TransitWiki - User contributions [en]

Bikeshare

2017-12-19T21:52:44Z

Westbywest12: I added a sentence on dockless bikeshare programs, and included two references on the global spread of bikesharing.

[[File:Capital Bikeshare DC 2010 10 544.JPG|right|thumb|600px|Capital Bikeshare in Washington, D.C. Source: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Capital_Bikeshare_DC_2010_10_544.JPG Mario Roberto Duran Ortiz]]]
==Introduction==
Cities are increasingly recognizing the potential of bicycle transportation to reduce congestion, improve environmental and public health, increase accessibility, and complement transit.<ref>Shaheen, Susan and Stacey Guzman. "Worldwide Bikesharing," ''Access'' 39(2011) 22-27. http://innovativemobility.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Worldwide_Bikesharing.pdf</ref><ref>Shaheen, Susan, and Adam Cohen. "Understanding the Diffusion of Public Bikesharing Systems: Evidence from Europe and North America," ''Journal of Transport Geography'' 31(2013)94-103. http://innovativemobility.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Diffusion-of-Public-Bikesharing-Systems.pdf</ref> Along with infrastructure improvements, bikeshare is one of the best ways to encourage cycling in a city. The number of bikeshare systems around the world has grown exponentially in the past decade. The Institute for Transportation & Development Policy’s [https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ITDP_Bike_Share_Planning_Guide.pdf Bike-Share Planning Guide] offers a comprehensive look the process of developing and implementing a bikeshare system.

==First Steps==
Once a city has decided to consider bikeshare, the first step is performing a feasibility study. The most basic, but important, part of the feasibility study is outlining objectives for the system. Specific objectives (e.g. providing first-mile last-mile service, alleviating transit crowding) are necessary to guide the study.

The feasibility study itself is comprised of three main elements:
* Demand analysis - Starting from current demand, the organization needs to predict future demand, establish the system’s coverage area, and decide what performance metrics to focus on.
* Financial feasibility analysis - A detailed budget cannot be created until later in system development, but the feasibility study should include a high-level estimation of the capital and operational costs of the system.
* Risk and barrier analysis - It is important to identify early any potential barriers to implementation, such as political opposition, traffic laws, and advertising contracts.

===Metrics===
Two main metrics are used to judge the performance of bikeshare systems: average number of daily uses per bike and average daily trips per resident (of the coverage area). These two metrics tend to have an inverse relationship. A system with a low number of bikes could have high per-bike usage because demand is high, but fail to meet that demand and therefore have a lower number of trips per resident. On the other hand, a system could have a high number of trips per resident but also a very high number of bikes, and therefore a low number of trips per bike. Both of these extremes are inefficient; a sustainable system should find a balance of having just enough bikes to satisfy demand with around 4 daily trips per bike.

===System Coverage===
A successful bikeshare system needs to be large enough to serve a range of destinations and have stations close enough to each other to make them easily accessible. A system should start out at least five square miles, but station density is even more important than system size. Bikeshare systems become exponentially more effective as stations get closer together, with 28 stations per square mile being a good goal. Keeping stations no more than a couple blocks apart ensures that there is always a station near a potential destination. ITDP recommends a system have 10-30 bikes for every 1,000 residents and 2.5 docking spaces for every bike so that there is always somewhere to return a bike. Besides station-based systems, dockless bikeshare systems are also growing in popularity, which allow users to park their bikes at any location in a geographically defined area. Companies such as these - including Mobike, Ofo, Spin, and Limebike, remove part of the burden of siting stations.

===Financial Analysis===
The initial financial analysis should include estimates of capital costs, operational costs, and revenues. It is also important to consider funding mechanisms at this stage. Cost-per-bike is a common metric; while it might be useful in the planning stages, cost-per-bike is a flawed long-term metric because of the way the number of bikes in service fluctuates. Looking at operating costs per trip is a better metric, in line with the way traditional transit systems are evaluated.

==Planning and Design==
Once the feasibility study is complete, system planning can begin in earnest. This involves specific station siting and choosing hardware and software.

===Siting===
[[File:BayArea Bikeshare 04 2015 SFO 2388.JPG|right|thumb|400px|Bikeshare stations should be placed near major destinations like San Francisco's Ferry Building. Source: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BayArea_Bikeshare_04_2015_SFO_2388.JPG Mario Roberto Duran Ortiz]]]
Proper station siting is crucial to the success of a bikeshare system. Docks should be close together and concentrated in dense, mixed-use areas where there will be consistent demand. Placing stations near transit help bikeshare interface with the larger transportation ecosystem. Stations should be placed in sunny, well-trafficked areas and not block pedestrian movement. Picking station locations will typically require community outreach so as to build support for the project.

