DOCSLIB.ORG

Build a Carsharing Community 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Build a Carsharing Community 2 Final Technical Report TNW2003-06 TransNow Budget No. 62-2513 Flexcar Program Evaluation Flexcar Seattle Carsharing Program Evaluation by G. Scott Rutherford Robert Vance Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Report prepared for: Transportation Northwest (TransNow) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 129 More Hall University of Washington, Box 352700 Seattle, WA 98195-2700 December 2003 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NO. TNW2003-06 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5.REPORT DATE FLEXCAR SEATTLE CARSHARING PROGRAM December 2003 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. G. Scott Rutherford, Robert Vance TNW2003-06 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Transportation Northwest Regional Center X (TransNow) Box 352700, 123 More Hall University of Washington 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Seattle, WA 98195-2700 DTRS99-G-0010 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED United States Department of Transportation Final Report Office of the Secretary of Transportation 400 Seventh St. SW 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE Washington, DC 20590 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES This study was conducted in cooperation with the University of Washington. 16. ABSTRACT Flexcar is a public-private partnership based in Seattle that provides short-term automobile rentals, called “carsharing.” The program began in 2000 with an agreement between King County (Washington) and Mobility, Inc. It has since expanded to many cities across the United States. This paper is an evaluation of the program in Seattle, focusing on six areas: 1) building a carsharing community, including the technology, processes and users that make up the carsharing system; 2) changing travel behavior, a study on the demographics of Flexcar users and how they have responded to the program; 3) profitability, a summary of Flexcar’s finances; 4) government support, a description of the public assistance for carsharing and the expectations placed on Flexcar; 5) environmental impact; and 6) comparison with similar programs, including other carsharing organizations and transportation modes that existed before Flexcar. The results show that Flexcar has developed an integrated system for sharing vehicles, with a high level of automation. Users were less likely to be auto owners and more likely to use transit than the general Seattle population. Better research methods are needed to understand Flexcar’s effect on travel behavior. Between January 2002 to mid-2003 Flexcar membership more than doubled and revenues increased by 67%. However, Flexcar was not yet profitable. Government support makes up about 15% of Flexcar’s revenues. Flexcar vehicles were 50% more fuel efficient than the average US vehicle. Flexcar’s main competition came from travel modes that existed before its creation. 17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT Carshare, Rental Car No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22616 19. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this report) 22. PRICE 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this page) 21. NO. OF PAGES None None $19.50 142 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. This document is disseminated through Transportation Northwest (TransNow) Regional Center under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation UTC Grant Program in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation or any of the local sponsors. Transportation Northwest Abstract Flexcar Seattle Carsharing Program Evaluation Robert Vance, Research Assistant G. Scott Rutherford, Professor and Chair Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Flexcar is a public-private partnership based in Seattle that provides short-term automobile rentals, called “carsharing.” The program began in 2000 with an agreement between King County (Washington) and Mobility, Inc. It has since expanded to many cities across the United States. This paper is an evaluation of the program in Seattle, focusing on six areas: 1) building a carsharing community, including the technology, processes and users that make up the carsharing system; 2) changing travel behavior, a study on the demographics of Flexcar users and how they have responded to the program; 3) profitability, a summary of Flexcar’s finances; 4) government support, a description of the public assistance for carsharing and the expectations placed on Flexcar; 5) environmental impact; and 6) comparison with similar programs, including other carsharing