Carsharing
Vehicle Rental Services That Substitute for Private Vehicle Ownership
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
22 July 2008
This chapter describes
Carsharing, which refers to vehicle rental services that substitute for private
vehicle ownership. This requires that rental services be easily accessible,
affordable and convenient to use, even for short time periods.
Carsharing refers to automobile rental services intended to substitute for private vehicle ownership. It makes occasional use of a vehicle affordable, even for low-income households, while providing an incentive to minimize driving and rely on alternative travel options as much as possible. It requires these features:
· Accessible (i.e., located in or near residential neighborhoods).
· Affordable (reasonable rates, suitable for short trips).
· Convenient (vehicles are easy to check in and out at any time).
· Reliability (vehicles are usually available and have minimal mechanical failures).
Carsharing is common in
Carsharing is a middle option between having no vehicle and owning a private automobile. The table below compares personal transportation options. Carsharing offers medium convenience, and has low fixed costs and high variable costs. Private vehicle ownership offers the most convenience, has the highest fixed costs and lowest variable costs. Conventional vehicle rental businesses are not intended to substitute for private vehicle ownership. They are located at transportation terminals or commercial centers and priced by the day, and so are relatively expensive for individual short trips. They generally have high daily rates but low variable costs. Taxis are relatively convenient and have no fixed charges but the highest variable charges. Public transit has moderate to low convenience (depending on location), modest to low costs.
Table 1 Vehicle Use
Options Compared
|
Criteria |
Carsharing |
Private Ownership |
Conventional Rental |
Taxi |
Public Transit |
|
Convenience |
Medium |
High |
Varies |
High-Medium |
Medium-Low |
|
Fixed Charges |
$100/yr |
$2,000-4,000/yr |
None |
None |
$600/yr max |
|
Time Charges |
$1.50/hour |
None |
$20-40/day |
None |
None |
|
Mileage Charges |
20-40¢ |
10-15¢ |
5-10¢ |
$1.00 |
21¢ |
This table compares
convenience and price of five common travel modes.
Below are typical variable costs for a single 15-mile trip by different modes:
Carsharing $10.00
Conventional Rental $32.00
Private Car $2.00
Taxi $15.00
Transit $3.15
Other vehicle sharing strategies are possible. One proposed system would allow vehicle owners to identify when and where their vehicles are available (for example, at home or at worksites) through a matching service. Registered customers could rent the vehicle during those times, with access automatically controlled by an electronic key or pass code, and payments made from user’s to vehicle owner’s account. Travel time and distance could be recorded manually or by special meters installed in participating vehicles.
Station cars are a type of Carsharing. Station cars are rented at transit stations for travel between terminals and local destinations. This supports transit use, particularly in suburban areas where destinations are too dispersed for convenient pedestrian access. Because they are intended for short trips, station cars can employ small, alternative fuel vehicles, such as battery powered electric cars. Public Bike Systems (PBS), which are automated bicycle rental systems designed to provide efficient mobility for short, utilitarian urban trips, similar to Carsharing.
Some studies indicate that access to vehicles significantly increases employment and average wages for disadvantaged people entering the workforce (such as welfare-to-work programs), and so recommend vehicle ownership subsidies (Blumenberg, 2003). However, Carsharing subsidies are probably better, if possible, since they do not require large up-front costs for purchase, registration and insurance, nor do they burden lower-income households with high fixed costs which may be unnecessary and unaffordable if, for example, a worker finds a job that can be reached more easily by alternative modes.
Carsharing organizations can be cooperatives or private businesses. Cooperatives sometimes receive grants to cover start-up and administrative expenses. Some Carsharing services are established at multi-family residential cooperatives as a service for users. Station cars are often implemented by public transit agencies. Governments can provide various types of support and incentives to help develop Carsharing services, including promotion, funding, favorable parking policies, incorporating Carsharing into public organizations and development projects, and favorable tax policies (Enoch and Taylor, 2006).
Because Carsharing variable costs are 2-10 times higher than for a personal automobile, users tend to minimize their driving. Overall travel reductions depend on what portion of Carshare participants would otherwise own a personal automobile (they typically reduce their vehicle use by 50-80%) and which portion would otherwise not own an automobile (they typically increase their vehicle use by a small amount). Most studies suggest that Carsharing typical results in a net reduction in per capita driving among participants that averages 40-60%, but this varies depending on the demographics of participants and the quality of travel choices in their community (Steininger, Vogl and Zettl, 1996).
