Services Analysis Conducted by: Perspectives Resources, Inc. 231 Central Avenue White Plains, New York 10606 Phone: (914) 428-3805 www.pri-air.com
STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS • Because of the exploratory nature of qualitative research involving small sample sizes drawn without use of statistical procedures, the following presentation should be read as indicative of hypotheses that may need quantification. The research is designed primarily to provide insights into customers perceptions of the various elements of the issues in question. While the research can provide clear direction on some issues, results should not be considered definitive without quantitative verification.
BACKGROUND • In an effort to provide meaningful mobility options to commuters and employers, MetroPool elected to conduct an evaluation of existing services offered. This summary covers Phase I of the research program which will be comprised of four phases. • This first phase, The Focus Group sessions, is still in progress at this time. • The primary objective of the Groups is to refine existing services and identify individual positioning strategies, identification of new programs and initial profiling of target market dimensions. • The second and third phase of the research will consist of a region wide surveys among employees and employers to validate the hypothesis of the focus groups.
METHODOLOGY • Fifteen (15) Focus Groups are being conducted as outlined below: • 4 Groups:Residents of Rockland/Orange, Westchester, SW Connecticut, Long Island, Dutchess/Putnam who travel to New York City for work. • 1 Group: Residents of New York City who travel within the five boroughs. • 2 Groups:Residents of New York City and SW Connecticut who travel to the Hudson Valley. • 1 Group:Residents of Island who travel within on Long Island. • 3 Groups:Residents of Ulster*, Dutchess, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, and Westchester who travel within the six counties, Southwestern Connecticut and Northern New Jersey. • 4 Groups:Employers of companies located in Rockland, Westchester, Dutchess, New York City, and Long Island.
EXECUTIVE CONCLUSIONS • The obstacles and barriers that must be overcome are both perceived and factual. In many instances the two are hard to separate. For example: • Control is a key driver. People want to be able to control their own time and not be subject to the schedules of other people or transit times. • Flexibility, many will not accept the rigid schedules of others. They want to come and go as they please. They do not want to be regulated by a fixed plan. • Some people express a concern that if they are needed, they cannot leave their worksite in an emergency, shop and do errands or leave work as they please. • Discomfort in riding crowded trains, buses, or being a passenger in a car/van was expressed. • “Quiet time” in the morning is given up. • They do not want to ride with strangers.
People do not know how to form a carpool or vanpool. • On the opposite side, many commuters say that the benefits of driving alone do not outweigh the drawbacks. • The increasing cost of driving is having an impact, especially on middle income and lower wage earners. • The impact has grown with rising fuel prices. • Vehicle maintenance is also a factor especially as cars are driving in heavy traffic for long time periods. • The constant traffic going to and from work is taking its toll. Employees arrive at work anxious and tired. Family time is sacrificed. • Drivers are more irritated by congestion • Traffic is no longer a “one way” problem nor confined to “rush hours”. Commuting has been redefined.
People have altered their driving hours to avoid traffic . . . Leaving as early as 6:00 a.m. and going home at 7:00 p.m. or later. • Quality of life is affected, there are new rules. • The great majority report that their Employer offers no solution or alternative to their commuting problems. • Employers live with this “changing workplace model” and reluctantly accept it. • Employers say they want to know about available programs but they lack the “human” resources (not money) to establish and maintain a program. They do feel programs would have a positive affect on employees attitudes, productivity, and corporate image. • Growing opportunity is evident for mobility programs as new trends in attitudes emerge. Metropool is moving in the right direction.
PROGRAMS OVERALL • Those programs which included a stated financial incentive were accepted over those that did not. • Giving money back directly to the employees is more desirable than a pretax offer. This is even more motivating among those who do not understand tax incentives or see a long term benefit (lower wage earners). • An incentive is a strong element that enhances most programs. However, other incentives aside from money should be developed. • Participants need to be directly involved in the formation of a car or vanpool. The assistance of an outside source along with them to seek participants, set rules and help maintain the pool is very desirable. • Vanpools have a more positive image than carpools yet both suffer from misperceptions. These images must be changed. • Vehicle type/size/comfort • How formed and maintained • Flexibility • Control • Safety • Liability, etc.
