Cities Share Cars to Save Cash

  • Cities have started to use car sharing programs in order to save money (Photo by Ed Edahl, courtesy of FEMA)

Car sharing has long been considered a green
alternative to owning a car. Both in terms of
expense and the environment. Companies like
Zipcar have made this concept mainstream in
a lot of urban areas. Now some cities are
trying out car sharing with their municipal
fleets. Tamara Keith has more:

Transcript

Car sharing has long been considered a green
alternative to owning a car. Both in terms of
expense and the environment. Companies like
Zipcar have made this concept mainstream in
a lot of urban areas. Now some cities are
trying out car sharing with their municipal
fleets. Tamara Keith has more:

Karyn LeBlanc works in the Washington DC department of transportation, so maybe it’s not surprising that she was one of the first to try out the city’s FleetShare program.

“It’s this one over here, right here, says 6067 is the license plate on it.”

A white Honda Civic powered by natural gas is waiting for her in a parking lot behind a city office.

She went online to reserve the car and it’s expecting her. At least the very smart computer transponder thingie in the front windshield is expecting her. LeBlanc presses something that looks like a credit card up to the device.

“So, we place this right here and you hear that little click and the car opens.”

The tank is full, the keys are inside, and LaBlanc is off and running.

(sound of driving)

“I would say I use fleetshare 2 or 3 times a week for any meeting that I need to go to or that I need to get to. So I go where I need to go. I park it. I go to my meeting. I get back in the car and I go back to the office.”

For people who use Zipcar this process will sound very familiar. The company has simply brought its car-sharing technology to Washington DC’s municipal fleet.

So far DC has about 60 new cars outfitted with Zipcar gear. But here’s the remarkable thing, those 60 cars are replacing 360. How? The new cars are getting a lot more use than the old ones.

“We’re getting up to 71% utilization on all these cars.”

When we spoke to him, Dan Tangerlini was DC’s Deputy Mayor.

We’re standing in the middle of a municipal parking lot. On one side there are empty spaces where the fleetshare cars park – on the other side there are just a bunch of white city cars.

“You see all this white iron around here. All these DC government vehicles that are kind of sitting static because these are assigned to individuals and those individuals don’t have a reason to be in that vehicle right now.”

Tangherlini says this system will save the city about 6 million dollars over the next five years – which is welcome at a time when budgets are tight.

Which might explain why Scott Griffith’s phone keeps ringing. He’s Zipcar’s CEO and says the company is now in talks with 25 cities.

“They all have the same challenges, not enough tax money, too many cars. They do need to move people around during the day and we’re trying to make that happen in the most efficient way.”

But this isn’t just about money. Griffith says when people share cars they end up driving more efficiently. When they have to book in advance rather than a bunch of individual trips they stack all their stops in one trip.

Car sharing isn’t new for cities like Chicago, San Francisco and Philadelphia. They’ve had programs in place for some time where city workers can use cars loaned out by private car sharing companies. They use the same one the public uses.

Eli Masser helped form the relationship in Philadelphia between the city and the non-profit Philly Car Share which he co-founded.

“One of the benefits of car sharing with municipalities or most businesses for that matter is residential demand is in the evenings and on weekends and most business demand and municipal demand is during the day.”

Which means those cars are busy well beyond the 40 hour work week. Critics say this model is far more efficient than what Zipcar is doing in DC. But Masser says there’s an even better model – a hybrid of DC and Philly.

Ideally cities would have a relatively small city-owned fleet of shared cars and even heavy machinery. But most city workers would car-share with the public.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

Car Sharing Goes Solar

  • Chris Duffrin, Executive Director of the Neighborhood Energy Connection in St. Paul, plugs in the HourCar Prius parked at the Mississippi Market. It has a battery in the back, and now the electricity to recharge the battery comes from solar panels on the store. (MPR Photo/Stephanie Hemphill)

Car-sharing programs are more
popular now that gas is more expensive.
People like saving money as well as reducing
their carbon footprint. One car-sharing
project is going all the way in its mission
of reducing global-warming impacts. Members
can do errands without burning an ounce of
gas. Stephanie Hemphill reports
on a non-profit group that converted two Toyota
Priuses to run on battery power – and charges
the batteries with the sun:

Transcript

Car-sharing programs are more
popular now that gas is more expensive.
People like saving money as well as reducing
their carbon footprint. One car-sharing
project is going all the way in its mission
of reducing global-warming impacts. Members
can do errands without burning an ounce of
gas. Stephanie Hemphill reports
on a non-profit group that converted two Toyota
Priuses to run on battery power – and charges
the batteries with the sun:

At the Mississippi Market food co-op in St. Paul, there’s a brand-new
solar collector on the roof.

