Car Clubs / Car Sharing Research Project

Car Share and Car Clubs: Potential Impacts
(Final Report)

6. Preliminary Assessment of Potential Interventions

6.1 Criteria for selecting interventions for further investigation

A car club or car sharing scheme would clearly be regarded as successful if it:

• attracts a large number of users;
• is (or soon becomes) financially self-supporting;
• reduces road traffic; and
• provides enhanced accessibility, particularly for disadvantaged groups.

Section 3.4 identified the circumstances in which one might expect these criteria to be met, or be in conflict. It is clear that the accessibility criterion is likely to conflict with the financial-sustainability and travel-reduction criteria and that a political decision will have to be made on their relative importance. The conflict between the accessibility and traffic reduction criteria is fundamental but that between accessibility and financial sustainability may be tractable. One approach, which recognises that enhanced accessibility may not be achieved without continuing subsidy, is to combine the accessibility and financial criteria as "to provide enhanced accessibility, particularly for disadvantaged groups, more cost-effectively than could be done otherwise".

Additional criteria that should be considered when selecting topics for further investigation:

• the prospects for widespread application or emulation;
• the fit with other aspects of government policy (e.g. social inclusion, urban renewal, enhanced rural economy, provision of IT, wider access to education and health );
• the value of lessons learned or of material produced; and
• a desire to avoid overlap.

6.2 Discussion of candidates for further investigation

Applying these criteria to the potential interventions outlined in Section 5, we identified 34 separate interventions as worthy of being considered further in Phase Three of the project. The list included 10 proposals to sponsor flagship schemes (6 relating to car clubs and 4 to organised car sharing schemes), and 24 proposals relating to the provision of advice or the development of strategy/procedures. These proposals were outlined and evaluated in an Interim Report to the Steering Group.

The Steering Group expressed interest in 14 of these proposals and added 3 additional proposals of its own. The Steering group considered that these 17 proposals fell into six themes:

1. Investigating the scope for involvement of planners and developers in the establishment of car clubs
2. Investigating the scope for working with property developers/managers and planners to promote incorporation of car clubs into new developments
3. Investigation of the possibility of encouraging car sharing and/or car clubs among ethnic minority groups
4. Investigating the scope for establishment of car sharing and/or car clubs in rural areas
5. Investigating the scope for solving the problem of insurance cover for car clubs and car sharing schemes
6. Investigation of the role of Internet-based car sharing matching services

We were asked to provide further guidance on what work could be done under each of these six themes within Phase Three of the project. This guidance, originally provided in a Supplementary Report, is presented below.

6.2.1 Investigating the scope for involvement of planners and developers in the establishment of car clubs
The justification for further work in this area is based on the following observations:

• There is greater scope to establish car clubs at new developments than at existing ones (It is important to locate car-club parking stations close to end users and access points for other modes - this is more easily achieved by planning for them in advance than by attempting to fit them in later. If a car club can be in place before new residents/tenants move in, it is easier to persuade them to experiment with a new mode (e.g. a car club) because they will not yet have developed a routine or lifestyle based on car use in the new locality).
• The encouragement of a multi-modal lifestyle among residents of new developments would help in the pursuance of targets for traffic reduction and increased use of public transport. (Potential environmental benefits).
• Planners are keen to find ways to persuade developers to reduce the provision of parking spaces (Planning policies favour low car development, but it can be difficult to persuade developers to reduce the provision of parking space).
• Existing planning guidance (e.g. PPG3, PPG13) emphasises the benefits of high density housing developments and the government's targets for development of housing on brownfield sites will necessitate high-density development of such sites. Car clubs might offer a means by which to achieve this aim (reference to car clubs in supplementary planning guidance notes, or even in LTPs, might be a very effective way to publicise the concept).
• Developers could benefit from a policy which reduced the need for on-site provision of parking spaces. (High densities produce bigger profits and the provision of parking spaces in high density developments is expensive. However, other things being equal, limited provision of parking space reduces the attractiveness of the development to purchasers. Provision of a car club (with first year membership fees already paid) might be seen as a positive feature and might be marketed to offset any perceived shortage of parking spaces. Advance sales of units within the BedZED development suggest that the provision of a car club can indeed offset the effect of limited parking provision).
• Car clubs might be organised by existing property management companies (Such companies already supply other services to residents/tenants in new developments, provision of a car club might be seen as a natural extension to their role. Section 106 agreements might provide a means of securing the necessary infrastructure and services - viz recent experience in Southwark).
• Car clubs are most likely to be successful in high density mixed developments where parking is in short supply (High densities yield the critical mass of potential users which is necessary for efficient fleet utilisation. Mixed developments yield heterogeneous trip patterns which also help to ensure good fleet utilisation. Shortage of parking is a major incentive for people to join a car club).
• New high-density residential developments tend to attract young, affluent, single residents (this profile is ideally suited to the car club concept).
• The success of a flagship car club in a prestigious new development could encourage other developers to seek to adopt the idea and might also help to improve the image of car clubs as features of a desirable lifestyle. (Potential publicity benefits, developers would want to help to spread the word).

