We begin for now by doing no more than beginning to draw up an inventory of current information on our topic, which we have divided into several parts:

• Spontansous or dynamic ridesharing (also known as hitchhiking)

• Organized ridesharing - Such as car, van or bus pools.

• Site Demand Management- TDM programs for specific sites..

Before going ahead with this, let us note that there is a rich background of both experience and documentation in this area, with which we and others have considerable research and hands-on experience. For now however, let us just open this item for discussion and development with the first set of materials that follow.

Synergy - Decision as of 4 December 2000

Starting on this date we began for the first time listing a selection of ridesharing organizations in the main Carshare Inventory here. We see this as something of a landmark decision reflecting several things.

For the first couple of years in @World CarShare, we thought it important to concentrate on building a strong base in carshare operations per se (again, as opposed to liftshare or ridesharing). But now with the help of hundreds of people and groups around the world we have pretty much accomplished that, so we can begin to stretch out to begin to bring in such closely related concepts as ridesharing.

Indeed, it begins to seem clear that we are going to see more groups that begin to offer both kinds of service, and that much of their existing organizational, software, and local base is going to lend them in good stead in such a broadening of their business base. That is not to say that this is for everybody or for tomorrow, but we can certainly anticipate this in a growing number of leading edge cases.

Excerpts from Recent Discussions on List

From: eric.britton@ecoplan.org
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 4:20 PM
Subject: Ridesharing - lessons of experience

Dear Colleagues,

As you know there is a certain amount of literature available with guidelines which purport to show how to make car and vanpooling work. Much of this is implicitly encouraging about both the prospects and the impacts of such alternative arrangements (including some that we have generated ourselves over the last 20+ years).

However reality has not always been kind to such projects. In fact it would seem that more often than not after some opening ballyhoo and early successes, many if not all seem to fade away without leaving much of a trace. And even where they may have worked for a while, it has often proved quite difficult to keep them afloat very long. As a result, we are left in sort of a penumbra of ignorance.

Do any of you know of any strong and realistic reports on the successes, failures and what seems to distinguish the two? If so, I imagine that there may be many of us who could usefully have a look in order to temper our own hopefulness and, in some cases perhaps, our own ignorance. Mine for instance.

Thank you if you have any leads on this.

From: Todd Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 4:20 PM
Subject: Vehicle pooling - lessons of experience

Dear Eric,

There are a number of studies that look at the potential travel impacts of various Transportation Demand Management strategies. You are correct that some of these show effects declining over time. I think that this occurs because most such programs are based largely on moral persuasion to change people's travel behavior ("Car pool, so others can drive"), and provide little real incentive. On the other hand, TDM programs that provide real financial incentives to reduce driving (Parking Cash Out, per-mile insurance pricing, parking charges, congestion pricing, etc.) do seem to be effective, and their effectiveness can increase over time as consumers take such price changes into account when making long-term decisions, such as which home to purchase.

Rideshare (the general term for car- and vanpooling) matching services and promotional campaigns may have only modest effect by themselves, but are likely to have a much greater effect if matched with suitable financial incentives, such as those described above. Put this another way, financial incentives are likely to be more effect if implemented with efforts to improve and promote travel alternatives, including ridesharing, public transit, and nonmotorized transportation.

Here at our institute we are currently developing an Online TDM Encyclopaedia which has information on various TDM strategies. Below is the summary on ridesharing, which provides reference information that may help answer some of the questions you raise. We hope to have the full Encyclopaedia posted at our website in a few weeks. I'll let you know then. Please let me know if you have comments or suggestions about this rideshare summary.

My impression is that another problem with Ridesharing programs is that they typically lack sufficient resources for a sustained, intensive marketing effort. Rideshare is launched and receives a flurry of free publicity in local media. Perhaps a few newspaper or radio ads are placed. People join, and the program coasts along for a while, but the marketing budget is gone. Then there is attrition: people leave the program for all sorts of understandable reasons (new job, new home, new spouse/partner), and are not replaced. As the database shrinks, the probability of finding a suitable match declines, leading to further attrition. After a while, the only new participants are non-drivers desperate for a lift to a midnight-shift job in Outer Exurbia.

