MIT "Real-Time" Rideshare 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, co-workers and neighbors. Certain groups, namely Hispanic-Americans, share a large proportion of rides in the US.

2. Changes in Disposable Personal Income, whether due to higher gasoline prices, lower overall earnings or an economic downturn, appear to have a significant effect on aggregate rideshare participation. Rideshare surveys tend to support this finding, with participants often listing cost savings as one of the three main reasons for sharing rides.

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. Ridesharing and transit are likely complements and substitutes. The international analysis of transit share and rideshare participation suggest (at a very high level) 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. 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, San Francisco & Washington DC suggest that when passengers cannot find an appropriate ride-match, they rely on transit services to reach their desired destination, suggesting that the two modes complement one another.

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 16% 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.

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. So while only 16% of total trips nationwide are commute trips, they represent 33% of total seat-miles of unused vehicle capacity (and 46% of peak period seat-miles of unused vehicle capacity). This reinforces the previous belief that ridesharing initiatives should focus on commute-based trips. However, 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 incredibly onerous. If ridesharing is to be improved during the commute, convenience for drivers and passengers, and minimal delays are essential.

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, it is believed that 25-80% are “fampools”, carpools comprised of family members, depending largely on trip type.

Attanucci (1974), in a survey of commuter carpooling in Boston, places the percentage between 25-45%, with co-workers representing another 50-70%. Kendall (1975), in a survey of Boston commuters found that 35% of carpools were intra-household. However, recent sources place the percentage of commuting involving family members much higher. Pisarski (2006) suggests the percentage is closer to 80% but provides no supporting evidence. Li (2007) in a survey of Texas carpoolers found that approximately 65% were family members, with co-workers representing another 30%. Morency (2007) using survey data from Montreal, Canada found that 82% of carpoolers were family members with another 9% representing co-workers.

Note that the Attanucci and Kendall surveys, while several decades earlier, were surveys of commuter carpoolers specifically, and found a much lower share of household members and a much higher share of co-workers. The Li and Morency surveys focused on all trip types and found much higher intra-household participation.
Intuitively, it is expected that commuting trips would involve smaller percentages of family members than trips for other purposes. Carpool statistics from MIT tend to support this; approximately 59 of 234 employees (25%) with registered carpool parking permits are family members. Note that this percentage is an understatement of true “fampools” at MIT, because employees that are dropped off at campus by a family member cannot be identified through parking permit registration. However, the statistics certainly suggest that “fampooling” for commuting trips is much lower than the 65-80% quoted elsewhere.

Beyond considerations of trip type, it is clear that the percentage of carpooling occurring between unknown participants is rare; Attanucci (1974) found 3%, Li (2007) found 3-5% and Morency (2007) found approximately 9%.

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
iCarpool – Interact Soft Inc;;”support@icarpool.com“;425-369-6136;Amol Brahme;”Website“;”Summary Sheet“;Private;International;;;Both;Works with 50 organizations plus individual travelers;All Trips;Advertising and Other (fees from organizations);;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips and Real-Time;;Work with 50 clients from organizations universities and regional/local planning agencies;;Guaranteed Ride Home;;Software can integrate with transit schedules;
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;71 610 235 trips registered for the next 12 months 32% 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
RideShark;2031 Merivale Road Ottawa ON Canada K2G 1G7;”info@rideshark.com“;613-226-9845;Sharon Lewinson P.Eng. President;”Website“;;Private;International;Many e.g. Phoenix London Ottawa etc.;Many e.g. Quebec;Both;;All trips;Other – fee from organizations;;Website;Automated Matching: Pre-Planned Trips;Along the Route;Customized services for corporate users campuses etc.;;Prize draws loyalty points;;511 travel information & transit information;
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

• 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)

• 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)

• The Ambivalence of Ridesharing – (Morency, 2006)

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

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

Uncategorized | No Comments »

