DOCSLIB.ORG

City and County of San Francisco

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City and County of San Francisco 1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar#l39669 City Attorney ELECTRONICALLY 2 YVONNE R. MERE, StateBar#l73594 Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation F I L E D 3 OWEN J. CLEMENTS, State Bar#l41805 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco KRISTINE A. POPLAWSKI, State Bar#l60758 4 KENNETH M. WALCZAK, State Bar #247389 12/06/2019 MARC PRICE WOLF, State Bar #254495 Clerk of the Court BY: RONNIE OTERO 5 Deputy City Attorneys Deputy Clerk 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor 6 San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3944 7 Facsimile: (415) 437-4644 E-Mail: [email protected] 8 kristine. [email protected] kenneth. [email protected] 9 [email protected] 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through DENNIS 11 J. HERRERA AS CITY ATTORNEY OFSAN FRANCISCO and Cross-Defendant CITY AND 12 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 15 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 16 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. CGC-18-563803 acting by and through DENNIS J. HERRERA 17 AS CITY ATTORNEY OF SAN Reservation No: 012050302-17 FRANCISCO, 18 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 19 Plaintiff, SAN FRANCISCO'S AND THE PEOPLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 20 vs. OF THE FIRST AND SIXTH CLAIMS IN TURO'S FIRST AMENDED 21 TURO INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND THE SIXTEENTH 22 Defendants. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IN TURO'S VERIFIED AMENDED ANSWER 23 TUROINC., Hearing Date: February 21, 2020 24 Hearing Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman Cross-Complainant, Time: 9:30a.m. 25 Place: Dept. 302 vs. 26 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Date Action Filed: January 24, 2018 Trial Date: March 23, 2020 27 FRANCISCO, Cross-Defendant. 28 Ps and As ISO MSA Case No. CGC-18-563803 N:ICXLI1\Ll20181180640101406582.DOCX 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 6 3 FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... ? 4 I. TURO IS A RENTAL CAR COMPANY THAT CONDUCTS 5 UNPERMITTED COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AT SFO DIRECTLY AND THROUGH ITS AGENTS ...................................................................................... ? 6 A. Turo Is A Rental Car Company................................................................... ? 7 B. Turo Conducts Its Business At SFO............................................................ 9 8 C. Turo Does Not Have A Permit To Conduct Its Rental Car Business At SF0 ............................................................................................................ 10 9 LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................... 11 10 LEGAL ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 11 11 I. SFO HAS THE RIGHT TO REGULATE OFF-AIRPORT RENTAL CAR COMPANIES AND TO CHARGE THEM FEES ................................................ 11 12 II. SAN FRANCISCO IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON 13 TURO' S FIRST CROSS CLAIM BECAUSE TURO IS A RENTAL CAR COMPANY........................................................................................................... 13 14 A. Turo Is A Business That Enables The Public To Rent Passenger Cars 15 And Therefore Falls Within The Statutory Definition Of "Rental Company." ................................................................................................. 13 16 B. Because Rental Transactions Are Not Merely Incidental To Turo's 17 Business Model, Turo Is In The Business Of Renting Passenger Vehicles To The Public ............................................................................................ 15 18 C. Even Assuming Many Turo Users Are Engaged In Personal Vehicle 19 Sharing, That Does Not Prevent Turo From Still Being A Rental Car Company .................................................................................................... 17 20 III. SAN FRANCISCO IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON 21 TURO'S SIXTH CROSS CLAIM, AND THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON TURO'S SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE 22 DEFENSE, BECAUSE SAN FRANCISCO HAS SEVERAL RATIONAL BASES FOR TREATING TURO DIFFERENTLY THAN PERMITTED 23 TNCs ...................................................................................................................... 20 24 A. Turo Is Not Similarly Situated To TNCs, Taxis, or Limousines ............... 22 25 B. Treating Turo As A Rental Car Company serves Legitimate Government Interests ................................................... 23 26 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 25 27 28 Ps and As ISO MSA, Case No. CGC-18-563803 N:\CXLIT\LI20181180640101406582.DOCX 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES State Cases 2 Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors 3 221 Cal. App. 3d 198 (1990) ..................................................................................................... 13 4 Arnett v. Cal Cielo 5 14 Cal. 4th 4 (1996) ................................................................................................................... 14 6 Bodenhamer v. Superior Court 178 Cal. App. 3d.180 (1986) ..................... :............................................................................... 