Compare this to the constant, intensive effort to get people to buy cars. In an hour of American prime time television, someone tells me I need a new car perhaps 15 times. It's treated as a : the question isn't whether I need a new car, only which one. If we expect a significant number of people to rearrange their lives around a carpool, aren't we going to need put as much effort into it as the company that's trying to convince them to spend more on driving?

Where is the library of clever, ready-to-use Rideshare Public Service Announcements, waiting to be played on local television at odd hours of the day?

From: Ali Clabburn [mailto:aclabburn@compuserve.com]
Sent: Monday, 4 December 2000 12:28 PM
Subject: Introducing myself and liftshare.com

I would like to introduce myself to the carsharing egroup and to explain briefly what it is that we do. My name is Ali Clabburn, and I set up the UK's liftsharing scheme - www.liftshare.com back in 1997 as a student project to help fellow students get in and out of university and to get home at the end of term. The scheme has now moved on in leaps and bounds and the latest version of the site is now an all singing all dancing journey matching service for individuals, companies, and communities. The online service is free to join and use and our company covers its costs by developing specific solutions for large employers.

If anyone would like any more information please contact me - details below.

Happy travelling,

From: eric.britton
Sent: Monday, 4 December 2000 3:25 PM
Subject: Freewheelers, you, Earth Car Free Day - search for synergies

Thanks for your proposal Daniel. This is now done.

Your point about making this link and the idea of our finding ways in our cities to cumulate large arrays of varied arrangements into a seamless, first rate transportation system (which in and around most cities requires the exclusion or at least severe limitation of solo-driver cars) is a strategy which we have been pushing on both The Commons and EcoPlan for close to thirty years now. If you follow, for example, the evolution of things in the Bogotá Project site (at http://ecoplan.org/votebogota2000/ ) over the coming months, you will see how this thinking is being translated into actual practice in one place. We think that it's among the most important transportation/cities developments of the last half century or more.

For the first couple of years in @World CarShare, we thought it important to concentrate on building a strong base in carshare operations per se (again, as opposed to liftshare or ridesharing). But now with the help of hundreds of people and groups around the world we have pretty much accomplished that, so we can begin to stretch out to begin to bring in such closely related concepts as ridesharing. Indeed, it's my guess that we are going to see more groups that begin to offer both kinds of service, and that much of their existing organizational, software, and local base is going to lend them in good stead in such a broadening of their business base. That is not to say that this is for everybody or for tomorrow, but we can certainly anticipate this in a growing number of leading edge cases. So I have to applaud the symbolism of this move.

Finally I hope the fact that you are absent on Earth Car Free Day will not keep Freewheelers from joining the world group behind this great idea. Why not, let's try to get a thousand cities and groups behind this? Let's see... we already have some 250 members of @World CarShare, half that number in @World Car Free Day, close to 500 in World Transport Policy and Practice... And that's just from here. Now if we also begin to bring in the great Earth Day Network, and then all of our mutual friends, partners and others around the world who share these values and concerns, this seems like quite a doable total. Not bad for the first Earth Car Free Day, wouldn't you say? But we all have to pitch in.

Welcome aboard,

From: Daniel Harris [mailto:daniel@freewheelers.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, 4 December 2000 2:04 PM
Subject: [carshare] Freewheelers and Earth Car Free Day - search for synergies ;-)

Please add Freewheelers as the second ride sharing group in your list. We provide a similar service to Ali's company but at international/national levels.

>... we are beginning to think that we may be seeing some interesting >convergences between these two different sharing forms in the future.

I am glad to see that you have made the link between car sharing and ride sharing. I know I share this view with many other people when I say I look forward to a world where all transport methods are seamlessly integrated. We all want ease of use in whatever we do.

As long as the enlightened (ecologically minded) among us seamlessly integrate first then we have a better chance of increasing the use of our respective systems and hence saving our biosphere.

