Click for next page ( 23


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 22
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Germany and Scandinavia; in 2004, the largest program was Call-A-Bike in Berlin with 1,700 bicycles (DeMaio & Gifford, 2004). 2.3 Models of Car-Sharing Car-sharing is a broad concept that encompasses a variety of different busi- ness and operational models. This section outlines the different models that exist in North America, from the point of view of organizational structure and operational model. In many respects, these models are closely bound with the geographic context and the target market, both of which are discussed in Chapter 3. For example, rural car-sharing organizations tend to be organized differ- ently perhaps on a cooperative or voluntary basis and have a different operational model than those in major urban centers. Organizational Structure Car-sharing operators in North America have adopted a range of organiza- tional forms (Exhibit 2-5). The three main types are: For-profit. Most of the largest operators in North America are privately held, for-profit companies. Examples include Flexcar, Zipcar, and Communauto (which was originally founded as a cooperative, Auto-Com). Non-profit. These operators are incorporated as tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. Examples include City CarShare in San Francisco, and PhillyCarShare in Philadelphia. Cooperative. Operators such as the Cooperative Auto Network in Vancouver, BC are run by members, who join by purchasing a "share" in the organization. In practice, this share acts in a similar way to the refundable deposits charged by for-profit and non- profit operators. Alternatively, but less commonly, a car-sharing operation may be run as a research pilot by universities such as the University of California at River- side, or by a municipal government. Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles in Aspen, CO is the closest North American example to government-run car-sharing; while the organization is formally a separate non-profit, the City of Aspen provides a staff member to run the operation. However, there are several European examples of transit agencies running car-sharing programs, no- tably in Italy. Page 2-9

OCR for page 22
Chapter 2 State of the Practice Exhibit 2-5 North American Car-Sharing Operators (June 2005) Region Operator Type United States Ann Arbor, MI Ann Arbor Community Cooperative Car Coop Aspen, CO Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles Municipal Boston, MA Zipcar For-profit Boulder, CO Boulder CarShare Non-profit Chapel Hill, NC Zipcar For-profit Chicago, IL I-GO Non-profit/ Franchise Detroit, MI Viacar For-profit Eugene, OR Eugene BioCarShare Cooperative Irvine, CA (University of California) ZevNet Research Pilot Los Angeles, CA Flexcar For-profit Madison, WI Community Car For-profit* Minneapolis-St Paul, MN hOurCar Non-profit (Planned 2005) New York, NY (including New Jersey suburbs Zipcar For-profit and Princeton, NJ) Philadelphia, PA PhillyCarShare Non-profit Portland, OR (includes Vancouver, WA) Flexcar For-profit Riverside, CA (University of California) Intellishare Research pilot Rutledge, MO Dancing Rabbit Vehicle Cooperative Cooperative San Diego, CA Flexcar For-profit San Francisco, CA City CarShare Non-profit Santa Barbara, CA Flexcar For-profit Seattle, WA Flexcar For-profit Washington, DC Flexcar, Zipcar For-profit Canada Calgary, AB Calgary Alternative Transportation Coop Cooperative Edmonton, AB Carsharing Co-op of Edmonton Cooperative Gatineau, QC Communauto For-profit** Guelph, ON Guelph Community Car Co-op Cooperative Kingston, ON Kingston Carshare Cooperative Cooperative Kitchener, ON People's Car Cooperative Montreal, QC Communauto For-profit** Nelson, BC Nelson CarShare Cooperative Cooperative Ottawa, ON VrtuCar For-profit Quebec City, QC Communauto For-profit** Sherbrooke, QC Communauto For-profit** Toronto, ON AutoShare For-profit Vancouver, BC Cooperative Auto Network Cooperative Victoria, BC Victoria Car Share Cooperative Cooperative * Community Car was founded by the non-profit Madison Environmental Group. **Communauto started as a cooperative, Auto-Com. Page September 2005 2-10

