Sustainable transportation options are receiving increasing attention in cities across North America because of rising commute times, fluctuating fuel prices, and increased awareness of the environmental impacts of transportation choices. Carpooling represents one of many possible alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle use for work or school trips. Recent attempts to encourage carpool formation in Canada include web-based applications that facilitate connections between potential carpoolers. One such example is Carpool Zone, a service provided by Smart Commute in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area. The service is coordinated regionally by the Smart Commute Team at Metrolinx (the regional transportation planning authority) and is free and open to the public. Data are used from Smart Commute to investigate the carpool formation and use process. Results from a logistic regression analysis of carpool use suggest that spatial accessibility to matches, household auto ownership, and sociodemographics influence carpooling more than do proximity to carpool infrastructure and personal attitudes (e.g., concern for the environment, cost). With respect to policy and planning, results suggest that increasing shared knowledge about commuting patterns at the home end of work trips could yield beneficial returns to the carpool formation and use process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
The Cost of Urban Congestion in Canada.Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2006.
Transportation Demand Management. Green Paper #4. Metrolinx, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2008.
4.
PisarskiA. E.The New NCHRP–TCRP Report: Commuting in America III: Third National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends.TR News, No. 247, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 26–29.
5.
2001 Census: Analysis Series. Where Canadians Work and How They Get There. Catalogue 96F0030XIE2001010. Statistics Canada, Census Operations Division, Ministry of Industry, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2003.
6.
TurcotteM.The Time It Takes to Get to Work and Back. Catalogue 89-622-XIE2006001. Statistics Canada, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Minister of Industry, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2006.
7.
Commuting Patterns and Places of Work of Canadians, 2006 Census. Catalogue 97-561. Statistics Canada, Minister of Industry, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2008.
8.
HuangH., YangH., and BellM.The Models and Economics of Carpools.Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2000, pp. 55–68.
TischerM., and DobsonR.An Empirical Analysis of Behavioral Intentions of Single-Occupant Auto Drivers to Shift to High Occupancy Vehicles.Transportation Research, Part A, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1979, pp. 143–158.
11.
WashbrookK., HaiderW., and JaccardM.Estimating Commuter Mode Choice: A Discrete Choice Analysis of the Impact of Road Pricing and Parking Charges.Transportation, Vol. 33, No. 6, 2006, pp. 621–639.
12.
MeyerM.Demand Management as an Element of Transportation Policy: Using Carrots and Sticks to Influence Travel Behavior.Transportation Research, Part A, Vol. 33, No. 7, 1999, pp. 575–599.
13.
GiulianoG.Transportation Demand Management Promise or Panacea.Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 58, No. 3, 1992, pp. 327–335.
14.
RouwendalJ., and NijkampP.Living in Two Worlds: A Review of Home to Work Decisions.Growth and Change, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2004, pp. 287–303.
15.
TaylorB.Putting a Price on Mobility—Cars and Contradictions in Planning.Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 3, Summer 2006, pp. 279–284.
16.
ShoupD.Evaluating the Effects of Cashing Out Employer-Paid Parking: Eight Case Studies.Transport Policy, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1997, pp. 201–216.
17.
ColluraJ.Evaluating Ride-Sharing Programs: Massachusetts’ Experience.Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 120, No. 1, 1994, pp. 28–47.
18.
KaufmanS.Why People (Don't) Carpool and Change for the Better: A Social Capital Framework for Investigating Environmental Behavior. Presented at Second National Conference of Sustainable Campuses, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2002.
19.
FergusonE.Demographics of Carpooling. In Transportation Research Record 1496, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 142–150.
20.
MorencyC.The Ambivalence of Ridesharing.Transportation, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2007, pp. 239–253.
21.
FergusonE.The Influence of Employer Ridesharing Programs on Employee Mode Choice.Transportation, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1990, pp. 179–207.
22.
TealR.Carpooling: Who, How, and Why.Transportation Research, Part A, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1987, pp. 203–214.
23.
OzanneL., and MollenkopfD.Understanding Consumer Intentions to Carpool: A Test of Alternative Models.Proc., 1999 Annual Meeting of Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy.www.smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/www/ANZMAC1999/Site/O/Ozanne.pdf. Accessed June 2009.
24.
HorowitzA. D., and ShethJ. N.Ride Sharing to Work: An Attitudinal Analysis. In Transportation Research Record 637, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1978, pp. 1–8.
25.
CharlesK. K., and KlineP.Relational Costs and the Production of Social Capital: Evidence from Carpooling.The Economic Journal, Vol. 116, No. 511, 2006, pp. 581–604.
26.
TsaoH. S., and LinD.-J.Spatial and Temporal Factors in Estimating the Potential of Ride-Sharing for Demand Reduction.Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1999.
27.
CerveroR., and GriesenbeckB.Factors Influencing Commuting Choices in Suburban Labor Markets: A Case Analysis of Pleasanton, California.Transportation Research, Part A, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1988, pp. 151–161.
28.
GiulianoG., LevineD., and TealR.Impact of High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Carpooling Behavior.Transportation, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1990, pp. 159–77.
29.
GrahamS.Information Technologies and Reconfigurations of Urban Space.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2001, pp. 405–410.
30.
SermonsM. W., and KoppelmanF. S.Representing the Differences Between Female and Male Commute Behavior in Residential Location Choice Models.Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2001, pp. 101–110.
31.
CristaldiF.Commuting and Gender in Italy: A Methodological Issue.The Professional Geographer, Vol. 57, No 2, 2005, pp. 268–284.
32.
CraneR.Is There a Quiet Revolution in Women's Travel? Revisiting the Gender Gap in Commuting.Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 73, No. 3, 2007, pp. 298–316.
33.
FergusonE.The Rise and Fall of the American Carpool: 1970–1990.Transportation, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1997, pp. 349–376.
34.
BaldassareM., RyanS., and KatzC.Suburban Attitudes Toward Policies Aimed at Reducing Solo Driving.Transportation, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1998, pp. 99–117.
CalvoR., de LuigiF., HaastrupP., and ManiezzoV.A Distributed Geographic Information System for the Daily Carpooling Problem.Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 31, No. 13, 2004, pp. 2263–2278.
