Year 2005 UCD— ITS— RR— 05— 11
Carsharing in North America:
Market Growth, Current Developments, and
Future Potential
Susan A. Shaheen, Ph. D.
Adam P. Cohen
J. Darius Roberts
Institute of Transportation Studies ◊ University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue ◊ Davis, California 95616
PHONE: ( 530) 752- 6548 ◊ FAX: ( 530) 752- 6572
WEB: http:// its. ucdavis. edu/
CARSHARING IN NORTH AMERICA:
MARKET GROWTH, CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS,
AND FUTURE POTENTIAL
Susan A. Shaheen, Ph. D.
Honda Distinguished Scholar in Transportation, University of California, Davis, &
Policy and Behavioral Research Program Leader, California PATH
University of California, Berkeley
1357 S. 46th Street. Bldg 452; Richmond, CA 94804- 4648
510- 665- 3483 ( O); 510- 665- 3537 ( F); sashaheen@ path. berkeley. edu
Adam P. Cohen
Student Researcher, California PATH
University of California, Berkeley
1357 S. 46th Street. Bldg 452; Richmond, CA 94804- 4648
510- 665- 3646 ( O); 510- 665- 3537 ( F); apcohen@ path. berkeley. edu
and
J. Darius Roberts
Graduate Student Researcher, California PATH/ UC Davis Campus
University of California, Berkeley
1357 S. 46th Street. Bldg 452; Richmond, CA 94804- 4648
510- 665- 3616 ( O); 510- 665- 3537 ( F); droberts@ path. berkeley. edu
Submission for the Transportation Research Board
August 1, 2005
Manuscript Word Count: 7,500
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 1
ABSTRACT
Carsharing provides members access to a fleet of autos for short- term use throughout the day,
reducing the need for one or more personal vehicles. Over ten years ago, carsharing operators
began to appear in North America. Since 1994, a total of 40 programs have been deployed— 28
are operating in 36 urban areas and 12 are now defunct. Another four are planned to launch in
the next year. This paper examines carsharing growth potential in North America, based on a
survey of 26 existing organizations conducted from April to July 2005. Since the mid- 1990s, the
number of members and vehicles supported by carsharing in the U. S. and Canada continues to
grow, despite program closures. The three largest providers in the U. S. and Canada both support
94% of the total carsharing membership. Growth potential in major metropolitan regions is
estimated at 10% of individuals over the age of 21 in North America. While carsharing continues
to gain popularity and market share, the authors conclude that increased carsharing education,
impact evaluation, and supportive policy approaches, including mainstreaming carsharing as a
transportation strategy, would aid the ongoing expansion and development of this alternative to
private vehicle ownership.
KEYWORDS: Carsharing, markets, policy
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 2
INTRODUCTION
Auto ownership is widespread in North America. In 2001, 92.1% of U. S. and 78.2% of Canadian
households owned at least one vehicle ( 1, 2). Over 60% of U. S. and 36% of Canadian
households owned two or more vehicles ( 3, 2). Not surprisingly, transportation represents the
second and third largest consumer expenditures in the U. S. ( 19.1%) and Canada ( 13.66%),
respectively ( 4, 5). With auto ownership and fuel costs rising, individuals are seeking alternatives
to private vehicle ownership. Short- term auto rentals or carsharing programs  through hourly
rates and subscription- access plans  provide such an alternative, especially for individuals living
in major urban areas, households with one or more vehicles, and those with access to other
transportation modes, such as transit and carpooling.
The principle of carsharing is simple: Individuals gain the benefits of private vehicle use
without the costs and responsibilities of ownership. Instead of owning one or more vehicles, a
household or business accesses a fleet of shared- use autos on an as- needed basis. Individuals
gain access to vehicles by joining an organization that maintains a fleet of cars and light trucks in
a network of locations. Generally, participants pay a fee each time they use a vehicle ( 6, 7).
Carsharing became popularized in Europe in the mid- to late- 1980s. At present, nearly 300,000
individuals belong to carsharing organizations worldwide. Since 1994, a total of 40 programs
have been deployed in North America— 28 are operating in 36 urban regions and 12 are now
defunct. Another four are planned to launch in the next year.
Common goals among North American carsharing organizations, include: 1) reducing
congestion and auto ownership; 2) providing cost savings since customers pay per use, sharing
the costs of the vehicle lease, maintenance, repair, and insurance; 3) reducing emissions by
lowering overall vehicle miles/ kilometers traveled and employing clean fuel vehicles ( e. g.,
gasoline electric- hybrid cars); 4) facilitating more efficient land use ( e. g., carsharing reduces the
number of parking spaces needed); and 5) increasing mobility options ( e. g., low- income market
segment) and connectivity among transportation modes.
This paper provides an overview of North American carsharing growth, market
developments, and future potential. From April to July 2005, the authors surveyed 26 of 28
existing operational programs in North America to collect data on market developments. All 28
organizations provided current membership, vehicle, and technology use data for this paper. One
hundred percent of U. S. carsharing organizations participated in our market development survey
( n= 17). Nine of 11 existing Canadian organizations participated, yielding an 81.8% response
rate. Organizations were surveyed by a combination of mail questionnaires and telephone
interviews. In addition, researchers also updated data from each organization’s web site, when
available. Many organizations did not complete all questions in the survey due to proprietary
issues or uncertainty. We have supplemented the survey data with expert interviews and a
literature/ Internet review.
This paper includes five main sections. The first is an overview of carsharing impacts,
with an emphasis on North American understanding. Second, the authors provide an overview of
carsharing market growth in North America in which organizational dynamics over time, total
membership and vehicle trends, and business models are explored. Third, the authors discuss
current and future market developments, including demographic markets served, rate structures,
insurance, and technology. Next, the authors provide a synopsis of carsharing policy approaches
and conclude with a summary of key observations.
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 3
OVERVIEW OF CARSHARING IMPACTS
A number of social and environmental benefits are commonly associated with carsharing,
supported by an increasing body of empirical evidence. However, differences in data collection
and study methodology frequently produce inconsistent results, often with limited samples,
which make it difficult to estimate carsharing effects. Thus, ongoing impact evaluation research
is recommended.
