Carplus guidance on EVs and car clubs - Web view8 ‘Where is 2+ car sharing headed?’...

Where is 2+ car sharing headed?A review of the journey sharing sector and opportunities for future development

Interim report of the conclusions of the Carplus Ride Share Working Group by Carplus, April 2013

Abbreviations

The abbreviations used in this document are as follows:

RSWG Ride Share Working Group NGO Non-Government OrganisationDfT Department for Transport AGM Annual General MeetingTfL Transport for London HOV High Occupancy VehicleDVLA Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency SOV Single Occupancy VehicleITP Integrated Transport Planning

Terminology

For the purpose of this report, the term ‘journey sharing’ has been used to refer to ‘2+ car sharing’ (or lift sharing / ride sharing) i.e. where 2+ people share a journey together in one vehicle.Terminology is discussed as a specific issue in more detail later in this report.

‘Where is 2+ car sharing headed?’ – a review of the journey sharing sector and opportunities for future development Interim report, Carplus – March 2013

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank for their contributions to this report and to the work of the Ride Share Working Group:

ACT Travelwise Leicestershire County CouncilCalderdale Council Liftsharecarbon heroes Metro West Yorkshire PTEGlaxoSmithKline RidesharkgoCarShare Steer Davies GleaveHeathrow Airport Ltd Swindon Borough CouncilIntegrated Transport Planning Ways2Work

And also all those organisations that responded to the first round of online stakeholder surveys

The Ride Share Working Group consists of:

Dr Colin Black, ACT Travelwise Matthew Clark, Carplus BoardCraig Barrack, carbon heroes Drummond Gilbert, goCarShareChas Ball, Carplus Heather McInroy, Ways2WorkAnne Keen, Carplus Board

2

Contents

Section Page

Abbreviations............................................................................................................................2

Terminology..............................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................2

1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 5

2. About Carplus and the Ride Share Working Group.......................................................6

3. The Purpose of this Report............................................................................................8

4. Executive Summary.......................................................................................................9

5. Findings.......................................................................................................................11

6. Draft Proposals............................................................................................................27

7. Appendices..................................................................................................................28

Appendix 1 – Ride Share Working Group Terms of Reference................................................28

Appendix 2 – Methodology.....................................................................................................30

Appendix 3 – Submissions pro forma......................................................................................31

Appendix 4 – Online stakeholder survey – area-based schemes............................................34

Appendix 5 – Online stakeholder survey – corporate schemes..............................................34

Appendix 6 – Online stakeholder survey – festival schemes...................................................34

8. References.................................................................................................................. 35


3

Blank page


4

1. Introduction

1.1 With travel costs continuing to rise faster than inflation and recent claims that air pollution now kills as many people in Britain each year as obesity and road traffic collisions combined, it is more relevant than ever to find ways to reduce use of the private car. As the ‘sharing economy’ gains momentum and people become more open to the concept of collaborative consumption, journey sharing is one solution that is about to come into its own.

1.2 Journey sharing, more usually referred to as car sharing in the UK, has been around since cars were invented. However, its profile as a mobility solution has remained noticeably lower than that of other modes. The lack of an industry voice, the absence of any established best practice standards, low levels of public awareness and concerns about personal safety and security have been quoted as some of the possible reasons for this.

1.3 Carplus, in partnership with ACT Travelwise, Ways2Work and journey sharing service providers from the Carplus membership, have been working together to review the current situation and consider how the barriers to the expansion of journey sharing can be overcome.


5

2. About Carplus and the Ride Share Working Group

2.1. Carplus is a not-for-profit, environmental transport NGO and charity that promotes “rethinking car use”. Founded in 2000, Carplus is actively involved in advocacy, supporting the development of car clubs and journey sharing schemes in the UK.

2.2. Carplus delivers programmes on car club development for Transport for London and Transport Scotland, provides consultancy services for several English transport authorities, and runs events for members and other stakeholders. From time to time Carplus manages research and development projects funded by trusts and foundations.

2.3. In promoting the development of car clubs Carplus provides support to community groups, transport authorities, transport professionals and others working to improve the way we travel. As part of this work, Carplus provides a national car club accreditation scheme of car club service providers. It also produces the Carplus Annual Survey, the only report of its kind in the UK to provide independent data and analysis on the operation, membership of car clubs and their beneficial impact on travel choices and the environment. The Annual Survey has been produced since 2008 and is widely used amongst key decision makers and academics when developing sustainable travel policies and conducting research.

2.4. Carplus also provides information on the journey sharing sector and signposting of enquirers to service providers. This project is part of an initiative to establish a stronger voice for the benefits of journey sharing / “2+ car sharing”.

The Ride Share Working Group

2.5. As part of an initiative to strengthen our work on journey sharing, Carplus has taken the lead in the establishment of the Ride Share Working Group (RSWG) set up to review current operational standards and practices within the sector with a view to making a series of recommendations on the future development of journey sharing.

2.6. The group initially formed in response to calls for from transport authorities, service providers and other stakeholders in the UK journey sharing sector for the establishment of some form of regulation and ‘standard setting’ for the sector, especially in respect of:


6

data collection, monitoring and reporting

operational practices of service providers

privacy and security of client and end user data

safeguards for end users

2.7. The aims within the Terms of Reference for the RSWG were established around these key aspects and a copy of the full terms is included within the appendices of this report (see Appendix 1).

2.8. This report is the first key output of the working group. It presents the findings of the first stage of the sector review followed by a set of initial proposals for public consultation.

2.9. The Ride Share Working Group consists of representation from ACT Travelwise, Ways2Work, Carplus Board members and journey sharing service providers from the Carplus membership.

