Winter 2018 Carsharing Outlook V26 Stretched
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Complaints by Practice, Business, and Year Based on Complaint by Practice
Complaints By Practice, Business, and Year Based on Complaint By Practice OpenedYear PracticeName 2013 Abandonment of MH 2020 Abandonment of MH 2021 Abandonment of MH 2014 Abandonment of MH 2013 Abandonment of MH 2014 Abandonment of MH 2013 Abandonment of MH 2021 Abandonment of MH 2015 Abandonment of MH 2018 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2019 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2020 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2021 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2019 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2020 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2021 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2018 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2020 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2020 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2020 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) Page 1 of 480 09/25/2021 Complaints By Practice, Business, and Year Based on Complaint By Practice BusinessName id 3 1 1 Comcast 1 Easy Acres Mobile Home Park 1 Leisure Estates 1 Pinecroft Mobile Home Park 1 T-Mobile 1 1 3 1 6 2 Baths Only fka Nathan Construction 1 Clallam Bay Corrections Center 1 Disability Rights Washington 1 Fidelity Investments 1 Fred Meyer 1 JAMS Mediation Arbitration and ADR Services 1 King County Metro 1 Page 2 of 480 09/25/2021 Complaints By Practice, Business, and Year Based on Complaint By Practice 2019 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2020 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2021 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2019 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2020 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2019 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2019 ADA (Americans w/Disabilities Act) 2021 -
Equity and Shared Mobility Services Working with the Private Sector to Meet Equity Objectives Acknowledgements November 2019
Equity and Shared Mobility Services Working with the Private Sector to Meet Equity Objectives Acknowledgements November 2019 SUMC expresses appreciation to interviewees from the following organizations: Chicago Department of Transportation, District of Columbia, Center for Community Transportation (Ithaca Carshare), Ridecell, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, Capital Metro, Zipcar, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, and HourCar. Sarah Jo Peterson, 23 Urban Strategies, LLC, led the research for SUMC, which also included researchers Brian Holland, Erin Evenhouse, and Peter Lauer, under the direction of Ellen Partridge and Sharon Feigon. The paper was edited by Leslie Gray. © 2019 Shared-Use Mobility Center. All Rights Reserved. Shared-Use Mobility Center Chicago, IL 312.448.8083 Los Angeles, CA 818.489.8651 www.sharedusemobilitycenter.org Contents Executive Summary 01 Introduction 06 Equity in Shared Mobility Services: What Is It? 07 Types of Equity Initiatives and Programs 08 Equity Analysis across Multiple Dimensions 08 Understanding Public-Private Partnerships 12 Best Practices for Public-Private Partnerships 13 Opportunities to Meet Equity Objectives: 15 Vehicle Sharing Permitting and Partnerships 16 Concerns for Low-Income Communities 18 Focus on Bikeshare: Activists Organize to Advance Equity 20 Case Example 21 Focus on Carshare: Model Programs for Low-Income Drivers 26 Case Example 27 Vehicle Sharing as Part of a Multimodal Lifestyle 29 Opportunities to Meet Equity Objectives: 30 Sharing the Ride The Public Sector’s Role: -
Exploring the Car-Sharing Culture Shift in Metro Vancouver
Changing Gears: Exploring the car-sharing culture shift in Metro Vancouver January 2018 Highlights • Vancouver has more car-sharing vehicles per capita than any other North American city. The region’s car-sharing fleet of about 3,000 vehicles is the largest in Canada, and is larger than fleets in key U.S. car-sharing cities such as Seattle, Portland and San Francisco. • An October 2017 Vancity survey targeting more than 4,000 car-share members in B.C. found: n One in three joined a car-share program in the previous 12 months, while two in three joined within the last two years. n More than half of respondents now belong to two or more car-share programs. n The most common reasons for using car-share services are convenience (95%) and saving money (62%), the Vancity survey found, while concern for the environment was cited by 58%. n The strongest car-sharing benefits relate to psychological factors, such as sense of freedom and peace of mind. Getting to certain places are of less significance. n More than one-quarter of survey respondents have disposed of at least one private vehicle to car-share, while 40% have avoided acquiring a private vehicle due to a car-sharing preference. n Younger car-share members are the least likely to say they enjoy not owning a private vehicle. They are also the most likely to say they would sacrifice things such as chocolate and ice cream, an annual vacation and their sense of smell for 12 months, in exchange for the free use of a private car for a year. -
Accelerating the Transition to Zevs in Shared and Autonomous Fleets
