This is an analysis, which I worked on with several colleagues from SDSU, on transportation solutions for San Diego commuters.

1. Moving the Masses :
Creating New Policies to Educate and
Encourage San Diegans to Choose More
Environmentally Friendly Means
for Their Workweek Commutes.
Wayne W. Longdon III
Jesse Rodgers
Janice Feingold
Robert Van Deutekom
Truman Coleman
April 2010

2. Creating widespread adoption and usage of
Environmentally friendly ways to commute to
work…

3. … and what happens when
too many people drive alone.

4. Our policies aim to decrease the number
of commuters who drive alone ( S.O.V. )
to and from work by creating:
Outreach Programs to: Tax Breaks
 Inform businesses  Corporate tax break for
about incentives. Vanpools (Lease or
 Encourage employees Purchase “last mile”
to use other forms of solutions. )
transportation rather  Individual tax breaks
than driving alone. for Carpools (tax
 Get Corporations to incentives similar to
invest in “Last Mile” current vanpool
Shuttle Services. incentives)

5. Market Failures Associated with
Transportation
 Market Power
 Legal Barriers
 Public Goods
 Informational
Asymmetry
 Negative
Externalities

6. Market Failures Associated with
Transportation
Market Power
 High initial cost of vehicles
for Corporate
transportation programs
and/or allowances for
public transit.
 High uncertainty of how
many employees would
participate in such
programs if they were
available.

7. Market Failures Associated with
Transportation
Legal Barriers
 Tax requirements
and administration
perceived as difficult
or costly for
companies that
might otherwise
pursue incentives.

8. Market Failures Associated with
Transportation
Public Goods
 Public transportation and
carpool programs are Seventy-seven percent of
undersubscribed which workers in the United
makes gaining support States – more than 102
for them more difficult. million people – drive to
and from work alone,
 After spending $1.2 according to The Christian
BILLION to construct Science Monitor, based on
HOT/HOV lanes, public surveys conducted in
subscription rates to use 2005.
these MUST be
improved upon.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0625/p02s01-ussc.html

9. Market Failures Associated with
Transportation
San Diegan's Preferred Modes of
Transportation to get to Work
0%
Walk 3.50% Walk
2% 0%
Other 2.00%
4% 0% 0% Other
Other Public 3%
transportation 0.05%
6% Other Public transportation
Commuter Rail (Coaster) 0.33%
Transit Bus 2.87% 6% Commuter Rail (Coaster)
Light Rail (Trolley) 0.32%
Transit Bus
Ferry (not included in
policy) 0.00% Light Rail (Trolley)
Carpool (evenly split with Ferry (not included in policy)
van pool) 5.99%
Vanpool (evenly split with Carpool (evenly split with van
79% pool)
car pool) 6.00%
Vanpool (evenly split with car
Drive Alone 78.90% pool)
Total 99.9711% Drive Alone
Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/photos/2009/sep/28/62591/

10. Market Failures Associated with
Transportation
Informational Asymmetry According to a SANDAG survey only eleven percent of
participants stated they work for employers that offer
 Companies and incentives such as reserved parking for
employees are unaware carpoolers, flexible work hours, and cash travel
allowances.
of transportation
incentive programs for Awareness of transportation services
70%
commuters. 60%
50%
40%
 Employees are unaware 30%
20%
of other coworkers who 10% Very Familiar
0%
they can carpool with or Somewhat Familiar
Not At All Familiar
neighbors in their
community who travel to
the same destination.
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid
_369_510.pdf

11. Market Failures Associated with
Transportation
Texas Transportation Institute estimates
Negative Externalities that…
“The annual (traffic) delay per driver is
 Pollution (GHG) in excess of 47 hours per year”
 Direct and indirect “As a whole the US wastes more than
2.3 billion gallons of fuel each year
health effects (from traffic congestion)”
According to the EPA…the
 Loss of productivity transportation sector accounts for
approximately 33 percent of total
 Wasted fuel carbon dioxide emissions from fossil
fuel combustion. The largest share
 Loss of opportunity of any end-use economic sector in
2007.
with family
www.forbes.com/2006/02/06/worst-traffic-nightmares-cx_rm_0207traffic.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html