===Station Type===
In the US, virtually all bike share stations are automated and use docking spaces as opposed to bike parking areas. While some stations are permanently installed into the ground, modular systems are increasingly common. Modular stations are built on a base that can be bolted to the ground, making them relatively easy to move. Rather than being connected to a power source, they run on solar energy.

===Bikes===
You of course can’t have bikeshare without bikes. Modern bikeshare systems use robust, one-size-fits all bikes with lights, storage, and features like fenders and chain guards to keep riders clean. Most bike-share bikes are made with distinctive, non-standard parts to deter theft.

Traditionally, most US bikeshare systems have used a “smart dock” system where bikes are stored at docks containing the system’s electronics. However, “smart bike” systems in which all the technology is stored within the bikes themselves have become popular. This system, used in cities like Portland, Oregon, is cheaper and lets users lock bikes anywhere. On the other hand, smart bikes are more maintenance-intensive and the systems generally require a smartphone to be used to their full potential.

==Business Model==
Bikeshare should be thought of like other transit; it is aimed at providing a public service rather than generating profit. Most successful bikeshare systems are public-private partnerships, with the government entity leading the project and a private firm running operations.

===Organizational structure===
There are two main entities involved with a typical bikeshare system: the implementing agency and operator. In some cases these are the same, but more often there is a division of labor. The implementing agency is typically a government group such as a department of transportation or parks department and oversees the entire system. Departments of transportation have an advantage running bikeshare systems because they have authority over the roadbeds and sidewalks where stations will be placed. Day-to-day operations of a bikeshare system are the responsibility of the operator, which could be either a government agency or private company. Government agencies have the advantage of being closer to the implementing agency and are committed to working for the public good; private companies can be more efficient, but their profit motives might run counter to the government’s goals for the system.

===Contracting===
Running a bikeshare system requires coordination between multiple groups. In some cases the implementing agency will only have to contract with a single supplier, but often times separate specialized vendors are used for each component. In either case, contracts are important. There are three main contracting structures to consider:
* Publicly owned and operated - In this system, the government implements and operates the whole system and takes on all the risk involved. Keeping everything in-house is simple, but parts of a bikeshare system might be operated more efficiently by the private sector.
* Publicly owned and privately operated - Bringing in a private operator diffuses some risk and responsibility while allowing the government to maintain control over the system’s assets and direction.
* Privately owned and operated - Private systems built to government specifications require no public funding, but there is a risk that the profit-minded operator will not act in a way that makes the system as publicly beneficial as possible.

==Financial Model==
[[File:San Jose Diridon Caltrain bike share station installation 02.jpg|right|thumb|275px|Bikeshare systems are complex and expensive to set up. Source: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Jose_Diridon_Caltrain_bike_share_station_installation_02.jpg Richard Masoner]]]
Bikeshare is a large investment, and for a system to be successful it must be started with a clear picture of the costs and revenues that will be associated with it.

===Capital Costs===
Setting up a bikeshare system means purchasing bikes, stations, IT systems, maintenance equipment, and redistribution vehicles. In the US bikes alone typically cost more than $4,000 each. There is also a large amount of labor necessary before a system can open.

===Operating Costs===
Operating costs vary widely depending on the size and sophistication of a system and involve generally staffing, redistribution, maintenance, customer service, marketing, and insurance. Operating costs are best represented on a per-bike basis to reflect that fact that a larger system serves the public better (assuming that the trips per bike number is high enough).

===Revenue Streams===
Funding for bikeshare usually comes from some combination of advertising, sponsorship, membership fees, and/or taxes. Given that bikeshare is a public service just like transit, it is reasonable to expect the government to subsidize it to some degree. Government funds are often used for initial capital expenses. Sponsorship is also a major funding source; Citigroup spent more than $40 million dollars for six-year naming rights to New York City’s system. Revenue from subscriptions, single rides, and overage fees do not fully fund any US system; Capital Bikeshare in Washington, D.C. comes closest with 97% farebox recovery, but most systems have a significantly lower percentage.

