (3) Slightly important (4) Not at all important (5)
Employee satisfaction (1) o o o o o
Location is convenient for offering them (2) o o o o o
Overhead and
operating costs (3) o o o o o
Parking issues (4) o o o o o
Recruitment and retention
of employees (5) o o o o o
Not listed (please specify) (6) o o o o o


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
46
Q7 In your opinion, to what extent are the following external factors motivators for providing employees at your organization commuting programs and benefits?
Extremely important (1) Very important (2) Moderately important (3) Slightly important (4) Not at all important (5)
Air pollution reduction/ environmental concems/sustainability (1) o o o o o
Encourage use of public transportation (2) o o o o o
Government regulations/compliance (3) o o o o o
Government tax breaks/incentives (4) o o o o o
Traffic congestion (5) o o o o o
Not listed (please specify) (6) o o o o o
Q8 You indicated that your organization offers the RTD Ecopass. Are all employees eligible for
the RTD EcoPass?
O Yes (1)
No, only full-time employees are eligible (2) No, it depends on the employee's position (3) Not sure (4)


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
47
Q9 You indicated that your organization does not participate in the RTD EcoPass program. In your opinion, what is the primary reason your organization does not offer employees an
EcoPass?
Corporate decision/out of our control (1)
Difficult to get to workplace (2)
Employees live too close (3)
Employees live too far away (4)
Expense (5)
Most employees need to drive for work (6)
Program is too time-consuming to manage (7)
Organization is too small (8)
Not listed (please specify) (9)
Q10 In your opinion, which factor would make your organization more likely to consider offering employees the RTD EcoPass in the future?
Administrative support for the program were offered (1)
Employee demand (2)
Reduced costs for participating (3)
Tax breaks were offered (4)
Received more information and guidance from transportation experts (5)
None (6)
Not sure (7)
Not listed (please specify) (8)


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
48
Q11 You indicated that your organization participates in the Way to Go vanpool program. How much of the vanpool program is paid by your organization?
All of it (1)
Some of it (2)
None of it (3)
Not sure (4)
Q12 You indicated your organization does not participate in the Way to Go vanpool program. In your opinion, what is the primary reason your organization does not offer employees vanpool
assistance?
Corporate decision/out of our control (1)
Difficult to get to workplace (2)
Employees live too close (3)
Employees live too far away (4)
Expense (5)
Most employees need to drive for work (6)
Program is too time-consuming to manage (7)
Organization is too small (8)
Not listed (please specify) (9)


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
49
Q13 In your opinion, which factor would make your organization more likely to consider offering employees the Way to Go vanpool program in the future?
Administrative support for the program were offered (1)
Employee demand (2)
Reduced costs for participating (3)
Tax breaks were offered (4)
Received more information and guidance from transportation experts (5)
None (6)
Not sure (7)
Not listed (please specify) (8)


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
50
Q14 Thinking about your organization over the next five years, to what extent do you agree
with the following statements?
Strongly agree (1) Somewhat agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Somewhat disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5)
More employees will work remotely (1) o o o o o
Parking will be a major problem (2) o o o o o
Transportation issues will make it difficult to hire and retain employees (3) o o o o o
More employees will find value in commuting programs and benefits (4) o o o o o
Employees will demand
more commuting programs and benefits (5) o o o o o


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
51
Q15 Thinking about the next five years, to what extent do you agree with the possible scenarios
facing your organization?
Strongly agree (1) Somewhat agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Somewhat disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5)
Government regulations will require us to assume more responsibility for employee commuting choices (1) o o o o o
Tax incentives will help expand the employee commuting programs and benefits offered (2) o o o o o
My organization will increase the number of hybrid and electric vehicles in the fleet (3) o o o o o
My organization will relocate the facility due to congestion (4) o o o o o
My organization will relocate for better access to public transportation (5) o o o o o


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
52
Q16 Think about your workplace location. Which of the following statements best describes the parking situation for employees who drive to work?
Employees can park in a dedicated lot or garage on-site that is exclusive to the organization (1)
Employees can park in a dedicated lot or garage on-site that is shared by multiple tenants
(2)
Employees must find their own parking, either on-site or in a separate lot or garage (3) Not sure (4)
Q17 Do employees have to pay to park their vehicles at your workplace location?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Not sure (3)
Q26 Is your organization a for-profit business, a nonprofit, or a government agency?
For-profit (1)
Nonprofit (2)
Government agency (3)


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
53
Q20 What is your organization's industry?
Accommodations or Foodservice (1)
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, or Hunting (2)
Arts, Entertainment, or Recreation (3)
Construction (4)
Education (5)
Finance or Insurance (6)
Healthcare (8)
Information (9)
Management of companies & enterprises (10)
Manufacturing (11)
Mining (12)
Professional, Scientific, or Technical (14)
Real Estate, Rental, or Leasing (15)
Retail Trade (16)
Transportation or Warehousing (17)
Utilities (18)
Wholesale Trade (19)
Not listed (please specify) (20)
Q21 In which zip code is your workplace located?


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
54
Q22 Approximately, how many people work at your workplace location?
Less than 50 (1)
O 50 to 99 (2)
O 100 to 499 (3)
O 500 to 999 (4)
1,000 or more (5)
Q23 Who manages your commuting programs and benefits?
Admini strative manager (1)
Human Resources (2)
Facilities (3)
Sustainability/Green Team/Environmental Office (4)
Other (please specify) (5)___________________________________________
Q24 Who generally makes the most decisions regarding commuting programs and benefits?
Executive Committee (1)
HR Manager (2)
Office Manager (3)
Senior-level Manager (4)
Other (please specify) (5)_____________________________________________________


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
55
Q25 What is your job title?
Human Resources Specialist (1)
Manager (2)
Office Manager (3)
Owner (4)
Senior4evel Manager (5)
Other (please specify) (6)_________________________
End of Block: Default Question Block


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
56
Appendix F—TMA Program Manager Interview Protocol INTRODUCTION & INFORMED CONSENT
Hello. My name is Brandon Figliolino. I am a graduate student at the University of Colorado’s School of Public Affairs conducting a transportation study. The purpose of this interview is to identify the commuting programs employers currently offer their employees, what they would like to offer in the future, and what barriers they face when expanding programs. Responses will help organizations like yours better meet the commuting needs of employees who work in the Denver Metro Area. Your responses will remain both anonymous and confidential. Participation in this interview is completely voluntary; you may end it at any time. While there is no compensation for taking this survey, your input is much appreciated.
The survey will be conducted over the phone. Completing the interview will take no more than fifteen minutes. Should you have any questions after the interview ends, you can contact me by emailing brandon.figliolino@ucdenver.edu or by calling 720-507-6752.
Ql: Approximately, how many employers does your organization currently serve?
Q2: What are some of the programs you target to employers?
Q3: Which of these programs has been most successful in getting employer participation?
Q4: What do you think makes the program(s) successful?
Q5: What do you believe are the barriers keeping employers from participating?
Q6: What strategies have you used to promote participation in this program?
Q7: Based on your experiences, what program(s) do you think your organization should focus on expanding?
Q8: Why should that program(s) be expanded?
Q9: Is there anything else you’d like to share with me about (TMA name) or the programs you offer?


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
57
Appendix G—Capstone Prospectus
Brandon Figliolino
PUAD 5361 Capstone Prospectus
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Working Title: Assessing Employer Transportation Needs in the Denver Metropolitan Area Client: The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)
First Reader: Wendy Bolyard, Professor, School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver
Second Reader: Jim Eshelman, Research and Evaluation Manager, DRCOG Third Reader: Randy Harrison, Professor, School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver
CLIENT OVERVIEW:
The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) is a non-profit organization made up of municipalities, counties, and other governing bodies located within the Denver Metropolitan Area. DRCOG focuses on regional planning, including planning for transportation and mobility. They aim to make commuting across the region easier by increasing the use of public transportation, biking, walking, and ridesharing services. To meet this goal, the organization distributes funding and provides guidance to governments and transportation management associations (TMAs) through their Way to Go program.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Denver Metropolitan Area is experiencing a surge in new residents. As of July 1, 2018, the area reached a population of 2.9 million people (Murray, 2018). This population increase is putting constraints on current transportation infrastructure by increasing the amount and severity of traffic congestion.
Instead of combating congestion through road and highway expansion projects, more governments—including those within Colorado—are working on reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use by encouraging public transportation, ridesharing, and biking as alternatives (Henao, Luckey, Nordback, Marshall, & Krizek, 2012; Tanadtang, Park, & Hanaoka, 2005; Yao, Yan, Chen, Tian, & Zhu, 2018). To help facilitate this change, Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) work with governments and employers to make it easier, more efficient, and safe to use these alternative modes of transportation. The services and programs they offer are referred to commonly as transportation demand management (Ferguson, 1990).
PROJECT PURPOSE & SCOPE:
This research project aims to help the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) and their TMA partners identify areas where they can expand


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
58
transportation demand services (TDM). This will be performed through a mixed-methods study that surveys both employers and transportation management association personnel to identify current program participation and future needs. Information collected will be analyzed and used to identify program areas that DRCOG and the TMA partners can expand to further reduce the regional use of single occupancy vehicles. The study will seek to answer the following questions, and determine the accuracy of the following hypotheses:
RQ1: What TDM services do employers currently offer their employees?
HI: Most employers will participate in the RTD EcoPass and DRCOG Guaranteed Ride Home programs.
RQ2: Which TDM services would employers like to offer their employees in the future?
H2: Employers will want to expand carpool and vanpool opportunities, as those services do not rely as much on transit infrastructure to be successful.
RQ3: What barriers are inhibiting employers from expanding current TDM services?
H3.1: Employee demand for services, as well as the cost of implementing them, will be the biggest challenges to program expansion.
H3.2\ Some employers will not believe they have a responsibility to offer such services.
RQ4: What resources can TMAs offer employers to help reduce barriers to expanding services? H4: TMAs can offer ongoing administrative support to help encourage employer participation, which reduces the need for employers to have dedicated TDM staff.
RQ5: What are the subarea differences in TMA services and desired programs in the Denver Metropolitan Area?
H5: TMAs in suburban-centered areas will offer fewer services and more carpool and vanpool options than those in dense corridors.
PROJECT RATIONALE:
This proposed study offers several benefits to DRCOG. First, it aligns directly with the Way to Go program goal of reducing SOV use. This is done through studying work commuting behaviors. By identifying current commuting patterns, DRCOG can determine which TDM programs could expand to further reduce SOV use.
Second, the study provides an updated snapshot of work commuting. The most recent employer-focused TDM survey for the region was conducted in 2015, and looked at the extent to which employers had adopted TDM programs, and which programs had the potential for expansion. Results from this study can be compared with the 2015 study to determine if progress has been made in increasing the use of specific SOV alternatives.
This study also expands upon the 2015 study in two ways. First, it incorporates the insights of TMAs, which will allow DRCOG and partners the ability to identify areas where TMAs and employers are not in alignment. This gap analysis will help improve communication between TMAs and employers, and help TMAs better serve employers. Second, the study identifies subarea differences and similarities in TDM programming, which can be used to better improve alternative transportation use regionally.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
59
METHODOLOGY:
The transportation needs study will utilize a mixed-methods approach. Components include an online survey, to be distributed to employers throughout the region. The list of employers will be gathered from a variety of sources, including TMA partners, chambers of commerce, and other DRCOG partners. In addition to the online survey, a qualitative interview with TMA partner coordinators will be conducted. The data will be compiled into multiple analyses to determine if employer needs are being met, how barriers to participation can be reduced, and if there are differences in needs between subareas.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
A preliminary review of literature was conducted. Based on the review of past studies, there is no commonly accepted way to study the effectiveness of transportation demand management programs (Finke & Schreffler, 2004; Hasnine, Weiss, & Habib, 2017; Wallace, Mannering, & Rutherford, 1999; Yao, Yan, Chen, Tian, & Zhu, 2018). Regardless of the different measures utilized, most results show that TDMs based on specific sites are more effective than regionally-based ones (Collura, 1994; Hasnine, Weiss, & Habib, 2017).
Past studies fall into two categories: a priori and ex post. A priori studies of TDM effectiveness measure awareness of TDM programs, while ex post measures use of alternative modes of transportation, including air pollution reduction and vehicle miles traveled (Finke & Schreffler, 2004). There are issues with both these types of studies. A priori studies might not reflect the accurate level of participation in TDM programs; just because a survey-taker is aware of a program does not necessarily mean they are using it (Finke & Schreffler, Hasnine, Weiss, & Habib, 2017). Ex post studies are also challenging because of the difficulty associated with quantifying outcomes, including air pollution reduction from using a non-SOV form of transportation (Hasnine, Weiss, & Habib, 2017).
Regardless of the lack of commonly used survey methodologies, over the past three decades there have been some effective studies that can be used as a basis for this research project. Most relevant is a study conducted in 2015 by DRCOG that measured the potential TDM programs in the Denver Metropolitan Area had to expand. Employers who participated in RTD’s EcoPass program, members of the Mile High Society of Human Resources Management, and members of DRCOG’s Way to Go were surveyed online. Results showed that participation rates in TDM programs ranged from 1 to 10% (“Denver Regional Employer Survey,” 2015). This study will be a critical link to this transportation needs study, as it will help DRCOG evaluate TDM programs over time.
Another pertinent piece of literature for this study is the study conducted by Finke & Schreffer (2004). They reviewed multiple TDM assessment tools across the country, including in Georgia and California, and determined that the most effective means of evaluating TDM program success is by having multiple measures of testing.
Other literature has also been reviewed that expand upon the basic principles of TDM evaluation. They will be incorporated into a final literature review. Because much of the literature that has been reviewed for this study was published in the 1990s, additional searches for more current data is warranted.


