Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 142
Chapter 5 · The Role of Partners
5.5Local Government
Local government agencies are undoubtedly the most common partner to
car-sharing operators. The explanations for this strong relationship are,
among other things, that (i) they have multiple goals that car-sharing can
help to achieve; (ii) they are responsible for many functions that make them
natural partners, particularly parking, transportation and planning; and (iii)
they may be responsive to public support for car-sharing.
Goals and Benefits
Of all the partner profiles evaluated in this study, local governments have
by far the broadest range of car-sharing related goals. These goals are to a
large extent linked to wider plans and goals to:
· Reduce VMT and emissions
· Reduce car ownership
· Reduce parking demand
· Increase both the general population's and low-income house-
holds' possibilities to have access to a car
Furthermore, for some local authorities, a car-sharing fleet instead of the
normal fleet is believed to result in cost savings. Some of these goals are
further explored below.
Several cities that have partnered with car-sharing operators cite a reduction
in VMT as one of the major goals that they hope to achieve through car-
sharing. Car-sharing breaks the link between car use and car ownership. It
also increases the awareness among both users and non-users about the true
costs of driving. The City of Seattle, WA is one of the local governments that
shares these goals, listing reduced VMT, reduced vehicle ownership, more
mobility, and more awareness of the costs of driving as aims of its car-shar-
ing program. "We're not so single-minded that we just want to reduce car
trips. Some people will drive more, but we want to see a net reduction in
trips," said one interviewee. Another example is the City of Aspen in Colo-
rado, which has an overall goal to keep traffic at 1993 levels in perpetuity.
Car-sharing is one way of continuing to reach that goal.
Staff at Arlington County in Virginia considers car-sharing as a support to
wider policies and can be seen as "one tool in the larger TDM tool box."
This is confirmed by several other local governments, such as St Paul in
Minnesota and Brookline in the outskirts of Boston, Massachusetts.
Page
September 2005
5-8
OCR for page 143
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
Exhibit 5-6 A hybrid vehicle used by City of Berkeley employees and other City CarShare members
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality are other
local government goals, which can partly be met through reduced vehicle
travel, and partly by introducing hybrid vehicles. Car-sharing also benefits
air quality since the vehicles tend to be newer and more fuel efficient.
Reduced car ownership is sometimes a means to reducing vehicle travel,
but is often an end in itself. Households owning one or more cars in transit-
oriented and dense neighborhoods are often seen as a primary target group,
since there is a potential to reduce car ownership in these areas. Car-sharing
also yields more efficient land use by reducing the parking demand and
providing more space for residential or commercial uses.
Another goal is to provide a mobility option that broadens opportunities
for people, especially when combined with transit. The District of Columbia
Department of Transportation states that car-sharing yields an enhanced
quality of life for all residents and for households without a car in particu-
lar. Car-sharing may also help satisfy the mobility needs of low-income
households, as well as reduce their transportation costs.
Cities have contracted with car-sharing operators to meet cost-saving
goals. Philadelphia, PA saved $1.8 million in 2004 by converting its fleet to
car-sharing vehicles operated by PhillyCarShare. Berkeley, California also
Page
5-9
OCR for page 144
Chapter 5 · The Role of Partners
anticipates financial savings from its fleet reduction program due to lower
costs for vehicle replacement, maintenance, fuel, insurance and staffing
(Exhibit 5-6).
Finding a Partner
Most partnerships between local government and car-sharing providers
are informal in nature and are also initiated as such. It is very common that
the car-sharing operator approaches the local government. Zipcar has, for
instance, approached both Boston and Brookline in Massachusetts regarding
possible partnerships. In Boston it was mainly about encouraging car-sharing
in new developments. In Brookline the partnership was more a question of
getting visible, metered spaces in commercial areas. Chicago, Washington,
DC and the City of Berkeley are other cities that have been approached by
the operators and decided to become partners with a provider.
In other cities, partners have been more proactive. The rideshare coordina-
tor of the City of Alexandria in Virginia was introduced to car-sharing at a
conference in the late 1990s and subsequently sought out possible operators.
The City of Cambridge in Massachusetts and Seattle, Washington are other
local government agencies that have initiated partnerships. In rare cases, the
agency may even start its own car-sharing organization, as with the City of
Aspen, CO which launched Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles in 2001.
For more information about procurement of car-sharing by local govern-
ments, see Chapter 7, Procurement and Monitoring.
Types of Support
Local governments provide a wide range of support to encourage the expan-
sion of car-sharing, in line with their multiple functions. However, there are
considerable variations in the extent of their assistance. Most commonly, it is
limited to in-kind support, since it is often difficult to justify direct financial
contributions to private car-sharing operators when budgets are being cut
elsewhere.
Marketing support is a central part of involvement, which most local govern-
ments provide in one way or the other. Some, such as the City of Berkeley
and the Department of Transportation in Washington, DC also provide some
administrative support. Others do not need to invest much time or money,
since administration is considered to be part of the car-sharing operator's
responsibilities.
Page
September 2005
5-10
OCR for page 145
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
Provision of parking has been one of the most tangible forms of support,
since most local governments control both on-street and some off-street
parking. Some agencies also provide funding, often from external grants.