==Implementation==
Once the contracts are signed, the process of actually launching the system can begin. While working on procuring hardware and software the implementing agency should begin a public outreach process to register members and teach people how to use the system. Good customer service is critical for getting public support. Once the system goes live, it should be constantly monitored and evaluated. There will be issues, and coordination between the implementing agency and operator can help ensure that any problems are solved quickly.

==[https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ITDP_Bike_Share_Planning_Guide.pdf The Bike-Share Planning Guide]==
[https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ITDP_Bike_Share_Planning_Guide.pdf The ITDP Bike-Share Planning Guide] is the source for the original Bikeshare article.

==Further Reading==

[http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/NACTO-Bike-Share-Siting-Guide_FINAL.pdf National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2016). "Bike Share Station Siting Guide."]

: This guide provides detailed instructions and illustrations outlining the best places to put bike share stations.

[https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/bts_technical_report/april_2016 Firestine, Theresa. (2016). "BTS Technical Report: Bike-Share Stations in the United States." Bureau of Transportation Statistics.]

: This technical brief contains statistics on bikeshare connectivity to transit, useful given bikeshare's potential role as a first-mile, last-mile connector. [[Category:Investment and planning]] [[Category:Transit and Public Health]] [[Category:First and Last Mile]]

Scoop

2017-12-19T19:36:41Z

Westbywest12: I added a link to a news article on Waze Carpool, which is a similar service to Scoop.

[[Image:Scoop.jpeg|right|thumb|500px|Scoop's BART integration hopes to encourage carpooling to transit. Source: [https://blog.takescoop.com/carpool-to-bart-59d8555e79a2#.qxhusnw9p Scoop]]]
[[Category:Applications]]
[[Category:First and Last Mile]]
==Introduction==
Carpooling has long been looked at as a potential way to reduce congestion and help the environment. One clear barrier to carpooling is finding someone who shares your route from home to work. Technology has the potential to help solve this problem, and in recent years a variety of carpooling apps have been released.<ref>Shaheen, Susan; Cohen, Adam (April 2016). "Smartphone Applications to Influence Travel Choices: Practices and Policies". ''https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16023/fhwahop16023.pdf''</ref> [https://www.takescoop.com/ Scoop] is an app that tries to increase carpooling by connecting riders with drivers. Businesses can sign up for Scoop; the app will prioritize matching coworkers for the most efficient commutes. Waze has released a similar product called Waze Carpool.<ref>Mondon, Marielle "Google Takes on Carpooling With Waze Spinoff App." ''Next City'', July 8, 2016.

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/google-waze-carpool-app-test
</ref>

Scoop has recently partnered with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in the San Francisco Bay Area to integrate carpool service with BART [[park-and-rides]]<ref>[http://mtc.ca.gov/whats-happening/news/mtc-partners-bart-and-scoop-guarantee-parking-spots-carpoolers Metropolitan Transportation Commission. "MTC Partners with BART and Scoop to Guarantee Parking Spots for Carpoolers." 2017.]</ref>.

==How it Works==
Unlike ride-hailing apps like Lyft and Uber, Scoop is aimed at filling empty seats on existing commutes. The night before going to work, a user tells the app that they are looking to either drive or ride and what time they plan on leaving. They’re then automatically matched with someone on a similar route. The rider pays the driver a distance-based fee for the ride through the app. In the early afternoon the process repeats for evening commutes. In order to deal with the uncertainty of rides that are only scheduled one-way, Scoop includes a featured called Guaranteed Ride Home. If a rider cannot be matched with a driver for their return trip, Scoop will reimburse them up to $40 to take public transportation or a taxi home<ref>[https://takescoop.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205655238-What-is-Guaranteed-Ride-Home- Scoop. "What is Guaranteed Ride Home?" 2017.]</ref>.

==Carpool to BART==
Many people utilize park-and-ride at BART stations, and as a result parking lots fill up quickly. To manage parking demand, in January 2017 BART began a pilot program with MTC and Scoop to encourage carpooling. Under the pilot, riders who use Scoop are guaranteed a parking spot before 10 a.m. at BART’s Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The process is the same as using the Scoop app for any other trip, with users setting their work location as 5801 Owens Drive, Pleasanton. Drivers will receive a placard to place in their car, and Scoop will work with BART police on a daily basis to ensure that all vehicles parked in the program spaces actually were used for a carpool. As with all Scoop service, passengers are guaranteed a ride home from the station in the evening. In the early stages of the pilot carpoolers will receive free parking at the station, though the pricing structure may change as the program moves forward<ref>[https://blog.takescoop.com/carpool-to-bart-59d8555e79a2#.qxhusnw9p Scoop. "Scoop launches the Carpool to BART program, starting with Dublin/Pleasanton station on January 23rd." 2017.]</ref>.

