Exploratory Advanced Research Program

Casual Carpooling Focus Group Study

SESSION FINDINGS BY LOCATION

In this section, findings are presented from two perspectives. The first set represent the insights drawn from the interviews with riders and passengers, regardless of their location and covers the knowledge levels leading to the decision to participate and attitudes and practices related to their current behavior. This is then followed by the key observations drawn from the interviews by study location. The topics covered in the latter section are organized as follows:

1. Knowledge leading to decision to participate.
   
   
2. Current behavior.
   
   
3. System guidelines or improvements.
   
   
4. Real-time ridesharing (RTR) pilot program (applies only to the Washington, DC, region participants whose commutes have been impacted by BRAC).

Washington, DC, Region

Participant Summary

As shown in table 1, 34 individuals participated in the Washington area focus groups (12 attended the Fort Belvoir discussion conducted on May 22, 2012, and 11 were in each of the two focus groups held on May 23, 2012). Experience with casual carpooling among participants ranged from a few months to more than 10 years. Most participants who considered themselves passengers also had experience as drivers.

The majority of the participants casual carpool daily to and from work. While work is the primary reason for casual carpooling, participants also casual carpool when traveling to the airport (and sometimes plan their flights around casual carpooling hours).

Key Findings

• Casual carpoolers are motivated to participate primarily because of the time savings and flexibility of the system.
  
  
• Safety is an initial concern among those who have not experienced casual carpooling; but for those who have already experienced the process, they express trust in the system and readily communicate confidence in its benefits to their friends and family.
  
  
• Casual carpoolers practice behaviors and unique language that demonstrate a sense of community. For instance, those in the Dumfries, VA, area described using or observing the use of “mercy” lines, that is, locations near the Pentagon where casual carpoolers stand in line after the HOV restrictions have been lifted with the hope that a driver will pick them up. The term “slug” is also a unique term to the casual carpooling community in the Washington, DC, and Houston regions.

Real-Time Ridesharing Pilot Program

In addition, the Washington region focus group participants were asked to write down their first reactions to a pilot program using an RTR software system that was going to enable real-time ridesharing along the I-95/395 corridor from Fredericksburg, VA, to Washington, DC—designed primarily to serve commuters relocated because of BRAC—that matches drivers and riders as they  travel; riders would pay drivers via an electronic payment system based on distance traveled (for more information, see appendix A, section D). Participants were handed a sheet of paper, with a description of the program, and were then asked to (1) write down their initial reactions or thoughts about the pilot program; and (2) indicate whether they would use the real-time smartphone application.

• Initially, most participants said they would not use the program because they did not want to pay for a system that is currently free (where it exists) and were opposed to the program as a replacement for casual carpooling.
  
  
• Drivers believed such a program could reduce the supply of passengers because some may not want to pay the fee; and that fees could reduce the driver’s control of the car environment (control of air conditioning, radio stations, etc.), as paying passengers would likely expect some control in return.
  
  
• Passengers believed it might improve their sense of safety with regard to riding with a random person they did not know.
  
  
• Once explained how the program would operate (see appendix A, section D), some participants were open to the idea of using a smartphone application—mostly those from Fort Belvoir lacking a casual carpooling option—if it were user-friendly and either free, low in cost, or eligible for the transit subsidy.
  
  
• Some believed the pilot program would reintroduce some of the structure of a traditional carpool or vanpool and recommended marketing the pilot to individuals who are unfamiliar with the concept of casual carpooling.
  
  
• A very few opined they might use the pilot program’s application as an initial way to find and form a regular carpool and would stop using the program once a formal carpool was formed.

Discussion Summary

Knowledge Leading to Decision to Participate

• Phrases participants used to describe casual carpooling:
  
  
  • Noncommitted carpool.
    
    
  • Carpooling freestyle.
    
    
  • Formalized hitchhiking.
    
    
• New casual carpoolers:
  
  
  • The majority of participants learned about casual carpooling for the first time through word of mouth (e.g., coworker, friend, or family member).
    
