A REVIEW OF THE CHANGING PRICES AND TAX LEVELS FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD CARSHARING IN THE UNITED STATES:
2011 - 2016
Paper for Presentation at the 2017 Transportation Research Board Annual Conference
November 6, 2016
Joseph P. Schwieterman, Ph.D.
Professor, School of Public Service
Director, Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development
DePaul University,
14 E. Jackson, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60604
312.362.5732 (voice) 312.362.5506 (fax)
1
ABSTRACT
This study explores the changing prices and level of taxation for neighborhood carsharing
through a review of hourly rates in 80 U.S. cities and an analysis of the pricing by three major
carsharing companies: car2go, Maven, and Zipcar. The results show that, between 2011 and
2016, the base price of a one-hour Zipcar carshare dropped from $9.39 to $8.92, a 5.0% decline.
In real (inflation-adjusted) terms, prices experienced an even a more dramatic 11.2% reduction,
suggesting that the sector is facing significant downward price pressure. Each of the three
operators evaluated, car2go Maven, and Zipcar, all have the lowest prices in some scenarios.
Retail taxes, which were 15.5% in 2011, rose to 17.0% in 2015, offsetting almost a third of the
price reduction. Interpreted broadly, these results support the notion that carsharing is a
maturing industry characterized by extensive competition and retail tax rates that are
substantially higher than most other segments of the “sharing economy.”
2
I. INTRODUCTION
A key consideration for many consumers when deciding whether to join a carsharing
organization is the extent to which using this mobility option can reduce their expenditures on
transportation. However, despite the existence of an expansive body of research, relatively little
publically available data exists on the prices and taxes paid for carsharing, or how these costs
have changed over time.
This paper attempts to partially fill this void by reviewing the prices charged for hourly
reservations at three major providers: car2go, Maven, and Zipcar, and the taxes imposed on this
sector. The study explores how both rates and taxes changed from 2011 to 2016 to better
understand this sector’s evolving competitive position. This study also summarizes the results of
a prediction model showing how hourly prices vary between firms and in accordance with a
city’s size.
Pricing information was obtained by recording the base prices and applicable taxes at
locations in 80 cities throughout the United States. The data set assembled includes the country’s
largest cities in which neighborhood carsharing is available, as well as a stratified sample of an
equal number of smaller cities. To ascertain the prevailing rate of tax, data analysis concentrated
on the price quotes provided for reservations of various lengths on the official website for Zipcar
(zipcar.com), which is the only major provider that makes this information readily available to its
members prior to a purchase.
The results are provided in six sections. Section II offers a background perspective on the
growth of the industry and prior literature exploring the carsharing market. Section III describes
the methods used to measure the cost of carsharing. A summary of the results, starting with an
evaluation of changes in the hourly rates charged (Section V), and concluding with the prevailing
taxes paid by the sector, is then provided. The final section (VI) offers conclusions and
recommendation for further study.
II. BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT LITERATURE
Carsharing has evolved greatly since Car Sharing Portland, the country’s first large-scale
program, emerged on the West Coast in 1998. This Oregon company, like most of the other
early entrants, provided services similar to more established carsharing organizations that existed
in Canada and Europe at the time. These pioneering operators emphasized a neighborhood
residential model and focused on pods strategically scattered throughout dense urban areas.
Gradually, carsharing became prevalent in smaller cities and suburbs as well as specialty
locations, including government facilities, residential complexes, and airports. Dozens of
universities also now have active carsharing pods.
3
Although some of the characteristics of carsharing have changed, it still generally works on
a membership-based model, which includes automatic insurance coverage and typically entails
an annual fee. Unlike most car rentals, carsharers do not enter a separate contract every time they
use a vehicle. Carsharing also involves filling up the tank when fuel runs low (many providers,
including Zipcar, keep a credit card in vehicles to make fill-ups relatively easy). Members are
also expected to clean up after themselves or membership may be revoked.