In a study of the San Francisco City CarShare program, Cervero and Tsai (2003) find that when people join, nearly 30% reduce their household vehicle ownership and two-thirds stated they avoided purchasing another car, indicating that each Carshare vehicle substitutes for seven private cars, and that the average member drives 47% fewer annual miles after joining. However, since Carsharing tends to attract motorists who already drive relatively low mileage, total travel reductions may be relatively small.
Carsharing services are usually located in urban areas where there are suitable travel options so a significant portion of residents do not need own an automobile, and sufficient regular users within convenient walking distance (typically 0.3 miles) of the vehicles. In a typical region 10-20% of residents live in neighborhoods suitable for carsharing, and perhaps 3-5% of those residents would carshare rather than own a private vehicle ownership if the service were available. People who shift from owning a private vehicle to carsharing are typically lower-annual-mileage drivers who reduce their vehicle travel about 50% (i.e., they reduce their mileage from 6,000 to 3,000 annual miles). This suggests that carsharing services can reduce total vehicle travel by 0.1% to 0.2%, although much more in suitable urban neighborhoods.
Table 2 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
Reduces total per capita
vehicle travel. |
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
2 |
Reduces total per capita
vehicle travel. |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
2 |
Reduces total per capita
vehicle travel. |
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
1 |
Supports higher-density,
mixed land use. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
2 |
Encourages alternatives to
driving. |
|
Increased public transit. |
2 |
Encourages alternatives to
driving. |
|
Increased cycling. |
2 |
Encourages alternatives to
driving. |
|
Increased walking. |
2 |
Encourages alternatives to
driving. |
|
Increased Telework. |
2 |
Encourages alternatives to
driving. |
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Benefits include (Litman, 2000; Bonsall, 2002; TRB, 2005):
· Increased consumer choice
and financial savings.
· Increased affordability for
lower-income drivers who occasionally need a vehicle.
· Reduced per capita annual
mileage, resulting in reduced congestion, road and parking facility costs,
crashes, pollution and energy use.
· Reduced residential parking
requirements and support for higher density residential development.
Costs are primarily related to startup and administrative costs of Carsharing organizations.
Table 3 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Reduces total automobile
use. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
2 |
Reduces total automobile
ownership and use. |
|
Consumer Savings |
2 |
Reduces total
transportation expenditures. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Makes driving more
affordable. |
|
Road Safety |
2 |
Reduces total automobile
use. |
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
Reduces total automobile
use. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
2 |
Supports reduced automobile
ownership. |
|
Community Livability |
2 |
Reduces total automobile
use. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Carsharing is generally available to anybody who meets basic requirements, although only people who live in neighborhoods with such services are likely to use it. Carsharing services may require subsidies to become established. Carsharing tends to increase equity by improving the mobility options of people who are transportation disadvantaged, and by allowing lower-income drivers significant financial savings compared with vehicle ownership (Bonsall, 2002). It can help provide basic mobility under some circumstances.
Table 4 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
1 |
|
|
Individuals bear the costs
they impose. |
-1 |
May require subsidies to
become established. |
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
3 |
Benefits lower-income
drivers. |
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
1 |
Benefits some
transportation disadvantaged people. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
1 |
Improves occasional access
to an automobile. |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Tends to be most effective and appropriate in higher-density, lower- and middle-income residential areas where there are good alternatives to driving (TRB, 2005). It can also be implemented in commercial centers and industrial parks (Reutter & Bohler, 2000). It may be particularly appropriate as part of Location Efficient Development and Car-Free Housing. Station cars are located at major transit stations, particularly in suburban areas where a car is often needed to reach destinations.
Table 5 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial
government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density,
urban/suburban. |
2 |
Regional government. |
2 |
|
Town. |
2 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
1 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
3 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
3 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
3 |
Developer. |
2 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
2 |
|
|
|
Campus. |
2 |
Ratings range from 0 (not
appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Improved Travel Choice
Carsharing supports and is supported by TDM strategies that increase consumers travel choices such as Transit Improvements, Ridesharing and Nonmotorized Transport, and by land use management strategies such as Transit-Oriented Development, Location Efficient Development, Car-Free Housing, Taxi Improvements and Campus Transport Management that create less automobile-dependent communities. Parking Management can allows residents who do not own an automobile to avoid paying for parking they do not need, which increases the consumer savings that result from Carsharing. Vehicle Costs describes the full costs of owning and operating an automobile, and the cost savings that can result from reduced driving. Huwer (2004) recommends integrating carsharing and public transit planning and marketing activities.
