Ridesharing Institute – Contribution to today’s TRB discussions

Dear Paul, Susan, and other TRB friends having a look at this proposal this afternoon in DC. This is an excellent first-cut proposal and food for thought on a very important policy topic -- and I want to get firmly behind the basic concept right now.

I wish I could be with you for these important discussions because like at least half of you in this audience I am firmly convinced in the potential for ridesharing in its many diverse forms as a vital and critical means in the process of moving from unsustainable to sustainable transportation. [I am sure that much of what you find here is well known to most of you. But here I am at my desk in Paris and I want to share my best thoughts with you on this. So off we go.] However before I launch into a few recommendations and suggestions, I want make sure that I keep the main thrust of my eventual contributions at the basic strategic level. It may ultimately turn out that it’s a good idea to go to a bricks and mortar institute somewhere doing something — but let me first see if I can reach back a bit into what I see as the underlying strategic issues and choices in an attempt to get a bit of perspective on the fundamentals.

Let’s start at the beginning.

I. Ridesharing is not an “option”

a. The core to our 21st century sustainable transport strategy has to be to find ways to get more people (and goods) into fewer vehicles (major VMT reductions), — and all that without any sacrifices in terms of efficiency, economy, or quality of life. Indeed we should be targeting improvements for the vast majority of all people on all those important scores and others (increased personal contact, neighborliness, better feeling for citizen action and initiatives, etc.)

b. We are thus talking about ridesharing.

c. Ridesharing is NOT, as often has been the position of just about all concerned in the past, a detail, a nice little mobility option and it would be neat if it could be put to work here or there when certain special conditions exist that permit it to do a defined job.

d. Ridesharing is, it has to be, a central, a vital component of our nation’s, of our world’s sustainable mobility strategy.

e. Since we have massively overbuilt our road networks in the vast majority of cases – if we take into consideration the low level of efficiency of their present use – this means that we can work with what we have and just have to see how we can combine technology and organization to get this “new” transport mode to take its full and necessary place.

f. The second and parallel gross example of systemic inefficiency is our present transportation delivery chain are all those private cars that site around 95% of the time taking up space, and in all to many cases when they finally hit the road are cruising with the classic 1.2 riders per car.

g. Now all that remains to be done is to show how we can put 1 and 1 together and get 3. Which is basically what ridesharing is all about.

It’s important we are in agreement on this, and if there are other thoughts on it I for one will be very glad to hear and think about them. Because if what I am saying here is in fact true – and I really believe it to be the case – then it literally moves the lines on the field and changes just about everything about the importance of this proposed initiative.

Are we in agreement on this?

II. What is ridesharing?

As a quick reminder, ridesharing can take place in three main patterns:

Class 1. People riding on public transit;
Class 2. People participating in formal planned ridesharing programs;
Class 3. All those good citizens who one way or another climb into a car together at a given time for their own good reasons and somehow negotiate with the driver to get where they want to go.

And if we cast our thoughts back on this for a moment to create some kind of ridesharing supporting structure, I think it will be useful to keep in mind that the great bulk of the attention of such an initiative should be to the two latter categories. Why?

This is not to demain the importance of getting more people on board public transit, which is real and certainly worthy of attention and resources. However it is my conviction that the PT sector by and large already has the institutional structures and at least a known path to the financial resources (though everyone quite reasonably wants more). Beyond that this is an era of innovation in the PT sector which is increasingly dynamic, on the lookout for new service and technology packages.

However this is definitely not the case for the second and third kinds or ridesharing indicated here, so if we are to figure out ways of how to support these two other rideshare modes, our efforts should be directed at improving our understanding of and the performance of these last two.

III. Class 2 ridesharing: Some basic ridesharing truths

1. Overall, it has to be said that what we are calling Class 2 ridesharing has not worked very well to now. (An awful lot of hard and often smart work has been put into it, but the bottom line traffic, environment, etc. numbers are not really being impacted in any fundamental way.)

2. Moreover, once one peels away from PT as ridesharing, it is the Class 2 projects that tend to get most attention. That is almost certainly a pitfall to be avoided.

3. Class 2 ridesharing will have an important role as part of the solution, but it is only a part of a much greater whole.

4. On the other hand there is quite a lot of it that is going on in Class 3, but much of it not for a variety of reasons as yet visible or recorded in the stats. (Let’s see if we can keep our eye on this.)

