*** This is a guest post by Christian Williams ***
It certainly isn’t glamorous. It doesn’t steal the limelight, and it doesn’t exactly have a huge cult following. But carpooling has big payoffs and has the potential for major growth.
Why doesn’t it get the attention it deserves? For many people, car-pooling falls short of the bike lanes and hyper-connected public transport network transporting the healthy, happy herds to their daily slaughter (ahem, I mean jobs) – the utopic vision of the carless city. On the other end of the spectrum, glamorous, sparkling new highways – the car is the hero of the day, and all that is needed is a government willing to meet our infinitely growing demand for the freedom and liberty afforded by our own loyal autos.
It is the clash of the titans, fighting the battle for our hearts and imaginations. Which way to Utopia? Squashed in the middle of these policy giants is the unsexy middle ground – the compromise. Recognising that – for the moment at least – our cars aren’t going anywhere in a hurry (in rush-hour or in our travel habits), perhaps it is time to look for that compromise. It’s called carpooling – combining the convenience of a car, with the inconvenience of having to talk to a stranger.
There are plenty of reasons why people aren’t giving up their cars. Too far to walk, too dangerous to cycle, no suitable public transport alternatives, too stuck in the old habits. In fairness, it could many years before many of our cities and towns have fully functional public transport networks or safe cycle infrastructure. And on the supply side, it will be just as long before our highways will be freed of congestion. For the moment, we are stuck with what we’ve got. So it is worth looking for the quick wins, to make the best out of New Zealand’s bad transport situation. Carpooling I believe is one such opportunity.
Why? What are the benefits to carpooling?
Quite simply, sharing a ride can help to split some of the costs of driving. While letting a stranger into your car is going against mum’s recommendations, most carpoolers do turn out to be quite normal, and you may actually get some interesting conversations in during the journey, or all going well, maybe even make a new friend or two. Social pleasantries aside, it is the cost savings that provide the major draw card for most. Splitting the costs of parking, petrol and maintenance makes a big difference. It leaves that little extra cash in the back pocket for something more enjoyable (like stamp collecting, for example).
The majority of cars heading to and from work each morning are carrying only the driver. If only one out of twenty of those single drivers could hop in with another driver, congestion would be seriously wounded. The spin-off’s would be wide – small petrol savings for every commuter, health savings from cleaner air, and large piles of dosh earmarked for highways potentially freed up for other uses.
So let’s at least try and fill those empty seats! This coming week (10th – 16th June) is actually Kiwi Carpool Week, which is a national campaign designed to raise the profile of carpooling. There are prize giveaways for people who sign up, and a bigger chance than ever before that you will find the perfect match. So why not give it a go? It is quick and easy to register, and it’s free. Visit letscarpool.govt.nz and help get us moving again.
Processing...
Have a look at Jayride.co.nz. Its a Ride Sharing site that sells rides like Trademe. Some are free, some rides are regular commuter rides.
Ride Sharing will become more popular if a motorway charge is put in place. keepaucklandmoving.org.nz
very good point. In a situation of wide-spread free parking and no time-of-use road pricing there is very little incentive for people to car-pool. This will change, however, and the incentive to share costs will increase.
More T2 and T3 lanes would help promote car pooling. That would make there be a significant time saving along the money for those tight…
The great problem with carpooling- so attractive in theory- and why it almost never works anywhere, is that sharing your car with a stranger contradicts the very core of what is attractive about private vehicle transport.
The car, properly understood, is an extension of private space; in there you control your own climate, listen to your own version of the world [Leighton Smith!] or lull yourself to near unconsciousness with music, leave when you want, take any diversion, visit lovers, stop off at pushers of caffeine and sugar, take the long way….turn around and just head straight out of town! whatever.
Even if you never actually do any of these things you at least know you could, this is the wonderful ‘Freedom’ that the car so famously freights. The moment you are liaising with strangers [and I don’t mean your spouse, children, or flatmates] the bubble of this fantasy is burst. It a crock anyway, there is very little freedom in the commute zone but it’s still a very powerful idea.
The car; symbol of individuality and personal freedom. Carpooling: Warsaw Pact collectivism [is that a Trabant on the poster?]
I suspect you’re over-analzying it Patrick. I also don’t think the majority of people in cars have an aversion to sharing a vehicle, and if they did then we’d have no hope of attracting them to public transport! From what I read the real issue (for PT and car-pooling alike) is finding ways to mitigate the inconvenience associated with using them, at least compared to a private vehicle.
