Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit
Summary Closing gaps in service and penetrating difficult to serve areas are the top reasons that public
transit agencies use ridesharing to complement their services. Despite these important reasons
for integrating ridesharing into transit services, only a modest number of public transit agencies
is involved in ridesharing. These are key conclusions from this synthesis, Ridesharing as a
Complement to Transit.
The purpose of the synthesis is to report the state of the practice as well as to assist transit
agencies and other entities in deciding how to enhance ridesharing and public transit coor-
dination. The review integrated three methods of collecting data. First, a review of relevant
literature was conducted. Second, an original web-based survey was sent to a sample of agencies
based on size and geography. The sample was gleaned from the literature search and knowledge
of the field by both the consultants and the technical panelists overseeing the study. Survey
results represent 28 public transit agencies and 13 nontransit agencies, for an 83.7% response
rate. Finally, brief agency profiles were developed based on interviews with survey respondents
or others identified in the literature search.
Although much has been written about ridesharing, the literature review produced only
a few documents discussing the linkage between public transit and ridesharing. Twenty-six
documents were reviewed, but most were not specifically about the nexus between the
two travel modes. As of July 2010, there were approximately 384 ride-matching programs
in the United States, with 32 of these programs operated by public transit agencies, according
to the literature review. This evidence supports the finding that, although ridesharing has been
a common travel mode for decades, it is still not well-integrated with public transit.
Despite the small percentage of public transit agencies that have embraced ridesharing,
the agency profiles tell a number of positive stories. Chapters three through six each contain
agency profiles that highlight successful or innovative approaches to the synthesis topic.
Agencies profiled are:
· Pace, Illinois--vanpool feeders from Metra train stations
· King County Metro Transit, Washington--ridesharing integrated into the transit agency's
services
· Des Moines Area Regional Transit Agency (DART), Iowa--vanpool miles used to
maximize transit revenue
· Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA), California--vanpools for farm
workers
· State of Washington--state legislation supporting ridesharing
· Metropolitan Transportation Commission, California--Metropolitan planning organi-
zation funding a nine-county ridesharing program
· Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT), Florida--communication through social media
· Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Avego Corporation--
dynamic ridesharing pilot program
· San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), California--controls on casual
carpooling
OCR for page 2
2
· Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC), Virginia--promotion
of casual carpooling.
Several innovations described in these agency profiles present opportunities for using
ridesharing as a complement to transit. These examples could be considered by other public
agencies as ways of expanding their markets and providing a robust menu of transportation
options to the communities they serve.
· Solving the "Last Mile": Pace, serving the suburbs of Chicago, and King County
Metro in Seattle have used feeder vanpools--vanpools limited to 10 miles between home
or work and the transit stop--to transport transit riders to their workplace, a problem
dubbed "the last mile." In the process, both agencies have found a new application for
well-used vanpool vehicles in their fleets.
· Maximizing Agency Revenue: DART receives $3 million annually from the FTA,
which awards funds for vanpool miles traveled in areas with a population of at least
200,000. The funds are used to replace aging vans, with the remainder converted into
operating funds for the agency's bus fleet.
· Creating Capacity through Slugging/Casual Carpools: PRTC in Virginia supports
casual carpooling, which arises spontaneously, because it helps address PRTC's capacity
constraints. Thousands of people irregularly (casually) carpool into the core employment
areas around the District of Columbia, commuters that PRTC could not accommodate on
its transit service.
· Leading through Legislation: The state of Washington has a 30-year history of legislative
and financial support for vanpooling, thanks to which 20 public transit agencies operate
vanpool programs across the state.
Other notable findings from the study include the following:
· The top two reasons why it is important for ridesharing and public transit to work
together are to bridge service area gaps not filled by existing transit, and to address
market demand from customers. Transit agencies indicated that they use ridesharing to
serve people in areas not dense enough to justify transit service. The primary ways that
customer feedback is incorporated into ridesharing programs are by e-mail surveys of
customers and by collecting customer comments to improve the program. Ten agencies
reported that their ridesharing program was created because of customer requests.
· Carpool/vanpool matching, marketing to businesses, and providing a guaranteed
ride home benefit are the top three components of both public transit and non-transit
ridesharing programs. Only those agencies that had some type of ridesharing program
were surveyed. Of the 41 respondents who checked components of their ridesharing
program, 36, or 88%, said that they provide carpool and vanpool matching. Although
approximately 78% of the respondents reported that they market to businesses, half of the
public transit agencies and fewer than half of the non-transit entities market ridesharing
to transit riders.
· Vanpooling is a key component of the ridesharing programs offered by both public transit
and non-transit agencies. Approximately half of the articles found in the literature review
are about vanpool programs. The literature search indicated that vanpooling is used
by rural transit agencies to extend their reach into areas of their service district with
sparse populations. Establishing vanpools and subsidizing vanpool fares had a high
frequency of response from survey participants reporting components of their ridesharing
programs.