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
60
TIMELINE:
Due to the scope of this research project, initial work, including a review of literature, and preliminary development of survey questions, has been started. A detailed list of tasks and due dates is listed below. It is anticipated that task work will be completed before the date it is due.
Date Task/Event/Assignment Due
6/22/2018 • Meeting with Flo Raitano, Jim Eshelman, & Steve Erickson to discuss potential project ideas
6/23/2018 • Tentative research topic emailed to Dr. Bolyard & Randy Harrison
luly • Preliminary research search • Begin creating annotated bibliography
8/10/2018 • Phone call discussion with Jim Eshelman to discuss research questions, hypotheses, and methodology • Write draft prospectus
8/11/2018 • Reader agreements submitted to Jim Eshelman and Randy Harrison • Capstone agreement submitted
8/13/2018 • Phone call discussion with Dr. Bolyard re: draft prospectus
8/13-8/17 • Finalize and submit prospectus
8/14-8/25 • Create literature review • Review survey instruments
8/26-9/10 • Create survey tools and interview questions • Review and submit to Jim Eshelman • Reach out to TMA partners, chambers of commerce to discuss their participation in study
9/3-9/10 • Write Part One (introduction, literature review, organizational profile, purpose of the study. Methodology & interview protocols)
9/25 • Submit Part One of research project
9/25-10/2 • Schedule meeting with Dr. Bolyard to discuss Part One • Make necessary revisions based on DRCOG and professorial feedback


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
61
10/5-10/20 • Distribute survey instrument to employers • Schedule phone call interviews with TMA partners
10/20 • Survey closes
10/20- 10/30 • Analyze survey & interview results • Write Part Two
11/2 • Submit Part Two
11/12- 11/16 • Schedule meeting with Dr. Bolyard • Incorporate DRCOG and professorial feedback into final draft
11/20-11/23 • Prepare oral board presentation • Review final research paper
11/25 • Submit final research paper
12/3-12/7 • Schedule oral board presentation


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
62
Appendix H—TMA Program Manager Interview Response Matrix
TMA 1 TMA 2 TMA 3 TMA 4 TMA 5 TMA 6
1. How many active employers does your organization serve? ~56 ~ 30 12 ~30 50 ~11
2. What are some of the programs you target to employers? GoTober, Bike to Work Day, non-SOV marketing GoTober, Bike to Work Day, Winter Bike to Work Day, RTD EcoPass, vanpooling, carpooling, non-SOV marketing, employer outreach, stakeholder committees Vanpooling, employer outreach, marketing, transit fairs, partnerships with municipalities and other organizations, grant distribution, RTD EcoPass RTD EcoPass, Bike to Work Day, GoTober, partnerships with municipalities and other organizations RTD EcoPass, employer commute surveys, Bike to Work Day, non-SOV marketing, GoTober Grant distribution, carpooling, vanpooling, telework assistance, commute program development assistance, employer commute surveys, tax benefit guidance, infrastructure projects
3. Which of these programs has been most successful in getting employer participation? GoTober GoTober Partnerships with municipalities and organizations RTD EcoPass GoTober Dock-less bike share, but really depends on motivating factor for employers
4. What do you think makes this program most successful? Helps employees understand their commuting behaviors, program isn’t “all or nothing,” Creates stronger relationship with TMA and employers, empowers employers to start programming, GoTober is easy to join Programs offered in partnership with others incentivize behavior changes, programs are more cost effective Saves employees money on vehicle maintenance and parking costs, helps individuals reduce greenhouse gases Incentives in program make it easier for people to try non-SOV modes of travel, Met an immediate need in the area, people more inclined to bike than walk to some locations
5. What do you believe are barriers keeping employers from participating? “Easy” commutes Suburbs are “auto-oriented,” not bike or bus-friendly Free parking, traffic not so bad that people will not drive, transit is not always convenient EcoPass contracts are too expensive for some employers, process to join can be difficult Hard to show employers why it is worth spending money on commuting programs On-demand services hard to plan first-and-last mile, storage issues with dock-less bikes


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
63
IMA 1 IMA 2 IA1A 3 TMA 4 TMA 5 TMA 6
6. What strategies have you used to promote participation in this program? Promoting parking and payroll tax benefits, employer referrals, targeting HR conferences and charter schools Incentivizing program participation, inviting employers to share their problems Marketing, focusing on first-and-last mile programs with partners Working with RTD to promote changes to EcoPass program, hosting employer lunch-and-leams Inviting employers to participate in program based on past interactions and interest Applying for funding to put towards projects
7. Based on your experiences, what program(s) do you think your organization should focus on expanding? Parking cashout, RTD EcoPass, continued marketing Miniature GoTober competition, implement more trackable programs Work with municipalities to decrease parking requirements and address land use issues, implement corridor-wide EcoPass program, create a bus circulator program Transit apps (Waze, etc.), autonomous vehicle sharing Work with municipalities to address land use issues Micro-transit, neighborhood mobility hubs, rebuild intersections
8. Why should this (these) programs be expanded? Saves employers and employees money, educates employees about the costs of driving Encourages more employers to participate, provides data-driven results Makes it less convenient to drive and more convenient to use other modes, land use choices have biggest impact on commuting behavior Apps make it easier to change behavior, technology is changing communities Addressing sprawl and infrastructure issues makes changing behavior easier Gives commuters more options
9. Is there anything else you’d like to share with me about your organization or the programs you offer? Programs need quantifiable data, TMAs must have tenacity Suburb participation harder because of land use policies and too much parking N/A TMAs need to keep sharing options with employers N/A Most TMAs in Colorado focus on education & outreach and not infrastructure


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
64
Appendix I—Employer Commuting Programs and Benefits
COMMUTING PROGRAMS AND BENEFITS
Showers and lockers Maps showing bike routes Secure, covered bike parking
70%
20%
50%
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
Discounts for a bikeshare membership (including B-Cycle, Zagster, etc.) | 10%
Ability to telecommute regularly
Compressed scheduling to let employees work full-time hours in fewer days (4-10s,...
Flexible scheduling to let employees set their start and end times Guaranteed Ride Home for employees who have not used their car to get to work Ability for employees to set aside pre-tax income to spend on transit or vanpool fares
30%
40%
30%
30%
70%
70%
20%
10%
10%
40%
60%
20%
30%
Discounts for a carshare membership (including Car2Go, Zipcar, etc.) 0% 10%
Fleet vehicles Electric vehicle charging stations Preferential parking forcarpool users Preferential parking for vanpool users Assistance with forming a vanpool
80%
50%
40%
30%
10%
10%
30%
20% 10% 10% 10% 10% 20%
10%
20%
30%
20%
20%
20%
10%
40%
60%
20%
20%
Vanpool fare subsidies 0% 20%
Maps showing bus and light-rail locations RTD EcoPasses
10%
20%
40%
60%
30%
20%
50%
40%
10%
10%
10%
0
0
10%
0
10%
30%
40%
30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I We offer this to employees We do not offer this, but would like to in the future I We do not, and would not, offer this in the future Do not know


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
65
Appendix J—Current Employer Commuting Programs
Showers and Maps showing Compressed Flex scheduling Maps showing RTD EcoPass
lockers bike routes scheduling transit routes
Programs and Benefits
n=10


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
66
Appendix K—Future Employer Commuting Programs
n=10


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
67
Appendix L—Hypothesis Evaluation
Hypothesis Accept or Reject
Hi: Most employers who have over 100 employees will participate in the RTD EcoPass program. Reject
H2: Employers in suburban areas will want to expand carpool and vanpool opportunities, as those services do not rely as much on transportation infrastructure to be successful. Reject
Hypotheses 1 & 2
Hypothesis Accept or Reject
H3.1: For employers with less than 100 employees, the cost of implementing programs will be the biggest challengeto program expansion. Accept
H3.2: Employers with less than 100 employers will not believe they have a responsibility to offer such services. Reject
H4: Employers with less than 100 employees will be more likelyto add additional commuting programs and benefits if TMAs can offer ongoing administrative support. Reject
Hypotheses 3.1, 3.2 & 4
Hypothesis Accept or Reject |
Hs.iiTMAs in suburban-centered areas will offer more vanpool options than those in dense corridors. Reject
H5.2: Regardless of service area, all TMAs will perform employer education and outreach. Accept
Hypotheses 5.1 & 5.2


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
68
Appendix M—MPA Core Competencies
The School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver requires all graduate students to meet five core competencies necessary for actors in the public administration realm to succeed. These competencies are:
• To lead and manage in public governance;
• To participate and contribute to the policy process;
• To analyze, synthesize, think critically, solve problems, and make decisions
• To articulate and apply a public service perspective;
• To communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry
This study, “Assessing Employer Transportation Needs in the Denver Metropolitan Area” is a culmination of the knowledge, skills, and abilities I have cultivated throughout my time during the program. In particular, the following courses helped me successfully execute this capstone project.
PUAD 5260: Managing Diversity
The primary objective of this course was for students to understand and appreciate differences amongst individuals, and utilize unique perspectives to improve the community. For the final project in this course, I chose to conduct a cultural awareness assessment for a parks and recreation department to determine if employees had the knowledge and skills needed to interact with perspectives different than their own. This project helped me in several ways: I learned how to develop an inclusive survey instrument (Competency 5), explore the issue of race and ethnicity in local government (Competency 1).


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
69
For my capstone project, I embraced what I learned in this course to ensure my project was inclusive and accepting of different perspectives. Traditional TDM researchers’ survey employers and employees, but I decided to broaden that perspective by seeking out the input of TMA program managers, who brought to this project a unique, hands-on perspective (Competency 5). Transportation funding issues have become more contentious, so this project delved deep into the history and impacts that previous decisions had on transportation policy (Competency 1).
PUAD 5008: Evidence-Based Decision-Making To succeed in this course, students had to research, design, and execute various research methods, including a mixed-methods approach. In one project, I had to synthesize data and recommend a solution, which was also a critical component of this transportation project (Competency 2). Knowledge I learned from this course helped me choose the research method for this project, and gave me the ability to extrapolate meaning from the data collected (Competency 3). Through this course, I also learned how to set mission-driven goals and provide solutions to large-scale problems (Competency 1).
PUAD 5007: Public Policy Leadership
This class focused on being a thoughtful, ethical leader. I learned how to maintain integrity during difficult situations, and also the value of building relationships and respecting others (Competency 4). In my capstone project, this was of the upmost importance. Not only did I have to develop relationships with TMA program managers quickly, I had to build a rapport with them so they would be willing to help distribute my survey and participate in my interviews. Any information that could reveal the program managers’ identities, or the employer organizations, were redacted to honor their requests to remain anonymous (Competency 4).


ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
70
Appendix N—Auraria Digital Library Repository Permissions


School of Public Affairs
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER
Form Name: Submission Time: Browser:
IP Address: Unique ID: Location:
capstone repository permission December 4, 2018 8:44 am Chrome 70.0.3538.110 / Windows 7 108.171.133.160 459259282
37.622798919678, -122.43640136719
Description Area
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY
Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library
Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for on- and off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817
Grant of Permissions
Description Area In reference to the following title(s):
Author (Student Name) Brandon Figliolino
Title (Capstone Project Title) Assessing Employer Transportation Needs in the Denver Metropolitan Area
Publication Date 12/04/18
I am the: Client
Description Area As client of the copyright holder affirm that the content submitted is identical to that which was originally supervised and that the content is suitable for publication in the Auraria Library Digital Collections.