Carplus is a registered charity, no. 1093980.


7

3. The Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this interim report is to:

a) present the findings of the first stage of a review of the current position within the journey sharing sector, as reported by stakeholders and researchers, with particular reference to the operational standards and practices of schemes and their service providers.

b) present a series of initial proposals for the future development and expansion of the journey sharing sector that take into account the opportunities presented by advances in technology, planning and infrastructure, and the influence of the rapidly growing ‘Sharing Economy’.

c) invite stakeholders to engage in constructive dialogue about these findings and proposals and to provide views and comments on the future direction of the journey sharing sector.

3.1. The stakeholder consultation process for this report will take place during April 2013, culminating in an open consultation event in London on 25th April 2013. The feedback collated from the consultation will inform the drafting of the final report and proposals that will be used to lobby key decision makers and drivers within the journey sharing sector.

3.2. The Ride Share Working Group hopes that, if the final proposals are adopted, they will help raise the profile of journey sharing within the sustainable transport policy arena. This will help bring a level of increased credibility and support currently enjoyed by other modes, such as cycling. At the same time, and perhaps most importantly, they hope that they will also increase public interest in journey sharing as a realistic, safe and desirable mode of travel.

Stakeholders are invited to present their views and comments on this report at an open consultation event on Thursday 25th April 2013 at Google Campus, London. Visit www.carplus.org.uk for further details and to book.

Alternatively, written comments can be sent to Justine Hart, Strategy and Research Manager, Carplus [email protected]


8

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.carplus.org.uk/

4. Executive Summary

4.1. This report favours the establishment of an independent standards body for the journey sharing sector. Such a body could enhance the potential market for journey sharing by creating greater confidence in the sector and its ability to deliver value for money. It could also provide a stronger platform to promote the benefits of “2+ car sharing”.

4.2. A standards body could adopt a form of accreditation for service providers, recognised by commissioning bodies. Secondly it could provide a framework through which stakeholders and service providers set common standards to ensure that data collected is interpreted in a consistent way and leads to effective monitoring.

4.3. We propose that a new body should establish a recognized 2+ brand that can be adopted in signage and in marketing communications. It should campaign for better, more visible incentives in parking and road space allocation for journey sharers. Other recommendations will cover promoting innovation and ensuring best practice in user safeguards.

4.4. We believe that through establishing an agreed platform, the sector will be better placed to secure a growth in support for journey sharing activities and policies. As the effects of the recession and rising energy costs impact on the cost of commuting and discretionary travel, this sector can make a greater contribution to mobility.

4.5. The report - the results of consultations and research by the Ride Share Working Group - will initially be reviewed by a meeting of “car share” (journey sharing) service providers and commissioning bodies on 25th April 2013 at Google Campus, London. It will consider the potential obstacles to setting up an industry body to promote the benefits of wider adoption of 2+ incentives. Visit the Carplus web site for more information and to book to attend this event www.carplus.org.uk/news-and-events/events-programme/

4.6. Stakeholders can also submit written comments and views about the report and its proposals by e-mailing them to Justine Hart, Strategy and Research Manager at [email protected]

4.7. Stakeholders are also invited to take part in a second round of online surveys which can be accessed via the Carplus web site www.carplus.org.uk/our-work/ride-share-working-group-2/


9

http://www.carplus.org.uk/our-work/ride-share-working-group-2/



http://www.carplus.org.uk/news-and-events/events-programme/

http://www.carplus.org.uk/news-and-events/events-programme/

4.8. The deadline for written comments and to complete the survey is 6th May 2013. All feedback received will be collated and taken forward to inform a final version of this report scheduled for publication in Summer 2013.

4.9. The Ride Share Working Group, which includes Carplus board members, service providers and representatives of ACT Travelwise and Ways2Work, was established by sustainable transport NGO Carplus after its AGM in October 2012.


10

5. Findings

5.1. What is clear when comparing the findings from previously published studies about journey sharing with the data and intelligence gathered for this report is that whilst the specifics vary, there is widespread agreement about the broad areas for sector development amongst commissioning bodies, service providers and end users alike.

5.2. These areas for development are:

Data collection, monitoring and reporting

The operational practices of service providers, which includes

- Privacy and security of client and end user data

- Safeguards for end users

- Inter-operability of journey sharing schemes

Raising the profile of journey sharing and the 2+ agenda, including the use of universal terminology and branding

Planning and infrastructure opportunities

The findings of this report are presented under these areas.

Data collection, monitoring and reporting

5.3. Monitoring journey sharing schemes is essential to establish whether targets are being met and value for money is being achieved in order to maintain funding streams and high-level support. It is also important to scheme management, for example, evaluating the success of marketing and promotion initiatives or assessing the provision of existing supporting infrastructure and providing evidence for the introduction of further measures. Not least it allows scheme administrators to ascertain which registered users are still actively sharing or looking to share and which have stopped, been unable to find a share or have left the scheme.

5.4. The findings of this report and previously published studies indicate that there are concerns about the reliability of some monitoring practices and the reported results because of the nature of the data available and used for analysis. The most notable concern raised is that the impact and success of journey sharing schemes is largely measured using membership numbers (which can include inactive as well as active members), the number of viable matches returned and the number of ‘contacts’ made between sharers.


11

5.5. A principal reason why these measurements may be used as benchmarks is that they are often the only data readily available from service providers for analysis. This would not be a problem if these benchmarks were the ones that everyone in the sector agreed defined a successful scheme per se. However, this does not appear to be the case. Emissions reductions, financial cost savings, reduced congestion and decreases in private annual mileage are viewed as fundamental evidence by many, including the Department for Transport (DfT) and Transport for London (TfL).

