Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit (2012)

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.

31 chapter six Survey reSultS: Public tranSit agencieS and caSual carPooling Casual carpooling, which is also known as “ad-hoc carpools” or “slugging,” is a form of carpooling where drivers and passengers meet without prior arrangement at a designated location. Casual carpools often form at transit stations where riders and drivers can take advantage of HOV lanes. Houston, San Francisco, and Northern Virginia/Washington D.C. have the most established programs among metropolitan areas in the United States. Casual carpooling was not common among survey respon- dents. More than two thirds (27 of 39) reported that there is no casual carpooling in their area (see Table 21). Of those who do have casual carpooling in their area, six agencies said they tolerate it but do not encourage it. Only four agencies noted that they support casual car- pooling in any way. Two agencies encourage casual carpooling by allowing pick-ups and drop-offs on their property. One pro- motes casual carpooling on its website as well as in its written materials. Another said, “We have cooperated with designating locations for slugging and ensure operational cooperation between our transit system and slugging participants.” Not all agencies and organizations, however, are in favor of casual carpooling. One survey respondent said, “Slugging uses precious parking capacity and generally reduces our rider ship and fare revenue.” Two others are concerned that transit park- ing lots may lose valuable parking spaces to casual carpool riders, who may leave their cars at the transit station for the day but do not contribute any fare revenue to the system. One respondent reported that casual carpoolers are prohibited from parking at its facility. Public transit agencies clearly have different views of casual carpooling. The profiles below highlight two agencies with contrasting views: BART prohibits casual carpooling on its property, and PRTC actively encourages the practice. The latter case highlights casual carpooling’s role in reduc- ing demand on transit services, as mentioned in the litera- ture by Beroldo (1990) in chapter two. Profile: bart and citieS Manage caSual carPooling Casual carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area provides a more comfortable and less expensive commute than taking public transit to jobs in San Francisco. However, it could not easily exist without transit for the ride home. In this way, public transit complements casual carpooling; however, at least one transit agency considers casual carpooling a detriment to its operations. BART began to experience problems caused by casual car- pooling during the agency’s heyday in the late 1980s. Casual carpoolers were parking in BART’s oversubscribed lots but only using the transit system one-way. When roundtrip riders were unable to find parking, BART installed machines inside the fare gates that required riders to enter their parking space number. Not paying a fare to access the parking machines could result in a parking ticket. At the same time, some cities set up loading zones for casual carpoolers on sidewalks near BART. These zones, which continue today, enable casual carpooling for the morn- ing commute without impinging on BART parking, while they allow the casual carpoolers to return by BART in the evening. However, a 2010 report by 511 Rideshare indicated that 35% of the casual carpoolers previously took BART before switching to casual carpooling, causing a loss of fare revenue. BART must also add more cars to its evening trains to accommodate the additional riders who carpooled in the morning. Although San Francisco has set aside loading zones for the evening commute, casual carpooling is less attractive for the return trip. Unlike the morning commute through the toll plaza, there is no designated carpool lane on the bridge between San Francisco and the East Bay and no reverse toll in the evening. Casual carpooling near BART occurs most often in cities that are near the middle of a trip, when the BART train is most often likely to be crowded with no or limited seating available. For example, the town of Orinda is seven stops from the beginning of the line and six to nine stops away from the downtown San Francisco stops. Consequently, Orinda attracted 101 casual carpools a day, totaling more than 300 riders, according to the 2010 511 Rideshare report. The Bay Area Toll Authority raised bridge tolls to $6 in peak periods and began charging all carpools a $2.50 toll in July 2010; carpools had previously been free. Riders and drivers involved in casual carpooling debated about whether or not they needed to pay the driver a share of the toll, and if so, how much (Kane 2010). One year later, by June 2011,

32 the number of vehicles in the carpool lane had decreased by 26% (L. Lee, Bay Area Toll Authority, Metropolitan Trans- portation Commission, personal communication, Sep. 1, 2011). Two studies conducted at the University of California at Berkeley in spring 2011 examined the impact of toll increases on casual carpooling and transit use. University researchers conducted focus groups of more than 100 current and former casual carpoolers. In addition, 400 responses were collected from surveys at casual carpool sites. Researchers found that about half of the loss of casual carpoolers was the result of changes in residential and employment locations and sta- tus rather than the toll. However, the toll definitely deterred some casual carpool drivers and riders, not only because of the cost itself but also because the injection of money into the social dynamics of offering or accepting a ride made them uncomfortable. Research results indicate that a $1 payment is now offered to drivers at most casual carpool sites, and $1.25 from greater distances. A few drivers stopped picking up riders because they were worried that collecting a fee would create insurance and liability issues. The toll did not affect more affluent drivers because they considered the savings in travel time in the carpool lane more important than a toll. Some drivers were no longer interested in offering rides because the faster travel time was reduced with toll collection (E. Deakin, University of California Transportation Center, personal com- munication, Aug. 29, 2011). Profile: Prtc SuPPortS caSual carPooling PRTC supports casual carpooling in the Washington, D.C./ Northern Virginia area, acknowledging the vital role it plays in the transportation system. There are more “slugs”— or casual carpools—in the region than there are transit riders who use PRTC’s express service, according to the public transit agency’s manager of planning and quality assurance. Those casual carpools take thousands of people into the core employment areas around the District of Columbia, commuters that PRTC could not accommodate as a result of capacity issues. There is also an integral connection between casual carpooling and transit in the DC area, as PRTC’s transit service is located near many slugging origins and destinations. PRTC thus supports and promotes casual carpooling in a variety of ways. One way is by disseminating information about casual carpooling on the transit agency’s website. Included is a link to www.slug-lines.com, which offers everything from tips on slugging etiquette to descriptions of where slug lines form in the morning and afternoon. PRTC also supplies information about casual carpooling to people who request it through the agency’s ride-matching request form. (The form specifically asks if people are interested in receiving this information.) Customer service agents in PRTC’s call center are also able to provide information on slugging to callers. In addition, PRTC assists casual carpoolers when changes are made to slugging locations. When the number of commuter parking spaces at a mall recently decreased from 1,000 to 275, for instance, the transit agency informed casual carpoolers of alternate lots they could use and provided the location of new slug lines, according to the transit agency’s manager of planning and quality assurance. The transit agency also suggests traffic patterns that might work best for given lots, and it has provided input on slug line placement in the District of Columbia. The District is planning to relocate slug lines from main thoroughfares onto adjacent streets, according to PRTC. PRTC has also advocated consideration of slug activity during the planning phases of new park-and-ride lots. TABLE 21 WHAT IS YOUR AgENCY’S PRACTICE REgARDINg CASUAL CARPOOLINg/SLUggINg? Response Count Percent There is no casual carpooling or slugging in our area 27 69 We tolerate the activities but do not encourage them 6 15 We encourage these activities by allowing pick up and drop off on our property 2 5 We encourage these activities through information on our website 2 5 We encourage these activities by installing signs to formally designate pick up and drop off points on our property 1 3 We encourage these activities by promoting them in our written materials and transit announcements 1 3 We prohibit these activities on our property 0 0 Other 8 21 Total Responses 39 100 Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers.