National Academies Press: OpenBook

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds (2005)

Chapter: Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing

« Previous: Chapter 3 - Market Analysis
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 134

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-1 CHapter 4. ImpaCtS of Car-SHarIng 4.1 Introduction The chair of the UK government’s advisory body, the Commission for Integrated Transport, has called car-sharing a “mode without a downside,”1 and car-sharing proponents have identified a number of public benefits that can be produced by car-sharing. These range from environmental benefits, such as reduced vehicle travel, to social impacts such as increased mobility for low-income households. Exhibit 4-1 summarizes the potential benefits from car-sharing. This chapter discusses each in turn, and analyzes the extent to which the benefit has been confirmed by empirical evidence – both from previous research, and from the member survey and focus groups conducted as part of this research. While there is a considerable body of existing empirical research on the impacts of car-sharing, much of it, with some notable exceptions, is disappointing in quality, or conducted by operators themselves or other advocates with a strong interest in promoting car-sharing. Sample sizes are often small, and in-depth research is often conducted early in the program’s history, meaning that the behavior of early adopters may not reflect that of members in later years. Many studies – particularly those conducted by operators – are not published in full, with only a summary “fact sheet” released. Meanwhile, many car-sharing members are themselves evangelists for the concept – a particular problem where the methodology relies on respondents to predict how they would have behaved in the absence of the car-shar- ing program, for example if they would have bought a car. Having said that, there is remarkable consistency between the ma- jority of studies regarding the overall impacts of car-sharing, if not their precise magnitude. There is general agreement that car-sharing reduces vehicle travel and vehicle ownership, and while the extent of these benefits is still in doubt, this is likely as much due to local circumstances – both geographic and the nature of the car-sharing program – as to research design. 1. Professor David Begg, cited in Cousins (2001).

September 2005 Page 4-2 Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng Exhibit 4-1 Potential Benefits of Car-Sharing

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-3 Another way of understanding the impacts of car-sharing is to consider “layered” benefits (Exhibit 4-2). The first layer relates to benefits to the individual household or business member. The second layer consists of transportation system impacts, while the third considers the wider envi- ronmental and community benefits, which are often the desired outcomes. As this chapter will show, and Exhibit 4-2 indicates, the best data on the impacts of car-sharing exist at the individual level. While the gains at the environment and community level are substantially greater, they are not as well understood at present. Exhibit 4-2 Layered Benefits of Car-Sharing This chapter assesses a number of actual and potential environmental, eco- nomic, and social impacts of car-sharing. Does car-sharing eliminate second and third vehicle purchases per household? Many car-sharing companies make substantial claims in this area (from 4 to 10 fewer vehicles on the road for each one car-shared vehicle). This could be one factor in calculating reduced vehicle trips in a metropolitan area, leading to the environmental benefits mentioned above regarding increased public transit usage. How does use of car-sharing services change the number and type of auto trips? Do car-sharing members make more effective use of transportation Individual/ Business Cost savings Greater mobility Convenience Firm Data More Speculative Transportation System Lower parking demand More fuel-efficient vehicles Less vehicle travel More transit ridership Environment/ Community Lower emissions Cost savings for development Less congestion Better urban design More compact development Less energy/resources for vehicle manufacturing

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-4 resources by increased trip chaining? Do car-sharing members make fewer auto trips and greater use of public transit? Can significant reductions in total auto mileage be documented? Our web-based surveys of current car- sharing members can answer these questions. This chapter addresses these questions and others in three sections: vehicle ownership, travel behavior changes and related impacts, and transportation cost changes. The final section of this chapter provides a simple standard methodology that may help car-sharing operators and their partners evalu- ate impacts in the future. 4.2 Vehicle ownership potential Impact One of the major public benefits promoted by car-sharing operators is the ability of their programs to reduce private vehicle ownership. By providing access to a vehicle for occasional trips, a household may be able to give up its car, or a second or third vehicle, whether through cost, convenience or environmental motivations. At the workplace, car-sharing may help em- ployees avoid driving to work, and allow businesses and cities to reduce the size of their vehicle fleets. Car-sharing, proponents argue, should therefore be seen as a parking demand management strategy. Indeed, many operators have sought to explicitly link their programs to reductions in vehicle ownership. Almost all advertise the cost savings that could be realized from selling a car, and some offer savings calculators to compare the costs of car-sharing and vehicle ownership (Exhibit 4-3). Some operators have taken this a stage further. CarSharing Portland participated in a citywide vehicle scrap program for cars that failed smog tests; the scrap- page fee paid for the $500 security deposit that CarSharing Portland requires from members. In Bristol, England, a promotion with the local bus operator provided free transit passes to members who gave up their cars. In turn, reduced vehicle ownership may mean that less residential parking has to be provided, and allow businesses to lease fewer parking spaces. This is primarily an issue in urban areas where parking is scarce, and the provi- sion of new parking is expensive. Specific benefits may include: • Improved availability of parking. This benefit may accrue par- ticularly in older urban areas where most households are depen- dent on curb parking (although latent demand may mean that the spaces fill up with other autos).

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-5 • Reduced need to construct new public parking. This may be relevant in limited circumstances, where new public parking is planned to serve an older residential or mixed-use neighborhood. • Reduced parking ratios for new development. The incorporation of car-sharing into or nearby new development allows its impact on parking demand to be taken into account at the time that park- ing ratios are determined. The benefits of reduced parking provision, provided that parking availability is maintained, are extensively documented elsewhere (for example, Millard- Ball, 2002; Shoup, 2005). They include cost savings to developers, residents and cities; release of land for new development or open space; and reduced impermeable surface area leading to less stormwater runoff. The precise cost savings will depend on the net cost of new parking provi- sion, after parking revenue from user fees. These figures are extremely site specific, varying with factors such as the cost of land, financing methods, land costs (including opportunity costs), the type of parking, and the level of charges, if any. Average monthly costs per stall in 1997 dollars, including Exhibit 4-3 Example Cost Savings Calculators

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-6 land, construction, design, contingency and operating costs, are typically $68 for surface parking, $135 for above-ground structures and $240 for below-ground facilities (Kuzmyak et al., 2003).2 Shoup (2005) calculates that each parking space at the University of California-Los Angeles costs at least $127 per month in capital and operating costs, plus external costs of at least $117. In major metropolitan areas where most car-sharing programs are located, these costs are likely to be significantly higher. In San Francisco, for ex- ample, a parking space adds $20,000-$30,000 to the cost of each housing unit – upwards of $50,000 in some parts of the city (San Francisco Planning Department, 2002). This equates to a monthly cost of $480, assuming a 24- year service life, a 9% interest rate and $50 in monthly operating costs. In Palo Alto and San Jose, CA, new parking structures have been built at a cost of more than $50,000 per space (Shoup, 2005). There will not be a 1:1 relationship, however, between the number of ve- hicles given up by car-sharing members, and the number of parking spaces saved. Firstly, for existing residential developments, the effect depends on whether the freed-up spaces are available for other users – for example, if curb parking is predominant, or if the parking is physically “unbundled” from the unit. If each unit has separate, reserved off-street parking spaces, such as an attached garage that is difficult to rent to other users, the impacts of car-sharing may be more limited. Secondly, the impacts of car-sharing on parking ratios in new development will depend on the ability and willingness of the developer to take advan- tage of the opportunity. In many instances, constraints may be imposed by minimum parking requirements levied by the local jurisdiction, the require- ments of lenders, or market preferences. The impact of car-sharing on residential parking demand has received the most attention. However, car-sharing also has the potential to reduce the need for parking at the non-residential end of the trip, such as at workplaces and stores. To some extent, these impacts will be indirect and depend on the extent to which car-sharing is able to reduce vehicle travel, as discussed in the following section. For example, if customers walk or take transit rather than driving to a store or leisure facility, fewer parking spaces will be required. However, there may be significant direct impacts if an employer is able to 2. Capital costs are amortized over a 24-year service life at a 9% interest rate.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-7 downsize or eliminate a vehicle fleet through joining a car-sharing program, or if car-sharing is introduced as an employee trip reduction strategy. These types of programs are discussed in detail in Section 5.7. empirical evidence Impacts on vehicle ownership have been a relatively simple area to explore in methodological terms and have been the subject of a large number of studies. Typically, the impact is calculated as follows: % members who give up a car3* members per car-sharing vehicle – 1 = vehicles reduced As shown in Exhibit 4-4, an average of 21% of members give up a vehicle after joining a car-sharing program. This figure is similar both in North America (21%) and Europe (22%). Fewer studies provide data on vehicle: member ratios. However, assuming a ratio of 1:27 (an assumption discussed later in this chapter), this equates to each car-sharing vehicle replacing five to six privately owned vehicles, or a net reduction of four or five. Some studies credit a reduction in vehicle ownership for members who state they avoided buying a car as a result of joining the car-sharing program. While this is certainly the case for many members, this form of survey ques- tion is more speculative and is likely to overstate the overall impacts. On average, 34% of members state that they avoid buying a car, with figures as high as 77% (Exhibit 4-4). In contrast, one study that used a control group methodology suggests that just 4% of members avoided purchasing a vehicle (Cervero & Tsai, 2003). This is calculated as the difference between the number of members and non-member controls who purchased a vehicle (Exhibit 4-5). This control group methodology is subject to several limitations and may not be repre- sentative, and may therefore understate this figure,4 but it does suggest that the true value lies somewhere in between. 3. Note that some studies report the number of members who give up a car as a percentage of those who owned a vehicle before joining the program. Properly, this should be expressed as a percentage of total members, in order to keep units consistent with “members per car- sharing vehicle.” 4. The control group was originally designed to consist of non-members with similar motivation levels, interest and ideological leanings to members. Control group members had registered to join City CarShare, but had not actually joined – for example, because a pod was not located close to them (Cervero & Tsai, 2003). By the time of the later surveys, however, City CarShare had expanded to cover most of San Francisco, and there may have been other reasons for control group members not to join – such as finding that they could do without a car altogether. In addition, the control group sample size was small, with just 54 responses to this survey.

