National Academies Press: OpenBook

Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit (2012)

Chapter: Chapter Four - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Non-Transit Agencies

« Previous: Chapter Three - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Public Transit Agencies
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Non-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 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Non-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 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Non-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 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Non-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 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Non-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 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Non-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 24

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.

19 chapter four Survey reSultS: rideSharing Within non-tranSit agencieS Non-transit agencies often operate ridesharing programs, either in coordination with or independent of transit agen- cies. This chapter summarizes the survey results of non- transit agencies to determine how they interact and coordinate with transit agencies, what services they offer and why, and how they measure the success of their efforts. The most common measurement is the number of people subscribed to the ridesharing services. As with the public transit agen- cies, non-transit agencies consider filling service gaps to be an important reason for their involvement in ride- sharing programs. The chapter concludes by highlighting the challenges non-transit agencies face when they seek to coordinate their services with public transit. Two non-transit agency programs have also been highlighted with agency- specific profiles. Non-transit agencies include COGs, MPOs, state DOTs, and TMAs. Thirteen of the 41 total survey respondents iden- tified themselves as non-transit agencies (see Figure 6). A little more than half of the non-transit respondents (seven) reported that they operate the ridesharing program for their area, whereas 31% (four) noted that a transit agency oper- ates the program. More than 75% said they meet with public transit agencies to plan or coordinate services. The non-transit agencies serve a wide range of geographic areas, including single employment sites and entire states (see Figure 7). More than half said they serve regional areas, whereas almost one-quarter serve counties. Motivating FactorS Non-transit agencies cited many reasons they think ride- sharing and transit should work together. All but one non- transit respondent, for example, indicated that filling service gaps was an important reason. More than three-quarters of respondents reported that market demand from customers was important. One respondent added that it is important to “present all commute options to workers, so they can select the travel mode that best suits their needs.” Another said ridesharing forms a “dependable back-up solution in ‘emer- gency’ situations or unplanned events (e.g., transit strikes, bridge/highway closures, natural disasters, etc.).” Table 11 also shows additional reasons cited by non- transit agencies, including improved access to public transit, environmental concerns, and increased access to businesses and services. rideSharing ServiceS oFFered Non-transit agencies offer a variety of ridesharing services, including guaranteed ride home programs and subsidies and incentives to encourage ridesharing. The most common ser- vices, according to survey results, are carpool and vanpool matching and marketing to businesses. A full list of services is outlined in Table 12. It is worth noting that although non-transit agencies offer a range of services, only 38% (5 of 13) actually market their ridesharing services to transit riders. (In contrast, one-half of transit agency respondents reported they do so, as shown in chapter three.) The following is an example of a full-service ridesharing program sponsored by a MPO, the Metropolitan Transporta- tion Commission (MTC), in the San Francisco Bay Area. ProFile: MetroPolitan tranSPortation coMMiSSion leverageS rideSharing and tranSit in the San FranciSco Bay area MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financ- ing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Cre- ated by the state legislature in 1970, the agency is guided by a 19-member policy board comprised of 14 commissioners appointed by local elected officials, two regional agency rep- resentatives, and three nonvoting members representing state and federal agencies. Ridesharing is one of the services MTC manages through the San Francisco Bay Area’s 511 Traveler Information Pro- gram (see Figure 8). In addition to ridesharing, the program provides coordinated information about the public’s travel choices, including traffic, transit, and bicycling. The 511 Pro- gram is a partnership among MTC, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, many of the region’s transit and paratransit operators, county congestion management agencies, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The program provides traveler information to the public by means of the federally dedicated information phone number 511 and the website 511.org.