The partnership is funded by a $358,000 Mobility on Demand Sandbox grant from the Federal Transit Administration. The grant allowed for increased integration between Scoop and BART; the app can be used to pay for BART parking and rides are coordinated with train schedules. Drivers can also mark their vehicle as wheelchair accessible to make the program open to as many people as possible.

==511 Contra Costa County==
In May of 2017 the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) launched a pilot integrating Scoop into [https://511contracosta.org/ 511 Contra Costa], its transportation demand management program. CCTA will subsidize the app for Contra Costa residents, offering them $2 off each ride. The pilot, which does not have an announced end date, is funded by the [http://www.baaqmd.gov/grant-funding/public-agencies/county-program-manager-fund Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Transportation Fund For Clean Air Program Manager Funds] and Measure J.

==[https://www.takescoop.com/ Scoop]==

==References==
<references />

Alternative fuel vehicles

2017-12-19T19:29:03Z

Westbywest12: Added a reference to a paper that discusses the need to reduce the environmental impacts of public transit.

[[File:Soybeanbus.jpg|thumb|500px|Soybeans have been used to make biodiesel. Source: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soybeanbus.jpg US Department of Energy]]
== Introduction ==
Public transit is often called upon as a measure to reduce environmental impacts of travel,<ref>Shaheen, Susan and Timothy Lipman, "Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Consumption: Sustainable Approaches for Surface Transportation." IATTS Research, Volume 31. http://innovativemobility.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Reducing-Greenhouse-Emissions-and-Fuel-Consumption.pdf</ref> both by consolidating travelers from single-occupant vehicles into one environmentally-efficient vehicle, and by using modern technology for cleaner propulsion. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) estimated that by 2011, about 35% of the transit fleet in America was using alternative fuels or hybrid technologies.<ref>[http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2013/Pages/130422_Earth-Day.aspx Miller, V. (2013). "More than 35% of U.S. Public Transit Buses Use Alternative Fuels or Hybrid Technology." American Public Transportation Association]</ref> Many technologies have been adapted for bus and rail transit, including electricity and battery, natural gas, and hydrogen.

== Propulsion Technologies ==
=== Standard and Bio-fuels: Gasoline and Diesel ===
Gasoline and diesel remain the most common fuels for all vehicles. Federal regulations attempting to reduce the impact of these fossil fuels on the environment have mandated supply of ultra-low sulfur diesel and the use of ethanol (also known as E85) in gasoline.<ref>[http://www.epa.gov/ncea/biofuels/basicinfo.htm US Environmental Protection Administration. "Biofuels and the Environment: Basic Information."]</ref> Biodiesel fuel blends can typically be used in any modern diesel engine, making an attractive opportunity for agencies to use alternative fuels while avoiding the high cost associated with other technologies such as hybrid-drive buses. However, in a 2011 report to Congress, the EPA warned that increased production of biomass, especially corn, to blend with fuel and decrease dependence on fossil fuels may not have overall positive effects on the environment.<ref>[https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/biofuels/recordisplay.cfm?deid=235881 National Center for Environmental Assessment. (2011). "Biofuels and the Environment: First Triennial Report to Congress." US Environmental Protection Agency.]</ref>

==== Diesel Environmental Concerns ====
Although diesel engines are particularly efficient and one of the most common combustion-engine choices for buses and other commercial vehicles, they also cause significant harm to the environment in the form of '''particulate matter''' (PM) from engine exhaust. Research suggests that long-term exposure to diesel exhaust is linked to increases in asthma in children, exacerbation of allergies, and possibly premature death.<ref>[https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/300055PV.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1986+Thru+1990&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C86thru90%5CTxt%5C00000006%5C300055PV.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL National Center for Environmental Assessment. (2002). "Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust." Environmental Protection Agency.]</ref> In response to research conducted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and others in the early 2000s, new regulations were placed into effect for diesel engines requiring fitting of diesel particulate filters (DPF). However, transit agencies are subject to different regulations than other buses and trucks<ref>[http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/bus/ub/ubfactsheet.pdf CARB. "Fact Sheet: Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies Urban Bus Requirements."]</ref>, which went into effect earlier than the recent standards for retrofitting DPF to trucks operating in California.<ref>[http://www.ttnews.com/articles/printopt.aspx?storyid=32092 Knee, R. (2013). "DPF Retrofits Growing Due to California Rule." Transport Topics.]</ref>

Regulations pertaining to transit agencies (defined as "urban bus") are found in title 13 of the California Administrative Code (13 CCR § 2020 - 2023.4), [http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/bus/sections2020-2023.4.pdf provided here by CARB].