With this sector’s growth, there has come extensive research about its environmental,
economic, and social benefits (10, 11 & 13). This research points to the reductions in emissions,
pollution, congestion, and parking requirements made possible by this sector—much of it
stemming heavily from the reduction in privately owned vehicles in urban settings. Carsharing
promotes active lifestyles by increasing walking and biking without posing significantly
downward effects to transit use. This is partially due to the fact that many carsharing members
simultaneously increase their reliance on buses and trains (7, 9, 12 & 14). The reduction in
demand for parking spaces afforded by carsharing also increases open space and public safety,
and boosts local economies.
Carsharing encompasses both for-profit businesses and non-profit businesses. Zipcar is
by far the country’s largest for-profit provider, with pods in more than 50 U.S. cities (18). The
Boston-based company, which went public in 2011 before being acquired by Avis Company in
2013, serves 38 U.S. states as well as various locations in Canada and Europe, and has reported
having more than 10,000 vehicles in its worldwide fleet (17). Other providers—both private and
nonprofits—include Buffalo CarShare (Buffalo, NY), City CarShare (San Francisco, CA), eGo
CarShare (Denver, CO), Enterprise CarShare (multiple cities), Getaround, Hourcar (Chicago,
IL), and CarHoppers (multiple cites).
Since 2015, automobile manufacturers have made significant inroads into carsharing.
Audi, BMW, Daimler AG, General Motors, and Ford all now have footholds in certain U.S.
cities, although none are as large in the United States as Zipcar (Table 1) (6). Their presence is
significant not only for the heightened competition it provides, but also for innovative pricing
strategies, such as sophisticated pay-per-minute pricing and differential fees for time spent
driving versus parked (in the case of BMW’s ReachNow), being employed. Auto manufacturers
are interested in carsharing as an incremental step toward preparing for the dramatic changes in
vehicular travel that could occur with the widespread deployment of autonomous vehicles (6).
4
TABLE 1 Notable U.S. Carsharing Services Affiliated with Automobile Manufacturers
Service Launch Year
and Description Geographic Scope Pricing Model
AUDI
at home
Launched in late 2015;
focus on luxury sedans
Miami, FL,
San Francisco, CA
Hourly or daily fees
with roundtrip focus
BMW’s
Reach Now
Launched in early 2016 Seattle, WA Normally
$0.41/minute driving
and $0.30 when
parked; focus on one-
way trips
DAIMLER AG’s
car2go
Launched in the U.S. in
2011; now the world’s
largest carsharing
service
Austin, TX
Columbus, OH
Denver, CO
Minneapolis & St. Paul,
MN
San Diego, CA
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Normally
$0.41/minute; focus
on one-way trips
FORD
GoDrive
Launched in mid-2015 London, England
(U.S. expansion
anticipated)
Priced per minute;
focus on one-way trips
GENERAL
MOTORS Maven
Launched in early 2016;
now available in five
U.S. cities
Boston, MA
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Washington, DC
$8.00/hour in many
settings; roundtrip
focus
Source: Websites and press releases of companies
New services, most notably one-way and peer-to-peer carsharing as well as pay-per-mile
pricing, have fueled much of the recent growth (13). One-way carsharing gives users more
flexibility by allowing cars to be dropped off at a different location from where they were picked
up. Rather than being assigned to specified pods, these vehicles often circulate freely through
cities. Austin-based car2go, owned by Daimler AG, is the market leader in this category, now
offering membership in nine metropolitan areas (10). Another relatively new service, peer-to-
peer carsharing, allows users to rent cars owned by individuals living nearby.
The growth in the traditional neighborhood model for carsharing, however, appears to
have plateaued – or even reversed itself– over the past year. According to Susan Shaheen and
Adam Cohen of the University of California-Berkeley, the number of available carsharing
vehicles (not including peer-to-peer vehicles) rose from 16,811 in mid-2013 to 19,115 in mid-
2014, but then dropped to 16,754 by early 2015 (13).
Some of this 11.7% decline may be due to seasonal issues related to the timing of the
5
counts. Analysis by these researchers, however, also points to modest declines in membership
between 2014 and 2015. One reason could be that carsharing apparently faces rising competition,
including that from ridesourcing companies such as Lyft and Uber (discussed in greater detail
below), as well as innovations by traditional car-rental services, which have begun to allow for
more short-term rentals.