12. Assumptions why individuals don’t utilize
existing options…
According to SANDAG
INFO, 80% of the
commuters drive alone!
WHY?
* Chart taken from SANDAG INFO, March-April 2000, “Attitudes
about Transit and Ridesharing”

13. Assumptions why individuals don’t utilize
existing options…
They are unaware of their options
1-800-commute only has a 25% awareness*
www.sdcommute.com only has an 8% awareness*
Irregular work hours of employees
No incentives for Carpooling
No choice
According to www.wired.com, 73% of the
people say there simply is no public
transportation near them
Train/Bus delays and cancellations
* Statistics taken from SANDAG INFO, March-April 2000, “Attitudes about Transit and Ridesharing”

14. Individual/Employee Decisions
Mass Transit ?
Carpool?
Drive Alone?
Let’s do a test.
If you live in Escondido, CA and work at
Qualcomm in San Diego, CA, what is the cost
of using different forms of transportation?

15. Daily Monthly Yearly
Individual/Employee Decisions
Daily monthly Yearly
Drive Alone * $8.53 $187.57 $2,250.86
Carpool with 1 other person $4.26 $93.79 $1,125.43
Vanpool with 7 other people ** $4.02 $88.54 $1,062.48
Take Transit ***
Local and Express Bus $5 $72 $816
Premium Bus $14 $100 $1,080
Trolley $5 $72 $816
BREEZE Bus $5 $59 $708
SPRINTER $5 $59 $708
COASTER $14 $144-$182 $1,728-$2,184
* Drive alone cost estimates include an average maintenance and tire cost of five cents per mile based on AAA "Your Driving Costs
2008" brochure. Cost estimates do not include full-coverage insurance, license, registration, taxes, depreciation (15,000 miles
annually), vehicle loan payments, or finance charges.
** Vanpool costs are based on average lease costs and gas for an eight passenger van. The SANDAG $400 month subsidy has been
applied.
*** Transit prices are based on purchase of full fare adult Day or Monthly Pass. COASTER daily ticket prices reflect round trip
purchase. Yearly transit costs equal Monthly Pass price x 12. Senior/Disabled/Medicare and Youth discount passes are available
for those who qualify.
Travel Time for Driving is 1 hour with traffic. Travel Time for Mass Transit is 1 hr. 45 minutes.
* Calculated by www.icommutesd.com

16. Individual/Employee Decisions
Traveling from Cardiff, CA to Qualcomm would be:
Daily monthly Yearly
Drive Alone * $4.87 $107.18 $1,286.21
Carpool with 1 other person $2.44 $53.59 $643.10
Vanpool with 7 other people ** $3.57 $78.64 $943.68
Take Transit ***
Local and Express Bus $5 $72 $816
Premium Bus $14 $100 $1,080
Trolley $5 $72 $816
BREEZE Bus $5 $59 $708
SPRINTER $5 $59 $708
COASTER $14 $144-$182 $1,728-$2,184
* Drive alone cost estimates include an average maintenance and tire cost of five cents per mile based on AAA "Your Driving Costs
2008" brochure. Cost estimates do not include full-coverage insurance, license, registration, taxes, depreciation (15,000 miles
annually), vehicle loan payments, or finance charges.
** Vanpool costs are based on average lease costs and gas for an eight passenger van. The SANDAG $400 month subsidy has been
applied.
*** Transit prices are based on purchase of full fare adult Day or Monthly Pass. COASTER daily ticket prices reflect round trip
purchase. Yearly transit costs equal Monthly Pass price x 12. Senior/Disabled/Medicare and Youth discount passes are available
for those who qualify.
Travel Time for Driving is 45 minutes with traffic. Travel Time for Mass Transit is 1 hr. 45 minutes.
* Calculated by www.icommutesd.com

17. Individual/Employee Decisions
Carpooling or Mass Transit
can cost you almost 50% less
a year in some cases!

18. Suggested Policy Solutions:
1) Increased funding for better Marketing
 Marketing, Marketing, Marketing: Every program manager
that we talked with commented that the very first thing that
needed to be done was to Market the self evident savings
better, in more places, and more frequently, even internally.
 Develop professional presentation teams to visit Business
Fairs, Corporations, Community groups, Municipalities and
Business Parks to better broadcast the existing incentives if
employees choose more efficient commuting options.
 Use these same teams to illustrate that by operating “Last
Mile” shuttles for employees the productivity levels of all
employees is known to rise significantly, 3) and that these
efforts are known locally to be cost effective programs.4)

