Ride Sharing
- Summary
- Taxonomy & description
- First principles assessment
- Evidence on performance
- Policy contribution
- References
The concept of ride sharing is not new, but there is great disparity between the way schemes have been developed in different countries. The disparity includes differences in terminology. Ride sharing can be loosely defined as any process which facilitates a car driver giving a lift to another person. This can range from informal lift giving between friends and family to a formally organised workplace scheme for journeys to and from work. Ride sharing (a European term) is variously known as lift giving, car pooling (in North America) and car sharing (in the UK). In the UK, a car pool is the term used to describe the situation where a company owns one or more vehicles for use by its employees on company business as and when needed.
Ride sharing differs from a car club in that the former requires drivers to possess their own vehicles. Where as members of a car club do not need to possess their own vehicles. Drivers become members of a club from which they can hire a vehicle for short periods. The passengers who participate in ride sharing can be other car owners or non-car owners.
There are many ways of managing demand for car travel. One group of measures that seek to do this are those designed to reduce the demand by facilitating new ways of travelling by car and/or providing alternatives. Ride sharing falls within this category.
Demand impacts may not always be in terms of a reduction in car use, and impacts can fluctuate over time as individuals' arrangements change.
Terminology
The concepts of ride sharing is not new, but there is great disparity between the way schemes have been developed in different countries. The disparity includes differences in terminology. Ride sharing can be loosely defined as any process which facilitates a car driver giving a lift to another person. This can range from informal lift giving between friends and family to a formally organised workplace scheme for journeys to and from work. Ride sharing (a European term) is variously known as lift giving, car pooling (in North America) and car sharing (in the UK). In the UK, a car pool is the term used to describe the situation where a company owns one or more vehicles for use by its employees on company business as and when needed.
Ride sharing differs from a car club in that the former requires drivers to possess their own vehicles. Where as members of a car club do not need to possess their own vehicles. Drivers become members of a club from which they can hire a vehicle for short periods. The passengers who participate in ride sharing can be other car owners or non-car owners.
Styles of Ride Sharing
Informal lift giving between family and friends. This includes parents driving children around, e.g. to school, a neighbour giving an elderly person who cannot drive a lift to the supermarket when they go, or one person driving a group of friends to the cinema for example. The role of informal lift giving in meeting transport objectives consequently varies tremendously. Parents driving their children to school contributes significantly to peak hour congestion, hence efforts are being made to reduce this type of escort journey. One parent driving several children from different households could contribute to reducing car use, where alternatives are impractical. Such measures to tackle the school run form part of school travel plans and are dealt with under that measure. A neighbour giving an elderly person a lift to a supermarket when they themselves would travel regardless probably has little impact on the car use. However, it could reduce the burden on social services if the elderly person were otherwise unable to shop independently. On the other hand, informal lift giving for social activities can reduce road traffic relative to the situation that would occur if four individuals drove to the same destination independently.
Ride sharing for work. This can also be an informal arrangement within a household, between colleagues or neighbours, or it can be a formal arrangement through the workplace. Formal workplace schemes are promoted as a means of reducing peak hour congestion, and other negative impacts of car travel, frequently promoted through company travel plans. Ride sharing can also reduce demand for expensive long stay city centre parking spaces and/or on site parking at a business location, both of which can be in short supply. This is probably the most common form of organised ride sharing.
Ride sharing through matching services. Ride sharing can be organised through services designed to match drivers and their journeys to passengers wishing to undertake particular journeys. These services usually operate through a database of drivers and passengers. Such services can start as small community initiatives operated on a paper basis, but increasingly, they are accessed via the Internet and serve a wider area. However, such advances have also brought concerns about security, both personal and of data, so up take can be very low.
The ride sharing outlined above is designed to reduce car use. Ride sharing can also be promoted to increase accessibility for potentially disadvantaged groups. In addition to the mechanisms outlined above, ride sharing to increase accessibility could be facilitated by community groups, especially in rural areas or by government bodies established to increase access to jobs, education and healthcare.