5.6. Whilst the findings of this report suggest that the sector would not necessarily disagree with this, the issue arises where the ‘evidence’ of these impacts is calculated and reported using membership numbers, matches and contacts made. The argument is that it is not possible to substantiate these impacts using these benchmarks as they do not provide the baseline data required – i.e. the actual number of shared journeys that have taken place, and so the actual number of journeys saved. Instead, where these benchmarks are used in this way, the resulting reported figures sometimes give an overestimated account of the impact of journey sharing. This has a negative effect on the credibility of journey sharing as a sustainable mode of travel.

5.7. However, methods of recording more accurate, actual journey data are perceived to be problematic, especially those that would require users to self-report shared journeys completed as these are deemed unreliable. The type of scheme also dictates how easily data can be collected – more controlled measurement is possible in a closed, corporate scheme, for example, but in open, area-based schemes, it would be extremely difficult.

5.8. If it was not possible to establish a reliable and accurate method of collecting actual trip data, a validated, uniform sampling approach may need to be considered that would ascertain assumed levels of journey sharing for analysis. Furthermore, for this approach to be widely accepted by the sector and others scrutinising it, validation by an independent third party would be required. This is not dissimilar to the approach used to undertake the Carplus annual survey of car club members.

5.9. There are significant levels of informal journey sharing taking place that are presently not captured through any data collection process. It is widely believed that informal journey sharing arrangements are buoyant and account for the bulk of journeys shared over journeys undertaken by sharers registered on formal schemes. If this data could be collected, the sector believes that it would provide a stronger evidence base to decision makers and funders of the true level of journey sharing and its contribution to reducing single occupancy vehicles (SOVs). This could then potentially lead onto more support for the provision of funding and infrastructure to facilitate greater uptake of journey sharing.


12

5.10. As part of the research gathering process, Carplus undertook a preliminary round of surveys amongst a small sample of targeted stakeholders. Of the 28 responses received, the satisfaction rates for the statistics and reporting provided to clients by their service providers were as follows:

50% were either satisfied or very satisfied

14% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

18% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied

14% said no statistics or reporting was provided

4% gave no response

5.11. When asked how successful they thought their schemes had been to date:

18% said successful or very successful

50% said partly successful

18% said unsuccessful

14% gave no response

5.12. Respondents were also asked to say whether they thought that they had enough verified data to measure the success of their schemes:

25% said yes

25% said partly

39% said no

11% gave no response

5.13. The point borne out by these limited results is that there seems to be some contradictions about data quality and perceptions of scheme success. Whilst half of respondents seemed satisfied with any statistics and reporting they received from service providers and more perceived that their schemes were largely successful, at the same time there are significant concerns about the amount of verified data available to measure this success.

5.14. Furthermore, methods of measuring success used by respondents were extremely varied and the details vague or unverifiable in some cases. The most commonly used method was ‘total scheme membership number’ followed by:

- total number of matched journeys

- travel surveys


13

- the % of people car sharing as their usual journey mode (no detail given on how this was calculated)

- the total number of ‘active car share journeys’ (not defined)

Other methods quoted were the total number of registered trips, company feedback, car park occupancy rates, ‘word of mouth’, an annual report (no details given) and statistics from the service provider (again no details given as to what these comprised of). Some respondents said success was not measured at all or they did not know if it was.

Conclusion

5.15. What is clear from the findings above is that the criteria for measuring the success of journey sharing schemes is varied, which in turn suggests that members of the sector hold a variety of opinions about what is meant by ‘success’ in relation to journey sharing. This could be because there is uncertainty about what should be measured or because monitoring is restricted by the data available from service providers and systems, especially, though not exclusively, around the rates of informal journey sharing.

5.16. If a consensus about what constitutes credible data and reporting is desired by the sector, it is suggested that the following points are considered:

What are the benchmarks of success?

What data needs to be available and used to report on these successes?

How can this data be reliably and accurately collected?

Who should report on this data i.e. service providers, commissioning bodies

or an independent body?

5.17. If benchmarks and processes can be agreed, this will assist in addressing the situation of using data that is not based on independently verified benchmarks to report on the success of journey sharing schemes. This would also alleviate concerns raised about the content of marketing material used to sell systems to new commissioning bodies, a topic that is considered in more detail later in this report.


14

The operational practices of service providers

5.18. At present there are no nationally recognised standards of operation for journey sharing service providers. This is in contrast to car clubs where a voluntary accreditation scheme exists, overseen by Carplus, to which 100% of commercial car club operators are signed up to. The benefit of having accreditation status is that it demonstrates to all concerned that an operator has achieved an agreed set of standards appropriate to the service they are providing. In the case of car clubs, a significant number of local authorities require car club operators to be accredited before they can bid for their car club tenders.

5.19. In addition, an accreditation scheme can provide an opportunity for collaborative working on data collection and reporting whereby all accredited operators participate in standardised, mutually agreed data collection exercises. This data is then collated, verified and analysed by an independent third party before being published for public use (on an anonymous basis). The outcome is a credible, impartial evidence base that can be used to support the further development of schemes and initiatives.

5.20. The findings of this report highlighted the following as particular operational practices by service providers that may benefit from some form of best practice guidance or accreditation to ensure minimum standards are achieved:

- Privacy and security of client and end user data

5.21. As more personal and corporate data is processed and stored online and threats to its security become more sophisticated, people are increasingly concerned that their information is safe. On the flip side to this is the openness of people to share often very personal information, quite readily, on social media sites such as Facebook andTwitter.

