How Do Car Share Organizations Work?
How Many People Use Car Share?
How Much Does Car Sharing Cost?
Why Do People Use Car Share?
Why Does Car Share Get Public Support?
How are Market Conditions for Car Share Changing?
(from CSBP, see sources at bottom of page)
Car sharing is to automobiles what time-sharing is to resort properties-a group of people that share a resource. Many people do not need a car at all times, and their household's first or second vehicle may not be used much. Being able to use a car "part-time" may meet their mobility needs at a lower cost to themselves and society. Further, some may need access to a minivan or a pick-up truck at times. Car sharing is a mobility option that might be considered a means to own a fraction of many cars, something that is not possible for most people.
Car sharing might be considered something like hourly car rental for preapproved customers with cars close to the customers' homes. It is easy to reserve, use and return the car. Insurance, fuel, licensing, maintenance, and car payments are handled by the car share organization, and members pay only for what they use.
When a member wants to use a shared car they telephone the car share organization or visit their web site. They can either confirm a vehicle is currently available or they can schedule one for a future time. Car share vehicles will be not kept at a central site, but will be located throughout neighborhoods where members live, typically no more than two to four blocks away. Specialty vehicles, such as minivans or pick-up trucks, may be available at locations in nearby neighborhoods.
Cars may be accessed using a keyless entry system with vehicle keys kept in secure key boxes inside the vehicles. A member would unlock the door, open the key box, get the key, record member number and mileage information, and drive away. When the reserved time is over, the car would be returned. At the end of each month, the member receives a bill for hours and miles used.
For some, car sharing might be attractive due to assigned parking. Vehicles will be newer and carefully maintained, so reliability will be an asset. For those driving less than the average number of miles a year, car sharing will be less expensive than owning a car. Members in a car sharing organization will tend to use transit, walking, or bicycling for a significant share of their transportation needs. Car sharing allows the added option of a car to these transportation choices.
(from BROOK)
Car sharing offers a solution of one of the most intractable problems of modern urban life – how to have the convenience and flexibility of a private car without owning one. By pricing the service on a per-use basis it sends a more accurate price signal to consumers about the cost of each car trip, consequently “leveling the playing field” with other modes of transportation. Car sharing could also play a major role in meeting future mobility in developing nations by providing a high level of personal mobility for residents while reducing traffic congestion from incidental trips that could be taken via other modes.
Car sharing started in the United States in March 1998, with the launch of Car Sharing Portland Inc. in Portland, Oregon. Earlier in North America, Benoit Robert launched in Quebec City in 1994 and Tracey Axelsson started the Cooperative Auto Network (CAN) in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1997. Since then several other car sharing organizations (CSOs) have been formed in North America. Two for-profit companies, Flexcar, based in Seattle, and Zipcar, based in Boston, account for the majority of the vehicles in service in the US. CommunAuto, serving Montreal & Quebec, is the largest car sharing provider in Canada. Large, growing non-profit or cooperative car sharing services are located in San Francisco, Philadelphia and Vancouver, British Columbia.
These services are based on a European model, which started simultaneously but independently in 1987 in Berlin and Lucerne, Switzerland, and focus on individual members, and charging for usage both by time (hourly or half-hourly) and distance (mile or kilometer). Vehicles are geographically distributed in reserved parking spaces, typically off street, through neighborhoods, putting one or more vehicles within easy walking or bicycling distance of the primary users. Gasoline and insurance coverage is included in the rates. Although some variation in policies and procedures exists among different CSOs, all strive to provide a level of convenience as close to owning a car as possible – especially with easy reservations by phone or web and simple, unattended vehicle access.