• “Real-Time” Ridesharing: Exploring the Opportunities and Challenges of Designing a Technology-based Rideshare Trial for the MIT Community – Master’s thesis summarizing much of the MIT “Real-Time” Rideshare Research team’s work

• “Real-Time” Ridesharing – The Opportunities and Challenges of Utilizing Mobile Phone Technology to Improve Rideshare Services – First of two working papers submitted to the 2011 TRB Annual Meeting

• A Proposed Methodology for Estimating Rideshare Viability within an Organization, applied to the MIT Community – Second of two working papers submitted to the 2011 TRB Annual Meeting

• “Dynamic Ridesharing”: Carpooling Meets the Information Age Webinar – Webinar for the American Planning Association, co-hosted by the MIT team.

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

• 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 »

• The Native Slugs of Northern Virginia: A Profile of Slugging in the Washington D.C. Region – Master’s Project by Marc Oliphant at Virginia Tech

• 511 Rideshare Casual Carpool Survey Summary 2010 – Survey of San Francisco Bay Area casual carpool commuters

• 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 resources that have examined technology-driven rideshare trials:

• “Real-Time” Ridesharing: Exploring the Opportunities and Challenges of Designing a Technology-based Rideshare Trial for the MIT Community – Please refer to Section 3.1

• Implementing Real-Time Ridesharing in the San Francisco Bay Area – Please refer to Section 3

• Past, Present and Proposed Projects

  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 »

• “Real-Time” Ridesharing: Exploring the Opportunities and Challenges of Designing a Technology-based Rideshare Trial for the MIT Community – Master’s thesis summarizing much of the MIT “Real-Time” Rideshare Research team’s work

• The Native Slugs of Northern Virginia: A Profile of Slugging in the Washington D.C. Region – Master’s Project by Marc Oliphant at Virginia Tech

• Implementing Real-Time Ridesharing in the San Francisco Bay Area – Master’s Project by Susan Heinrich at San Jose State University

• Markets for Dynamic Ridesharing? The Case of Berkeley – TRB 2010 Annual Meeting, Paper #10-3629

• DynamicRidesharing.org – DynamicRidesharing.org 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

  Uncategorized | No Comments »

One of the major challenges in establishing a consistent mental image of ridesharing is the lack of a widespread, common definition of the phenomenon. Many existing definitions attempt to define ridesharing on the basis of passenger trip purpose, frequency of trip, commonality of origin & destination, and profit motive. A common point of confusion in defining shared vehicle transportation is how to distinguish between ridesharing, public transit and taxi services.

The distinction between ridesharing and public transit is not always clear. An argument could be made that the major differences between the two are the capacity of the vehicle, and the participant that determines whether a trip is undertaken (driver or passenger). The vehicle capacity distinction should be obvious; transit frequently (but not always) operates larger vehicles such as trains and buses whereas ridesharing often occurs in smaller vehicles such as cars and passenger vans. While transit’s primary purpose is to transport multiple passengers to a destination, ridesharing differs in that it generally occurs when the driver is planning on undertaking a trip and seeks out a passenger who is willing to share the ride. In other words, transit trips operate with an implied understanding that service is based on passenger demand and if sufficient communal demand does not exist (such as on weekends) the driver will not undertake the trip (service will be reduced). Ridesharing, on the other hand, is better described as a trip that the driver intends on taking whether or not they can find an appropriate passenger to share the ride with.

The “vehicle capacity” and “trip determined by driver or passenger” characteristics alone are not entirely satisfying. If one considers taxi trips, they take place in small vehicles where the passenger dictates the purpose of the trip. Essentially, taxi trips are neither a form of transit or ridesharing according to the distinction laid out in the previous paragraph. A further refinement is the absence of a profit-seeking motive on the part of the driver in rideshare arrangements. Whereas taxi drivers are profit seeking in their carriage of passengers, rideshare drivers in most cases seek only to share the costs of transport. In fact, in some jurisdictions such as Colorado, government legislation mandates that financial transactions only reflect the sharing of trip costs.

