Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds (2005) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 14-48
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 14... ...
Car-sharing has appeared in numerous different forms throughout North America and the world. The term has encompassed open-access shared vehicle programs, intended for occasional trips where a car is needed; station cars for commuters to drive to work from the transit station; and systems for intra-campus mobility, for example in a university setting.
|
From page 15... ...
It defines car-sharing as: A membership program intended to offer an alternative to car ownership under which persons or entities that become members are permitted to use vehicles from a fleet on an hourly basis.
|
From page 16... ...
City of Toronto, 2000 State of Washington A membership program intended to offer an alternative to car ownership under which persons or entities that become members are permitted to use vehicles from a fleet on an hourly basis. Revised Code of Washington § 82.70.010 (5)
|
From page 17... ...
Chapter 2 • State of the praCtiCe September 2005 Page 2-4 accreditation Alternatively, some municipalities and other organizations – mostly in Europe – have developed accreditation programs. Rather than developing an inclusive definition, these accreditation criteria are deliberately exclusive: they explicitly aim to exclude car-sharing operators that do not meet minimum standards.
|
From page 18... ...
The Purdue University experiment focused on encouraging participants to use smaller, fuel-efficient cars, and reduce their need to own additional vehicles, rather than dispensing with vehicle ownership altogether. Participants were provided with a small "minimum attribute vehicle" for daily trips, as well as access to a shared fleet of special purpose vehicles such as large sedans and station wagons.
|
From page 19... ...
It was successful from a consumer perspective, and improved the mobility of participants while reducing their auto ownership needs. However, it did not succeed financially, with specific issues including vehicle reliability, a pricing structure that encouraged long- as well as short-term rentals, and a growing number of members who failed to pay their bills.
|
From page 20... ...
Page 2-7 Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds were enrolled in Canada (Susan Shaheen, unpublished data)
|
From page 21... ...
September 2005Page 2-8 Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Exhibit 2-4 North American Car-Sharing Regions (June 2005)
|
From page 22... ...
Alternatively, but less commonly, a car-sharing operation may be run as a research pilot by universities such as the University of California at Riverside, or by a municipal government. Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles in Aspen, CO is the closest North American example to government-run car-sharing; while the organization is formally a separate non-profit, the City of Aspen provides a staff member to run the operation.
|
From page 23... ...
Flexcar Forprofit Riverside, CA (University of California) Intellishare Research pilot Rutledge, MO Dancing Rabbit Vehicle Cooperative Cooperative San Diego, CA Flexcar Forprofit San Francisco, CA City CarShare Nonprofit Santa Barbara, CA Flexcar Forprofit Seattle, WA Flexcar Forprofit Washington, DC Flexcar, Zipcar Forprofit Canada Calgary, AB Calgary Alternative Transportation Coop Cooperative Edmonton, AB Carsharing Coop of Edmonton Cooperative Gatineau, QC Communauto Forprofit*
|
From page 24... ...
San Francisco-based City CarShare, meanwhile, has a national replication program to provide technical assistance to non-profit operators in other
|
From page 25... ...
In 2005, City CarShare launched a handbook to assist start-up car-sharing operators, covering a range of detailed operational and business planning issues (City CarShare, 2005)
|
From page 26... ...
Transit stations provide a good environment – not just because of the possibility of combined transit–car-sharing trips, but because they often have higher densities, local shops and services and act as a neighborhood center. Chapter 3 discusses the market settings for car-sharing in more detail.
|
From page 27... ...
In many cases, neighbors, friends or family members can share a car, either through informal arrangements or more detailed agreements on cost sharing, reservations and maintenance. Some developments have also incorporated shared cars, such as the Gaia Building in Berkeley, CA, with two electric vehicles available for residents' use as well as City CarShare service in the building (Exhibit 2-7)
|
From page 28... ...
It provides options for mid-distance trips where flexibility is required – for example, in carrying packages, or reaching destinations that may not be accessible by public transportation. The remainder of this section discusses the differences between car-sharing and the two closest substitutes – rental cars and taxis.
|
From page 29... ...
In addition, the primary purpose of car-sharing is often to provide an alternative to vehicle ownership. In contrast, most rental firms have centralized facilities, particularly in airports and downtowns, require a staff member to check the vehicle out, and offer minimum rental increments of 24 hours.
|
From page 30... ...
Communauto in Quebec, for example, offers a "network rate" with a flat charge per day and 300 km of inclusive mileage, and a "workweek rate", in addition to its standard hourly rates. These rates allow the operator to maximize utilization, and appeal to different market segments – such as freelance workers who need a car every day, but only for a few weeks at a time.
|
From page 31... ...