organizations and transportation modes that existed before Flexcar. The results show that Flexcar has developed an integrated system for sharing vehicles, with a high level of automation. Users were less likely to be auto owners and more likely to use transit than the general Seattle population. Better research methods are needed to understand Flexcar’s effect on travel behavior. Between January 2002 to mid-2003 Flexcar membership more than doubled and revenues increased by 67%. However, Flexcar was not yet profitable. Government support makes up about 15% of Flexcar’s revenues. Flexcar vehicles were 50% more fuel efficient than the average US vehicle. Flexcar’s main competition came from travel modes that existed before its creation. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................................i LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................iv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE......................................................................................................................................................1 STRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................1 FLEXCAR PROGRAM GOALS ........................................................................................................................2 EVALUATION DATA SOURCES .....................................................................................................................3 FLEXCAR BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................8 CARSHARING HISTORY................................................................................................................................8 STATION CAR AND CARLINK I ....................................................................................................................9 CARLINK II ...............................................................................................................................................10 UC RIVERSIDE (UCR INTELLISHARE) .......................................................................................................11 CARSHARING PORTLAND...........................................................................................................................12 CO-OPERATIVE AUTO NETWORK...............................................................................................................13 RECENT PUBLICATIONS.............................................................................................................................14 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................19 CHAPTER 3: BUILDING A CARSHARING COMMUNITY...............................................................21 FLEXCAR PROCESS DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................21 POTENTIAL DEFECTS.................................................................................................................................23 USER INCENTIVES .....................................................................................................................................23 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................................24 GROWTH IN NUMBER OF MEMBERS AND VEHICLE LOCATIONS.................................................................27 PARTNERSHIPS AND EVENTS .....................................................................................................................29 MEMBER SATISFACTION ............................................................................................................................30 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................32
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Avis Budget Group Budget Dollar Dtg / Dtag Ean Ehi
    Car Rental Security Contacts www.carrentalsecurity.com This list is divided into two sections; by company and state. The “company” list includes HQ information. The “state” list only includes field security contacts. Unless otherwise noted, all contacts are for corporate locations only but they should be able to provide contact information for licensee / franchise locations, if applicable. Most agencies have a “controlled” fleet meaning that vehicles seen locally with out of state plates are likely on rent locally. Revised – 09/24/19 Visit www.carrentalsecurity.com for the most current contact list. Please visit www.truckrentalsecurity.com for truck rental/leasing company contacts. Please see footer for additional information. SECURITY CONTACTS – Company ABG ALAMO AVIS AVIS BUDGET GROUP BUDGET DOLLAR DTG / DTAG EAN EHI ENTERPRISE FIREFLY HERTZ NATIONAL PAYLESS PV HOLDING RENTAL CAR FINANCE TCL Funding Ltd Partner THRIFTY ZIPCAR OTHER CAR RENTAL AGENCIES TRUCK RENTALS SECURITY CONTACTS – State AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY CANADA DISCLAIMER – This list is for the exclusive use of Car Rental Security and Law Enforcement. This list IS NOT to be used for solicitation purposes. Every effort has been made to provide accurate and current information. Errors, additions/deletions should be sent to [email protected]. All rights reserved. Copyright 2019 Page 1 Car Rental Security Contacts www.carrentalsecurity.com