20 FIGURE 7 Geographic areas served by non-transit agencies. Since 1995, MTC has contracted to deliver regional ride- sharing services, including support for formation of carpools and vanpools, employer transportation consulting and out- reach, management of online ride-matching tools, market- ing, and some limited bicycling, airport, and incident-related parking information services. Starting in 2011, the ridesharing program will be renamed the 511 Regional Ridesharing and Bicycling Program, and it will include consolidated bicycling information services. MTC is working on a multi-modal trip planner that will extend the existing 511 transit trip planner to compare taking transit against the time, cost, and carbon emis- sions of driving to a transit stop or of driving the entire trip Through its Climate Initiative grant program, MTC has approved $1.5 million of federal funds for a dynamic ride- sharing pilot project in three Bay Area counties—Contra Costa, Marin, and Sonoma. The project, approved in Octo- ber 2010 for development, envisions contracting with one or more software vendors to connect a pre-selected group of drivers and riders through mobile phones. MTC intends to incorporate lessons learned from the pilot project into the ser- vices provided by the 511 Rideshare program and potentially offer real-time rideshare services regionally. According to the MTC survey respondent, “Since MTC is not a transit operator, 511 Rideshare usually assists transit agencies after a decision has been made to alter/eliminate a service. 511 Rideshare can help customers looking for commute alternatives, and often helps them with alternative transit services or with carpooling and vanpooling options.” The respondent also mentions that ridesharing has proven to be a solution in some emergency situations or unplanned events, such as transit strikes, major road closures, and natural disasters. incentiveS Many non-transit agencies offer incentives to encourage people to participate in their ridesharing programs. Accord- ing to survey results, the most common incentive is prizes (Figure 9). For example, one non-transit agency said it pro- vides gift cards for starting a vanpool, and it gives out small prizes such as tote bags for signing up for its ride-matching system. FIGURE 6 Locations of non-transit agencies surveyed.

21 FIGURE 8 SF Bay Area 511 Program Offers Rewards to Ridesharing Commuters. (Courtesy: Metropolitan Transportation Commission website.) TABle 11 WHy IS IT IMPORTANT FOR RIDeSHARING AND TRANSIT TO WORk TOGeTHeR? Responses Count Percent Service area gaps not filled by existing transit service 12 92 Market demand from our customers 10 77 Improved access to public transit routes, stations, or park-and-ride lots 10 77 Increased access to businesses and services with limited parking 9 69 Environmental concerns 8 62 Regulations 1 8 Meet mobility manager policy goals 1 8 Other 3 23 Total responses 13 100 Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers. TABle 12 DOeS THe RIDeSHARING PROGRAM INCluDe ANy OF THe FOllOWING COMPONeNTS? Responses Count Percent Provide carpool and vanpool matching 12 92 Market ridesharing to businesses 12 92 Provide guaranteed ride home 11 85 Form vanpool through a third-party provider 10 77 Provide incentives (e.g., loyalty programs, commuter checks, prizes, recognition) 10 77 Subsidize vanpool fares 8 62 Help establish vanpools with vehicles our agency owns or leases 6 46 Market ridesharing to transit riders 5 38 Provide parking for vanpools and carpools 4 31 Other 3 23 Total responses 13 100 Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers.

22 coordination and integration With tranSit agencieS Different agencies often plan, fund, market, or operate ride- sharing programs in a given service area. More than three- quarters (ten) of non-transit agencies reported that they meet with transit agencies to plan and/or coordinate ser- vices (Table 13). An even larger number (11) participate in regional events sponsored by other agencies or report the results of their efforts to other agencies. Comments gathered in the survey emphasize the collab- orative nature of planning, marketing and operations among different agencies: • “We have successfully integrated ridesharing and tran- sit based on our ability to provide information on All commuting options available to commuters.” • “We have an amazingly good relationship with our local transit agency—which is supportive to the point of including carpool/vanpool in its marketing and pro- viding fare subsidies to vanpool riders within its bound- aries. We greatly appreciate their partnership.” • “We coordinate the regional TDM program and coordi- nate with local jurisdictions, transit operator’s, DOT’s, and TMA’s.” The state of Washington has fostered strong relationships with transit agencies through legislation and funding, as shown in the following profile. ProFile: WaShington State leadS nation in vanPooling The state of Washington boasts the nation’s largest public van- pool fleet, thanks in part to legislation, support, and funding from the state. Today, there are 20 public transit agencies that operate vanpool programs across the state (WSDOT 2011). As of January 2011, there were a total of 2,498 traditional FIGURE 9 Incentives Offered by Non-Transit Agencies. TABle 13 HOW DO yOu COORDINATe WITH OTHeR eNTITIeS ReGARDING RIDeSHARING? Responses Count Percent We report the results of our ridesharing program to another entity. 11 85 We participate in activities sponsored by others, such as regional events and/or information tables at businesses. 11 85 We meet with public transit agencies in the area to plan and/or coordinate. 10 77 We attend rideshare meetings with other kinds of agencies to plan and/or coordinate. 10 77 Our coordination is limited to occasional feedback on documents or programs. 0 0 Not applicable 0 0 Other 2 15 Total responses 13 100 Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers.

