into intoxication, we are supposed to stop the service immediately -- >> i think i lost you there. let's get a couple more here. gerald is in michigan. gerald is in michigan. caller: there were several points i felt were of interest. the officer in wisconsin had some wonderful things to say as far as the impacts of normal people and how they would go bout trying to enforce this. also, in my own personal belief, i'm a person who drank at one time in my life but i no longer drink.

the monetary value to the system. there has been quite a machine that has been created on the machine of drinking and driving and stopping it. host: let's get one more view here. let's go to nick who is a bar worker in indiana. you get the last word, what is your experience and what do you want to comment on? caller: i appreciate you taking my call. the chairwoman's numbers were ot adding up due to 10,000 deaths in drunk driving. she said they only test 50% of the cases and that was 500 to 800 and if you double that, that

only makes 1,000-1,600 and you're trying to cut it. the math doesn't add up. t is going to go to 900 or 8,600. now seen it go from .10 they want .05. it's an individual, you know, tolerance issue. at .05, are they going to look at it case by case, which they should. you get pulled over at a routine check point -- host: as a sesker, would you feel like nicole in florida would you feel more pressure, more preresponsible to the people you're serving at the .05? if caller: i'm a musical entertainer who plays in bars. it would affect the bottom line.

my success is how well the establishment does as far as bar sales go. at .05, there would be a lot of establishments who might be making it and then they won't. there goes jobs and tax revenue. my primary argument is that her numbers did not add up or make sense. host: thank you for your call. thanks for all of your calls this evening. if you missed the conversation or the meeting where the changes have been recommended, all this is in our video library at c-span.org. we've asked you about the .05.sed laws from .08 to 74 people say keep it the same. that the suggesting level is the preferred level.

you can cast your vote on our facebook page. next up here on c-span, we're going to take a look at how the car sharing industry is affecting transportation and the environment. a discussion from the commonwealth club in california. >> a conversation about today's economy and environment. today, we're discussing a new means of personal mobility. a few decades ago if you did not have a car and there was not a bus nearby you might have to stick your thumb out. now, you can use a smartphone app. over the next hour, we'll discuss the transportation piece of sharing economy here in san francisco. we're pleased to have with us four people who are at the orefront of the innovations.

from u.c. an shaheen berkeley. we have the head of public policy. please welcome them. [applause] i would like to start briefly by asking how you got into this sharing economy and car sharing? susan, you've been doing this a long time. tell us briefly how you got into his new area quite some time ago. >> i've been researching these car sharing systems for 17 years. i thought it made tremendous sense after i saw a presentation . out pressuring systems

i heard the lecture and i said this is my dissertation topic. i was challenged by my committee who said there is no way americans will give up their cars. i thought there might be a chance. i never looked back. >> so you wanted to prove your committee wrong. ok. >> yes. > you were an investor and you had an incarnation with another company -- tell us you got into the sharing economy and the ride sharing? >> actually, my story begins back in 1997, believe it or not. i just mosted to san francisco. me and my wife had one car between us. one day as i was waiting to be epiphany. i had an

i thought i had an idea, i need another car. but some day my phone will know where i'm at. i started thinking, some day we're going to rethink transportation around this idea. it led me to work through the ideas. ran into the founders of city car share. here's another example of rethinking transportation. i was on the baurd of city car share for a number of years. taught at the university. the students created get around. we have a law passed in california of car sharing. my interest in this category has been around for a long time.

i think ride sharing, which is what side car does. we're able to expand this rapidly and aggressively around the world. >> rick, how did you get into this space of ride sharing? you're non-profit. >> ride sharing was started back in the late 1990's. we're about 12 years old. i'm a reformed banker. i made my way out here, did a couple of start-ups and ran into people like sunil who was doing amazing things in the environmental space and around innovation and technology. city car share lost its executive director and after a little dance, i decided to join and the rest is history. it has been seven years. >> we'll get more into ride

sharing. how did you come to the ride sharing and car sharing? >> i was outside council to naurm of the high-flying companies. i also represented other companies. in 2010, i was working with a company and grew close earn close we are the founders. i saw the vision. in what they were doing over last couple of years. i came on full time three months ago for legal and public policy matters. >> great. et's get the bask terms -- basic. can you outline for us ride sharing, car sharing and then we can get how it is changing the

