Transportation Research Record 1702 ■
Paper No. 00 - 0521
Evaluating Carsharing Benefits
Todd Litman
Carsharing is an automobile-rental service intended as a substitute for
private-vehicle ownership. Carsharing emphasizes affordability and
convenience. Vehicles are located near residences, rented by the hour,
and require minimal effort to check in and check out. Carsharing ser-
vices are common in some European countries and are increasingly
common in North America. Carsharing gives consumers a practical alter-
native to owning a personal vehicle that is driven fewer than 10 000 km
(6,000 mi)/year. Carsharing has lower fixed costs and higher variable
costs than private-vehicle ownership. This price structure makes occa-
sional use of a vehicle affordable, even to low-income households. It also
gives drivers an incentive to minimize their vehicle use and to rely on
other travel options as much as possible. Carsharing typically reduces
average vehicle use by 40 to 60 percent among drivers who rely on it,
making it an important transportation demand-management strategy.
Despite these benefits, the use of carsharing is growing slowly and will
need to overcome several barriers to achieve its full potential.
Consumers have many choices when they purchase or lease an auto-
mobile but few practical options if they want to use a car only occa-
sionally. Most vehicle-rental services are located at transportation
or commercial centers, and rental services are priced by the day or
the week, making them unsuitable for a typical short errand. This
limited range of options contributes to several problems, such as the
following:
• Some low-income households cannot afford to drive at all,
leaving them mobility-disadvantaged in an increasingly automobile-
dependent society.
• Low-income households often spend an excessive proportion
of their incomes to own cars they seldom need. This can be a sig-
nificant financial burden and contributes to problems such as unin-
sured driving.
• Many automobiles are used only a few times per week. These
low-annual-mileage vehicles have high costs per vehicle-mile.
• Because private vehicles are expensive to own but cheap to
drive, owners have the incentive to maximize their use. This increases
external costs such as traffic congestion, facility costs, accidents, and
environmental impact.
Better vehicle-rental options could reduce these problems. Car-
sharing describes vehicle-rental services intended to substitute for
private-vehicle ownership (1). Carshare vehicles are located near
residential areas, have hourly rates, and are convenient to use. Car-
share organizations range from small, informal cooperatives to
large, sophisticated businesses with many vehicles. Carsharing is
common in some European countries (particularly the Netherlands,
Switzerland, and Germany) and is being introduced in some North
American markets.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, British Columbia
V8V 3R7, Canada.
31
North American carshare organizations typically charge a $300
to $500 refundable deposit, $1 to $2/vehicle-h or $25 to $45/day
rate, and a $0.15 to $0.25/km ($0.25 to $0.40/mi) charge (2, 3).
These charges cover all regular vehicle expenses, including fuel and
insurance. Many carsharing organizations also offer pricing options
suitable for extended trips and infrequent users. Carsharing is con-
sidered a cost-effective alternative to owning a vehicle driven fewer
than about 10 000 km (6,000 mi)/year. Carsharing organizations
typically have 8 to 15 members/vehicle.
Members reserve vehicles, usually by telephone. Carsharing orga-
nizations with multiple vehicles in an area are able to satisfy most
schedule requests (more vehicles in a pool result in fewer conflicts).
Time and mileage are recorded before and after each trip. Users refuel
the vehicle as needed, using a carshare credit card. Staff perform
cleaning and maintenance. Members usually are billed monthly.
Station cars are a variation of carsharing (4). Station cars are
rented at transit stations for trips from terminals to local destina-
tions. This makes transit use more feasible, particularly in suburban
areas. Because they are intended for short trips, station cars can
employ small, alternative-fuel vehicles, such as battery-powered
electric cars (5).
TRAVEL OPTIONS COMPARED
As illustrated in Figure 1, carsharing offers a middle option between
having no vehicle and owning a private vehicle. It allows (in fact, it
virtually requires) consumers to use a combination of modes rather
than relying entirely on automobile travel.
Table 1 compares the convenience and price of five common per-
sonal travel options. Private-vehicle ownership offers the most con-
venience. It has the highest fixed charges and lowest variable charges.
Carsharing offers medium convenience. It has low fixed charges and
high variable charges. Conventional rentals are convenient at major
transport terminals but less convenient elsewhere. They have high
daily rates but low mileage costs, so per-mile costs are high for short
trips but low for longer trips. Taxis are relatively convenient and have
no fixed charges, but they have the highest variable charges. Public
transit has moderate to low convenience (depending on location) and
moderate to low charges.
Figure 2 compares the typical variable charges for each mode.