Potential reasons for not wishing to pursue work in this area in Phase III of the project include:

• The absence of an obvious rural dimension (A new development in a rural area, even if at high density, would not offer the same potential - but see below).
• To the extent that occupiers of new developments are likely to be of above average income and not suffering from social exclusion, the investment of public funds in this type of scheme raises equity issues. (Further work should include an assessment of the potential application of the concept among residents of new housing designed for low income people. It should also investigate whether, given the concern over equity, the benefits to society are likely to be sufficiently great to warrant public investment in the promotion of such schemes).

These points notwithstanding, we suggested that considerable scope existed to pursue this topic area further within Phase III of the project. We identified the following as potential areas for further work:

1 Investigating the scope for working with property developers/managers and planners to promote incorporation of car clubs into new developments. Work on this topic would need to consider a range of issues including: development control conditions, supplementary planning guidance, planning agreements and guarantees; the ongoing involvement of property management companies; funding arrangements; and the number, location and timing of potential sites. The work would build on the Good Practice Guide for developers and planners contemplating the incorporation of car clubs into new low-car developments which the Regional Assembly for Yorkshire and the Humber have recently commissioned from CCSN. (The Guide is due to be issued as part of the Regional Assembly's Regional Planning Guidance in January 2002). The Phase III work would involve discussion with experienced scheme organisers, developers and planners and with occupiers of new residential and mixed developments.

2 Investigating the scope for sponsorship of car club(s) at new residential or mixed developments with good public transport links and restricted parking. Work on this topic would be closely related to that proposed for topic 1 but with an emphasis on the identification of the added value to be gained by sponsoring one or more schemes and on the identification of candidate schemes to receive such support. Considerable advantage might be gained by 'adopting' one of the new developments where car clubs are already being planned (e.g. BedZED, Grand Union Village, Southwark, or Deptford). Alternatively, one might try to find a site in a rural area. (See Section 5.1.1 for a discussion of the relative merits of sponsoring new and existing schemes).

The Steering group suggested that topics involving the involvement of public transport operators and local authorities be considered under the same heading as those involving planners/developers. The justification for further work in this area is based on the following observations:

• Good public transport appears to be one of the pre-requisites for a successful car club. (Swiss evidence of success of discounted public transport fares for car club members. Importance of public transport as a back-up service).
• A successful car club can result in increased use of public transport and so be in the interests of public transport operators. (Car clubs as part of a multi-modal lifestyle. Recognition of this by Swiss public transport operators and by First Bristol. Need to convince sceptical public transport operators that this is in fact the case - tendency of some people to see car clubs as in competition with public transport).
• There appears to be considerable scope for a mutually beneficial relationship between car clubs and public transport in the UK (First Bristol are showing the way but is this well enough known? Which other companies might be interested?).
• The active and enthusiastic involvement of local authorities in the establishment of car clubs can be very beneficial. In addition to financial support, a local authority may be able to facilitate the provision of good locations for car parking stations, contacts with local organisations and transport suppliers, technical support with planning matters, access to data with which to assess the potential market, coordination with other local initiatives and planning policies, publicity, profile and credibility. (Past experience suggests that active involvement of this kind can be more important than financial support).

Work in this area could have two foci. We therefore proposed topics 3 and 4:

3 Examine the case for sponsorship of a car club which can demonstrate that it has good public transport, restricted parking, and the active involvement of a local authority and public transport operator. A key question would be whether to provide further support for a scheme such as Bristol which can already demonstrate these features or whether to sponsor a new scheme. (Again, see Section 5.1.1 for pros and cons)

4 Dissemination of information indicating the benefits that car clubs can offer to public transport operators. This topic would involve working with public transport operators (notably, but not exclusively, First Bristol), experienced car club operators, PTE's and local authority personnel involved in the promotion of public transport. We note that the Steering Group were minded to consider this topic at a later stage but we would suggest that it could have immediate value.