way people get around the world. >> it is fairly simple. it is the shared use of a vehicle. >> we need to put your mic on. >> it is a shared vehicle by a group of members. they frequently pay an annual fee, monthly fee and pay by the hour and in some case, by mileage. there's a couple of new flavors of car sharing that you heard mentioned. one is the peer-to-peer concept. that is the idea of people putting their own personal vehicles into this car sharing. we're seeing a new form called one-way. operatinglike bmw are here in the city. that's a one-way model. in rick's model, which is more classic, individuals go into and out of the same location for

their access to the vehicle. with one way, you actually can pick the vehicle from one location to another. so there's a lot of tremendous innovation in the car sharing space right now. there's a lot of confusion about definitions and impacts. it's causing some flurry of activity here, actually in san francisco. in terms of ride sharing, there's a couple of different flavors of that. starts with the simple, a family sharing a vehicle, taking children to and from school, maybe with the neighbors. it also moves into more of a classic car pooling situation where people are sharing a vehicle that they car pool in for work trips or more regular trips. there's longer incidents tants trips. we're starting to see a tremendous amount of innovation in, which is represented in --

by my colleagues here which is the ride sharing. very dynamic and instant. so what we're seeing, in my opinion, is the growth and development of the shared usele mobility space. we don't know how it is going to shake out. we have a lot of work ahead in the public policy arena. >> so the concepts have been around for a long time. you go into the airport, share a van. why is this happening now? is it technology, hard economic times? what is driving it? >> i think there's three things that have changed. i actually looked at doing something like this in 1999. i decided not to for three reasons, all of which has changed. technology, that is changed. smartphones, there's been smartphones for a long time.

what has changed is you can have access to them without convincing a big, huge company to cooperate with you. you can publish it to the itunes more are coming. there's interest on the part of every day people in new forms of transportation. i think this is -- we have more willingness to experiment with transportation than any time since world war ii. since that time we accepted that is going be the mobile of the rare. >> owning the automobile. >> yes, the car that you own. because of climate change, things like energying suggest -- security, there's a willingness to try new things. third thing is there's political

will to try new things, for the same thing of climate change and energy security. there's a political will to experiment. i mean, a quick andy dote. when i was advocating for the company, i was sent into a republican's office, i shouldn't . y publicly why i was sent in >> would that change the way insurance is handled? >> the insurance companies could have killed this bill. i was told with a single phone call. i was told these republicans were, you know, very minimal to the interests of the insurance companies. i met with a staffer, i was prepared for all my arguments and the first words out of her mouth, this is the future and the insurance companies need to

get on board. to me, there's an indication there is a willingness to try new things in transportation, there's a willingness to accept the smartphone and technology is the wave of the future. we are going to reorganize our entire society around this and transportation is one of those things. we've done it with media, shopping, eastern things. transportation is the next big category to be transformed. one person at google, in five years your car will be your smartphone. does what does that mean? does that mean self-driving cars? more displays in the car? what does that mean? >> when we say that we're talking about today, when you want to do anything in modern life, if you want food from the grocery store, get to work, you want to go out of an date, everything is mediated by the

automobile. now, everything is going to be mediated by your smartphone. you can get the mobility that you need, whether it is going grocery shopping, going out on dates, getting to work, all of that will be possible through your smartphone. >> let's talk about the size of this market. do we know how big this market is? there's lots of companies, that are pretty small. do we know how big it is? >> yes. this is what i do. [laughter] i track these numbers for the industry. me.'s why you invited i have not shared this with the media yet. we did our data collection for january 2013. north america has surpassed the million mark for car sharing members, that includes mexico,

quite small, one program and canada and u.s. he u.s. is about 820,000 members. >> car sharing our car riding? >> car sharing. >> that is tremendous growth, right? >> it has been growing. since we've started our tracking efforts in the late 1990's, we've never seen a decline. we've seen ongoing growth. i do think this product or service could scale much bigger than what with see today. my concern is how do we look at this from a public policy stand foint grow those numbers bigger? i'm very interested in the question of scale ability now i used to be interested in how is this going to impact society and environment? >> who are those people? are they people who live in

urban areas, people under 40 who live in urban air zpwhrass >> those are the common demographics. i think there's chances to grow beyond that in the business models and changes in the overall approach. i think everyone on this panel represents that change. >> then what are the impacts of that change on existing businesses, car company, we talked about insurance companies? are the car companies going to sell fewer cars? >> they could sell more cars if they put them into car sharing systems. we see a number of automakers who are interested in providing these services. bmw, they are putting electric vehicles throughout. they could be a service provider as well as a vehicle provider.

