National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners

« Previous: Chapter 4 - Impacts of Car-Sharing
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 161
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 162
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 163
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 164
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 165
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 166
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 167
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 168
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 169
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 170
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 171
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 172
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 173
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 174
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 175
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 176
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 177
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 178
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 179
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 180
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 181
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 182
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 183
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 184
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 185
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 186
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 187
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 188
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 189
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Role of Partners." 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 190

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 5-1 CHapter 5. tHe role of partnerS 5.1 What are partner organizations? Car-sharing has only begun to grow as an alternative transportation mode in the United States and Canada. As Chapter 3 pointed out, just 0.03% of the US urban population belonged to a car-sharing organization in 2004. A key reason is the lack of knowledge about what car-sharing is and how it works. Dr. Marcus Enoch, in a 2002 presentation to the European Union’s Mobility Services for Urban Sustainability Project, noted: Overall, the formation of nation-wide organizations to “educate” policy makers and the wider public as to the role and benefits of car share clubs appears to have been a key reason that such schemes prospered in Switzerland and Germany. It is interesting to note that one of the major barriers faced by car share clubs in Canada and the USA, where such knowledge is not yet widespread, is the ignorance of local authorities of the whole car share club concept. (Enoch, 2002, p.1-2) If car-sharing is to realize its maximum potential as a transportation option, it will need the help of partner organizations. When Dr. Enoch speaks of local authorities, he is referring to assistance from cities, counties and regional agencies, working as partners with the car-sharing organizations. A review of the literature on car-sharing, as well as a 2004 survey and 72 personal and phone interviews conducted for this research study, reveals a wide range of potential partner organizations. Sur- vey and interview respondents included cities, counties, state and regional agencies, rideshare agencies, universities, developers and property managers, employers and businesses, transit agencies, consultants, community advocates, a church, and car-sharing opera- tors. (See Appendix C for survey and interview questions and a list of respondents.) Partner organizations are composed of any entity that helps car- sharing get a stronghold in communities. This help can be as basic as financial assistance and marketing. It can be as concrete as pro- viding parking spaces for car-sharers. And it can be as advanced as integrating policies requiring car-sharing into planning documents,

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-2 or even codifying policies into tax laws. As used in this chapter, partners are those organizations that see a benefit from car-sharing and take actions to help it succeed. 5.2 Which organizations are Involved? To obtain a better understanding of the role of partner organizations in the United States and Canada, a survey and literature search were conducted for this research study, with follow-up personal and phone interviews with 72 partner organizations. Survey Distribution and response Announcements about the survey and how to access it on the internet were distributed by car-sharing organizations to their partners. Additional links to the survey were distributed via the World CarShare and Transportation Demand Management listserves, and through direct e-mails to individual contacts found through a web search. This information was supplemented by a literature review and the web search. Representatives of 49 partner organizations answered the survey.1 Respon- dents were located in all sectors of the United States; six were located in Canada. About 58% worked in a public agency, and, of those, most worked for a government organization. The remaining respondents represented a private or non-profit organization. Exhibit 5-1 lists the types of partner organization responding to the survey. Interviews Using the survey respondents as a base, site visits and telephone interviews were scheduled to gain more complete answers to the issues raised in the survey. Additional interviews were scheduled with people suggested by the base list of interviewees and by TCRP panel members and car-sharing industry representatives. One of the researchers made site visits to partner organizations in the cities of Seattle and San Francisco, and several in the Washington, DC vicinity. The visits added texture and depth to the research through observation of the car-sharing programs in the field. All other in- terviews were conducted by phone. A total of 72 interviews were held to encompass the breadth of partner organizations. This included interviews 1. Since many potential survey respondents were contacted directly by car-sharing operators, or via e-mail listserves, it is not possible to calculate a response rate. Therefore, the sample may not be representative of partner organizations as a whole. For these reasons, and due to the sample size, the survey results should not be interpreted as being statistically significant, even though in some cases numerical results are reported.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-3 with government agencies, universities, transit properties, employers, and developers. Exhibit 5-1 summarizes the types of people who were inter- viewed. Appendix C lists the names of these partner organizations. Exhibit 5-1 Partner Survey Respondents and Interviewees Type of Partner Organization Survey Respondents Interview Respondents City or county 14 27 Regional Agency 5 2 Public utility 1 State agency 2 1 Rideshare/TDM agency 6 1 University 7 9 Developer/Property manager 2 10 Community/Advocacy group 3 Religious institution 1 Employer 1 6 Transit Agency 11 Consultants to government & developers 2 2 Architect 1 Vehicle/Service provider* 1 Technology service provider* 1 Supermarket 1 Car-share operator* 1 3 TOTAL 49 72 * Note that since the survey was distributed to a wide variety of potential respondents, including via e-mail listserves, not all of these organizations may be the types of partners that are the focus of this chapter. However, their responses are included for the sake of completeness. 5.3 Summary of Survey results The survey respondents were about evenly divided between describing their partnership with the car-sharing organization as formal or informal. About half of the partner organizations who answered the survey said that the car- sharing organization had initiated the partnership. The same number said that staff at their own organization or another organization had initiated the partnership. The majority reported that their overall understanding of car-sharing, its impacts and economic viability had substantially improved as a result of their participation in the partnership, compared to knowledge they had about car-sharing before they entered into the partnership. Overall, most respondents considered that they now have a good or excellent un- derstanding of key aspects of car-sharing. Exhibits 5-2 and 5-3 summarize these answers.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-4 Exhibit 5-2 Who Initiates Car-Sharing Partnerships? Organization Initiating Partnership Number % Car-Sharing Operator 15 41% Staff at Partner Organization 11 30% Staff at Another Organization 4 11% Community/Advocacy Group 1 3% Elected Officials 0 0% Other 3 8% Don’t Know 3 8% Total 37* 100% * Twelve organizations did not respond to this question. Exhibit 5-3 Understanding of Car-Sharing Before and After Partnership Total Responses Poor Moderate Good Excellent How would you rate your understanding of… How car-sharing works – for example, what car-sharing is, and how it operates? Before the Partnership 38 13% 45% 34% 8% Currently 42 0% 17% 31% 52% Change -13% -28% -3% +44% Where car-sharing is economically viable – for example, judging the neighborhoods in which car-sharing is likely to attract members? Before the Partnership 38 32% 37% 29% 3% Currently 42 7% 24% 43% 26% Change -25% -13% +14% +24% The impacts of car-sharing – for example on vehicle ownership, vehicle travel and air quality? Before the Partnership 38 21% 50% 24% 5% Currently 42 5% 17% 55% 24% Change -16% -33% +31% +19% Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding. types of Support The contributions of partner organizations that were surveyed have ranged from limited—such as, marketing assistance—to substantial—such as, re- duced parking requirements when a residential development incorporates car-sharing. According to the literature search, most of the substantial con- tributions have occurred in Europe, where car-sharing had its roots and is, therefore, more well-established and understood. However, many of these have been taken up and extended by partners in North America, albeit on a more limited scale.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-5 The assistance mentioned by partners in the survey can be broadly sum- marized in the following categories: • Marketing • Administration • Parking • Financial contributions • Memberships • Planning, policy, and tax issues • Transit integration Sections 5.4 through 5.9 describe these categories in detail with extensive examples culled from the survey, the literature search and the partner in- terviews. attitudes toward Subsidies of Car-Sharing Seed money can be invaluable in conducting feasibility studies and helping a car-sharing operation get up and running. More than 75% of partners who answered the survey question said that it is appropriate for car-sharing or- ganizations to receive start-up subsidies. Exhibit 5-4 illustrates the partners’ opinions about whether car-sharing organizations should receive subsidies, be financially self-sufficient, or treated like any other contracted service. Exhibit 5-4 Partners’ Responses on Subsidizing Car-Sharing 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Agree Disagree Neither Agree Disagree Neither Agree Disagree Neither N um be r o f r es po nd en ts Slightly Strongly It is appropriate for car-sharing operators to receive start-up subsidies Car-sharing organizations need to be financially self-sufficient, without the need for public funding Car-sharing should be procured and treated like any other contracted service