    [Show full text]
  • DRIVING CHANGE in the RENTAL VEHICLE INDUSTRY the Need for National Tax and Regulatory Reform
    DRIVING CHANGE IN THE RENTAL VEHICLE INDUSTRY The need for national tax and regulatory reform Tourism & Transport Forum $RIVINGCHANGEINTHERENTALVEHICLEINDUSTRY 2 For further information please contact: Caroline Wilkie National Manager Aviation & Transport Tourism & Transport Forum T +61 2 9240 2016 Tourism & Transport Forum (TTF) E [email protected] represents the following rental vehicle companies Kary Petersen Manager Transport Tourism & Transport Forum T +61 2 9240 2013 E [email protected] 8th Floor 8-10 Loftus Street Sydney Nsw 2000 T +61 2 9240 2000 F +61 2 9240 2020 www.ttf.org.au CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 Tourism & Transport Forum 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 THE RENTAL VEHICLE INDUSTRY 4 Size and scope of the industry 4 Key benefits 4 The challenges ahead 7 THE REGULATORY AND TAX BURDEN 9 Cost of compliance 9 Regulation 10 Taxes and charges 13 COST OF INACTION 22 Lost opportunities 22 REFORM AGENDA 24 Options for reform 24 Benefits of reform 25 Barriers to reform 26 Case studies 27 CONCLUDING REMARKS 29 INTRODUCTION TOURISM & TRANSPORT FORUM Marketing & Attractions Tourism & Transport Forum (TTF) is the peak industry s #REDIT#ARDS group for the Australian tourism, transport, aviation and s #ULTURAL!TTRACTIONS investment sectors. A national, member-funded CEO s .ATURAL4OURISM forum, TTF advocates the public policy interests of the s4HEME0ARKS 200 most prestigious corporations and organisations in s4OURISM-ARKETING/RGANISATIONS these sectors. Major Events, Business Tourism, Retail & Hospitality s !GENCIES TTF’s membership comprises the
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Urban Sharing Team
    URBAN SHARING City report no 2 in TORONTO URBAN SHARING TEAM URBAN SHARING IN TORONTO City report no. 2 URBAN SHARING TEAM: Oksana Mont, Andrius Plepys, Yuliya Voytenko Palgan, Jagdeep Singh, Matthias Lehner, Steven Curtis, Lucie Zvolska, and Ana Maria Arbelaez Velez 2020 Cover design: Lucie Zvolska Cover photo: Oksana Mont Copyright: URBAN SHARING TEAM ISBN: 978-91-87357-62-6. Print Urban Sharing in Toronto, City report no.2 ISBN: 978-91-87357-63-3. Pdf Urban Sharing in Toronto, City report no. 2 Printed in Sweden by E-print, Stockholm 2020 Table of contents 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 2 THE CITY CONTEXT ................................................................................. 5 2.1 Geography and demographics ................................................................ 5 2.1.1 Topography and urban sprawl .................................................. 5 2.1.2 Socio-demographics.................................................................. 6 2.1.3 Tourism ..................................................................................... 6 2.2 City governance ....................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Governance structure ................................................................ 6 2.2.2 City regulatory policies for sharing ............................................ 8 2.3 Economy ................................................................................................ 11 2.3.1
    [Show full text]
  • 3405 Carshare Report
    Arlington Pilot Carshare Program FIRST-YEAR REPORT Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) Division of Transportation Department of Environmental Services April 15, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 1 INTRODUCTION . 3 What is Carsharing? . .3 Arlington: A Perfect Fit for Carsharing . 3 Two Carsharing Companies Operating in Arlington . 4 Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) . 4 ARLINGTON PILOT CARSHARING PROGRAM . 5 Public Private Partnership . .5 Program Goals . 5 Program Elements . 5 METHOD OF EVALUATION . 9 EVALUATION OF CARSHARE PILOT PROGRAM . 10 The Carshare Program Increased Availability, Membership and Use . 10 Arlington Carshare Members Trip Frequency and Purpose . 10 Arlington Carshare Members Rate Service Excellent . 11 Carsharing Members Feel Safer with Carshare Vehicles Parked On-Street . 11 Arlington Members More Confident Knowing Arlington is Carshare Partner . 