Pictures of trains, buses, and types of vans that show comfort, safety, and luxury are needed. • All of the above, especially buses suffer from an image problem. • Having the Guaranteed Ride Home with every program is a very appealing benefit. However, the amount of times permitted needs to be more liberal perhaps combined with a reduced payment for ‘over the limit’ users. • Commuters are much more willing to accept and try another mode of transportation on a gradual basis rather than a total commitment. • Car and vanpool should have at least 1-2 days per week “open window” so people can drive their own cars if they choose. • This also holds true for those who are taking public transportation. • Thus, to be successful, Mobility Program Agencies need to convey a new image of these modes as part of their programs. Assistance from the MTA, etc. should be sought.
An aggressive Employer information program needs to be developed according to location, industry and employee type. No single approach will work for all. • Employer support is needed for programs to succeed with employees. • Most employers form their judgment based upon their personal experiences not on what their employees believe. Such information needs to be gathered. • Some employers are against car/vanpooling because they fear that strong employee relationships will develop. They do not want this to happen. • An important finding is that employees and employers are “guessing” how each other feels about alternative modes and they are guessing wrong. • Employers need to be targeted before employees with benefits to them supported by employee facts which will be established in Phase II and III. This will show employers what employees want and that employees will work more efficiently and have increased job satisfaction. • A complete recruiting program needs to be redefined starting with gaining employer support, consulting in establishing all aspects of the program, getting the messages to employees and assisting in program maintenance. The “backend” has to be thought out. Employers do not want nor do they know how to implement, yet, they are pro-mobility.
DETAILED FINDINGS A. COMMUTERS • Why They Drive • Many choose to drive themselves because their perception is that it is less expensive and more convenient than taking any other mode of transportation. They do not want to be on anyone else’s schedule, they want the freedom and flexibility of coming and going as they please. “I don’t’ like being tied to a train schedule. I’m on my schedule, I don’t have to wait for the next train. It’s a mental thing for me. I want to be in my car not dealing with anyone else.” “I have the flexibility I need when I drive, I can come and go whenever I choose. I don’t have to deal with overcrowding.” “I used to take the train it would take me an hour and a half, I’d rather sit in my car. It is easier for me to drive in.”
In addition, some regions do not have a direct route to where they have to go for example, residents from Rockland traveling to New York City, the bus is their only option and they feel it is more of a hassle for them and there are too many connections to get to where they have to go. “The transportation system is just not good. I’ve tried taking MetroNorth but I have to drive to Tarrytown. Driving is one way, no connections. I mainly drive for the convenience.” “I don’t have a direct route using the bus or train to get to my office. I would have to make a bunch of different connections, it would probably take me longer to get there.” • In many instances, even though some of the commutes are longer than others, we surprisingly found that the majority of those driving are being reimbursed for their parking expenses or have a ‘flex-spending’ program in place for parking. “I get reimbursed for parking, it’s more convenient for me to drive and there is less hassle.” “It would be an extra expense for me to take the train, I don’t pay for my parking the bank does, I just pull up, they park the car and I expense it out.”
For some, taking public transportation would take them longer than if they drive. “It would take me much longer to take public transportation. We have shuttles once I get up there but your talking about an hour to two hours. I feel like it’s not reliable for me to take the train.” • Taking The Train • Several say that taking the train is more expensive than it is to drive their own cars. Increases specifically were mentioned for MetroNorth and the Long Island Railroad. • In addition, parking at the train stations across all regions is rapidly becoming a growing issue. • In some stations specifically Rye and Stamford there are five year waiting lists and the lots that you can park in in some cases are too expensive to park in. • Across the region, there aren’t enough spaces in the lots and too much time is spent driving around looking for a space.
Non-residents are coming from other towns to park. • Some stations have now began charging a fee. • In some areas such as Putnam, Rockland, Dutchess, and Ulster there is not adequate train or bus services available. However, In those instances where service is available: • The trains are not reliable • There is not enough express service • They are not running frequent enough • They are overcrowded • There is no parking lot at the station, you have to park on the road and there is a great distance to walk
Concept Evaluation • It is important in all instances that there is an option for commuters to choose what mode of transportation they will use. They do not want to be told what to do. • In addition, there must be a guarantee that if they need to leave, they will have transportation to get to where they are going. • Therefore, having a program that is flexible is a must. • Those who live in rural areas that are traveling a great distance to work favored the idea of a vanpool or carpool. The primary problem was nobody wanted to take the responsibility of driving. • Ulster for example, even though it is not rural favored carpooling and vanpooling because there is no train or bus service. • In addition, there must be a guarantee that if they need to leave, they will have transportation to get to where they are going. Therefore, having the guaranteed ride home program is essential for every program.