In the case of car-pooling, there’s an additional consideration: Having a plan B, i.e. what you do when your normal car-pool isn’t available. With public transport you can normally just wait for the next bus/train/ferry etc. But that’s why these sorts of websites are useful – because individuals can start to develop a “pool” of people they can travel with, which in turn reduces their dependence on just one person (and similarly reduces the driver’s sense of obligation to meet the needs of their passenger).
As an aside, I also think we need to be careful about how we define whether something “works”. In my mind, if they are able to lift peak hour vehicle occupancy from 1.10 to 1.15 (for example), then it would be a raging success – even thought the majority of people would still be driving alone. Guess what I’m saying is that it only takes a very small minority of people to decide that they don’t mind sharing their car with someone else for car-sharing to have an impact. So even if the majority of people steadfastly refused to share their vehicle (for the reasons you note) then car-pooling initiatives may still be able to have a large positive impact.
I’m kinda with Patrick on this one. The real value of a car is to be able to go from any point to any point when you want to without regard for others. Of course the reality of that freedom is tempered by parking issues, traffic congestion and other things that can make driving a hassle. Carpooling cuts out that value, by having to coordinate travel times, origins and destinations across two or more people.
Personally I’m not sure quite what role managed carpooling is supposed to service. I imagine most people for whom it is easy to carpool (e.g. people who live together and both work in the same place to much the same hours) already do so. For the rest of people who are willing to share their travel and work around some constraints on where and when they go, surely it is easier for them just to catch a bus?
Your comments on cars are about 60 years out of date. The world has moved on from the 50s and cars are more about being a mode of transport than an expression of freedom.
Hahahahaha- I wish.
Patrick you are spot on. I mostly travel by PT but when I do take a car it is because I want to go where I want to go, when I want to go and be able to stop, divert etc. whenever I want.
Efforts to promote carpooling are a waste of time imo.
Although you say you agree with Patrick, you go on to elaborate with some points that have nothing to do with what he said.
You talk about the freedom of travel inherent in a car however Patrick was referring to the car as being ones own private space, much like a mobile bedroom where the company of strangers is not welcome.
harrymc, do you think you are generalising too much from your own experience?
As noted about, even if only 1/10 people decided that they were open to car-pooling then this would make a noticeable impact on traffic volumes. That means the 90% of people who think/feel like you can keep doing what you’re doing.
Research by Todd Litman, for example, has shown that in response to parking costs one of the major travel demand responses is increased rates of car-pooling, especially when facilitated by website tools that enable matching to occur.
It’s not a silver bullet, but nor is it the waste of time you suggest.
Quite right Stu, even a 1% change in net share would be a massive change. It’s not really all that much different from rail, it may have gone from 2 to 3% of the commuter share and it’s made a big difference.
I agree Patrick is pretty right. People really value the ability to make side trips, stop at the shops or whatever when they are driving too/from work. Even if they only do this once a week the option is always there.
The ability to do this is greatly limited when you have a passenger. You car is no longer your own and you are now just a driver who is required to follow the time/route that is agreed on. Any deviation from the normal route now has to be notified to and negotiated with your passengers.
I was being a bit provocative but actually I think it runs even deeper than that. The car is an emotional private space. People genuinely use it as time to themselves, without the pressure of having to do something or be something to please others. It’s ‘me time’ for a non insignificant number of people at certain times. NZTA published a study recently claiming that people like their car commutes. They of course did not go on to say they are now abandoning time savings as their biggest justification for spending billions on motorways….. surprisingly…..
Similar to harrymc you are talking about the freedom of mobility and not the private space function raised by Patrick.
Hi Simon, as noted above – Todd Litman’s research found that in response to parking charges a reasonable number of employees were willing to start car-pooling, That suggests that (at least for some people) the flexibility you speak of it actually not that valuable and worth trading off when confronted with parking charges. Basically, I feel like there’s a wide spectrum of attitudes to car-pooling and that we;d do well to move away from the extreme ends of the debate and instead try to appreciate a more diverse range of views. It will work for some people, but not all.
Yes, I agree with Patrick. We no longer promote the car as being ‘freedom on wheels’ because it is no longer necessary – we have all already internalised that vision of the automobile.
I do think PT (even without comparable door to door service) would in many cases be more attractive than carpooling because one is depending on a faceless entity to keep the trains running on time, not a fallible human being. There is not the same sense of being a guest in somebody else’s car either.