6.2.2 Investigating the scope for involvement of employers in the establishment of car clubs and/or car sharing schemes
The justification for further work in this area is based on the observations that:

• People tend to be nervous of getting involved in schemes organised by bodies of whom they have not previously heard. The involvement of their employer lends credibility and offers some assurance that, if things go wrong, they may have some comeback. This phenomenon has been noted in the context of car sharing schemes and may also apply to employer-organised car clubs.
• People tend to be nervous of sharing lifts with strangers. A fellow employee, even one they have not previously met, is not likely to be regarded as a complete stranger. If a lift is arranged through work, it should be possible to arrange to meet the driver/passenger in advance before committing to a long-term arrangement.
• Active and enthusiastic involvement of an employer is known to be an important feature of the most successful car sharing schemes. Classic examples of the ways in which an employer can contribute to the success of a scheme include: the provision of an on-site organiser; permission to use of internal communications networks and databases; provision of time and space for sharers to meet during work hours; provision of incentives such as preferential access to parking spaces on site; and an indulgent attitude to occasional lateness due to a failed lift. While there is little direct evidence to suggest that car clubs benefit from the active involvement of employers, there is good reason to expect this to be the case (some recent evidence from Sweden).
• It is well established that employers can sometimes benefit from the encouragement of car sharing among their employees (reduced parking requirement, compliance with planning requirements, access to larger pool of employees - particularly after a relocation of premises, enhanced corporate image). Where such benefits have been demonstrated, some employers have been keen to set up a car sharing scheme for their employees.
• Despite the shortage of direct evidence, it is clearly possible argue that employers should benefit from the establishment of car clubs based on their work place (means of offsetting the cost of a pool of vehicles required for business use? reduced requirement for employee parking? access to larger pool of employees? employee welfare enhanced by providing them with access to a pool of vehicles for private use? enhanced corporate image?). If these benefits an be demonstrated, some employers are likely to be interested in pursuing the concept but would require expert advice and assistance.
• The introduction of a workplace parking levy might encourage employers and employees to seek ways of reducing their requirement for parking spaces. It might therefore provide a good stimulus to the development of employer-based car sharing schemes and, depending on the interpretation of the regulations, of employer-based car clubs.
• Out-of-town sites are particularly attractive for organised car sharing because of the type of trip patterns they engender and because they often promote a stronger sense of common identity than an equivalent city-centre site. This latter characteristic may also make them attractive as potential locations for car clubs but is unlikely to overcome the reduced opportunity for round-the-clock utilisation of club vehicles.

We identified five potential topics which might be pursued in Phase III of the project:

5 Sponsorship of a car club designed for employees of a major employer. We believe that sponsorship of a car club at an out-of-town site well served by public transport would yield particularly useful lessons, but we see value in relaxing these constraints in order to extend the net. Work during Phase III would seek to establish the prospects for employer-based car clubs at different types of locations, to identify potential sites, to establish the type and level of support that might be needed, to gauge the level of interest and estimate potential impacts. The work would involve discussions with employers, site managers, and experienced scheme organisers. A particular issue to be considered would be whether to seek to build on the success of an existing scheme (such as the Cranfield Campus Car scheme) or whether to seek to establish a new scheme which might have greater potential for success and emulation (One particularly interesting suggestion is to seek to establish a club based at a hospital campus where there is a clear need for a pool of cars for official use during work hours, a large workforce on low-medium incomes who might be very interested in getting access to a car for private use, a sense of community and, generally, a proactive employer)

6 Sponsorship of a car club at the premises of major employer in area with good public transport links and where introduction of workplace parking levy is expected. This topic could have considerable potential if and when the widespread introduction of workplace parking levies comes about. Although there is every reason to complete the necessary research in advance of its being required, we understand that the Steering Group do not want to pursue this issue at the current stage. We therefore did not consider it further.

7 Sponsorship of a car sharing scheme at an out-of-town employment site. The potential role of car sharing at such sites has been known for many years. A number of schemes were established in the 1970s and 1980s and several more are now being established in the context of Green Travel Plan initiatives. (The Pfizer scheme is a good example). Given the existence of these schemes it is not clear that there is a need to sponsor any new schemes to fulfil a similar role. There may however be a case for bringing together the experience from such schemes to provide advice and encouragement for firms interested in doing likewise.

