Judge workplace mobility by whether people can complete their working day. A useful service must connect the commute, trips to clients and other workplaces, arrival at the right entrance, and a workable return when plans change.
Completed desk synthesis and study design. Human research and field trials have not run.
Working research summary updated 22 October 2026. This page carries selected source corrections checked on 21 October; original evidence dates remain as listed. Instruments are blank templates and hypotheses remain untested. Actual participant studies, site appointments, ethics and consent arrangements, accessible-service effectiveness and relevant professional or legal review remain unfinished. This is a partial correction update; later research and methods evidence is still being reconciled.
Home or origin→Workplace door→Client or other work→Agreed final destination
Conceptual sequence. Required stops and return plans vary by person and day.
What this line studies
Establish a dedicated research line within the existing occupier perspective of Beyond the Curb. It supports the published practitioner volume and continuing tests of the decisions and instruments in the occupier toolkit. The present evidence supports research-informed guidance; it does not establish an effective workplace autonomous vehicle service.
The commissioning audience is the employer or tenant deciding how a workplace should be reached and used. The experience audience includes employees, visitors, contractors and people who do not or cannot use the proposed service. These groups can value the same service differently. A cheaper commute for one employee can create additional reception work, a more difficult accessible route, or a less useful public footway.
The main decision is which combination of transport, passenger facilities, policies and paid operating responsibilities best meets a defined population's needs. Compare ordinary transport and demand management, coordinated pickup, and a passenger mobility hub. A hub is a place to change modes, wait and obtain agreed help; an on-site vehicle fleet is not a prerequisite. Fleet-yard, depot power, depot fire and robotaxi-depot engineering remain outside this line.
This is a public desk-research summary and a proposed study. Formal program acceptance awaits a reviewer outside the producing Codex AI-agent lane. Practitioner usability and field effectiveness have not been established.
What the evidence contributes
Historical passenger-service evaluations, workforce travel research and published employer policies inform the questions below. They do not establish performance of a proposed workplace autonomous service.
Keep resource uptime, passenger legs, unique people and whole-day completion separate.
CASSI logs reported 85% of scheduled service hours operated. Its 825 trips were vehicle round trips, with 565 passenger count. These counts do not establish completed passenger travel chains.
Test eligibility, acceptance, payment and disclosure as distinct steps, without inferring local fulfilment.
Waymo describes employer commute/business uses and programme controls. Eligibility may depend on days, times and locations; payment profile selection and payer disclosure matter.
Define return eligibility, funding and fallback by arm. An employer policy documents an entitlement; the regional evaluation framework shows that participation, use, retention and travel-change attribution need separate evidence. Neither establishes local guaranteed return effectiveness.
UC Davis Health publishes a bounded emergency commute-return policy, with eligible reasons, redemption rules and an annual limit; business travel is excluded.
Obtain acceptance of paid work/property rights; absence of requested trips cannot validate accessible service.
The Pierce evaluation describes additional telephone-dispatch work and negotiated pay, and a separate curb/signage agreement. No wheelchair-accessible trips were requested.
Include conventional incentives and a credible comparison; do not attribute every observed change to a service.
Fair Value Commuting reported participant travel changes, but selection, self-report and comparison differences limit causality; financial sustainability remained inconclusive.
Include shift workers, carers and client travel in sampling and interviews.
Care-worker accounts identify childcare, late/early transport and between-client travel as constraints. The study does not estimate prevalence or a mobility-service effect.
Each proposed hypothesis has a contrary result and a decision consequence. All six studies are designed and unexecuted.
WMO-H01 · A defined sponsored service improves whole working-day completion compared with the best feasible conventional option.
Contrary result
The difference is smaller than the pre-agreed meaningful margin, or fallback burden/missed returns makes the comparison unfavorable.
Proposed test
Linked person-day and leg study with precommitted windows, concurrent or crossover comparison, and missingness sensitivity.
Decision consequence
Narrow eligible uses, change operating hours/fallback, or retain the conventional option.
Status
DESIGNED_NOT_RUN
WMO-H02 · The service broadens practical access across the defined workforce.
Contrary result
Gain is concentrated among already well-served participants, or excluded strata face worse completion, cost or access. Non-equivalent fallback on the frozen access, cost, hours or booking dimensions is contrary evidence even if accepted.
Proposed test
Population-to-use funnel and stratified completion/affordability outcomes, including nonusers and practical-assistance testing.
