Car Sharing in the United States

Transcription

1 Car Sharing in the United States Helping People Transition From Welfare to Work and Improving the Quality of Life of Low-Income Families Report prepared by Juan Ortega For the Community Transportation Association of America 1341 G St., NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC Phones: Fax: What Is Car Sharing? Car sharing is a process that allows individuals to combine resources to access a fleet of vehicles that is larger than what they could access on an individual basis. The concept of many people sharing the same fleet of cars was first developed and implemented in Europe and is now growing ever more popular in North America. Car sharing offers convenient, low-cost vehicle usage to those who live in or near urban areas with none of the usual hassles related to car ownership. It can be a particularly beneficial arrangement for lower income individuals and families, who often have difficulty affording the purchase and operational costs of a vehicle. A car sharing organization (CSO) is made up of individual members who join resources to purchase and maintain one or more cars for use by members of the organization. These organizations place car sharing lots or stations at different locations in a community, where people can use the vehicles for as little as an hour or less or for longer periods of time. The way a CSO functions is simple. First, an individual makes an application and pays a fee to the organization. When the member wishes to use a car, he or she makes a reservation for a vehicle, picks up the car at the appointed time, drives it, and then returns it to a designated location. The member is then charged a fee based on the miles driven, usually in a monthly bill. Thus the individual s basic needs of mobility and accessibility are satisfied through a fairly simple process. The first section of this report presents a literature review on what is known about the field of car sharing in general. The second section takes a specific look at Job Access and Reverse Commute grants sponsoring car sharing programs. In the third section, car sharing programs designed for low-income individuals that are currently operating or planned to begin operating in the near future are reviewed. Finally, the conclusion

2 presents items to consider in establishing or expanding a car sharing program for the benefit of low-income individuals and gives recommendations for future research. Appendix A includes descriptions of U.S. car sharing organizations, many of which can serve as model for anyone considering implementing a new car sharing program, and Appendix B is a list of further reading for more details on car sharing in the United States. Literature Review Car sharing is still in its infancy, and very little research has been conducted on it. This section provides a review of the available literature in three sections: 1) a brief history of the car sharing concept, 2) the benefits of car sharing and relevant findings from ongoing car sharing research in the United States, and 3) socioeconomic and statistical facts related to car sharing. A Brief History of Car Sharing Car sharing was first developed in Europe in the mid-1980s. In 1991, five car sharing companies organized to form the European Car Sharing Association(ECS), an umbrella organization that has since grown to include 40 operators of shared cars for about 56,000 members in more than 550 towns. Currently, ECS is represented in Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, and Switzerland. The two oldest and largest car sharing organizations are Mobility CarSharing Switzerland, which had 1,000 cars in 1998, and StattAuto Berlin, which currently has about 200 cars. Membership in these organizations has grown dramatically: the Swiss program, begun in 1987, now operates in 700 locations in more than 300 communities and has more than 25,000 members, and StattAuto in Berlin, begun in 1988, now has nearly 4,000 members (Shaheen et al. 1999). The experience with car sharing in the United States has been more limited and has occurred on a smaller scale. However, car sharing is becoming more popular among young professionals living in congested areas. In a 2005 ABC news poll (Langer 2005), 1 25 percent of Americans said they would be interested in using a car sharing service in placing of owning a primary car, and 32 percent said they might use it to replace a second car. The first two car sharing models documented in the United States occurred in West Lafayette, Indiana, and San Francisco, California. The one in Indiana, a research experiment of Purdue University called Mobility Enterprise, ran from 1983 to The one in California ran from December 1983 to March 1985 and was called the Short-Term 1 The following two questions were asked in this survey about car sharing: 29. Some companies rent cars by the hour. Members reserve the car by phone or Internet, then pick it up near where they live, with no paperwork. If it were much cheaper than owning a car, how interested would you be in replacing your primary car with this kind of service very interested, somewhat interested, not so interested, or not interested at all? 30. How interested would you be in using this kind of service instead of owning a second car very interested, somewhat interested, not so interested, or not interested at all? This ABC News/Time Magazine/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone January , among a random national sample of 1,204 adults, including 750 commuters. The results have a 3-point error margin for the full sample and a 3.5-point margin for commuters. Sampling, data collection, and tabulation were done by TNS of Horsham, Pennsylvania. The actual questions from the survey are available at 2