The electricity goes to a box attached to a lamppost in the parking lot.
A cord comes out of the box; at the other end of the cord is a normal
three-prong plug, and it’s plugged into the back end of a Prius.

“The battery is installed in the spare tire wheel hub.”

Chris Duffrin is taking me for a spin in the Prius.

“You just unplug the plug back here, and you enter the car just like
the rest of our cars — you use your key fob to scan in. That pops the
locks open.”

The key fob is programmed with your account information. It gets
you in the car, and tells the computer when you’re using the car and
when you bring it back. The key to the Prius is in the car.

“power up…”

The computer screen on the dashboard displays all kinds of
information, including data on the most recent trip.

“There’s the trip I just took to South Minneapolis for a meeting; we
went 18 miles round-trip; we got 94.8 miles per gallon. With our plug-
in we often get in the 90s, and at times we’re running over a hundred
miles per gallon.”

There’s still an engine in the front, and it kicks in when you accelerate
quickly. But the primary power is delivered by the battery. These
vehicles get about twice the mileage of a standard Prius.

Chris Duffrin is Executive Director of the nonprofit Neighborhood
Energy Connection. One of its projects is HourCar, a three-year-old
car sharing program.

“You can get some trips in this car where you are literally emitting no
carbon.”

It costs about $10,000 to add the battery, and the solar collectors cost
about $18,000.

“What we’re trying to do is demonstrate that, when those prices start
coming down, this is something people can do. And not just for
themselves, but if they share a car and share those costs, then this
can become a really efficient, clean way of traveling.”

Duffrin says at first, the people who joined HourCar were mostly
motivated by concerns about the environment. But now people want
to save money on gas. He says membership grew by 70% in the last
year. Still, it’s a tiny number: there are 650 members. They share 16
cars, parked at about a dozen locations around St. Paul and
Minneapolis.

The payment plans include a monthly fee and a charge per hour and
per mile.

HourCar is helping just a tiny handful of people reduce their carbon
footprint. But their individual choices are moving the whole society
toward better answers, according to J. Drake Hamilton. She’s a
climate change expert at Fresh Energy.

“When companies and policy makers see that people really want
better options out there — they want smarter ways to get to work, and
they want cleaner cars — that’s a time to step in and say, ‘Okay we’re
raising the bar, we’re keeping climate and people’s pocketbooks in
mind, and we’re making better choices available everywhere.'”

HourCar is installing another solar battery-charger at a light rail
station. Members say as mass transit options improve, more people
will be able to get along without their own car.

For The Environment Report, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Related Links

Online Hitchhiking

  • ZimRide allows people to find rides online (Photo by Ed Edahl, courtesy of FEMA)

If you’re really trying to save on
gas you might like to know that there’s a
new way to hitchhike. Rebecca Williams
reports on a new online carpooling network:

Transcript

If you’re really trying to save on
gas you might like to know that there’s a
new way to hitchhike. Rebecca Williams
reports on a new online carpooling network:

It’s called Zimride. What you do is log on, create an account, and then type in
where you want to go. Then you can catch a ride with other people headed across
town or across the country.

It’s not the first online carpooling network. You can catch rides on Craigslist and
other sites.

But cofounder John Zimmer says what’s missing from those other sites is trust.

He says Zimride is safer because it’s linked up with Facebook.

“So that before you get in the car you can see what you have in common with the
person you can see a picture of the person. You can see if you have similar
political beliefs or interests. Really what we want to do is build a community so
that people can feel more comfortable sharing rides.”

But like online dating – you never know exactly what you’re gonna get. John
Zimmer says that’s why they built in a feedback function. So if you have a really
awkward road trip with someone, you can warn other people away.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Counterpoint: Agreements Will Invite More Diversions

  • The proposed Annex 2001 agreement is the subject of lively debate as to whether it will help or hinder the conservation of the Great Lakes (Photo by Jeremy Lounds)

Officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have proposed two agreements that would regulate the use of Great Lakes water. They’re known as the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements. Response to the proposed agreements has generally been positive. But for some in the region, they’re seen as a slippery slope. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston is worried that the proposed agreements will lead to unlimited diversions in the future:

Transcript

Officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have proposed two agreements
that would regulate the use of Great Lakes water. They’re known as the Annex 2001 Implementing
Agreements. Response to the proposed agreements has generally been positive. But for some in
the region, they’re seen as a slippery slope. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne
Elston is worried that the proposed agreements will lead to unlimited diversions in the future:


In theory, the proposed Agreements are supposed to provide a framework for using the water of the
Great Lakes. In reality, they’re about as leaky as a sunken lake freighter. The framework’s
there, but they fail to impose an overall limit on the volume of water that can be diverted,
or who can take it.


