MIT Real-Time Rides Research

This summary is certainly not comprehensive, it is a simple tally of the trends described above.

1. Ridesharing has a strong cultural and social aspect to it. The largest group of ridesharers are family members or related individuals. The rideshare mode split among the Hispanic population is nearly twice the US average, but declines rapidly with increasing residency.

2. The strongest indicators of rideshare use in the US appear to be income and, to a lesser extent, congestion. Rideshare participation decreases rapidly with increasing income. Only the Seattle metro area has a relatively consistent rideshare mode split across income groups. Rideshare appears to be higher in metro areas with greater congestion, although the trend is much more pronounced in large and very large metro areas.

3. At an aggregate level, rideshare participation appears to be higher in low density metropolitan areas, but the reasons for this are not entirely clear. Intuitively, ridesharing requires at least some density of riders with similar origins and destinations in order to work. However, higher densities are often accompanied by larger and more interconnected transit systems that may compete for rideshare participants. For lower density metropolitan areas, ridesharing may function as a type of small vehicle transit.

4. It is not clear whether ridesharing and transit are complements or substitutes. The international analysis of transit share and rideshare participation shows a potential substitution between the two modes, however the metropolitan analysis did not show any significant trade-off between transit share and ridesharing in the US context. Anecdotally, there is evidence from San Francisco that people who choose to rideshare previously rode transit, suggesting that the two modes are substitutes. On the opposite side, evidence from Seattle and San Francisco suggests that when passengers cannot find an appropriate ride-match, they rely on transit services to reach their desired destination, suggesting that the two modes are complementary.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

It may surprise some to learn that ridesharing as a percentage of commute mode share in the US is relatively high compared to other developed countries. The table below shows the mode split for commute trips for the US, Canada, the UK and Australia. The US has a substantially higher level of ridesharing than any of the other three nations. It is interesting to note however, that all three other nations have substantially higher public transit mode shares than the US does. If the two modes (carpool & public transit) are considered together, the combined share is quite similar across all countries. This may suggest that the two modes compete with one and other, as suggested at several points on the website. Further, this assertion is supported by the fact that the strongest rideshare markets in the US have relatively low transit shares, and vice versa.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

All of the statistics quoted thus far have been based on Home based Work (HBW) trips, or commute trips in other words. Looking at carpool and vehicle occupancy rates for all trips (including HBW) shows a very different story. According to the 2001 NHTS, multi-occupant vehicle trips (i.e. carpool trips) account for 48.9% of trips as compared to 12.6% of work-only trips. This is an interesting fact to consider when developing a rideshare strategy. While lower occupancy HBW trips and work-related trips only account for 18% of total trips in the US, they cause a disproportionately high percentage of the congestion experienced nationwide. Shifts from SOV to HOV for weekday commute trips are likely to have larger positive impacts on congestion than similar shifts in non-commute trips. This would seem to suggest that ridesharing initiatives should focus on commute-based trips.

However, occupancy for different trip purposes is only one aspect of capacity utilization; one must also consider differing trip lengths by trip purpose. The following chart shows total annual seat miles of unused capacity per vehicle for different trip types. Nearly half of all unused capacity is for commute or work related trips. This reinforces the previous belief that ridesharing initiatives should focus on commute-based trips. One should also consider the differing values of time that users place on different trip types. Commute trips are likely to have a higher value of time for most drivers, thereby making any inconvenience or delay in their journey increadibly onerous. If ridesharing is to be improved during the commute, convenience for drivers and passengers, and minimal delays are essential.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

Vanpooling is a specialized form of ridesharing. It is somewhat unique in that it is almost always pre-planned (there are very few ‘ad hoc’ vanpools), and an employer or regional transit/transportation agency often manages it. Publicly operated vanpools are highly concentrated; while the National Transit Database identifies vanpools operating in 20 metro regions, nearly 1/3 of all national vanpool trips occur in one metro region (Seattle) and nearly 1/2 of all national vanpool trips occur in two metro regions (Seattle and Chicago). It should be noted that this is only data by transit agency-managed vanpools; those managed by private firms or employers would not show up in these statistics.
[An interesting side note, by the late 1990’s, Washington was the only state in the nation to have retained mandatory Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) legislation for large employers (100+ employees). CTR requires employers to develop a plan aimed specifically at reducing SOV mode share.]

Uncategorized | No Comments »

There is a believe that carpooling has an inverse relationship with personal income; as income increases, families purchase additional vehicles, single occupant vehicle trips increase and carpool participation decreases. Indeed, national level journey to work data shown in the chart below confirms this inverse relationship between personal income and carpool share; carpooling as a share of mode split decreases as income increases. This is in contrast to transit mode share, which first decreases with increasing income, but increases in the higher personal income brackets.

The metro-level relationship between personal income and carpool share is basically the same as the national level trend. In almost all cases, metro region carpooling decreases steadily with increasing income. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX is a good example of this. Carpool mode share for those making less than $25K is nearly 20%, yet decreases to just over 5% for those making more than $75K. Washington, DC is interesting in that it is one of only two cities in which carpool mode share increases (albeit marginally) in the highest income bracket. Seattle, WA is perhaps the most interesting metro are from a carpool mode share standpoint. Its carpool share remains remarkably consistent over all income brackets, only showing a noticeable decrease for those in the highest income bracket. It is likely that Washington state’s Commute Trip Reduction legislation for large employers explain some of Seattle’s higher than average carpool mode share in higher income brackets.

When the metropolitan level data is analyzed over time, the income trend is not significantly different; the change in inflation-adjusted household income at the metropolitan level has a discernible, but varied impact on carpool mode share. One can certainly see that decreases in carpooling have commonly occurred when household incomes have risen (top-left quadrant) however there are instances when decreases in carpooling have been associated with decreases in income (bottom-left) and more recently, increases in carpooling have been observed when income has increased (top-right).

While it appears that there is a substantial change in mode share in the 1980’s as compared to the 1990’s, one should remember that the 1980 Census would have been taken during a period of high gas prices resulting from the 1970’s Energy Crises. With the sharp decrease in gasoline prices in the 1980’s, it is not surprising that the carpool share showed a large decrease across many metropolitan areas.

Overall, the data suggests that increasing levels of income are associated with a decrease in carpool mode share, both at the national and metropolitan levels.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

In 2000, foreign-born commuters accounted for slightly less than 14% of the working population, yet they made up nearly 20% of the share of 2-person carpools and over 40% of the share of carpools with 5 or more people.

However, it would be incorrect to characterize carpooling as simply a domestic vs. foreign issue. The evidence suggests that recent immigrants are much more likely to carpool than those foreign-born residents that have lived in the US for some time.

Ignoring length of time in the US for the time being, the 2000 Census data also shows that the incidence of carpooling is much higher among Hispanic Americans than it is for any other ethnic group. White, non-Hispanic Americans’ carpool share is only 10% for commute trips while the share for African Americans is 16% and the share for Hispanic Americans is 22%. This finding begins to explain the high rideshare mode splits in the metro areas of the US Southwest where Hispanic populations are more highly concentrated.

The high share of carpool activity attributed to recent immigrants and Hispanics leaves an interesting question unanswered. Is the initial high participation rate in carpools due to an inability to purchase a private vehicle (for financial reasons or otherwise), cultural factors related to shared vehicle transport, some combination of the two or other factors entirely?