there's an opportunity for them to develop a new core competency in their business. ultimately, there might be an impact on the total size of vehicles. we're looking at a changing world where people are moving into urban areas. there is limited space. we're facing climate change and energy issues that are going to impact the future. i think the role of the automobile is changing. >> bill was here from ford company and he said car sharing is going to happen whether we ike it or not. is this going to reduce vehicle miles traveled? or people are going to be moving around more because it is easier to do? >> that is an excellent

question. i think there is this potential paradox as you make things more efficient people use them more. we'rehink in case of what doing, specifically with ride sharing, there's an opportunity to reduce emissions and reduce congestion. it has to do with the way that we do it. passengers must enter their destination and drivers can see what that destination is. we like to say the good of the nation requires destination. conveying asically if you can make the ride shared then you can have reductions in emissions, you can have reductions in congestion. if you can't have that kind of sharing you're not going to get those benefits. >> is this someone commuting from san francisco to the east bay?

is this the daily routine? if this is someone going down the 101 and wants to get into the car pool lane? >> we have a number of different people. we have a platform so people can indicate here is where i am and this is where i want to go. drivers can see where the pick up and destination is. if that is convent for them they will accept it. we have a guy in our system named nick, he works in mountain view, he lives in the city. he turns on the app in the morning, he looks for somebody going south and they drop him off and he goes on to his job. that is one case. there are other times people turn it on to get out of the house and give rides to people because they like meeting people and it is a way to make extra money to offset their car costs. >> i take that as motivation for

distinctive ve the banner -- >> the car stashs. >> is it the extra money that is a big motivater? >> i think there are a number of motivaters. one is the opportunity to make a little extra to offset your car costs. i think people believe in the long-term vision of the company, hich would have an effect in miles traveled and greenhouse gas and emission reduction as well. >> how does that work? if i hop in and that car might be sitting in the garage, i might have taken a taxi and the taxi would be out there driving around. it could increase the greenhouse. >> that's a great question. this is something we've talked a lot about with susan in the

past. i believe, officially with car sharing that was the problem. you had vehicles available to people who were did not have vehicles available. you are putting more cars on the road but which n the long term, you're having an overall positive benefit. that is our long-term vision as well. >> would that happen, susan? >> yes. a lot of times the early adopters of car sharing in a city are people who never had access to a car. it is not surprising tow see an increase in miles traveled. the real gain is reduction for the miles traveled is to get people to sell cars or postpone car purchases. revealed thatdies one car sharing vehicle takes nine to 13 vehicles off the road

six uses people to vehicles. that is where we're seeing the net effect. the total net effect is actual positive towards the environment. this study showed about 43% eduction in co2 emissions from those postponed and those car purchases. >> you also have data on the impact and what it displaces in carbon and vehicles and miles traveled. >> in the bay area, we're ground central for car sharing, peer-to-peer sharing. there's more companies offering services to allow people not to have to own a car, or to get rid of a car.

we've been experiencing that for years. 2/3 of our members say they have sold the car or delayed buying a car once they join us. study done back in the early longitude the only study that i know of and it shows cars take off the road. it showed that a greener ride could have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. based on the report and work that susan shaheen has done, we saved about 80 million pounds of co2 emissions. 80,000 fewer miles are driven on bay area roads. you asked a question about

growth. there has been tremendous growth. when i joined in 2005, i had a number of 3205. last year, we issued number 40,000. there's been tremendous growth in car sharing. every single one those members is likely to have gotten rid of a car, not buying a car, or is thinking about getting rid of another car. you have reduction in greenhouse gas emissions but in all the co2 that is released in the production of those vehicles that would have been purchased. >> you claim your non-profit car sharing service is greener than four car sharing services. how? >> i'm using information that came out of a study back in 2008 that showed non-profit car sharing organizations do save more greenhouse gas emissions.