5.22. Published good practice guidance on running journey sharing schemes already emphasises the need to protect user data by ensuring it is stored and used in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. It also advises that users should be informed on registration what will and will not be done with their data. Compulsory registration with the Information Commissioners Office provides an additional level of data regulation.


15

5.23. Feedback from service providers indicates that they have a professional and serious commitment to data security and privacy, using high-security servers and providing in-built filtering capabilities into their matching systems that allow users to stipulate the amount of personal information they are willing to allow other users to view.

5.24. The results of the online stakeholder surveys also show that commissioning bodies rate privacy and security highly amongst the features that their journey sharing service provider provides. ‘User security’ was ranked the 2nd most important feature after usability.

5.25. Challenges that have been put forward include striking a balance between allowing users privacy and successful matching potential. The less information users are willing to share, the more restricted their potential to find a sharing match.

5.26. Also the potential for inter-operability between service providers and schemes – XML feeds can be used to facilitate matches across multiple operators but there is a perceived risk that other service providers picking up the data may not have the hardware and security policies in place to protect users.

Conclusion

5.27. Data security and privacy is, quite rightly, clearly taken very seriously by both service providers and commissioning bodies. The challenge for the sector is finding a way to reconcile opportunities for the expansion of journey sharing matches and schemes with the need to protect users and meet regulatory requirements.

- Safeguarding end users

5.28. Closely aligned with data privacy and security are measures for safeguarding users. As the introduction to this report stated, one of the possible reasons why journey sharing has a lower profile than other mobility solutions is that people harbour real and perceived concerns about personal safety. This is understandable, especially when one considers popular advice in the public arena about not accepting lifts from strangers and the current litigation culture that breeds reluctance for anyone to engage in any kind of activity that may be seen to involve an element of risk. Some of these concerns are a result of a lack of understanding or awareness about certain facts around journey sharing, for example, vehicle insurance implications of giving lifts to people and accepting financial recompense or liabilities in the case of a road traffic collision. However, others are based on very real concerns.


16

5.29. One such concern that the findings of this report has particularly highlighted is that, on the face of it, journey sharing means sharing personal information and a vehicle with an ‘unfamiliar’ person. In closed schemes, this is not as much of an issue, as users of these schemes feel more affinity with other registered users as they share a common link such as an employer or business premises. However, even in closed schemes, users want assurances about the safety of sharers and their vehicles.

5.30. Again, published good practice guidance already outlines basic steps that service providers and commissioning bodies can take to alleviate concerns about personal safety, such as advising users to meet a share in a public place, telling someone they know of their arrangements and to obtain appropriate contact and vehicle identification information that the user can use to verify their matched sharer when they meet up for the first time.

5.31. Advances in technology now provide the means to build in further measures that could help increase public confidence in the safety of journey sharing. These include:

personal and vehicle checks linked to personnel (HR) and DVLA databases

web traffic encryption (including password data and personal information)

e-mail address validation

processes to monitor users, including IP address recoding to track

users if necessary

functionality for users to opt in or out of public journey visibility (where a

closed scheme is linked to an open scheme)

filters to allow users to specify the amount of personal information they

choose to make public and their criteria for a match

online peer rating systems and the ability to aggregate these scores to form a

trust ranking

mobile apps to verify driver license records


17

5.32. Integration with social networks allows online systems to pull through publicly available information from users’ profiles on the relevant social network site. This can help overcome the barrier of unfamiliarity and facilitate matches between users who would not ordinarily have shared by acting as an introduction service. Users can see where each other works, whether they share friends, have similar taste in music or have common interests. However, as always when using social networking sites, there are risks. There are many bogus accounts on such sites so it would be important to use other means of verification before committing to sharing a journey.

5.33. Consideration should also be given to the flexibility of schemes so that users can swap sharing partners easily with no questions asked and the provision of a confidential ‘whistle-blowing’ service for users to report inappropriate user behaviour.

Conclusion

5.34. If concerns about the safety of journey sharing are not to remain a barrier to its expansion, service providers and commissioning bodies need to continue to work hard to educate potential sharers about the measures in place to safeguard them and ensure that this is backed up by online systems that incorporate a full range of safeguarding facilities. They should also take any opportunity to promote how journey sharing can benefit personal safety, for example, in the event of a vehicle breakdown.


18

- Inter-operability

5.35. Inter-operability between journey sharing service providers is a divisive issue with arguments both in favour of and against it. The arguments, and the extent to which they are in favour of inter-operability or not, vary depending on whether they are coming from a service provider’s, commissioning body’s or end user’s point of view.

5.36. The findings of this report imply that the general concept of inter-operability is seen as a positive one because it would provide the best customer experience through:

facilitating better matching rates owing to the wider pool of sharers available

and therefore increasing levels of journey sharing

establishing a competitive marketplace that would drive product and service

improvements amongst service providers

providing consumer choice

5.37. Compareandshare.com is one example of an existing open scheme using an inter-operable system, supported by many of the UK’s journey sharing service providers, which is already bringing these benefits to the market.

5.38. However, feedback received for this report also put forward a number of reservations about inter-operable journey sharing systems. These include:

the security of shared data (personal, trip and payment)

the need for mutually agreed and legally robust terms and conditions

the compatibility of differing web based platforms

the usability of a common system – it would need to be simple and secure for

end users

the accuracy of matching systems

the reliability of data – is it current and correct?

agreeing and developing common branding the cost to set up and maintain an inter-operable system which would likely

be borne by commissioning bodies already struggling to fund existing systems in the current financial climate

the willingness of service providers to co-operate and work together, where


19

they would potentially be sharing commercially sensitive information

5.39. Additionally, certain commissioning bodies that have high-level security requirements, such as banks and military organisations, may be unwilling or unable to share data to facilitate an inter-operable system.

