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 240
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
Chapter 8. Conclusion
This report has covered some of the most important topics regarding
car-sharing in North America. It has demonstrated that car-sharing
brings substantial benefits in terms of reduced vehicle ownership
and travel, and improved mobility. It can help partners such as
developers, employers, universities, local governments and transit
agencies achieve their goals. However, car-sharing is a niche prod-
uct; it is likely to succeed only in a narrow range of primarily urban
settings.
This chapter discusses some of the ways in which car-sharing can
be promoted at a national level, particularly through examining
the potential role of a national car-sharing association. It also ana-
lyzes the eligibility of car-sharing for various federal transportation
funding programs. Finally, this concluding chapter discusses how
to bring car-sharing to a new community. It describes the different
ways in which programs have been established in North America,
and explains how partner organizations can provide the impetus to
launch a program in their own cities.
National Action
Car-sharing is in most respects a local program, guided by local pri-
orities and dependent on local factors for success. Certainly, the vast
majority of barriers identified in Chapter 6 can only be addressed at
a local level; they are the prerogatives of cities, transit agencies and
other local organizations.
Nonetheless, there are several common issues that make sense to
address at a national level. They may require concerted action by
car-sharing operators, or fall within the responsibilities of federal
agencies and other partners. These common issues include funding,
promotion, regulations, insurance and interoperability, which are
discussed in the following section.
Page
8-1
OCR for page 241
Chapter 8 ˇ Conclusion
Car-Sharing Association
Many operators have expressed considerable interest in forming a national
car-sharing association, in order to address these common issues. This might
involve separate organizations in the United States and Canada, or a single
North American body. Possible functions of the association, as suggested by
operators at the Transportation Research Board workshop and in follow-up
interviews, include the following.
1. Promote understanding. As discussed in Chapter 6, a lack of understand-
ing of the car-sharing concept, from both potential partners and potential
members, is the most significant barrier to the growth of car-sharing. For
the most part, this is a local task for each car-sharing organization and their
partners in their respective geographic markets. However, there is a wider
function that could be served by a national association helping to promote
greater understanding within federal and possibly state and provincial
agencies; reaching out to partners such as national developers, the Ameri-
can Public Transportation Association and automobile manufacturers; and
promoting car-sharing through the national media.
The association could also serve as the natural point of contact for partners
wishing to bring car-sharing to their communities. It could provide technical
advice, and a forum to disseminate RFPs and similar opportunities.
2. Advocate for regulatory reform. Again, most regulatory reforms that can
promote car-sharing are local or state or provincial responsibilities. How-
ever, there are several areas of federal law where there are opportunities
to support car-sharing. Chief among them in the United States, according
to one car-sharing operator, are Internal Revenue Service rules. Allowing
car-sharing to be offered as part of pre-tax commuter benefit programs, in
the same way as transit passes, would provide a significant incentive and
help recruit new members. The other obvious issue where regulatory re-
form might promote car-sharing relates to federal transportation funding
programs, which are discussed in more detail below.
3. Provide a networking forum. Small operators in particular have much to
gain from sharing experience with their peers, on issues such as operations,
marketing and pricing strategies. Larger, more established operators tend
to have overcome most obstacles already, however, and may not be willing
to discuss many of their solutions.
Page
September 2005
8-2
OCR for page 242
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
4. Share data. Most of the data held by car-sharing operators is proprietary.
However, there are two areas where data sharing may yield mutual benefits:
environmental impacts and insurance risk-rating factors.
Many car-sharing operators or their partners collect data on the environmen-
tal and social benefits of programs, such as the impacts on vehicle owner-
ship. Introduction of the standard methodology recommended in Chapter
4 provides the opportunity to take a wider view of these impacts, through
compiling and aggregating data from across North America. A national
car-sharing association would be the logical organization to undertake this
task.
The development of insurance risk-rating factors for car-sharing has the
potential to significantly lower insurance premiums, through providing
insurers with a means to more accurately assess their exposure. This requires
the aggregation of data on accident histories, vehicle and driver profiles and
fleet usage patterns from across the industry (Shaheen, Meyn & Wipyewski,
2003). A national association would be well placed to serve as a clearing
house for data on both insurance and environmental impacts. The associa-
tion could also purchase a group insurance policy for all its members, or
negotiate "affinity group" rates.
5. Negotiate interoperability agreements. These would allow members to
use car-sharing programs in other cities when traveling. Some operators
have already developed bilateral agreements; one example is the agreement
between City CarShare (San Francisco) and PhillyCarShare (Philadelphia).