September 2005 Page 4-8 Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng Exhibit 4-4 Impacts on Vehicle Ownership % of Respondents Who Have… Vehicle Ownership Before Joining Reference Region Given Up a Vehicle (primary or second) Forgone Purchase of a Vehicle Members Per Car- Sharing Vehicle Private Vehicles Replaced per Shared Car** None One or More Sample Size Comments EUROPEAN STUDIES Wagner (1990) Switzerland 26% Hauke (1993) Bremen 42% 16% Baum & Pesch (1994) Germany 23% 32% Krietemeyer (1997) Munich 19% 34% 596 Lightfoot (1997) Netherlands 44% Meijkamp & Theunissen (1997) Netherlands 17% 5% Perner, Schöne & Brosig (2000) Dresden 10% 28% 318 Cambio, unpublished survey Bremen, Aachen & Cologne 21% 11% Cited in Koch (2002) Olsen & Rettig (2000) Denmark 7% 26-35% 14 1.0 57% 43% Further 31% gave up a car independent of car-sharing Hope (2001) Edinburgh 32% 16 5.1 42% 58% 38 Koch (2002) Bremen 9% 26% Figures refer to members with combined car-sharing/annual transit pass. Holm & Eberstein (2002) Dresden 10% 21% 35 3.5 Krietemeyer (2003) Munich 12% 35% 700 Rydén & Morin (2005) Bremen 34% 17% 19 6.5 301 Rydén & Morin (2005) Belgium 21% 14% 18 3.8 272 European Average 22% 22% 20 4.0 50% 51% 371 NORTH AMERICAN STUDIES Cambridge Systematics (1986) San Francisco, CA 12% 43% 11 1.4 122 Assumes 1.9 individual users per household Robert (2000) Montreal, QC 21% 61% 17 3.5 49% 52% 153 Robert (2000) Quebec City, QC 29% 56% 17 4.7 38% 63% 208

Page 4-9 Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Exhibit 4-4 Impacts on Vehicle Ownership (cont'd) % of Respondents Who Have… Members Per Car- Sharing Vehicle Private Vehicles Replaced per Shared Car** Vehicle Ownership Before Joining Reference Region Given Up a Vehicle (primary or second) Forgone Purchase of a Vehicle None One or More Sample Size Comments Katzev (1999), Katzev, Brook & Nice (2000) Portland, OR 26% 53% 13 3.5 59% 41% 64 Cooper, Howes & Mye (2000) Portland, OR 23% 25% 89 Zipcar (2001) Boston, MA and Washington, DC 15% 35% 20 3.0 Details of methodology not available Flexcar (2001) Seattle, WA 6% Cited in Vance (2004). Figures refer to net change in vehicle ownership, with 15% giving up a vehicle and 9% adding a new vehicle to the household. Jensen (2001) Vancouver, BC 28% 57% 18 5.0 86% 14% 370 Figures refer to those who gave up a vehicle 0-6 months before joining CAN. Figures for “forgone purchase” exclude “don’t know” responses. City CarShare (2002) San Francisco Bay Area, CA 20% 63% 25 5.0 65% 35% 130 Excludes those who did not give an answer Flexcar, unpublished survey Washington, DC * 42% 53 67% 33% Details of methodology not available Cervero & Tsai (2003) San Francisco, CA 24% 4% 25 6.0 Figures refer to net change in vehicle ownership per member (-0.24) and per non-member control (+0.04). Source for members per vehicle is City CarShare. Vance, Williams & Rutherford (2004) Seattle, WA 15% 40% 48 Figures refer to net change in vehicle ownership, with 23% giving up a vehicle and 8.5% adding a new vehicle to the household. AutoShare, email Toronto, ON 15% 25% 22 3.3 Details of methodology not available Communato (2004) Quebec (4 cities) 32% 77% 20 6.4 2167 Lane (2005) Philadelphia, PA 21% 44% 23 4.7 North American Average 20% 41% 24 5 61% 40% 372 Combined Average 21% 34% 23 4.5 58% 42% 372 *25% of members who do own cars have sold or are considering selling their car. ** Excluding impacts of forgone purchases. Many surveys do not distinguish between respondents who have given up a car because of car-sharing, or for some other means. Where available, the data in the table refer to those who have given it up because of car-sharing.

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-10 Exhibit 4-5 Change in Household Vehicle Ownership – San Francisco City CarShare Change in Vehicle Ownership Members (A) Non- Members (B) Difference (A-B) Reduced by Two or More 2.5% 0 2.5% Reduced by One 26.6% 8.0% 18.6% Did Not Change 63.2% 80.0% -16.8% Increased by One 7.2% 12.0% -4.8% Increased by Two or More 0.4% 9.0% 0.4% Source: Cervero & Tsai (2003). Figures refer to change in household motor vehicle ownership within the first two years of the San Francisco City CarShare program. In the web-based survey of current car-sharing members, conducted for this study in 2004, all but one of the major car-sharing companies in the United States and Canada encouraged their members to participate in this survey by connecting to a specific website. A total of 1,340 complete and valid responses were received, representing an 11% response rate (see Chapter 3 for details of survey methodology). In this survey, respondents reported the following results of their car-sharing membership as shown in Exhibit 4-6. Exhibit 4-6 Effects of Car-Sharing Membership on Auto Ownership Effect Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree Was able to sell my car 59.9% 3.9% 7.4% Was able to sell the family’s second car 26.5% 32.1% 17.5% Postponed buying another car 16.6% 39.1% 31.4% Source: Car-Sharing Member Survey. The strongest impact in these results is the delay in purchasing another car, reported by 70.5% of all respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they were able to postpone buying a car because of their participation in car-shar- ing. Not to be overlooked is the nearly 50% of all respondents who reported that they were able to sell their second car because they were involved in car-sharing. In total, 55.2% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were able to sell their car, the family’s second car, or both. As discussed earlier in this section, the net reduction in vehicle ownership per car-sharing vehicle depends not only on the percentage of members who give up a car, but also on the vehicle: member ratio of car-sharing organiza- tions. Based on data from Shaheen (personal communication), the vehicle:

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-11 member ratio in December 2004 was 1:66 in the United States, and 1:20 in Canada. The US ratio has shown a substantial decrease in recent years, influenced by two key trends: • Many of the reported members are likely to be inactive or lapsed members. Promotional incentives and changes in pricing policy mean that many of these individuals did not have to pay an appli- cation or renewal fee; they use the car-sharing service occasionally or not at all. • The increase in the business market means that many members are employee members, who primarily use car-sharing at the workplace during the day. The primary environmental objective for this market segment is to help them avoid driving to work, rather than to allow them to give up a vehicle. The web-based survey for this project was distributed by car-sharing opera- tors to their members via e-mail lists or newsletters. The researchers believe that respondents are representative of those who received the survey, and that they are more likely to represent the active, individual members who are included on these e-mail lists. (Because only 9.5% of respondents reported that their employer paid all or part of their car-sharing costs, we conclude that the respondents better represent individual members than corporate or other members.) This means that it is inappropriate to apply the 1:66 vehicle:member ratio to the 55% of respondents who reported giving up a car. Instead, a 1:27 ratio is used, which represents the vehicle: member ratio in the United States in 2002 (Shaheen, Schwartz & Wipyewski, 2004). The 1:27 ratio represents a good estimate of the ratio of vehicles to active, individual car-sharing members, given that the promotional incentives and pricing structures noted above were less prevalent in 2002; and that business usage comprised a much smaller segment of the market; although it may be a slight underestimate given continuing efforts by car-sharing operators to improve efficiency and increase utilization. The 1:27 ratio is also consistent with the studies reported in Exhibit 4-4. Applying this ratio means that each car-sharing vehicle is estimated to take 14.9 private cars off the road – a net reduction of 13.9 vehicles. Ap- plied to the entire US fleet of 939 car-sharing vehicles in December 2004, the estimate yields a net reduction of more than 13,000 cars. If members who reported delaying the purchase of a vehicle are included, the net reduction is substantially greater.