The impacts of carsharing can be categorized into transportation, environmental, land-use,
and social effects ( 8, 9, 10). A major impact of carsharing on the transportation system is a
reduction in vehicle ownership. Canadian studies and member surveys suggest that between 15
to 29% of carsharing participants sold a vehicle after joining a carsharing program, while 25 to
61% delayed or had forgone a vehicle purchase ( 11, 12, 13). U. S. studies and surveys indicate
that between 11 to 26% of carsharing participants sold a personal vehicle, and between 12 to
68% postponed or entirely avoided a car purchase ( 14, 15, 16). Furthermore, U. S and Canadian
data reveal that each carsharing vehicle removes between 6 to 23 cars from the roads ( 13, 14, 17,
18). According to recent European studies, a carsharing vehicle reduces the need for 4 to 10
privately owned vehicles ( 19). Location- specific variations are likely to result in differences in
this impact measure. A reduction in vehicle ownership, in turn, is likely to result in fewer vehicle
miles or kilometers traveled ( VMT/ VKT), reduced traffic congestion and parking demand, and
an increase in the use of public transportation and other transport modes ( such as biking and
walking) in lieu of car travel ( 10, 20, 21). VMT/ VKT reduction data range from as little as 7.6%
to as much as 80% of a member’s total VMT/ VKT in Canada and the U. S., while estimates differ
substantially between members that gave up vehicles after joining a carsharing program and
those that gained vehicle access through carsharing ( 14, 17, 22, 23). The authors calculate an
average reduction of 44% in VMT/ VKT per carsharing user across the North American studies.
European studies also indicate a large reduction in VKT, between 28 to 45%. Carsharing also
induces lower VMT/ VKT by emphasizing variable driving costs, such as per hour or mileage
charges.
Furthermore, reduced vehicle ownership and VMT/ VKT lower greenhouse gas ( GHG)
emissions, as trips are shifted to transit, biking, and walking. In Europe, carsharing is estimated
to reduce the average user’s carbon dioxide emissions by 40 to 50% ( 19). In addition, many
carsharing organizations include low- emission vehicles, such as gasoline- electric hybrid cars,
into their fleets ( 12, 23, 24). Carsharing members also report a higher degree of environmental
awareness after joining a carsharing program ( 21).
Finally, carsharing also shows evidence of beneficial social impacts. Households can gain
or maintain vehicle access without bearing the full costs of car ownership ( 10, 25). Depending on
location and organization, the maximum mileage up to which carsharing is cost- effective, in
comparison to owning or leasing a personal vehicle, lies between 10,000 to 16,093 kilometers
( 24, 25, 26). Low- income households and college students can also benefit from participating in
carsharing ( 8).
CARSHARING MARKET DYNAMICS: NORTH AMERICA
North America began to experiment with carsharing in the early 1980s through two
demonstration programs: first, Mobility Enterprise, a Purdue University Research project; and
second, the Short- Term Auto Rental ( STAR) initiative in San Francisco. After the entry of these
two programs in 1983, and their subsequent exit in 1985 and 1986, respectively, it was not until
1994 that carsharing reemerged with the launch of Auto- Com ( later CommunAuto), followed in
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 4
1997 by Cooperative Auto Network and Victoria Carshare Coop in Canada and Dancing Rabbit
Vehicle Cooperative in the U. S. ( 6). By 2001, the U. S. claimed 14 carsharing organizations and
more than 5,000 members, and Canada claimed ten programs and nearly 3,800 members. Since
then, this developing industry has continued to expand. This section of the paper examines the
following developments: number of organizations, membership and vehicle trends, member-vehicle
ratios, and business models.
Number of Organizations
There was a notable jump in the number of organizations in both the U. S. and Canada, which
occurred between 1999 and 2001. Since 2001, the number of organizations in Canada and the
U. S. has somewhat stabilized ( See Figure 1, below).
2
4 6
17
14 14 15 14
- 2
- 1 - 1 - 3 - 1
- 2
2 3
5 5 8
10 9 12 11 11
1
2
- 1 - 1
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
No. of Organizations
Total, US
Closures, US
Total, Canada
Closures, Canada
FIGURE 1 Total number of organizations & closures in U. S. and Canada.
Canada, which currently hosts 11 organizations, has experienced fewer closures than the
U. S. The U. S. market, which now has 17 organizations, has experienced a greater total number
of new entrants and closures. The closure of several research programs and limited electric
vehicle deployments explains over half of all U. S. closures.
U. S. startup activity peaked in 2001, with nine programs. Since 2001, organizational
launches in Canada and the U. S. have fluctuated between zero and five total each year. This
likely reflects some barriers to entry for new entrants, including first- to- market advantages and
economies- of- scale for existing programs ( 8). Not surprisingly, the capability of larger operators
to expand to new regions may deter startups considering large urban markets, at least those
pursuing more traditional carsharing markets, such as neighborhood residential, in the future.
More direct competition among operators  similar to the Washington, D. C. area where
two programs now provide carsharing services  seems more likely in the near future in several
geographic regions, including Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle. Indeed, one large American
operator has announced plans to enter several major metropolitan markets, many of which are
already served by other operators. This trend could ultimately lead to some program mergers,
which has previously occurred in Europe.
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 5
Total Membership and Vehicle Trends
Between July 2004 to 2005, growth rates in membership and vehicles continued to slow in both
the U. S. and Canada. See Figure 2, below. ( Note that data in each figure reflect July of each
year.) Membership in the U. S. rose by 46%, making 2005 the first year that the U. S. carsharing
market has not at least doubled in membership size. Carsharing membership in Canada increased
by 19.5%, down from 42.5% growth the previous year. In decline since 2001, U. S. vehicle
growth was approximately 30% in 2005; Canadian vehicle growth dropped to 15%. It is
important to note that the largest operators in Canada and the U. S. are responsible for the
majority of growth reflected. Furthermore, membership totals are likely to reflect double
counting in some cases ( e. g., a member who participates in business and personal carsharing may
be counted twice in an organization’s estimates).