what is the reason for that? i think there are several reasons and the main one is we have the greenest fleet in the industry. 45% of our cars are hybrid or electric vehicles. when we look at -- just based on e.p.a. standards, our fleet is about 35%-40% more fuel efficient than the standard car on the road today. >> i would say the former car share member i drove around -- i wouldn't buy those car bus drie around in. is that true that for profit companies are looking to maximize their profit? >> what i would say is the data showed for profit and non-profit had a negative effect of redoesing co2 emissions or a positive effect for the environment. we did see that this effect was

higher for the non-profits. i have another hypothesis for the dynamics of the fleet. i also think the pricing of how city car share prices have an impact. they do charge by mile. i think that has an impact on the total number of miles driven by a city car share vehicle. it is contained more inside the pricing of a for profit company. does that make sense? >> sure. for relay rides and theers models where people are using their own car, they may not be he cleanest or a hybrid. is there an incentive to be

clean and green in the model? >> you know as far as not with respect to the way city car share is doing it but what is clean and green about it, you have less vehicles on the road. less vehicles total, more people using their vehicles in an efficient way. even if you're not driving a prius you maybe are taking another car off the road. >> i read a statistic that 80% of the car seat miles are empty. you think of a five-passenger car and during rush hour -- so we're talk aboutal pretty big cultural change here prp for all those people who are used to listening to n.t.r., we love them, or sports radio and picking up a stranger, do i want to talk to you all the way to san jose? really? how is this working culturally

to ride with strangers and make that commitment? >> i think it is working remarkably well. i think there's this whole culture that -- i'm old enough to remember texas chainsaw massacre. there is -- one thing that surprised me was that we put all these safety measures in into place and people have taken to it. the background check of the , all , the rating systems of these systems have, i think built confidence that this is a safe system. enough so when we surveyed the users, 71% think it's safer, they feel safer in a ride they atched through us than a taxi. we've been around for less than a year of offering this service.

>> someone who recently took my first thrilling ride in another company that is a real time dynamic, basically, replace taxi. i like the fact i can see the guy's face before he picks me up, eni have his information afterwards. that moderates the drivers and i get to check one or five stars, that has an effect on the person's behavior. i think trust seems to be a big part of this. user confidence or accountability in both directions to making this work. >> we have this new model of trust that is now possible. it is because of social media, just the ability of feedback. there is little accountability before. casual car pool here in the bay area transports 5,000 people a day with no accountable. >> that is where you wait on the side of the road and a carpals up and you don't know who they

are. >> that's right. so we took that model and was like, gee, can we take that and make it work across the entire bay area and around the country? and the answer is yes, it's working and it is spreading rapidly. >> it is spreading rapidly and t is causing resistance with regulators. >> let's talk about the yellow cabs, who is being disrupted by this innovation? let's talk about the incumbent defending their territory and how that is playing out. >> it is a battle that happens a lot. the industries that -- the new envow vacation want to resist it and they use every enmeans they

can. i think another example of this is what happened with voice over i.p. and things like skype. they offer this amazing service and amazing advantage for consumers and at&t and the rest really resisted it. they used other systems to help resist that change. i think a similar dynamic is at work right now. we've got objections that are made against us don't come from the public, they come from people who have a lot to lose by having innovation happen in the marketplace. > you've been fined what $20,000 -- the regulatory issues cost you half a million dollars fighting this. >> just to recap, the california regulators have sent notices to . fines three of us

while there are those fines out there to be honest, what is expensive, we haven't paid the fines. what is exspebsive is engaging with regulators. -- expensive is engaging with regulators. lawyers, that is the expensive part. we're innovators and we're looking for new ways to make the systems better and transform transportation. we estimate about $500,000 that have gone towards these regulatory engagements. >> what is their beef? you're not regulated? what is the problem? > well, i think -- >> you don't have a license to do what you're doing. >> we had a note saying that we should stop operating because we don't have a license for a

don't ory code saying we have a license for another company. we don't have car, we don't have drivers. we are information provider, we provide matching of riders and drivers. so i think there has been a fundamental -- this is a new median and it needs new rules. that viewpoint is one that regulators in the beginning don't understand. we see the same thing in philadelphia, austin. >> are they trying to make it illegal? in philadelphia they did a sting operation on your company. >> yes, a week before last there was a sting operation -- it wasn't against -- it was against our company but they impounded the vehicles of three drivers, they fined each of them $1,000 -- sorry one of them was fined

