Exploratory Advanced Research Program

Casual Carpooling Focus Group Study

KEY FINDINGS BY BROAD THEMES

This research led to the development of five broad findings:

1. While casual carpooling exists in multiple regions, the culture of those who participate is not uniform across all areas, but varies both across and within regions and by the role of the participant.
   
   
2. Overall, casual carpoolers are satisfied with the organic nature of casual carpooling (that is, informality and lack of government involvement). There is a strong relationship between certain congestion policies (e.g., HOV-3 facilities and park-and-ride lots), and the development of and participation in casual carpooling systems.
   
   
3. Hearing about casual carpooling does not in itself inspire first-time participation, and safety-related issues are among top concerns of new participants; however, an added sense of security (e.g., from riding with a friend for a period of time or familiarizing oneself with the route) may encourage participation among first-time casual carpoolers.
   
   
4. The relationship between casual carpoolers varies by role and among and within regions.
   
   
5. Possible enhancements to casual carpooling through technological tools (e.g., ride-matching and other smart phone or Web-based applications, and alerts when a parking lot is full or waiting times are long), incentives to drivers or riders, and other services appeal to some casual carpoolers as ways to make the system more convenient and easy to use and to enhance their sense of personal safety.

Each of these findings is discussed below:

Across the three systems (Washington, Houston, and San Francisco) that were studied there is some uniformity and there are also many ways in which the systems differ. With regard to similarity across the systems, the following features stand out:

• Unwritten rules and protocols. Generally, each of the systems operates under word-of-mouth rule setting and self-policing protocols. Participants do not sign contracts nor do they receive a “welcome packet” or other written document that outlines how the system functions. Rather, participants largely learn by hearsay or watching before or as they participate. There is some documentation of the systems in two of the regions (www.slug-lines.com in Washington and www.ridenow.org/carpool in San Francisco). Some government or advocacy programs (e.g., 511.org in the San Francisco region) that promote ridesharing also post information about casual carpooling. Generally, there is no obligation by the authors of these sites to do this or to keep the information current.
  
  
• Lack of structure. While there are unwritten rules and protocols that participants follow, generally, the unstructured approach to carpooling is what appeals to many of the participants. On any given day, a participant can opt to casual carpool or not without regard to commitments and obligations; in fact, it is this flexibility with regard to personal schedules that is highly valued by many participants.
  
  
• Existence of a HOV lane and/or combination of HOT lanes and tolls. Among the motivations for participating in casual carpools is the highly valued cost and time savings associated with sharing a ride as compared to driving alone or taking transit. This is largely due to the presence of one or more congestion mitigation tools, including HOV as a standalone tool (Washington) or in combination with HOT lanes (Houston) and in the case of San Francisco, reduced bridge tolls in combination with HOV-lane time savings.
  
  
• Little, if any, overt government intrusion. Aside from congestion mitigation tools and programs to enforce the HOV and HOT lanes, there is very little government involvement with the casual carpooling system. The exception to this may be in the provision of some signage at pickup lines and, in some cases, shelters to protect participants from weather. In contrast, organized rideshare programs, including traditional carpools and vanpools, do have government or advocacy group oversight and involvement.

Among the differences between programs, the following features stand out:

• Vernacular. In Washington and to some degree Houston, casual carpooling is referred to as “slugging.” In San Francisco, it is referred to simply as “casual carpooling.
  
  
• Payment practices. One of the main motivators for participating in casual carpooling is the cost savings associated with the practice and whether or not passengers pay drivers a donation towards gasoline, tolls, or parking. In Washington and Houston, the practice of paying for rides is generally discouraged, and only on occasion will a driver accept payment. In contrast, in San Francisco, even with a driver paying a reduced bridge toll because of meeting the HOV requirements, passengers are often expected to contribute to the cost of the bridge toll.
  
  
• Evolution of the program. While each of the systems was initiated as a response to HOV lanes being introduced, over time there have been changes to the HOV programs that have affected the casual carpooling systems:
  
  
  • In Washington, the HOV occupancy requirements have been reduced over time from four to three people; this change has had a minimal impact on participation levels. However, casual carpoolers are concerned that new I-95 HOT lanes might have a negative impact on the system (e.g., reduce the number of willing drivers).
    