These obviously vary. For example, conventional vehicle rentals are
often cheaper per mile than carsharing for long trips but are much
more expensive for short trips. Here are typical variable costs for a
25-km (15-mi) round-trip errand by different modes:
Mode Typical Cost
Carsharing $10.00
Conventional Rental $32.00
Private Car $2.00
Taxi $15.00
Transit $3.15
32 Paper No. 00 - 0521
FIGURE 1 Carsharing is a middle option.
Less than a quarter of private-vehicle expenses are variable, as
shown in Figure 3. This price structure gives vehicle owners an
incentive to maximize driving to get their “money’s worth.” Car-
sharing allows drivers to pay as they go, with minimal fixed costs
but much higher variable costs. Carshare rates typically average
$0.60/ vehicle-mi driven, five times the variable charges of a private
automobile. This gives consumers an incentive to drive less and use
other transportation options when possible.
As a result of these differences in pricing, households that join car-
share organizations typically reduce their vehicle use by 40 to 60 per-
cent (6–8). Although some households that would not otherwise have
access to a vehicle increase their vehicle use due to carsharing, this
is usually offset many times over by reduced mileage among drivers
who would otherwise own a personal automobile. As a result, there
is usually a significant net reduction in total vehicle travel among
carshare users as a group.
CARSHARING MARKET POTENTIAL
It is difficult to predict how much carsharing can ultimately grow.
European experience indicates that carsharing can be useful to a wide
range of consumers, including many relatively wealthy households
that avoid owning a second or third vehicle.
Carsharing requires a sufficient number of users within conve-
nient walking or cycling distance of where vehicles are parked and
is most effective in areas with good travel alternatives. To have
three carshare vehicles stationed in a neighborhood with 10 mem-
bers per vehicle requires at least 30 member households within
approximately 1 km2.
Carsharing is therefore most suitable for higher-density urban
neighborhoods with good walking, cycling, and public-transit ser-
vices. Approximately one-third of U.S. residents live in cities
(9, p. 382). Some clustered suburban neighborhoods also may be
suitable for carsharing, particularly if they have good transit service,
pedestrian-friendly streets, and local commercial centers.
TABLE 1 Comparison of Five Common Vehicle Use Options
Transportation Research Record 1702
Approximately one-fifth of the vehicles in North America are cur-
rently driven fewer than 6,000 miles (10 000 km)/year (10). Lower-
mileage motorists are particularly common in higher-density urban
areas, where carsharing is more practical. Of course, not all lower-
mileage motorists want to shift to carsharing. On the other hand, how-
ever, many motorists who currently drive more than 6,000 mi/year
could find carsharing cost-effective by reducing their driving time and
distance.
Assuming that 30 percent of North American drivers live in higher-
density, multimodal neighborhoods and 20 percent of these have low-
annual-mileage vehicles, approximately 6 percent of current privately
owned vehicles could shift to carsharing.
A market survey of potential carshare customers conducted in
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, (11) revealed the following:
• High fixed fees (such as a $300 to $500 deposit) are a major
barrier to membership. Members seem to prefer low or fixed higher-
variable charges.
• There is little preference for a cooperative organization structure.
• Potential members appear willing to walk more than 400 m
(437 yd) to access a car.
• Residents of urban neighborhoods with restricted on-street
parking, and households with lower incomes, appear particularly
amenable to carsharing.
• There is little preference for new cars; however, there is a pref-
erence for having a minivan as a vehicle option.
CARSHARING BENEFITS
Increased Mobility
Carsharing offers persons who cannot own a private car the ability to
use a vehicle occasionally. These benefits can be significant because
the mobility of nondrivers is often so constrained. For example, giv-
ing someone who currently has no access to an automobile the ability
to drive just once or twice per week is likely to result in relatively
Litman
FIGURE 2 User expenses for various modes (6– 8).
high-value trips. Such trips are currently forgone or are performed
inefficiently by other modes.
Economic Development
Carsharing can increase economic productivity by allowing job
seekers, who cannot afford a personal vehicle, the use of a car if
needed for job searching and employment (12). Carsharing also
can fill special market niches. For example, small businesses could
use carsharing as a more efficient and flexible alternative to own-
ing vehicles. This is particularly the case for vehicles that receive
only occasional use if no conventional vehicle-rental service is
located nearby.
Equity
That nondrivers enjoy less mobility and a competitive disadvantage
compared with drivers, when competing for jobs and education, is
unfair and inequitable (13). Carsharing can, therefore, increase equity
by improving the mobility options of people who are transportation-
disadvantaged.