Charges
Charges for ride sharing are generally low, but vary depending on the mechanism by which the matching service is accessed. For work based schemes designed to facilitate ride sharing for the journey to and from work, access for individual users is generally free and the cost of setting up the matching service is absorbed by the company. Alternatively, organisations (not solely employers) can become corporate members of independent matching services - i.e. the organisation pays the service provider to administer their matching service. Some service providers then charge a registration fee per participant, which the organisation could pass onto the individuals. Further details of ride sharing schemes for the journey to and from work can be found in the Company Travel Plan section.
Where individuals wish to become members of an independent ride-matching service, there is usually a small annual membership and/or registration fee, plus a charge per journey. Groups of individuals who are known to each other and wish to join as a private group can also become corporate members. Some UK examples are:
- National CarShare (http://www.nationalcarshare.co.uk):
- £29.95 ($42.55) registration fee (incl VAT and first year's membership)
- £12.50 ($17.76) annual subscription after the first year (incl VAT)
- £1 ($1.42) pick up fee per journey
- £0.10 ($0.14) per mile petrol money.
- £29.95 ($42.55) registration fee (incl VAT and first year's membership)
- Liftshare (http://www.liftshare.com):
- Free to use
- Cost per journey at discretion of driver and passenger
- Free to use
- Shareajourney (http://www.shareajourney.com):
- £9.99 ($14.19) annual membership fee
- Cost per journey at discretion of driver and passenger
- £9.99 ($14.19) annual membership fee
Figures correct at time of preparation (28/02/02).
All of these are internet based, national matching services. Others are area based, such as londoncarshare (http://www.londoncarshare.co.uk), which has no registration or membership fee and journey costs are at the discretion of drivers and passengers. In contrast to the local area based sites, others are developing with continent wide catchment areas. Examples are EuroLift (http://www.eurolift.com) for Europe and eRideShare (http://www.erideshare.com) for North America. For informal sharing between friends, colleagues or relatives charges can range from zero, or payment in kind, e.g. a lift in return where journeys are short and or lifts are regularly shared. Alternatively, the petrol costs for longer, one-off ride-shares may be split 50/50.
Technology
The technology needed to facilitate ride sharing is minimal. At the informal level, ride sharing can be facilitated through personal contact. However, it is usual to make use of a database and some form of telecommunications to initiate contact between ride sharers who may not know each other. Workplace matching systems and independent services usually rely on a database. The independent services are usually accessed via the internet and/or telephone. Workplace schemes are often based around a database built using an organisation's existing software, or a purpose designed system is bought in. More detail on this can be found in the Company Travel Plan section.
Which database is used to set up an independent matching service or which service provider is used, is largely a matter of personal choice. The criteria included in the database are more important. Matching should not be based purely on where ride sharers are travelling to and from. Some individuals may not want to travel with a smoker, some may not want to travel with somebody who listens to rock music first thing in the morning, some people may wish to travel with somebody of the same sex. Nevertheless, the location matching criteria need to be more detailed than the a postcode or zip code. Sharing with somebody on the other side of the same postcode or zip code district may not be feasible, but would be with somebody living in the next street. Alternatively, a regular driver could pick up a passenger from a completely different area along route. It is likely that a database including start and destination street, plus an indication of route would be most appropriate. However, most internet based matching services do not provide this level of detail. The journey start point and destination are usually expressed in terms of area, it is then down to potential sharers to make contact and establish whether there is a suitable meeting and drop off point. For one-off journeys this is likely to require planning well in advance to allow time for making alternative arrangements if a suitable ride share is not available.
Why introduce ride sharing?
A major cause of congestion and the associated negative impacts is solo driving. Approximately 66% of commute journeys in Great Britain were made by solo drivers in the period 1998/2000 (DTLR, 2001.
There are many ways of managing demand for car travel. One group of measures that seek to do this are those designed to reduce the demand by facilitating new ways of travelling by car and/or providing alternatives. Ride sharing falls within this category. Whilst the participation rates for independent ride sharing schemes tend to be low, ride sharing is attractive as it still allows those unwilling to use alternatives to continue experiencing the benefits of car travel.
