The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 240-254

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 240... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 241... ... The other obvious issue where regulatory reform might promote car-sharing relates to federal transportation funding programs, which are discussed in more detail below. Read the entire page →
From page 242... ... 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) Read the entire page →
From page 243... ... 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 carsharing fleet, and a similar situation arises in Canada, where more than half of shared vehicles belong to Communauto. Read the entire page →
From page 244... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 245... ... For example, King County Metro staff points out that a key indicator for the JARC program is "cost per trip," making it difficult for carsharing to perform well. This analysis should not necessarily be interpreted as recommendations for specific changes to federal funding programs. Read the entire page →
From page 246... ... , plus many other 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) Read the entire page →
From page 247... ... , but more emphasis on city staff 4. Grassroots, community-based effort Community group Most likely to be non-profit or coop, some will eventually transition to for-profit but keep similar ethos Community groups, local government, foundations, transit agencies, other non-profits, etc. Read the entire page →
From page 248... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 249... ... 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 Transit Authority Washington, DC 1,897,127 Zipcar, Flexcar Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA 1,875,627 Flexcar Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Boston, MA 1,823,180 Zipcar Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Philadelphia, PA 1,333,881 Philly CarShare San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Oakland, CA 1,176,306 City CarShare Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Atlanta, GA 816,748 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 of Oregon Portland, OR 413,844 Flexcar (1) Some regions (e.g. Read the entire page →
From page 250... ... . In many instances, the market settings will be similar to a car-sharing business venture, since these will represent the most economically viable loca Read the entire page →
From page 251... ... 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, having broken even in their core markets. Read the entire page →
From page 252... ... 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) Read the entire page →
From page 253... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 254... ... Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. City CarShare (2005) Read the entire page →

From page 240...

... 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.