Examples of Car Share Prices: Benchmark trip is one hour and ten miles. Prices were found on CSO web sites in March 2004. Sign up fees and security deposits are not included.
| CSO | COUNTRY | Per Hour | Per Mile | Benchmark Trip Cost | Notes |
| City CarShare | USA | $4.00 | $0.44 | $8.40 | Trip is one hour and 10 miles |
| ZipCar | USA | $9.50 | $0.00 | $9.50 | First 125 miles free |
| Mobility | Switzerland | $2.07 | $0.69 | $8.95 | |
| CambioCar | Germany | $3.00 | $0.56 | $8.60 | |
| Stattauto | Germany | $3.24 | $0.40 | $7.24 | |
| SRC (Proposed) | Global | $2.50 | $0.35 | $6.00 | Stackable car built to last 8 years |
Mass transit provides a better service in European cities, than in the US, so most people can get from home to work by street car, bus or train. But mass transit can't meet every travel need with convenience and so people feel the need to use cars.
The idea with car share is to let people enjoy the convenience of the car but escape the high fixed costs of ownership. To see how much money the average European can save, compare the costs of car ownership, and full time use, with the cost of using a combination of mass transit and reduced car use.
The total yearly cost to operate a car in Switzerland is given below. These estimates (Est) are based on numbers from the Touring Club of Switzerland. The car costs 32,000 Swiss Francs ($ 24,576) and is driven 15000 KM (9300 miles) per year. As of April 2004 one Swiss Franc was worth $ 0.768.
| Expense Type | Low Est in Swiss Francs | Low Est in $ | High Est in $ |
| Tax on transactions | 420 | 323 | 323 |
| Insurance | 1500 | 1152 | 1152 |
| Parking | 1440 | 1106 | 4152 |
| Gasoline | 1800 | 1382 | 1382 |
| Service/Repairs/Tires | 1800 | 1382 | 1382 |
| Amortization | 3840 | 2949 | 2949 |
| TOTAL | 10800 | 8294 | 11340 |
The second column, Low Est in $, has a parking cost estimate on the low side. If we adjust for the true or hidden cost of parking the total would be $ 11,340, as shown in the last column: High Est $. The hidden cost is explained below. Parking costs are difficult to isolate. If you have a parking space at work the employer pays for it and you, the employee, do not see the cost. If you have parking at your residence then the cost is included in the rent or mortgage. But many Europeans don't have parking at their urban residences. According to Scheurer a substantial supply of parking-free housing remains to this day in all European cities.
Scheurer (see below) estimates that each off-street parking space requires a minimum floor area or open space of 25 square meters and costs between 10,000 and 30,000 Euro to build. The average price would be 20000 Euro or $ 26,000. Amortizing this at 7% over 30 years is $ 2076 per year. For a driver that has a space at his apartment and another at work the true cost is 2 x $ 2076 or $ 4152 a year. This is far more than the Swiss estimate of $ 1106. Adjusting for the hidden cost we get $ 11,340. If this seems high then consider some current monthly rates for reserved parking, such as in parking garages, which are : San Francisco : $ 300, New York City $ 450 and London $ 700. So in London it could cost as much as $ 8400 a year at each end of a home-to-work car trip, just for parking.
What is the significance of hidden parking costs? Can a car share user really avoid these costs by not owning a car? The section below, on car free housing, shows that many Europeans are trying to do just that.
You can save a lot if you use a combination of cars share and mass transit. First we look at a car share using conventional cars. Cambio Car of Germany charges $ 3 an hour and $ 0.56 a mile. For an annual use of 276 hours and 2,484 miles the bill would be $ 2,219. Add another $ 1,000 for mass transit use and the total annual cost is only $ 3,219.
Suppose a CSO, using the SRC, charged $ 2.50 an hour and $ 0.35 a mile. For an annual use of 276 hours and 2,484 miles the bill would be $ 1,559. Add another $ 1,000 for mass transit use and the total annual cost is only $ 2,559, far less than the $ 8,294 to $ 11,340 for personal car use. The average miles per year, 2,484, is based on figures from StattAuto. Their typical user does 4000 KM a year, which equals 2,484 miles.
