Ridesharing
Carpooling and Vanpooling
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
18 August 2008
This chapter describes
“Ridesharing,” which refers to carpooling and vanpooling. Rideshare programs
include ridematching services (which help travelers find travel partners), and
strategies that give rideshare vehicles priority in traffic and parking.
Ridesharing refers to carpooling and vanpooling (the term is sometimes also applied to public transit, particularly commuter express bus), in which vehicles carry additional passengers. Carpooling uses participants’ own automobiles. Vanpooling usually uses rented vans (often supplied by employers, non-profit organizations or government agencies). Most vanpools are self-supporting – operating costs are divided among members. Vanpooling is particularly suitable for longer commutes (10 miles or more each way).
Ridesharing has minimal incremental costs because it makes use of vehicle seats that would otherwise be unoccupied. It tends to have lower costs per vehicle-mile than public transit because it does not require a paid driver and avoids empty backhauls. However, Ridesharing is generally only suitable for trips with predictable schedules such as commuting or attending special events.
Table 1 Comparing Travel Modes
|
|
Driver |
Vehicle Ownership |
Vehicle Size |
User Schedule Flexibility |
|
Conventional Public Transit |
Paid |
Public |
Large |
Flexible |
|
Paratransit |
Paid |
Public |
Medium |
Some flexibility |
|
Vanpool |
Unpaid |
Group Rental |
Medium |
Inflexible |
|
Carpool |
Unpaid |
Personal |
Small |
Inflexible |
|
Taxi |
Paid |
Business |
Small |
Flexible |
Different modes have different attributes. Modes with paid drivers tend to have relatively high operating costs. Vanpooling and carpooling have low cost per passenger-mile, but are only suitable for prescheduled trips, such as commuting.
Ridesharing is one of the most common and cost effective alternative modes, particularly in areas that are not well served by public transit. Many commuters rideshare part-time, for example, twice a week. Ridematching is a common component of Commute Trip Reduction programs intended to reduce urban traffic problems. Ridesharing is also an important mobility option for non-drivers, particularly in small towns and rural areas, where notices are often posted on bulletin boards and travel needs are shared through informal networks. Transportation Management Associations, transit agencies and community transportation organizations often provide ridematching services.
Ridesharing tends to experience economies of scale: as more people use the service the chances of finding a suitable carpool or vanpool increase significantly. As a result, success depends on promotion programs that encourage a significant portion of potential users to register for possible participation. According to market research by York and Fabricatore (2001), a variety of improvements and incentives can increase Ridesharing:
Rideshare programs typically provide carpool matching, vanpool sponsorship, marketing programs, and incentives to reduce driving. Rideshare incentives may include HOV Priority (e.g., HOV highway lanes), preferential parking spaces, and awards. Some employers offer Commute Financial Incentives such as a cash payment to employees who carpool, or a voucher that covers vanpool fees, provided as an alternative to a free parking space. Because they have significant economies of scale (the more people who register, the more effective they are at successfully matching riders), it is helpful if one well-publicized ridematching program serves an entire geographic region.
Some innovative ridesharing programs have been proposed to encourage motorists to share rides for individual trips, creating a cross between hitchhiking and taxi service. Some involve pre-registering motorists and riders to increase security, and establishing standard reimbursement rates. In a few locations, casual carpooling has developed, in which motorists pick up riders at established stops in order to take advantage of HOV lanes (Beroldo, 1990). Dynamic ridesharing means that an independent organization matches passengers with drivers for individual trips (as opposed to regularly scheduled trips), using telephone and computer technologies (Behnke, 1996; SST, 1997). King County Metro has incorporated special event ridematching into its regional rideshare program (www.rideshareonline.com).
Rideshare programs can be implemented by an individual employer as part of a Commute Trip Reduction program, by a Transportation Management Association or a Campus Trip Management program, a transit agency, or by a regional transportation agency. Marketing can inform potential ridesharers about the service. Vanpooling requires more organizational structure to address vehicle ownership, expense recovery and liability issues. Taxi Improvements can include regulatory changes that allow shared taxi ridesharing.
Larger ridematching programs use computerized partner matching systems that take into account each commuter’s origin, destination, schedule, and special needs. Smaller programs may simply match potential partners by hand, or use ride notice boards.
Experience indicates that ridesharing programs typically attract 5-15% of commute trips if they offer only information and encouragement, and 10-30% if they also offer financial incentives such as parking cash out or vanpool subsidies (York and Fabricatore, 2001).