    
  • Casual carpooling for necessity and under unforeseen circumstances, including interruption of service of the primary mode of transportation, encourages some to slug and those around them to learn about it in that moment.
    
    
  • Safety is a primary concern among new casual carpoolers. This was especially the case among women, who experienced initial apprehension and nervousness, particularly over the prospect of being the only woman in a car with men. Participants minimized this concern by first:
    
    
    • Riding with a friend, relative, or colleague for the first few weeks or months.
      
      
    • Participating as a driver until familiar with the process and their commute.
      
      
    • Participating in HOV-3 rather than HOV-2 (which is normally a system requirement, except in Houston in most instances) or not riding in a two-seater in any of the cities. Riding with more people in the vehicle provided an increased sense of safety.
      
      
• Motivations to casual carpool:
  
  
  • It is free.
    
    
  • It provides the opportunity to do something else while commuting (e.g., read, or sleep in vehicle).
    
    
  • Only one family vehicle is available.
    
    
  • Carpooler has no access to workplace parking.
    
    
• Experienced casual carpoolers:
  
  
  • Those who are not new to casual carpooling (and are already familiar with the drivers and vehicles) do not share the same concerns as new participants (e.g., safety); their priority instead is to get to work or home.
    
    
  • Overall, participants do not casual carpool because of environmental concerns (i.e., emissions).
    
    
• Weather conditions impact casual carpooling operations. More drivers and fewer passengers were observed during bad weather.
  
  
• Longer passenger lines were observed when gas prices rose; longer lines resulted in longer wait times.
  
  
• Many casual carpoolers are “planners” (even though casual carpooling accommodates last-minute decisions), and they are willing to plan on a daily and weekly basis.
  
  
• Casual carpooling is a system “that works” and offers a mutual benefit to both the driver and passenger, including:
  
  
  • Flexible hours.
    
    
  • The opportunity to meet new people, network, and develop relationships.
    
    
  • Camaraderie (casual carpoolers “watch out for each other”). More likely to get personal belongings back if lost while casual carpooling than when taking transit.
    
    
• Limitations of other modes of transportation when compared to casual carpooling:
  
  
  • Transit is “expensive” and “unreliable.”
    
    
  • Traditional carpooling is less flexible:
    
    
    • It requires that one wait for all passengers to be ready to leave.
      
      
    • It is not ideal for those who tend to relocate frequently (e.g., military personnel).
      
      
    • It does not offer drivers and passengers the opportunity to meet new people.
      
      
• However, participants outlined circumstances that have motivated them in the past to seek other modes of transportation. They include:
  
  
  • • Long passenger lines (queuing casual carpoolers).
      
      
    • Weather conditions. If it is raining, some passengers may take the bus to avoid waiting in the rain, reducing the supply of riders.
      
      
    • Satisfaction with the bus system (e.g., previous good experience on the bus).
      
      
    • Reputation of certain lines and drivers. Some slug line locations are described as being less passenger “friendly” than others (the lines are too long or there is limited parking availability nearby). Similarly, passengers will pass on rides with drivers with whom they have previously driven and had an unpleasant experience.
      
      

Current Behavior

• Participants readily share stories with others. Casual carpooling is a great conversation starter among friends and family. It is customary and acceptable behavior for drivers to turn down passengers (and vice versa) on any given day. Proper casual carpooling etiquette is sought by both drivers and passengers. Drivers and passengers determine who they will pick up or ride with based on the following:
  
  
  • Drivers prefer passengers who:
    
    
    • Practice common courtesy (refrain from adjusting air conditioning, radio, visor, etc.).
      
      
    • Have good social skills.
      
      
    • Refrain from eating and drinking.
      
      
    • Are odorless (no perfume).
      
      
    • Do not carry too much luggage or a large load.
      
      
  • Passengers consider the following:
    
    
    • Destination of the driver (preferring those who can drive them nearest to their destination).
      
