Marketing Transit Services to Business (1998) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Chapter 6
Chapter 6
Pages 125-142
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 125... ...
in attracting larger businesses, who can use the tax exempt benefit to employees partly in place of salary increases. The New York voucher program has thus shifted its marketing program from smaller businesses to larger employers.
|
From page 126... ...
This concept became known as "TransitChek." Other research provided further insight into the success of the transit voucher program. This research identified the role of infrequent riders as a share of total transit ridership and as a source of new riders.113 The ability of a transit voucher to subsidize occasional use as well as regular users was another favorable aspect of a transit voucher program relative to an employer pass plan.
|
From page 127... ...
Other cities with multiple operators, such as Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Francisco developed programs. In addition, larger cities dominated by a single operator, even those which had pass programs, began to adopt voucher programs.
|
From page 128... ...
The following summarizes some key findings and notable features from varied settings where transit vouchers have been used. Much of this Pa98~4
|
From page 129... ...
The New York program remains the most useful experience in transit voucher marketing. The New York TransitChek program began in 1987.
|
From page 130... ...
This grant was specifically geared toward addressing the provisions of the Employee Commute Options (a part of the Clean Air Act that required larger employers to reduce their pollution emissions) ; the TransitChek program was an ideal solution for many of these larger solutions.
|
From page 131... ...
The New York program has sought to offset this effect by constantly increasing the efficiency of its marketing expenditures, and appears to have succeeded. The New York program has made the transition from its early years when the transit voucher plan largely sold itself via rider-based efforts, to a more conventional marketing program using a sales force.
|
From page 132... ...
Figure 6-2 below shows the distribution of the inquiries with the category "other" removed. This data suggests the key role played by the more suburban, higher-income commuter rail users relative to other transit riders in advancing the voucher program.
|
From page 133... ...
While auto users are the ultimate target for fare subsidies, they are not the primary target for its marketing. The employer must be motivated to make the enrollment decision, and as existing transit riders are the most immediate beneficiaries of those decisions, non-rider marketing is less likely to have the desired impacts.
|
From page 134... ...
In 1996, when the cap rose to $65, a $35 Commuter Check was begun. The program was particularly successful in shifting early enrollees from $20 to $30 Commuter Checks.
|
From page 135... ...
From the start, the program gained effective endorsement, and, as many small and a few large employers quickly enrolled, Commuter Check was off to a solid start. television sponsorship is especially helpful in marketing transit vouchers because television spots are expensive, and more than "just a little" television advertising is needed to advance a voucher program.
|
From page 136... ...
Commuter Check program began in 1991. As MCTS has had only weekly passes and no monthlies, low denomination Commuter Checks were needed; $7 Commuter Checks were used at the outset, and $9 Commuter Checks were marketed in late 1994 after two fare increases raised the price of weekly passes.
|
From page 137... ...
At a major utility, where the parking price rose from $20 to $40 a month at the same time that transit fare subsidies of $21 a month began, transit use rose ~ ~ percent. The experience at the utility may be most notable, as the simultaneous increase in parking fees meant the implementation of Commuter Check had no net cost to the employer, despite the dramatic increase in transit use.
|
From page 138... ...
SeattIe's voucher program was established as an extension of its successful employer pass plan, which involves over 50,000 employer-based pass sales every month, with significant subsidies generally provided. The Commuter Bonus voucher program is just one of these extensions, and was designed to promote transit to relatively infrequent transit riders who did not need passes.
|
From page 139... ...
Unlike the New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco programs, no fees are applied for voucher sales in Seattle. Smaller cities Due in part to voucher programs' appeal to smaller programs, a number of voucher programs have been implemented in smaller cities with single transit operators, including Norfolk, Buffalo, and Louisville.
|
From page 140... ...
Certainly for smaller cities, it has become clear that developing a transit voucher program requires a longer-term, substantial commitment to voucher marketing, as satisfactory results cannot be assured in the short term. = As the history of transit voucher programs has shown, the program has wide applicability in the transit field.
|
From page 141... ...
Business databases have proven useful for targeting business segments with the greatest potential to use voucher programs. · With increases to the tax subsidy benefit, some larger communities have found it worthwhile to conduct sales force marketing.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.