Vrtucar in Ottawa has similar agreements with AutoShare in Toronto and Communauto in Montreal and Quebec City. 2.5 Current practice Customer Groups Most car-sharing operators offer services to two distinct customer groups – personal users and business users.
|
From page 32... ...
Some operators bundle a certain number of miles into the hourly rate but charge for additional miles. • Monthly or annual administrative charge.
|
From page 33... ...
A low hourly rate and high mileage fee, in contrast, will make shorter-distance, longer-duration trips more cost effective. Similarly, the level of monthly or annual fee will determine how administrative costs are allocated between frequent and occasional users, and whether car-sharing is attractive for those who need it as "mobility insurance." When CarSharing Portland introduced a membership fee in 2000, for example, about 30% of the members left.
|
From page 34... ...
Of the US operators included in this comparison, Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles in Aspen and, for longer-duration, lower-mileage trips, City CarShare in San Francisco, have the lowest per-trip rates. However, these operators also have higher application and membership fees, which are not considered in the sample trip costs.
|
From page 35... ...
Additional hours at $8.50, including 30 miles. Other bundled plans range from $42.50 to $700 per month, including 5100 hours and 1503000 miles $7.00$9.00 $28.00$36.00 $56.00$72.00 IGO, Chicago Regular Plan – $6 per hour plus $0.50 per mile Bundled Plans $85$225 per month, including 1025 hours and 100250 miles $8.50 $53.50$61.50 $60.50 Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles, Aspen $10 monthly fee, $3.50 per hour, $0.20 per mile.
|
From page 36... ...
Exhibit 2-11 Sample Fleet Composition Operator Core Fleet Other Vehicles Used City CarShare, San Francisco Scion xA Scion xB VW Beetle VW Jetta (wagon) Honda Civic/Civic Hybrid VW Golf Toyota Tacoma Toyota Prius IGO, Chicago Honda Civic/Civic Hybrid Honda Element PhillyCarShare, Philadelphia Toyota Prius Toyota Matrix Scion xB Toyota Tacoma Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles, Aspen Ford Focus Zipcar, Boston VW Jetta Ford Focus Honda Civic Toyota Matrix Scion xB Ford Escape Scion xA Toyota Prius Volvo S40 BMW 325 Mazda 3 Mini Honda Element Toyota Sienna Toyota Rav 4 EV Toyota Tacoma Toyota Highlander AutoShare, Toronto Toyota Corolla Toyota Echo Suzuki Aerio BMW 3 Series Dodge Cargo Lexus ES 330 Communauto, Quebec Toyota Echo Toyota Tercel Vrtucar, Ottawa Toyota Echo Toyota Matrix Chevrolet Astrovan Source: Car-sharing operator websites, March 2005.
|
From page 37... ...
City CarShare (2005) puts battery electric vehicles in the category of "what not to do" in its guide for starting up a car-sharing organization, due to cost and reliability issues.
|
From page 38... ...
Page 2-25 Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds technology Most earlier car-sharing programs, in both Europe and North America, provided members with universal door keys or relied on the manual, physical "lock box" model of access. For example, the keys for each car might be contained in a wall-mounted safe at each location, which members could access with a master key or personal identification number (PIN)
|
From page 39... ...
Most North American operators now have advanced web-based reservations systems. These examples are from City CarShare (left)
|
From page 40... ...
At the same time, innovative services such as one-way reservations have been explored, which have the potential to reduce the "convenience gap" between car-sharing and car ownership. product Life Cycle Wagner (2005; personal communication)
|
From page 41... ...
September 2005Page 2-28 Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Exhibit 2-13 Car-Sharing Product Life Cycle 1990-2005 Source: Adapted from Wagner (2005)
|
From page 42... ...
For example, the City of Berkeley has exclusive use of four City CarShare vehicles during the working day (Chapter 5)
|
From page 43... ...
• It allows a single parking space to be allocated for each car at its "home" location. In contrast, systems that allow for one-way trips need around twice as many reserved parking spaces as vehicles, in order to function optimally (Nakayama, Yamamoto & Kitamura, 2002)
|
From page 44... ...
Page 2-31 Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds sharing. They said that, if their plans changed or they got stuck in traffic, they were stressed over thinking "I've got to get that car back." It reduces their level of spontaneity, participants considered.
|
From page 45... ...
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Barth, Matthew; Todd, Michael; and Xue, Lei (2004)
|
From page 46... ...
Paper presented at Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 11-15, 2004. Cambridge Systematics (1986)
|
From page 47... ...
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
|
From page 48... ...
Page 2-35 Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Shaheen, Susan, Sperling, D and Wagner, Conrad (1998)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.