==== Engine Manufacturers ====
Practically all bus manufacturing firms offer diesel options, and cutaway buses are commonly available in either gasoline or diesel configurations. Cummins is an example of an engine manufacturer for transit buses that certifies their products for use with biodiesel fuel.<ref>[http://cumminsengines.com/biodiesel-faq Cummins. "Biodiesel FAQ."]</ref>

=== Natural Gases ===
Natural gas is used as a fuel in both liquid (LNG) and compressed-gas forms (CNG). Santa Monica, California's Big Blue Bus includes a fleet of buses powered by LNG. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA, or Metro) operates the country's largest fleet of CNG buses.

==== Bus Manufacturers with Natural Gas Offerings ====
The Gillig Corporation introduced a CNG option for their buses in 2011. New Flyer and subsidiary NABI provide CNG vehicles.

=== Propane ===
Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) should not be confused with LNG, above.

=== Electric ===
Electric power for buses is one of the oldest propulsion technologies, adapted from electric streetcars. Buses powered by overhead wires are commonly called "trolley-buses" and still operate today in some cities such as Seattle, San Francisco, Dayton, Boston, and Philadelphia. Buses can also be powered by electric battery without external power such as overhead wires, but the range of these vehicles tends to be limited. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and King County Metro in Seattle jointly purchased new electric trolley-buses from New Flyer to replace aging fleets.<ref>[http://www.metro-magazine.com/news/story/2013/06/king-county-metro-purchase-all-electric-new-flyers.aspx Metro Magazine. (2013). "King County Metro purchase all-electric New Flyers."]</ref>

The most common application of electric power for buses today is the hybrid-electric. SFMTA and Long Beach Transit operate fleets of hybrid-electric buses.<ref>[http://sfmta.com/vi/about-sfmta/our-history-and-fleet/sfmta-fleet/muni-hybrid-buses SFMTA. "MUNI Hybrid Buses."]</ref>. The Long Beach buses were purchased from New Flyer in 2005 for a published cost of $550,000 per vehicle.<ref>[http://lbtransit.com/about/pdf/epower-fact-sheet.pdf Long Beach Transit. "Hybrid E-Power Bus Fact Sheet."]</ref><ref>[http://www.lbtransit.com/About/Environment.aspx Long Beach Transit. "Environmental Issues."]</ref> Gillig and New Flyer both offer hybrid-electric bus options.

In 2017, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation introduced the first all-electric bus in its DASH system.<ref>[http://la.streetsblog.org/2017/01/12/electric-dash-buses-to-begin-service-in-dtla-next-week/ Linton, J. (2017). "Electric DASH Buses To Begin Service In DTLA Next Week." Streetsblog Los Angeles.]</ref>

=== Hydrogen Fuel Cell ===
Hydrogen fuel cells has been researched as a power source for buses using Federal funding. AC Transit of California has participated in a hydrogen fuel cell bus testing program since 2000 using Van Hool buses and a power plant developed by UTC Power of Connecticut. In 2013, UTC Power was sold to ClearEdge Power, and the future of the fuel cell bus program is unknown.<ref>[http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20130212/NEWS01/130219966/utc-power-sold-to-oregon-fuel-cell-firm Kane, B. (2013). "UTC Power sold to Oregon fuel cell firm." Hartford Business Journal.]</ref>

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Transit's Low-Carbon Role]]

Ride-Hailing and Public Transit

2017-12-19T19:10:25Z

Westbywest12: /* Intro */ I added a citation to a recent DOT/FHA report on the use of Smartphone Applications for shared mobility.