The last section of this profile will deal with the planning, policy and tax-
related issues that local governments across the continent have established
or are about to establish to promote the growth of car-sharing.
Marketing
Marketing is a simple, low-cost mechanism for local government agencies
to assist car-sharing operators and promote better understanding of car-
sharing among the public. In most cases, it takes the form of an in-kind
contribution, but in some cases the marketing is a more extensive, grant-
supported activity.
Assistance can be of many different types, such as information on websites
and in newsletters; distribution of materials at transportation fairs and
employer outreach events; media coverage through issuing press releases;
and provision of on-street parking spaces as a means to promote car-shar-
ing. For instance, Brookline and Cambridge in Massachusetts link to the
local car-sharing operator on their websites. In the San Francisco Bay Area,
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission includes City CarShare in a
regional trip planning service
accessed online or by phone.
Some of the most effective mar-
keting partnerships have been
conducted through wider Trans-
portation Demand Management
programs, where car-sharing
is promoted as one TDM ele-
ment along with ridesharing,
transit and other strategies. For
example, in Arlington County
in Virginia, car-sharing is pro-
moted as part of a larger TDM
package (Exhibit 5-7) and in-
cludes car-sharing locations on
its parking and transportation
maps (Exhibit 5-8). Alexandria
Exhibit 5-7 Arlington County's website about car-sharing and all alternatives to the car
in Virginia is one of many cit- culture.
Source: http://www.commuterpage.com/carshare.htm, accessed on March 28, 2005.
Page
5-11
OCR for page 146
Chapter 5 · The Role of Partners
ies to promote car-sharing through transit fairs, employer fairs and other
employer outreach as part of the overall rideshare program. Car-sharing is
a centerpiece of Seattle's One Less Car Challenge (Exhibit 5-9).
Administration
Some local governments offer administrative assistance to car-sharing
providers, such as lending office or meeting space and providing technical
guidance. The most significant administrative help, however, is the time
agency staff invest in promoting car-sharing and managing the use of park-
ing spaces. This is especially important in the start-up phase of car-sharing
in a community. For instance, at San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG), the project manager invests about 150 hours per year and an
associate about 200 hours per year. This is covered by external funding in the
initial stages of the partnership and will not be a long-term commitment.
The City of Berkeley, CA provides a conference room for orientations for City
CarShare users. City staff has also invested a great deal of time in the initial
phase of the project, to investigate the potential of introducing a car-sharing
fleet and to apply for grants for hybrid vehicles. Other cities have committed
Exhibit 5-8 Arlington County's parking and transit maps highlight the locations of car-sharing vehicles.
Page
September 2005
5-12
OCR for page 147
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
Exhibit 5-9 Seattle's One Less Car Challenge
Seattle has incorporated car-sharing into its One Less Car Challenge program, which aims to
increase walking, biking and transit ridership by helping households to give up their cars. There are
two levels of commitment. In Level 1, households agree to give up driving one of their cars for a
month. In return each participant
receives a $20 discount on the
$35 annual Flexcar membership,
and $50 of free Flexcar usage. In
Level 2, the household gives up
a car for at least one year, and
in return receives $50 of Flexcar
use per month for 12 months, as
well as the membership discount.
The usage credits are provided by
Flexcar, and represent the most
tangible incentive for households
to join the program. The City
considers car-sharing to be a
critical part of the program not
only in providing the incentives, but
also through giving households
the confidence to give up a car,
since a shared vehicle will be
Source: http://www.seattle.gov/waytogo/onelesscar.htm, accessed on March 28, 2005.
available.
staffing resources to assist with parking and policy development. The City
of Aspen in Colorado, meanwhile, funds the staffing and office costs of its
subsidiary, Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles.
Administrative assistance can also take the form of building internal agency
support for car-sharing, and resolving internal barriers. For example, the
District Department of Transportation (DDOT) in Washington, DC has been
promoting the car-sharing concept in meetings, on transportation task forces
and in position papers. It has also intervened to help resolve several barriers
to car-sharing under the jurisdiction of other departments, such as zoning
and regulatory issues related to the classification of car-sharing spaces as a
commercial use or a place of business (see Chapter 6 for full details). Along
with on-street parking provision, staff believes that this type of assistance
is the most effective, appropriate form of support to private car-sharing
operators.
Page
5-13
OCR for page 148
Chapter 5 · The Role of Partners
Parking
Finding and financing parking spaces are often the largest barriers to car-
sharing expansion. Local governments often control both on- and off-street
parking and can thus provide some public parking. Marked parking zones
for car-sharing, free metered parking on-street, and discounts in municipal
lots are typical examples of parking support. There are two major issues for
local jurisdictions to resolve whether to charge for the parking, and whether
to provide it on- or off-street. Each of these issues is discussed below.
Several local authorities have chosen to provide off-street parking for car-
sharing. Off-street parking is easier to enforce and maintain. For example,
street sweeping schedules are not impacted by off-street parking, and it is
also preferable because the vehicle is protected and not subject to burial by
snow removal equipment. These are benefits listed by Cambridge, Somer-
ville and Brookline, which are cities in the greater Boston area, and by other
areas with cold climates.