Another is the agreement between Communauto (Quebec) and Vrtucar
(Ottawa). Meanwhile, several operators such as Communauto, Zipcar and
Flexcar operate in multiple cities and allow members to use their services
in any part of the country where they have a presence.
Barriers to further interoperability include differing access technologies and
billing systems, insurance coverage, and the lack of a sufficiently compelling
business case most operators agree that members will take advantage of
the ability to use cars in multiple cities only sparingly, if at all. However,
interoperability is seen as an attractive benefit when marketing car-sharing
to potential members. One operator draws a parallel with gym memberships;
customers like to have the option to use facilities across the city or country,
but in practice will almost exclusively use one close to home or work.
Page
8-3
OCR for page 243
Chapter 8 ˇ Conclusion
Obstacles to an Association
Car-sharing operators and other interested parties have had several discus-
sions in recent years regarding the establishment of a national association.
Most recently, a Vrtucar co-owner agreed to coordinate organizing efforts
to start a Canadian industry association, following a meeting in November
2004. The most significant barrier appears to be prioritization of resources.
With no external source of funding, a national association would be de-
pendent on staff or funding from the operators themselves, both of which
are in short supply. As one operator put it, there is little "spare bandwidth"
to devote to this effort. There is also a lack of history in working together
on cooperative efforts, and some operators perceive others as competitors,
rather than partners.
Other issues raised by operators relate to governance and priorities for an
association's work plan, both of which pose potential conflicts between the
needs of organizations at different stages of development. In the United
States, Zipcar, Flexcar and City CarShare account for the majority of the car-
sharing fleet, and a similar situation arises in Canada, where more than half
of shared vehicles belong to Communauto. As noted above, larger operators
might give greater weight to an association's lobbying role, while smaller
organizations' priorities relate to information sharing and networking.
If funding contributions were proportional to fleet size, larger operators
might press for decision-making authority to be weighted a similar way,
which would effectively exclude small organizations. One proposed ar-
rangement would require a "double majority" for major decisions in other
words, agreement from at least half the member operators representing at
least half of the car-sharing fleet.
While these obstacles have stymied the development of an association to
date, two strategies could help to overcome them. Firstly, the discrete na-
ture of the possible functions means that progress could be incremental; for
example, a car-sharing organization can develop a website or hire a part-
time staff member without the need to undertake the full range of activities
described above. Secondly, there may be potential for outside funding to
catalyze the process. This has been the experience in Europe, as discussed
in the following section. A private foundation, APTA, or agencies such as
FTA, FHWA or Transport Canada may be able to play a similar role in North
America.
Page
September 2005
8-4
OCR for page 244
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
Experience in Europe
It is instructive to examine the role of car-sharing associations in other
countries. Here, national governments have played a key role in establish-
ing or funding these organizations. In Italy, for example, the Ministry of
Environment helped establish Iniziativa Car Sharing (ICS), in partnership
with municipalities. In the Netherlands, the national government funded
the Foundation for Shared Car Use (Stichting van Gedeeld Autogebruik),
which, among other activities, helps lobby local authorities to support local
programs (Enoch, 2002).
In the UK, the CarPlus non-profit is a national association that promotes
the car-sharing concept, through developing marketing materials, provid-
ing a networking forum, and technical assistance for starting up programs.
It also has a trading arm which provides leasing and insurance services.
The organization is funded by a range of public and private organizations,
including the national government through the Department for Transport
and the Countryside Agency; the European Commission; and Vauxhall
Motors (Department for Transport, 2004). Rather than funding programs
in specific locations, the UK government has generally preferred to direct
its support to CarPlus instead.
Federal Funding
Car-sharing has benefited from several federal transportation funding
sources that have contributed towards start-up costs or specific programs
such as hybrid vehicles or car-sharing for low-income communities. Exhibit
8-1 shows some of the sources that have been used in the United States. How-
ever, federal funding for car-sharing is constrained in several respects:
ˇ Lack of data. Applications for CMAQ program funding, for exam-
ple, must demonstrate the anticipated benefits in terms of reduced
vehicle travel. As discussed in Chapter 4, there is relatively little
supporting information at this stage, although several new studies
provide important data.