12 Arlington Carsharing Members Reduce Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) . 12 The Pilot Carsharing Program Encourages Transit-Oriented-Living . 13 Carsharing Provides Affordable Alternative to Car Ownership . 14 Arlington Carshare Members Reduce Car Ownership . 15 The Pilot Carshare Program Makes Efficient Use of Parking . 16 CONCLUSIONS . 17 EXTENDING AND EXPANDING SUCCESS . 18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ARSHARING IS A SELF-SERVICE, SHORT-TERM CAR-RENTAL SERVICE that is growing in Europe and North America and has been available in the Cmetropolitan Washington region since 2001. Carsharing complements Arlington’s urban-village neighborhoods by providing car service on demand without the cost and hassles associated with car ownership. In March 2004, the Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) unit of the Department of Environmental Services partnered with the two carshare companies—Flexcar and Zipcar—to provide expanded carshare services and promotions called the Arlington Pilot Carshare Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Avis Budget Group Budget Dollar Dtg / Dtag Ean Ehi
    Car Rental Security Contacts www.carrentalsecurity.com This list is divided into two sections; by company and state. The “company” list includes HQ information. The “state” list only includes field security contacts. Unless otherwise noted, all contacts are for corporate locations only but they should be able to provide contact information for licensee / franchise locations, if applicable. Most agencies have a “controlled” fleet meaning that vehicles with out of state plates are likely on rent locally. Revised – 03/16/18 Visit www.carrentalsecurity.com for the most current contact list. Please note the footnote disclaimer. For truck rental/leasing company contacts you may visit www.truckrentalsecurity.com. SECURITY CONTACTS – Company ABG ALAMO AVIS AVIS BUDGET GROUP BUDGET DOLLAR DTG / DTAG EAN EHI ENTERPRISE FIREFLY HERTZ NATIONAL PAYLESS PV HOLDING RENTAL CAR FINANCE TCL Funding Ltd Partner THRIFTY ZIPCAR OTHER CAR RENTAL AGENCIES TRUCK RENTALS SECURITY CONTACTS – State AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY CANADA DISCLAIMER – This list is for the exclusive use of Car Rental Security and Law Enforcement. This list IS NOT to be used for solicitation purposes. Every effort has been made to provide accurate and current information. Errors, additions/deletions should be sent to [email protected]. All rights reserved. Copyright 2013 3/18/2018 - Page 1 Car Rental Security Contacts www.carrentalsecurity.com Top The Hertz Corporation Hertz / Dollar / Thrifty / Firefly 8501 Williams Road / Estero, FL 33928-33501 www.hertz.com www.dollar.com www.thrifty.com www.fireflycarrental.com Vehicle Registrations: • Hertz: “The Hertz Corporation” • Dollar Thrifty: US – “Rental Car Finance”, “Dollar Car Rental”, “Thrifty Car Rental” Canada – “TCL Funding Limited Partnership” 24 Hour Law Enforcement Assistance: • Hertz 800-654-5060 • Dollar: 800-235-9393 • Thrifty: 877-435-7650 HQ - Corporate Security: Gregory Donatello - Sr.
    [Show full text]
  • People of the State of California V. Turo Inc. File Stamped Complaint
    1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, StateBar#l39669 City Attorney , 2 YVONNE R. MERE, State Bar# 173594 Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation 3 NATALIE M. ORR, State Bar #290590 JAIME M. HULING DELAYE, State Bar #270784 4 Deputy City Attorneys Fox Plaza 5 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 6 Telephone: (415) 554-3849 Facsimile: (415) 437-4644 7 E-Mail: [email protected] 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 9 acting by and through DENNIS J. HERRERA AS CITY ATTORNEY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 13 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, case ~GC-18-5638 0 3 acting by and through DENNIS J. HERRERA 15 AS CITY ATTORNEY OF SAN FRANCISCO, COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 16 AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS Plaintiff, OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17 SECTION 17200 vs. 18 TURO INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through San Francisco City 23 Attorney DENNIS J. HERRERA ("the People"), file this Complaint against Defendants TURO INC. 24 and DOES ONE through ONE HUNDRED (collectively, "Turo"). The People allege as follows: 25 INTRODUCTION 26 1. This action arises out of Turo' s unlawful and unfair operation of a rental car business at 27 San Francisco International Airport ("SFO" or "the Airport") without a valid permit, in direct violation 28 of SFO's Rules and Regulations, the California Vehicle Code, and the California Penal Code.