Despite such mounting competition, relatively little research exist on the prices and
demand elasticity of carsharing. Numerous studies survey consumers about the importance of
cost in their decision to carshare in specific locations (3, 4 & 8). Shaheen, Cohen and Roberts in
2006 evaluated membership fees of 26 carsharing organizations, and assess the implications on
the sector’s ability to grow. Nonetheless, little available research exists about the actual prices
charged across the sector. Among the few that explore price changes is Jiangping Zhou, who
evaluates a campus program and estimates that the elasticity of demand created by “free hour”
promotions is -0.57, suggesting that each 10% increase in cost will diminish use by 5.7% (16).
The author notes that the overall elasticity of demand has likely risen since this data was
collected in 2011.
III. METHDOLOGY
To measure the prices and tax burden facing carsharing, the lowest priced vehicle available
and taxes and fees added by government agencies were recorded at locations throughout the
United States. Reservations were made for a compact vehicle, such as a Honda Civic, which are
common across fleets. The sample consists of price measurements at a representative pod in 80
cities falling into two categories: i) the 40 most populous U.S. cities in which neighborhood
carsharing is available through car2go, Maven, and/or Zipcar, all of which have populations of
300,000 or more, and ii) a stratified sample of Zipcar pods in 40 smaller cities ranging in
population from 4,000 – 299,999. This sample of cities is listed in the appendix.
In each of these 80 cities, a neighborhood pod in relatively close proximity to the city’s
downtown maintained by Zipcar was selected. A criteria for pod selection is having a heavy
orientation towards a residential population. Pods located in central business districts were
excluded to avoid selecting higher-cost services that are not representative of the sector as a
whole. By excluding airport and downtown locations, the analysis avoids the special taxes and
surcharges applied to transactions that do not apply in neighborhood settings. In these cities,
Zipcar prices and taxes in 32 pods can be compared to the author’s identically-collected sample
from spring 2011 (1). The sample of Zipcar pods taken in 2011 was smaller partially because the
company had a smaller network at that time.
Data collection for price and tax information took place from April through June 2016.
Membership was required for each of the three companies to obtain the prevailing prices. In each
location sampled, reservations of three lengths—one hour, five hours, and 24 hours—were
sampled for the use of a car on Wednesday mid-afternoons (2 p.m.) about a week in advance.
Altogether, when both 2011 and 2016 data are combined, the dataset consisted of 280 base prices
and 758 tax amounts (generally, several different taxes are applied per reservation).
6
As discussed in Section II, the lowest price of car2go and Maven vehicles in close
proximity to the Zipcar pods was also measured. Enterprise Carshare was not included in the
comparisons since it does not allow members to readily view prices outside their home city.
IV. CHANGING BASE PRICES, 2011-2016
In the 32 cities with identical pod locations in which the hourly prices for Zipcar were
available in both 2011 and 2016, the results show a noteworthy drop in prices. The base price of
a one-hour Zipcar carshare (weighted on the basis of city population and not including taxes) fell
from $9.39 to $8.92, a decline of 5.0% (Table 2). (This difference is significant at a .01 level of
significance). The real decline, i.e., the drop after prices are adjusted in accordance with the
consumer price index, is even greater at 11.2%.
Of the 32 pods with identical locations, nearly twice as many experienced nominal price
declines as price increases. Twenty (63%) experienced declines, one did not change (3%), and 11
(34%) had experienced price escalation. In real terms, even more pods experienced declines.
The pattern is exemplified in the shifting interquartile range, which went from $8.00 - $9.50 to
$7.50 - $9.38.
The percentage decline is almost as high when the 2011 prices are adjusted for the
changing cost of car ownership and driving, which is measured annually by the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). The agency estimates that costs rose from $0.51/mile in early 2011 to $0.54/mile
in 2016. When adjusted in this way, the cost of carsharing is found to have dropped 10.3%
relative to the cost of private automobile use. The average gasoline price nationwide,
meanwhile, fell from $3.51 in June 2011 to $2.25 in the same month in 2016 (U.S. Energy
Information Administration, 2016). Carsharers, however, tend to use more fuel-efficient vehicles
and are more likely to use electric cars than the typical car owner, which reduces the sensitivity
of hourly fees to fuel costs.
