Carsharing

Abstract

With the increase in carsharing (sharing of motor vehicles through memberships in non- and for-profit enterprises) has come extensive analysis of the environmental, economic, and social benefits that result from vehicle-sharing programs. Although the research suggests that the public benefits are significant, public policy has not always supported the sector's growth, particularly in taxation. In this study a cross-section analysis of taxation rates in 82 U.S. cities was performed to foster understanding of the implications of taxation on the sector's expansion. Findings showed that taxes on carsharing services generally exceeded local taxes on sales, as well as taxes on other forms of passenger transportation. Nationally, the average tax was 17.93% for 1-h reservations and 14.08% for 24-h reservations. By comparison, sales taxes in cities with carsharing services averaged just 8.06%. In seven of the 25 largest cities in the study's sample, taxes on 1-h reservations exceeded 30%. Such taxation resulted in an estimated 11.7% reduction in carsharing use and a proportional drop in net social benefits. Such social losses can be avoided with policies that provide targeted tax waivers for neighborhood carsharing organizations that compile information (assembled and certified by a third party), which shows that the organizations provide services that meet clearly articulated criteria, and that the organizations generate significant benefits to the community at large. Several major cities, including Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; and Portland, Oregon, have created definitions for such organizations, which are used to exempt them from certain taxes.

Sustainability and Shared Mobility Models

“…Turo (https://turo.com/) easyCar Club (https://carclub.easycar.com/) hiyacar (https://www.hiyacar.co.uk/) Getaround (https://www.getaround.com/) Model 2 (modern car club): Short term rental of vehicles managed and owned by a provider. The provider owns a number of vehicles that are strategically parked in a city or in certain areas of a city [42], either in dedicated parking lots and/or on authorised public roads. Potential users can look for a vehicle near to where they are, go and drive themselves to their destination, then park the car at the end of their trip in another dedicated parking lot or in an authorised public parking space.…”

“…This is a challenging task. Before proposing specific incentives, a number of points need to be noted, namely: (a) Short term rental of shared vehicles (Model 2 above, where vehicles are managed and owned by a provider) is "not considered an attractive substitute for private-vehicle ownership, because it is rarely appropriate for a daily commute" [42] (p. 105). Even young people may express enthusiasm over the idea of Model 2, but show reluctance to actually use it [59], and most aspire and plan to buy a car [60].…”

“…The research has also focused on Uber [39][40][41], probably because it has grown substantially since it started in 2009. Interestingly, no academic papers seem to have ever been published on incentives to encourage shared mobility, although there is a study on the lack of incentives for shared mobility in the United States, which concludes that taxes on car sharing services, in which vehicles are available to members at strategic locations, are actually in general higher than local taxes on sales and taxes on other forms of passenger transport [42].…”

Untitled

“…Statistics estimate that in 2025 the vehicle fleet will grow from the current 380,000 available cars to nearly 7.5 million, and the global car sharing market will be worth more than $ 11 billion (Global Market Insights, 2018). Due to the fact that car shared mobility service systems are developing very dynamically, both in terms of the growing number of operators, vehicles, and users, there are also increasingly problems related to their proper and, above all, effective functioning in cities (Bieszczat & Schwieterman, 2012).…”

Study on the Political Approach for the Realization of "Sharing City Seoul" and its effect.

“…1.はじめに 1.1 研究の背景 「シェアリングエコノミー (共有型経済) 」 という概念が、 世界的に広まりつつある。これは、これまで特定の人や企 業が所有していたモノやサービスを、多くの人が共有する ことにより成り立つ経済の仕組みである。既存資源を有効 活用しつつ、相互に利益を得ることを重視する経済活動で ある(ローレンス、2008) 1) 。実際のビジネスとしても、 Airbnb やUber Taxi など大規模な共有型サービスを行う企 業(以下、共有企業と呼ぶ)が台頭している。世界的な共 有型経済ネットワーク組織(NPO)である Shareable (1) に参 加している都市は、ロサンゼルス、サンフランシスコ、ソ ウル等 54 都市にのぼり、欧州では 2013 年に「欧州共有型 経済連合」(The European Sharing Economy Coalition)を 創設するなど、世界的に共有型経済に対する関心が増加し ている。2015 年 4 月、ソウルで開かれた「持続可能性をめ ざす自治体協議会(ICLEI)世界総会 (2) では共有型経済が持 続可能な都市の実現案のひとつとして議題に選ばれた。 さらに、このような動きは都市施策につなげられ、米国の ワシントン D.C は 2005 年より、カーシェアリング運営者 に無償で駐車空間を提供しており 2) 、ボストンでは、連邦 交通管理局(FTA)が支援して自転車共有を進めている 3) 。 また、 三浦 4) はこれらの 「共有」 がコミュニケーション、 コミュニティの新たな価値を創造する役割をしていると主 張している。 こうした世界的状況のなかで、韓国ソウル市は 2011 年、 朴元淳氏がソウル市長に当選後、これまでの急激な都市化 による共同体意識の希薄化や前市長時代の大規模建設関連 事業等で生じた負債への対処、雇用創出を目指して、この 「共有型経済」 の概念を取り入れた都市政策を進めている。 特に、ソウル市の共有政策を中心的に担当する「革新企画 チーム」が共有活動の種類によって、ソウル市の多様な部 署と協力 5) をしながら包括的に実施している点に特徴があ り(表１) 、世界的に着目されている (3) 。 ところで「共有」されているものは、プロダクトやサー ビス、空間など多様な形態があるが、Griffiths 6) によると 空間の共有はコミュニティ形成の場として重要な役割を果 たすと言われている。そこで、本研究はソウル市の共有政 策の中でも、特に空間の共有事例について注目する。 The object of this study is Seoul's 'Sharing City' Policy; to understand the content of the policy, assess its effectiveness as a survey on 'Seoul's Sharing Companies' and reveal the outcome of administrative support for sharing space. As a result, administration such as acknowledgment and support on Seoul's Sharing Companies, advertisement on sharing companies, improvements in legislation, etc.…”