Exhibit 5-10 Off-Street Parking in Philadelphia
Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) provides space for Philly CarShare (PCS) in about half a dozen
different facilities, mainly in residential areas. A process has been set up to locate new parking spaces
as PCS expands:
1. PCS meets with neighborhood community groups, to assess the level of interest in having a car-
sharing vehicle in the neighborhood and where it should be located.
2. The community groups provide feedback.
3. If appropriate, PCS requests parking from the PPA, which evaluates the requests. So far, none have
been denied.
PPA provides all parking spaces for free, since car-sharing helps to achieve its larger goal of maximizing
parking availability, and it is worth the minimal amount of revenue lost.
Several cities are providing on-street parking, as well as or instead of off-
street provision. These cities include Portland in Oregon, Seattle in Wash-
ington, and Vancouver in British Columbia. Others, such as San Diego in
California, are considering whether to follow suit. Philadelphia has both
on- and off-street car-sharing spaces, and PhillyCarShare consults with
community groups to determine the best locations in a given neighborhood
(Exhibit 5-10).
Page
September 2005
5-14
OCR for page 149
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
One large benefit of on-street parking is that car-sharing vehicles, which usu-
ally sport an identifying logo, are visible to everyone when they are parked
at the curb, even when not being used, which is a useful marketing tool. For
instance, DDOT in Washington, DC views the provision of on-street park-
ing as a public education strategy, as well as a means to provide parking to
operators. As discussed in Chapter 6, however, the original proposals met
with public opposition. Partly to address these concerns, the final regula-
tions included provisions that car-sharing operators must follow in order to
be granted on-street parking, including requirements for locating vehicles
in low-income neighborhoods, procedures for eliminating private parking
spaces when a public space is granted, and DDOT consultation with affected
neighborhoods. (See Appendix D for full document.)
Other cities turn to on-street parking for practical reasons, such as the Town
of Brookline in Massachusetts which has very stringent parking regulations.
No one can park on-street for more than two hours. Hence, all residents,
employees and anyone else who needs to park a car for longer must park
in off-street lots. Zipcar's spaces are exempt from these restrictions and are
parked on-street instead.
Brookline has developed a license agreement with Zipcar delineating the
parking locations for six car-share vehicles at a cost of $750 per year per
space. The preface of the license agreement supports car-sharing by stating,
"the availability of Zipcars for use by the residents of Brookline reduces their
need for personal automobiles, reduces vehicular congestion and auto-gen-
erated pollution, reduces the demand for parking spaces, and represents an
important element of a comprehensive and balanced transportation system."
(See Appendix D for full document.)
The City of Portland has perhaps had the greatest experience with on-street
parking. It has installed "Options Zones," identified by a tall orange pole
with a bike rack, and symbols of
a car, bike, tennis shoe, and bus
(Exhibit 5-11). The poles attach to
a parking meter head, simplify-
ing installation and allowing easy
removal if a space needs to be
relocated. Options Zones are near
areas with good transit service
and provide a visible way for car-
Exhibit 5-11 An Options Zone in Portland, Oregon.
Page
5-15
OCR for page 150
Chapter 5 · The Role of Partners
Exhibit 5-12 Seattle On-Street Parking Process
The City of Seattle has established a process for handling Flexcar's requests for on-street parking
spaces, as follows:
1. The City asks Flexcar to recommend spots.
2. The recommended spots are reviewed by transportation planning staff.
3. Transportation staff forwards requests to Traffic Controls and Parking Management. This division
reviews competing demands on the block such as parking, taxi stands and loading, and other issues
such as safety and turning radii. Traffic Controls & Parking Management approves or denies the request.
This is a similar process to other requests, for example for loading zones.
4. The City sends a letter to adjacent property owners. This is partly intended as an advance warning
that the space will be converted, and partly as publicity for Flexcar. It also reinforces the idea that the
curb parking is public property. Sometimes the property owners object, which is taken into account.
Currently, on-street parking spaces are only provided in neighborhoods with lower parking demand,
which do not have parking meters or residential permits. This is intended to avoid conflicts, enforcement
issues and loss of meter revenue. However, the City
is planning to revisit this issue in the coming year,
through developing more formal criteria for allocating
on-street spaces which take into account factors such
as car-sharing visibility and a hierarchy of users.
There are legal issues involved as well it is not
legal for the City to grant an on-street space to a
specific company. However, the City can grant space
for a class of vehicles. Hence, the signs indicate
"Carshare vehicles only." Initially, the parking spaces
were provided for free to Flexcar, but now there is
a $250 flat, one-time fee to cover the staff time Seattle's signs read "Carshare vehicles only".
setting it up.
sharing members to identify the location of the vehicle. Portland includes
car-sharing in the Option Zone as a type of marketing for car-sharing, and
to demonstrate the City's commitment to mobility options.
From the operator's viewpoint, on-street parking also adds security. It is
often located on busy, pedestrian-oriented streets, with passers-by--not
tucked away in a lot or garage. In addition, amenities such as bus stops,
street lighting, pay telephones, and trash cans are usually nearby.