Demand impacts
The impacts resulting from ride sharing are mainly on the demand for car travel and changing some of that demand from solo car driver to car passenger. This will therefore contribute to transport policy objectives seeking to reduce congestion and the associated negative impacts. The demand response currently varies depending on the mechanism by which ride sharing is facilitated. Demand response will be greater for the more successful mechanisms such as workplace based schemes. The long term demand response to ride sharing projects to increase accessibility is currently unknown. Thus, it is only possible to speculate what they might be.
Responses and situations outlines potential responses to ride sharing schemes and the situations in which particular responses are encountered. It should be noted that as ride sharing is voluntary, the impacts are likely to be less than those resulting from measures which are imposed. Thus, impacts may be less than those resulting from urban road charging, for example. However, impacts could be increased if ride sharing becomes more wide spread. Greater up take through workplace schemes could result from increased legislative pressure to implement company travel plans, and/or as a method of decreasing the impact of urban road charging on individuals. As ride sharing becomes more commonplace, the effect on uptake could become cumulative. A further cause of comparatively low demand response impacts is the fact that saving money may appear less attractive than avoiding increased outlay - the result of many responses to urban road charging.
Responses and situations | ||
Response | Reduction in road traffic | Expected in situations |
Ride sharers may set out slightly earlier or later to enable them to meet up with their ride share partner. | ||
A driver may make a diversion to meet a passenger. | ||
- | ||
Where two plus solo driver journeys are replaced by one shared journey.
Where the passenger previously travelled by public transport, walked or cycled. |
||
Where the ride share partnership is between two or more people who previously drove alone.
Where the passenger previously travelled by public transport, walked or cycled. |
||
Where one person in a ride share group or partnership decides they no longer need a car of their own. Most likley in terms of a second household car. | ||
- |
= Weakest possible response | = Strongest possible positive response | ||
= Weakest possible negative response | = Strongest possible negative response | ||
= No response |
Short and long run demand responses
It is unlikely that there will be significant change in demand response over time. Small changes to existing arrangements may be made to facilitate a ride share, but the principle is that matches are found to allow existing journeys to be shared, but otherwise continue relatively unchanged. The greatest changes may be in terms of mode if the number of people taking part in ride sharing increases sufficiently for a significant number of journeys to be shared. If this were to happen, some individuals may sell their car and hence use of public transport, walking and/or cycling may increase. These responses are most likely where the motivation to ride share is given added impetus by integration with other measures such as urban road charging. However, if too many people sold their cars, the very long term response will be a decrease in ride sharing and significantly increased public transport use, walking and/or cycling. Consequently, ride sharing is sometimes seen as a way of easing people out of their cars. It should also be noted that public transport would need a step change in improvement for the above to happen in some areas.
Demand responses | |||||
Response | - | 1st year | 2-4 years | 5 years | 10+ years |
- | |||||
- | |||||
Change job location | |||||
- | Shop elsewhere | ||||
Compress working week | |||||
- | Trip chain | ||||
- | Work from home | ||||
- | Shop from home | ||||
Ride share | |||||
- | Public transport | ||||
- | Walk/cycle | ||||
- | |||||
- |
= Weakest possible response | = Strongest possible positive response | ||
= Weakest possible negative response | = Strongest possible negative response | ||
= No response |
The long term demand response in terms of an individual selling their car, mode change and some aspects of reducing journey numbers is somewhat speculative. Even where a ride sharing scheme has been in existence for any length of time, monitoring has not been undertaken at the level needed to establish whether ride sharing can have an impact on car ownership levels. If an individual with initially low car use were to ride share to the extent that they could no longer justify owning a vehicle out right and they could continue to ride share as a passenger only, they may sell their car. If this happens, then there is likely to be an increase in ride sharing as a passenger, public transport use, walking and/or cycling. There may also be an increase in working and shopping from home. All of these demand responses will increase cumulatively over time.
Level of response
As with other measures, the price elasticity of demand varies with context. The calculation of price elasticity for ride sharing is particularly complicated by the fact that payment is not always monetary. For example, two car owning drivers who regularly share a journey may alternate driving rather than exchange any form of payment - this would be a reduction in journey costs for each individual. Alternatively, a driver who regularly gives a lift on a journey they would be making regardless may not accept monetary payment from the passenger - this may be a reduction in journey costs for the passenger if they no longer pay for public transport, but no change for the driver. As with other calculations of price elasticity, the type of trip, type of traveller, price elasticity of related goods and services and whether the elasticity accounts for short term or long term demand responses are important influential factors in the calculation and interpretation.