Decision consequence
Change coverage, eligibility, assistance, digital access or subsidy before expansion.
Status
DESIGNED_NOT_RUN
WMO-H03 · The service can operate with accepted, funded responsibilities and a viable recovery arrangement.
Contrary result
No party accepts critical work, cost/privacy disputes persist, or recovery cannot be delivered within the agreed boundary.
Proposed test
Signed responsibility schedule, walkthrough, task-time/cost log and disruptions exercised within safe pilot conditions.
Decision consequence
Do not begin or expand exposure until the operating model changes.
Status
DESIGNED_NOT_RUN
WMO-H04 · A passenger hub adds enough benefit over coordinated pickup and conventional interchange to justify its space and recurring cost.
Contrary result
Extra walking/waiting, staffing, rights or cost offsets the benefit, or simple coordination performs as well.
Proposed test
Same-population option comparison including route-to-door access, peak passenger demand and accepted assistance.
Decision consequence
Use the smaller reversible intervention or a different interchange pattern.
Status
DESIGNED_NOT_RUN
WMO-H05 · The chosen option meets its explicit resource/environmental objective within the defined system boundary.
Contrary result
Empty/rebound travel, mode substitution, energy or displaced facilities erase the benefit, or data cannot support the claim.
Proposed test
Measure actual displaced modes, occupied/empty distance, occupancy, energy and relevant facilities; report separate accounts.
Decision consequence
Withdraw the environmental claim, change service design, or select another option.
Status
DESIGNED_NOT_RUN
WMO-H06 · Real occupier and delivery teams make better documented decisions with the guide/toolkit than with current practice.
Contrary result
Unsupported commitments persist, error rates do not improve, or the tools increase burden without decision benefit.
Proposed test
Counterbalanced practitioner decision tasks scored blind against a frozen rubric; assess accuracy, bounded claims, actionability, time and dissent.
Decision consequence
Revise chapters/instruments before calling them practitioner-tested.
Status
DESIGNED_NOT_RUN
How to study a whole working day
Thinking about a new workplace travel service? Start with the people who would use it and follow their day from the first journey to the final destination. These steps can help your team plan a local trial.
Choose the decision you need to make. Are you trying to improve early-shift access, make client visits easier or provide a dependable way home? Agree what would count as a worthwhile improvement and compare the proposal with a realistic existing option, such as public transport, coordinated pickup or a change in travel policy.
Listen to people with different working days. Include shift workers, carers, disabled people and people who might not use the service. Ask what gets in the way today, what help they need and why a proposed option might not work for them. Check the route and assistance arrangements with the people concerned, including ways to book without an app.
Plan the whole day before it starts. Write down the places each participant needs to reach, arrival times, the correct entrances, any agreed assistance and an acceptable final destination. Include client visits and the return journey, not just the morning commute.
Agree who helps when plans change. Name the people responsible for booking support, arrival assistance and disrupted journeys. Confirm who pays, when help is available and what backup travel can actually be provided before the trial begins.
Record what actually happens. Note arrival times, missed stops, waiting, help provided, costs and any backup used. If a meeting runs late or plans change, keep the original plan and note when and why it changed. Keep difficult days in the record; mark an unknown result as unknown rather than assuming success or failure.
Review whether the whole day worked. Check whether each person reached every required destination and finished the day within the agreed times and practical needs. Count each day once. Show days completed with the intended service separately from those needing backup, and distinguish changed plans from service failures. Compare the options and look for people whose needs still were not met; explain missing results and how they could change the conclusion.
Use the findings to choose the next step. Discuss the experience with participants and the teams doing the work. Decide whether to change the service, try a smaller intervention, continue testing or keep the existing option. A small trial can reveal practical problems, but it cannot prove the service will work for every workplace. Get research advice before making broader claims or planning a larger study.
Before collecting information, agree participant consent, who can see the records and how long they will be kept. Avoid exact home locations and unnecessary health details, and do not publish small-group results that could identify someone. The blank study templates below are optional planning aids; this website does not collect travel diaries or employee information. These are proposed steps, not findings from a completed field trial.
The book and practical companion
The Occupier Experience is published in The Collection. The corrected working edition dated 22 October 2026 contains eight main chapters, a preface, a practical appendix and source and illustration notes. Read all eleven sections online or download the complete 58-page PDF through the verified reading library.