    
  • In Houston, a major roadway reconstruction and introduction of HOT lanes (in conjunction with allowing HOV for free in the peak period) along with increased lanes has reduced congestion, but has also reduced participation levels in casual carpooling. Among casual carpoolers at the Northwest Station Park-and-Ride lot, where the highest levels of participation now exist, there is concern that if HOT lanes are introduced, participation levels would begin to fall and affect the system.
    
    
  • In San Francisco, the introduction of a carpool toll (albeit reduced) on all San Francisco–Bay Area bridges has impacted participation levels in the casual carpooling program. The HOV requirements to secure a lower toll make casual carpooling attractive to drivers, but not as much to passengers who now may be expected to contribute towards the toll.

Motivators to participate include, first and foremost, cost and time savings:

• Cost savings. Passengers can save money because they do not need to have access to a car to participate (in contrast many traditional carpools require members to alternate driving responsibility and therefore all must own a car). The cost savings can be incurred by not owning a car, or by avoiding wear-and-tear caused by daily commuting, gasoline costs, or parking fees at the final destination. Drivers, on the other hand, experience cost savings in the form of reduced tolls when in compliance with HOV restrictions, and may experience additional cost savings if passengers contribute towards the toll. Casual carpooling may also be less expensive than making the same trip by public transit.
  
  
• Time savings. Time savings are generally associated with the advantages of having enough people in the vehicle (at least three occupants are required for HOV lanes approaching the Bay Bridge, for example) to qualify for use of the HOV lanes, allowing the participants to bypass congested lanes.

The value of casual carpooling and participation levels is inherently and intrinsically tied to the cost and time savings relationship. As an example, and as observed in Houston, an impact of the Katy Freeway reconstruction was the reduction of congestion on the highway for all users and a reduction in participation levels in casual carpooling at that location. 

A final motivator, although not listed quite as frequently as time and cost saving was “flexibility.” Most participants noted that casual carpooling afforded them increased flexibility as compared to participation in traditional carpools or vanpools. They do not have the responsibility that comes in an organized rideshare program to drive, share in the payment of parking fees, and update other members when they are sick or on vacation. Further, they are able to make last-minute decisions on what time they will leave home and which casual carpool location they will depart from, etc. Unlike with fixed-route transit, drivers have the ability to make diversions as needed in the case of an accident or unexpected traffic even in the HOV lanes.

The majority of casual carpoolers first learned about the system through word of mouth from a friend or colleague, reading about it in the news, or observing people waiting in line for rides at park-and-ride lots and other locations.

While safety issues are among the top concerns of new casual carpoolers, they diminish over time. This is in part because participants share an attitude of literally watching over each other. Additionally, casual carpoolers’ general sense of safety is guided by the norms established by those who participate in casual carpooling at a given location. If a person’s behaviors or manner of dress, for instance, go against what is customarily seen at a pickup location, then he or she may be passed up for carpooling opportunities. For instance, casual carpoolers at the Northwest Station Park-and Ride lot in Northwest Houston are accustomed to seeing casual carpoolers in business attire heading to work. Casual carpoolers’ overall sense of safety at the Northwest Houston location is threatened when a person’s manner of dress is not in line with what is customary (business attire in this case) to that location. In contrast, how someone is dressed does not impact Oakland area casual carpoolers’ sense of safety or their decision to participate in casual carpooling.

Casual carpooling attracts participants for a variety of personal reasons. The role of the driver and passenger is similar to that of a traditional carpool in that a ride is shared between a driver and one or more passengers, and it is not uncommon for relationships to develop between driver and passenger. However, the relationships between casual carpoolers vary by their roles—as drivers or passengers—and are often influenced by the norms or culture, which differ by region (and even within a region). Highlights of this observation follow:

• In the Berkeley/Oakland area, casual carpoolers overall differ in some ways from those in Vallejo and locations in the Washington and Houston regions. They are less interested in building relationships and more interested in reaching their final destination. Furthermore, in the other locations, participants shared that they are sometimes selective in their decisions to ride with a specific driver. At all locations, it is perfectly acceptable behavior for a driver to “call out” a specific passenger in the line to ride with them (even if that passenger was not the next in line). In the Berkeley/Oakland area, drivers and passengers do not specifically seek out a specific “type” of person or people with whom they have previously traveled.
  
