The aim of the following investigation is to analyse the economics of sharecars in comparison to that of owning a vehicle in Brisbane. This is being conducted in order to determine whether sharecar programs would prove economically successful if implemented within Brisbane, Australia’s transport system. The investigation was conducted through researching the variables that attribute to the economic value of a vehicle. These variables include but are not limited to the kilometres travelled, insurance payed and registration payed on a vehicle annually. The sharecar programs present in Australia were researched and broken down into annual costs. The economic results of individually owning a vehicle were then compared to the economics of utilising a sharecar program. These two data sets were compared, discussed and summarised to ultimately determine that economically, a sharecar program has the potential to be economically successful in Brisbane. However when taking into account the transport preferences and lifestyle of the user the success of the sharecar program within Brisbane is undeterminable. Further investigations in regards to this matter should be considered within future studies.

1. The Economic Analysis of the
Integration of Sharecars into
Brisbane, Australia’s Transport
System
BY BRITTANY FOWLER

2. Abstract
 The aim is to analyse the economics of sharecars
in Australia in comparison to the economics of
owning a vehicle in Brisbane, Australia.
 This is being conducted in order to determine
whether sharecar programs would prove
economically successful if implemented within
Brisbane, Australia’s transport system.

3. Introduction
 Step 1 – Researched the annual cost of owning a vehicle in Brisbane.
 Step 2 – Investigated sharecar programs present within Australia.
 Step 3 – Analysed and calculated annual costs of utilising a sharecar.
 Step 4 – Compared annual cost of sharecars against owning a
vehicle in Brisbane.
 Step 5 – Analysed, discussed and concluded results.

4. Historical Background
Locations North America South
America
Europe Australia &
New Zealand
Asia
Carsharing
Program
-Capital CarShare
-Carrot
-CarShare HFX
-City of Aspen
-CAR TO GO
-Coast Car Co-op
-Communauto
-Community CarShare
-eGo CarShare
-Enterprise CarShare
-eThos Electric Car
Share
-Evo
-Hourcar
-Ithaca Carshare
-OGO Care Share
-Peg City Car Co-op
-Saskatoon
-CarShare Co-op
-VRTUCAR
-Float
CarShare
-Zazcar
-Anytime
-Bluemove
-Playcar
-Respiro
-Ubeeqo
-CityHop (NZ)
-Flexicar
-GoGet
-GreenShare
Car
-
Carzonrent
/ Myles
-Socar
-Zoomcar
Total Programs =19 =2 =5 =4 =3
(The Car Sharing Association, 2016)

5. Historical Background
0
5
10
15
20
25
Australia Europe North America
Predicted Vehicle Reductions by each Sharecar
Series 1 Series 2
(Shaheen, S., Chan, N., Micheaux, H., 2015)

6. Historical Background
 Sharecars can Prove Problematic for
Reasons of:
 Unavailable Vehicles
 Vehicles a further distance away than
desired
 Vehicles are difficult to locate or not in
the place they were listed
 Imbalances between car stations in
conjunction with the guarantee of
vehicles availability.
 Type of vehicle required is not
offered/available.
 If supply and demand of vehicles do
not align during peak periods.
 Utilising vehicles after a previous driver
creates liabilities on that previous driver.
 Personal Vehicle Ownership can Prove
Problematic for Reasons of:
 Washing vehicle
 Pumping up tyres
 Ensuring timely servicing of the vehicle
 Insurance
 Depreciation
 Servicing
 Upfront Cost

7. Historical Background
 Three Sharecar Models
 Peer-to-peer
 Allows members of the program to utilize their own vehicle for
sharing purposes.
 Roundtrip
 The vehicle being picked up and dropped off in the same
parking space it originated from.
 Point-to-point
 The vehicle is picked up from any location with no prior
reservation and left it anywhere within the systems
designated service area.