None of that is to say that car-pooling is unworkable or not worth the effort, of course – just these are some social factors that have some bearing on the whole deal.
This is why you need genuine T(x) lanes. T3 or T4 incentivises carpooling greatly. T2 does so only marginally. We’ve actually gone backwards on carpooling in the last few years as those who don’t understand what’s involve assert their myopic vision.
The “school holidays” argument is fallacious. The reason why traffic flows better during the holidays is because it is a temporary reduction in traffic. If it were permanent then induced demand would fill up the roads again.
Similarly, if one in twenty people carpooled the traffic would flow better for a few weeks then get back to its usual level of congestion. Still, there would be an extra 5% of people on the roads and that’s a good thing – unless they came from public transport.
Nick,
Disagree with your statement about “schools holidays” traffic being fallacious.
The truth about the School Holidays traffic, is that its a reduction in traffic – but its mostly due to a massive reduction in the “peak demand” side of traffic more than a massive reduction in overall traffic.
So school holidays smooths the peak more than removes the traffic completely.
How come?
Well when you consider that dirving kids to school is a form of forced car-pooling, the kids all leave home at the same time in the same car – to get the kids at school by 8:30 or whenever.
Since someone has to drive thats usually one of the parents, who is forced to drive on the roads, at time when they would (given a choice) leave earlier or later to avoid the congestion..
And usually, drive all over town, to drop the kids off at each school, seldom nicely co-located nearby, so the parents drive to A B and C and finally to their job.
When the kids all go on holiday, the parents don’t all go on holiday too (some do admittedly), but not all
– all that happens is that the parent(s) mostly stop driving at peak time, they don’t stop driving to work – thus the 2 hour “peak” is now more flatter than it is when school is in.
Agree that the school buses stop running as well, but one bus load of kids replaces probably 20-40 cars, so are not adding much to the overall congestion compared to cars when school is in.
So yep, school holidays improve traffic, but its because of the extreme car pooling that mummy and daddy taking kids to school causes.
If everyone didn’t drive and car-pooled to the max (say 4 people per car), but each needed to get to work by 8:30am, then the morning peak would be horrendous too as while you’d replace 4 cars with 1, they would all be crushed into the same road space at the same time all trying to get to/from work.
So carpooling can work, but only if the travel times can be spread too. In some ways car pooling is just one tool to spread travel demand, in theory it can work everywhere, in practice it doesn’t.
If it did we’d all be doing it already.
Not necessarily.
Lets say that slowly, over the course of a year carpooling starts to happen and 5% of vehicles are taken off of the road, roughly evenly across all roads.
Who is going to fill that capacity? None of the people who carpooled are likely to switch back as the least likely to carpool are the ones who changed closest to the end of the year and the situation has barely changed since they swapped. The guys who swapped early may swap back, but they would have done it gradually over that year if at all.
PT users are probably the only market, but almost everyone I know who catches PT says that they would never swap, maybe that is just a young shore thing though.
I personally don’t think that carpooling will ever work, especially not in NZ, and that good bus routes and connections would work far better yo alleviate congestion.
I currently work in an office where 30% to 40% of my co-workers successfully carpool. Shall I tell them it isn’t working for them?
I carpooled in the UK for some years and it worked for me – was I wrong?
Good on you. Some always have and as the costs of car use rise I would expect carpooling to increase too. I agree with the posters above that an increase in TX lanes would act as an incentive to this, but then there is a conflict here with the need for pure bus lanes to be more widespread. Especially as the powerful sections of our community are so determined that buses on existing roads are the preferred mode of public transport. They want this because they are resistant to the higher capex of proper class A ROWs, representing as they do, from their perspective, a wealth transfer from them to other undeserving groups.
Smart phone technology should also facilitate the growth of carpooling, notwithstanding the social barriers I mention above. It would be good to see an app sent up for this as it could be a very useful way of keeping the city moving in any kind of oil crisis. Especially as we have years to go before we get a semi decent Transit network with useful spare capacity.
Sure. It’s a tradeoff. Which is why high numbers can work, but low numbers are a real problem.
I think employers should definitely encourage carpooling amongst employees. Because then a) the people in the car are going to and leaving from the same place, and it’d be easy to have an in-office sign up sheet or something for people who live in the same area, b) the driver and passengers probably know each other or have at least met each other, and c) all know what the parking costs are, etc, so it’s easier to agree on splitting the costs. Also, the employer could incentivise this by setting aside certain car parking spaces for carpoolers only.
