Physical Environment Environmental Quality Built Environment Search Policies & Programs

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Carpooling and rideshare programs

Health Factors: Environmental Quality
Decision Makers: Businesses & Employers, Community Organizations, Government - Local, Government - State, Government - Federal
Evidence Rating: Expert Opinion
Population Reach: 100% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: No impact on disparities likely

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

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

Decreased emissions
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).

Implementation Examples

United States

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). 

Wisconsin

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). 

Implementation Resources

eRideShare - eRideShare.com. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.erideshare.com/
Gishigo - GishiGo. Ride share network. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.gishigo.com/
Goloco - GoLoco. Why do we GoLoco? Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.goloco.org/greetings/guest
Nuride - Nuride. Get rewards for greener trips. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.nuride.com/nuride/main/main.jsp
Pickuppal - PickupPal. Drivers and passengers connecting online. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.pickuppal.com/pup/intro.html
Ridester - Ridester. Life is journey. Share it. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.ridester.com/
Zimride - Zimride. Grab a seat. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.zimride.com/

Citations - Evidence

Chaube 2010* - 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
Webpage: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5428688&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5428688
Deakin 2010* - 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
Webpage: http://trb.metapress.com/content/d0272n3lu1w452r4/
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 2001 - 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
Webpage: http://ridesharechoices.scripts.mit.edu/home/wp-content/papers/GreenburgLevofsky-OrganizedDynamicRidesharing.pdf
Li 2007* - 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
Webpage: http://trb.metapress.com/content/e510nv7248gn11mp/
RAND-Sorenson 2008 - 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
Webpage: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG748.html
Silvis 2009 - 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
Webpage: http://trb.metapress.com/content/mr82542658370n26/fulltext.pdf
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
Webpage: http://dn.engr.ucdavis.edu/images/AQMit-Report3.pdf
Wilson 2008* - 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
Webpage: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944360802380431

Citations - Implementation Examples

Chan 2011* - 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
Webpage: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01441647.2011.621557
WI DOT-Rideshare - Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). Wisconsin’s rideshare program. Accessed on February 19, 2013
Webpage: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/commuter/index.htm

* Journal subscription may be required for access.

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

X
 

Health Factors

Health Behaviors
Tobacco Use
Diet & Exercise
Alcohol Use
Sexual Activity
 Clinical Care
Access to Care
Quality of Care
 Social & Economic Factors
Education
Employment
Income
Family & Social Support
Community Safety
 Physical Environment
Environmental Quality
Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

  • Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
  • Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
  • Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
  • Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
  • Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
  • Evidence of Ineffectiveness 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 available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

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.

  • Likely to decrease disparities
  • No impact on disparities likely
  • Likely to increase disparities