FIGURE 2 U. S. and Canadian carsharing growth, 1998- 2005.
69 422
5377 12098
214
25640
76420
52347
455 696
907 1192
280
0 10 26
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Members
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Vehicles
16
U. S. Carsharing Growth
9983
836
11932
7007
1455
5063
3759
2080
59
127 220
520 599
397
311
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Members
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Vehicles
Members Vehicles
100
Canadian Carsharing Growth
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 6
Member- Vehicle Ratios
The effect of vehicle growth rates slowing more than membership growth is higher member-vehicle
ratios. Rather than an industry dynamic, this appears to be a business strategy ( e. g.,
increasing vehicle use/ profitability and attracting investors), particularly among the largest U. S.
operators. As of July 2005, the member- vehicle ratio of the five largest U. S. organizations was
66: 1, whereas the remaining U. S. carsharing programs had a member- vehicle ratio of 20: 1. Due
to the large membership of the five biggest programs, the overall average U. S. ratio was 64: 1.
The dynamic around member- vehicle ratios is noticeably different in Canada. The average
member- vehicle ratio was 20: 1 in July 2005, and even the three largest Canadian organizations
had member- vehicle ratios that ranged from 19: 1 to 24: 1.
Higher U. S. member- vehicle ratios may be explained in part by more limited membership
requirements ( i. e., few organizations require deposits and only one third collect monthly dues).
Fourteen of 17 U. S. programs, including the two largest, do not require deposits; deposits range
from US$ 100 to $ 350 for the three operators that collect them. Nine of 17 U. S. programs have
one- time membership fees ( ranging from US$ 25 to $ 115, and US$ 400 for a one time buy-in/
membership fee in the case of one program). Thirty- three percent of U. S. programs charge
monthly fees, ranging from US$ 10 to $ 20. Three programs collect annual fees, ranging from
US$ 35 to $ 100.
In contrast to the U. S., nine of 11 Canadian organizations, including the two largest,
require deposits; deposits range from CA$ 300 to $ 500 per member and are typically higher than
U. S. program deposits. Two Canadian programs charge one- time membership fees of CA$ 400
and $ 500. Presumably, high deposits require a greater commitment to join or subscribe to a
carsharing program.
Forty- five percent of Canadian organizations charge monthly dues, typically ranging
between CA$ 10 and $ 25. Thus, monthly dues are more frequent among Canadian programs.
Higher membership costs appear to lead to more consistent and intensive vehicle use among
members, generating more revenue for the organization and ultimately limiting the number of
customers that can be served by a single vehicle. While monthly fees may not represent as great
a commitment to carsharing membership as high deposits, these fees can also act as a screening
mechanism to limit inactive members in both the U. S. and Canada. No Canadian program
charges an annual membership fee.
Finally, vehicle ownership rates are higher in the U. S. than in Canada— over 60% of U. S,
and 36% of Canadian households own two or more vehicles ( 3, 2). Thus, vehicle ownership may
affect how carsharing is integrated into households in Canada and the U. S. For instance,
carsharing may be more likely to serve as a household’s primary vehicle ( or supplement to a one-vehicle
household) among Canadian members. Although carsharing has been shown to reduce
vehicle ownership ( 8, 11, 14, 19), the proportion of households with one or more vehicles that
subscribe to carsharing may be growing. In this case, the U. S. market could be serving a greater
number of households with higher auto ownership rates and ultimately more individuals per
carsharing vehicle on average. In the future, high U. S. member- vehicle ratios may stabilize or
become lower in key geographic markets, when coupled with greater vehicle penetration ( i. e., a
denser network of lots and more vehicles per lot). With increased saturation, members may gain
confidence in vehicle availability and perceived convenience and ultimately increase use.
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 7
Business Models
There are two main carsharing business models: 1) for- profit and 2) non- profit, which include
cooperatives. In the U. S., while only 29% of the organizations operate as for- profits ( 5 of 17),
these organizations accounted for 90% of the membership and 83% of the fleets deployed.
Similarly in Canada, while only 18% of the organizations are for- profit ( 2 of 11), these
accounted for 78 and 76% of the membership and vehicles deployed, respectively. In summary,
while there are many more non- profit carsharing operators in the U. S. and Canada, these
operators account for a minority of the North American carsharing members and fleets deployed.
Although for- profits account for the majority of carsharing members and vehicles, the more
growth- oriented programs in Canada and the U. S. are split between for- profit and non- profit
models.
CURRENT AND FUTURE MARKET DEVELOPMENTS
Based on the authors’ survey of existing North American organizations, carsharing membership
growth potential in major metropolitan regions is estimated by respondents at 6.9% of
individuals over the age of 21 in Canada ( n= 8) and 12.5% in the U. S. ( n= 13). Note that the
minimum age requirement for most carsharing organizations in North America is between 21
and 25. Thus, growth potential could exceed these projections, if programs begin to serve
individuals of 18 to 21 years of age ( e. g., college market). This section of the paper examines
existing and future demographic markets, profitable locations, rate structures, insurance, and
technology. Note that survey respondents did not answer every question.
Existing and Future Demographic Markets
Demographic markets are defined as the primary groups or markets served by carsharing,
including neighborhood, business, college, low income, and commuter. Over 82% of U. S. and
100% of Canadian carsharing survey respondents provided estimates of their existing
demographic markets based on membership. Researchers supplemented these data for the
remaining organizations ( n= 6) by consulting program websites and industry experts. All program
market- segment estimates were weighted by number of members per organization for the entire
North American market. Neighborhood residential was the staple demographic market in the
U. S. and Canada, accounting for 81.7 and 96% of their existing membership, respectively. ( See
Figure 3, below.) Other existing segments tended to represent a greater share of the total U. S.
market than in Canada, including: 12.3% business, 4.6% college ( age 21 and over), 1.3% low
income, and 0.1% commuter.