B. Employers • As commuting varies from region to region, different problems are occur. • While there is adequate transportation to New York City from Long Island, it is felt that traveling to and within the Island is a problem. Once there employees arrive by train, there is no adequate bus service to get them to the office. • Putnam, Rockland, and Dutchess all complain that they have inadequate public transportation (bus and train) service. • New York City and Westchester County had minimal complaints however, commuting issues still exist. • It is for these reasons that employers are eager to learn about what options are in fact available.
In the majority of regions employers feel that employee commuting is becoming an issue. • When asked how they handle their employees commuting problems, all stated they are not trained in this area nor do they receive any information to distribute to employees when hiring. • In New York City, it was mentioned that promotional materials are being distributed in subway stations and in train stations and employees have approached employers about these materials to learn more about their options. • Parking is also becoming a growing problem, the parking lots are becoming full and employees are spending more time looking for parking spaces in addition to the time spent on their commute. • Flexibility is an important issue, this is true with regard to scheduling and mode of transportation. They feel it is important that their employees have a choice of what mode of transportation to take rather than to be forced. It is also felt that this would be an attractive option to the employee.
In addition, having the guaranteed ride home program with every concept as found with the employees is essential, the number of times per month needs to be increased.
SPECIFIC PROGRAMS: COMMUTER CHOICE TAX BENEFIT • Overall, the Commuter Choice Tax Benefit was preferred most. There was little to dislike with the tax free benefit (up to $3,480). • Since many saw it as an incentive, they would take advantage of the program. • However, for those in lower tax brackets, some recognized the benefit as marginal while those at upper income levels felt the amount was too low. As such, the amounts should be raised and a low-high amount calculated against frequency of participation. • A reduced fair MetroCard could also be included. “It’s a motivating incentive, you are getting money back from your employer and you choose which method of transportation to use, it’s flexible.” “It’s excellent, it benefits the employee and addresses many of the problems that we have, it’s flexible.” COMMUTER
“It has the most incentive for people to use public transportation. You are really reducing the amount of traffic on the roads.” “Everything is already there and we are getting compensated to use it.” “There is a reduction of taxes and stress. Less wear and tear on my car and less money is being sent on transportation.” “Best financial compensation and incentive to use public transportation for those who work nearby. It also could lessen the amount of cars on the road.” “The savings sound like a good financial encouragement to commute by public transportation without giving up your freedom.” “It seems like the most logical way to get the general public to change their way of commuting. It is a tax benefit and the public deserves a tax break, especially on their way to work.” COMMUTER
TELECOMMUTE • The Telecommute concept was like by many commuters if their employers would let them participate. • However, most do not have the advantage to utilize this benefit because of Company policies. • Many felt that telecommuting from home at least one day a week would help them deal with their commute on the other days in a positive manner. They felt they would be less stressed and far more productive. “Telecommuting would be great as long as my company would go for it. It would make the other days commuting easier to deal with. I would definitely take the train.” “If I were able to Telecommute, I wouldn’t mind the long commute on the other days, it would take away the stress of driving, even if it is only for one day – it’s still one less day you have to commute.” COMMUTER
“This would be a lifestyle change for the better by alleviating commuting entirely on several days.” “It is the best for someone in sales, I would get two or more extra hours a day working instead of being in my car and only go in when I had to.” “If you could avoid a commute to work, it would save so much aggravation. You would have more time to concentrate on your work rather than how much traffic you are going to hit.” COMMUTER
REMUNERATION • Remuneration generated substantial positive feedback mainly because it offered different options and commuting alternatives and commuters didn’t feel forced to chose one mode. • Therefore, because of the flexibility of options and supported by the Guaranteed Ride Home Program (with suggested revisions), it was praised. • A pre-paid fuel card very desirable option. The amount of value could be tied to mileage driven. • The $50 value for transit vouchers should be tied to transit type as train is more expansive than other modes. • People questioned why vanpooling is excluded. “It’s an incentive, it’s giving you something if you make a change. You would save money carpooling and wear and tear on the car. It is important, people by nature want to save then they want something extra.” COMMUTER