ˇ Eligibility. Many US federal funding programs have specific
criteria, meaning that car-sharing does not explicitly qualify. For
example, FHWA's Transportation Enhancements program is re-
stricted to 12 qualifying activities, which do not include car-shar-
ing. There is a similar picture for FTA's Transit Enhancements pro-
gram, which has nine qualifying activities. Many other funding
sources are mode-specific; the Federal Transit Act has sections that
specifically fund bicycle facilities, clean-fuel buses, or rail and bus
rapid transit. Other programs, in contrast, focus more on desired
Page
8-5
OCR for page 245
Chapter 8 ˇ Conclusion
outcomes rather than specific activities, and thus enable car-shar-
ing to qualify. These include the Transportation and Community
and System Preservation Pilot Program (which is not currently
funded).
ˇ Qualifying recipient. Another eligibility question relates to the
recipient. As discussed in Chapter 5, a public agency often has to
serve as a pass-through organization, increasing administration
costs and program complexity, although some funding sources do
allow non-profit organizations to qualify.
ˇ Evaluation criteria. Car-sharing is fundamentally different from
other modes, in that more usage does not necessarily equate to
greater success. Rather, from an environmental perspective, it
often achieves greatest results when the shared cars are used less
and serve primarily as a "safety net," allowing most trips to be
shifted to transit, walking and cycling. This does not mesh well
with some evaluation criteria for some funding programs. For
example, King County Metro staff points out that a key indicator
for the JARC program is "cost per trip," making it difficult for car-
sharing to perform well.
This analysis should not necessarily be interpreted as recommendations for
specific changes to federal funding programs. Rather, the discussion aims
to highlight some of the current constraints, without drawing conclusions
as to which changes might be usefully pursued.
In Canada, financial support from all levels of government has been more
limited, compared to the United States. However, in 2004, Transport Canada
awarded funding to two projects through the Transportation Planning and
Modal Integration Initiatives program. Agence Métropolitaine de Transport
of Montreal was awarded CN$182,280 to provide car-sharing spaces in the
agency's park-and-ride lots, while Communauto and Vrtucar were to receive
a total of CN$44,000 to promote the integration of transit and car-sharing
in Quebec City, Gatineau and Ottawa.
Page
September 2005
8-6
OCR for page 246
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
Exhibit 8-1 Select US Federal Funding Programs for Car-Sharing
Program Administrator Recipient Operator
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality FHWA/FTA I-GO (Chicago), plus many other
Improvement (CMAQ) operators through more general CMAQ
grants for trip reduction programs
Value Pricing FHWA City CarShare (San Francisco)
National Planning and Research FTA hOurCar (Minneapolis-St Paul)
Job Access Reverse Commute FTA City CarShare (San Francisco)
Flexcar (Seattle)
Clean Air Transportation Com- EPA Flexcar (Seattle)
munities Flexcar (Vancouver, WA)
Surface Transportation Program FHWA City CarShare (San Francisco) pend-
ing
Establishing Car-Sharing
The greatest part of this report has been devoted to examining the impacts
of car-sharing, and how partners can provide support. This, however, as-
sumes that there is already an incumbent operator for partners to work
with. For the vast majority of communities in North America, the first step
is more basic how to establish car-sharing in the first place. This final sec-
tion reviews how existing programs have been initiated, and provides some
guidelines for partner organizations wishing to catalyze the introduction of
car-sharing to their own communities.
Models for Start-Up
Car-sharing programs in different parts of North America have been estab-
lished in a range of different ways, as summarized in Exhibit 8-2. Each is
discussed in turn below.
While all of these scenarios are based on experience in North America,
some are hybrids of the outcome in several communities. For example, the
grassroots effort scenario is drawn from experience in a range of places,
including Philadelphia, Vancouver and Madison. Conversely, car-sharing
in many communities is a mixture, drawing elements from a number of
scenarios. San Francisco is a good example; it combines elements of the
strong public-private partnership and grassroots effort.
In other instances (notably Washington, DC), there may be competing op-
erators, with each program having a different genesis and characteristics.
Page
8-7
OCR for page 247
Chapter 8 ˇ Conclusion
Note that operators under any scenario may be franchises (see Chapter 2
for a discussion).
For this reason, the scenarios are not necessarily case studies of a particular
program, but instead focus on key attributes of each operation. In reality,
there is a spectrum of car-sharing operations, rather than a discrete number
of scenarios, with elements such as business ventures, grassroots support
and public-private partnerships taking on different weights. For example,
some programs may be halfway between a public-private partnership and a
business venture, where a public agency provides the catalyst for car-shar-
ing but does not have the resources to provide substantial funding.
