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 20005
Phones: 800.891.0590 | 202.628.1480
Fax: 202.737.9197
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
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 1986. 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 26–31 2005, 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
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/973a2Traffic.pdf.
2
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 9,000resident 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):
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
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,
Oregon2
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
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 members3 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
Table 1: Car Sharing vs. Car Ownership
Miles driven per year
CarSharing Portland*
Car Ownership#
2,500
$1,550
$4,243
5,000
$3,000
$4,473
7,500
$4,450
$4,703
10,000
$5,900
$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.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
4
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).
For more information on the Surface Transportation Policy Project, visit http://www.transact.org/.
5
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
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
As of February 10, 2005, during federal fiscal years 1999-2005, 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-X044-00
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
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
(http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/welfare_to_work/lift.htm). 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 2006.
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
https://denali.citycarshare.org/signup/signup.action?form.applicationFormId=5. 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
http://www.flexcarnetwork.com.
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
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
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
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
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
immigrants10 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 30–50 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
ƒ
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:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
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 measure12 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
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html.
11
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
References
Arlington County Commuter Services: “Arlington Pilot Carshare Program: First Year Report” (April
15, 2005). Available at:
http://www.commuterpage.com/pdfdocs/ArlingtonCarshareProgram.pdf. Accessed 2005
Camarota, Steven A: “Immigrants in the United States —1998: A Snapshot of America's ForeignBorn Population” (January 1999). Available at:
http://www.cis.org/articles/1999/back199.html. Accessed February 16, 2005
Car Sharing Network: “Homepage.” Available at: http://www.carsharing.net. Accessed January
13, 2005
City Carshare: “First-Ever Study of Car-Sharing Shows Dramatic Environmental & Traffic Benefits”
(January 12, 2004). Available at: http://www.citycarshare.org/pressrelease_01-12-04.do
Higginbotham, Brian: Car Sharing: Increasing Rural Transportation Options in the Great Central
Valley. A Great Valley Center Study. Sustainable Communities Leadership Program, 2001.
Available at:
http://www.greatvalley.org/pub_documents/2004_5_28_0_26_15_car_sharing.pdf
Langer, Gary: “ABC news poll: Traffic in the United States. a look under the hood of a nation on
wheels” (2005). Available at:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=485098&page=1. 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:
http://www.transact.org/library/factsheets/poverty.asp. 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:
http://ftateamweb.fta.dot.gov/static/userguide.html. Accessed February 10, 2005
White House Press Office: “President Clinton Announces Transportation Grants to Help LowIncome Families” (2000). Available at:
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Mon_Oct_16_130120_2000.html (Accessed 15
February 2005).
13