· Most agencies use a variety of performance measures to determine whether the amount
spent on ridesharing is worthwhile; however, the majority considers ridesharing as part
of their mix of mobility services rather than using a cost-effectiveness metric separately
to evaluate the ridesharing program. More than one-third of the public transit agencies
reported spending less than one percent of their operating budget on ridesharing. The
OCR for page 3
3
most common performance measure used by both transit and non-transit agencies is the
number of individuals who sign up for the ridesharing program.
· Technology supports the integration of ridesharing and public transit on agency websites.
Twenty-seven of 37 respondents have a link to ride-matching on the agency's website.
About half indicated that their trip planner responds to a specific query by searching for
both ride-matching and transit options. Fifteen respondents also promote ridesharing and
transit on social media. However, using social media for ride-matching is not common,
although some agencies reported that they are in the process of developing these and
other technological tools, including smart phone applications.
· A high level of coordination exists between regional planning entities and agencies with
ridesharing programs. The majority of public transit and non-transit agencies attend
regional rideshare planning meetings. Other significant coordination activities include
participating in transportation events sponsored by regional agencies, information tables
at businesses, and reporting program results to another entity.
· Although no successful dynamic, or real-time, ridesharing program was operational
among those surveyed, there is substantial interest. Forty-five percent of 40 respondents
indicated they are interested in dynamic ridesharing, which is same-day or "on-the-fly"
ridesharing. WSDOT and the Avego Corporation implemented a pilot program in 2011,
and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has funded a future pilot program
in three San Francisco Bay Area counties. However, close to one-third of survey
respondents indicated that they do not see dynamic ridesharing as part of their mission.
Most public transit agencies do not consider the economic benefits of supporting vanpools
versus instituting more rail or bus commuter service. This finding is significant, given the
uncertain funding climate for public transit and the opportunity ridesharing could provide
for retaining levels of service. Only five public transit agencies indicated that they compare
the capital and operating costs of transit to the cost of a ridesharing program. Also, only
three transit agencies reported that they go the additional step of substituting ridesharing for
a transit route as a cost-saving measure. Examples of agencies that consider the economic
trade-offs between fixed routes and vanpool routes are KCAPTA, DART, and the Regional
Transportation District (RTD) in Denver. RTD subsidizes the regional vanpool program,
because RTD performs an annual analysis that shows the subsidy per boarding for its express
routes is substantially more than the vanpool subsidy. KCAPTA uses vanpools, at half the
per trip cost of fixed-route service, to transport farm workers with nontraditional hours.
As mentioned, DART's vanpool program actually increases the federal revenues available
to the public transit agency.
To understand why ridesharing as a complement to public transit--the topic of this
synthesis--is not more prevalent, the survey asked what challenges all respondents (transit
and non-transit) faced in integrating ridesharing with transit. Of the 35 who answered the
question, almost 46% responded that some consider ridesharing to be competition for transit
riders and resources. Almost as many, 40%, answered that not everyone considers ride
sharing important to the agency's mission. Close to 29% said that customers do not easily
accept ridesharing as a substitute for full transit service.
By its nature, a synthesis has a limited survey sample size. A good topic for future study
would be a more in-depth look at the challenges of integrating ridesharing and public transit.
Follow-up research could delve into the obstacles identified here and present a more robust
case for integrating ridesharing and transit. Findings from this synthesis suggest four major
areas of future study:
· Obstacles and opportunities for integration of ridesharing with public transit:
Before public transit agencies can be convinced that ridesharing presents them with
economic and operational opportunities, a more thorough examination of the challenges
is needed. Why is ridesharing considered competition and what opportunities can be
OCR for page 4
4
offered to counteract this perception? Research could explore in more detail the topics
listed previously--solving "the last mile," maximizing agency revenue, creating capacity
through slugging/casual carpools, and increasing legislative incentives. A toolkit could
be developed to outline how to take advantage of these opportunities. Through case
studies and cost comparisons, the toolkit could also address the economic benefits, such
as the lower subsidy required for vanpool programs, and could document how agencies
have used ridesharing in contingency planning for natural disasters and security crises.
· Emerging technologies for ridesharing and transit: Models for use of emerging tech-
nologies that support mobility management, such as real-time ride-matching, social net-
working sites, and programs accessed by means of mobile phones, could be documented
through further research into successful practices.
· Ridesharing and public transit parking management: Agencies are clearly searching
for answers to the competition for parking when ridesharing is promoted with transit and
would benefit from research that identified solutions.
· Better performance measures for evaluating the worth of ridesharing within a public
transit environment: When difficult economic decisions are being made, agencies might
benefit from a study providing the metrics for developing better performance measures for
evaluating ridesharing programs.
It is highly unlikely that transit can absorb the anticipated growth in vehicles that is
predicted over the next decade. Ridesharing needs to be given serious consideration as a
solution in partnership with public transit if congestion, pollution, and emissions are to
be tamed in the future.