3 Auto Rental (STAR). It was operated as a private enterprise and ended due to market failure. In the Mobility Enterprise experiment, participating households leased a small car for short local trips and were given access to a fleet of shared vehicles that included large sedans, trucks, and recreational vehicles. According to Shaheen et al. (1999), small vehicles leased to participants were used for 75 percent of households vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), and the shared fleet was used for 35 percent of the time it was available to the households. Even though this program was considered a success, Mobility Enterprise did not continue because it was intended as a research experiment only. The other car sharing prototype, STAR, operated from the parking facilities of a 9,000- resident apartment complex located near San Francisco State University. Tenants of this complex were eligible to join this CSO. Users paid on a per minute and per mile basis. As noted above, this project was a market failure, primarily because many of the users were students who were not on the lease and were using the vehicles irresponsibly. STAR members shared a fleet of 51 vehicles, with 10 additional backup vehicles for peak demand periods. Membership peaked at approximately 350 participants. At the end of the 1990s, the car sharing movement started to gain followers all across the nation, but primarily on the West Coast (Shaheen et al. 1999): 1997: City CarShare, a public-private partnership in San Francisco, California, began raising funds; the program became operational in 2001 February 1998: A one-year car sharing pilot project in Portland, Oregon, funded by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, began March 1998: Olympia Car Coop, a nonprofit cooperative located in Olympia, Washington, began Late 1999: The City of Seattle and King County Metro began car sharing operations in Seattle Late 1999: Motor Pool Co-op made plans to launch operations in Corvallis, Oregon 2 Currently, there are more than 25 existing car sharing organizations operating in over 50 cities in the United States. Most share a similar operational format, in which CSO members access vehicles at convenient locations and make reservations online or over the phone. Appendix A provides detailed information on these organizations and their operational models. Benefits of Car Sharing Personal Benefits Financial savings is one of the most obvious personal benefits is financial. Car sharing allows a person to have access to a car without having to deal with the logistics of owning one. CSO members do not need to worry about gas, insurance, parking, or maintenance costs. In addition, depending on the CSO, a member has access to 2 The actual start date or the existence of this organization could not be verified. 3

4 different types of vehicles depending on his or her immediate needs one day a member may use a sedan and the following week he or she may use a pick-up truck. Finally, members pay for vehicle access only as long as they use the vehicle. The improved accessibility and mobility attained through car sharing is another important personal benefit, particularly for low-income individuals. According to the Transportation Research Board (1999), the lack of individual mobility has economic, social, and human impacts, such as higher unemployment, reduced tax revenue, greater welfare and medical costs, and limited social potential. Car sharing in conjunction with other services, such as public transportation, can help reduce the cost of personal immobility. Community Benefits Car sharing offers several direct and indirect benefits to society. Perhaps one of the most significant ways in which the community benefits is that the number of vehicle trips are reduced. CSO members pay for using a car only when they drive, so they tend to combine errands into one trip and drive less than they would if they owned the car. They are also more likely to rely on transit and alternative transportation modes. These behavioral changes translate into fewer VMTs, which in turn means improved air quality, less traffic congestion, and increased transit ridership (Arlington County Commuter Services 2005). One report from the Washington, D.C., area, noted that sharing a car leads users to reduce car usage by as much as 50 percent (Arlington County Commuter Services 2005). According to Zipcar, a United States based CSO, once people join a CSO, they are likely to sell their old car and/or avoid buying an additional vehicle. Similarly, In a study of how car sharing impacts personal transportation decisions, City Carshare, a CSO based in San Francisco, followed hundreds of its 1,500 members 3 over an 18-month period to identify their travel behavior. The results of this survey led to several conclusions: 1) since joining the CSO, 30 percent of CSO members sold one or more of their privately owned cars; 2) 67 percent of members chose not to purchase an additional car; 3) overall automobile travel among members dropped 47 percent; 4) the use of public transportation, walking, and bicycling by members increased; and 5) these changes created a savings of 13,000 VMTs, 720 gallons of gasoline, and 20,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions (City CarShare 2004). Car sharing has a clear benefit in reducing environmental pollution. Also, because car sharing members more often use alternative transportation options, it brings together public transportation and car ownership privileges: CSO members can use a vehicle when they need it and public transit on those occasions when they do not. Table 1 compares, in 2000 U.S. dollars, the cost of using a shared vehicle through CarSharing Portland and those of owning a vehicle. From this comparison, the breakeven point in costs between these two options occurs at about 8,000 miles per year (Higginbotham 2001). 3 Since the study data were collected, City CarShare has approximately doubled its membership to 3,000 members. 4