From: Martin Strid [mailto:martin.strid@vv.se]
Sent: Monday, 4 December 2000 6:35 PM

Subject: [carshare] Car & ride sharing, or Car sharing and pooling

The idea of combining carsharing (book a car) with ride sharing (book a seat in somebody's car) is quite common among people new to carsharing. Of course the idea is attractive. Also, many people tend to confuse the two concepts.

However, combining carsharing with ride sharing is not as simple as it may seem. A number of obstacles have to be resolved:

• Generally, car sharers don't drive cars. They go by bus, bike and what-have-you. So when they finally do get hold of a car, they tend to use it fairly INTENSIVELY, filling it up during a limited period of time, doing their two weeks shopping etc. In other words, not very many spare seats left over for ride sharers. But this is not the main problem.

• To participate in a ride sharing program, you want to have some kind of guarantee of PERSONAL SECURITY. This is especially true of female participants. You don't want to be ride-matched with a stranger only to find yourself getting robbed or raped on the journey. So, in a large scale flexible ride sharing scheme you need to have a system for certain identification of all the drivers and ride sharing passengers. This will probably not be enough for everybody, but I believe it is a minimum requirement. It is a major reason why many ride sharing programs are limited to a certain company or a workplace, where you know who is who.

• Thirdly, and perhaps most crucial, is the barrier of CRITICAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS. Let me put it this way: Suppose you take part in a ride sharing scheme. One car out of every ten thousand in your area takes part in the same scheme. So you call to get a ride match. You find that nobody is going your way when you are. Lets us call it a matching failure. You can take it once or twice, maybe thrice. If you are an enthousiast, you may call ten times and fail to get a ride (or a passenger) before you get fed up. You are not alone in abandoning the scheme. It falls into a vicious circle and will eventually die from "starvation", i.e. lack of possible journeys. This seems to be the case with numerous ride sharing services on the internet. (You may find them by searching for "car pool", "autostop", "covoiturage", "mitfahren", "samåkning" and so on).

• Now, suppose instead of 0.01% of the cars in your area, one car out of ten on the road is into the scheme. Suddenly participation is very interesting. There are so many cars and so many ride sharers in the scheme that nine times out of every ten that you call, you do get a ride match. That means the scheme doesn't fail you, so you won't abandon it. The critical number of participants has been achieved. The scheme will be able to grow: - in "market share", attracting an even greater part of the travellers in your area, and - geographically, adding peripheral areas by and by until the scheme is nationwide or more.

Of course none of these arguments applies to the traditional kind of rideshare where you commute with the same old pals every day, year after year until you have nothing left o talk about.

Please prove me wrong,

Rideshare Programs - From VTDI TDM Encyclopedia

Ridesharing refers to carpooling and vanpooling. Ridesharing is often the most popular alternative commute mode, particularly in suburban areas. Rideshare programs typically provide carpool matching, vanpool sponsorship, marketing programs, and incentives to rideshare rather than drive alone. Rideshare incentives may include use of HOV highway lanes; discounted or free parking where other employees must pay; preferential parking spaces; and awards, prizes and recognition. Some employers offer ridesharing subsidies, a cash payment to employees who carpool, or a voucher that covers vanpool fees, often provided as an alternative to a free parking space.

Some vanpools are operated by employers, others by transit or TDM organizations, and others by participants themselves. Most vanpools are self-supporting; operating costs are divided among members, except the van driver who may be allowed to commute for free. Some vanpool programs allow the driver to use the vehicle for personal use. Sometimes, employers or transportation agencies will provide an "empty seat subsidy," during periods when the van has less than its full potential paid passengers.

Carpooling tends to be most appropriate for short and medium distance commutes, while vanpooling is most suitable for longer commutes (10 miles or more each way). Most ridesharing is based on a regular schedule, although it may be part-time. For example, some commuters may rideshare certain days each week. In a few situations "casual" carpooling occurs, in which motorists pick up riders at established stops in order to take advantage of HOV lanes (Beroldo, 1990).

A few experimental programs have tried to provide dynamic carpooling, meaning that an independent organization matches passengers with drivers for individual trips (as opposed to regularly scheduled trips), often using computer technologies.