[[Image:Uberlyft.jpg|right|thumb|500px|Shared mobility providers like ridesourcing companies Uber and Lyft are becoming an increasingly large part of California's transportation system. Source: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrkbeta/25511816003 Ståle Grut / NRKbeta.no]]]
==Intro==

The last decade has seen a tremendous rise of shared mobility modes, including carsharing, bikesharing, ridesourcing (services like Uber and Lyft), and private shuttles (like Bay-Area tech shuttles). Transit agencies often struggle with these new transportation options, unsure of how to coexist with them and afraid of competition. Ridesoucring/Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) use smartphone apps to connect community drivers with passengers.<ref>Shaheen, Susan; Cohen, Adam (April 2016). "Smartphone Applications to Influence Travel Choices: Practices and Policies". ''https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16023/fhwahop16023.pdf''</ref> Examples of these services include: Lyft, Uber (specifically, uberX, uberXL, and UberSELECT), as well as specialized services, such as Lift Hero (older adults and those with disabilities) and HopSkipDrive (rides for children either to/from school or afterschool). These services can provide many different vehicle types including: sedans, sports utility vehicles, vehicles with car seats, wheelchair accessible vehicles, and vehicles where the driver can assist older or disabled passengers. While taxis are often regulated to charge static fares, TNCs typically uses market-rate pricing, popularly known as “surge pricing” when prices usually go up during periods of high demand to incentivize more drivers to take ride requests.
==Findings==
Studies on the impacts of ridesourcing/TNCs are limited, particularly the effects of these innovative services on core transportation modes (e.g., taxis, public transportation). While one study Feigon and Murphy (2016) <ref>Feigon, Sharon and Murphy, Colin. (2016). Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit. American Public Transportation Association.

https://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Shared-Mobility.pdf
</ref> concluded that ridesourcing/TNCs substitute more automobile trips than public transit trips, three other studies suggest that ridesourcing/TNCs may cannibalize trips made by public transit and active modes (cycling and walking). Henao (2017) surveyed 311 passengers in the greater Denver metropolitan area over a four-month period and found that 34 percent of riders said they would have either taken public transit, biked, or walked instead of using ridesourcing/TNCs.<ref name=":0">Henao, Alejandro. (2017). Impacts of Ridesourcing – Lyft and Uber – on Transportation including VMT, Mode Replacement, Parking, and Travel Behavior. University of Colorado, Denver. https://www.cpr.org/sites/default/files/cu-uber-lyft-study.pdf</ref> This study also found that ridesourcing/TNCs takes more vehicle trips to move fewer people. The study found that it takes an average of 100 vehicle miles to transport a passenger 60.8 miles.<ref name=":0" /> Another study of ridesourcing/TNCs in New York City by Schaller (2017) found that ridesourcing/TNCs accounted for the addition of 600 million miles of vehicular travel to the city's roadway network between 2013 and 2016.<ref name=":1">Schaller, Bruce (2017). Unsustainable: The Growth of App-Based Ride Services and Traffic, Travel and the Future of New York City. Schaller Consulting. http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/unsustainable.pdf</ref> This study also found that in Manhattan, western Queens, and western Brooklyn, ridesourcing/TNCs added an estimated seven percent to existing miles driven by all vehicles. Furthermore, VMT continued to increase in spite of the availability of pooled options because single-passenger trips still predominate, and most ridesourcing/TNC customers are coming from public transit, walking, and biking.<ref name=":1" />

Finally, a 2014 study of 380 ridesourcing/TNC users (a 50.2 percent response rate) in San Francisco asked respondents about key trip characteristics, including trip purpose, origin and destination, and wait times.<ref name=":2">Rayle, Lisa, Danielle Dai, Nelson Chan, Robert Cervero, and Susan Shaheen. (2016). Just A Better Taxi? A Survey-Based Comparison of Taxis, Transit, and Ridesourcing Services in San Francisco. Transport Policy, Volume 45, pp. 168-178. <nowiki>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.10.004</nowiki></ref> Most trips, 67 percent, were social or leisure in nature (such as trips to bars, restaurants, and concerts or visits to friends or family) in contrast to just 16 percent of trips that were work related. Of all trips reported, 47 percent originated somewhere other than home or work (e.g., restaurant, bar, gym), while 40 percent had a home-based origin. If ridesourcing/TNCs were unavailable, 39 percent of respondents reported they would have taken a taxi, 33 percent would have taken public transportation, 8 percent would have walked, and 6 percent would have driven their own vehicles. Another 11 percent of respondents said they would have taken another mode.<ref name=":2" /> Respondents were asked if they still would have made the trip had ridesourcing/TNC services not been available and, if so, how they would have traveled. Among respondents, 92 percent replied they still would have made the trip, suggesting that ridesourcing/TNCs has an 8 percent induced travel effect.<ref name=":2" />

==References==

: [[Category:Market Response]] [[Category:First and Last Mile]]
<references />