Transportation

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 349–376 | Cite as

The rise and fall of the American carpool: 1970–1990

  • Erik Ferguson
Article

Abstract

Recent declines in carpooling among American commuters are analyzed using data derived from the US Census of Population, the Nationwide Personal Transportation Study, and the American Home Survey. The most important factors associated with recent declines in carpooling to and from work in the US include increasing household vehicle availability, falling real marginal fuel costs, and higher average educational attainments among commuters. Age, sex, family income, household lifecycle characteristics, urban form, racial diversity and relative poverty appear to have had smaller effects on observed changes in carpooling for the work trip.

carpools education family income fuel economy gasoline prices vehicle availability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brunso J, Kocis M & Ugolik W (1979) Factors Affecting Ridesharing Behavior.Preliminary Research Report 165, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Cervero R & Griesenbeck B (1988) Factors influencing commuting choices in suburban labor markets: a case analysis of Pleasanton, California. Transportation Research A22: 151-161.Google Scholar
  3. Daniels PW (1981) Vehicle sharing for the journey to work by office workers. Transportation Research A15: 391-398.Google Scholar
  4. Dasgupta M, Frost M & Spence N (1985) Interaction between urban form and mode choice for the work journey: Manchester/Sheffield 1971-1981. Regional Studies 19: 315-328.Google Scholar
  5. Davis FW (1975) Ride Sharing and the Knoxville Commuter, final report to the US Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Affairs, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. Edmondson B & Jacobsen L (1993) The lonely road. American Demographics 79(4): 63.Google Scholar
  7. Edmondson B (1993) Demographics and market definition. Resource Papers for the Symposium on TDM Innovation and Research: Setting a Strategic Agenda for the Future, Washington, DC, November.Google Scholar
  8. Ferguson E (1985) The Benefits and Costs of Ridesharing to Employers.Los Angeles, California: Commuter Transportation Services, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Ferguson E (1986) A Conceptual Cost Model of Employer-Based Ridesharing Programs. Los Angeles, California: Commuter Transportation Services.Google Scholar
  10. Ferguson E (1990a) An evaluation of employer ridesharing programs in Southern California. Transportation Research Record 1280: 59-72.Google Scholar
  11. Ferguson E (1990b) The influence of employer ridesharing programs on employee mode choice. Transportation 17: 179-207.Google Scholar
  12. Ferguson E (1991a) The influence of household composition on residential location and journey to work in the United States. Presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January.Google Scholar
  13. Ferguson E (1991b) Ridesharing, firm size and urban form. Journal of Planning Education and Research 10(2): 131-141.Google Scholar
  14. Ferguson E (1994) Recent declines in carpooling. 1990 NPTS Draft Special Report, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, Volume I, pp. 61-130, April.Google Scholar
  15. Ferguson E (1995) The demographics of carpooling. Transportation Research Record 1496: 142-150.Google Scholar
  16. Gensch DH (1981) A practical segmentation strategy to increase ride sharing. Transportation Research A15: 331-337.Google Scholar
  17. Hanson S & Johnston I (1985) Gender differences in work-trip length: explanations and implications. Urban Geography 6: 193-219.Google Scholar
  18. Hartgen D (1977) Ridesharing Behavior: A Review of Recent Findings. Preliminary Research Report 130, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Hartgen D & Bullard K (1993) What has happened to carpooling: trends in North Carolina, 1980 to 1990. Transportation Research Record 1390: 50-59.Google Scholar
  20. Hoffman CM & Beck RJ (1983) A sensitivity analysis of commuting patterns: an occupational comparison. The Review of Regional Studies 13: 26-30.Google Scholar
  21. Horowitz A & Sheth J (1978) Ride sharing to work: an attitudinal analysis. Transportation Research Record 637: 1-8.Google Scholar
  22. Hu PS and Young J (1992) Summary of Travel Trends: 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. Report No. FHWA-PL-92-027, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, March.Google Scholar
  23. Lee LW (1984) The economics of carpools. Economic Inquiry 22: 128-135.Google Scholar
  24. Madden JF (1981) Why women work closer to home. Urban Studies 18: 181-194.Google Scholar
  25. Margolin JB, Misch MR & Stahr M (1978) Incentives and disincentives of ridesharing. Transportation Research Record 673: 7-15.Google Scholar
  26. Matthews R (1993) Carpooling trends in Georgia: 1980 to 1990. Unpublished seminar paper, CP 6830, Urban Transportation Planning and Policy Analysis, Graduate City Planning Program, Georgia Institute of Technology, June.Google Scholar
  27. Michaelson W (1985) From Sun to Sun: Daily Obligations and Community Structure in the Lives of Employed Women and their Families. New Jersey: Rowman & Allenheld, Totowa.Google Scholar
  28. Oppenheim N (1979) Carpooling: problems and potentials. Traffic Quarterly 33: 253-262.Google Scholar
  29. Orski CK (1985) Suburban mobility: the coming urban transportation crisis? Transportation Quarterly 39(3): 283-296.Google Scholar
  30. Orski CK (1987) Can we manage our way out of traffic congestion? Transportation Quarterly 41(4): 457-476.Google Scholar
  31. Orski CK (1994) Why do commuters drive alone? Innovation Briefs 5(3): 1-3.Google Scholar
  32. Pisarski AE (1987) Commuting in America.Westport, Connecticut: Eno Foundation for Transportation, Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Pisarski AE (1992) Travel Behavior Issues in the 90's. US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  34. Richardson AJ & Young W (1982) The spatial structure of carpool formation. Presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board held in Washington, DC, January.Google Scholar
  35. Rosenbloom S & Burns E (1993) Gender differences in commuter travel in Tucson: implications for travel demand management programs. Transportation Research Record 1404: 82-90.Google Scholar
  36. Singell LD & Lillydahl JH (1986) An empirical analysis of the commute to work patterns of males and females in two-earner households. Urban Studies 2: 119-129.Google Scholar
  37. Teal RF (1987) Carpooling: who, how and why. Transportation Research A21: 203-214.Google Scholar
  38. Tischer ML & Dobson R (1979) An empirical analysis of behavioral intentions of single-occupant auto drivers to shift to high occupancy vehicles. Transportation Research A13: 143-158.Google Scholar
  39. Voorhees AM and Associates (1974) Transportation Pooling, final report to the US Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Ferguson
    • 1
  1. 1.Erik T. Ferguson & AssociatesDunwoodyUSA

Personalised recommendations