5 Table 1: Car Sharing vs. Car Ownership Miles driven per year 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 CarSharing Portland* $1,550 $3,000 $4,450 $5,900 Car Ownership# $4,243 $4,473 $4,703 $4,933 *CarSharing Portland s costs are based on the organization s hourly ($1.50/hour) and mileage ($0.40/mile) fees. Total costs were calculated as an average of eight miles per hour, which is the average usage for CarSharing Portland s members. #Based on American Automobile Association (AAA) calculations for the cost of a new car. AAA calculated that the average annual cost of a new car is about $5,300 per year, or about $0.53 per mile if the car is driven 10,000 miles per year. This figure is based on the best deal available for a new car. Other prices may vary. According to City Carshare (2004), the first independent study of car sharing was implemented by the University of California at Berkeley. One of the main conclusions of this study was that car sharing is a cheaper, more convenient alternative to car ownership and... carries significant environmental and traffic benefits. One of the most recent and innovative research pilots, called ZEV-NET, is being conducted at the University of California at Irvine. Researchers are studying the car sharing concept as well as the use of the technology of zero-emission vehicles for car sharing. A more detailed explanation of this project is provided in Appendix A. Car Sharing Statistics The following is a compilation of relevant socioeconomic and statistical facts directly or indirectly related to car sharing services. These facts explain the benefits that have been achieved through the years from car sharing. According to the Surface Transportation Policy Project (2005), 4 lower income households tend to own cars. In the United States, the poorest one-fifth of households spend 42 percent of their income on car ownership, more than twice as much as the national average. In addition, although only 29 percent of the U.S. population lives in central parts of cities, 44 percent of the nation's welfare recipients reside in these areas. In 1998, 14.8 percent of household income was spent on cars versus the 13.2 percent being spent in 1990 (Car Sharing Network 2005). In 1990, 9.2 percent of American households did not have access to a car. Almost half of those households included residents who were age 65 years or older and, of those, 81 percent were women (Transportation Research Board 1999). A national study found that twice as many welfare recipients with cars were working than those without cars, and 25 percent more low-income families with cars were working than those without cars (White House Press Office 2000). Someone who drives less than 8,000 miles a year and does not need a car every day for work will likely save thousands of dollars a year and have greater mobility by participating in a car sharing program. Because about 75 percent of North Americans live in cities, many simply do not drive enough to justify the economic and personal expense of owning a car however, they are not willing to give up the freedom of driving a car at a moment s notice (Car Sharing Network 2005). 4 For more information on the Surface Transportation Policy Project, visit 5