Exhibit 8-2 Scenarios for Car-Sharing Development
Who initiates Who operates
What are the key
Scenario car-sharing? car-sharing? (1)
partners involved? (2) Initial Markets (3)
1. Business venture For-profit op- For-profit opera-
Not that dependent on Higher income, well-
erator, potentially tor, potentially car
partners, particularly educated people, dense
car rental firm rental firm
public sector neighborhoods
2. Strong public- May be public Most likely to
Local government sup- Same as (1), but more
private partnership agency or for- be a for-profit
port critical, probably emphasis on transit
profit operator operator, could be
strong transit agency riders, wider range of
non-profit or coop
backing too. Proactive incomes
in seeking out partners
3. Municipal lead City takes the May be non-profit Local government Same as (2), but more
initiative sponsored by city, critical emphasis on city staff
or partnership
with for-profit
4. Grassroots, commu- Community group Most likely to be Community groups, lo- Likely to start with
nity-based effort non-profit or coop, cal government, founda- people with strong
some will eventu- tions, transit agencies, environmental aware-
ally transition to other non-profits, etc. ness and diversify/be-
for-profit but keep Any and all partners! come more mainstream
similar ethos as the organization
matures
5. Special purpose/ University or re- University Auto manufacturers, Students, staff and
research search institution research staff faculty, may diversify
as the organization
matures
6. Stand-alone devel- Community Non-profit, for- Developer, campus man- Residents/staff/faculty
opment or campus group, developer, profit ager, community group of the development/
university campus
(1) See Chapter 2 for more details of the different types of operator.
(2) See Chapter 5 for a discussion of the role of partner organizations.
(3) Chapter 3 focuses on the market settings for car-sharing.
Page
September 2005
8-8
OCR for page 248
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
Business Venture
Under the business venture scenario, car-sharing is seen by both the opera-
tor and by partner organizations as a profit-making business venture. The
opening of a new market is a purely commercial decision by the operator,
who initiates the move and runs the program. Venture capital is likely to
be the main source of funding.
Zipcar, particularly in the New York region, perhaps comes the closest to this
scenario as it places the least reliance for its growth on partner organizations,
especially those from the public sector. However, even Zipcar does receive
considerable support in some markets, such as cash subsidies in Arlington
County, VA and free or discounted parking in the Boston region (Chapter
5). It also has numerous partnerships with developers and universities.
Note, however, that many of the most attractive opportunities for pure busi-
ness ventures have already been taken most obviously because most of
the largest, most transit-supportive metropolitan regions already have an
incumbent operator. The exception would be if a car-sharing firm moves to
compete with an established operator, or if a car rental company offers hourly
rentals through existing outlets. Exhibit 8-3 shows the 15 agencies with the
largest ridership, which can be taken as a proxy for car-sharing market size;
it demonstrates that the largest opportunities have already been taken.
The market-driven nature of these programs mean that operators will natu-
rally focus on the most profitable markets. Car-sharing will be found in the
most dense, transit-supportive neighborhoods, and its primary clientele will
be among well-educated professionals.
Strong Public-Private Partnership
The strong public-private partnership scenario is characterized by a strong
public sector role in promoting car-sharing. The program may be initiated
by the operator itself, or by a local government or transit agency issuing
an RFP. Regardless, considerable public support, often including start-up
funding and free parking, is an important factor for success, as discussed
in Chapter 6. The operator is also likely to be proactive in seeking support
from an expanded group of partner organizations.
There are many examples of car-sharing as a public-private partnership.
Flexcar, for example, opened for business in Seattle after King County Metro
issued an RFP and provided start-up funding. Arlington County and San
Diego are two other examples where a public agency has taken the initiative
and provided support.
Page
8-9
OCR for page 249
Chapter 8 ˇ Conclusion
Exhibit 8-3 Largest US Transit Agencies
Passenger
Miles (1000s), Car-Sharing
Agency (1) Region FY 2002 Operator (2)
Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York, NY 14,162,257 Zipcar
Regional Transportation Authority Chicago, IL 3,593,756 I-GO
New Jersey Transit Corporation Newark, NJ 2,473,943 Zipcar
Washington Metropolitan Area Washington, DC 1,897,127 Zipcar, Flexcar
Transit Authority
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Los Angeles, CA 1,875,627 Flexcar
Transportation Authority
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Boston, MA 1,823,180 Zipcar
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Philadelphia, PA 1,333,881 Philly Car-
Authority Share
San Francisco Bay Area Oakland, CA 1,176,306 City CarShare
Rapid Transit District
Metropolitan Atlanta Atlanta, GA 816,748 -
Rapid Transit Authority
Maryland Transit Administration Baltimore, MD 629,710 -
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County Houston, TX 580,507 -
King County Department of Transportation Seattle, WA 523,282 Flexcar
New York City Department of Transportation New York, NY 472,076 Zipcar
San Francisco Municipal Railway San Francisco, CA 461,147 City CarShare
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District Portland, OR 413,844 Flexcar
of Oregon
(1) Some regions (e.g. New York, San Francisco) may have more than one transit operator.
