Lessons Learned from Technology-based Rideshare Trials

The technology-based rideshare trials reviewed were diverse in their design, their target audience, their use of technology and their timing. Yet, even with substantial differences there are a number of commonalities between the trials, generally relating to the design and management of rideshare initiatives, and behavioral lessons learned.

Design and Management Lessons Learned:

1. Targeting Large Employers appears to Increase Rideshare Viability

As the Seattle and M21 (and to a lesser degree, Bellevue) trials demonstrated, rideshare initiatives focused on a single large employer or several large employers in close proximity tends to lead to increased interest and participation. Working for the same organization is believed to reduce fears of shared rides between strangers, presumably because there is at least some common attribute between the participants. There is likely to be some mutual belief that the other participant will act more appropriately than a complete stranger would, under the assumption that both individuals may have to interact in a work setting at some future point in time. Even in cases where future work-related interaction is unlikely, there is the potential for the organization to discipline poor behavior, if a complaint were to be filed. In this sense, participants have some tangible form of recourse in the event of bad behavior, and the costs of bad behavior could be substantial (including employee dismissal). From a pure matching perspective, choosing a single, large

employer establishes a fixed destination and changes the traditional “many-to-many” rideshare matching challenge to a “many-to-one” challenge. If participants can be encouraged to pair up at common meeting points, or specific corridors are targeted, the matching challenge can be further improved to a “few-to-one”

relationship.

2. Technology Enabled the Innovative Trials, but was Rarely Cited as the Impetus for Behavior Change All of trials reviewed utilized some form of innovative technology or software, but in very few cases was the technology cited as one of the main reasons for participating in the trial. The Bellevue demonstration was a notable exception, where participants cited the use of the pager as their strongest incentive to participate.

This highlights the fact that technology enables the provision of more innovative rideshare services, but is rarely sufficient on its own to change travel behavior.

3. Institutional Issues, particularly a Lack of Management, was Problematic in some Trials

Institutional issues were problematic for a number of the trials. The Los Angeles and SaFIRES trials both lacked initial planning in the design phase, and the SaFIRES trial had no designated individual overseeing trial implementation. In the Ride Now trial, institutional disagreements significantly delayed implementation.

These trials highlight the need to have a strong institutional sponsor for a rideshare initiative, particularly someone that understands the competing interests of different stakeholders. There is also a need to devote substantial effort to designing a trial that effectively measures rideshare outcomes, so that the results inform future initiatives.

4. Lack of Measurement of Successful Shared Rides was a Widespread Problem

The lack of measurement of successful shared rides afflicted nearly every technology-based trial that was reviewed. In some cases (Los Angeles & M21) successful rideshare measurement appeared to be overlooked entirely, leading to questions about how well the performance measurement portion of the trial was thought through. In other cases (Bellevue, Sacramento & Seattle) successful shared ride recording was voluntary. The Ride Now trial was the only one in which the number of shared rides was measured, and this was largely due to the configuration of the software. Advanced rideshare technologies could be used in future rideshare initiatives to improve performance measurement, particularly the number of successful shared rides undertaken.

Behavioral Lessons Learned:

1. Incentives, Disincentives & Marketing Affect Rideshare Behavior

Those trials that offered incentives to encourage participation (Bellevue, Ride Now & M21), disincentives to discourage SOV commuting (Seattle), or undertook substantial marketing and promotional efforts (Seattle, Ride Now & M21) tended to have higher participation than those that offered few if any incentives and undertook little marketing (Los Angeles & Sacramento). The challenge remains gaining institutional support for such endeavors. Incentives and marketing can be a substantial portion of a rideshare initiative budget and may be one of the first line items targeted during project development reviews. Demonstrating that the provision of incentives and marketing is a relatively modest investment as compared to other transportation investments will be important.

2. Fear of Strangers Often Cited as a Reason for not Sharing Rides

Concerns about sharing rides with a stranger were cited as the major reason for a lack of participation in the Sacramento and Los Angeles trials. While this is a long standing challenge in rideshare initiatives, the existence of casual carpool systems that operate daily show that this challenge can be overcome when the system is convenient and reliable for users. This finding highlights the need to target travelers that are part of a social network (large employers, for example) where the fear of strangers is reduced, and improve the convenience and reliability of rideshare systems so that “stranger danger” fears are perceived as less problematic.

3. Trial Participants much More Willing to be Drivers than Passengers

In those trials that measured the number of driver and passenger requests separately, drivers appeared to feel more comfortable offering rides than passengers felt requesting rides. In the Bellevue trial, passengers sought 23% of rides while the remaining 77% were rides offered by drivers. In the Ride Now trial, as seen in Figure 3.1, the breakdown of morning ride requests for a six week period was 56% driver offers, 15%

passenger requests and 29% willing to act as either the driver or passenger. The Ride Now statistics are of particular interest given that participants were required to state their rideshare role preference when they first registered. During registration, 22% stated they would only want to be a passenger, 20% stated they would only want to be a driver and 58% stated they would be willing to act as either a driver or passenger.

As the Bellevue post-evaluation noted, the small number of participants and perceived lack of reliability in finding a return ride in the afternoon may partially explain the “ride offer-ride request” disparity.

Figure 3.1: Ride Now! Trial Disparity in Stated vs. Observed Rideshare Role Preferences

Driver Passenger Either Driv. or Pass.

Role in Rideshare Arrangement

Ride Now! Trial - Disparity in Stated vs. Observed Rideshare Role Preferences

Stated Preference

Sources: RideNow.org, 2008 / ACCMA, 2006

4. Personal Travel Planning may Increase Interest in Future Rideshare Initiatives

The evaluations for the Ride Now and M21 trials both highlighted the importance of personalized marketing and travel planning in increasing interest in rideshare initiatives. While the evaluation for the Ride Now project simply recommended personal travel planning as a strategy in future trials, the M21 evaluation found that personal support in the initial stages of implementation was highly valued and one of the main reasons for choosing to participate. The use of detailed surveys prior to trial implementation may not only identify which subset of the traveling population should be the target of rideshare initiatives, but may also provide individual motivations and potential concerns with ridesharing. If these are known in advance, marketing materials and incentive packages can be customized for individuals or groups of potential users.