How It Is Implemented

Rideshare programs can be implemented by an individual employer as part of a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program, a Transportation Management Association or campus transportation authority, or by a regional transportation agency. The larger the scope the more successful they tend to be, since the pool of potential rideshare matches increases.

For small programs, potential rideshare partners can be matched using a map, but increasingly, computer programs are used. These can take into account each commuters' origin, destination, schedule, and special needs.

Travel Impacts

Because rideshare passengers tend to have relatively long commutes, mileage reductions tend to be greater than trip reductions. 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).

Benefits And Costs

Costs include programs administration, and constraints on participants, including the need to meet other riders (which may involve some additional travel), the need to maintain a schedule, loss of privacy, and restrictions on stops for errands while sharing rides. One ridematch system pilot project was estimated to incur $150,000 in setup and marketing expenses, and an average about $3.00 per user (i.e., per phone call received) in operating costs (Guiliano, Hall and Golob, 1995).

Transit agencies may 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.

Equity Impacts

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

Role Of Stakeholders In Implementing This Strategy

Barriers That Need To Be Overcome For Full Implementation

Case Studies and Examples

Commute Trip Reduction Rideshare Programs Comsis (1993) describes 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.

Dynamic Ridesharing in Seattle (http://sst.its.washington.edu/sst) Seattle Smart Traveler (SST) was an experimental dynamic ridematching program that operated 1995 through 1997. Using an Internet website it allowed University of Washington students and staff to quickly and easily learn of others who shared their transportation needs for any specific trip or set of trips that they wished to make. In addition, it allowed users to send an e-mail message to any or all of these individuals direclty from the SST application. (D. J. Dailey, et al., 1997).

Los Angles SmartTraveler (www.path.berkeley.edu/~leap/TTM/Ride_Matching) 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.

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 an 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.

References And Resources For More Information

• Apogee, Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures; A Review and Analysis of the Literature, National Association of Regional Councils (www.narc.org), 1994. Association for Commuter Transportation (Washington DC; 202-393-3497, http://tmi.cob.fsu.edu/act/act.htm) is a non-profit organization supporting TDM programs.
• Steve Beroldo, "Ridematching System Effectiveness: A Coast-To-Coast Perspective" Transportation Research Record 1321, 1991, pp. 7-12.
• Steve Beroldo, "Casual Carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area," Transportation Quarterly, January, 1990, pp. 133-150.
• Commuter Choice Program, Transportation Air Quality Center, USEPA (www.epa.gov/oms/traq).
• Comsis Corporation, Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org), 1993.
• D. J. Dailey, D. Loseff, D. Myers, and M.P. Haselkorn, The Smart Traveler, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, University of Washington, (www.its.washington.edu/pubs/trb97sst.pdf), 1997.
• Reid Ewing, "TDM, Growth Management, and the Other Four Out of Five Trips," Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 343-366.
• G. Guiliano, R.W. Hall and J.M Golob, 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.
• The Jack Bell Foundation (www.vcn.bc.ca/vanpool) operates a vanpool program in the Vancouver, BC region.
• Bill Legg, "Public-Private Partnership in Transportation Demand Management," Transportation Research Record 1346, 1992, pp. 10-13.
• Ride Together, Toronto Environmental Alliance, (www.torontoenvironment.org). Works with major employers to encourage carpooling.
• TDM Resource Center, 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), 1996.
• Urban Systems, Potential for Commuter Vanpool Services, GVRD (Vancouver), 1995.
• Washington State CTR Program (www.wsdot.wa.gov/pubtran/ctr). Washington State Ridesharing Organization, Do-It-Yourself Vanpool Guide, WSDOT (www.wsdot.wa.gov/Mobility), 1994. This 70-page publication gives detailed information on organizing and operating a vanpool.
• Philip Winters and Daniel Rudge, Commute Alternatives Educational Outreach, National Urban Transit Institute, Center for Urban Transportation Research, USF (Tampa; www.cutr.eng.usf.edu), 1995.

Back to top

@CarShare Home

@World Forum

Send E-mail