(2) Not necessarily involving a partnership with the transit operator.
Source: Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database, cited by American Public Transportation Association.
The market settings for car-sharing are likely to be similar to a car-sharing
business venture. However, there may be a wider range of locations, includ-
ing a greater focus on transit either at the behest of partner organizations,
or because of incentives such as free parking to locate there.
A wide variety of organizational forms are possible under this scenario. A
for-profit operator is perhaps the most common incarnation. However, non-
profits or cooperatives could operate such a program equally well.
Municipal Lead
Public agencies that want to establish car-sharing in their community will
tend to do so through a third-party operator. They may issue an RFP, provide
funding or other assistance to encourage an existing firm to start service in
a new city, or provide the necessary resources for a community group.
Page
September 2005
8-10
OCR for page 250
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
In some cases, however, a local government may prefer to be involved more
directly in the provision of car-sharing, through actually operating the pro-
gram itself. The closest North American example is provided by Roaring
Fork Valley Vehicles in Aspen, CO. Here, the municipality has provided
staffing and office space for the car-sharing operator, even though it is for-
mally incorporated as a separate non-profit.
This approach may be useful in communities that have tried, but so far
failed, to establish car-sharing through other means. It may also be valuable
if the municipality itself intends to be an "anchor" car-sharing member, by
replacing its fleet.
Grassroots Effort
In many cases, car-sharing has come to fruition as a result of the work of
community activists and grassroots supporters. Initial efforts will usually
be undertaken on a volunteer basis, such as in Philadelphia, or under the
auspices of a local environmental non-profit. Examples of the latter are found
in San Francisco, Madison, Chicago and Minneapolis-St Paul, where car-
sharing was established through the respective efforts of the San Francisco
Planning and Urban Research Association, the Madison Environmental
Group, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Neighborhood
Energy Consortium.
Support from partner organizations including private foundations as
well as public agencies will often provide important start-up capital, and
sometimes technical assistance. However, some smaller car-sharing operators
may stay as small, all-volunteer organizations without this assistance, or, in
the case of cooperatives, use members' shares as the source of capital.
Examples of small, grassroots organizations with just one or a handful of
vehicles include Boulder CarShare, CO and the Car-Sharing Co-op of Ed-
monton, AB. However, several have grown to be much larger, professionally
staffed organizations, notably City CarShare in the San Francisco Bay Area,
and the Cooperative Auto Network in Vancouver, BC.
Operators under this scenario are almost always non-profit or cooperatives.
However, some may later transition to for-profit status, as did Communauto
in Quebec (Robert, 1999).
In many instances, the market settings will be similar to a car-sharing busi-
ness venture, since these will represent the most economically viable loca-
Page
8-11
OCR for page 251
Chapter 8 ˇ Conclusion
tions. However, a grassroots program will usually mean greater emphasis
on environmental and social objectives. This may lead to a conscious effort
to link car-sharing with transit, through placing cars at rail stations and
other transit nodes, and to serve a wider section of the community through
placing cars in lower-income areas and affordable housing developments.
Special Purpose/Research
Some car-sharing operations have been established primarily as a research
laboratory. For example, Barth & Todd (2001, p. 145) describe the Intelli-
Share program at the University of California-Riverside as a "test bed," with
which "researchers can develop and implement new operating techniques,
perform experiments in travel demand management, collect data for sup-
porting models, and quantify the energy and emissions savings associated
with the system." At the same time, such systems provide mobility for
campus faculty and staff.
Over time, research pilots may transition to a self-sustaining car-sharing
program. In many cases, however, they appear to fold once research funding
ends. For example, the CarLink II station car program in the San Francisco
Bay Area was transitioned to Flexcar and incorporated into the operator's
regular car-sharing program, but could not be made commercially viable
(Shaheen et al., 2004).
