1. Introduction

1.1 Specification

This topic was identified by the Steering Group on 4th December 2001 as one of four to be pursued within Phase Three of the Project. The other topics were:

1. Car Clubs in New Developments
2. The Role of Local Authorities and Public Transport Operators in Successful Car Clubs
3. The Potential Role of Car Sharing and Car Clubs within Socially Disadvantaged Groups

As requested by the Steering Group, each of the four topics has been addressed in a freestanding document. These four documents act as supplements to our Final Report.

The issues which we proposed to consider within the current topic report were:

• Brief review of current matching services (how many, what functionality and interface? where? how many users?)
• Potential roles (e.g. link with transport brokerage as part of integrated provision of accessibility)
• Real and perceived barriers to acceptance and growth (attitudes to security, attitudes to Internet interface, access to Internet, 'the digital divide', critical mass required, costs and revenues)
• Ways to overcome barriers (e.g. local organiser or interface, subsidy, official endorsement...)
• Recommendations for action and / or further research.

It was intended that the report would:

• evidence with examples of the current matching services and quantify the take-up of different types of service;
• evaluate the potential role for such services in expanding and developing new car schemes: and;
• advise on what measures might be taken (and by whom) to overcome barriers to acceptance and use of Internet-based services, including accessibility to new technology by socially disadvantaged groups.

1.2 Study Method

This topic report presents a synthesis of evidence and opinion derived from Internet search enquiries and questionnaire surveys conducted with Internet Matching Service providers and a sample of potential users.

2. Review of Current Internet Matching Services

2.1 Introduction

Few people can have failed to speculate that many travellers must be making long distance journeys between the same locations at about the same time and that, if only they knew of each other's existence, they could get together and reduce costs. This is the germ of the idea which, over the decades, has given rise to a variety of proposals for traveller-matching services. The terms 'journey sharing', 'lift giving', 'lift sharing', 'car sharing', 'ride sharing' and 'carpooling' are variously used to refer to the kind of arrangements which can result.

Prior to the advent of the Internet the only way for these people to get in contact would be courtesy of a noticeboard (typically in a Student Union Building), press advertisements, or a paper-based matching service provided by an employer or community organisation. The Internet has supplanted the press advertisement, and the Intranet has supplanted the paper-based schemes for employees but the noticeboards still fulfil a useful function.

A major benefit of using the Internet to facilitate matching is that it can offer access to a much larger pool of potential matches. Although, for most people, Internet access is currently available only through work, college, Internet Cafes or libraries, the trend is for the Internet to become more widely available in-home.

The Internet has allowed specialist matching services to be made available to a wide audience of potential journey sharers for a greater range of journeys. Some people use the service as a form of 'electronic hitch-hiking' while others use it to set up arrangements for regular trips.

3. Barriers to Acceptance and Growth

3.1 Results of interviews with matching service providers

4. Evaluation

4.1 Benefits and disbenefits of car sharing

4.1.1 Benefits

The main benefits can be listed as follows, some being more tangible than others:

Benefits to the user:

• Reduced travel costs
• Accessibility for people without access to their own cars (particularly important if public transport is not a viable option)
• Reduces stress levels
• Companionship (like minded persons, or some other common factor)
• Increased community spirit
• Feel-good factor (doing your bit for the environment).

Benefits to the community:

• Reduced traffic - and hence reduced fuel use, emissions and congestion - if the shared journey replaces two or more separate car journeys
• A cheap way of providing accessibility to non-car owners.

Benefits to business and commerce:

• Increased punctuality and attendance
• Staff retention and recruitment opportunities
• Encourages teamwork
• Increased car park space for guests & visitors (or possibility of reducing parking spaces).

4.1.2 Disbenefits

The main disbenefits are as follows, again with some being more tangible than others.

Disbenefits to the user:

• Increased journey time (relative to driving alone)
• Security concerns
• Reduced flexibility (relative to driving alone)

Disbenefits to the community:

• Increased Traffic - and hence increased fuel use, emissions and congestion - if the reduced cost of car travel induces people to make more car trips.
• May result in reduced use of public transport and thereby make some services less viable.

Disbenefits to business and commerce:

• Increased absenteeism/lateness ('lift failed to show' is a popular excuse)
• Reduced work hours flexibility (' I have to leave now, my lift is waiting').

