Smart Connections Policy Brief
1 like92 views
This document proposes a pilot program for Sacramento Regional Transit to subsidize ride-sharing as an alternative to expanding fixed bus routes. It identifies areas not within walking distance of light rail or frequent bus lines that could be eligible. A $3 subsidy per ride would cost RT $830,440 annually but provide over 276,000 subsidized rides. This could support commutes for 576 individuals each year. Analysis of a sample commute found ride-sharing could reduce travel time by 42% compared to transit alone and 79% with a carpool. The subsidy would cost RT 47% less than operating bus service. The document suggests prioritizing carpools and investigating redistributive taxes on premium ride-sharing to fund the program.
![REFERENCES
[1] Constantino, Jerel. Potential eligible ridesharing areas for Sacramento. https://jpconstantino.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Minimalist/index.html?
appid=5a34d11e46584c43bf0ef107a104db8f. Also at goo.gl/dfvrv4.
[2] Kevin DeGood and Andrew Schwartz. Can New Transportation Technologies Improve Equity and Access to Opportunity. Washington DC: Center for American
Progress, 2016. Accessed December 1, 2016. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/20121438/TransportEquity1.pdf.
[3] Results based on author’s calculation from National Transit Database, Lyft Fare Estimator, Google Maps Trip Planner, CA Dept. of Industrial Relations.
CHALLENGE
Displacement in inner-cities has pushed former
residents to the suburbs, contributing to the
suburbanization of poverty. However, transit is not
walkable for many in the sprawl. It is neither cost-
effective nor time-effective for transit authorities to
extend fixed-line bus service into areas outside of
major road arteries. [2]
SOLUTION
Public subsidies for ride-shares can be an alternative
solution to extending the reach of transit.
APPROACH: A THEORETICAL PILOT FOR SACRAMENTO RT
• Defining boundaries: Areas not in the walk-shed from
Regional Transit (RT) light-rail stops and corridors with
frequent bus service, but within RT’s service area. (F.1.)
• Determining eligibility: Identify ‘disadvantaged’
communities not within the transit walk-shed. (F.1.)
• Setting the subsidy: A $3 subsidy would bring the
minimum cost of a ride-share to $2.75 per user.
Subsidies can be applied for first-and-last mile
connections to transit, or be combined among users
to fund carpools.
FINDINGS
• A 1% reduction in RT’s revenue bus service yields a
cost savings of $830,440, which is sufficient to provide
for 276,813 rides. This total would allow RT to offer $3
subsidies for a year’s worth of commutes —480 rides—
for 576 individuals. [3]
• Carpools can cut costs for each user in half.
• Results from a hypothetical commute under the pilot
program from Upper Land Park, a disadvantaged tract
within the highest average percentile, to the South
Sacramento Industrial Area: (F.2.)
• Current Transit: 78 minutes. $2.75 fare card.
• Transit and ride-share: 42% reduction in commute
time. 92% increase in cost to user.
• Carpool ride-share only: 79% reduction in commute
time. 1.09% increase in cost to user.
• Compared to RT’s current operating expense of $5.70
per unlinked bus passenger trip, a $3 ride-share subsidy
per participant will yield a 47% decrease in costs. [3]
POLICY SUGGESTIONS
• Transit authorities should design pilot programs for ride-
share subsidies.
• To minimize vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and costs,
shared rides through carpools should be prioritized.
• Investments in fixed-rail lines to suburbs, and
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure —especially in
disadvantaged communities— should remain the
priority for budgets.
• Governments should explore redistributive taxes
imposed on premium ride-share tiers (UberLux, Lyft
Premier) to fund transportation equity programs.
• Utilize funding opportunities from the Federal Transit
Authority’s (FTA) Mobility-on-Demand (MOD) Sandbox
program.