Cities have split on whether to charge car-sharing operators for parking.
According to one study, 73% of car-sharing programs reported receiving
Page
September 2005
5-16
OCR for page 151
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
parking subsidies 60% from public entities, 33% from private companies,
and 20% from both public and private sources (Shaheen, Schwartz & Wipy-
ewski, 2004). Some cities have provided free parking on- or off-street since
the beginning of the program, and do not intend to stop doing so. To a few
cities, charging for parking was never even discussed since they consider
this to be their main contribution to car-sharing, in lieu of direct financial
support. Berkeley, CA and Vancouver, WA are just a few of the cities which
provide free parking.
Reasons not to provide free parking include perceptions of a parking short-
age or fears that it would lead to other organizations wanting free parking
as well. One city that was surveyed said: "It is difficult to offer free parking
in public facilities or on the street for car-sharing, because it sets a precedent
that we would do the same for other users who require dedicated public
parking spaces." Partly for this reason, Seattle limits on-street parking for
car-sharing to neighborhoods with lower parking demand (Exhibit 5-12).
Other cities have decided to give a start-up subsidy to the car-sharing opera-
tor by providing free parking, but as the operator becomes more profitable
the parking fees are slowly increased to market rate. Cambridge and other
cities in the greater Boston area have followed this model.
Almost all local governments have provided parking at the origin end, i.e. at
the "home" location of the car-sharing vehicle. Free, destination-end park-
ing has not been seen as an effective means of support. However, there are
occasional examples. For example, in 2000, the City of Toronto donated 25
on-street parking permits so that car-sharing members could park overnight
near their home.
Financial Contributions
Approximately, 60% of US car-sharing operators responding to a 2002 survey
received some public money for start-up costs, and 30% continued to receive
funding after their first year. In contrast, limited government funding has
been available in Canada (Shaheen & Meyn, 2002).
A large part of local governments' financial contributions come from external
grants, which provide seed money for new vehicles, hybrids, start-up sup-
port or other specific purposes. Some cities have also been able to finance
car-sharing with internal grants. Others are giving direct support from their
general funds. One model, which Arlington County has tried, is to provide
a revenue guarantee to operators as a form of risk-sharing to help them
Page
5-17
OCR for page 152
Chapter 5 · The Role of Partners
Exhibit 5-13 Risk-Sharing in Arlington County, Virginia
Car-sharing was already well established in the Washington metropolitan region, but staff at Arlington
County, VA was keen to see it expand more rapidly in the County. Flexcar, for example, only planned to
add two or three cars in the following year. Staff designed a program that would encourage Flexcar and
Zipcar to expand in Arlington, while avoiding subsidies that would simply boost their profit margins. As
well as on-street parking and marketing, the County provided a revenue guarantee for each vehicle for
the first six months, through contributing the difference between user fees and the estimated $1,500
per month cost of providing the vehicle. The guarantee ramped down rapidly, as follows:
1. $1,500 per vehicle per month for the first two months (minus revenue)
2. $1,000 per vehicle per month for the second two months (minus revenue)
3. $500 per vehicle per month for the third two months (minus revenue)
The program is funded through the County's Commute Alternatives budget, which uses CMAQ funds. A
total of $50,000 was allocated, but in practice membership and revenue have grown so rapidly that this
ceiling was never reached. With the help from the subsidies, the fleet had grown by 15 new cars in the first
year to a total of 27 in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor. Staff considers the program a great success.
explore new markets (Exhibit 5-13). All of these types of contributions are
explored below.
Seed money can be seen as the most valuable type of financial contribution
a local government can provide. It can finance feasibility studies and help
a car-sharing organization get up and running. A start-up enterprise needs
seed money to purchase vehicles, to market the service, and to cover lower
"farebox recovery" rates in the early years of a program.
Cities have applied for federal, state and local grants to financially support
car-sharing. Federal grants have mainly come from the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA), the Federal Transit Administration's Job Access and
Reverse Commute program (JARC) and its Congestion Management and
Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program. In Oregon, for example, the
Department of Environmental Quality secured money from EPA to initiate
a car-sharing program in Portland. $25,000 was allocated for a feasibility
study and $50,000 was earmarked to purchase two vehicles for the start up.
Vancouver, WA also received an EPA grant, as discussed in Exhibit 5-14.
Two State sources that have been used for car-sharing are Pennsylvania's
Alternative Fuels Incentive Grant Program, which provided $82,500 to help
purchase hybrid vehicles for PhillyCarShare, and the California Department
of Transportation's Community Planning Grant program.
Page
September 2005
5-18
OCR for page 153
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
Many local grant programs have also supported car-sharing. Roaring Fork
Valley Vehicles in Aspen, CO received a local grant of $30,000 from the Com-
munity Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE), which is a local non-profit
organization. These funds come from an energy mitigation fee assessed
on new homes that use more energy than the local energy code permits.
Toronto, Canada also provided start-up loans of (CN)$20,000 through the
Toronto Atmospheric Fund for AutoShare.
