National Academies Press: OpenBook

Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit (2012)

Chapter: Chapter Two - Literature Review

« Previous: Chapter One - Introduction
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Literature Review." 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 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Literature Review." 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 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Literature Review." 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 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Literature Review." 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 10

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.

7 chapter two Literature review introduction This chapter summarizes the relevant findings of literature on the integration of ridesharing with transit. The sources in this literature review were identified through a search of the TRIS database, online resources, and references in publications. Twenty-six documents were reviewed, the majority of which were published between 1999 and 2011, although some date to the 1970s. Ridesharing programs in public transit agencies are not widespread. Perhaps because of this, there is limited research focusing on the integration of ridesharing and transit. The existing research primarily includes case studies of specific programs run by transit agencies. Roughly half of the arti- cles reviewed herein are about vanpool programs, including those operated by transit agencies, where a key purpose is to increase penetration into areas where bus service is not realistic. Some research has indicated that using vanpools instead of express buses can reduce operating costs. Other studies examine ridesharing incentives or ride-matching ser- vices provided by transit agencies. There has also been research on casual carpooling (carpooling without pre-arrangement) and dynamic, or real-time, ridesharing in specific cities, but the focus has not largely been on the nexus between transit and ridesharing. PubLic transit agencies with ridesharing Programs Although government-sponsored ridesharing projects have been around since the 1970s, ridesharing is not well integrated into public transit agencies. “Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future” (Chan and Shaheen 2011) reported that currently there are approximately 384 ride-matching programs in the United States. When contacted, the authors consulted their database and found as of July 2010, 32 of the 384 were operated by U.S. public transit agencies. To be counted in the 32 agencies, the transit agency showed direct support to both transit services and carpool/vanpool services on its website. Seven of the 32 offer carpool services, 12 offer vanpool services, and 13 offer both carpool and vanpool services. The paper, quoting unpublished data, also noted that there are seven times as many U.S. passenger miles for commute trips by carpool and vanpool as there are for public transit. Although ridesharing has increased slightly in recent years to around 10.7% of mode share, it has declined since 1970, when the census reported that 20.4% of American workers commuted to work by carpool. The decline is attrib- uted to a drop in gasoline prices, as well as improved fuel economy and shifting social trends. transit-oPerated vanPooL Programs There have been several studies that examine vanpool pro- grams across the county. The 2002 report Transit-Operated Vanpools in the United States: Selected Case Studies (Higgins and Rabinowitz 2002), for example, profiles 25 vanpool pro- grams, including those run by transit agencies, public-sector organizations, and nonprofit groups. Among the programs surveyed are six operated by transit agencies in the Seattle area as well as vanpool services provided by Pace Suburban Bus Service in Chicago. The authors find that the most common objective of the vanpool programs studied is to “extend the reach of transit services into areas or service hours not well served by fixed-route public transit.” They also determined that there are several conditions that lend to successful programs, including centralized employment centers, long-distance com- mutes, strong retail growth, increasing fuel prices, and priority on roadways for vanpools. An older report, APTA Vanpool Involvement Survey, by Pace Market Research, published in 1996, described the state of vanpool programs within the public transit agency industry at that time. Based on survey responses from APTA members, the report discusses a wide variety of issues, including the reasons vanpool programs were established, the types of vans used, and the sources of funding for operations and capital purchases. The report, for example, concluded that opening new markets and fulfilling agency missions were the most important factors for starting vanpool programs. In addition, the report illustrates the differences between transit agencies with vanpool programs and those without. It found that agen- cies with vanpool programs serve larger areas but smaller populations than those without. Another study, TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 5—Vanpools and Buspools (Evans 2005), describes different types of vanpool programs in the country—employer-sponsored, third-party, and transit-provided vanpool programs—and analyzes traveler response factors to vanpools and buspools. This 2005 report also provides case studies of four vanpool programs, three of which are operated or supported by transit or transportation

