Was Ridesharing Ignored in the Senate Transportation Bill?

Last week, the Ridesharing Institute sent out its first press release. Based in New Zealand (at least, that’s where the Executive Director is, though the group did recently incorporate in Delaware), the organization doesn’t yet have a website, though it does have a Facebook page and a wiki. As its first foray into U.S. politics, the Institute took on the Senate transportation bill, MAP-21. “Where is ridesharing in the bill?” the institute wondered.

The new Ridesharing Institute would have liked to see more support for carpooling in the Senate transportation bill. Photo: ##http://mduench.wordpress.com/tag/relationships/##Matt Duench's Blog##

They call it “a missed opportunity.”

In a blog post for the Eno Foundation, where she serves on the Board of Advisors, Cynthia Burbank of Parsons Brinckerhoff (and vice chair of the new Ridesharing Institute) lamented the exclusion of ridesharing in the Senate bill (though, she acknowledges, “almost everyone” overlooks carpooling and vanpooling). She groups the two modes together to call it “C/V.”

C/V currently serves 10 percent of work trips – more than transit, biking, and walking combined. It saves money for households and increases options for commuters everywhere. It is a policy and modal option that could improve system performance and reduce congestion, could be planned and implemented in one to two years, does not require an EIS or streamlining angst, complements and reinforces transit, and works as well in rural and small/mid size metros as it does in the mega cities. But it has been in decline, in part because of lack of Federal emphasis and support. We need to reverse that trend.

SAFETEA-LU, the current transportation law, includes many mentions of encouraging C/V but no dollar amount to support it. Official transportation policy has encouraged carpooling since ISTEA passed in 1991. The law “hereby declared” that “special effort should be made to promote commuter modes of transportation which conserve energy, reduce pollution, and reduce traffic congestion” and directed the transportation secretary to “assist both public and private employers and employees who wish to establish carpooling and vanpooling programs” and so on. Still – no money.

Perhaps the most significant federal investment in ridesharing is the implementation of HOV lanes, and FHWA doesn’t quantify the amount it spends on that separately from the amount it spends on other road maintenance projects in the states.

Some transit agencies sponsor ride-share matching, or even subsidize van pools, with Federal Transit Administration dollars — but the FTA doesn’t have any data on how much federal money is spent for these activities.

Burbank says MAP-21 “has some helpful C/V provisions, including eligibility under the Transportation Mobility Program, non-degradation for HOV lane performance, and provision for EV charging at park-and-ride lots.” But she’d also like to see eligibility in the National Highway Performance Program. (Of course, eligibility is no guarantee of actual funding — bike/ped is technically eligible under that program, but no one’s expecting bike/ped projects to see a flood of funding come from that source.)

A sensible idea Burbank puts forward is to set performance requirements based on “person trips and passenger miles (as well as freight throughput) as opposed to the old vehicle throughput measures of the past.” She also wants more research dedicated to innovating and piloting carpooling options and a mandate to USDOT to develop and implement a strategic plan to “double carpooling and vanpooling within 10 years.”

All of that could be part of a meaningful national goal of reducing congestion and carbon emissions. The current bill includes performance measures, but none that would lead to such significant work incentivizing ridesharing and other means of bringing down vehicle-miles-traveled.

Meanwhile, Burbank, in her post, points to two seemingly contradictory trends. Ridesharing is down below ten percent, according to the American Community Survey – a big drop from its 12.2 percent share in 2000. This, Burbank blames on a lack of federal support. But she also says it’s a perfect time for a ridesharing comeback:

Today, new forms of C/V have tremendous potential, using modern information technology, iPhone apps, slugging, “flexible” or “casual” C/V, as well as expanded employer C/V programs.

If iPhone apps and other third-party interventions and informal innovations are the new frontier of ridesharing, is it really incumbent on the federal program to make these happen? Other options are available at the local level or even the employer level (not the federal level) like preferential parking for carpoolers, though it’s very hard to enforce.

Of course, one transportation expert suggested, the real solution is “just stop building so damn much parking.” Maybe the best ride-sharing incentive the feds could adopt is simply to stop paying employees to park their private vehicles at work.

  • Anonymous

    Tanya – Nice blog, and I appreciate the mostly positive support.  I went back to check on bike/ped eligibility under the new National Highway Performance Program in MAP-21, and found this on page 54 of the bill, which itemizes eligible activities for NHP funding:
    “(G) Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways in accordance with Section 217.”  That was from this version of the bill:  1.usa.gov/SEPWC600.  Are we looking at different versions of the bill, or am I missing something?

  • Anonymous

    You ask: “is it really incumbent on the federal program to make these happen?” 

    My answer is a resounding YES for the research needed to figure out how to take all this mainstream, and provide clear guidelines for bringing SOV driving at peak down by the 20% or so that would eliminate the worst traffic congestion.  It is not just about the ideas, but also about how to get the political will to implement them, and how to get every commuter to buy in to being a passenger some of the time.
    Traffic congestion is optional, and we collectively choose it every day.  It is a ‘whole of community’ problem, so investment in the institutions and methodologies required for figuring out how we collectively ‘un-choose’ it should be borne by the whole community.  Our usual approach for solving whole of community problems is to fund them at the most senior level.
    So again, YES.

  • Tanya Snyder

    Thanks for writing, @cindyburbank:disqus . There is some degree of eligibility there for bike/ped projects but in general, very little funding for these projects comes from the programs that now make up the National Highway Performance Program. Almost all bike/ped funding comes out of the three former dedicated programs — TE, SRTS, and RTP.

  • Odile Beniflah

    carpooling.com is with you: keep up the fight!
    check our infographic explaining why everyone should share rides: http://www.carpooling.com/i/carpooling_com_infographic.jpg

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

We Need a New Term to Describe Uber and Lyft

|
Companies like Uber and Lyft make any car owner a potential paid chauffeur, and their services are increasingly widespread in American cities. So what should we call these new companies? Abigail Zenner at Greater Greater Washington says the current nomenclature is a bit muddled: Companies like Uber and Lyft have been dubbing their services “ridesharing.” […]

House GOP Tries to Horse-Trade Senate Bill For Keystone Pipeline

|
In another desperate attempt to push forward their fossil fuel agenda, House Republicans have indicated that even though they’ve been incapable of passing a transportation bill, they’re willing to go to conference committee and pass the Senate bill. All the Senate Democrats have to do in return is approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Our sources […]

Senate Offers a More Multi-Modal 2014 Transportation Budget Than the House

|
Last week, a House panel envisioned some big cuts to next year’s transportation budget. TIGER and high-speed rail would get nothing, Amtrak would get slashed, and ixnay on all that green “livability” crap. (And that’s practically a quote.) The Senate Appropriations Committee voted this morning on the budget its own transportation subcommittee put together, and the end […]