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 8
FIGURE 3 U. S. and Canadian demographic markets.
Respondents were also asked to project into the future. Sixty- five percent of U. S. ( n= 11)
and 73% of Canadian survey respondents ( n= 8) provided future estimates. Responses were
treated as market opportunity opinions and averaged across organizations. In five years, U. S. and
Canadian organizations forecast that the majority of their demographic markets will still consist
of neighborhood residential, but this segment will represent a smaller proportion of the total
market due to greater diversification ( e. g., business customer growth in the U. S. and Canada). In
the U. S., business and college markets are projected to increase in market share to an estimated
22 and 23%, respectively. U. S. organizations also forecast small but growing low- income,
commuter, and older adult community markets.
In Canada, neighborhood residential is expected to decrease in market share to 80%.
Most of the remaining share will be captured by growth in the business market, which is
expected to expand to between 10 to 15% of the total market.
Rate Structures
Approximately 83% of North American survey respondents ( n= 23) stated that either profit or
cost recovery was a principal factor in selecting their current rate structure. As part of their
pricing, Canadian operators much more frequently emphasize mileage as the primary cost basis,
whereas this is practiced less frequently in the U. S. For instance, ZipCar, I- Go, and Community
Car all provide varying amounts of free mileage either per reservation or hourly usage. Flexcar
now provides an unlimited number of miles in the hourly charge of its vehicles.
This analysis includes membership dues, rates, and mileage for all rate plans of 25 North
American organizations, not including two U. S. university research programs and one
organization, which currently provides free service. Since deposits represent a potential barrier to
membership rather than actual usage fees, they were excluded from this analysis. Data were
obtained from the Internet or through personal communication with organizations. Rates have
been adjusted to U. S. dollars, using a 1.24603 exchange rate.
As Figure 4 ( below) indicates, the average rates for equivalent distance and time of use in
the U. S. and Canada differ significantly. Carsharing charges in the U. S. increase substantially
over the time a vehicle is used. This echoes a key difference between U. S. and Canadian rates:
U. S. Existing Demographic Markets
Business
12.3%
Commuter
0.1%
Low Income
1.3%
College
4.6%
Neighborhood
81.7%
( n= 17)
Canadian Existing Demographic Markets
College
0.4%
Neighborhood
96.0%
Business
3.2%
Low Income
0.4%
( n= 11)
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 9
the U. S. tends to charge higher hourly rates, sometimes bundled with “ free miles,” whereas
Canada has a tendency to charge lower hourly rates with little or no “ free miles.”
$ 24.44
$ 27.63
$ 30.82
$ 33.56
$ 28.91
$ 38.85
$ 49.14
$ 59.59
$ 0.00
$ 10.00
$ 20.00
$ 30.00
$ 40.00
$ 50.00
$ 60.00
$ 70.00
2 Hours 4 Hours 6 Hours 8 Hours
Time Usage for 50 Miles Driven
Average Cost in USD
Canada
( n= 11)
United States
( n= 14)
FIGURE 4 How changing time of vehicle use affects U. S. and Canadian rates.
Overall, Canadian rates tend to be substantially lower than their U. S. counterparts, particularly
after two hours of use. This is likely attributable to a few factors, including lower insurance costs
and more uniform compact fleets in Canada. While crude oil is cheaper in Canada, Canadian fuel
taxes make the “ pump” cost higher than that in the U. S. Given higher fuel costs and a strong
motivation to reduce mileage and GHG emissions among numerous Canadian operators, it is not
surprising that Canadian programs charge more per kilometer driven on average.
Insurance
Vehicle insurance continues to be a major industry obstacle in recent years. Following the
terrorist attacks of 9/ 11, North American organizations were confronted with the challenge of
higher insurance premiums ( 10). At present, insurance premiums remain high for numerous
North American carsharing operators.
Only two out of nine U. S. survey respondents indicated that they had changed their
insurance carriers within the last six months. ( Two new U. S. organizations launched within the
last six months.) Similarly, just one out of nine Canadian survey respondents had changed
insurance carriers within the last six months. This organization indicated shifting from third-party
to self- insurance as a method of reducing costs. North American organizations were also
asked whether finding insurance was an ongoing problem. Answers differed sharply between the
U. S. and Canada, with 53% of U. S. respondents ( n= 15) indicating that finding insurance was an
ongoing problem in contrast to just 22% percent of Canadian organizations ( n= 9).
Carsharing insurance is estimated to cost over $ 2,500 per vehicle per year. There are
three ways in which carsharing providers can reduce insurance costs: 1) lowering insurance
liability limits by decreasing the maximum amount that an insurance carrier is required to pay in
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 10
case of an accident, 2) self- insurance, and 3) increasing the number of vehicles to enter a group
insurance pool.
In the carsharing industry, U. S. organizations typically carry $ 1 million in single limit
( per accident per claim) liability insurance. Some organizations have reduced this limit to
$ 300,000, an amount more typical of personal automobile rather than fleet insurance. Some
organizations may confront higher coverage thresholds, however, due to partner regulations ( e. g.,
a partner transit agency requires minimum liability coverage beyond that of a carsharing
operator). Lowering insurance costs through self- insurance of vehicle damage was also observed
among a number of U. S. organizations. The last strategy for reducing insurance costs is the
formation of a carsharing affinity group  an insurance pool that provides coverage at a
discounted rate to members ( Dave Brook, unpublished data, July 2005).
Over 80% of 23 survey respondents indicated that they would consider group insurance
with other carsharing providers. Only two organizations indicated that they would not consider
group insurance, while two other respondents were uncertain ( n= 4). Two out of the four were
larger U. S. and Canadian organizations that did not express difficulty finding an insurance
carrier. Two of the four also indicated that some provinces, such as British Columbia, provide
the option of public sector and self- insurance. The majority of U. S. and Canadian respondents
have found it a challenge to identify affordable insurance for a growing younger driver market
( i. e., individuals under the age of 21). Planned organizations eager to enter into the college
market shared this sentiment. A few strategies have been designed to permit entry into the
college student carsharing market. For example, Boulder CarShare self- insures younger drivers,
charging $ 250 per each year a driver is under age 25. At Zipcar’s Wesley College location, the
college provides insurance to student drivers through their liability policy.