In both years, rates in small cities were slightly lower than those in large cities. Larger
cities also experienced a much greater drop in prices than smaller ones. Among cities with
populations of 500,000 or more, prices fell from $9.53 to $8.97, or 5.8%. However, those in
smaller cities declined from $8.61 to $8.60, just 0.2%.
When the analysis is expanded to consider all 80 Zipcar pods sampled in 2016, the
average price was $8.57/hour. The highest prices were found in Charlotte, NC ($12.25) and
Berkeley and Oakland, CA ($10.75), and among the lowest were seen in Detroit ($5.50) and
Evanston and Oak Park, IL ($7). Table 2 also shows the average prices for five-hour ($42.18)
and 24-hour reservations ($72.39).
7
TABLE 2
Changes in Average Price of One-Hour Carsharing, 2011 – 2016
Zipcar Pods, Weighted by City Population
Changes in 32 Pods with Data for 2011 and 2016
2011 2016 % Change
Nominal Rate $9.39 $8.92 -5.7%
Real Rate (2011 prices adjusted to
2016 dollars)
$10.05 $8.92 -11.2%
Cost adjusted (2011 prices
adjusted to 2016 driving cost)
$9.94 8.92 -10.3%
> 500,000 population
$9.53 $8.97 -5.8%
< 500,000 population
$8.61 $8.60 -.2%
Changes in all 80 Cities Sampled in 2016
1 hr. average
5 hr. average
24 hr. average
All pods sampled
$8.57
$42.18
$72.39
The methodology does not allow for a determination of whether the price changes were
driven by shifts in supply or demand, or the sum combination of these factors. It appears likely,
however, that on the supply side, rising economies of scale are fostering greater efficiencies.
The estimated size of the U.S. carsharing fleet has more than doubled between 2011 and 2015
(13). On the demand side, rising competition – both among carsharing organizations and
between modes – also appears be to an explanatory factor.
Related to this latter factor, technological innovation has greatly expanded consumer
choice. Whereas five years ago, consumers often had a choice of owning a car, taking public
transit, walking or biking, or carsharing can often now also: i) summon a ridersourcing service,
such as Lyft or Uber, which provide the benefit of curbside pickup with a simple smartphone
click; ii) hail a carpooling service, such as UberPool or LyftLine, which now operate in many
cities and considerably reduce the cost of a typical ride in exchange for serving other passengers
during a trip; and/or iii) rely on specialized minibus or shared-ride van services that are now
prolific in many corridors. Bikesharing programs are also on the rise and now boast hundreds of
“pods” in major cities, providing new competition, especially on short-distance trips. These ever-
improving alternatives appear to be making the demand for carsharing more price-elastic.
8
Differences in Price between Operators
Measuring price differences between operators is relatively complex due to the various
approaches to pricing that each operator employs. Whereas car2go emphasizes per-minute
prices, Maven and Zipcar (as well as other national players, such as Enterprise) emphasize
hourly reservations, although several, including Zipcar, are experimenting with a pay-per-minute
approach (15). Another difference is that Zipcar tends to operate from pods with a variety of
cars while car2go and Maven tend to have cars parked individually, including in on-street
parking spots throughout the city. To assess the approximate difference in price, the analysis
considers the lowest observed rate of the car2go and Maven vehicles within a two mile radius of
the Zipcar pod evaluated. If no cars are available in that zone, the price of car at the 25%
percentile in terms of price for that city was selected.
Maven and Zipcar were found to have similar pricing levels. In the four markets served
by Maven (see Table 1), the average weighted price was $8.79/hour compared to Zipcar’s
$8.43/hour (Figure 1). Both companies appear quite aggressive in adjusting prices on the basis of
local conditions. For example, both had sharply discounted prices in Washington, DC, charging
$6/hour or less—about half that of other cities.