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-12 A total decline of more than 13,000 cars might indeed be large enough to cre- ate a noticeable impact on auto ownership and traffic in the neighborhoods where these individuals lived. We can say that these numbers represent a minimum number of autos taken off the streets, because those persons who sold more than one car as a result of car-sharing membership should prob- ably be added to these calculations. Unfortunately, data from the internet survey do not allow us to precisely calculate the numbers of cars sold. Persons who reported being able to sell their own car still tended to have access to another car in the household. They also more often tended to be living with someone else, male, and in the upper income brackets (over $100,000 per year). Those who reported that they were able to sell the household’s second car more often tended to have lower annual incomes (below $20,000) and not upper incomes (above $125,000). They were also more often female, not car owners, and less than 34 years of age and not over 45. Those who reported that they postponed buying another car more often tended to have lower annual incomes (below $30,000) and not upper incomes (above $125,000). They also tended to be younger (under age 34) and not in the 55 to 64 age bracket. These results are surprising in several ways. Firstly, they suggest far more dramatic impacts on vehicle ownership than previous studies. As shown in Exhibit 4-5, previous studies indicate that around 20% of car-sharing members sell a car. Exhibit 4-6 suggests that the percentage may lie at more than 50%, with by far the greatest impact being on second car ownership. Meanwhile, 70% of members have been able to postpone buying a car – again, far greater than the figure suggested by previous studies. One possibility is that the long-standing nature of the car-sharing members responding to the survey – on average, they had been members for 19.5 months – has allowed greater time for these impacts to become evident. Al- ternatively, it could indicate that car-sharing operators are targeting second car owners rather than car-free households as the market matures beyond the early adopters. Note that other, recent studies have also suggested ve- hicle ownership impacts of greater magnitude than previous research. Lane (2005), for example, reports that each PhillyCarShare vehicle removes an average of 22.8 cars from the roads – 10.8 cars from members who give up a car, plus 12.0 cars from members who avoid purchasing a vehicle. Often,

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-13 the greater impacts are due to decreasing vehicle:member ratios, rather than to a greater proportion of members selling their cars. Another, simpler way of examining changes in vehicle ownership is to ask members what they would do if car-sharing services stopped. These results are discussed in full below, but it should be noted here that nearly one-third stated that they would buy a car. 4.3 travel Behavior Changes and related Impacts potential Impacts Reduced Vehicle Travel Car-sharing, according to its proponents, can have a major impact on the travel behavior of its members by reducing the number and length of trips. This is largely a function of changes in vehicle ownership: once members give up their cars, the automobile will no longer be the “default mode” for every trip. Rather, it is argued, members will weigh up the cost, travel time and comfort of different modes of travel, such as transit, car-sharing and walking, on a more rational basis, before deciding which to use for a par- ticular trip. In turn, reduced vehicle travel translates into a range of other benefits – some straightforward, such as reduced emissions, and some more speculative, such as increased physical activity and support for local shops and services. The manner in which car-sharing converts fixed driving costs into variable ones may be largely responsible for these changes in travel behavior. The costs of driving can be divided into fixed costs, such as car payments and insurance, and variable costs, such as gasoline, tolls and non-residential parking. Once the decision has been made to own a car, these fixed costs are (correctly) treated as sunk costs by a household (Steininger, Vogl & Zettl, 1996), and perceptions of the cost of a trip are based on variable costs – or even just gasoline and parking – alone. Since fixed costs account for the majority of driving costs – 80% or more for a car that is driven 10,000 miles per year or less – this means that the economics of driving are heavily skewed (Exhibit 4-7). Most car-sharing operators, in contrast, charge for time used and/or mile- age driven, meaning that almost all driving costs become variable and are highly visible to members. In the perceptions of members, driving therefore becomes more expensive, and car-sharing members, “mindful of the cumu- lative costs of driving,” practice a “more resourceful form of automobility”

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-14 (Cervero & Tsai, 2003). As shown in Exhibit 4-8, there is a striking contrast between the marginal costs of a trip for car-sharing and private vehicle ownership. It suggests that the threshold for the cost-effectiveness of car- sharing is 5,000 miles per year.5 Exhibit 4-7 Components of Driving Costs Variable (Operating) Costs Cost Per Mile Gas and oil $0.061 Maintenance $0.039 Tires $0.015 Added depreciation (per 1,000 miles above 15,000/yr) $161 Fixed (Ownership) Costs Cost Per Year Insurance $1,181 License, registration, taxes $167 Depreciation (15,000 miles/yr) $3,051 Finance charges $554 Annual Costs Miles Driven per Year 10,000 15,000 20,000 Fixed Costs $4,953 $4,953 $4,953 Variable Costs $1,150 $1,725 $3,105 Total Costs $6,103 $6,678 $8,058 Fixed costs as a % of total costs 81% 74% 61% Source: Adapted from American Automobile Association (2003). Figures are for a small car (2003 Chevrolet Cavalier LS). 5. See Section 4.4 for a discussion of the applicability of AAA motoring cost data.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-15 Exhibit 4-8 Cost per Trip, Car-Sharing vs. Ownership $0 $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 $10,000 $12,500 $15,000 $17,500 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 Miles Driven Per Year A nn ua l M ot or in g C os ts Car-Sharing Car Ownership While changes in vehicle ownership may be the main driver behind reduced vehicle travel, proponents have also suggested other mechanisms through which car-sharing can produce these benefits: • Provide access to a car during the working day. Many employees drive to work because they need a car during the working day – for example, to visit clients or run errands. According to surveys in the San Francisco Bay Area, 11% of commuters cite the need for a car for work as an impediment to commuting by transit, bicycle or carpool (RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, 2003). Providing car-sharing at workplaces may help to eliminate this barrier, and many employers have introduced car-sharing as a part of their commute trip reduction program. • Promote compact development. As discussed in the section above, car-sharing can help to increase development densities through lowering parking ratios. In turn, a large body of research suggests that compact development reduces vehicle travel – as residential density doubles, vehicle miles traveled per capita falls by approximately 20% (Holtzclaw et al., 2002). While this mecha- nism is perhaps the most difficult to confirm directly through empirical studies, it may represent the most important long-term benefit if car-sharing is introduced on a large scale. • Provide mobility insurance. “Guaranteed Ride Home” programs have had considerable success in persuading people to carpool or ride transit to work, through providing a guarantee that they will not be stranded in the event of an emergency – such as a sick Motoring costs based on AAA figures. Car-sharing costs based on I-GO (Chicago) July 2004 rates, assuming hourly costs equate to $0.60 per mile, i.e. members drive 10 miles per hour reserved. Actual costs will be lower if rental cars are used for longer trips.