8 Sponsorship of a car sharing scheme at the premises of major employer in area where introduction of workplace parking levy is expected. (see comment on topic 6 above, but note that, unlike the car club case, the potential contribution to car sharing is not dependent on a legal argument over the definition of what constitutes an employee's car)

9 Sponsorship of a car sharing scheme among employees of a group of adjacent employers. There are many examples of employer-based car sharing schemes, but most are related to one large employer. It has long been recognised that, if several adjacent employers could combine forces, the operating costs might be shared and the potential for compatible matches could be significantly increased. Previous attempts to achieve this desirable outcome have not been very successful. This may be because the potential sharers are less happy about sharing with people from other firms, because the logistics are significantly more complicated or because the organisational task is more difficult. It is suggested that, against a background of increased pressure on parking space and employer awareness of "green" transport initiatives and planning policies, the time may be ripe for an attempt to establish a flagship car sharing scheme among a group of adjacent employers. If this topic were pursued in Phase III, the aim would be to identify the best type of location (city-centre/out-of-town, size of pool, type of organisations, level of public transport service, parking availability, etc), to identify some candidate sites, to determine the type and level of assistance required, to establish levels of interest among potential participants and estimate likely impacts. This would involve discussion with local authorities, experienced car sharing scheme organisers, employers and employees.

6.2.3 Investigation of the possibility of encouraging car sharing and/or car clubs among ethnic minority groups
The justification for further work in this area is based on the following observations:

• Ethnic communities tend to have strong internal networks - particularly through their religious organisations, this may make it easier to organise co-operative ventures such as organised car sharing or car clubs in such communities.
• Some members of ethnic groups (e.g. Asian Women) are reluctant to use public transport and, if they have no car, their mobility may be thereby reduced. Car sharing or car clubs may be able to alleviate this.

There are, however, reasons to be sceptical about the prospects for success for such schemes within ethnic communities:

• The existing networks may already provide access to informal car sharing at a level commensurate with needs and aspirations of community members. Any attempt to supplement existing arrangements may be unnecessary and may perhaps be regarded as patronising.
• It may not be easy to persuade community leaders that they have anything to gain from the initiative and there may be some suspicion of government motives in wishing to become involved in private transport arrangements. Without the active support of community leaders, progress will be difficult or impossible.

The Steering Group suggested that consideration should be given to further work relating to car sharing schemes in such communities. We therefore identified two potential topics which might be pursued in Phase III of the project:

10 Sponsorship of car clubs within ethnic minority communities. Work in Phase III would seek to identify communities where this might be done, establish the steps that would need to be followed and the resources required, consult with community members to establish levels of interest and estimate likely impacts. Discussions would be held with local community liaison officers, community representatives and experienced car club organisers.

11 Sponsorship of organised car sharing within ethnic minority communities. The work in Phase III would be as specified for topic 10 above. Discussions would be held with local community liaison officers and community representatives.

6.2.4 Investigating the scope for establishment of car sharing and/or car clubs in rural areas
The justification for further work in this area is based on the observations that:

• Encouragement of car sharing and car clubs might be more cost-effective than conventional public transport as a means of delivering accessibility in rural areas.
• The withdrawal of conventional public transport services might be a good time to introduce a car club or organised car sharing scheme. Obligation on local authority to provide some sort of replacement service. Eligibility for Rural Challenge funds. Ready market of ex-public transport users looking for an alternative means of access.
• Car sharing and car clubs might complement other rural transport initiatives (e.g. social car schemes, shared taxis, flexible-route buses).
• The organisation of rural car sharing and car clubs might be linked to existing networks (which tend to be strong in rural areas).
• The organisation of rural car sharing and car clubs might be linked to ongoing IT access initiatives.
• Car sharing or car clubs might be a cost-effective means of offering mobility to carless visitors to rural areas. (Depressed state of rural tourism following Foot and Mouth Epidemic - need for help. The UK's right-hand-drive rule can be daunting to some potential tourists - a lift giving scheme might appeal to them).