Other funding sources are coming from parking revenues and general funds.
The City of Seattle contributed start-up funding of $60,000 from their general
fund over a two-year period, which went to provide off-street parking in
private garages. Hennepin County, Michigan and the cities of Berkeley and
Oakland in the San Francisco Bay Area are other local governments that have
provided car-sharing operators with start-up grants. In some cases, other city
departments may even support car-sharing. Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles
recently received money from the City of Aspen's Housing Department for
a new vehicle. This money had been set aside for alternative transportation
for affordable housing.
Public agencies also indicate that they have provided lines of credit to car-
share organizations. The City of Kitchener in Ontario, Canada supplies a
(CN)$30,000 line of credit that must be repaid in nine years. People's Car
has used this credit to purchase new vehicles.
Therefore, public investment in car-sharing can boost its development in
the community, shorten the time it would take for car-sharing to spontane-
ously appear, or overcome a start-up barrier that may have prevented it
from ever starting at all.
Memberships
Several local governments, or individual departments, have established
memberships with a car-sharing operator. There are two reasons for this type
of partnership. First of all, these memberships contribute to the growth of the
service. Secondly, several cities have saved money by partly or completely
switching from under-utilized vehicles in a fleet to a car-sharing program,
where they only pay for the time they use the vehicles. In other words, this
type of partnership can have a positive outcome for both partners. One way,
which is not very common yet, is to switch from a municipal pool of cars, or
department-owned vehicles, to a car-sharing fleet. Another way is to support
individuals and businesses by subsidizing their membership fees.
Page
5-19
OCR for page 154
Chapter 5 · The Role of Partners
Exhibit 5-14 The Green Fleet Program in Vancouver, WA
When CarSharing Portland (which was later purchased by Flexcar) started in 1998, staff in Vancouver,
Washington became interested in extending the program across the river. Vancouver, which is a suburb
of Portland, established a "Green Fleet" program with a $65,000 Clean Air Transportation Communities
grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This fit well with the original intent of the grant,
which was provided to reduce vehicle travel and greenhouse gas emissions. Through the EPA grant,
Vancouver became Flexcar's first service expansion from an established urban area into a suburban
market.
Instead of Flexcar's typical sedans, Vancouver used part of the grant to pay for the extra costs of
introducing two hybrid vehicles when it started its car-sharing program in 2002. In total, the grant has
covered the additional costs of four hybrid vehicles--three Honda Civics and one Toyota Prius--providing
an early demonstration of an all-hybrid fleet in a single car-sharing service area. Vehicles are located
near on-street bike racks to make them accessible to bike riders. There are also four Flexcar vans, of
which two are placed in Vancouver and two in the county during evenings and nights. A pickup truck
outfitted with a bike rack was also originally stationed in Vancouver and later relocated to Portland.
The rest of the money was spent on marketing and subsidized memberships for businesses that have
joined since 2002. The grant, which expired in 2005, has provided incentives to new corporate members
to join, through paying for the first month of usage. For instance, both Clark County and departments at
the City of Vancouver have become corporate members. The institutions have received a pool bicycle
that they can use for shorter trips instead of taking a car. Private firms have also received Green
Fleet incentives to join. When signing up as corporate members, employees can receive free personal
memberships.
Fleets
Fleet partnership arrangements, where car-sharing partially or fully replaces
a municipal vehicle fleet, bring a potential win-win combination of cost sav-
ings for municipalities and membership growth for the operator. Beyond
that, they help the car-sharing operator to increase the usage of a vehicle
and thereby bring in more revenue. Most car-sharing operators experience
peak demand at evenings and weekends, while municipal usage is likely to
be highest during the working day. This means that operators may be able
to improve their "farebox recovery" and utilization rates substantially, if
vehicles are located where they can be used by both municipal employees
and local residents. Several variations on car-sharing as a substitute for fleet
vehicles are described below, and in Exhibit 5-15.
The City of Berkeley has implemented a program to replace 15 fleet vehicles
with four City CarShare vehicles. Berkeley residents are able to use the
car-sharing fleet vehicles on weekday evenings and weekends. The City is
Page
September 2005
5-20
OCR for page 155
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
Exhibit 5-15 Fleet Reduction in Philadelphia
Philadelphia is the first large city in the world to replace its vehicle fleet with car-
sharing, which it terms Automated Vehicle Sharing. The motivation was not to support
PhillyCarShare but instead to save money through drastically reducing the City's fleet,
in the face of a budget crisis. "Car-sharing helped us to mitigate the impact of this
fleet reduction," according to Public Financial Management, the City's consultant.
About 310 vehicles had been taken out of the fleet by March 2005. The target is
500 vehicles, including all the City's sedans and SUVs.
The City's calculations show savings of more than $9 million over five years. Many
of the previous fleet cars were little used for work purposes, and employees would
often drive them home at night. In other words, car-sharing is not necessarily
cheaper on a per-trip basis, the City found, but can bring about major cost savings
through making fleet costs fully transparent. Departments are now billed individually
for PhillyCarShare usage, in contrast to the previous situation where all costs were
borne centrally by the Office of Fleet Management.