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-16 child, or needing to work late. Car-sharing may function in the same way, if cars are provided close to the workplace or at transit stations. Induced Vehicle Travel At the same time as car-sharing may reduce vehicle travel among some members, it provides easier access to a vehicle for members who did not previously own a car. While some car-sharing trips may have been otherwise made by rental or borrowed cars, or by taxi, others are likely to represent new vehicle trips. Members may use car-sharing to access new destinations, or substitute for trips previously made by transit, bicycle or walking. It is important to recognize that induced travel can be viewed as a benefit, if car-sharing is serving to promote greater mobility and reduce travel times for members. One example often cited by car-sharing proponents concerns lower-income households, where providing access to a car may help to overcome issues of social exclusion. Another, in the context of campus car- sharing, relates to providing mobility for students who may be subject to restrictions on bringing their own cars to school. However, induced travel will offset or reverse any reductions in vehicle travel from members who drive less. Transit Ridership Changes in transit ridership will largely depend on the net impacts on vehicle travel. Should overall vehicle travel fall, i.e. with reduced travel outweighing induced travel, this is likely to be realized partly as an increase in transit ridership, along with greater walking and cycling. Should vehicle travel rise, car-sharing may substitute for some trips formerly made by transit. There are also three potential impacts on transit ridership specifically: • Combined transit/car-sharing trips. Many car-sharing operators point to the potential to take transit for the line-haul segment of the journey, before picking up a car-sharing vehicle at the station to travel the “last mile” to the destination. This may be particular- ly important to reach suburban locations from congested central cities, or where there are bridge tolls or similar psychological bar- riers. For example, a Manhattan resident might take Metro North rail service to White Plains, NY, and pick up a car there to drive the final leg of the journey. • Access to car-sharing vehicles. In some cases, members may not live within easy walking distance of a car-sharing location, or vehicles at the closest location may already be reserved. In these cases, they may use transit as an access mode.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-17 • Changes in peak orientation. Most transit trips, especially those that utilize the park-and-ride facilities at transit stops, are heav- ily peak oriented, placing demands on the system at a time when capacity is most constrained (see, for example, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2001). In contrast, car-sharing trips often take place at evenings and weekends, when surplus capacity is available. This has particular implications where station lots regularly fill to ca- pacity, and where park-and-ride commuter spaces are given over to car-sharing. In this instance, peak commuter trips are likely to be replaced by off-peak transit-car-sharing trips. Emissions and Gasoline Consumption As with transit ridership, the impacts of car-sharing on emissions and gaso- line consumption will largely depend on its net impact on vehicle travel. However, there may be additional benefits from the use of more fuel-efficient cars by car-sharing operators. Even if vehicle travel remains unchanged, re- ductions in emissions and fuel consumption could therefore be expected. These additional benefits may be realized in three main ways: • Use of alternative-fuel vehicles. Hybrids and electric vehicles have been used by many car-sharing operators (Chapter 2), and some automobile manufacturers have seen this as a way to meet mandates for the introduction of low-emission vehicles (Shaheen, Wright & Sperling, 2002). However, they account for a relatively small proportion of the car-sharing fleet at present. • Replacement of older vehicles. It has been suggested that car- sharing members tend to own disproportionately older, more pol- luting vehicles. To the extent that these are given up as members join the program, car-sharing will bring further emissions benefits. (See, for example, Rydén & Morin, 2005.) • Use of smaller cars. The core fleet of most car-sharing operators consists of compact, fuel-efficient cars such as a Scion or a Honda Civic. Larger station wagons, sport utility vehicles and pick-up trucks are available for special purposes (Chapter 2). This means that members have the ability to select the “right” vehicle for a specific purpose, rather than using a large household car for all trips, from errands to camping expeditions. At present, however, this impact is more speculative compared to the benefits from alternative-fuel and newer, fuel-efficient vehicles, for which there are firmer data (see following section). Exhibit 4-9 shows some comparisons among vehicles commonly used by car-sharing operators, indicating that use of hybrid vehicles can more than halve gasoline consumption and reduce smog-forming emissions.

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-18 Exhibit 4-9 Fuel Economy and Emissions Ratings of Vehicles Commonly Used by Car-Sharing Operators Vehicle City MPG EPA Air Pollution Score* Toyota Prius (hybrid) 60 8-9 Honda Civic 29-36 2-6 Scion xA and xB 31-32 2-3 Dodge Neon 25 3 Volkswagen Jetta 22-24 3-9 Ford Explorer 2WD 15-16 1-6 * Air Pollution Score refers to pounds of smog-forming emissions per 15,000 miles. A rating of 10 indicates the lowest emissions (0-1.0 lb). Source: US EPA (www.fueleconomy.gov), figures for 2005 models. empirical evidence Methodological Considerations In general, the empirical evidence on changes in travel behavior is less definitive compared to that concerning vehicle ownership impacts. This is partly a reflection of complex methodological problems. Surveys offer the simplest approach, but self-reported data on vehicle mileage – particularly for years past – is unlikely to be reliable (Katzev, 2002). Travel diaries tend to only cover a short time period for a small sample. While mileage driven in car-sharing vehicles is readily available from most reservations systems, this does not include mileage driven in rental cars, borrowed cars, or other household vehicles. Research also runs into questions of causation. While members may drive less once they join a car-sharing program, is this due to car-sharing itself, or was their decision to join a reflection of external fac- tors causing them to reduce their vehicle travel, such as moving to a more urban area? An alternative, more sophisticated approach, employed by Cervero & Tsai (2003), uses travel diaries coupled with a control group methodology. How- ever, while potentially avoiding problems of inference, this approach does bring its own set of problems. In the Cervero research, weekdays/weekends and work/non-work days were analyzed separately. However, the only sta- tistically significant change in vehicle travel was obtained for weekday work days – whereas any induced travel would be expected to be on weekends, when shared cars are used the most. It is extremely difficult to find a good control group. In the Cervero research,

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-19 the control group consists of members who had expressed interest in joining a car-sharing program, but had yet to do so, for example because service was not available in their neighborhood. However, subsequent expansions mean that car-sharing is now available to most San Francisco residents, sug- gesting that there are other factors behind the reason not to join. There are major differences between the sample of members and the control group, such as differing levels of education, car ownership, and baseline vehicle travel. As Lane (2005) points out: “These differences imply differing mobility needs that may have contributed to (1) contrasting decisions of whether to join City CarShare, or (2) affected changes in travel behavior independent of membership.” Changes in Vehicle Travel Exhibit 4-10 summarizes published studies on the impacts of car-sharing on vehicle travel. As can be seen, many studies show no statistically significant change. However, those that do suggest that car-sharing does lead to reduced vehicle travel, although the magnitude of the change varies considerably. The key variable is often the relative proportion of members who gave up a vehicle – who will usually drive less as a result – and members who gain access to a car, who will account for most of the induced travel. It should be noted that the magnitude of the former will generally outweigh that of the latter. As Lane (2005) points out in the Philadelphia context, “any upward movement in the miles driven by members who gained access to a car is limited to the small amount they currently drive PhillyCarShare’s vehicles, which averages just 29.9 miles per month (33.9 for members who avoided acquiring a car, and 27.5 miles for members who simply gained access).” There is also evidence that the impacts on vehicle travel change over time, as a car-sharing program matures. An evaluation of the City CarShare program in San Francisco found a net increase in vehicle travel after the first year, but a reduction after two years. Cervero & Tsai (2003) conclude: Evidence of travel suppression stands in stark contrast to first-year impacts wherein members’ average VMT had increased. Early adopters, many drawn from the ranks of environmentalists and avid cyclists who owned no car, began logging vehicle miles on the streets of San Francisco; with time, as the program has attracted a more mainstream clientele, the novelty of car-sharing has worn off, and members have shed car ownership, “induced travel” appears to have been replaced by “reduced travel.”

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-20 Both the San Francisco and Portland studies also suggest that vehicle travel per member declines over time – possibly as they become more aware of the real cost of each vehicle trip, or as the “novelty effect” of car-sharing wears off over time (Katzev, Brook & Nice, 2000; Cervero & Tsai, 2003). There is even less information on the cost-effectiveness of car-sharing as a trip reduction strategy, given the difficulties in calculating both the public investment and the total reduction in vehicle travel. The results of these types of calculations will depend on the way in which “public investment” is calculated, since many programs have received a combination of financial and in-kind support from several different agencies. One study suggests that car-sharing is relatively expensive compared to other demand management programs, but that the costs should decline as operators become more self- sufficient. Using British data, Cairns et. al. (2004) estimate the cost at about 15 cents per mile of travel reduced.6 On the other hand, communities that have offered limited public support for car-sharing have received the trip reduction benefits essentially for free. It is important to note that studies have focused on the impacts of residential car-sharing. Only one study reported here has considered business car-shar- ing in detail, and the overall effects were unclear. 6. Using April 2005 exchange rate of $1.885 US to one British pound.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-21 Exhibit 4-10 Research on Vehicle Travel Impacts Context Results Reference European Research Germany The share of travel accounted for by motor vehicles fell from 63% to 41%, after members joined. Baum & Pesch (1994), cited in Harms & Truffer (1998) Austria For users who previously had a car available, annual VMT fell by 62%, from 10,088 to 3,855 miles. For users with no car previously available, annual VMT rose by 118%, from 830 to 1,809 miles. Steininger, Vogl & Zettl (1996) Netherlands Reduction in VMT for both former car owners (37% reduction) and mem- bers who did not previously own a car (29%). Meijkamp & Theunissen (1996), cited in Lane (2005) Switzerland Members who give up their cars after joining reduce their annual motor vehicle travel from 5,779 to 1,616 miles per year – a reduction of 72% (or 58% if travel by motorcycle is included). Muheim & Partner (1998) Bremen, Germany Average VMT fell by 32% after members joined, from 3,144 miles per year to 2,133. Figures refer to those with a combined car-sharing/transit annual pass. Koch (2002) United Kingdom Members who previously owned a car (51% of the sample) reduced VMT by 1,123 miles per year (26%). Members who did not previously own a car increased annual VMT by 473 miles. Note small sample size (n=96). Ledbury (2004) Bremen, Germany Average VMT reduction of 1,925 miles per year (45%), leading to a 54% reduction in CO2 emissions*. This includes a small group of members (7% of the sample) who increased annual VMT by 500 miles (60%). Rydén & Morin (2005) Belgium Average VMT reduction of 1,865 miles per year (28%), leading to a 39% reduction in CO2 emissions*. This includes a small group of members (7% of the sample) who increased annual VMT by 745 miles (14%). Most respondents (65%) reported no change. Rydén & Morin (2005) Bremen, Germany and Stockholm, Sweden Business car-sharing may lead to a slight increase in total car mileage for work-related purposes, given easier access to vehicles. However, nearly 30% of employees report that car-sharing has helped them drive to work less often. Rydén & Morin (2005) North American Research Portland, OR Vehicle mileage for those who owned a vehicle at time of joining fell by 18%, from 103.3 to 84.4 miles for the week of the trip diary, although this result was not statistically significant. For those who did not own a vehicle, it rose from 0.3 to 24.9 miles. Katzev, Brook & Nice (2000) Portland, OR Travel diaries suggested a 7.5% reduction in vehicle travel after joining, but results not statistically significant. Cooper, Howes & Mye (2000) San Francisco, CA Members’ daily VMT (weekday/workday) fell from 2.80 to 1.49** miles. Among the control group of non-members, it rose from 5.45 to 20.85. These figures refer to second-year impacts; first-year impacts showed a net increase in VMT. Cervero & Tsai (2003) Arlington, VA Members reported a reduction in VMT of 43%, or 3,250 miles per year. 45% of respondents reported reducing driving after joining car-sharing, while 35% said they increased their driving. Nearly half of respondents (49%) said they walk more often because of their involvement in car- sharing, and 54% said they use transit more often. Price & Hamilton (2005) * Based on changes in vehicle fleet mix, since car-sharing vehicles tend to be more fuel-efficient. Includes increased emissions from public transportation. ** This measure is referred to as “mode adjusted VMT” by Cervero & Tsai.