Local and regional government agencies and non-governmental organizations can help establish Carsharing organizations, and support complementary TDM strategies. Carshare programs can be incorporated into various types of developments. State and provincial governments can help overcome problems obtaining vehicle insurance. Businesses and cooperatives can provide Carsharing services.
A major barrier is the need to establish and maintain a critical mass of users (typically 30 members or more) in individual neighborhoods. Carsharing cannot develop until enough potential users in each area are familiar with the concept, understand how it can benefit them, and are willing to commit themselves to a Carshare organization. This often requires education and marketing. Carshare organizations often require seed money to become established.
DFT (2004) and TRB (2006) provide information on the development and management of carsharing organizations. Below are some best practices guidelines.
· Structure Carshare
organizations to meet the needs of the community. Larger cities can support
much larger Carsharing organizations than smaller communities.
· Implement Carsharing in
conjunction with other TDM programs that improve transportation choices. It is
particularly appropriate as part of transit encouragement efforts (Huwer,
2004).
· Find ways to minimize
administrative and overhead costs.
· Provide a variety of pricing
options to serve different types of users (infrequent, frequent, extended
trips).
· Structure rates to include
both time and mileage fees, so the organization will not lose money with either
a high-mileage trip during a short rental period, or low-mileage trip during a
long rental period.
· Develop partnerships with
organizations that are interested in reducing vehicle ownership, promoting
public transit use, or providing occasional vehicle access to a particular
group.
· Use innovative marketing.
|
Bob
and Bill often rented a boat to fish on a lake. One day they caught thirty
fish. Bob said to Bill, “Mark this spot so we can find it again tomorrow.” The
next day when they were driving to rent the boat, Bob asked, “Did you mark
that spot?” Bill
replied, “Yes, I put a big ‘X’ on the bottom of the boat.” Bob
exploded in exasperation, “You fool! What if we don’t get the same boat
today?” |
The Transportation Research Board report, “Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds” (TRB, 2005) includes many examples of Carsharing programs.
The
Carsharing Network (www.carsharing.net)
identifies several established Carsharing organizations in North America and
Table 6 Carsharing
Organizations
|
Organization |
Website |
Established |
Membership |
Vehicles |
|
CommunAuto ( |
1995 |
750 |
40 |
|
|
AutoShare ( |
1998 |
225 |
15 |
|
|
Cooperative Auto Network ( |
1997 |
450 |
24 |
|
|
Victoria Car Share ( |
1997 |
40 |
4 |
|
|
Flexcar |
1999 |
350 |
12 |
|
|
Zipcar |
2000 |
650 |
37 |
|
|
Smart Moves |
|
|
|
|
|
City Carshare |
2001 |
250+ |
4+ |
|
|
Intermodal Mobility Operation Systems |
2001 |
|
|
|
|
Automatic Transit Collection |
2000 |
|
|
|
|
easyCar.com |
|
|
|
,
The Mayor of Paris is about to launch
another novel scheme for fighting congestion and pollution: self-service cars.
Bertrand Delanöe aims to start with 2,000 electric-powered vehicles that
subscribers can drive off without booking at dozens of sites 24 hours a day and
then leave anywhere in the city.
The so-called Automobiles-en-Libre-Service would greatly expand on similar
small-scale services that exist in Europe and
The non-polluting cars, which will
cost a few euros per hour to use, depending on mileage, will enable Parisians
to carry passengers and loads on short trips without the bother and expense of
hiring or running their own vehicles, says the mayor.
Just as the bicycle scheme was greeted
with scepticism, doubts are being sounded over the viability of the Voiturelib’
– free car – as it is being dubbed. Denis Baupin, the Green Party deputy to Mr
Delanöe, is worried that Parisians could drop their new-found cycling habit.
“Vélib users shouldn’t be encouraged to take a car instead of a bike,” he said.
Some experts are also questioning whether the cars, which would be many times
more expensive to operate than bicycles, could be subsidised through
advertising space, like the Vélib.
Mr Delanöe’s team calculates that one
car will replace between five and ten private vehicles. Only 43 per cent of
The
San Francisco Bay Area Station Car Demonstration was a field test sponsored by
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Pacific Gas & Electric from 1995 to 1998,
using 40 prototype electric vehicles. The project had total funding of
$1,486,000. It was implemented to determine the viability of EVs for making
short, everyday trips in a variety of settings: between home and BART station;
between BART station and work site; and pool cars used at worksites.