    [Show full text]
  • “How to Analyse a Car Rental Company”
    Investor Campus – The “How to analyse Series” 1 Module # 3 – Component # 2 “How to analyse a car rental company” This component focuses on the basics of the car rental industry. We look at the fundamentals of the industry, the economics, the risks and the financial equation that investors can expect to find in a typical car rental business. This is one component in the Investor Campus series of “How to analyse …” In this series, over 50 individual industries are covered. It also assumed that the reader has the base knowledge to analyse a generic company. Objectives To identify the profit drivers behind this industry, the business model, risks and critical success factors. Expected Outcomes: ? To understand the economic and financial fundamentals of the industry. ? To understand the key issues and profit drivers in this industry. ? To be able to review a typical company within this sector and compare it meaningfully to global norms. ? To be able to identify warning signals and opportunities in a typical company in this sector. ? To be equipped to conduct an interview with management of a company in this industry. ? To understand a recipe to analyse a company in this sector. Investor Campus – How to analyse a car rental business Investor Campus – The “How to analyse Series” 2 Car rental summary table Key ratios to · ROCE: an indication of the operational competence of the business. assess a car rental · ROE: combines operational performance with gearing level. business · Debt to equity ratio: Indication of financial leverage and risk. · Interest cover: An indication of financial risk. · Operating margin and ROS: Ability to generate accounting profit.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of E-Mobility in Carsharing Business Models
    Evolution of E-Mobility in Carsharing Business Models Susan A. Shaheen1 and Nelson D. Chan2 Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Carsharing continues to grow worldwide as a powerful strategy to provide an alternative to solo driving. The viability of electric vehicles, or EVs, has been examined in various carsharing business models. Moreover, new technologies have given rise to electromobility, or e-mobility, systems. This paper discusses the evolution of e-mobility in carsharing business models and the challenges and opportunities that EVs present to carsharing operators around the world. Operators are now anticipating increased EV proliferation into vehicle fleets over the next 5- 10 years as technology, infrastructure, and public policy shift toward support of e- mobility systems. Thus, research is still needed to quantify impacts of EVs in changing travel behavior toward more sustainable transport. 1 Introduction Carsharing enables a group of members to share a vehicle fleet that is maintained, managed, and insured by a third-party organization. Primarily used for short-term trips, carsharing can provide affordable, self-service vehicle access 24-h per day for those who do not have a car, want to reduce the number of vehicles in their household, or do not use their vehicle during the day for long periods of time. Rates include fuel, insurance, and maintenance. Ideally, carsharing works best in a neighborhood, business, or campus setting where users could walk, bike, share rides, or take public transit to access the shared-use vehicles. Carsharing has evolved through several phases since the first carsharing system began in Europe in 1948.
    [Show full text]
  • 1000 16 Street Urban Mixed-Use Project
    1000 16th Street Urban Mixed-Use Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Planning Department Case No. 2003.0527E State Clearinghouse No. 2004112037 Draft EIR Publication Date: January 26, 2008 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: February 21, 2008 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: January 26 – March 10, 2008 Written comments on this document should be sent to: Bill Wycko Acting Environmental Review Officer San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 DATE: January 26, 2008 TO: Distribution List for the 1000 16th Street Urban Mixed-Use Project Draft EIR FROM: Bill Wycko, Acting Environmental Review Officer RE: Request for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 1000 16th Street Urban Mixed-Use Project (Case Number 2003.0527E) This is the Draft of the Environmental Impact report (EIR) for the 1000 16th Street Urban Mixed- Use Project. A public hearing will be held on the adequacy and accuracy of this document. After the public hearing, our office will prepare and publish a document titled “Comments and Responses,” which will contain all relevant comments on this Draft EIR and our responses to those comments along with copies of letters received and a transcript of the public hearing. The Comments and Responses document may also specify changes to this Draft EIR. Public agencies and members of the public who testify at the hearing on the Draft EIR will automatically receive a copy of the Comments and Responses document, along with notice of the date reserved for certification; others may receive such copies and notice on request or by visiting our office.