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-22 The results of our internet survey also show a substantial decline in the number of miles driven. (It should be noted that since aggregate annual figures were requested and that travel diaries were not used, the accuracy of the figures reported may be less than ideal.) Respondents, on average, reported driving about 3,850 miles per year (320 miles per month) at the time of the internet survey. This is approximately 63% of the average mile- age that they previously drove, which is a substantial reduction in driving of almost 40% (Section 3.1). Note that Zipcar, which did not participate in the survey, claims an even greater reduction based on its own 2004 survey – an almost 80% reduction in VMT from 5,295 to 1,068 miles per year after joining car-sharing (Zipcar, 2005). While, on balance, there was a substantial net reduction and more than 45% of households reported driving less, many households did increase their VMT substantially (Exhibit 4-11). Since there may have been many recent changes in the lives of these members (employment, marriage, home loca- tion, etc.), not all of the changes in vehicle miles should be attributed to their participation in car-sharing. Exhibit 4-11 Self-Reported Changes in Vehicle Travel Change in VMT After Joining Car-Sharing Percent of Respondents Reduced Travel By less than 50% 18.3% By more than 50% 27.5% No change reported 28.6% Increased vehicle travel By less than 50% 11.5% By more than 50% 14.7% Figures refer to respondents who provided both before and after information. Source: Car-Sharing Member Survey. Changes in VMT and percentage changes in VMT did show some variation according to specific characteristics. In terms of changes in vehicle miles traveled: • Auto ownership: There was a bi-modal split among the respon- dents who did not currently own cars, meaning that more than average numbers of respondents reported either a substantial de- crease in mileage (more than 7,500 miles per year) or a substantial increase in mileage (more than 2,500 miles per year).

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-23 • Age group: Another bi-modal split was in evidence among per- sons in the 25 to 34 year old group, who reported either a substan- tial decrease in mileage (a decrease of 5,000 miles or more) or a substantial increase in mileage (more than 2,500 miles per year). • Gender: Another bi-modal split: females reported either a sub- stantial decrease in mileage (a decrease of 5,000 miles or more) or a slight increase in mileage (from 1 to 2,500 miles more). • Education: Persons with a Bachelor’s degree more often than average reported a small increase in mileage (from 1 mile to 2,500 miles more). • Operator: Members of one car-sharing company were more likely to report decreases of 2,500 to 10,000 miles than the members of other car-sharing companies, whose members tended to show no larger or smaller than average figures for any of the changes in mileage. • There were no substantial variations evident due to income or household size. In terms of percentage changes in vehicle miles traveled: • Auto ownership: There was a bi-modal split among the respon- dents who did not currently own cars, meaning that more than average numbers of respondents reported either a substantial percentage decrease in mileage (76% or more) or a substantial percentage increase in mileage (more than 26%). • Age group: Persons in the 25 to 34 year old group more often than average reported a 26% to 75% increase in mileage. • Gender: Females more often than average reported a percentage increase in mileage of 50% or more. • Education: Persons with a Bachelor’s degree more often than average reported a small increase in mileage (from 1 mile to 2,500 miles more). • Household size: Persons in two-person households were more likely than average to report mileage decreases of from 1% to 50%. • Operator: Members of one car-sharing company were more likely to report decreases of 26% or more than the members of other car- sharing companies, whose members tended to show no larger or smaller than average figures for any of the percentage changes in mileage. • There were no substantial variations evident in percentage chang- es in mileage due to income or education.

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-24 There are complex travel effects for those persons who, as a result of joining car-sharing, sold their car or the family car. Of those who sold a car and provided information on changes in vehicle miles traveled, 36.9% decreased their miles traveled, 28.6% made no change, and 34.5% increased their VMT. More than half of those persons who sold cars and increased their mileage driven (56.7%) had greater than 50% increases in their miles driven. Other Travel Behavior Impacts While a relatively small number of studies have examined changes in vehicle miles traveled – which generally requires the use of travel diaries – others have gathered more qualitative information on changes in travel behavior. Typically, questions ask whether the respondent walks, cycles or takes transit more or less after joining. Exhibit 4-12 shows an example from Philadelphia, which is fairly typical of results obtained elsewhere. Exhibit 4-12 Self-Reported Changes in Travel Behavior, PhillyCar- Share Members Source: Lane (2005) Other surveys have probed the issue of mode of access to car-sharing – important if the effects on transit ridership are to be quantified. In San Francisco, 68% of City CarShare trips were accessed on foot, 18% by tran- sit, and 9% by bicycle (Cervero & Tsai, 2003). City CarShare also reports considerable success in encouraging its members to make combined tran- sit/car-sharing trips, particularly to avoid congestion and tolls on the San %73 %91 %73%73 %8 %6 %3 %4 %2 %84 %0 %6 %2 %77 %2 %6 %21 %72 %41 %2 %0 %01 %02 %03 %04 %05 %06 %07 %08 %09 evirDixaTtisnarTekiBklaWevirDixaTtisnarTekiBklaW % o f M em be r S ub se t gninioJ ecniS eroM gninioJ ecniS sseL pihsrenwO raC riehT decudeR ohW srebmeM gninioJ erofeB raC oN htiW srebmeM

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-25 Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. For example, 25% of trips using the City CarShare vehicle at Ashby BART station in Berkeley are taken by members with a San Francisco home address, compared to 2-3% at other Berkeley and Oakland locations.7 In Germany and Belgium, Rydén & Morin (2005) report that the net increase in transit ridership is 685 miles per member per year, with the largest in- crease occurring on weekends. They find that 5% of members ride transit less, 22-32% ride more, and 63-72% report no change. Muheim & Partner (1998) reports that most of the increased transit demand from car-sharing in Switzerland takes place at off-peak times. There is also empirical support for the theory that car-sharing promotes the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Cervero & Tsai (2003), for example, found that vehicles owned by car-sharing members in San Francisco tended to be older – on average nine years old, with an odometer reading of 73,000 miles. They conclude that City CarShare reduces gasoline consumption and emissions, partly because of reduced automobile travel, but also because car-sharing vehicles tend to be small, fuel-efficient and carry several people. Rydén & Morin (2005) conclude that car-sharing vehicles consume 11% less fuel on average, compared to the vehicles given up by members. Results from our internet survey support many of the positive travel behavior outcomes of car-sharing noted in other studies, in terms of both a reduc- tion in vehicle travel and an increase in overall mobility. These qualitative outcomes are shown in Exhibit 4-13. Respondents reported being able to get to destinations that were formerly not accessible and to travel more often. One of the focus group respondents reported that “I’m less reluctant to go to suburban parties now because I used to have to stay overnight or get a ride back from a drunk stranger – now I can zip out and zip back and it’s so easy.” Respondents also reported that they made more multi-purpose trips (i.e. trip chaining) and used transit more often. Overall, 83.1% of the respondents said that they felt safe when using public transit: 54% agreed with this statement and 29.1% strongly agreed. On the other hand, several focus group members reported that they take fewer longer-distance local trips with car-sharing than with an owned car because of the costs associated with higher mileage trips. Exhibit 4-13 also provides specific results for respondents who reported 7. Analysis of 2004 City CarShare data by Bryce Nesbitt.