There are, however, several reasons to be cautious about the prospects for the success of attempts to encourage organised car sharing or car clubs in rural areas:

• Low population densities make it difficult to achieve the critical mass within a relatively small area which is required for a viable car club.
• Given the poor level of public transport and the low population densities, it may be difficult for car club members to access the car and secure storage may not be easy to achieve. (Potential solutions include appointing a "keeper" to look after the vehicle and deliver/collect it from users).
• Informal car sharing is already widespread in rural areas and there may be no scope for additional benefit from an organised car sharing scheme.
• To the extent that organised car sharing and/or car clubs succeed in providing additional accessibility, this is likely to imply additional car mileage (environmental issue).
• Car clubs are of little use to non-drivers, indeed if a car club provides increased mobility for non-car owning drivers, this may lead to reduced custom for local facilities and if this leads to closure or rationalisation of such facilities, non drivers will actually be worse off.

The conditions which offer the best prospects for car clubs and car sharing are set out in Section 3.4. It is clear from those sections, and from the points outlined above, that the prospects for car clubs and car sharing in rural areas are not particularly bright. Having said that, the best prospects for the establishment of rural car clubs will be in areas where:

• there is a substantial population base within a relatively small area (e.g. a market town);
• the journey patterns are diverse (a mix of educational, work-related, shopping and social trips which result in a relatively un-peaked pattern of demand for the cars);
• the perceived advantages of, or need for, personal car ownership are relatively low (perhaps due to the existence of good, well advertised, public transport services, a well developed informal car sharing network, the availability of local facilities and/or home delivery services, substantial opportunities for home-working, or the existence of parking problems -such as might be found in a historic town);
• there is a well developed sense of community with informal networks in place;
• there is a groundswell of interest in the car club concept (and people on the ground who have the energy, contacts and talents to help it to happen);
• something is causing people to re-assess their transport arrangements (e.g. changed employment patterns, change in availability of local facilities, introduction of parking restrictions, new housing bringing in a substantial population of incomers);
• the local authority and public transport operators are supportive.

Similarly, the best prospects for the establishment of rural car sharing schemes will be in areas where:

• there are a substantial number of people making journeys from one relatively small area to another (e.g. shopping, education or health-related trips from a community without the relevant facilities to a nearby town which does, work trips by people in one community to a major employment site some distance away);
• car ownership is relatively low (perhaps due to parking difficulties or, more probably, to the presence in the population of a substantial number of low income, young, elderly, or disabled people, or of car-less visitors);
• public transport provision is poor (or more specifically, does not serve the journeys for which car sharing is being considered);
• something is causing people to re-assess their transport arrangements (e.g. changed employment patterns, change in availability of local facilities, introduction of parking restrictions, reduced provision of public transport, new housing bringing in a substantial population of incomers);
• there is a well-developed sense of community or common interest;
• a high profile local organisation (e.g. the local authority or a major employer) is keen on the idea and is willing to put in the effort required to make it happen.

CCSN are currently examining the prospects for car clubs in rural areas on behalf of the Countryside Agency. The work will involve the establishment of sixteen pilot schemes which, between them, offer good prospects for success and yield important lessons for application elsewhere. The Agency intend that the schemes will be established in a range of types of area (e.g. peri-conurbation, peri-urban, small market town, tourist honey pot) and include a range of types of car club (e.g. community run, employer-led, rigid booking). A major criterion in the selection of pilots is that there should be a strong interest and enthusiasm for the idea from within the local community. The first four pilot schemes have recently been identified.

Our view was that, given the existence of the Countryside Agency contract, further work on car clubs in rural areas should not be given a high priority within the current project. Nevertheless, of the fourteen types of policy initiative discussed in Section 5, we considered that the following would be most applicable in rural areas:

• provision of financial support or other assistance for rural car sharing scheme(s) which offer good prospects of success and which might have widespread applicability;
• working with rural agencies to identify niches in which car clubs or car sharing might offer part of a cost-effective solution to rural accessibility problems for residents and visitors;
• identification of appropriate analytical tools to support the appraisal of proposals develop car clubs and car sharing schemes in rural areas.

Our proposals for further work during Phase III were therefore:

12 Sponsorship of new or expanded car sharing schemes in a rural neighbourhood where public transport is being withdrawn. Work on this topic within Phase III of the project would establish a procedure for identifying potential locations and for assessing the prospects for success at each such location. Advice would be provided on methods for estimating the size of the potential market, the value of the benefits to be obtained, the costs of establishing and running a car sharing scheme, and the prerequisites for success. A typical candidate site would be identified. Indicative cost estimates would be compared with the cost of providing accessibility via conventional public transport. The work would involve discussions with rural agencies (e.g. National Park Authorities, Countryside Agency, rural County Council Officials), a synthesis of appropriate analytical methods, and interviews among potential users.