Uncategorized | No Comments »

In 2000, 77% of nationwide carpools involved two individuals (the driver and one passenger). Of these two-person carpools, an estimated 80% were comprised of family members. Doing the math, approximately 7.8% of nationwide carpool mode share in 2000 could be considered “fam-pools” whereas the remaining 4.8% is the more traditionally defined carpools involving two or more unrelated individuals. This statistic is important as it demonstrates that the amount of family vehicle sharing is quite substantial. The statistic is also interesting in that carpools of unrelated individuals have a similar mode share as nationwide transit use (both are just shy of 5% of commute trips). When one adds in the level of public subsidy provided to both modes, the preferential treatment given to transit becomes apparent. The chart below is not meant to demonize transit (transit provides very important social benefits), but rather to highlight the question of whether ridesharing could provide social benefits similar to those provided by transit but with less subsidization?

Many have speculated that the lack of “traditional” carpooling taking place could be due to personal security concerns. We thought it would be fun to try to test this belief using available data. We should note that the relationship that follows suffers from a number of data consistently issues, please read past the chart to understand some of the weaknesses. To test the relationship between carpool use and personal security, we compared metro area carpool use against the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey’s Community Quotient for Social Trust. While the relationship is certainly not strong, the data suggests that as the Social Trust quotient increases, carpool participation decreases.

There are a number of data issues with this analysis:
1) Spatial Mismatch - Many of the Social Trust data points were for cities within larger metro areas, whereas the carpool data was at the MSA-level.
2) The Sample Size is Small - We only had data for 25 geographic areas to test against.
3) Intra-Geographic Area Sample Sizes were Small - Even within a geographic area, approximately 500 people were sampled.
4) The carpool mode share data includes both fampools and unrelated carpoolers (there was no easy way to separate the two groups from the Census data). If one assumes that “traditional” carpool activities occur at different degrees across different metro areas, than the inability to split the data into separate carpool groups creates yet another data inconsistency.

All in all, we thought the exercise would be an interesting test, but given the number of data issues we don’t put much faith in the results.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

As was seen in the previous section, geographic differences within the US appear to have some effect on rideshare participation. One potential reason for this is differences in metropolitan population densities. Cities in the Northeast developed much sooner than cities in the South and West, and were not originally designed to accommodate private automobiles. The chart below suggests that density may have an influence on carpool mode choice; as population densities increase, carpool mode share falls. What this chart does not provide any information on is whether density itself leads to decreasing carpool mode share, or whether higher densities improve the viability of other modes of transportation (such as transit) leading to a mode shift away from carpool.

Indeed, if one considers both carpool and transit mode shares and compares it to metropolitan density, the picture becomes a bit clearer. At higher densities, transit is the dominant mode choice (low carpool / transit ratios) while at lower densities carpool is the dominant mode choice (high carpool / transit ratios). Intuitively this makes some sense if one believes that higher population densities are a prerequisite for viable transit service.

[Note: The density calculations in the two previous graphs were done at the MSA level. MSA's in the US are determined by county boundaries rather than any sort of density gradient. As such, MSA's that include large counties with a primarily rural population (many in US Southwest, for example) will have lower densities than their actual urbanized area.]

One of the implications of the previous charts is that carpool and transit appear to compete for mode share. As we’ll see later on in the International section, this appears to be at least somewhat true at an aggregate level. However, its important to realize that this relationship is anything but certain. The chart below plots metro region carpool and transit shares against one and other. If the relationship between carpool and transit were strong, we would expect to see a pattern of dots sloping from top-left to bottom-right. In actuality, the data does not show any particular relationship between carpool and transit mode share at the metropolitan level.

Shifting from the relationship between transit and ridesharing to congestion and ridesharing, we see that at the aggregate level there is a consistent, positive trend. Those metro areas with higher levels of congestion generally have higher carpool mode shares. The trend is more pronounced for large metro areas than it is for smaller ones.

For metro areas with HOV facilities, the presumption is that as metro level congestion increases, commuters form carpools to take advantage of less congested HOV lanes. In these cases, there is an obvious travel-time savings benefit for the driver and probably for the passenger. In instances where HOV lanes are not present, the impetus for carpool formation is less clear. The argument has been made that some commuters choose to ride as a passenger in heavily congested situations to avoid the stress of driving. From an economic standpoint, there is less of an impetus when HOV lanes are not present. This may also explain the lack of trend in the small and medium metro areas; although no analysis was performed, one can assume the majority of freeway HOV facilities are found in the larger US metro areas.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

The geographic changes in ridesharing from 1990 to 2000 are quite pronounced. During the decade, only four metro regions of over 1 Million people had increases in carpool mode share and they were predominantly west of the Mississippi (Seattle, Phoenix & Dallas. Atlanta was the fourth). The map below paints an interesting story. While carpool mode share has been decreasing nationwide, the largest decreases have been in the eastern US. At the metropolitan level, the results are even more pronounced; of the top 10 metro regions with the highest carpool mode shares in 2000, eight are located in the US Southwest (CA, NV, AZ, NM & TX). The 10 metro regions with the lowest carpool mode shares were all in the Northeast (NY, MA, CT) and the Upper Midwest (OH, MI, PA). It is also interesting to note that the two metro regions that are frequently cited as examples of carpool success stories (San Francisco & Washington, DC) rank 16th and 21st respectively in terms of carpool mode share. Ironically, three cities often criticized for their reliance on the private automobile (Phoenix, Los Angeles & Las Vegas) have the highest proportion of carpool commuters in the US.
[Note that this analysis was limited to metro areas with 500,000 commuters or more]

Uncategorized | No Comments »

In stark contrast to transit use, carpool mode share is very consistent across metropolitan areas of different sizes. Not surprisingly, non-metropolitan region (rural) journey to work trips had a higher carpool share, as these commuters likely have longer commutes, have fewer transport options and are more likely to achieve cost savings from carpooling. Overall, this finding seems somewhat counterintuitive; one would have expected non-metro regions and large metro regions to have higher shares, as commuters in these areas are more likely to benefit from ridesharing through reduced fuel consumption and travel time savings. Although only speculation on our part, the lower-than-expected carpool mode share in large metro regions may be partly due to the larger transit service offerings.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

Ridesharing as a mode of travel to work was relatively popular in 1970 and 1980, accounting for approximately 20% of work trips. The 1980’s were difficult for ridesharing; by 1990, nationwide rideshare participation had decreased by 3.6 Million commuters and mode share dropped to approximately 13%. Ridesharing reversed somewhat in the 1990’s and by 2000 had added back 250,000 participants. This increase however did not keep pace with the overall growth in commuters resulting in a decrease in mode share to just over 12% of trips to work in 2000. The downward percentage trend continued in the early 2000’s but appears to have reversed course by 2006, likely due to increasing petroleum prices.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

