Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7B <br />Page 38 <br /> <br /> <br />cost-effectiveness data indicates that the <br />employer-based shuttles are less effective <br />than the Alliance incentives programs and <br />are therefore ranked third in priority. <br /> <br />Employer Support Services: Employer sup- <br />port services have a high priority ranking <br />despite the fact that data is not available <br />on actual cost-effectiveness. However, <br />based on national experience, these <br />programs tend to very low cost and highly <br />effective at overcoming barriers to trying a <br />commute alternative. <br /> <br />;'Ci " <br />.~~ .~ <br />- .:,;< <br />.. -,:,;. ", <br />~ <br /> <br />Community Shuttles: Community shuttles <br />provide a significant benefit to the users they <br />serve, but data is not currently available to quantify those <br />benefits. Alliance staff has kept records on the time <br />required to provide customer service and operations <br />management. Based on available data, it would appear to <br />cost the Alliance about three times the amount to man- <br />age a community shuttle than an employer-based shuttle. <br />Professional experience validates the available data. <br />Community shuttles are not a goal or objective of the <br />four primary funding agreements with Alliance. However, <br />community shuttles are combined with employer-based <br />shuttles in the shuttle management budget. Funding that is <br />actually targeted at reducing peak period trips is actually <br />being utilized to provide customer service to community <br />shuttles. In reviewing the prioritization framework, the <br />general conclusion is that community-based shuttles are <br />not fully funded for shuttle management costs. and there <br /> <br />.~ <br /> <br />'... <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />is no identified funding source to date to fully fund the <br />administrative costs of these services. <br /> <br />Bicycle Parking Incentives: Bicycle parking incentives were <br />prioritized based on both the TFCA cost-effectiveness <br />data presented above and general professional experience. <br /> <br />There is not sufficient information available to provide an <br />assessment of the Commuter Club and the effort to form <br />the San Mateo Transportation Management Association. <br />Alliance staff should utilize the prioritization framework <br />to make their own assessment of where these programs <br />would rank. <br /> <br />The implication of this priority ranking is that a realloca- <br />tion of budget is very likely required in order to extend <br />the reach of the Alliance program to 10.000 additional <br /> <br />36 <br />