Carsharing/Vehicle-Sharing                                         Printer-friendly version

• Introduction
• Rationale
• System Description
  • Carsharing:  types of carsharing/vehicle-sharing
  • Station cars
  • Neighborhood carsharing
  • Public transit and carsharing
  • Housing development and carsharing
  • Smart Cards
• Assessment
  • Successful Factors
  • Economics and Pricing
  • Summary
  • Policy
  • Benefits
    Implementation Challenges
• Where is Carsharing Implemented?
• Case Studies:  Carsharing Models
• Company Profiles
• New Technologies
• Links
• References

introduction

The term “carsharing” is also sometimes used for carpooling or ride sharing. Carsharing is also known as “vehicle-sharing” or “vehicle-use services.”   “Car-sharing” seems to be increasingly known as “vehicle-sharing” because many vehicle-sharing systems use a variety of vehicles, such as motor bikes, station wagons, fuel cell vehicles, etc. These vehicles can be rented for short periods of time, as distinguished from car rental or cars in private ownership
 The ITS Decision website distinguishes between “carsharing” and “ridesharing.”  Anyone researching carsharing should be aware that some countries, Britain for example, uses the term “carsharing” to refer to “ridesharing,” and uses “car clubs” to refer to vehicle or car-sharing systems. 

A carsharing or vehicle-sharing system can be held by for-profit companies, non-profit companies, cooperatives, or public agencies.  The costs and troubles of vehicle purchase, ownership and maintenance are transferred to a central organizer. Those participating in the system pay a fee for the use; the charges cover (at least) the costs of the car, including gas and insurance. 
Carsharing has been around for more than half a century, but it is only in the last decade that it has begun to gather force as a viable alternative to car ownership.  Today there are more than six hundred cities in the world where people can carshare.

Operations are organized according to the objectives of the organizers and users. A small, informal start-up may have only one shared car, and only a handful of sharers. Larger systems participants are typically city-dwellers whose transportation needs are largely met by public transit, walking, or cycling.
A key difference from traditional car rental is the ability to quickly and remotely secure use of a car and to use it in much smaller increments of time.  Car-share members drive about 70% less than other drivers.   Each carshare vehicle replaces 4 and 10 private cars.  The result is a 30 percent to 45 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled for each customer.
Shared-vehicle systems began in the U.S. using a station-car model. By contrast, European systems grew up around neighborhood-based sharing models.  Currently, neighborhood-based carsharing models are far more common both in the United States as well as in Europe. 

• There are about 300,000 people involved in car-sharing worldwide, with the majority in Europe. Mobility, the largest single company, with locations all over Switzerland, has 60,000 members and 2,400 cars.
  
• As of January 2007, 18 U.S. carsharing programs claimed a total of 134,094 members sharing 3,637 vehicles, and

• As of January 2007, 21,817 members shared 994 vehicles among 13 carsharing organizations in Canada.  (statistics taken from http://www.innovativemobility.org/research/carsharing/carsharing_overview.htm)

The growth of carsharing or vehicle-sharing systems is due, in large part, to the incorporation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). For example, intelligent and remote fleet management and reservation technologies make it possible for participants to reserve shared vehicles on short notice, both by Internet or phone.  See Intelligent Technologies and Carsharing for more information. 

RATIONALE

Carsharing or shared–vehicle systems are designed to reverse the economic incentives of traditional car ownership and to offer travelers alternatives to owning a car.  Studies show that potential vehicle owners will often chose to share a vehicle, rather than buy a vehicle, if it is more cost-effective to share than to own. 
Much of the cost of owning and operating a personal auto is fixed. About 77% of private vehicle expenses are paid regardless of how much a car owner drives. Since the variable costs associated with vehicle ownership are relatively low, there is an economic incentive for owners to drive more frequently. Shared-vehicle services transform the fixed costs of auto ownership into variable costs because a member’s use is closely tied to the actual expense (typically an hourly and mileage fee). Thus, carsharing offers individuals many of the benefits of personal vehicle use (e.g., convenience, flexibility) without the costs and hassles of ownership. Depending upon the location and organization, the maximum annual mileage up to which carsharing is more cost effective than owning or leasing a personal vehicle lies between 10,000 to 16,000 kilometers (Excerpted from Shaheen and Martin, citation under References: not available online.)

As outlined by Rodier and Shaheen potential benefits could include:
1) promotion of alternative transportation modes by enhancing and supporting existing transit systems (resulting in increased fare box revenues and decreased subsidies needed); 2) greater mobility at substantial savings for people who do not drive everyday (considering 80 percent of private vehicle costs are fixed and 20 percent of a household's expenditures support transportation);
3) increased incentives for compact growth by reducing parking needs through carsharing in new and existing communities and improving transit services by promoting transit-oriented development;
4) energy and emission benefits due to modal shifts from private vehicle trips to alternative transportation, as well as use of energy-efficient cars including ultra-clean internal combustion vehicles, electric, hybrid, and early fuel cell vehicles; and
4) reduced parking needs by alleviating pressure for public funding of parking structures; and
5) more economically efficient use of limited public highways and reduced need for higher taxes to support capacity expansions.
In most studies, it is stated that one car-sharing vehicle replaces between four and ten privately owned cars on the road. These numbers were developed in the pioneering days of car sharing. Indications are that this number is too low and in:

1. Switzerland the ratio increased from less than 10:1 to 29:1 in 2002
2. In the USA, the ratio increased from 27:1 to 37: 1 (for Flexcar, it is close to 50:1)
3. In the car-free housing project in Vienna, where originally 25 car share vehicles were planned for over 240 households, just three car share vehicles suffice for over 100 households with car sharing membership. (Excerpted from Greenhouse Report ) 

As excerpted from a Martin and Shaheen paper, carsharing reduces the need for many individuals to own a car. Several countries in Europe are home to successful carsharing programs that have had a measured impact on car ownership. An ongoing review of a program in Denmark suggested that shared cars replaced between 4.6 to 6.2 personal vehicles. In Germany, a review of an unpublished study of 14 carsharing organizations suggested that 13% of shared-vehicle customers gave up their car, while 4% gave up a second or third vehicle. In the Netherlands, a study in the late-1990s found that carsharing induced a 39% reduction in private vehicle ownership among carsharing users. A review of North American carsharing impacts found that up to one third of participants sold a vehicle after joining a carsharing service. And, up to nearly two thirds of participants delayed or forwent a vehicle purchase. According to European and North American studies, each carsharing vehicle replaces between 4 to 20 vehicles from the road. Not surprisingly, reduced vehicle ownership leads to declines in personal vehicle kilometers/miles traveled, energy use, air pollution, and land allocations for parking.
Carsharing fosters energy conservation and reduced emissions by lowering the overall number of vehicle kilometers/miles traveled. A review of surveys conducted in Germany found that the annual kilometers driven among members had dropped by 32% (an average reduction of 1,627 kilometers). Another German study reported that mileage among members dropped by 58%. Other European countries, including Denmark and Switzerland, observed reductions in driving among carsharing members. In North America, studies have suggested a wide range in driving reduction from 8 to 80%  Such a range is due to differences in data collection, analysis timeframe, location, and behavioral variations among members. In a recent review of North American studies, Shaheen et al. (2006) calculated an average VMT reduction of 44% among existing programs (excerpted from Shaheen and Martin).
The average American drives his or her car one to two hours per day. The remainder of the time it is parked, often at a considerable cost. Also, the majority of drivers drive alone. In California, approximately 72% of work trips are made in single occupancy vehicles. It would, therefore, be useful to offer car ownership alternatives like carsharing and increased public transit or ridesharing options. 