6 Car sharing is a new option to U.S. urban transportation systems. One of the biggest factors in vehicle use is vehicle ownership. Car sharing helps people quit the car-owning habit without forcing them to quit driving completely and offers them the financial reward of saving money (Car Sharing Network 2005). Car sharing is not a magic pill for solving all traffic and air quality problems, especially commuter-related issues. However, it is an important tool that can deliver benefits in the short and long term (Car Sharing Network 2005). One shared car replaces at least 5 10 individually owned cars (Higginbotham 2001). Car sharing increases public transportation usage and other alternative forms of travel such as walking, biking, and in-line skating (Car Sharing Network 2005). The average car in North America is driven 66 minutes a day (Car Sharing Network 2005). City CarShare, a CSO in California, states that 85 percent of its members use the service at least once per month and 30 percent use it once per week or more. Most trips are made outside of peak rush-hour periods. The biggest use is for shopping (29.5 percent of trips) followed by personal business (19.2 percent), recreation (12.5 percent), travel to work (10.7 percent), social outings (8.3 percent), medical visits (5.6 percent), eating out (4.7 percent), and other (9.5 percent) (City Carshare 2004). Job Access and Reverse Commute Car Sharing Programs The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program. This program was created to support the mobility needs of those transitioning from welfare to employment as a result of the 1996 passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, or welfare reform. JARC projects range from financing capital projects and operating costs of equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance items related to providing access to jobs; to starting new routes to areas where entry-level jobs predominate, such as in the service industry at hospitals, hotels, or fast-food restaurants, or to factories or distribution centers; to purchasing computers so that social workers or employment counselors can teach their clients how to use transit to get to work or training; to promoting the use of transit by workers with nontraditional work schedules; to promoting use of employer-provided transportation, including the transit pass benefit program. A key element of the JARC program is to encourage partnerships among different sectors such as transportation, housing, economic development, and human services. From the JARC program and other initiatives that emerged from welfare reform, a variety of programs were implemented that attempted to serve the needs of welfare clients in their entirety, as opposed to looking at their transportation, housing, or jobrelated needs one at a time (Ortega 2004). The JARC programs supports car sharing as one option for bridging the gap between home and work. JARC may also improve the quality of life of low-income families by providing reliable transportation for most mobility needs, not just those related to employment. 6

7 As of February 10, 2005, during federal fiscal years , there were 603 JARC grant applications submitted to the FTA via TEAM-Web. 5 The following list identifies those grantees that have a car-sharing element. 6 Location: San Francisco and Oakland, California Project number: CA-37-X Program date: May 7, 2001 Gross project: $7,107,021 General description: This grant creates the Low Income Flexible Transportation program to fund transportation projects that reduce or eliminate transportation barriers for low-income persons who are seeking employment. It funds 13 projects. Car sharing scope: It supports the San Francisco CalWORKs CarShare program with City CarShare. (See Car Sharing and Low-Income Groups, below, for more information on this program.) Location: California Project number: CA-37-X060 Program date: April 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 Gross project: $1,733,274 General description: This program is intended to provide car sharing/ride sharing access to individuals and groups in low-income neighborhoods and housing facilities. Flexcar will work with the Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services and FAME (Fiscal Intermediary Access to Medi-Cal Eligibility) to identify CalWORKs participants qualified for Flexcar reduced fare ride sharing. Car sharing scope: Flexcar and FAME will develop marketing and outreach strategies targeted toward the affected audience. Flexcar will provide 16 vehicles the first year and an additional 9 the second year for the proposed two-year program. Car Sharing and Low-Income Groups Car sharing programs that benefit low-income individuals have been implemented in some major cities, such as Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle as well as in some small communities in Tennessee, New Jersey, and Louisiana. 7 These efforts have been supported by some private organizations; for example, Via-Car in Detroit, Michigan, sees low-income groups as a potential market. Likewise, there are federal programs from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that 5 The FTA funds more than 800 transit organizations across the United States with more than $8 billion per year in federal grants. The TEAM-Web Application was designed and built by the FTA s Office of Information Technology and the Office of Program Management. The TEAM-Web System is a project and financial management application that was designed and developed to fulfill government mandates for increased accessibility by the public to federal assistance programs and the replacement of paper-laden processes with electronic processes (Wells 2005). 6 These data were taken from electronic JARC applications; therefore the list does not indicate actual use of funds. 7 Some studies have proposed car sharing for rural and low-income areas to give residents access to medical services. For example, Higginbotham (2001) proposed using car sharing for the small town of Galt, California, located between Stockton and Sacramento along Highway 99 in South Sacramento County. According to his study, this town of 16,200 people could use a car sharing service to fulfill its medical transportation needs, as most of the residents of Galt are farm workers and low-income residents who lack adequate access to medical services. They must travel to Lodi or Sacramento to receive medical assistance. This is a complicated journey for those who do not have a car and often takes several hours by bus. This is just one example of the benefits that the car sharing concept could bring to low-income communities and is a viable option for improving their quality of life. 7