19 7 Briggs v. Brown 8 3 Cal. 5th 808, 842 (2017) ......................................................................................................... 21 9 City of Sacramento v. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. lO 22 Cal. App. 4th 786 (1994) ...................................................................................................... 14 11 Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents 528 U.S. 62 (2000) ..................................................................................................................... 21 12 Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles 13 177 Cal. App. 4th 837 (2009) .................................................................................................... 21 14 Manduley v. Superior Court 27 Cal. 4th 537 (2002) ............................................................................................................... 21 15 16 Mercer v. Perez 68 Cal. 2d 104 (1968) ................................................................................................................ 18 17 Mission Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. 18 160 Cal. App. 3d 97 (1984) ........................................................... ,........................................... 16 19 People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Muller 36 Cal. 3d 263 (1984) ................................................................................................................ 15 20 21 People v. Jefferson 21Cal.4th86 (1999) ......................................................................... :........................................ 14 22 Preach v. Monter Rainbow 23 (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1441 ....................................................................................................... 11 24 Schnall v. Hertz Corp. 78 Cal. App. 4th 1144 (2000) .................................................................................................... 14 25 Sentry Select Ins. Co v. Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co. 26 46 Cal.4th 204 (2009) .................................................................................................... 15, 16, 17 27 Stagg v. Mun. Court 28 · 2 Cal. App. 3d 318 (1969) ......................................................................................................... 11 3 Ps and As ISO MSA, Case No. CGC-18-563803 N:ICXLl1\LI20181180640101406582.DOCX Travelers Indem. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co. 1 41 Cal.App.4th 1538 (1996) .......................................................................................... 15, 16, 17 2 Western Carriers Ins. Exchange v. Pacific Ins. Co. 3 211 Cal. App. 3d 112 (1989) ......................................................................................... 15, 16, 17 4 State Statutes & Codes 5 Cal. Civ. Code§ 1931.01 ................................. .-............................................................................. 14 6 Cal. Civ. Code§ 1936 .................................................................................................................... 14 7 Cal. Civ. Code§ 1939.01.. ........... :........................................................................... 6, 13, 14, 17, 20 8 Cal. Civ. Code§ 1939.13 ............................................................................................................... 15 9 Cal. Ins·. Code§ 11580.24 ....................................... ,......................................................... 18, 19, 20 10 Cal. Ins. Code§ 11580.9 ......................................................................................................... 15, 16 11 Cal. Ins. Code§ 1758.89 ............................................................................................................... 13 12 Cal. Veh. Code§ 11752 ................................................................................................................. 13 13 Government Code§ 50474 ...........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Impacts of Changing Transportation Trends and New Mobility Technologies on Future Parking Demand
    Downtown Parking Study White Paper #7: Impacts of Changing Transportation Trends and New Mobility Technologies on Future Parking Demand 1.0 Introduction Parking is inseparably tied to how people and goods move in a city and is significantly impacted by how people choose to travel. With a changing landscape of mobility technologies that enable access to a variety of travel modes, the role of parking in downtown areas is likely to change dramatically in the future. This paper explores how changes in transportation trends and new mobility technologies are likely to impact parking demand in the future. It also identifies tools and information that the City of Hood River can use to better balance the promise and perils related to new mobility future. 2.0 New Mobility Options Figure 1 shows how the landscape of mobility has changed since 2013. Before 2013, access to private automobile travel was limited to people who owned, rented, or used traditional taxi services. Since 2013, car sharing services and ridehailing apps allow vehicles to be shared or rented for single trips and short periods of time. In the future, people may be able to access an autonomous vehicle without the need to drive it or hire another person to drive the vehicle. Figure 1: Growth of Shared Mobility, 2013‐2018 Similarly, since 2013, mode choice has expanded from the traditional modes (drive alone, walk, bike, taxi, and transit) to include carshare, bikeshare, ridehailing, microtransit, e‐scooters, e‐bikes, etc. Central to these options is the concept of shared mobility, the technology that enables users to have short‐term access to a fleet of shared vehicles on an as‐needed basis.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Andrew C. Taylor Executive Chairman Enterprise Holdings Inc
