Talk:Driver reimbursement guidelines

From VOC Wiki
Revision as of 15:38, 15 January 2010 by ScottN (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Just copying out some ideas that have popped up on the message board to get the ball rolling. I thought that below each idea in bullet-point would be a good way to discuss, feel free to change it all up if it doesn't make sense though. Sam Mason 12:22, 9 December 2009 (PST)

Good work on capturing the discussion Sam. Might want to reference the basis of the suggested amount - do you agree that is was the BCMC Method? Only piece I would want to add is that it could be sensible to include a *gear charge* since in my truck skiis take up the space of the potential fifth passenger. I might attempt to reorder the talk page so we can have an ongoing discussion.Mark Freeman 19:31, 9 December 2009 (PST)

How Much Should Drivers Get Anyway?

  • Gas money only? Gas money + wear & tear? Gas, wear & tear, + inconvenience fee? What is fair to pay? Sam Mason 12:22, 9 December 2009 (PST)
  • Gas, tires, direct wear and tear all seem like 'fair' costs to be passed on to passengers. Insurance and depreciation depend a lot on the vehicle and are more dependent on the owner's choice of vehicle. Passengers do not necessarily get to choose what type of vehicle they are riding in so is it fair for them to pay this? Also, drivers are getting a bit of a break in costs when they do not pay. If ALL costs were to be added for each trip and split between everyone in the car (driver included) then this would be the fairest solution. If just the passengers were to split these costs the drivers would be getting a substidised trip. Evan Morris 23:22, 13 December 2009 (PST)


Driver Reimbursement Systems

Current System

The cost of gas is split up amongst the passengers. The driver gets their share of gas paid for, which goes towards covering the wear & tear and other ownership costs associated with the car.

  • It's suggested that moving to a system that gives the drivers more would encourage more driving. Sam Mason 12:22, 9 December 2009 (PST)


Double Gas System

Everyone including the driver pays for gas, but passengers pay double.

  • This is based on the (very) limited information in table on the main wiki page that indicates that actual per km costs are approximately twice as much as gas alone. A variant system would have the driver not even pay for gas. Scott Webster 13:59, 9 December 2009 (PST)
  • The main idea behind this is that it is quite simple to calculate and seems vaguely accurate. Perhaps to avoid being a huge increase drivers would have to do a better job of estimating the REAL gas costs rather than using current possibly inflated values (that try to factor in some extra for maintenance). Drivers paying their share helps too. Eliminating the driver share provides further incentive to drive if desired. Scott Webster 13:52, 9 December 2009 (PST)


Passenger Levy System

Passengers are charged a set amount in addition to gas

  • A simple system would be the easiest to implement. Doubling the gas is simple but may be deemed too expensive. A per km charge is more accurate but would require the driver look at the driving distance for each trip. One alternative could be to just change passengers an extra $5 a head for each trip. This could be increased based on mileage and offroad driving required. Squamish/Whistler could be $5 extra, anywhere past Pemberton $10, add $5 for logging roads deemed extra long or rough. Some drivers are already charging passengers fees like this by rounding gas up or adding a few dollars to the gas. Downsides to a system like this are not capturing all costs, or alternatively over charging passengers. This could balance out over time though. Evan Morris 23:27, 13 December 2009 (PST)


Fixed Compensation Schedule

Example from Scott N:

  • Squamish $8 return per passenger
  • Brew/Clouburst/Garibaldi/Chekamus Canyon/Callaghan/Calcheck $12 return per passenger
  • Whistler/Wedgemount $15 return per passenger
  • Phelix(base of FSR) $30 return per passenger
  • Phelix(end of FSR) $40 return per passenger
  • Cayoosh Pass $25 return per passenger
  • Coquihalla Pass $25 return per passenger
  • Manning Park $30 return per passenger

Everybody would know what they're getting into ahead of time, could set reimbursement levels higher to motivate drivers. Maybe drivers can do this already, but this system could make it easier for them to ask for a higher amount? Sam Mason 12:22, 9 December 2009 (PST)

Doesn't allow any adjustment based on fuel economy. However, should the passenger be paying for that anyway? If it means the vehicle gets them further up a logging road, then certainly yes. Sam Mason 12:22, 9 December 2009 (PST)

Note that in my proposal above there is big step up from the base of the Phelix road to the end of the Phelix road. That's because a) this section of the road is hard on your truck and b) you need to drive your truck a long way on the highway to get there. This can more than adequately compensate the drivers of big 4x4s when the 4x4s are actually needed. Bigger, less fuel efficent vehicles also carry more passengers and take less damage on rough roads than small cars. Scott Nelson 12:39, 9 December 2009 (PST)


Pool & Redistribute

From Nick C:
Everyone pays the same for gas, except drivers who pay nothing. Charge a flat rate with a margin for error (based on previous years trips) to each member, and pay out each driver on the basis of his/her receipts. Everything left over goes into the pot for the end of year party, where our drivers drink for free.

  • Probably applies better to big VOC events than to smaller trips. Seems similar to the current system, but with more paperwork + the year-end booze. Perhaps a simpler way to reward drivers at the year-end event could be devised? Sam Mason 12:22, 9 December 2009 (PST)
  • Yes, I propose this for the marquee club trips (Skaha, Longhike, Smith, Leavenworth, Intro to BC Skiing, etc). Booze up is optional, but seems pretty simple to organize to me. I think that a beer and a slap on the back is exactly the kind of reward system a student club should be looking at from a motivational perspective. NickC 12:22, 9 December 2009 (PST)

Big, Thorough Formula

Similar to the BCMC method.