The results also show that car2go has more uniformity in pricing across its locations. The
operator generally charged $0.41/minute or $14.99 per hour, whichever is less (car2go serves the
nine cities listed on Table 1). All prices were set at this standard level except in two cities, where
prices were lowered to $0.19 and $0.31/minute, or $10 per hour. Overall, the average car2go
hourly price was $13.58 compared to Zipcar’s $9.13.
These observed differences, however, are somewhat deceptive, as car2go’s per-minute
charges (which averaged $0.385) allow consumers to more precisely match their payments with
the time they spend driving. As shown in Figure 1, car2go consumers who drive 20 minutes or
70 minutes would enjoy savings of $1.44 and $.83, respectively, over Zipcar. Some of the above
differences, of course, may be explained by factors related to size of cars and other vehicle
choices made available. When considered broadly, however, the results suggest that the least-
cost option will depend heavily on the characteristics of the trip.
9
FIGURE 1
Average Base Prices in Overlapping Markets
by length of trip; not including taxes
None of the companies offered significant discounts for five-hour reservations. For 24-
hour reservations, car2go tended to offer steeper discounts, charging the equivalent of five hours
for a full day, while Maven charged eight hours and Zipcar averaged 7.7. The data also shows a
modest correlation (.135) between the hourly price of a one-hour Zipcar reservation and a city’s
population. A moderately negative correlation (-.186) exists between cost of living and price.
The correlation between a city’s population density and price, however, is weak (0.052).
Multiple Regression Model
A multiple regression model helps illustrate how price differences vary by company and
the city’s population. The dependent variable is the hourly price (which, as previously noted, is
for the least expensive vehicle available), while the independent variables are the city’s
population and the company offering the car. Several other variables, such as population density
and cost of living were also tested but found to be less effective control variables.
This regression equation below shows an intercept of $8.11 per hour and a pricing rise by
$0.22 for each million residents of a city. Both coefficients are statistically significant at a .05
level, although population only marginally so. The latter coefficient suggests that a city with two
million residents will have hourly prices about a half-dollar higher than in small communities.
$8.79 $8.43
$13.58
$9.13
$7.69
$9.13
$17.43 $18.26
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
$20
Maven Zipcar car2go Zipcar car2go Zipcar car2go Zipcar
-70-minute trips-
----------- One-hour trips -----------
-20-minute trips-
10
Controlling for population, Maven’s prices are $1.11 higher than Zipcar’s (which is the reference
category), although this coefficient is not statistically significantly different. By contrast,
car2go’s hourly prices are $3.54 higher than Zipcar’s, a statistically significant difference.
Hourly Price = $8.11 + . 23 (POP) + $1.11 (Maven) + $3.54 (car2go) + e
(.000) (.046) (.13) (.000)
R2 = .438
Adjusted R2 = .419
Obs. = 90
With p values in Parentheses
Variables
Hourly Price Lowest hourly price, weekday at 2 p.m.
POP City population in millions (2010 census)
Maven Maven price observation (dummy))
car2go car2go observation (dummy)
Zipcar is the reference category
These results, together with an R2 value of 0.438, suggest that this simple model is a reasonably
robust predictor of price differences between firms and cities of different sizes.
Caution should be exercised in interpreting the Maven coefficient since it involves only
four observations, and the coefficient for car2go is partially a function of its differing fee
structure. Nonetheless, taken as a whole, these results illustrate the dynamic relationship
between a city’s size and the company offering the car.
V. TAX CHANGES
The second objective of the study is to measure the level of taxation, and trends in
taxation, since the 2011 sample was drawn. Previous research shows that carsharing’s status as a
relatively heavy taxation sector is largely the result of the once-prevalent notion that the
incidence of taxes on car rentals will fall almost entirely on out-of-towners, including tourists,
business travelers, and conference goers (1). Many taxes collected on car rentals indeed target
those living outside the jurisdiction imposing the tax. As carsharing services expand, however,
these taxes are being increasingly felt locally.