Another potential solution is for the insurance and carsharing industries to partner,
providing a mechanism for students to maintain insurance coverage on their parents’ policies.
The latter method is similar to rental car insurance in that a rental company maintains state
minimum liability insurance, but the renter must provide their own personal auto insurance or
purchase additional liability insurance to rent a vehicle. In fact, one rental car company now
offers hourly rentals to student drivers at Stanford University under the condition that they
provide their own insurance coverage. This service, however, is priced at a rate significantly
higher than typical carsharing charges ( 20).
Technology
Technology plays an important role in North American carsharing. Electronic and wireless
technologies have been used to address the challenges of vehicle security, maintenance, and
service quality. Increasingly, carsharing programs are purchasing technology ( e. g.,
reservations/ billing, vehicle- access systems) from specialized vendors or licensed products from
Zipcar, Flexcar, or Cooperative Auto Network.
Researchers obtained technology information on all 28 carsharing programs through the
Internet and expert interviews. Thirteen North American organizations now employ advanced
operations ( i. e., automated reservations, integrated billing, and advanced vehicle- access
systems). Only 11.5% of North American programs continue to use manual operations, whereas
three years ago 37.5% operated manually ( 27). Partially automated systems ( i. e., automated
reservations via touch- tone telephone/ Internet) are more predominant in Canada ( 73%), while
advanced systems are more common in the U. S. ( 70%). North American organizations credit
advanced technologies with lower costs, faster billing, and enhanced consumer experience.
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 11
Recent technology trends include instant reservation capabilities and “ vehicle class
reservations,” also known as anonymous pods ( i. e., when a user does not reserve a specific
vehicle from a lot but rather a class of vehicle). In our survey, 55% of respondents ( n= 20)
reported considering or offering instant reservations. Thirty percent of respondents ( n= 20) have
considered or currently support vehicle class reservations.
To supplement our survey, the authors interviewed five major technology vendors
( Metavera, INVERS, EngineGreen, Vetronix, and ETL) regarding future innovations. Most
backend providers interviewed reported making advances that allow better software- hardware
integration and greater ease- of- setup for carsharing ( Metavera, EngineGreen, Vetronix,
unpublished data, July 2005). In the near future, two vendors believe that carsharing operators
are not likely to introduce innovative features ( e. g., one- way rentals, ridesharing) due to added
management complexities; nevertheless, providers interviewed do offer some technical support
for the customization of novel carsharing features, such as pre- paid usage cards.
CARSHARING POLICY APPROACHES
In this section, the authors summarize the findings of a broad literature review, Internet
investigation, and expert interviews on existing and proposed carsharing policy approaches. We
identified an array of supportive carsharing policies that range from encouraging carsharing
organizations to deploy/ expand services in new or untested markets ( risk sharing) to promoting
the incorporation of carsharing in new and existing developments. ( See Table 1, below.) These
policies have also been augmented by a variety of U. S. federal funding sources, including the
Federal Highway Administration; Federal Transit Authority, primarily Job Access Reverse
Commute ( JARC); and the Environmental Protection Agency, primarily Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality ( CMAQ). Municipal and non- profit funding has also been used to provide
startup grants, loans, and lines of credit in the U. S. and Canada ( 28, 29). To date, 2005 marks the
first year in which members of two carsharing programs are required to pay a user tax ( i. e.,
annual and usage). The majority of policy approaches were observed in the U. S. and in locations
where carsharing has existed the longest and supports the largest memberships. There are a few
instances in which supportive policies have preceded carsharing operations ( e. g., Austin, Texas).
In addition, the university market has mirrored many of the same policy trends, often
incorporating a combination of approaches, including: free or discounted parking, membership
subsidies, transit discounts, risk sharing, and fleet reduction.
While developer/ zoning/ building policies are increasingly popular in promoting
carsharing partnerships, there is presently more activity with existing developments ( i. e.,
property managers). This is not surprising as it often takes several years to establish a new
development. Carsharing approaches with property managers can be characterized as follows: 1)
open- door ( i. e., when a vehicle is placed in an apartment complex or parking garage but is
available for use by all carsharing members); and 2) closed- door ( i. e., when a vehicle is placed in
a limited- access location, such as a gated apartment complex, and is only available to members
of those communities). While open- door carsharing has historically been more prevalent in
new/ existing developments in North America, the industry may support more closed- door
applications in the future as property managers share risk in vehicle placement ( e. g., the
subtraction model, see Table 1).
Looking to the future, carsharing is likely to be used increasingly as a fleet management
tool for public agencies ( e. g., 30), although it is unclear whether this will replace entire fleets or
maximize efficiency through managing peak motor pool demand. University applications are
also likely to gain popularity, particularly if insurance can be cost- effectively obtained for
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 12
younger drivers. As carsharing becomes more mainstream, existing policies may need to be
reevaluated. For instance, on- street parking spaces may no longer be available to an organization
for free. Additionally, as carsharing becomes more competitive in more locations, case- by- case
approvals will likely be codified to ensure fair practices among competing enterprises.
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 13
TABLE 1 Carsharing Policy Approaches
Automakers In California, automakers are eligible for additional zero emission vehicle ( ZEV) credits for placing
qualifying low- emission vehicles into carsharing applications linked to transit ( 31).
Developers & Zoning Regulations In the U. S. and Canada, there are many policies aimed at easing zoning
regulations and encouraging carsharing in new developments. Municipalities support the vast majority of these
policies, with only a few at the county and state levels. These policies can be categorized as follows: 1) parking
reduction ( i. e., downgrading the required number of spaces in a new development) ( 32); 2) parking substitution
( i. e., substituting general use parking for carsharing stalls) ( 33); 3) trip reduction ( i. e., reducing vehicle and
single- occupant vehicle trips) ( 34); and 4) allowing greater floor area ratios ( FARs) ( i. e., developers can build
more densely on a site) ( 20, 35). While the majority of parking and trip reduction policies have been codified into
municipal codes, there are instances where parking reductions and FAR bonuses have been granted through case-by-
case variances ( 20, 35). Lastly, the U. S. Green Building Council is considering the inclusion of a carsharing
credit in its revised Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ( LEED) rating system ( 36). LEED is a
voluntary program in which U. S. and foreign architects/ developers can meet sustainability benchmarks.