Stand Alone
Some car-sharing programs can be considered stand-alone, in that they
serve a single campus or development, rather than being integrated into
a wider local network. The Dancing Rabbit Vehicle Cooperative, part of
an ecovillage in Missouri, is one example. Others are found on university
campuses, such as Zipcar's programs at Princeton, NJ and the University
of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Bringing Car-Sharing to a New Community
In several instances, car-sharing will expand to a new community with
relatively little effort on the part of partner organizations. This may hap-
pen through any of the scenarios discussed above. For example, hOurCar
is planning to launch in Minneapolis-St Paul in 2005 as a grassroots effort,
with the for-profit start-up Viacar doing the same in Detroit. Flexcar and
Zipcar have publicly stated their desire to expand in the coming years, hav-
ing broken even in their core markets.
Page
September 2005
8-12
OCR for page 252
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
Most communities, however, will need to be more proactive if they are to
achieve a desire to have car-sharing as a local transportation option. Using
the typology developed in the preceding section, Exhibit 8-4 shows the
potential of each model. Franchising and replication programs now make
the grassroots effort and municipal lead options much simpler, since back
office functions can be outsourced. City CarShare (2005) provides detailed
information on starting up a car-sharing organization from a more opera-
tional perspective.
Exhibit 8-4 Options for Starting Car-Sharing
Model Considerations
1. Business venture Will primarily depend on operators' business and expansion
plans, and their perceptions of the strength of the market.
However, partners may be able to influence operators'
priorities through provision of support.
2. Strong public-private partnership Operators' interest will depend on the depth of support that is
offered, coupled with the inherent desirability of the market.
3. Municipal lead Requires strong, ongoing commitment from local government,
and full operational responsibilities.
4. Grassroots, community-based effort Feasibility depends on interest and organizational capacity of
local groups, and the amount of support that can be offered by
partners.
5. Special purpose/research Limited wider applicability; conditioned by availability of
demonstration/research funds.
6. Stand alone development or campus Special niche; can be combined with any of the above
scenarios.
In many ways, there is a continuum between the business venture and
strong public-private partnership scenarios because support from partner
organizations can help compensate for less favorable market conditions
and neighborhood and demographic characteristics. In other words, the
less inherently desirable a market, the more incentives that partners will
need to provide in order to entice operators. This is especially true given the
high costs of opening a market, and the limited amount of available capital
and management resources. Flexcar, for example, puts the cost of opening
a market and bringing it to profitability at $1 million.
In some instances, it may be appropriate to issue an RFP, particularly if it is
tied to a significant amount of support from partner organizations. In other
cases, it may be preferable to work directly with an operator or community
group. Chapter 7 discusses some of the considerations related to RFPs.
Page
8-13
OCR for page 253
Chapter 8 ˇ Conclusion
The choice of model will often be dictated by practical concerns. The amount
of support that can be offered, interest from private operators, and the capac-
ity of local community organizations may determine whether car-sharing
becomes a public-private partnership or a grassroots effort. However, some
partners make a conscious choice in this regard. King County Metro wanted
a for-profit provider to bring private capital to the table. SEPTA in Philadel-
phia, in contrast, was keen to see a non-profit operator that would be more
likely to pursue goals directly aligned with those of the transit agency.
According to operators, one of the most important ways a partner can help
catalyze car-sharing, regardless of the preferred organizational arrangement,
is through doing the groundwork. Specific actions might include:
ˇ Documenting the characteristics of neighborhoods that could
support car-sharing, in line with the geographic market analysis
discussed in Chapter 3
ˇ Conducting preliminary market research or a feasibility study
ˇ Providing outreach to other partner organizations to obtain insti-
tutional buy-in, and also to the wider community
ˇ Providing commitments for financial and/or in-kind support
ˇ Considering how car-sharing can integrate with wider neighbor-
hood and transportation plans
ˇ Addressing the other key barriers discussed in Chapter 6, such as
licensing and zoning
This study has sought to explore the current state of the practice in North
America, and the markets in which it succeeds. Certainly, car-sharing is a
niche product and has only been proven viable in a limited range of urban
settings. The aspirations of partner organizations need to be tempered by
realism, and Exhibit 8-5 provides a simple checklist that can help in assess-
ing the viability of a program.
The potential extent of car-sharing has yet to be fully explored. At the time
of writing, car-sharing in the United States has been around for less than
seven years, and programs are still expanding at a rapid pace. Car-sharing
is here to stay, but little can be said with any confidence about its ultimate
reach. Much learning will take place through experimentation by car-shar-
ing operators and their partners, and through trial and error. This collective
experience, in turn, will provide the only definitive answer to how and
where car-sharing succeeds, and how it can help achieve a community's
environmental, social and economic goals.
Page
September 2005
8-14
