A new feature for Price Tags: Q&A. Pose a question and we’ll find an answer.
First up, this question from Ken Ohrn:
Zipcar has agreed to become a subsidiary of Avis Budget, in a $ 500-million transaction. (Story here.)
Can Modo and Car2Go be far behind?
The answer comes from Tanya Paz, currently working on a contract with City of Vancouver to update carsharing bylaws for carsharing in developments.
The short answer is no and not likely.
is a car co-operative. In order for Modo to disband or be sold, there would have to be approval of at least 75 percent of the membership at an AGM. It’s highly unlikely that the members would
want to do that since currently Modo has more vehicles in more municipalities and lower prices than the others in town.
is part of Daimler; they make cars, including the Mercedes Benz Smart car. Could they sell the Car2Go arm of their business – say, to a car rental agency? Certainly, if it became a headache to run. Their current goal,
though, is to sell more Smart cars and for young people to start a ‘relationship’ with Mercedes that carries on when they are older so that they buy their own, more expensive version in the future. It’s currently not in their interest to have their membership test driving or “carsharing” other car manufacturers’ models as well.
Tanya has some other helpful comments on issues related to carsharing – notably, parking on public streets and on the ethics of car-sharing. Plus, what will happen to those second-hand Avis cars.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan picks up on some of the commentary on his blog here.
Access to the Public Purse of Parking
What’s more interesting is what the Avis buyout of Zipcar means for Zipcar’s access to parking on public streets or in developments, i.e. relationships with municipalities.
Access to parking 24/7 is essential to any carsharing organization (CSO). One of the ways municipalities encourage carsharing in their cities is by giving or renting special permission for on-street parking spots 24/7 – called DOS or designated on-street parking. Another way is by encouraging high-rise developers to work with CSOs so that in a new building less parking is built because carsharing is available.
In Metro Vancouver, municipalities differ on whether to treat all CSOs the same or to work only with not-for-profits. The District of North Vancouver, City of Burnaby and City of New Westminster specify that DOS parking is for a “non-profit” or “car co-op” and carsharing in developments in the City of Burnaby are for “car co-ops” specifically. These municipalities want to allocate street space or deals with developers to the local,
not-for-profit co-op as its operations and environmental goals align with the District or City. Burnaby’s current position is that as long as the local co-op continues to operate, there is no need for changes to their policy.
The City of Vancouver is different. As soon as either for-profit company started operating in the City of Vancouver they were granted the same access to parking on public streets as the local car co-op. The access to agreements with developers has theoretically been the same but the structure was set up for Modo and is being revised to work for Zipcar and Car2Go more easily.
Should municipalities offer all CSOs the same access to designated on-street parking, parking permits (for parking in permitted or residents-only areas), agreements with developers, and a contract with the City for carsharing for City employees? Does this encourage more carsharing? Will this be a slippery slope to granting all car rental agencies the same perks?
If a CSO frequently sets up a table near a train station to advertise without the proper City permit, should the above privileges be revoked?
Ethics of Carsharing
What if there was an internationally recognized definition of carsharing and a Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice? Could this be a guide for municipalities and regional transit authorities to determine which companies calling their service “carsharing” had the goals of reducing trips by vehicle and discouraging individual car ownership? U Haul, Enterprise and Hertz rent cars by the hour and call it “carsharing”. Is it?
This month marks the second anniversary of the international CarSharing Association (CSA). Carsharing organizations from four countries (Canada, US, Brazil, and Australia) are members and in 2011 various European CSOs adopted the same Definition of carsharing found here.
See pgs 2-4.
No need to read the definition unless you’re keen. It took years for various CSOs to come to an agreement on the wording; this was no easy task. You’d be surprised at which words were the most contentious. However, it’s a definition and code that dozens of regional CSOs on four continents that are for profit companies, non-profit societies or co-operatives adhere to.
Here’s the opening paragraph of the Definition:
Carsharing is defined by its environmental and social purpose, rather than business and financial objectives. Carsharing is a service designed for local users in support of community transit and environmental goals. Its mission, vision and values lead to actions aimed at decreasing individual car ownership, reducing vehicle kilometres traveled, improving urban land use and development, providing affordable access to vehicles for all constituencies – including those less able to afford car ownership – as well as motivating residents to walk, cycle and take public transportation, and decreasing dependence on fossil fuels while reducing the emission of greenhouse gases.
Here are three key highlights paraphrased (what the non-signatories have trouble agreeing with):
- We will not ‘dis’ other forms of sustainable transportation such as walking, cycling, taking transit in order to promote carsharing.
- We will not enter into exclusive agreements for parking at private parking lots – i.e. excluding other CSOs
- We will share our carsharing data (usage, behaviour patterns, etc.) with transit authorities, municipalities, and university research so we can all learn more about carsharing.
Although the CSA ethics sound like good practice, in a world of free enterprise is it necessary for companies to adhere to this in order to have access to say, on-street parking? Should we be asking our municipalities these questions? Would this be holding CSOs to a higher standard than the junk food companies that school boards strike deals with? Carsharing is a new industry – almost 22 years old. Is gathering data something municipalities should be encouraging in exchange for access to parking, etc.?
The manufacturing of vehicles has a huge negative impact on our environment. Currently manufactured cars tend to last 10 years or so. Car rental agencies tend to work closely with car manufacturers as a way to test drive a vehicle before buying. Rental agencies keep vehicles for a year; CSOs tend to keep vehicles for 3-7 years.
If Avis buys Zipcar, it might mean that once Avis has used a vehicle for a year, instead of selling it it’s more likely to go to Zipcar for carsharing for another 2 years. However, many CSOs have been buying vehicles from Avis to add to their fleets. Will this mean that only Zipcar will have access to the Avis fleet or will Avis continue to sell vehicles to the highest bidder?
Surely Zipcar will not be able to acquire, insure and maintain the entire global Avis fleet. Avis will likely sell to Zipcar first in an area where Zipcar has competition but continue to offer the vehicles at auction (to anonymous buyers) once Zipcar is at capacity. After all, with free enterprise, loyalty does not trump the [immediately available] almighty dollar.