Amtrak and Zip Car-Solving the Rental Problem

This is an interesting topic. I'm also a Zipcar member, and have used it for both short trips and "traditional" day-long car rentals. It is a great service, and may even be profitable at this point. It probably has fewer than 500,000 members, but I am confident that those members are far overrepresented among Amtrak riders (as they appear to be overrepresented among participants in this thread). As it relates to Amtrak Guest Rewards, though, it is nothing new. Budget, Hertz, and Enterprise all offer points for Guest Rewards members. My understanding of the way this works is that the companies buy blocks of points from the transportation providers to compensate them for the cost, and I'm sure Zipcar is no different.

The important thing about Zipcar from Amtrak's perspective is not the availability of car-sharing at train stations, however; it is about turning car use from a fixed to a variable expense for consumers. As many people have pointed out on this forum in other contexts, one of the major advantages of car travel over passenger rail (or bus or airlines, for that matter) is that once you have committed to owning a car, the marginal cost of an intercity trip is quite low. If people chose not to own a car because of access to car sharing, or even if they downsize from two cars to one, the cost/benefit analysis for intercity travel shifts dramatically in the direction of rail/bus/airlines. The promise of Zipcar from Amtrak's perspective comes from shifting the demand curve overall, not from the availability of Zipcars at stations.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:The real problem with ZipCar is that the business focus is on urban, liberal academics. This is a rental car company that pretty much ignores the business and personal travel markets. Looking at my own area, all of the available cars are in and around a local college campus. There is not a single ZipCar at the local airport or train station - and that underlines the lack of credibility that ZipCar has for normal drivers who have real world travel needs.

Theyre not a rental car service. Theyre an hourly car sharing service. They provide a service to a household that does not own a car, or owns one and occasionally needs a second car.

Also, theyre only in big, urban cities. For example, zipcar has no staff in LA, they pulled out of the city 2 or 3 years ago. The zipcar branded cars at UCLA and USC are essentially a franchise operation. Zipcar cities require a full staff to service the cars and customers.

You find them at colleges, because colleges are packed with people who may not have cars but may need a car for a few hours. There is no profit in servicing the entire city, so zipcar franchises out their logo and website to the college or college operator.

You'll never find a zipcar at an airport, and youll never find one at a remote amtrak station.

While my knowledge of Zipcar is limited only to a "skimming' of this Times Magazine (long and analytical; but that is what Times readers expect) article when it first appeared, Zipcar would hardly appeal to the "la voiture est moi" set. Beyond that, I concur with Messrs. Keller and Sinclair's thoughts. If I'm arriving anywhere by commerical transportation and want an auto at destination, which for me means anytime other than using Auto Train, be assured I want that rental auto on hand and ready to go. No doubt such is the reason i have often pointed out that Orlando is the only Amtrak station in Florida that has a (Hertz) staffed facility and autos on the premises (I've also pointed out that even though the Amtrak Timetable only shows "on-call', Stamford has rental autos, Hertz and Avis, within PACES of alighting an EW train on Track 4). Somehow, I think that having ready access to the rental auto is what renters expect. Remember you're paying for that access - and plenty!

Zipcar's market segment appears to be the demographic of young, urban, well-educated, environmentally conscious and hardly of the, again, "la voiture est moi" set. They view automobile transportation as some kind of "occasionally necessary evil'. While of course, I hope that Mr. Primrose's booking of a Zipcar in a distant city goes off OK, I doubt if anyone would be about to join Zipcar solely as an alternative to renting autos for use as local transportation in distant metropolitian areas.

I think the assumptions about the "typical" ZipCar user are probably all correct to some degree. A wide range of people use them because it's convenient and there are no associated costs except the rental & membership fees. Gas and insurance are included. In developed urban areas where owning multiple cars is more of a hindrance than a benefit, they are especially useful. I joined when my wife & I lived in Beacon Hill in Boston. The nearest ZipCar was generally no further away from our apartment than our own car due to the vagaries of on street parking.

I've also used a ZipCar a couple times when travelling to Chicago and San Francisco. In both cases, I was only in town for a few days and wanted to take a day trip to visit something that wasn't convenient to transit. Most of my use was at home when my wife and I needed to go separate ways to non-transit-accessible places or needed to use one of the pickups available. As a solution to vehicle needs when travelling, ZipCar is generally not a better option than renting a car.

I'm still trying to figure out how a zipcar is in any way related to Amtrak trains?
Does Amtrak rent them?
Would it be okay to mention Hertz, Budget, Avis, or Enterprise rent-a-cars in this thread, just to be fair to the other rent-a-car corporations?