“It’s an extra incentive on other benefits that you would get, it rewards you with money or coupons. It would appeal to more people.” “It gives you flexibility and options, and you get reimbursed for your fuel, you carpool, it’s less stress.” “I like the idea of getting a prepaid fuel card, it is an incentive.” “I like the fact that they will give you vouchers and they give you money to set this up as far as carpools and that two days a week, I think I would like to try it out and not be committed to five days a week possibly.” “I like the plan of a prepaid fuel card. I teach in a school district and a carpool is more feasible and easier to set up. A financial incentive would be useful to follow through and keep a commitment to carpool.” “You get the best of both worlds, gives you some flexibility and with the incentive for carpooling it makes it more appealing.” COMMUTER
VANPOOLING • Vanpooling is especially appealing to those who accept shared ride but dislike carpooling. • The safety of vans was called into question. Assurance is needed. • Flexible van size is desirable with a 6-8 person capacity. People say that they cannot drive a larger vehicle safely. • The driver and backup driver training is an important issue as is having the program setup by a professional organization. • Clean driving records are a must. • Some form of subsidy is indicated…toll reduction or gas vouchers. “There are more people involved, it seems easier than a carpool plus the Van is bigger, you get to relax.” COMMUTER
“I like the idea that you are saving money but the insurance coverage is a little unclear, I don’t want to be liable as a driver.” “I would prefer to have a company employee of the van service to drive the van but if there were a few backup drivers in the event that someone can’t make it I think that would work also.” “You have an option of being in a small van or big van which is good, I think 5-6 people is more than enough without getting complicated.” COMMUTER
PARKING CASH OUT • This had appeal to those who work at a site where parking is a problem and alternate means of travel is acceptable. • The tax-free amount of $100 each month in addition to salary is a strong incentive. However, the amount could vary depending upon frequency of participation. • Joining a carpool and giving up all but one space is limiting since if you decided to drive, your space would not be available (or so people thought). “It gives you the most reimbursement for what yours costs would be. It gave the biggest payback.” “You are getting money for whatever method you choose, it shows the most amount of compromise.” “It’s the most flexible, I have the option to keep the spot so nothing changes at no charge. I have a choice.” COMMUTER
“I like the Tax Free Payment, it’s good on one side you have money but the on the other your freedom is being taken away.” “This would give people monitored incentive to work closer to home and walk, carpool, or find alternate transportation.” COMMUTER
TRAIN/BUS/SUBWAY • Most people who have had experiences with trains, buses, or subways prefer to drive because they have experienced uncomfortable situations such as overcrowding, unclean surfaces, and scheduling issues. And, for those who have not used the train, bus, or subway, their perceptions are the same. • However, having an incentive to become familiar with using the train, bus, or subway as an option is appealing. • This would go a long way to hopefully changing negative images. • The offer of six free round trip tickets is not a sufficient incentive. We suggest offering a 10 round trip weekday pass along with a MetroCard of stored value which can be used 20 times (roundtrips). “If I have the option to either drive a few days or take the train and get an incentive to try it, I would do it as long as there was a shuttle available to get me to and from my office.” COMMUTER
“This option gives me the most flexibility, but I do know the trains in my area are overcrowded and it is impossible to find a parking space at the station.” “I like the idea of taking a shuttle to the train/bus not worrying about parking. The assistance of free trips and tickets is an incentive to try it but the trains would have to run on a better schedule.” “If a printed itinerary and free trials were issued people would try it. I feel that the bus or train is a better method of getting to work and it would be cheaper. There would be less stress and wear and tear on your car.” COMMUTER
CARPOOLING • Carpooling is generally accepted. • Best suited for “9 -5” same shift and single worksite employees. Drivers will accept members from nearby companies. • People like that assistance in organizing and maintaining the program will be provided by an experienced local non-profit and DOT. • Having an Internet site where employees can get information on other commuters in their area is a benefit. • Issues: • Depending too much on others. This is partially solved by the Guaranteed Ride Home Program. • Twice a week to qualify is good (not overly restrictive), GRHP service 4 times a year is to infrequent. Once a week is suggested. COMMUTER
This can be tied to a scale of how often use car pool. • Rules and guidelines need to be established by Advisory Company. • Where meet – pick up at home or at Park and Ride equally preferred. • No tangible incentive included – fuel card should be considered. • Comfort, size of car an issue as is driving ability of the driver. Daily or weekly rotation with a “backup” driver and a car size minimum should be established (according to number of riders). “I like the idea of carpooling because there is only a few people involved, the less people, the less you have to worry about dependability of others.” “Carpooling gives me a little more flexibility than the other options since you can deal directly with others, I would do this a few times a week.” COMMUTER