Rideshare programs that include incentives such as HOV Priority and Parking Cash Out often reduce affected commute trips by 10-30% (Winters and Rudge, 1995). If implemented without such incentives travel impacts are usually smaller. Ewing (1993) concludes that ridesharing programs can reduce daily vehicle commute trips to specific worksites by 5-15%, and up to 20% or more if implemented with Parking Pricing. Evans and Pratt (2005) describe several worksites where 5-20% of employees commute by vanpool. The most effective programs tend to have paid parking, subsidies for alternative modes, and other incentives to encourage reduced automobile commuting.
Analysis by Wambalaba, Concas and Chavarria (2004) and Concas, Winters and Wambalaba (2005) indicate that the elasticity of vanpool ridership with respect to fees is -2.6% using a 1997 data set and -14.8% using a less statistically robust 1999 data set, that is, a one dollar decrease (increase) in vanpool fares is associated with a 2.6% to 14.8% increase (decrease) in the predicted odds of choosing vanpool with respect to drive alone. The same study found that the elasticity of vanpooling with respect to price to be -0.61 (1997) and 13.4% (1999), meaning that for each 10% increase in vanpool price, there is a 6% to 13% decrease in vanpool choice with respect to auto. Conversely, a 10% decrease in vanpool price will increase the odds of choosing vanpool (with respect to auto) by 6% to 13%. Using a nested logit model, the study found the elasticity of vanpooling with respect to fares to be -1.14.
One study estimates the price elasticity of vanpooling at about 1.5, meaning that a 10% reduction in vanpool fares increases ridership by about 15% (York and Fabricatore, 2001). For example, if vanpool fares that are currently $50 per month are reduced to $40 (a 20% reduction), ridership is likely to increase by about 30% (20% x 1.5). Of course, exact impacts will vary depending on the specific market and whether other ridesharing incentives are also provided. Evans and Pratt (2005) report lower elasticities.
Because rideshare passengers tend to have relatively long commutes, mileage reductions can be relatively large. For example, if ridesharing reduces 5% of commute trips it may reduce 10% of vehicle miles because the trips that are reduced are twice as long as average. Rideshare programs can typically reduce up to 8.3% of commute VMT, up to 3.6% of total regional VMT, and up to 1.8% of regional vehicle trips (Apogee, 1994; TDM Resource Center, 1996). See Trip Reduction Tables for more information on the travel reductions that are predicted to occur from financial incentives for ridesharing under various circumstances.
Critics argue that rideshare programs are ineffective because, for many years, vehicle occupancy rates declined (Orski, 2001), but their analysis only considered overall trends and ignored the much higher vehicle occupancy rates among employees who have comprehensive rideshare programs, particularly if they include both financial incentives and HOV Priority highway lanes.
Table 2 Travel Impact Summary
|
Travel
Impact |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
Reduces vehicle travel. |
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
3 |
Effective at reducing
commute auto trips. |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
-1 |
May encourage sprawl. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
3 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
0 |
|
|
Increased cycling. |
0 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
0 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Ridesharing can reduce peak-period vehicle trips and increase commuters travel choices. It reduces congestion, road and parking facility costs, crash risk and pollution emissions. Ridesharing tends to have the lowest cost per passenger-mile of any motorized mode of transportation, since it makes use of a vehicle seat that would otherwise be empty. Ridesharing provides consumer financial savings (as estimated in the table below), and time savings if there are HOV Priority facilities. Crash risk declines due to fewer vehicles on the road (TDM Safety Benefits). Rideshare programs improve Transportation Options, and are particularly helpful to commuters who cannot drive or lack a reliable automobile. The SMART Trip Reduction Manual published by Pollution Probe (2001) provides information on calculating the benefits of ridesharing to employers and employees.
Table 3 Estimated Monthly Commuting Costs
Round Trip Miles
|
Drive Alone |
3-Rider Car Pool |
10-Rider Van Pool |
|
30 |
$193 |
$64 |
$31 |
|
40 |
$257 |
$86 |
$37 |
|
50 |
$321 |
$107 |
$43 |
|
60 |
$386 |
$129 |
$50 |
|
70 |
$450 |
$150 |
$56 |
|
80 |
$514 |
$171 |
$63 |
Vanpooling is one of the most resource efficient and cost effective motorized modes, and so can provide significant net benefits (Evans and Pratt, 2005). Wambalaba, Concas and Chavarria (2004) summarize average operating costs, revenues, subsidies and ridership for various transit agencies, indicating that a typical vanpool van costs $1,000 to $1,250 per month to operate.
Rideshare program costs consist primarily of administration expenses. One ridematch system pilot project was estimated to incur $150,000 in setup and marketing expenses, and an average about $3 per user (i.e., per phone call received) in operating costs (Guiliano, Hall and Golob, 1995, U.S. dollars). Costs to participants may include additional travel and time needed to meet rideshare partners, schedule constraints needed to match commuting times, loss of privacy, and restrictions on stops for errands.