The three characteristics of ridesharing (smaller vehicle capacities, the trip is determined by the driver’s needs and the lack of profit motive) allows for the categorization of most forms of shared vehicle transportation. The figure below presents a categorization of shared vehicle transportation where driver/passenger trip determination is on the horizontal axis, profit motive is on the vertical axis and the size of the circles represents the relative capacity of the vehicles used.

Based on the shared transport characteristics described above, we have proposed a definition of ridesharing as follows:
“the transportation of two or more individuals in a motor vehicle with a capacity not exceeding 15 passengers, when such transportation is incidental to the principal purpose of the driver, which is to reach a destination, and when such transportation does not seek to transport persons for profit.”
This definition incorporates the three characteristics described earlier in this chapter. Further, it addresses the issue of “unsustainable ridesharing”, whereby an initial rideshare journey results in an SOV return journey because the trip is undertaken to meet the needs of the passenger. “Unsustainable ridesharing” is not uncommon in school trips, where parents will drive their child to school but will return home alone. Since the definition states that the driver’s principal purpose determines the trip being undertaken, multi-occupant trips catering to the passenger’s trip purpose should not count as ridesharing according to a strict interpretation of this definition.

This definition does create some important measurement limitations. The inclusion of driver trip purpose in the definition makes the identification of rideshare trips much more difficult, and certainly more onerous than simply counting vehicles with at least two occupants. Yet, the inclusion of driver trip purpose is a very important addition to the definition of ridesharing, particularly from a policy standpoint. Ridesharing is often described as a sustainable alternative to traveling alone and is encouraged by different levels of government. Clearly the sustainability of this mode rests on the ability to combine two unique trips that would have otherwise occurred separately. When travel demand leads to the creation of a new vehicle-based trip, part of which is an SOV trip, it undermines the message that ridesharing is a sustainable mode. Ideally, the measurement of rideshare participation should differentiate between multi-occupant trips undertaken based on driver vs. passenger trip purpose, and only assign credit to those where the driver’s trip purpose dictated travel. To operationalize this definition, more precise travel diaries and surveys would need to be administered specifically asking participants what the purpose of their trip was, and seeking more detailed information on trip-chaining tendencies.

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.

Jitney Craze: 1914-1918
The first historical incidence of ridesharing success was the tremendously popular yet short lived “Jitney Craze” beginning in 1914. In 1908, the Ford Motor Co. began offering the Model T, the first mass-produced automobile that was affordable to the average “successful” person. The vehicle’s popularity soared; in 1908 only 5,896 Model T’s were sold but by 1916 sales had soared to 377,036 nationwide (Hodges, 2006). With the increasing penetration of the relatively affordable automobile, streetcars faced their first real competition in the urban transport market. In the summer of 1914, the US economy fell into recession with the outbreak of WWI and some entrepreneurial vehicle owners in Los Angeles began to pickup streetcar passengers in exchange for a ‘jitney’ (the five cent streetcar fare). The jitney idea spread incredibly rapidly; by December 1914 (merely 6 months after the idea was believed to have been conceived) Los Angeles had issued 1,520 chauffeur licenses for jitney operation (Eckert & Hilton, 1972). In San Francisco, jitneys first appeared in 1914 and were first used to transport workers and attendees to the 1914-1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition. By 1915, over 1,400 jitneys were operating in San Francisco (Cervero, 1997). With the first jitney’s beginning service in Portland, ME in March 1915, the jitney craze had spread from west to east in nine months (Eckert & Hilton, 1972).

Many of the original jitneys operated on well-known streetcar lines and effectively survived by siphoning off streetcar passengers. From the passenger’s perspective, the jitneys offered service improvements over the streetcar. Jitney’s often operated at speeds 1.5 to 2 times faster than streetcars (Eckert & Hilton, 1972) and could occasionally be convinced to deviate from main routes for drop-offs closer to passenger destinations. For passengers, the ability to choose between two service offerings for the same price was also an attractive service feature. While the reliability of jitney service was sometimes questionable (many only ran during peak periods, few ran during bad weather), passengers had a second option in the form of the streetcar. Travel time savings, route flexibility and transport mode choice were the major value propositions for passengers.

Jitney use was not without tradeoffs. Jitney drivers were known to drive aggressively and accidents were frequent. With passengers standing on the back of vehicles and on the running boards, serious injuries did occur. The transport of female passengers raised concerns in some social circles (Hodges, 2006).

An underlying question that remains a topic of debate is whether jitneys constituted a form of ridesharing or unregulated taxi service. To properly answer this question, the impetus for offering rides should be considered. Given the downturn in the economy, stories of unemployed persons purchasing a vehicle and becoming a jitney operator have been cited in the literature (Eckert & Hilton, 1972, Hodges, 2006). In these cases, jitney service could best be characterized as unregulated taxi service, as drivers were operating the vehicle for the express purpose of providing service to others. In other cases, jitney service seemed to be a method of offsetting the costs of private vehicle ownership for trips that were already going to take place. In a survey in Houston, TX on February 2, 1915, of the 714 active jitneys that day, 442 (62%) made only one or two round-trips, suggesting they might be operating as a jitney during their commute to and from work (Hodges, 2006). In these cases, the primary purpose of the trip was likely commuting; providing service to others was secondary. Any additional revenue generated simply offset the cost of vehicle ownership. In these cases, the generation of revenue was not the main purpose for operating the vehicle, so it could be argued that the service was a form of ridesharing.

The downfall of the jitneys was nearly as rapid as their rise. By early 1915, concerns over safety and liability were being reported in the popular press (New York Times, 1915). Streetcar interests and local governments were eager to stop jitney operations to limit losses in revenue. Streetcar operators were losing paying customers to jitneys, and local governments often taxed streetcar operators a percentage of revenue that they earned, so they were losing tax income as well (Eckert & Hilton, 1972). Many local governments implemented license requirements for jitneys, but the regulation with the largest impact was the imposition of liability bonds. Before operating, jitney drivers were forced to post $1,000 to $10,000 in liability insurance. The licensing and liability regulations added annual costs of approximately $150 to $300, or 25-50% of annual earnings for full-time jitney operators. By July 1915, twenty-seven localities had implemented liability regulations (Eckert & Hilton, 1972). It was estimated that of the 62,000 jitneys in operation in 1915, only 39,000 were still in operation by January 1916 and fewer than 6,000 by October 1918 (Eckert & Hilton, 1972).

There are several important reflections to be drawn from the “Jitney Craze” period. First, the original impetus for picking up passengers appears to have been due to the downturn in the economy. For those that already owned a vehicle, the offering of a ride was presumably to offset operating and ownership costs. For those that began offering jitney services during the period, many had been unemployed and saw operating a jitney as an employment opportunity. In either case, personal finance issues appear to have been a factor. Second, liability and safety were two of the major concerns with jitney service. These same issues remain major concerns with ridesharing today. Third, jitney service provision did not appear to be driven in any major way by resource constraints or environmental benefits, it was largely due to gaps in service quality and economic factors.

World War II: 1941-1945
The second major period of rideshare participation, and the period most likely to be identified as the first instance of traditional carpooling, was during World War II (WWII). In a reversal from the jitney era, government encouraged ridesharing heavily during WWII as a method of conserving resources for the war effort. This period of rideshare promotion was exceptionally unique in that it entailed an extensive and cooperative effort between the federal government and American oil companies.

European involvement in WWII began in 1939 but US involvement did not get underway until late-1941 and early-1942. Nevertheless, the federal government had begun making preparations for war much earlier. In May 1941, President Roosevelt established the Office of the Petroleum Coordinator (OPC) (US PAW, 1946). OPC was created to coordinate and centralize all government activities related to petroleum use. The Office was unique in that it relied heavily on industry committees to make recommendations to government; government initiated very few regulations (US PAW, 1946). This structure was chosen specifically because it encouraged all oil industry participants to cooperate amongst themselves, and it was felt that a more cooperative relationship with industry would lead to a greater overall level of voluntary effort.

