Carpoolers Need Meeting Places, Not Databases

Carpoolers Need Meeting Places, Not Databases

Presentation to support requests for budget for trials of flexible car

pooling

By Paul Minett, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Trip Convergence Ltd

The Problem• Peak traffic demand is plugging up the roads• Peak commuter demand is filling the buses

and trains• We cannot afford to expand the system

Also issues of:•Air Quality, •Global Warming, •Energy Security, •Vehicle Miles Traveled,

I would carpool if I could just find

someone who travels at the same time as me

But there are plenty of empty seats in the system!

Solution Number One: Internet Based Ride Matching Systems So People Can Find Others Who Travel At The Same Time They Do

Key Reason People Give For Not Car Pooling: “I have a schedule that is not predictable, I don’t

want to be tied to someone else’s schedule”

Result: Ride Matching Systems have limited impact. “Databases don’t work!”

Casual Car Pooling in San Francisco saves 900,000 gallons of gas per year.

Slug Lines in Washington DC save 2,000,000 gallons of gas per year.

(23 meeting places, no database)

(22 meeting places, no database)

The key difference between Internet-based ride matching systems and casual carpooling is that the

former involves pre-arrangement and a commitment, while the latter does not.

It seems reasonable to expect that people will only share rides with people whom they know. This turns out not to be the case.

Our goal is to find out what it takes to launch a casual carpooling route in a new location: How do we get the benefit that San Francisco is getting, in Seattle, or Portland, or Vancouver, or Los Angeles?

Proposed Research Program: six trial locations, $2M

• Test our hypothesis (www.flexiblecarpooling.org) • Modify and try different environments

Success would enable significant savings in:•Demand for Fuel (>100 million gallons per year)•Emissions•Public Transport Costs•System Expansion Costs•Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)

Example Project: Houghton Park and Ride to University of Washington, Seattle

•SR520 Bridge•Helps solve UW parking

We believe that 10,000 users daily is achievable in Seattle region alone.

Challenges

• Funding• Agencies prefer pilots to occur ‘somewhere

else’• Not a traditional transport project

– More similar to vanpooling

Budgets Detailed budget for each pilot, one year of operation each: – Technology (purchase and install) 75 K – Parking (one year lease) 60 K – Project Mgmt (local operator) 40 K – Incentives (reward participation) 25 K – Marketing (route specific outreach) 25 K – Miscellaneous & Contingencies 50 K

Total 275K

System development and administration costs (relates to program of 6 routes) • Software (finalisation) 50 K • Management and reporting (36 months for 6 routes) 175 K • IP/ Legal agreements and documentation 40 K • Insurance 10 K • Marketing/ PR (community awareness raising) 35 K • Contingencies 40 K

Total 350 K

Analysis of $2m budget

(6 x $275K) + $350K = $2 M

Contact

• Paul Minett• Trip Convergence Ltd• [email protected]• 32 Green Lane East, Remuera, Auckland 1050, New Zealand• Phone: +64 9 524 9850• Mobile: +64 21 289 8444 in NZ,

206 631 9702 in USA (when in USA)

More Information: www.flexiblecarpooling.org