Ridesharing may encourage urban sprawl by making longer-distance commutes more Affordable. Transit agencies sometimes consider rideshare as competition that reduces transit ridership. For this reason it is important to track the travel alternative that rideshare passengers would otherwise use.
Table 4 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
3 |
Reduces peak-period
automobile travel. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
3 |
Reduces peak-period
automobile travel. |
|
Consumer Savings |
3 |
Provides consumer savings. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Increases travel choice. |
|
Road Safety |
2 |
Reduces vehicle mileage,
but increases vehicle occupancy, so crashes that do occur may have more
casualties. |
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
-1 |
May encourage
longer-distance commutes and urban sprawl. |
|
Community Livability |
2 |
Reduces automobile trips. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Rideshare matching services are usually open to anyone in a particular geographic area. Ridesharing services are mostly self-supporting or receive a small subsidy, usually for administrative and marketing activities. Most rideshare program subsidies are modest, usually smaller than the social cost of accommodating automobile travel. For example, if a ridematching service is effective at reducing just a few percent of automobile trips, its expenses can be paid through reduced road and parking facility costs. Rideshare programs generally increase vertical equity by improving Transportation Options for non-drivers and making commuting more Affordable.
Table 5 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
3 |
Rideshare services are
generally available to anybody. |
|
Individuals bear the costs
they impose. |
2 |
Most rideshare travel is
self-supporting. Although ridematching services require subsides, these are
usually less than the social costs of automobile travel. |
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
3 |
Improves travel options for
lower-income people. |
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
3 |
Improves travel options for
non-drivers. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
2 |
Improves access to
education and employment. |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Rideshare programs can be appropriate in most geographic areas, and tend to be particularly effective at serving relatively dispersed, suburban destinations. They can be implemented by businesses, Transportation Management Associations and other business organizations, local and regional governments. Regional programs are best, because they create a larger pool of potential users than ridematching at a worksite or local level.
Table 6 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
2 |
State/provincial
government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density,
urban/suburban. |
3 |
Regional government. |
3 |
|
Town. |
3 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
3 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
3 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
2 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
2 |
Developer. |
1 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
1 |
|
|
|
Campus. |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not
appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Improved Transport Options.
Ridesharing supports and is supported by many other TDM programs, including HOV Priority, Commute Trip Reduction, Parking Management, Commute Financial Incentives, Flextime (which makes it easier for employees to match schedules), Guaranteed Ride Home services, and Pedestrian Improvements at worksites. In some cases ridesharing competes with transit or non-motorized commute modes.
Rideshare programs require support by transportation and sometimes transit agencies, by Transportation Management Associations, or by individual employers. It may involve adoptions of special policies by employees and labor organizations to accommodate and support ridesharing and flextime.
Rideshare programs require sufficient funding to provide efficient matching services. Effectiveness depends on appropriate incentives: HOV facilities, financial subsidies, parking management, and marketing. Marketing efforts may be needed to inform potential ridesharers about this option.
|
I
was hitchhiking the other day and a hearse stopped. I said, “No thanks-I’m
not going that far.” |
Organizations such as the Association for Commuter Transportation and Commuter Connections can provide advice and resources for developing an effective ridesharing program. York and Fabricatore (1999) identify several ways of improving and increasing vanpooling. Some best practices include:
· Ridesharing should be
implemented as part of a comprehensive TDM Program.
· Ridesharing programs should
include ridematching services, HOV priority, and other Commute
Trip Reduction strategies, such as Commute Financial
Incentives.
· Ridematching services should
cover a large geographic area (such as an entire region) in order to create the
largest possible pool of users.
· Transportation agencies,
businesses and employees should all be involved in planning Rideshare Programs.
· Provide incentives to
attract and retain rideshare users, such as mileage-points and Vehicle Insurance Discounts.
|
Carpooling
Hints (www.CarpoolTool.com) Here
are some helpful tips to get the most out of carpooling •
Determine a route and schedule. Establish the morning pickup point(s) and
designate a place(s) to meet for the trip home. •
Be punctual. Decide as a group how long the pool will wait for a passenger.