Ron, as a past Moderator around here, I have no problems with this discussion. As reported in the originating posting, Mr. Primrose notes Amtrak rewards points can be earned by Zipcar use. However, Amtrak also has marketing arrangements with the other major auto rental concerns.

Our discussion has developed that Mr. Primrose, further intends to make use of Zipcar in a distant city, but that such use has not been embraced by the public at large. National brand auto rental concerns will continue to account for virtually all rentals made by persons desiring local transportation in a distant city that they have traveled to by means of commercial transportation.

Likewise, i do not foresee, Zipcar replacing local auto rentals, which are largely comprised of "insurance' rentals. Those persons have had their 'ride" snatched from them and they want it back ASAP - and when your buggy is in the body shop, and especially if the other party "took 100', ASAP is mighty, mighty, slow!

Gilbert B Norman wrote: Zipcar's market segment appears to be the demographic of young, urban, well-educated, environmentally conscious and hardly of the, again, "la voiture est moi" set. They view automobile transportation as some kind of "occasionally necessary evil'. While of course, I hope that Mr. Primrose's booking of a Zipcar in a distant city goes off OK, I doubt if anyone would be about to join Zipcar solely as an alternative to renting autos for use as local transportation in distant metropolitian areas.

ne ultra plus wrote: At least here in Chicago, Zipcar clients tend to be, not liberal academics, but just regular people, mostly young, who live in dense neighborhoods, can't afford a car of their own and don't need one very often.... Anywhere that is not urban, almost everyone needs a car on a daily or near daily basis, so a shared Zipcar couldn't fill their needs. The average Zipcar driver drives 1,000 miles/year. That's only feasible if you live in a dense neighborhood and can walk or take transit most places ... or if you're a fanatic. And there's no sound business model in marketing to fanatics (pace Fox News), so they stick with normal people in dense neighborhoods.

While not to totally disagree with Mr. norman, but he may be somewhat mischaracterizing owners. in a place like Philadelphia's downtown (3rd most populous is the nation) a car can run 350/mo for insurance and parking plus the ownership cost of the car (maintenance, price, etc). Consequently, Zip Car and it's local competitor Philly Car Share can save people hundreds of dollars a month. since most things are in walking distance or they can use transit, they may only need a car a few times a month (or less). Zip is far cheaper than renting a car plus insurance. With regards to amtrak, I'd imagine the largest users of zip cars near amtrak stations would be people who are members in their own city that also ride Amtrak. In Pitt, for example, I did rent it close to my hotel, though my hotel was close to the station. so zip car saved money on the trip by allowing me to see a few things in pitt that required a car without renting it doe the whole day and improved my overall experience of the trip using amtrak (vs driving). of course, zip car isn't going to make up for the average speed of 48 mph. I think the view that it's a small plus for amtrak in certain segments and a moderate plus for zip car is probably most accurate. and in big cities where people don't drive much, you should be thankful, for if they did, traffic would be much, much worse. Philadelphia during a transit strike is total gridlock.

mkellerm wrote: The important thing about Zipcar from Amtrak's perspective is not the availability of car-sharing at train stations, however; it is about turning car use from a fixed to a variable expense for consumers. As many people have pointed out on this forum in other contexts, one of the major advantages of car travel over passenger rail (or bus or airlines, for that matter) is that once you have committed to owning a car, the marginal cost of an intercity trip is quite low. If people chose not to own a car because of access to car sharing, or even if they downsize from two cars to one, the cost/benefit analysis for intercity travel shifts dramatically in the direction of rail/bus/airlines. The promise of Zipcar from Amtrak's perspective comes from shifting the demand curve overall, not from the availability of Zipcars at stations.

Your response underlines the ideological basis of ZipCar's business model. Indeed, patronage for carsharing seems to be centered on a political agenda more than a practical and rational pattern of use. It goes well beyond even the fringes of environmentalism, as the business model of ZipCar apparently involves "the rejection of private ownership for something more collectivist."

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Your response underlines the ideological basis of ZipCar's business model. Indeed, patronage for carsharing seems to be centered on a political agenda more than a practical and rational pattern of use. It goes well beyond even the fringes of environmentalism, as the business model of ZipCar apparently involves "the rejection of private ownership for something more collectivist."