Carsharing/Vehicle-sharing
Carsharing facilities are most often placed in densely populated areas where the costs of keeping a private car are high in terms of parking charges and inconvenience. Some offer a fleet of identical vehicles to ensure reliability and keep costs low. Others provide a range of vehicles to meet customers’ needs.

Neighborhood carsharing
The neighborhood model specifies that vehicles are parked in designated spots within a region or locality, providing convenient access to local members.  At present, the majority of carsharing implementation cases in the United States (and abroad) are based on the neighborhood-carsharing model. 

Station Cars 
Station car programs primarily facilitate transit access, in an effort to increase the use of public transportation.  For many, public transportation is inconvenient because station endpoints are often beyond walking distance of final destinations.  To solve this problem, participants in station carsharing programs are able to lease a station car to access transit points. Station car programs often further enhance environmental benefits by deploying electric vehicles. (Excerpted from Shaheen TRB paper)
Transit stations supply designated parking for participating vehicles. In the case of electric cars, they also include charging stations. Station car systems have been actively tested in the U.S., sponsored by individual employers in conjunction with transit operators.
The station-car sharing model began in the United States and is not currently widely used.  Only two U.S.station carsharing programs were operational as of 2003.   Reasons for closure include insurance rate increases, reduced public funding and reduced customer demand. Additionally, because station car programs have been sponsored by a single employer or transit operator as short-term pilot projects, many were terminated when the study period ended.

ASSESSMENT

Successful Factors
Most carsharing systems that have proven successful show the following indicators:

1.  Strong relationships with vehicle manufacturers:  Manufacturers can lease vehicles to the car sharing organization (CSO), saving the CSO purchasing costs.

The manufacturer is able to advertise their cars and familiarize drivers with a certain type/brand of vehicle. 
When a manufacturer sells small, energy-efficient cars, they might setup carsharing membership savings to buyers.  This offers the small-car owner the use of larger cars for trips or moving.  Some manufacturers have found that this system encourages drivers to consider purchasing smaller, energy-efficient cars for their daily trips. 

For example, in Switzerland, Mercedes-Benz uses this method to promote a “Smart” car.  The car carries only two people and would be too small for longer trips.  To encourage buyers who might want to take longer trips or public transit, Mercedes offers a discounted Mobility® subscription package.  The Mobility subscription package allows Smart Car buyers to use Mobility’s shared cars and purchase half-priced train and bus tickets. 
2.  Strong relationships with Local Government:  Local Government can often set aside parking spaces for car-sharing organizations at “prime locations,” such as mall parking lots, spaces near transit stops, etc. 
Contractual arrangements between car sharing organizations (CSOs) operating in different cities have been used to ensure that CSO members can access cars both in their “home city” and while traveling.   This approach is being pursued in Italy.
3.  The car sharing organization (CSO) is strongly associated with Public Transit Systems:  Successful CSOs have been associated with public transit systems or urban housing developments.  Car sharing organizations can be specifically designed to enhance sustainable modes of transport, by filling a ‘mobility gap’. Modes such as walking, cycling and public transport are complemented by access to a car on an as-needs basis without the high cost of ownership.
Regular users of public transport and holders of periodical tickets can be offered carsharing try-outs and discounts. In the city of Bremen in Germany, the public transport operator provides a smart card (Bremer Karte PLUS).  The card pays for public transport; accesses shared cars, and can pay for other goods and services.

4.  The car sharing organization (CSO) is integrated with housing developments:  When housing is built near public transit or with carsharing organizations in mind, there is generally a lessened need for individual car ownership, and the carsharing organization is more likely to be successful. 

Other Factors that contribute to a Successful Car Sharing Organization (CSO):

1. The CSO should be flexible and adaptable:  New technology, planning, and opportunities make flexibility a must for any successful carsharing organization. 
2. The CSO should maintain sufficient overall management control to assure efficient and effective use of advanced communication and information technologies,

Eight car-free-housing projects have been completed in Germany and three more in Europe.  http://www.wohnen-plus-mobilitaet.nrw.de/wohnen_ohne_auto/wohnprojekte/index_e.html
http://www.sustainability.murdoch.edu.au/

Experimental Car Sharing Strategies
1.  Car lessors allow car sharing organizations (CSOs) to use their vehicles while the lessees are on vacation.  This may create a complimentary relationship. Lessees receive an income from time when they would not otherwise be using their cars and car share members get to use the car. ‘Drive Stadtauto’ of Germany started such a partnership with a car company (known as CashCar, implemented as part of CHOICE). It is currently out of commission because the manufacturer (Audi) stopped the agreement. 
2.  Carsharing and Car Rental agencies:  Four car rental companies work with CSO Europcar, a large car rental company, owns and operates an Austrian CSO, DENZELDRIVE (70 stations and 1050 members in 1999); Hertz has formed partnerships with a number of CSOs, including Mobility CarSharing Switzerland, Delebil in Denmark, TH!NK in Norway, and is managing a limited carsharing program at a rail transit station in the San Francisco area; Sixt AG, a German car rental company, recently created a new service called Car Express in which authorized users can rent vehicles from self-service stations at any time of the day or week in several German cities; and Budget Rent-a-Car is planning to supply up to 100 vehicles in 2000 to a technologically-sophisticated start-up CSO in Edinburgh.
The most obvious linkage, being pursued by Hertz, is to contract with CSOs to provide vehicles when members need cars for longer periods or when carsharing demand is at a peak. Whether car rental companies can attract a large enough market share to offer carsharing services remains to be seen. The Hertz/BART station car program, mentioned earlier, to begin in early 2000, and the TH!NK program in Norway will provide a good test case in the U.S and Europe.

ECONOMICS AND PRICING
The most commercially successful CSO is likely to be one in which the vehicles are used intensively by a large number of customers who drive infrequently. The CSO needs high utilization to keep per-use costs low, but CSOs are economically attractive only to those who are not intensive vehicle users.
Economic data are sparse and not well documented due to the proprietary nature of much of these data, the casual organization of many CSOs, and their relative youth. Since virtually all CSO start-ups have been subsidized by governments, and many have failed or been acquired, an economic analysis is not straightforward. The economic data and findings for users and operators reported here help to parameterize the attributes of a typical CSO in Europe. These numbers should be considered indicative, not definitive. 
The largest CSOs, aiming for a balance between high vehicle utilization and high customer convenience (in terms of proximity and availability), claim that they can guarantee their customers over 95 percent vehicle availability. They accomplish this level of availability by providing about one car for every 15-20 members. Based on a study of a moderately large CSO in Dortmund, Germany ("Stadtmobil"), Lightfoot found that a clustering strategy of three vehicles per location provides optimal vehicle availability and easy physical access. Optimal is defined here more in terms of consumer convenience than overall economics. As an indication of vehicle utilization, Stadtauto Drive reports that their vehicles average 34,200 km per year, compared to 14,600 km for the average German car. Vehicle trips tend to be of short duration and distance: 77 percent of Stadtauto Drive "rentals" are fewer than 24 hours in length, and 56 percent range between 19 and 100 km. The average occupancy rate of a Stadtauto Drive vehicle is two persons, compared to the German average of 1.3. Vehicles were used fairly intensively, but individual members tended to be sporadic users, with Stadtauto Drive members driving less than half that of the average driver (4,025 versus 8,758 km per year).
As an indication of the economic attractiveness of carsharing, Muheim and Partner found that travel expenses of early carsharing members were reduced by about $440 per year and that carsharing is cost effective for users who drive fewer than 9,000 km per year. Baum and Pesch report the breakeven point for carsharing in Germany at 6,900 km per year, and Petersen reported a breakeven point for Stadtauto Drive of 18,300 km. These findings are for European CSOs at varying times and situations and are not well documented.
The poor understanding of carsharing economics -- for both users and service providers – is problematic. (Excerpted from Carsharing and Mobility Services)

SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED
Carsharing clearly has the potential to provide significant economic, social, and environmental benefits. These benefits would be large if carsharing were widely accepted and services were provided efficiently. These are big "ifs". We conclude that, in general, carsharing is most likely to succeed if CSOs:

1. provide a dense network and variety of vehicles,
2. serve a diverse mix of users,
3. create joint-marketing partnerships,
4. design a flexible yet simple rate system, and
5. provide for easy emergency access to taxis and long-term car rentals,
6. retain independence from government entities to assure firm adherence to business principles.