5.40. In more ‘sociable’ contexts, such as where journey sharing is used to travel to festivals and events, open, inter-operable systems are a popular development amongst users. As mentioned earlier, social networking sites are already being used by service providers, particularly those that cater for this part of the market, to introduce sharers that they can then go on to arrange a journey share with through on open, and possibly also inter-operable, scheme.

5.41. Emerging technologies, such as mobile access, feed the trend of ‘on-demand’ services wherever the consumer may be. Predictions within the sector are that journey sharing will not remain primarily in the control of local authorities and employers and will develop into a more widely accessible service that consumers will access when and wherever they want it. A ‘one-stop-shop’, providing quick and simple access and a high matching probability, would suit this purpose making an inter-operable journey sharing system an obvious conclusion.

Conclusion

5.42. Inter-operability provides a great opportunity for the expansion of journey sharing, especially within the contexts of one-off or ad-hoc trips and travelling to events such as concerts and festivals. It is clearly a welcome development for many in the journey sharing sector and they are looking forward to and supporting its future growth.

5.43. Further research and discussion amongst members of the sector is required to reconcile the reservations around inter-operability that have been raised, specifically the detail around the operational standards that service providers collaborating on an inter-operable system should achieve, bearing in mind the idiosyncrasies between different providers, different types of scheme, different software platforms and different regions of operation to name just a few.

- Other operational issues

5.44. Other operational issues that came through in the findings of this report were as follows:


20

5.45. Measuring customer satisfaction (end users) - 86% of respondents to the survey said that neither they nor their service provider measured this. This raises questions about how service providers and commissioning bodies ensure that a journey sharing scheme is meeting the needs of its users and therefore stands any chance of success.

5.46. Contractual arrangements with commissioning bodies around data sharing and intellectual property rights - feedback highlighted that in some cases there have been difficulties with commissioning bodies obtaining data from service providers about their scheme’s users, especially when the commissioning body has switched to another provider.

5.47. The ability to transfer between service providers - it is understood that some commissioning bodies have experienced problems when trying to transfer from one service provider to another due to ‘obstructive’ contractual clauses. An example is where an online system has been set up and the contract stipulates that the commissioning body does not own the rights to their domain name. In some cases, commissioning bodies have not actually been able to obtain copies of contracts to ascertain their rights. Such practices prevent healthy competition between service providers and thus may provide little drive for service providers to improve their products and service. This leaves commissioning bodies with a potentially mediocre journey sharing system and service contract.

5.48. Marketing and promotion by service providers – owing to the issues already discussed in the ‘Data collection, monitoring and reporting’ section of this report, there is evident unease about the content of marketing and promotion material used by service providers to market their schemes. Without accurate, verified data, some of this material might be viewed as misleading and be seen to overplay the expected successes of journey sharing schemes.

5.49. Duty of care - Transport for London has raised concerns about legal liabilities arising from supporting an unregulated industry with no standards or code of conduct applying to public as opposed to corporate schemes. This could, they argue, leave them open to unlimited damages under duty of care rulings.

Overall Conclusions


21

5.50. Taking into account the findings about data from the previous section of this report and the findings of this section, there is a strong case for the establishment of some form of accreditation scheme or code of practice for journey sharing service providers overseen by an independent body.

5.51. Such a scheme could help to provide a level playing field for service providers, encouraging healthy competition to drive product and service quality and innovation, as well as a quality assurance mechanism for commissioning bodies. It could also improve public confidence in the safety of schemes and thus increase the uptake of journey sharing. Uniting members of the journey sharing sector would add strength to the cause and its development. An independent industry voice would also provide an impartial view of the economic, social and environmental benefits of journey sharing that is more likely to be listened to by policy makers, especially if it also oversaw the data process to evidence these benefits.

Raising the profile of journey sharing and the 2+ agenda

5.52. At present, journey sharing does not seem to enjoy the same profile levels as other transport modes in the UK. A low level of public awareness has already been mentioned as one possible reason, with branding and terminology perhaps being two of the fundamental aspects that underpin this.

- Branding

5.53. There is currently no universal brand for journey sharing that everyone identifies with the sector, unlike other transport related areas, such as road safety, where the ‘Think!’ brand is now widely known and associated with the subject. Standardised, DfT approved signage to identify journey sharing parking bays, HOV lanes and other infrastructural measures would provide a visible and commonly recognised brand that could also be adopted for use in marketing communications. The ‘2+’ sign is an often quoted candidate and is already in use in some areas of the UK where there are HOV lanes.

5.54. However, a point made in the findings of this report to bear in mind is that some commissioning bodies prefer to brand schemes with corporate branding to show that they are part of a wider internal programme of initiatives. The end users of these schemes can also show a greater preference for using them as they perceive an association with the brand and therefore place greater trust in it. On a more commercial point, commissioning bodies can be reluctant to effectively fund the promotion of a service provider at their expense.


22

- Terminology

5.55. In the UK, journey sharing is most commonly referred to as ‘car sharing’ or ‘lift sharing’. In the rest of the world, notably Europe and North America, ‘car sharing’ refers to car clubs whilst journey sharing is called ‘ride sharing’, ‘lift giving’ or ‘car / van pooling’. This discrepancy between terms can cause confusion when trying to discuss journey sharing at an international level and highlights a lack of unity within the sector. The RSWG have purported the use of the term ‘journey sharing’ to describe car sharing during the course of their review in a bid to move away from the ambiguity of the latter term.