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-26 selling a car due to joining car-sharing. The most notable differences are that persons who sold a car more often reported driving less and saving money on transportation. Focusing on impacts, Exhibit 4-14 adds to demographic information from the internet survey presented in Chapter 3 by indicating how the impacts of car-sharing differ by demographic groups. Age seems to make the most difference of all the demographic variables, having particularly strong relationships in terms of making fewer trips by auto, using transit more often, and walking more often. Income levels come into play in a number of instances, but education does not, which is somewhat surprising.

Page 4-27 Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Exhibit 4-13 Effects of Car-Sharing Membership on Travel Behavior Effects of involvement in car-sharing Members Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree Make fewer trips by auto All 6.2% 10.0% 14.9% 35.3% 33.7% Gave up car 2.3% 4.2% 9.2% 36.4% 47.8% Save money on transportation All 6.3% 14.9% 16.7% 33.1% 29.0% Gave up car 3.5% 13.5% 14.7% 26.8% 41.5% Able to get to places I couldn’t All 8.4% 6.0% 26.7% 26.3% 32.6% Gave up car 5.8% 5.1% 26.9% 27.6% 34.6% Able to travel more often All 9.1% 20.8% 25.4% 23.3% 21.4% Gave up car 9.1% 24.3% 28.4% 21.3% 16.9% Use transit more often All 9.7% 22.1% 28.6% 23.1% 16.6% Gave up car 8.7% 27.1% 31.0% 20.5% 12.7% Walk more often All 10.3% 18.1% 34.3% 22.6% 14.7% Gave up car 9.0% 21.8% 37.4% 20.9% 10.9% Can make more multi-purpose trips All 20.6% 12.1% 45.0% 8.3% 14.1% Gave up car 19.6% 13.5% 50.4% 6.4% 10.1% Source: Car-Sharing Member Survey.

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-28 Exhibit 4-14 Reported Demographics of Car-Sharing Companies Effects of car-sharing Demographic characteristics more frequent to this group than to all respondents in general Make fewer trips by auto Ages 34 and younger; not 55 and older * Females Not car owners Incomes less than $20,000 and not over $125,000 Members of one Canadian company more often strongly agreed Save money on transportation Males Age 55 to 64 Members of one Canadian company more frequently strongly agreed; members of one US company more often disagreed or strongly disagreed Able to get to places I couldn’t Not ages 24 and under Females Incomes of $50,000 to $60,000 and $100,000 to $125,000, but not less than $30,000 Members of one Canadian company more often strongly agreed Able to travel more often Age 55 and over; not ages 24 and under Males Incomes $10,000 or less Use transit more often 45 and older; not 24 and under * Members of one US and one Canadian company more often agreed or strongly agreed Walk more often 55 and older * Members of one US and one Canadian company more often agreed or strongly agreed; members of one US company more often disagreed Can make more multi-purpose trips Age 65 and over; not ages 24 and under Not car owners Incomes not less than $20,000 Members of one US company split their an- swers: they more often than average disagreed or agreed than members of other companies * This is an especially strong relationship. Source: Car-Sharing Member Survey.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-29 As noted in Chapter 3, having access to an automobile was seen as a distinct advantage by many car-sharing members, since there are many destinations and activities in today’s world that are much more accessible by cars than by any other mode. Respondents reported that car-sharing was particu- larly important to them for recreation and social trips, other shopping, and grocery shopping. Special activities like transporting family and friends, moving furniture or hauling large loads, going to medical appointments, and visiting relatives also were made much easier and more comfortable when using a car. Effects on travel behavior would not be complete without an assessment of how car-sharing members got to those cars. The overwhelming major- ity walked to the car-sharing vehicle (Exhibit 4-15) – unsurprisingly, since most members have car-sharing within a few blocks of both their home and workplace (Exhibit 4-16). Exhibit 4-15 Mode of Access to Car-Sharing Mode of Access Percent of Respondents* Walk 75.2% Public transportation 18.6% Bicycle 8.7% Passenger in car 2.6% Taxi 0.9% Other 1.7% * Multiple responses permitted. Exhibit 4-16 Distance to Car-Sharing Distance to Car-Sharing Location From Home From Work At work N/A 9.0% Within a block 28.0% 23.2% Within several blocks 57.2% 47.2% Need to take transit/other vehicle 14.7% 20.3% The converse of information about changes in travel behavior due to car- sharing is the speculation by car-sharing members about how their lives would be different if they did not have access to car-sharing. (Some of this information is also discussed in Chapter 3.) If car-sharing had not been available for the last trip taken using car-sharing, 29.3% of the respondents to the internet survey would not have made that trip; another 20% would

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-30 have used public transportation. If car-sharing services stopped, respondents reported that they would take a number of actions8, including using public transit more often (more than one-third of the respondents), while about one-third reported that they would get rides from friends, one-third would use taxis more often, and just less than one-third would buy a car. Overall, these results suggest some complex impacts on transit ridership. On the one hand, car-sharing is clearly substituting for many transit trips. Members are choosing car-sharing because they had things to carry, for example, or had to make multiple stops (see Chapter 3); while feasible by transit, these trips may be time-consuming or difficult. This substitution effect, however, is likely to be somewhat less than the 20% who stated that they would have used public transportation for their last trip had car-shar- ing not been available, because many of these respondents have also given up a car since joining car-sharing and would presumably have used their own vehicles instead. Moreover, any substitution effect is limited by the relatively infrequent use of car-sharing – members in our survey report a median of two trips per month (Section 3.1). On the other hand, many new transit trips are being generated. Partly this is due to the use of transit as an access mode, which (at 19% of car-sharing trips) is likely to cancel out any substitution effect from use of car-sharing instead of transit. On top of this, there is evidence of a wider increase in transit ridership, most probably resulting from a reduction in vehicle own- ership and workplace Transportation Demand Management programs. Nearly 40% of members state that they use transit more often as a result of their involvement in car-sharing. As well as using car-sharing, 81.2% of the respondents also rent cars from time to time, for the multiple reasons shown below: • Rented cars cost less for longer trips 84.5% • Don’t have to worry about mileage charges 44.0% • Have more types of vehicles with rentals 15.1% • Other reasons 19.3% 8. Multiple responses permitted.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-31 Other reasons for renting a car included: • Ability to use the car at will – no reservation process – better avail- ability at the last minute when I need a car • Business trips out of town – car-sharing is not available every- where • One-way long-distance trips • Mode that costs less for that particular trip • Vacations and long weekends – can’t book car-sharing cars for that long • Work-related trip and the company already has arrangements with a rental car company. These comments are highly consistent with the results of the focus groups, in which respondents reported that renting cars made more sense for long trips, one-way trips, and trips to other cities for business or vacation pur- poses. But most car-sharing members disliked “the hassle of renting cars” and would gladly use car-sharing for longer trips or one-way trips if these options were available. Another compliment to car-sharing in contrast to renting was “The cars are nice too. They’re not your typical rental cars.” 4.4 transportation Costs potential Impacts While car-sharing has been cited as a way for households and businesses to lower their transportation costs, it is difficult to generalize given different expenditure and travel patterns. In the example shown in Exhibit 4-8, the threshold below which car-sharing is cheaper is about 5,000 miles per year. However, this threshold will vary considerably depending on: • The degree to which travel patterns change – e.g. if transit, walk- ing or cycling substitutes for some trips previously made by auto- mobile • The fee structure of the car-sharing operator, and the overall level of charges • The proportion of driving costs accounted for by car-sharing, and the degree to which rental cars and taxis are used where these would be cheaper for a given trip • The out-of-pocket costs of vehicle ownership, which may differ markedly from the AAA estimates – particularly if there are no car payments or finance charges outstanding, or (in the other direc- tion) if residents have to pay for parking

