|
|
|
|
|
          
|
First principles assessment Why introduce ride sharing? Demand impacts Short and long run demand response Level of response Supply impacts Financing requirements Expected impact on key policy objectives Contribution to objectives when promoted to reduce car use Contribution to objectives when promoted to increase accessibility Expected impact on problems Expected winners and losers Barriers to implementation Why introduce ride sharing? 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. 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.
Short and long run demand response 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.
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. 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.
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 when promoted to reduce car use
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.
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.
*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.
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.
There are a variety of barriers to the implementation of ride sharing
outlined below.
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.
|