Description Area
Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate image-and text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit.
Signature

Your Name James Eshelman
Date 12/04/18
Email Address
ATTENTION
Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to:
Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Libraryl 100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817


School of Public Affairs
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER
Form Name: Submission Time: Browser:
IP Address: Unique ID: Location:
capstone repository permission November 29, 2018 12:32 pm Chrome 70.0.3538.110 / Windows 97.107.70.41 458042507
39.972099304199, -105.2492980957
Description Area
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY
Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library
Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for on- and off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817
Grant of Permissions
Description Area In reference to the following title(s):
Author (Student Name) Brandon Figliolino
Title (Capstone Project Title) Assessing Employer Transportation Needs in the Denver Metropolitan Area
Publication Date 12/3/2018
I am the: Author (student)
Description Area As copyright holder or licensee with the authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned title(s), I hereby authorize Auraria Library and University of Colorado Denver to digitize, distribute, and archive the title(s) for nonprofit, educational purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.


Description Area
Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate image-and text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit.
Signature
—
Your Name Brandon Figliolino
Date 11/29/2018
Email Address
ATTENTION
Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to:
Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Libraryl 100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817


Full Text

PAGE 1

Running head: ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS Assessing Employer Transportation Needs in the Denver Metropolitan Area Brandon T. Figliolino University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs This clientbased project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver Denver, Colorado Fall 2018

PAGE 2

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 2 Capstone Project Disclosures This client-based project was completed on behalf of the Denver Regional Council of Governments and supervised by PUAD 5361 Capstone course instructor Wendy L. Bolyard, PhD, and second faculty reader Randy Harrison. This project does not necessarily refle ct the views of the School of Public Affairs or the faculty readers. Raw data were not included in this document, rather relevant materials were provided directly to the client. Permissions to include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repository are found in the final Appendix. Questions about this capstone project should be directed to the student author.

PAGE 3

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 5 2. Literature Review 7 3. Methodology 14 4. Results 19 5. Discussion and Recomme ndations 25 6. Conclusion 29 7. References 30 8. Appendix 3 6 Table of Figures and Appendices Appendix A Measurement Tables 3 6 Appendix B Acronym Guide 39 Appendix C Email Invitation to TMA Partners 40 Appendix D Survey Link Email with Request for Participation 41 Appendix E Employer Survey Instrument 42 Appendix F TMA Program Manager Interview Tool 56 Appendix G Capstone Prospectus 5 7 Appendix H TMA Program Manager Interview Response Matrix 61 Appendix I Employer Commuting Programs and Benefits 6 4 Appendix J Current Emp loyer Commuting Programs 65 Appendix K Future Employer Commuting Programs 66 Appendix L Hypothesis Evaluation 67 Appendix M MPA Core Comp etencies 69 Appendix N Auraria Digital Library Repository Permissions 70 Fig.1 H1 Measurement Table 3 6 Fig. 2 H2 Measurement Table 3 6 Fig. 3 H3.1 Measurement Table 3 7 Fig. 4 H3.2 Measurement Table 3 7 Fig. 5 H4 Measure ment Table 3 8 Fig. 6 H5.1 Measurement Table 3 8 Fig. 7 H5.2 Measurement Table 3 8 Fig.8 RTD EcoPass Program Participation 20 Fig. 9 Vanpool Subsidies 2 1 Fig.1 0 Internal Factors Influencing Employer Decisions 2 9 Fig.1 1 External Factors Influencing Employer Decisions 30

PAGE 4

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 4 Executive Summary This study was designed to provide the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), and the transportation management associations (TMAs) who serve the Denver Metropolitan Area, with an updated perspective on the commuting programs and benefits employers provide to their workers. Most commuters in the United States travel by car (Judd & Swanstrom, 2014). This commuting behavior leads to negative externalities, including increased traffic congestion, poorer air quality, and stymied economic development (Berger, 1998; Habibian & Kermansah, 2013; Walraven et. al, 2016). By analyzing employer commuting programs and benefits, DRCOG can meet employer needs and reduc e the negative impacts of single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use by individuals travelling to work. To gather data, an online survey was created and distributed through TMA networks to employers within the region. Ten employers provided insights into their current and future programming needs, and their opinions about commuting programs and benefits. Results suggest that DRCOG and the TMAs should focus on promoting the RTD EcoPass program, and work with RTD to reduce costs and expand transit services to inc rease program participation. In addition to sampling employers in the region, this project included interviews from program managers at the TMAs, which has not been done in past studies. The goal of these interviews was to gain insight into whether ther e were subarea differences between the TMAs in terms of the services offered, their strategies, and their perceptions of the role of TMAs in the future. Results show that while all TMAs focus on education and outreach, many program managers want to expand their scope to include advocating for better land use practices, which this study found to be the biggest barrier towards implementing additional commuting programs.

PAGE 5

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 5 Assessing Employer Transportation Needs in the Denver Metropolitan Area The Denver Regio nal Council of Governments (DRCOG) is a planning organization made up of a collection of local governments who strive to improve the Denver Metropolitan Area through collaborative planning and policy implementation. One key area of focus for DRCOG is tran sportation and personal mobility (Denver Regional Council of Governments, 2018). Reducing traffic congestion through alternative modes of transportation is one of their primary goals. In the United States, the automobile is the preferred mode of travel (Judd & Swanstrom, 2014 ). population increases (Bhattacharjee & Goetz, 2012). According to the Colorado State population has increased by over 835,000 residents since 1998 (Colorado State Demography Office, 2016). That trend will continue based on their forecasts. By 2050, the population is expected to exceed 4.4 million people (Colorado State Demography Office, 2018). Th ese increases will continue to cause congestion in the Denver Metro Area. Numerous issues arise when congestion occurs. The most visible externality to congestion is the reduced quality of life for individuals living in the area (Zheng & Kahn, 2013). Fo r example, when vehicles idle in traffic, air pollution increases, which creates health hazards for residents (Walraven, Matthijs, Spaan, & Bakker, 2016). When there are more vehicles on the roads, the risk of being involved and hurt in a car accident als o increases (Denver Regional Council of Governments, 2018). The economic vitality of an area also suffers when congestion is present. For example, a study conducted by Berger (1998) noted that business sales volumes decreased in heavily

PAGE 6

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 6 congested areas . Detter (2015) found that when traffic congestion is too severe for consumers, they will decide not to travel to purchase goods and services, opting to remain home instead. ty, if left unaddressed. While congestion has been mitigated through highway and road expansion in the past, environmental and financial costs make this solution no longer feasible (Ewing, Tian, & Lyons, 2018). In Colorado, the Department of Transportat ion has an annual budget shortfall of almost $1 billion dollars, making expansion projects too costly to undertake (Colorado Department of Transportation, 2017). Further, studies have found that when roads are expanded, driving is encouraged. While a hig hway or road is less congested after an expansion project is complete, over time, the congestion will return to its original levels, or worse (Arnott & Yan, 2000; Johnston et al., 2006; Litman, 2017). Instead of combating congestion through road and hig hway expansion projects, more governments including those within Colorado are working on reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use by encouraging public transportation, ridesharing, and biking as alternatives (Henao, Luckey, Nordback, Marshall, & Krizek, 2012). To help facilitate this change, transportation management associations (TMAs) work with governments and employers to make it easier, more efficient, and safer to use these alternative modes of transportation. The services they offer are referred to commonly as transportation demand management (TDM) programs (Ferguson, 1990). Heavy congestion occurs during peak travel times, when commuters are traveling to and from work (Zhang, Yang, Huang, & Zhang, 2005). As such, this research project aims to help DRCOG and their TMA partners identify areas where they can expand employer based

PAGE 7

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 7 TDM program participation to reduce work related congestion. This was performed through a mixed methods study that surveys both employers and TMA personnel to identify current program participation, future needs, and barriers to program expansion. This paper begins with a literature review of studies previously conducted to evaluate TMA and TDM performance and effectiveness. s research questions, hypotheses, and methodology are explained. Results are then analyzed and presented. To conclude, a summary of the study, and TDM program recommendations that DRCOG and their TMA partners should consider implementing are offered. Literature Review Transportation demand management (TDM) programs have been in existence for the past five decades. While they are now common in many dense and large metropolitan areas, the evaluation methods with which researchers study them has yet to be standardized. Early evaluations of such programming typically involved measuring either the reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of commuters, or the number of commuters that were contacted regarding TDM programs. In the present day, researche rs are mixing methods to determine more effective measures for assessment, including using mathematical modeling and stated preference over revealed preference surveys. As cities attract new residents, traffic congestion on local streets and regional hig hways becomes more severe (Habibian & Kermansah, 2013). Previous studies suggest that traffic congestion in metropolitan areas is worsening. For example, a study by Schrank et al. (2015) reviewed trip data from across the United States to determine that congestion has increased nationally, regardless of city size. Congestion will continue to rise as more people obtain and use automobiles (Judd & Swanstrom, 2014). Notably, trips to work are large contributors to

PAGE 8

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 8 congestion. Schrank et al. (2015) found t hat peak period commuters individuals traveling during the morning and evening hours to and from work spent an extra 42 hours commuting during 2014. In his analysis of commuting patterns in the United States, Mather (2008) found that 75% of working Americ ans drive alone to work. Only 10% of workers carpooled to their workplace, and less than 6% used public transportation. Traffic congestion brings with it many negative externalities. The most noticeable issue with congestion is the delay commuters experi ence in traveling by car (de Palma & Lindsey, 2001). There are also health implications that arise with traffic congestion, including an increase in air pollution from idling vehicles, and an increase in the risk of vehicle crashes (Habibian & Kermansah, 2013; Hasnine et al., 2017). If left unaddressed, congestion can threaten the economic vitality of a city or region (Van Melderen et al., 2012; Vickerman, 2003). The negative externalities that come from traffic congestion can be mitigated through transp ortation demand management programs (TDMs). Formed in the 1970s, TDMs attempted to reduce the economic costs of an oil embargo by encouraging commuters to carpool (Modarres, 1993). In the 1990s, when new air pollution regulations were added to the Clean Air Act, these programs expanded to encourage the use of public transportation (Collura, 1994; Finke & Schreffler, 2004). TDM programs are now implemented across the United States as a g congestion (Winters & Scholtz, 2016). TDM Programming Considerations TDM programs can be managed by governments, employers, or a combination of both. Based on previous literature, most TDM programs utilize a combination of various incentives and deterren ts to change commuting behaviors (Akar et al., 2012; Hasnine et al., 2017). It is

PAGE 9

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 9 more common for employers to offer incentives to increase participation, than they are to discourage SOV use (Finke & Schreffler, 2004). Program selection is particularly i mportant for employers. Many factors are taken into consideration when deciding which types of commuting programs and benefits they offer through the TDM framework (Zhou et al., 2012). For instance, work location is an important proximity to public transportation stops and routes affect whether the employer will offer employees an incentive to use that mode of travel (Dill & Wardell, 2007; ample low Nygaard, 2003). Per Nelson and Nygaard (2003), the commuting programs and benefits also must meet the needs of many employees who commute to work, so it is typical fo r employers to support various modes of travel. Evaluation Methodologies TDMs have been a concept for reducing congestion since the 1970s, yet, researchers have yet to identify one universal method for evaluating their effectiveness (City of Boulder Tran sportation Department, 2012; Finke & Schreffler, 2004; Yao et al., 2018). Because there are multiple ways to test TDM program effectiveness, evaluations may not be fully reliable when applied to populations outside of the original study area. Since there has been no consistent use of one evaluation tool, the results may not be valid all the time, either. When evaluating TDM programs, there are generally two areas that researchers examine. Direct studies look at the actual impacts of TDM programming, whi ch could include calculating the amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or air pollution reduced, or the number of individuals who participate in programs (Finke & Schreffler, 2004). These studies use choice

PAGE 10

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 10 data to better understand commuting behaviors ( Ferguson, 2000). While effective at measuring outcomes, the variables direct studies use, including VMT and air pollution reduction, are hard to measure (Ferguson, 2000; Hasnine et al., 2017). Because these studies utilize data before and after a TDM pro gram has been implemented, they also are time consuming to administer (Finke & Schreffler, 2012). Indirect studies capture data points such as the number of requests for information and the level of program awareness (Ferguson, 2000; Ungemah & Dusza, 2008 ). While indirect studies are less costly than direct, they can be less reliable and offer less concrete evidence of program success (Ferguson, 2000). For the purposes of the Denver Metro Area employer research project, an indirect study is proposed beca use the measures are most applicable to the research questions at stake. TDMs Evaluated Based on Commuter Data A review of the literature found numerous instances where data collected from commuters was the basis for TDM program evaluation. These studies looked at employee programs and benefits (Ko & Kim, 2017). In their study, Hasnine et al. (2017) used a combination of stated preference and revealed preference surve y questions to understand the commuting patterns of 635 individuals in the Region of Peele, Canada. Akar et al. (2012) also students, faculty, and staff travel ing to campus. While individual commuting habit data is an important component of TDM evaluation, the absence of thorough information from employers is a limitation of the current research.