The results show that transaction-based fees (i.e., flat fees regardless of the base price or
duration of the reservation) are quite prevalent for carsharers. Transaction fees of $2.00 - $2.50
are most common. In Columbus, OH, users pay a $4 city vehicle lessor tax in addition to other
taxes (Figure 2). Pittsburgh, PA users face two flat $2 fees. New Jersey’s flat $5 fee is the
highest in the 80 pods sampled. Boston, MA has a $10 fee, but carsharing members pay this
only on their first reservation annually.
12
TABLE 3
Tax Rates on Carsharing in 12 Largest U.S. Cities Ranked by Population; Highest quartile in bold
1 HR.
TAX
5 HR.
TAX
24 HR.
TAX
GENERAL
SALES TAX
1 New York, NY 19.9% 19.9% 19.9% 8.75%
2 Los Angeles, CA 8.9% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0%
3 Chicago, IL 21.2% 22.7% 24.3% 10.25%
4 Houston, TX 15.1% 15.0% 15.0% 8.25%
5 Philadelphia, PA 33.8% 24.3% 14.7% 8.0%
6 Phoenix, AZ 48.9% 34.1% 19.2% 8.6%
7 San Antonio, TX 15.1% 15.0% 15.0% 8.25%
8 San Diego, CA 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0%
9 Dallas, TX 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 8.25%
10 San Jose, CA 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.75%
11 Austin, TX 15.1% 15.4% 15.0% 8.25%
12 Indianapolis, IN 17.1% 17.0% 17.0% 7.0%
The average tax across the 32 cities rose from 15.5% in 2011 to 17.0% in 2016. This 1.5
percentage point increase indicates that rising taxes have offset approximately 30% of the
reduction in prices over this period. When looking at the entire sample of 80 pods for 2016,
including those for which data for 2011 is not available, the average tax rate was found to be
even higher, 19.1%, partially due to the inclusion of several highly taxed New Jersey pods.
Eight of the 12 largest cities impose taxes of 15% or more on all types of reservations
(one, five and 24 hours). In two of the three largest cities, Chicago and New York, rates hover
around 20%, while in Philadelphia, PA and Phoenix, AZ they exceed 33% in some scenarios
(Table 3). Tax rates are more favorable in Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose, where
rates are near or only moderately above sales tax rates.
Rates tend to drop as the duration of the reservations increase due to the diminishing
impact of flat-fee taxes on more expensive purchases. In most cities, rates are well above those
for sales tax. In Philadelphia, taxes are more than three times the sales tax rate for reservations of
five hours or less. In Phoenix, one-hour carsharers pay almost half as much in taxes as they do
for the car itself—and about six times the rate of the sales tax. In five of these 12 cities, rates of
taxation can be at least 50% higher than local sales taxes.
Weighted Average Tax Rates in 40 Largest Cities
The differing tax burdens facing consumers in the 40 largest cities can be shown by
considering the weighted average tax rate (Table 4). The cities are assigned into three categories
based on population and ranked among the entire sample of cities as well as those in their size
13
TABLE 4
RANKING OF CARSHARING TAXES IN 40 LARGEST U.S CITIES
Based on mix of 45% one-hour, 45% five-hour, and 10% 24-hour reservations
Tax Rank Tax Rank Weighted Average Sales
in Category 40 Cities City Tax Rate Tax Rate
Cities with populations of more than 1,000,000
1 2 Phoenix, AZ 34.0% 8.6%
2 10 Philadelphia, PA 24.1% 8.0%
3 12 Chicago, IL 21.4% 10.3%
4 14 New York, NY 19.9% 8.9%
5 19 Houston, TX 15.0% 8.3%
6 20 San Antonio, TX 15.0% 8.3%
7 29 Dallas, TX 10.0% 8.3%
8 33 Los Angeles, IL 9.0% 9.0%
9 36 San Diego, CA 8.0% 8.0%
Cities with populations of 500,000 – 999,000
1 3 Columbus, OH 32.3% 7.5%
2 5 Tucson, AZ 30.8% 8.6%
3 6 Jacksonville, FL 26.9% 7.0%
4 7 Washington D.C. 26.5% 5.8%