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-6 perceived Benefits Survey respondents were asked, “In your opinion, how can car-sharing help further the goals of your organization?” As shown in Exhibit 5-5, most partners see multiple benefits – on average, respondents selected more than five options. However, when asked in a follow-up question to choose which of the benefits was the most important for their organization, no clear choice emerged. Exhibit 5-5 Benefits of Car-Sharing Survey respondents considered, on balance, that car-sharing had been suc- cessful in helping to achieve their most important goal. However, many were not yet collecting hard data to support this belief. Chapter 7 discusses the various approaches used by respondents to evaluate car-sharing’s suc- cess and makes recommendations on quantitative techniques to measure performance. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Reduces parking demand Provides mobility options Improves air quality Reduces vehicle travel Increases transit ridership Provides more affordable transportation options Supports our organization's environmental image Provides a benefit or amenity for our employees Provides a benefit or amenity for our tenants Helps secure development approvals Reduces our company/organization's vehicle fleet size Other Number of respondents Most important benefit Benefit to our organization

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-7 5.4 Contributions of partner organizations The following sections examine in detail the contributions partner organiza- tions have been making to further the success of car-sharing. They combine examples derived from the literature search, the survey, and the partner interviews to provide a rich menu of assistance that could be offered to nascent car-sharing operations. To focus prospective partners on what others have done in their industry, the following sections present profiles of five different types of partners: • Local governments • Transit agencies • Employers and businesses • Developers • Universities Each profile then outlines the strategies used by the partner organizations to help promote car-sharing. The profile begins with a discussion of the goals and benefits the partners hope to achieve. It describes how partners got started and who made the first contact. Extensive examples derived from the various partner organizations are given under the heading Types of Support. Support includes marketing; administration; parking; financial contributions; memberships; planning, policy, and tax issues; and transit integration. This chapter focuses on successful examples of partnerships with car-sharing operators. The following chapter, Chapter 6, discusses the barriers that the partner organizations faced in implementing their partnerships and how they were overcome.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-8 5.5 local 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.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-9 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 Exhibit 5-6 A hybrid vehicle used by City of Berkeley employees and other City CarShare members

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-10 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.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-11 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 in Virginia is one of many cit- Exhibit 5-7 Arlington County’s website about car-sharing and all alternatives to the car culture. Source: http://www.commuterpage.com/carshare.htm, accessed on March 28, 2005.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-12 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.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-13 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. 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 available. Source: http://www.seattle.gov/waytogo/onelesscar.htm, accessed on March 28, 2005.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-14 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. 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). 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.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-15 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.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-16 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 setting it up. Seattle’s signs read “Carshare vehicles only”. 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

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-17 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

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-18 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. 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.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-19 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.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-20 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 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.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-21 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.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-22 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.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-23 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

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-24 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. 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 Exhibit 5-16 A Sample Car-Sharing Policy: Seattle’s 2004 Transportation Strategic Plan TDM6. Encourage Car-Sharing Continue to suppor t 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.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-25 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

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-26 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.)

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-27 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.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-28 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).

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-29 5.6 transit agencies Transit agencies across North America are teaming up with car-sharing operators as a means to provide station access, and increase ridership and overall mobility. Most often these transit agencies provide marketing assis- tance or car-sharing parking at rail stations. Transit agencies that provide rail service have often proved the most logical partners for car-sharing operators. However, there are several examples of bus-based agencies as well, notably King County Metro in the Seattle region. Goals and Benefits Two core goals of transit agencies are often to increase ridership and rev- enue. Car-sharing can help achieve both of these, agencies perceive, as well as contribute to broader objectives of reducing automobile use and improv- ing mobility. Some transit agencies focus on car-sharing as a station access strategy, in order to help expand the market for transit, manage customer parking, and bridge the “last mile” between the rail station and a passenger’s final destination. For example, Metro North in New York considers that car-shar- ing vehicles at remote stations allow it to tap a market formerly not served. The agency can increase the sale of tickets, because people would formerly have had to rent a car or take a cab to these locations. Instead of using a car to make a 100-mile trip, passengers take Metro North most of the way and complete the trip by car-sharing. Another means to boost ridership is through using car-sharing to increase pass sales. Some agencies see car-sharing as a means to bring about broader changes in travel behavior. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Author- ity (SEPTA), for example, considers car-sharing as an adjunct to public transportation – a way for households to purchase fewer cars, rely more on public transportation, and use a car only when needed. “We believe that car-sharing puts people on transit,” SEPTA staff says. Car-sharing also fits into the broader “mobility management” function of transit agencies (Murray et al., 1997). Metro North, the Washington Metro- politan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and Seattle’s King County Metro all view car-sharing within this framework. King County Metro has used its car-sharing partnership to attract private capital to public transportation in order to address urban mobility. As Metro