8 agencies. In the mid-1990s, nearly 60 transit agencies report- edly provided vanpools. The authors state that the number of vanpools operated by transit agencies has been rapidly grow- ing, reaching more than 3,900 in 2001. One agency highlighted in the 2005 TCRP report is Pace, which serves Chicago’s six county suburbs and operates a Vanpool Incentive Program (VIP). The program has several vanpooling options, including passenger vans for groups of commuters and vans for human service agencies that provide work-related transportation service to individuals with disabilities (Evans 2005). It operates like a fixed-route service and differs from conventional vanpool programs in its route design, payment procedures, fare structure, and other elements, according to an article called “Pace Vanpool Incentive Program” that examines the program’s development, implementation, operation, and impact. Pace designs each of its vanpool routes as opposed to allowing drivers and riders decide. Drawing from the Pace VIP experience, the article also points out several benefits of integrating vanpooling into the public transit system, including improved responsiveness to economic change and enhanced mobility for certain com- muters (Cervero 1996). A transit operator in the state of Washington, King County Metro Transit, runs the largest public commuter van pro- gram in the country, and as such, the program has been dis- cussed in several studies. The 1999 article The Best Practices in Vanpooling: The First Public Vanpool Program Marks its 20th Year (Pawlowski and Maillet 1999) describes the King County program, which provides roughly three million rides a year to those not well served by traditional transit. The authors of this article contend that WSDOT’s support has been key to the program’s success. In addition, it was the state legislature that first passed the Ridesharing Act in 1979, which provided sales tax exemption for purchas- ing vanpooling vehicles, established liability insurance as “ordinary standard of care” for volunteer drivers, and defined vanpooling as a fixed group of up to 15 individuals traveling from home to work or school. This legislation paved the way for vanpool programs throughout Washington State. This vanpool history is similarly recounted in “Pooling Together: Why the Vanpool Works in the US and the Netherlands” (Enoch 2003), which explains King County’s program in depth, describing everything from fee structures to daytime uses of the vans. Washington State also boasts vanpool programs in rural regions. In rural south central Washington, for example, Ben Franklin Transit operates a regional vanpool program that largely serves federal government and private employment sites in two states and eight counties. According to an article about the program called “Vanpools: A Viable Option in Rural Regions,” the transit agency focuses on meeting customer needs, using a variety of funding sources and building part- nerships with other organizations to help ensure its success (Conrick 2008). The agency’s vanpool program is one of 23 profiled in a 2009 CTAA report called Profiles of Innovative Rural Vanpool Programs; roughly half of the programs included are spon- sored or supported by transit agencies. The rest of the profiles are of a variety of other organizations, such as a university and a nonprofit agency. According to the report, rural communities have “led the way in pioneering vanpool programs,” and the most innovative programs have been in Washington State, which supports, funds, and encourages vanpools. The report also outlines several elements that have led to successful vanpool programs, including the development of innovative partnerships, involvement of area employers, and political support from local leaders. ridesharing Programs and incentives King County Metro’s Rideshare program, established in 1984, is the focus of a 2000 study called “Rideshare Plus— Customized Ridesharing Program Finding Success” (Blu- menthal and Pawlowski 2000). The authors describe how the program—which has evolved over the years—helps form carpools and vanpools for commuters by using Geographic Information Systems software. Data analysis, promotional activities, personal follow-ups, and surveys are all part of the program, which is contracted to employers. A 1999 study also looked at King County Metro and exam- ined its voucher programs Commuter Bonus and Commuter Bonus Plus, which promoted alternative commuting modes, such as carpooling and public transit. The study report, “Unique Voucher Programs to Increase Alternative Commuting,” (Allen et al. 1999) discusses the development, implementation, operation, and performance of the two programs. Several conclusions were reached about the overarching Commuter Bonus voucher program. For example, the author found that it “generated enough revenue (through new transit ridership) to support the operation” of the two voucher programs, increased alternative commuting trips, and demonstrated that a “large- volume voucher program could be operated as an in-house program from a single PC [personal computer]” (Allen et al. 1999). The voucher programs have since been replaced by Commuter Cheques and ORCA, a comprehensive regional pass (S. Pawlowski, Rideshare Operations Supervisor, per- sonal communication, Mar. 22, 2011). casuaL carPooLing There have been several articles on casual carpooling, also called slugging, in Houston, San Francisco, and the Northern Virginia/Metro Washington D.C. areas. They tangentially discuss transit’s intersection with casual carpooling, instead focusing on how specific systems work or how passengers behave. Of the articles, “Casual Carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area” (Beroldo 1990) discusses the intersection with