The economics would suggest that a reduction in costs would result in increased travel. Where this is increased travel by a mode other than the car, such an increase would not be contrary to transport policy aiming to reduce car travel. However, where drivers make more journeys by car, which given the current preference for car travel is more likely, such an increase would be contrary. Such an increase may not happen where there is no time for additional journeys, but destinations may change to alternatives that require car travel without the purpose changing. This suggests that measures to increase ride sharing should be part of a package to avoid a net increase in car use. Were the promotion of ride sharing to be combined with the introduction of urban road charging for example, the potential for increased car use is likely to be reduced, whilst the ride sharing will also help to mitigate negative reactions to the urban road charging. Where ride sharing is introduced to increase accessibility, such a package may be inappropriate. Alternative non-car measures to increase accessibility may be more suitable.
A further justification for using means other than ride sharing to increase accessibility is the danger of abstraction from public transport. The introduction of ride sharing is likely to result in abstraction from public transport for existing journeys and car use for new journeys. Consequently, public transport revenues will fall, potentially making services unviable and result in a reduction in service levels. This risk is greater where there is already a very low revenue level or the service relies on a subsidy. This will disadvantage those who are unable to travel by car. Additionally, those who are only able to ride share as passengers may have their choice of destinations and times of travel constrained by the choices of drivers.
Supply impacts
There will be no increase in the supply of road space, thus for many there will be no increase in supply, merely a change in the way the existing supply is used. If ride sharing is introduced in deprived areas to increase accessibility, there may be some increase in the choice of modes so long as this is not negated by reductions in public transport service levels as a result of abstraction.
Financing requirements
Ride sharing is one of the cheapest measures to introduce in its most basic form. An off the shelf matching database for use with the internet may cost approximately £400 ($570) at 2002 prices. However, should the organisation or individual promoting the ride sharing already have appropriate programming skills, the system can be developed for a lot less. Where high profile advertising is thought necessary, the outlay can be significantly greater. Such outlay is likely to be necessary to promote informal car sharing. It may also be necessary where ride sharing is introduced to a population who generally do not perceive it as part of their choice set. There will also be staff costs. These will vary depending on the level of service. At the most basic level - an internet matching service that is free to users - the site will need maintaining; out of date journey adverts and requests need to be removed, information on the site needs to be kept up to date and usage needs to be monitored. Where membership fees are charged, these need to be administered and where the service is backed up by a telephone enquiry line, this needs to be staffed.
Expected impact on key policy objectives
Promotion of car sharing can encourage people to increase or decrease their car use depending on how and why it is promoted. Workplace schemes and those combined with other measures such as urban road charging or HOV lanes are designed to encourage reductions in car use. However, the promotion of ride sharing in deprived areas where a high proportion of residents suffer some form of social exclusion may well increase car use as a means of increasing accessibility to meet social inclusion objectives. Contribution to objectives assesses ride sharings scale of contribution to the six key objectives of transport policy.
Contribution to objectives | ||
Objective |
Scale of contribution |
Comment |
By reducing delays and improving reliability. Contribution may be greater where promotion is accompanied by an HOV lane. | ||
By reducing community severance. | ||
By reducing air and noise pollution and pressures on green space and environmentally sensitive sites. | ||
By improving public transport conditions, although this is dependent on service levels being maintained, not reduced as a result of abstraction. | ||
By reducing traffic levels and evening out traffic speeds in HOV lanes. | ||
By freeing up potentially productive time currently lost in congestion. | ||
Through need for initial investment in public transport, parking cash out and communication initiatives. |
= Weakest possible positive contribution | = Strongest possible positive contribution | ||
= Weakest possible negative contribution | = Strongest possible negative contribution | ||
= No contribution |
The impacts on policy objectives outlined above will all be greater if the increased access to cars encourages people to purchase vehicles of their own, especially where the increased access to transport has resulted in access to a higher income. Impacts may be further increased where abstraction from public transport results from increased car use and marginal service are no longer operated, thus, forcing further increases in car use.
Expected impact on problems
As with the contribution to transport policy objectives, the impact on alleviating key problems varies according to whether ride sharing is promoted to reduce car use or increase accessibility.
Contribution to alleviation of key problems | ||
Problem |
Scale of contribution |
Comment |
Congestion-related delay |
Contribution may be greater where combined with other measures such as urban road chargingor HOV lanes. | |
Congestion-related unreliability |
Contribution may be greater where combined with other measures such as urban road charging or HOV lanes. | |
Community severence |
By reducing traffic volumes. | |
Visual intrusion |
By reducing traffic volumes. | |
Lack of amenity |
If existing journeys become shared there will be no change. | |
Global warming |
By reducing traffic-related CO2 emissions. | |
Local air pollution |
By reducing emissions of NOx, particulates and other local pollutants. | |
Noise |
By reducing traffic volumes. | |
Reduction of green space |
By reducing pressure for new road building and city expansion. | |
Damage to environmentally sensitive sites |
By reducing traffic volumes. | |
Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments |
By enhancing the reliability of public transport and subsidising services that may otherwise be taken out as a result of abstraction. | |
Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups |
By enhancing the reliability of public transport and subsidising services that may otherwise be taken out as a result of abstraction. | |
Number, severity and risk of accidents |
By reducing traffic volumes. | |
Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area |
By improving the efficiency of the local road network, especially where combined with other measures. |
= Weakest possible positive contribution | = Strongest possible positive contribution | ||
= Weakest possible negative contribution | = Strongest possible negative contribution | ||
= No contribution |
*If promotion of ride sharing were combined with much improved public transport to the extent that some people were able to sell their cars, these impacts would be greater.
The contribution to key problems outlined above will all be greater if the increased access to cars encourages people to purchase vehicles of their own, especially where the increased access to transport has resulted in access to a higher income. Impacts may be further enhanced where abstraction from public transport results from increased car use and marginal service are no longer operated, thus, forcing further increases in car use.
It should also be noted that increased accessibility may be better provided through public transport. Many of those facing problems travelling are more conscious of the value of independence and would prefer not to rely on lifts. Thus, some journeys may not be undertaken if the only option is a ride share. This is particularly true where the individual concerned wishes to avoid others knowing their destination. This can be a particular problem in terms of access to sensitive health care facilities. Additionally, where the promotion of ride sharing results in abstraction from marginal public transport services, the cessation of these services where subsidy is not possible could actually reduce accessibility. Whilst increased ride sharing may compensate for some journeys, there may be destinations where a ride share is not available and/or shortage of supply. Shortage of supply may cause particular problems for those unable to drive (the young, elderly and disabled) who then have no choice but to rely on scarce lifts.
Expected winners and losers
One would not expect everybody to benefit equally from any transport measures. Indeed, with a measure such as ride sharing, which can be promoted for very specific objectives, there can be many loosers if mitigating measures are not included as part of a package.
Winners and losers | ||
Group |
Winners/Losers |
Comment |
Large scale freight and commercial traffic |
High value journeys – less time spent in congestion the greater the vehicle utilization – relatively small proportion of journey distance in urban conditions. |
|
Small businesses |
Where these are local and reduced car use encourages use of local amenities. |
|
High income car-users |
High income associated with high value of time - sharing is more likely to be reciprocal with others with an equally high value of time. |
|
People with a low income | Benefit from shared journey costs. | |
People with poor access to public transport |
Where public transport provision is improved, accessibility will be increased. |
|
All existing public transport users |
Reduced car use will reduce congestion and improve public transport reliability, plus benefits from increased provision. |
|
People living adjacent to the area targeted |
They may benefit from reduced congestion and improved or increased public transport supply. |
|
People making high value, important journeys |
These journeys may still be made as solo drivers, but reduced congestion will result in valuable time savings. |
|
The average car user | Where they are able to travel more efficiently, saving time and money. |
= Weakest possible benefit | = Strongest possible positive benefit | ||
= Weakest possible negative benefit | = Strongest possible negative benefit | ||
= Neither wins nor loses |
Barriers to implementation
There are a variety of barriers to the implementation of ride sharing outlined below.