5.56. As part of the online stakeholder survey, respondents were asked to rate different terms to describe journey sharing in order of preference. The choices given were:

Car pooling Lift sharing Ride sharing Car sharing Journey sharing

Respondents rated each term on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 being the most preferred and being the least preferred).

5.57. The results from all 3 surveys, based on the proportion of 1st choice responses, were as follows:

Car sharing (46%)

Lift sharing (25%)

Journey sharing (14%)

Car pooling* (4%)

Ride sharing* (4%)

7% did not give any preferences


23

*Car pooling and ride sharing scored equally within the 1st choice category so 2nd

choice votes were also taken into account to determine the final ranking of these 2 terms.

5.58. Respondents to the area-based scheme survey were particularly in favour of the term ‘car sharing’. Some had experimented with calling it other things but reverted back to using car sharing when people did not understand what they meant. They also raised the issue of scheme and merchandise branding that referred to ‘car sharing’ in some way or other and that to change would bring unwelcome costs both financially and in terms of additional workload.

5.59. Respondents to the festival and corporate surveys were more divided although overall ‘car sharing’ did just gain the most 1st choice votes across the two surveys. However they were more open to the use of other terms. One festival respondent highlighted a particular preference for the term ‘lift sharing’ as they thought that this best described the concept of a ‘one time only’ arrangement. This would make sense in the context of journey sharing and festivals as ‘one-off’ events as opposed to area-based or corporate schemes where journey sharing is intended to be a more regular arrangement.

- Other issues

5.60. An additional element that would assist in raising the profile of journey sharing is making best use of current policy trends within transport. The Local Sustainable Transport Fund ‘Smarter Choices’ agenda places significant emphasis on the use of sustainable travel modes to enable access to education and employment. Journey sharing is an obvious mode that could well be promoted by local authorities through colleges, job centres and employers.

Conclusion

5.61. A universal brand for the journey sharing sector that could be used on signage and marketing literature would be a very visible way to raise its public profile. However, the concept would need to be sold to the corporate sector, as well as local authorities and central government, so as to overcome any sensitivity around corporate / commercial branding and highways signage regulations.


24

5.62. In respect of terminology, car sharing remains the most preferred term for use in the UK. It is what commissioning bodies, service providers and end users are used to and understand. It is also well-established on journey sharing scheme branding and promotional materials. To change would incur costs both in terms of time and money and would require a strong commitment and will amongst the sector to change its mind set and to educate the wider public.

5.63. There is a case for other terms depending on the context of the ‘share’ but this would only add to the original problem of the disparity of terminology in use. An additional point of interest is the established ‘National Liftshare Day’ and ‘Liftshare Week’ held in October every year as an opportunity to promote journey sharing. These seem widely supported, particularly by area-based schemes, in spite of the fact that they do not have ‘car share’ in their titles.

5.64. Therefore the issue around terminology remains and requires further discussion to determine whether the UK can or wishes to change the status quo.

Planning and infrastructure


25

5.65. The building of new developments and highway infrastructure can play a fundamental role in helping to increase uptake of journey sharing as a realistic, convenient and attractive mode of travel. People can be ‘guided’ towards journey sharing by their physical environment, be that where they live, work or spend their leisure time. For example, providing less private car parking and more ‘2+ car parking’ spaces in new developments as part of planning agreements or as part of work-base relocation measures; providing priority parking spaces in prime convenient locations at workplaces, transport hubs and leisure destinations or the installation of 2+ / HOV lanes in well-known congestion hot spots.

5.66. The findings of this report confirm that priority car parking is already a well-established and effective incentive for corporate and area-based schemes in the workplace or in privately owned settings. However, there is little evidence that it is used more widely. One suggested reason for this is the restrictive nature of local authority parking policies. It is a similar story for the installation of 2+ lanes where current highways guidance, regulations and allocated funding are seen as prohibitive towards changing the priority of road space to favour journey sharers, cyclists and public transport as opposed to SOVs.

Conclusion

5.67. The built-environment can be used to facilitate higher levels of journey sharing providing the support mechanisms are there to enable it to happen. This would include 2+ parking at transport hubs, workplaces and venues becoming more of an automatic consideration during the planning process. Planning policies, local transport plans, parking policies and highways guidance are key places to start by looking at how these could be relaxed or developed to be more supportive of such infrastructural measures. The challenge for the journey sharing sector is to consider how it can best position itself to influence the decision-makers that have the power to make these policy changes.

The future of Journey Sharing – the culture of collaborative consumption

5.68. The world is changing. People are moving away from a need to physically and exclusively ‘own’ things in favour of using and sharing on an as and when basis. This ‘Collaborative Consumption’ culture lends itself well to achieving sustainable travel objectives as long as the transport sector embraces it through how it shapes and provides mobility solutions, including journey sharing.


26

5.69. As suggested earlier in this report, the signs are that the majority of journey sharing schemes will not be in the control of local authorities and employers. Instead it will become a more ‘public’ service where users will dip in and out at will without having to be members of a particular scheme or employed by a particular company.

5.70. Collaborative consumption is being made possible by social networks and new mobile technologies. Facebook and other social networking sites are already facilitating more open and expansive journey sharing by helping to instil trust between potential sharers. Similarly, service providers are providing the facility for users to submit online reviews and ratings about drivers and passengers they’ve shared with. This latter development is being taken further through moves to create ‘online reputation scores’ where people are given an overall recommendation profile based on the aggregation of reviews and ratings they have received from other web sites, for example, e-Bay. This will allow users to make informed decisions about sharing preferences even when a user has no history specifically on the journey sharing scheme’s web site.