PAGE 11

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 11 TDMs Evaluated Based on Multiple Survey Population Data One of the earlier TDM evaluation studies conducted in the United States did include program by utilizing surveys distributed to multiple sample populations, including employers, vanpool coordinators, and employees who participated in vanpooling. Survey results were then cross referenced with several TDM case studies to identify areas of opportunity for CARAVAN to improve program satisfaction and increase employee part icipation. Results indicated that while employers who participated in CARAVAN programs were satisfied, CARAVAN needed to focus their efforts on site specific projects to make non single occupant vehicle (SOV) commuting more appealing to employees. This f inding is reiterated in multiple TDM evaluation studies that stress the need for TMAs to micro target benefits and programs to increase A more recent study of TDM effectiveness was conducted by researchers at the Denver Regional Council of Governments (2015). Researchers looked to identify: 1) the extent that employers had adopted TDM programs, 2) which TDM programs had the most potential for expansion , and 3) what conditions made it easier to implement TDM programs. Utilizing a list of employers gathered from TMAs and a human resources professionals group, they asked survey takers online whether their organizations offered any of 11 commuting programs and benefits, or if there were any interest in offering them in the future. Based on the analysis of 264 responses, researchers found that employers who had staff of at least 50 employees, and participated in the Regional Transportation District (RTD) Ec oPass Program, reduced SOV use by more than any other group. They also found that the least adopted commuting benefits or

PAGE 12

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 12 programs included vanpool subsidies and financial incentives for non SOV transportation to work. The study concluded with recommenda tions that included marketing TDM programs to human resources professionals, office managers, and sustainability coordinators of local employers. This previous study of Denver Metro Area employers offers excellent insight into survey methodology that was applied to the TDM effectiveness study presented in this research paper. Another current survey by Winters and Scholtz (2016) evaluated the effectiveness of TDMs through employers. Their survey was designed to better understand the transportation needs o f employers, as well as their attitudes towards commuting programs and benefits. They created a voluntary online survey that was distributed via listservs managed by TMAs and transportation organizations across the United States. They received 76 respons es, which revealed that 60% of respondents believed that traffic congestion was a significant motivator for offering commuting programs and benefits to employees. Almost 70% of respondents believed that transportation problems will pose a challenge to the ir organization when they attempt to hire and retain employees in the future, which, when marketed effectively, makes participation in TDM programming more appealing. Winters and Scholtz (2016) acknowledge that one limitation of their survey methodology i s that there is a risk of self selection bias that may arise. The low response rate also impacts the reliability of the survey. One final employer TDM survey of relevance to this study was conducted by EMC Research (2016) for a TMA based in Washington called Commute Seattle. In their study, researchers hoped to identify: 1) which commuting programs and benefits employers in four S eattle neighborhoods offered employees, 2) how that information was disseminated to employees, and 3) the demographic makeup of the decision makers and employers participating

PAGE 13

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 13 in TDM programs. Results from the 239 returned surveys indicated that transit p asses and subsidies were the most popular commuting benefits offered to employees. Researchers found that interest in alternative programs, such as vanpooling, are site specific, so it is important for o increase participation. Because the survey focused on four neighborhoods, results cannot be applied to the entire City of Seattle . Land Use Policy Advocacy TMAs educate and advocate individuals to use alternative modes of travel. Metropolitan plannin g organizations (MPOs) have been the primary drivers of long range land use and transportation planning ( Morcol & Zimmerman, 2007). However, the ir functions have diversified in recent years to include more strategic land use planning advocacy. Morcol and Zimmerman (2007) argue that because of the business interests of those who are members of TMAs, the organizations can wield powerful influence on planning efforts at the local level. General Findings Though the research methodologies and sample populati ons vary amongst current TDM literature, themes can be seen through several of them. Most notable is the idea that TDM effectiveness can be improved when the benefits and programs offered under them are site specific (Collura, 1994; Dill & Wardell, 2007; Ferguson, 2000; Litman, 2003; Nelson & Nygaard, 2003). Also of note is that employees have greater participation when financial incentives are provided (Bhatt & Higgins, 1989; Ko & Kim, 2017). Another finding from Giuliano (1992) and Ferguson (2000) revea led that TDM programs have a low impact on congestion, but a positive impact on the lives of the commuters who use them. Both studies, however, are from decades ago, so their results may not reflect the current trends in TDM participation.

PAGE 14

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 14 While commuting programs and benefits have been offered by governments and employers for many years, evaluating the effectiveness of them in achieving policy outcomes remains inconsistent. Most studies look at the direct impacts that programs have on individuals who uti lize them, but no vetted survey instrument has been adopted universally. This study of the employer TDM programs in the Denver Metropolitan Area will contribute to current literature by incorporating the perspectives of TMA staff. It also provides a surv ey tool that can be easily adapted to meet the needs of other TMA and transit organizations. Methodology This research utilizes a mixed methods approach to study TDM programs being offered in the Denver Metropolitan Area. Quantitative measures capture employer TDM data, while qualitative measures assess TMA attitudes and beliefs. This is done for two reasons. First, quantitative studies lend themselves better to large sample populations (Orcher, 2014). By capturing a large sample size of employers, the data collected becomes more reliable. Second, since TMA program managers have seldom been interviewed about their opinions of TDM programs, a qualitative study will allow for more depth in the subject where current research is lacking. Most of the pr evious studies conducted to test TDM effectiveness look at individual commuter patterns, as opposed to employer needs. These studies also fail to take into consideration the perspectives of TMAs. The research questions in this study help to fill the gap in the literature by cross analyzing the beliefs and needs of employers and the TMAs that serve them. Conducting Business to Business Surveys Surveys to employment organizations pose unique challenges for researchers. Hak et al. (2003) note that it is im portant for researchers to give businesses ample notice when requesting

PAGE 15

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 15 their participation in a survey as most employers consider survey This allows them the time necessary to prepare and allocate resources for the project. It is also reliability of the study (Edwards & Cantor, 1991). Surveys should also be concise, as the quality of responses decreases the longer a survey continues (B ogen, 1996). Previous strategies for increasing response rates include: 1) relationship building between the researcher and business, 2) offering incentives, and 3) repeated follow up, with incentives ranking less effective than the other strategies (Cycy ota, 2006). Business to business surveys are most effective when those who are invited to participate have interest or stake in the topic (Anseel et al., 2008). Research Questions and Hypotheses RQ1: What commuting related benefits and programs do employers currently offer their employees? Most employers who have over 100 employees will participate in the RTD EcoPass program. RQ2: Which commuting related benefits and programs would employers like to offer their employees in the future? Employers in suburban areas will want to expand carpool and vanpool opportunities, as RQ3: What barriers are inhibiting employers from expanding current commuting rel ated benefits and programs? H3.1: For employers with less than 100 employees, the cost of implementing programs will be the biggest challenge H3.2: Employers with less than 100 employers will not believe they have a responsibility to What resources can TMAs offer employers to help reduce barriers to expanding commuting related benefits and programs ? H4: Employers with less than 100 employees will be more likely to add additional commuting programs and RQ5 What are the subarea differences in TMA commuting related benefits and program offerings in the Denver Metropolitan Area? H5.1: TMAs in suburban centered areas will offer more vanpool options than those in dense H5.2 : Regardless of service area, all TMAs will perform employer education and outreach.

PAGE 16

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 16 Data Collection For this study, only primary data were collected. Because there is no standardized tool for assessing TDM programs, three previous survey instruments were modified and combined to produce the quantitative instrument for this research project (see Appendices E and F) (Denver Regional Council of Governments, 2015; EMC Research, 2016; Winters & Scholtz, 2016). B y taking questions from preceding surveys, results from this survey should be more valid (Orcher, 2014). This is because in the previous studies, the instruments used were tested for their validity. The quantitative survey includes 2 2 questions and w as di stributed online. While Orcher (2014) has concerns with online surveys limiting data to only those participants with internet access, this study assumes that all employers invited to participate will have access to the internet out of necessity to conduct their business. The survey w as available from October 1 through October 2 2 , 2018. To capture qualitative data, phone interviews were conducted using a n open ended questionnaire composed from the research questions and several broad topics within the quantitative survey instrument (see Appendix E ) . The qualitative survey asks nine questions. To improve the validity of each instrument, external researchers, including the client, reviewed offer ed feedback. The phone interviews w ere conducted between September 24 29, 2018. Measurement Tables This study relied on several variables to test the hypotheses. Much of the data collected came from employer self reported survey responses. Survey data were cross analyzed with information gathered from phone interviews with TMA program managers. Data gathered from TMA coordinators was codified for easy extrapolation. Capturing data from multiple methods increases the validity of this study. All measurement tables are in Appendix H.

PAGE 17

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 17 Sampling Plan Two popula tions are the focus of this study: employers in the Denver Metropolitan Area who currently offer commuting programs and benefits to employees, and TMA staff who administer those TDM programs. Researching and contacting businesses individually would be tim e consuming and could invalidate the results due to bias or lack of randomization (Orcher, 2014). Instead, a purposive sampling method was used. Staff from the seven Denver Metro Area TMAs were asked to distribute a survey link through their networks, pr imarily through use of email . This create d a broad net with which data were captured. It is unknown how many employers currently utilize TMAs to administer their commuting programs and benefits . As such, the ideal sample size for the study is that of DRC received 264 responses. The survey instrument can be found in Appendix F. A list of TMA program managers was provided by DRCOG. The list include d the names of TDM program managers from each of the TMAs operating in the Denver Metro Area. A preliminary email from the client was sent to the program managers informing them that their participation would be requested in the future. Eight p rogram managers w ere sent an email with an overview of the project and a request for a phone interview. Since program manager participation wa s important for collecting employer TDM data, all program managers provided by DRCOG w ere contacted and asked to participate. Validity and Reliability To the greatest extent pos sible, the research study is valid. Validity is maximized through several actions. First, the sample population for the employer survey comes from the TMA partners, eliminating any potential bias the researcher may have towards inviting an employer to pa rticipate. Inviting those who are interested or use commuting programs and

PAGE 18

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 18 benefits further improves the validity of their responses , because they will better understand the topic being surveyed. The survey instrument and TMA questionnaire will remain un changed once they are distributed to the sample population. By keeping them identical, the validity improves. Surveys that are incomplete will be discarded. Quantitative measures must be consistent to provide accurate results (Orcher, 2014). To the gr eatest extent possible, the survey tool for this study is reliable. By basing questions off those that have been previously tested and utilized, the reliability of the study increases. Further, there is internal consistency in the scaling of measures tha t makes the tool more reliable. Wording was carefully vetted by the client to ensure that individuals who do not know the jargon or vernacular of TDM programming would be able to answer the questions with ease. The TMA questionnaire is also reliable thro directly relate to the research hypotheses. These steps all help to improve the reliability . Data Analysis The employer survey is intended to provide the following information: 1) what commuting programs and bene fits are being offered, 2) which programs have the potential for expansion, 3) employer beliefs in the future of transportation in Colorado, and 4) general employer statistics, including industry and number of employees. The research questions necessitate the need for several tests. Descriptive statistics provide current and desired programming that can help TMAs better target similar employer types. It also identifies employer characteristics that may make it more or less likely for them to participate. To analyze the TMA phone interviews , a grounded theory approach was used to codify TMA program manager responses. Descriptive statistics from the interviews compare d TMAs

PAGE 19

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 19 amongst themselves to identify similarities and differences. Lastly, gap analysis offer ed insights into discrepancies between the beliefs of employe rs and TMA program managers. Results Within a two week period, eight TMA program managers were contacted via email and asked to participate in the study. Six of the eight responded, whi ch is a response rate of 75%. Through email exchanges, a date and time was established to speak over the phone. The program managers were asked nine open ended questions. A codified table of the program E. One TMA included two program managers on a conference call; all other calls were with one program manager. The range of employers actively being served by the TMAs was between 11 and 56, with a mean of 31.5 employers. While the response rate for TMA program manager interviews was high, the number of employer surveys received was much less than expected. Ten employers participated in the survey, which is 6.7% of the desired 150 responses, and 3.7% of total responses rec eived from takers indicated they work in four zip codes and have a worksite workforce size of less than 50 people up to 1,000 or more. Since the employer response rate was low, results from this study cannot be generalized to t he Denver Metro Area employer population as a whole. A summary of employer program offerings, and desired offerings, are sh own in Appendix I . Current Commuting Programs and Benefits RQ1 looked to identify the programs that employers are currently offerin g their employees. While it was hypothesized that a majority of employers with more than 100 staff would already offer employees the RTD EcoPass, survey results indicate that is not the case. Between the ten employers, participation in the RTD EcoPass pr ogram is split. Three