$2,000. they sent us fines as well. they the , -- austin, sent us a cease and decease and the city council has made it impossible for them to impound vehicles as well. i think what happened in california is we went from an attitude of the regulators to hey, you can't do that we're going to shut you down to, ok, we get it. we need new rules, let's have a conversation about what this new median is like, what the right rules should be for it, and how do we benefit california through this new capability? that is the approach we want. we want to talk to these folks. we're not saying there is no role for government. we think there needs to be a way to encourage eninnovation.

>> your company reached an agreement with regulators and so what was the deal to get them off your back? >> right. we had a number of trust issues in place background checks, rating system, etc. the public utilities commission's number one concern is public safety. i think they're not as focused on the entrenched interest like the taxi cab, they are interested in protecting consumerss. once we were able to show them what we do we were able to come to ansettlement agreement. >> -- to a settlement agreement. >> but that was not ok with you? fines was to stay the and cease and desist.

those conversations, we've agreed to keep confidential so i'm not going into details. i will say, we obviously, have not agreed to what they proposed. we have principle disagreements with what they have so far. we may end up signing it but only after we get an agreement on those principles. >> where is this going? innovation is ahead of policy as often is the case. there's industries fighting to protect -- susan sha sheen, how is going this going to shake out? where is this going? >> i think we have to work through these policy issues for the entire space. the ride sharing space are hitting it first. i think a lot of questions about liability, new insurance models, no ways of doing pricing, a lost

things need to be worked out. >> those are built around ownership. >> access. yeah, they are not based around principles of access. so i think we really need to work across the industry so there's many different players in this beside car sharing and ride sharing. we've got public bikesharing in it, we have new models of ownership being developmented that fits into this space. there's a range that could be represented and collectively, i think they have a voice. it's difficult when you're an entrepreneurial and trying to . n a business we need a new policy framework and we need a new dialogue. i've seen a lot of promise in regulators wanting to have that dialogue but it is this immediate reaction that i think

is really tough and difficult for the small companies. this could stomp out innovation. >> by the time rules get made. >> can i just add? >> sure. >> we're seeing this not just in transportation, we're seeing it with challenges in sharing. it across the board. sharing is not crime. it is good for sorte and we need to figure -- society and we need to figure out a way to encourage innovation. > hashtag defending sharing? good access on twitter, the hashtag is our hand. >> we should get people to sign our petition. we have people helping us with south by southwest coming up in austin. the timing with austin is really unfortunate. we were planning on providing

these shared rides for south by southwest and along came all these actions. we would love support on our petition on change.org. just search it and you will find it. >> i want to reference quickly, a company not up here but relay ride had a person -- quite a tragic case. n m.i.t. student and going her -- googler es leased out her honda, several people were injured, someone was killed. that looks like it would be exceeded. she could be on the hook financially. this ask a case that no one thought would happen but lending out your car than leasing out your couch. >> i would say this goes back to the public policy issue. he talked about his work to

develop peer-to-peer legislation and it would help to protect consumers as well as protect their right to make money off the use of their car. only two other states have adopted that legislation thus far. in that particular state, massachusetts, there was no protective legislation in place. you can see, are these small companies expected to go state by state by state to develop legislation? it is going to be impossible for them to do that. we need to elevate this to a national dialogue if not a higher dialogue. in the libraryability issues liability address -- issues need to be addressed. is the current insurance model the proper model? probably not. we need to look at insurance vehicles and, you know, do we need new insurance approaches, new insurance products to help

promote the service? >> is this market driven? the insurance companies are saying we have different clients and they are protecting different interests so it is hard to see the market doing this. >> god help us if the regulators are in charge of innovation. can you imagine if they ran twit center [laughter] i have nothing against them but their institution is not set up to do that. their job is to protect public safety, not to encourage innovation. i'm sorry, that is not their charge. there has to be a way to -- the role of public policy, to uphold the role of people is to encourage innovation. the role of our government is to encourage innovation. >> you think insurance companies innovate? >> yes. yes. >> they are going to have to.