We generally don't think that a business contracting for the use of equipment on an as-needed basis represents "the rejection of private ownership for something more collectivist", so I am not sure why individuals should be held to a different standard.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: Your response underlines the ideological basis of ZipCar's business model. Indeed, patronage for carsharing seems to be centered on a political agenda more than a practical and rational pattern of use. It goes well beyond even the fringes of environmentalism, as the business model of ZipCar apparently involves "the rejection of private ownership for something more collectivist."

Oh, please. Yeah, and your friggin' gym membership is collectivist too because you pay them to share the workout equipment.

Some people see socialists in their applesauce. What a bunch of hooey.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Indeed, patronage for carsharing seems to be centered on a political agenda more than a practical and rational pattern of use. It goes well beyond even the fringes of environmentalism, as the business model of ZipCar apparently involves "the rejection of private ownership for something more collectivist."

When I was in college (in a non-transit friendly city) many students had their own vehicles but there were a lot who were campus bound and couldn't go anywhere without a ride. Those with cars became taxi drivers for their fellow students and it was easy to fill a car for any trip off campus with people who needed to go shopping. Zip Cars would fill a need ... for those that wouldn't mind the annual and per hour fees. $7 to go to WalMart and be back in an hour is a bit steep but it is cheaper than a round trip cab ride and roughly the same as bus transportation (except for free shuttles).

Perhaps you just don't see the practical and rational patterns of use. Occasional need of personal transportation. Traditional rental agencies typically want YOU to go to them to get a car (or charge for delivery of a vehicle to a specific location). Zip Cars are available in neighborhoods. Unless you live near an airport or other car rental hot spot you're not going to find a car waiting and ready to go.

It may not be YOUR pattern of use for a car you don't own ... but it is a pattern of use many who live in those neighborhoods and own cars actually follow. They leave their cars parked until they have a need for them and rely on other transportation to get around. For people who don't make a lot of car trips a Zip Car would be very practical.

One doesn't have to reject private ownership to ride public transportation (including our beloved Amtrak). Unless you own a train and pay for trackage rights you're paying for ride sharing every time you ride the rails. It isn't a political decision. It is a practical, rational option to using your own car.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: Your response underlines the ideological basis of ZipCar's business model. Indeed, patronage for carsharing seems to be centered on a political agenda more than a practical and rational pattern of use. It goes well beyond even the fringes of environmentalism, as the business model of ZipCar apparently involves "the rejection of private ownership for something more collectivist."

Ooookay, a for profit American company thinks outside the box to better serve a market that had been poorly served, and this is being done to advance collectivist agenda? Wow, it's not even March and we already have the prime candidate for 2010's "Post of Glory!"

Hate to break this to you gnjw, but there is neither socialist dogma or Stalin air fresheners in a Zipcar, the guidelines aren't bilingual with Russian, and we Zipcard holders don't hold late night meetings calling each other "comrades."

And even more shocking gnjw, rejecting the ownership of something that I don't truly need and saving significant money by doing so allows me to UNIVERSALLY do something EVERY time I rent a Zipcar - SPEND MONEY: see a movie, go out to eat, go shopping. Yes, really.

So may I take it that when you go out to dinner and a movie with someone, you both drive separately and visit own your private movie theatre and restaurant built and equipped with raw materials mined and manufactured entirely by your own enterprise? After all, anything less would be "collectivist."

Back to the original topic, Zipcar in an Amtrak setting would be something of a niche use, but given the many millions of auto trips taken daily, could have a use in at least some settings. An urban Philadelphia resident bound for a day in Frederick, Md. could ride Amtrak down to Penn Station Baltimore, and then rent a car to be well on their way there well before they'd ever set foot in the agencies at BWI.

Assuming there was already a Zipcar base nearby, the station was near a well populated residential area, and the cars were sited so as to be within a 10 minute walk of both the station and the nearby housing, there would be at least a few locales where an Amtrak geared Zipar(s) would truly work. Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia rather quickly come to mind. Even Boston could be readily done with similar inconvenience to the current means.

To close, I'll share this - I recently got approval to attend a software conference in Phoenix taking place at a resort over a mile outside the transit service area. Pricing the trip as if it were coming from my own pocket, I'd priced staying at an offsite hotel on a number of bus lines, and compared renting Zipcar for three days versus the traditional agencies: RESULT - gas, mileage, and insurance included, Zipcar came in well over $100 LESS than the lowest rental agent at the airport that did not include any of the extras. Sadly, the travel agent we have to go through has to go through the traditional carriers.

The Metropolitan wrote:Back to the original topic, Zipcar in an Amtrak setting would be something of a niche use, but given the many millions of auto trips taken daily, could have a use in at least some settings. An urban Philadelphia resident bound for a day in Frederick, Md. could ride Amtrak down to Penn Station Baltimore, and then rent a car to be well on their way there well before they'd ever set foot in the agencies at BWI.