PAGE 20

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 20 respondents (30%) offer the RTD EcoPass to employees. Those employers have a workforce between 50 and 999 people at the survey would like to offer the EcoPass. Their workplace loc ations range in employee size from 100 to greater than 1,000. Three respondents (30%) , whose workplace locations have less than 499 employees, are not interested in the program. A breakdown of RTD EcoPass participation by employer workforce size is detai led in Figure 8 . RTD EcoPass We offer this benefit We do not offer this, but would like to in the future We do not, and would not, offer this in the future Total Approximately, how many people work at your workplace location? 50 to 99 1 0 1 2 100 to 499 1 1 1 3 500 to 999 1 1 0 2 1,000 or more 0 2 0 2 Total 3 4 3 10 Figure 8 : RT D EcoPass Program Participation When asked why their organization does not participate in the RTD EcoPass program, two respondents (2 0 %) said that it is difficult to get to the workplace by public transit. One respondent (1 0 %) noted that RTD does not offer adequate service times for their employees. Expense of program was the only concern for one survey taker (1 0 %). To increase employer participation, two res pondents (2 0 ) said that RTD needs to expand service in area. While survey takers indicated that expense was not an issue with this program, 28% (n= 10 ) said they would be more inclined to participate if the costs of the program were reduced, or if they wer e offered better tax breaks for participating. From these results, H1 was rejected. A majority of employers with more than 100 employees do not have the RTD EcoPass program.

PAGE 21

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 21 Desired Commuting Programs and Benefits The second research question (RQ2) attempted to determine which commuting programs and benefits employers would like to offer in the future. Because vanpooling services do not require a lot of intense infrastructure changes, it was hypothesized that emplo yers in suburban areas would like TMAs to provide these services. Based on survey responses, this is not the case. None of the respondents (100%) currently offer employees vanpool subsidies, and only two respondents (20%) would like to offer the benefit in the future. When asked whether their organization offers, or would like to offer, employee assistance with forming a vanpool, four out of 10 respondents (40%) were not interested. Figure 9 illustrates the breakdown of vanpool subsidies offered by empl oyers based on the number of employees at the survey worksite. Vanpool Subsidies We offer this benefit We do not offer this, but would like to in the future We do not, and would not, offer this in the future Do not know Total Approximately, how many people work at your workplace location? 50 to 99 0 1 1 0 2 100 to 499 0 0 3 0 3 500 to 999 0 0 1 1 2 1,000 or more 0 1 0 1 2 Total 0 2 6 2 10 Figure 9 : Vanpool Subsidies Preferential parking for vanpools also was unpopular, with six survey takers (60%) saying their organization does not, and would not, offer this benefit. Of the six respondents who stated their organization would not offer vanpooling subsidies or preferen tial parking, five (83%) are in zip codes which encompass mostly suburban areas. H2 was rejected. Suburban employers are not interested in vanpooling programs.

PAGE 22

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 22 Barriers Employer participation in TDM is not without barriers. RQ3 identified problem areas that should be addressed by DRCOG and TMAs to expand program buy in. It was hypothesized that program costs would hurt employer participation in commuting programming. T o test this hypothesis, survey questions asked respondents to identify on a Likert scale how they ranked several factors that influence commuting programs and benefits based on level of importance. o 50% (n= 5) of the sample population. of the results is shown in Figure 1 0 . Figure 1 0 : Internal Factors Influencing Employer Decisions For the RTD EcoPass in particular, 28% (n= 7 ) of respondents who do not provide the benefit said that reducing the costs could improve the likelihood of them adopting the program. Of note, the three survey takers who represent employers with less than 100 employees said Extremely important Very important Moderately important Slightly important Not at all important Employee satisfaction 2 6 1 1 0 Location is convenient for offering them 2 4 2 1 1 Overhead and operating costs 5 3 0 2 0 Parking issues 1 0 0 6 3 Recruitment and retention of employees 5 3 1 1 0 Not listed (please specify) 1 0 0 0 0 2 6 1 1 0 2 4 2 1 1 5 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 6 3 5 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Count INTERNAL FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYER COMMUTING PROGRAMS AND BENEFITS

PAGE 23

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 23 making programming decisions. H3.1 was accepted. Program costs contribute significantly to decisions regarding commuting programs and benefits. T he built environment is also a barrier towards expanding programming. Four respondents (40%) said that their worksite location needs to be convenient for offering employees commuting programs. In addition, six respondents (60%) said that parking issues a re EcoPass , two respondents said they would only consider joining the program if RTD expanded services to their area. These results echo what was relayed by four (66%) TMA program managers during the phone interviews, who made comments that ample parking, poor access to transit , and an auto oriented environment make it difficult f or people to use alternative modes of travel. Employer Responsibility It was hypothesized that employers who have more than 100 employees would believe they have a responsibility to offer employees commuting benefits and programs that reduce vehicle use. Survey responses suggest this to be the case for a majority of employe rs, regardless of their workforce size. O f the 10 respondents , 60% (n= ) indicated that air pollution factors when deciding which commuting pr ograms and benefit s to provide, including two of the three employers with less than 100 employees. Other contributing factors had varying levels of significance. For instance, encouraging nts (50%), as

PAGE 24

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 24 in Figure 1 1 . Figure 1 1 : Internal Factors Influencing Employer Decisions While protecting the environment was an influencing factor, 80% of respondents believe that using such programs and benefits as a means of hiring and retaining employees is to the sample population than external. H3.2 was accepted , with the caveat that corporate responsibility is not the sole major contribution factor when making commuting program decisions . Resources Because TMA program managers offer a wealth of knowled ge about commuting benefits and programs, and employees at smaller organizations tend to perform many job duties, it was hypothesized that employers with less than 100 employees would expand services if TMAs

PAGE 25

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 25 provided them administrative support. This was not the case for the sample population, where 100% of respondents were not interested in receiving this type of help from the TMAs. H4 was rejected. Regardless of the employer size, there is no demand for TMA administrative support. Subarea Differences between TMAs Literature about TMAs and TDMs suggest that programs are successful when tailored to particular regions and areas ( Dill & Wardell, 2007 ). It was hypothesized that TMAs in suburban centered areas would offer more vanpool options than thos e in dense corridors. This was not the case, as all six program managers (100%) indicated their organization offers some form of vanpool assistance. H5.1 was rejected. Suburban employers are not interested in expanding vanpooling programs. It was also hypothesized that regardless of service area, the role of the TMAs would be to perform employer outreach and education. This was the case for all program managers (100%) who said that their TMA educates and informs both the public and employers about com muting programs. Of note, however, is the fact that there are varying degrees of education and outreach; one TMA focused more on infrastructure development than on education and outreach efforts (16%). H5.2 was accepted. Regardless of region, all TMAs perform education and outreach. Discussion and Recommendations Based on the information gathered from this study, there are several recommended courses of action that DRCOG and the TMA partners should consider taking. Th ese actions focus on employer engagement and local advocacy. Adopting these strategies should help alleviate some of the issues that are hindering employers from expanding commuting programs and benefits.

PAGE 26

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 26 Program Expansion Opportunities The survey resul ts indicate that employers are interested in providing employees with additional commuting programs and benefits. The RTD EcoPass is one such program. Since 40% of survey respondents were interested in offering the RTD EcoPass program in the future, DRCO G and the TMA partners should continue to engage with employers about the benefits of the EcoPass. A n opportune time to do this may be 2019 , as the RTD Board has recently voted to approve changes to the fare structure and the RTD EcoPass, in particular (S achs, 2018). Since these changes could reduce program costs, p erforming heavy outreach during this time might help employers better understand the benefits of the EcoPass, and make them more likely to participate. While all six TMA program managers interviewed mentioned that they help employers obtain the RTD EcoPass, only one stated they help employers with transit tax benefits questions. Providing tax guidance could help educate both employers and employees of mo netary benefits to reducing their SOV use. Of survey respondents, 40% indicated they want to offer this benefit to employees in the future. In the previous 2015 study, 16% also wanted to 2015). This should be a resource DRCOG and regional TMAs offer. It should be noted that vanpooling should not be the primary focus of the TMAs and DRCOG for the foreseeable future. Although the sample size was small, 60% of respondents were not interest ed in providing vanpooling subsidies or preferential parking to employees. This statistic is in alignment with the results from the 2015 study, which found that only 8% of survey takers were interested in vanpooling subsidies.

PAGE 27

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 27 In addition, GoTober progr amming should continue. TMA program managers spoke commuting behavior. Since GoTober programming requires commuters to track their trips, the program provides TMAs and DRCOG with valuable trip data. Advocating for Changes to Land Use Policies and Patterns The final recommended course of action for DRCOG and the TMA partners is to advocate for changes to local and regional land use policies. This is based on the results of the TMA program manager interviews. While only one TMA (16%) focuses on infrastructure and planning, four (67%) TMA program managers indicated that land use policies hinder the expansion of multimodal transportation. Since DRCOG is a planning agency, it should continue to focus heavily on working with local municipalities to implement and improve their Metro Vision Plan. TMAs should work in tandem with DRCOG to educate local leaders about the benefits of multimodal friendly land use policies, while c ontinuing their primary objectives of educating commuters about the benefits of non SOV modes of transportation. Limitations While the methodology of this study was established in a way that was similar to d the results. The biggest limitation is employer sample size. During the phone interviews, it was discovered that the TMA program managers worked with a range of active employers from 11 to 56 at any given time. Even if every active employer contact ha d taken the survey, the sample size would not be comparative to the 2015 study. While interviewing TMA program managers, five of the six program managers also mentioned that other transportation surveys were being distributed to employers during the time of this sampling. As a result of multiple survey requests being sent to

PAGE 28

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 28 employers, survey fatigue posed a challenge; employers who have already taken multiple surveys might be less inclined to take another. Another limitation to this study was the num ber of times an employer was contacted. To improve survey response rates, it is suggested that researchers contact the survey takers multiple times (Hoddinott & Bass, 1986). For this study, TMA program managers were asked to distribute the survey to thei r employer contacts. Although the program managers were followed up with once during the survey window, it is unknown how many times the program managers reached out to their employer contacts. This could have affected response rate. While some data rega rding program participation seems to reflect what was learned from the DRCOG 2015 study, it is recommended that DRCOG attempt to survey the employers once more at a later date to improve the reliability of the study. If done again, DRCOG should coordinate early with TMA program managers to ensure that no other surveys are being lists so they can have more control over who is being contacted and how many times. Makin g these adjustments should increase the sample size . website. During phone interviews, a program manager may have forgotten to mention a program they run, for example. Since the GoTober campaign was happening during this survey, program managers may have also been focusing on that program, leading to bias towards its success. Researching the program opportunities listed on the TMAs websites could help ensure that all programs and benefits TMAs provide to employers are accounted for in the study.

PAGE 29

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 29 Conclusion Commuting to work is a significant contributor to traffic congestion and air pollution, due to a typical employee driving to their worksite alone ( Zhang et al., 2005) . The Denver Regional Council of Governments, and their transportation management association partners, work to reduce single occupancy vehicle use by supporting employer commuting programs and benefits that encourage the use of alternative mode s of transportation. This study aimed to provide DRCOG and TMA program managers with updated insights into which commuting programs and benefits employers currently offered, what they would like to offer, and what they are not interested in providing. Res ults suggest that employers would like to offer employees the RTD EcoPass, but program costs need to be reduced, and transit services need to be expanded to make them join. Vanpooling was not a popular program with the sample population. Because this stu dy did have a smaller than anticipated sample size it is recommended additional study take place. In addition to providing insights into employers in the Denver Metro Area, this study also adds to the literature surrounding transportation demand managem ent by incorporating the attitudes and beliefs of TMA program managers. Results from the interviews suggest that campaigns like GoTober, are most effective at changing commuting behaviors. While all TMAs focus on alternative modes of transportation educa tion and outreach, more program managers are also interested in expanding their scope of work to include advocating for better land use policies. The information gathered from this study can help both DRCOG and the seven transportation management associat ions in the Denver Metropolitan Area successfully increase employee use of alternative modes of transportation, and reduce both congestion and air pollution for all residents along the Front Range.