The
station car was a two-seat battery-powered electric vehicle (EV) made by the
Norwegian firm, Personal Independent Vehicle Company. Charging ports were
installed at selected BART stations. During the demonstration, the station cars
were driven 154,802 vehicle miles of travel (vmt) and produced 179,470
passenger miles of travel (pmt). For the participants, internal combustion
engine automobile use decreased 94%. Use of BART by participants increased by
125,222 (56%) during the demonstration, providing approximately $18,464 in
increased fare revenue.
Based
on this evaluation of the Demonstration, which shows the potential of the
station car concept, the authors recommend that BART proceed with more complex
and technically challenging demonstrations and field tests. These tests should
include electronics for vehicle access by multiple users and electronics for
tracking the vehicles and communicating with the drivers. Reservation and billing
systems should be tested. Other participants from the mobility industry (i.e.,
car makers, rental car agencies, and electronics firms) should be invited to
participate in and contribute to these tests. In addition, market research is
needed to determine how and where station car use can be maximized. A study by
Nelson/Nygaard (2003) found that station cars increase BART ridership and fare
revenue, and that it provides overall benefits to consumers and society.
A market study, based on analysis of North American carsharing, identified that the following neighborhood factors that contribute to successful carsharing programs:
Analysis of carshare activity
in
The
Table 7 Flexcar
Rate Structure (2000)
|
Plan |
Initiation Fee |
Monthly Fee |
Hourly Rate (car) |
Mileage Rate (car) |
Hourly Rate (specialty vehicle) |
Mileage Rate (specialty vehicle) |
|
Test Drive |
$0 |
$0 |
$3.50 |
$0.90 |
$4.00 |
$0.90 |
|
Bronze Club |
$250 |
$20 |
$2.00 |
$0.50 |
$2.50 |
$0.50 |
|
Bronze Assoc.* |
$0 |
$5 |
$2.00 |
$0.50 |
$2.50 |
$0.50 |
This project will develop and demonstrate new vehicle use and ownership options, including carsharing, dynamic ridematching and collective taxi services using cell-phone and computer technology. This will enable travellers to match vehicles and travelers to specific destinations, with payment using direct cash transfer via cell-phone. This pilot project involves:
· Designing the overall
system.
· Developing hardware and
software for data and billing.
· Building a customer
organisation.
· Marketing
· Integration with public
transport and traffic management centres.
The MOSES (Mobility Services for Urban Sustainability) research program came to the following conclusions regarding the potential for Carsharing to improve urban transport.
The
(European) city has a great potential for sustainable development. The
proximity of functions, good networks of technical social and cultural
infrastructure, and the concentration of know-how allow an urban lifestyle of
lower consumption of resources and good access to all kinds of activities.
The
quality of urban life is endangered. Economic activities became less harmful
with the change from heavy industry to a service economy. Meanwhile, pollution
and high noise levels are mainly due to the increasing level of transport.
Traffic
is not only responsible for noise and pollution and congestion - with parking
causing an increasing demand for space. With increasing level of car-ownership
street space will become even more limited. Children, other pedestrians and
cyclists have often not the necessary space to move around. As the flow of
traffic and parked vehicles consume so much space, the quality of public space
suffers: its functions as a social space – for encounters – and as a cultural environment – carrying
historical and local meaning – are being eroded.
Thoughtful
solutions are required to manage the competition for public space between
transport functions on one side and social and ecological functions on the
other. Here lies the challenge to improve urban life quality for children, for
families, for elderly, for disabled – for the entire community. The problems of
public space are not yet fully recognised and no strategies have been developed
at the necessary levels.
II.
The opportunity
The modern service of Car-Sharing shows how to use the car in a better way.
Car-Sharing gives access to a car – when required - in an easy way without the
need to own one. The MOSES project has shown that Car-Sharing users can replace
private cars and change their mobility patterns towards more use of
environmentally friendly modes of transport. Important is the “pay as you
drive” principle: since costs are directly related to how much you drive
(variable costs).
Overall, the new philosophy of using instead of owning a car is a key element
for a new mobility culture.
In
We see a big potential for European cities, where at least 500.000 private
vehicles could be replaced by customer orientated Car-Sharing services. Without
restrictions for individual mobility we can then regain public space for social
and ecological functions.
We
can reduce the costs for providing parking facilities. Especially underground
parking is quite expensive – it can easily cost about 10 - 15.000 € and more per parking space. With the
provision of Car-Sharing, urban housing developments can become less costly as
less parking space will need to be made available. The result is a better urban
environment.
