Policy Considerations for Carsharing and Station Cars: Monitoring Growth, Trends, and Overall Impacts

Abstract

Since the late 1990s, more than 25 U.S. shared-use vehicle programs—including carsharing and station cars—have been launched. Given the presumed social and environmental benefits, the majority of these programs received some governmental support, primarily in the form of start-up grants and subsidized parking. As of July 2003, 15 shared-use vehicle programs were in existence, including 11 carsharing organizations, 2 carsharing research pilots, and 2 station car programs. Over the past 5 years, membership in U.S. carsharing programs has experienced exponential growth. Despite this expansion, the social and environmental impacts and long-term sustainability of these services remain unclear. As part of a U.S. shared-use vehicle survey (August 2002 to July 2003), market growth and trends as well as limited, systematic evaluation of program impacts were documented. Although 80% of shared-use programs implement internal customer surveys (initially or as follow-up), few independent studies have been conducted to date. Across organizations, participant use and program benefits are measured with various study tools and metrics. Given current shared-use vehicle growth and the ongoing interest of policymakers and governmental agencies in this concept, a longitudinal monitoring approach to better understand market developments, social and environmental impacts, and targeted policy strategies is recommended. Furthermore, it is concluded that coordinated, programwide data collection (consistent survey instruments and performance measures) could enhance overall market awareness and the credibility of shared-use vehicle organizations in leveraging additional public support.

The cost saving potential of carsharing in a US context

“…Beyond the benefits that accrue to individual users, carsharing can also help to serve broader public goals (Shaheen et al 2004;Fellows and Pitfield 2000). Carsharing can contribute to a more socially sustainable transport system by offering affordable mobility to the poor.…”

Can carsharing meet the mobility needs for the low-income neighborhoods? Lessons from carsharing usage patterns in New York City

“…It was during the late 1990s that a modern form of large-scale carsharing program was implemented in Rutledge, Missouri and Portland, Oregon (TCRP, 2005). Since carsharing has grown rapidly after 1998 (Shaheen et al, 2004), various operational forms have been developed. Prevalent arrangement is a profit or a non-profit operation.…”

A worldwide review of support mechanisms for car clubs

“…However, Shaheen et al (2004) urges caution in comparing results due to differences in data gathering methods among US car club schemes and more fundamentally in a report for the UK Government, Bonsall (2002) sees car clubs as only ever being a suitable mode in a few specific circumstances indicating that any impacts on the transport system and society generally would probably be relatively marginal. Finally, Shaheen et al (1998) notes that car clubs are more likely to thrive when environmental consciousness is high, driving disincentives such as high parking costs and traffic congestion are pervasive, car ownership costs are rather high, and alternative modes of transportation are easily accessible.…”