Name of Service Provider;Address;E-mail;Phone;Contact Person;Web Link;Summary Sheet;Type of Organization;Geographic Coverage;Geographic Market - City;Geographic Market - State;Carpools Vanpools Both?;Level of Participation;Type of Rideshare Trip;Source of Funding;Trip Cost;Communication Mediums Used;Rider Matching Technology;Route Matching Technology;Employer Connection;Vehicle Ownership /Fleet Size;Incentives;Agreements / Collaborations with Other Rideshare Providers;Integration with Other Commute Information Sources;Additional Information
511.org Rideshare;101 Eighth St Oakland CA 94607;;510-817-5700;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;San Francisco;CA;Both;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Consultations Marketing and outreach Worksite events Employee surveys;Vans can be leased from third party;Earn money for a commute diary;;;
ABC TMA RideMatch;33 Broad St Suite 300 Boston MA 02109;;617-502-6246;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;Boston;MA;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;28 Employers;;Cash prizes Guaranteed Ride Home;Vanpools found through GoLoco;Website links to Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority AAA and the Executive Office of Transportation;Collaboration with MassRides
AdVANtage Vanpool Program;1350 East 17th St Kansas City MO 64108;”dbrown@kcata.org“;816-346-0800;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;Kansas City;MO;Vanpools;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee;Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;;Owns Vans;Guaranteed Ride Home;;Run by Kansas City Area Transportation Authority which also runs bus and light rail in the area;
AlterNet Rides;;”alternetways@alternetrides.com“;925-952-4519;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;National;;;Both;1693 public rides listed;All Trips;Other - fee from organizations;;Website;Notice Board;;Provides ridematching services to employers;;;;;Provides free service to churches and other places of worship
Avego (by Mapflow);1 Kinsale Commercial Park Kinsale County Cork Ireland;”info@avego.com“;+353 (0) 21 477 3833;Sean OSullivan;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;Several Thousand Downloads;All Trips;Commission;Cost per Mile;iPhone / Website;Automated Matching: Real-Time;Along the Route;Versions of the Avego software offered on Windows Mobile and Linux platforms for corporate clients;;;;Currently working on a combined transit/rideshare information service in Madrid Spain;
Bay Area Commuter Services;1408 N Westshore Blvd Suite 704 Tampa FL 33607;”TampaBayRideshare@atlantic.net“;813-282-8200;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Non-Profit;Local/Regional;;FL;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Employer Commute Assistance: zip code maps of where employees live dedicated parking for carpool/vanpool install bike racks;;Emergency Ride Home;;Links to all area transit;Run by Bay Area Commuter Services which is one of nine Florida commuter assistance programs. Funded by FL DOT
Capitol Rideshare;100 North 15th Avenue Suite 431 Phoenix AZ 85007;”adrides@azdoa.gov“;602-542-7433;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;State Agency;State;;AZ;Both;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;State Employees Only;;Carpool Parking Permits Emergency Ride Home Discounts;;;Program is specifically for Arizona State Employees
Carpool.ca;;”information@carpool.ca“;;Anne Marie Thorton;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;National;;;Carpools;;Commuting Trips;Funded by numerous city governments;;Website;;;Manages over 120 employer rideshare programs;;”Sponsors annual “”Rideshare Week”" which includes prize drawings for new registrants”;;;
Carpool Connect;;;;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;;National;;;Carpools;;All Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips and Notice Board;Origin/Destination;;;;;;
Carpool Crew;;”contact@carpoolcrew.com“;;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;;National;;;Carpools;;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Employers can advertise Carpool Crew on their website;;;;;Users can leave feedback on travel partners
Carpool Match NW;;”feedback@carpoolmatchnw.org“;;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;State Agency;Local/Regional;;OR WA;Carpools;11 500 registered users;All Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Provides Promotional Brochures for paychecks ads and posters;;Prize sweepstakes;Link to MidValley Rideshare;Links to TriMet C-Tran SMART Transit Sandy Transit Salem Area Mass Transit District Flexcar Bicycle Transportation Alliance Willamette Pedestrian Coalition Vancouver Bicycle Club;Sponsored by Metro in cooperation with City of Portland Office of Transportation South Metro Area Rapid Transit TriMet and Rogue Valley Transit District
Carpool World;;;;Max Fox and Isabelle Boulard;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;82 378 registered trips;All Trips;Advertising and Other (fees from organizations);;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;Employers can form private groups;;;;;Carpool world has a patent on their matching algorithm
Carticipate;3720 Scott Street San Francisco CA 94301;”contact@carticipate.com“;415-912-1221;Steffen Frost;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;15 000 downloads;All Trips;Other - Revenue from other iPhone Apps;;iPhone / Website;Automated Matching: Real-Time;Origin/Destination;;;;;;
Commuter Connections;777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 300 Washington DC 20002;;1-800-745-RIDE;Nick Ramfos;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;;Washington DC MD VA;Both;20 000 riders;All Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips and Notice Board;Origin/Destination;Employer Services Representatives;;Guaranteed Ride Home;Links to all area ridesharing/vanpooling programs;Suggests offering subsidized SmarTrip cards (transit passes);Run by a network of over 30 organizations (federal regional state)
Commuter Link;;”info@commuterlink.com“;1-866-NYCOMMUTE;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;State Agency;Local/Regional;New York City;NY;Both;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Specific website for employers - http://employers.commuterlink.com;;Guaranteed Ride Home;;CommuterLink will provide customized transit routes complete with schedules and maps;Non-Profit funded by New York State DOT and supported by NYC Department of Transportation
Commuter Resource RI Rideshare;265 Melrose St Providence RI 02907;;401-781-9400;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;State Agency;State;;RI;Carpools;;All Trips;;;Website;Notice Board;;;;Guaranteed Ride Home;Powered by Alternet Rides;Run by Rhode Island Public Transit Authority;
CommuteSmart;1731 First Avenue North Suite 200 Birmingham AL 35203;”ssaffle@rpcgb.org“;1-87-RIDEMATCH;Sean Saffle;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;;AL;Both;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;”"”Employer Link”" Provided”;;Cash and Gift Card Rewards;;;CommuteSmart operates statewide but directed by Regional Authorities
Compartir S.L. ;C/ Gavatxons 3 - 2 08221 Terrassa;”control@compartir.org“;34-937-891-106;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;;International;;;Carpools;;All Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;;;;;;
Covoiturage;;”thomas.herlin@covoiturage.com“;33(0)6 62 31 25 88;Thomas Herlin;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;219 940 registered users;All trips;Advertising and Other (fees from organizations);;Website;Notice Board;;Organizations can pay a fee for a Covoiturage-run ridesharing application on their website;;;;;
DriJo GmbH;Mountain View CA and Lenzau 1 84558 Kirchweidach Germany;;1-650-276-0383 498623-218330;Walter Demmelhuber and Peter Sabalat;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;;International;;;Carpools;;All Trips;;Other - Auction;Website;Notice Board;Along the Route;;;;;;
Drive2Day;;;;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;;International;;;Carpools;;Inter-City Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;Module and Program Available to Employers;;;;;Users can leave feedback on travel partners
Drive Time Des Moines;;”info@drivetimedesmoines.org“;515-286-4969;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;Des Moines;IA;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;;;Rest Your Car - monthly and quarterly prize drawings;;Links to all area transit;Funded by Des Moines Area MPO Downtown Community Alliance City of Des Moines and Des Moines Regional Transit Authority
Easy Street;100 Corporate Drive Suite 120 Windsor CT 06095;”CS@rideshare.com“;1-800-972-3279;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Non-Profit;State;;CT;Vanpools;300 daily routes with 3000 daily riders;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee;Website;Notice Board;;;Owns Vans;Cash rewards for referring new riders Emergency Ride Home;Run by The Rideshare Company;;Sponsored by Connecticut DOT
Ecolane Dynamic Carpool;Mets‰nneidonkuja 10 2130 Espoo Finland;”sami.poykko@ecolane.com “;+358 9 72 554 272;Sami Poykko;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;;All Trips;;;Java-enabled Mobile Phones;;;Appears to be marketed to employers & public agencies;;;;;
eRideshare;PO Box 402 Edwardsville IL 62025;”info@erideshare.com“;618-530-4842;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;20409 daily carpools 967 cross country trips 151 other trips;All Trips;;;Website;Notice Board;;Employers can make their own carpooling group;;;;;
Freewheelers Ltd;;”web.info@freewhelers.co.uk“;;Daniel Harris;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Non-Profit;International;;;Carpools;316 rider requests 103 driver requests;All Trips;Other - Donations;;Website;Notice Board;;;;;;;
GishiGo Ride Share Network;;;San Francisco: 415-223-4243 New York: 718-690-7290;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;;Non-Work Trips;Commission;;Website;Notice Board;;;;;;;Users can leave feedback on travel partners
Goose Networks;216 1st Ave S Suite 450 Seattle WA 98104;”zac@goosenetworks.com“;206-57-GOOSE;Zac Corker;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;National;;;Carpools;;Commuting Trips;Commission (per employer);;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;Works strictly with employers - not with individual commuters;;;;;Provides management tools to employers regarding commute options