5 8 Denver, CO 25.5% 7.7%
6 9 Albuquerque, NM 24.5% 7.2%
7 13 Las Vegas, NV 20.1% 8.2%
8 16 Seattle, WA 17.3% 9.6%
9 17 Austin, TX 15.2% 8.3%
10 18 Milwaukee, WI 15.3% 5.6%
11 22 Charlotte, NC 14.5% 7.3%
12 23 Memphis, TN 14.3% 9.3%
13 24 Oklahoma City, OK 14.3% 8.4%
14 25 Indianapolis, IN 17.0% 7.0%
15 26 Nashville, TN 13.4% 9.3%
16 28 Baltimore, MD 11.5% 6.0%
17 30 Fort Worth, TX 10.0% 8.3%
18 34 San Jose, CA 8.8% 8.8%
19 35 San Francisco 8.8% 8.8%
20 37 Detroit, MI 8.0% 6.0%
21 38 Boston, MA 6.3% 6.3%
22 39 Louisville, KY 6.0% 6.0%
23 40 Portland, OR 0.0% 0.0%
Cities with populations of more than 300,000 – 499,000
1 1 Fresno, CA 39.5% 8.8%
2 4 Pittsburgh, PA 30.7% 7.0%
3 11 Minneapolis, MN 22.1% 7.8%
4 15 Omaha, NE 16.8% 7.0%
5 21 Miami, FL 15.0% 7.0%
6 27 Sacramento, CA 14.7% 8.8%
7 31 Oakland, CA 9.5% 9.5%
8 32 Atlanta, GA 9.3% 8.0%
14
category. The weighted averages are based on a scenario in which 90% of use is divided equally
between one and five-hour reservations, and the remaining 10% are 24 hours in duration.
Thirty of the 40 cities have retail taxes of 10% or more. Among the largest cities,
Chicago, Philadelphia and Phoenix have the highest average taxes, while taxes are lowest in San
Diego. Columbus, OH, and Fresno, CA also are among the highest due to lump-sum taxes. In
only four of the 40 cities – Louisville, KY and Portland, OR, as well as Los Angeles and San
Diego, CA – are tax rates equal to or less than sales taxes. Portland is notable for exempting
carsharing from taxes.
Cities Increasing Tax Rates, 2011 and 2016
The cities with appreciable increases for one-hour reservations include Chicago (+9.2
pts); Omaha, NE (+8.9 pts); Minneapolis (+8.1 pts) and Milwaukee (+3.8). Among large
markets, Chicago stands out for its sizeable increase. Prior to 2015, carsharing organizations that
could meet certain criteria were exempted from the city’s lease tax. Following the acquisition of
the nonprofit I-GO by the for-profit Enterprise, this waiver was lifted, pushing tax rates on most
transactions from about 12% to 21%.
The 17.0% average rate of taxation on carsharing is slightly higher than the 16.7% tax
rate on two-day neighborhood car rentals in the same 32 cities. (The latter estimate was made by
computing the average tax rate for a two-day reservation of an Enterprise compact car from a
non-airport location in the same 32 cities.) Both of these rates, in turn, are well above those for
other intercity transportation services, such as airline tickets. 16.0%, including security fees, as
estimated by the Business Travel Coalition (2).where is reference) and intercity bus and train
fares (which are not taxed). Even hotel taxes, as estimated by Hazinski (5), are lower, averaging
about 13.5% nationwide.
This suggests that carsharing finds itself in a far less favorable position with respect to
taxes than nearly all other sharing economy sectors. It competes with other urban transportation
services, including ridesourcing (Lyft/Uber) and bikesharing, which are generally not subject to
retail taxes. Although there are exceptions in some cities, and data is not available on the mean
rate of taxation on ridesourcing and taxicabs, the median rate of taxation is zero for both service
VI. CONCLUSION
The significant fall in the price of carsharing suggests that consumers are reaping benefits
from the sector’s evolution and expansion. In addition to being more environmentally sustainable
than car ownership, carsharing is increasingly becoming more financially sustainable for the
many lower-income consumers its providers serve. Maven and Zipcar have similar pricing
philosophies that emphasize low hourly rates, while car2go employs a per-minute rate with a
somewhat higher hourly price.
