Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Demonstration: Bay Area Rapid Transit Integrated Carpool to Transit Access Program Evaluation Report
Open accessAbstract
The Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Demonstration Program provides a venue through which integrated MOD concepts and solutions, supported through local partnerships, are demonstrated in real-world settings. For each of the 11 MOD Sandbox Demonstration projects, a MOD Sandbox Independent Evaluation was conducted that includes an analysis of project impacts from performance measures provided by the project partners and an assessment of the business models used. This document presents the Evaluation Report for the BART Integrated Carpool to Transit Access Program project. The project tested a number of hypotheses that explored the project impacts on carpooling, costs, enforcement, ridership, parking, and vehicle miles of travel (VMT). The evaluation generally found that the project increased overall carpooling to BART, commensurately increased the utilization of parking spaces by carpooling vehicles, and increased the number of people per vehicle parking at BART stations. The evaluation determined that the overall cost of enforcement per carpool space declined, primarily because spaces used for carpools increased without significantly increased enforcement burden. The evaluation did not have data available to determine whether illegal use of carpool spaces had changed significantly as a result of the project. On the related matter of enforcement, the evaluation did not have data to quantify changes in fraudulent use of carpool spaces and, instead, relied on discussions with enforcement staff, which suggested that fraudulent use had dropped as a result of the project. The evaluation did find that the project produced a wider distribution of arrival times to carpool spaces, which was an objective of BART, to permit greater flexibility of travel times in the morning for carpooling riders. The evaluation found that the project likely increased BART ridership, although not by margins large enough to be statistically noticeable within normal fluctuations of station ridership. Data were not available to determine whether this increase in ridership raised revenue that exceeded the costs of the project. However, users reported reduced personal transportation costs a result of the project. The project found that overall VMT very likely declined as result of the project due to the reduced driving alone to stations. Finally, expert interviews with project personnel produced lessons learned on implementation and policy that may inform similar projects in the future.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Commercial app-based ridesharing has had only modest, context-dependent uptake, largely limited to longer trips and areas with many users.
“Even the recent prosperity of sharing-economy commercially-driven RS initiatives, such as BlaBlaCar (Shaheen et al. 2017), or Scoop (Martin et al. 2020) resulted in modest and contextually dependent uptake, restricting their applicability to longer trips and high concentration of users (Shen et al. 2021).”
From A cross-cultural study of nonprofit self-organized ridesharing (2024) · cites this paper as Martin et al. 2020
The citation to Martin et al. (2020) is attached to Scoop as an example, while the sentence cites Shen et al. for the broader uptake claim. The available report description identifies a BART carpool-to-transit evaluation but does not name Scoop; a search for “Scoop” found no matching passage in our copy. It therefore cannot verify that this report concerns Scoop. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shen, Q., Wang, Y., & Gifford, C. (2021) · Transportation · doi:10.1007/s11116-020-10140-w · Cited by 34 · see citing works
A cross-cultural study of nonprofit self-organized ridesharing
Shoshany-Tavory, S., Trop, T., & Shiftan, Y. (2024) · Transportation · doi:10.1007/s11116-022-10347-z · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“While some trials report substantial uptake, success depends on location (Martin et al. 2020), mainly for longer-distance trips and for expense-sharing schemes (Finger et al. 2017; Rafiq and Mitra 2020; Shen et al. 2021).”
Influential
- Authors
- Martin, E. W., Cohen, A. P., Yassine, Z., Brown, L., Shaheen, S. A., International Crane Foundation, & University of California, B. T. S. R. C.
- Venue
- Federal Transit Administration: Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation
- Publisher
- Federal Transit Administration: Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation
- Published
- 2020-02-01
- OpenAlex
- W3013885142
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
- Locations
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- ROSA P (public-domain)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Transportation (DTFH61-16-D-00052L)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation Planning and Optimization
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Urban Transport and Accessibility
- Keywords
- mobility-on-demand, carpooling, BART, parking space utilization, ridership, vehicle miles traveled, Bay Area Rapid Transit
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review