Carsharing will not be successful everywhere at all times. It is more likely to thrive when environmental consciousness is high; when driving disincentives such as high parking costs and traffic congestion are pervasive; when car ownership costs are rather high; and when alternative modes of transportation are easily accessible.
Perhaps most important, but less well documented, is the need for partnership management to offer enhanced products and services and incentives to encourage and maintain customer base. The more expansive CSOs are those that have acquired other CSOs that failed or lacked strong leadership. But to retain customer loyalty, they must improve services and/or reduce costs. Two linked strategies are being followed: (1) coordinate and link with other mobility and non-mobility services (e.g., food providers); and (2) incorporate advanced communication, reservation, and billing technologies in conjunction with significant membership growth. But advanced technologies are expensive and linking with other services is successful only if the customer base is large. Hence, CSOs either remain quite small or grow rather rapidly, at least initially.
TOWARD NEW SERVICES AND NEW FORMS OF MOBILITY
Taking a longer view, CSOs may be the prototype of an entirely new business activity: mobility service companies. As car ownership proliferates and vehicles become more modular and specialized, entrepreneurial companies may see an opportunity to assume the full care and servicing of mobility needs in neighborhoods, work sites, transit stations, and shopping centers, based on a partnership management strategy. These new mobility companies might handle insurance, registration, and maintenance, and travel planning services and could substitute vehicles as household situations change. One can imagine a future in which the pioneering CSOs combine their operational expertise with the entrepreneurial capabilities of advanced technology suppliers, and other marketing strategies (e.g., frequent flyer program-based traveler incentives) to create mobility services that enhance our social, economical, and environmental well being.  (Excerpted from CARSHARING AND MOBILITY SERVICES)
POLICY STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES
The evolution of carsharing and other broader inter-modal initiatives is difficult to foresee; change will come about in unpredictable and unforeseen ways. Clearly, this evolutionary process will be strongly influenced by government and public policy. Indeed, government is already deeply involved in the transport sector. It provides many transportation services and facilities (road and transit supply, taxi regulation, driver licensing, etc.); intervenes to enhance access by mobility disadvantaged; reduces pollution, traffic congestion, and other transport-related market externalities; and attempts to facilitate economic growth through transport policy and investments.
In this case, the role of government is probably not to provide services directly – the private sector is far more efficient at this – but to facilitate choice and entrepreneurship, for both users and suppliers. This more indirect role is especially advisable given the dynamic nature and wide availability of information technologies. Government needs to maintain its commitment to basic transit services and respect longstanding social (and legal) contracts with suppliers of infrastructure and services (taxis, airports, etc.). But if entirely new transport services are to emerge, it is difficult to imagine government being flexible, innovative, and efficient enough to launch these services successfully.
At the broadest level, government support could come in a variety of forms. The most direct form would be financial support for system-enhancing technologies, such as "smart" paratransit, carsharing, and even mass transit. Government support for development of key alternative technologies such as small personal vehicles would be another example. At the local level, government, together with technology suppliers and local businesses, could subsidize the start up of demonstrations based on a mobility plan developed by the community. Indirect governmental support for new concepts and programs could come in the form of disincentives for the privately owned vehicle and incentives for using mobility services. 
Partnerships between new mobility businesses, such as local carsharing organizations, bicycle retailers, local bus and train operators, telematics, and e-commerce, need to be fostered. These partnerships will create a strong "new mobility" core business community and will facilitate the intermodalism necessary for new services to thrive and to generate customer loyalty. Any city attempting to incorporate the concepts of new mobility into the lives of its residents must start small and systemically. Rarely can any one alternative to the privately owned vehicle succeed alone. Their success in competing with this dominant transportation mode will stem from synergies and incentives that support them all.  (Excerpted from CARSHARING AND MOBILITY SERVICES)

Implementation and Operational Challenges

Part of the below is excerpted from the Auto Rental News (ARN) November/December 2006 issue.

Most organizations have varying amounts of free mileage per reservation or hourly usage. Flexcar offers unlimited miles.  Average rates are $28.91 for two hours of usage and $38.85 for four hours, according to a survey of 14 car-share operations in the U.S. (Carsharing in North America: Market Growth, Current Developments and Future Potential, UC Davis/Berkeley mobility study,Nov. 2005)
Car-sharing organizations can be non-profit, co-op or for-profit enterprises.  Non-profits include AutoShare (Toronto), IGo (Chicago), Hourcar,City CarShare (San Francisco) and PhillyCarShare.
Fleet size varies by company, but the overall average ratio of members to vehicles is 64:1, according to the UC Davis/Berkeley study.

Three carsharing organizations in the U.S. claim more than 90% of the members. They are: Zipcar, FlexCar and City CarShare.

1. ZipCar operates in Boston, New York City and Washington, D.C.;
2. FlexCar in Los Angeles, San Diego, Denver, Chicago, Portland, Washington, D.C., Seattle, and Vancouver; and
3. City CarShare in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Eighty percent of carsharing organizations receive some form of public and or private subsidy, including parking subsidies.

The technology needed to successfully manage shared fleets, reservations and billing requires a high initial investment. This cost will likely be overcome when membership rolls are large enough to generate the revenue to pay for the system, but there could be a lag in providing services at a high enough level.
Additionally, as shared-vehicle services continue to grow there will be increasing need for interoperability among systems and providers. With the proliferation of shared-vehicle systems worldwide, the potential benefit from having standards becomes even greater. Standards can play a significant role in how ITS is developed for shared use systems, particularly how ITS will interface with the vehicle and as a result how customers will interface with the vehicle system. Furthermore, customer interface standards between systems and regions could be critical in aiding market expansion. And while it may be difficult to standardize system operations at this stage, it is still important to measure overall system effectiveness by collecting data on system operations to document net benefits. Standards therefore play an important role in defining the types of data needed for monitoring and evaluation.
As of this writing, only a limited amount of shared-vehicle data has been thoroughly collected and analyzed. While early studies indicate positive impacts, the methodologies have been inconsistent, making aggregate level analysis difficult or unattainable. There is a need for further study of current shared-use organizations to fully assess program impacts on enhanced mobility, congestion, land use and air quality.

Where is Car Sharing Implemented?

Updated and partially excerpted from www.carsharing.net

Selected Case Studies

• Summary of worldwide carsharing issues/situations (2006)
• Commercial Partnerships: Austria
• Integrated Systems (Smart Cards):  Bremen, Germany
• Neighborhood Model:  Rusty Car Pool, Leicester, England
• Customer Service Model:  Easycar® Club, England
• Neighborhood Model:  CityCarShare
• CARLINK I AND II Case Study: Flexcar
• Public-Private Partnerships:  Flexcar Case Study, USA
• Station Carsharing Model:  ZEV*NET
• Carsharing in Developing Countries:  China Case Study

Worldwide Summary (2006)
The below is a summary of carsharing and ratios of member-vehicles in general regional areas, worldwide.  It is excerpted from a Shaheen and Cohen paper.