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-32 • The degree to which vehicle use can be shifted – for example, if the primary vehicle can be used more intensively in households where car-sharing replaces a second car Similar factors will affect potential savings from businesses that replace fleet vehicles with a car-sharing membership. This is a more complex area, and many organizations find it difficult to account for the total costs of manag- ing vehicle fleets. Some organizations such as the cities of Philadelphia and Berkeley calculate significant cost savings, and these are discussed in Section 5.5, Local Government, and Section 5.7, Employers and Businesses. empirical evidence The impacts of car-sharing on transportation costs have attracted little atten- tion from researchers. There are, however, some exceptions. The first-year evaluation of CarSharing Portland found that members estimated they saved $154 per month in transportation costs. According to surveys of PhillyCar- Share members, 40% say that car-sharing has saved them money, while about 16% are choosing to spend more (Lane, 2005). Average savings, for those who could quantify the amount, were $2,059 annually. Zipcar claims an average of $435 in monthly savings from replacing vehicle ownership with car-sharing, for those members that report a saving (Zipcar, 2005). In general, it can be assumed that most households and businesses will approach this decision in a rational, economic manner, and not substitute car-sharing for vehicle ownership if it would increase their driving costs. Many car-sharing operators provide web-based cost calculators to assist members in making the comparison (Exhibit 4-3). Results from the internet survey showed low levels of expenses on car-shar- ing on a monthly basis: the average per month expenditure for car-shar- ing was reported to be $61.26; the median was reported to be $40.50. The minimum was $1.00 and the maximum reported was $500 per month. (We assume that all of these costs were out-of-pocket costs and did not include annualized membership fees or deposits.) Eighty-seven percent of respon- dents paid for all costs themselves. Seven percent split the costs with their employers; in 2.5% of all reports, the employer paid all costs, and a similar number had some other arrangement (such as splitting costs with someone else or writing off the costs as a business expense). Some focus group members reported savings of $100 or more that they at- tributed to using car-sharing instead of alternative modes. Other focus group

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-33 members reported that “You have more money to spend on other things [after joining car-sharing].” Another report was that “Now I can spend more money on rent than on the car.” One focus group member reported that “I consider [the cost of car-sharing] a lot, but when I got my annual summary, I had spent $1,100 last year on car-sharing, and somebody at work told me that’s less than I would pay for insurance if I owned a car.” We noted in Chapter 3 that a certain portion of car-sharing members could be classified as “economizers.” These would include at least some of the 82.3% of the respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that “saving money is very important to me.” They generally do not own cars, have lower incomes, and are younger than other car-sharing members. In our focus groups, these persons were highly attuned to the costs of specific trips, and tended to base their mode choices for specific trips, to a large extent, on cost. 4.5 a proposed Standard methodology Several car-sharing operators and partner organizations interviewed as part of this research expressed a desire for a simple methodology that could be consistently used to assess the local impacts of car-sharing in a given commu- nity, and benchmark performance against other cities. This section proposes a standard methodology that would fulfill this need. See Chapters 7 and 8 for a more general discussion of evaluation techniques and of potential mechanisms to aggregate these data on a national scale. The major considerations for this methodology are: • Simplicity and conciseness. It is designed to be straightforward to add on to any form of member communication, such as an application form or market research effort, without the need for a dedicated survey. Naturally, this does not preclude car-sharing operators, their partners or independent researchers from adding questions or supplementing them with other research techniques such as travel diaries. • Longitudinal. One of the major constraints of simple evaluation surveys of car-sharing has been their reliance on self-reported information for vehicle ownership and use for years past. This makes it difficult to assess the extent of the impacts, particularly if persons have been car-sharing members for several years. The recommended methodology uses a longitudinal analysis similar to the techniques used by I-GO in Chicago and the City of Alexan- dria, VA.

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-34 The recommended questions are adapted from those used for the online survey for this project, as follows: • How many vehicles are owned or leased by you and members of your household? • On average, how many days a week do you drive alone to work or school? • Do you hold a monthly or annual transit pass? • Approximately how many miles do you drive per year? (Include miles in your own vehicle, plus those in borrowed, shared and rental cars.) • If car-sharing stopped, would you buy a car? o Yes – almost certainly o Yes – probably o No – probably not o No – almost certainly not These questions should be included on both the membership application form and on annual renewal materials. (If no annual renewal is necessary, surveys should be distributed annually.) The responses should be included in the operator’s membership database. This approach has two advantages: • It allows for longitudinal analysis, i.e. changes for individuals to be tracked over time, and minimizes reliance on respondents’ memories or hypothetical responses. Note that some of the ques- tions (such as number of days driving alone to work or school) have little meaning if the survey is conducted as a single snapshot; the value of the data lies in the ability to compare year-on-year changes. • It is likely to maximize response rates, since no separate survey form needs to be returned. • It allows responses to be linked with other membership data, if desired, such as frequency of car-sharing use and residential or workplace location.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-35 4.6 Conclusions Car-sharing members report that car-sharing has significant impacts for them. A more difficult question is how large these impacts are for the entire community. Probably the most profound effect on car-sharing members is the potential for reducing the numbers of vehicles that they own. The biggest reported impact was the ability to postpone buying another car, followed by the abil- ity to sell the household’s second car. Being able to sell the only household car was a distant third in this set of benefits. Car-sharing should indeed reduce the numbers of vehicles owned by car-sharing members. This in turn should have ripple effects on the amount of traffic, air pollution, and parking requirements within neighborhoods where car-sharing is active and attractive. (But one focus group member said “I’m happy that car-sharing is getting bigger and bigger, but I don’t see cars coming out of my neighbor- hood and going away, and I wish I did.”) Overall, car-sharing members make fewer trips by auto after becoming ac- tive in car-sharing, and their total mileage driven decreases substantially. These changes have positive environmental impacts, are associated with increased transit use, and lead (to some extent) to an increased reliance on walking, which in turn should have long-term health benefits. Persons involved in car-sharing often realize savings in overall transportation expenses. This is attributable to lower monthly capital costs, lower insurance expenses, lower gasoline and maintenance expenses, and lowered parking expenses. But many car-sharing members report that not having “the hassles of car ownership” is an even greater benefit to them than saving money. A wider range of more distant destinations becomes available to many car-sharing members. In particular, car-sharing members report being able to travel to larger “big box” stores as one of the key benefits that they realize. Lane (2005) suggests that car-sharing leads to shifts in environmental values, awareness of costs, and trip-making decisions. The evidence that we have seen suggests an opposite direction of causality: persons with high regards for environmental values are likely to be attracted to car-sharing, as are persons who have a strong focus on travel costs. Car-sharing does change the calculus of trip-making decisions: car-sharing members are much more likely to weigh alternative travel times and modes than other travelers. One

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-36 focus group member reported that “You really think about using the car. It becomes a really thoughtful process.” Another respondent reported that “After being a pedestrian here for so long and then having car-sharing, it’s made me think more of the car as a tool.” A possibly negative feature of current car-sharing operations is that members are highly sensitive to the consequences associated with exceeding reservation times, and do feel under significant pressure to return the vehicles within the specified time frame. Does car-sharing membership affect long-term residential location decisions? Nearly three-quarters (72%) of PhillyCarShare members say that car-shar- ing locations are important to where they choose to live (Lane, 2005). In Quebec, the figure is 50% (Communauto, 2004). These findings were not specifically substantiated by the data collected for this project, but one focus group member reported that “If I ever move out of Boston, I want to find a place that has a car-sharing program because I don’t want to buy a car. I’ve never owned a car and I don’t want to.” references American Automobile Association (2003). Your Driving Costs. Available at www.ouraaa.com/news/library/drivingcost/driving.html. Baum, H. and Pesch, S. (1994). Untersuchung der Eignung von Carsharing im Hinblick auf die Reduzierung von Stadtverkehrsproblemen. Bonn: Bundesminis- terium für Verkehr. Cited in Shaheen, Sperling & Wagner (1998). Cairns, Sally; Sloman, Lynn; Newson, Carey; Anable, Jillian; Kirkbride, Alistair; and Goodwin, Phil (2004). ”Chapter 8. Car Clubs,” in Smarter Choices – Changing the Way We Travel. London: Department for Transport. Cambridge Systematics (1986). Evaluation of the Short-Term Auto Rental (STAR) Service in San Francisco, CA. Report submitted to Urban Mass Transportation Administration, US Department of Transportation. Cervero, Robert; Creedman, Nina; Pohan, Muhammad; and Pai, Madhav (2002), City CarShare: Assessment of Short-Term Travel-Behavior Impacts. Univer- sity of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Working Paper 2002-01. Cervero, Robert and Tsai, Yu-Hsin (2003). San Francisco City CarShare: Travel Demand Trends and Second-Year Impacts. University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Working Paper 2003-05.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-37 Chesapeake Bay Foundation (2001). Building Healthier Neighborhoods with Metrorail: Rethinking Parking Policies. Annapolis, MD: Chesapeake Bay Foundation. City CarShare (2002). City CarShare Vehicle Ownership Survey. Communauto (2004). Résultats du Sondage 2004. Accessed June 21, 2005 at: www.communauto.com/sondage04_resultats0.html. Cooper, Gigi; Howes, Deborah; and Mye, Peter (2000). The Missing Link. An Evaluation of CarSharing Portland Inc. Planning Workshop report prepared for Public Policy Research; Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; and CarSharing Portland Inc. Cousins, Steven (2001). “Car Clubs Ride Again,” Town and Country Planning, 70(5): 142-145. Flexcar (2001). Key Statistics Regarding Car Sharing and its Benefits. Flexcar (2002). Unpublished survey for Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority. Harms, Sylvia and Truffer, Bernard (1998). The Emergence of a Nationwide Carsharing Co-operative in Switzerland. Prepared for EAWAG – Eidg. Anstalt für Wasserversorgung. Abwasserreinigung und Gewasserschutz. Switzer- land. Hauke, U. (1993). Carsharing-Eine Empirische Zielgruppenanalyse unter Einbezie- hung. Socialpsychologischer Aspekte zur Ableitung einer Marketing-Konzeption. Hauke, Feldstrasse. Cited in Shaheen, Sperling & Wagner (1998). Holm, Birger and Eberstein, Frank Müller (2002). “Car-Sharing and PT. The Dresden Model.” Public Transport International, June 2002, pp 18-22. Holtzclaw, John (2002). How Compact Neighborhoods Affect Modal Choice – Two Examples. Available at: www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/modal.asp Holtzclaw, John; Clear, Robert; Dittmar, Hank; Goldstein, David; and Haas, Peter (2002). “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco,” Transportation Planning and Technology, 25 (1): 1-27. Hope, Steven (2001). Monitoring and Evaluation of the Edinburgh City Car Club. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit. Accessed March 29, 2004 at www. scotland.gov.uk/cru/ kd01/ blue/carclub-04.asp.