    Andrew C. Taylor Executive Chairman Enterprise Holdings Inc. Andrew Taylor, who became involved in the automotive business more than 50 years ago, currently serves as Executive Chairman of Enterprise Holdings Inc., the privately held business founded in 1957 by his father, Jack Taylor. Enterprise Holdings operates – through an integrated global network of independent regional subsidiaries and franchises – the Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Alamo Rent A Car and National Car Rental brands, as well as more than 10,000 fully staffed neighborhood and airport locations in 100 countries and territories. Enterprise Holdings is the largest car rental company in the world, as measured by revenue and fleet. In addition, Enterprise Holdings is the most comprehensive service provider and only investment-grade company in the U.S. car rental industry. The company and its affiliate Enterprise Fleet Management together offer a total transportation solution, operating more than 2 million vehicles throughout the world. Combined, these businesses – accounting for $25.9 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2019 – include the Car Sales, Truck Rental, CarShare, Commute vanpooling, Zimride, Exotic Car Collection, Subscribe with Enterprise, Car Club (U.K.) and Flex-E-Rent (U.K.) services, all marketed under the Enterprise brand name. The annual revenues of Enterprise Holdings – one of America’s largest private companies – and Enterprise Fleet Management rank near the top of the global travel industry, exceeding many airlines and most cruise lines, hotels, tour operators, and online travel agencies. Taylor joined Enterprise at the age of 16 in one of the original St. Louis offices. He began his career by washing cars during summer and holiday vacations and learning the business from the ground up.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Has Your Back? 2016
    THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION’S SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT ON Online Service Providers’ Privacy and Transparency Practices Regarding Government Access to User Data Nate Cardozo, Kurt Opsahl, Rainey Reitman May 5, 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... 4 How Well Does the Gig Economy Protect the Privacy of Users?.........................4 Findings: Sharing Economy Companies Lag in Adopting Best Practices for Safeguarding User Privacy....................................................................................5 Initial Trends Across Sharing Economy Policies...................................................6 Chart of Results.................................................................................................................................... 8 Our Criteria........................................................................................................................................... 9 1. Require a warrant for content of communications............................................9 2. Require a warrant for prospective location data................................................9 3. Publish transparency reports............................................................................10 4. Publish law enforcement guidelines................................................................10 5. Notify users about government data requests..................................................10 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Car Sharing: Electric, Affordable, and Community-Centered the Community Electric Vehicle Project
    The Future of Car Sharing: Electric, Affordable, and Community-Centered The Community Electric Vehicle Project June 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The project team would like to acknowledge and thank all funders and supporters of the Community Electric Vehicle (CEV) Project. First, thank you to Meyer Memorial Trust, The 11th Hour Project, a program of the Schmidt Family Foundation, and Pacific Power for their generous funding of CEV. Thank you to American Honda Motor Company, and especially Robert Langford from their team. Their support shows their leadership in emerging vehicle technologies and their commitment to making advanced vehicle technologies accessible to everyone. Thank you to Blink Charging and Amy Hillman from their team. Your participation in this project exemplifies your leadership and dedication. To the team at Hacienda CDC, especially those who helped manage and facilitate the project— thank you for taking a chance on our team and this project. Your bold leadership and willingness to try something new proves your dedication to and care for your community and the residents you serve. Thank you to the Cully community for allowing us to pilot this project in your community and for always providing honest feedback and opportunities for growth. Lastly, we are eternally grateful for the support from everyone on the Forth team who helped the project team from start to finish. This project and case study were a collective effort and a product of hundreds of hours of hard work and dedication. This project would still only be a figment of our imaginations without everyone’s support, leadership, and commitment to making transportation more accessible and equitable for all.
