Tech worker survey: $4/day Cashout + $2/day Charges

Survey requirements / objectives / background information

• This survey will be used to collect lots of useful qualitative information, via essay responses. It is unlikely that valid quantitative results can be obtained. It is unlikely that a representative corporate employee population will respond - self-selection will bias the results.  
• Previous queries to tech workers about the feasibility of charging for parking have resulted in “emphatic NOs.” A detailed survey instrument should be developed to explore the issue in depth. The survey should probe where exactly the proposal breaks down from an employee perspective. The survey should explore the objections and feedback received by corporate transportation staff and Green Teams in the past, as well as explaining the theory behind the proposal. The survey should walk the fine line between educating employees so that they can make informed responses on a complex issue, versus manipulating their answers with leading questions. Hence, the survey should provide a balance of “pro” and “con” arguments into a “debate” format.
• We will survey employees to gauge their reaction to cashout + charges. The three main questions:

a) are you in favor of $0.25 per day parking + $1 cashout?

b) are you in favor of $2 per day parking + $4 cashout?

c) are you in favor of self-reporting? Will workers cheat?

• The survey results should provide useful, anecdotal policy-making information for company staff. Is it worth a company’s effort to open up this hornets’ nest for the greater good? For the “are you in favor of parking charges” questions, the survey should obtain a distribution of the strength of employee opinions: strongly opposed, mildly opposed, neutral, mildly in favor, strongly in favor. In CA politics, a supermajority (60%) is required to pass a tax initiative.  For cashout + charges, company staff might conclude that “70% weakly supporting and 10% strongly opposing” would represent a policy that is “too much of a hassle” to implement. We’ll encourage workers with strong opinions to enter free-form text giving advice to staff about cashout + charges. Strong opinions should be helpful to staff in understanding how implementation will play out at a company. 
  • The multiple choice question about cheating is problematic, but it is still interesting to ponder forecasted cheating.  It is not clear whether an enforcement system is required (such as an automated parking access system).   
• The results may also provide the CA Climate Action Team with some insight as to whether corporations will volunteer to cut employee commute VMT, or whether the Climate Team should consider very strong VMT-reduction regulations such as Vancouver’s ill-fated 2005 Parking Tax. 
• The results should also provide researchers with insight on how to modify the current proposal (and past programs) to better address objections. 
• Professionals in the field should be canvassed before the survey is given, to collect their predictions of the survey outcome. Further, professionals should be canvassed as to what defines a “persuasive distribution” making implementation worthwhile.  Similarly, professionals should be asked to define what response distribution will indicate a significant cheating issue. 
• The survey should accommodate workers that don’t care very much about this topic and aren’t willing to spend much time on the survey. Similarly, the survey should accommodate both a) workers who care passionately about this topic, and b) workers who are willing to dig into the detailed debate. Accordingly, questions should be presented with two levels: “summarized” and “detailed.” The “don’t care much” survey respondent should be able to quickly navigate through the summarized level of the survey in 5 minutes, skipping the details. The summarized level should get to the essence of the debate 
• Given the complexity of the topic, care should be taken in ordering the survey flow. The presentation of information late in the survey might change an answer given earlier in the flow.
• Given the complexity of the survey instrument, be sure to test and revise the instrument multiple times, using both TDM professionals and employees. 
• A similar research methodology was pioneered by Cities21 and is explained in the following: Application of New Technology Product Research to New Suburban Commute System Design and Validation, Transportation Research Record #1927, 2005. 
  • “For this research, no methodology will produce a definitive answer, but stated preference provides the least flawed methodology to predict the future. Stated preference surveys involving non-existing, unfamiliar alternatives lacking stable core preferences are especially problematic.”
  • “The survey provides full disclosure of the behavioral issues within the text of the survey – providing respondents with rich, educational text so they can quickly comprehend the issue.”
  • Top transportation research methodologist Mark Bradley complimented this survey’s balance, praising the lengths the survey instrument took to argue against the position being advocated.
  • The “social desirability effect” is where survey respondents overstate their future virtuous behavior. The survey instrument fully discloses this overstatement effect to respondents, allowing respondents to correct this, and further encourages respondents as to the value of identifying where the concept fails.