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-38 Huwer, Ulrike (2004). “Public Transport and Car-Sharing—Benefits and Effects of Combined Services,” Transport Policy, 11(1): 77-87. Jensen, Nicole (2001), The Co-operative Auto Network Social and Environmental Report 2000-01. Vancouver: Co-operative Auto Network. Katzev, Richard (1999). CarSharing Portland: Review and Analysis of Its First Year. Report prepared for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Katzev, Richard (2002). “Car Sharing: A New Approach to Urban Transpor- tation Problems.” Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy. Accessed March 29, 2004 at www.publicpolicyresearch.net/papers.html#one Katzev, Richard; Brook, David; and Nice, Matthew (2000). “The Effects of Car Sharing on Travel Behavior: Analysis of CarSharing Portland’s First Year,” World Transport Policy & Practice, 7(1): 22-26. Koch, Henning (2002). MOSES User Needs Report. Accessed March 29, 2004 at http://213.170.188.3/moses/m_papers/USER_NEEDS_REPORT_new.pdf Krietemeyer, Hartmut (1997). “Auswirkungen von Car-Sharing auf die Nachfrage nach ÖPNV-Leistungen,” Der Nahverkehr, September 1997, pp. 14-20. Cited in Krietemeyer (2003). Krietemeyer, Hartmut (2003). “Effekte der Kooperation von Verbund und Car-Sharing –Organisation,” Der Nahverkehr, September 2003, pp. 31-39. Kuzmyak, J. Richard; Weinberger, Rachel; Pratt, Richard H; and Levinson, Herbert S. (2003). TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 18 – Parking Management and Supply. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Lane, Clayton (2005). PhillyCarShare: First-Year Social and Mobility Impacts of Car Sharing in Philadelphia. Paper presented at Transportation Research Board 84th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 9-13, 2005. Ledbury, Matthew (2004). UK Car Clubs: An Effective Way of Cutting Vehicle Usage and Emissions? M.Sc. thesis, Environmental Change Institute, Univer- sity of Oxford. Lightfoot, G. (1997). Pay as You Drive Carsharing: Final Report. Unpublished report cited in Katzev, Brook & Nice (2000). Meijkamp R. and Theunissen, R. (1997). Evaluatieprogramma De Deelauto in Nederland. Final Report on behalf of the Ministerie van Verkeer en Wa-

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 4-39 terstaat, Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer, Rotterdam. Cited in Harms & Truffer (1998). Millard-Ball, Adam (2002). “Putting on Their Parking Caps,” Planning, April 2002, pp 16-21. Muheim, Peter & Partner (1998). CarSharing – the Key to Combined Mobility. Swiss Federal Office of Energy, Energie 2000. Accessed March 29, 2004 at reservation.mobility.ch/mobilmanager/IntSummeryE.html Olsen, Malene and Rettig, Morten (2000). Evaluering af carsharing i Danmark. Copenhagen: Miljøstyrelsen. Accessed July 27, 2004 at http://www.mst. dk/udgiv/Publikationer/2000/87-7944-312-5/html/ Perner, Torsten; Schöne, Patrick; and Brosig, Hagen (2000). Car-Sharing und ÖPNV—Das Dresdner Modell, Ergebnisse einer Umfrage. Schriftenreihe der TU Dresden. Cited in Huwer (2004). Price, Jeff and Hamilton, Chris (2005). Arlington Pilot Carshare Program. First- Year Report. Arlington: Arlington County. RIDES for Bay Area Commuters (2003). Commute Profile 2003. A Survey of San Francisco Bay Area Commute Patterns. Oakland: RIDES for Bay Area Commuters. Robert, Benoît (2000). Potentiel de l’auto-partage dans le cadre d’une politique de gestion de la demande en transport. Paper presented at Forum de l’AQTR, gaz à effet de serre: transport et développement, Kyoto: une opportunité d’affaires?, Montréal, February 7 2000. Rydén, Christian and Morin, Emma (2005). MOSES Environmental Assessment Report. Accessed February 1, 2005 at: 213.170.188.3/moses/Downloads/re- ports/del_6.pdf. San Francisco Planning Department (2002). Getting it Right. Rethinking San Francisco’s Parking Requirements. Planning policy discussion paper. Available at www.ci.sf.ca.us/planning/neighborhoodplans/parking/parking.htm. Shaheen, Susan, Sperling, D. and Wagner, Conrad (1998), “Carsharing in Europe and North America: Past, Present and Future,” Transportation Quar- terly, 52(3):35-52.

Chapter 4 • ImpaCts of Car-sharIng September 2005 Page 4-40 Shaheen, Susan; Wright, John; and Sperling, Daniel (2002). “California’s Zero-Emission Vehicle Mandate: Linking Clean-Fuel Cars, Carsharing and Station Car Strategies,” Transportation Research Record 1791, pp 113-120. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Shaheen, Susan; Schwartz, Andrew; and Wipyewski, Kamill (2004). “Policy Considerations for Carsharing and Station Cars: Monitoring Growth, Trends and Overall Impacts.” Transportation Research Record 1887, pp 128-136. Wash- ington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Shoup, Donald (2005). The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: American Planning Association. Steininger, Karl; Vogl, Caroline; and Zettl, Ralph (1996). Car-sharing Orga- nizations: The size of the market segment and revealed change in mobility behavior. Transport Policy 3(4): 177-185. Vance, Robert; Williams, John; and Rutherford, G. Scott (2004). Flexcar Seattle Member Attitude and Usage Survey. Paper presented at Transportation Re- search Board 83rd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 11-15, 2004. Wagner, Conrad (1990). ATG Umfrage 1990. ATG. Stans. German. Cited in Shaheen, Sperling & Wagner (1998). Zipcar (2001). Factsheet on Zipcar service. Zipcar (2005). Zipcar Customer Survey Shows Car-Sharing Leads to Car Shed- ding. News release dated February 16, 2005.

Next: Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners »
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 108: Car-Sharing--Where and How It Succeeds examines development and implementation of car-sharing services. Issues addressed in the report include the roles of car-sharing in enhancing mobility as part of the transportation system; the characteristics of car-sharing members and neighborhoods where car-sharing has been established; and the environmental, economic, and social impacts of car-sharing. The report also focuses on car-sharing promotional efforts, barriers to car-sharing and ways to mitigate these barriers, and procurement methods and evaluation techniques for achieving car-sharing goals.

Appendices A through E of TCRP Report 108 are included with the report on CRP-CD-60 that is packaged with the report. The appendices include an annotated bibliography; a list of partner organizations surveyed and interviewed; survey instruments; and sample documents such as Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and zoning ordinances related to car-sharing. Appendix E was designed as a resource for introducing organizations to car-sharing and encouraging partnerships to initiate car-sharing programs.

Links to the download site for the CRP-CD-60 and to instructions on burning an .ISO CD-ROM are below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the CRP-CD-60 CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This file is large--23.9 MB--and will take approximately 15 minutes to download using a high-speed connection.)

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!