Car-Pooling -- An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Twice a day in every American city -- indeed, in cities worldwide -- for two- to three-hour periods, commuters drive into and out of central business districts. These periods, familiarly known as rush hour, are anything but rush.

Rather, the so-called rush hour can be characterized by:

• Traffic congestion
• Slow speeds
• Long commute times
• Stressed drivers
• Single-person occupancy

The last-named feature is the glaring one. Anywhere from 80-90% of commuting cars have no occupants other than the driver. Thus a car that can seat five is operated at a 20% load factor, or worse. No other transportation system operates so inefficiently. Airlines, which need 80% or so load factors just to break even, wouldn't last a week operating with only 20% of their seats filled.

Yet we tolerate this system with almost no one being exercised. Except me.

It's a terrible system on at least five counts:
• It wastes gasoline.
• It wastes our time.
• It excessively pollutes the air.
• It excessively generates greenhouse gases.
• It stresses the parking lots.

And if you think it's bad now, consider the following:

Traffic is worse than it's ever been,
But better than it'll ever be.

Or,

Every day
We're making more cars
We're making more people,
But we're not making new roads. (At least not in most metropolitan areas.)

So how do we solve the rush-hour problem of traffic congestion, long commutes, and excessive fuel usage, emissions and greenhouse gases?

The solution is car-pooling.

Yes, that's an old idea, but one that has never been successfully implemented in metropolitan commuter situations. (In fact, it only seems to work in neighborhoods with parents shepherding kids to school and play.) Most of the reasons are well known:

• Individuals' independence
• Fear of riders getting stranded by drivers' schedule changes
• Personal preference issues of riding with another (smoking, radio, talking, gender differences, et al.)

But there are two other impediments:
No effective software systems exist to implement widespread car-pooling
No effective governments programs exist to encourage pooling

In order to solve the problem, then, we need a system that:
• Is extremely easy-to-use
• Has ubiquitous access -- at home, office, anywhere, any time
• Dynamically matches drivers and riders
• Offers incentives to both riders and drivers
• Allays fears.

Once this system is developed, we then need governments (local and state) to implement and encourage it.

In the last two years, I've been investigating the possibility of developing Poool, and then offering it to employers and governments on a pro bono basis. Working with Avery More, a Dallas-based venture capitalist/entrepreneur, and a team of software engineers, also in Dallas, I'm convinced that such a dynamic matching system is feasible.

Indeed, there are a lot of matching systems out there today. We can easily bring together multiple buyers and sellers, whether of romance (dating services), goods (eBay, Amazon), tickets, whatever.

But the key to success in car-pooling is "dynamic." This means that if the universe of users is large enough, there is a very high probability of matching a rider and driver (schedules, locations, personal preferences) at any time -- even if the driver has to work late, or leave early, or gets sick. In other words, No Rider Left Behind (to coin a phrase).

Ideally, the way to begin such a program is with large employers. Organizations with at least 250 employees at a common site would be large enough to ensure statistically a high degree of matches. Another benefit of making it organization-based is that the fear of the unknown would be mitigated; participants would share the same employer. Finally, the radial pattern of commuting would also assist in ensuring successful matches - everyone converges on a single location in the morning, leaves that single location later that day..

The system would be accessible to the user anywhere. On one's home computer, office computer, cell phone or PDA. Whenever plans changed, a new driver (or rider) would be just a few key clicks away.

The system also would have (as current car-pooling software also incorporates) personal profiles of each participant. This way, all individual preferences would be respected in the matching.

In effect, this system, which I have named Poool, uses technology to help solve a transportation problem, much as technology has made possible automated tollbooth collections and congestion-pricing schemes.

The beneficiaries of Poool are manifold.

Riders will enjoy fuel savings that are non-trivial, especially at $3-plus per gallon gasoline. Their cars will be freed up for family use.

Driver benefits will require some creativity. For drivers opting into the system, state and local governments could reward them through a variety of financial incentives: cash, tax abatements, a share of congestion-pricing revenues (in New York City, assuming it's implemented), lower congestion-pricing fees, toll-booth fee reductions.

Other driver benefits could be free or preferential parking and the satisfaction of being a good citizen (the "Prius-owner" syndrome). And one could create an affinity awards program, say Frequent-Poool-Driver Award Points. Finally, those drivers who elected to alternate with each other say daily or weekly would reap double benefits.

Employers would benefit by becoming better citizens: reducing road wear, emissions, greenhouse gases and traffic congestion. Their image would be burnished. A more direct benefit would be the reduced pressure on providing parking spaces.

Community and societal benefits are myriad. The improvements in traffic, the environment, and energy consumption would be palpable.

Before actually developing the Poool software, I've begun some market research tests. First, Avery and I visited several large employers in the Los Angeles area to gauge their temperature for our idea. We thought L.A. would be fertile ground because rush hour is now three hours twice every weekday and parking is a major issue. Also, employers of more than 250 employees in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (all or parts of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernadino counties) are required to implement a ride-sharing program.