9 transit to the greatest extent. In part, the article assesses whether or not casual carpools should be encouraged. Beroldo comes to mixed conclusions, tentatively contending that casual carpooling should be discouraged because it adds vehicles to the road. He qualifies this conclusion, saying it may only apply to the Bay Area. On the other hand, he suggests that casual carpooling could be encouraged if it reduces demand on transit service along a particular corridor, thereby allowing transit service to be increased along other corridors, which might attract new riders and take cars off the road. The article also provides insight into the effects of casual carpooling on transit agencies, citing several problems reported by BART and AC Transit (Alameda–Contra Costa Transit). These prob- lems include a decline in public transit ridership and revenue and a lack of parking available for roundtrip transit patrons. In response, the transit agencies have made changes to their operations, although attempts to control or discourage casual carpooling have been largely ineffective (Beroldo 1990): a survey conducted in 2010 by 511 Rideshare reported that 47.3% of casual carpoolers indicated they previously com- muted by BART or AC Transit before they started casual carpooling. On the other hand, a recent article, “Estimating the Energy Consumption Impact of Casual Carpooling” (Minett and Pearce 2011) notes that casual carpooling can reduce the number of buses needed. The authors estimate that $30 million a year could be saved from casual carpooling on the Bay Bridge leading to San Francisco in the morning commute. This conclusion is based on the need for fewer bus purchases and paid drivers by AC Transit, which operates the transbay bus service across the bridge, as well as the value of time saved, lower emissions, and fewer accidents. The other articles are essentially case studies of specific cities. “Slugging in Houston—Casual Carpool Passenger Characteristics” (Burris and Winn 2006) describes how casual carpooling in the Texas city occurs at three park-and-ride lots, which are primarily used for transit. In the San Francisco area, casual carpooling is a one-way phenomenon; most passengers carpool in the morning but take BART and AC Transit home in the evening, according to Casual Carpooling 1998 Update (RIDES 1999). A 2010 update of that report confirmed this finding and further found that the vast majority of casual car- poolers planned to continue their commuting practices despite a new toll on carpools (511 Rideshare 2010). According to another article “Slugging—The People’s Transit,” however, carpooling decreased 26% on area bridges a month after the tolls were implemented (Badger 2011). Slugging reportedly began in Northern Virginia in the 1970s along Interstate 395 high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes (Badger 2011). Today, it is estimated that roughly 10,000 people travel to Arlington and the District of Columbia by means of slugging. So-called slug lines form in areas that have ample parking and are close to HOV routes. Most slug lines, according to “The Native Slugs of Northern Virginia,” are co-located with mass transit access, providing commuters with the option to take transit if they cannot get a ride carpool- ing (Oliphant 2008). An additional document, Flexible Carpooling: Exploratory Study (Dorinson et al. 2009), written by researchers at the University of California at Davis, concludes that the circum- stances where casual carpooling would draw from public transit depend on the quality of the service available. For example, flexible/casual carpooling would be attractive if the transit trip involved multiple providers and poor con- nectivity. However, as a benefit to society, “the energy savings of flexible carpooling are similar to what could be achieved by an express bus service, but without the cost of providing the bus service.” The authors recommend research trials to determine whether flexible carpooling can reduce demand for peak hour transit service, thereby also reducing overall transit costs. dynamic ridesharing Dynamic ridesharing is same day or “on the fly” ridesharing. From November 2005 through May 2006, BART participated in a focused test of dynamic ridesharing at one of its stations with impacted parking called RideNow! The results of the test are documented in a report to the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency titled RideNow! Evaluation Final Report (Nelson\Nygaard 2006). Through the web or an automated telephone system, riders requested rides minutes before leaving home or on the BART train in the evening. Because eight partner agencies were involved, the project faced multiple challenges in implementation. Only 12% of the ride requests were fulfilled. Recommendations for future projects included substantial simplification of the program, increased target marketing, and more time to build the volume of drivers and riders (2006). “Markets for Dynamic Ridesharing? Case of Berkeley, California” (Deakin et al. 2010) is a study to assess the potential of dynamic ridesharing to downtown Berkeley and the Univer- sity of California. The area has high rates of walking, biking, and transit use, causing university and city officials to question whether dynamic ridesharing would encourage undesirable shifts away from these travel modes rather than reducing the number of single drivers. The researchers found that “the potential market for dynamic ridesharing to the campus was up to 1,200 if no restrictions were placed on participation and a more modest 700 if the program were limited to those who were outside of walk–bike–transit zones.” The study concludes with nine policy implications for consideration if a dynamic ridesharing program is to be implemented. economic considerations of ridesharing within PubLic transit agencies Some transit agencies consider the economics of supporting vanpools over instituting more commute-hour bus service. A section of a 1978 document, Recent Developments in Bus