      
    • Drivers who look like they might be distracted while driving (avoid drivers holding coffee, talking on cell phones, etc.).
      
      
    • Vehicle exterior (e.g., absence of dents or signs of accidents, clean and in good condition, no unusual sounds or smoke from the tailpipes).
      
      
    • Clean vehicle interior (e.g., avoid cigarette smell, prefer clean and tidy).
      
      
    • Vehicle size (some avoid small cars because of cramped seating area).
      
      
    • Drivers who use care and caution when driving (based on reputation of the driver).
      
      
  • Why some drive:
    
    
    • Control (of schedule, speed, passengers, air conditioning, and radio).
      
      
    • Concern about riding with bad drivers.
      
      
    • Better to drive on the workdays of a 3- or 4-day holiday weekend because there are fewer drivers on those days from which to secure a ride.
      
      
  • Why some ride:
    
    
    • Do not want the responsibility of being liable for passengers.
      
      
    • Cost of gas is too high.
      
      
    • Lack of parking.
      
      

System Guidelines and Improvements

• Overall, participants are very satisfied with the current carpooling system. The top reasons they gave to support their opinions included that casual carpooling is “self-policed,” people “watch out for each other,” and “it works.”
  
  
• Challenges and recommended improvements include:
  
  
  • Those picked up in the morning at Tackett’s Mill sometimes struggle to find a return trip to Tackett’s Mill (instead are dropped off on Horner Road).
    
    
  • New slug line locations; recommend maintaining bus and slug lines near each other.
    
    
  • Additional parking.
    
    
  • Covered waiting areas.
    
    
  • Extended HOV lanes.
    
    
  • More designated stops and signs at other locations like those at the Pentagon.
    
    
• Opportunities to facilitate communication among casual carpoolers:
  
  
  • Use of texting group (e.g., groupme.com).
    
    
  • Email group.
    
    
  • Improve technology-based applications (those who have tried using them have had little success). Although casual carpoolers are willing to use technology, the cost for purchasing an application is a concern.
    
    
• The best ways to communicate casual carpooling to others are by word of mouth or via Web sites (e.g., www.slug-lines.com). Also recommended were flyers and radio station notices (e.g., WTOP).
  
  
• Casual carpoolers are part of a unique or special community. The sense of community is derived from helping each other out. Generally, participants are familiar with casual carpooling etiquette, value the opportunity to build relationships, and use terms that are unique to the casual carpooling community in a specific area or region (for instance, casual carpoolers in the Washington region may use terms like “slugging” and “mercy lines”).

General Feedback Regarding a Real-time Ridesharing Pilot Program

• Paying for a system that is currently free was the main reason casual carpoolers found RTR unappealing. Casual carpoolers recommend marketing the pilot to individuals who are unfamiliar with the concept of casual carpooling. Some said the pilot sounded like it was bringing back some of the formality of a traditional carpool or vanpool.
  
  
• Most participants said they would not use the pilot program for casual carpooling because a fee would be associated with it. Payment could increase passengers’ expectations, for instance, “please turn up the AC” or “please change the radio.” Other initial reactions to the program included:
  
  
  • Exchanging money would take away from the camaraderie.
    
    
  • It would benefit drivers more than passengers, thereby encouraging more to drive.
    
    
  • Introducing a fee will make passengers fear that the fee could increase at any time.
    
    
  • Why change a system that works?
    
    
  • Passengers may decide to drive themselves (pay for gas instead of paying the driver).
    
    
  • Using another mode of transportation may be less expensive.
    
    
  • “Why should I pay you to take me where you are already going?”
    
    
  • Would not want to charge their friends.
    
    
  • Would take away the “randomness” of casual carpooling.
    
    
  • Some may find it confusing (to be able to travel to Crystal City, a traditional casual carpooling destination, for free, but then need to pay to go to Fort Belvoir, not a current casual carpooling destination).
    
    
• Perceived benefits of the program include:
  
  
  • The proposed program may be a good option to have in addition to casual carpooling, but not in place of it (e.g., in case of an emergency).
    