19. Suggested Policy Solutions:
2) Tax revenue shifts & New Tax Incentives
 Work within the municipalities of SANDAG voting members to
demonstrate the soundness of our policy suggestions and
encourage their votes in getting SANDAG to re-purpose existing
revenue streams to better serve our suggested policy mandates.
 After gaining SANDAG’s support encourage them to help enact
minor Tax reform Legislation to permit Carpool users to receive
Tax breaks comparable to existing Vanpool Incentives. ( Or begin
their own incentive programs for same.)
 Use the same leveraging mechanism to gain Corporations minor
Tax incentives for operating “Last Mile” shuttle services from Mass
transit pick-up points.
 (In interviews with the Mobility Manager of SANDAG as well as the
Business Development Manager of NCTD these issues were seen as of
paramount importance. As such, they encouraged these pursuits, and
would support our efforts of same.)

20. Corporate Solutions :
Corporate Vanpools
 Lease or Purchase “last mile solutions”
Mass Transit Research indicates that when “last
mile” solutions exist ( to get employees from the
drop-off points to the workplace ) their ridership rates
increase dramatically.*
 Even in current the non-incentivized market several
local major corporations 4) are operating their own
solutions now that NCTD/MTS has had to cease
offering theirs due to budget constraints.
*Mike Mason –Business Development Manager , North County Transit District

21. Government Concerns:
GHG emissions reductions
 2005 Executive Order S-3-05: Long-term targets for GHG emissions
reductions to levels 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
In San Diego County, total emissions would have to be reduced to:
6 MMT CO2E, 37 MMT CO2E (87%) below the 2020 B.A.U.
(Biz-as-usual) projection and 28 MMT CO2E (83%) below 2006 levels.
 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32): To meet the targets
established by AB 32, the San Diego region would have to reduce its
projected B.A.U. 2020 emissions by 14 MMT CO2E or 33%.
5)

22.  To begin to achieve goals, San Diego has indentified the sources:
Transportation = 46%
5)

23.  San Diego County emitted 34 million MMT CO2E in 2006
 Cars & Small trucks emit 46% of GHG: 16 MMT CO2E
 As can be seen * the 2nd. highest contributor to GHG emissions
are Passenger vehicles. Reducing S.O.V. usage is critical.
*
5)

24. Government Solutions:
Outreach Program
 Incorporate college interns
for door to door campaign
with the help of SANDAG.
 Develop & deploy outreach
teams to educate more
businesses about incentives.
 Encourage residents to use
other forms of transportation
instead of driving alone.

25. Implementation Strategy
 New surveys, or use existing, to bolster policy arguments that
major public support does exist.
 Outreach Programs to educate boardrooms and bedrooms that a
wide variety of more efficient, incentivized and cost effective
commuting options already exist.
 Adjust current tax revenue sources to permit NCTD & similar
agencies fund “Last Mile” solutions where needs are indentified.
 Lobby legislators to enact new Tax laws to permit our suggested
Tax incentives.
 Due to the State mandates cited ( AB-32 & E.O. S-3-05 ) we
suggest that those goal point motivations be managed to
encourage ALL relevant agencies to fund our more efficient
commuting options policy goals. Their own studies note the
importance and relevancy of reducing S.O.V. usage to reducing
levels of GHG emissions in our communities. Funding our policy
suggestions WILL move them towards those goals.

26. Implementation Timelines
 First 6 months- 1 year: Major efforts with Surveys and Outreach
Programs to gather data points, educate largest private & public
leaders about options, and record feedback for consideration.
 Year 1-2: Use collected data and professional presentations to
support our policies arguments at local levels;
Municipalities, community organizations and smaller
businesses.
 Year 2-3: Use collected support & documentation to push for
Tax revenue reforms and re-focusing of existing revenue
streams to support our policy’s financial needs.
 Year 4: Public opinion surveys and data collections will be used
to fine tune and improve the policies success rates.
 Year 5: Once reforms are enacted, Marketing and Outreach
efforts will continue and it’s predicted that maximum market
effects will occur. Verification and final adoption result reports
will be generated to guide future policy making decisions.