  • Probably cumbersome and difficult to organize, but like the fixed schedule at least would make sure everyone knew what they were getting into. Sam Mason 12:22, 9 December 2009 (PST)
  • A complicated forumala could be used to calculate a fixed schedule on the wiki. That would make the forumla easy to apply since you just look up the destination in a table. Scott Nelson 12:44, 9 December 2009 (PST)
    • Proposal: Each passenger pays 5 cents/km of Highway driving, 8 cents/km for city streets, 8 cents/km for good gravel roads, 25cents/km for rough roads. All distances calculated starting from the SUB at UBC. Values to be pre calculated by a formula on the wiki and rounded up to the nearest $1. Example: Brew Hut (cat ski shed parking) 19km city streets 87km highway, 2km smooth gravel = $13. (6 cents/km overall) Scott Nelson 12:00, 14 December 2009 (PST)
      • I kinda dispute that the first 2 km of the Chance Ck FSR is smooth gravel. I think I could easily destroy my low clearance 2WD car on that if I wasn't careful. I guess what I'm saying is that what a 4WD driver probably considers to be a "smooth gravel road" causes WAY more damage and wear and tear on my car than pavement. So I guess I'd push "good gravel" price beyond "city streets" but I guess we need to average between cars and SUVs or something. Scott Webster 15:43, 14 December 2009 (PST)
        • Sure it has potholes, but what gravel road doesn't. No water bars or cross ditches. How many different road categories do you think are needed? SUVs will take less damage on gravel and rough roads (making them cheaper to operate than a small car on that section), but they cost more to drive on the highway segment. I don't think it's a good idea to make the definition of "rough" subject to what vehicle is being used because that defeats the goal of this excercise which is to create a predictable, fair system. Scott Nelson 16:52, 14 December 2009 (PST)

Other related ideas about payment or driver recruitment

Passenger Pre-Payment

Passengers would be responsible for paying their driver at the pre-trip meeting, and presumably would not get that money back if they bail.

  • This would complicate matters for those drivers who rarely come to campus anymore and don't attend pre-trip meetings. Maybe it could be considered standard practice unless the driver chooses to forego it? Sam Mason 12:22, 9 December 2009 (PST)
    • Money could be collected by the trip organizer. (NickC)
  • This could be a useful mechanism to prevent empty seats on trip. If a passenger does need to bail last-minute for whatever reason, if they've already paid then the only way to recover their money is for them to find somebody to take their spot. Sam Mason 12:22, 9 December 2009 (PST)

Per-Passenger Fees vs. Per Car Fees

Should a fee be set per car and then divided up amongst passengers, or should a per-passenger fee be set?

  • In the per-car case, if there are too few passengers in a car then they get the short end of the stick. In the per-passenger case, the driver might if they only have one passenger. However that second point could be viewed as incentive for drivers to take as many passengers as they can. Sam Mason 12:22, 9 December 2009 (PST)


Reserved Spots for Drivers on Trips

From Line:
I wonder if (as a trip organizer) it might be as simple as limiting the number of spots for people without cars, and leaving spots open for people willing to drive. This would make sense to have been doing all along, as that's often what really limits trips anyway

  • Although this has probably been the case to a certain extent already, it usually isn't explicit on a trip organization wiki that there are a few spots set aside to ensure enough drivers for the trip. One thing that should be considered is that this shouldn't turn into one list for people that own cars and one for those who don't; i.e. if a person signs up for a trip and they have a car, they are automatically on the driver's list. Sam Mason 12:22, 9 December 2009 (PST)
  • Would the driver who is skipping the waitlist be allowed to bring their spouse, significant other, dog, or parakeet along with them? Scott Webster 13:48, 9 December 2009 (PST)
    • I would think so. If not, you risk losing the driver. I know if it were me, and I was planning on going on the trip with my wife, I wouldn't go without her. This also raises the question of spouse (or co-owner of vehicle) being included in the number of passengers when the dividing up the gas fees. I have always included her, which means I come out a little behind.--Will 23:36, 15 December 2009 (PST)

A "Baggage Charge"

Those whose vehicles can and do accommodate a bunch of gear (i.e. pickup trucks) but not many passengers should be reimbursed somehow, since they are still providing a helpful service despite not having many passengers, and they are probably paying more to have a bigger vehicle.

  • As Mark mentioned at the top of the page. I think this idea applies reasonably well to cases in which a person and their gear travel in different vehicles, however in the case where you need to use up a seat for skis then I'd say it isn't the passengers' responsibility to cover the potential revenue of another passenger (assuming a price-per-passenger system; the point is sort of moot in a per-car pricing system). Sam Mason 20:01, 9 December 2009 (PST)
  • I think if your bag goes in someone else's vehicle, then you should pay a 1/3rd share to the driver of the baggage vehicle, and a 2/3rds share to the driver of the vehicle you rode in. Scott Nelson 09:51, 14 December 2009 (PST)

Parking and winter tire costs?

I assume the parking cost column is just for costs to park "at home" and not for going to work or other stuff like that? So in my case it's $0 because I park in a private driveway, similarly $0 if you park on the street. Also, for the tire cost, probably people should just average the per km cost between their summer and winter tires if the costs are actually that different. I would have guessed that owning winter tires doesn't really cost any more when averaged over a sufficiently long time period since you just split the wear between tires. Scott Webster 12:56, 12 December 2009 (PST)

Ya, I meant that column for parking at home. Extra parking, like going shopping or to work are totally different. This is for any mandatory minimum parking costs simply to own a car. I agree with the winter tire thing. If you have two sets of tires, they should last twice as long becuase you only use each set half the year.--Will 23:35, 15 December 2009 (PST)

Distances

City driving distances from Google maps:

  • SUB to taylor way 20km
  • SUB to Highway 1 East (Boundary Road & Granview highway) 18km