Asia - Asian member-vehicle ratios are estimated at 26:1. Experts in Singapore reported that the largest market segment is neighborhood residential, linked to rail. Business is the largest market segment in Japan. Asian experts indicated that on-street parking is unavailable, and parking is not offered as a form of non-monetary support. There is an emphasis on electric and gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles in Japan and Singapore, respectively. Since carsharing’s inception in Asia, operators have emphasized advanced technology and logistical operations, employing a range of technologies: 1) telematics to communicate between vehicles and shared-vehicle management systems, 2) global positioning system vehicle tracking, 3) vehicle access through smartcards, 4) mobile phone vehicle entry, and 5) reservations via short message services.
Australia - Australian operators estimate member-vehicle ratios at 17:1. Experts indicated that neighborhood residential is the largest market segment followed by business. Australian experts also reported market diversification in college, business, and planned community markets. Australian experts indicated that free on-street parking is a form of non-monetary carsharing support. Operators also have access to dedicated carsharing parking zones. Experts reported that it is difficult to obtain insurance for younger and international drivers. While
Australian operators have followed a technological evolution similar to North America and Europe, Australian organizations have quickly adopted fully automated systems (in less than three years).
Europe - Germany and Switzerland distinguish themselves with higher member-vehicle ratios: 33:1 and 36:1, respectively. Average European member-vehicle ratios are estimated at 28:1. European experts indicated that neighborhood residential is the largest market segment followed by business, except for Austria and Sweden. Experts reported increased market diversification over the next five years. While the majority of national experts indicated that free and reduced on-street parking is a form of non-monetary support, on-street parking is not widely available to operators in France, Spain, and Switzerland. Four countries (Austria, Belgium, Italy, and, U.K.) have dedicated carsharing parking zones. Diesel and gasoline vehicles dominate European fleets. Experts in the U.K. indicated that obtaining insurance for younger drivers and older adults is challenging. In Europe, many operators have evolved from manual operations to partially and fully automated systems.
North America - The United States maintains the highest worldwide member-vehicle ratios (40:1). North American average member-vehicle ratios are estimated at 35:1. North American experts reported neighborhood residential as the predominant market segment, followed by business. Experts also indicated ongoing growth in the college and business markets over the next five years. Free and reduced cost on-street parking are forms of non-monetary support.
Although a few research programs employ electric vehicles, most operators use gasoline vehicles, with gasoline-electric hybrids representing a growing portion of U.S. fleets.  Although it is becoming less challenging, many operators find it difficult to acquire affordable insurance for younger and low-income drivers. In North America, the majority of organizations have evolved from manual operations to partially and fully automated systems.  As of 2005, 70% of U.S. organizations employed fully automated systems, and 73% of Canadian operators deployed partially automated systems

Parking worldwide Summary, excerpted from Shaheen and Cohen paper.
Parking is a common form of non-monetary support of carsharing worldwide. With the exception of Asia, and three European countries (Austria, France and Spain), 66.7% of responding nations (10 of 15) provide economic assistance to carsharing operators in the form of parking. Respondents from Australia indicated that application procedures to apply for parking spaces are often cumbersome. Furthermore, the lack of legal definitions and restrictions for carsharing has created challenges for legal shared-vehicle parking in Italy. Experts from every nation in Asia and North America and from five countries in Europe (Austria, Belgium, France Italy, and the U.K.) indicated that supportive parking policies are a key opportunity for carsharing in their countries.
Vehicles and Fuels worldwide Summary, excerpted from Shaheen and Cohen paper.
Based on the authors’ survey and literature review, smaller compact and hatchback vehicles dominate the world’s carsharing fleets. Some fleets in Europe, Singapore, and the U.S. deploy a limited number of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and luxury cars (31). While there is some difference in the range of total vehicle models offered by carsharing organizations worldwide, there is a notable divergence among fuels and engine technologies used.
Expert respondents in Australia, Europe, North America, and Singapore indicated that carsharing fleets are primarily comprised of conventional gasoline vehicles. Japanese organizations largely use electric vehicles (EVs), but their reliance on them has somewhat diminished since initial program deployments (31). Gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles are popular among operators in Singapore, although conventional gasoline cars are the predominant vehicle type. While there is a history of EV demonstration projects in the U.S., they have been limited to station car operations and a few carsharing research initiatives (i.e., Intellishare and ZevNet) (31, 35).  The dominant alternative fuel technology incorporated into fleets in North America and
Singapore is the gasoline-electric hybrid. Australian operators reported that hybrid and other alternative fuel vehicles were too expensive. While much less common in Europe, hybrids represent a developing fleet segment. Diesel (and to a lesser extent biodiesel) is the leading alternative fuel vehicle deployed in Europe and is unique in this worldwide. Indeed, one sharedvehicle program in Spain, Catalunya Carsharing, only uses diesel and biodiesel fuels.
Outside of Japan, worldwide experts provided similar reasons as to why alternative fuel vehicles represent a smaller percentage of overall carsharing fleets. Experts frequently reported that hybrid vehicles are considerably more expensive and other alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., EVs) pose too many operational barriers including: limited vehicle range, fewer fueling stations, and member inexperience.

Insurance worldwide Summary, excerpted from Shaheen and Cohen paper.
Vehicle insurance is a major operational cost of carsharing. Twenty-eight experts from countries where carsharing is currently operating indicated that insurance is obtained through private sector insurance carriers. Additionally, two experts from Australia and Canada reported that carsharing insurance is also obtained through governmental policies. The authors note that the number of nations providing governmental insurance (either directly or indirectly through partnerships or monetary support) is probably larger when government fleets are included.
Only specialists from a few countries (Australia, Canada Italy, and the U.S.) indicated that finding insurance was an ongoing problem. One additional expert from France reported that identifying an insurance provider is no longer a problem; however, it was a significant challenge early on. Experts from four countries provided that securing insurance for younger drivers was an issue (i.e., under 25 in Canada and under 21 in Australia, U.K., and the U.S.) (3). Experts from Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. also reported difficulty obtaining insurance for international, older, and lower-income drivers, respectively.

Technology worldwide Summary, excerpted from Shaheen and Cohen paper.
Advanced technology continues to play an important role in carsharing worldwide. However, differences in technological evolution exist between Asia and the other three continents. In Europe and North America, many operators have evolved from manual operations to partially automated (i.e., automated reservations via touch-tone telephone/Internet) or fully automated systems (i.e., automated reservations, integrated billing, and advanced vehicle-access technologies). In 2005, only 11.5% of North American operators continued to use manual operations, compared with 37.5% in 2002. Fully automated systems were more predominant in the U.S. (accounting for 70% of operators) compared to 73% of Canadian operators who deployed partially automated systems (3). Organizations still using manual operations in North America and Europe tend to be smaller in size.

Australian operators have followed a technological evolution similar to North America and Europe, advancing from manual and partially automated systems to more sophisticated ones.
While Australia has followed a comparable evolution from lower to higher technology levels, they differ from their European and North American counterparts. Within just three years of launching, Australian operators have adopted fully automated systems.
In contrast, Asian operators launched with fully automated systems. Technology among Asian operators has often emphasized logistical operations through telematics to communicate between vehicles and shared-vehicle management systems, global positioning system vehicle tracking, vehicle access through smartcards, mobile phone vehicle entry, and reservations via short message services (29).
The authors forecast continued technological advancement where carsharing currently exists, such as more open-ended bookings (i.e., no fixed reservations), instant access (i.e., no reservations), one-way rentals (i.e., vehicles can be returned to a different lot), satellite radio, pre-paid usage cards, and interoperability. The extent to which automated technologies are deployed in new carsharing markets will vary by region and external factors, such as phone and Internet availability and labor costs. In the developing world, lack of reliable phone or Internet service may encourage manual or partially automated systems or limit potential membership to those who have access to such utilities. Services, such as vehicle delivery and one-way trips, may also be more economical in some of these nations where lower labor costs make fleet management less expensive.