4.2 The potential roles of Internet matching services

4.2.1 Provision of matching services

This is the core role. Although the potential pool might be maximised by offering to match any journeys without any restriction on location, timing or type of person, there is evidence to suggest that it can be better to focus the service on a particular locality or group of users. This is because such restrictions make the service more attractive to potential users, increase the likelihood of a match (other things being equal) and, because it is more likely to result in like-minded people being matched, is more likely to lead to shared journeys. Example of the kinds of journeys/groups which might be targeted in this way include:

• people travelling to special events (sports fixtures, festivals, conferences etc)
• people with children at a particular school
• residents of a particular community
• members of interest groups (clubs, supporter's clubs, subscribers to particular publications, etc)
• employees of a particular organisation (or group of related organisations)
• clients of particular organisations (e.g. hospital patients, social services clients)
• non-car owners (as potential passengers or as drivers of hired cars or car club cars).

Depending on the group involved, the provision of matching services may be expected to increase or decrease the number of car journeys (see 4.1 above). If the service is targeted at non-car owners, the net effect is likely to be an increase in road traffic and so the case for public subsidy for matching services for non-car owners must rest on the increased accessibility that it can provide for such groups.

4.2.2 Provision of information

A wide range of information services might be made available, many involving a link with business and/or information providers. Examples include:

• general information on national or local transport options and services
• special event information
• map-based enquiry information on tourist attractions, accommodation etc
• traffic and travel information
• weather forecasts.

With the possible exception of information about public transport services (see below), it is not clear that the provision of this information should be subsidised. Indeed we note that provision of information may provide revenue for the matching service.

4.2.3 Travel brokerage

Although Internet matching sites might offer individually tailored information on transport options for a particular journey, "brokerage" of this kind is currently quite rare and may be thought to detract from the core business. Some providers suggest that it would be more appropriate for other brokerage services to provide links to the Internet matching sites. Nevertheless the opportunity to provide information and advice to travellers whose travel details are still fluid, may be a very useful tool with which to promote the use of public transport. Given that reduction in road traffic is a policy objective, this activity might be thought eligible for public subsidy.

4.2.4 Bookings, reservations and purchases

Again, a wide range of services might be made available, many involving a link with business and/or information providers. Examples include:

• travel tickets
• special events
• accommodation
• entry to tourist attractions
• maps and guide books
• car rental.

As mentioned above in the context of information services, with the possible exception of allowing direct purchase of public transport travel tickets, it is not clear that these services should be subsidised and there is no doubt that, via commission on sales, they would provide revenue for the matching service.

4.3 The current situation - barriers to success

We note that the current provision of Internet matching services is having a very limited impact on travel patterns and that the services are struggling to provide a reasonable level of service. Where matching is targeted at a specific, localised, community (e.g. employees of a particular company or travellers to a special event), some Internet matching sites do manage to provide a useful service. However, for more diverse journeys, the usage of Internet matching sites comes nowhere near the levels required to overcome the 'Catch 22' (low usage = low chance of matching = low usage). We conclude that this is due to the following factors:

1. Most people are not keen on the idea of car sharing (whether or not it is achieved via Internet matching).

2. Many people are unable or unwilling to use the Internet. Their reasons include:

• lack of easy access,
• lack of skills/confidence,
• fear of becoming open to junk mail, viruses etc.

3. Many potential users are put off by fears of security. Two different worries are apparent:

• A reluctance to reveal personal data on a website (security/anonymity should be achievable, but if people think there is a security issue then there is one!); and
• a worry about the credentials and competence of people with whom they may be matched. (Many drivers are reluctant to stop for a hitch-hiker, they may be even less inclined to give a lift to someone they have not even seen. Many people are afraid to hitch for lifts - they may be even less likely to accept a lift from someone who has obtained their details via the Internet).

4. There are too many separate providers - this reduces the size of the pool of potential matches on any one site and so makes it less likely that a successful match can be made. Those who try the system and find that it cannot deliver any good matches are less likely to try again.

5. It is not immediately obvious to potential users which site they should use. The existence of many small sites with out-of-date databases makes the search for a worthwhile site frustrating and is likely to put many people off.

6. Internet matching service operators are generally short of funds and find it hard to advertise the services to a wide audience.

4.4 A role for Government?

It is clear that the Internet matching service providers would like government to assist them in promoting the concept. Government has been reluctant to involve itself in the world of Internet matching services. We identify the following reasons for continued scepticism:

• Little evidence to suggest that the theoretical potential of Internet matching services will ever be realised (due to lack of interest on the part of the public).
• The lack of an obvious environmental benefit to the community. The main impact is likely to be reduced use of long-distance public transport rather than reduced car traffic and, as indicated in section 4.1, since car sharing can reduce the cost of car travel, it may generate car traffic.
• Legal and moral risks of "endorsing" any particular provider.