By July 1941, one of OPC’s industry committees organized the first known petroleum conservation effort in the US. The campaign was launched on the East Coast with a $250,000 advertisement budget funded entirely by industry asking the motoring public to use 30% less gasoline (US PAW, 1946). Recommended actions included lowering drive speeds, proper care of tires and the sharing of rides. By the industry’s own admission, the effort was not terribly successful. A lack of public appreciation of the need to conserve fuel was cited as the leading challenge to be overcome; “this first drive to emphasize to the American people the necessity of gasoline conservation served one important purpose: it showed industry itself the magnitude of the task, and the growing need for a long-range, sustained program of public education” (US PAW, 1946).

In November 1941, industry created their official council that would interact with the federal government. The Petroleum Industry War Council (PIWC, originally named the Petroleum Industry Council for National Defense), a group that consisted entirely of petroleum industry representatives, was the entity that would ultimately design and fund all petroleum conservation activities during WWII (US PAW, 1946). In an odd twist of irony, PIWC held their first committee meeting on Dec. 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the exact day that President Roosevelt signed the declaration of war against Japan. By February 1942, PIWC had established their Subcommittee on Products Conservation (under the Marketing Committee) and had completed the design of their nationwide conservation program by month’s end (US PAW, 1946). After a year and a half of effort, the Subcommittee was discharged in September 1943 and replaced by the higher-level Products Conservation Committee, suggesting the growing importance of oil conservation. This structure remained until the end of WWII. The Products Conservation committee’s programs had three main goals; (a) to provide the public with facts so that everyone might better understand the need for rationing, (b) to obtain better compliance with rationing programs, and (c) to bring about greater conservation of gasoline through car sharing [carpooling] and other measures (US PAW, 1946).

The Products Conservation committee was made up largely of advertising specialists. The bulk of the rideshare initiative (and all conservation initiatives during the War) focused on catchy slogans, posters and newspaper advertisements. While the PIWC spent considerable time developing some of the most recognized posters during WWII, they themselves did not publish them. OPC worked collaboratively with various government agencies including the Office of War Transportation, the Office of Price Administration and the Office of War Administration to distribute the ads that they created (US PAW, 1946). All advertisements were released to the public through a government agency. It is once again worth noting that the petroleum industry volunteered their time and resources to this effort with little financial support from government. At the end of the War, it was estimated that the Products Conservation committees had expended $8M. in private funding to support conservation efforts alone (US PAW, 1946).

While there is plenty of evidence of rideshare promotion during WWII, no information could be found on how successful the initiatives actually were. Some statistics exist on the number of newspaper advertisements placed and the estimated readership reached; however, little appears to be known about the actual level of ridesharing that took place during WWII. As discussed in the introduction to this section, part of the reason may be the lack of a financial transaction when sharing rides. Total auto use and transit ridership can be reasonably measured using financial transaction data, but rideshare participation cannot.

As with the “Jitney Era”, there are some important reflections to be drawn from the rideshare experience during WWII. In contrast to the “Jitney Era”, the main force behind ridesharing during WWII was government-mandated resource constraints (gasoline and rubber) rather than a market response to an economic downturn or a gap in transit service quality. Further, marketers during WWII understood that by appealing to patriotism they could encourage behavior change. There appears to have been a sincere belief that those remaining in the U.S. should make an effort to support their countrymen overseas by reducing their consumption and by making a behavioral change. Third, and perhaps most importantly, was the fact that the promotion of ridesharing during WWII was a large cooperative effort between the U.S. federal government and private industry. It is clear that interests of national importance took precedence over corporate interests during this time period, however, in the absence of a national emergency or compelling long-term threat, it is not likely that this sort of public-private relationship between government and the petroleum industry could be recreated today.