Selected Case Studies
Case Study:  Neighborhood Carsharing, Integrated Mode Strategies (SmartCard, Multimodal Hubs, Integrated Fare Payment)
Bremen, Germany
Population: 540,000 in the City, and 1.8 million in the region.
Modal split: Over 60% of trips made by environmentally friendly modes: cycling 23%, public transport 17%, walking 20%, while the remainder of trips break down as follows: car drivers 33% , car passengers 6%, other (e.g. motorcycle) 1%.

Integration: For several years the City of Bremen has been engaged in a strategy to integrate the full range of components of their mobility system. Elements of this integration strategy include:

• Multimodal hubs linking transit, cycling, carsharing, and taxis
• Carsharing
• Residential developments with built-in carsharing
• Traffic calming to favor bicycles
• Bike-and-ride facilities
• Extension of tramway network
• ITS for Public Transit (for Information, transit priority at traffic lights, ticketing etc.)
• An integrated smart card for transit, carsharing, and electronic purse (based on bankcard)
• An integrated central station for all modes

One umbrella organization for all 35 transit operators in the region (Verkehrsgemeinschaft Bremen-Niedersachsen VBN)
Results and Lessons Learned: As a result of these measures, Bremen’s modal split substantially favors environmentally sound modes, and the lessons learned in the process emphasize the importance of communication and building links between different partners. Integrating modes is not primarily a question of technology, although technology does offer useful tools. Integration is rather a question of bringing people together and several suggestions are made as to how to do so successfully.

Players in the Integration Process to Date
Bremen’s municipal government: The transportation integration strategy is coordinated through the municipality’s Department for Construction, Environment and Transport, with political direction coming from the city’s urban development plans, integrated transport strategies, and other relevant legislation.
Bremer Strassenbahn AG (BSAG): Bremen’s public transport operator provides tram and bus service with a fleet of 378 vehicles.
Verkehrsgemeinschaft Bremen-Niedersachsen (VBN): (transportation association Bremen-Niedersachsen) The umbrella association brings together the 35 transit operators in the 4800 km2 region around Bremen including local/regional rail, buses and trams.
Zweckverband Verkehrsverbund Bremen-Niedersachsen (ZVBN): Political control of the VBN lies with the ZVBN, a council based on representation of the local and regional authorities responsible for transit in the area where the VBN is active. The ZVBN is the body that licences public transport operators, and transfers funds for subsidies. A user council is also associated with the ZVBN which makes recommendations on service quality, etc.
Cambio StadtAuto carsharing company: Founded in 1990, this private company is certified with the official German eco-label for carsharing.
Real Estate Developers: The developer Müller & Bremermann GmbH & Co. KG has shown an active interest in integrating carsharing into their housing, with two such developments already in place in Bremen. Other developers are also actively considering this option.
Key Elements of the Integration Strategy
Multimodal Hubs:
Mobil.punkte: Mobil.punkte hubs bring together transit, cycling, carsharing, and taxis into one location. Electronic kiosks at the hubs provide various kinds of transport information, such as A to B fare calculations by mode, and also allow for carshare reservations. In April 2003 two hubs were launched in a dense neighborhood near the central station, with an more hubs planned to be built after a test period is complete.
Integrated, Convenient Public Transport Services:
Regional Transit Umbrella Organization: The origins of the Verkehrsgemeinschaft Bremen-Niedersachsen (VBN) began in the 1980s when a partnership was brought together to develop a single ticket for a few operators and the German rail lines in a small region around Bremen. The structure of the (enlarged) regional transport association was established in its current form on January 1, 1997 because of the need to integrate transportation planning all over the region. The model was based on similar structures in place in Switzerland that had achieved success in favorably shifting modal split. The most difficult issues to resolve in establishing the organization were questions of power and autonomy. Operators and officials in smaller towns who were used to having a lot of autonomy were less powerful in the larger organization. Factors that were important in bringing these players to the table were the ability to show increases in both revenues and in ridership. Now, because of the success the VBN has achieved, residents in the areas just outside of Bremen which are not included in the VBN have been exerting strong pressure to join.

Integrated Fare Payment: The regional transit organization means one ticket for all operators, and since 1998 a pass has been available combining carsharing access and an annual transit pass. In December 2002 a smart card was introduced that combines transit fare payment, banking and access to carsharing vehicles. The card is known as the as egglaying-wool-milk-sow (eierlegendewollmilchsau), a German term that means bringing unexpected things together in a positive way. The same smart chip is also integrated with a popular tourist card used in the north west of Germany which combines full use of public transport for three days as well as discounts and access to a range of tourist destinations. The transit-banking-carsharing smart card is currently based on a pre-paid electronic purse model. A monthly debit program will be established next, where the card will track actual use of services and trigger a debit from the customer’s bank account at the end of the month to cover the fares.

Cambio StadtAuto: Bremen was one of the first cities in Germany to initiate a carsharing system. The Cambio StadtAuto Bremen company was launched in 1990 with 30 members sharing four cars, which they could book in advance for as many hours as they wished. The business grew quickly and by 2003 there were over 2700 members with access to a fleet of one hundred vehicles parked at 40 stations across the city. One year later, in 2004, another 400 members had joined. Within the public sector, car sharing is also increasingly accepted. For example the Bremen City Department for Construction, Environment and Transport is replacing part of its fleet with carshare services. Fleet vehicles with an annual mileage of less than 10,000 kilometres and having no special work equipment will be sold, or their leases will not be renewed, and carshare vehicles will be used instead. Over 60 department employees have received carshare access cards, and at a nearby cambio station three cars are reserved for department use during work hours.

Joint ventures: As part of the European MOSES project funded by the EC, the carsharing operator Cambio has embarked a joint venture in Belgium. Building on the Bremen experience, stations have now been launched in the Belgian capital city of Brussels. The Belgian cambio Car-Sharing system is the most successful start of a new Car-Sharing operation in Europe.

Residential Developments with built-in Carsharing: The practice of integrating carsharing stations into residential developments is increasingly common in Germany, and the City of Bremen has been working with developers and Cambio Stadtauto to establish such locations in Bremen. Two have been successfully developed to date. Most recently the Bremer Beginenhof development includes about 50 housing units and some commercial space on the ground level. The commercial space has underground parking, but because of the carsharing station located right outside, the developers were able to reduce the parking required for the housing units by one third. The carsharing station also increased the attractiveness of the development to other residents in the area because the carsharing station itself was an added benefit to the entire neighborhood. The reduction in parking spaces required also meant more room for greenspace and leisure activities.
(Casestudy excerpted from:  http://www.movingtheeconomy.ca/content/csPDF/BremenCaseStudyAug2.pdf

AUSTRIA: Commercial Partnership (excerpted from the Greenhouse Report)AutoTeilen started in Graz with just ten members and one car in January 1993, but always aimed to go nationwide and become a commercial venture.37
Growth was relatively rapid until 1997, when with about 800 members, growth rates declined. This had not been foreseen in the business plan and the CSO almost went bankrupt.
A number of factors put the organization at risk:

• Using deposits to buy cars: member deposits were used to buy new cars to expand the fleet.  When members started to leave the organization, deposits had to be paid back to them, leading to a depletion of cash flow.
• Expensive administration, use of call centre and management: these were intended to support the goal of becoming a commercial operation but they did not fit the very small size of the organization and were too expensive.
• Not enough capital to commercialize the venture: with the spread of IT (e.g. mobile telephones, Internet) to a large proportion of the population, a technology update was essential.  It was not possible for the small CSO to finance this and no more capital was available.
• No powerful supportive partners: without trust in the development of the company it was not possible to raise cash.
• Business plan not well developed: contingencies were not included or not adapted in time. The crisis was resolved by selling the customer base, the expertise and the cars to the company Denzel.