The volume follows workplace access, the whole working day and the responsibilities behind a mobility service. Documentary cases, invented teaching scenes and worked assumptions remain distinct. An independent AI manuscript review is complete. Human practitioner review is to follow publication and has not yet occurred. The PDF retains its production-proof label while printer specifications remain deferred.
Separate documentary cases, hypothetical scenes and prospective studies throughout. The current basis supports research-informed guidance; claims of proven workplace ROI, productivity, retention, accessibility performance, emissions benefits or a validated operating model require additional evidence. Human reader usability is also open. A clearly bounded practitioner book can precede a multi-site field study, provided its title, text and marketing preserve these limits.
The eight chapters and their further evidence needs
Chapter
Evidence already available
Next evidence and toolkit
Editorial limit
1 · The working day Whole chains and competing needs
Practical reader Ch 5; WMO-C01, C02, C11
Real chain evidence; A01-A03
Decision guidance; field outcomes open
2 · Workplace location and employee access Location, attendance, shifts and broad geography
Accepted recovery and observed outcomes; A06, A10; disabled-participant threshold/instrument work
No guarantee inferred from a label; accessible service effectiveness and equivalence remain gaps
7 · Who pays and who does the work Employment, lease, staffing, data and accountability
Reference Ch 9,10; WMO-C03, C05, C06
Accepted paid tasks, data review; A06, A07, A09
No labor-saving or compliance claim
8 · Measure what the service changes Demand, access, resources and decision gates
Reference Ch 18,19,24; WMO-C01, C07, C10
Field comparison/mode displacement; A02, A08, A10
No established ROI, retention or emissions gain
Ten companion artifacts cover the decision brief, demand research, journeys, passenger-space concept, touchpoints, operating responsibilities, policy and costs, capacity, options and pilot decisions. The booking demonstration and model inputs are fictional.
The existing book PDFs remain their own dated editions. This research update does not insert new evidence into them.
Study instruments
Download blank headers and definitions to plan a local study. The files contain no participant results. This page does not accept travel diaries or employee information. Local consent, sampling, data handling and operating arrangements are required before collection.
Waymo Help · Published Undated live page · Evidence Instructions checked 19 October 2026
Type and method
Documentary examination of eligibility, profile and payment instructions.
Locator
Add a business profile; Check if you are eligible for organization-sponsored rides; profile/payment and payer disclosure paragraphs
Denominator
No performance denominator.
Transfer limits
Eligibility varies by programme; full data-field/retention schedule and live fulfilment are not established. Linked privacy policy could not be retrieved.
Access
Help page read; linked services privacy policy unavailable.
UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies; Justin Darr · Published 2026 · Evidence October-November 2024
Type and method
Stratified random email sample, campus-role and gender weights.
Locator
Report summary; programme methodology paragraphs
Denominator
35,359 invited of 48,195 estimated population; 3,962 responses, approximately 11%.
Transfer limits
University population, self-report and nonresponse risk; no AV treatment or client/return-chain evaluation. Detailed mode-share numbers not checked in full report.
UC Davis Health · Published Undated live policy · Evidence Policy checked 19 October 2026
Type and method
Documentary policy comparison.
Locator
Guidelines; eligible/ineligible reasons; redemption process
Denominator
Five uses per year is a policy limit, not observed use.
Transfer limits
Commute emergency eligibility and reimbursement rules; business travel excluded. No evidence here of actual fulfilment or AV recovery. Published return eligibility is not an evaluation of guaranteed-ride-home effectiveness; evaluated outcomes remain a literature gap.
Spieser, Treleaven, Zhang, Frazzoli, Morton and Pavone; author-hosted Stanford copy · Published 2014 · Evidence Historical Singapore demand inputs and analytical study
Type and method
Distinguishes minimum workload stability from performance-driven sizing; models availability using a closed queueing network and includes empty repositioning in workload.
Locator
Sections 3.1–3.3, PDF pp 4–6; Sections 4–5, PDF pp 7–14
Denominator
Analytical city-scale demand model; no occupier trial participants.
Transfer limits
Does not validate BTC A08, its parameters, a workplace service level or whole-day completion. Numerical city results are not imported.
Access
Author PDF read for formulation and performance assumptions; no independent reproduction of calculations.
Vanoutrive et al.; European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research · Published 2010 · Evidence 2005 Belgian Home-to-Work Travel questionnaire
Type and method
Explores employer mobility-management measures using a worksite questionnaire.