    
  • Could remove the fear of riding with someone you do not know.
    
    
  • May be willing to participate if someone else were to pay (e.g., if it would qualify under the transit subsidy).
    
    
  • If HOT lanes reduce casual carpooling, RTR might be an option.
    
    
  • Could be beneficial where casual carpooling is not occurring.

Houston, TX, Region

Participant Summary

A total of 16 individuals participated in the focus groups on July 11, 2012 in Houston; 6 participants attended the 5:30 p.m. session and 10 attended the second session at 7:30 p.m. Experience with casual carpooling among participants ranged from 1 to 25 years. Most participants who considered themselves passengers also had experience as drivers.

The participants in Houston included a mix of casual carpoolers who initiate their commute from the Addicks and Kingsland Park-and-Ride lots (Katy Freeway) or the Northwest Station Park-and-Ride lot (Highway 290) where riding the bus is also an option. Most travel to or near downtown for work.

Key Findings

Time and cost savings were most frequently cited as the motivations for participating in casual carpooling.

Casual carpooling is largely a morning practice; in the afternoon, passengers rely more on transit for their return ride to the park-and-ride lot.

Overall, participation levels in casual carpooling have dropped over time, particularly on the Katy Freeway, because of recent actions: highway reconstruction that widened the roadway (increased the number of lanes), the introduction of HOT lanes (and related fees), and maintenance of HOV restrictions (with waivers of toll for compliant vehicles). These actions combined had a significant impact on congestion, motivating former casual carpool passengers to drive.

Participants in Houston exhibit friendly behavior with other casual carpoolers. With the exception of the Vallejo groups, the casual carpool culture in Houston is more convivial than the culture described by the focus group participants in the San Francisco and Washington regions. That is, focus group participants readily shared that casual carpoolers regularly engage in conversation, sit in the front passenger seat next to the driver if no one else is in the vehicle, and form relationships outside of the casual carpool environment, both personal and professional. It was not an unusual practice for drivers to go out of their way to take a passenger to their final destination in bad weather; to open their trunk so that passengers could place luggage, boxes, and briefcases in it; and with regard to payment for a ride, it was frequently perceived as an insult to offer payment to the driver.

Very few, if any, disadvantages of casual carpooling were shared among participants, indicating overall satisfaction with the system.

Discussion Summary

Knowledge Leading to Decision to Participate

• New casual carpoolers:
  
  
  • The majority of participants learned about casual carpooling for the first time by seeing it firsthand while waiting in line for the bus, by word of mouth, or by necessity (e.g., during Tropical Storm Allison, 2001).
    
    
• Primary motivations to casual carpool:
  
  
  • Time and cost savings are the factors first mentioned. In fact, several shared that when gas prices and bus fares increased, passengers casual carpooled more regularly.
    
    
• When compared to other transportation options, casual carpooling offers multiple benefits:
  
  
  • Route flexibility—In a traffic jam, casual carpool drivers can change their course if needed; buses cannot.
    
    
  • Seating is guaranteed—Casual carpoolers are guaranteed a seat in the vehicle in contrast to a bus. When a bus is crowded, passengers have to stand.
    
    
  • Avoiding unpredictable issues associated with buses—Examples were given of delays in travel time because of buses breaking down or otherwise getting off schedule. Other issues cited included variable temperature inside the bus, talking by other bus riders, noises in general because of bus horns, cell phones, etc.
    
    
  • Personal schedule flexibility—A traditional carpool can be stressful because of its highly structured nature, including having to adhere to set schedules, keep members informed when ill or on vacation, and, often, share the driving responsibilities.
    
    
• Disadvantages of casual carpooling:
  
  
  • Feeling an obligation to speak—Drivers and passengers may not be in the mood to talk; passengers may ride the bus on occasion for privacy (sleep, read, etc.).
    
