Car Clubs / Car Sharing Research Project

Car Clubs in New Developments
(Supplementary Report 1)

1. Introduction
1.1 Specification
1.2 Study Method

2. Existing And Planned Car Clubs In New Developments

3. Potential Market For Car Clubs Within New Developments

4. Potential Advantages And Disadvantages To Local Authorities, Developers And Occupiers
4.1 Potential advantages to local authorities
4.2 Potential disadvantages to local authorities
4.3 Potential advantages for developers
4.4 Potential disadvantages for developers
4.5 Potential advantages for occupants
4.6 Potential disadvantages for occupants

5. Factors Influencing The Success Of Car Clubs In New Developments

6. Barriers To Expansion

7. Barriers To The Continued Survival Of Car Clubs In New Developments

8. Overcoming The Barriers - Recommendations For Action And Research
8.1 To raise awareness and create an appropriate brand image
8.2 To achieve support for the concept
8.3 To secure funding to support car clubs during their early years
8.4. To provide guidance on practical issues
8.5 To increase the attractiveness of car clubs in new developments to potential members

The Supplementary Report 1 has also been made available in Adobe Acrobat format for downloading.
The Adobe® Acrobat Reader® can be freely downloaded.
Viewers with visual difficulties may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents - www.adobe.com/accessibility/index.html

• Supplementary Report 1 (Adobe Acrobat - 203kb)

Executive Summary

This report addresses the role and prospects for car clubs in new developments. It concludes that they have great potential and could make a significant contribution to the achievement of sustainable urban environments.

Eighteen recommendations are made for actions and research to promote the establishment of successful car clubs in new developments as follows:

To raise awareness and create an appropriate brand image:

1. Actions should be taken to raise the profile of the car club concept among the general public. The prime means of achieving this would be to seek media coverage by:

• distribution of professional-quality publicity material to selected journals, newspapers, lifestyle magazines, TV and radio programmes;
• ministerial attendance at a high-profile launch for a car club at a prestigious new development (this could be linked with adoption of a flagship scheme - see below);
• seeking to have the concept included in the storyline for a TV or radio soap opera (but see below for discussion of appropriate image).

2. DTLR should give immediate consideration to adopting one or more of the car clubs now being established in new developments with a view to its promotion as a high profile flagship scheme to demonstrate the concept in a UK context.

3. DTLR should consider designation of an official symbol, logo or pictogram for car club parking points and inclusion of the same within the Highway Code. Car clubs should be encouraged to display the logo prominently on their vehicles.

4. Actions should be taken to raise the profile of the car club concept among local authorities (officers and elected members). This might be done in several ways:

• The visibility of car clubs should be raised within government documents. DTLR should consider adding suitable words to the next versions of PPG13, PPG3 and to the guidance notes for the preparation of funding bids, Regional and Local Transport Plans, Travel awareness strategies, Green Travel Plans, Homezones, Controlled Parking Zones and Air Quality Management areas. Transport for London and the Regional Assemblies should be encouraged to mention car clubs in their relevant documents for use by their constituent authorities - perhaps requiring active consideration to be given to the establishment of car clubs in all new developments over a certain size.
• Local authorities should be encouraged to include reference to car clubs in local design guides and Supplementary Planning Guidance.
• A ministerial statement should be made indicating government support for the car club concept in the context of sustainable urban mobility and the revitalisation of city centres.
• DTLR should consider inviting local authority opinion leaders to an event, hosted at ministerial level, at which the contribution of car clubs to the achievement of transport planning objectives and the encouragement of city centre living is emphasised.
• DTLR's Urban Policy Unit should consider mentioning the role of car clubs in new developments at the forthcoming Urban Summit (in Birmingham in October 2002).

5. Action is needed to raise the profile of the car club concept among developers. We suggest that a key means of achieving this could be to invite senior people from the industry to an event, hosted at ministerial level, at which the contribution of car clubs to the encouragement of city centre living is emphasised.

6. The term "car sharing" should be avoided in official documents or publicity material to refer to car clubs.

7. Publicity material destined for the public arena should emphasise the dynamic city lifestyle aspects of car club membership rather than its environmental credentials.

To achieve support for the concept:

8. Independent research be undertaken to establish the robustness of the European evidence and to seek reliable evidence from the existing UK schemes. Given that existing UK data is likely to prove inconclusive we further recommend that a robust monitoring programme be devised and that its implementation should be a condition of government support for car clubs.

9. Government literature on car clubs should emphasise that car clubs are most likely to reduce car use if they can be made to appeal to former car owners.

10. Thought should be given to the possibility and consequences of targeting financial support towards financially disadvantaged members of car clubs via reduced subscriptions.

