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.
3-1 3 Transit Agency Survey Results This section summarizes findings from the 38 surveys completed by transit agency staff. The goal of this survey is to collect new details about transit agency-TNC partnerships, particularly information about the process of forming such relationships. The responses facilitate the creation of the Partnership Playbookâspecific and practical guidance for other transit agencies interested in developing programs of their own. Responses received varied by engagement status: ï§ 14 Exploration or Active Procurements ï§ 14 Active Pilots ï§ 5 Active Permanent Service Offerings ï§ 4 Concluded or Eliminated Projects ï§ 1 Invalid Response Although 38 surveys were completed, not all questions were answered â particularly those related to data sharing. This pointed to a disconnect â at least in early partnerships studied in this report â between transit agenciesâ and TNCsâ data needs. The following chapter summarizes results from the Transit Agency Survey. Full results can be found in Appendix B. Basic Partnership Information The survey asked transit agencies a series of questions related to basic information about their partnership(s) with TNC(s). The intent of these questions was to establish a baseline understanding of the most common types of partnerships and the conditions in which they operate. These questions focused on partnership goals, exchange of funds (if any), the TNCs involved in the partnership, local political and/or financial factors that supported the partnershipâs development, and any challenges encountered as a result of the partnership. ï§ Partnership goals. The top three respondent goals for developing a partnership are to provide first mile/last mile connections (75%), demonstrate innovation (69%), and improve customer experience (61%). See Figure B-4. ï§ Exchange of funds. As shown in Figure B-1, 78% of responding transit agenciesâ partnerships involve direct transactions between respondents and TNCs and 22% do not involve any exchange of funds. ï§ TNC partners. As shown in Figure B-2, transit agency respondents to our survey more commonly partner with Lyft than Uber for both single customer and carpool options. Overall, among respondents, partnerships with Lyft and UberX are more common than carpool options (Lyft Line and UberPOOL). We do not know if this is reflective of the partnership market overall. ï§ Local opportunities that made specific transit agency-TNC partnerships possible include transit agency champions, political support, unique funding sources, and unsolicited proposals from TNCs (Figure B-5).
3-2 ï§ Challenges. According to respondents, the top three challenges that respondents face in preparing for TNC partnerships are providing access for wheelchairs or over-sized mobility devices (88%), providing access to non-smartphone users (79%), and limiting liability to the transit agency (64%). See Figure B-6. Operational Characteristics The survey asked transit agency respondents several questions about the operating environments in which their partnership(s) with TNC(s) took place. These questions related to the transit agencyâs existing service offerings apart from the partnership(s), the type of service area in which they operate (e.g. urban, suburban, or rural), the partnershipsâ target customers, and the marketing/outreach efforts that supported the partnershipsâ implementation. ï§ Service Area. Most respondents indicated that their partnerships operate in suburban (69%) and urban areas (61%), as opposed to rural or campus areas (Figure B-7). ï§ Target customers. Respondentsâ partnerships most commonly targeted people with disabilities (57%) and people in areas with limited transit access and/or service (51%) (Figure B-8). ï§ Marketing/outreach. The top three marketing methods/media among respondents are website, social media, and local news media (Figure B-9). Regulatory Considerations Transit agency respondents were asked about the regulatory conditions under which their TNC partnership(s) operated. The regulatory considerations included drug/alcohol testing, criminal background checks with fingerprinting, and liability insurance. While the transit agency survey does not directly address Title VI and ADA compliance, these issues were often a topic of discussion during case study interviews and are discussed at length in Chapter 5. Regulatory considerations are particularly relevant for transit agencies that seek to use particular funding sources to operate partnerships with TNCs, as the funding agreements may be contingent upon additional regulatory requirements. It is important to note that the survey responses below indicate only transit agency perceptions of the regulatory considerations; actual requirements of federal, state, and local authorities may differ. A summary of transit agency perceptions of these regulatory considerations is provided below: ï§ Drug and alcohol testing. Over half of respondents indicated that TNC drivers are not required to undergo drug/alcohol testing. Nearly one-third are required to due to existing local or state requirements (Figure B-11). ï§ Fingerprinting. Nearly half of respondents do not require fingerprinting for TNC driver criminal background checks. A quarter are required to conduct fingerprinting due to local or state requirements (Figure B-12). ï§ Liability insurance. Fifty-three percent of partnerships do not require partners to obtain additional liability insurance, whereas 29% do (Figure B-13). To legally enter into partnerships with TNC(s), transit agencies must ensure that TNCs comply with any existing regulations on for-hire vehicles in their respective jurisdictions. TNCs have their own policies on drug/alcohol testing, criminal background checks, and liability insurance. Local municipal policies might be more stringent than TNCâs standard policies, such as in New York City.