27. Advantages/Disadvantages
Only 14 million Americans use public transportation daily while 88 percent of all trips in the United
States are made by car—and many of those cars carry only one person.
Part I - Corporations
Measured tax breaks to help them develop and incorporate programs that incentivize employees to
modify their commuting behaviors to include more sustainable, energy efficient, and less polluting
habits
Advantages:
Tax breaks - Companies can give their employees tax-free transit commuter benefits up to $115 a
month, up from $110 last year. Unfortunately, the federal government still gives higher parking
commuter benefits -up to $220 a month, an increase of $5 from last year.* CASH OUT options* Ask me*
Increases sense of community, morale & productivity
Reduces carbon emissions
Fewer vehicles on the road frees up highways, reduces stress and can lead to wellness benefits
potentially lowering healthcare costs
Increases employee retention lowering talent acquisition costs
http://www.vanpool.com/sem/employeeretention.aspx
Disadvantages:
Could create minor shortfalls to social security or other programs typically funded by payroll taxes

28. Advantages/Disadvantages
Rideshare/Vanpool/ Carpool
Advantages:
A Vanpool tax incentive allows you to set aside up to $230 a month from employee paychecks toward
vanpool costs. This lowers that person's taxable income (a benefit for them) and reduces your share of
payroll taxes (FICA). If you choose to subsidize a vanpool program, you may be able to deduct this cost
from your taxes and classify the deduction as an expense.
http://www.vanpool.com/sem/taxbenefit.aspx
Fewer vehicles on the road frees up highways
Reduces carbon emissions - Increases sense of community, morale and productivity
http://www.vanpool.com/sem/increasemorale.aspx
Increases employee retention lowering talent acquisition costs
http://www.vanpool.com/sem/employeeretention.aspx
Disadvantages:
Cost
Determining what locations are best to support the largest numbers of workers
Accommodating various work schedules

29. Advantages/Disadvantages
Mass Transit
Advantages:
Reduces carbon emissions - public transportation in the United States saves approximately 1.4 billion
gallons of gasoline and about 1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.
http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/public_transit.htm
Energy independence—According to Treehugger.com, if just one in 10 Americans used public
transportation daily, U.S. reliance on foreign oil would decrease 40 percent
Safety—Riding a bus is 79 times safer than riding in an automobile, and riding a train or subway is even
safer.
Health—Studies have shown that people who use public transportation regularly tend to be healthier
than people who don’t, because of the exercise they get walking to and from bus stops, subway stations
and their homes and offices.
Cost savings—According to an APTA study, families that use public transportation can reduce their
household expenses by $6,200 annually, more than the average U.S. household spends on food every
year. http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/public_transit.htm
Disadvantages:
Cost to convert mass transit vehicles to low emissions
Lack of accessibility to many areas (San Diego’s mass transit system does not currently serve many
areas). This may require additional vehicles on the road like shuttles, etc.

30. Advantages/Disadvantages
Develop presentation programs that can be given to corporations to show them
the financial and socially responsible advantages of developing more efficient
commuting programs.
Advantages:
Pooling of resources
Increased sense of community
Companies may want to be sponsors
Disadvantages:
Identifying media vehicles and funding to reach target groups

31. Advantages/Disadvantages
Part II – Individuals/ Employees
Additional incentives for individuals to commute more efficiently.
What does your commute cost? Using alternative transportation can cut your commuting
cost in half or even more.
http://www.connectingcommuters.org/about/commutecalculator
Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA’s)
Advantages:
Employees can pay for commuting costs with pre-tax payroll deductions, similar to what
many of you may be doing already with dependent care accounts or flexible medical
accounts. http://blogs.ridemetro.org/blogs/write_on/archive/2008/02/11/Tax-Benefits-for
Using-Public-Transit.aspx
Disadvantages
If you don’t use the money that you put aside during the year you lose it.