10 Transportation, contains a cost analysis to test the feasibility of express bus service on a freeway in Minneapolis–St. Paul. The result of the analysis is a recommendation to compute vehicle hours by route and time of day, rather than systemwide, and concludes that “Expansion of service in peak periods at a relatively greater rate than base periods will also adversely affect transit operating costs” (Cherwony 1978). A monograph, “Peak Period Supplements: The Contemporary Economics of Urban Bus Transport in the U.K. and U.S.A.” (Oram 1979), integrated the findings of numerous studies indicating that peak-only services have substantially higher marginal costs than all-day services, given the regulatory history and current institutional framework of the transit industry and recent service innovations, such as vanpools, subscription buses, and privately operated “supplements.” Peak/off-peak marginal cost analysis, as recommended in the foregoing documents, is currently performed by the RTD in Denver, where the operating costs and subsidy are derived for each route operated. For example, the average sub- sidy per boarding of the 25 express bus routes RTD provided in 2009 was $4.73, with the lowest at $3.12 and the highest at $29.25. During the same year, the subsidy per boarding in the VanPool program was $2.58. Using this economic ratio- nale for ridesharing as a complement to its express bus ser- vice, RTD provides subsidy support to the Denver Regional Council of Governments’ RideArrangers VanPool program (RTD–Denver 2009). concLusion The literature review reveals that existing research rarely focuses on the integration of ridesharing and transit, instead concentrating on specific programs as case studies. Several articles look at transit-operated vanpool programs; these appear to be the most common form of integration examined in previous studies. There have also been studies of casual car- pooling; however, they tend to focus on specific cities where such operations occur. Overall, there do not appear to be any substantial studies that provide a comprehensive look at how ridesharing has been integrated by transit agencies. Research on the integration of ridesharing in transit planning, the use of technology to pro- mote ridesharing, and the need or use of performance measures related to ridesharing is largely missing from the literature. As a result, the literature review supports the need for this synthe- sis, which gathers information from public transit agencies and other organizations that either operate or support ridesharing programs. This synthesis is intended to provide a better under- standing of how operators provide ridesharing as a complement to transit by enhancing coordination between the two modes.

Next: Chapter Three - Survey Results: Ridesharing within Public 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!