IV. Class 3 Ridesharing – Casual, ad hoc, “lastminute dot com”, etc.

Just by way of brief reminder, here is a quick first list of some of the ways in which this service pattern gets played out:

• Shared taxis (lots of ways of delivering these services
• Private or free small buses, public van services
• Local blogs and bulletin boards, electronic and other
• Hitchhiking and its variants
• Slugging
• Carshare extensions

V. The technology core of 21st century ridesharing

It’s that small computer in your pocket. (This is a 21st century logistics, communications and social networking issue. And if we can’t handle this then we are licked.)

VI. The research core

I hope that we will be able to distinguish between passive 20th century after the fact research. What is needed in terms of the research component is that the research team becomes part of the feedback process. All these projects are for the most part going to be feedback intensive and dependent on logistics, that generate real time and quasi-rt data as the project and service move along. So I vote very much that e get out of the ivory tower and on to the street.

VII. Institute?

My first reaction to this – probably wrong – is that sounds a bit too much like bricks and mortar. I realize that we need to have in mind a shared mental image for what we need to do to help ridesharing to become a fundamental underpinning of sustainable transport as it should be, but for my part I would hope that we can first create a consensus as to what the key pressure points are here that, once understood, we will be able to organize into some form of 21st century collaborative work and communication structure.

VIII. The Great American Backwater.

Another fundamental point that I as an American who has lived and worked more than half my life outside of the US am obliged to make – and that is that the States are a bit of a backwater when it comes to sustainable transport implementations in just about any form I can imagine. That is not intended as an insult or even as an accusation; it is simply a statement of fact.

Why do I bring this point up? Well, to me at least it suggests that if you limit your attention and program to what is known and going on in the States alone, you are going to miss the boat.

My recommendation: From the beginning plan and implement your new program as a collaborative international undertaking. In this way you will stand to learn a lot, maybe teach others here and there, and to support and inspire — a great way of moving ahead.

IX. Closing thoughts and recommendation

This is an extremely important proposition and I hope that the panel will get strongly behind it, above all at the strategic level.

This is no time to be timid or bureaucratic. We should be ready to push hard to get this basic idea up and running with a minimum of wasted time. (Our responsibility for sustainability is neither abstract of timeless: it comes heavily encumbered by a clock and a calendar. Anything that we do not do in the next one to five years is an excuse. Every day we continue in the old unjust mode, is a lost opportunity for all those who are not doing well by them,. And of course for the planet.)

This is an extremely valuable and timely initiative I propose that DOT, FHWA and maybe some others should get ready to stump up some amount, say $100k, to get the ball really rolling on this. After a six month run-up of a pilot/demo, we and others who know ever more about all this should get together for a couple of days and see if we can make some wise recommendations about where to take it from there. (And for my part I would be pleased to lend a hand if useful and to be part of the solution.)

Eric Britton. Paris. 20 January 2011 via World Streets

About these ads

4 thoughts on “Ridesharing Institute – Contribution to today’s TRB discussions

  1. Dear Eric,

    thank you very much for your post.

    I would like to add a small bit of thought on this topic. Ridesharing in cars (class II and III) is fundamentally a decentralized process. It very much has to do with individual preferences and costs. It can only marginally improved by physical or virtual infrastructure. In the end, the relative cost – monetary and temporal – of car riding will decide on the attractiveness of ridesharing.

    Probably this is not very helpful. Fuel taxation in the US is at rock-bottom level, and Congress gridlock won’t change much in the near future. Still, one should not forget the pricing dimension.

    Reply
  2. Eric,

    Your ridesharing-institute idea comes none too soon. Count me in as a supporter, worker.

    It has inspired me to do a blog on it at my first-ever site: http://hearthhealth.wordpress.com/
    Where I also have a piece on my carsharing-ridesharing ‘hybrid.’

    The IT will allow municipal governments and universities, for the first time, to know more about car use and modal choices that the paltry amount they get from origin-destinations surveys once every 10 years based on a sample of users’ memory (via ‘diaries’), need to require all vehicle to have sensors installed at the owners’ own expense. They require all land uses to supply ancillary parking, but don’t know what their ‘population’ parking spaces is (probably many times the number of vehicles).

    This will allow tracking every seat of every vehicle automatically: so we know which vehicles are moving and which aren’t (the recent idea from the World Transport, per mKodransky, on focusing on fees for parking rather than driving), and of those that are moving, which seats are in use.

    And I’ve added your site as one of my favourites.

    Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa

    Reply
  3. I would like to record my strong disagreement with the statement that class 1
    ridesharing (public transit) needs less attention than the other 2 classes
    (formal and informal car based ridesharing).