GoLoco;40 Cottage St Cambridge MA 02139;”support@goloco.org“;617-395-2643;Robin Chase;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;National;;;Carpools;15 000 registered;All Trips;Commission;Cost per Mile;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;Employers can make their own carpooling group and/or provide GoLoco chicklet on their site;;Most employers offer preferred parking;;;Members can select who sees their post Facebook application also available
Go Vermont - Connecting Commuters;;;1-800-685-RIDE;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;State Agency;State;;VT;Both;4000 registered users;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;;Vans leased from VPSI;Emergency Ride Home;Vanpools provided by VPSI;;
GreenRide;368 Pleasant View Drive Lancaster NY 14086;”greenride@ene.com“;1-877-GR-RIDE-1;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;Used by various employers all over the US Canada and New Zealand;;;;;Ridesharing package that is solicited to MPOs TMAs Corporations Campuses Air Quality Management Districts
Hawaii DOT Rideshare Program;601 Kamokila Boulevard Room 602 Kapolei HI 96707;”rideshare@hawaii.gov“;808-692-7695;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;State Agency;State;;HI;Carpools;;Commuting Trips;;;Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;;;;;Links to The Bus (area bus service) and Leeward Oahu TMA (LOTMA);
Hitchhikers.org;;”info@hitchhikers.org“;;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;124 Rides listed;Inter-City Trips;Other - Donations;;Website;Notice Board;;;;;;;Capability to be international but only has European trips posted
Jack Bell Ride-Share for BC;700 West 57th Ave Vancouver BC Canada V6P 1S1;”info@ride-share.com“;1-888-380-RIDE;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;Local/Regional;;British Columbia Canada;Both;5 000 registered users;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (formal rideshare);Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;Can search by employer on the homepage with 58 employers listed;Owns a fleet of cars and vans;;;;Designates trips as Casual and Formal Ridesharing. Casual - use personal vehicle due to irregular work schedule Formal - use Jack Bell owned vehicle
Leeward Oahu TMA Carpool Service;;”lotma@lava.net“;808-677-RIDE;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;Oahu;HI;Carpools;;Commuting Trips;;;Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;;;Emergency Ride Home;Links to DOT website for more carpool information as well as erideshare.com and carpoolworld.com;Links to LOTMA Commuter Express (bus) The Bus and Mililani Trolley Vanpool Hawaii;
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Rideshare Program;200 East Main Street Lexington KY 40507;”rdaman@lfucg.com“;859-233-POOL;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;;KY;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;;;Guaranteed Ride Home;;Link to Lextran (transit authority or LFUCG and Lexington KY);Also provide a bicycle program
Liftshare;Butterfly Hall Attleborough Norfolk England NR17 1AB;”info@liftshare.com“;44(0)8700-780225;Ali Clabburn;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;62 342 664 trips last year 39% of registered journeys result in matches;All Trips;Other - fee from employers;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;Employers can form private groups for their employees see liftsharesolutions.com;;;;liftshare also has WalkBUDi BikeBUDi and TaxiBUDi;
Local Motion Rideshare;301 King Street Room 1200 Alexandria VA 22314;”localmotion@alexandriava.gov“;703-838-3800;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;;VA;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips and Notice Board;Origin/Destination;UrbanTrans Consultants works with City LocalMotion to provide Employer Services;;;Ridematching done by Commuter Connections advertises for NuRide advertises for 5 vanpool agencies in the area;Bus/Rail Bike/Walk trip planning tools are also available on the site;HOV lane locations listed
MassRIDES Ridesharing Database;;”leeroy.wagner@eot.state.ma.us“;1-888-426-6688;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;State Agency;State;;MA;Both;15 000 registered users;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;Works with various employers around the state;;Prize drawings;;Link to Zipcar;
MetroPool;1 Landmark Square 8th Floor Stamford CT 06901;”info@metropool.com“;800-346-3743;Mary Chalupsky;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;;Local/Regional;;CT NY;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;MetroPool provides a variety of management services to employers and works with around 300 organizations;;;Links to NuRide CTRides EasyStreet nyRides Rideworks;Links to Connecticut Rail Commuter Council and all area transit;Metropool operates 5 regional offices
Metro Vanpool;;”rto@oregonmetro.gov“;503-813-7566;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;Portland;OR;Vanpools;28 routes listed;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee;Website;Notice Board;;;Vans leased from a third party;Emergency Ride Home qualified routes get 50% subsidy on monthly lease;Advertised by CarpoolmatchNW;;Vanpools can be started by commuters or their employers
Mid-America Regional Council RideShare Program;600 Broadway Suite 200 Kansas City MO 64105;;816-842-RIDE;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;Kansas City;MO;Carpools;;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Notice Board;;Working with 36 Employers providing Commuter Tracker Calendar Regional employer-based commuter challenge;;Preferred parking subsidized bus passes cash and gift certificate rewards extra time off;Powered by GreenRide Link to AdVANtage Vanpool Program;;
Mid-Missouri RideShare Program;PO Box 176 Jefferson City MO 65102;;573-522-RIDE;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;State Agency;Local/Regional;Jefferson City Columbia;MO;Carpools;;Commuting Trips;;;Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;;;;Links to all other area rideshare providers;;
My RideSmart ;40 Courtland St NE Atlanta GA 30303;”RideSmart@AtlantaRegional.com“;1-877-433-3463;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;Atlanta;GA;Both;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Employer Service Organizations (ESO);Vans leased from a third party;Guaranteed Ride Home Gift Card drawings;;Links to area transit and a Regional Transit System map available for download;
New Hampshire Rideshare;7 Hazen Drive Concord NH 03301;;603-271-6767;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;State Agency;State;;NH;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;;;;;Links to area transit;Run by NH DOT Park and Ride map provided
New Jersey Ridesharing;PO Box 600 Trenton NJ 08625;;;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;State Agency;State;;NJ;Both;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;;Vans can be leased from third party;Carpooling Makes Sense - receive gas cards for carpool log;;;Run by NJ DOT Park and Ride map provided
NuRide;35 Pratt St Suite 108 Essex CT 06426;”http://www.nuride.com/contact“;1-866-NURIDE-1;Rick Steele;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;Local/Regional;Minneapolis/St. Paul New York City Hampton Roads San Antonio and Houston Washington DC;MN NY CT VA TX Washington DC;Carpools;36 457 Registered users 1 582 923 shared rides;All Trips;Other - Sponsors and government contracts;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Can only use service with a verified organization e-mail address;;Reward points earned for each trip which can be redeemed for prizes;;;
Ohio RideShare;;;1-800-825-RIDE;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;;OH;Carpools;;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;;;;Powered by GreenRide;Link to Ohio Bike Buddies;Run by Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study Eastgate Regional Council of Governments and Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (all MPOs)
Ozarks Commute;;;831-RIDE;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;;MO;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;Can search for matches based on your employer;;;System is powered by RideShark;;Publicly funded
Pace RideShare;550 W Algonquin Rd Arlington Heights IL 60005;”passenger.services@pacebus.com“;847-364-PACE;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;;IL;Both;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;Employers can establish a PaceRideShare Employee Administrator who has access to a list of participating employees can create reports of travel modes trip and pollution reductions fuel and cost savings;Owns vans;For Vanpooler - Emergency Ride Home bus passes if using the bus to get to vanpool;;Run by Pace Bus Service;
Palouse Rideshare;PO Box 8596 Moscow ID 83843;”info@palouserideshare.org“;208-882-1444;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;Palouse;ID;Carpools;;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;;;;Works closely with PCEI Vanpool Network;;System is still in testing stage
Palouse - Clearwater Environmental Institute Vanpool Network;PO Box 8596 Moscow ID 83843;”info@pcei.org“;208-882-1444;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Non-Profit;Local/Regional;Moscow Lewiston Orofino;ID;Vanpools;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee;Mail / E-Mail;Notice Board;;;Owns vans;;Works with Palouse Rideshare;Links to fixed bus routes in the area;80% of van costs provided under CMAQ in 1994 other 20% came from local supporters
PickUp Pal;Second Floor International Trading Center Warrens St. Michael Barbados West Indies;”john@pickuppal.com“;;John Stewart;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;;All Trips;Advertising;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;;;;;Links to bus and rail services;Facebook application also available costs of ride are paid between rider and driver in cash users can provide feedback on their travel partners
Piggyback;France;”info@piggybackmobile.com“;;Sebastien Petit;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;Not yet Available for Download;All Trips;;;Google Android Mobile Phone;;;;;;;;