To secure funding to support car clubs during their early years:

11. Further investigations should be conducted to explore what level of contributions might realistically be expected from developers of different types of scheme in different circumstances.

12. The scope and limitations of Section 106 agreements and the tariff approach be further explored as a means of securing developer support for car clubs be further explored.

13. DTLR should consider how best to facilitate LTP/LIP related bids for funds to support car clubs and, more generally, to consider how funds intended for such initiatives can be protected within an overall allocation.

14. A report should be commissioned to explore the funding mechanisms available and to produce guidance for local authorities on how and where to seek funding.

To provide guidance on practical issues:

15. A revised and enlarged edition of the Good Practice Guide for Planners and Developers should be produced for planners and a separate version should be produced for developers with executive summaries of each published in the relevant professional journals.

To increase the attractiveness of car clubs in new developments to potential members:

16. Research should be conducted in an attempt to discover how far restrictive parking policies can be taken in different types of area before the adverse effects get too serious.

17. Consideration should be given to the specification of minimum standards necessary to secure public funding for car clubs.

18. Research should be conducted to establish the maximum acceptable fees and charges and that this be used to help determine the level of financial support needed for new clubs.

1. Introduction

1.1 Specification

This topic was identified by the Steering Group on 4th December 2001 as one of four to be pursued within Phase Three of the Project. The full list of four topics is:

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

As requested by the Steering Group, each of the four topics has been addressed in a freestanding document. These four documents act as supplements to our Final Report.

The issues which we proposed to consider within the current topic report were:

• 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

It was intended that the report should:

• quantify the existing and planned car club activity in new developments: evidence, with examples, the success (and difficulties) in establishing car clubs and the factors influencing that success;
• advise on what measures might be taken (and by whom) to overcome barriers to expansion from the point of view of planners, developers and occupiers;
• advise on how best to achieve long term sustainability of car clubs in new developments; and
• identify further possible research/pilot studies that DTLR/Motorists' Forum might promote.

1.2 Study Method

This topic report presents a synthesis of evidence and opinion derived from existing documents and an extensive series of discussions with interested parties.

The documents referred to were those initially consulted during the first phase of the project (and listed in an Appendix to the main report) supplemented by two new documents: the Good Practice Guide for Developers and Planners produced by Carplus for The Yorkshire and Humber Regional Assembly in January 2002, and Working Paper 6 of the MOSES project produced in Draft by Enoch in November 2001.

Discussions were held with local authority planners, developers, potential service providers (Carplus, Smartmoves, Carvenience and a property management company), estate agents specialising in city centre properties and occupants/ would-be purchasers of city centre residential units.

2. Existing and Planned Car Clubs in New Developments

The best known examples of car clubs within new developments are on the European continent. Westerpark in Amsterdam, Floridsdorf in Vienna, Forum Vauban in Freiburg and Stadthaus Schlump in Hamburg are particularly prominent in the literature but there are many other smaller developments in other cities (e.g. Hammarby Sjostad in Stockholm, La Rochelle, Rome and 'various' Swiss cities). It is clear that numerous schemes are currently at the planning stage in Europe and North America, examples include Berlin, Boston, Kassel, Toronto and San Francisco.

It is difficult to quantify the overall extent of this activity as at February 2002 because developments are occurring at such a rapid pace and because several schemes include coverage of new developments as part of a wider population and it is not easy to establish what fraction of the membership is properly described as being 'in new developments'. Bearing this in mind, estimates of the number of people involved in car clubs in new developments in continental Europe and North America range from 500 to 2000.

In the UK, the first main example was in Slateford Green in Edinburgh but clubs are currently being established in Lewisham (St James Homes at OneE8, Deptford), Sutton (BedZED), Southwark (at Elephant and Castle and near Blackfriars' Bridge) and Ealing/Hillingdon (Bryant Homes' Grand Union Village). Further schemes are planned in Greenwhich (Millennium Village), Leeds, Manchester, Bristol, Central London (where a consortium of six boroughs led by Kensington and Chelsea is currently approaching Transport for London for support for its efforts to establish car clubs in new developments), York, Brighton and Lancaster.

We estimate that the current membership of car clubs in new developments in the UK is less than 50 but that, if the schemes currently under development come to fruition, this could rise to 500 within two years.

In parallel with the growing interest in city car clubs per se, there is evidence of a growing market for short-term (less than 1 day) car rentals by people based within UK city centres. This trend is widely associated with the increased number of city-centre residents and businesses who have restricted access to car parking.