    

Current Behavior

• When participants told their family members about casual carpooling for the first time, their family was typically apprehensive. Additionally, coworkers are often surprised, some calling casual carpoolers “crazy.”
  
  
• Factors that could deter participation:
  
  
  • Driver or passenger not headed to same destination (primary reason).
    
    
  • Dirty vehicle.
    
    
  • Unaccompanied male (mostly from the perspective of female passengers or drivers).
    
    
  • Driver or passenger who smokes.
    
    
  • Aggressive driver.
    
    
  • Driver applying makeup while waiting for passengers and/or driving.
    
    
• Factors adding to a sense of security between drivers and passengers:
  
  
  • Laminated signs, prepared by drivers for passengers, indicating destinations.
    
    
  • Signage at pickup location, giving legitimacy to casual carpooling.
    
    
  • Child seat visible in the vehicle.
    
    
  • A minimum of three people in the vehicle (more of a concern among female participants).
    
    
  • Professional attire (Northwest Station only, which seemed to attract passengers working in office settings requiring formal business attire).
    
    
• Why some drive:
  
  
  • Family responsibilities—If a child needs something or if there is a family emergency, the person may need his or her car to respond quickly to the situation.
    
    
  • Social activities—After-work activities encourage more driving (particularly on Fridays).
    
    

System Guidelines and Improvements

• Katy Freeway (I-10): Participants who commute from the Addicks Park-and-Ride lot were generally satisfied with their casual carpooling experience. They cited some initial challenges:
  
  
  • System breaks down during the holiday seasons when there are fewer drivers and passengers, but traffic is light enough for those who are usually passengers to drive.
    
    
  • Riders would sometimes like more drivers to participate in casual carpooling.
    
    
  • When the Katy Freeway was expanded to 12 lanes, more people became drivers because there was less road congestion overall. Still, drivers were incentivized to casual carpool to take advantage of HOT lanes, but it was not enough to meet people’s needs.
    
    
• Highway 290: Participants who commute from the Northwest Station Park-and-Ride lot were generally satisfied with their casual carpooling experience. The major challenge cited was the need for more drivers to support passenger demand.
  
  
• Return Trip: The return trip is markedly different from the commute toward downtown Houston, primarily for two reasons:
  
  
  • No designated casual carpooling area—Passengers suspect they see few drivers because it is illegal to stop in the bus lane on Louisiana Street in downtown Houston. Finding passengers downtown on the return trip is a challenge for drivers as well. “It’s much harder to get a rider going home just because there’s more traffic and there isn’t as much of a concentration of people,” expressed one passenger. Generally, drivers who offer to pick up find that people at the bus stops are not responsive to them; “a half dozen people look up but don’t move,” a driver stated.
    
    
  • Safety concerns—Some casual carpoolers have observed more of a safety concern on the return trip from downtown Houston, but overall are unsure why such a concern exists. “I could probably have two dead bodies in the back, an orange jumpsuit that says Harris County Jail, but if I drive on I-10 to 228 [Addicks Park-and-Ride lot], someone will get in. But I don’t know what it is about 290—they are very reluctant unless they already know you or recognize you standing in the [bus] line,” expressed a casual carpooler. Some drivers prepare signs to indicate their destination in an effort to secure return-trip passengers.
    
    

Because of such challenges, instead of picking up passengers, some drivers consider other options for their return trip, sometimes preferring to stay at work late to avoid the traffic or selecting an alternate route for going home. One driver, who lives in northwest Houston, on occasion, picks up passengers who are headed west toward the Addicks Park-and-Ride lot (along the Katy Freeway).

• Recommended improvements include:
  
  
  • Driver verification—stickers for drivers who have gone through a security check.
    
    
  • Additional parking.
    
    
  • HOV enforcement—For persons who do not adhere to the minimum number of people requirements.
    
    
  • Fix problems with HOV lane configuration, unclear roadway signage, and confusing interchange design.
    
    
  • Additional casual carpooling locations (e.g., Cypress Park-and-Ride lot along Route 217).
    