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-30 staff states: “The amount of money we have brought to the table [for car- sharing] is small compared to the amount of private capital that we have leveraged.” Transit passes also have added value since Metro included a car-sharing incentive with the purchase of a FlexPass. finding a partner Most commonly a partnership is initiated through the car-sharing operator approaching the transit agency. However, some agencies such as SEPTA and WMATA point out that car-sharing was already on the agenda, meaning that operators found a receptive audience. Some transit agencies, such as King County Metro in the Seattle region and Metro North in New York, have been more proactive in developing the partnership. King County staff had been following car-sharing in Europe, particularly the integration with transit. The agency issued an RFP in Spring 1999, and the program was launched in January 2000. types of Support Transit agencies provide types of support similar to that provided by lo- cal governments. However, the scope of their involvement is usually less, given that they have fewer functions than cities and counties. Marketing and parking are the main contributions, although some agencies provide other types of support as well. Marketing Transit agencies can provide operators with access to a range of marketing channels. Since transit riders are usually the core market for car-sharing operators (Chapter 3), this can be an effective means of targeting promo- tional efforts. Marketing is mainly provided on transit agency websites and through ad- vertisements and brochures on buses and trains and in stations. WMATA in Washington DC and TriMet in the Portland region are two agencies that provide information about car-sharing and links to providers on their web- sites. WMATA; BART and Muni in the San Francisco Bay Area; and Metro North in New York are examples of agencies that have provided advertis- ing space (Exhibits 5-18 and 5-19). The common message delivered is that car-sharing is a great complement to transit. Website information can be an ongoing activity, while most agencies tend to focus advertising in the start- up phase of the car-sharing program.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-31 As with local governments, the most effective marketing is often integrated with broader Transportation Demand Management pro- grams, particularly for agencies that have TDM responsibili- ties. For example, King County Metro views the “insertion” of car-sharing into its Commute Trip Reduction program as one of the most effective ways in which it supports car-shar- ing. In one effort, Metro partnered with Washington State Ferries, Kitsap Transit and Flexcar to establish 26 Commute Boards for ferry commuters on 11 of their ferries and at their terminals. The display board is complemented by brochures (Exhibit 5-20), and in the initial phases Flexcar representatives rode the ferries to advertise the availability of car-sharing at ferry terminals. Metro funded a promotion package offering free car-sharing membership and a $25 usage credit. Four hundred commuters signed up this way. Several transit agencies also bring brochures and the car-shar- ing operator’s marketing material to transportation fairs and events. Los Angeles Metro and Flexcar, for instance, conduct joint marketing at different events. Metro has also paid for the production of “take-ones” – timetable-sized brochures – about car-sharing. Integration into employer outreach efforts can be another strategy for transit agencies. In Portland, OR TriMet provides Flexcar with access to its employer database, which can be Exhibit 5-18 BART and City CarShare conducted extensive marketing in the initial stages of the partnership. Exhibit 5-19 The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority promotes car-sharing on its website Exhibit 5-20 King County Metro and partners promote car-sharing to ferry commuters.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-32 used to find employers who may be interested in car-sharing. Especially small companies downtown, who cannot afford to buy their own company vehicles, have proven very interested in Flexcar when approached. Commute Trip Reduction staff at King County Metro, meanwhile, generates sales leads for Flexcar. The agency also views car-sharing as a means to further sales of its FlexPass – a discounted transit pass that employers can purchase on behalf of all their employees. It frequently offers promotional incentives to tie the two products – Flexcar and FlexPass – together. Parking provision can also be seen as a means of marketing, in that it maximizes the visibility of the car-sharing service. This is discussed in the section below. Administration Most transit agencies do not provide any administrative support to their car-sharing partners. However, Los Angeles Metro provides office space for car-sharing organizations, as a form of in-kind support which may be particularly valuable in the start-up phase. The most in-depth example of administrative support comes from King County Metro in the Seattle region. A large part of its initial assistance was provided in the form of a full-time staff member to provide marketing and outreach support and serve as a liaison between Metro and Flexcar. This was intended to create an in-depth partnership, rather than simply a vendor relationship. Metro also provides office space, again as a means to strengthen the partnership by having Flexcar and its Commute Trip Reduction staff together on the same floor. Flexcar staff believes that the shared space makes for a “very synergistic relationship.” Parking Parking is considered to be the main support that transit agencies provide to car-sharing organizations. Several agencies, such as WMATA and SEPTA, offer their most visible parking spaces, such as kiss-and-ride spaces and others that are located close to the station. As with local governments, transit agencies differ in whether they charge a car-sharing operator for parking and face several of the same conflicts. WMATA and Translink in Vancouver, BC provide spaces for free, as an in- kind contribution. Others, such as SEPTA and Metro North, charge the same rate as for other users. BART initially provided parking free of charge, but subsequently began to charge City CarShare the regular rate for reserved spaces.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-33 Transit agencies also face challenges when determining whether to allo- cate spaces at stations where parking is at a premium. WMATA avoided this problem by providing midday parking spaces in its kiss-and-ride lots, which are not fully utilized, while park-and-ride lots are filled to capacity every day. The kiss-and-ride spaces are also the most visible and closest to the station, so this is a win-win situation for the car-sharing providers and WMATA. SEPTA suggests to PhillyCarShare that they should avoid request- ing parking at stations that regularly experience 100% occupancy. BART, on the other hand, has allocated scarce commuter spaces at four of its stations, including Rockridge (Exhibit 5-21), although it requested an evaluation of the overall impact on ridership (see Chapter 7). Financial Most financial support comes from local government, as described in the previous section of this chapter. Transit agencies rarely provide direct fi- nancial support for car-sharing; where they do, it usually comes from grants and external funding rather than operating budgets. Staff at Metro North feels strongly that, as a public agency, they cannot finance any of the costs of a privately owned car-sharing project from general funds. WMATA staff adds that there are too many competing uses of scarce grant funds, making financial support for car-sharing “hard to justify.” One exception is TriMet in Portland, which has received a CMAQ grant of approximately $100,000 a year to subsidize vanpooling. Flexcar is one of the Exhibit 5-21 Car-sharing parking at BART’s Rockridge station in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-34 partners for this program, through its Flexvan program (discussed further in Section 5.7). Another is King County Metro, which tries to insert car-sharing into more general grants for demand management programs. This approach helps protect car-sharing from claims that scarce grant funding is going to a private company. Metro has also received two specific grants. The first was from the EPA, which funded the difference in purchase costs between hybrid vehicles and regular sedans. The grant also paid for outreach such as bus advertisements and radio spots that promoted the clean air value of using hybrids for car-sharing. The second was a JARC program earmark of $500,000, which is matched by the State of Washington, for low-income car-sharing (see Chapter 6). King County has recently received another $4 million in JARC funds and Washington State funds to provide mobility to job seekers in its low-income program. Transit Integration As noted earlier, a number of transit agencies assist in marketing and allow car-sharing vehicles to be parked in visible locations close to the station. Discounts are another method of linking the two modes of transportation. Most commonly, transit pass holders are eligible for discounted car-shar- ing memberships, although there are European and Canadian examples of transit discounts for car-sharing members. Smartcards and station cars are two other means of integrating car-sharing and transit. All of these strategies are discussed in turn below. Car-Sharing Discounts King County Metro in Seattle offers $35 worth of car-sharing use when its FlexPass employer transit pass holders join Flexcar. As well as a promo- tional incentive, Metro sees this program as a means to financially support car-sharing without providing direct subsidies; the incentives go to the end user, rather than directly to Flexcar. It uses the discounts as an introductory promotion to encourage members to both join and try the service out, with- out risking any longer-term financial incentives for driving. The discounts do not involve an additional outlay for Metro; instead of a direct subsidy, the agency purchases usage on Flexcar vehicles, which it then distributes as promotional incentives. The Toronto Transportation Commission (TTC) offered a $100 discount on

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-35 AutoShare’s membership fee for transit riders who subscribed to the TTC’s Metropass Discount Plan. Pass holders were also sent a subway map that showed the locations of transit stops and AutoShare cars. The most extensive experience, however, comes from Europe. In Mannheim and Aachen, Germany, a pilot program offered a discounted membership to transit pass holders who also joined car-sharing. The discount, com- bined with publicity about the pilot program, resulted in a 136% increase in car-sharing in Aachen and a 118% increase in Mannheim, compared to the previous year. Transit Discounts Local bus operators offer 10% off pre-paid fares for car-share members in Bristol, England and in Quebec, Canada. The Bristol bus operator goes one step further by giving car-share members a three-month free pass if members give up their cars. This is particularly notable since the operator, First Bristol, is a private company, rather than a public agency seeking to achieve broader goals. Fare Integration Many transit agencies are moving towards smartcard payment technolo- gies, which can provide further opportunities for integrating transit and car-sharing. The same card can serve as a transit pass and as an access card for car-sharing vehicles, providing a tangible symbol of integration as well as convenience benefits. WMATA has perhaps made the most progress in North America, although there is still a long way to go. It is seeking to allow the Metro SmarTrip transit card to be used to access both Flexcar and Zipcar vehicles. Flexcar has already successfully manufactured 20 test cards with both chips, and the next step is to do the same test with the Zipcar chip. WMATA wants the same card to serve as a driver’s license and is working with the District of Columbia to achieve this goal. Integrating billing systems, however, remains a longer-term goal; WMATA is still working through the many challenges of establishing a common payment mechanism for the many transit agencies in the region and is not prepared to add car-sharing agencies to the mix as of yet. Again, the greatest experience comes from Europe. A single card in Bre- men, Germany can be used to pay for both car-sharing and riding transit at a discount. Members need a smartcard and PIN. They can also order

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-36 train tickets or take a taxi without spending cash – the bills are added to their monthly car-sharing invoice. The smartcard in Zurich, Switzerland is valid for discounted car rentals and car-sharing usage, as a ticket on the national rail system, and as a free ticket for a companion on public transit. In London, the Oyster public transportation smartcard can be used to access CityCarClub vehicles. Station Car Program Station cars, which were discussed in Chapter 2, provide another integra- tion opportunity, if the vehicles form part of the wider car-sharing program. Portland, OR has the most experience with this model. TriMet, Flexcar and two vanpool providers have created a unique “pool vehicle” concept for the firm of Norm Thompson Outfitters, the Oregon Health & Science University and others, similar to a station car program. Vanpoolers participating in Flexvan pick up the van at a light rail station and drive to the office in the morning. During the day, employees and any Flexcar member can reserve the van as a company car for personal or company business. At the end of the day, vanpoolers drive back to the light rail stations. Flexcar and TriMet subsidize the monthly fee for the vanpoolers, because they consider it an economical way to serve low-density office parks and suburbs. If a person drops out of the vanpool, TriMet also helps cover the extra costs for the other vanpool members. The subsidy is offered the first two months after a person leaves the vanpool, with a cap of two drop-outs per year. A similar concept was tested in Vancouver, BC in 2003, when Translink launched the Commuter Car Share project. However, it terminated before the end of the pilot program six months later. Only three participants had joined in that period and the feedback was that the program was not flexible enough, since the participants had to pay for the car on weekdays when they did not work. Each participant paid $225 per month for transit pass and car usage; the rest of the costs were covered by the grant. Another barrier was that since it was a pilot program, users were reluctant to sell a car in case the service did not continue. Memberships Transit agencies usually have non-revenue fleets, which include many pool cars that could be replaced by car-sharing. While some have expressed interest, there are no examples that are up and running yet. The most ad- vanced in the planning process is Los Angeles Metro, which is evaluating the possibility of replacing and reducing up to half of its 392 pool cars with

