ridesharing as a complement to transit · markie mcbrayer, tufts student research assistant photo:...

Ridesharing as a Complement to TransitTCRP Synthesis 98

Gail Murray, Principal Investigator, Co-AuthorMark Chase, Co-AuthorEunice Kim, Tufts Student Research AssistantMarkie McBrayer, Tufts Student Research Assistant

Photo: Metropolitan Transportation Commission website Photo: Avego Corporation Website

Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit

Methodology

• Review of relevant literature

• Web-based survey

• Interviews for agency profiles


Literature Review Findings

• Ridesharing is 10.7% of mode share, down from 20.4% in 1970

• 7 times as many US passenger miles for commute trips by carpools and vanpools than by public transit

• 384 ride-matching programs in US as of July 2010

• Only 32 were operated by public transit agencies

• Limited research focusing on integration

• Half of the 26 articles discussed vanpooling


Survey Respondents

• 28 transit agencies

• 14 non-transit agencies


Locations of the 28 Transit Agencies that Responded to the Survey


Does the Ridesharing Program Include any of the Following Components?

Response Count Percent

Provide carpool and vanpool matching 24 86%

Provide guaranteed ride home 24 86%

Market ridesharing to businesses 20 71%

Help establish vanpools with vehicles our agency owns or leases

18 64%

Market ridesharing to transit riders 14 50%

Subsidize vanpool fares 13 46%

Form vanpool through a third-party provider 12 43%

Provide parking for vanpools and carpools 12 43%

Provide incentives (e.g., loyalty programs, commuter checks, prizes, recognition)

11 39%

Other 4 14%

Total Responses 28 100%

*Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers.


Top two Reasons for Ridesharing and Public Transit Work Together

1. Bridge service gaps not filled by existing transit

2. Address market demand from customers• 10 created ridesharing program because

of customer requests


Extending Service to Low-Density Areas

• Pace, in suburban Chicago, operates Metra Feeder vans

• Vanpool Incentive Program flat rate of $58/month to go “the last mile” from train to workplace

Responses Count Percent

We use ridesharing to serve people who live in an area not dense to justify transit service

12 92%

We use ridesharing to pilot a route as a test for potential ridership on transit

4 31%

We substitute ridesharing for a transit route as a cost-saving measure

3 23%

Other 5 38%


If you indicated above the ridesharing fills a service gap or avoids adding another bus or train, please tell us how.

* Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers


Substituting Ridesharing for Transit

• KCAPTA in CA operates 110 vanpools to take agricultural workers to work

• Fixed route buses aren’t flexible enough for varying work weeks and nontraditional hours

• Cost is $2.19 per trip compared to $4.10/trip for the bus

Photo: Kings County Area Public Transit Agency


Map of 13 Non-Transit Agencies that Responded to the Survey


Non-Transit Ridesharing Program

• MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for 9 counties in San Francisco Bay Area.

• MTC operates the 511 Regional Ridesharing and Bicycling Program.

SF Bay Area 511 Program offers rewards to ridesharingPhoto: Metropolitan Transportation Commission website


What specific performance measures, if any, do you use to evaluate the ridesharing program?

Response Count Percent

Number of carpools and/or vanpools measuredagainst 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%


Transit Agencies’ Performance Measures

* Answers exceed 100% because respondents could choose multiple answers


Examples of Cost-Effectiveness Measurements

• Des Moines Area Regional Transit (DART)• Generates nearly $3M in annual

FTA Sec. 5307 formula funds

• Reports mileage of its 103 vanpools

• RTD in Denver• Subsidizes regional vanpool program based

on annual peak/off-peak marginal cost analysis

• Per boarding subsidy for express routes ($4.73 average) is much more than vanpool subsidy ($2.58)


Dynamic Ridesharing

• Most interested, but waiting to see demonstrated results.

• WSDOT funded first phase of Seattle’s “go520,” implemented by Avego Corporation

• MTC is funding a pilot program in 3 Bay Area counties.

Seattle’s dynamic ridesharing pilot projectPhoto: Avego Corporation Website


Challenges

• Ridesharing considered competition for transit (46%)

• Ridesharing not important to agency’s mission (40%)

• Customers do not easily accept ridesharing as a substitute for transit (29%)


Opportunities for Positive Messages

• Economic: ridesharing as an alternative to simply cutting service

• Contingency Planning: ridesharing for backup in worst-case scenarios

• Solving “Last Mile:” feeder vanpools from the end of line

• Create capacity: supplement crowded transit with slugging, carpools, vanpools

• Legislation: state incentives such as tax credits, exclusion from liability

For more information:www.TRB.orgwww.nelsonnygaard.com | 415-285-1544

Photo: Metropolitan Transportation Commission website Photo: Avego Corporation Website

Gail Murray, Principal Investigator, Co-AuthorMark Chase, Co-AuthorEunice Kim, Tufts Student Research AssistantMarkie McBrayer, Tufts Student Research Assistant

ridesharing as a complement to transit · markie mcbrayer, tufts student research assistant photo:...

Documents