    In the UK the idea that public transport has a path to financial resources is a
    sick joke. Many of our local authorities are intent on going back to an era when
    it was supposed to be able to operate without support. I don’t think there’s
    anywhere outside London where the public transport system is based on a real
    assessment of what is needed to provide a real alternative to driving. In fact
    the figures in Paul Mees’s book show that this is true in English cities.

    In the UK public transport certainly doesn’t have the institutional structures
    required to make it work. Buses are deregulated and trains franchised in such a
    way as to ensure fragmentation.

    Yet as the book points out rural transport in Australia is even worse than it is
    in the UK — and my experience of the US and Canada suggests that this is true
    there too.

    My impression is that many ridesharing programs target journeys that can be made
    by other modes of transport, even if less conveniently than by car. Indeed I
    recently received an email from someone who is trying to promote such a scheme.
    It should be remembered that there is no environmental gain if someone goes in
    the car of someone else who needs to make the journey rather than in a bus or
    train, or on foot or bike. In fact there can be a loss if the bus or rail
    service is marginal (as almost all are) or if the driver is deterred from
    thinking of transferring to alternative modes (e.g. because half his/her costs
    are paid by the passenger).

    Is there a single car based ridesharing service anywhere — other than in some
    less developed countries where motorists are expected to give lifts — which
    offers a reliable service, not dependent on advance booking, to anyone who needs
    to make a journey in a given area ? This being what is provided by public
    transport.

    The interests of sustainability and the environment require that public
    transport becomes the “default” mode of getting around, with cars generally used
    only for specialised types of journey for which public transport is unsuitable
    — or, in many cases, components of such journeys. Within this framework there
    is certainly a role for ridesharing. For example if a school is organising an
    outing for its pupils, they may need to be picked up and/or set down at the
    school (or some other location if the trip uses scheduled buses or trains)
    outside the times at which the pupils normally travel to/from school.
    Ridesharing is an obvious means of reducing the number of cars needed to get the
    children home.

    However in general ridesharing does not challenge the principle that the car is
    the default mode of transport, even if it slightly reduces the number of cars
    needed to cater for people’s journeys. As such, at least until it achieves a
    scope comparable to that of a public transport network, it perpetuates
    discrimination against those who can’t or don’t want to drive.

    I may say that I recently came across an advertisement for a rideshare scheme.
    This was posted on a pedestrian/cycle route which may be under threat of
    closure, leading to the headquarters of the local council which is planning to
    phase out all support for non-commercial bus services. The subliminal message is
    “we’re not interested in whether you can walk, cycle or catch a bus, because you
    can always rideshare”. I may say that I am sure this message was not conscious
    — the route is not owned by the council who therefore don’t have any direct
    control over whether it stays open — but I still found it worrying.

    Note that in this it is quite different to carsharing/car clubs/community car
    hire, which work by enabling people to give up car ownership, which they will
    want to do if most of their travelling can be done by other means leaving only a
    minority for which they will use their car club membership. Though to be really
    effective it needs to proceed to the next stage whereby accommodation for
    privately owned cars is reduced, and few places seem to have got that far.

    Simon Norton

    # # #
    Dr. Simon Norton is a mathematician at Cambridge University with a long term involvement with sustainable transport. In particular he is Co-ordinator of the Cambs & West Suffolk branch of Transport 2000, the national environmental transport campaign. His particular interests are the development of integrated rural bus and rail networks, and the reduction of traffic and aviation levels which will both improve people’s quality of life and mitigate climate change.

    Reply
  4. Sun 30-Jan-11 07:06

    Dear Eric

    The Ridesharing Institute held its Inaugural Meeting on 21 January.

    We had a technical difficulty and some people who tried were unable to join the meeting. We apologise for this. We do not know who they were, so we are writing to everyone we had notified about the meeting.

    The good news is that over 30 people were able to participate, in person, by phone, or over the internet, and we have a group of at least 13 people taking things forward to the next stage.

    A record of the meeting will soon be available. We will send a link to you so that you can see what happened. There is an exciting new era for commentary, research, and membership associated with bringing about greater levels of ridership in buses, carpools, and vanpools.

    Draft minutes have gone out to those who participated. If you were on the phone and have not received draft minutes, please let me know. I have the feeling we have missed someone. Once again our apologies.

    Kind regards
    Paul Minett

    On behalf of the founding supporters of the Ridesharing Institute.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s