You would think, then, that this would be fertile ground. Imagine our surprise. Or surprises. The first surprise came at an aerospace company that was attempting to comply with the SCAQMD car-pooling requirement. Their "system" consisted of a Human Resources staffer with a folder in her desk drawer. Whenever employees were hired, she would put their names, addresses and phone numbers in the folder and tell them, if they were interested, she would try to match them with riders or drivers. Needless to say, few employees at that company were car-pooling.

The second surprise was that companies could actually buy out of compliance. One CEO told us that they set up a program and complied with the regulation, putting into place a system with driver rewards and preferential parking. They then learned that it was costing them three times as much as the fee they could pay SCAQMD to buy out. Guess what they did?

My second market test is underway, but I'm not sanguine. I met this week with officials in New York City, the first U.S. city to propose the congestion pricing system first championed in London. The idea is to tax vehicles entering in peak hours the central business district in order to discourage their entry and to raise revenues (for mass transit) derived from those who do enter.

I didn't get a lot of city encouragement for Poool; they're totally focused on getting the congestion pricing approved and implemented. So my next meeting is in 10 days with New York state officials. We shall see.

Congestion pricing, by the way, uses a "stick." You pay a fee to enter the CBD. Poool, by contrast, offers a "carrot." You're rewarded if you comply. As to reducing the number of cars, CG is forecasting just a 6.4% drop in vehicular traffic in the CBD (but a lot of revenue from those that enter the CBD).

With an effective car-pooling system, I think the reductions could be more significant. If we were to increase multiple-occupancy vehicles from 10-20% in rush hour to just 30-40%, the results would be dramatic - rapidly flowing traffic, little congestion, more parking spaces, and the concomitant environmental benefits.

But for this to happen we need a governmental champion to get it started. I'm convinced that employers will not do it on their own, nor will commuters. And government programs will have to go beyond the lip service of ineffective signs on the highway ("Call 1-800-CARPOOL").

For those of you who say, Yes, but.. Sure, there are a lot of difficult challenges, including the not insignificant one of behavioral change. Yet if there is forceful government leadership and important societal benefits, behavior can be changed. Most people now use seat belts in cars, though resistance was high at the start. Few people now smoke in public places; we can give thanks to responsible government initiatives.

I truly believe that a meaningful number of people will commute with others in the same car if it's encouraged, if it's easy, if it's pleasant, if it's safe, and if it's foolproof. What of the few who may not find an emergency match late one night on Poool? A safety net has to be there -- taxi or car service. This is a cost of the system, but small compared with the rewards.

There clearly a lot of loose ends - this is still just an idea. The software has to be developed and to work. Measuring compliance with pooling will require its own technology (cameras, while avoiding privacy issue). Liability has to be considered. And a host of other "details."

But here the devil is not in the details. The devil is in doing nothing, and watching a terrible situation get worse.

To the barricades!

Comments

[FlexibleCarpooler]

Mr Rosen. I would very much like to get in touch with you to discuss this post. I know something of the challenges you are getting into, having spent the past two years going down the same path trying to promote 'flexible carpooling'. Your poool sounds a bit like other solutions that are out there already, such as nuride, but perhaps I've missed something about how it is different. There are about 10,000 people working in this space trying to figure out how to get people to share rides more.

Google 'flexible carpooling' to find info about what our system is.

The challenge with 'arranged carpools' is the need to be in a particular seat at a particular time, and that if you are not there you inconvenience yourself and the others in the carpool. In flexible carpooling this doesn't happen.

How do I get into a private email conversation with you about this?

[GnitenGoodLk]

Inconvenient sometimes, sure.

So is sitting in 55 minute traffic polluting our air and ruining our environment. I find that a little more inconvenient. I find it even more inconvenient that only those who can afford to, and want to, pay alot of money to do that and don't want to be a part of the solution.

Sure, the city will have more money if you're willing, and can afford, to pay, but we'll still be traffic clogged & polluting our environment. Oh, and we'll still be owned by Arab oil sheiks so you don't have to "wait for someone else in the carpool when they run behind."

This is why mandatory car pooling, as it was done after 9/11 is needed.

Don't want to car pool? Leave the car at home, take the train.

Train too gross, tell the mayor so we can get it up to par.

"Only the little people have to do that"

Guess what, you're going to be little people when NYC is under 15 feet of water & you can't work there anymore thanks to accelerated glacial melt raising our sea levels. Don't care?

Well, I wasted my time then. I'll get my canoe polished up & make sure to thank you & your ilk for it.

[rh654]

I tried carpooling for a while but with the extra time it took to pick everyone up (I did not live near anyone I worked with so we had a carpool made up of people from several companies), having to wait for someone who needed just a few extra minutes, etc... and it was just really inconvenient if you wanted to do something after work rather than just go home - I finally said forget it.

We did not have HOV lanes to save time driving - so the only savings was gasoline and I am more than happy to pay to the $3+ a gallon to be able to go where I want, when I want and not be on others time schedules.

But yes - I am all for everyone else car-pooling.

[EdwardEdwards]

Inside your great idea it the CORE problem, something utterly verbotin to say in this Theocracy: we're making more people.