8. Discussion of Latest Work in Area
 In a survey conducted by Martin and Shaheen in North America on
9,600 sharecar members:
 71% of respondents made no change to their car ownership
 25% reduced their car ownership (mostly from one car to no cars)
 4% increased their car ownership
 Most Common Motivators for using Sharecars
 Cost savings
 Convenient locations
 Guaranteed parking (Shaheen, S., Adam P. 2007)

9. Discussion of Latest Work in Area
 Introduction of GoGet Go Cards
 To enable a better way of integrating into the existing
transport systems.
 To further motivate members to jump on board the
new payment system offers a free $15 upon their first
Go Card purchase
 (Brisbane Development.com, 2012)

10. Further Theory Development
 Private Vehicle Ownership Cost Parameters:
 Vehicles being bought new
 Been Operating for 5 years
 Travelled annual distance of 15,000 km
 The cost applicable for a 5 year Queensland Smartcard Driver’s license as of the 1st
of July 2015 was utilised.
 Annual depreciation for private vehicles was calculated using the market rates for
each manufacturer.
 On-road costs including statutory charges and average dealer delivery fee of
$2375.00 are not included in the purchase price and are factored into the relevant
indicated line of the standing costs’ (RACQ, 2015).
 The interest considered has been that of a RACQ loan which is secured, has 5 term
monthly repayments, and assumes a fixed interest rate of 7.45%, a $294.00 loan
application fee and $15.44 for the registration of interest and search fee.

11. Further Theory Development
 GoGet Carshare Program Parameters:
 For simplicity in calculations the time spent daily driving is 1 hour for
every sharecar program.
 Calculations exclude the available $1.50 per hour extra ($5 minimum
per booking) and up to $18 per day for reducing damage cover.
 Calculations exclude extra surcharge incurred from pod locations.
 The Business Plan’s $500 credit card preauthorisation is applied.
 (GoGet CarShare, (2016).

12. Further Theory Development
 Flexicar Program Parameters:
 The University plan includes:
 Comprehensive damage cover
 Roadside assist
 Fuel
 Unlimited kilometres with every hourly booking
 The excess is $1200 unless the member is under the age of 21, then it
is $1500.
 Calculations exclude the $2 per hour which is capped at $14 a day
offered to reduce the excess (Flexicar, 2013).
 Other rates are offered for selective vehicles

13. Further Theory Development
 GreenShare Car Program Parameters:
 Provides at least 150km on every booking made
 Calculations exclude excess reduction method of $1.99 per hour up to a
maximum of $16.50 per day.
 Provided within the Basic Members plan are $50 worth of credits which is
automatically used in place of money
 Calculations exclude possible parking levies
 Different rates are offered for more luxurious vehicles

14. Further Theory Development
 Car Next Door Program Parameters
 Rates are provided by owner of vehicle.
 As rates vary the calculations utilize the greatest rate.
 Preauthorisation cost is also ranged and so $500 was applied.
 Calculations exclude methods to reduce excess.

15. Results, Discussion & Summary
 Sharecar Program Summary
 Flexicar and Greenshare Car had the most economic annual hourly
and daily rates.
 The annual hourly rates are more economic than the annual daily
rates for every program.
 Annual daily costs > annual hourly costs
 The annual rates are similar to owning a highly economically
efficient small car.
 The daily rates are economically greater than owning a luxurious
vehicle.
 The integration of sharecars in Brisbane economically is sustainable,
in regards to personal preferences is undetermined.
 The resultant summaries can be viewed on the following slide

16. Conclusion
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
GoGet Flexicar GreenShareCar Car Next Door Personally Owned
Vehicles
Annual Price of Personally Owned Vehicles in Brisbane
Compared to that of Sharecars
Smallest Hourly Rate Greatest Hourly Rate
Smallest Daily Rate Greatest Daily Rate
Annual Cost of Suzuki Celerio Average Annual Cost of Small Car Class
Average Annual Cost of Medium Car Class Average Annual Cost of Large Car Class
Average Annual Cost of All-Terrain SUV Class

17. Final Conclusions & Recommended
Future Investigations
 The objectives for the following investigation were met and it is clear that
economically sharecar programs are more beneficial than individually owning
a vehicle in Brisbane.
 It is economically beneficial for drivers if sharecar programs were adopted
within Brisbane’s transport system.
 However, if drivers within Brisbane prefer the greater costs in return for their
personal preferences to be met, then the successful incorporation of sharecar
programs into Brisbane’s transport system remain undetermined.
 Further investigations into the personal preferences of drivers within Brisbane
would prove beneficial in determining the future application of sharecars.
 This can be accomplished through conducting surveys on drivers in Brisbane with
different lifestyles, driving patterns and personal transport preferences.