Other issues, more political in nature, are:

• The suggestion that the main beneficiaries (young, computer-literate, non-car owners) are not a notably disadvantaged group. If they want this service, should they not be expected to pay the market price?
• The suggestion that, in the absence of any clear benefit to Society, Internet matching services should be regarded as private initiatives whose success or failure depends on their ability to generate revenue.

Despite these reservations we believe a case can be made for some government intervention on the grounds that:

• Car sharing can be a cost-effective way of providing accessibility to non-car owners - although many such people are unlikely to be in a position to use an Internet-based system.
• Internet matching sites offer a useful opportunity to provide public transport information and brokerage services.
• The existence of successful Internet sites is likely to help in the promotion of local or group-specific schemes which may bring transport benefits.

5. Potential Interventions

Specific recommendations are highlighted in bold type and, for ease of later reference, are followed by a reference number in parentheses.

5.1 Selection of one or more Internet matching services for Government support

The Internet matching service providers feel that Government has not been taking them seriously up until now and they have strongly requested Government support for their services. Clearly any such support should be conditional on meeting strict criteria in terms of security, quality of service and, perhaps, provision of services and links. Given that the existence of a large number of sites is itself a problem, it would be best not to endorse many sites. One way of establishing a cut-off would be to require a threshold minimum membership or matching rate. Another requirement might be that, in order to allow users access to an extended pool of potential matches, the site should be linked to other sites. This might be achieved via a federal structure providing links to a national database through local front-ends.

The first task is clearly to establish appropriate criteria (1). We suggest that these should include:

• a secure site with virus protection and encryption of personal data
• user-friendly interface
• procedures for removal of redundant data
• provision of advice on personal security when sharing a ride (including use of ID cards?)
• provision of advice on levels of compensation for drivers
• ability to share data with other approved sites
• links to public transport information
• a telephone access service (see 5.5)
• minimum membership (expressed as a proportion of target population?)
• demonstrable success in providing matches which result in shared journeys
• positive result from customer satisfaction surveys
• adequate resources for site maintenance
• monitoring facilities.

The second task is to invite sites to apply to be considered for support and to investigate and validate their claims (2). This task would involve inspection of sites and databases and following up supposedly satisfied customers. It is entirely possible that this exercise would reveal that no sites are able to meet the performance criteria. Were that to be the case, it might be appropriate to abandon the exercise or, in order to provide an incentive to site owners, the offer of support could be left on the table.

5.2 Support for selected sites

Support should involve endorsement, promotion and, perhaps, financial support.

Endorsement and promotion could occur at 5 levels:

1. The minimum level of endorsement would be to make available a list of approved sites on an appropriate Government website and to permit approved sites to proclaim their approved status.

2. Provide links to approved sites from relevant Government websites (e.g. Transport Direct and DTLR sites concerned with sustainability and integrated transport).

3. Bring the existence of the approved sites to the attention of appropriate bodies (e.g. local authorities, major employers, universities/colleges and student organisations, motorist organisations, event organisers, football supporters' clubs) through targeted leaflets and incorporation into relevant literature (for example, to inform local authorities and major employers, the existence on the DTLR website of a list of approved matching sites could be noted in guidance on sustainable transport policies, Green Transport Plans, Company Travel Plans etc).

4. As 3 but, rather than simply noting the existence of a list of approved sites, the documentation could identify the benefits that the use of an approved Internet matching site could bring to the targeted organisations.

5. Efforts to encourage the use of Internet matching sites by the general public. This might be done by:

• provision of press releases and briefings
• seeking to have the existence of Internet matching sites built into the storyline of TV or radio soap operas
• targeted leafleting (e.g. along with VED or driving licence renewal documents)

We recommend that level 3 promotion is the minimum and that level 4 would be preferred (3). We do not recommend level 5 at this stage.

Consideration should be given to the provision of financial support for approved Internet matching service providers (4). We suggest that approved sites should be required to apply for support and to provide a sound business plan for expansion and sustainable management of services over a pre-determined period.

5.3 Promotion of the use of localised matching services

A major barrier to use of the Internet matching services is the concern that individuals have about the credentials of the people with whom they might be matched. This concern is much reduced if they feel that they have something in common with the people with whom they might be matched. The use of Intranet matching services within large organisations is thus likely to be much more popular that the use of Internet matching services open to all-comers. Similarly, the use of matching services targeted at local communities or interest groups is likely to be more popular than a more anonymous system.

