IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsdav/qt63z755sc.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Carlink II: A Commuter Carsharing Pilot Program Final Report

Author

Listed:
  • Shaheen, Susan
  • Wipyewski, Kamill
  • Rodier, Caroline J.
  • Novick, Linda
  • Meyn, Molly A
  • Wright, John

Abstract

Chapter One: U.S. Shared-Use Vehicle Findings: Opportunities and Obstacles for Carsharing & Station Car Growth Shared-use vehicle services provide members access to a fleet of vehicles for use throughout the day, without the hassles and costs of individual auto ownership. From June 2001 to July 2002, the authors surveyed 17 U.S. shared-use vehicle service organizations on a range of topics, including organizational size, strategic partnerships, pricing strategies, insurance costs, and technology applications. While survey findings demonstrate a decline in the number of organizational starts in the last year, the rate of operational launches into new cities, membership, and fleet size continue to increase. Several growth-oriented organizations in the U.S. are responsible for the majority of this expansion. The authors explore several factors that challenge shared-use vehicle growth, such as high capital investment (or start-up costs), dramatic hikes in insurance rates, and scarcity of cost-effective technologies. The authors conclude that while early niche market findings are encouraging, the ability of this emerging sector to actualize its total environmental, economic, and social goals may be limited without the collective support of private industry (e.g., automakers, insurance providers, technology producers), public agents (e.g., transit and governmental agencies), and shared-use vehicle programs. Indeed, public-private partnerships and cooperation among shared-use vehicle providers may play a key role in addressing insurance and technology costs and assuring the long-term viability of this market. Chapter Two: A Framework for Testing Innovative Transportation Solutions: A Case Study of Carlink—A Commuter Carsharing Program Transit accounts for just two percent of total travel in the U.S. One reason for low ridership is limited access; many individuals either live or work too far from a transit station. In developing transit connectivity solutions, researchers often employ a range of study instruments, such as stated-preference surveys, focus groups, and pilot programs. To better understand response to one innovative transit solution, the authors employed a number of research tools, including: a longitudinal survey, field test, and pilot program. The innovation examined was a commuter carsharing model, called CarLink, which linked short-term rental vehicles to transit and employment centers. Over several years, researchers explored user response to the CarLink concept, a field operational test (CarLink I), a pilot program (CarLink II), and a commercial operation (the pilot was turned over to Flexcar in summer 2002). This multi-staged approach provided an opportunity for researchers to learn and adapt as each phase progressed. In this paper, the authors outline the CarLink model, technology, and early lessons learned; describe CarLink II operational understanding; provide a synopsis of the pilot program transition; and offer recommendations for future model development. Chapter Three: Travel Effects of a Suburban Commuter-Carsharing Service: A Carlink Case Study Since 1998, carsharing programs (or short-term auto rentals) in the U.S. have experienced exponential membership growth. As of July 2003, 15 carsharing organizations collectively claimed 25,727 members and 784 vehicles. Given this growing demand, decision makers and transit operators are increasingly interested in understanding the potential for carsharing services to increase transit use, reduce auto ownership, and lower vehicle miles traveled. However, to date, there is only limited evidence of potential program effects in the U.S. and Europe. This paper presents the travel effects of CarLink?a commuter carsharing model with explicit links to transit and employment in a suburban environment?in the context of participant demographic and attitudinal market profiles. A variety of research methods (including focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, and travel diaries) captured the following commute travel effects from the CarLink I and II programs: * Increased commuter rail mode share by 23 percentage points in CarLink I and II; * Reduced drive-alone mode share by 44 and 23 percentage points in CarLink I and II, respectively; * Decreased average daily vehicle miles traveled by 23 miles in CarLink II and by 18 miles in CarLink I; * Increased travel time but reduced stress; * Reduced vehicle ownership by almost six percent in CarLink II; and * Reduced parking demand at participating train stations and among member businesses. The typical CarLink I and II member was more likely to be highly educated, in an upper income bracket, and professionally employed than average Bay Area residents. CarLink I and II members also displayed sensitivity to congestion, willingness to experiment, and environmental concern. The travel results of CarLink I and II are compared to those of neighborhood carsharing models in the U.S. and Europe to suggest the importance of CarLink's explicit transit and employment connections and the value of carsharing in a suburban location. Chapter Four: Applying Integrated ITS Technologies to Carsharing System Management: A Carlink Case Study Carsharing