13 Working with rural agencies to identify opportunities to promote car sharing among visitors and non car owners in rural areas. Work on this topic within Phase III of the project would identify the circumstances (niches) in which car sharing might offer part of a cost-effective solution to rural accessibility problems. It would seek to estimate the size of the potential markets, to identify other components which would need to be in place, and to assess the potential costs and benefits of such schemes. The work would involve discussions with rural agencies (e.g. National Park Authorities, Countryside Agency, rural County Council Officials, Tourist Boards) and interviews/questionnaires among potential users.

14 Provide an assessment of 'gaps' in the work on rural car clubs being conducted under the Countryside Agency's Contract with CCSN. This topic is suggested as a means of overcoming the uncertainty which currently exists about the scope of the Countryside Agency project. It would seek to identify issues which are likely to be omitted from the CCSN work and would examine how best to fill any important gaps which became apparent. The work would involve discussions with CCSN and the Countryside Agency and the synthesis of progress reports and other documents produced by CCSN up to the end of January 2002.

15 Develop a framework for assessing the relative merits of competing proposals for developing car clubs and car sharing in rural areas. This topic would involve further development of the ideas and opinions expressed in this report and its predecessor together with advice on appropriate analytical techniques. The framework would facilitate the assessment of proposed interventions against the criteria outlined in Section 6.1.

6.2.5 Investigating the scope for solving the problem of insurance cover for car clubs and car sharing schemes
The justification for further work in this area is based on the following observations:

• Insurance companies see particular risks with car clubs in respect of accidents involving young or elderly drivers and theft, or attempted theft, of/from club cars parked at insecure locations. It is also suggested that they have a general concern about driving standards of people driving cars which do not belong to them. Insurance companies have not been persuaded that car clubs are an important enough market for them to warrant favourable treatment.
• CCSN have negotiated insurance terms for car clubs but the standard package does not include cover for young drivers (under 23) or elderly drivers (over 76). Claims are subject to significant excess charges and this leaves clubs exposed to uninsured risks.
• The cost of insurance is a significant part of the cost of operating a car club and the occurrence of a series of uninsured event could have serious repercussions for club finances.
• Insurance may be particularly difficult to obtain in the case of car clubs in deprived areas (this has serious implications for any attempt to establish clubs among socially excluded groups).
• A number of suggestions have been made as to how this problem might be overcome. Examples include: creation of a mutual re-insurance fund (funded by a levy on car clubs or with government assistance) to help clubs faced with uninsured losses; extending existing corporate insurance policies (for employee schemes), and government support (financial or moral) to persuade insurers to extend their cover of excluded groups.
• The insurance position in respect of car sharing was established in the late 1970s following government pressure (in the wake of the 1974 petrol crisis, government viewed car sharing as an energy saving measure and sought to remove obstacles to its growth). Although there is a restriction on the maximum reward that a driver can receive from a passenger (there must be no element of profit), most drivers are unaware of this and so it is hard to argue that it is a significant constraint on the growth of informal car sharing. It does, however, become an issue in social car schemes and in some variants of organised car sharing schemes and there is therefore a case for reviewing the situation.

We proposed one topic in this area:

16 Investigating the scope for solving the problem of insurance cover for car clubs and car sharing schemes. Phase III work on this topic would seek to establish the true extent of the problem for car clubs and of the potential problem for car sharers, identify a range of potential solutions to these problems and, for each solution, identify the people and organisations who would need to be involved, the role that would be required of government, the resource implications and the likely benefits. The work would involve discussion with car club organisers, insurance companies and ABI, and personnel from relevant government departments (DTLR, Inland Revenue?).

6.2.6 Investigation of the role of Internet-based car sharing matching services
The justification for further work in this area is based on the following observations:

• Few people can have failed to speculate that many travellers must be making long distance journeys between the same locations at about the same time and that, if only they knew of each other's existence, they could get together and reduce costs. This is the germ of the idea which, over the decades, has given rise to a variety of proposals for traveller-matching services.
• The Internet appears much better placed than any previous medium to support the provision of this kind of service.
• Several companies/individuals have produced software to support the matching of drivers and would-be passengers for one-off journeys. Several such services are now available via the Internet.
• A variant on the concept might be applied in rural areas (the main problem for rural car-sharing is the low probability of finding two or more people wanting to make the same journey and if an internet service could encourage more people to provide details of their journeys, this problem might be partly overcome).
• It has been suggested that, since such services appeal to a similar constituency to that of car clubs (non car owners needing access to a car for one-off journeys) there could be some mutual benefit in a linked service - e.g. via a single website or telephone number.