32. Rideshare
Advantages/Disadvantages
Advantages:
Points redeemable for gift cards.
Pooling of resources
Increased sense of community
Partner with Insurance companies for funding – FSA (flexible spending accounts) & TRA (transit
reimbursement account) http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services/4347528-1.html
Increases sense of community, morale & productivity
Reduces carbon emissions
Less vehicles on the road frees up highways, reduces stress and can lead to wellness benefits potentially
lowering healthcare costs
Disadvantages:
How to assemble like-minded folk to implement programs
Reliability of documentation

33. Cost of Alternative Actions
Likely Work-Arounds
 Falsifying
documentation
 Vehicle
breakdowns/accidents
impacts more
employees
 Effectiveness of
canvassers
 Economic uncertainty
may lessen motivations.

34. Key Marketing Policy Influences
Commuting to and Low Fuel Prices High Fuel Prices
from work.
Low levels of Low usage of public Moderate usage of
information for transportation and public
commuting carpooling. High transportation and
alternatives and few traffic congestion. carpooling.
financial or PR High vehicle Moderate traffic
incentives emissions. congestion.
Moderate vehicle
emissions.
High levels of Low to moderate High usage of public
information for usage of public transportation and
commuting transportation and carpooling. Low
alternatives and carpooling. High traffic congestion.
many financial or traffic congestion. Low vehicle
PR incentives High vehicle emissions.
emissions

35. Key Tax Policy Influences
Increased usage: Trains No Tax incentives or Tax incentives for Corp.
Carpools & Buses perceived inequitable Shuttles and Carpooling
Corporations buy, lease Very few Corporations Corp. operated shuttles
and operate their own will afford their own will proliferate and
fleet of Shuttles to ferry shuttles services as it’s ridership rates on
workers from Train not quite cost effective buses and trains will
Stations and major bus with a few employees. escalate as well. NCTD
stops. This resolves Eliminates chances of knows this is true and
the “Last Mile” issues increased cost/benefit still operates 4 FREE
that otherwise ratio by attracting new shuttles at Sorrento
discourage use of mass users to proven Valley despite them
transit options. commute efficiency. being “loss leaders.”
Employees create & use Carpools will stay at Carpool rates soar as
carpooling options that present low levels of equitable Vanpool-like
are perceived as being usage. Even though tax incentives
less cumbersome than Carpooling can be overcome the final
Vanpools, but too shown to be very cost “Freedom Factor”
“Freedom restrictive” to efficient, without hurdles. Subscription
self-justify without equitable incentives rates increase for
financial rewards. drivers will choose the expensive public goods
“Freedom Factor” first. HOV/HOT lanes.

36. Policies Evaluation
Effectiveness High Our research has found that educating companies and employees about
commuting alternatives & incentives will greatly increase the possibility of success.
Efficiency High Current voluntary participation has led us to believe that addressing obstacles such
as the lack of information and equitable incentives would be self-promoting.
Equity Low Employee schedules , responsibilities and other unknowns such as whether or not
someone lives within a serviceable location may limit participation by some people.
Manageability Low Administering tax breaks and other documentation paperwork will require modest
additional company work hours. Existing programs report this as a minor expense.
Legitimacy and High Fuel prices are increasing and companies are also attempting to decrease their
carbon footprint because of future cap & trade laws making our policy politically
Political “sexy”. Current social and media focus on the importance of living “Greener” lives
Feasibility will also help us to legislate and incorporate these policies and decisions.
Coerciveness Medium While many citizens are slowly changing their driving habits we recognize that
people still enjoy the independence of driving their own car, making coerciveness a
present and persistent obstacle.
Directness Medium While the urgency to “curb” emissions and fuel consumptions is real, our policies
create incentives for practices that are currently being carried out on a voluntary
basis. Furthermore, with the help of local transportation agencies to implement our
outreach programs, our policy can overcome weaknesses with current efforts
Automaticity High Because our policy begins as our economy recovers ,participation is expected to
increase as traffic congestion increases with more people commuting to work again.
Increasing fuel prices will further drive the desire to commute more cost efficiently.
Visibility High Our policy will improve a sense of community by connecting employees with their
fellow employees and neighbors which creates high visibility for these options.
Market Medium As consumers rediscover the financial and social rewards of working together to
overcome commuting inefficiencies, future legislation and improved social
Transformation awareness will have a much better chance of creating lasting Mrkt. transformations.

