Carpooling and rideshare programs
||Businesses & Employers, Community Organizations, Government - Local, Government - State, Government - Federal
||100% of WI's population
|Impact on Disparities:
Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.
Carpool and rideshare programs help commuters share transportation. Carpools and rideshares can be informal arrangements between individuals or be formally arranged through dynamic ridesharing programs or other ride-matching services.
Expected Beneficial Outcomes
Reduced traffic congestion
Evidence of Effectiveness
Carpooling and ridesharing programs are suggested strategies to decrease emissions and reduce traffic congestion (Wilson 2008, UC Davis-Yura 2006, ICF Consulting 2006, RAND-Sorenson 2008). Studies suggest that these programs are cost effective (ICF Consulting 2006, RAND-Sorenson 2008) and may improve mobility and quality of life among seniors (Silvis 2009). However, additional evidence is needed to confirm effects and costs.
Available research suggests that improving awareness, trust and willingness to ride with strangers, and scheduling flexibility may increase carpool use (Chaube 2010, Deakin 2010, Levofsky 2001). Other strategies to increase carpooling and ridesharing include incentives such as high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOVs), and free or decreased toll rates (UC Davis-Yura 2006, Li 2007, RAND-Sorenson 2008).
There are roughly 613 ridematching services in the US and Canada. Many incorporate the use of technology (i.e., internet, mobile phones, and social networking) into ridesharing services (Chan 2011).
RIDESHARE is a free internet-based program provided by the State of Wisconsin that brings commuters together. The program serves commuters in Wisconsin as well as bordering counties in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota (WI DOT-Rideshare).
- eRideShare.com. Accessed on June 12, 2012
- GishiGo. Ride share network. Accessed on June 12, 2012
- GoLoco. Why do we GoLoco? Accessed on June 12, 2012
- Nuride. Get rewards for greener trips. Accessed on June 12, 2012
- PickupPal. Drivers and passengers connecting online. Accessed on June 12, 2012
- Ridester. Life is journey. Share it. Accessed on June 12, 2012
- Zimride. Grab a seat. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Citations - Evidence
- Chaube V, Tech V, Kavanaugh AL, Pérez-quiñones MA. Leveraging social networks to embed trust in rideshare programs. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010. Washington, DC: IEEE; 2010. Accessed on June 11, 2012
- Deakin E, Frick KT, Shively KM. Markets for dynamic ridesharing? Case of Berkeley, California. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2010;2187:131-7. Accessed on June 11, 2012
ICF Consulting 2006
- ICF Consulting. Performance review of transportation fund for clean air projects: Literature review. San Francisco: Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 2006. Accessed on June 11, 2012
Webpage: http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/grants_and_incentives/tfca/TFCA Performance Lit Review Final.pdf
- Levofsky A, Greenberg A. Organized dynamic ride sharing: The potential environmental benefits and the opportunity for advancing the concept. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board 2001 Annual Meeting. 2001: Working Paper 01-0577. Accessed on June 12, 2012
- Li J, Embry P, Mattingly SP, et al. Who chooses to carpool and why? Examination of Texas carpoolers. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2007;2021:110-7. Accessed on June 12, 2012
- Sorenson P, Wachs M, Min EY, et al. Moving Los Angeles: Short-term policy options for improving transportation. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 2008: Monograph Report. Accessed on June 23, 2012
- Silvis J, Niemeier D. Social network and dwelling characteristics that influence ridesharing behavior of seniors. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2009;(2118):47-54. Accessed on February 18, 2013
UC Davis-Yura 2006
- Yura EA, Eisinger D, Deb Niemeier. A review of on-road vehicle mitigation measures. Davis: University of Callfornia, Davis; 2006. Accessed on June 12, 2012
- Wilson RW, Brown KD. Carbon neutrality at the local level: Achievable goal or fantasy? Journal of the American Planning Association. 2008;74(4):497-504. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Citations - Implementation Examples
- Chan ND, Shaheen SA. Ridesharing in North America: Past, present, and future. Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal. 2011;32(1):93-112. Accessed on June 11, 2012
- Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). Wisconsin’s rideshare program. Accessed on February 19, 2013
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)
Diet & Exercise
Access to Care
Quality of Care
Social & Economic Factors
Family & Social Support
Businesses & Employers
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.
Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
Evidence mixed; further study warranted
Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect
Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert
opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.
* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence;
reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more
organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence
Potential Impact on Health Disparities
Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other
disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available
evidence related to disparities.