3. Potential market for car clubs within new developments

Discussions with developers and planners suggest that the next ten years are likely to see continued and accelerating demand for high density city living in UK cities , particularly in cities such as London, Edinburgh, Leeds, Bristol and Manchester which have buoyant economies based on financial and management services. It was generally agreed that this style of living will become a significant element in these cities and that against a background of some 180,000 new starts per year and an increasing emphasis on brownfield development, it is not unreasonable to expect upwards of 150,000 new units within high density development over the next five years or so and that upwards of 50,000 of these are likely to be in low-car developments.

It was not easy to get any consensus on the proportion of these new developments that might be "mixed" rather than wholly residential but it was thought that a majority of the 50,000 would either themselves be mixed or adjacent to non-residential land uses.

4. Potential Advantages and Disadvantages to Local Authorities, Developers and Occupiers

4.1 Potential advantages to local authorities

• Car clubs might help to achieve a multi-modal lifestyle in new developments (in turn leading to reduced car use, reduced need for parking spaces, improved urban environment, more vibrant city centre, reduced vandalism).
• If the car club concept appeals to residents of new developments this will help persuade developers to build at higher densities and with reduced parking provision (i.e. more sustainable patterns of development and more efficient use of land - in line with Planning Guidance).
• It is probably easier to establish car clubs in new developments than elsewhere (because of the opportunity to plan appropriate parking stations, the greater control over parking provision and because it is likely to be easier to persuade people to change to a less car-dependent life style when they move home than at any other stage) and it is likely to be easier to extend an existing car club than to start an entirely new one. Hence the establishment of car clubs in new developments may be the best way to begin the process of introducing them into the wider community (perhaps via Homezones or Controlled Parking Zones) as part of an effort to achieve social or environmental objectives.

4.2 Potential disadvantages to local authorities

• If the concept fails some years hence, the pressure on available parking spaces might become intolerable, illegal on-street parking might become difficult to control and political pressures could demand expensive addition of parking spaces, and/or the continued support for financially unsustainable car clubs might become a significant on-going call on resources.
• Unless and until the concept becomes commercially self-sustaining, local authority resources are likely to be required to help establish and maintain the clubs. This may be resented by other potential recipients of local authority support and it is likely to be suggested that subsidising the lifestyle of residents of expensive city centre apartments is an inappropriate use of public resources.

4.3 Potential advantages for developers

• The car club concept offers a means of enhancing:
• the attractiveness of low car housing to potential occupants
• the image of city-centre living (busy, fit, young, single, active social life, home deliveries, lack of responsibilities, flexible, high-tech..)
• If the car club concept appeals to potential purchasers, this will make it feasible to:
• build at higher densities and with less parking provision (hence increasing profit and/or providing more amenity space)
• adhere to local authority parking maxima
• improve one's brand image as an innovative and socially responsible developer.
• The green credentials of car clubs are such that government is likely to support them and hence contribute to marketing a lifestyle whose widespread adoption would bring additional business to developers.

4.4 Potential disadvantages for developers

• The existence of the car club concept, regardless of its merits, provides local authorities with additional bargaining power when seeking to achieve their parking maxima or when seeking Section 106 contributions.
• The concept is unproven. If it fails (or becomes uncool) there could be massive demand for additional on site parking spaces. Obvious overcrowding might make it difficult to sell units in subsequent phases of the same site (provision of additional parking in subsequent phases would be financially and practically difficult in such high density developments). Overcrowding might harm the developer's image at future sites.

4.5 Potential advantages for occupants

• A successful car club in a new development can offer:
• an attractive lifestyle and freedom from the responsibilities of car ownership (or second car ownership)
• an enhanced sense of community within the development
• an improved environment on site (fewer cars and, perhaps, increased amenity space)
• marginally lower purchase prices (reflecting marginally reduced construction cost due to higher density)
• easier resale (than if there were no car club).

4.6 Potential disadvantages for occupants

• If, because of the existence of the car club concept, fewer parking spaces are provided than would otherwise have been the case, parking will be more difficult for non-members and this is likely to lead to illegal on-site parking. This would reduce the residents' quality of life and the resale value of their homes.
• If the car club does not prove viable, or does not offer a good level of service, those residents who bought into the development with the intention of becoming members will find themselves worse off than if no scheme had been mooted.

To summarise: if the concept succeeds almost everyone gains, if it is introduced and fails then almost everyone will be worse off than if it had not been introduced in the first place.