I'd phrase it this way: we have too many, and we're making too many more.

It's funny how the illegals are blamed for the decrease in services, while the theocrats turn a blind eye to our own baby booming.

[JMEB]

Carpooling only thrives when road/bridge tolls are really high. We should endorse much higher tolls, and use the generated revenue to build much better public transportation systems, which are far more green than even carpooling.

[thollandpe]

What a fantastic idea. And like so many good ideas, it"s simple . . . but not easy.

But what about the social benefits? In the 70"s my Dad carpooled regularly. The carpoolers were also close friends, along with their families. The men and women bowled together on Tuesdays. The families would regularly go to one house or the other and wait for them to get home from work, then have dinner. These are very fond memories. And their closeness also strengthened their relationships at work, to their benefit and their employers. This is yet another example of the interconnectedness that we"ve given up for more perceived freedom in today"s lifestyle. .

Cost: at work we estimate the cost of a parking space is between $2000 (simple paved lot) and $20,000 (parking garage). That"s for land we already own.

One of my bosses had an axiom "Pay people to behave the way you"d like them to behave." Like so many energy conservation ideas, this is money we"ll spend anyway, we"d just put it elsewhere to get better results. But there"s a lot of resistance to giving that "carrot" to people who commute differently. Just try riding a bicycle to work: you will be the target of some misplaced ire, from uptight idiots inconvenienced by all the cars in their way, not the perceived slight from you on your bike.

Finally, on the "perceived freedom" of single-passenger cars, it"s B.S. How often do you actually leave during the day (or stay late) and how often is that critical? Wouldn"t you benefit from a more regular schedule? And compare that to the actual impingement on your freedom caused by clots of traffic, unpredictable delays, and minutes added to your commute year after year.

Good luck with this. It"s something we"re sorely missing. The low load factor you quote (20%) for such an expensive resource fetches a high price, a price we all pay. Every day.

Toad

PS Observation: traffic almost always sails smoothly on summer Fridays. With people taking the day off, well under 10%, the drive goes much easier.

[factanonverba]

Mass transit, an idea long over due.

[GnitenGoodLk]

After 9/11, in an effort to keep traffic down but still allow people to return to work/rebuild, a temporary order for mandatory carpooling was instituted for all driving to NYC.

It was awesome. People bitched, but everyone complied, and it WORKED. Traffic was at historic lows in Manhattan.

The only reason I can think of to explain its suspension:
-the spoiled wealthy who commute to NYC or live there didn't appreciate having to "share a ride" so away it went.

Bring it back. Traffic problem solved. See how fast the subways become pristine.

I challenge Bloomberg to re-institute it.

[FearlessFreep]

One measure that would promote carpooling is creating lanes reserved for multiple-occupancy vehicles (and low-emission etc.) on EVERY freeway.

[BufoAmericanus]

I think it's time for pedestrians and locals to take our cities back from the auto lobby. Car pooling's time came a while back, moving forward, think Copenhagen.

Lots of work to do, lots of people in urban areas needin' it.

[usna73]

My employers HQ is across the road from Google in Mt. View CA. I learnd recently how Google has managed to successfully institute a bus system to pick up employees from around the Bay area to do what BART can't execute successfully. As usual, they use their computer expertise to do exactly what you outline.

Cooperation is the key. This is very doable.

We lack nothing but the will.

Don't stop believing Ben!

[GnitenGoodLk]

Mr. Rosen,

This is a fabulous idea. I love it. Not only is it an effective, fair, and needed solution, but it doesn't penalize the middle class & poor.

AND it's been done in NY, successfully. Mandatory car pooling during peak hours, and it was enforced. Single-driver cars were pulled over so quick that the public complied right away. Implement it again, permanently.

I further add:
-Converting large sections of vehicle parking garages to accommodate bikes & mopeds. Get rid of parking spaces in the city. Re-zone them for loading & deliveries only. Many people will leave their cars home knowing there is no parking! Common sense!

-Bring our subway system to tolerable cleanliness, safety & timeliness.

London has a nice subway system, no wonder congestion pricing worked, it wasn't a punishment to implement. NY? Not even close. The subways are are health hazards. Until NY invests the same as London did in bringing humane conditions to its mass transit, congestion pricing is going to be a punishment to the poor & middle class.
Expect more of them to leave the city widening the income gap in NY-loss of tax base.

[Nommo]

What keeps them from building an effective mass-transit system. Seems as tho every damn nation has a railroad system that works. If they want people to stop driving, create transportation.
Are we that broke, stupid or just mendacious on this matter? Americans don't carpool because we are not of that way of thinking and the longer we keep fooling ourselves on the matter, the longer nothing gets done.
Basically, people just want to get where they are going. Make that simple and efficient and everyone is happy.

[Thorn]

Thank you for explaining this obscure new practice called -- what is it, now? -- "car-pooling"?

[CanuckColumnist]

In North America, we love our cars too much, which is why public transit is not usually fully developed (unlike in Europe).

What we need is fewer cars and a lot more public transit.