Pooln Carpool Network;;”support@pooln.com“;;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;;National;;;Carpools;;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;;;;;;Matching is done based on origin and destination zip code
Ride4All;;”Patrick@ride4all.com“;;Patrick Kelly and Tri Tran;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;National;;;Carpools;;All Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;;;;;;
Ride Amigos;;”customerservice@rideamigos.com“;;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;Local/Regional;New York City;NY;Carpools;;All Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Employers can create their own private ridesharing system for their employees currently RideAmigos is working with at least 12 employers;;Rewards card to receive discounts at local participating vendors;;;
Ride Arrangers;1290 Broadway Suite 700 Denver CO 80203;”info@drcog.org“;303-458-POOL;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;Denver;CO;Both;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;Provides complimentary assistance to employers to provide free carpooling service to employees;Owns vans;Guaranteed Ride Home for vanpoolers;;;
RideFinders;1 Transit Way PO Box 7500 Granite City IL 62040;”ridefinders@mct.org“;618-874-7433;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;St. Louis;MO;Both;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Works with over 1 400 Employers;Owns vans;Incentives available when employer is registered with RideFinders - Guaranteed Ride Home;;;Operates with grant funding from USDOT and FHWA Park and Ride Map provided
RideLinks;1 S Fair Oaks Ave Suite 302 Pasadena CA 91105;”info@ridelinks.com“;626-440-9933;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;National;;;Carpools;;Commuting Trips;Other - fee from employers;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Employers can create their own private ridesharing system for their employees and employees of neighboring businesses;;;;;Ridematching in just one of many air quality services that RideLinks provides
Ridematch.info;;;1-800-COMMUTE;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;;CA;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips and Notice Board;Origin/Destination;Offers training to employers employers can offer incentives at no additional cost Employee surveys provided;;Rideshare week - incentives/prizes;Ridematching service for commutersmart.info;;
RidePro;;”info@trapezegroup.com“;480-627-8400;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;National;;;Both;;Commuting Trips;Other - fee from employers;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;The Trapeze Group (creator or RidePro) offers its software strictly to employers and organizations not individual commuters. Employers can manage the software on their own system or run it through a Trapeze-hosted server;;;;RidePro has to capability to provide trip planners which include public transit options for the given area;
Ride Search;1352 Riley Carrollton TX 75007;”brian@ridesearch.com“;1-800-875-7291;Brian Bass;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;National;;;Carpools;;All Trips;Advertising;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips and Notice Board;Origin/Destination;RideSearch sells t-shirts business cards and reserved parking signs to promote carpooling;;;;;Notice board for non-work trips and automatic matching for work trips
The RideShare Company;100 Corporate Drive Suite 120 Windsor CT 06095;”nfitzgerald@rideshare.com“;800-842-2150;Nancy Fitzgerald;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Non-Profit;Local/Regional;;CT NY MA RI;Both;3000 riders/day;Commuting Trips;;;Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;Transportation Fairs Commuter Tax Benefit Program;;;Parent Company of EasyStreet Vanpool link to NuRide MetroPool Ctrides Rideworks ;Links to area transit;Aimed more towards employers than individual commuters
RideShare Delaware;919 N. Market St Suite 411 Wilmington DE 19801;;1-888-RIDE-MATCH;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;State Agency and Private Organization;;;DE;Both;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Employee Surveys Marketing and Outreach Work site events Density Maps Relocation assistance;Vans leased from a third party;Emergency Ride Home Preferred Parking (employer specific);;Links to regional transit agencies;
Rideshare Online;;”rideshare@rideshareonline.com“;1-888-814-1300 1-208-345-POOL;Cathy Blumenthal;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;;WA ID;Both;~15 000 registered users;All Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;Many area employers use the services;Vans are owned by individual transit agencies;Contact local county for incentives;Run in cooperation with Washington and Idaho vanpool providers;Run by King County Metro (Transit Authority) in a partnership with 16 transit agencies;List of park and ride lots provided
Rideshare.us;;;;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;;International;;;Carpools;;All Trips;;;Website;Notice Board;;;;;;;US and Canada
RideSpring;849 Almar Ave Suite C 205 Santa Cruz CA 95060;”contact@ridespring.com“;831-278-0312;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;National;;;Carpools;;Commuting Trips;Other - fee from employers;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;Employers can create their own private ridesharing system for their employees;;Software has a built-in incentive program and RideSpring provides monthly prizes;;;
Ridester;8181 Fannin St Suite 1137 Houston TX 77054;;1-800-499-3745;Jake Boshernitzan;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;National;;;Carpools;;Inter-City Trips;Commission;Cost per Trip;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;;;;;;$2 ticket fee + 9.5% processing fee on drivers asking price all posted trips must be longer than 20 miles
Rideworks;195 Church St New Haven CT 06510;”info@rideworks.com“;1-800-ALL-RIDE;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Non-Profit;;;CT;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Relocation services Employee Transportation Coordinator training On-site events and presentations Telecommuting consulting Marketing materials Construction announcements Transportation survey assistance Commuter Information Centers;Vans leased from EasyStreet Vanpool;Guaranteed Ride Home;Link to NuRide provided;Links to area transit;
San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare;1150 Osos St Suite 202 San Luis Obispo CA 93401;”mmarshall@rideshare.org“;805-541-2277;Morgen Marshall;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;San Luis Obispo County;CA;Both;;All Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;;Transportation Choices Program;Owns 24 vans;Lucky Bucks Program - Earn bucks and cash them in for prizes Monthly drawings Guaranteed Ride Home;;Google Transit Trip Planner is embedded in the website;
Share-a-Ride;190 N. Independence Mall West 8th Floor Philadelphia PA 19106;”sharearide@dvrpc.org“;215-592-1800;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;;PA;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Mobility Alternatives Program;Vans leased from a third party;Emergency Ride Home;;Information about transit incentives (TransitChek);
Share The Ride North Carolina;;;;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;Local/Regional;;NC;Both;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Mail / E-Mail;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;Must be affiliated with a registered employer to use the service;;Emergency Ride Home when provided by local agency;;Link to NCDOT Public Transit Division and Other are transit and vanpool programs;
The Carpool;PO Box 6 Kelvin Grove 4059 Brisbane Australia;”info@thecarpool.com.au“;;;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;;All Trips;Other - fee from organizations;;Website;Notice Board;;Employers can create and manage their own private ridesharing internet site - currently there is only one employer site listed on thecarpool.com;;;;;Focused in Australia New Zealand and Singapore
Trip Convergence Ltd Flexible Car Pooling;32 Green Lane East Remuera Auckland 1050 New Zealand;”paulminett@tripconvergence.co.nz“;+64 9 524 9850 +64 21 289 8444 206-631-9702;Paul Minett;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Both;Seeking trial locations;Commuting Trips;Other - awards grants public sources;Cost per Trip;N/A;None - Casual Carpool;None- Casual Carpool;Trip Convergence is directed towards individual users though large employment destinations with single or multiple employers could participate in establishing the system to reduce traffic to their location. ;;It is expected that incentives and prize draws will be offered both to get initial sign-up and on an ongoing basis.;;;
Utah Transit Authority Rideshare;;”wkarsch@rideuta.com“;;Wendy Karsch;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;State Agency;State;;UT;Both;;Commuting Trips;;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;Employers can manage transportation needs through a web-based interface;;Commuter Challenge Incentive Program;;Run by Utah Transit Authority;
Valley Rides;;”mgarza@fresnocog.org“;559-278-2277 559-233-4148;Frederick Martinez Melissa Garza;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Local/Regional Agency;;Fresno;CA;Both;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee (Vanpools);Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Origin/Destination;;Leases Vans;;;Links and numbers for all area transit providers;Partnership between California State University Fresno and Council of Fresno County Governments
Vanpool Hawaii;711 Kapiolani Blvd Suite 985 Honolulu HI 96813;”jennie.farley@vpsiinc.com“;808-VAN-RIDE;Jennie Farley;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;State;;HI;Vanpools;;Commuting Trips;;Monthly Fee;Website;Notice Board;;Cool Pool - offers companies tax-free benefits conducts employee surveys;Owns vans;;;;Operates under VPSI nations largest vanpool provider
ZimRide;514 Bryant St Suite 119 Palo Alto CA 94301;”support@zimride.com“;1-866-422-7609;Logan Green;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Carpools;300 00 users in the past year;All Trips;Other - fee from organizations;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;Provides customized site for organizations and handles all technical operations;;;;;Facebook application also available