    
• Participants express some hesitation about marketing casual carpooling to everyone (fear doing so would attract criminals). Instead, they suggest, the best ways to communicate casual carpooling to others is to target specific populations, including:
  
  
  • Bus riders—Distribute brochures; collaborate with Metro to display information on its Web site.
    
    
  • Employers—Employees would need to be convinced it is a system that is safe and reliable.

San Francisco, CA, Region

Participant Summary

A total of 33 individuals participated in the focus groups (13 and 12 in each of two groups in Oakland conducted on August 22, 2012, and 8 in American Canyon, near Vallejo, on August 23, 2012). Experience with casual carpooling among participants ranged from less than a year to more than 25 years. Most participants who considered themselves passengers also had experience as drivers. Most of these participants were unfamiliar with the term “slugging.”

Key Findings

Casual carpoolers in the Oakland and Berkeley areas perceive the dynamic, organic nature of casual carpooling to be consistent with the area’s culture, in general, making participants value the system very highly. For Vallejo, the benefits of casual carpooling, including time savings and avoiding transfers, far exceed those of other available modes of transportation, including the ferry, bus, and BART.

The degree to which participants feel a sense of community varies by location. Those in Berkeley and Oakland find little opportunity to build relationships (it is less common to ride with the same driver or passenger on more than one occasion), and in some cases do not consider meeting new people a primary benefit of casual carpooling. In contrast, Vallejo participants feel a sense of community.

The driver and passenger relationship varies by location as well. While those initiating their trip from Oakland or Berkeley generally exhibit a lower level of sensitivity toward persons they are riding with, those originating from Vallejo demonstrate higher levels of sensitivity; for instance, they are unwilling to appear rude to the driver or other passengers.

Participants, particularly in Oakland and Berkeley, are very committed to the casual carpooling system and are dedicated users. In fact, participants stated if they had to move from their current residence, one of their critical criteria when selecting a new residential location would be its proximity to a casual carpool pickup/dropoff location. Furthermore, several participants in these areas travel on a bus or walk (or both) several blocks, up to 2 mi (3.2 km), to access casual carpool pickup/dropoff locations.

Casual carpoolers are motivated to participate because of time and cost savings associated with using the HOV lanes and time and cost savings associated with using the HOV lanes on the toll bridges. (Carpoolers pay a reduced toll charge when crossing Bay Area bridges; most of the casual carpoolers cross just one bridge, but Vallejo participants cross two bridges and save two bridge tolls).

The system primarily operates westbound (into San Francisco from Oakland and Vallejo) for several reasons:

• The San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge acts as a bottleneck for travelers commuting into San Francisco from the East Bay area, so there are significant time savings to be realized in that direction.
  
  
•  The bridge tolls for the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge are applied only in the westbound direction. As a result, fewer drivers are motivated to pick up passengers for their eastbound commutes.
  
  
• There is a critical mass of commuters traveling into San Francisco from the East Bay for work, as San Francisco is a center for business while the East Bay has a higher ratio of residential areas. Because San Francisco is a primary Bay Area job center, the Bay Bridge corridor is heavily traveled in the westbound direction during the morning (and in the eastbound direction during the evening) as workers commute from East Bay residential areas.
  
  
• Because there is an extensive system of HOV lanes leading westward to the Bay Bridge, significant time savings are realized by carpools in the highway corridors approaching the bridge and at the toll plaza (carpools are able to bypass the metering signals system). The time savings are less dramatic in the eastbound direction on the limited HOV system approaching the bridge in San Francisco.

Discussion Summary

Knowledge Leading to Decision to Participate

• New casual carpoolers:
  
  
• Initially, some casual carpoolers were nervous about getting into a stranger’s vehicle. Safety was more of a concern among female participants (e.g., avoid getting in two-seaters with a male driver).
  