The thing about “people” is that they vary wildly in their likes and dislikes, habits etc. When someone uses the term “people” it often signals a gross generalisation (substitute a racial group for “people” and test how it comes across).
I am people too.
In the days when I carpooled I placed negligible value on making side trips, stopping at shops etc. I placed more value on not having to drive on some of Europe’s busiest roads 100% of the time, being able to converse and the occasional snooze when not driving.
precisely my experience as well. We used to get 3-4 people in a car when travelling to uni, which would start at Waiuku, pick up in Glenbrook, then at Wattle Downs, and finally at Manurewa. We were paying about $10-$20 each per week to travel to uni and it was grand.
The reality is that car-pooling will work, albeit for only a proportion of people for only a fraction of their travel demands. It’s not a silver bullet, but it is an effective thing to facilitate – especially when coupled with effective price signals, such as parking charges and time-of-use road pricing.
My intuition is that such prices would greatly increase people’s willingness to car-pool.
Carpooling has never appealed to me. I would rather a frequent PT system where I can pretty much turn up and ride.
You have reminded me of a brief period as a student when I carpooled from Clevedon via Manurewa but I have always regarded commuting as a waste of time, money and energy so most of my student days were spent living in Ponsonby, Grafton, Balmoral where travel time was minimised.
I recall that I also carpooled in Bangalore together with a fellow ex-pat, albeit with his driver at the wheel. Evening transport (social) was invariably by autorickshaw.
I believe MFD has the answer. Car pooling only works efficiently if travellers work in the same workplace due to last minute changes in work time and availability etc. I used to car pool with a work colleague and it worked well but frankly relying on strangers would be a nightmare and not worth considering.
As for T lanes T2’s are a nonsense and many cars in these lanes statistically would only carry half a person! It encourages people to get husband/wife/ friend etc. to “drive them there” and get the benefit of the lanes to save time. The vehicle therefore travels twice the distance to cover the same distance a one driver vehicle would. Lanes must only be T3 even T4.
From my experience more people seam to car pool where public transport is poor i.e worse than Auckland. Driving your own car is total freedom, using PT is partial freedom, car pooling has little freedom. Car pooling is like a once a day commuter bus/train.I can’t see car pooling as becoming mass market like driving is or PT could be!
The most important freedom afforded by using a private vehicle (or walking or bicycling) is the ability of the user to determine the starting and end points of the journey. Carpooling done correctly offers this. PT does not.
It doesn’t matter how frequent/cheap/comfortable/efficient PT is if it doesn’t go where you need to go or start where you need to start from.
Certainly support carpooling where appropriate, but remember that public transport, walking and cycling is always better. The trap that I think people risk falling into is that carpooling is used as a justification by politicians to build motorways instead of PT or to downgrade bus lanes to T3/T2 lanes.
“remember that public transport, walking and cycling is always better”
Nonsense. How can one remember something that is demonstrably false and had not been forgotten in the first place?
I believe it was meant in a congestion relief sense.
real life example from today’s Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10890454
to help manage parking it seems, but also a condition of the resource consent! some good work by (probably) NSCC
Another real life example of how well T3 lanes are (not) working:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=10890423
One thing to note this article states the T3 lanes are 5Kms long, that may be true but the 5KM is not continuous, and is broken into 2 parts at each end of Rem Rd, with a large non-T3 lane middle section.
Summary of the “facts” as found by the Herald:
1. 10% of the vehicles on Rem road were using the T3 lane. (153 compared to 1107 in the other lane).
2. Compliance with T3 lane rules on Rem Road (3 people per car) – 66%, meaning 33% are not legally using them.
3. Many of those 10% legally using the T3 lanes on Rem Road are ferrying school kids around (so are not strictly “car pooling” in the sense that the carpooling advocates would want).
4. Number of Buses in T3 lane over same period: 25 (represents about 1,000 single occupant cars if they all drove)
5 Other traffic in T3 lanes: Motorbikes: 27, Bicycles: 21
“Legal” use of the T3 lanes are up from 7% in March when AT last surveyed.
So, I guess it shows that T3 lanes are kind of working, but not in the best way possible.
Allowing cars with school kids in them to use them sends the wrong message all round and simply encourages families to drive more of their kids to school (to get 3 or more per car) when other alternatives such as buses are available to be used. At least its not a T2 lane, but if it were the usage of the T2 lane may well be 3 times the current usage, which may start to really impact buses.
So there are some small positives from all this.