Scale of barriers | ||
Barrier | Scale | Comment |
Legal | In some countries the legal and insurance status of those offering rides needs to be clarified. | |
Finance | Support for ride sharing is relatively inexpensive, but does need to be sustained. | |
Governance | Cities may need to interact with private operators of such schemes. | |
Political acceptability | There may be concerns that ride sharing encourages car use at the expense of public transport. | |
Public and stakeholder acceptability | The main barrier is drivers’ and passengers’ resistance to sharing cars, and to sustaining such arrangements. | |
Technical feasibility |
= Minimal barrier | = Most significant barrier |
A key problem with independent car share schemes is concern regarding personal safety. Whilst service providers make varying efforts to counter this, some workplace schemes have been very successful, as detailed in Company Travel Plans. Ride sharers tend to feel some affinity to their colleagues and therefore feel safer. Additionally, it is easier to meet in advance of starting out on a ride share. Where people have positive experiences of such schemes they may be more likely to try ride sharing outside of work. Nevertheless, they may be more likely to set up informal arrangements with people known to them and these are particularly hard to measure. However, at least one of the UK service providers (liftshare) allow a group of individuals to form a private group. Unfortunately, many car drivers and prospective car drivers are probably unaware of the existence of these service providers and the fact that private groups can be established.
The UK nationalcarshare scheme provides members with an ID card, which drivers and passengers can use to check that the individual they are meeting is the person they are expecting. Nationalcarshare also suggest both parties leave travel details and the details of the person they are meeting with a friend, colleague or family member who can check they have reached their destination. Liftshare offer similar advice, but suggest using passports and/or drivers licences for ID.
Massachusetts' Ride-Sharing Programmes
Context
Contribution to objectives and problems | ||||
Objective | Massachusetts | San Francisco | SCHOOLPOOL | Puget Sound Vanpools |
= Weakest possible positive contribution | = Strongest possible positive contribution | ||
= Weakest possible negative contribution | = Strongest possible negative contribution | ||
= No contribution |
Summary of each case study's contribution to alleviation of key problems | ||||
Objective | Massachusetts | San Francisco | SCHOOLPOOL | Puget Sound Vanpools |
Congestion-related delay | ||||
Congestion-related unreliability | ||||
Community severance | ||||
Visual intrusion | ||||
Lack of amenity | ||||
Global warming | ||||
Local air pollution | ||||
Noise | ||||
Reduction of green space | ||||
Damage to environmentally sensitive sites | ||||
Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments | ||||
Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups | ||||
Number, severity and risk of accidents | ||||
Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area |
= Weakest possible positive contribution | = Strongest possible positive contribution | ||
= Weakest possible negative contribution | = Strongest possible negative contribution | ||
= No contribution |
Appropriate contexts
Appropriate area-types | |
Area type | Suitability |
City centre | |
Dense inner suburb | |
Medium density outer suburb | |
Less dense outer suburb | |
District centre | |
Corridor | |
Small town | |
Tourist town |
= Least suitable area type | = Most suitable area type |
Adverse side-effects
The key adverse side effect resulting from ride sharing is likely to be abstraction from public transport services. In a commercial environment, any substantial reduction in fare box revenues is likely to cause a reduction in service levels. A reduction in service levels is likely to have negative impacts on equity and accessibility. Additionally, if increased car use results from the reduction in public transport services, the negative impacts of car use will increase, and for low income households forced to purchase a car, poverty will become a more serious issue.
Bonsall P et al, 2002, Car sharing and Car clubs: potential and impacts, report to Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Motorists Forumm, unpublished.
Britton E (Ed), 2000, Carsharing 2000 Sustainable Transport's Missing Link, The Journal of world Transport Policy and Practice, Vol 5, No 3. at
http://ecoplan.org/wtpp/wt_index.htm (as at 28/02/02).
Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 2001, Focus on Personal Travel: 2001 Edition, The Stationary Office, London, UK
Also at http://www.transtat.dtlr.gov.uk/tables/2001/fperson/fpers01.htm (as at 28/02/02).
Litman T, Ride Sharing, Car and Van Pooling in Online TDM Encyclopaedia at
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/ (as at 28/02/02).