  
• The majority of participants learned about casual carpooling for the first time through word of mouth (e.g., coworker, friend, or family member). TV and print advertisements were also cited as information sources in Hercules, about 25 mi (40 km) northeast of San Francisco. Some in the Oakland–Berkeley area were not surprised when first hearing about casual carpooling, which seemed to be consistent with the area’s counter-culture tradition.
  
  
• Observing casual carpooling while waiting in line for the bus.
  
  
• Flyers.
  
  
• Internet:
  
  
  • Searches—Coworkers suggested performing Internet searches for “casual carpooling” for more information.
    
    
  • Casual carpooling Web site—While some are aware of the casual carpooling Web site (www.ridenow.org/carpool) and used it initially, most no longer refer to it.
    
    
• Motivations to casual carpool:
  
  
  • Initially, carpoolers were incentivized by not needing to pay a toll when crossing the Bay Bridge (the carpool toll was introduced in 2010).
    
    
  • Least expensive option, including riders not needing to pay for parking in San Francisco.
    
    
  • Significant time savings for commute to work (Vallejo).
    
    
  • More pleasant drive than BART; can enjoy the view.
    
    
  • Guaranteed a seat.
    
    
• Concern for the environment is generally not a big motivator for participating in casual carpooling; however, “Spare the Air” days sometimes remind those who already casual carpool that they are doing “their part” to help the environment.
  
  
• Most participants distinguish between casual carpooling and traditional carpooling, where casual carpooling offers flexibility in pickup times. Some, however, like the reliability a formalized carpooling program offers.
  
  
• When compared to other transportation options, casual carpooling offers multiple benefits:
  
  
  • Schedule flexibility—Unlike traditional carpooling, casual carpooling does not require that one be ready to commute to work at a specified time.
    
    
  • Cost and time savings—Offers an improvement over BART for the Oakland and Berkeley locations. However, if the casual carpooling line at the North Berkeley BART station, for instance, is too long, the person can easily take BART as a backup. For those in Vallejo, traveling into San Francisco would require multiple modes of transportation. “That’s why people will casual carpool to San Francisco but take the BART home, because taking casual carpooling to the East Bay is actually slower and people are willing to pay the money and not deal with the hassle of trying to get the right ride (it’s more of a hassle to find a car that’s going to where you need to go in the East Bay),” expressed one casual carpooler.
    
    
• Some participants are aware that www.ridenow.org/carpool exists; while some referenced it when first starting to casual carpool, most discontinue their use of the Web site once they become seasoned casual carpoolers.

Current Behavior      

• For at least a few Bay area residents who have moved or plan to in the near future, casual carpooling locations are considerations when deciding on a new home.
  
  
• In the Berkeley/Oakland area, casual carpoolers typically travel on the bus or walk (or both) a distance of a few blocks, up to 2 mi (3.2 km), to access casual carpooling locations.
  
  
• Participants who commute from the Vallejo Park-and-Ride lot either drive their vehicles to the location or are dropped off.
  
  
• For Vallejo Park-and-Ride casual carpoolers, the return trip is a less favorable experience than traveling into San Francisco during the morning commute, namely because:
  
  
  • They experience longer eastbound wait times in line.
    
    
  • The afternoon return trip from San Francisco to Vallejo takes more time than the morning trip into San Francisco.
    
    
• Passengers determine who they will ride with based on the following:
  
  
  • The number of people in the vehicle—Women may be deterred from getting into a vehicle with two men or a two-seater with a male driver.
    
    
  • Functional and clean car.
    
    
  • Odorless vehicle and people in the vehicle.
    
    
• While drivers and passengers seek people who seem “generally okay,” they do not necessarily seek a specific “type” of person (e.g., professional) or people they have traveled with in the past. Moreover, many participants prefer to ride in the back seat; the social component is secondary to getting from point A to point B.
  
  
• Whether casual carpoolers feel part of a special community varies. For instance:
  
  
  • Berkeley/Oakland—There seems to be little opportunity to build a sense of community. Most participants do not see the same people frequently enough to develop relationships with fellow casual carpoolers, nor do they necessarily seek it.
    