“I think this would make my commute more pleasurable and economical as long as some flexibility was built in to the program.” “Carpooling gives me a little more flexibility than the other options since you can deal directly with others, I would do this a few times a week.” “If there were an incentive, I would take the imitative myself and would look for assistance in finding a match, I would rather share the drive and expenses with someone than do it alone, I would save money.” “It would take the burden off, there is less stress and you can relax. I am little leery about the dependability of other members in the carpool, what if someone drops out? “I like the idea of reducing the expense of your car getting to and from work, it would save wear and tear on the car, your mileage, the only problem is I lose my freedom.” COMMUTER
CARPOOL TO TRAIN STATION • Carpool to train station was not chosen as a first choice by anyone. • Not appealing. No real incentive to take the train. While parking is a problem, people would also like a financial incentive such as discounted rides. • However, the option of having a free shuttle (train- work-train) was praised by those who work in suburban areas. The frequency of the shuttle should tie into peak travel times. “Having the shuttle option would eliminate my problem of how to get to work once I get off the train, however, I do know that I could rely on someone to get me to the train station on time, I would like to rely on myself.” “It is an appealing idea, however, I would have to have a guaranteed spot on the train station, which because of overcrowding and I can’t see it working.” COMMUTER
“I don’t want to be tied to anyone else’s schedule, what if I have to take an earlier train than the person who is driving me, I don’t see how this would work. ” “This would allow me to travel by ‘guaranteed’ means of transportation but what happens if I don’t go in one day, how would the other person get to the train?” COMMUTER
EMPLOYERS: SPECIFIC PROGRAMS COMMUTER CHOICE TAX BENEFIT • The Commuter Choice Tax Benefit was chosen by employers primarily because it offered a benefit for both the employer and the employee. • The employer felt this program to be a strong benefit for employees and liked the idea that there would be no out of pocket costs to them. • Here also, as with the employees, it is felt that those in lower tax brackets, would recognize the benefit as marginal while those at upper income levels would feel the amount was too low. • Many had questions on what their role in putting together this program would be: • Employers need to get a clear understanding of exactly what would be entailed in organizing the program and how it will be maintained. • They do not want to take on any extra work. EMPLOYER
“It’s a great benefit to offer in conjunction with something else, but it seems like there is a lot of administration work involved.” “I don’t know that it achieves the goal, it’s a great benefit but what exactly is it accomplishing except adding more work for me.” “It sounds a little nightmarish to administer, who keeps track of what the employee is doing?” “I thought the cost savings here is immediate, long term as well. It reduces the stress, as far as I’m concerned $300 a month pretaxed is a lot of money.” “The employees would benefit from this and it would save them money. I think it would get my employees to me easier and there is a tax benefit for me and them.” “It’s excellent, it benefits the employer and the employee and address many problems that we have, it’s flexible.” EMPLOYER
“This would benefit all of my employees now, they all take public transportation and if they could save money on their commute, they would do it.” “I feel that the tax benefit is the highest incentive and it gives my employees options.” “Benefits are on both sides and it’s regulated by the IRS, administratively it can be dealt with by payroll.” “It is the one option that can benefit both the employer and the employee. In my company however, my employees cannot afford to put money aside, they live paycheck to paycheck.” “The tax benefit would entice more employees to switch to mass transit. If it were available, I would be interested fro this as a benefit to my employees.” EMPLOYER
VANPOOLING • For those companies located in regions that are not easily accessible to public transportation vanpooling was favored. • They felt that having 6-8 employees in a van would ensure that they would arrive on time. • Employees would arrive relaxed and would in turn be more productive. • Employers also felt that a vanpool would be more appealing to employees because they wouldn’t be restricted to just driving with strangers that they didn’t know. • This program would be appealing for those commuting longer distances from suburban areas. • Lower wage employees and minority (alien) workers living in Urban areas with restricted income would benefit. Employee retention would improve. EMPLOYER
“In my business this one would work well with our employees. It’s flexible, saves on wear and tear, tolls and gas. I would definitely like to find out more to help/benefit my employees.” “Considering the geography and lack of public transportation this seems like the most applicable.” “It could be flexible and accommodate those employees who live in rural areas that don’t have access to public transportation.” “I have a big company with a lot of employees that do not own cars. Now I get more in the vans, get to work on time and have a different atmosphere, I don’t mind them being friendly, they are more relaxed and I can get rid of my flex hours.” “I like the no dependency on public transportation – I like the state subsidy makes it easy on the employer because I am not footing the bill.” EMPLOYER