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-37 a semi-dedicated car-sharing fleet. The vehicles could be made available to other Flexcar members after working hours. The net reduction in vehicles would also yield revenue for the agency through the cost savings which would occur with a reduced pool fleet. Planning, Policy and Tax Issues Most transit agencies have not seen the need to incorporate car-sharing into formal planning documents. One exception is BART in the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes car-sharing in its Station Access Guidelines. These state: Reserved spaces for car-sharing services should be in high-profile locations, in an area that is closer to the station faregates than the majority of the at-large parking spots. Where clearly visible locations are available, car- sharing spaces can be provided on street. Car-sharing is also included in BART’s hierarchy of access modes, which give priority to walking, transit and bicycle access (Exhibit 5-22). The other opportunity to include car-sharing in agency planning may come through transit- oriented development programs. King County Metro has experimented with this concept, al- though with limited suc- cess as most of its land holdings take the form of suburban park-and-ride lots that are not well- suited to car-sharing. At one Redmond site, for example, the car was ul- timately withdrawn due to low utilization. Exhibit 5-22 BART’s formal hierarchy of access modes. Source: BART Station Access Guidelines.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-38 5.7 employers and Businesses Employers and businesses are in many respects a car-sharing customer. Most business customers use the service in the same way as an individual member, and join in order to have access to a vehicle for client meetings and other business trips. Some business members, however, have greater involvement with car-sharing, and can also be considered as a partner for car-sharing operators. Goals and Benefits Employers who have partnered with car-sharing organizations have several goals in mind. In most cases, the aim is to gain access to another mobility option, which can be more convenient or economical than rental cars, an in-house fleet or employees’ private cars. Professional businesses such as architectural and engineering firms have proven to be particular fertile ground for car-sharing operators. Some businesses have broader goals in mind, and use car-sharing as a strategy to reduce the need for staff to bring a car to work. Car-sharing can function as a parking management tool, or as part of a larger TDM program. Employees can use car-sharing vehicles for errands and meetings during business hours, and can thus ride a bicycle or take transit to work instead of bringing the car. The Seattle Times, for example, was facing parking management issues following the sale of some of its surface lots. Car-sharing was seen as a strategy to reduce parking demand by helping employees ride transit and boost transit pass sales. More than 15% of respondents to an employee sur- vey stated that access to a car during the day would help them not drive to work. The company is currently piloting a car-sharing program as part of its commute trip reduction efforts. Swedish Medical Center in Seattle also sees car-sharing as a commute trip reduction strategy, and as a way to provide transportation between its six campuses. While three of these are linked by a shuttle, others are more remote. Staff calculated that car-sharing would be cheaper than either a shuttle or paying parking and mileage expenses for employees who need to travel between campuses. This was key to gaining support from senior management. “In today’s world of healthcare, it’s a bottom line decision,” according to the firm’s parking manager.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-39 In addition, many companies view car-sharing as an employee benefit, as it increases the mobility of the staff who do not drive to work. At Swedish Medical Center, human resources staff advertises car-sharing as a fringe benefit when recruiting new employees. Several companies, in particular smaller ones, also state that car-sharing is much more cost-effective than having company vehicles, since they do not need to think about expenses for leasing, insurance, maintenance, and parking. There are also examples of organizations replacing larger fleets with car-sharing, such as the cities of Berkeley and Philadelphia which are discussed in Section 5.5 earlier in this chapter. finding a partner Most businesses have come in contact with car-sharing through general marketing by the car-sharing operator, or local government TDM programs. Wallis Engineering in the City of Vancouver, WA, for example, was consider- ing buying a car for travel to business meetings since many of its employees bike or walk to work. By coincidence, the company heard about Flexcar, which made more sense than buying a car for occasional use. The Defender Association in Seattle, in contrast, joined because of commute trip reduction incentives provided by King County Metro. The Defender Association needed to provide some bus passes for employees’ work off site. It had received a discounted introductory rate from Metro. By paying a little more than the needed bus passes, it was able to provide FlexPass transit passes for all employees. The transit passes had become a valued employee benefit, but the higher cost each year was making it difficult to continue. By eliminating 10 parking spaces, which were half of its investigators’ spaces, and making car-sharing available to its investigators instead, The Defender Association was able to take advantage of another Metro incentive program. Because the firm saved money on parking, it was able to retain the FlexPass benefit for all employees. Parking management also leads to partnerships. When the landscape ar- chitectural firm Bluegreen opened its office in Aspen in 2002, there was limited parking but a need for a car for site visits and meetings. The com- pany focuses on environmentally sensitive design and is a member of the US Green Building Council. Hence, the reason to join the local car-sharing organization Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles was a combination of a need for vehicles close-by and a desire to support the company’s “green” profile.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-40 Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) have great potential to become good partners with car-sharing operators, since they usually have the similar goals as a transit agency or local government. Lloyd District TMA in Portland, OR became involved in car-sharing a few years back as a supple- ment to its alternative commute program. By introducing car-sharing the TMA could boost the mobility of the employees during business hours. types of Support Employers mainly provide internal marketing for car-sharing and mem- bership benefits for staff. Administrative support, parking and financial contributions are usually not necessary since these are provided by the car-sharing operator. Indeed, part of the attraction of car-sharing is that it is a turnkey solution that requires little administrative effort. Car-sharing operators maintain and operate the vehicles, provide training sessions, and supply marketing materials. Marketing Car-sharing operators’ marketing is usually targeted at signing up organizational members. The responsibility for recruiting individual staff members, in contrast, often rests with the employ- ers themselves. The message is often focused on the benefits of car-sharing and how one can join. To a large extent, businesses simply distribute the car-sharing organization’s own marketing mate- rial. Other types of marketing include articles in employee newsletters, memos and e-mails, and are often conducted through a broader TDM pro- gram. Seattle Times, for instance, has produced a poster with information about its annual bus pass and the integration with Flexcar (Exhibit 5-23). At Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, WA Flexcar provides its standard marketing materials and attends the annual employee transportation fair. There are posters on every campus and articles in the internal monthly memo to staff. The hospital is currently working on a new parking depart- ment website, which will have a link to an online application. Exhibit 5-23 Seattle Times’ poster promoting transit and car- sharing to employees.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-41 TMAs can also be a valuable marketing channel for employers. For example, Lloyd District TMA in Portland, OR provides its members with information about Flexcar, through the TMA Transportation Shop. Parking Most businesses and employers do not need to provide car-sharing park- ing since they can use vehicles located nearby. However, Swedish Medical Center in Seattle provides free parking for Flexcar vehicles in its garage in a prime location. This is a substantial in-kind contribution, since parking normally costs $85 per month and shift. On the other hand, employees gain the benefits of easier access to these vehicles. In addition, the cars are parked in the most visible locations, contributing to the marketing effort. Memberships Employers can choose from several models to make car-sharing available to their employees. One consideration is whether to have a dedicated or semi-dedicated fleet, or use the wider car-sharing network. Dedicated vehicles offer a better guarantee of availability, but can be more expensive; semi-dedicated vehicles provide a similar tradeoff, but are made available to other car-sharing members outside of business hours. So far, the most common approach is for a business to use the open fleet, rather than pay for dedicated vehicles. This approach is used by both smaller companies, such as The Defender Association in Seattle and Wallis Engineer- ing in Vancouver, WA, and larger employers, such as The Seattle Times. The second consideration is the types of trips for which car-sharing may be used. Some companies, such as Bluegreen in Colorado, limit usage to busi- ness meetings and company-related errands. However, several companies encourage and pay for use for short personal errands during business hours, in order to help employees avoid driving to work. Swedish Medical Center allows all employees access to car-sharing for business purposes, but limits personal use to those who do not have a parking permit. The Seattle Times, meanwhile, does not allow the use of car-sharing vehicles for business purposes at all. Reporters, for example, need instant access to a vehicle on demand and are required to have their own cars. TMAs can also provide car-sharing memberships for employees and inte- grate these programs with transit. Portland’s Lloyd District TMA for example, has built on its “Passport” employer transit pass through using a $16,000

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-42 CMAQ grant to fund the Passport+ program. This allows unlimited use of Flexcar vehicles in the TMA district during business hours, for Passport holders who sign up for car-sharing. The program has helped expand car- sharing from two to five cars in the district, and about 50 members have signed up. However, the grant money has now been used and the subsidies have been withdrawn.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-43 5.8 Developers An increasing number of developers and property managers around North America are becoming interested in car-sharing. This is especially true for new housing and mixed-use developments. There are also several com- mercial developments, such as the Bank of America Tower in Seattle, which have incorporated car-sharing successfully. Goals and Benefits Car-sharing provides several benefits to developers and property managers, including the following: • It is an amenity to residents and tenants, particularly for those without a car. One developer pointed to competitive pressure; in some urban markets, car-sharing may be becoming a standard amenity in new apartment buildings. It is an amenity for the de- veloper as well, since car-sharing is a turnkey solution with little involvement from the developer. Some developers also mention that car-sharing will help marketing the development, but that it is not their main motivation. • It promotes sustainability and corporate citizenship. Forest City Enterprises in Denver, CO sees car-sharing as a contribution to sustainability, which is one of the firm’s eight core corporate values. In Seattle, Equity Office Properties considers promotion of car-sharing as part of its obligation as a good corporate citi- zen. It has a wider interest in improving transportation, in order to maintain the accessibility and attractiveness of its properties downtown. Car-sharing can also help developers gain LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification. At present, car-sharing is not formally incorporated in the LEED rating system, although some projects such as Hillsdale Library in Multnomah County, Oregon have used car-sharing to gain an innovation credit. However, draft LEED proposals would formally incorporate car-sharing into the alternative transportation credits (US Green Building Council, 2004). • It can be used as a parking mitigation. By introducing car-shar- ing, some developers have been able to reduce the number of parking spaces required by parking ordinances. For instance, the Gaia Building in Berkeley has 91 apartments and 10,000 square feet of commercial space, but only 40 parking spaces. (More details of car-sharing’s relationship to the development process are provided in Section 5.5 earlier in this chapter.) There is also a financial incentive to developers who incorporate car-sharing to reduce parking requirements. A Canadian survey respondent mentions that the cost savings to developers from reduced park- ing – $20,000 per stall – far outweigh the cost of car-sharing. He stated that one developer received a variance to provide 100 fewer