Governments support CSO operations with funding and parking. Consider this excerpt from SHAH
The majority of shared-use vehicle programs have received startup and/or parking subsidies due to their presumed social and environmental benefits. At present, funding (public and private) and parking benefits are the most common measures employed to support shared-use vehicle organizations. Funding is a particularly powerful means to aid startups. Eighty percent of organizations receive some form of financial support from a variety of public (ranging from federal to municipal) and private sources (see Figure 3 below). Public-federal and private resources are the predominant funding sources tapped by organizations.
Now the San Francisco Planning Department supports Car Share. Excerpt from the Examiner (SFPD) :
Lisa Feldstein, a member of the Planning Commission, said that programs like CarShare are perfect fits for The City's "transit first" policy of making people less reliant on cars. Feldstein said that the Planning Department requires new developments looking to add parking to their projects to make spots available for car-sharing companies.
Excerpt from story about legislation supportive of car share, also in San Francisco (SFLEG)
Peskin Promotes Car-Share Model
Supervisor Aaron Peskin's legislation that would make the practice of car sharing an
official planning policy is nearing completion. The proposed law would require large
new developments to identify car-sharing spaces and allow minimum parking
requirements for development to include mechanical stacking and valet spaces.
Governments support CSO operations because they understand the benefits. Drivers who use car share drive less than those who own a car. They drive less because, while the fixed costs are low, the incremental costs are high. The incremental cost, per hour, for a shared car is $ 3 to $ 9. Once you own a car, the incremental cost per hour is zero. When faced with high incremental costs, people find alternatives like walking, riding a moped or bike, or taking the bus. Mobility (MOB2), a CSO in Switzerland, found that users reduced driving from 9606 KM to 2606 KM a year when drivers switched from owned to shared cars. And in Germany, with StattAuto (STATT), the reduction was 8700 KM to 4000 KM a year. When people drive less there is less traffic congestion, less noise, and less air pollution. All three are serious problems in European cities.
Air pollution is a problem in European cities according to this excerpt from (GOK)
A review of respiratory diseases in Europe by the World Health Organization and the European Environment Agency in 1996 indicated that a considerable proportion of the European population is exposed to ambient air pollution at concentrations of concern to health. Ozone pollution episodes are associated with respiratory diseases and nitrogen dioxide from combustion engines with the main precursor of ozone, nitrogen dioxide. Suspended particulate matter (SPM), mainly from diesel engines, is also regarded as a serious health problem. For instance, short term pollution episodes characterized by raised levels of SPM account for 7-10% of all lower respiratory illnesses (4-6 million cases annually) in children living in cities with data on SPM concentrations. This proportion reaches 21% in the most polluted cities.
Automotive market conditions are changing. These changing conditions will increase the market share for car share organizations. Incomes and urban populations are increasing in Asia and cites are adopting measures to reduce traffic congestion. Three of the conditions described below result from measures to discourage private car ownership and encourage mass transit use. The trend is to adopt more measures to restrain car use, even if there is great risk of a political backlash.
The introduction of congestion pricing in central London was viewed as a politically risky move. But it has been a success. It has worked for years in Singapore.
Excerpts from a story in the Observer (UK), February 15, 2004
Congestion charging sweeps the world,
A rash of cities around the globe are set to travel the same road as
London
By Juliette Jowit
Cities throughout Britain and across the world are poised to introduce their own congestion charges after the apparent success of the first year of the ground-breaking London scheme.
Edinburgh and Cardiff are the furthest ahead, with plans for new charges on cars to raise money for investment, to be introduced within two years. The Scottish and Welsh capitals are both advancing proposals to charge drivers to pass a cordon around their city centers, explicitly linked to raising money for trams, trains and other transport improvements.
Stockholm is to start a pilot next year and Barcelona and Milan have shown interest in the idea. In North America, San Francisco is said to be moving close to charging. And the Brazilian city of São Paulo is working on a proposal as well.
The surge in studies and consultations has been unleashed by the apparent success of the £5-a-day London congestion charge, which celebrates its first year this week.