5. Factors Influencing the Success of Car Clubs in New Developments

There are numerous examples (see above) from continental Europe and North America of apparently successful car clubs associated with new housing, or mixed use, developments. Since most seem to be thriving, it is difficult to identify factors which are crucial to success or which tend towards failure. However, discussions with people involved in the promotion of car clubs in new developments in continental Europe suggest that the following factors contribute to success:

• local parking restrictions (else most people will prefer to own their own cars);
• city centre location (to make it possible to access key facilities without a car and to maximise the likelihood of a balanced demand profile);
• a mixed development (to ensure a well-balanced demand profile);
• good public transport in the locality (to provide a back-up and to make a multimodal lifestyle a realistic prospect - although the apparent success of the Freiburg scheme suggests that car clubs can flourish in developments where the provision of public transport is not ideal);
• a supportive local authority (to enforce parking restrictions and to help with the location or parking stations);
• an enthusiastic developer (prepared to publicise the concept to potential occupiers, to ensure that the launch of the club is timed such that it is available for the first occupants, to provide information and advice via the new occupants' welcome pack, and to facilitate continuing on-site assistance - perhaps via the site management company);
• professional marketing and service delivery;
• high density development (to reduce average waking distances to the parking stations);
• a buoyant demand for property in the area; and above all
• an enthusiastic champion for the concept within the community, the local authority or the development company.

Despite the general success of car clubs in new developments it would be misleading to suggest that they are universally regarded as preferable to lower density development with more space for private cars, it is clear that, given a choice, many - perhaps a majority - of residents of new developments would be prepared to pay more to secure private parking spaces. The failure of the Hollander low car housing scheme in Bremen in the early 1990s is thought to be largely due to the then depressed state of the local housing market but will not have been helped by the relatively poor provision of public transport, the out-of-town location and unsympathetic marketing. More worryingly, however, we note that even in the car-free Westerpark development only 10% of residents have taken up membership and in the car-free Floridsdof development 43% of residents declined the offer of free membership in the first year - it seems that even in countries where car clubs are relatively well known, and in developments where private parking is not available, car club membership has a limited appeal.

The UK evidence is, as yet, limited and case-specific and relates to the establishment of car clubs, or to getting them seriously on the agenda, rather than to their ongoing success. The evidence is nonetheless instructive. It is clear that the schemes which appear to be progressing most rapidly are characterised by the following factors:

• Local initiative and leadership by the local authority and/or the developer - with an individual within the lead organisation who is prepared to champion the idea (e.g. Southwark is local authority led, Deptford and Grand Union Village are developer led).
• External funding (unless the developer sees it as in his own interests to subsidise the operation during its start-up period).
• A buoyant local housing market with demand outstripping supply (most notably in all the central London locations).
• A local planning policy which restricts the number of parking spaces in new developments.
• New developments which are of a significant size (typically over 70 units) in order to make it possible to establish the scheme without the immediate necessity of finding additional members within the neighbouring community.
• A city centre location.
• A good background level of public transport (although the Grand Union Village project is being pursued despite the relatively poor access to public transport from that site).

Given the short history of car clubs in new developments in the UK, it is difficult to find evidence of factors which have hampered progress. Our interviewees suggested that few serious attempts had been made to establish schemes where most of the positive factors outlined above were not present. Interestingly however, we did pick up the suggestion that there were a number of cities where all the conditions seemed favourable but that the local authorities were not interested in pursuing the concept (our informants preferred not to name names!), and that developers were very sceptical that the concept could work in a rural development - even if it were high-density and mixed.

Two other potential reasons for lack of progress were brought to our attention during our interviews. The first is that the market for a car club is reduced if there is already a car rental firm in the locality which is happy to provide short period rentals with minimum red tape. The second is that, notwithstanding the general requirement for good levels of public transport, one reason given for a decline in membership at Edinburgh's Slateford Green development in 2000 was that the development was on a good bus route and so non-car owners had no need to use the club.

6. Barriers to Expansion

Our discussions with local authority personnel, development companies and service providers suggested that the following barriers to expansion can be quite significant.

1. Most members of the general public are unfamiliar with the car club concept. Those developers who are attempting to pursue the idea of car clubs within their new, low-car, developments find that their customers are unaware of the concept and have to have it explained to them in some detail before they appreciate its relevance to themselves. This makes it difficult for developers to use the existence of an on-site car club as part of the initial publicity for a new development.

2. Most members of the public who already own a car are reluctant to give it up (but analysis of car acquisition and disposal behaviour suggests that people are much more amenable to reducing their car ownership when moving house or job than at any other time).

3. Some local authorities, and many developers, are unaware of the car club concept or confuse it with car rental, employer car pools, ridesharing or liftgiving.

4. The car club concept is not very visible within government documents. Although car clubs are mentioned in some official documents (notably in the context of the new Parish Funds within rural transport settlements) and although government support for pilot schemes is known to the cognoscenti, it would be quite possible for a local government official or a developer to be unaware of the fact that car clubs might have a role to play in the promotion of sustainable urban living in the context of new, high density, urban developments.