Option Value
Even people who do not currently use carsharing may benefit from
having it available in the case of emergencies or if their life situation
FIGURE 3 Vehicle costs (9).
Paper No. 00 - 0521 33
changes. This is called option value (14, p. 5). For this reason, people
who currently own their own vehicles may value having carsharing
options in their neighborhoods, the same way that many drivers value
the existence of public-transit services.
User Savings
Vehicle ownership is a major household budget expense that can be
a major burden to moderate- and low-income households, as indi-
cated in Figure 4. Households that share, rather than own, a car can
reasonably save $500 to $1,500/year. Some households also can
save on residential parking costs (15).
Although carsharers forgo some benefits when they reduce driv-
ing, they must be better off overall if their incremental savings are
compared with their incremental costs, or if they would not make
such changes (16). Carsharers also may value the convenience of
avoiding vehicle maintenance and cleaning tasks and the security of
having no unexpected repair bills.
Vehicle Choice
Motorists often purchase vehicles that exceed their usual require-
ments for capacity and performance, such as a van or a light truck, to
meet occasional peak demands. A cheaper, more resource-efficient
vehicle usually would suffice. Many carsharing organizations offer
a choice of vehicle types so that a user can choose a vehicle that best
meets the needs of a particular trip. This benefits consumers and may
provide external benefits by reducing the use of oversized vehicles in
cases in which smaller vehicles are adequate.
Introduction of New Technologies
Carsharing, and particularly station cars, may help introduce and
test new technologies. For example, some station-car programs are
testing neighborhood electric vehicles (17).
Transportation Demand-Management
By reducing per capita vehicle travel, carsharing supports transporta-
tion demand-management (TDM) objectives (18). It can help reduce
congestion, road and parking facility costs, accidents, pollution,
34 Paper No. 00 - 0521 Transportation Research Record 1702

FIGURE 4 Transportation expenditures as percentage of household income (19).

resource consumption, and other environmental-impact issues. By Improve Travel Choices

reducing vehicle traffic and parking requirements, carsharing allows
more flexible infill development and helps create more livable com- Good public transit, ridesharing, cycling, and walking conditions
munities. These benefits can be particularly significant in higher- allow people to reduce their vehicle use and benefit from carsharing.
density urban neighborhoods, where carsharing is most feasible and
the external costs of automobile use are greatest. Specific examples
of avoided costs are described next. Integrate Transportation and Land-Use Planning

• Urban-freeway congestion costs are estimated to average Higher density, multimodal, mixed-use neighborhoods, and flexible
$0.06 to $0.09 under moderate congestion 83 km/h (50 mph), and parking requirements allow residents to reduce their vehicle use.
$0.37 when congestion is heavy [traffic flows at less than 66 km/h
(40 mph)] (19).
• An average vehicle receives $414 to $1,232/year in parking Manage Parking for Efficiency
subsidies (20).
• One study found that local governments spend about $275/ Building development and management practices can be changed so
that residential parking is rented and sold separately from housing.
vehicle on local roads and traffic services that are funded by general
This would significantly increase ($500 to $1,000) annual savings
taxes (21).
• Motor vehicles are major contributors to urban air, noise, and from carsharing (23, 24).
water pollution.
Implement Commute-Trip-Reduction Programs
MAXIMIZING CARSHARING BENEFITS Establish Transportation Management Associations in commercial
centers. Encourage employers and employees to cooperate to develop
Several barriers must be overcome before carsharing can provide its
better travel choices and to develop incentives to use alternative modes
full potential benefits. Some carshare organizations have reported
of transportation. Another alternative is to cash out free parking,
difficulty obtaining loans and insurance. Overhead costs for vehicle
which means offering commuters cash instead of free parking (25).
management, reservations, and billing can be significant, so inno-
vations that reduce these costs would help make carsharing more
feasible.
Integrate Carsharing with Other
A major barrier is the need to establish and maintain a critical mass
Mobility Services
of users (typically 30 members or more) in individual neighborhoods.
Carsharing cannot develop until enough potential users in each area For example, carsharing could be bundled with public-transit passes,
are familiar with the concept, understand how it can benefit them, taxi service, and rideshare matching, giving users an integrated
and develop trust in the organizations. This will require education package of mobility options.
and marketing. Carshare organizations may require “seed money”
to become established.
