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
Encyclopedia 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
Encyclopedia 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.
Sincerely,
Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://www.vtpi.org
RIDESHARE PROGRAMS
------------------
TDM Encyclopedia
Description
-----------
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
--------------
Rideshare programs that include incentives such as HOV lanes and Parking
Cash Out often reduce commute trips by 10-30% (Winters and Rudge, 1995). If
implemented without such incentives travel impacts are often smaller.
Similarly, 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 substantial parking charges. The most effective
programs tend to have paid parking, subsidies for alternative modes, and
other incentives to encourage reduced automobile commuting.
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
------------------
Ridesharing can reduce vehicle travel and increase commuters travel
choices. They can provide financial savings to commuters and parking cost
savings to employers and students, as well as reduced traffic congestion
and environmental impacts. The table below compares typical commuting
costs. Rideshare programs can be particularly valued by commuters who
cannot drive or lack a reliable automobile.
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
--------------
Rideshare matching services are usually open to anyone in a particular
geographic area. Rideshare programs generally increase vertical equity by
improving travel options for non-drivers and making commuting more
affordable.
Relationships With Other TDM Strategies
---------------------------------------
Ridesharing supports and is supported by many other TDM programs, including
HOV lanes, preferential parking, Commute Trip Reduction programs, parking
management and Cash Out, flextime (which makes it easier for employees to
match schedules), guaranteed ride home services, and pedestrian
improvements at worksites to allow employees who rideshare access to nearby
services, such as shops and restaurants. In some cases ridesharing competes
with transit or non-motorized commute modes.
Role Of Stakeholders In Implementing This Strategy
--------------------------------------------------
Rideshare programs can be implemented by transportation or 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.
Barriers That Need To Be Overcome For Full Implementation
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
---------------------------------------------
At 10:50 PM 04/14/2000 +0200, you wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
>
Sincerely,
Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://www.vtpi.org
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