    [Show full text]
  • On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Program Evaluation Report
    On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Evaluation On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Program Evaluation Report JANUARY 2017 SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY | SUSTAINABLE STREETS DIVISION | PARKING 1 On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Evaluation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GOAL: “MAKE TRANSIT, WALKING, BICYCLING, TAXI, RIDE SHARING AND CARSHARING THE PREFERRED MEANS OF TRAVEL.” (SFMTA STRATEGIC PLAN) As part of SFpark and the San Francisco Findings Municipal Transportation Agency’s (SFMTA) effort to better manage parking demand, • On-street car share vehicles were in use an the SFMTA conducted a pilot of twelve on- average of six hours per day street car share spaces (pods) in 2011-2012. • 80% of vehicles were shared by at least ten The SFMTA then carried out a large-scale unique users pilot to test the use of on-street parking • An average of 19 unique users shared each spaces as pods for shared vehicles. The vehicle monthly On-Street Car Share Parking Permit Pilot (Pilot) was approved by the SFMTA’s Board • 17% of car share members reported selling of Directors in July 2013 and has been or donating a car due to car sharing operational since April 2014. This report presents an evaluation of the Pilot. Placing car share spaces on-street increases shared vehicle access, Data from participating car share convenience, and visibility. We estimate organizations show that the Pilot pods that car sharing as a whole has eliminated performed well, increased awareness of thousands of vehicles from San Francisco car sharing overall, and suggest demand streets. The Pilot showed promise as a tool for on-street spaces in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • TSRC Section Cover Page.Ai
    Susan Shaheen, Ph.D., Adam Cohen, Michael Randolph, Emily Farrar, Richard Davis, Aqshems Nichols CARSHARING Carsharing is a service in which individuals gain the benefits of private vehicle use without the costs and responsibilities of ownership. Individuals typically access vehicles by joining an organization that maintains a fleet of cars and light trucks. Fleets are usually deployed within neighborhoods and at public transit stations, employment centers, and colleges and universities. Typically, the carsharing operator provides gasoline, parking, and maintenance. Generally, participants pay a fee each time they use a vehicle (Shaheen, Cohen, & Zohdy, 2016). Carsharing includes three types of service models, based on the permissible pick-up and drop-off locations of vehicles. These are briefly described below: • Roundtrip - Vehicles are picked-up and returned to the same location. • One-Way Station-Based - Vehicles can be dropped off at a different station from the pick- up point. • One-Way Free-Floating - Vehicles can be returned anywhere within a specified geographic zone. This toolkit is organized into seven sections. The first section reviews common carsharing business models. The next section summarizes research on carsharing impacts. The remaining sections present policies for parking, zoning, insurance, taxation, and equity. Case studies are located throughout the text to provide examples of existing carsharing programs and policies. Carsharing Business Models Carsharing systems can be deployed through a variety of business models, described below: Business-to-Consumer (B2C) – In a B2C model, a carsharing providers offer individual consumers access to a business-owned fleet of vehicles through memberships, subscriptions, user fees, or a combination of pricing models.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue Brief: Peer-To- Peer Car Sharing
    Peer-to- Peer Car Sharing What is Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing? Peer-to-peer (P2P) car sharing refers to sharing privately-owned vehicles, for money, over an internet platform operated by a third-party. It is often referred to as “Airbnb for cars,” highlighting its similarity to other business models in the “sharing economy.” The most prominent P2P car sharing company is Turo, which is available in every state but New York. How does P2P Car Sharing Compare to Traditional Car Rental? Traditional car rental companies say there is no difference between them and P2P car rental companies because they provide the same service — the temporary transfer of a vehicle, without a driver, for money. But car sharing companies say they are not like car rental companies because they do not own cars, set rates, or arrange for delivery. Instead, they say they are technology companies providing platforms to facilitate private transactions and charging fees for that access (see public hearing testimony, Connecticut Senate Bill (SB) 216 (2020)). What is the Issue for Lawmakers? The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) cites promoting innovation, greater consumer choice, and car ownership expense reduction as some of the benefits to P2P car sharing. But this business model is a challenge for states because it often falls into a legal gray area. P2P car sharing companies may not be legally considered car rental companies, and Source: Turo existing state laws related to car rental safety, insurance, and taxation may not neatly apply to the business model. Therefore, states are increasingly considering how P2P car sharing operates within their existing regulatory schemes and deciding whether, and if so how, the business should be regulated.
    [Show full text]