The usual waiting time is 2 to 3 minutes. •
Establish a cost sharing arrangement. If the members of your carpool do not
share the driving equally, come to an understanding of how the costs will be
shared and agree on payment dates. •
Establish some ground rules. Smoking, music, food, drinks etc. Discuss
possible irritants among group, ie, some people may be sensitive to strong
perfumes or colognes, some may like quiet time in the morning. •
Draw up a schedule for driving responsibilities. If all members of your
carpool alternate driving, decide among yourselves if you want to alternate
on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. •
Drive carefully and keep the car clean, in good repair and filled with enough
gas for each trip. There should be no excuses for excessive speed, use of
alcohol, or reckless maneuvers. •
Set up a line of communication. If a driver is ill, or will not be going to
work one day, an alternate driver should be notified to ensure that other
members or the carpool will have a ride. If a rider is ill or will not be
working, the driver must be contracted as soon as possible. Ensure everyone
has a copy of home, work or cell phone numbers. Don't forget to give notice
of vacation, personal or overtime plans. •
Avoid side trips on the way home. If it is for commuting to and from work,
save your trips to the grocery store for the weekend. Or, you may choose not
to carpool on the days you must run an errand. •
Make sure you are covered by your insurance company. Some policies may offer
rate reductions for ridesharing. •
Check for preferential, free or reduced-rate parking. •
Give your carpool some time to work. It usually takes a few weeks to arrange
everyone's routine into a harmonious pattern. Most carpoolers discover they
really enjoy the company of their fellow carpoolers and find it a benefit
they had not anticipated. |
Comsis
(1993) and Evans and Pratt (2005) describe several successful rideshare
programs, including the Commuter Transportation Services, which provides
ridematching services in Southern California, an employment center ridematching
service supported by businesses, a residential ridematching service provided to
residents of a suburban community funded by a developer, and various vanpool
programs.
The
Puget Sound region has some of the most successful vanpool programs in
Seattle’s
Metro transportation agency provides ridematching services throughout the
region and operates dozens of self-financing vanpools. It has more than 1,000
active vanpools. Vanpool programs are a division of transit agencies. About 90%
of vanpools are driven to worksites with mandatory commute trip reduction
programs, which are required by state law. It is one of the most successful
programs in North America, serving 2% of commute trips and 7% of 20-mile-plus
commute trips in the region (York and Fabricatore, 1999). Below are their instructions for organizing
one:
·
You need four other people, in addition to yourself -- or as many as 14
-- to organize a vanpool. The more people, the lower your fare.
·
Once your pool is together, you need to decide on a route, pick-up
points and schedule.
·
Choose a primary driver and at least one back-up.
·
Primary drivers, who meet Metro requirements, ride free and may receive
40 free personal miles each month. Additional miles are available to drivers
for a low mileage fee.
A survey of residents in
Below are examples of carpool program incentives and regulations, based on a survey of Rideshare program managers:
·
Rideshare users get free and preferred parking facilities (e.g., closer
to buildings and weather protected).
·
Carpools register online. Each carpool member is identified along with
their vehicular information.
·
Each carpool group is assigned a carpool number and is issued one
hangtag for the group. Each hangtag is coded. This hangtag must be displayed on
the vehicle used by the carpool that particular day. Use of the carpool parking
spaces is restricted to only those days that the occupants carpool.
·
Underground, weather-protected, carpool parking garage doors are coded
to allow entry only by registered carpoolers.
·
Vehicles are monitored on a regular basis for adherence to the carpool
parking policy indicating that vehicles must display a valid hangtag. Those
vehicles parked in carpool parking without a valid hangtag or with a
deactivated hangtag are given a warning or are issued a City ticket (presently
at $50 for unauthorized parking).
·
Vehicles are randomly visually monitored for a minimum two person
occupancy. Visual monitoring is followed up by personal contact, where
warranted.
·
Each year a full audit (again online) is undertaken whereby each
carpool member must validate that they are carpooling and are in the registered
group.
·
The University in Melbourne uses a boom-gate whereby carpoolers need to
swipe each of their individual ID cards for the boom gate to open.
·
The Bay Area Rapid Transit system offers dedicated parking spaces to
carpoolers who register and obtain a permit
·
Metro King County (greater Seattle) has a program called “Park and
Shop” where commuters could park at underused parking lots at supermarkets,
etc. in exchange for spending a certain amount of money at that store/shopping
area. Proof of frequent shopping was provided by a punch card displayed in the
car.
·
Carpool members sign an agreement that they will follow the rules of
the program. The agreement states that they will carpool no less than 3
days per week. Special parking permits hang from the rearview mirror and
look different from the other standard issue parking permits, with a different
color and shape, and a carpool permit number.
·
Carpool parking spaces are located near building entrances, with
“Carpool permit only” signs. This serves two purposes; it gives positive
visibility and also is a marketing tool for people to join the program, and it
allows for policing of the parking spaces.