OCR for page 22
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds One of the most important differences among these organizational forms relates to the source of capital and funding. For-profit operators often have access to venture capital, or other sources of private start-up funding. Non- profits are often better placed to tap into government funding, and their tax- exempt status means that they can obtain foundation grants. Cooperatives tend to be partly dependent on their members to provide capital. Other differences among the different organizational models have also been suggested. For example, non-profits and cooperatives may not have the in- centive to expand as much as a for-profit enterprise, while a for-profit may not be the best model to achieve narrowly stated environmental objectives such as vehicle trip reduction (Brook, 2004). For example, several non-profits argue that their rate structures are set to discourage unnecessary auto use, through charging for each mile driven rather than "bundling" packages of hours and miles (see Pricing in Section 2.5). Several partner agencies have expressed a preference to work with non-profits for this reason; non-profits can also be easier to support, since their tax status can defuse community objections to "privatizing street space" when granting on-street parking for car-sharing (Chapter 5). However, for-profits suggest that they are achieving similar environmental objectives "doing good by doing well." Introduction of car-sharing to new geographic areas has usually resulted from the establishment of a new, local organization, or expansion by an established operator. Flexcar, for example, is based in Seattle, but also runs programs in Portland, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC. Bos- ton-based Zipcar has operations in the New York City and Washington, DC regions, along with separate campus programs at Princeton University, NJ and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Replication and Franchising A recent development has been the introduction of franchising, outsourcing and replication programs. Flexcar, for example, runs the Flexcar Network, under which local operators such as I-GO in Chicago contract with Flexcar for provision of vehicles, technology and back-office functions such as billing. According to Flexcar, franchising makes particular sense in smaller markets, where the company may not wish to pursue operations of its own. In Canada, Communauto has developed its bilingual Rservauto system, which is de- signed to be adaptable to the needs of other car-sharing operators. San Francisco-based City CarShare, meanwhile, has a national replication program to provide technical assistance to non-profit operators in other Page 2-11

OCR for page 22
Chapter 2 State of the Practice regions. PhillyCarShare, for example, was established with this support. In 2005, City CarShare launched a handbook to assist start-up car-sharing operators, covering a range of detailed operational and business planning issues (City CarShare, 2005). Franchising and similar arrangements are perhaps best developed in Eu- rope. For example, Germany-based Cambio began operating in Aachen and Bremen in 1990. Since then, it has developed joint-venture partnerships to provide services in four additional cities in Germany and Belgium and has a "service relationship" providing software and a call center for operators in seven others. The company provides direct service to 12,800 custom- ers, and reservation and service functions for 4,800 more (Schwartz, 2005). In Italy, meanwhile, Iniziativa Car Sharing (ICS) is the direct provider of technology and support services, including a national call center. ICS is a consortium of 18 cities and provinces, funded by the Ministry of Environ- ment, but individual operators come from both the public and private sec- tors (Mastretta, 2005). Operational Model A fundamental difference has been pointed out between two types of shared vehicle programs: car-sharing (sometimes called "neighborhood" car-shar- ing) and station car programs. While neighborhood and employment-based car-sharing programs are the focus of this report, it is important to explain how these programs relate to station cars. Neighborhood Car-Sharing Neighborhood car-sharing is the basic model that is the main subject of this report, including programs that focus on the employment as well as the resi- dential market. The "neighborhood" term is sometimes used to distinguish it from other shared vehicle programs, such as station cars. Station Cars In contrast to car-sharing, which serves a wide variety of trips, station car programs focus on the link between the transit station and the home and/or the workplace. They provide a car at the "home end" of the trip, allowing a commuter to drive to the station in the morning in order to take transit for the line-haul part of the journey to work. The same car is then used by an arriving rail passenger to drive the "last mile" of the journey to a workplace beyond walking distance from transit. Under some more recent pilots such Page September 2005 2-12