5.71. Real-time information and mobile web mapping provides a ready platform for sharers to access journey sharing in the same ‘on-demand’ way that they would use other public transport modes. This innovation will provide new opportunities to expand the range of journey sharing activities and models. It may also present some challenges, particularly for regulatory authorities and existing public transport providers. An example is the current debate in San Francisco about ‘Lyft’ and ‘SideCar ’as people begin to use their mobile apps to access “lift sharing” services that compete with regulated taxis. The San Francisco Sharing Economy Working Group, which includes representatives from Airbnb and Getaround, are assisting the local authority to find a way forward that will allow innovation to thrive whilst also remaining commercially transparent and protective to end users.

Conclusion

5.72. Evidence seems to suggest that once users have embraced one aspect of the sharing economy, they will likely try others. The high growth in collaborative consumption oriented companies - such as Airbnb, who are an online platform for hosts to rent out their spare room or whole house for short periods when they are not using it themselves – points towards there being a promising future ahead for the sharing culture. The challenge for the journey sharing, and indeed the wider transport sector, is how to balance the opportunities it presents for innovation and improving the way we travel with the need to retain a marketplace where existing public transport providers can fairly compete and thrive and that has public safety at its heart.


27

6. Draft Proposals

6.1. The following proposals have emerged from the Ride Share Working Group’s deliberations, from the submissions received and the research findings.

6.2. To address the issues that have arisen and to meet the challenge of the potential market for “2+ car sharing”, the Ride Share Working Group proposes:

6.2.1 - development of a framework through which stakeholders and service providers can set common standards about data collection and monitoring and safeguards

6.2.2 - establishment of a requirement for schemes that are awarded public money to be subject to an effective evaluation process

6.2.3 - establishment of an independent standards body for the 2+ sector which would manage a form of accreditation / code of practice for service providers, recognised by commissioning bodies

6.2.4 - promote innovation through encouraging new models, emerging technologies and inter-operability between service providers and with other mobility and communications services

6.2.5 - lobbying for better recognition by government and devolved governments and supportive policies, particularly on transport and planning; by employers, employer organisations, event organisers and parking managers to achieve improved incentives for journey sharers

6.2.6 - development of a recognised 2+ brand that can be adopted in street signage, off-street parking signage and in marketing communications.

6.3. The Group believes that through the achievement of these key developments the sector will secure a growth in support for 2+ activities and policies, which as the effects of the recession and the rise in energy costs increasingly impacts on the cost of commuting and curtails discretionary travel, will ensure it becomes more of a mainstream contributor to mobility.


28

7. Appendices

Appendix 1 – Ride Share Working Group Terms of Reference

Ride Share Working Group: Aims & Process of EngagementDecember 2012

Aims of the Group

The Ride Share Working Group will act as an informal advisory body to the Carplus Board. Its recommendations will be directed at Carplus, service providers and other stakeholders for their consideration.

Its aims will be to benefit those that commission and use ride sharing services. It will set out to

1. develop recommendations for robust and consistent standards of reporting ridesharing activity by service providers

2. develop guidelines for commissioning partners responsible for public and closed schemes

3. develop good practice guidelines to ensure safeguards on privacy and confidentiality are in place

4. identify opportunities for promoting inter-operability between providers 5. recommend a framework for reporting (at least annually) that presents the

activity of the sector and avoids explicit reference to particular service providers

The working group will also consider the possible implementation and resourcing of a sector initiative that provides advocacy, and promotes standards on 2+ and Ride Sharing (sometimes known as Car Sharing) that involves commissioning bodies, service providers and other stakeholders.


29

Submissions Process

Interested organisations and individuals will be invited to submit contributions to the process in writing. A set of questions will be available by mid-December to make this process simpler.

Alternatively selected organisations may wish to apply to give a presentation to the Working Group.

All interested parties may contribute through participating in the consultation meeting convened to discuss the draft report in April 2013.

Reporting

A draft report will be produced reflecting (and if appropriate including) contributions from all interested parties. This report will be submitted to a round table consultation in April 2013 and will be published in June 2013.

Meetings

The Ride Share Working Group will meet face-to-face in at least 2 meetings between February and April 2013 and hold 1 round-table to consult on the draft report. These meetings are likely to be held in London but the venue will be advised on arrangement. Interim telephone conferences will be held as required.

Please submit comments, contributions or expressions of interest to:

Justine Hart, Strategy & Research Manager, [email protected] 234 9299


30


Appendix 2 – Methodology

The proposals within this report have been drafted as a result of stakeholder consultation and a desktop review of existing research about journey sharing schemes. Without any earmarked funding for the work of the RSWG, including the compilation of this report, the amount of time spent on background research has been limited. However, what has been undertaken has been done as diligently as possible and efforts have been made to be inclusive and to reflect written and verbal contributions made.

Stakeholder Consultation – further details

Method 1 - Invitation to stakeholders to submit written contributions to the interim report via a submissions pro forma (see Appendix 3) or open letter. This invitation was issued to stakeholders from the Carplus and ACT Travelwise memberships via their organisations’ respective web sites and other communications media including newsletters and direct e-mail. Members of the RSWG also issued invitations to appropriate contacts. Invitees included:

UK local authorities UK regional transport partnerships Journey sharing service providers Consultants Corporate organisations

Further invitations were issued by the representatives of the other organisations on the RSWG to their contacts, including private and third-sector contacts.