PAGE 30

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 30 References Akar , G., Flynn, C., & Namgung , M. (2012) Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2319(1): pp. 77 85. analytic review 335 349. https://drcog.org/sites/default/files/resources/2016_Congestion_Report.pdf Guidance for estimating the indirect effects of proposed transportation projects . Washington, D.C: National Academy rail on traffic congestion in Journal of Transport Geography. 22 : pp. 262 Am erican Statistical Association . Alexandria, VA. pp. 1020 1025. City of Boulder. Retrieved from: https://www static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/transportation report on progress 2012 1 201305291118.pdf . Transportation. R https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/cdot official annual reports/2017 annual report

PAGE 31

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 31 Colorado State Demography Local Affairs. Retrieved from: https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/population/data/profile re gions/ state https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/population/population totals colorado substate/#population totals for colorado and sub state regions Journal of Urb an Planning and Development. 120(1): pp. 28 47. analysis of top Organizational Research Methods. 9(2): pp. 133 160. de Palma, A., L indsey, R. (2001) Transportation: Supply and Congestion, International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier, pp. 15882 15888. growing metropolitan areas: mobility solutions for mega OPEC Energy Review : 39 (4): pp. 418 https://drcog.org/about drcog/about drcog Denver Regional Employer Denver Regional Council of Governments. choice: Findings from Portland, Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 1994(1): pp. 51 57.

PAGE 32

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 32 Measurement Errors in Surveys. Wiley: New York. pp. 211 233. Ew 72(A): pp. 94 442 456 . York, NY. Transportation Demand Management Pro jects: Monitoring and Evaluation Habibian , M. & Kermansah simultaneous transportation demand management policies on commuters Transport Policy. 30(November): pp. 229 237. American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA. pp. 1724 1730. Hasnine , S., Weiss, A. & Habib, K. (2017) preference survey for evaluating employer based travel demand management Piatowsi Nordback , K, Marshall, W., & Krizek, K. (2012)

PAGE 33

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 33 fire way to Can Fam Physician . 32: pp. 2366 2368. for innovation an Public Manager . 35(2): pp. 3 Judd, D. & Swanstrom, T. (2014) City Politics. 9 ed. Pearson: Boston, MA. Transport Policy. 59: pp. 1 9. Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved from: https://www.prb.org/commuting/ . er Based Transportation Demand Management Transportation Research. 27(4): pp. 291 297. International Journal of Publi c Administration. 28(13 14): pp. 1095 1116. Nelson & Nygaard (2003) TCRP Report 87: Strategies for increasing the effectiveness of commuter benefits programs. Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C. pass restructuring with discounts for riders Streets Blog Denver. September 12, 2018. Retrieved from: https://denver.streetsblog.org/2018/09/12/rtd board advances massive fare pass restructuring with discounts for riders in need/ . EMC Research. Retrieved from: http://policies.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/policy/860/files . Texas

PAGE 34

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 34 A&M Transportation Institute. Retrieved from: https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility scorecard 2015.pdf Tanadtang ncertain and incomplete subjective judgments into the evaluation procedure of transportation demand 626. Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. Texas A&M Transportation Institute. College Station, TX. Retrieved from: https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies pdfs/travel options/technical summary/Transportation Management Associations 4 Pg.pdf . Ungemah Transportation Research Record. 2118: pp . 55 66. Van Melderen , L., Jourquin , B., Thomas, I., Verhetsel , A., & Witlox mobility policies of companies: What are good practices? The Beligan Transport Policy. 21: pp. 10 19. Europe: sustainable development and Investigaciones Regionales 3: pp. 163 174. Spaan 52: pp. 203

PAGE 35

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 35 Way to Go. Retrieved from: https://waytogo.org/gotober . Best Workplaces for Commuter s. Retrieved from: http://actweb.org/wp content/uploads/2017/05/ACT BWC Employer Benchmarking final report without appendice s 2016.pdf . Best Workplaces for Commuters. Retrieved from: https://ww w.bestworkplaces.org/wp content/uploads/2018/07/Employer Benchmark Survey 2018 FINAL2.pdf . based optimization for Simulation 637 647 activities and morning Transportation 39(1): pp. 41 Zheng, S. & K mitigate Proceedings of the National Academy of 110(14): pp. 1248 employer based travel demand management program returns to scale: Evidence from Los Transportation Policy. 20: pp. 22 35.

PAGE 36

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 36 Appendix A Measurement Tables H1: Most employers who have over 100 employees will participate in the RTD EcoPass program . Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source IV: Participation in RTD EcoPass program Aggregate measure of survey responses Nominal Self reported survey question asking whether employer offers this benefit, would like to offer it, or does not offer it and does not plan on offering it DV: Employer location size The number of individuals employed at worksite Nominal Self reported survey question asking the number of employees at worksite Figure 1: Hypothesis 1 Measurement Table Employers in suburban areas will want to expand carpool and vanpool opportunities, as Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source IV: Participation in vanpool programs Aggregate measure of survey responses Nominal Self reported survey question asking whether employer offers this benefit, would like to offer it, or does not offer it and does not plan on offering it IV: Participation in carpool programs Aggregate measure of survey responses Nominal Self reported survey question asking whether employer offers this benefit, would like to offer it, or does not offer it and does not plan on offering it DV: Employer location zip code The physical env ironment around the workplace Nominal Self reported survey question asking where the survey Figure 2: Hypothesis 2 Measurement Table

PAGE 37

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 37 H3.1: For employers with less than 100 employees, the cost of implementing programs will be the biggest challenge Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source IV: Willingness to offer RTD EcoPass program Aggregate measure of survey responses Nominal Self reported survey question asking whether employer would like to offer the RTD EcoPass benefit in the future IV: Willingness to offer vanpooling program Aggregate measure of survey responses Nominal Self reported survey question asking whether employer would like to offer subsidized vanpoolingben efit in the future DV: Employer location size The number of individuals employed at organization worksite Nominal Self reported survey question asking the number of employees at worksite Figure 3: Hypothesis 3.1 Measurement Table H3.2: Employers with less than 100 employers will not believe they have a responsibility to Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source IV: Employer responsibility The belief that the employer needs to reduce SOV use by offering commuting programs and benefits Nominal Self reported survey question asking employers whether they believe they need to offer more commuting benefits and program DV: Employer location size The number of individuals employed at organization worksite Nominal Self reported survey question asking the number of employees at worksite Figure 4: Hypothesis 3. 2 Measurement Table

PAGE 38

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 38 H4: Employers with less than 100 employees will be more likely to add additional Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source IV: Need for administrative assistance The belief that the employer could use TMA administrative support to expand programs Nominal Self reported survey question asking whether TMA support could help them increase commuting programs and benefits DV: Employer location size The number of individuals employed at organization worksite Nominal Self reported survey question asking the number of employees at worksite Figure 5: Hypothesis 4 Measurement Table H5 .1 : TMAs in suburban centered areas will offer more vanpool options than those in dense corridors. Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source IV: Vanpool program offerings The number of TMAs who offer vanpool services Nominal Interview question asking TMA coordinators what programs are offered DV: TMA service area The area in which the TMA operates Nominal DRCOG website detailing TMA service areas Figure 6: H ypothesis 5.1 Measurement Table H5.2: Regardless of service area, all TMAs will perform employer marketing and outreach. Variable Measure Level of Measure Data Source IV: Marketing efforts The number of TMAs who provide employers with non SOV marketing materials, tools, and information Nominal Interview question asking TMA coordinators what programs are offered IV: Outreach efforts The number of TMAs who actively seek out new employer participants Nominal Interview question asking TMA coordinators what programs are offered DV: TMA service area The area in which the TMA operates Nominal DRCOG website detailing TMA service areas Figure 7: Hypothesis 5.2 Measurement Table

PAGE 39

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 39 Appendix B Acronym Guide 1. DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments 2. MPO Metropolitan planning organization 3. TDM Transportation demand management 4. TMA Transportation management association 5. SOV Single occupancy vehicle 6. VMT Vehicle miles traveled

PAGE 40

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 40 Appendix C Email Invitation to TMA Program Managers Hi [TMA Program Manager], My name is Brandon Figliolino , and I am a graduate student at the University of Colorado am researching employer commuting programs offered in the Denver Metro Area with the goal of identifying participation trends and attitudes about particular programs. I am reaching out to you today to see if you, or someone on your team, would be willing to assist me with my research. Your assistance with this project can help organizations like yours increase commuting program participation in your region. If you can help, I would love to schedule a time for us to briefly chat over the phone about you r TMA during the next week or two. If possible, I would also greatly appreciate your help in distributing a brief survey to your network of employer participants. Once the project is completed, I will share my findings with you and your team. Since t his is a graduate school assignment, I do have tight deadlines to meet. I am hoping to complete interviews and distribute my employer survey no later than October 5. If you could please reply to this email before then, I look forward to scheduling time to chat with you. I thank you in advance for your time and assistance, and look forward to working with you on this project! Sincerely, Brandon Figliolino Graduate Student, School of Public Affairs Brandon.figliolino@ucdenver.edu 720 507 6752

PAGE 41

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 41 Appendix D Survey Link Email with Request for Participation Hi [TMA Program Manager] , I wanted to thank you again for helping me with my com muting benefits project! In case you have not already distributed the link to your select employer partners, I wanted to share an email template below that you can use and customize. I apologize for not thinking of it earlier! The survey link will shut and hope to send you a final copy of the project mid to late November. Thank you again for your continued support! Sincerely, Brandon Figliolino Graduate Student, School of Public Affairs Brandon.figliolino@ucdenver.edu 720 507 6752 -------------Hello [Employer], I am reaching out to you today to ask for your help completing a brief survey. Brandon Figliolino, a graduate student at the University of Colorado Denver, is conducting a study of employer provided commuter programs in the metro area. Based on our previous work together, h is linked below. benefit employers and employees. The survey link is op en and available until October 21. If you have any questions, you can reach Brandon directly by emailing him at brandon.figliolino@ucdenver.edu . Denver Metro Area Employers Commuting Benefits: https://ucdenver.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6zFXXaluCuYdphr Sincerely, [TMA Program Manager]

PAGE 42

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 42 Appendix E Employer Survey Instrument Denver Metro Area Employer Commuting Benefits Survey Start of Block: Default Question Block Q1 INTRODUCTION & INFORMED CONSENT Hello. You have been selected to participate in a transportation survey. This study is being conducted by Brandon Figliolino, a graduate student at the University of Colorado Denver. The purpose of this survey is to identify commuting programs and benefits employers currently offer their employees, what they would like to offer in the future, and what barriers they face to expanding programs and benefits. Responses will help transportation planners better meet the commuting needs of employees in the Denver Metro Area. Your responses will remain both anonymous and confidential. Participation in this survey is completely voluntary; you may withdraw at any time. While there is no compensation for taking this survey, your input is much appreciated. Completing the survey will take no more than ten minutes. Should you have any questions, please contact Brandon Figliolino by emailing him at brandon.figliolino@ucdenver.edu o r by calling 720 507 6752. Q2 The following is a list of employee commuting programs and benefits. For each response, please indicate whether your organization offers the benefit or program. If your organization does not, please indicate whether your o rganization would be interested in offering it in the future. If your organization has multiple workplaces, please base your responses on your workplace location.

