Transportation Research Part A 77 (2015) 249–260 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part A journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra Can carsharing meet the mobility needs for the low-income neighborhoods? Lessons from carsharing usage patterns in New York City Kyeongsu Kim Geography in Earth and Environmental Sciences, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY), 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016-4309 USA article info abstract Article history: For decades, carsharing has become an attentive dialogue among transportation planners Received 2 August 2013 and civic groups who have long supported and business owners and government officials Received in revised form 19 November 2014 who see carsharing as a means to realize their interests i.e., another market for revenue Accepted 28 April 2015 generation and replacement of government own vehicles with carshare units. It has partic- ularly drawn attention in New York City (NYC). As of today, NYC is the largest carsharing market in the United States, accounting for about one third of all North American carshar- Keywords: ing members. In addition to market-driven forces, the City government has pronounced Carsharing pro-carsharing policies. Yet carsharing is still considered as an exclusive program to Mobility Social inclusion middle-income, white, and young populations. The purpose of this study is to see if car- sharing can help meet the mobility demand for urban residents, especially in the marginal- ized neighborhoods. By investigating a leading carsharing program – Zipcar’s vehicle utilization pattern in NYC, I attempt to disentangle how neighborhoods with different socio-demographics are associated with carsharing usage. The study result revealed that there is high demand for midsize (standard) vehicles on weekdays and weeknights. In addi- tion, carsharing usage was highly correlated with the number of total vehicles, not the number of Zipcar parking lots, if the cars are accessible within walking distances. More importantly, carsharing in low-income neighborhoods did not differ from the typical carsharing locations. What matters is the affordability. Hence, there is no reason not to consider new services or expanding existing service boundaries to the outer boroughs in the future. Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1. Introduction For decades, carsharing has become an attentive dialogue among transportation planners and civic groups who have long supported and business owners and government officials who see carsharing as a means to realize their interests i.e., another market for revenue generation and replacement of government own vehicles with carshare units. Carsharing is a flexible on-demand car rental program that allows an hourly or daily rental unless vehicles are booked. It has particularly drawn attention in New York City (NYC). As of today, NYC is the largest carsharing market in the United States, accounting for about one third of all North American carsharing members (PlaNYC, 2011). Public awareness on carsharing escalated particularly during the summer of 2011 when two large commercial programs, Zipcar and Hertz On Demand (now Herz 24/7), competed E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.020 0965-8564/Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 250 K. Kim / Transportation Research Part A 77 (2015) 249–260 for their market share in the City. Commercial ads for free driving credits were on billboards, subway and bus commercial boards, bus stop stands, and free daily newspapers throughout NYC. A similar marketing campaign took place during the summer of 2013, fueled by Enterprise CarShare’s entrance into NYC carshare market. In addition to market-driven forces, the City government has pronounced pro-carsharing policies. On September 19, 2010, NYC’s Department of City Planning (DCP) approved a zoning text amendment that allows carshare vehicles to use the greater of up to 20% of existing parking spaces in off-street parking facilities or five and up to 40% of parking spaces within public parking lots and garages (NYCDCP, 2010). On October 12, 2010, NYC Mayor Bloomberg announced the first start of NYC’s carsharing pilot program in Lower Manhattan. The program allowed NYC’s Department of Transportation (DOT) to use 25 Zipcar vehicles for work activities that are not accessible by public transportation (NYC Mayor Office’s press release, 2010). By 2013, the City had 350 vehicles in its fleet share program; the largest in the nation (PlaNYC progress report 2013). Moreover, NYC embraced carsharing as one of fourteen transportation plans presented in a revised PlaNYC, 2011, the strategic transportation plan for the City. Carsharing was officially considered as an efficient means to improve mobility throughout NYC in which occasional car users for shopping, family visits, or recreations remain high and the demand for carsharing will rise given increasing expense of car ownership. PlaNYC, 2011 even proposed developing a citywide carsharing program with the City’s own fleet of 26,000 vehicles that would otherwise sit dormant