RideShare
Online is the first self-serve, regional public Internet ridematching service
in the nation. RideshareOnline.com instantly matches commuters with carpool or
vanpool partners with a similar daily commute in nine Puget Sound area
counties, including King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston, Island, Mason,
Skagit and Whatcom counties.
"This
new service puts the power into the hands of commuters," said King County
Executive Ron Sims. "Instead of sending in applications and information
and waiting for a reply, you can go online anytime day or night to find names
in our database of 9,000 registered commuters, e-mail them directly yourself,
and within minutes you could be hearing back from a potential rideshare
partner."
Online
registration is simple. After typing in their e-mail address and choosing a
password, users enter their work location and the starting point of their
commute -- either a home address or a nearby intersection. To preserve privacy,
home addresses are not displayed publicly. They enter their weekly work
schedule and any daily variations. By return e-mail they receive a confirmation
code to complete their registration. They can instantly see a list of rideshare
matches to whom they may e-mail a rideshare request.
RideQuest
is a ridematching Internet site provided by the Greater Redmond Transportation
Management Association. Users enter a street address or intersection, and the
software produces a map showing that location. If the location is correct, it
is entered into the database along with information on the users travel needs and
preferences. They can send an automatic email to other registered commuters who
may be able to rideshare.
This
test was a public/private partnership between the California Department of
Transportation, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
the State of
The
ridesharing service allows users to obtain lists of potential ride matches via
touch-tone telephone. Users must pre-register, which entails giving some
personal information, including their usual commute times and preferred pick-up
and drop-off locations. Upon request, the system can call the people in the
list and deliver a user-recorded message. The ridesharing materials were
distributed to 68,000 people.
Users
of the Los Angeles SmartTraveler ridesharing service tended to have longer
trips to work than the average Los Angeles County commuter, and were less
likely to drive alone. Of all users, 18% used alternative modes to get to work
about once or twice a week. Users stated that circumstances for which their
regular commuting mode was not available are rare, suggesting that demand for
occasional carpooling is likely to be low. Other factors that may lower the
demand for carpooling are that half of those surveyed said they sometimes work
a schedule different from their regular one, and that sometimes their work
takes them to places other than their office. About half of all users felt they
have access to good transit service. Most felt they needed transit and carpool
information, yet at the same time most refused to ride with strangers.
The Minerva System uses
cellular phones, palmtop computers, and wireless data communications to provide
low-cost, door-to-door transportation in low-density areas and low travel
corridors. The service can be integrated with conventional transit, paratransit
and ridesharing services, plus consumer services such as home shopping,
telebanking and e-mail, to help reduce the need for some trips altogether. The
Oregon State legislature has committed $1.5 million to this project, with
additional commitments of $3 million in matching funds from local pilot sites,
and $1 million in in-kind support from private management consulting outfits.
King County Metro has
incorporated special event ridematching into its regional rideshare program (www.rideshareonline.com). Seattle Center and the
University of Washington are helping to promote the service in King County, hoping
it will attract more attendees to events at their venues.
To use the service, visit
the website and select an event from a list that currently features more than
30 picks. Then, enter some basic information, including your name and home
address or a nearby intersection. If others who live near you are also looking
for a buddy for that event, their e-mail addresses will pop up. You can even
check a map to see who's attending and lives closest to your home. People then
e-mail one another privately, screening potential buddies for the right match.
In coming months Metro plans
to launch a similar effort organizing rides to private events. In a region
where traffic worsens by the year, the ability to go online and find a car pool
fast can revolutionize the way people get around, according to Metro Planner
Park Woodworth, or helped establish the program. The possibilities are endless,
including business meetings, little League games, industry events, weddings.
Neighbors on their way to the grocery could even get online to check whether a
nearby senior citizen needs a lift, producing social benefits in addition to
environmental and cost-saving benefits.
Dynamic Ridematching refers to rideshare programs that match riders for individual trips, rather than a series of regularly scheduled trips, and provides information quickly and conveniently to help drivers and riders connect. Below are descriptions of some Dynamic Ridesharing pilot projects.
This test was a
public/private partnership between the California Department of Transportation,
the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the State of
California Health and Welfare Data Center, Commuter Transportation Services,
Inc., Pacific Bell and Pacific Bell Information Services, IBM Corporation, and
North Communications. Funding for the field test was provided by the State of
California, through the California Advanced Public Transit System Program, and
by the Federal Highway Administration, through earthquake relief funds. In
addition to ridesharing services, the field test included pre-trip information
services.
The ridesharing service
allows users to obtain lists of potential ride matches, via touch-tone
telephone. Users must pre-register, which entails giving some personal
information, including their usual commute times and preferred pick-up and
drop-off locations. Upon request, the system can call the people in the list
and deliver a user-recorded message. The ridesharing materials were distributed
to 68,000 people.