F.2. Commute times in minutes. Includes cost of trip, expressed in work-hours, at CA 2017 minimum wage rate, needed to recuperate cost. [3]
30 60 90
F.1. Darkened areas indicate
‘disadvantaged’ tracts [defined
as at or above the local mean
CalEnviroScreen score of 28]
which are outside of the transit
walk-shed of 0.5 mile from rail,
0.25 mile from bus [filter
applied: bus lines with < 30
min. service frequency]. [1]
ArcGIS map with demographic layers at:
goo.gl/dfvrv4
IV: TRANSIT ONLY
(INDIVIDUAL, NO SPLIT)
DV: TRANSIT & RIDE-SHARE
(INDIVIDUAL, NO SPLIT)
DV: CARPOOL RIDE-SHARE ONLY
(SPLIT BETWEEN 2 PASSENGERS)
Jerel Constantino
University of California, Santa Barbara
about.me/jerelconstantino
jerelconstantino@gmail.com
Can Technology-Enabled Mobility Help Improve Social Mobility
By Overcoming Barriers to Physical Mobility?SMART CONNECTIONS
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
University of California Center Sacramento
#######
#######
#######](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/04b41c0c-9b41-45cd-aa2c-115c5c4d677f-161229222646/85/Smart-Connections-Policy-Brief-1-320.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to Smart Connections Policy Brief (20)
Smart Connections Policy Brief
- 1. REFERENCES [1] Constantino, Jerel. Potential eligible ridesharing areas for Sacramento. https://jpconstantino.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Minimalist/index.html? appid=5a34d11e46584c43bf0ef107a104db8f. Also at goo.gl/dfvrv4. [2] Kevin DeGood and Andrew Schwartz. Can New Transportation Technologies Improve Equity and Access to Opportunity. Washington DC: Center for American Progress, 2016. Accessed December 1, 2016. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/20121438/TransportEquity1.pdf. [3] Results based on author’s calculation from National Transit Database, Lyft Fare Estimator, Google Maps Trip Planner, CA Dept. of Industrial Relations. CHALLENGE Displacement in inner-cities has pushed former residents to the suburbs, contributing to the suburbanization of poverty. However, transit is not walkable for many in the sprawl. It is neither cost- effective nor time-effective for transit authorities to extend fixed-line bus service into areas outside of major road arteries. [2] SOLUTION Public subsidies for ride-shares can be an alternative solution to extending the reach of transit. APPROACH: A THEORETICAL PILOT FOR SACRAMENTO RT • Defining boundaries: Areas not in the walk-shed from Regional Transit (RT) light-rail stops and corridors with frequent bus service, but within RT’s service area. (F.1.) • Determining eligibility: Identify ‘disadvantaged’ communities not within the transit walk-shed. (F.1.) • Setting the subsidy: A $3 subsidy would bring the minimum cost of a ride-share to $2.75 per user. Subsidies can be applied for first-and-last mile connections to transit, or be combined among users to fund carpools. FINDINGS • A 1% reduction in RT’s revenue bus service yields a cost savings of $830,440, which is sufficient to provide for 276,813 rides. This total would allow RT to offer $3 subsidies for a year’s worth of commutes —480 rides— for 576 individuals. [3] • Carpools can cut costs for each user in half. • Results from a hypothetical commute under the pilot program from Upper Land Park, a disadvantaged tract within the highest average percentile, to the South Sacramento Industrial Area: (F.2.) • Current Transit: 78 minutes. $2.75 fare card. • Transit and ride-share: 42% reduction in commute time. 92% increase in cost to user. • Carpool ride-share only: 79% reduction in commute time. 1.09% increase in cost to user. • Compared to RT’s current operating expense of $5.70 per unlinked bus passenger trip, a $3 ride-share subsidy per participant will yield a 47% decrease in costs. [3] POLICY SUGGESTIONS • Transit authorities should design pilot programs for ride- share subsidies. • To minimize vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and costs, shared rides through carpools should be prioritized. • Investments in fixed-rail lines to suburbs, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure —especially in disadvantaged communities— should remain the priority for budgets. • Governments should explore redistributive taxes imposed on premium ride-share tiers (UberLux, Lyft Premier) to fund transportation equity programs. • Utilize funding opportunities from the Federal Transit Authority’s (FTA) Mobility-on-Demand (MOD) Sandbox program. F.2. Commute times in minutes. Includes cost of trip, expressed in work-hours, at CA 2017 minimum wage rate, needed to recuperate cost. [3] 30 60 90 F.1. Darkened areas indicate ‘disadvantaged’ tracts [defined as at or above the local mean CalEnviroScreen score of 28] which are outside of the transit walk-shed of 0.5 mile from rail, 0.25 mile from bus [filter applied: bus lines with < 30 min. service frequency]. [1] ArcGIS map with demographic layers at: goo.gl/dfvrv4 IV: TRANSIT ONLY (INDIVIDUAL, NO SPLIT) DV: TRANSIT & RIDE-SHARE (INDIVIDUAL, NO SPLIT) DV: CARPOOL RIDE-SHARE ONLY (SPLIT BETWEEN 2 PASSENGERS) Jerel Constantino University of California, Santa Barbara about.me/jerelconstantino [email protected] Can Technology-Enabled Mobility Help Improve Social Mobility By Overcoming Barriers to Physical Mobility?SMART CONNECTIONS Governor’s Office of Planning and Research University of California Center Sacramento ####### ####### #######