Uncategorized | No Comments »

• OpenTrip - the beginnings of an open protocol data feed for sharing trip data among carpooling services and transit agencies.

• WSDOT RideshareOnline Replacement RFP - I am attempting to track down on online version

• Ridesharing Advice for Cities, Others - This blog posting on the New America Foundation website lists a number of the “structural issues” that ridesharing frequently runs into

Uncategorized | No Comments »

Below is a partial list of research papers and resources ordered by published date. We will be adding additional references and some summaries over the coming weeks

• Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions - (ULI & Cambridge Systematics, 2009)

• Paul Minett’s 2009 TCRP Carpool/Vanpool Research Proposal

• Covoiturage Dynamique: L’Etude Prealable avant Experimentation [Dynamic Ridesharing – Advanced Study before Experimentation] - (CERTU – Transport Technology, 2009) (French)

• Saferide Annotated Bibliography - This list of academic references for the Saferide Project serves as a good background on mode choice behavior.

• Fuel Savings and Ridesharing in the US: Motivations, Limitations, and Opportunities - (Jacobson and King, 2008)

• Interactive System for Real Time Dynamic Multi-hop Carpooling - (Gruebele, 2008)

• Examining Incentives and Preferential Treatment of Carpools on Managed Lane Facilities - (Ungemah et al., 2007)

• Casual Carpooling - Enhanced - (Kelley, 2007)

• Various UK government Reports [DfT & TfL] - (2000 – 2008)

• Who Chooses to Carpool and Why? Examination of Texas Carpoolers - (Jianling Li, TRR #2021, 2007)

• Dynamic Taxi-Sharing Service Using Intelligent Transportation System Technologies - (Chi-Chung Tao, 2007)

• Estimating commuter mode choice: A discrete choice analysis of the impact of road pricing and parking charges - (Washbrook, 2006)
  
  • “To estimate commuter mode choice behaviour in response to road pricing and/or increased parking charges, 548 commuters from a Greater Vancouver suburb who presently drive alone to work completed an individually customized discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which they chose between driving alone, carpooling or taking a hypothetical express bus service when choices varied in terms of time and cost attributes. Results indicate that improving travel time for alternative travel modes above a base level of service had only a small effect on mode choice and did little to decrease demand for SOV travel, nor did increases to SOV travel time. On the other hand, increasing the cost of SOV travel by introducing new charges had a substantial and significant effect on demand for driving alone…At moderate travel times, carpooling was a more attractive alternative than taking transit. Only short travel times with few or no transfers attracted drivers to transit.”

• The Ambivalence of Ridesharing - (Morency, 2006)

• Smart Jitney/Community-Enhanced Transit Systems - (Woodsworth & Behnke, 2006)

• Saving Oil in a Hurry - (International Energy Agency, 2005)

• Design Decisions in the RideNow Project - (Hemphill, Resnick & Wash, 2005)

• TCRP Report 95, Chap. 5 - Vanpools and Buspools - Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes - (TCRP, 2005)

• SocioTechnical Support for Ride Sharing - (Resnick, 2003)

• Organized Dynamic Ridesharing: The potential Environmental Benefits and the Opportunity for Advancing the Concept - (Levofsky and Greenburg, 2001)

• Mating Habits of Slugs: Dynamic Carpool Formation in the I-95/I-395 Corridor of Northern Virginia - (Shapiro & Spielberg, TRR #1711, 2000)

• Spatial and Temporal Factors in Estimating the Potential of Ridesharing for Demand Reduction - (Tsao & Lin, 1999)

• Casual Carpooling: An Update - (RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, 1998)

• The Marriage of Transit and Autos: How to Make Transit Popular Again - (Webber, 1998)

• The Rise and Fall of the American Carpool: 1970-1990 - (Ferguson, 1997)
  
  • “Recent declines in carpooling among American commuters are analyzed using data derived from the US Census of Population, the Nationwide Personal Transportation Study and the American Home Survey. The most important factors associated with recent declines in carpooling to and from work in the US include increasing household vehicle availability, falling real marginal fuel costs, and higher average educational attainments among commuters. Age, sex, family income, household lifecycle characteristics, urban form, racial diversity and relative poverty appear to have had smaller effects on observed changes in carpooling for the work trip.”

• Dynamic Ridesharing: Theory and Practice - (Hall & Qureshi, 1997)

• Real-Time Ridesharing: Does it Work? Results and Recommendations from the Sacramento-Area Field Operational Test - (Kowshik & Jovanis, 1997)

• Paratransit in America: Redefining Mass Transportation - (Cervero, 1997)

• Thinking small: Applying ITS technologies to TDM - (Orski, ITE Journal #65, 1995)

• Cost and Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs): A Review and Analysis of the Literature - (Apogee Research, 1994)

• Development Of User Needs And Functional Requirements For A Real-time Ridesharing System - (Kowshik & Jovanis, 1993)

• German ‘Smart Bus’ Systems: Potential For Application in Portland, OR - (Behnke, 1993)

• The Effectiveness of Ridesharing Incentives: Discrete-choice Models of Commuting in Southern California - (Brownstone, 1992)
  
  • “This paper studies the effects of certain incentives designed to promote ridesharing on work trips to reduce congestion and air pollution. Discrete choice models of commuters’ mode choices (always rideshare, sometimes rideshare, and always drive alone) are estimated using a new study of full-time workers’ commuting behavior in the greater Los Angeles are. Partial equilibrium policy simulations with our model indicate that providing all workers with reserved parking, ridesharing subsidies, guaranteed rides home, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes would reduce drive-alone commuting between 11 and 18 percent.”