23 vanpools in operation. In addition, there were 148 VanShares, vanpools that require a multimodal connection and have short trip lengths of no more than 10 miles one way. Washington’s leadership in vanpooling dates back more than 30 years. In 1979, the Washington State legislature enacted the Ridesharing Act, which, among other things, allowed the use of government vehicles for commuter ridesharing and defined vanpooling as a fixed group of up to 15 people commuting from home to work or school (Pawlowski and Maillet 1999). Subsequent legislation exempted vanpool vehicles from sales, use, and motor vehicles taxes (Washington State Ridesharing Organization 2002). Also in 1979, the city of Seattle created the first publicly operated vanpool service in the state (one of the first in the coun- try). Ten years later, the program was transferred to Metro Tran- sit and in 1994 it was incorporated in the Metro–king County merger. king County Metro began its VanShare program in 2001 to help employees travel from public transportation sta- tions, Washington State ferries and park-n-ride lots to their work site. (See profile of king County Metro in chapter three.) WSDOT got involved in vanpooling in the early 1980s by using money from a lawsuit settlement to stimulate the development of vanpool programs across the state (Conrick 2008). The Commute Trip Reduction law, adopted in 1991, further spurred the expansion of vanpooling. It required major employers in counties with more than 150,000 people to establish transportation demand management measures to reduce employee commuter trips (Washington State Ride- sharing Organization 2002; WSDOT 2011). For example, employees were instructed to offer options for decreasing single-occupant commuting, which could include provid- ing priority parking for vanpoolers and carpoolers (CTAA 2009). Tax credits have also been made available to major employers who participate in trip reduction programs and provide financial ridesharing incentives to their employees. In addition, employers are absolved from liability during their employees’ commute time. In 2003, the state legislature created a vanpool grant program to expand vanpooling in Washington. Roughly $30 million has been allocated to the program. Previously, these funds could only be used for “capital costs associated with putting new vans on the road and employer incentives to increase employee vanpool use” (WSDOT 2011). However in the 2009–2011 biennium, transit agencies, for the first time, were able to use grant funds to purchase replacement vans as well. Transit agencies must provide a 20% cash match for the cost of vans, and the state reimburses the remaining 80%. Allocations are based on a maximum cost of $26,000 per van. According to a WSDOT representative, this leveraging of local and state resources and the “community of vanpool operators who support each other” contributes to a partner- ship that makes vanpooling the success it is in Washington. PerForMance MeaSureS oF rideSharing SucceSS The most common metric used by non-transit agencies to deter- mine the value of their ridesharing programs is the number of people subscribed to the service (69% of respondents). The full range of performance metrics is outlined in the Table 14. challengeS Non-transit agencies reported that they face a variety of chal- lenges that inhibit the integration of ridesharing and transit. For example, five respondents said some consider rideshar- ing to be competitive with transit, whereas four noted that not all agencies consider ridesharing to be important to their mis- sion. Three non-transit agency respondents said customers do not easily accept ridesharing as a substitute for full transit service (Table 15). TABle 14 HOW DO yOu DeTeRMINe IF THe AMOuNT SPeNT ON RIDeSHARING IS WORTHWHIle? Responses Count Percent Through the number of people subscribed to/signed up for the ridesharing program 9 69 Through customer satisfaction surveys or other customer feedback 6 46 Through the number of successfully matched rides 6 46 Through environmental measurements, such as decreased carbon emissions 6 46 Through achievement of our goal to increase mobility in our service area 5 38 By closing a service gap 3 23 By avoiding the need to add another bus or train 2 15 Through adherence to regulations 1 8 Through cost savings to the agency 1 8 Other 2 15 Total responses 13 100 Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers.

24 TABle 15 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 5 42 Not everyone considers ridesharing im portant to our mi ssion 4 33 Custom ers do not easily accept ridesharing as a substitute for full transit service 3 25 Another agency provides ridesharing and/or transit services 1 8 Staff co mp etency does not include ridesharing 0 0 Staff co mp etency does not include transit expertise 0 0 Other 3 25 Total responses 12 100 Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers.

Next: Chapter Five - Survey Results: Marketing and Technology »
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!