Fleet Reduction A number of policy initiatives have focused on fleet reduction requirements, predominantly by
local governments. At least three U. S. cities have replaced their municipal fleets with carsharing services ( Todd
Boulanger, unpublished data, July 2005, 37, 38), and another two U. S. cities are considering or planning such a
switch ( Steve Gutmann and Ron Szeto, unpublished data, July 2005). One county also uses carsharing services to
supplement peak demand of their motor pool and to retire underutilized vehicles ( Steve Gutmann, unpublished
data, July 2005). Two states are in the process of evaluating carsharing use to improve the efficiency of their
vehicle fleets ( Steve Gutmann, unpublished data, July 2005, 30).
Participant Subsidies The authors identified two types of participant subsidies in the U. S. to encourage
use/ membership: 1) those available to participants in a specific location ( i. e., university, city), and 2) those geared
towards the low- income market. At least one city, one property manager, and a university have provided
participants with paid use or membership and application fee reimbursement ( some restrictions apply) ( Steve
Gutmann, unpublished data, July 2005, 20, 39). In a few other instances Job Access Reverse Commute ( JARC)
and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ( CMAQ) funds have been used to subsidize low- income
users ( 40, 41, 42). Additionally, one municipal transportation authority and a number of transit agencies have
subsidized carsharing membership, use, or both ( 20, 43).
Parking Policies & Variances The authors found the greatest number of policies affecting parking. While these
policies are the most prevalent, they vary considerably, including: 1) provisions for on- street parking ( Marco
Viviani, unpublished data, July 2005); 2) provisions for off- street parking, ( Ron Szeto, unpublished data, July
2005); 3) exemption from parking limits ( 20); 4) creation of carsharing parking zones, ( Dave Brook, unpublished
data, July 2005); 5) free or reduced cost parking spaces ( Ron Szeto, unpublished data, July 2005); 6) free or
reduced cost parking permits ( 35); 7) universal parking permits ( i. e., carsharing vehicles can be returned to any
on- street location) ( 35); 8) formalized processes for assigning on- street parking spaces ( 20); and 9) recommended
use of parking meter revenue to subsidize carsharing ( Graham Hill, unpublished data, July 2005).
Risk Sharing Partnerships Partnership risk sharing is increasingly being used to support carsharing in the U. S.
in new or potentially risky markets. Three proponents of risk sharing were identified: 1) local government, 2) a
university, and 2) property management. Three ways in which this is done, include: 1) the partnering organization
purchases a block of memberships and/ or guarantees vehicle use ( Charlie Simonson, unpublished data, July
2005); 2) vehicle subsidies ( 20); or 3) the “ subtraction model” in which the carsharing organization values the
monthly cost of vehicle placement and subtracts monthly revenue from that collected value and bills the shortfall
to the risk partner ( Dave Brook, unpublished data, July 2005).
Taxes There are several instances in which municipal and state governments have issued tax credits to carsharing
members in the U. S., including: 1) local and state sales tax credits ( 44); 2) exemption from rental car taxes ( Dave
Brook, unpublished data, July 2005); and 3) tax credits to employers and property managers ( 45, 46). There have
also been some legislative distinctions between non- profit and for- profit carsharing, whereby members of non-profit
carsharing organizations may receive tax exemptions and credits ( 47). In addition, the authors identified
two instances in the U. S. in which carsharing users are taxed ( among for- profit and non- profit programs) ( 44, 48).
Transit Discounts In Canada, at least one bus operator offers discounts to carsharing members ( Marco Viviani,
unpublished data, July 2005). In the U. S., transit discounts have been bundled with various “ pass” programs that
can include free or discounted carsharing membership or use ( Steve Gutmann, unpublished data, July 2005).
Universities Carsharing is operating at approximately a dozen North American universities. Universities have
supported and enticed operators onto campus by providing free or reduced cost parking ( Charlie Simonson and
Steve Gutmann, unpublished data, July 2005); subsidizing membership fees and use ( Charlie Simonson and Steve
Gutmann, unpublished data, July 2005); and adopting university fleet reduction measures ( 49).
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 14
CONCLUSION
In recent years, the total number of organizations and startup activity in North America has
begun to stabilize; there are 28 programs in operation. The three largest providers in the U. S. and
Canada both support 94% of total carsharing membership. In the future, it is likely that
carsharing operators will face greater competition as larger organizations expand into existing
markets. In addition, high U. S. member- vehicle ratios may level out or become lower ( 64: 1 in
July 2005), when coupled with greater vehicle penetration in key geographic locations. Average
member- vehicle ratios are likely to remain higher in the U. S., given lower membership
requirements ( e. g., deposits, fees) and user patterns. Higher mileage costs are likely to prevail in
Canada, given higher fuel costs, a greater commitment to reduce GHG emissions, and usage
patterns. Several growth- oriented organizations will likely continue to account for the largest
number of members and fleets deployed in North America.
Carsharing growth potential in major metropolitan regions is estimated at 10% of
individuals over the age of 21 in North America. In the next five years, the carsharing industry
will likely direct greater attention towards business markets in the U. S. and Canada ( potentially
representing as much as 22 and 15% market share, respectively). Fleet reduction strategies may
accelerate government and business market penetration. U. S. operators will likely increase their
presence in the college market ( potentially representing 23% of U. S. market share), particularly
among the younger student population, provided that the insurance impasse for drivers under 21
can be alleviated. Increased technological deployment, such as satellite radio and on- board
concierge services ( e. g., OnStar), may likely denote increasing competition among some
carsharing operators.
While carsharing continues to gain popularity and market share in North America, the
authors conclude that increased carsharing education, impact evaluation, and supportive policy
approaches, including mainstreaming of carsharing into local, state/ province, and federal
legislation, will support the ongoing expansion and development of this transportation
alternative. Partnerships between carsharing organizations and municipalities, universities,
property managers, developers, and transit agencies can continue to augment the expansion of
this transportation mode. Furthermore, strong relationships may help to reduce the risk of serving
new and uncertain markets through a range of risk- sharing strategies ( e. g., member subsidies,
subtraction model). And, partnerships with developers will increasingly help to secure additional
carsharing parking spaces in the future.
Supportive policy approaches and grants will likely continue to aid carsharing
organizations in their future growth and location decisions. As carsharing markets develop and
mature ( e. g., government fleets, universities), policies will likely be codified and modified, as
needed ( e. g., due to high vehicle penetration and parking demand). While supportive policies
directly aid carsharing in particular locations, they can also help to establish standards from
which new markets can also model approaches. Such mechanisms, along with rising automobile
ownership costs, will likely play a key role in driving the North American carsharing market into
the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the numerous carsharing programs in North America that
provided membership and vehicle numbers throughout the year, as well as survey responses and
supplementary data. We would also like to express our gratitude to Kamill Wipyewski for his
invaluable assistance in helping to synthesize data and paper review. Special thanks also go to
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 15
Dave Brook and Kevin McLaughlin for their assistance with survey development, review, and
expert interviews. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Adam
Millard- Ball, MetaVera, EngineGreen, Invers, Vetronix, and ETL Electronics, Ltd. to our
developer and technology research. This research was funded by the University of California
( UC) Transportation Center; California Department of Transportation; and Honda Motor
Company, through their endowment for new mobility studies at UC Davis. The contents of this
paper reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily indicate acceptance by the sponsors.
REFERENCES
1. Hsu, P. S. and T. R. Reuscher. Summary of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household
Transportation Survey. 2004.
http:// www. bts. gov/ publications/ highlights_ of_ the_ 2001_ national_ household_ travel_ survey/ htm
l/ table_ a04. html. Accessed July 31, 2005.
2. Access to the 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Ithaca: New Strategist Publications,
Inc., Ithaca, 2004.
3. Canadian Statistics. Selected Dwelling Characteristics and Household ( Household electronics
and vehicles). 2003. http:// www40. statcan. ca/ l01/ cst01/ famil09c. htm.
Accessed July 31, 2005.
4. U. S. Department of Labor. Consumer Expenditures in 2002 ( Report 974). February, 2004.
http:// www. bls. gov/ cex/ csxann02. pdf. Accessed July 31, 2005.
5. Canadian Statistics. Average Household Expenditures by Provinces and Territories.
http:// www40. statcan. ca/ l01/ cst01/ famil16a. htm. Accessed July 31, 2005.
6. Shaheen, S., D. Sperling, and C. Wagner. Carsharing in Europe and North America: Past
Present and Future. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 52, 1998, No. 3, pp. 35- 52.
7. Shaheen, S. Dynamics in Behavioral Adaptation to a Transportation Innovation: A Case Study
of CarLink— A Smart Carsharing System. UCD- ITS- RR- 99- 16. Davis: Institute of
Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 1999.
8. Shaheen, S., A. Schwartz, and K. Wipyewski. Policy Considerations for Carsharing and
Station Cars, Transportation Research Record, No. 1887, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D. C., 2004, pp. 128- 136.
9. Katzev, R. Car Sharing: A New Approach to Urban Transportation Problems. In Analysis of
Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2003, pp. 65- 86. http:// www. asap-spssi.
org/ pdf/ katzev. pdf. Accessed July 31, 2005.
10. Shaheen, S., M. Meyn, and K. Wipyewski. U. S. Shared- Use Vehicle Findings on Carsharing
and Station Car Growth, Transportation Research Record, No. 1841, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D. C., 2003, pp. 90- 98.
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 16
11. Robert, B. Potentiel de L’Auto- Partage Dans Le Cadre d’Une Politique de Gestion de La
Demande en Transport. Forum de L'AQTR, Gaz à Effet de Serre: Transport et Développement,
Kyoto: Une Opportunité d’Affaires? Montréal, 2000.
12. Jensen, N. The Co- operative Auto Network Social and Environmental Report 2000- 2001.
http:// www. cooperativeauto. net/ benefits/ report. pdf. Accessed July 31, 2005.
13. Autoshare. News. http:// www. autoshare. com/ aboutus_ news. html. Accessed July 31, 2005.
14. Lane, C. Philly CarShare: First- Year Social and Mobility Impacts of Car Sharing in
Philadelphia. Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D. C., Forthcoming 2005.
15. Price J. and C. Hamiliton. Arlington Pilot Carshare Program. First- Year Report. Arlington
County Commuter Services, Division of Transportation. Department of Environmental Services.
Arlington, VA, April, 2005.
16. Katzev, R. Carsharing Portland: Review and Analysis of Its First Year. Department of
Environmental Quality, Portland, OR, 1999.
http:// www. publicpolicyresearch. net/ documents/ CSP_ first_ year_ eval. PDF. Accessed July 31,
2005.
17. Zipcar. Zipcar Customer Survey Shows Car- Sharing Leads to Car Shedding.
http:// www. zipcar. com/ press/ releases/ press- 21. Accessed July 31, 2005.
18. Flexcar. Impact. http:// www. flexcar. com/ vision/ impact. asp. Accessed July 31, 2005.
19. Rydén, C. and E. Morin. Mobility Services for Urban Sustainability. Environmental
Assessment. Report WP 6. Trivector Traffic AB. Stockholm, Sweden, January, 2005.
http:// 213.170.188.3/ moses/ Downloads/ reports/ del_ 6. pdf. Accessed July 31, 2005.
20. Millard- Ball, A., G. Murray, J. Burkhardt, and J. ter Schure. Car- Sharing: Where and How it
Succeeds Final Report. TCRP Project B- 26. TRB, National Research Council, Washington D. C.,
Forthcoming 2005.