in insurance, you have the commercial and the personal side and they do not meet. they don't talk the same language sometimes. when you have cars involved with different regulatoryle environments in different states, you have a mess. right now, as typical of any business that has been relatively successful over a long time you're going to get inertia and they are going to do everything they can to protect themselves. it is not working as far as promoting and helping innovative new ideas get accomplished at a cost that is practical. in the peer-to-peer car sharing model right now, it is a great model but one of the key issues they have is they cannot make any money with the insurance costs at the level they are at. i think she can talk a this.

when we penciled it out years ago, we went great idea. is it scaleable? is it going make money? it's not going to make money if insurance companies don't get -- become more innovative and choose to create a new product, quite frankly. >> it took a lot of work for people to take their health insurance different places. that was hard. >> do you think there is going to be innovation in insurance? there's going of to be large companies that will be more resistant before there's smaller companies that might be more nimble and pencil out the risk. car sharing, you can speak to this. tremendous history of wonderful, safety, good driving records. there's not a lot of accidents in the shared space, with respect to car sharing.

i know this for a fact. there's money to be made by the insurance industry by understanding that data, that risk data. >> if you're just joining us e're talk about car sharing. shaheen, is susan sunil paul. before we go to audience questions, i want to talk a how this is going to affect buildings and cities in the way that we build new spaces to accommodate growth? there's going to be new people in the bay area in the coming years and we if we build parking one to one that has imply cakeses. do you get special parking spaces if you're driving a shared ride? how is the land use going to connect with mobility as a

shared service? >> san francisco actually has been somewhat innovative in this air ya. back in 2006, the planning code was changed. now in san francisco, any billing, commercial or residential that is built, is required to have car sharing if they have above a certain amount of units. that kind of legislation is being studied and looked at in other venues as well. we did a pilot test on on streetcar sharing parking last year with the city of san francisco. is is a very interesting subject because what we're talking about is using the public right away and the public good and making it available to private companies. so it shouldn't be taken lightly. the fact is there are many benefits to allowing shared

vehicles of any kind to be parked in areas where we might have equity issues, where car sharing or car ownership is not financially viable. therefore, being able to have on street parking or parking that either subsidized or permitted is going to help expand car sharing and i believe some other models greatly. in the bay area, parking is the ey aspects that causes costs challenges for almost every model and is difficult to find. >> anyone else? >> i think sharing models have a tremendous opportunity to reduce challenges for cities. it takes so much money, it costs $1 million a mile to build a

sidewalk. not the mention a freeway. it is incredibly expensive to build these things in public infrastructure. having shared use, we already have h.o.v. lanes, having shared use through an apartment, through a side car system, having shared use of public infrastructure for parking spaces, through car sharing. all of these things make our public dollars go further than they would otherwise. i think it is fundamental, special to a money constrained environment that we're living in for the foreseeable future, sharing has to be part of the solution. >> building developers don't like what they see as a government mandate. it messes with their economics. >> there's a lot of developers who buy into this. many developers, at least in the bay area, we're local community buzz many developers get this.

they look at sharing as an amenity for their projects. they see it as an opportunity to also build less parking. parking cost $30,000-$40,000 per space. if you can not build those spaces and put in a few other units or even some open space, that makes it a better project. many developers are very supportive of what we're doing. >> we're talking about car sharing and climate one. we would like to invite your participation. don't be shy and come up here and come to the microphone. who is going to be the first brave soul? if you're on this side i would encourage you to start on that side. our line starts with our producer who will invite you up to invite your question. while that line is forming, let's talk about the jobs impact. how many people -- we talked a

little bit about extra income. are these companies significant job creators? let's get a sense of new jobs as well as, sort of part time jobs? how many employees? >> side car has 50 employees around the country but if you ook at the extra income or offsetting of vehicle cost we're closing in on 1,000 people around the country. >> we heard a member members of the car sharing services. how about jobs? >> our numbers are similar to sidecar's. i think we have 40-45 full-time employees now. hundreds more receiving incremental income because being able to ride share. >> part of the economy. >> i am wondering if local developments have partnered with the car sharing and marketed