The BST project was led by
researchers from the University of Washington, in partnership with TransManage
and with participation from PacTel. The demonstration phase of the project took
place between November 1993 and April 1994. The project was funded by the
Washington State Department of Transportation and by the Federal Highway
Administration. The main purpose of the Bellevue Smart Traveler (BST) is to
facilitate ridesharing (carpooling), but it also provides traffic and transit
information. The ridesharing service operates by subscription: once registered,
a participant is entitled to offer rides, and to accept rides offered by other
subscribers. The system is available via telephones and pagers.
The field test tracked the
supply and demand for rides over a five-month period. Test participants were
selected based on their residence location (all participants worked in the same
office complex). Three ridesharing groups were formed, with membership varying
from 8 people in the smallest group to 27 people in the largest.
The Seattle Smart Traveler
(SST) tested a dynamic ridematching system using the Internet and electronic
mail (e-mail) at the
To provide flexibility in
the matching of trips, a time range or window was used for both the requested
departure and arrival times. A search structure was developed using a series of
pull-down menus allowing users to easily identify their desired origins and
destinations from a search tree containing four levels of detail. Although the
design of the SST was relatively complex, the system was easy for participants
to access and use. A potential participant first accessed the Web site by
entering either their student or staff identification number or user password.
The individual then completed an SST application form, which included their
telephone number and e-mail address, but not their home address. The
participant could request a trip at the time they registered and on an ongoing
basis. Three types of potential matches could be requested. These were regular
commute trips, additional regular trips, and occasional trips. A user entered
the origin, destination, day of week, departure time, and arrival time for each
trip type they would like to check for a rideshare match.
When the I-5 bridge over the
Columbia River closed for repair in 1997, the Fred Meyers corporation
established a vanpool program to help their employees get to work in Portland.
The company leases 15-person vans, and pays all expenses (fuel, parking, etc.).
Employees organize their own routes, schedules and drivers. There are currently
11 vanpools with 10 riders. The vans pick up riders at a central meeting spot,
usually a Park & Ride. Drivers may use the vans
for personal errands after work, and vans are available during working hours
for business meetings. The program coordinator reports “Vanpoolers have told me
they love the program! It relieves their stress. They learn more about the
company by riding with people in their departments. They relax before they get
home. It’s reduced their [vehicle] insurance rates and cut their commute time
in half.”
Approximately
8,000 to 10,000 people, or nine percent of total carpoolers, participate in
casual carpooling in the San Francisco area. During the morning commute
periods, pick-up points are in Oakland near Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
stations and in Alameda-Contra County near Costa Transit bus stops. These sites
serve as loading zones, provide users with a back-up choice if a ride is
unavailable, and guarantee users a ride home in the evening. Drop-off points
usually are near the Transbay bus terminal in downtown San Francisco, although
other destinations are also common. These sites are centrally located and
provide passengers with other means to continue their trip if needed.
Carpoolers gain the benefit of a 10 to 20 minute timesavings while avoiding a
$1.00 toll by using the HOV toll bypass lane; passengers save money. Until
recently, there was no market for evening casual carpooling since there were no
HOV lanes heading out of San Francisco. In 1999, a 20-mile HOV lane was
constructed and, with support from Environmental Defense organizing and
securing destination signs in downtown San Francisco, limited evening casual
carpooling has begun.
www.carpool.ca is Canada’s fastest
growing rideshare program with over 7,000 registered participants in 6
provinces and territories. The program was created by and is managed by
Commuter Connections, a BC non-profit organization dedicated to the reduction
of single occupancy vehicle use through the implementation and promotion of
rideshare programs. Commuter Connections has been delivering
rideshare programs across Canada for over 12 years. In addition to performing
on-line ridematching, the Carpool.ca application provides carpool/parking
management functions, built-in survey features, and a variety of
administrative and statistical reports including greenhouse gas savings.
The system is fast, secure and user-friendly. Information provided by
participants is used for rideshare management purposes only and complies
with federal and provincial privacy legislation. Carpool.ca is used by
employers, post-secondary institutions, transportation management
associations, and regional districts who pay an annual
subscription fee. These fees are essential to the long-term support
of the program. All subscriptions include promotional materials, marketing
support, and database management.
Casual
carpooling in the Washington, DC area is
well organized with approximately 3000 people, or 11% of carpoolers, doing it.
Northern Virginia commuters, who want a ride to the Pentagon or Washington DC,
stand at specific suburban locations, usually near parking lots or bus stops.