37. Uncertainties
 Predicting public behavior if some low cost oil source is found is nearly
impossible, but if history is a guide and lower cost gas results, then the
motivation to take mass transit may diminish. However, we believe that
once well organized and maintained Rideshare & “Last Mile” services
are established in the public mind their inherent cost effectiveness,
GHG reduction and personal benefits ( free time etc.), will finally
overcome this persistent issue and relegate it to past concerns.
 We can not predict with certainty that most Corporations will jump into
the “Last Mile” Shuttle Parade and offer this kind of service. However,
after interviewing many top level managers in these fields, it is our
belief that this WILL come to pass. It’s a well know fact that by
supplying employees ( especially low waged) with dependable and less
stressful commuting options their productivity increases markedly. 1)
 It is also somewhat uncertain that Carpooling rates will increase with
new Tax incentives but many studies suggest that the “buy-in” benefits
are so close to being realized that almost ANY additional financial
reward will be enough to overcome the oft cited “Freedom Factor”. 2)

38. Assumptions:
 Gas prices will not decrease.
 Carpooling ridership rates WILL increase with new Tax or
Corporate rewards Incentives as many studies predict.
 The “First Mile” issues ( the mile from & to home) will be
comparatively easy to overcome. It’s assumed that once the
programs overall cost effectiveness is realized every effort will be
made by the adoptees to find solutions with spousal drop-offs, bus-
to-train station routes, neighborhood rideshares, walking to bus
stops etc. etc.
 All commuting programs WILL institute industry standard
“Guaranteed Ride Home” services. (GRH) These ensure that
employees will know that if they miss their ride or connection for
some unforeseen reason they WILL get a free or cheap ride home,
at least 3-5 times per year.
 All Marketing efforts will affect all demographics equally.
 Any incremental increase in “Last Mile” solution options WILL result
in the industry assumed increased ridership rates and that this
increase will affect both bus and rail options equally.

39. FUNDING Sources for Policy Goals
 NCTD & MTS revenues: By increasing “Last Mile” solutions we will
increase ridership rates on Coaster Trains as well as on their
connecting bus routes.
 Increasing mass transit ridership rates by only 10% will increase their
revenues by a collective $49 million, which could be returned into “Last
Mile” shuttle services to drive ridership rates up even further.*
 By enlisting SANDAG’s assistance & GHG mandates we intend to also
increase TDA’s contributions by using .5% additional Percentage of
existing sales tax ($221 mil.) Transient Tax ( $173 mil. ) and TransNet
($36 mil.) revenue. **
 These minor revenue stream adjustments could fund SANDAG with an
additional $2.1 million to use towards Marketing costs and initiating
Carpool subsidies.
 These are all solutions without tax increases
* American Public Transportation Association Aug 21 2009
** San Diego County General Fund Budget Report 2009

40. Non-Monetized Impact of Findings
What happens if we adopt environmentally friendly ways to commute to work…?
Environmental
 Lower CO2 Emissions/lower fossil fuel consumption
 Less traffic congestion
 Less use of open land for highways also decreasing encroachment on wildlife
Social
 Increased Employee Retention by Employers – Employers that are able to offer their employees this unique "perk"
makes their commute faster, more affordable and more enjoyable. This employee benefit may help recruit and
retain the best employees.
 Increase sense of community - carpooling doesn't have to be a sacrifice of this independence. Rather, it can be an
effective symbol of collaboration: sharing a ride is an opportunity to spend time with friends, or to get to know new
people. .
 Lower health care costs
 Financial Savings – Employers and Individuals
http://www.vanpool.com/employeeretention.aspx
http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2009/07/17/california-climate-champions-project-carpool/