Locator
Publisher abstract
Denominator
Publisher abstract identifies 7,460 worksites and 38 measures.
Transfer limits
Abstract examined; full methods/results not reviewed. Use to establish an existing employer-measures literature, not effect sizes, causality or a BTC intervention forecast.
Access
Publisher abstract read; full article not substantively reviewed in this correction.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Commuter Connections · Published 2025-05 · Evidence Prospective FY2024–FY2026 framework with prior-cycle examples
Type and method
Separates programme tracking from impact estimation; uses registrant records, user surveys and retention estimates for guaranteed ride home, and employee surveys for employer outreach.
Locator
Printed pp 21–24 (PDF pp 30–33); Table 1 printed p 35; Appendix E printed pp 66–69
Denominator
Programme-specific registrants, survey samples and modeled attribution; no BTC site outcomes.
Transfer limits
A regional evaluation design and example calculations, not proof a particular return promise will work. Eligibility, emergency/overtime scope, attribution and local workforce differ.
Access
Relevant GRH/Employer Outreach and data-source sections examined; latest 2025 GRH outcome report link returned internal error.
International Organization for Standardization · Published 2017-04 · Evidence Published edition confirmed 2022; revision underway as checked 21 October 2026
Type and method
Published scope covers FM sourcing processes, roles and responsibilities, and agreement models, including internal/external provision.
Locator
Official abstract and publication status
Denominator
Not an empirical study.
Transfer limits
Full normative text not read or purchased. No clause, conformance or legal claim. BTC task and cost allocation is an application to test rather than a newly established sourcing method.
Access
Official catalogue abstract/status read; full standard unavailable in this correction.
Participant needs can inform instrument questions; preferences and experiences do not validate any BTC layout, vehicle, access threshold or performance. Limited geography/selection and disability coverage.
Access
Publisher primary HTML relevant methods and limitations examined.
Heydarian, Whistler and Silverman; American Foundation for the Blind · Published 2026-06 · Evidence Survey 1 July–15 October 2025
Type and method
Online survey with an AV-experience subsample; reports experiences and attitudes across disability groups.
Locator
Description of Participants; AV Rider Experiences; Accessibility for People with Physical Disabilities
Denominator
1,735 survey respondents; AV subsample 165 (94 disabled, 71 nondisabled); only nine AV riders reported physical disability.
Transfer limits
Selected rider exposure and self-report, mixed brands and automation interpretations; cannot estimate all disabled employees, local service reliability or completed workdays. Nonriders and excluded travellers require separate evidence.
Access
Primary HTML relevant methods, AV subsample and limitations read; no source image reused.
Neutens, Witlox and Demaeyer; European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research · Published 2007-09-01 · Evidence Review of established time-geographic research
Type and method
Reviews time geography, space-time accessibility measures and activity patterns.
Locator
Abstract, DOI 10.18757/ejtir.2007.7.4.3403
Denominator
Not a BTC empirical study.
Transfer limits
Abstract only; full activity/tour and trip-chaining comparison remains open. Used only to identify an existing conceptual lineage, not claim an original whole-day concept or adopt an estimator.
Access
Publisher abstract read; PDF wrapper did not expose substantive full text.
Checked 2026-10-21
No sources match. Clear the search to see all sources.
Production and proposed study status
AI agents using Codex, OpenAI’s AI system, researched, source-checked and drafted this material under the direction of James C. Waddell, who is responsible for the content for Cognitive Corp. Separate AI checks have their recorded scope; they do not establish human practitioner acceptance, field effectiveness or institutional independence. Formal program acceptance remains subject to the recorded reviewer and James decision. The inspected desk-cycle record reports no participant recruitment or field trial; it does not establish every possible human or external review outcome. James C. Waddell confirmed on 21 October 2026 that Cognitive Corp funds the research and that the program is partnered with Verum Consulting. This does not establish Verum funding, endorsement or coauthorship, or the absence of other interests. The provider-example selection rationale and any additional relevant interests remain to be documented. These selected source corrections were recorded on 21 October. Formal program acceptance, professional review and field validation remain open.
M01 and M02 use the original planned person-day denominator; report M06 alongside them. Local appointments, thresholds and approvals remain unfilled; no participant outcomes are supplied. The confirmed-completion fraction is a lower bound where outcomes are missing; report missingness and predeclared sensitivities.