Elsewhere, studies by Deloitte consultants claim that 26 out of 34 cities in 15 European countries showed "significant support" for some form of charging. Across 11 countries in Latin America, 47 per cent of cities claimed "significant support" and a further 40 per cent were "thinking about it" -- although the report does not say how many cities responded there.
The World Bank is also reported to be pressing booming cities in developing countries to use charging to curb exploding traffic growth, calling for cities in the developing countries to use charges to reduce fast-growing car use, raise money for much-needed infrastructure and free up congested buses, which are traditionally the main form of mass transport.
Evidently, car drivers have to pay 5 pounds when they drive into central London during business hours. The toll could be collected electronically. Charging has reduced the volume of auto traffic which has resulted in easier travel for bikes, buses and pedestrians.
One source (Scheurer) describes five car free housing examples in these cities:
A short history of car free housing (from Scheurer)
Car free housing is not exactly a new concept. After all, most residential development from the era before mass-motorization - generally before 1945 - was done without parking provision in mind. While some pre-1945 housing stock, even of medium or higher density, was subsequently retrofitted with garages or ground-level car parks, not infrequently compromising open space quality and/or heritage issues, a substantial supply of parking-free housing remains to this day in all European cities. In Germany and Austria, building codes have required parking provision with residential development since 1939 (see below), with quite rigorous enforcement until recently, though the regulations were not always applied under the productive pressures of the post-war reconstruction period in the 1950s. In Denmark and the Netherlands, urban renewal that required demolition and new construction within old-growth urban fabric was similarly exempted from such rules, in the knowledge that apart from generating formidable extra costs, the ubiquitous provision of parking would rapidly have brought the limited and already congested road networks in pre-industrial or 19th century districts to a standstill.
When the first European car free housing scheme was proposed in Bremen (Germany) in 1992, the novelty of the concept, thus, lay not so much in putting housing units without car parks on the market. Rather, what appeared radical - and to some, provocative beyond reason - was its blunt defiance of an unspoken consensus that perceived principally every household in the country to aspire to car ownership and with a right to expect that as few institutional, legal, financial or spatial barriers as possible deter from attaining that goal. Car free living, it was believed, was the choice of fringe groups and had no place in the contemporary mainstream of society. Now suddenly proposals appeared that attempted to not only save the costs associated to developing parking facilities, but simultaneously create residential environments that would reflect the benefits of non-car ownership by being relatively sheltered from the noise, pollution, safety and land-grab impacts of automobile traffic. Or, in other words, making it exceptionally attractive to consolidate a lifestyle regarded as decidedly nonconformist. The struggle most stakeholders have had, and are still having to face when warming up to these ideas cannot be underestimated in a psychological sense.
However, opposition to car free housing initiatives was easily deconstructed where it claimed that car free living was a small minority phenomenon. As Reutter and Reutter (1996a, 1996b) found in a seminal study on the demographics, behavior patterns and motivations of car free households, the group amounts to an average of 41% of all households in large West German cities, and hovers near the 50% mark in East German urban centers or the European capitals of Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Edinburgh and Vienna. While the proportion of car free households had declined markedly everywhere after 1945, it now appears to be consolidating at least in these larger cities, assisted by trends towards more single and two-person, young adult and over-65 households, all of which are much less likely to own cars than members of middle-aged or family groups.
Car free living, however, is not absent from the latter population segments either, and the attraction existing car free housing areas obviously have on households with children (see below and Section 5.6) may be taken as an indication for substantial latent demand here. Moreover, Reutter and Reutter (1996a), in a survey in their native Dortmund (Germany), could establish that far from aspiring to car ownership as soon as circumstances allowed, car free households were generally quite happy about their choice. 74% of respondents expressed satisfaction with their status of non-car ownership, 75% considered a car unnecessary for their mobility needs, and 92% did not expect to own a car in the foreseeable future (ibid).
