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.