Trips previously made using City pool cars are expected to be made with
PhillyCarShare, employees' own vehicles, and transit. To help reduce opposition
and ease implementation, the City introduced a monthly stipend program for senior
managers who may be on call and need access to a vehicle, although in practice, few
have signed up for this benefit. It also expected to increase mileage reimbursements
for employees who use their own auto.
The following chart outlines Philadelphia's five-year cost savings. Note that some
savings are not included, because of the difficulty of estimating them. These include
avoided liability costs from auto damage under the City's self-insurance plan and
reduced labor costs due to attrition over time of administrative and maintenance
staff.
FiveYear Totals Net Cost Avoidance
Maintenance and Fuel Costs $4,538,334
Parking Costs $225,000
First Year, Non-Recurring Auction Revenue $263,200
Subtotal $5,026,534
Acquisition Costs $4,186,458
Automated Vehicle Sharing Costs ($106,857)
Personal Auto Program Cost Increase TBD*
Total $9,106,134
Source: Public Financial Management, May 2005.
*The mileage reimbursements are difficult to track through the City's automated budgeting system, but are
considered negligible. Costs from the monthly stipend program are also negligible, since few managers have
signed up. Therefore, the Personal Auto Program does not significantly impact savings from the overall vehicle
reduction program.
Page
5-21
OCR for page 156
Chapter 5 · The Role of Partners
funding the first year of the program with a parking mitigation payment
of $150,000 from a developer who provided 10 fewer parking spaces than
required under the Zoning Ordinance. These funds can only be spent on
programs or facilities that can reasonably mitigate for the lack of 10 park-
ing spaces. The second and third year of funding will be drawn from the
operating budget allocations for vehicle-related expenditures in each of the
departments participating in the program. Another potential funding source
is the cumulative savings from the current fleet vehicle replacement fund.
Other cities and counties have introduced similar programs, but on a smaller
scale for example, with individual departments joining as a regular cor-
porate member (e.g. the Transportation Services department at the City of
Vancouver and Clark County in Washington State). Many of these local
government agencies have been able to give up one or more vehicles as a
result.
Still more are planning to follow suit in switching to a car-share fleet. In a
campaign policy paper, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom pledged: "As
mayor, I will direct all city departments to join City CarShare with the goal
of retiring the city vehicle fleet and service facilities. Car share facilities
should be mandated in all city-owned parking facilities and provided as
a condition of use in major new private developments. By pursuing these
goals, we can have a car-sharing pod available within walking distance of
90 percent of San Francisco residents by 2006."
Membership Subsidies
Another approach used by partner organizations is to subsidize member-
ships, whether for all members or a targeted group. An example of a local
authority aiming at a more general target group is the City of Alexandria in
Virginia. Its Carshare Alexandria! incentive offers a promotion to residents
and businesses. The incentive reimburses up to $105 of membership and
application fees for residents. For business, it funds up to $50 for member-
ship fees plus half of each employee's application fee of up to $20.
Low-income households, who are disproportionately transit dependent,
have also become a significant target group. Reduced car-sharing member-
ship costs can make it financially possible for them to join, in turn improving
mobility by providing access to a vehicle. Hence, car-sharing does not only
support environmental goals, but also contributes to social equity.
Page
September 2005
5-22
OCR for page 157
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
Membership subsidies have been structured in two broad ways to target
low-income households:
· Through welfare-to-work programs. The Metropolitan Transpor-
tation Commission is subsidizing low-income residents in two San
Francisco neighborhoods by waiving the deposit and membership
fees and by charging half the normal hourly and mileage costs.
Eligibility is limited to CalWORKs welfare-to-work participants.
King County Metro and Flexcar are beginning a similar program
in Seattle (see Chapter 6). Funding is through federal JARC
grants.
· Through affordable housing. The City of Vancouver in Wash-
ington has a pilot program for residents in affordable housing,
in partnership with Vancouver Housing Authority (VHA) and
Flexcar. If a household signs a one-year lease with the develop-
ment, the family receives a welcome package containing free daily
transit passes, a bicycle map and a Flexcar introductory package.
Ten pilot households will receive free Flexcar accounts (paid by
VHA), and five hours free Flexcar use per month for six months
(paid by the three partners). The pilot households are located in
workforce housing within mixed-use developments near transit.
As discussed above, programs to bring car-sharing to low-income house-
holds can also be geographically based, through encouraging car-sharing
operators to place cars in low-income neighborhoods. The City of Seattle
provides a good example.
Planning, Policy and Tax Issues
Planning, policy and taxation issues encompass a range of strategies that
can help to institutionalize car-sharing within local government. This section
discusses the potential to incorporate the concept into planning documents,
development review procedures, zoning codes and taxation laws.
In the Planning Process
Government jurisdictions are including car-sharing as a strategy in trans-
portation and environmental planning documents, in view of the expected
benefits. Car-sharing is featured in Montreal's Action Plan for Reducing
Greenhouse Gases; Boston's Citywide Transportation Plan; Seattle's Trans-
portation Strategic Plan (TSP), which was adopted in 1998 and then revised
in 2004 (Exhibit 5-16); and Toronto's Official Plan and Environment Plan.
