CarSharing Portland

Context
Katzev et al (2001) report the effects of travel behaviour of the first year of operation of Portland's car club. "During its first year of operation, CarSharing Portland (CSP) was the largest car sharing organisation [car club] in the United States. …CSP sought to decrease unnecessary automobile travel by providing individuals, who did not own a vehicle or sought an alternative to owning a second one, with relatively convenient access to a vehicle when needed" (Katzev, et al, 2001). One hundred and twenty people joined CSP during the first year (what year this is, is not reported), sharing 9 vehicles, giving a ratio of drivers to vehicles of approximately 13:1. Vehicles were located at 7 neighbourhood stations through out the city.

Impacts on demand
Members were asked to complete a one week travel diary before using the CSP service and again at the end of the first year. These diaries revealed a reduction in personal vehicle miles for car owners and an increase for non-car owners as one would expect. However, the increase in personal vehicle trips by non-car owners is less than the reduction by car owners, thus the desired net reduction is achieved at the same time as improving accessibility. The increase in other vehicle trips also represents an increase in public transport patronage and thus an increase in farebox revenues for operators. The increase in non-vehicle trips represents an increase in walking and cycling, which will have positive outcomes. However, it should be noted that in all cases, the numbers are extremely small, and smaller than those obtained in some European projects.

Source: Katzev et al (2001).

Impacts on supply
There are no direct impacts on the supply of road space or public transport infrastructure. Additionally, the increases in demand for public transport are not large enough in this instance to result in increases in supply. However, a new service, i.e. the car club, is being supplied.

Other Impacts
Bernard (1998) in Katzev et al (2001) lists six deterrents to the use of car clubs:

• "a user has to plan their trips in advance. So in most cases spontaneity if lost;
  
• the user has to remember and take the time to make a reservation;
  
• the car is probably parked further from the user's residence than their personal car would be;
  
• the user has to leave it clean, every time, even if they are in a hurry;
  
• the user has to deal with some form of paper work, pin numbers, lock boxes, etc. every trip; and
  
• the user has to worry about getting the car back on time - another loss of spontaneity."

Katzev et al (2001) reports - from the end of year survey - that, "these 'negatives' did not deter the members of CSP from joining the organisation. Nor did they find them terribly burdensome after experiencing the service." Whilst trip planning and returning the car on time were deemed "somewhat inconvenient" by some CSP members, almost as many members did not find these issues inconvenient. Prior concerns about the 'negatives' did not develop into notable problems and, "however burdensome they may have felt them, most did not let that interfere with the satisfaction they derived from the car sharing experience" (Katzev, 2001).

Contribution to objectives

Singapore Car Co-operative

Context
NTUC Income Car Co-operative Limited, Singapore's first residential car club, operated by NTUC Income Co-operative, started operation in 1997 in the Toh Yi residential area. In 1998 a second site came into operation in the new town of Bishan. Toh Yi has 19 blocks of flats and 1,600 residents. None have "more than a 10 minute … walk to the key box and car collection point at a centrally located multi-storey car park". In Bishan, which has a population 16,000 plus, "the key box and car collection point is located at … [the] bus interchange". The interchange is accessible by rail (mass rapid transit (MRT)) and bus. In 1998 in Toh Yi there were 4 cars for 80 members, in Bishan there were 2 for 40 members. By 1999, the number of members in Toh Yi and Bishan had more than doubled, and three more sites had come into operation in other residential estates. (Tuan Seik, 2000). The survey reported by Tuan Seik was undertaken in 1998 in Toh Yi and Bishan.

Members are issued with a personal smart card and how to booklet. To make a reservation they telephone a 24 hour reservation centre whenever they need a car, go to the nearest site, collect the car and drive off. Information on the trip is electronically transmitted from the car to head office. Payment is then taken automatically from the members bank account at the end of each month. To join individuals must be over 21 years of age and have a minimum of 18 months driving experience. Members must pay a deposit (S$100), and membership fee (S$100 for corporate members and S$50 for individuals) and an annual subscription fee (S$100). Other family members can also join for a supplementary fee of (S$30 per annum). Three categories of vehicle are available with the charges in Standard usage Fees applied.

*Type A: Mitsubishi Lancer 1.3 GLXi, Type B: Ford Laser 1.6 GHIA, Toyota Soluna 1.5GL, Type C: Mercedes Benz E220 (W124)
**Members use the car co-operative's credit card for petrol top-ups, as petrol and insurance are included in the other fees.
Source: Tuan Seik (2000).

Frequent users are eligible for a discount of up to 45% on standard usage fees.

The car co-operative in Singapore is seen as more efficient because the pay-as-you-go principle means that individuals choose the most cost effective mode for specific journeys and minimise mileage when they do drive, thus reducing congestion. It also eases the pressure on demand for private car ownership (which is very expensive in Singapore) at the same time as satisfying desires for car use. (Tuan Seik, 2000).

Tuan Seik (2000) discusses the economics of the car co-operative in the context of the Singapore Vehicle Quota System (which makes ownership expensive) and conventional vehicle rental, in greater detail.