The decline in rates follows a pattern common among infant industries that start with an
experimental business model and gradually benefit from greater economies of scale, heightened
product awareness, and growing managerial sophistication. The marked decline in one-hour
15
rates, together with rising taxes, however, suggests that companies are likely facing significant
pressure to contain costs for the lowest-priced vehicles. Taxes increases have offset almost a
third of the price decline, which may negatively affect operating margins.
Whether taxation is contributing to the recent slowdown in the growth of carsharing in
major U.S. cities has not been systematically evaluated. More research on the effects of taxation
on consumer demand is clearly needed, particularly with respect to transaction fees imposed by
many locales. The issue of differential rates of taxation between carsharing and other shared-
economy sectors is coming into sharper focus as the number of mobility options available to
urban dwellers grows. It is incumbent on carsharing organizations to raise awareness of the
potentially deleterious effects of such fees on their ability to grow.
16
Appendix Cities with Neighborhood Carsharing in Sample
Data collected for all 80 cities for Zipcar. C denotes car2go data also collected; M denotes Maven collected
17
VII. REFERENCES
1. Bieszczat, A & J. Schwieterman, (2013). "Carsharing: A Review of the Public Benefits and
Tax Burden of an Expanding Transportation Sector," Journal of the Transportation Research
Board.
2. Business Travel Coalition, (2015). “Are U.S. Airlines Overtaxed,” December. Accessed at
http://www.businesstravelcoalition.com/documents/are-us-airlines-overtaxed.html
3. Costain, C., C. Ardron, N.K. Habib, (2012). “Synopsis of users’ behavior of a carsharing
program: A case study in Toronto,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46
(3): 421–434.
4. Econsult Corporation, (2010). “The Economic and Environmental Impact of PhillyCarShare in
the Philadelphia Region.” , Econsult Corporation.
5. Hazinski, T.,Moon, A. & Rees,M. (September, 2015). HVS Lodging Tax Report, HVS
Convention, Sports, and Entertainment.
6. Lindzon, Jared, (February, 25 2015). “Why auto makers encourage car sharing despite trend away from ownership,” The Globe and Mail.
7. Litman, Todd, ( September 17, 2015). Evaluating Carsharing Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute.
8. Lane, Clayton, (2005). “PhillyCarShare: First-Year Social and Mobility Impacts of Carsharing in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, no. 1927: 158-166.
9. Martin, Elliot W. and Susan A. Shaheen. (2011) "Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of
Carsharing in North America" IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 12, No.
4: 1074-1086.
10. Martin, Elliot and Susan Shaheen,( 2016). “Impacts of car2go on Vehicle Ownership, Modal
Shift, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Analysis of Five North
American Cities”, Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California –
Berkeley.
11. Millard-Ball, A., Murray, G., Ter Schure,J., Fox , C., & Burkhardt, J.( 2005). Carsharing: Where
and How It Succeeds. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 108, Washington,
DC: Transportation Research Board. Accessed August 27, 2010.
12. Scott, S., Brook, D., & Perussi, M.( 2003). “Impacts of Carsharing on Walking Behavior.” Paper
presented at the Walk 21 conference Portland, Oregon, May 1-3. Accessed December 18, 2010.
13. Shaheen, Susan A., & Adam Cohen, (2015). “Innovative Mobility Carsharing Outlook: Market
Overveiw, Analysis and Trends”, Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of
Calironia Berkely.
14. Shared-Use Mobility Center/American Public Transit Association,. (2016). Shared Mobility and
the Transformation of Public Transit (TCRP J-11/Task 21), 2016. Submitted by the Shared-Use
Mobility Center to APTA.
15. Steele, Brian, ,( June 28, 2016). “Zipcar Tests Pay-Per Miles Pricing for Short Trips”, Engaget
available at https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/28/zipcar-tests-pay-per-mile/
16. Zhou, Jiangping.(2014). Carsharing on University Campus: Subsidies, Commuter benefits, and
their impacts on Carsharing. Transportation Research Part D 32 316–319
17. Zipcar (2013). "zipcar reports fourth quarter and full year 2012 results", Press release.
18. zipcar.com. Official Zipcar website, available at www.zipcar.com