Not only that, but proposals to take less than a million gallons per day out of the basin won’t
require a region-wide review, several of these smaller withdrawals could eventually add up to a
whole lot of water. And whether it’s one large pipe or a lot of tiny ones, the end result is the
same.


Given that the Great Lakes basin contains 20% of all the fresh water on the planet, diverting
some of it shouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, only 1% of that water is renewed each year.
It would be a good idea to first figure out how much water can be taken without disrupting the
ecological balance of the Lakes. Only once that’s been done should we be looking at allowing
large-scale withdrawals.


And then there’s the threat of trade challenges. Each state or province that approves a water
taking permit won’t be paid directly for the water. Instead they’ll recieve a funding to upgrade
sewage treatment plants or to improve local habitats for example. Recently, a Canadian non-profit
asked for legal opinion about the Agreements. The response was that linking the approval process
to funding for public works basically means that the water is being sold, and under the terms of
NAFTA, once you’ve identified something as a commodity, you can’t restrict its sale.


Canadians should be particularly concerned about these Agreements. The Council of Great Lakes
Governors drafted them. And although the premiers of Ontario and Quebec have signed off on them,
in the end, neither province has the right to veto the decisions made by the Council. In my book,
that’s a lot like being invited to dinner and then being asked to leave before the main course.
And the reverse is true too. If Ontario or Quebec approves a withdrawal, states in the U.S.
wouldn’t have the ability to veto the decision. We share these lakes. If we are all called on
to protect the Great Lakes, then we all need to have an equal voice. That’s why our federal
representatives in Washington D.C. and Ottawa need to draw up a binding international agreement
on water withdrawals.


If nothing else, the proposed Agreements have made it clear that the Great Lakes must be
protected. And with 40 million users already relying on this irreplaceable resource, we clearly
need something better than these Agreements currently have to offer.


Host Tag: Suzanne Elston is a syndicated columnist living in Courtice, Ontario.

Related Links

The ‘Cause’ of Pollution

It’s hard for non-profits to raise money. And it’s hard for big business to gain public trust and admiration. But when the two are put together – struggling non-profits and wealthy businesses – it appears to be a win, win situation. Or is it? Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King looks at one summertime case where the environment is the loser:

Transcript

It’s hard for non-profits to raise money. And it’s hard for big business to gain public
trust and admiration. But when the two are put together – struggling non-profits and wealthy businesses – it appears to be a win, win situation. Or is it? Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King looks at one summertime case where the environment is the loser:


How many times have you heard these words: Come on: it’s for a good cause!


You know, like the elementary school teacher who takes a water balloon in
the face for literacy. “That’s the spirit!” we cheer. Because sometimes
you’ve got to go out on a limb to inspire people to action, to get things
done.


But what if someone asked you to smoke cigarettes… to fight world hunger?
Or toss motor oil in a lake… to help cure diabetes? So, there are bad ways
to call attention (and funding) to a cause. Water in face: good. Motor
oil in lake: bad.


Yet more and more these days, our “causes” are tangled up in elaborate
marketing schemes that muddy the moral waters of both charity and activism.


Recently on a 95-degree Ozone Alert Day, my local news reported that area
residents could brave the hot weather (not to mention the respiratory
damage) and test drive a BMW… for a good cause. Without the slightest bit
of irony in her voice, the anchor segued from a story about the dangers of
ozone, to a story about the joys of driving (the very thing that leads to
ozone on a hot day).


With what they call “The Ultimate Drive” campaign, BMW has helped the Susan
G. Komen Foundation raise over three million dollars (a dollar a mile) for
the fight against breast cancer. That’s a lot of carbon monoxide for
breast cancer.


Collaboration. Cooperation. Call it what you will, but the you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours-fundraiser is hot. Big corporations draw big money for worthy causes, and worthy causes draw favorable publicity for big corporations. But what if those big names are at cross-purposes with the fundraiser’s end goal? Or even at cross-purposes with other worthy efforts?


If good health is a goal, for instance, it hardly makes good sense to ask
people to drive on ozone alert days – even if the car IS a BMW. The Komen
Foundation also sponsors walks and runs – far more appropriate activities
considering the cause.


Nobody wants to see environmentalists (or asthmatics) duke it out with
breast cancer patients, but it’s time for organizations to fundraise with an
eye toward more than just money. Innovation and creativity is great, but
when the public is asked to participate in an activity, it ought to be a
positive one.


Now, I’m waiting for someone to ask me to drink margaritas… for world peace,
of course.


Julia King lives and writes in Goshen, Indiana.