PAGE 43

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 43 We offer this to employees (1) We do not offer this, but would like to in the future (2) We do not, and would not, offer this in the future (3) Do not know (4) RTD EcoPasses (1) o o o o Maps showing bus and light rail locations (20) o o o o Vanpool fare subsidies (2) o o o o Assistance with forming a vanpool (3) o o o o Preferential parking for vanpool users (4) o o o o Preferential parking for carpool users (5) o o o o Electric vehicle charging stations (6) o o o o Fleet vehicles (7) o o o o Discounts for a carshare membership (including Car2Go, Zipcar, etc.) (13) o o o o Ability for employees to set aside pre tax income to spend on transit or vanpool fares (8) o o o o

PAGE 44

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 44 Guaranteed Ride Home for employees who have not used their car to get to work (9) o o o o Flexible scheduling to let employees set their start and end times (10) o o o o Compressed scheduling to let employees work full time hours in fewer days (4 10s, 4 5 9s, etc.) (11) o o o o Ability to telecommute regularly (12) o o o o Discounts for a bikeshare membership (including B Cycle, Zagster, etc.) (14) o o o o Secure, covered bike parking (17) o o o o Maps showing bike routes (19) o o o o Showers and lockers (18) o o o o Not listed (please specify) (16) o o o o

PAGE 45

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 45 Q5 Are commuting programs and benefits offered to all employees at your organization? o Yes (1) o No, only full time employees are eligible (2) o No, it depends on the employee's position (3) o Not sure (4) Q6 In your opinion, to what extent are the following internal factors motivators for providing employees at your organization commuting programs and benefits? Extremely important (1) Very important (2) Moderately important (3) Slightly important (4) Not at all important (5) Employee satisfaction (1) o o o o o Location is convenient for offering them (2) o o o o o Overhead and operating costs (3) o o o o o Parking issues (4) o o o o o Recruitment and retention of employees (5) o o o o o Not listed (please specify) (6) o o o o o

PAGE 46

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 46 Q7 In your opinion, to what extent are the following external factors motivators for providing employees at your organization commuting programs and benefits? Extremely important (1) Very important (2) Moderately important (3) Slightly important (4) Not at all important (5) Air pollution reduction/ environmental concerns/sustainability (1) o o o o o Encourage use of public transportation (2) o o o o o Government regulations/compliance (3) o o o o o Government tax breaks/incentives (4) o o o o o Traffic congestion (5) o o o o o Not listed (please specify) (6) o o o o o Q8 You indicated that your organization offers the RTD Ecopass. Are all employees eligible for the RTD EcoPass? o Yes (1) o No, only full time employees are eligible (2) o No, it depends on the employee's position (3) o Not sure (4)

PAGE 47

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 47 Q9 You indicated that your organization does not participate in the RTD EcoPass program. In your opinion, what is the primary reason your organization does not offer employees an EcoPass? o Co rporate decision/out of our control (1) o Difficult to get to workplace (2) o Employees live too close (3) o Employees live too far away (4) o Expense (5) o Most employees need to drive for work (6) o Program is too time consuming to manage (7) o Organizat ion is too small (8) o Not listed (please specify) (9) ________________________________________________ Q10 In your opinion, which factor would make your organization more likely to consider offering employees the RTD EcoPass in the future? o Administrat ive support for the program were offered (1) o Employee demand (2) o Reduced costs for participating (3) o Tax breaks were offered (4) o Received more information and guidance from transportation experts (5) o None (6) o Not sure (7) o Not listed (please specify) (8) ________________________________________________

PAGE 48

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 48 Q11 You indicated that your organization participates in the Way to Go vanpool program. How much of the vanpool program is paid by your organization? o All of it (1) o Some of it (2) o None of it (3) o Not sure (4) Q12 You indicated your organization does not participate in the Way to Go vanpool program. In your opinion, what is the primary reason your organization does not offer employees vanpool assistance? o Corporate decision/out of our control (1) o Difficult to get to workplace (2) o Employees live too close (3) o Employees live too far away (4) o Expense (5) o Most employees need to drive for work (6) o Program is too time consuming to manage (7) o Organization is too small (8) o Not listed (please specify) (9) ________________________________________________

PAGE 49

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 49 Q13 In your opinion, which factor would make your organization more likely to consider offering employees the Way to Go vanpool program in the future? o Administrative support f or the program were offered (1) o Employee demand (2) o Reduced costs for participating (3) o Tax breaks were offered (4) o Received more information and guidance from transportation experts (5) o None (6) o Not sure (7) o Not listed (please specify) (8) ________________________________________________

PAGE 50

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 50 Q14 Thinking about your organization over the next five years, to what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly agree (1) Somewhat agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Somewhat disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) More employees will work remotely (1) o o o o o Parking will be a major problem (2) o o o o o Transportation issues will make it difficult to hire and retain employees (3) o o o o o More employees will find value in commuting programs and benefits (4) o o o o o Employees will demand more commuting programs and benefits (5) o o o o o

PAGE 51

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 51 Q15 Thinking about the next five years, to what extent do you agree with the possible scenarios facing your organization? Strongly agree (1) Somewhat agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Somewhat disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Government regulations will require us to assume more responsibility for employee commuting choices (1) o o o o o Tax incentives will help expand the employee commuting programs and benefits offered (2) o o o o o My organization will increase the number of hybrid and electric vehicles in the fleet (3) o o o o o My organization will relocate the facility due to congestion (4 ) o o o o o My organization will relocate for better access to public transportation (5) o o o o o

PAGE 52

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 52 Q16 Think about your workplace location. Which of the following statements best describes the parking situation for employees who drive to work? o Employees can park in a dedicated lot or garage on site that is exclusive to the organization (1) o Employees can park in a dedicated lot or garage on site that is shared by multiple tenants (2) o Employees must find their own parking, either on site or in a separate lot or garage (3) o Not sure (4) Q17 Do employees have to pay to park their vehicles at your workplace location? o Yes (1) o No (2) o Not sure (3) Q26 Is your organization a for profit business, a nonprofit, or a government agency? o For profit (1) o Nonprofit (2) o Government agency (3)

PAGE 53

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 53 Q20 What is your organization's industry? o Accommodations or Foodservice (1) o Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, or Hunting (2) o Arts, Entertainment, or Recreation (3) o Construction (4) o Education (5) o Finance or Insurance (6) o Healthcare (8) o Information (9) o Management of companies & enterprises (10) o Manufacturing (11) o Mining (12) o Professional, Scientific, or Technical (14) o Real Estate, Rental, or Leasing (15) o Retail Trade (16) o Transportation or Warehousing (17) o Utilities (18) o Wholesale Trade (19) o Not listed (please specify) (20) ________________________________________________ Q21 In which zip code is your workplace located? ________________________________________________________________

PAGE 54

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 54 Q22 Approximately, how many people work at your workplace location? o Less than 50 (1) o 50 to 99 (2) o 100 to 499 (3) o 500 to 999 (4) o 1,000 or more (5) Q23 Who manages your commutin g programs and benefits? o Administrative manager (1) o Human Resources (2) o Facilities (3) o Sustainability/Green Team/Environmental Office (4) o Other (please specify) (5) ________________________________________________ Q24 Who generally makes the most decisions regarding commuting programs and benefits? o Executive Committee (1) o HR Manager (2) o Office Manager (3) o Senior level Manager (4) o Other (please specify) (5) ________________________________________________

PAGE 55

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 55 Q25 What is your job title? o Human Resources Specialist (1) o Manager (2) o Office Manager (3) o Owner (4) o Senior level Manager (5) o Other (please specify) (6) ________________________________________________ End of Block: Default Question Block

PAGE 56

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 56 Appendix F TMA Program Manager Interview Protocol INTRODUCTION & INFORMED CONSENT iew is to identify the commuting programs employers currently offer their employees, what they would eeds of employees who work in is no compensation for taking this survey, The survey will be conducted over the phone. Completing the interview will take no more interview ends, you can contact brandon.figliolino@ucdenver.edu or by calling 720 507 Q1: Approximately, how many employers does your organization currently serve? Q2: What are some of the programs you target to employers? Q3: Which of these programs has been most successful in getting employer participation? Q4: What do you think makes the program(s) successful? Q5: What do you believe are the barriers keeping employers from participating? Q6: What strategies h ave you used to promote participation in this program? Q7: Based on your experiences, what program(s) do you think your organization should focus on expanding? Q8: Why should that program(s) be expanded? share with me about (TMA name) or the programs you offer?

PAGE 57

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 57 Appendix G Capstone Prospectus Brandon Figliolino PUAD 5361 Capstone Prospectus PROJECT INFORMATION: Working Title: Assessing Employer Transportation Needs in the Denver Metropolitan Ar ea Client: The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) First Reader: Wendy Bolyard, Professor , School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver Second Reader: Jim Eshelman, Research and Evaluation Manager , DRCOG Third Reader: Randy Harrison, Professor , School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver CLIENT OVERVIEW: The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) is a non profit organization made up of municipalities, counties, and other governing bodies located within the Denver Metropolitan Area. DRCOG focuses on regional planning, including planning for transportation and mobility. They aim to make commuting across the region easier by increasing the use of public transportation, biking, walking, and ridesharing services. To meet this goal, the organization distributes funding and provides guidance to governments and transportation management associations (TMAs) through their Way to Go program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Denver Metropolitan A rea is experiencing a surge in new residents. As of July 1, 2018, the area reached a population of 2.9 million people (Murray, 2018). This population increase is putting constraints on current transportation infrastructure by increasing the amount and se verity of traffic congestion. Instead of combating congestion through road and highway expansion projects, more governments including those within Colorado are working on reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use by encouraging public transportation, ridesharing, and biking as alternatives (Henao, Luckey, Nordback, Marshall, & Krizek, 2012; Tanadtang, Park, & Hanaoka, 2005; Yao, Yan, Chen, Tian, & Zhu, 2018). To help facilitate this change, Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) work with gover nments and employers to make it easier, more efficient, and safe to use these alternative modes of transportation. The services and programs they offer are referred to commonly as transportation demand management (Ferguson, 1990). PROJECT PURPOSE & SCOPE: This research project aims to help the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) and their TMA partners identify areas where they can expand

PAGE 58

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 58 transportation demand services (TDM). This will be performed through a mixed methods study that su rveys both employers and transportation management association personnel to identify current program participation and future needs. Information collected will be analyzed and used to identify program areas that DRCOG and the TMA partners can expand to fu rther reduce the regional use of single occupancy vehicles. The study will seek to answer the following questions, and determine the accuracy of the following hypotheses: RQ1: What TDM services do employers currently offer their employees? H1: Most em ployers will participate in the RTD EcoPass and DRCOG Guaranteed Ride Home programs. RQ2: Which TDM services would employers like to offer their employees in the future? H2: Employers will want to expand carpool and vanpool opportunities, as those serv ices do not rely as much on transit infrastructure to be successful. RQ3: What barriers are inhibiting employers from expanding current TDM services? H3.1 : Employee demand for services, as well as the cost of implementing them, will be the biggest chal lenges to program expansion. H3.2 : Some employers will not believe they have a responsibility to offer such services. RQ4: What resources can TMAs offer employers to help reduce barriers to expanding services? H4: TMAs can offer ongoing administrative support to help encourage employer participation, which reduces the need for employers to have dedicated TDM staff. RQ5: What are the subarea differences in TMA services and desired programs in the Denver Metropolitan Area? H5 : TMAs in suburban centered areas will offer fewer services and more carpool and vanpool options than those in dense corridors. PROJECT RATIONALE: This proposed study offers several benefits to DRCOG. First, it aligns directly with the Way to Go program goal of reducing SOV use. This is done through studying work commuting behaviors. By identifying current commuting patterns, DRCOG can determine which TDM programs could expand to further reduce SOV use. Second, the study provides an updated snapshot o f work commuting. The most recent employer focused TDM survey for the region was conducted in 2015, and looked at the extent to which employers had adopted TDM programs, and which programs had the potential for expansion. Results from this study can be c ompared with the 2015 study to determine if progress has been made in increasing the use of specific SOV alternatives. This study also expands upon the 2015 study in two ways. First, it incorporates the insights of TMAs, which will allow DRCOG and part ners the ability to identify areas where TMAs and employers are not in alignment. This gap analysis will help improve communication between TMAs and employers, and help TMAs better serve employers. Second, the study identifies subarea differences and sim ilarities in TDM programming, which can be used to better improve alternative transportation use regionally.

PAGE 59

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 59 METHODOLOGY: The transportation needs study will utilize a mixed methods approach. Components include an online survey, to be distributed to employers throughout the region. The list of employers will be gathered from a variety of sources, including TMA partners, chambers of commerce, and other DRCOG partners. In addition to the online survey, a qualitative interview with TMA partner coordin ators will be conducted. The data will be compiled into multiple analyses to determine if employer needs are being met, how barriers to participation can be reduced, and if there are differences in needs between subareas. LITERATURE REVIEW: A prelim inary review of literature was conducted. Based on the review of past studies, there is no commonly accepted way to study the effectiveness of transportation demand management programs (Finke & Schreffler, 2004; Hasnine, Weiss, & Habib, 2017; Wallace, Man nering, & Rutherford, 1999; Yao, Yan, Chen, Tian, & Zhu, 2018). Regardless of the different measures utilized, most results show that TDMs based on specific sites are more effective than regionally based ones (Collura, 1994; Hasnine, Weiss, & Habib, 2017) . Past studies fall into two categories: a priori and ex post. A priori studies of TDM effectiveness measure awareness of TDM programs, while ex post measures use of alternative modes of transportation, including air pollution reduction and vehicle mile s traveled (Finke & Schreffler, 2004). There are issues with both these types of studies. A priori studies might not reflect the accurate level of participation in TDM programs; just because a survey taker is aware of a program does not necessarily mean they are using it (Finke & Schreffler, Hasnine, Weiss, & Habib, 2017). Ex post studies are also challenging because of the difficulty associated with quantifying outcomes, including air pollution reduction from using a non SOV form of transportation (Hasn ine, Weiss, & Habib, 2017). Regardless of the lack of commonly used survey methodologies, over the past three decades there have been some effective studies that can be used as a basis for this research project. Most relevant is a study conducted in 201 5 by DRCOG that measured the potential TDM programs in the Denver Metropolitan Area had to expand. Employers who EcoPass program, members of the Mile High Society of Human Resources Way to Go were s urveyed online. Results showed that This study will be a critical link to this transportation needs study, as it will help DRCOG evaluate TDM programs ove r time. Another pertinent piece of literature for this study is the study conducted by Finke & Schreffer (2004). They reviewed multiple TDM assessment tools across the country, including in Georgia and California, and determined that the most effective means of evaluating TDM program success is by having multiple measures of testing. Other literature has also been reviewed that expand upon the basic principles of TDM evaluation. They will be incorporated into a final literature review. Because much o f the literature that has been reviewed for this study was published in the 1990s, additional searches for more current data is warranted.