5. Some local authorities, although aware of the concept, are not convinced that it has much to contribute to their local transport or planning objectives. It is clear that many government officials and elected members, even if aware of the car club concept, do not believe that it can have a beneficial effect on traffic levels. Firstly they are not convinced that it can attract significant numbers of members and secondly they are not convinced that members would use their cars less. The evidence from continental Europe on levels of uptake is frequently dismissed as being of limited relevance to the UK and the evidence on reduced car usage is suspected as being partisan.

6. Most developers do not believe that they will find a market for low-car housing, whether or not there is a car club associated with the development, unless the housing market is very buoyant. Given the speed with which the market can change, they are reluctant to proceed with low-car development unless there is manifestly no alternative.

7. Some local authorities and developers express an interest in the concept but do not feel confident about how to go about promoting it.

8. Some local authorities do not believe that they can spare the staff resources required to research the concept, or promote its adoption in new developments in their area.

9. Some local authorities with a severe shortage of on-street spaces do not believe that their existing residents would accept a reduction of 'their' on-street spaces in order to set aside spaces for car club cars associated with new developments in the area.

10. Given that financial sustainability is not achievable by car clubs in the short term, and given that organisation of car clubs is not so evidently profitable in the long term that the service providers will willingly sustain losses during the start-up period, some external support is essential during the early years. Few local authorities are in a position to guarantee the medium-term revenue funding necessary to attract an external service supplier to make the initial investment. Developers are likely to be reluctant to provide the support required unless it is the only way to proceed with the development.

11. There is a reluctance among some local authorities to be seen to be subsidising the city car club lifestyle. Some elected members and officers are clearly not convinced that public funds should be used to help occupants of new city-centre housing to access cars even if the net effect were to be a reduction in car use. This is partly because this group of residents is perceived as being affluent and quite capable of looking after themselves. Where this is not necessarily the case (e.g. in the case of 'affordable housing' or 'key worker' quotas) this reluctance is reduced but still persists.

12. Developers are quite naturally concerned to maximise the attractiveness of their developments to potential purchasers. Other things being equal they would prefer to have the freedom to provide additional private parking and is very doubtful if any developer would choose to promote a car club if there were no local authority restrictions on the provision of parking spaces. The one situation in which they might choose to reduce the provision of parking spaces is when the demand for units at that location is strong enough, and the cost of providing parking high enough, to make it uneconomic to 'waste" space on parking - but in this situation they might feel that the units will sell whether or not a car club is provided.

13. Although it is theoretically possible for the local planning authority to ask the developer to contribute towards the establishment of a car club via a Section 106 agreement, this solution may not always be appropriate. For example:

• if the local planning guidance (and/or LTP) do not clearly establish the justification for a restrictive parking policy and the potential contribution of car clubs, the developer might be able to appeal against planning conditions and refuse to enter a Section 106 agreement;
• if the 'agreement' has to be imposed on the developer rather than entered into voluntarily, the procedural requirements are likely to be more onerous and, unless very carefully prepared, the end result is likely to be less satisfactory;
• some local planning authorities are reluctant to put such pressure on the developer that they risk losing the development to a rival (although this is not generally a problem where development land is in short supply and the property market is buoyant);
• if they believe that they can persuade a developer to make Section 106 contributions, some local authorities would want to use the resources thereby obtained for purposes other than car clubs.

14. Most developers are convinced that if it is to appeal to their clients, the car club concept needs a modern, fast, city-living, exciting, high-tech, reliable, brand image and that this is inconsistent with the 'green'/ 'community' image associated with the first generation of car clubs.

7. Barriers to the Continued Survival of Car Clubs in New Developments

Most of the practitioners to whom we spoke believe that the most difficult period for a car club is its first year and that success in the short and medium term will be a good pointer to success in the medium to long term. Although there are some examples of apparent early success being followed by decline or contraction (e.g. at Slateford Green in Edinburgh and in Stadthaus Schlump in Hamburg), these tend to be attributed to organisational problems which were present from the outset rather than to provide evidence of a reversal of fortune.

During our interviews we identified the following as potential barriers to continued survival of car clubs:

1. Removal or expiry of external sponsorship (For example, it is widely believed that the Bologna scheme will decline if/when the generous sponsorship of annual membership fees by ATC/ENEA comes to an end).

2. Failure to attract corporate members whose day-time use of the vehicles can be crucial to good fleet utilisation and thus to the economics of the scheme. If the scheme was initiated on the assumption that such members would be recruited, or if they were recruited but later withdrew for some reason (perhaps unconnected with the performance of the scheme), the club could become financially unsustainable.

