National Academies Press: OpenBook

Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit (2012)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Public Transit Agencies

« Previous: Chapter Two - Literature Review
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Public Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14655.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Public Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14655.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Public Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14655.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Public Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14655.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Public Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14655.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Public Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14655.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Public Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14655.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Public Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14655.
×
Page 18

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

11 chapter three Survey reSultS: rideSharing Within Public tranSit agencieS This chapter provides insight into the various ways in which public transit agencies have incorporated ridesharing into their transportation services. It specifically presents the sur- vey results from 28 transit agencies across the country. For example, it shows that the most common ridesharing services provided by the transit agencies are carpool and vanpool matching and guaranteed ride home programs. This chapter also analyzes survey results related to other issues, including the motivation for providing ridesharing services, the evalu- ation of those services, and the amount of money spent on ridesharing programs. In reporting the challenges to integrat- ing transit and ridesharing, more than 40% of respondents indicated that ridesharing within their agency is considered a threat or not part of its mission. The public transit agencies surveyed for this synthesis vary in size and area coverage. Seventeen agencies serve regions, nine serve single counties, and two serve entire states (Figure 1). Some of the agencies’ ridesharing programs have been highlighted in case studies. Appendix A contains the survey questionnaire and the responses for each question. rideSharing ServiceS Offered by tranSit agencieS Transit agencies greatly differ in the ridesharing services that they offer and the way in which those services are provided. Half of the transit agencies surveyed (14) indicated that they operate their ridesharing program in house. Five others said that their program is operated by an MPO/COG, TMA, or DOT. Only two transit agencies reported that they contracted out their program to another organization. However the programs are provided, carpool and vanpool matching is one of the most common ridesharing services offered by transit agencies. Nearly all of the agencies sur- veyed (24) reported that they provide this matching service. The other widely popular ridesharing feature is a guaranteed ride home program, which is also offered by almost all transit agencies surveyed (24). Another prevalent component of ridesharing services is marketing. Most transit agencies market their ridesharing programs to businesses, as shown in Table 1; half directly target their marketing to transit riders. Other common ride- sharing services provided by transit agencies include parking for vanpools and carpools, assistance with forming vanpools, and subsidies for vanpool fares. Incentives are an important tool to encourage rideshar- ing. Of the 13 transit agencies responding, more than half said that they use prizes such as gift cards to encourage ride- sharing. Nearly 40% use recognition in print or web publi- cations. Direct cash subsidies, loyalty programs, commuter checks, and transit vouchers are offered by almost one-third of respondents. Those who responded “Other” also listed annual lunches, HOV lane access, and incentives funded by private sponsors (see Figure 2). In providing a robust ridesharing program, the agency that “does it all” is King County Metro in Seattle, profiled next. PrOfile: King cOunty MetrO tranSit in Seattle integrateS rideSharing intO agency King County Metro Transit is a public transit agency with a multi-faceted ridesharing program in King County, Wash- ington. A division of the King County DOT, Metro Transit, as the agency is called, operates the largest publicly owned commuter van program in the country. The city of Seattle, which created the first publicly operated vanpool service in the state in 1979, transferred the program to Metro Transit in the 1980s. It has grown from 130 vans in 1984 to more than 1,150 commuter vans in 2011 (Enoch 2003). The commuter van program complements Metro Tran- sit’s fixed-route bus service, according to the agency’s Ride- share operations supervisor. Unlike Metro Transit buses that primarily serve King County, commuter vans travel all over the Puget Sound region; however, their origin or destination must be within King County. In addition, the formation of vanpools is driven by consumer choice, with no restrictions regarding whether or not a bus is also available. Metro Transit’s commuter van program has two compo- nents, VanPool and VanShare. The VanPool program provides vans, maintenance, support services, fuel, and insurance to groups of 5 to 15 people who travel together (see Figure 3). All riders, except the volunteer driver, pay a monthly fee based on the number of vanpoolers, the size of the van, and the roundtrip mileage of the commute.

12 VanShare provides vans to commuters to cover the distance—up to 10 miles one way—between a public trans- portation terminal and a workplace or between home and a public transit connection. Launched in 2001, the VanShare program was modeled after a similar service operated by Pace in Illinois. Van Share serves multiple functions: it provides commuters a link to their worksite instead of using their own personal vehicle; extends the functional life of a vanpool vehicle by continuing its use for short trips; and reduces the need for parking at transit-served stations. Ridership for the VanPool and VanShare programs topped 2.8 million passenger trips in 2010, down from 3.18 million trips in 2009 owing to the recession (King County DOT 2011). More than 5,600 vehicles have been eliminated from the roads as a result of Metro Transit’s commuter vans (King County DOT 2011). Metro Transit also helps form carpools and vanpools through a regional ride match system. The system allows riders to find other commuters through an online system, www.Rideshareonline.com, which is a partnership between King County and the Washington, Oregon, and Idaho state DOTs. Alternatively, riders can fill out a rideshare applica- tion and receive a list of people who live in their neighbor- hood or have similar commuting needs (King County Metro Transit 2011). There are more than 11,000 active names in the regional ride match system. Other ridesharing options include a custom bus program, whereby schools and employers contract with King County for express bus routes to areas not previously well served by fixed-route transit (King County Department of Transportation, Metro Tran- sit Rideshare Operations 2011). With its consumer-oriented approach, Metro Transit has integrated ridesharing into its menu of services. FIGURE 1 Locations of transit agencies surveyed. TAbLE 1 DOES THE RIDESHARING PROGRAM INCLUDE ANy OF THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS? Response Count Percent Provide carpool and vanpool matching 24 86 Provide guaranteed ride home 24 86 Market ridesharing to businesses 20 71 Help establish vanpools with vehicles our agency owns or leases 18 64 Market ridesharing to transit riders 14 50 Subsidize vanpool fares 13 46 Form vanpool through a third-party provider 12 43 Provide parking for vanpools and carpools 12 43 Provide incentives (e.g., loyalty programs, commuter checks, prizes, recognition) Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers. 11 39 Other 4 14 Total responses 28 100

13 There are many different reasons why public transit agen- cies think ridesharing and transit should work together. Accord- ing to survey results, common reasons include market demand from customers, environmental concerns, and improved access to public transit routes and stations (see Table 2). Although regulations were not a major motivating factor, they were, none- theless, a reason for transit agencies to offer ridesharing as part of their services. In a follow-up question, roughly one-quarter of the transit agency respondents reported that regulations are a factor, and state regulations (6 of 7) are the most com- mon type (Figure 4). by and large, however, the most common reason for transit and ridesharing to work together—one cited by all transit agencies—is to fill gaps in service areas not covered by existing transit service. This reflects the viewpoint that FIGURE 2 Ridesharing incentives offered by transit agencies. If you indicated above that the rideshare program provides incentives, please check all incentive programs that you provide (n = 13). FIGURE 3 King County Metro seven-passenger vanpool. (Courtesy: King County Metro.) TAbLE 2 WHy IS IT IMPORTANT FOR RIDESHARING AND TRANSIT TO WORK TOGETHER? Responses Count Percent Service area gaps not filled by existing transit service 28 100 Market demand from our customers 24 8 Environmental concerns 20 71 Improved access to public transit routes, stations, or park-and-ride lots 20 71 Increased access to businesses and services with limited parking 15 54 Meet mobility manager policy goals 8 29 Regulations 3 11 Other Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers. 3 11 Total Responses 28 100

14 ride sharing supplements traditional transit service. One agency added to this point, saying, “Transit doesn’t meet every possible travel need. Nor does ridesharing.” One example of a program that fills a service gap is the Agricultural Industries Transportation Services (AITS) pro- gram, which transports farm workers who have nontraditional work hours (Figure 5). The program, operated by the Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA) in central California, is profiled here. PrOfile: KingS cOunty area Public tranSit agency vanPOOlS Serve farMWOrKerS KCAPTA, based in Hanford, California, operates a com- prehensive vanpool program as part of its transportation services. Launched in 2001, the vanpool program has roughly 350 vanpools serving 14 counties. Work sites include cor- rectional facilities, schools and colleges, and a military base. Roughly 110 to 160 of the vanpools take agricultural workers to work through KCAPTA’s AITS program, operated with the participation of eight COGs. That program was developed in response to a van accident in 1999 that killed 13 farm work- ers (Wasserman 1999). During the late 1990s, vans were unregulated and unsafe. Vans were aging and poorly maintained, drivers did not have licenses, and vans were often modified so that many passen- gers did not have seatbelts. Since then, California has passed a law that requires factory-installed seat belts and annual inspections, which has helped to increase vanpool safety. KCAPTA’s eight- and 15-passenger vans, which are leased on a monthly basis, are also routinely inspected and serviced. They are equipped with a global positioning system, first aid kits, fire extinguishers and other safety items (KCAPTA 2010). Each van is covered by a $10 million insurance policy, and all routine maintenance is done on site, with spare vans being provided as needed. Vanpool drivers must have a Class C license, pass a physical exam, and provide proof of a clean driving record. They are also responsible for collecting monthly fees from riders and forwarding the payments to KCAPTA. For KCAPTA, vanpools overcome limitations in the agency’s fixed-route bus service by accommodating nontra- ditional work or school schedules, including flexible work weeks. For example, there are 13 vanpools that take workers from the small city of Avenal to agricultural work sites in the surrounding area. The workers travel at nontraditional work hours, and their work weeks can vary depending on the weather. The bus service that travels to Avenal three times a day cannot meet their transportation needs. FIGURE 4 Types of regulations that are motivating factors for including ridesharing in the mix of transit options. (If you indicated above that regulations are motivating factors, please specify the type of regulations below.) (n = 7.) FIGURE 5 KCAPTA’s agricultural vanpools fill a gap. (Courtesy: Kings County Area Public Transit Agency.)

15 In addition to providing greater flexibility, KCAPTA’s vanpool program is more cost-effective than its bus service. Specifically, the cost per trip of a van is $2.19, which is almost half that of a bus ($4.10). Several factors lower the cost of van pooling, including the fact that vanpool drivers are volunteers. In addition, vanpool riders pay a monthly fee— based on the size of the van, number of riders, and distance traveled—that covers the cost of maintaining, insuring, and replacing the vans. In contrast, only 16% of the operational costs of KCAPTA’s buses are covered by passenger fees. KCAPTA also applies for subsidies and vouchers on behalf of vanpoolers to lower their costs. For example, the agency has received money generated through a voter- approved sales tax increase to start new vanpools in Fresno County. Typically, KCAPTA receives roughly five dif- ferent types of subsidies a year that new riders can use to reduce their monthly cost. These subsidies normally last for one year, after which time the rider pays the full cost. State employees who participate in vanpools can also receive up to $65 a month; the subsidy is up to $230 a month for federal employees. With all of the subsidies and vouchers, out-of-pockets costs for vanpoolers usually range from $27 to $174 a month. This year, KCAPTA is forming a new authority called CalVans—which stands for California Vanpool Authority— to take over its vanpool program. The new authority’s board will consist of representatives from each of the eight COGs that currently participate in KCAPTA’s vanpool program. The board will grow as new COGs join the program. How- ever, operations of the vanpool program are not expected to change. CalVans will help ensure that the vanpool program continues to exist even if some COGs—or KCAPTA—decide not to participate in the future. Table 3 shows that 12 transit agencies reported they specifi- cally use ridesharing to serve customers who live in areas that are not dense enough to justify transit service. Three agencies, on the other hand, reported that they substitute ridesharing for transit routes to save money. Among the recognized service gaps that ridesharing can fill is the “last-mile” barrier to transit use. The following pro- file demonstrates how transit agencies can use ridesharing to support their main-line transit services. PrOfile: Pace cOverS the “laSt Mile” With Metra feederS The “last mile” issue is an ongoing problem for transit agen- cies trying to increase ridership. Potential riders say they would take transit, but they do not have a way to get to or from their ultimate destination after they get off the bus or train. Instead, they drive the entire trip. Pace, the suburban bus operator for six counties surround- ing Chicago, Illinois, has addressed this issue with its Vanpool Incentive Program (VIP). Its Metra Feeder vans are parked at the work end of a train trip, so riders getting off the train can use the van to complete their commute to various companies located in the same geographic area. Although there is no fare integration with the Metra commuter trains, Metra Feeder participants pay less than those in a traditional Pace vanpool. The flat rate of $58 a month makes the total train-plus-vanpool trip affordable. Drivers ride for free, and backup drivers receive a $10 per month discount. Participants are eligible for up to $125 a year worth of guaranteed ride home services. With approximately 300 vanpools, Pace has one of the largest vanpool programs in the country, delivering about one million rides in 2009. Although the Metra Feeder program comprises a small percentage at 13 vanpools, it is considered an important part of the family of services that Pace provides in its role as a mobility manager. rideSharing in the Planning PrOceSS Some transit agencies consider ridesharing when planning their transit service. As shown in Table 4, seven agencies said ride- sharing and transit planners collaborate, although ridesharing is not viewed as a transit substitute. One transit agency respon- dent said its ridesharing program largely functions as a com- muter information service: “Tracking requests for information by origin and destination can, to some extent, assist with iden- tifying emerging and/or underserved markets.” In some cases, agencies contemplate whether ridesharing can take the place of a transit route, whether existing or planned. TAbLE 3 IF yOU INDICATED AbOVE THAT RIDESHARING FILLS A SERVICE GAP OR AVOIDS ADDING ANOTHER bUS OR TRAIN, PLEASE TELL US HOW Responses Count Percent We use ridesharing to serve people who live in an area not dense enough to justify transit service. 12 92 We use ridesharing to pilot a route as a test for potential ridership on transit. 4 31 We substitute ridesharing for a transit route as a cost-saving measure. 3 23 Other 5 38 Total responses 13 100 Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers.

16 funding Of rideSharing Most transit agencies do not spend a significant amount of operating money on ridesharing. More than one-third (ten) reported that they spend less than one percent of their current operating budget on ridesharing (see Table 5). Several others reported that they do not use any operating funds on rideshar- ing, depending instead on grants, rider fees, or other agencies to cover the cost. Some also use staff time toward ridesharing programs. The median number of person hours per week spent on ridesharing programs is 60, and the mean is 208 hours. PerfOrMance MeaSureS Of rideSharing SucceSS Transit agencies use a wide variety of measures to evaluate the performance of their ridesharing programs (see Table 6). (See question 43 in Appendix A.) Eleven agencies com- pare the number of carpools or vanpools in operation to a specific goal. For example, one agency reported that its goal is 200 new registrations per year, whereas another’s goal is an average annual growth of 10%. Five respondents said they look at whether they have reached a particular environmental goal, such as the reduction in the number of vehicle-miles traveled or daily tons of nitrogen oxide. Less than a third of the transit agencies (six) reported they do not set a specific performance measure to evaluate their ridesharing programs. Those who answered “Other” included responses such as successful matches, customer satisfaction, demand for ser- vices, reduction in vehicle-miles traveled, and the amount of federal formula capital funds generated. In addition to evaluating their programs, nearly all transit agencies reported that they try to determine if the amount spent TAbLE 5 WHAT AMOUNT OF yOUR AGENCy’S CURRENT OPERATING bUDGET IS DEVOTED TO RIDESHARING? Response Count Percent Under 1% 10 38 Between 1% and 4% 3 11 Between 4% and 7% 2 8 Between 7% and 10% 0 0 10% or more 0 0 Not applicable: We do not use operating funds for ridesharing 7 27 Do not know 4 15 Total Responses 26 100 TAbLE 6 WHAT SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE MEASURES, IF ANy, DO yOU USE TO EVALUATE THE RIDESHARING PROGRAM? Response Count Percent Number of carpools and/or vanpools measured against a goal 11 44 Number of participants measured against a goal 9 36 We do not set specific performance measures for the ridesharing program 6 24 Environmental goals reached, such as decreased carbon emissions 5 20 Increased miles or percent of service area covered because of ridesharing program 4 16 Number of residents and businesses included 2 8 Avoided cost of transit service not required because of ridesharing program 1 4 Other 8 32 Total Responses 25 100 Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers. TAbLE 4 TO WHAT ExTENT IS RIDESHARING INCLUDED IN TRANSIT SERVICE PLANNING? Response Count Percent Ridesharing and transit planners collaborate, but ridesharing is not seen as a substitute for transit service. 7 47 We weigh whether ridesharing can substitute for existing or proposed transit service. 5 33 Ridesharing and transit are separate sections of the agency and seldom or never interface with transit service planning. 3 20 Total responses 15 100

17 on ridesharing is worthwhile (see Table 7). Agencies use a range of factors from customer satisfaction surveys (11 responses) to environmental measures (10), to accomplish this. Accord- ing to survey results, the most common way (17) is to look at the number of people who have subscribed to the rideshar- ing program. One agency, for example, examines whether it is “maintaining and increasing the number of vans operating with a sustainable number of riders (70% full approximately).” Of those who answered “Other,” one said that the agency is discontinuing the program after determining it is not worth- while and another said evaluation was discontinued because funding for the annual marketing survey was removed. A third agency implied that no evaluation was done because the agency does not spend any money on ridesharing. cOSt-benefit cOMPariSOn Of rideSharing and tranSit ServiceS As mentioned earlier, many transit agencies see ridesharing as a supplement to, but not a substitute for, traditional transit service. In other words, ridesharing is considered part of an agency’s range of mobility services. The majority of tran- sit agencies surveyed (17) said this is why they do not try to prove that ridesharing is cost-effective compared with a transit route (see Table 8). Five agencies, however, reported that they compare the two transportation modes by looking at operating and capital costs. This profile of DART illustrates how one agency uses vanpooling as a conscious strategy in its cost-effectiveness calculation. PrOfile: deS MOineS area regiOnal tranSit agency (dart) caPtureS vanPOOl MileS tO MaxiMize revenue DART’s vanpool program in Des Moines, Iowa, is valued not only for its contribution to mobility but also for its ability to maximize revenues for the transit agency. DART gener- ates nearly $3 million in annual FTA Section 5307 formula funds by reporting the mileage of its 103 vanpools. (See inset for explanation of Section 5307.) It uses $400,000 to $600,000 of that amount to replace aging vans each year. The rest is converted from capital to operating funds to cover needs such as maintenance of its 155-vehicle bus fleet. The vanpool program, which started in 1996, primarily serves commuters from outside DART’s service area of Polk County. Vanpools can travel from 30 to 90 miles away to the 80,000 jobs in the state capitol of Des Moines. because the Section 5307 formula awards DART a grant of $3.17 TAbLE 8 HOW DO yOU PROVE THAT RIDESHARING IS COST-EFFECTIVE COMPARED TO A TRANSIT ROUTE? Response Count Percent We do not attempt to prove it is cost-effective, because it is considered part of our mix of mobility services 17 68 By comparing the operating and capital cost of transit versus the cost of a ridesharing program (e.g., cost per hour and subsidy per hour) 5 20 With ridership measurements, actual or projected, for a transit route (e.g., riders per hour) 4 16 Other 6 24 Total Responses 25 100 Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers. TAbLE 7 HOW DO yOU DETERMINE IF THE AMOUNT SPENT ON RIDESHARING IS WORTHWHILE? Response Count Percent Through the number of people subscribed to/signed up for the ridesharing program 17 63 Through the number of successfully matched rides 13 48 Through achievement of our goal to increase mobility in our service area 12 44 Through customer satisfaction surveys or other customer feedback 11 41 Through environmental measurements, such as decreased carbon emissions 10 37 By closing a service gap 10 37 By avoiding the need to add another bus or train 2 7 Through adherence to regulations 1 4 Through cost savings to the agency 0 0 Other 9 33 Total Responses 27 100 Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers.

18 per mile for vehicle-miles traveled, the vanpool program is a conscious strategy to increase revenues for DART. Initially vanpoolers were required to pay 100% of the cost of operating the van. They also received an identification card entitling them to ride frees on all DART buses. However, with vanpool expenses rising, particularly because of fuel costs, DART acted to prevent the loss of vanpools by stabilizing fare increases. The DART board recently changed its policy when setting vanpool fares by crediting the federal funds that the vanpools generate for a reduction in the fare. Although the vanpool program is low-cost compared with fixed-route service, it has a high value to DART’s overall revenues. FTA Section 5307 The FTA Urbanized Area Formula Funding Program, or Section 5307, is a grant program that provides capital, operating and planning assistance for mass transportation in urbanized areas. For areas with 50,000 to 199,999 people, funds are allocated using a formula based on population and population density. Additional factors such as bus passenger miles and fixed guideway revenue vehicle miles are factored into the formula for areas with at least 200,000 people. Vanpool miles may be included in this calculation. cOOrdinatiOn With regiOnal entitieS Ridesharing services are often funded, planned, operated, or marketed by different agencies or groups. In particular, regional planning agencies and COGs tend to be involved in ridesharing programs; nearly all transit agencies surveyed reported that they coordinate with regional entities. Close to two-thirds of the agencies (17) said they attend regional meetings to plan ridesharing, and nearly half (13) said they participate in activities sponsored by the regional entity (see Table 9). challengeS Some transit agencies are ambivalent about integrating ride- sharing with transit. Nearly half of respondents noted that they think some people in their transit agency consider ride- sharing a threat (48%); 43% do not think it is important to their mission (see Table 10). Transit agencies cited several other challenges. For example, some said transit customers do not easily accept ridesharing as a substitute for full transit service (30%) and staff competency does not include ridesharing (13%). TAbLE 10 WHAT CHALLENGES HAVE yOU FACED INTEGRATING RIDESHARING AS A COMPLEMENT TO TRANSIT? Responses Count Percent Some consider ridesharing as competition for transit riders and resources. 11 48 Not everyone considers ridesharing important to our mission. 10 43 Customers do not easily accept ridesharing as a substitute for full transit service. 7 30 Staff competency does not include ridesharing. 3 13 Another agency provides ridesharing and/or transit services. 3 13 Staff competency does not include transit expertise. 1 4 Other (please specify) 7 30 Total responses 23 100 Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers. TAbLE 9 HOW DO yOU COORDINATE WITH OTHER ENTITIES REGARDING RIDESHARING? Response Count Percent We attend regional rideshare meetings to plan and/or coordinate. 17 61 We participate in activities sponsored by the regional entity, such as regional events and/or information tables at businesses. 13 46 We report the results of our ridesharing program to the regional entity. 11 39 The regional entity runs a complementary ridesharing program in our area. 8 29 We run the ridesharing program for our agency, and a regional entity representative sits on our board. 3 11 Our coordination is limited to occasional feedback on documents or programs 3 11 Not applicable 1 4 Other 9 32 Total Responses 28 100 Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers.

Next: Chapter Four - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Non-Transit Agencies »
Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 98: Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit explores current practices in using ridesharing to complement public transit and highlights ways to potentially enhance ridesharing and public transit.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!