Potential drawbacks which might constrain the growth of this concept include:

• Travellers' reluctance to reveal details of their intended journey to strangers (security/anonymity should be achievable, but if people think there is a security issue then there is one!)
• Traveller's reluctance to commit to a long journey with a stranger (Many drivers are reluctant to stop for a hitch-hiker, they may be even less inclined to give a lift to someone they have not even seen. Many people are afraid to hitch for lifts - they may be even less likely to accept a lift from someone who has obtained their details via the Internet).

It can be asked whether the encouragement of this type of lift-giving is a legitimate use of public funds because:

• The main beneficiaries (young, computer-literate, non-car owners) are not a notably disadvantaged group. If they want this service, should they not be expected to pay the market price?
• There is no obvious environmental benefit to the community (The main impact is likely to be reduced use of long distance public transport rather than reduced car traffic
• indeed, since it provides an opportunity for a group of travellers to reduce the cost of a journey by car - it may generate car traffic).

If there were to be work on this concept within Phase III of the project we suggested that it should be:

17 Internet-based car sharing matching services. The work would explore public attitudes to the concept (particularly the security issues), examine the possibility that it could overcome the insufficient-journeys problem which constrains car sharing in rural areas, and examine the possibility of providing such services jointly with a car club. The work would involve discussions with internet matching service providers and with car club organisers and interviews with potential users.

6.3 Assessment of potential topics

Our assessment of each of the 17 topics identified in Section 6.2, using the criteria of success outlined in Section 6.1 is summarised in Table 5. (ticks indicate a positive result - the more ticks the better). Clearly this evaluation is not an exact science and some of the scores may be open to debate.

Table 5: Assessment of topics for more detailed investigation in Phase Three of the Project

Topic no.	Abbreviated title	Measures of success					Measures of usefulness
		number of users	financially sustainable	reduces road traffic	increases access	cost-effective increase in access	how widely applicable?	fit with policy?	value of lessons?
1	Scope for working with developers etc re CC	na	na	na	na	na	**	***	***
2	Sponsorship of CCs in new developments	**	**	*	*	*	**	***	***
3	Sponsor CC with good support from PT op and LA	**	**	*	*	*	**	***	***
4	Disseminate benefits of CCs for PT operators	na	na	na	na	na	**	***	**
5	Sponsor CC at major employment site	*	**	x	*	*	**	**	**
6	Sponsor CC at employer site where WPL is expected	*	**	x	*	*	*	x	**
7	Sponsor CSS at out-of-town employment site	***	***	*/x	*	*	***	**	*
8	Sponsor CSS at employer site where WPL is expected	***	***	*	*	*	*	***	**
9	Sponsor CSS among adjacent employers	***	***	*	*	*	***	***	***
10	Sponsor CC in ethnic community	*	xx	x	**	x	*	**	**
11	Sponsor CSS in ethnic community	*	**	x	*	*	*	**	**
12	Sponsor CSS in rural area losing its PT	*	**	*	**	***	**	***	***
13	Work with rural agencies to find niches for CSS	**?	**?	x/*?	**?	***?	***	***	***
14	Access scope of the Countryside Agency project	na	na	na	na	na	**	**	**
15	Develop framework to assess rural CC and CSS	na	na	na	na	na	**	***	**
16	Seek to solve insurance problems for CC and CSS	**	x	x	*	*	**	*	**
17	Internet-based car sharing matching services	*	***	x	*	**	**	*	**

6.4 The Steering Group's selection

Following discussion of the points outlined in section 6.2 and the assessment presented in Section 6.3, the Steering Group asked us to draw up proposals for further work on four topics:

1. Car Clubs in New Developments
2. The Role of Local Authorities and Public Transport Operators in Successful Car Clubs
3. The Potential Role of Car Sharing and Car Clubs within Socially Disadvantaged Groups
4. The role of Internet Matching Services

Our proposals, indicating the issues which we thought it important to cover and our proposed study method, are presented in sections 6.4.1 - 6.4.4.