3. Cancellation or postponement of subsequent phases of the development whose completion was required in order to achieve critical mass (such postponement might be due to a downturn in the local property market or to failure of the developer for reasons unconnected with the site in question).

4. Reluctance of service provider to continue to carry losses larger than were anticipated (though Budget's withdrawal from the Edinburgh scheme reflected a change in corporate priorities elsewhere in the company).

5. Failure by operator to provide a reliable service. This may be due to:

• inadequate initial investment or planning,
• poor maintenance of vehicles or systems,
• lack of staff on the ground,
• inadequate finance to deal with (temporary) reduction in income,
• inadequate finance to deal with emergencies (e.g. uninsured losses).

6. Change in local transport policy such that private parking becomes available in the area or back-up public transport fails to materialise or is withdrawn.

7. Competition from local taxi firms or car rental companies offering short term rentals from a local base.

8. Bad publicity for the specific car club or more generally for the car club concept (e.g. associated with a problem of vandalism or personal security risk).

9. Erosion of goodwill between members (could occur if the club loses its identity or exclusiveness due to expansion into too diverse a constituency or could result from poor maintenance standards).

8. Overcoming the Barriers - Recommendations for Action and Research

In this final section of the report we indicate the action or further research required to overcome some of the barriers identified above. The recommendations are highlighted in bold italics and followed with a reference number for ease of later identification. (Readers who have already seen our report on involving local authorities and public transport operators in car clubs will recognise some duplication in the recommendations which follow, they should note that numbers 1 and 2 are slightly different and numbers 4, 5, 7, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are entirely new).

8.1 To raise awareness and create an appropriate brand image

There is clearly a lack of knowledge among the general public, local authority and government officers, elected members and developers of what car clubs are and why they might be beneficial. This lack of knowledge reflects the novelty of the concept in the UK.

We recommend that actions be taken to raise the profile of the car club concept among the general public. The prime means of achieving this would be to seek media coverage by:

• distribution of professional-quality publicity material to selected journals, newspapers, lifestyle magazines, TV and radio programmes;
• ministerial attendance at a high-profile launch for a car club at a prestigious new development (this could be linked with adoption of a flagship scheme - see below);
• seeking to have the concept included in the storyline for a TV or radio soap opera (but see below for discussion of appropriate image).(1)

A key problem for anyone seeking to explain and promote the car club concept in the UK is the shortage of convincing models of how it can work in this country (examples from continental Europe or North America are popularly dismissed as 'different'). We recommend that DTLR give immediate consideration to adopting one or more of the car clubs now being established in new developments with a view to its promotion as a high profile flagship scheme to demonstrate the concept in a UK context. (2) Given the time lags involved, and the growing hostility of local authorities to the "challenge" approach, we would recommend adoption of one of the schemes already in place or in the pipeline, rather than inviting proposals for new ones. The choice of site(s) to be supported should be made on the basis of:

• the car club's prospects for success,
• the wider applicability of the example,
• the standard of service (including vehicle specification and availability, communication/administration systems, back-up, insurance and security) offered by the scheme operator,
• the attractiveness of the development,
• the commitment of the developer and the local authority, and
• the timescale (wanting real evidence of "success" within, say, 18 months).

Candidate schemes should include the major developments at Deptford Bridge and the Grand Union Village or one or more rather smaller sites such as that at the Elephant and Castle. While BedZED has obvious attractions (it is well advanced, has good prospects and would require relatively modest support - approx £10,000 - to provide it with a state-of-the-art communications/administration system), we would not recommend that it be the only adopted scheme because its green image would tend to dominate the message and would not chime with many developers.

One means of raising the profile of car clubs is to make them more recognisable. We recommend that the designation of an official symbol, logo or pictogram for car club parking points and inclusion of the same within the Highway Code should be considered. (3a) Adoption of a European standard for the sign and associated road markings would obviously be desirable. We further recommend that car clubs be encouraged to display the logo prominently on their vehicles. (3b).

