, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 179–207 | Cite as

The influence of employer ridesharing programs on employee mode choice

  • Erik Ferguson


Employer ridesharing programs and employee mode choice were analyzed using Southern California data. Problems in estimating the costs and benefits of employer ridesharing programs were identified. Surveyed firms used a wide variety of information to estimate employee mode split internally. Virtually all surveyed firms offered free or subsidized parking to some or all of their employees. Few responding firms estimated the cost of providing employee parking accurately, if at all. Despite these significant data limitations, factors influencing firm choice of employer ridesharing program components were identified. The influence of employer ridesharing programs on employee mode choice was modeled using weighted least squares logit regression analysis. Firm size was foung to be the single most important variable identified in the analysis. Larger firms were more likely to offer ridesharing incentives to their empolyees, and to report direct employer benefits from ridesharing. Alternative work hours hindered the formation of ridesharing arrangements in some cases. Relatively few firms promoted ridesharing on a purely voluntary basis. A private market for employer ridesharing services was found to exist, however. Personalized matching assistance may be a critical factor in developing more effective employer ridesharing programs. Parking pricing and supply control measures probably would have a larger impact on employee mode split overall. Parking management faces severe obstacles in implementation, some of which might be overcome through the more extensive provision of ridesharing services, such as personalized matching assistance. to employees at specific employment sites by their employers.

Key words

Employer ridesharing programs employee mode choice 



alternative work hours


central business district


Commuter Transportation Services, Inc.


direct ridesharing incentive


employee mode split


employer ridesharing program


employee transportation coordinator


National Ridesharing Demonstration Program


personalized matching assistance


South Coast Air Quality Management District


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Booth R & Waksman R (1985) National Ridesharing Demonstration Program: Comparative Evaluation Report. Report No. DOT-TSC-UMTA-85-17, U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Cervero R & Griesenbeck B (1988) Factors influencing commuting choices in suburban labor markets: a case analysis of Pleasanton, California. Transportation Research 22A: 151–161Google Scholar
  3. Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. (1985) The Benefits and Costs of Ridesharing to Employers. Final report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Los Angeles, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Doxsey L (1982) Weighting of date from national ridesharing program projects. Technical memorandum. U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 23, 1982Google Scholar
  5. Dueker KJ, Bair BO & Levin IP (1977) Ridesharing: psychological factors. Journal of Transportation Engineering 103: 685–692Google Scholar
  6. Feeney B (1989) A review of the impact of parking policy measures on travel demand. Transportation Planning and Technology 13: 229–244Google Scholar
  7. Ferguson E (1986) A conceptual cost model of employer-based ridesharing programs. Presented at the 3rd Annual Southern California Regional Conference of the Association for Commuter Transportation. El Segundo, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferguson E (1988) The influence of employer ridesharing programs and alternative work schedules on employee mode choice: a case analysis of Southern California. Presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools in Planning, Buffalo, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferguson E (1990a) An evaluation of employer ridesharing programs in Southern California. Transportation Research Record (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  10. Ferguson E (1990b) The influence of household composition on residential location and journey to work in the United States. Transportation Research Record (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  11. Gordon P, Kumar A & Richardson H (1987) Congestion and city size. Presented at the 10th Pacific Regional Science Conference, Pusan KoreaGoogle Scholar
  12. Hershey WR & Hekimian AJ (1983) Measuring the effectiveness of personalized ridesharing assistance. Transportation Research Record 914: 14–21Google Scholar
  13. Horan TA (1986) A Model Based Evaluation of Company Rideshare Programs. Unpublished dissertation, Department of Psychology, Claremont CollegeGoogle Scholar
  14. Jessiman WA & Kocur GA (1975) Attracting light rail transit ridership. Transportation Research Board Special Report 161: 126–146Google Scholar
  15. Kocur G & Hendrickson C (1983) A model to assess cost and fuel savings from ridesharing. Transportation Research 17B: 305–318Google Scholar
  16. Kocur G, Hyman WA & Aunet B (1982) Wisconsin work mode choice models based on functional measurement and disaggregate behavioral data. Transportation Research Record 895: 24–32Google Scholar
  17. Levin IP (1976) Attitudinal Modeling of Travel Behavior : Application of the Information Integration Approach of Experimental Psychology. Working Paper No. 17, Institute of Urban and Regional Research, University of IowaGoogle Scholar
  18. Levin IP (1982) Measuring tradeoffs in carpool driving arrangement preferences. Transportation 11: 71–85Google Scholar
  19. Levin IP, Strathman JG & Schwarcz JE (1981) A Survey of the Relationship Between Home Satisfaction, Changes in Travel Behavior, and Commuting Distance. Report No. 107D, Institute of Urban and Regional Research, University of IowaGoogle Scholar
  20. Levy P (1988) Answers to questions about The Commuter Program (Regulation XV). South Coast Air Quality Management District, EI Monte, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  21. Louviere JJ & Kocur G (1983) The magnitude of individual-level variations in demand coefficients: a Xenia, Ohio case example. Transportation Research 17A: 363–373Google Scholar
  22. Mehranian M, Wachs M, Shoup D & Platkin R (1987) Parking cost and mode choices among downtown workers: a case study. Transportation Research Record 1030: 1–5Google Scholar
  23. Pisarski A (1987) Commuting in America. Eno Foundation for Transportation, Inc., Westport, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  24. Roche P & Willson R (1986) Rideshare requirements in downtown Los Angeles: achieving private sector commitments. Presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  25. Ross C (1983) Measuring transportation system effectiveness. Journal of Urban Affairs 5: 299–314Google Scholar
  26. Schreffler E & Meyer M (1983) Evolving institutional arrangements for employer involvement in transportation: the case of employer associations. Transportation Research Record 914: 1–8Google Scholar
  27. Shoup D (1982) Cashing out free parking. Transportation Quarterly 38: 351–364Google Scholar
  28. Surber M, Shoup D & Wachs M (1984) Effects of ending employer-paid parking for solo drivers. Transportation Research Record 957: 67–71Google Scholar
  29. Theil H (1971) Principles of Econometrics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. U.S. Department of Commerce (1982) 1980 Census of Population, Journey to Work. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Department of Commerce (1987) 1985 County Business Patterns, California. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  32. Urban Transportation Monitor (1988) Limited success shown in ridesharing. Urban Transportation Monitor 2(15): 1, 8–9Google Scholar
  33. Valdez R & Wang J (1989) Comparison of transportation demand management market research study results and transportation management association development in three suburban activity centers. Transportation Research Record 1212: 1–10Google Scholar
  34. Wachs M (1984) Autos, transit, and the sprawl of Los Angeles: the 1920's. Journal of the American Planning Association 50: 297–310Google Scholar
  35. Wegmann FJ (1986) Employer Ridesharing Programs: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. The University of Tennessee, Transportation Center, Knoxville, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  36. Wegmann FJ (1989) Cost-effectiveness of private employer ridesharing programs: an employer's assessment. Transportation Research Record 1212: 88–100Google Scholar
  37. Wegmann F & Stokey S (1983) Impact of flexitime work schedules on an employer-based ridesharing program. Transportation Research Record 914: 9–13Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Ferguson
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate City Planning ProgramCollege of Architecture, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations