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 16
16 Table 4 To What Extent Is Ridesharing Included in Transit Service Planning? Response Count Percent Ridesharing and transit planners collaborate, but ridesharing 7 47 is not seen as a substitute for transit service. We weigh whether ridesharing can substitute for existing or 5 33 proposed transit service. Ridesharing and transit are separate sections of the agency and 3 20 seldom or never interface with transit service planning. Total responses 15 100 Funding of Ridesharing pare the number of carpools or vanpools in operation to a specific goal. For example, one agency reported that its Most transit agencies do not spend a significant amount of goal is 200 new registrations per year, whereas another's operating money on ridesharing. More than one-third (ten) goal is an average annual growth of 10%. Five respondents reported that they spend less than one percent of their current said they look at whether they have reached a particular operating budget on ridesharing (see Table 5). Several others environmental goal, such as the reduction in the number reported that they do not use any operating funds on rideshar- of vehicle-miles traveled or daily tons of nitrogen oxide. ing, depending instead on grants, rider fees, or other agencies Less than a third of the transit agencies (six) reported they to cover the cost. Some also use staff time toward ridesharing do not set a specific performance measure to evaluate their programs. The median number of person hours per week spent ridesharing programs. on ridesharing programs is 60, and the mean is 208 hours. Those who answered "Other" included responses such as Performance Measures successful matches, customer satisfaction, demand for ser- of Ridesharing Success vices, reduction in vehicle-miles traveled, and the amount of federal formula capital funds generated. Transit agencies use a wide variety of measures to evaluate the performance of their ridesharing programs (see Table 6). In addition to evaluating their programs, nearly all transit (See question 43 in Appendix A.) Eleven agencies com- 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.