• IVHS Technology for Improving Ridesharing - (IVHS America, 1992)

• Effects of Variable Work Hour Programs on Ridesharing and Organizational Effectiveness: A Case Study, Ventura County - (Freas et al., TRR #1321, 1991)

• The Determinants of Ridesharing: A Literature Review - (Hwang & Giuliano, 1990)

• Casual Carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area - (Beroldo, Transportation Quarterly Vol. 44, 1990)

• Evaluation of Springfield Instant Carpooling - (Reno et al., TRR #1212, 1989)

• Factors Influencing Commuting Choices in Suburban Labor Markets – Case study of Pleasanton, CA - (Cervero, Transportation Research 22A, 1988)

• Analysis of Commuter Ridesharing behavior at Five Urban Sites - (Booth & Waksman, TRR #1018, 1985)

• The Coordination of Parking with Public Transportation and Ridesharing - (Public Technology Inc with support of USDOT, 1982)

• Ridesharing Needs and Requirements: The Role of the Private and Public Sectors - (TRB Special Report #193, 1981)

• Ridesharing: Psychological Factors - (Dueker et al., Journal of Transport Engineering #103, 1977)

Uncategorized | No Comments »

• MIT Mobile Experience Laboratory Ride.Link - Combination of technologies to promote social interaction and ridesharing.

• MIT Vehicle Design Summit - Although little is written about ridesharing on the website itself, the VDS team is hoping to setup a demonstration of a dynamic rideshare concept with shared-use vehicles in India.

• MIT Mobile Experience Laboratory RideBook & RideFinder - Conceptual plan for dynamic ridesharing.

• Creating Trust in Ridesharing Networks - Student Course Project from Fall 2007

• Analysis of carpooling behavior and the formulation of carpool incentive programs - Our research advisor’s thesis from 1974

Uncategorized | No Comments »

• Slugging to Work: Anonymous Ridesharing - NPR Morning Edition piece from May 2008 on the ad-hoc ridesharing phenomenon in Washington, DC.

• Slug-Lines.com - An introduction and brief history to the concept of slugging.

• Casual Carpool 1998 Update: RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc. - A very interesting survey about the commuting habits of casual carpoolers in San Francisco. Very interesting information on mode choice alternatives and why they choose to carpool.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

Rather than re-create the wheel, we direct you to various parts of the DynamicRidesharing.org website for a comprehensive list of past, present and proposed projects:

• Past, Present and Proposed Projects

• Projects Underway or Proposed by DynamicRidesharing.org Partners

• Ride Now! - Several Dynamic Ridesharing Trials conducted in the Bay Area

Uncategorized | No Comments »

• Smart ParaTransit: A New Vision for Urban Transportation - New York-based Streetsblog’s idea for shared vehicle transport

• Smart Jitney - A proposal bridging the idea of private owner supplied ridesharing and small-vehicle transit service.

• Empty Seats Traveling - Nokia Research Center Report on the potential for technology-enabled ridesharing.

• Hovercars Protocol for Catalyzing Ridesharing - Proposal to establish fixed rideshare zones and meeting points, essentially combining features of transit with ridesharing

• How I solved the Energy Problem - Blog entry from Scott Adams, creator of the cartoon Dilbert

Uncategorized | No Comments »

• Dynamic Carpooling with your Mobile (Telematics Update, Jan 2009)

• Need a Ride? Check your iPhone (New York Times, December 2008)

• Anybody Want a Ride? (Boston Globe Magazine, July 2008)

• Joining the Carpool, in the Internet Age (New York Times, April 2008)

• NuRide Hooks Up Car Poolers and Rewards Them For It (Fox Business News, April 2008)

• Carpooling - An Idea Whose Time has Come (Huffington Post, January 2008)

Uncategorized | No Comments »

• DynamicRidesharing.org - The DynamicRidesharing.org wiki is a substantial source of information for technology-driven ridesharing. While we have tried not to duplicate resources too much, there will be some overlap in what we have posted and what is posted by DynamicRidesharing.org.

• RideshareDirectory.com - Provides a state-by-state list of rideshare providers with links to their websites.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

There are many definitions of ridesharing, most of which share some similarities. One of the most basic definitions is “the shared use of a car by the driver and one or more passengers”. Some will argue that this definition more accurately defines car sharing, where many individuals share in the use of a motor vehicle, but it does reflect ridesharing as well.

Over time, definitions of ridesharing have become more detailed and complex to distinguish rideshare services from commercial transport services operating for profit, such as taxi services. The State of Virginia defines ridesharing as “the transportation of persons in a motor vehicle when such transportation is incidental to the principal purpose of the driver, which is to reach a destination and not to transport persons for profit”. This definition clearly attempts to identify ridesharing on the basis of trip purpose and profit-making potential.

The State of Colorado had one of the more advanced definitions of ridesharing before it was repealed in 2003. It defined ridesharing as “the vehicular transportation of passengers traveling together primarily to and from such passengers’ places of business or work or traveling together on a regularly scheduled basis with a commonality of purpose (shopping, health, educational, religious, athletic, or sports facilities), if the vehicle used in such transportation is not operated for profit by an entity primarily engaged in the transportation business and if no charge is made other than that reasonably calculated to recover the direct and indirect costs of the “ridesharing arrangement”, including, but not limited to, a reasonable incentive to maximize occupancy of the vehicle…The term includes “ridesharing arrangements” commonly known as carpools and vanpools; however, this term does not include school transportation vehicles operated by elementary and secondary schools when they are operated for the transportation of children to or from school or on school-related events.” This definition clearly tried to identify ridesharing on the basis of trip purpose, origin-destination and service costs.

Ridesharing is not always defined as a means of transport. The County of Fairfax, Virginia defines ridesharing as a TDM strategy; rideshare is a “program designed to increase the occupancy of automobiles, or other vehicles, and thereby reduce demand on the roadway system”. In this sense, ridesharing can also be viewed as a demand reduction strategy rather than a transport mode.

While many do not consider ridesharing to be a form of public transportation, the distinction between the two is not always clear, as alluded to earlier. Indeed, some forms of shared use vehicles such as vanpools and shared taxis are considered types of rideshare activities. The distinction is further aggravated by the fact that vanpools and rideshare services are often managed by public transit agencies.

Depending on the locality, ridesharing is also known as carpooling and liftsharing.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

Surprisingly, there appears to be very little quantitative data on the benefits of increased ridesharing related to congestion reduction, petroleum savings and/or emission reductions. Many rideshare services provide general statements such as ‘Rideshare benefits include lower costs of gas, less traffic congestion and less pollution’ but rarely provide the magnitude of these benefits.

Quantified benefits of current rideshare activity at the metropolitan level are relatively common. For example, the Los Angeles MTA claims that southern California commuters can save 36 minutes per day by carpooling and using High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and the CEO of the LA MTA, Roger Snoble, has stated that “at 1.3 people per car, there would be no traffic congestion on our freeways”. Other metro regions with rideshare services often provide reductions in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and emissions saved by their program, based on the number of rideshare participants using a rideshare service in their metro region. The key take-away here is these statistics are based on current rideshare participation; there are few statistics on potential future rideshare benefits at the metro level.

Even at the national level, there are very few estimates of future rideshare benefits. One of the largest efforts to quantify the effects of transportation demand management (TDM) efforts was a 1994 report summarizing the results of various state-level trip reduction programs (Cost and effectiveness of transportation control measures (TCMs): A review and analysis of the literature, Apogee Research, 1994). The report concluded that the provision of rideshare benefits at the regional level could eliminate up to 2% of VMT and 1% of trips.
More recently, a 2008 study found that if 1 passenger could be added to every 10 vehicles in the US, annual fuel savings would be between 7.54 and 7.74 Billion gallons, or approximately 5.3 – 5.4% of US gasoline consumption (Fuel saving and ridesharing in the US: Motivations, limitations, and opportunities, Jacobson and King, 2008). These benefits are likely overstated as the authors assumed that no additional travel was needed to pick up these additional passengers, and it appears that they assumed that each of those additional passengers was previously a single-occupant vehicle driver (there’s no mention of mode shift in the paper…in reality, some of these passengers will be diverted from transit and other modes).