The development of Intranet based services within large organisations (businesses, local authorities, NHS trusts, universities, etc) should be encouraged (5). Development of inter-site linkages should be encouraged through publicity within Green Transport Plan advice packs. Where an organisation is not big enough to support an exclusive Intranet service, such links can be made with other Intranet or Internet sites. The user then has the option to expand his/her search area if he/she feels confident enough to accept a match with someone outside their own organisation. The use of Intranet matching services will help to encourage use of Internet matching services for longer trips.

The development of local-area or specialist-interest-group matching sites should be encouraged (6). Such sites should, however, be linked to other sites such that users have the option to expand their search area if they feel confident enough to accept a match with someone outside their own community or group.

5.4 General support for car sharing

Internet matching services rely on there being an intention by the public to share journeys. Car sharing is a minority interest among car owners because most drivers put a high value on their privacy and flexibility and because the individual motorist does not get much tangible benefit from car sharing. Government action can influence the climate within which individual motorists decide whether or not to share journeys. There are two main ways in which government action can increase the public interest in car sharing; general promotion and specific incentives.

General promotion is justified, even though its effects may not be readily apparent, on the grounds that it will help to raise awareness and perhaps change opinions in the medium to long term. Government is already engaged in general promotion of car sharing as a component of integrated transport policy. This support should continue:

• local authorities should continue to be encouraged to promote car sharing in their areas (7a),
• public sector organisations and large businesses should continue to be encouraged to offer car sharing within Green Transport Plans or Company Travel Plans (perhaps with more emphasis on the establishment of more multi-organisation schemes) (7b),
• promotion of car sharing through advertising campaigns such as the 'empty seats' posters which appeared under the 'Do Your Bit' umbrella campaign, should be repeated from time to time and might be targeted at motorists by leaflets along with VED and driving licence renewal documents (7c).

Another way of promoting awareness of car sharing might be to designate a particular day on which the role of car sharing can be highlighted. Liftshare.com intend to propose 14th June 2002 as 'National Liftshare Day'. It may be worth supporting this kind of initiative although it might be better to concentrate on a broader concept such as "Green Travel Day".

The provision of specific incentives for car sharers, or disincentives for solo-drivers, is likely to have more effect than general encouragement or publicity. We recommend that local authorities should be encouraged to provide more tangible incentives for car sharers by introducing HOV lanes, HOV zones and HOV car parks (8). This encouragement should come through guidance notes and examples of actions for which grants may available and through the dissemination of examples of best practice. We further recommend that the Highways Agency be encouraged to consider the introduction of HOV lanes and HOT lanes on the motorway network (9).

5.5 Ensuring wider access to Internet matching services

As was indicated in Section 4, one of the potential justifications for provision of matching services is that car sharing may be a cost-effective means of increasing the accessibility of non-car owners. If Internet matching is to help achieve this goal it will need to be available to non-car owners.

In order to lessen the impact of this 'digital divide' actions should be taken to facilitate access to the service by people who are unable to use the Internet. The best ways of achieving this may be to advertise the possibilities of access via terminals in Public Libraries and Internet cafes and to provide access to the system by post or telephone (10). Unfortunately the delay associated with access by post would limit the efficiency of the matching process, and the extra costs of providing access by phone or post could be significant. The practicality and cost implications of providing access by post and telephone should therefore be investigated (11a). If these modes of access turn out to be feasible, and if the costs can be met, it may be appropriate to require provision of access by phone or post among the criteria for selecting sites for official endorsement - see 5.1 (11b).

One way of widening access to Internet matching services within disadvantaged communities would be to designate someone within the community as the local coordinator and provide them with Internet access (12). Their role would be to provide transport brokerage services to the community using their access to an Internet matching site as one of their resources.

If non-car owners are to act as drivers within a car sharing arrangement they will need temporary access to a car. This suggests that Internet matching sites should include links to car clubs and car rental services (13). The combination of car sharing matching service and car club (for short/regular journeys) or car rental (for longer journeys) could significantly enhance accessibility in non-car owning communities.

5.6 Promotion of Internet Matching for Car Sharing to Special Events

Although journeys to special events are relatively unimportant as a component of general traffic, car traffic associated with special events can cause serious problems on the surrounding roads and can create severe parking problems. Examples include the numerous summer music festivals (e.g. Carling Leeds/Reading, Glastonbury, V2002), major sporting occasions (e.g. British Grand Prix, Grand National, international football matches) and regular football matches.