OCR for page 22
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds as CarLink in the San Francisco Bay Area, the car is also available for em- ployees during the working day. The same trips then happen in reverse in the evening, with the car stored overnight at the residence of the "home end" user (see, for example, Katzev, 2003; Bernard, 2003; Shaheen et al., 2004). The main difference between car-sharing and station cars is perhaps to be found in the types of users and trips served, with station cars focusing on the commute market with payment by monthly subscription (Exhibit 2-6). In addition, station cars have a defined set of users one home-based com- muter, one work-based commuter, and, in some recent models, midday users. Each car-sharing vehicle, on the other hand, serves a much wider member base, and payment is generally per-use. In contrast to station cars, this ar- rangement has also helped car-sharing companies earn enough revenue to continue with little or no subsidy. Until the late 1990s, station cars accounted for the majority of shared-use vehicles and members in the United States. Since then, however, they have been outpaced by the growth in car-sharing. The number of station car pro- grams appeared to peak in 2002, and only two remained in 2003 (Shaheen, Schwartz & Wipyewski, 2004). However, some car-sharing operators have been integrating variants of station car-type programs into their regular fleet, blurring the differences between the two. For example, Flexcar has several weekday van shuttles in Portland, OR, that link the Westside MAX light rail line to employment sites for firms such as Norm Thompson Outfitters. These vans have no defined "home end" user, but are available for all Flexcar members at evenings and weekends. These types of programs are discussed in more detail in the employer and transit agency profiles in Chapter 5. Although the transit link is less direct than with station cars, most car-sharing programs have located vehicles close to transit from their inception. Transit stations provide a good environment not just because of the possibility of combined transitcar-sharing trips, but because they often have higher densities, local shops and services and act as a neighborhood center. Chapter 3 discusses the market settings for car-sharing in more detail. Page 2-13

OCR for page 22
Chapter 2 State of the Practice Exhibit 2-6 Station Car Comparison to Car-Sharing Characteristic Station Cars Car-Sharing Types of Trip Served Primarily journey to work. Generally all trips for which a car is required, Under more recent pilots, except the regular journey to work for which it some midday use. is not cost effective Trip Frequency Daily commute to work Occasional trips; varied usage patterns Number of Users 1-4 per vehicle* 20-66 per vehicle** Linkage to Transit Vehicles used primarily as Vehicles often stationed at transit stations and an extension of fixed-route accessed by transit, but most trips not linked transit to transit Where Based Different locations at differ Generally single "home" base ent times (home, workplace, transit station) Price Structure Subscription-based Usage-based * The CarLink II program in Palo Alto, CA had 19 vehicles and an average of 77 users, although some cars had more users (home-based, work-based and midday) (Shaheen, Schwartz & Wipyewski, 2004). Most station car programs have fewer users, since they do not provide for midday use. In December 2004, US station car programs claimed approximately 130 members and 106 vehicles, giving a ratio of 1.2 members per vehicle (Shaheen, unpublished data). ** As of December 2004, US car-sharing programs claimed 61,652 members sharing 939 vehicles, with 10,759 members sharing 528 vehicles in Canada (Shaheen, unpublished data). Informal Car-Sharing Small car-sharing programs do not necessarily need to be run on a formal basis. In many cases, neighbors, friends or family members can share a car, either through informal arrangements or more detailed agreements on cost sharing, reservations and maintenance. Some developments have also incorporated shared cars, such as the Gaia Building in Berkeley, CA, with two electric vehicles available for residents' use as well as City CarShare service in the building (Exhibit 2-7). Indeed, the philosophy of several of the founders of early Swiss car-shar- ing programs was that cars and, for that matter, other long-lasting consumer goods should be shared between a small "user group" of about a dozen families and maintained by volunteer labor (Harms & Truffer, 1998). Photo: Panoramic Interests The main administrative difference between informal car-sharing programs and their more formal counterparts relates to the incorpora- tion of a separate car-sharing organization. Also, formal organizations often provide access to a much larger network of vehicles. However, it is important to recognize that some of the formalized car-sharing Exhibit 2-7 Electric Vehicles in the Gaia Building programs discussed in this report rely to varying degrees on volun- Berkeley, CA, 2002 teer labor. Page September 2005 2-14