Click for next page ( 241


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 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 240
Chapter 8 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 240
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 240
Chapter 8 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 240
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: 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. 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 240
Chapter 8 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). 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. 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 Mtropolitaine 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 240
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 240
Chapter 8 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 240
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 240
Chapter 8 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 240
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 240
Chapter 8 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 240
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 240
Chapter 8 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: Documenting the characteristics of neighborhoods that could support car-sharing, in line with the geographic market analysis discussed in Chapter 3 Conducting preliminary market research or a feasibility study Providing outreach to other partner organizations to obtain insti- tutional buy-in, and also to the wider community Providing commitments for financial and/or in-kind support Considering how car-sharing can integrate with wider neighbor- hood and transportation plans 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