III. The MOSES insights
The MOSES project has identified a low awareness level as one of the key
obstacles for the further exploitation of the Car-Sharing potential. Even in
Car-Sharing
is best understood as supplement to Public Transport. Car-Sharing customers use
Public Transport more frequently. You’ll find potential Car-Sharing customers
especially in the group of regular Public Transport users. Joint ticket offers
are an important element to increase the attractivity of Public Transport and
of Car-Sharing. Season tickets for PT may include the customership for
Car-Sharing for a special attractive tariff. The examples of Zurich, Bremen,
Aachen, Hanover and other cities show that the customer-relation will be
improved, the car-sharer is using Public Transport more often (for example also
more often in off-peak hours) – as PT becomes much more a basic mode of
transport. Car-Sharers are more likely to use annual season tickets.
For
new housing developments, the service of Car-Sharing opens up the possibility
to reduce the conventional provision of car-parking. This innovative option
allows the reduction of construction costs – especially in the case of
underground parking – or to set aside more
public space for social and ecological purposes. Until now, only few
developers are aware about the options for better planning solutions with less
costs but higher quality as it is less dependant on the provision of parking.
Planning regulations (as in
There
is no need to reinvent the wheel. Setting off quality indicators for services
is essential. Operators in cities that have not yet Car-Sharing services can
build on the existing experience elsewhere. The key technologies are developed
for providing an effective service, but they can be further developed and
integrated. There are European operators, which offer service elements for new
providers. Within MOSES the transfer of technology and know-how from
Substantial
support is required to get Car-Sharing out of its actual niche role and let it
become mainstream. That means a further development of the service (e.g.
through extension of the network of stations and interregional use, etc.), more
co-operation with Public Transport and better integration into urban
development.
IV.
The decision levels
At the local level, Car-Sharing is a key element for sustainable transport
plans. With Car-Sharing, there is a chance to reduce the number of cars without
restricting individual mobility. The joint offer with Public Transport and the
integration into urban development are key responsibilities at the local level.
The
national level may develop a support programme (as in
At
the European level, there is a strong need for enhanced awareness work. It is
essential to transfer the experience of Car-Sharing at an appropriate detailed
level – especially to the new member states. This is an issue of European
policy. As Car-Sharing is a key point for sustainable development, European
research and demonstration programmes, as well as structural funds related to
energy efficient transport and sustainable urban development should include an
element about Car-Sharing. There is also the need to develop cross-border
access for Car-Sharing customers.
Carsharing in Quebec, Canada
have 11,000 users and reduce annual CO2 emissions by 13,000 tons, and this
could increase to 168,000 annual tons according to a study by the engineering
firm Tecsult as part of an evaluation of urban mobility initiatives called Projet auto + bus, commissioned by an
environmental agency (Conseil regional de l’environnement de Montréal) and the
Communauto carsharing organization.
Tecsult assessed the
carsharing market potential of 139,000 households. Considering that among those
who subscribe to carsharing, some increase their use of a vehicle while others
reduce it, overall users reduce their car travel by an average of 2,900 annual
kilometers. Carsharing vehicles tend to produce less pollution than the fleet
average. These factors together result in approximately 1.2 tons of CO2
emissions reduced annually per carshare user.
"If car-sharing’s market
potential, as estimated by Tecsult, was attained, this service alone would lead
to a reduction of CO2 emissions equivalent to 5.6 times the reduction targeted
for alternative modes of transportation by the 2006-2012 Action Plan – Quebec
and climate change, all without any costs for the taxpayer. Furthermore, 77% of
car-sharing members in
Car-sharing users in
John Abraham (1999), A Survey of Carsharing Preferences,
James Andrew and Frank Douma (2006), Developing a Model for Car Sharing Potential in Twin Cities Neighborhoods, Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting (www.trb.org); available at www.mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/trb_cd/Files/06-2449.pdf.
Evelyn Blumenberg (2003), “Transportation Costs and
Economic Opportunity Among the Poor,” Access #23, University of
Peter Bonsall (2002), Car Share and Car Clubs:
Potential Impacts, Institute for Transport Studies,
Sally
Car Free Mobility (www.carfree.biz) uses advanced technology to provide convenient Ridesharing, Paratransit and Carsharing services as an alternative to private car ownership.
Carsharing Net (www.carsharing.net) provides information on carsharing.
Robert Cervero
and Yu-Hsin Tsai (2003), San Francisco City CarShare: Travel-Demand Trends
and Second-Year Impacts, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of
California at Berkeley, Working Paper 2003-05 (www-iurd.ced.berkeley.edu).