  
• In the Washington region, the system is more structured and the driver/passenger relationship is “symbiotic” in nature. Casual carpoolers considered themselves to be part of a special community, and the sense of that community derives from helping each other out. Nevertheless, interactions within the vehicles are less prevalent in Washington than in other regions.
  
  
• Vallejo and Houston demonstrate more sensitivity/consideration to individuals with whom they are casual carpooling (be it the driver or passenger). In Vallejo, casual carpoolers shared stories of building relationships with other casual carpoolers; these relationships were not conveyed as a motivation for participating in casual carpooling, but as an added benefit. In Houston, participants reported friendly behavior and etiquette with regard to engaging in conversation, sitting in the front seat next to the driver, and forming relationships.

While study participants overall are very satisfied with the casual carpooling system they use, they readily offer suggestions for improvements. Learning what works and where the systems function best is a helpful exercise to inform efforts to create casual carpooling in locations where it does not exist.

When asked about opportunities to improve casual carpooling, technology-based tools were among the top opportunities cited for improving casual carpooling in each of the study areas, especially as related to communications for improving the system dynamics and safety. Participants expressed the desire for real-time information exchanges about casual carpooling lines (e.g., number of passengers in line and number of vehicles in a queue, wait time for passenger or driver, etc.), estimated commute time from casual carpool lots, alerts about traffic delays on highways, and whether or not the parking area adjacent to the line—where there is one—is full. This information would allow participants to make informed decisions about whether to delay their commute to their regular location or go to an alternative location that is less crowded; or in the case of passengers, to take transit instead of casual carpooling. Participants also saw a role for improvements at casual carpool locations that would improve safety (and contribute in some cases to communications) such as installing a Web camera viewing the line or waiting area.

When asked specifically about Web or smartphone applications that would provide the services mentioned above or provide additional services such as matching riders with drivers, for a fee, there was some initial concern among most participants. While not generally adverse to technology, participants expressed concerns about (1) the associated costs with many objecting to pay for something that is already free and worrying that the price might arbitrarily rise over time; (2) whether introducing the technology would “upset” a system already in place that works well by changing its dynamics and making it more formal or structured and potentially reducing the number of drivers and passengers at the casual carpooling lines and locations; and (3) the user-friendliness of such an application.

Upon further reflection, however, some did see value in this type of ridesharing service in general. Being paid for driving appealed to some drivers and even some passengers felt the payment to drivers might encourage more drivers to participate (increasing their likelihood of getting a ride). However, in some locations, participants felt the number of drivers and riders was already well balanced and this might upset the balance. Several felt that a rideshare application might make the system safer, especially if drivers and passengers had to preregister and there would be a record of the ride match, thus deterring any misconduct.

Focus group participants saw possible benefits to offering rewards of some type to casual carpoolers who take action to make the system function better in cases where it is not functioning well. They also suggested services that would improve the convenience and reliability of casual carpooling. In particular, system enhancements and rewards were suggested under the following circumstances:

• Return trips—Passengers are sometimes willing to pay for reliable return trips (up to 50 percent of transit fare), especially in Houston, but also for return trips to some casual carpooling morning origination points in Washington, DC, and San Francisco.
  
  
• Parking—Rewarding passengers to use more remote parking that is still within walking distance to the pickup points (especially if additional nearby parking can be arranged) could help free up close-in parking at the park-and-ride locations, particularly for late arrivers.
  
  
• Sweep service—For casual carpoolers who need a ride near the time when HOV restrictions are ending at sites where backup transit service is inadequate, arranging for “last call” backup van or taxicab service, or rewarding drivers who pick up toward the end of the HOV period (when there are generally fewer drivers) would be helpful.
  
  
• Pre-matching—Pre-matching drivers and passengers may be a particularly beneficial option for those using meet-up locations where casual carpooling service is not reliable (for instance, if there is a shortage of drivers).
  
  
• Safety—Incorporating driver certification and ratings could make some passengers feel safer, especially where there is HOV-2 and thus less security than HOV-3 offers passengers. Alternative or supplemental security might also include using a Web camera (as noted above) or an app shared by the rider and driver to record shared trips.