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-44 stalls for an investment in car-sharing of just $50,000, plus a mem- bership purchase. finding a partner Often, partnerships have been established through the developer making contact with a local car-sharing operator to establish a partnership. Most operators, however, see the development market as an important new source of growth and have made significant outreach efforts to attract developers. City CarShare in San Francisco, for example, has placed articles in profes- sional journals for developers and spoken at industry conferences such as one organized by the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. Non-profit organizations can also play a role in encouraging developers to adopt car-sharing. In San Francisco, the Housing Action Coalition endorses residential projects that meet its criteria, in order to help them gain plan- ning approval. One criterion is the incorporation of City CarShare into a development. types of Support Parking is the main support provided by developers and property managers. Some developers also invest financially, for example in locations where car- sharing may not be commercially viable. Administrative support, however, is usually not required, since this is handled by the car-sharing operator. As with employers, the turnkey nature of car-sharing services is a key attraction to developers and property managers. Marketing Most developers and property managers have a vested interest in making car-sharing work in their complexes and are therefore keen to promote the service. This is particularly true for those that provide financial support, but also for other developers who risk losing a service if it is not used enough to be commercially viable. Marketing techniques include newsletters, promotional material posted in leasing/management offices, and website information. JSM at its Venezia Apartments complex in Santa Monica, CA, promotes car-sharing to a wider audience through signage on the exterior of the building. Equity Office Properties manages the Bank of America Tower in Seattle, WA, and promotes Flexcar as part of its Commute Options Program (Exhibit 5- 24). Equity offers each company in the building $250 to get signed up and

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-45 driving with Flexcar. It also helped make a major marketing push when the service first began, with cleaning staff leaving material on employee desks overnight, and promotional messages on LED signs in elevators. Ac- cording to Equity, property managers have a particular role in promoting car-sharing to smaller employers who may not be subject to trip reduction or similar TDM legislation. Car-sharing in a new development can also be an indirect marketing tool in itself, in that car-sharing helps to promote the development. Bruno Wall at Wall Financial Cor- poration in Vancouver, BC states that bringing car-sharing into one of his new developments, the Electric Avenue Condominiums, has not needed any extra marketing. In fact, the development “is probably more well-known now because of this green and creative idea.” In another Canadian example, AutoShare’s website features details of condo- minium projects where it provides service. Parking Most developers and property managers provide free parking for the car- sharing vehicles that are placed in their complexes, either because it is an amenity to the residents or because it is part of a development agreement for reduced parking. The vehicles are typically located in spaces with high visibility and access, to encourage non-users and to further promote the concept. If the car-sharing operator is a non-profit organization, the value of these spaces is tax deductible. Most often the car-sharing vehicles are used not only by tenants, but by all members of the car-sharing organization, in order to maximize utilization. A major concern for many developers is how non-tenants get access to the vehicles that are placed in secure garages. Partly for this reason, Forest City Enterprises stresses the need to consider the location of parking for car-shar- ing during the development phase, when issues such as garage access and Exhibit 5-24 Equity Properties in Seattle has established a Commute Option Program for its Bank of America Tower.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-46 overall parking ratios can be considered. There are different solutions to this problem. Citizens’ Housing and Pan- oramic Interests (Exhibit 5-25) are two developers in the San Francisco Bay Area that have incorporated car-sharing into their mixed-use developments, in exchange for more flexible parking requirements. Non-resident members can use their City CarShare fob to access the garages. Flexcar in Washington, DC and Seattle, WA uses the same technique. A manager in Los Angeles lets non-resident Flexcar members receive the access code to the building when booking the car online. Financial In most cases, developments that incorporate car-sharing are lo- cated in neighborhoods where the service is commercially viable. Sometimes, however, financial in- centives may be necessary in order to convince a car-sharing operator to provide service in less favorable locations, or to reduce tenants’ bar- riers to joining. A US example is the Buckman Heights development in Portland, OR. The developer of this 144-unit mixed-use project agreed for the first year to cover the operational costs of two CarSharing Portland vehicles available to tenants. Another reason for financial support may be to waive or reduce the require- ment for deposits, which can pose a barrier to tenants signing up. UBC Properties has given a grant to the University Neighborhoods Association in Vancouver, British Columbia. The grant will be used to subsidize 50% of the $500 membership fee for the Cooperative Auto Network (CAN). Wall Financial in Vancouver has gone one step further and offered to actu- ally buy the first seven vehicles for CAN in order to get around the $500 membership fee. CAN would then manage these vehicles like any other CAN vehicle. By doing so, the condominium owners avoid the need to join Exhibit 5-25 City CarShare vehicle entering Panoramic Interests’ Gaia Building in Berkeley, CA. Photo: City CarShare

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-47 the cooperative and thus only pay a $20 registration fee rather than a $500 membership share. Some of the most extensive examples come from European developers. For example, a 250-unit car-free housing development in Vienna, Austria – Autofreie Mutersiedlung Floridsdorf – has only 25 parking spaces, which are exclusively for car-sharing vehicles. Residents have free membership in the car-sharing club for the first year, to which 57% of the households have subscribed. The complex is also situated near public transit. Memberships Another form of support for car-sharing involves subsidizing membership fees. This may be necessary to convince a car-sharing operator to provide service, be required as a condition of a development agreement, or sim- ply provided voluntarily as a tenant amenity. Developers of a residential property in Victoria will provide two cars and permanent parking stalls for them, and will purchase a membership for each unit. The membership will be assigned in perpetuity to the unit, not to the current occupants. Other developers follow suit. When the Electric Avenue Condominiums, a 456- unit complex in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia, opens in summer 2005, the condo owners will be offered affiliated membership in CAN, a non-profit car-sharing organization. Again, Europe provides some of the most far-reaching examples. Developers in Freiberg, Germany subsidize a one-year free pass on all public transit and a 50% discount on train tickets when residents join the car-sharing club. Some property managers have corporate accounts and use the service in the same way as any other employer. For instance, Equity Office Proper- ties in Seattle, WA is a corporate member and uses car-sharing vehicles for business.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-48 5.9 Universities Universities are a fertile ground for car-sharing because, as a generaliza- tion, the student and faculty population are more attuned to environmental impacts than the population at large. In addition, universities frequently have very constrained parking. Because parking and transportation func- tions cannot usually draw from academic funds, universities need to explore innovative parking management strategies in order to be self-sufficient. They are more readily able to implement new parking strategies since, as self-contained organizations, they are able to control their own parking fa- cilities. Furthermore, their marketing efforts are easier to target than most, in that communication mechanisms are usually in place and everyone has a similar destination. Despite these similarities, universities vary in their settings. Some are urban and can be easily integrated into a car-sharing operator’s regular fleet, such as the University of California in Berkeley and Massachusetts Institute of Technology near Boston. In both these instances, the car-sharing operator has vehicles placed on the campus as well as in locations around the commu- nity. In more suburban settings, car-sharing is a stand-alone project focused only on the campus. Stanford University in Palo Alto, California and the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill are two such examples. Goals and Benefits A key goal of universities is to reduce parking demand. At some universi- ties, this goal has been linked to a TDM program, where the overall goal of managing the system also encompasses an emphasis on environmental leadership. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Wiscon- sin at Madison, and Portland State University in Oregon, car-sharing is one of the TDM strategies offered to campus affiliates. The programs include other alternative transportation modes as well, such as free or subsidized transit passes and vanpooling and ridesharing. Reducing parking demand is a goal of these campuses, as it is at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). MIT is further spurred to include car-sharing as a strategy, since Cambridge, its host city, limits how much parking the University can have. Sustaining the environment was one of the goals of the University of Victoria in British Columbia when it introduced car-sharing on its campus. Similarly,

