Click for next page ( 190


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 189
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds 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. Page 5-55

OCR for page 189
Chapter 5 The Role of Partners 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 Page September 2005 5-56