8 support similar initiatives. The rest of this section describes examples of car sharing efforts for low-income individuals in seven different communities in the United States. San Francisco The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), operating in the Oakland San Francisco Bay area, partnered with local transit and social services agencies to respond to the challenge of improving transportation services for residents of low-income communities by initiating the Low Income Flexible Transportation (LIFT) Program ( The program was initially funded by the MTC, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds, and state matching dollars and received subsequent JARC grants. Through the LIFT program, City CarShare works with CalWorks to make certain types of car sharing memberships available to welfare-assisted working families; up to 300 subsidized memberships are available over a three-year period to qualifying CalWorks participants. CalWorks members pay no application fee, no deposit, and no monthly fee and receive half off of usage rates: $2 per hour between 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, $1 per hour between 10:00 pm and 10:00 am, and $0.22 per mile. The program s target is to fill all 300 memberships by the end of Eligible applicants must be receiving a CalWorks grant and/or services through San Francisco County, or be the guardian of a CalWorks participant receiving benefits through San Francisco County; have a valid driver's license; have a clean driving record; and be at least age 21. If an individual meets the above requirements, the application may be processed at Those who have joined so far use the vehicles for shopping, child care, and medical trips. Seattle and Los Angeles With grants from the Federal Transit Administration and the Washington State Department of Transportation, Flexcar, one of the largest car sharing organizations, and its community partners have implemented Flexcar Job Access in the Seattle and Los Angeles areas. This program provides reduced-cost car sharing service to hundreds of low-income job seekers is about to start car sharing for low income groups in Seattle, WA. Low income individuals will receive information about the program either at their residence from a site manager or case worker or at an employment services agencies. In many cases a Flexcar representative is available to make presentations to groups of tenants or agency clients. Eligible individuals can join through Flexcar s website The program discounts will fluctuate with the market due to variations in the structure and design of the local program (e.g., availability of funds for matching grants). For the Seattle program, the Washington State Department of Transportation is providing the required local match. As a result, in some markets, the member will pay as little as nothing for an eligible trip, whereas in others, the rate per hour would be half of the base rate. Low-income members can access the same cars and services as any Flexcar member. 8

9 Tennessee, New Jersey, and Louisiana In Nashville, Tennessee, and various communities in New Jersey and Louisiana, car sharing projects are being explored for low-income housing communities. Civic leaders are taking an integrated approach in these projects, offering their communities the opportunity to become cooperative owners/creators of these projects in a consensusbased "action research/experiential education" process. Philadelphia Philly CarShare launched car sharing in the city s low-income communities, which comprise a high percentage of the city s neighborhoods. Beginning in spring 2005, PhillyCarShare began targeting mixed-income neighborhoods, where they were reasonably confident about attracting the market of well-educated individuals who are the majority of members so far. With a few stable car sharing locations near many lowincome households, PhillyCarShare is trying a variety of methods to encourage these households to join the program. PhillyCarShare s philosophy is to provide the opportunity to participate in transparent variable pricing to as many people in Philadelphia as they can, so they will be able to charge the same mileage and hourly rates and at the same time try to reduce or eliminate the up-front barriers to join the organizations (i.e. deposit, application fee, and application process). The greatest challenge they foresee is effective outreach. Therefore, the grants they currently receive are intended to support outreach activities. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research The main objectives of car sharing programs are 1) reduce traffic congestion, 2) improve air quality by reducing vehicle-related pollution, 3) relieve parking pressures in high-density areas. In addition, car sharing has the added value of providing a transportation option that increases the accessibility and mobility of its users. The question at this point is, How can car sharing be used as an option to provide better accessibility and mobility to low-income individuals and people transitioning from welfare to work? In some cases, households in the lowest income neighborhoods own more cars than the average city household. Because of their limited resources, low-income individuals and families may own older vehicles that are initially less expensive than other vehicles but eventually require more resources for maintenance, gasoline, and higher insurance rates. These individuals are also less likely to be able to rely on existing public transportation because they may not have traditional 8-to-5 jobs in downtown areas well served by public transit or there may no public transit service that fits their work schedule (e.g., at the beginning or end of second and third shifts). Likewise, a high percentage of entry-level jobs are located in the suburbs and/or industrial areas, which often are not well served by public transportation. Studies of existing CSOs have shown that the typical CSO member is highly educated and a middle-income earner. For example, approximately 80 percent of Car Sharing Portland s members are college graduates. So, what could be done to provide similar car sharing opportunities to people with other educational and income levels? For example, 9