3-3 Contracting and Data Sharing The survey asked respondents to describe the types of contract agreements they created with TNCs, if any. These agreements warrant careful consideration because they control the respondentsâ access to data from the partnerships. The range and specificity of data available to respondents may, in turn, affect respondentsâ ability to report key performance metrics from the partnership(s) as well as secure funding from local, state, and federal sources. Findings from respondentsâ experience with contracting and data sharing are provided below: ï§ Legal agreements. The majority of respondents (82%) entered into some form of legal agreement with a TNC(s). Most agreements were full contracts (84%). More than 40% included non-disclosure agreements (NDA), and 16% included data sharing/use agreements (Figure B-14). When asked to provide a copy of their TNC agreements, only five respondents uploaded a copy â likely due to signed NDAs. ï§ Contract templates. Nearly half of respondents (42%) used a contract template provided by the TNC(s). The remaining used their own template or used a combination of both (Figure B-15). ï§ Data sharing. Over 60% of respondents have access to data from all partners, 16% receive data from some partners, while 21% do not receive any data (Figure B-16). When asked specifics regarding the type of data, frequency of data received, and if data could be shared, many respondents did not provide a response. Third-Party Providers11 In addition to TNCs, many respondents partner with third-party transportation providers to supplement the needs of the partnership(s) they operate. Third-party providers often fulfill mobility needs that TNCs are unwilling or unable to meet, such as wheelchair-accessible transportation for people with disabilities, telephone-based dispatch services for people who lack access to smartphones, and cash fare payment options for unbanked riders. The survey asked respondents to describe the nature of their contracts with third-party providers, if any. Just seven of 37 respondents answered these questions, and the results are summarized below: ï§ Other transportation service providers. In addition to TNCs, respondents also partner with taxi operators (39%), human services transportation providers (13%), and non-emergency medical transportation providers (13%). About one-third of partnerships involve only TNCs (see Figure B-3). ï§ Legal agreements. All respondents who reported partnerships with third parties (n=9) entered into a legal agreement with the TNC partner and involved an exchange of funds between the transit agency and the TNC. Seven of nine had formal data sharing agreements with the third party. ï§ Data sharing. The majority of respondents (78%) indicated that they receive access to data from third-party providers. As shown in Figure B-18, all respondents receive data on total program costs and total trips. The majority also receive data on the number of unique customers, disaggregated data on trip time of day/day of week, and average fare per trip. Most respondents (86%) report a formal agreement/contract provision to provide certain datasets and receive data at least once a month (Figure B-19). When 11 Third-party providers in this context refer to a non-transit agency or TNC partner also engaged in the pilot. Common examples are taxi companies or other mobility service providers that accept cash, dial-in trip requests, and have accommodations for wheelchair accessibility.
3-4 asked if they were able to share data with third parties or the general public, all indicated âyesâ, and 57% were able to do so with some restriction (e.g. rider information is confidential). Program Evaluation The survey asked respondents to report on how they are evaluating their partnership(s) with TNCs, and results are summarized below: ï§ Formal evaluation. Only 27% of responding transit agencies have developed a formal evaluation process for their partnership (Figure B-20). ï§ Evaluation metrics. Common evaluation metrics include customer satisfaction, cost per trip, overall cost, and overall ridership (Figure B-21). ï§ Feedback methods. Transit agencies are reliant on TNCs to collect customer feedback, with 87% of responding transit agencies indicating this as a source. 47% developed an online survey distributed to known participants. (Figure B-22).