Carsharing both supports and is supported by most other TDM CONCLUSION
strategies (22). TDM strategies include measures that increase travel
choice and reduce market distortions that encourage excessive auto- Carsharing need not be managed as a cooperative to achieve the ben-
mobile travel. These strategies tend to have synergetic effects—they efits described earlier. For-profit neighborhood car rentals may pro-
are more effective implemented together than separately. Over the vide comparable service. They could become more economically
long term, they help create a more diverse transportation system viable if rental transactions could be self-serviced or handled as a
and reduce automobile dependency in a community. Other TDM sideline by existing businesses, such as local stores and service sta-
strategies that integrate with carsharing are described next. tions. Ironically, one of the best ways to reduce automobile depen-
Litman
dency may be to develop a new automobile business—neighborhood
car-rental services.
REFERENCES
1. Shaheen, S., D. Sperling, and C. Wagner. Carsharing in Europe and
North America: Past, Present, and Future. Transportation Quarterly,
Vol. 52, No. 3, Summer 1998, pp. 35–52.
2. Carsharing Net. www.carsharing.net. Accessed March 1, 2000.
3. Carsharing Portland. 1999. www.carsharing-pdx.com. Accessed March 1,
2000.
4. National Station Car Association. www.stncar.com. Accessed March 1,
2000.
5. Communities Across U.S. Participate in Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
Testing. Urban Transportation Monitor, Vol. 12, No. 18, Sept. 25,
1998, pp. 1–3.
6. Steininger, K., C. Vogl, and R. Zettl. Carsharing Organizations. Trans-
port Policy, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1996, pp. 177–185.
7. Muheim P., & Partner. CarSharing—The Key to Combined Mobility.
Swiss Federal Office of Energy. www.mobilmanager.ch/IntSummeryE.
html#Interduktion. 1998.
8. CarSharing Portland: Review and Analysis of Its First Year. 1999. Ore-
gon Department of Environmental Quality. http://ppr.portland.or.us.
Accessed March 1, 2000.
9. The World Almanac. World Almanac Books, New York, N.Y., 1996.
10. Annual Survey of Vehicle Use Patterns. DesRosiers Automotive Con-
sulting, 1999.
11. Abraham, J. A Survey of Carsharing Preferences. 1999. University of Cal-
gary. http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jabraham/WTPPCarshare.PDF. Accessed
March 1, 2000.
12. Blumenberg, E., S. Moga, and P. M. Ong. Getting Welfare Recipients
to Work. 1998. University of California Transportation Center Report
389, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~uctc. Accessed March 1, 2000.
13. Litman, T. Evaluating Transportation Equity. Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, Victoria, B.C., Canada, 1998. www.vtpi.org. Accessed March 1,
2000.
Paper No. 00 - 0521 35
14. Johansson, P.-O. The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environ-
mental Benefits. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1987.
15. Jia, W., and M. Wachs. Parking and Affordable Housing, Vol. 13. Fall
1998. http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~uctc/access.html. Accessed March 1,
2000.
16. Small, K. Project Evaluation. Essays in Transportation Economics and
Policy. Brookings Institute, Washington, D.C. 1998. www.brookings.edu.
Accessed March 1, 2000.
17. Nerenberg, V., and M. Bernard. The EV Station Car Debate. Mass Tran-
sit, Nov.-Dec. 1995, pp. 72–78.
18. Litman, T. Guide to Calculating TDM Benefits. Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, Victoria, B.C., Canada. 1998. www.vtpi.org. Accessed
March 1, 2000.
19. Levinson, H. Freeway Congestion Pricing: Another Look. In Trans-
portation Research Record 1450, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 8–12.
20. Delucchi, M. Annualized Social Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use in the U.S.,
1990–1991. UCD-ITS-RR-96-3, 1997. Institute of Transportation Studies.
1996. www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~its. Accessed March 1, 2000.
21. DeCicco, J., and H. Morris. The Costs of Transportation in South-
eastern Wisconsin. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Econ-
omy, Washington, D.C. 1998. www.aceee.org. Accessed June 6, 2000.
22. On-Line TDM Encyclopedia. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Vic-
toria, B.C., Canada. 1999. www.vtpi.org. Accessed June 6, 2000.
23. Shoup, D. An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements.
Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 1, Winter
1995, pp. 14–28.
24. Litman, T. Pavement Busters Guide. Victoria Transport Policy Institute,
Victoria, B.C., Canada. August 1998. www.vtpi.org. Accessed March 1,
2000.
25. Local Government Guide to Parking Cash Out. International Council for
Local Environmental Initiatives. 1998. www.iclei.org/us. Accessed
March 1, 2000.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Social and Economic Factors
of Transportation.