“It’s a very good option for someone who doesn’t drive, it might help us get Different employees that wouldn’t normally get to where we are. It would access other people’ “For New York City, there are a lot of people who are up in Orange County who would definitely be interested in this. If there was a place they could meet and get a van it would be more feasible for them.” “If a training program were built into the plan I think it would be more appealing. There would need to be a backup driver.” “You need to have the commitment there, if you are a large corporation it works if people are living in central communities such as Townhouse communities, large scale buildings.” EMPLOYER
REMUNERATION • Here again, remuneration generated positive feedback mainly because it offered different options and commuting alternatives. Employees would not feel forced to chose one mode. • Employers feel that employees need an incentive to make a change. Here, different incentives were offered. • Each alternative given gives the employee a positive message to encourage them to carpool or take public transportation. It provides options. “I like the perks and the incentives, each alternative has a positive message to encourage them to carpool or take public transportation. It gives the individual an option.” “It’s flexible, which is more important than the options. You are not restricted by mode of transportation, you are not restricted by times nor tied in to a fixed schedule. It’s attractive to the employer and the employee, it’s expensive to go to work, we reimburse them for travel to clients, this incentive helps us save money.” EMPLOYER
“I am a little bit skeptical but it’s a nice concept, if it works you are sending an absolutely wonderful message to your employees, this is what we will do for you.” “How is it administering it? It may create some chaos, certain employees would get free transportation an others will have to pay?” “I believe it is a very productive way to tackle the problem, to be given some financial remuneration is a strong benefit.” “The choice is there for your employees and it is their choice, they choose whatever mode they want, it’s the most flexible.” “Being creative with money always works, money talks. One of the questions I have is who monitors it? Are they really taking another mode?” “A lot of options, I see it as a benefit to employees. It gives you a benefit, you’re getting your employer to share the cost of the commute, it’s flexible, you can take any mode of transportation. I like the idea of increased productivity, it’s healthier.” “It gives more options to employees and they can pick which way they want to do this. Me as the employer, I like the employees having more options than my employees have less excuses.” EMPLOYER
TELECOMMUTE • Some employers felt telecommuting was a good alternative. • However, there are many issues that arose: • There is an element of trust in employee performance. If there is a way that an employee’s work progress could be tracked throughout the day than employers would have a more positive attitude for the program. • It is also felt that this benefit should only be applicable to senior level employees. “Security issues come up, how can you be sure it is safe to have an employee tap into a secure network? How would you be able to monitor what they are doing all day?” “I don’t know that I would trust that they would do their job, some of my employees can’t be trusted as it is, I would think this would only be applicable to someone in an administrative position.” EMPLOYER
CARPOOLING • While carpooling was thought to be an acceptable alternative mode of transportation, there were mixed reactions. • There is no flexibility in carpooling, employees would have to rely on someone else to get them to work on time, they do not feel this would appeal to their employees. • However, they do feel if that carpooling may work for lower level 9-5 employees such as clerical staff, shift workers, hospital staff, etc. • Most importantly, they don’t want their employees to become friends leading into confidentiality conflicts between departments. “For us, carpooling would be most applicable, the downfall is that they would often be the victim of other person not showing up, so dependability is a big issue.” EMPLOYER
“Carpooling does work sometimes, one of my concerns is that if it is not structured properly, people will drop out. If there were an incentive attached to the program it may work better.” “I do not want my employees to become friends, this creates all kinds of problems. Instead of one person being late, it will become two and so forth and so on.” “Carpooling is more feasible for us because of our location, the problem is our hours have a pretty big range, so it wouldn’t work for us, it would probably work for a company that has shift workers, like a hospital.” “The ride matching is a great benefit, it takes the stress out of them having to do the work to find someone to carpool with, the biggest problem with carpooling is you lose your flexibility, what if you have to leave?” EMPLOYER
TRAIN/BUS/SUBWAY • Employers felt that as long as their company was located near a train station, this would be the most reliable way for their employees to get to work. • Employers share their employees opinion about bus service. They feel there is inadequate scheduling and an absence of buses in the outer suburban areas. In addition, unless there are special ‘bus’ lanes, they believe that taking the bus would take them just as long if not longer to get to work. “I liked the train option because it had the shuttle and an itinerary. It would be important to know whether the shuttle runs continuously or not.” “We have a number of people who come up from the city, some take the train, some take a bus, we don’t have a problem with the train, but taking the bus takes them so much longer to get in. They should have a real express bus with express bus lanes all the way up.” EMPLOYER