Massachusetts' Ride-Sharing Programmes

Context

Collura (1994) reports the results of ride-sharing promotion in Massachusetts, USA. CARAVAN for Commuters Inc were contracted by Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) to provide ride-sharing orientated services in 1979. MHD sought to promote ride-sharing as a result of national concerns with "meeting suburb-to-suburb commuting patterns with conventional transit, the increasing levels of urban traffic congestion, and the concern for satisfying the air quality standards in the Clean Air Act" (Collura, 1994). The services provided by CARAVAN included:

• Administering vanpools with groups of individuals and corporations
  
• Matching individuals with potential car pools and existing vanpools
  
• Providing information on public and private buses, commuter boats and rail services
  
• Working with companies in the Boston Metropolitan area to establish commuter ride-sharing schemes that disseminate ride-sharing information, promote car and van pooling, and other types of commuting
  
• Community outreach programmes to promote and distribute information about ride-sharing options
  (Collura, 1994)

CARAVAN is a non-profit making organisation, which provides services under contract to the MHD. The annual contract is worth $700,000 from federal aid and state highway funds. Additional funding is received from the Executive Office of Energy Research ($69,052) and other sources ($36,425) (Collura, 1994). Figures cited here are at c1992 prices.

Impact on Demand
An employee carpool survey was undertaken with a representative sample of companies along one route (Route 128). Four companies were surveyed, three of which worked with CARAVAN. Of 577 respondents, only 3.6% carpooled to and from work. Additionally, the difference in level of carpooling between the companies working with CARAVAN and the control was small, 3.7% and 3% respectively. 60% of those who carpooled did so with family members, suggesting that attempts to promote carpooling were not having a significant impact. Further more the number of car poolers in the four companies decreased by 18.4% during the 10 years prior to c1991 (in the three organisations working with CARAVAN the decrease was 17%). Of those who previously carpooled, 59% organised their pool with employer assistance, compared to 5% using assistance from CARAVAN (Collura, 1994).

These findings suggest that demand for road space will have increased over the 10 years prior to the survey as the number of ride-sharers decreased. The demand for public transport may also have increased where previous ride-sharers did not have access to a car.

The decrease in carpooling was in line with regional and national trends (Udansky and Stone, 1992 in Collura, 1994). Possible causes of this trend are cited as; increases in income and car ownership, relatively inexpensive and stable fuel prices, and increases in unemployment. In light of these incentives to solo commuting, lack of disincentive (such as parking charges) or incentive to ride-share (such as priority parking and/or reduced parking charge) could also be reasons for the decrease.

CARAVAN used RideSource - a computerised matching service - to match individuals with potential car and vanpools. RideSource had approximately 2000 subscribers annually. 192 of these were contacted by telephone in c1990 to assess their response to RideSource. 158 were provided with ride-sharing options by CARAVAN, but only 18% were using one of the options provided (Collura, 1994). Collura (1994) describes this as a "relatively low degree of success". When compared to the ride-sharing rates achieved by recent company travel plans, 18% appears relatively successful (Collura, 1994). One reason for this may be that the RideSource database can match people from different companies, thus increasing the number of potential matches beyond that possible with an in house company database. However, the fact that the majority of ride-sharers in the carpool survey cited above either shared with family members of a carpool organised in house, suggests that people are unwilling to share with complete strangers. This may explain the "relatively low degree of success" (Collura, 1994) attributed to RideSource. The difficulties common to all means of changing habitual travel behaviour may also be a factor. These findings suggest that ride-sharing can work, but incentives and a means of being introduced to potential ride-share partners in advance of actually ride-sharing could increase success rates.

Impact on Supply
The ride-sharing will not have changed the supply of road space, merely the way it is used.

Contribution to Objectives
The specific objectives of ride-sharing in Massachusetts are outlined above. Contribution to objectives below is completed on the basis of contribution to overall transport policy objectives relative to the do nothing scenario. It should be noted that the contribution to objectives will decline in line with reductions in ride-sharing.

Casual Carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area

Context

Beroldo (1990) estimates that 8000 commuters form casual carpools to cross the San Francisco Bay Bridge - a toll bridge - every morning. Litman (2002) suggests that this number could now be as many as 10,000. This is significantly more than the 3000 and 5000 estimated in 1985 and 1987 respectively.

"Drivers and riders meet near BART stations and Almeda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit) bus stops where three-person, one-way carpools are formed spontaneously. Drivers and passengers generally do not know each other; carpool members change daily. Passengers are dropped off near the Transbay bus terminal (where all AC Transit buses terminate) in downtown San Francisco; two BART stations are also located in this vicinity. No money is exchanged between drivers and passengers. Drivers benefit by using the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) bypass lanes at the Bay Bridge toll plaza saving 10 to 20 minutes and $1.00 toll [c1990 prices] to cross the bridge. The obvious benefit to passengers is a free, relatively fast commute to San Francisco" (Beroldo, 1990).