Drivers wanting to legally use the HOV lane system pick them up. Destinations
are usually announced, except in certain places where drivers stand in queues
according to which bridge they want to cross. A similar arrangement is used for
the return trip from DC, but rides are harder to find causing some passengers
to take transit home in the evenings. Drivers save up to an hour or more on
their commute time and commute times may be more reliable; passengers find that
casual carpooling is normally faster and more flexible than bus or subway
service because of the ease and speed in which a ride is obtained and cheaper
because they are not paying fares.
Carpoolworld.com
is a world-wide, self-service commuter carpooling system that uses latitude and
longitude coordinates for precise automatic carpool matching. Their automated,
online trip matcher calculates and ranks proximities to a precision of inches
for maximum ride sharing efficiency and ultimate convenience.
ACT (2001), Transportation Demand Management Tool Kit, Association for Commuter Transportation (www.actweb.org).
Apogee (1994), Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures; A Review and Analysis of the Literature, National Association of Regional Councils (www.narc.org).
Association for Commuter Transportation (www.actweb.org) is a non-profit organization supporting TDM programs.
Robert Behnke (1996), An Advanced Public Transportation/Information System For Residents of Urban, Suburban and Rural Communities, Cascade Policy Institute (www.cascadepolicy.org).
BC Transit (2000), Travel Options Manual (www.bctransit.com/traveloptions/introduction/introduction.htm).
Steve Beroldo (1991), “Ridematching System Effectiveness: A Coast-To-Coast Perspective” Transportation Research Record 1321, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 7-12.
Steve Beroldo (1990), “Casual Carpooling in the
Best Workplaces for Commuters (www.bwc.gov) is a program sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation to recognizes employers that provide outstanding commuter benefits. The website has a variety of resources, including a report on Carpool Incentive Programs (www.bwc.gov/pdf/carpool.pdf).
Car Free Mobility (www.carfree.biz) uses advanced technology to provide convenient Ridesharing, Paratransit and Carsharing services as an alternative to private car ownership.
Carpoolworld.com (www.carpoolworld.com) uses latitude and
longitude coordinates to match rideshare trips.
CarpoolTool.com (www.carpooltool.com) is a free, Internet-based ridematching system that uses city maps and postal code locations at home and work to help commuters find partners.
Commuter Connections (www.carpool.ca) provides ridematching services and technical support for developing ridematching programs.
Commuter Choice Program, Transportation Air Quality Center, USEPA (www.epa.gov/oms/traq).
Comsis Corporation (1993), Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of
Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT (http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/474.html)
and
Sisinnio Concas,
Philip L. Winters and Francis W. Wambalaba (2005), “Fare Pricing
Elasticity, Subsidies And The Demand For Vanpool Services,” Transportation
Research Record 1924, Transportation
Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 215-223.
D. J. Dailey, D. Loseff, D. Myers, and M.P. Haselkorn (1997), The Smart Traveler, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, University of Washington, (www.its.washington.edu/pubs/trb97sst.pdf).
EcoRide.com (www.ecoride.com) is a Canadian ridematching service for interregional travel.
eRideShare (www.erideshare.com) is a free service for connecting commuters and other travelers to share rides, both local and long-distance.
EuroLift (www.eurolift.com) is a free ridesharing service in Europe.
John E. Evans and Richard H. Pratt (2005), Vanpools and Buspools; Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 5, TCRP Report 95, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org).
Reid
GishiGo (www.gishigo.com) is an internet based
ride share network which incorporates driver's route as well as automatically exchanges
driver and passenger PayPal identity information.
GoLoco (www.goloco.org) is a service that helps people arrange ridesharing using social networks such as Facebook to facilitate connections.
G. Guiliano, R.W. Hall and J.M Golob (1995), Los Angeles Smart Traveler Field Operational Test Evaluation, PATH Draft Research Report No. D95-35, University of California, Institute of Transportation Studies (www.path.berkeley.edu/~leap/TTM/Ride_Matching), 1995.
iCarpool (www.iCarpool.com) is an Internet-based service that uses location-based technologies to match rideshare passengers and support public transit and other alternate modes.
iTrans (2007), Vanpool Program Feasibility Study Final Report, prepared for Smart Commute Association, Centre for Sustainable Community Development (www.sustainablecommunities.fcm.ca); at www.smartcommute.ca/sites/smartcommute.ca/files/File/Modules/Vanpool%20Feasibility%20Study%20Final%20Report%20to%20FCM(1).pdf.
DynamicRideSharing.org (www.dynamicridesharing.org) is an organization that works to reduce single occupancy vehicles by supporting dynamic ride sharing by distributing information and sponsoring projects.