    
  • Vallejo—Participants who casual carpool from the Vallejo Park-and-Ride location experience at least some sense of community with other casual carpoolers. Additionally, social gatherings among casual carpoolers have been observed in Fairfield, a city about 50 mi (80.5 km) northeast of San Francisco. While this sense of community is felt on some level, it is not the motivation behind casual carpooling.
    
    
• For many who have experienced casual carpooling, the ferry and BART/bus combination are considered inferior options. They do not offer the flexibility, cost savings, and in some cases, time savings of casual carpooling.
  
  
• Some participants felt very strongly about their commitment to casual carpooling with one sharing, “If casual carpooling suddenly became unavailable in the area where I currently live, I would move to where it was available.”

System Guidelines and Improvements

• Overall, most participants said the current casual carpooling systems works well, while some gave it less than perfect scores for diminished monetary incentive (because of the inclusion of the toll in the carpooling lanes), unpredictability of pickup and wait times at some locations (Oakland/Berkeley), lack of security at pickup locations that might sometimes—such as when it is dark outside—be unsafe (Vallejo), and specific instances of less than favorable trips with drivers or passengers. Still, the benefits (overall cost and time savings) outweigh such challenges.
  
  
• Passengers generally offer a contribution for the toll. In Vallejo, passengers typically pay the driver $1.25 without being prompted by the driver and, in most cases, the drivers accept the monetary contribution. A few instances of drivers demanding payment were cited, particularly among participants in the Oakland groups. However, it was also noted in the Oakland groups that drivers at some locations did not expect contributions from passengers.
  
  
• Best way to market and communicate the concept of casual carpooling to others:
  
  
  • Messaging—Avoid words like “system,” “program,” “rules,” and “regulation,” which may turn off casual carpoolers who support the current, organic nature of casual carpooling.
    
    
• Opportunities to enhance the casual carpooling experience:
  
  
  • Vallejo Park-and-Ride location:
    
    
    • Additional parking—Some park on the street in nearby residential areas.
      
      
    • Sufficient security measures (e.g., vehicle theft prevention).
      
      
    • Designated pickup location where there is not a threat of being ticketed.
      
      
  • Oakland/Berkeley:
    
    
    • More parking for casual carpoolers (e.g., Oakland/Glenview district).
      
      
    • Carpool lane on I-80E going to the East Bay (to encourage more casual carpooling for the return trip/evening commute).
      
      
  • San Francisco (return trip):
    
    
    • Because drivers who pick up casual carpoolers in the morning have no incentive in some corridors to offer return lifts during the afternoon commute, some recommend a “sweep service,” where a shuttle or van would pick up casual carpool passengers. Those interested in this type of service were willing to pay $5 or $6 for it.
      
      
    • Establish ratings for casual carpool drivers.
      
      
• Recommended improvements include:
  
  
  • Text-message alerts notifying casual carpoolers of anticipated wait times to get a ride (or the number of people in line waiting to be picked up).
    
    
  • Mobile application—An application for casual carpoolers that would provide estimated wait time (based on number of vehicles and people waiting in line), alert them of traffic delays, and provide estimated commute times. Some would be unwilling to pay for the application, while others said they would pay a small one-time fee.
    
    
  • Sheltered waiting area.
    
    
  • Web camera so that passengers can assess wait time and plan accordingly (run an errand before heading to the pickup location).
    
    
  • Volunteer coordinator to encourage drivers to accept more than the two required passengers in San Francisco. (Typically this is done by a volunteer rider who would otherwise be waiting in the passenger queue, and whose space in the queue is saved by another rider while he or she jumps to the front of the line to coax drivers to accept additional passengers until such time as it becomes his or her turn in the line to get a ride.)
    
    
  • Enhanced HOV enforcement.
    
    
  • Pickup locations—Establish pickup spots near public transit.
    
    
• While practicing proper casual carpooling etiquette is valued, casual carpoolers are wary about having a third party establish and enforce such rules.