There is, then, clearly a market for car free housing not adequately served by conventional housing development, where cars are generally allowed to penetrate much of the residential environment and where parking facilities are implicitly factored into the cost of each housing unit, regardless of whether buyers or tenants own vehicles or not. Car free housing is designed to roll back these disincentives to abstention from car ownership. This is done, on one hand, by ending the cross-subsidy enabling car owners to park their vehicles at little or no cost on valuable land - typically, each off-street parking bay requires a minimum floor area or open space of 25 square meters and costs between EUR 10,000 and 30,000 ($ 13,000 to $ 39,000) to build. This contributes to more social justice along the 'user pays' principle and to better housing affordability within the car free market. Explicit costs for parking, of course, can just as well be incorporated in mixed car ownership housing developments, as attempted quite successfully in Freiburg-Vauban and Tübingen. On the other hand, it is usually intended to provide additional benefits to the residents of car free neighborhoods - this may range from extra public open space to better technical or ecological building standards, from discounts on mobility services like public transit passes or car sharing to advanced levels of participatory planning and extra community facilities.
Excerpts from a paper Issues in BRT (BRT) explain how restricted parking, and pedestrian only streets are part of better public transit.
3.3 Integration of Transit with Land Use Planning
Curitiba's Master Plan integrated transportation with land use planning, with the latter as the driving force, and called for a cultural, social and economic transformation of the city. It limited central area growth, while encouraging commercial growth along the transport arteries radiating out from the city center. The city's central area was partly closed to vehicular traffic, and pedestrian streets were created. The linear development along the arteries reduced the traditional importance of the downtown area as the primary focus of day-to-day transport activity, thereby minimizing congestion and the typical morning flow of traffic into the central city and the afternoon outflow. As a result, during any rush hour in Curitiba, there are heavy commuter movements in both directions along the public transportation arteries.
The Master Plan also provided economic support for urban development along the arteries through the establishment of industrial and commercial zones and mixed-use zoning, and encouraged local community self-sufficiency by providing each city district with its own adequate education, health care, recreation, and park areas. By 1992, almost 40 percent of Curitiba's population resided within three blocks of the major transit arteries.
Other policies have contributed to the success of the transit system, in the areas of zoning, housing development, parking and employer-paid transit subsidies. Land within two blocks of the transit arteries has been zoned for mixed commercial-residential uses. Higher densities are permitted for office space, since it traditionally generates more transit ridership per square foot than residential space. Beyond these two blocks, zoned residential densities taper with distance from transitways. Land near transit arteries is encouraged to be developed with community-assisted housing. The Institute of Urban Research and Planning of Curitiba (IPPUC), established in the 1960s to oversee implementation of the Master Plan, must approve locations of new shopping centers. They discourage American style auto-oriented shopping centers by channeling new retail growth to transit corridors. Very limited and time-restricted public parking is available in the downtown area, and private parking is very expensive. Finally, most employers offer transportation subsidies to workers, especially low-skilled and low-paid employees, making them the primary purchasers of tokens.
Incomes are increasing in both China and India. China's GDP is increasing at between 8 and 10% a year. India's rate of GDP increase is 7%. China's urban population is predicted to grow from 438 million, in 2002, to 756 million by 2026. In India, over the same time period, urban populations will grow from 287 to 565 million (UN1). Millions will leave the countryside to seek better lives in the cities.
The combination of increasing urban populations and rising incomes will boost the ranks of urban Chinese who can afford car share from 56 million, in 1996, to about 318 million by 2026.
High population density, in Asia's urban areas, will lead to the same problems , and some of the same solutions, as found in Europe. They will probably put a high tax on fuel, have congestion pricing and car free housing areas. Singapore, for example, has had congestion pricing for years. They are also likely to imitate Curitiba's example of integrating land use planning with transportation. In order to create the dense fabric of commercial and residential development within walking distance of a bus or train route it is essential to avoid large parking lots. As in Curitiba, large shopping centers and apartment buildings near transit will not have an abundance of parking.
Those who promote car share have a chance to alter the progression of Asia's car culture. A widespread, low cost, car share service will be widely utilized by workers in the $5000 to $35000 income range.