The reasons for the lack of estimated future benefits are not clear. The voluntary nature of ridesharing could be one factor. Without comprehensive knowledge of who is currently ridesharing and, more importantly, the potential pool of likely rideshare participants, it is difficult to estimate aggregate rideshare benefits accurately. The complexity of measuring the impacts of ridesharing could also be a major hurdle, namely measuring mode choice decisions for individual commuters and the induced demand effects of greater ridesharing. While it is often assumed that increased ridesharing removes single-occupant vehicles from congested highways, there is some evidence suggesting that rideshare participants are diverted from transit and were therefore not a part of the original SOV congestion problem (Casual Carpooling 1998 Update, RIDES for Bay Area Commuters Inc, 1999). Even in the event that a SOV is removed from the roadway, induced demand suggests that the improvement in travel time would encourage others using other modes of travel to switch to a private automobile, negating many of the original benefits. Weighing these different effects requires detailed data and relatively complex models of traveler behavior.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

It is interesting to note that there is not a substantial amount of information written on the history of ridesharing. Given the difficulty in measuring ridesharing, and distinguishing it from private automobile travel, this finding is not particularly surprising.

There is some evidence that the first forms of ridesharing developed in the early part of the century. In 1914, a number of jitneys (shared automobiles or vans generally traveling along a fixed route) began operating in San Francisco. By 1918, several thousand jitneys were in operation in the city. Given the operational features of these vehicles (traveled a relatively fixed route and charged a set fare) many consider them to be early forms of transit rather than ridesharing (the distinction between ‘ridesharing’ and ‘transit’, particularly as it relates to vehicle occupancy, is debatable).

World War II is acknowledged as the first timeframe in which ridesharing was promoted, primarily to free up steel, rubber and petroleum resources for the war effort. The US government was an active participant, encouraging Americans to join car clubs as they were known at the time. The posters below were typical examples of the US federal government’s promotion of ridesharing during WWII.

A third commonly referenced timeframe for the rise of ridesharing was during the 1970’s energy crises. In an effort to save fuel and reduce household expenses, commuters began to share rides with one and other. This was also the point in time in which the casual rideshare lines began to develop in Washington, DC and high-occupancy vehicle lanes were introduced in a number of cities nationwide. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, the combination of low petroleum prices, high transit subsidies and rising incomes led to a sharp decline in ridesharing.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

July 1, 2009
Three New Resources Posted:
1. One of the Real-Time Rides Workshop participants, Paul Minett, has submitted a TCRP Proposal for consideration and potential funding. The proposal is titled, “How Can Carpooling/Vanpooling Complement Transit Services, to Reduce SOV Travel?” and can be found here.

2. The OECD and International Energy Agency released a report in 2005 titled, “Saving Oil in a Hurry”. While somewhat dated, the report considered a variety of strategies that nations could use to adjust rapidly to a world with very tight oil supply constraints. For obvious reasons, transportation was the focus. The report found that in the North American context, a comprehensive carpooling program with infrastructure investments, employer support, rider matching services and a marketing campaign would be the single most effective strategy at reducing oil consumption, with savings in the range of 5% of North American consumption.

3. The Executive Summary of Cambridge Systematics’ much anticipated “Moving Cooler” report on strategies to address GHG emissions from the transport sector is expected to be released later this month. Initial modeling suggested carpooling could reduce US GHG emissions by 1% per year, with conservative assumptions. Cambridge Systematics has since tested a number of different combinations of strategies which we expect will show larger reduction potential.

June 30, 2009
Several of Updates:
1. ITS America Congestion Challenge - The goal of the challenge is to identify the “best ideas to solve congestion, improve mobility, the environment and public safety.” Proposals can be in any stage of development (concept through revenue generating service). Registration is open until August 1, 2009 I believe. In August, the top 9 entries will be selected and the winner will be announced in September. The winning prize is $50,000 USD.

2. Atlantic Monthly Piece on Dynamic Ridesharing - Atlantic Monthly’s June 2009 edition had a small piece on dynamic ridesharing titled, “How to End Traffic in Los Angeles”.

May 10, 2009
The Workshop Summary has now been posted to the website. It can be found along with all of the other workshop information on the Real-Time Rides page.

Apr. 14, 2009
A comprehensive version of the agenda with locations has been posted. We’ve also provided more detail on how to find Building 1 on the first day of the workshop. All of this information can be found on the Real-Time Rides Workshop page.

Apr. 5, 2009
We are still receiving very strong interest in the workshop, now with 30 confirmed attendees! We expect to have the final agenda and conference attendee package available shortly.
We also want to thank Sebastien and Christophe at Piggyback Mobile for publicizing the Real-Time Rides workshop.

Mar. 25, 2009
We received very positive interest in the workshop based on the invitations that were sent out! Thank you to all participants that have confirmed their attendance. We are following up with a number of invitees, so please check back for a more complete list by the end of the week. For an initial list of confirmed attendees, please visit the Real-Time Rides Workshop page.

Feb. 24, 2009
The MIT Real-Time Rides website is finally up and running! Please take a look around and see what we’ve been up to. We will be posting additional content on the upcoming Real-Time Rides Workshop page in the coming weeks, so check back frequently for updates.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

Ridesharing, also known as carpooling and liftsharing, is the 2nd most popular form of travel to work in the US, but has decreased in popularity significantly since the 1970’s. In the last two or three years a renewed interest in ridesharing is being driven by what we believe to be a combination of high gasoline prices, a focus on congestion reduction, a desire to address environmental concerns such as climate change and the swift adoption of mobile, location-aware technologies. MIT students are conducting research into the current state of ridesharing and the potential changes in rideshare service provision that may be brought about by mobile, wireless technologies.

Ridesharing is not a new concept. Examples of shared vehicle use in the US date back to the beginning of the 20th century when jitneys first appeared in some larger cities. During World War II, people were encouraged to share rides to save fuel, steel and rubber for the war effort. Formal ridesharing services began in earnest in the 1970’s and accounted for up to one in five commute trips at the time. As of 2000, ridesharing has decreased to approximately one in eight commute trips among Americans. It is believed that two of the largest factors in this decrease have been the historical decline in the cost of private automobile ownership use, and the difficulties in establishing appropriate rideshare matches. In the last few years, high gas prices and the increasing prevalence of mobile, location-based technologies have created new opportunities for ridesharing, particularly “real-time” or “dynamic” ridesharing. The “dynamic” rideshare concept allows users with a mobile phone or PDAs to indicate their interest in sharing a ride (as either a driver or a passenger) and be matched with someone sharing similar trip characteristics in as little as 10-15 minutes prior to your desired departure time. “Dynamic” ridesharing’s appeal lies in its accommodation of more flexible schedules and its decreased level of effort in matching appropriate riders.

With some exciting developments in the provision of rideshare services, MIT’s Real-Time Rides research team, in collaboration with a team from Carnegie Mellon Silicon Valley, aim to bring together interested parties to discuss potential future directions for ridesharing. MIT will facilitate the Real-Time Rides Workshop with rideshare service providers, key technology providers, public sector representatives and members of the academic community to share information on various rideshare provider experiences and what they view as the major drivers and barriers to greater ridesharing in the future. Some topics that may be discussed include how to achieve a “critical mass” of users, what a common database feed for easy querying of multiple rideshare provider databases could look like, and whether certain rideshare revenue models hold more promise than others. The research team’s focus is on bringing interested parties in the rideshare field together to share ideas; the team does not plan on developing any form of rideshare application or service, and does not intend to advocate for any particular technology or service provider.

If you are interested in sharing your thoughts on ridesharing, or are interested in participating in the Real-Time Rides Workshop, please contact the research team at RealTimeRides@mit.edu.

Uncategorized | No Comments »