The 1970’s Energy Crises
The third period of interest and participation in ridesharing was during the energy crises of the 1970’s. Interest in ridesharing picked up substantially with the Arab Oil Embargo in the fall of 1973. Throughout the fall and early winter of 1973, President Nixon’s administration realized that action would need to be taken to reduce petroleum consumption. In January 1974, Nixon signed the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which mandated maximum speed limits of 55 MPH on public highways (Woolley & Peters, [2]). The Act was also the first instance where the US federal government began providing funding for rideshare initiatives. For the first time, states were allowed to spend their highway funds on rideshare demonstration projects (Woolley & Peters, [2]). The 1978 Surface Transportation Assistance Act would eventually make funding for rideshare initiatives permanent (US EPA, 1998).

It was during this initial energy crisis that states began experimenting with High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. The Shirley Memorial Highway in Northern Virginia had opened as a dedicated busway in the center of the highway in 1969 becoming the first highway in the nation to provide dedicated infrastructure for High Occupancy Vehicles (Kozel, 2002). Beginning in December of 1973, vehicles with four or more passengers were also allowed to use the busway. HOV lane construction proceeded slowly through the 1970’s, with interest increasing in the mid-1980’s. While the number of required occupants was eventually decreased to three, the Shirley Highway remains one of the most heavily used HOV corridors in the nation today (Kozel, 2002).

The early 1970’s marked another first for ridesharing; it was the first time that it was recommended as a tool to mitigate air quality problems (Horowitz, 1976). The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) substantial authority to regulate air quality attainment (US EPA, 2008). After initially rejecting the State of California’s ‘transportation control plan’ to meet Clean Air Act requirements in the Los Angeles basin in mid-1972, the EPA issued its own draft plan in late-1972 (Bland, 1976). The initial plan was met with substantial backlash, particularly a provision that would reduce gasoline consumption during the high-smog summer months by an incredible 86% through an aggressive gasoline rationing system. After public consultations, a much more moderate final control plan was issued in 1973. One of the main provisions of the final plan was a two-phase conversion of 184 miles of freeway and arterial roadway lanes to bus/carpool lanes and the development of a regional computerized carpool matching system (Bland, 1976). Phase One was to be completed by May 1974 and Phase Two by May 1976. By the 1976 Phase Two deadline, not a single lane-mile of roadway had been converted for high occupancy vehicle traffic (the El Monte Busway was opened in 1973 and allowed HOV 3+ in 1976; however, it was designed and operating as a high occupancy vehicle facility prior to EPA’s final control plan and therefore did not count as a conversion) (Bland, 1976). In fact, the next HOV project in LA County would not be constructed until 1985 and by 1993 there was still only 58 miles of HOV lanes countywide (LA MTA, 2009).

The post-1973/74 Oil Embargo period was a time of great interest in ridesharing. With the funding of rideshare demonstration projects in 1974, academic study of ridesharing and of the results of the rideshare demonstration projects began in earnest. The post-73/74 period also saw the creation of the nation’s first metropolitan rideshare agencies (US EPA, 1998). At the outset, these organizations relied largely on marketing campaigns encouraging ridesharing, largely disseminated through roadside signs and public service messages. As research into ridesharing progressed, the importance of employer-based initiatives became better understood and many agencies began to work more closely with large employers (US EPA, 1998).

By the late-1970’s, President Carter proposed multiple initiatives to further encourage ridesharing. In 1979, he appointed the National Task Force on Ridesharing to “expand ridesharing programs through direct encouragement and assistance, and create a continuing dialogue among all parties involved in managing ridesharing programs and/or incentive programs” (Downs, 1980, Woolley & Peters, [1]). His administration also understood the negative effect of parking subsidies on rideshare participation. In 1979, his administration tried to amend the National Energy Conservation Act (NECA) to eliminate subsidized parking for federal employees. The bill faced strong opposition from federal employees and was never passed (S. 930, 1979). In 1980, a bill was even introduced which sought to create a National Office of Ridesharing. As with the NECA amendment, this bill was never passed into law (HR. 6469, 1980).