As wages rise in Asia the average urban worker will go through a long period when they make enough to use car share, but not enough to own, or provide parking for, a private car. Car Share could mold the transportation culture of entire nations. This molding process will take place because a majority of drivers will be car share users years before enough people make enough money for the culture to be dominated by car owners.
A culture molded to accept car share will have values and attitudes which resist car ownership. When people grow up knowing that a stack of 6 SRCs can park in the same space as one rich man's private car, they will see the private car as a selfish excess. It will be like your rich neighbor parking his yacht in the street across from your house. You would see that as an imposition, an excess, and a selfish act. Why should one rich man be able to exclude 60 reasonable people of modest income from sharing 6 SRCs? Each SRC serves the needs of ten people. So why should one space be wasted on a private car that serves only one person, when the same space can serve the needs of 60 car share drivers?
The car share dominated culture will affect the built environment. People growing up with SRC's will regard acres of parking for private cars as a waste. That space could be better used for apartment buildings or for a public park with a playscape for kids. Developers will build apartment buildings with enough parking for SRC's but not with enough space for privately owned cars. People will rent apartments that have SRC parking because it will be cheaper, by hundreds of dollars a month, than renting in an apartment building with parking for private cars. Office buildings and shopping centers will be built with less parking because most employees and shoppers can arrive by bike, bus and shared car. As in Curitiba, shopping centers will be built within walking distance of a BRT route, and restricted, by law, to offering only a small number of parking spaces. A car culture that is molded by car share use will result in more compact urban areas that are more easily traversed by walking, biking, or mass transit. There will be less car traffic because car share users drive 70% fewer miles per year. Parking areas will require less space because SRCs achieve a 6 fold parking density increase when compared to private cars.
High rates of car share use will mean high rates of mass transit ridership. The politics of the city will be dominated not by car owners, but by people who use a combination of bike, bus and shared car. In this political climate it will be easy to maintain many disincentives to car ownership. High car ownership taxes, fuel taxes and congestion charges, combined with a scarcity of private car parking, will limit car ownership to a small percentage of the urban population.
GOK : according to Global Økologi in the februar 2002 issue. Global Økologi
BRT : FTA_BRT_ISSUES.pdf explains how BRT was developed and implemented in Curitiba, Brazil
SHAH : http://www.carsharing.net/library/TRB2004Shaheenv.pdf
CSBP : http://www.metaresource.com/projects/csmarketplan.pdf, - - - Final Report, MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDY:, CAR SHARING IN PORTLAND, OREGON Submitted to:Nina DeConcini Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Submitted by: Jane S. Peters, Ph.D. Steven Scott, P.E. , MetaResource Group Rex Burkholder, Bicycle Transportation Alliance July 10, 1997
SUST : http://www.sustainable-city.org/articles/sharing.htm
SFPD : http://examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/123003n_carshare
CarShare moves into new housing developments , By Ethan Fletcher | Of The Examiner Staff,
Published on Tuesday, December 30, 2003
SFLEG : http://www.carsharing.net/library/sfexaminer101204.pdf
BROOK : http://www.carsharing.net/library/StartUp_Issues_TRB04_DBrook.pdf , - - - Carsharing – Start Up Issues and New Operational Models, Transportation Research Board, January, 2004, David Brook, Carsharing Consultant, 1905 NE Clackamas Street, Portland, Oregon 97232 503-313-1320. dbrook@easystreet.com
MOB : http://www1.mobility.ch/e/index.htm, Mobility Car Share in Switzerland
MOB2 : http://www1.mobility.ch/mobilmanager/IntSummeryE.html
AAS : Austin American Statesman , page G3, Saturday , Sept 25, 2004
AAA : http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm82.htm
Scheurer : http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/publications/projects/carfree/carfree.html
STATT : http://www.eaue.de/winuwd/86.htm
SUST : http://www.sustainable-city.org/articles/sharing.htm
UN1 http://www.un.org/esa/population/pubsarchive/ura/fura.htm
Return to Business Plan Contents Page