Actions should be taken to raise the profile of the car club concept among local authorities (officers and elected members) This might be done in several ways:

• We recommend raising the visibility of car clubs within government documents. DTLR should consider adding suitable words to the next versions of PPG13, PPG3 and to the guidance notes for the preparation of funding bids, Regional and Local Transport Plans, Travel awareness strategies, Green Travel Plans, Homezones, Controlled Parking Zones and Air Quality Management areas. Transport for London and the Regional Assemblies should be encouraged to mention car clubs in their relevant documents for use by their constituent authorities (4a) (we understand that Transport for London may already be considering this possibility).
• Local authorities should be encouraged to include reference to car clubs in local design guides and Supplementary Planning Guidance notes (we understand that Southwark are already doing this) - perhaps requiring active consideration to be given to the establishment of car clubs in all new developments over a certain size. (4b).
• We recommend that a ministerial statement should be made which indicates government support for the car club concept in the context of sustainable urban mobility and the revitalisation of city centres (4c).
• We recommend that DTLR should consider inviting local authority opinion leaders to an event, hosted at ministerial level, at which the contribution of car clubs to the achievement of transport planning objectives and the encouragement of city centre living is emphasised (4d) (the event could feature a presentation by a prominent exponent of the concept from Germany or Switzerland).
• We recommend that DTLR's Urban Policy Unit should consider mentioning the role of car clubs in new developments at the forthcoming Urban Summit in Birmingham in October 2002 (4e).

Action is needed to raise the profile of the car club concept among developers. We suggest that a key means of achieving this could be to invite senior people from the industry to an event, hosted at ministerial level, at which the contribution of car clubs to the encouragement of city centre living is emphasised.(5).

Public and professional confusion about the car club concept is mainly due to the novelty of the concept but has not been helped by a lack of clarity due to the insistence, by some members of car club community, that car clubs should be referred to as 'car sharing' (a term popularly associated with lift giving).

We recommend that the term "car sharing" should not be used in official documents or publicity material to refer to car clubs.(6).

To the extent that the car club concept is already known, it tends to project a worthy/environmental/green image. While this may be appropriate for clients of specialist developments it can be off-putting to more mainstream customers. The image which more obviously suits the potential purchasers of new property in high density urban developments is that of an exciting, fast, modern, dynamic and fashionable lifestyle. Clearly this image might conflict with the aim of encouraging politicians to subsidise car club membership! Nevertheless, given the importance of projecting an attractive image to members of the public, it does seem appropriate to go forward with the more dynamic image.

We recommend that publicity material destined for the public arena should emphasise the dynamic city lifestyle aspects of car club membership rather than its environmental credentials.(7).

8.2 To achieve support for the concept

One of the main problems is overcoming doubts as to the contribution that car clubs might make. Our own concern about the possibly rose-tinted glow surrounding analyses of the impact of car clubs on car use was flagged in our interim report. We expressed the opinion that there would be circumstances in which the introduction of a car club could have minimal effect on car use and might even increase it. We are confident, however, that in the context of new developments with reduced numbers of parking spaces in neighbourhoods with strictly enforced parking policies, properly run car clubs are likely to prove popular with residents and that, because they should make a low-car lifestyle more attractive, the net effect will be to reduce car usage.

We recommend that further, independent, research be done to establish the robustness of the European evidence and to seek reliable evidence from the existing UK schemes. Given that existing UK data is likely to prove inconclusive we further recommend that a robust monitoring programme be devised and that its implementation should be a condition of government support for car clubs. (8).

The reluctance of some elected members and officers to subsidise the city car club lifestyle is clearly a political issue where the democratic process should be allowed to operate. Nevertheless it would be perfectly proper to emphasise the benefits to the community that can be expected to flow from the establishment of car clubs. We recommend that government literature on car clubs should emphasise that car clubs are most likely to reduce car use if they can be made to appeal to former car owners. (9).

One way to overcome a reluctance to subsidise car clubs might be to target the 'subsidy' in such a way that it benefits disadvantaged groups (e.g. residents in "affordable housing", key workers or disabled residents). The additional revenue from subsidised members would be financially useful to car clubs but care would need to be taken to ensure that the addition of subsidised members did not introduce tensions within the club and make it less attractive to the more affluent members on whose subscriptions the financial sustainability of the concept would ultimately rest. Also it is likely that, were people to be provided with access to a car which they could not otherwise have afforded, the looked-for reduction in overall car use might be eroded and might even be reversed. We recommend that thought be given to the possibility and consequences of targeting financial support towards financially disadvantaged members of car clubs via reduced subscriptions. (10).

8.3 To secure funding to support car clubs during their early years

It is clear that car clubs cannot be expected to be self-financing within their first few years of operation and that some initial injection of funds is necessary. If and when the concept proves viable, service providers may see it as being in their own interest to make an initial investment against the prospect of future profits but this is certainly not yet the case. For the foreseeable future it will fall on local authorities or developers to provide some form of pump-priming support.

There are clearly some circumstances in which developers see it as being in their own interests to promote a car club even without the stimulus of a Section 106 agreement. This is obviously a very desirable state of affairs. We recommend that further investigations be conducted to explore what level of contributions might realistically be expected from developers of different types of scheme in different circumstances. (11).