The energy crises of the 1970’s marked a number of ‘firsts’ for ridesharing. It was the first time that the federal government formally funded rideshare initiatives, it was the first time that ridesharing was prescribed as an air quality mitigation strategy and it was the beginning of formal academic research into rideshare motivations and the potential to reduce petroleum consumption. As with previous periods though, national rideshare statistics were just starting to be gathered, making it difficult to determine how influential the energy shortages and government-sponsored programs had been on participation. Much like ridesharing in the WWII-era, the federal government’s involvement was largely a response to a resource shortage, in this case exclusively petroleum.

While many held strong hopes for ridesharing at the beginning of the 1980’s, low oil prices and strong economic growth throughout the decade and into the 1990’s dashed those hopes.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

September 13, 2010
After this year’s rideshare workshop at the 2010 TRB Annual Meeting (“Reinventing Carpooling to Meet Transportation’s Greatest Challenges”), a follow-up workshop has been scheduled for the 2011 TRB Annual Meeting this coming January. For information on last year’s workshop, and to help create the agenda for this year’s workshop, please visit the “Emerging Ridesharing Solutions workshop” website.

August 31, 2010
The website has been substantially updated including a number of new documents in the Resources section, please take a look around.
The APA has posted the broadcast and presentation materials for the webinar titled “Dynamic Ridesharing”: Carpooling Meets the Information Age.

August 3, 2010
Quite a number of updates to pass along:
1. The Research Team has been busy writing and is happy to share the first master’s thesis (“Real-Time” Ridesharing: Exploring the Opportunities and Challenges of Designing a Technology-based Rideshare Trial for the MIT Community) to be written based on this research, and two working papers submitted to the 2011 Transportation Research Board; ‘“Real-Time” Ridesharing – The Opportunities and Challenges of Utilizing Mobile Phone Technology to Improve Rideshare Services‘ & ‘A Proposed Methodology for Estimating Rideshare Viability within an Organization, applied to the MIT Community‘
2. Research Team member Andrew Amey will be joining Marc Oliphant to host an American Planning Association webinar titled “Dynamic Ridesharing”: Carpooling Meets the Information Age on Thursday, August 5th at 1pm Eastern. Participation is free, please plan on attending.
3. Congratulations to Avego Shared Transport for being selected as the provider for a new flexible carpool pilot program in Seattle!
4. Congratulations to Santa Barbara County & Santa Barbara Community Environmental Council for being awarded funding through FHWA’s Value Pricing Pilot Program for the development of a dynamic ridesharing service!

March 17, 2010
Two exciting pieces of news to share today:
1. The Winter 2010 Edition of TDM Review contains a series of articles on ridesharing, many contributed by the MIT “Real-Time” Rideshare Research Team.
2. A working paper written by Research Team member Andrew Amey was awarded Second Place in the American Planning Association, Transportation Planning Division, 2010 Student Paper Competition.

December 15, 2009
Just a quick reminder about an upcoming discussion on ridesharing. A session titled “Reinventing Carpooling to Meet Transportation’s Greatest Challenges” will take place at the 2010 Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting in Washington, DC on Sunday, January 10th. The session will take place from 1:30 – 4:30pm at the Marriott hotel. If you are planning on attending the TRB Annual Meeting, or are going to be in DC around that time, please plan on attending the session.

September 26, 2009
Congratulations to iCarpool for winning the ITS America Congestion Challenge and collecting the $50,000 USD award!

July 30, 2009
The much anticipated “Moving Cooler” report from Cambridge Systematics was released two days ago and had some interesting results on ridesharing’s potential to reduce GHG emissions and energy consumption. Their modeling suggested that ridesharing was an attractive non-pricing strategy to reduce GHG emissions and could account for 0.5 – 2.0% fuel savings nationwide, depending on the level of deployment.

July 1, 2009
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.

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.

April 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.

Uncategorized | No Comments »