Jack Bell
Foundation (www.ride-share.com)
operates a vanpool and carpool rideshare program throughout
Kunihiro Kishi
and Keiichi Satoh (2007), “Attitudinal Study on a Reciprocal Community
Transport System in Japan,” International
Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 1, No. 3 (www.tandf.co.uk), July-Sept 2007,
pp. 161-171.
Bill Legg (1992), “Public-Private Partnership in Transportation Demand Management,” Transportation Research Record 1346, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 10-13.
Kenneth Orski (2001), “Carpool Lanes - An Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone,” TR News 214 (Special HOV Issue), Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), May-June 2001, pp. 24-26.
Pollution Probe (2001), SMART Trip Reduction Manual, Pollution Probe (www.pollutionprobe.org/publications/air.htm).
Weimer Pursell (1943), When You Ride Alone You Ride With Hitler!, World War Two Poster by the US Government Printing Office for the Office of Price Administration, NWDNS-188-PP-42, (www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/use_it_up/images_html/images/ride_with_hitler.jpg).
Ridequest.com (www.ridequest.com) is an Internet-based ridematching system.
Rideshare Company (www.rideshare.com) is a full-service, non-profit, comprehensive rideshare brokerage
serving Eastern Connecticut. Its Easy Street® Vanpool Service sponsors more
than 200 vanpools.
Rideshare Online (www.rideshareonline.com) provides you an easy way to find others who are interested in sharing their commute in a carpool or vanpool in the Puget Sound area.
Ride Together (www.torontoenvironment.org) is a program of the Toronto Environmental Alliance which works with major employers to encourage carpooling.
Ridenow (www.ridenow.org) is the demo of a dynamic ridesharing system.
SCAG, Rideshare Information and Cost Savings
Calculator (www.socalcommute.org/costsav.html).
Seattle Smart
Traveler (SST) (www.its.washington.edu/sst) was an dynamic ridematching test program that
operated in Seattle, Washington, from 1995 through 1997. Although no longer
functioning, the website describes the program.
Share Your Ride (www.shareyourride.net) is a ridematching service for international recreational travel.
Texxi (www.texxi.com) is a Demand Responsive Transit (DRT) Brokerage System, enabling dynamic ride-matching and customer aggregation in real-time using users' mobile phones as system interaction interfaces.
Jouni T Tuomisto and Marko Tainio (2005), “An Economic Way Of Reducing Health, Environmental, And Other Pressures Of Urban Traffic: A Decision Analysis On Trip Aggregation,” BMC Public Health, Vol. 5, No. 123 (www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/123).
Katherine F. Turnbull,
Herbert S. Levinson and Richard H. Pratt (2006), HOV Facilities – Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes,
TCRB Report 95, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c2.pdf.
Two-Plus (www.2plus.com) provides specialized rideshare marketing and support services.
TDM Resource Center (1996), Transportation Demand Management; A Guide to Including TDM Strategies
in Major Investment Studies and in Planning for Other Transportation Projects,
Office of Urban Mobility, WSDOT (www.wsdot.wa.gov).
Transportation
Information Kiosk Project (www.traks.org) provides a variety of
transportation management information for the San Francisco Bay area.
Urban Systems (1995), Potential for Commuter Vanpool Services, GVRD (Vancouver).
Washington State CTR Program (www.wsdot.wa.gov/pubtran/ctr) provides information on rideshare programs.
VivaCommute (www.vivacommute.ca) is an Internet-based ridematching program.
Francis Wambalaba, Sisinnio Concas and Marlo Chavarria (2004), Price Elasticity of Rideshare: Commuter Fringe Benefits for Vanpools, National Center for Transportation Research, Center for Urban Transportation Research (www.nctr.usf.edu).
WSRO (1994),
Do-It-Yourself Vanpool Guide, WSDOT (www.wsdot.wa.gov/Mobility).
This 70-page publication gives detailed information on organizing and operating
a vanpool.
Philip Winters and Daniel Rudge (1995), Commute Alternatives Educational Outreach, National Urban Transit Institute, Center for Urban Transportation Research, USF (www.cutr.eng.usf.edu).
Philip L. Winters and Francis Cleland (2002), Vanpooling Pricing and Financing Guide, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida (www.cutr.eng.usf.edu/tdm/publications.htm).
Bryon York
and David Fabricatore (2001), Puget Sound Vanpool Market Assessment,
Office of Urban Mobility, WSDOT (www.wsdot.wa.gov).
Bryon York and David Fabricatore (2003), Puget Sound Vanpool Market Action Plan, Draft, Office of Urban Mobility, WSDOT (www.wsdot.wa.gov); available at www.vtpi.org/VanpoolMAPReport.pdf.
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing
project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7,
CANADA
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#34