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-49 car-sharing fits into the goal of the Tufts Climate Initiative, at Tufts Univer- sity in Massachusetts. Tufts, which has a strong environmental movement, decided to do something itself to reduce climate emissions, since it judged that government action was slow or non-existent. There was a two-year discussion about the fact that car-sharing might actually increase emissions, since it might encourage non-drivers to drive. Ultimately, the decision was made to include car-sharing in the Climate Initiative, particularly since two of the vehicles are electric, given to Tufts by a donor. The University of Washington in Seattle experiences parking problems because of its bucolic setting—a campus spread out over 750 acres and bordered by water on two sides. Maximizing parking availability, while limiting the number of peak-hour vehicle trips, is the University's primary goal. ”We know that people can feel stranded on campus without having a car to use—Flexcar fills this need,” said Lisa Quinn, Public Information Specialist with the University’s Transportation Office.2 finding a partner There is no definite pattern of who initiates the partnership between a university and a car-sharing operator. Sometimes the car-sharing operator recognizes the opportunity a campus provides for new business; other times the university itself seeks out car-sharing as another strategy for its parking and TDM programs. At Stanford University in California, for example, the university issued a Request for Proposals in 2003 to obtain a car-sharing operator. One of its requirements was that the operator admit 18-20 year olds as members. Two bidders responded. Ultimately, the original operator who was chosen closed the program because of a lack of demand, but Enterprise Rent-A-Car has taken over, offering hourly rentals through its regular rental office.3 Service is available to 18-20 year olds who can present proof of full-coverage car insurance. The situation at University of Victoria in British Columbia was reversed. The University sought out an operator, Victoria Car Share (VCSC). However, VCSC asked that a core group of 24 members be recruited first, in order to 2. Quote from “Flexcar Broadens Options for University of Washington Students, Staff and Faculty,” a case study published by Flexcar. 3. The high cost means that the service is similar to half-day rentals, rather than hourly. As of March 2005, the cost was $14 per hour, slightly less than half the $33 daily fee. City CarShare’s rate was $4 per hour, or $2 per hour off-peak.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-50 prove that there would be a viable market. An ad hoc group at the Univer- sity organized afternoon workshops and sent notices to staff, faculty and students. Today the VCSC car on the campus is the second most popular in the VCSC fleet. Zipcar approached MIT about car-sharing as a no-cost proposal to the University. This was an incentive to partner, according to MIT’s opera- tions manager, because, “We can be a good citizen of Cambridge” without additional cost. Campus members themselves pay $25 a year, but are not assessed any application or security fee. types of Support Parking and promotion of car-sharing are universally offered by the nine universities interviewed for this research. Several are considering using car-sharing to reduce departments’ fleets, and several offer subsidies to car- share members. Car-sharing is also incorporated in policies on campuses that have TDM programs. Marketing Most of the universities hold campus events where car-sharing is featured along with other alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. Most also have an established communications network, such as e-mails to staff, em- ployee newsletters, new student orientations, and websites. This network is utilized to promote car-sharing and other alternative modes. Materials are usually provided by the car-sharing operator. Below is a sampling of these marketing methods: • The University of Victoria’s campus calendars advertise the TDM program on the back, including information on car-sharing. • MIT and Stanford University place signs advertising car-sharing in the campus shuttles. • The University of Washington pays for weekly ads in the student newspaper. • The University of Pennsylvania includes car-sharing information in the packets sent to new students, which advise them not to bring vehicles to campus. In order to be effective, marketing needs to occur in a supportive environ- ment and be appropriately targeted. For example, car-sharing parking that is not convenient, parking rates that make car-sharing uncompetitive, and lack of transit can all counteract the best marketing campaign. The Univer-