Casual carpooling began in the 1970's, probably as a result of various transit disruptions and fare increases. Drivers are primarily motivated by a faster journey (they can use the HOV lane), whilst passengers are primarily motivated by a cheaper (compared to solo driver and paying the bridge toll and transit) journey. Until 1999, the carpooling only operated inbound in the morning as outbound pooling was logistically more difficult - there was no suitable, central area for drivers to pick up riders when heading out of San Francisco (dispersed pick up points would eradicate potential time savings) - and there was no outbound HOV lane, meaning that drivers would not benefit from a significant time saving and passengers would not benefit from a significantly cheaper journey. In 1999 a 20km outbound HOV lane was constructed, and casual carpooling has started to develop (Litman, 2002). Thus, the conditions for casual carpooling in San Francisco are defined as:

• Time savings for drivers that are sufficient to off set the time needed to pick up and drop off passengers.
  
• Pick up locations offering easy access to drivers and riders - near freeway on-ramps, within walking distance of a large number of residents, ample parking or along well served local transit routes.
  
• A common drop off point - downtown San Francisco employees 375,000 [c1990] people, in addition to being near a major transit hub, which allows some riders to continue their journey by transit.
  
• Good public transit as a back up to carpooling - especially for the journey home.

Beroldo (1990) reports that there is only one other large scale casual carpool in the US [at the time of writing], where similar conditions apply. This is between Springfield, Virginia and Washington D.C. In this case the carpooling is two way as HOV lanes operate in both directions and the morning pick-up points are not as dispersed as those in San Francisco. Approximately two-thirds of participants carpool in both directions. Additionally, more than one morning destination is offered, but each is part of a substantial employment cluster.

In San Francisco it was noted that the number of pick up points was increasing and dispersing over time, with simultaneous reduction in carpools originating from a few high volume points. Initial growth in participants made dispersal possible, whilst that in turn made carpooling feasible for more individuals. The potential for growth is greatest at pick up points with a feeder transit service - points relying on a supply of walk-up passengers from residential areas had necessarily limited growth potential. 97% of car poolers learnt about it through word of mouth or seeing it happen. However, there is now a website dedicated to supporting the casual carpooling in San Francisco (http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=1362).

Impacts on Demand
Surveys undertaken in 1985 and 1987 reported by Beroldo (1990) indicate abstraction from public transit as a result of casual car pooling for both riders and drivers. This suggests that casual car pooling adds to the number of vehicles on the road. However, given the background of increasing car ownership and solo driving, the existence of the carpool may be reducing the increase in car use.

Beroldo (1990) calculated the overall impact on traffic, concluding that the San Francisco casual carpool had the potential to remove 89 vehicles from the road under the best case scenario, or add 565 under the worst case scenario. Given the survey results above, it is reasonable to assume that reality is nearer to Beroldo's worst case scenario. However, Beroldo (1990) concluded that the overall impact would be negligible given that there are 73,000 person trips between 7am and 10am in the Bay Bridge corridor.

These findings suggest that ride sharing has most potential to contribute to transport objectives where there is not already a public transport alternative. Whilst the casual operation outlined here relies on public transport as a back up, abstraction from public transport can be problematic in terms of equity and congestion. Abstraction from public transport can lead to more cars on the road and, where public transport is required to make a profit, lead to a reduction in service levels as a result of lower demand.

Impact on Supply
The casual carpooling will not alter the supply of road space, merely the way it is used if a HOV lane were to be provided as a result of increased demand. Abstraction from public transport may cause a reduction in the supply of services.

Contribution to Objectives
Due to the casual nature of carpooling to cross the Bay Bridge into San Francisco, the objectives are not transport policy related. However, those working to reduce car use may wish to consider encouraging casual car pooling in certain circumstances. Given the potential problems of extraction from public transport, casual car pooling could be beneficial in commuter settlements where there is poor public transport and insufficient demand to warrant supply. However, a guaranteed ride would be necessary to ensure nobody was left stranded and unable to get to work. Evidence from Company Travel Plans suggests that guaranteed rides are necessary to give people the confidence to ride-share, but are in reality, rarely used.

Contribution to objectives below is completed on the basis of contribution to overall transport policy objectives.

SCHOOLPOOL - Carpool to School Program, Contra Costa, California

Context
Most Contra Costa districts do not provide a school bus service, thus the SchoolPool carpool ridematching services was developed to reduce the congestion and other logistical difficulties stemming from the need to drive children to school. Carpooling for the journey to school is promoted for children in public and private schools from Kindergarten through to college. There are two programmes coordinating activities - TRANSPAC/TRANSPLAN TDM in western, central and eastern Contra Costa, and SWAT in the southwest. All activities are promoted under the Contra Costa Commute Alternatives Network logo. (Osborn, c2000).