41. Impact of Findings
What happens if we don’t adopt environmentally friendly ways to commute to work…?
Environmental
 CO2/ Fossil Fuel Consumption - The USA is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases worldwide. The personal
automobile is the single greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road add up to a planet-wide
problem.US emissions increased to billion tons of CO2 in 2004, 16% higher than emissions in the late 90's. Exhaust
from all combustion engines combine to produce local adverse effects on the health of car users and all innocent
bystanders. If every commuter car in the U.S.carried just one more person, we'd save eight billion gallons of gas a
year. 95% of a car's energy goes towards moving the car itself, and only 5% to moving the passenger. Traffic
congestion wastes three billion gallons of gas a year.
 Increasing congestion, lack of room to build new roads - While unemployment kept morning commutes lighter
than normal, traffic was up nearly every other hour of the day as individuals hit the roads in search of work or
other trips – a 25 percent increase.
 Climate change - Continued climate change could have widespread impacts on California’s economy and
ecosystems, and on the health of its citizens.
Social
 Loss of transit worker jobs due to underutilization of system.
 Continued rise in health care costs due to pollution - The list of detrimental health effects from vehicle air
pollution sounds like a little shop of horrors. Outdoor air pollution from cars, SUVs, trucks, and buses: Cause acute
respiratory problems, temporary decreases in lung capacity, and inflammation of lung tissue, impair the body’s
immune system, reduce the release of oxygen to body tissues, increase a person’s risk of cancer-related death,
contribute to birth defects, low birth weight, and infant deaths, harm blood vessels in healthy individuals, make
healthy active children 3 to 4 times more likely to develop asthma.
 Lack of community.
http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac.html
http://www.cecsb.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=95&gclid=CKCkspnooKECFRVabQodx
Nww
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/02/26/study-traffic-congestion-goes-back-up-as-economy-recovers/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2158183216mw54g4/
http://www.hybridcars.com/health-effects.html

42. Baseline Costs
 I-15 & I-5 Expansion costs of approximately $1.2 Billion is assumed to be
an enormous Public Goods cost whose subscription rates MUST be
improved dramatically in order to justify those expenditures.
 Besides aforementioned Tax revenue allotments SANDAG’s expenditures
for marketing is $200k & Vanpool subsidies approximately equal $4 mil. *
 Countywide GHG emissions** are about 34 million MMT of CO2E
6 million MMT of that is of that is attributable to passenger vehicles only.
 Average Carbon Offset costs equal $15/MMT X 6 = $90 million ***
 In 2007 San Diegans wasted 52 hours in traffic delays costing $960.00
per commuter in lost wages **** X .6 million commuters = $576mil. / year
 Total Baseline Costs / year approximately equals $670.2 million
* Interview with SANDAG Mobility Program manager Kimberly Weinstein 4/15/2010
** San Diego County Green House Gas Inventory –Executive Summary -2008
*** EcoBusinessLinks.com
**** Texas Transportation Institute 2009

43. Our Policy Benefits
 Our policies are all paid for by minor shifts in existing Tax
revenue streams and by increasing ridership rates on existing
mass transit services.
 Increasing those ridership rates and incentivizing new
Carpooling riders to decrease S.O.V. ( Single Occupancy
Vehicles) usage by only 10% in the first 2.5 years will save our
San Diego communities $67 million / year
 Our modest 5 year plan is to attempt to decrease S.O.V.
commuting by 20%. If we are successful we will have saved our
community $335 million, and generated significant revenue
streams in mass transit services
 These monies can then be re-purposed into providing more
routes and services thus increasing their usage rates even
more. They can also be used to support their own FREE “Last
Mile” Shuttle services that proved so successful in the recent
past at encouraging mass transit commuting options.

44. Monitoring Policy Effectiveness
 All participants in existing programs are required to
document their ridership rates and these can be
accessed to compare past with present values.
 Ridership rates from existing NCTD, MTS &
SANDAG sources are easily obtainable to compare.
 State tax board figures could be tapped to gather the
numbers and amount of tax incentives requested by
individual as well as corporate participants.
 Although less accurate ( for a number of reasons)
current GHG emissions collecting techniques would
continue to be used to see if our policy suggestions
have measureable affect on San Diego regional air
quality figures.

45. Resources/ Bibliography
 Individual/Employee Decisions
 www.icommutesd.com
 www.mapquest.com
 SANDAG INFO, March-April 2000, “Attitudes about Transit and” Ridesharing
 Corporate & Government Sections:
 1) rideshare.wi.gov
 2) I-15 Interregional Partnership Studies: http://www.i15irp.org/strategies.html
 3) TDM Encyclopedia Victoria Transport Policy Institute 1-26-2010
 4) Interviews with Dept. Managers at Biogen Idec, Callaway
Golf, Genentech, Intuit, Qualcomm and SAIC
 5) San Diego County Green House Gas Inventory –Executive Summary -2008