is the short-term use of a shared vehicle fleet by authorized members. Since 1998, U.S. carsharing services have experienced exponential growth. At present, there are 13 carsharing organizations. Over the past three years, electronic and wireless technologies have been developed that can facilitate carsharing system management in the U.S., improve customer services, and reduce program costs. This paper examines the U.S. carsharing market; the role of advanced technology in program management, including CarLink lessons learned; and technology benefits to this nascent market. Chapter Five: Carlink—A commuter Carsharing Model: Conditions for Economic Viability At present, only a few alternatives exist to facilitate transit access. To expand the suite of viable modes, more demand-responsive mobility services should be developed. Under specific conditions, short-term rental vehicles linked to transit (or commuter carsharing) can offer a sustainable transportation alternative to private vehicles, particularly in suburban locations where transit connectivity is more limited. From January to November 1999, a commuter carsharing model, called CarLink I, was tested in the East San Francisco Bay Area. Building on CarLink I, the CarLink II pilot program was deployed from July 2001 to June 2002 in the South San Francisco Bay Area with the option of transitioning to a third-party provider. Examination of CarLink I and II economic data and scenario analyses—which explore program modification effects on viability—revealed several economic success factors. In addition to fixed monthly CarLink rates, the introduction of hourly rentals is an important strategy to diversify CarLink income streams and maximize vehicle use, as well as a revenue-risk sharing approach among partner participants (e.g., employers, transit providers). Additional strategies to create more viable commuter carsharing services include raising rates for business customers, lowering insurance rates, controlling costs through technology and scale, and marketing strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaheen, Susan & Wipyewski, Kamill & Rodier, Caroline J. & Novick, Linda & Meyn, Molly A & Wright, John, 2004. "Carlink II: A Commuter Carsharing Pilot Program Final Report," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt63z755sc, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt63z755sc
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/63z755sc.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shaheen, Susan A. & Meyn, Mollyanne & Wipyewski, Kamill, 2003. "U.S. Shared-use Vehicle Survey Findings: Opportunities and Obstacles for Carsharing and Station Car Growth," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt69x684m2, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    2. Shaheen, Susan, 2004. "Carlink II: A Commuter Carsharing Pilot Program Final Report," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt2x9110gp, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    3. Shaheen, Susan, 2004. "A Framework for Testing Innovative Transportation Solutions: A Case Study of CarLink--A Commuter Carhsaring Program," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt47v3b4fd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    4. Shaheen, Susan & Novick, Linda, 2004. "A Framework for Testing Innovative Transportation Solutions: A Case Study of Carlink—A Commuter Carsharing Program," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt9t73b6kd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    5. Shaheen, Susan & Wright, John & Dick, David & Novick, Linda, 2000. "Carlink - A Smart Carsharing System Field Test Report," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt20f9s84f, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    6. Shaheen, Susan & Wright, John & Dick, David & Novick, Linda, 2000. "Carlink-A Smart Carsharing System Field Test Report," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt3q69g29p, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Picasso, Emilio & Postorino, Maria Nadia & Bonoli-Escobar, Mariano & Stewart-Harris, Maria, 2020. "Car-sharing vs bike-sharing: A choice experiment to understand young people behaviour," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 121-128.
    2. Goldman, Todd & Gorham, Roger, 2006. "Sustainable urban transport: Four innovative directions," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 261-273.
    3. Rodier, Caroline & Shaheen, Susan A. & Blake, Tagan & Lidicker, Jeffrey R. & Martin, Elliot, 2010. "EasyConnect II: Integrating Transportation, Information, and Energy Technologies at the Pleasant Hill BART Transit Oriented Development," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt53v5r1qf, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shaheen, Susan & Wipyewski, Kamill & Rodier, Caroline & Novick, Linda & Meyn, Molly Anne & Wright, John, 2004. "Carlink II: A Commuter Carsharing Pilot Program Final Report," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt4hb0643z, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    2. Shaheen, Susan, 2004. "Carlink II: A Commuter Carsharing Pilot Program Final Report," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt2x9110gp, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    3. Xiaowei Chen & Hongyu Zheng & Ze Wang & Xiqun Chen, 2021. "Exploring impacts of on-demand ridesplitting on mobility via real-world ridesourcing data and questionnaires," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1541-1561, August.