6.4.1 Car Clubs in New Developments
Issues to be Considered:

• Current activity in the field (car clubs in new developments, car rental 'city clubs'..)
• Indicative estimate of potential market size (numbers of new developments)
• Advantages and disadvantages to planners, developers and occupiers
• Factors influencing the success of car clubs in new developments
• Barriers to uptake by planners, developers and occupiers
• Barriers to expansion of car clubs in new developments
• Barriers to continued survival of car clubs in new developments
• Ways to overcome the barriers (e.g. promotion of flagship schemes - new or adopted, dissemination of good practice advice through planning guidance or other guidance from governmental bodies, involvement of professional bodies)
• Recommendations for action and/or further research

Study Method

• Digest existing guidance documents
• Discussions with developers, planners, property management companies, estate agents, car rental companies, (to include developers and planners with experience of establishing and maintaining such schemes - e.g. BedZED, Stockholm, Southwark, Grand Union Village, Deptford).
• Interview/discussions with occupiers of new developments (including sites with/without car clubs or local car rental opportunities)

6.4.2 The Role of Local Authorities and Public Transport Operators in Successful Car Clubs
Issues to be considered:

• Advantages (and disadvantages) to car clubs from active involvement of local authorities
• Advantages (and disadvantages) to car clubs from active involvement of public transport operators
• Advantages (and disadvantages) to local authorities from car clubs
• Advantages (and disadvantages) to public transport operators from car clubs
• Examples of good practice
• Real and perceived barriers to involvement of local authorities (quoting examples / reasons for non-involvement)
• Real and perceived barriers to involvement of public transport operators (quoting examples / reasons for non-involvement)
• Ways to overcome the barriers (e.g. promotion of flagship schemes - new or adopted, dissemination of guidance on good practice, inclusion in official or supplementary guidance notes, publicity for success stories)
• Recommendations or action and/or further research

Study Method

• Discussions with CCSN, Smart Moves, BEST, local authority officers and Champions, public transport operators
• Re-examine Swiss and German literature for examples of difference made by forming link with local authority or public transport operator

6.4.3 The Potential Role of Car Sharing and Car Clubs within Socially Disadvantaged Groups
Issues to be Considered:

• Profile of target groups (low income, ethnic minority, disabled, elderly)
• Determination of bodies to be involved (e.g. local authority, community organisations, mobility-related charities)
• Have these bodies considered seeking to promote car sharing or car clubs (why/why not ?)
• Potential benefit from car clubs (e.g. to provide accessibility via a reliable car)
• Potential benefit from car sharing (e.g. for people unable/unwilling to drive, regular lift as social event for isolated elderly or disabled people)
• Cost-effectiveness of car sharing and car clubs compared to other mechanisms for delivery of accessibility.
• Risks (e.g. further isolation of those unable to participate - particularly if increased accessibility leads to further rationalisation of local facilities)
• Real and perceived barriers to car clubs among target groups (e.g. insurance, cost, low driving licence tenure, elderly reluctance to innovate, disabled need for door to door service, lack of critical mass, pre-existing arrangements within the community)
• Real and perceived barriers to car sharing among target groups (shortage of drivers, lack of matching service, complex trip patterns, pre-existing arrangements within the community)
• Potential links with other initiatives (action areas, demand responsive transport services, wider-access initiatives for health, education, training and life-long learning)
• Ways to overcome the barriers (e.g. dissemination of evidence on cost- effectiveness, flagship schemes based on model solutions, trials of model solutions)
• Recommendations for action and /or further research

Study Method

• Discussion with relevant professionals and organisations (health, community health, community liaison officers, housing action area managers, local transport coordinators)
• Discussions with community representatives/representative bodies
• Cost analysis - desk study using secondary sources
• Devise model solutions and seek comments from interested parties

6.4.4 The role of Internet Matching Services
Issues to be Considered:

• Brief review of current matching services (how many, what functionality and interface? where? how many users?)
• Potential roles (e.g. link with transport brokerage as part of integrated provision of accessibility)
• Real and perceived barriers to acceptance and growth (attitudes to security, attitudes to Internet interface, access to Internet, 'the digital divide', critical mass required, costs and revenues)
• Ways to overcome barriers (e.g. local organiser or interface, subsidy, official endorsement...)
• Recommendations for action and / or further research

Study method

• Internet search and queries
• Discussion with service providers
• Interviews with potential users
• Devise model solutions and niches and seek comment from interested parties

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]