10 would it be possible to subsidize welfare-to-work individuals who could not otherwise afford car sharing? This type of program could be a win-win situation for both the user and the car sharing organization: users may drive less or perhaps sell a car they no longer need and the car sharing organization would reach a broader market and therefore expand its business. Car sharing is not the solution to all transportation problems. Nevertheless, it has been proven to be able to accommodate the needs of many different markets and has the potential to succeed for other income/educational/locational/purpose levels. In creating better car sharing alternatives for low-income individuals, the following thoughts need to be considered: 8 To achieve greater mobility and accessibility, CSOs should plan, design, and implement car sharing vehicle locations within walking distance of public transportation stops. Initial membership fees, which in large-scale CSO operations usually range from $100 to $400 for a security deposit, represent a major barrier to membership for low-income individuals. Still these fees are less expensive than a down payment on an average new car. CSOs should seek cooperative opportunities on all levels that enable more people to participate and therefore reduce or eliminate membership fees. There are some concerns about the safety of car pick-up locations in low-income neighborhoods and potential damage to vehicles. Communities where car sharing locations are planned need to be involved in the program so they feel empowered, responsible, committed and that they are part of the solution. The educational level of car sharing members in North America is generally higher than the average. 9 Consequently, the appeal of car sharing is either limited or not obvious to many people who might otherwise benefit from it. Outreach efforts are needed with potential low-income members to introduce them to the concept of a CSO and demonstrate the potential benefits of becoming a member. Similarly, considering that many low-income individuals are immigrants 10 with very little understanding of the English language, promotional materials, reservations systems, and websites need to be implemented in language(s) other than English. For low-income residents who are currently do not use a car or other similar services, car sharing presents a new expense that may have to push some other expenditures out of the picture. On the other hand, according to the Surface Transportation Policy Project (2005), the Consumer Expenditure Survey shows that households earning up to $12,000 spend 36 cents of every dollar they earn 8 In addition to the author s thoughts, this list summarizes the ideas of members of car sharing advocacy groups from around the globe. Even car sharing advocates diverge on their view as to whether car sharing for low-income families is a good idea or not; both sides of the argument are included in this list. 9 The wealthiest neighborhoods in San Francisco have the lowest number of cars per household. Most workers there do not drive to work, but instead ride public transportation, walk, or bike; most of their needs for a decent urban quality of life are within walking distance. Many households in these high-density affluent areas have no cars at all. They are also the ideal market for car sharing and a big reason why it is successful in San Francisco (Albert 2005, personal communication). 10 According to the March 1998 Current Population Survey, 1) the poverty rate for immigrants is 50 percent higher than that of native-born residents, with immigrants accounting for one in seven persons living in poverty; 2) the proportion of immigrant households receiving welfare is percent higher than that of native-born residents; and 3) the immigrant population is growing 6.5 times faster than the native-born population (Camarota 1999). 10