DFT (2004), Making Car-Sharing and Car Clubs Work - A Good Practice Guide, U.K. Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_susttravel/documents/page/dft_susttravel_032631.pdf).
Marcus Enoch (2002), Supporting Carshare Clubs: An International Review, The Open University (http://213.170.188.3/moses/m_papers/car-share-clubs-rep.pdf).
Marcus P. Enoch and Jo Taylor (2006), “A Worldwide Review Of Support Mechanisms For Car Clubs,” Transport Policy (www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol), Volume 13, Issue 5, pp. 434-443
Gina Filosa (2006), Carsharing: Establishing Its Role in the Parking Demand Management
Toolbox, Thesis, Urban and
Environmental Policy and Planning,
Invers Traffic Telematics Systems (www.invers.com/en) provides automated carshare booking and billing systems.
Ueli Haefeli, Daniel Matti, Christoph Schreyer and Markus Maibach (2006), Evaluation Car-Sharing, Interface Institut für Politikstudien (www.bfe.admin.ch/php/modules/publikationen/stream.php?extlang=de&name=de_606183202.pdf)
Ulrike Huwer
(2004), “Public Transport
and Car-Sharing - Benefits and Effects of Combined Services,” Transport
Policy, Vol. 11, No. 1 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol),
Jan. 2004, pp. 77-87.
Richard Katzev (2001), “Effects of Car Sharing on Travel Behaviour: Analysis of CarSharing Portland's First Year,” World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 7, No. 1 (www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/wt_index.htm).
Kevin Krizek (2005), User Perspectives on Location
Efficient Mortgages & Car Sharing,
Todd Litman (1999), “Carsharing Benefits to Consumers and Society,” World Transport Policy & Practice (www.eco-logica.co.uk/wtpp05.3.pdf), Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-212.
Todd Litman (2000), “Evaluating Carsharing Benefits,” Transportation Research Record 1702, pp. 31-38; also available at VTPI (www.vtpi.org).
Adam Millard-Ball, et al (2005), Car-Sharing – Where and How It Succeeds, TCRP Report 108, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_108.pdf.
Mobility Services for Urban Sustainability (MOSES) (www.moses-europe.org) is a research and
demonstration project supported by the European Commission supporting the
"City of
Peter Muheim (1998), CarSharing - The Key to Combined Mobility, Swiss Federal Office of Energy (www1.mobility.ch/mobilmanager/IntSummeryE.html).
National Station Car Association (www.stationcarinfo.com).
Neslon/Nygaard (2003), Impact of CarSharing
On BART, City
CarShare (www.citycarshare.org).
Ron Neville (1999), Carsharing – Auto Use Without Auto Ownership, TAC Annual Mt. (www.tac-atc.ca).
The Car Club Kit, Smart Moves (www.smartmoves.co.uk) is a practical guide to shared car ownership.
Oscar Reutter and Susanne Bohler (2000), “Car Sharing For Business: The Aashen Region Pilot Project,” World Transport Policy and Practice, Volume 6, Number 3, pp. 11-17; Wuppertal Institute (www.wupperinst.org).
Susan Shaheen, Daniel Sperling and Conrad Wagner
(1998), “Carsharing in Europe and
Susan A. Shaheen, Andrew Schwartz, and Kamill Wipyewski (2003), U.S. Carsharing & Station Car Policy Considerations Monitoring Growth, Trends & Overall Impacts, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www.carsharing.net/library/TRB2004Shaheenv.pdf).
Daniel Sperling (2000), Susan Shaheen and Conrad Wagner, Carsharing And Mobility Services: An Updated Overview, CalStart (www.calstart.org/resources/papers/car_sharing.html).
K. Steininger, C. Vogl and R. Zettl (1996), “Car Sharing Organizations,” Transport Policy, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 177-185.
TRB, (2005), Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds, TCRP Report 108, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); available at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=5634.
U Car Share (www.ucarshare.com) is a Carsharing service offered by the U-Haul corporation.
World Carshare Consortium (www.worldcarshare.com) is a free, cooperative international information sharing and communications program in support of carsharing projects and programs, world wide, set up under The Commons (www.ecoplan.org) in 1997. It offers a convenient place to gather and to share information and independent views on carsharing projects and approaches.
WCC, Carshare Cities Inventory (http://worldcarshare.com), World Carshare Consortium. As of 2004 the inventory identified 566 cities with carsharing services.
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing
project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#7