Can Subsidized Carshare Programs Enhance Access for Low-Income Travelers?

AbstractProblem, research strategy, and findings Carsharing programs—subscription-based car rentals—allow users to purchase only the automobility that they need. These programs may benefit low-income travelers by increasing access at lower prices than private auto ownership. Most carshare programs, however, disproportionately serve higher-income drivers. To assess carsharing’s potential to address the accessibility needs of disadvantaged households, we interviewed members of BlueLA, an electric carsharing program in central Los Angeles (CA) that offers both subsidized and regular memberships. We found few differences in how travelers with different membership types used BlueLA. They both used the service to complement travel by other modes like public transit and ridehail. In addition, members cited the benefits of gaining car access without the financial burden of car ownership or the unpredictability of ridehail fares. Neighborhood context, including residential density and the availability of non-automobile transportation options, also increased BlueLA’s appeal. However, due to limited and unreliable vehicle availability, most users did not rely on BlueLA for time-sensitive trips. BlueLA both eased and increased access to destinations outside of the commute and complemented public transit for subsidized and regular members.Takeaway for practice Services like BlueLA cannot meet all transportation needs. However, subsidized electric carsharing—particularly targeted to central-city neighborhoods—may address some accessibility needs of low-income households without imposing the burdens of automobile ownership.Keywords: automobile ownershipcarsharinglow-income householdstransportation equity ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank Toole Design Group, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Blink Mobility, and Gregory Pierce for their continued partnership in this project. We are also grateful to the interviewees, whose participation made this research possible. JAPA Editor Ann Forsyth and three anonymous referees provided extensive comments and feedback, which greatly improved this article.RESEARCH SUPPORTThe Southern California Association of Governments Future Communities Pilot Program provided funding support for this project.Notes1 It is unclear why these users did not apply for community memberships.2 The use of the term rideshare appears to be a misnomer; the interviewee, instead, was referring to ridehail services.3 Several interviewees mentioned traveling with pets, but this was not an allowed use in the terms of service.4 See note 2.Additional informationNotes on contributorsJulene PaulJULENE PAUL (julene.paul@uta.edu) is an assistant professor of planning at the University of Texas at Arlington.Miriam PinskiMIRIAM PINSKI (miriam@sharedusemobilitycenter.org) is a research analyst for the Shared-Use Mobility Center.Madeline BrozenMADELINE BROZEN (mbrozen@ucla.edu) is deputy director of the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies in the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Luskin School of Public Affairs.Evelyn BlumenbergEVELYN BLUMENBERG (eblumenb@ucla.edu) is a professor of urban planning and director of the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies in the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.