There is clearly some debate about the usefulness of Section 106 agreements as a means of securing developer support for car clubs - some authorities regard them as a means of obtaining a guarantee of adequate support, others see them as a source of friction in an area where goodwill is essential. We understand that the consultation on the tariff approach in the Green Paper on Planning Obligations raises similar issues. We recommend that the scope and limitations of Section 106 agreements and the tariff approach be further explored as a means of securing developer support for car clubs be further explored. (12).

Where it is not possible to obtain full funding from developers, local authorities will have to consider making a financial contribution and will need to weigh support for car clubs against competing bids for use of the limited resources available. It is suggested that the problem might be reduced if car clubs were specifically designated as an acceptable expenditure (alongside Travel Awareness, Green Travel Plans, CPZ expenditure etc) within bids for financial support from DTLR/TfL. However there are fears that, even if funds for car clubs are forthcoming via bids to DTLR/TfL, car clubs might not fare well in competition for use of a single capital (or revenue) pot unless it was clear that engagement of local authorities in car clubs would be looked on favourably by DTLR/TfL when assessing current or future bids for further funding for development of car clubs. We recommend that DTLR should consider how best to facilitate bids related to Local Transport Plans and Local Implementation Plans for funds to support car clubs and, more generally, to consider how funds intended for such initiatives can be protected within an overall allocation. (13).

The local authorities who have already contributed to the establishment of car clubs, or are contemplating doing so, have used a variety of funding sources including the European Commission. Others are considering less obvious funding sources such as Home Office grants for CCTV cameras to overlook parking stations. All remark that the investment required of officers' time to seek out such funds can be considerable. We recommend that a report be commissioned to explore the funding mechanisms available and to produce guidance for local authorities on how and where to seek funding. (14).

8.4. To provide guidance on practical issues

Until recently there has not been anywhere for planners and developers interested in pursuing the car club concept within new developments to go to find out what is required to establish a car club or to seek guidance on which of several options might be best for their site and circumstances. This was an inevitable state of affairs given the lack of precedents.

The recent (January 2002) launch of a Good Practice Guide for Planners and Developers (sponsored by the Regional Assembly for Yorkshire and the Humber) goes some way to overcome this problem but, as its authors readily admit, it leaves several issues covered only briefly if at all - for example it does not detail the procedures required to designate spaces for on street parking stations, it does not address the problem of increased parking pressure on site or on surrounding streets or the interaction with CPZ or residents' parking schemes, it does not discuss the question of linkage with other car clubs (locally or nationally) nor does it set out arguments for different types of service provider. Some of our interviewees suggested that it would be useful to include step-by-step guidance for would-be developers. Others suggested that if separate guides were produced for developers and planners they could afford to focus more clearly on the issues of interest to each constituency. We recommend that a revised and enlarged edition of this guide should be produced for planners and that a separate version be produced for developers with executive summaries of each published in the relevant professional journals. (15).

8.5 To increase the attractiveness of car clubs in new developments to potential members

The best way to secure the success of car clubs in new developments would be make them so attractive to potential members that developers see the establishment and support of car club as being a necessary element in any city centre development. But, remembering the disappointing uptake of membership in the car-free developments of Westerpark and Floridsdorf, how can they be made attractive to members?

We may distinguish here between sticks and carrots. The main stick is to severely restrict the availability of private parking in new developments and to combine this with rigid enforcement of parking regulations in a controlled parking zone round each new development. It is clear that many local authorities would be reluctant to go too far in this direction for fear of damaging their local economy and/or upsetting their electorate. Many local authorities are unsure how far they dare go and so hesitate to go as far as they might. We recommend that research be conducted in an attempt to discover how far this policy can be taken in different types of area before the adverse effects get too serious. (16).

The two main potential carrots are to secure a first class car club and to provide additional perks for members. A first class car club will have a good range of vehicles, well-sited parking stations, state-of-the-art communications and administration system, good maintenance, back-up, security, insurance and linkage with other modes (discounts for public transport, taxis and longer term rental, interoperable smartcard for car club and public transport). We recommend that consideration be given to the specification of minimum standards necessary to secure public funding for car clubs.(17). Another important feature of an attractive car club is that it should not prove too expensive for its target membership. We recommend that research be conducted to establish the maximum acceptable fees and charges and that this be used to help determine the level of financial support needed for new clubs. (18).

Some of our interviewees were very ready to suggest ideas for how government might assist in the provision of additional perks for car club members. It was suggested that car club cars should be given access to bus lanes, exemption from road charges, exemption from workplace parking charges, exemption from CPZ regulations, and tax-deductible membership fees. We doubt that these are politically feasible; the resentment that such preferential treatment would promote, and the difficulties of definition and enforcement, would be considerable.