11 on transportation, most of it on vehicles. Sixty-two percent of households in this group own at least one automobile. Car sharing could encourage low-income families who own more than one car to dispose of at least one of those vehicles. Other barriers to car sharing membership among low-income individuals include, but are not limited to, the need to make a reservation in advance, picking up the car only to find out that the person before you did not return it on time, the need to specify a return time, and the inconvenience that comes with paying by the hour and mile rather than the comparatively "free" usage of having your own vehicle. An exhaustive study should be undertaken to address how to overcome these types of barriers and encourage wider adoption of car sharing in various social and economic settings needs. It is recommended that the following research areas be included in such a study: Identify the trends of car sharing usage between low- and high-income individuals. A study of these trends could be highly beneficial when planning new strategies for innovative and challenging markets. 11 Learn from the experience of car sharing programs to low-income individuals, such as City Carshare's LIFT program in San Francisco, California, how to adapt a car sharing program so it meets the needs of a greater percentage of the population. Provide better information and training to car sharing operators and managers so they can better job managing the resources at their fingertips. Configure an aggressive marketing standard for car sharing, akin to the strategy of car manufacturers to market cars. Explore public-private partnerships to fund car sharing programs for low-income families. Car companies such as Toyota and Honda and rental car agencies such as Hertz have played an important role in car sharing in the United States in the last decade. Investigate market options that could be explored for the goodwill of the community and low-income groups in general. A simplification of the poverty proxy measure 12 used by the U.S. Census Bureau between 2001 and 2003 by state shows that New Hampshire, Minnesota, Delaware, Maryland, and Connecticut have the lowest average percentage of people living in poverty. On the other hand, the highest percentage of people living in poverty is clustered in West Virginia; Washington, D.C.; Mississippi; New Mexico; and Arkansas. However, only Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., have car sharing programs. Therefore, most of the states with the highest poverty levels do not have any experience with a car sharing organization. The technology for car sharing is becoming cheaper and more accessible every day, pilot programs may be implemented in these states. 11 It is imperative to know who within the low-income community would be suitable to use car sharing services. For instance, in Europe when an individual uses the carsharing vehicles less than $120 a year, they typically drop out of the CSO and use traditional auto rentals to fulfill their sporadic vehicle needs. On the other hand, there are other members requiring vehicles so often that the effort to reserve shared-use cars becomes a burden. Therefore, these individuals leave the CSO because private ownership works better than carsharing. Nevertheless, with careful monitoring and competent administration it is entirely feasible that a successful carsharing program could be implemented in a low income community setting. 12 For more information on how poverty is measure by the US Census please visit 11

12 Although answers to some of these questions will not be available for some time, this reported has attempted to document the successes of car sharing programs in the United States and the potential that exists to expand these programs to a wider population, particularly low-income populations. The lessons that have been learned and explored by different CSOs are good examples of what is possible and perhaps desirable at many other levels and locations. The CSOs identified in Appendix A can be used as a platform for promoting car sharing in low-income communities. There is no point in reinventing the wheel, and even though the vehicle fleet of some of these companies is as small as one car, most of the CSOs have an infrastructure and technology in place that can be used to provide more mobility and accessibility to lower income groups. A final thought: In addition to needing access to work and work-related destinations, low-income families also need to be able to travel to supermarkets, convenience stores, medical facilities, and other amenities that are important in making communities more livable. For those who make only an occasional car trip, whether to see a doctor, go to a job interview, or transport some large objects, car sharing may provide the mobility they need. On the other hand, for those who need a car to travel to work daily, then a private car may be a more convenient means of transportation. 12

13 References Arlington County Commuter Services: Arlington Pilot Carshare Program: First Year Report (April 15, 2005). Available at: Accessed 2005 Camarota, Steven A: Immigrants in the United States 1998: A Snapshot of America's Foreign- Born Population (January 1999). Available at: Accessed February 16, 2005 Car Sharing Network: Homepage. Available at: Accessed January 13, 2005 City Carshare: First-Ever Study of Car-Sharing Shows Dramatic Environmental & Traffic Benefits (January 12, 2004). Available at: Higginbotham, Brian: Car Sharing: Increasing Rural Transportation Options in the Great Central Valley. A Great Valley Center Study. Sustainable Communities Leadership Program, Available at: Langer, Gary: ABC news poll: Traffic in the United States. a look under the hood of a nation on wheels (2005). Available at: Accessed February 19, 2005 Ortega, Juan F: Spatial Multicriteria Methodology for the Selection of Low-Income and Labor Market Accessibility Projects. Ph.D. dissertation, Chicago, IL, University of Illinois, 2004 Shaheen, Susan, Daniel Sperling, and Conrad Wagner: A Short History of car sharing in the 90s. The Journal of World Transport Policy & Practice 5(2/3), 1999 Surface Transportation Policy Project: Transportation and Poverty Alleviation. Available at: Accessed January 25, 2005 TRANSPORTATION Research Board: Using Public Transportation to Reduce the Economic, Social and Human Costs of Personal Immobility. TCRP Report No. 49. Washington, DC, Transportation Research Board, 1999 Wells, Rita: TEAM-Web: introduction and overview. Available at: Accessed February 10, 2005 White House Press Office: President Clinton Announces Transportation Grants to Help Low- Income Families (2000). Available at: (Accessed 15 February 2005). 13