Wesley Darling

Despite lower user costs, only 20% to 40% of transportation network company (TNC) users select a pooled, or shared, ride option. Why are existing TNC users not selecting the pooled option or using TNCs to connect to public transit, and what role do built environment features and incentives play in their decision? This study explores the factors that influence TNC user decisions through a multi-method approach comprising photovoice small group discussions and a workshop. Between March 2021 and May 2021, 15 San Francisco Bay Area TNC users shared photographs they took of TNC pick-up locations through two-to-three-person guided small group discussions. The photos revealed that users prefer waiting in retail or in well-lit, good-visibility locations. Participants’ primary concern was personal safety, particularly female users who may take additional precautions when walking to pick-up locations and waiting for and taking rides. In July 2021, 12 photovoice participants and 5 stakeholders provided feedback on key findings from the photography discussions. The pooling improvement strategies identified include the following: designated TNC stops with lighting and marked pick-up areas; enhanced in-app safety features; TNC partnerships with employers and retailers to incentivize riders; and mode transfer discounts for connecting TNCs to public transit. The findings suggest that safety related to the built environment plays an outsized role in a TNC user’s decision to pool or connect to public transit, and the out-of-vehicle portion of the TNC trip should be equally considered when developing policies to increase pooling.

Download a PDF of "Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Hypotheses, Methodologies, and Detailed City-by-City Results" by the National Research Council for free.

Means-based reduced-fare programs can help address transit rider fare equity. The objective of this study is to synthesize the current state of reduced-fare programs for low-income transit riders. The reduced-fare programs of the 50 largest transit agencies in the United States were examined and agencies with programs for low-income riders were compared based on three dimensions: eligibility and enrollment, fare media and discount pricing, and estimated transit expenditure by eligible riders. The results reveal that 17 of the 50 largest transit agencies have low-income reduced-fare programs. Of these, 14 agencies administer the programs themselves, while three use partnerships with social service organizations to administer them. Additionally, nine of the 14 agencies that administer their own programs provide a 50% discount on fares and require participants to have an income at or below 125% to 200% of the federal poverty level for eligibility. Using a method developed to evaluate the “fare burden” of transit riders with different income levels, it was determined that low-income reduced-fare program participants at the income eligibility threshold typically spend an estimated 2% to 6% of their annual income on transit, although very-low-income people may need to spend much higher shares of their incomes on transit fares. These results indicate that agencies may need to reevaluate the structure of their existing low-income reduced-fare programs and implement tiers of discounts to ensure that fare equity is being extended to all riders.