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-51 sity of Washington experienced this disappointment when, despite a com- prehensive campaign, survey results showed that there were no significant changes in commute habits. (See Exhibit 5-26 for details.) Administration Just as with any employer, universities do not give outside businesses direct access to their employees and students. Therefore, the most com- mon administrative help given is assistance with marketing. Usually, the car-sharing operator will supply promotional materials and the university staff will distribute it. The university staff time spent is generally minimal. For example, staff at Portland State University in Oregon estimate that the Administrator spends about five hours a month and the Alternative Trans- portation Coordinator spends another 10 hours a month on the car-sharing program. There are some exceptions, however. For example, Zipcar provides service at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, which is remote from the firm’s major markets in Boston, New York and Washington, DC. For this reason, university staff provides operational and maintenance assistance. Parking Given the tight parking supply on most campuses, parking is one of the most significant types of support that a university can give. Indeed, given Exhibit 5-26 Car-Sharing at the University of Washington The University of Washington in Seattle spent $40,000 on marketing car-sharing in 2002-03. The marketing campaign included rate cards at nine commuter centers around campus; signs on parking stalls; direct mail to all faculty, staff and students; newspaper ads; departmental e-mails; banners and signs; informational meetings; and material on the website and in student registration packets. Despite these efforts, staff judges the results to be “very modest” in reducing solo driving to campus. Although car-sharing is perceived very positively by members, there is little awareness among the wider campus community. Staff points out that car-sharing is a “tough sell” when 95% of staff and faculty own cars; parking is available on campus for less than $7 per day; and other TDM programs such as the Upass have already brought about substantial reductions in auto commuting. Only 23% of staff, faculty and students now drive to campus, making it difficult to achieve further gains. Transportation staff now plans to conduct more targeted marketing, rather than broad-brushed techniques such as direct mail to all faculty, staff, and students. Efforts will focus on signing up departmental members, using Flexcar as a substitute for pool cars.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-52 that universities generally control the entire campus parking supply, car- sharing would not even be possible without this type of support. Of the nine universities who were interviewed for this research, six provide free parking to the car-share operator, even when everyone else has to pay. Three universities discount the car-share parking fee. MIT provides five free parking spaces to Zipcar on its campus. All but one can also be used by non-campus members of Zipcar. If MIT charged for the spaces, they would have a value of $10,000 per year, which MIT figures is its cost to provide and maintain them. The University of Victoria has taken an intermediate approach (Exhibit 5- 27). The VCSC vehicle was allowed to park free for the first two years of the program, but now pays full price. Future car-sharing vehicles will be required to pay for parking as a result of a recent agreement between the University and VCSC. The agreement covers a multi-year partnership that will result in a substantial investment into and expansion of car-sharing on campus. Flexcar has two discounted parking spaces on Portland State University’s campus. The car-share operator is permitted to pick the spaces it considers most advantageous and is charged half of the regular fee for reserved park- ing, or $70.50 per month per space. The City of Portland has granted Flexcar another six on-street parking spaces within the campus boundaries. Memberships Most universities have pool cars for departments’ use. This fleet can be a very large expense to the university, especially for those campuses that do not charge the full cost to the departments. Recognizing the potential cost- savings, several of the universities said that they were trying to convince departments to enroll in car-share memberships and give up their pool ve- hicles. Such memberships could boost the car-sharing operator’s revenues while saving money for the university. This concept is still in the fledgling stage on campuses, however. Barriers can be resistance to change and the perceived convenience of having a vehicle dedicated exclusively to a depart- ment (see Chapter 6 for an extended discussion). More successful is the idea of subsidizing memberships for campus affiliates. Universities generally are not inclined to give direct funding to operators, unlike some of the other partners described in the preceding sections of this chapter. Rather, they support the car-sharing program by buying or Exhibit 5-27 Dedicated parking space for car-sharing at the University of Victoria.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-53 underwriting memberships, which gives the operator a predictable source of income. One such example from the University of Wisconsin is highlighted in Exhibit 5-28. Another example is the program at Portland State University (PSU). Em- ployees who work full time, buy a transit pass, and do not have a campus parking pass are eligible to join the Flexcar program. Members have the use of eight Flexcars located on or nearby campus between 8 AM and 6 PM with a maximum usage of four hours per day. PSU uses parking revenue to pay $2,000 per month to Flexcar for all employee members’ usage of car-sharing at the university. In return, Flexcar has waived the first year membership fee of $35 for each employee who joins. According to PSU staff, those who don’t join the program “think there must be a catch—it can’t be all that good.” However, the program is expanding through word-of-mouth promotion by members. PSU has also agreed to buy 20 Flexcar memberships distributed by lottery to the 380 residents in new student housing. Planning, Policy and Tax Issues As mentioned earlier, car-sharing has become part of several universities’ policies, when it has been integrated into their TDM programs. For example, the Chancellor at the University of Wisconsin saw car-sharing programs in Europe and expressed interest in incorporating it into the existing campus TDM program. The University is in the process of updating its Master Plan, which will have a transportation section where car-sharing will also be in- cluded. Sustainability programs, such as those at the University of Victoria and Tufts, are other examples of linkage with university policies. Exhibit 5-28 University of Wisconsin Subsidizes Car-Sharing The University of Wisconsin in Madison bought 200 trial memberships for campus employees at $50, equal to a $10,000 subsidy for the car-sharing operator. In exchange, Community Car placed one car on campus in a free, signed parking space on a covered ramp. The value of the free space is $1,015 a year, the cost if a campus employee purchased it. The space is in a core sector of the campus at the front of the ramp. People with trial memberships received five hours and 50 miles of free car-sharing usage. All but about 12 memberships have been distributed. Between 60-70% of those who received the trial membership then joined personally after the trial period. Now, instead of buying memberships, the University of Wisconsin has refined its subsidy of the program. In order to sustain the program, which has been in existence about a year, the University pays Community Car quarterly by calculating the difference between what Community Car is making in usage fees and their costs to break even.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-54 Transit Integration Universities who offer transit pass programs often combine them with car- sharing as an added incentive. People sometimes drive instead of taking transit because they worry about how they will do needed errands on their lunch hour or how they will get home if they have to work late. Car-shar- ing alleviates these worries and provides a good complement to transit pass programs. For example, Portland State University’s subsidy of car-sharing member- ships, described above, goes hand-in-hand with its transit pass program. Employees receive a two-thirds subsidy on transit passes; student passes are subsidized by 30%. When employees and students buy their subsidized passes, they are given an information packet explaining the car-sharing program. Those enrolled in the Upass transit discount program at the University of Washington also get discounts in the Flexcar car-sharing program. Upass holders receive a reduced car-sharing membership of $5 and steep hourly deductions on usage.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 5-55 5.10 Conclusion Partnerships can be a win/win arrangement both for the car-sharing opera- tors and their various partners. Car-sharing organizations are still in their infancy in the United States and Canada, despite the significant growth that has occurred in recent years. The level of support by partner organizations can be critical to their success or failure. Besides financial support, espe- cially during the start-up phase, partner organizations contribute to success through very basic support, such as increasing visibility of car-sharing as an option in the community and providing parking for the vehicles. Some partners identified in this research have gone beyond this basic support through other means, such as by integrating car-sharing into their gov- ernment policies, by substituting car-sharing for parking requirements in developments, and even by allowing tax breaks for car-sharing. Partner organizations have benefited as well. Some benefits are concrete, such as reduced parking requirements and elimination of the organization’s fleet vehicles. Car-sharing can also be a mitigation tool for environmental impacts and a societal tool for increasing community mobility, although these benefits have not as yet been adequately quantified. Nonetheless, the benefits cited the most by car-sharing partners are those with the potential to increase the quality of life for everyone, whether they are car-sharers or members of the community at large. references City of Vancouver (2005). Policy Report: Parking Requirement Standards for Multiple Residential Use. April 13, 2005. [Adopted by City Council June 14, 2005] Accessed June 23, 2005 at http:// vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20050426/ tt3.pdf. “Ecotrust: Flexcar Key Component of LEED Certified Building,” www. flexcar.com Enoch, Marcus (2002). Supporting Car Share Clubs. A Worldwide Review. Paper presented at the 3rd MOSES ESG Meeting, February 20-22, 2002. Forinash, Christopher; Millard-Ball, Adam; Dougherty, Charlotte and Tum- lin, Jeffrey (2004). Smart Growth Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 11-15, 2004.

Chapter 5 • the role of partners September 2005 Page 5-56 Murray, Gail; Koffman, David; Chambers, Cliff; and Webb, Peter (1997). TCRP Report 21: Strategies to Assist Local Transportation Agencies in Becoming Mobility Managers. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Shaheen, Susan and Meyn, Mollyanne (2002). Shared-Use Vehicle Services: A Survey of North American Market Developments. University of California at Da- vis, Institute for Transportation Studies, Publication UCD-ITS-RP-02-15. 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. US Green Building Council (2004). Green Building Rating System For New Construction & Major Renovations (LEED®-NC). Version 2.2. First Public Com- ment Draft. December 2004. Accessed June 23, 2005 at: http://www.usgbc. org/Docs/LEEDdocs/NCCC%20v2%202%20MASTER_public_1_clean.pdf

Next: Chapter 6 - Factors for Success »
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!