PAGE 60

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 60 TIMELINE: Due to the scope of this research project, initial work, including a review of literature, and prelim inary development of survey questions, has been started. A detailed list of tasks and due dates is listed below. It is anticipated that task work will be completed before the date it is due. Date Task/Event/Assignment Due 6/22/2018 Meeting with Flo Raitano, Jim Eshelman, & Steve Erickson to discuss potential project ideas 6/23/2018 Tentative research topic emailed to Dr. Bolyard & Randy Harrison July Preliminary research search Begin creating annotated bibliography 8/10/2018 Phone call discussion with Jim Eshelman to discuss research questions, hypotheses, and methodology Write draft prospectus 8/11/2018 Reader agreements submitted to Jim Eshelman and Randy Harrison Capstone agreement submitted 8/13/2018 Phone call discussion with Dr. Bolyard re: draft prospectus 8/13 8/17 Finalize and submit prospectus 8/14 8/25 Create literature review Review survey instruments 8/26 9/10 Create survey tools and interview questions Review and submit to Jim Eshelman Reach out to TMA partners, chambers of commerce to discuss their participation in study 9/3 9/10 Write Part One (introduction, literature review, organizational profile, purpose of the study. Methodology & interview protocols) 9/25 Submit Part One of research project 9/25 10/2 Schedule meeting with Dr. Bolyard to discuss Part One Make necessary revisions based on DRCOG and professorial feedback

PAGE 61

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 61 10/5 10/20 Distribute survey instrument to employers Schedule phone call interviews with TMA partners 10/20 Survey closes 10/20 10/30 Analyze survey & interview results Write Part Two 11/2 Submit Part Two 11/12 11/16 Schedule meeting with Dr. Bolyard Incorporate DRCOG and professorial feedback into final draft 11/20 11/23 Prepare oral board presentation Review final research paper 11/25 Submit final research paper 12/3 12/7 Schedule oral board presentation

PAGE 62

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 62 Appendix H TMA Program Manager Interview Response Matrix TMA 1 TMA 2 TMA 3 TMA 4 TMA 5 TMA 6 1. How many active employers does your organization serve? ~56 ~ 30 12 ~30 50 ~11 2. What are some of the programs you target to employers? GoTober, Bike to Work Day, non SOV marketing GoTober, Bike to Work Day, Winter Bike to Work Day, RTD EcoPass, vanpooling, carpooling, non SOV marketing, employer outreach, stakeholder committees Vanpooling, employer outreach, marketing, transit fairs, partnerships with municipalities and other organizations, grant distribution, RTD EcoPass RTD EcoPass, Bike to Work Day, GoTober, partnerships with municipalities and other organizations RTD EcoPass , employer commute surveys, Bike to Work Day, non SOV marketing, GoTober Grant distribution, carpooling, vanpooling, telework assistance, commute program development assistance, employer commute surveys, tax benefit guidance, infrastructure projects 3. Wh ich of these programs has been most successful in getting employer participation? GoTober GoTober Partnerships with municipalities and organizations RTD EcoPass GoTober Dock less bike share, but really depends on motivating factor for employers 4. What d o you think makes this program most successful? Helps employees understand their commuting behaviors, Creates stronger relationship with TMA and employers, empowers employers to start programming, GoTober is easy to join Pr ograms offered in partnership with others incentivize behavior changes, programs are more cost effective Saves employees money on vehicle maintenance and parking costs, helps individuals reduce greenhouse gases Incentives in program make it easier for people to try non SOV modes of travel, Met an immediate need in the area, people more inclined to bike than walk to some locations 5. What do you believe are barriers keeping employers from participating? c ommutes Suburbs are not bike or bus friendly Free parking, traffic not so bad that people will not drive, transit is not always convenient EcoPass contracts are too expensive for some employers, process to join can be difficult Hard to sh ow employers why it is worth spending money on commuting programs On demand services hard to plan first and last mile, storage issues with dock less bikes

PAGE 63

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 63 TMA 1 TMA 2 TMA 3 TMA 4 TMA 5 TMA 6 6. What strategies have you used to promote participation in this program? Promoting parking and payroll tax benefits, employer referrals, targeting HR conferences and charter schools Incentivizing program participation, inviting employers to share their problems Marketing, focusing on first and last mile programs w ith partners Working with RTD to promote changes to EcoPass program, hosting employer lunch and learns Inviting employers to participate in program based on past interactions and interest Applying for funding to put towards projects 7. Based on your exper iences, what program(s) do you think your organization should focus on expanding? Parking cash out, RTD EcoPass, continued marketing Miniature GoTober competition, implement more trackable programs Work with municipalities to decrease parking requirements and address land use issues, implement corridor wide EcoPass program, create a bus circulator program Transit apps (Waze, etc.), autonomous vehicle sharing Work with municipalities to address land use issues Micro transit, neighborhood mobility hubs, rebui ld intersections 8. Why should this (these) programs be expanded? Saves employers and employees money, educates employees about the costs of driving Encourages more employers to participate, provides data driven results Makes it less convenient to drive a nd more convenient to use other modes, land use choices have biggest impact on commuting behavior Apps make it easier to change behavior, technology is changing communities Addressing sprawl and infrastructure issues makes changing behavior easier Gives co mmuters more options 9. Is there anything share with me about your organization or the programs you offer? Programs need quantifiable data, TMAs must have tenacity Suburb participation harder because of land use policies and too much pa rking N/A TMAs need to keep sharing options with employers N/A Most TMAs in Colorado focus on education & outreach and not infrastructure

PAGE 64

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 64 Appendix I Employer Commuting Programs and Benefits 30% 50% 0% 10% 20% 20% 30% 50% 0% 10% 20% 70% 70% 40% 10% 20% 50% 70% 40% 40% 20% 20% 10% 20% 20% 10% 40% 10% 20% 10% 30% 30% 40% 20% 30% 10% 60% 40% 60% 40% 30% 40% 80% 20% 60% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 20% 20% 20% 30% 10% 20% 20% 10% 10% 30% 10% 10% 10% 30% 10% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RTD EcoPasses Maps showing bus and light-rail locations Vanpool fare subsidies Assistance with forming a vanpool Preferential parking for vanpool users Preferential parking for carpool users Electric vehicle charging stations Fleet vehicles Discounts for a carshare membership (including Car2Go, Zipcar, etc.) Ability for employees to set aside pre-tax income to spend on transit or vanpool fares Guaranteed Ride Home for employees who have not used their car to get to work Flexible scheduling to let employees set their start and end times Ability to telecommute regularly Discounts for a bikeshare membership (including B-Cycle, Zagster, etc.) Secure, covered bike parking Maps showing bike routes Showers and lockers COMMUTING PROGRAMS AND BENEFITS We offer this to employees We do not offer this, but would like to in the future We do not, and would not, offer this in the future Do not know

PAGE 65

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 65 Appendix J Current Employer Commuting Programs n=10 70% 50% 70% 70% 50% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Showers and lockers Maps showing bike routes Compressed scheduling Flex scheduling Maps showing transit routes RTD EcoPass % of Employers Programs and Benefits

PAGE 66

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 66 Appendix K Future Employer Commuting Programs n=10 40% 40% 40% 40% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Secure, covered bike parking Ability to set aside pre-tax income for transit fares RTD EcoPass Maps showing transit routes % of Employers Programs and Benfits

PAGE 67

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 67 Appendix L Hypothesis Evaluation Hypotheses 1 & 2 Hypotheses 3.1, 3.2 & 4 Hypotheses 5.1 & 5.2

PAGE 68

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 68 Appendix M MPA Core Competencies The School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver requires all graduate students to meet five core competencies necessary for actors in the public administration realm to succeed. These competencies are: To lead and manage i n public governance; To participate and contribute to the policy process; To analyze, synthesize, think critically, solve problems, and make decisions To articulate and apply a public service perspective; To communicate and interact productively with a div erse and changing workforce and citizenry culmination of the knowledge, skills, and abilities I have cultivated throughout my time during the program. In particular , the following courses helped me successfully execute this capstone project. PUAD 5260: Managing Diversity The primary objective of this course was for students to understand and appreciate differences amongst individuals, and utilize unique perspectives to improve the community. For the final project in this course, I chose to conduct a cultural awareness assessment for a parks and recreation department to determine if employees had the knowledge and skills needed to interact with perspectives different than their own. This project helped me in several ways: I learned how to develop an inclusive survey instrument (Competency 5), explore the issue of race and ethnicity in local government (Competency 1).

PAGE 69

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 69 For my capstone project, I embraced what I learned in this course to ensure my project employers and employees, but I decided to broaden that perspective by seeking out the input of TMA program managers, who brought to this project a unique, hands on perspective (Competency 5). Transportation funding issues have become more contentious, so this project delved deep into the history and impacts that previous decisions had on transportation policy (Competency 1 ). PUAD 5008: Evidence Based Decision Making To succeed in this course, students had to research, design, and execute various research methods, including a mixed methods approach. In one project, I had to synthesize data and recommend a solution, whic h was also a critical component of this transportation project (Competency 2). Knowledge I learned from this course helped me choose the research method for this project, and gave me the ability to extrapolate meaning from the data collected (Competency 3 ). Through this course, I also learned how to set mission driven goals and provide solutions to large scale problems (Competency 1). PUAD 5007: Public Policy Leadership This class focused on being a thoughtful, ethical leader. I learned how to maint ain integrity during difficult situations, and also the value of building relationships and respecting others (Competency 4). In my capstone project, this was of the upmost importance. Not only did I have to develop relationships with TMA program manager s quickly, I had to build a rapport with them so they would be willing to help distribute my survey and participate in my interviews. Any were redacted to honor their requests to remain anonymous (Competency 4).

PAGE 70

ASSESSING EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 70 Appendix N Auraria Digital Library Repository Permissions

PAGE 71

Form Name: capstone repository permission Submission Time: December 4, 2018 8:44 am Browser: Chrome 70.0.3538.110 / Windows 7 IP Address: 108.171.133.160 Unique ID: 459259282 Location: 37.622798919678, -122.43640136719 Description Area SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for onand off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817 Grant of Permissions Description Area In reference to the following title(s): Author (Student Name) Brandon Figliolino Title (Capstone Project Title) Assessing Employer Transportation Needs in the Denver Metropolitan Area Publication Date 12/04/18 I am the: Client Description Area As client of the copyright holder affirm that the content submitted is identical to that which was originally supervised and that the content is suitable for publication in the Auraria Library Digital Collections.

PAGE 72

Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate imageand text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. Signature Your Name James Eshelman Date 12/04/18 Email Address ATTENTION Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to: Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Library1100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817

PAGE 73

Form Name: capstone repository permission Submission Time: November 29, 2018 12:32 pm Browser: Chrome 70.0.3538.110 / Windows IP Address: 97.107.70.41 Unique ID: 458042507 Location: 39.972099304199, -105.2492980957 Description Area SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for onand off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817 Grant of Permissions Description Area In reference to the following title(s): Author (Student Name) Brandon Figliolino Title (Capstone Project Title) Assessing Employer Transportation Needs in the Denver Metropolitan Area Publication Date 12/3/2018 I am the: Author (student) Description Area As copyright holder or licensee with the authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned title(s), I hereby authorize Auraria Library and University of Colorado Denver to digitize, distribute, and archive the title(s) for nonprofit, educational purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.

PAGE 74

Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate imageand text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. Signature Your Name Brandon Figliolino Date 11/29/2018 Email Address ATTENTION Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to: Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Library1100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817