The primary benefit of incorporation in these types of planning documents
is credibility; it ensures that car-sharing is perceived as a mainstream trans-
portation option that has the support of local decision makers. According
to Seattle transportation staff, inclusion of car-sharing in the Transportation
Page
5-23
OCR for page 158
Chapter 5 · The Role of Partners
Strategic Plan captured the attention of elected officials, and ensured that
staff had the policy direction to pursue and fund car-sharing. "The TSP
helped tremendously" to counter views that car-sharing was "this crazy
idea," said one staffer.
Exhibit 5-16 A Sample Car-Sharing Policy: Seattle's 2004 Transportation
Strategic Plan
TDM6. Encourage Car-Sharing
Continue to support Seattle's car-sharing organizations. Car-sharing helps extend the public
transportation network, increases transportation choices, reduces the land devoted to parking spaces,
and reduces the overall number of car trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Seattle has the nation's
oldest and largest car-sharing program called Flexcar, developed as a public-private partnership with
King County Metro and a private firm. In previous years, the City of Seattle has provided funds for off-
street parking incurred by the program and the City modified the Land Use Code to provide incentives
for new development to offer car-sharing spaces in new buildings. SDOT continues to sign on-street
parking spaces for car-sharing parking where consistent with SDOT policies, and promotes and increases
the awareness of car-sharing. SDOT should continue to investigate, evaluate and explore methods of
supporting car-sharing organizations.
Through the Development Process
As already mentioned, finding parking is one of the largest obstacles for
car-sharing expansion. So far, parking for car-sharing vehicles has mainly
been provided by cities on an ad hoc basis. In the longer term, however, one
of the most productive ways for local governments to support continued
expansion may be to provide incentives for developers to incorporate car-
sharing into their projects.
Linking car-sharing to access planning and zoning decisions in this way
yields two benefits. Firstly, it provides the foundation for longer-term
growth. Secondly, it allows the longer-term impacts of car-sharing to be
captured through a reduced level of parking or roadway infrastructure
provision.
Car-sharing is being integrated in two ways in the development process.
One way is to include it as a formal mitigation measure during access or
site planning, in the same way as other demand management strategies.
For instance, car-sharing is incorporated into Boston's Project Access Plan
Agreements for new developments. Any office or residential building that
will be built with a parking garage must provide car-sharing spaces, although
Page
September 2005
5-24
OCR for page 159
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
these may be charged for at market rates. In Cambridge, Massachusetts,
developers who want to expand or build new parking in excess of 19 spaces
must comply with the Parking and Transportation Demand Management
(PTDM) ordinance. The ordinance requires them to have a program that
reduces parking demand; car-sharing can be one such strategy.
A third example is provided by Seattle, where car-sharing was recently
added to the menu of options that developers can include in Transportation
Management Plans. Staff does not wish to force car-sharing on unwilling
developers, but rather sees this as a way to market the concept, since it
shows up as an option on development forms. If developers do not wish
to include car-sharing, they need to provide a documented reason, such as
lack of demand or interest on the part of the operator.
The second way to incorporate car-sharing into the development process is
through zoning decisions. Many communities offer flexible parking require-
ments, allowing reductions for developers that incorporate demand manage-
ment measures or build projects located close to transit (see, for example,
Forinash et al., 2004). Car-sharing can be an extension of this concept. So
far this type of flexible parking requirement has mainly been implemented
on a case-by-case basis:
· The City of Berkeley, California has a downtown parking require-
ment of one space per three residential units in its zoning ordi-
nance. However, before the reduced parking requirement was
adopted, the City of Berkeley, California permitted the developer
of the Gaia Building, a mixed-use project in the downtown, to
build only one space per three units, in part because the project
offered car-sharing. The City has offered several such variances
in exchange for car-sharing on a case-by-case basis, although it is
looking at formalizing the process.
· In Aspen, Colorado, residential units in the new Visitor's Center
will have no on-site parking. Rather than paying a parking miti-
gation fee, the developers will contribute $60,000 to Roaring Fork
Valley Vehicles, which is enough to pay for the leasing and opera-
tion of one vehicle for 10 years.
· Arlington County, VA is another local government that offers
generous reductions in parking requirements. This is negotiated
as part of the overall site plan approval process and for the entire
TDM package, rather than for car-sharing specifically. The County
prefers encouraging car-sharing with memberships and use cred-
its for tenants instead of dedicating a certain number of car-shar-
ing vehicles in the site plan agreement. By doing so, car-sharing
Page
5-25
OCR for page 160
Chapter 5 · The Role of Partners
parking does not necessarily have to be located in the new devel-
opment, but can be on-street or in other complexes instead.
· Office of Planning staff in the District of Columbia report that
parking requirements in the city's zoning regulations are quite
low, compared to typical requirements across the nation. Even so,
when projects come in for zoning relief, the staff encourages de-
velopers to explore car-sharing as one of the tools to reduce project
costs associated with parking and, by extension, to lower housing
costs. Car-sharing can also mitigate the number of auto trips gen-
erated by the project.