Denzel was Austria’s second largest motor vehicle importer, a motor vehicle retailer and car rental company. It had almost no car sharing customers, but did have financial power. The transition was followed by a major investment in technology and Denzel provided new vehicles. Marketing, in combination with forging new partnerships, contributed to rapid growth, from about 800 members in 1998 to over 5,000 in 2002 (over 50% per year on average).
Merging car rental and car sharing
In 2003, the newly formed Denzeldrive merged its car rental operation with its car sharing operation, creating a fleet of 750 vehicles. Two hundred and fifty cars are stationed in 113 locations across Austria.
Some are located in Denzeldrive-centres, which offer information and advice, membership, rental cars and in most locations, motor vehicle sales. The customer gets a card and time budget and can reserve cars without coming to a rental station or completing forms. The car rental section of Denzel now operates essentially in the same way as car sharing, except that the price is based more on the length of time the vehicle is used and less on the kilometres traveled and the minimum duration is different.
One of the key unknowns with this model relates to the management of the inherent risks associated with the potential cannibalisation of the established rental business by the car sharing business. While much of this information appears to be subject to commercial-in-confidence, it appears that Denzel is using the joining fee as a barrier to infrequent renters using the cheaper car share scheme and is using the car share scheme to increase utilisation rates for rental vehicles.
Technology
Denzeldrive invested heavily in technology and marketing. The booking system is now computerized and able to function 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via the Internet and telephone and is run by a professional call centre. Most cars are equipped with an on-board computer enabling unlocking and locking with a smart card and automated monitoring and reporting.  Denzeldrive bought most of its technology off-theshelf and customized it to local needs. The system has the following components:

• in-vehicle computer with chip card reader, time and kilometer registration, communication unit, fuel tank card
• computer chip cards for clients. These smart cards carry information about the client
• internet platform for information, booking and car monitoring
• central server with communication unit and billing system.

The process
Reservation is either by Internet or telephone.  Information is downloaded from the central server to the on-board vehicle computer. A ‘smart card’ opens the car. The distance driven is registered and relayed to the central server.
Business car sharing
Denzeldrive offers three special packages to businesses:

• Classic-drive: employees become members of the car share organization. If there is enough demand, one or more cars can be located near or on the company premises, but must be available for public bookings. Cars can be used for private and company use.
• Special-drive: in addition, some of the car sharing fleet is available for block bookings according to company needs.
• Company-drive: the company gets a fleet of cars for the exclusive use of employees. Rates are negotiated to form a customized package. 

All these modes effectively outsource the management of a company car fleet. The reservation system and the monthly bill provide a monitoring and cost allocation tool. In all cases, the outsourcing has led to a decrease in costs for the companies.  Business car sharing provides a mobility package for employees. If a company simultaneously encourages employees to come to work by bicycle or public transport, car sharing effectively provides for instances when employees need a motor vehicle.  Employees can also book their car-based mobility in other cities (e.g. for business trips).
Partnerships
Six major Austrian public transport organizations including the national Austrian Railways, include car sharing in their marketing campaigns and Denzel provides a discount of between 32% and 45% on membership fees for holders of annual tickets.
Since 2003, Denzeldrive has provided cars carrying advertisements, which can be used at half the price of normal cars.
Strong focus on one city
Denzel concentrates its marketing efforts on Vienna, with 51 car sharing locations. Vienna has 1.5 million inhabitants and with over 2 million in the wider metropolitan area, constitutes 25% of the population of Austria, much like Sydney (See Table 1). It is more than six times as big as the next biggest city, Graz (pop. 230,000)
Connection with mobility centres for public transport
Denzeldrive has maintained the partnership established by AutoTeilen with a mobility centre,38 which provides information on public transport timetables and tariffs and sells tickets, for marketing reasons.

Rusty Car Pool, Leicester, England
The Rusty car pool in Leicester is an excellent example of a club which runs older cars at a minimum cost. It is probably the longest running car club in the UK, evolving from a group of neighbors sharing one vehicle in 1976. As the number of participants grew, a more formal structure became necessary, and in 1990 the Rusty Car Pool was formed. The club relies on trust and a strong sense of community, with members willing to contribute on a voluntary basis to the organizational aspects and day-to-day running of the club.

Vehicles and Insurance
The club currently runs 5 vehicles - a transit van, 2 hatchbacks and three estate cars - and serves 2 businesses, 21 adults and 16 children. This provides a mix of users and good vehicle utilization with few conflicts of needs. Generally vehicles are bought in at about 8 years old, and they are sold or scrapped 3 or 4 years later when they become too money or time consuming to maintain; sometimes there are newer cars in the fleet brought in by new members. The vehicles are ‘kept’ at members’ houses across the city; costs of delivering them to other members are payable by the club.
Insurance cover is only third party to keep costs down.. A good relationship with a local broker has been helpful in getting insurance for club vehicles.

Bookings
The car pool is totally self-financing; a subscription rate covers road tax, insurance, breakdown cover and repair and replacement of the vehicles, and a mileage rate covers the cost of fuel.
Members record their trips in the vehicle logbook, with mileage recorded at the appropriate rates. Any expenses incurred, e.g. on fuel, and any damage, faults or problems with the vehicle are also recorded. Volunteers summarize the logbooks every month and send these on to the treasurer.
Bookings are made by phone: vehicles can be booked for daytime or evening use, as well as for longer periods such as holidays. However, bookings of a fortnight or longer have to be checked out with all members. Each member is supplied with a handbook giving guidelines on booking a car, vehicle pick-up and handover, and basic club etiquette.

Club operation
Core to the running of the club is the regular members’ meeting, where decisions are made on issues such as new members, replacement and maintenance of vehicles and charges. Members must attend 1 out of 3 meetings to remain in membership, while new members are expected to try to attend all car pool meetings during their 6 month trial period.
The work involved in the running of the club is shared between the members, the two main roles being the bookings coordinator and the treasurer. Accounts are computerised, as is the cash flow chart and longer term financial planning. The ‘keeper’ of each vehicle does minor maintenance chores and arranges any approved repair work on the vehicle. Some roles, such as taking minutes, rotate between members.

UK: A Preferred Customer Model (Excerpted from Greenhouse Report)
The Easycar® Club business, started in March 2003, is part of a wider strategy promoted by the EasyGroup® Company, which focuses on delivering a low-cost, streamlined service across a number of transport modes. The group includes Easyjet® low cost flights and Easycar® rental. The pilot car sharing scheme in North London, at the time of writing has 1400 members and five cars. The objective is to establish up to 30 new car club sites in the UK during 2004, each with 50 cars.
Easycar® Club characteristics
Unlike other UK car clubs, Easycar® Club does not intend to levy a joining fee. Instead, members will be invited to join once they have completed three successful (uneventful) rentals from Easycar®.  This is the criterion used in the pilot project, but membership criteria might change when the business is expanded.
The Easycar® Club is based on the operational aspects of the Easycar® rental model, and is almost entirely automated. This cost saving means that Easycar® Club vehicles can be rented out very cheaply, as little as A$1.69 (70p) per hour or even A$6.03 (£2.50) per day (depending on availability).
The model requires customers to make Internet reservations and to use a mobile phone when they arrive at the vehicle location so that operators at Easycar® can unlock the motor vehicle remotely (using mobile technology connected to the central locking system and its immobiliser). The customer is then able to retrieve keys from the glove compartment.  Easycar® uses off-the-shelf consumer technology and the relatively low cost of the technology contributes to the low cost of the car share.
Although the Easycar® Club venture is not motivated by community, ethical or environmental concerns, it does not mean that the business model does not achieve goals in those fields.

