2-2: Understanding Curb Management and Targeted Incentive Policies to Increase Transportation Network Company Pooling and Public Transit Linkages
|Principal Investigator||Susan A. Shaheen|
|Final Report (DOI)||Available Soon|
|Policy Brief||Available Soon|
|RIP||View RIP entry|
Transportation network companies (TNCs) and microtransit are changing the way people travel by providing dynamic, on-demand mobility that can supplement public transit and personal vehicle use. Well-designed policy strategies are needed to fully leverage the potential of pooling to lessen congestion, energy use, and emissions by reducing private-vehicle ownership and enabling higher occupancy. Policy/planning tools could help to leverage pooling strategies and more efficient TNC routing to reduce deadheading and excess vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
There is a notable opportunity to increase pooling rates among TNC users through promotional offers for pooling to public transit stations, employment centers, etc., and designated pickup/drop-off locations. These two policy strategies are the focus of the UC Berkeley project by employing the photovoice methodology in the San Francisco Bay Area. Photovoice will employ photographs taken by research subjects to enhance this study’s assessment of designated pickup/dropoff locations to support pooling. This method collects data on individual’s views and priorities for change to seek deeper understanding. This study will inform curb management and the role of targeted incentives to help maximize the societal/environmental benefits of pooled mobility services and linkages to public transit. Building on findings from the earlier work of UC Berkeley researchers, this study also examines the use of TNCs in Texas based on TTI survey research. The data collected will be analyzed, and a model will be developed to examine factors influencing pooling across different market segments. While providing insights into curb management and promotional pricing, the results will also be useful to explore potential regional differences in pooling decisions.