Impacts on demand
The car co-operative in Singapore has caused a net reduction in public transport use. In Toh Yi a reduction in public transport use for social and shopping trips is partly compensated by an increase in use for commuting. In Bishan, 40% use MRT to reach the car station, 25% travel by bus and 10% use a combination of both. It is assumed that this represents an increase in demand for public transport, but the extent to which this compensates for the reduction in use for other purposes is not clear. In Toh Yi, only 4% travel by bus to access the car station. The remaining 96% walk. Unfortunately, the impact on private car use is not reported, although an idea of the proportion of car owners to ex-car owners is given in Other Impacts. The shift from public transport to co-operative car is shown in Mode of Transport by Trip Purpose.

Source: Tuan Seik (2000)

Source: Tuan Seik (2000)

The distribution of demand for car co-operative vehicles is summarised in Usual Period of Usage.

Source: Tuan Seik (2000)

Impacts on supply
A new service is supplied in the form of the car club. Although, the introduction of the car co-operative in Singapore has not affected the supply of road space or public transport infrastructure. It is possible that net reductions in public transport use could negatively affect supply, but this is not reported.

Other Impacts
Tuan Seik (2000) reports the results of a survey of members, which was undertaken in Toh Yi and Bishan, with an additional survey of non-members (half of which were car owners and half of which were not) in Toh Yi, in 1998.

Members
Approximately 62.5% of members were non-car owners (60% in Toh Yi and 65% in Bishan). Twenty eight and 20% respectively were ex-car owners - it is assumed that they became non-owners as a result of joining the co-operative. Twelve and 15% respectively were car owners. The socio-economic profile of members is summarised in series of graphs below. The mean household size was 4.1 and it is assumed that this includes children. It is noted that due to the cost of car ownership in Singapore, those in the low income bracket could not generally afford to own a private vehicle. Fifty six percent of the members in Toh Yi and 50% in Bishan held professional, administrative or managerial desk-bound jobs, which required little car use during the working day.

N.B:
1.The low, middle and high income categories are derived based on the estimated 1997 Singapore household income distribution. The 1995 Singapore household income distribution (Department of Statistics, 1997, p.17) is projected to 1997 figures using the proxy of an increase of 11.8% in average monthly earning of the Singapore labour force in 1997 compared to 1995.
2.Of the 30% low income respondents in Bishan, 25% were un-married.
Source: Tuan Seik (2000)

Members of the car co-operative gave a variety of reasons for joining, as summarised in the graphs below. It is assumed that respondents could give more than one reason for joining the co-operative.

It is assumed that respondents could give more than one reason for joining the co-operative.
Source: Tuan Seik (2000)

Amongst the non-car owners, it is noted that many are in the low or middle income bracket, especially in Bishan. Amongst ex-car owners and current car owners who gave up a second household car, cost savings are a major motivation. Savings are in the range of S$864 and S$1033 [per month it is assumed]. For all members, the co-operative car was mainly used to meet social and leisure obligations. In residential areas it was found that the co-operative appealed most to middle income households with children. They were usually non-car owners who could afford to satisfy some leisure and family journey needs with the more costly car co-operative, rather than the cheaper public transport option. The commute to and from work was usually undertaken by public transport.

In some high income households considering another car, the car co-operative was the most cost effective means of 'obtaining' a second household car, or in the case of low income single person households (with minimal family related costs) the first car.

"Compared to non-members, more …[members] were satisfied or very satisfied with most of the operational features" (Tuan Seik, 2000). Satisfaction with operational features is summarised in Members' Satisfaction with Operational Features. Unfortunately, this does not include satisfaction with vehicle accessibility. However, it is noted that in the more densely populated Toh Yi region, where most members live within the estate where the vehicles are sited, and walk to the parking bays, 96% took more than 15% to reach the vehicle. Conversely, in the more dispersed Bishan area, where most members used some form of public transport, 55% took less than 15 minutes.

Source: Tuan Seik (2000)

Thirty one percent of members stated that vehicle maintenance was a problem in terms of speed and frequency of vehicles and how clean the vehicles were. Booking rejection was also cited by 24% as a problem. Additionally, some Bishan members (12%) said the distance from home to the parking bay was too great. At the time of writing the ability to decentralise vehicles to different car parks on the same estate was introduced. Seven percent of members also cited parking when returning the vehicle as a problem, due to the space being taken illegally. Thus, it appears that car availability and maintenance are perceived as the main problems for members and non-members.

Members perception of costs are similar to those of non-members. Time charges are seen as expensive. One solution to this is to encourage corporate members (at the time of writing there were none) to make more efficient use of the vehicles (i.e. use them for business purposes during the day when they are generally not used by non-corporate members). More efficient use in this way means that the capital costs could be shared between more members and thus, reduced for all. The perceptions of costs are shown in Members' Perceptions of Costs.

Source: Tuan Seik (2000)

Non-members
Car owning non-members all said they had not joined the co-operative because they owned their own vehicle. It is not clear whether the survey assessed ownership at the individual or household level, but regardless, it can be assumed that the ownership level satisfied need. Non-members who did not own cars gave the following reasons for not joining:

• public transport was highly accessible and adequate for travel needs (55%), and
  
• the scheme was too costly (24%)

Other reasons included not being aware of the co-operative and not possessing a driving licence.

Non-members perceptions of the charges and operation aspects of the co-operative are summarised in Respondents' Perceptions of the Charges (non-members) and Level of Satisfaction with Operational Features (non-members).

Non-members also suggested improvements which could be made to the car co-operative.

Contribution to objectives

Please note that further case studies will be added at a later date.

Gaps and weaknesses*