Wow, this is neat. When I was much younger I came up with a whiz-bang idea of "station cars" at suburban train stations with poor transit connections. (I think the idea originated in Europe.) Of course, I didn't have a clue about liability or anything like that. I was thinking about writing a grant but never followed through. Zipcar could have a niche here.

Of course, you would need some sort of draw, or at least sufficient population. That's why Penn Station (BAL) is a nice example. Suppose my final destination was in Balto County (thinner bus service) and I had too much crap to haul on multiple bus connections anyway? Day trip, not multiple day, then a cab (or Hertz) makes more sense. Business presentation and I'm taking my own projector. No big deal riding Amtrak WAS to BAL, but even though the bus is nice, do I really want to slog on bus, farecard between my teeth? Zipcar's starting to look attractive...

(I thought MARC went to Frederick, though.)

The Metropolitan wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: Your response underlines the ideological basis of ZipCar's business model. Indeed, patronage for carsharing seems to be centered on a political agenda more than a practical and rational pattern of use. It goes well beyond even the fringes of environmentalism, as the business model of ZipCar apparently involves "the rejection of private ownership for something more collectivist."

So may I take it that when you go out to dinner and a movie with someone, you both drive separately and visit own your private movie theatre and restaurant built and equipped with raw materials mined and manufactured entirely by your own enterprise? After all, anything less would be "collectivist."

You know what's really collectivist?? Country clubs. I've always felt if people want to play golf, they should buy a golf course, rather than banding together to share one.

And you what's worse?? A lot of country clubs VOTE on who will run the club! Could there be any more certain sign of a foreign, collectivist impulse than that they're governed by the outcome of a vote? Where did they get an idea like that? Marx, I'd bet!

Behold!

I spent a little time on the Zipcar site, and discovered that access to Zipcars from Amtrak is actually more comprehensive than I thought!

Here's a list of Amtrak Stations that host Zipcars on or adjacent to the premises:
Durham, NH
Emeryville, CA
Metropark, NJ
Princeton Jct, NJ
Philadelphia 30 St, PA
Rockville, MD
Washington, DC

Stations where Zipcars are no more than a 10-15 minute walk (about 4 blocks) from the Station:
Ann Arbor, MI (4 blocks)
Alexandria, VA (2 blocks)
Boston, MA (1 block)
Chicago, IL (1 block)
Naperville, IL (2 blocks)
New York Penn, NY (1 block)
Oakland Jack London, CA (3 blocks)
Portland, OR (1 block)
Pittsburgh, PA (4 blocks)
Seattle, WA (1 block)
Toronto, ON (2 blocks)

Stations where Zipcars are a short transit or cab ride away:
Atlanta, GA (appx. 8 blocks)
Baltimore, MD (appx. 14 blocks)
Champaign-Urbana, IL (appx. 8 blocks)
Charlottesville, VA (appx. 10 blocks)
Chico, CA (appx. 6 blocks)
Davis, CA (appx 12 blocks)
New Haven, CT (appx. 6 blocks)
Rochester, NY (appx. 8 blocks)
Vancouver, BC (appx. 8 blocks)

There are a few other host towns where Zipcars are rather readily reachable, but may be pushing their usefulness to the arriving Amtrak Passenger. Albuquerque, San Jose, Santa Barbara, Syracuse, Worcester, Tuscaloosa, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and San Luis Obispo are among these. Still other spots would qualify as useful only for the most seasoned of adventurer, such as Chapel Hill, NC, Hartford, CT, and San Diego, CA.

Still, the list as it stands is pretty respectable, and to some folks who like to ride and explore areas in the Northeast and California, might be a deciding factor in Zipcar membership and Amtrak travel. Thus far, marekting linking the two has been limited only to AGR, but the network might be developed enough to consider listing it as an option for those who might be able to use it!

***Edit - Yes, MARC goes to Frederick, but just 3 trips inward in the AM, and 3 out in the PM. Even with it as an option in your timeframe, those coming in from the northeast would be there far faster by alighting at Baltimore Penn, catching the 3/11/61 to the Hopkins campus, and heading out in a Zipcar than going all the way to Union and getting the commuter train.

***Edit again - neplus, I've been chuckling and shaking my head all day after reading that earlier post. Surely, if we're not willing to immerse ourselves in substantial personal debt for the good of the automotive economy by buying things we have very little need for, we are up to subersive activity, right?!