21. Lane, C. PhillyCarShare Press Release. PhillyCarShare Members Give Up Hundreds of Cars.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jan. 07, 2004.
22. Cooper, G., D. Howes, and P. Mye. The Missing Link: An Evaluation of CarSharing
Portland Inc. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, 2000.
23. City CarShare. News. First- Ever Study of Car- Sharing. January 7, 2004.
http:// www. citycarshare. org/ about/ news/ archives/ 000014. shtml. Accessed July 31, 2005.
24. Reynolds, E. and K. McLaughlin. Autoshare. The Smart Alternative to Owning a Car
Brochure, 2001.
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 17
25. Litman, T. Evaluating Carsharing Benefits. In Transportation Research Record: No. 1702,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 2000, pp. 31- 35.
26. Calgary Alternative Transportation Cooperative. Carsharing. http:// www. catco-op.
org/ carsharing. html. Accessed July 31, 2005.
27. Shaheen, S. and M. Meyn. Shared- Use Vehicle Services: A Survey of North American
Market Developments. In ITS World Congress 2002. Chicago, Illinois, October 2002.
28. City of Toronto. Toronto Atmospheric Fund. http:// www. toronto. ca/ taf/ grantsapproved. htm.
Accessed July 30, 2005.
29. The People’s Car. Project Funders. http:// www. peoplescar. org/ pages/ projectfund. html.
Accessed July 30, 2005.
30. Texas Building and Procurement Commission. State Vehicle Fleet Management Plan.
http:// www. tbpc. state. tx. us/ fleet/ VehicleFleetManagement. html. Accessed July 29, 2005.
31. Shaheen, S., J. Wright and D. Sperling. California’s Zero- Emission Vehicle Mandate. In
Transportation Research Record 1791, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D. C.,
2002, pp. 113- 120.
32. City of Vancouver. Parking By- Laws ( No. 6059). Sections 2- 4. June 14, 2005.
http:// vancouver. ca/ commsvcs/ BYLAWS/ parking/ parking. htm. Accessed July 29, 2005.
33. City of Seattle. Parking Quantity Exceptions. Seattle Municipal Code Section 23.54.020.
http:// clerk. ci. seattle. wa. us/~ scripts/ nph-brs.
exe? s1= 23.54.020& s2=& S3=& Sect4= AND& l= 20& Sect1= IMAGE& Sect3= PLURON& Sect
5= CODE1& d= CODE& p= 1& u=% 2F% 7Epublic% 2Fcode1. htm& r= 1& Sect6= HITOFF& f= G.
Accessed July 29, 2005.
34. City of Cambridge. Parking and Transportation Demand Management Planning: Parking and
Space Registration. Cambridge Municipal Code Section 10.18.
http:// bpc. iserver. net/ codes/ cbridge/_ DATA/ Title_ 10/ 18/ index. html. Accessed July 29, 2005.
35. Enoch, M. Supporting Car Share Clubs: A Worldwide Review. 3rd Mobility Services for
Urban Sustainability ( MOSES) Meeting. London, U. K., Feb. 2002.
36. United States Green Building Council. Green Building Rating System For New Construction
& Major Renovations Version 2.2. December 2004.
http:// www. usgbc. org/ Docs/ LEEDdocs/ NCCC% 20v2% 202% 20MASTER_ public_ 1_ clean. pdf.
Accessed July 29, 2005.
37. City of Berkeley. Berkeley and City Carshare to Make History – First Shared Municipal
Fleet in the U. S. July 15, 2004. http:// www. ci. berkeley. ca. us/ mayor/ PR/ pressrelease2004-
0715. htm. Accessed July 29, 2005.
Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 18
38. City of Philadelphia. Car Share: Vehicle for Change. May 5, 2005.
http:// www. philly. com/ mld/ inquirer/ news/ opinion/ local2/ region/ 11565534. htm.
Accessed July 29, 2005.
39. City of Alexandria. Alexandria Rideshare. http:// www. alexride. org/ carsharing. html.
Accessed July 29, 2005.
40. Car Plus. Key Lessons Learned From A World Wide Car Club Tour.
http:// www. carclubs. org. uk/ carclubs/ N- Amer- tour. htm. Accessed July 29, 2005.
41. Metropolitan Planning Commission. Low Income Flexible Transportation Program ( LIFT).
http:// www. mtc. ca. gov/ planning/ welfare_ to_ work/ lift. htm. Accessed July 29, 2005.
42. Flexcar. Flexcar Extends Car- Sharing Program. March 28, 2005.
http:// www. flexcar. com/ company/ pr/ pr032805. asp. Accessed July 29, 2005.
43. Portland State University. Alternative Transportation.
https:// www. aux. pdx. edu/ transport/ alternative. php# Employee_ Passport. Accessed July 29, 2005.
44. Hourcar. Rates & Hubs. http:// www. hourcar. org/ rates_ content. html. Accessed July 29, 2005.
45. Oregon Department of Energy. Business Energy Tax Credit Pass- through Option.
http:// www. energy. state. or. us/ bus/ tax/ pass- through. htm. Accessed July 29, 2005.
46. Washington State Legislature. Transportation Demand Management. – Requirements for
Counties and Cities RCW 70.94.527.
http:// www. leg. wa. gov/ RCW/ index. cfm? section= 70.94.527& fuseaction= section. Accessed July
29, 2005.
47. Minnesota Senate. 2004 Omnibus Minnesota Tax Bill.
http:// www. revisor. leg. state. mn. us/ bin/ bldbill. php? bill= S2302.1& session= ls83. Accessed July
29, 2005.
48. Schwartz, S. Carsharing Gains Ground Among Drivers and Local Governments. April 19,
2005. http:// jscms. jrn. columbia. edu/ cns/ 2005- 04- 19/ schwartzs- carsharing. Accessed July 29,
2005.
49. University of California Berkeley Parking and Transportation. City CarShare Is Now On
Campus. http:// pt. berkeley. edu/ citycarshare. html. Accessed July 29, 2005.