Case Study:  Neighborhood Carsharing (CityCarShare)
City CarShare in San Francisco operates as a non-profit company in partnership with regional employers and transportation agencies, who have helped subsidize the service for their employees and certain groups of low-income individuals. The model requires members to have a valid driver's license, be at least 21 years of age and have access to a credit card with which the person can cover a refundable deposit and allow City CarShare to bill applicable charges and fees. A monthly administrative fee is charged as well.
The following illustrates a typical carsharing experience for a person who is enrolled as a City CarShare member:

• Make a Reservation
• On the Web: log on to the City CarShare Web site.
• Over the Phone: call the voice-activated reservation line. Use member ID and password to log on to either system.
• Choose a Car
• Select a pod (location) to pick up the car and choose the type of car.
• Choose a Time
• Specify how long you would like to reserve the car in 15-minute increments. You can reserve on a moment's notice or 3 months in advance.
• Modify a Reservation
• Log on over the phone or via the Web.
• Change start time or end time. If you shorten or cancel your reservation with less than five hours notice, inconvenience fees will be assessed to encourage optimal utilization of member vehicles. The sooner you adjust your reservation the better, as it opens up availability for other members. If you extend your reservation there is no additional fee.
• Additional Rules/Requirements:
• Vehicles must be picked up and dropped off in the same location.
• If you are running late, you can extend your reservation by the phone reservation system if no one has reserved the time directly after your slot; otherwise, you must report the problem directly to the office (refer to problems requiring emergency assistance).
• There is a 15-minute grace period added to the end of every reservation where no fees are assessed. Late fees are assessed: they are $10 for every hour of lateness if you notify City CarShare and $20 of you do not.
• Other penalties are assessed for leaving the gas tank less than half full, leaving the car dirtier than when you picked it up, and the like.
• Problems Requiring Emergency Assistance: City CarShare offers 24-hour emergency assistance for situations that require immediate attention. The list of situations that qualify include:
• Involvement in an accident;
• Car not drivable (e.g., fob not working, battery dead);
• Parking space unavailable;
• Vehicle unavailable at appointed time and place;
• User running late and unable to extend reservation.

A study of City CarShare’s membership two years into the program with gave the following results:

• 30% got rid of one or more cars;
• 2/3rds stated they avoided purchase another car;
• 6.5% of trips were in CarShare vehicles;
• 10% of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) were in CarShare vehicles;
• comparisons with a control group showed that members reduced total vehicular travel;
• per capita gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions among members appeared to go down due to the use of small, fuel efficient vehicles;
• average daily VMT fell for CarShare members but rose for non-members.

According to the authors of the study, CarShare members become more judicious with their travel habits and were more conscientious of the marginal cost of driving (in light of paying their monthly bill).

Station Cars: Case Studies:

CARLINK I AND II-Flexcar
The below is excerpted from papers written by Shaheen and Novick, references below.
Transit accounts for just two percent of total travel in the U.S. One reason for low ridership is limited access; many individuals either live or work too far from a transit station. In developing transit connectivity solutions, researchers often employ a range of study instruments, such as stated-preference surveys, focus groups, and pilot programs.
The innovation examined was a commuter carsharing model, called CarLink, which linked short-term rental vehicles to transit and employment centers. Over several years, researchers explored user response to the CarLink concept, a field operational test (CarLink I), a pilot program (CarLink II), and a commercial operation (the pilot was turned over to Flexcar in summer 2002). This multi-staged approach provided an opportunity for researchers to learn and adapt as each phase progressed.

Fifty-four individuals enrolled in the program and shared 12 natural gas powered Honda Civics. The participants were from San Francisco, Oakland, and East Bay communities. The cars were based in premium parking spaces at the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station.

The CarLink I field test combined short-term rental vehicles with communication and reservation technologies (i.e., smart technologies) to facilitate shared-use vehicle access. The ten-month demonstration project was implemented and researched by two teams at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis.
The CarLink I model included three separate user structures: a Homebased User lease; transit links for Homebased Users and Workbased Commuters; and shared vehicle access at the LLNL employment site through Day Use. During the field test, each user group paid a distinct fee according to the duration of car use. All user fees included fuel, insurance, and maintenance costs. Roadside assistance and an emergency taxi service were also provided. In addition to vehicle support services, CarLink I implementation staff supported the program by cleaning and occasionally refueling the vehicles, as well as maintaining e-mail and phone contact with users.  Using questionnaires, household interviews, and focus groups, researchers explored CarLink I attitudes and use over time.

Starting July 1, 2002, Flexcar—the private carsharing operator (see Flexcar company profile)—began operating the former CarLink II pilot program. It was not possible to overlap personnel and operational protocols into a transitional phase due to funding constraints. As a result, there were two Flexcar operational phases. The first phase, lasting three months, maintained the CarLink II format to provide member consistency and Flexcar assessment time. During the second phase, Flexcar implemented a revised program approach and rates based on their economic assessment.
Flexcar raised prices and established other programs to coincide with the CarLink II model (i.e., hourly rentals in a few neighborhoods, at a foundation, and a public parking lot near downtown). Of these programs, only one neighborhood lot proved successful. While Flexcar increased fees to cover vehicle and staffing costs, the program was still not viable. In July 2003, the Palo Alto Flexcar program ceased operations due to: 1) downturn in the economy, 2) inability to cover costs, and 3) member schedule fluctuations.
It is interesting to note that City CarShare, another carsharing provider, also entered into the Palo Alto market at the completion of the CarLink II pilot program. City CarShare has two cars to the University Avenue Caltrain station (downtown Palo Alto) to coincide with the launch of the Stanford program. They are anticipating increased use at the Caltrain location. The City CarShare rates are the same as in San Francisco, $4/hour peak and $2/hour off peak and $0.44/mile. Monitoring City CarShare’s results in the Palo Alto region is recommended.

The CarLink program provided researchers an opportunity to evaluate operations, user response, and commercial potential over time. Based on the CarLink program, the authors recommend that a conceptual study of innovative ideas be conducted in advance of program design (e.g., focus groups and surveys) to assess potential demand, response, and willingness-to pay.
The authors recommended that (1) the field test phase be followed by a longer pilot phase (e.g., two years versus one). (2) That expert advice from a researcher involved in the field test/pilot design coincide with the transition to an ongoing operation (i.e., commercialization phase). Results from the CarLink II transition indicate that additional time to adapt the model and study its impacts could have been useful. A twelve-month period is likely not long enough to achieve program sustainability, particularly during an economic decline and when revenue shortfalls are projected during the pilot phase. Excerpted from a paper written by Shaheen