Method 2 – Preliminary round of online surveys using Survey Monkey that targeted a select sample of stakeholders involved with open and closed area-based, corporate and festival schemes. A second round of this survey is taking place between 10th April and 6th May. This will provide the opportunity to gather further intelligence from stakeholders who did not participate in the first round and, after reading the interim report and / or attending the consultation event, wish to submit a response for consideration and inclusion in the final report. To take part in the second round of surveys, go to www.carplus.org.uk/our-work/ride-share-working-group-2/ and click on the link to the appropriate survey.

Desktop Research – further details

Published studies on journey sharing are not in plentiful supply and those that exist are mostly about area-based schemes run by local authorities. However, those that have relevance to the purpose of this report have been referred to as appropriate. Special thanks are conveyed to Jon Parker from ITP for his presentation to the RSWG on the report ‘Regional Rural Car Share Feasibility Study – Final Report’, undertaken by his team in 2010 for the Yorkshire and Humber Rural Access to Opportunities Programme.


31


Appendix 3 – Submissions pro forma

Ride Sharing Working Group Submissions Pro Forma

Thank you for your interest in making a written contribution to the Ride Sharing Working Group’s draft report on data collection and safeguarding issues in the ride sharing sector. There are 2 ways that you can make your submission:

1. By completing the pro forma below2. By open letter using the pro forma questions as a template or prompt

Please submit your completed pro forma or open letter response to:

Justine Hart, Strategy and Research managerCarplusLeeds Bridge HouseHunslet RoadLeeds, LS10 1JN

E: [email protected]: 0113 234 9299

Submissions to be received by Friday 1 st March 2013.

Contact name:

Name of Organisation:

Contact e-mail address:

Contact telephone number:


32


What is your experience of the ride sharing sector and 2+ lanes?

What are your views on current methods of data collection about ride sharing?

What do you think should be measured when collecting data about ride sharing?


33

What are your views on safeguarding ride share users, specifically privacy and confidentiality of information?

What are your views on developing opportunities for inter-operability between ride share providers?Advantages, disadvantages, challenges?

Do you have any further views on raising the profile of the ride sharing and 2+ lane / parking agenda?

Any further comments on the Terms of Reference of the Ride Sharing Working Group?


34

Any further comments?

Appendix 4 – Online stakeholder survey – area-based schemes

To view a PDF copy of the survey, go to www.carplus.org.uk/our-work/ride-share-working-group-2/

Appendix 5 – Online stakeholder survey – corporate schemes


Appendix 6 – Online stakeholder survey – festival schemes



35







8. References Department for Transport, 2004, ‘Making Car Sharing and Car Clubs Work – Final Report’

(compiled by Integrated Transport Planning) http://www.acttravelwise.org/uploads/docs/DfT-MakingCarSharingandCarClubsWork-FinalReport.pdf

Department for Transport, 2005, ‘Making Car Sharing and Car Clubs Work – A Good Practice Guide’ http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/makingcarsharingmarch2005.pdf

US Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration, 2010, ‘Ridesharing Options Analysis and Practitioners’ Toolkit’http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/RidesharingOptions_Toolkit.pdf

Integrated Transport Planning, 2010, ‘Yorkshire and Humber Rural Access to Opportunities Programme, Regional Rural Car Share Feasibility Study – Final Report’Retrieved from http://www.liftshare.com/business/pdfs/yorkshire%20&%20humber%20regional%20rural%20car%20share%20feasibility%20study%20final%20report.pdf

Cairns S, Sloman L, Newson C, Anable J, Kirkbride A & Goodwin, P, 2004 ‘Smarter Choices – Changing the Way We Travel’https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smarter-choices-main-report-about-changing-the-way-we-travel

Boyce, L (2012, November 22). ‘Offering a lift from Oxford to London for £7 saved me money’: Could car sharing finally be about to take-off and slash your travel costs? Retrieved from http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2236441/Could-car-sharing-websites-slash-travel-costs.html

Lechner, E (2013, February 28). The New Faces of Car-Sharing. Mobility Magazine # 22 Retrieved from https://www.liftshare.com/download/the%20new%20faces.pdf

Geron, T (2012, July 9). Will Ride-Sharing Apps Replace Car Ownership? Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/07/09/will-ride-sharing-apps-replace-car-ownership/2/


36

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/07/09/will-ride-sharing-apps-replace-car-ownership/2/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/07/09/will-ride-sharing-apps-replace-car-ownership/2/

https://www.liftshare.com/download/the%20new%20faces.pdf

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2236441/Could-car-sharing-websites-slash-travel-costs.html

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2236441/Could-car-sharing-websites-slash-travel-costs.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smarter-choices-main-report-about-changing-the-way-we-travel

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smarter-choices-main-report-about-changing-the-way-we-travel

http://www.liftshare.com/business/pdfs/yorkshire%20&%20humber%20regional%20rural%20car%20share%20feasibility%20study%20final%20report.pdf

http://www.liftshare.com/business/pdfs/yorkshire%20&%20humber%20regional%20rural%20car%20share%20feasibility%20study%20final%20report.pdf

http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/RidesharingOptions_Toolkit.pdf

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/makingcarsharingmarch2005.pdf

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/makingcarsharingmarch2005.pdf

http://www.acttravelwise.org/uploads/docs/DfT-MakingCarSharingandCarClubsWork-FinalReport.pdf

http://www.acttravelwise.org/uploads/docs/DfT-MakingCarSharingandCarClubsWork-FinalReport.pdf

Date post:	31-Jan-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lyxuyen
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Carplus guidance on EVs and car clubs - Web view8 ‘Where is 2+ car sharing headed?’...

Documents