on evenings and weekends. Since the PlaNYC, 2011 went public, there has been little dialogue on how to develop the idea. Perhaps, dissimilar inter- ests among City agencies or the complexity of logistics and fleet management have deterred its start. Other political issues might have also played a role. The idea, originally developed under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, was not included in the new PlaNYC 2014 that was developed under Mayor Bill de Blasio. If the idea becomes reality, one distinct benefit will be apparent: Mobility. NYC’s vehicle fleet is widely distributed throughout NYC’s five boroughs, making physical access to these vehicles easy for most NYC residents. It will provide significant benefits to residents in urban peripheries where low-income populations with limited transportation accessibility live. Not surprisingly, these transportation-excluded urban peripheries are little served by current commercial carsharing programs. The purpose of this study is to see if carsharing can help meet the mobility needs of urban residents in marginalized neighborhoods. The increase in both the number of carsharing programs and total membership hints a positive future for the expansion of the current carsharing service boundary. As current service areas become saturated, carsharing companies may expand their service areas to preserve or expand revenues and profits. Yet since the economy has barely been pre- dictable for years, it is uncertain whether the recent carsharing boom will become an alternative mobility option for those in need or it will, otherwise, continue to be used mostly by middle-income, white and young populations (Sioui et al., 2013; Cevero et al., 2007; City CarShare, 2005; TCRP, 2005). I attempted to determine the association of a neighborhood’s socio-demographic characteristics with carsharing usage by investigating Zipcar’s vehicle utilization pattern in NYC. This study has multiple benefits. First, it can help potential carsharing providers or members recognize how a leading program is being utilized in one of the world’s largest carsharing markets. Second, the result has various planning implications such as how to maximize the usage of carshare vehicles by vehicle types and neighborhoods, and in different time periods. More importantly, this study offers further discourse on the feasibility of a citywide carsharing program in NYC and other metropolitan areas, where the mobility benefit for marginalized neighborhoods may be superior to other large transporta- tion investments. This paper begin with a literature review, including a brief history of carsharing in North America; its economic, environ- mental and community impacts; and the needs of mobility improvement in NYC. I then describe data and research method- ology. The first half consists of the data sources and initial analysis of carsharing usage patterns while the latter half develops a multivariate regression model. Study results and subsequent interpretations follow. Finally, I discuss lessons learned from this study and the challenges of developing a sustainable carsharing program of which transportation planners and policy decision-makers should be aware. 2. Literature review 2.1. Past, present, and future of carsharing The two earliest examples of carsharing in the United States were the Short-Term Auto Rental (STAT) in San Francisco (Martin et al., 2010; Shaheen et al., 2009) and Mobility Enterprise at Purdue University, both tested in 1983 (Shaheen et al., 2009). These earlier attempts did not last long, mainly due to inadequate planning, marketing and financial manage- ment; small membership and service boundaries; and lack of the technology needed to support such ambitious projects (Harms and Truffer, 1998; Cousins, 1999; TCRP, 2005). It was during the late 1990s that a modern form of large-scale car- sharing program was implemented in Rutledge, Missouri and Portland, Oregon (TCRP, 2005). Since carsharing has grown rapidly after 1998 (Shaheen et al., 2004), various operational forms have been developed. Prevalent arrangement is a profit or a non-profit operation. The financial priorities, of course, differ between profit and non-profit operators, but there is little distinction from members’ perspective related to getting a membership and using the program operator’s vehicles. Zipcar is a leading for-profit program while PhillyShare (which became a for-profit program in 2011) and CityCarShare have been renowned non-profit models. K. Kim / Transportation Research Part A 77 (2015) 249–260 251 This growing interest in carsharing has motivated conventional car rental companies such as Hertz, Enterprise, and Avis to start their own carsharing services. There services are either provided by a start-up like ‘Connect by Hertz’ (renamed to ‘Hertz on demand’ and now to ‘Hertz 24/7’) or through the acquisition of existing programs such as ‘PhillyShare’ and ‘Mint Cars on Demand’ (by Enterprise) and ‘Zipcar’ (by Avis). Carsharing has also attracted auto manufacturers into the carsharing market. Daimler AG launched a new carsharing program called ‘Car2go’ in Austin, Texas during 2010.