that as a benefit? >> absolutely. we have several build information san francisco and also in the east bay. there's a local developer named patrick kennedy who -- maybe you have heard of these microunit developments going up. >> super small housing. >> patrick that is been a leader in that space and one of the things he pitched to the city here is i won't build any parking, we'll use car sharing so we'll have microspaces. >> these are housing that might fit into a parking space. >> true. we don't want people living in the car necessarily but it would be bigger than some those spaces. >> anything to add to that? >> i've been tracking this for a long time and i see developers

getting on board with this because they can make better use of the space. >> parking is a selling point. when you go to a condo the owner is like what if there is not a place to park when i come home with my christmas tree or bhaffer. so this is one step further, right? >> in my cities and locally here, you have unbundled parking. so a condo must separate parking and you pay a separate amount for that. if you choose to go car free, you don't have to pay for that spot or even buy it. at least in urban environments that seems to be more popular with sharing mobility services, whether you can use sidecar lift and gate car immediately or being b a member and share a car for more common needs. you don't need to have a car in

the city. >> how about the impact on transit? is this taking people off bus >> this is where model matters and different models of car sharing, ride sharing and peer-to-peer car sharing, we know through studies that when people join city car share, they decrease their drive big 45%. how many miles they drive and they increase their use of walking and biking over 50%. we've done studies with the san francisco m.t.a. over the years and it shows we're pushing more people on to public transit quite a bit actually. cally last year, we had more ople taking a car across the bay to use a dart station than people using it who lived there.

>> dart u.s.n't do go wherever and use a car sharing to get that final mile. >> thanks for a great panel so far. the social car sharing is impressive. we talked about insurance liability. if you look at zipcar stock's performance was underwhelming until it got bought. my question is what can you tell us about how compeling this market is for companies that are in it financially? if we had this panel 10 years from now are these companies still going to be in here? >> start with your background and i will plan. >> we should -- before you start ride sharing from car sharing, the differences. >> zipcar was about car sharing. >> as far as car sharing is

concerned, we're non-profit. we've made money for many years. we take all that money and put it back into the community through a low-income that we call community share. we developped the first wheelchair accessible vans that we've shared. we're going to initiate a local bike program. we own other companies are making money. not a lot but enough to create some social program that we think are important and to help expand car sharing. ride sharing, a new model here, my opinion, is that people like sunil would not be in it if there was not money to be made somewhere down the line, as well as social good that is produced. -- an le ventures is a

investor. the ogle ventures is institutional investor in it. this is my third company i've started and ran and invested in many. the last company was very successful. i made a lot of money already. so i am a capitalist so i expect to make money on this company and it's a big reason why i did this. i did this -- i'm doing this company not just because i think i can make money but because i think i can make a big difference and i can make history. i believe there is an opportunity to build a big company that fundamentally changes transportation. 10 years from now, we'll look back and say, wow, that -- not

just sidecar but other companies in the space ended up transforming the way we think about transportation. in the same way we look back in material days of electric cars. we say wow, ok, amazon, they were not just selling books and ebay, was not just handling collectibles and allowing people to trade collectibles. there's a whole bit of commerce has changed because of those companies. i think we're in a similar stage. i think the smartphone is going to unlock mobility in a different way, it is not just your mobile phone, it is going to be your mobility phone. >> so you may never buy a car for the young child that grows up and hits 16 like you and i wanted so bad. it may not happen. >> the trend is heading downward. the number of people who get drivers licenses at age -- i

think it is under 21. that population has been declining since the 1970's. in part because of of -- for a different reason. in the past, your automobile was your key to freedom. you got the keys and you can go out and do stuff in the world. today, my almost 12-year-old they have freedom already. they can talk to their friends, they don't have to be stuck with their dad all the time because they have a smartphone. that kind of -- it's already unlook different kind of freedom and mobility. i think when you take it to the point that i need to be able to move around in the city and i do need to look into a job. all of those things will be possibly through their phone. >> would you call up a ride share, sidecar and put those kids and send them somewhere?

>> sidecar. they are only 11 and a half but when they are older i would. >> next question. >> you were talking they are saying that we will have self driving cars. >> another reason why i jump in is because of self driving cars. -- we think that it is a fundamental change to transportation it will occur, that having a network where you can get access to our ride