    [Show full text]
  • Avis Budget Brochure
    Information Guide Contact Details Vehicle Guide Subject to Change Charges Explained Subject to Change Counter AVIS BUDGET Products Subject to BROCHURE change Value Added Products SOUTHERN AFRICA DIRECTORY Subject to 1 NOV 2018 - 31 OCT 2019 change Branch List 1 CONTACT US Reservations SOUTH AFRICA [email protected] | [email protected] +27 11 387 8431 NAMIBIA [email protected] +264 (0) 61 233 166 BOTSWANA [email protected] +267 370 5313 The following information must be provided when making a reservation: • Customer’s name • Pick-up location, date and time • Drop-off location, date and time • Flight details • Car group / SIPP code • Avis account number and voucher number (if applicable) • IATA / Avis assigned number (if applicable) • Rate code: The information in the reservation must correspond with the information on the voucher. Rate codes determine the amount invoiced • Rates are applied on pick-up dates (per season) for the entire rental Value Added Products PLEASE CLICK ON ANY OF THE LOGOS BELOW TO VISIT THEIR WEBPAGE [email protected] +27 11 387 8483 [email protected] +27 11 387 8482 [email protected] +27 11 387 8482 +27 (0) 11 392 5205 +27 (0) 84 200 4030 Contact Us Continued >> 3 CONTACT US Customer Care [email protected] Avis: +27 11 387 8431 Budget: +27 86 101 6622 Emergency and Breakdown roadside service (24 hours): AVIS ROADSIDE AND EMERGENCIES - YOU’RE NOT ALONE! In the unlikely event that your vehicle should let you down or any roadside or medical emergency should arise, you simply call our 24 hour Careline below : SOUTH AFRICA 0800 001 669 (Local) +27 11 387 8432 (International) NAMIBIA +264 (0) 81 124 3100 (Inland) +264 (0) 81 128 1206 (Coastal) BOTSWANA +267 758 36015 We also offer a supplementary Roadside Assistance service at an additional charge for taking care of mishaps like tyre changes, flat batteries and keys being locked in the car.
    [Show full text]
  • Nancy Schneider
    'If you live in a city, you don't need to own a car.' William Clay Ford Jr., CEO, Ford Motor Company Ltd. Car Facts: zThe American Automobile Association (AAA) says that, on average, it costs 52.2 cents to drive one mile. zHousehold income spent on cars: 20% (1990 - 13.2%) or zOver $8,000 per household per year (39% of income for lower income households) 1 More Car Facts: zThe average N.A. car is driven just 66 minutes a day z$8,000 to drive about 400 hours a year {Or $666 to drive about 30 hours a month {Or $22 to drive an hour a day ÅOur Ranking The areas with the lowest expenses are those that have the highest public transit use, probably because those areas have lower car ownership. Even a modest reduction in the average number of motor vehicles per household translates into a significant drop in average household car expenses. 2 Car Sharing/ Car-Sharing/Carsharing What is it? History… Car Sharing, launched in 1987 in Switzerland and later in 1988 in Germany, came to North America via Quebec City in 1993 and to Portland, OR in 1998. 3 Car Sharing: What it isn’t... zCar pooling zRide sharing zFlex fuel vehicles In the news… 4 At U of F: Zipcar speeds toward expansion; car-sharing seeks inside track San Francisco Business Times - July 14, 2006 by Eric Young Fueled by an injection of cash, a car-sharing service said expansion plans in the San Francisco Bay Area are moving full speed ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Collaborative Consumption Business Model: Case of Car Sharing Systems
    2016 International Conference on Materials, Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering (MMME 2016) ISBN: 978-1-60595-413-4 Understanding Collaborative Consumption Business Model: Case of Car Sharing Systems Li-hua WU School of Information Management, Beijing Information Science & Technology University, Beijing, China Keywords: Collaborative consumption, Car sharing, Business model. Abstract. Collaborative consumption models are increasingly prevalent across the world due to their environmental, social and economic benefits. To understand how collaborative consumption models run in practice, this paper performs an investigation on five car sharing systems which are successful startups built on collaborative consumption. A comparative analysis framework including service pattern, convenience, revenue stream and reputation system is developed. Then the business models of car sharing system are shaped along these four dimensions. The insights gained in this study can help car sharing operators to promote their services further through considering key issues of various business models and constructing a reasonable business model portfolio for their car sharing systems. Introduction In recent years, collaborative consumption as an important socio-economic model has been experiencing a rapid growth across the world in virtue of digital and social networking technologies. One of well-known examples of successful startups built on collaborative consumption is car sharing service. In car sharing, consumers access cars owned by companies or private car owners for short-term periods by paying per use. A number of professional vehicle rental networks like Zipcar, Turo, Buzzcar, Getaground et al. demonstrated how speedily new collaborative ventures were able to grow up by meeting members’ temporarily leasing needs. Also, car manufacturers have started to develop and commercialize their own car sharing systems, such as Car2go by Daimler, DriveNow by BMW and Mu by Peugeot.
    [Show full text]