As with any zoning provision, giving developers the right to reduced park-
ing requirements, rather than treating each project case-by-case, provides
developers and car-sharing operators with far greater certainty. However,
there are few examples to date of formal incorporation of car-sharing into
zoning codes, and cities have been reluctant.
Seattle modified its Land Use Code to incorporate car-sharing, but does not
automatically allow a net parking reduction. Instead, the change addressed
issues related to commercial use of residential spaces (see Chapter 6); the
new Code allows a space to be dedicated for car-sharing space instead of
general use (see Appendix D). According to planning staff, there were two
main reasons for not allowing car-sharing to replace a greater number of
general use spaces. Firstly, the City wanted to avoid potential abuse of the
incentive; staff feared that car-sharing spaces would be provided in places
where car-sharing would not be feasible. Secondly, staff had concerns over
what would happen if car-sharing services were withdrawn. In addition,
the City already has low parking minimums and is working to abolish them
entirely in many dense, transit-accessible neighborhoods.
Two cities have provided more generous zoning incentives, although it is
too soon for their effectiveness to be evaluated. In Texas, Austin approved
an ordinance in September 2004 allowing reductions in parking for multi-
family residential development projects that participate in car-sharing (see
Appendix D). The reduction is limited to projects within the University
Neighborhood Overlay, an area of medium- to high-density housing and
commercial development west of The University of Texas at Austin campus.
Currently, Austin does not have a car-sharing service; this parking reduction
incentive was intended to stimulate interest in starting car-sharing in Austin.
(An RFP was planned to be issued in 2005.)
Page
September 2005
5-26
OCR for page 161
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
Another example comes from Vancouver, BC in Canada. In June 2005, City
bylaws were amended to permit a car-sharing space to substitute for three
regular parking spaces in multi-family buildings citywide. One car-sharing
space may be provided for every 60 dwelling units; with rounding of frac-
tions, projects of 30 units or more could take advantage of the provision.
The bylaws require the provision of a vehicle as well as a dedicated space,
and the filing of a satisfactory agreement between the developer and the
car-sharing operator.
Other cities are still exploring zoning changes, such as Palo Alto, CA, or have
passed policy resolutions that have yet to be translated into code language,
such as San Francisco, CA. Here, legislation is planned to be introduced
in 2005 to codify the current practice of granting parking reductions on a
case-by-case basis. In Massachusetts, meanwhile, the State's Transit-Oriented
Development Bond Program Guidelines support reduced parking in devel-
opments that incorporate car-sharing. They state that one car-sharing space
may substitute for 7-10 private parking places. The Guidelines are backed
by State regulations, which establish rules and procedures under the Transit-
Oriented Development Infrastructure and Housing Support Program.
A third potential mechanism to incorporate car-sharing into development
decisions relates to fee assessment and traffic analysis. Cities could waive
or reduce requirements for other transportation infrastructure for develop-
ments that incorporate car-sharing, or take the provision of car-sharing into
account when assessing impact fees to mitigate new vehicle trips. While this
concept is similar to granting flexibility in parking requirements, it does not
appear to have been used yet in North America, even though traffic impact
analysis guidelines adopted by several agencies (for example, the Valley
Transportation Authority in Santa Clara County, CA) allow credits for other
demand management measures.
However, there are some examples from Europe. For example, the require-
ment to build a road was waived for the developer of Slateford Green in
Edinburgh, Scotland because the 120-unit housing project is car-free. Instead
of parking lots, the space is used for gardens and play areas. Residents
primarily use public transit, which is close by, although car-sharing is also
available on site.
Page
5-27
OCR for page 162
Chapter 5 · The Role of Partners
Tax-Related Solutions
Tax credits can provide a further incentive for car-sharing. Although this
is rare, there are several notable examples worth highlighting. The State of
Oregon passed legislation in 2001 which allows tax credits for businesses
that carry out energy-saving activities, including car-sharing operators,
through an expansion of the Business Energy Tax Credit program. The
Oregon Department of Energy, which administers the program, includes
as eligible the cost of operating the car-sharing program, including the fair
market value of parking spaces used to store the cars, but does not include
the cost of the vehicles.
Washington State adopted a different tax incentive program in 2003, which
provides credits to businesses that join car-sharing as part of a trip reduction
strategy (see Exhibit 5-17). In the Netherlands, company cars that are also
used for car-sharing are exempt from the 25% tax on the value of the car.
Exhibit 5-17 Tax Incentives in Washington State
Since 2003, the State of Washington has provided commute trip reduction credits to employers and
property managers who provide financial incentives to employees for using commute trip reduction
(CTR) measures. Qualifying measures include ride sharing, public transportation, car-sharing, and non-
motorized commuting. Employers and property managers who provide these financial incentives may
claim a credit on their tax return equal to 50% of the incentive paid to or on behalf of the employee,
less any employee contributions. The maximum amount of credit for each employee per fiscal year is
$60. The maximum amount of credit an employer or property manager may take for a fiscal year is
$200,000, and the annual statewide cap is $2.25 million.
Source: Revised Code of Washington § 82.70.010 (5).
Page
September 2005
5-28
