Pool a car, save money

Press, 15 June 1978, Page 17

Pool a car, save money

The progress of the Auckland carpool is being watched with close interest by all metropolitan areas. OLIVER RIDDELL looks at the scheme and a brochure published by the Auckland Joint Carpool Committee setting out the concepts behind it.

Carpool schemes for city commuters are starting up in many countries in the western world where cities have spread and been shaped under the allpervading influence of the private motorcar. They are seen as a means of reducing congestion on roads and in downtown parking spaces, of conserving scarce and expensive petrol, and of reducing travelling costs for everyone. A carpool scheme was launched in Auckland earlier this year as a fourmonth trial. It serves workers travelling via the Harbour Bridge between the East Coasts Bays and North Shore to the downtown city area. The scheme has not been without its critics. The Bus Drivers’ Union claimed it would take passengers away from their services, which were already running at less than 75 per cent capacity, and

so jeopardise their jobs. Commercial interests on the North Shore sought, instead, new plans to relocate offices and industry on their side of the water to reduce transbridge commuting. More than 600 free carparking spaces were made available by the Auckland City Council; the Government made a $70,000 grant; the Auckland Harbour Bridge Authority agreed to forgo toil charges for carpool vehicles. With this kind of support, the carpool has got off to a flying start. Carpools are intended to make more efficient use erf existing facilities — vehicles, roads, and parking — without needing extra money or more equipment. Average vehicle occupancy in Auckland for work trips is estimated to be only 1.3 people per car — both expensive and inefficient for all concerned. It has been estimated that by increasing this figure

to two people per car, the number of cars cm the road at peak periods would be reduced by 30 per cent. Three people per car would bring a 50 per cent reduction. This saves the motorist money, Motoring costs are about 14 cents per kilometre for a smaller car and 20 cents per kilometre for a larger car. A daily run to work of 30 km (going and coming) multiplied by 21 (the average number of working days a month) gives a monthly cost of taking the car to work of $141.12 for a large car and $88.20 for a small one. Added to this figure must be such extras as bridge tolls (in Auckland) or tunnel tolls in (Christchurch). Then there are parking costs, if the employer does not provide a free one worth about another $3O a month if permanent, or $5O a month if casual. Heavy costs of this kind

are making carpools more attractive. The person providing the car for the pool can recover his or her costs — and cost recovery is not subject to tax. In Auckland, passenger fares have been set on bus zones. Fares are paid by cash each day like a bus fare, to avoid potential embarrassment. Carpooling does not affect either insurance cover or vehicle registration. An incidental benefit of carpooling is meeting congenial people, from similar backgrounds or with similar interests. This is where Auckland’s matching • system is important. The joint committee sent a questionnaire to those expressing interest. It matches all respondents’ origins, destinations, and time of travel, to put together people in the same neighbourhoods. The question of whose car is used is left to the preference of those in a matched pool. They may

agree to use one car continually, or rotate daily or weekly, or any system that suits them. Some members of the pool need not even own a car. Carpoolers can obtain a months’ supply of freeparking coupons. They must be presented with the parking docket to attendants when leaving the building, and drivers have to be in the park before 9 a.m. to claim free space. A minimum of three people, including the driver, must be in the daily carpool to qualify for free carpool parking. The joint committee has established “pick up and pay” stops. Drivers watch for passengers flagging them at these stops, but they must not wait at them in the hope of obtaining passengers because they are in clearway zones. But carpools may make their own arrangements about picking up passengers if a permanent local

pool cannot be established. The “pick up and pay” stops are only for carpool drivers with empty space. Drivers of such cars can obtain a special card which, clipped to their sunvisor, shows their destination. As carpools have many aspects in common with public transport, it is open to question whether they take business from expensive public transport facilities. The authorities in Auckland consider this risk worth taking to reduce car numbers. In fact, carpools are a compromise between the convenience of individualprivate transport and the cheapness of public transport, members of a carpool do not have to wait in the rain while full buses roll by, or have their movements disrupted by industrial action. On the other hand they do not have the expense of taking their own car to work every day.

The Christchurch City Council traffic engineeer (Mr M. L. Gadd) has not seen official results of the North Shore experiment, but he has “heard that it was a fizzer.” That did not mean he was not interested in the idea. He thought that a University of Canterbury group might be willing to study travel desires in a single area of the city, such as Sumner, and determine how those desires to travel to the city centre at certain times could be coupled with persons actually going there in private cars at similar times. Such a study could show how many cars would be left at home, and how many fewer persons might use public transport. Even if the Auckland experiment has not been very successful, it has been “a noble effort,” he says.