    4. Shaheen, Susan & Rodier, Caroline & Eaken, Amanda, 2005. "Improving California’s Bay Area Rapid Transit District Connectivity and Access with Segway Human Transporter and Other Low-Speed Mobility Devices," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt9ps1910t, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    5. Susan Shaheen & Nelson Chan & Helen Micheaux, 2015. "One-way carsharing’s evolution and operator perspectives from the Americas," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 519-536, May.
    6. Rodier, Caroline & Shaheen, Susan A. & Blake, Tagan & Lidicker, Jeffrey R. & Martin, Elliot, 2010. "EasyConnect II: Integrating Transportation, Information, and Energy Technologies at the Pleasant Hill BART Transit Oriented Development," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt53v5r1qf, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    7. Shaheen, Susan A. & Wipyewski, Kamill, 2003. "Applying Integrated ITS Technologies to Carsharing System Management: A Carlink Case Study," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt7cg2z1b5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    8. Shaheen, Susan & Novick, Linda, 2004. "A Framework for Testing Innovative Transportation Solutions: A Case Study of Carlink—A Commuter Carsharing Program," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt9t73b6kd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    9. Barth, Matthew & Shaheen, Susan A & Fukuda, Tuenjai & Fukuda, Atsushi, 2006. "Carsharing and Station Cars in Asia: Overview of Japan and Singapore," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt2162b2zt, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    10. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cano, Lauren & Camel, Madonna, 2015. "Exploring Electric Vehicle Carsharing As A Mobility Option for Older Adults:A Case Study of A Senior Adult Community in The San Francisco Bay Area," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt0cz5s74s, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    11. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Chan, Nelson, 2014. "Evolution of E-Mobility in Carsharing Business Models," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt5tc324v0, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    12. Shaheen, Susan A & Wright, John & Sperling, Daniel, 2002. "California's Zero-Emission Vehicle Mandate: Linking Clean-Fuel Cars, Carsharing, and Station Car Strategies," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt7n88952b, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    13. Barth, Matthew & Todd, Michael & Shaheen, Susan, 2003. "Examining Intelligent Transportation Technology Elements and Operational Methodologies for Shared-Use Vehicle Systems," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt8gg5b8tp, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    14. Graham-Rowe, Ella & Skippon, Stephen & Gardner, Benjamin & Abraham, Charles, 2011. "Can we reduce car use and, if so, how? A review of available evidence," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 401-418, June.
    15. Shaheen, Susan & Rodier, Caroline J. & Eaken, Amanda M., 2004. "Improving Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Connectivity and Access with the Segway Human Transporter and Other Low-Speed Mobility Devices," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt0z09g3kg, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    16. Shaheen, Susan A & Rodier, Caroline J, 2005. "Travel Effects of a Suburban Commuter Carsharing Service: CarLink Case Study," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt61346539, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    17. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Chan, Nelson, 2016. "Mobility and the Sharing Economy: Potential to Overcome First- and Last-Mile Public Transit Connections," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt8042k3d7, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    18. Shaheen, Susan A & Novick, Linda, 2005. "Framework for Testing Innovative Transportation Solutions: Case Study of Carlink, a Commuter Carsharing Program," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt056768ks, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    19. Barth, Matthew & Todd, Michael & Shaheen, Susan, 2003. "Intelligent Transportation Technology Elements and Operational Methodologies for Shared-Use Vehicle Systems," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt6x12h9sk, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    20. Shaheen, Susan & Wright, John & Sperling, Daniel, 2001. "California's Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate - Linking Clean Fuel Cars, Carsharing, and Station Car Strategies," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt447386zj, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Engineering; UCD-ITS-RR-04-30;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt63z755sc. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucdus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.