Ridematching brochures are distributed in school registration packs at the start of each year, articles are written for parent teacher association newsletters and staff promoting the ridematching work closely with school staff. Parents who submit requests receive a list of potential matches within five days, and an average of three updated lists over the next six weeks, as more parents join the programme. (Osborn, c2000)

Impact on Demand
Osborn (c2000) reports that the private schools participating in the schemes have a higher take up rate amongst parents due to drawing students from larger geographic areas. The results of both programmes for the year 1998/99 is reported in SchoolPool Trip Reduction.

The reduction in trip numbers and vehicle kilometres achieved by the SchoolPool project suggests that there will have been a reduction in the demand for road space during peak hours. This in turn should have resulted in a reduction in the magnitude of the negative impacts resulting from car use. However, it should be noted that nothing is known about the volume of suppressed demand realised as road space is freed up.

Impact on Supply
The SchoolPool project will not have changed the supply of road space, infrastructure for other modes or public transport services.

Contribution to Objectives
The SchoolPool project was implemented to tackle, "congestion and difficulties associated with getting children to and from school" (Osborn, c2000). The impacts on demand above suggest that these objectives may be being met. However, it is difficult to gauge the extent to which they are met without background data on traffic volumes.

Contribution to objectives below is completed on the basis of contribution to overall transport policy objectives.

Puget Sound Regional Vanpool Market

Context
Vanpools typically take five to fifteen commuters in one vehicle. Mc Bryan et al (2000) report that, in 1999 Puget Sound had 1,250 public vanpools operated by six local transport agencies - the largest public vanpool fleet in North America. McBryan et al estimate that there is a further 200 private vanpools operated by individuals. Public vanpooling started in 1979 in response to the fuel crisis. Even before this, Puget Sound employers offered vanpools, although most transferred to the public sector during the 1980's. The number of vanpools in Puget Sound continues to grow (60%+ since 1995, with an average annual rate of 13%), whilst the number has dropped from 23,000 in the mid-1980's to less than 10,000 in 1999 elsewhere in the US. The growth is despite a turnover of 40% to 50% of vanpools and ridership as a result of changes in work patterns per annum. In May 1999, demand exceeded supply, resulting in 200 groups awaiting delivery of new vans. 14% of drive alone and carpool commuters considered vanpooling during the past year - 7% of all commuters. However, the impact of legislation (Initiative 695) which drastically cut transportation funding in November 1999, is not known.

Despite the growth, vanpooling only accounts for 2% of the overall commute market, compared to a 9% market share achieved by carpooling. When summed, this is almost equal to the public transport market share - 13%, one of the highest market shares in the US. Amongst commuters travelling 32km or more each way, vanpooling has reached a 7% market share.

A high and positive awareness of vanpooling is reported, especially amongst those travelling 8 or more kilometres to work. Nevertheless, there is "substantial market confusion" (McBryan et al, 2000) about service providers, support services and out-of-pocket costs.

Washington State has created a supportive policy environment, including incentives. Vanpool legislation was established in 1979 and the state offers tax incentives and rideshare license plates to operators, tax incentives for employers who subsidise fares, and long and short term van rental programmes for public transport operators. Additionally, vanpools receive preferential boarding and exemption from the daily vehicle fare on Washington State Ferries (11% of public and 60% of private vanpools commute on the ferries). Company Travel Plans (CTP) also support vanpooling - 93% of the public vanpools commute to employers with a CTP.

Impacts on Demand
McBryan et al (2000) report that the public vanpools in Puget Sound eliminate more than 11,000 vehicles and 22,000 trips per day. Vanpools overall reduce the annual kilometres travelled as a solo driver by 4.3 million kilometres. 2,312 solo driver vehicles are removed from ferry sailings every day; 11 additional sailings would be needed during the am and pm peaks to accommodate these vehicles. The public vanpools recover a large proportion of their costs, limiting the need for public subsidy.

Impacts on supply
There are no changes to the supply of road space, although pressure to expand may be constrained. The supply of ferry services is held lower than demand would require if all vanpoolers travelled as solo drivers.

Contribution to Objectives
Contribution to objectives below is completed on the basis of contribution to overall transport policy objectives.

Gaps and weaknesses
Long established ride sharing programmes with monitoring and analysis appear to be most common in North America. Elsewhere, ride sharing has been subsumed by company travel plans, or is implemented through independent internet based matching services. The impact of these internet services has not been sufficiently monitored so far. However, the number of matches visible on the websites themselves and the lack of common usage suggests minimal up take and impact. The ride sharing schemes cited above imply that whilst the idea of ride sharing is popular, it does not happen without some need that is perceived by potential ride shares. Further to this, it appears that local authority support and backing is also necessary in some cases. This could explain the lack of up take experienced by independent internet based matching services. Access to technology and awareness of the services are also likely to be contributory factors. The over all result is a lack of up to date knowledge relating to ride sharing as a stand alone project, outside of North America.