USA: Public-Private Partnerships- Flexcar
The US experience of car sharing has interesting aspects, including the involvement of government through public–private partnerships, the provision of car sharing to business and the development of partnerships supporting CSOs, including universities and public transport companies.
Local to interstate
Car sharing in Seattle started in January 2000, when 50 residents of the suburb Capitol Hill began the car share organisation Flexcar. It started as a public– private partnership between the company, Mobility Inc., the City of Seattle and King County (Washington State). The City invested A$46,500, while the County added A$310,000 in federal grant money specified for programs to support commuting without private motor vehicle use. Flexcar shared office space in a County office building and received marketing support from King County.
In 2001, Flexcar took over Car Sharing Portland (470 members and 25 vehicles), a commercial car share operation that had originated in that city and was renowned for its environmentally progressive policies.
In 2002, Honda purchased an 18.4 per cent equity stake in Mobility Inc., the company that runs Flexcar.  110 cars, including 75 Hondas, serve 4000 clients in Portland, Seattle, and Washington D.C. In the following months, Flexcar expanded to Virginia, Maryland and California, including Los Angeles and San Diego, always following the same step of creating partnerships with local public transport providers, universities and businesses.
Vehicles
Depending on the city, the fleet varies slightly in terms of the car types offered. The primary cars in the fleet are Honda Civics and Hybrid Honda Civics, but there are special vehicles, including Ford Ranger Pickup Trucks, AWD Honda Elements, a 7-passenger minivan, an Acura Sedan and a Mazda Miata convertible.
Business car sharing
Flexcar found its clients were not necessarily interested in replacing their cars altogether, but in using car sharing as a supplement to public transport or as a substitute for a second car. The biggest growth came not from individuals, but from small and medium-sized companies that did not want to maintain their own car fleet.
Marketing was tailored to attract more businesses as clients, as well as people looking for second cars. Flexcar has grown to 12,000 members offering services in more than 20 cities in eight States.
Like Denzeldrive, three different business packages are offered. They are shared car use (using all vehicles in the Flexcar fleet with a business membership), semi-exclusive use (where one or more vehicles is located at the business site for exclusive use in office hours and use by any Flexcar member outside those hours) and exclusive use (exclusive use of one or more vehicles at or near the office).
Partnerships
Flexcar has established a wide variety of partnerships. Public sector partners include local governments, universities and public transport companies. Private sector partners include bike stations39 and business car sharing with private companies.
Some of the partnership characteristics include:

• Cities: Flexcar and local governments have special deals for people who are willing to join the car sharing organisation. For instance, new members do not have to pay the membership fee and get the first month for free, subsidised by the local government.
• Universities: several partnerships with universities were developed, offering special discounts for using the cars, with the universities subsidizing half the CSO membership joining fee.
• Public Transport: cars were located at or near public transport stops to expand the scope of mobility offered to public transport passengers.  Special combined tickets for users of public transport and car sharing were offered. Flexcar launched car sharing in Washington D.C. by establishing a partnership with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro). Cars were placed at or near designated Metrorail stations to expand the scope of service offered to Metro’s passengers and enhance their options for travel in the region.
• Bike stations: The client is able to decide between bikes, scooters and car sharing. As all vehicles are environmentally-friendly electric cars, this partnership was declared a clean mobility centre, with the aim of providing a wide range of zero emission vehicles for short trips.  Private Companies (Starbucks Coffee Shops, real estate agencies, PCC Natural Markets40):

Flexcar members get special discounts offered  exclusively to them by these companies. Member companies offer discounts based on the savings they make by outsourcing their fleet management.  Members of private companies pay half the membership fee when they join for their private use.

Case Study:  Hybrid: Station Carsharing Model:  ZEV*NET
The station car model has not proved as robust, though recent innovations to operate as a hybrid system incorporating aspects of carsharing with station cars are showing some promise. A leading example is ZEV*NET, which operates in Irvine, CA, in partnership with the University of California, Irvine.
It was launched in April 2002 to help researchers at the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Irvine study the economic and practical feasibility of shared-use and station-car programs and measure how they can change commuters’ travel habits. The system consists of 50 electric vehicles stationed at the Irvine Transportation Center.
The initial deployment distributed cars to four local businesses, including a unit of UC Irvine, at no cost. In the second phase, ZEV*NET sells corporate memberships in two- and four-vehicle commitments, at $5,000 and $10,000 a year, respectively. This covers all expenses, including maintenance and insurance, and guarantees around-the-clock availability. Researchers use sophisticated monitoring systems, such as GPS and geo-location tools to learn more about travel behavior—from how commuters choose their route to whether or not they eliminate a household car.

The figure below presents a schematic depiction of how the various components interact.

Links

North American carsharing promotion website, not a provider:http://www.carsharing.net/index.html

German-language only carsharing forum website:
http://wiki.carsharing-fachforum.de/cgi-bin/twiki/view/CSFF

Smart Cards: http://www.smartcardalliance.org/ An alliance to promote the use of Smart Cards.

Smart Cards:  http://java.sun.com/products/javacard/smartcards.html:  A page describing how Smart Cards work: 
The World CarShare Consortium (http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm)This free, cooperative, independent, international communications program supports carsharing projects and programs, world wide. Since 1997 it offers a convenient place on the web to gather and share information and independent views on projects and approaches, past, present and planned future, freely and easily available to all comers.

Bringing Car-Sharing to your community:  City CarShare's guide to start-up, 2005 (PDF)

Carsharing Connections:  http://www.carsharingconnections.org/about/overview.html
Carsharing Connections is a project funded by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Mass Transportation to provide valuable information about carsharing and better transit links. This project is supported by California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH).  List of resources, challenges, and experts. 
English version of a website about Mobility Carsharing:  The largest carsharing organization in the world, based in Switzerland.  http://reservation.mobility.ch/mobilmanager/IntSummeryE.html

Car Sharing Library

Cooperative Auto Network

European Car Sharing

Flexcar

National Station Car Association

San Francisco City CarShare

World Carshare Consortium

Zero Emission Vehicle·Network Enabled Transport

ZipCar

Travel plans to reduce congestion in the UK

Italy:  http://www.icscarsharing.it/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=32

Companies
German and Canadian locations
Website:  http://www.invers.com/
COmpany Car Organization System (COCOS):  Provides a cost efficient management system for company fleets and car pools of any size. The product is called COmpany Car Organization System (COCOS), a complete booking and billing package.

Customer base amounts to more than 350,000 end user accounts worldwide and that number is rapidly growing. We continually face new challenges and work on an increasing number of international projects in North America, Europe and Asia.

French company: 
Website (French-only):  http://www.caisse-commune.com/
The only carshare operator which is certified ISO 9001 version 2000. Offers BackOffice solutions for CSO’s: reservations, billing, integrated accounting, financial reporting -- for any organization wishing to get into the business in France.
Contact: Loic Mignotte, loic@caisse-commune.com
Eileo
Website (English and French):  http://www.eileo.com/eileo.html
Offers technological solutions for carsharing and other intelligent transportation systems.  As of March 2007, recommend using their website in internet explorer.
Based in San Francisco, CA:  Car, boat, etc.  reservation System
Company:  U-Reserve-It.Com
Website:  http://www.u-reserve-it.com/

North American carsharing promotion website, not a provider:http://www.carsharing.net/index.html

German-language only carsharing forum website:
http://wiki.carsharing-fachforum.de/cgi-bin/twiki/view/CSFF

Smart Cards: http://www.smartcardalliance.org/ An alliance to promote the use of Smart Cards.

Smart Cards:  http://java.sun.com/products/javacard/smartcards.html:  A page describing how Smart Cards work: 
The World CarShare Consortium (http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm)This free, cooperative, independent, international communications program supports carsharing projects and programs, world wide. Since 1997 it offers a convenient place on the web to gather and share information and independent views on projects and approaches, past, present and planned future, freely and easily available to all comers.

Bringing Car-Sharing to your community:  City CarShare's guide to start-up, 2005 (PDF)

Carsharing Connections:  http://www.carsharingconnections.org/about/overview.html
Carsharing Connections is a project funded by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Mass Transportation to provide valuable information about carsharing and better transit links. This project is supported by California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH).  List of resources, challenges, and experts. 
English version of a website about Mobility Carsharing:  The largest carsharing organization in the world, based in Switzerland.  http://reservation.mobility.ch/mobilmanager/IntSummeryE.html

Author: Terri O'Connor, Marika Benko

Date: June 2004, last updated: June 2007