Accelerating the transition to ZEVs in shared and autonomous fleets December 4, 2018 Table of contents Executive summary 5 1 Introduction 8 2 Background 10 Electromobility 10 Shared passenger mobility models 11 Shared electric passenger fleets 11 Vehicular automation 12 Barriers to adoption 13 3 Review of implications for low-carbon transportation 15 ZEVs 15 Shared 16 Autonomous 18 ZEV + shared 19 ZEV + autonomous 20 Shared + autonomous 20 ZEV + shared + autonomous 20 4 Electromobility in shared mobility fleets 22 Vehicle type 22 Profiles of users and riders of shared use mobility 22 Profiles of users and riders of shared use ZEVs & opportunities for acceleration 23 Challenges 23 Reasons for adopting BEVs in shared mobility 25 Logistics, operations of BEVs within shared use mobility 26 Trip distance 26 Daily vehicle kilometers traveled and parking time 27 BEV range and charging needs 28 5 Practicality and business case for BEVs in shared use mobility 30 Cost of ownership and BEV value proposition in car sharing 30 Cost of ownership and BEV value proposition in ride hailing 31 6 Shared electromobility deployment conclusions 35 Key success factors 35 Lessons learned 35 Policies that support electromobility in shared use fleets 36 Concluding remarks 38 Appendices A. Growth of shared mobility services 40 B. List of ZEV shared mobility services 41 C. Impacts of ride hailing 44 D. Example of BEV car sharing education tools 45 E. Uber ZEV-related communications 46 F. BEV in ride hailing payback, Montréal and London 48 Accelerating the Transition to ZEVs in Shared and Autonomous Fleets 2 List of figures and tables List of figures Figure 1. -
Floating Carsharing in Oakland, California
UC Berkeley Recent Work Title An Evaluation Of Free- Floating Carsharing In Oakland, California Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3j722968 Authors Martin, Elliot, PhD Pan, Alexandra Shaheen, Susan Publication Date 2020-06-01 DOI 10.7922/G2N014SJ eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California AN EVALUATION OF FREE- FLOATING CARSHARING IN OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA ELLIOT MARTIN, PH.D. ALEXANDRA PAN SUSAN SHAHEEN, PH.D. UC BERKELEY TRANSPORTATION SUSTIANABILITY RESEARCH CENTER FINAL REPORT doi:10.7922/G2N014SJ JUNE 2020 Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction .............................................................................................................................11 Shared Mobility Programs and Outreach in Low-Income Communities: Overview of Barriers to Usage and U.S.-Based Programs ........................................................................12 Barriers to Shared Mobility for Low-Income Communities ..............................................13 Spatial Barriers ................................................................................................................13 Financial Barriers .............................................................................................................14 Cultural Barriers ...............................................................................................................15 -
Floating Carsharing in Oakland California
AN EVALUATION OF FREE- FLOATING CARSHARING IN OAKLAND CALIFORNIA ELLIOT MARTIN, PH.D. ALEXANDRA PAN SUSAN SHAHEEN, PH.D. UC BERKELEY TRANSPORTATION SUSTIANABILITY RESEARCH CENTER FINAL REPORT NOVEMBER 2019 Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Shared Mobility Programs and Outreach in Low-Income Communities: Overview of Barriers to Usage and U.S.-Based Programs ........................................................................................................................... 12 Barriers to Shared Mobility for Low-Income Communities .................................................................. 13 Spatial Barriers ................................................................................................................................... 13 Financial Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 14 Cultural Barriers ................................................................................................................................. 15 Operator-Specific Barriers ................................................................................................................. -
MTC Guidance
APPENDIX 1 MTC Guidance Congestion ManageMent PrograM 2019 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Planning Committee June 14, 2019 Agenda Item 2b MTC Resolution No. 3000, Revised – Congestion Management Program Policy Subject: Approval of revisions to MTC’s Congestion Management Program Policy to inform the Bay Area’s County Transportation Agencies (CTAs) (also known as “Congestion Management Agencies” or “CMAs”) on how MTC intends to make a finding of consistency between each prepared 2019 Congestion Management Program (CMP) and Plan Bay Area 2040, the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Background: CMPs were established by State law in 1990 with the intention of creating a cooperative context for transportation planning by cities and their respective CTAs. A primary intent of CMPs is to monitor county multi-modal transportation networks and identify improvements to the performance of these multi-modal systems. The CMPs primary performance measure is vehicle delay presented as Level of Service (LOS) A through F. The CMPs are prepared biennially (odd years). However, CMPs are not required in a county if a majority of local governments representing a majority of the population adopt resolutions electing to be exempt from this requirement (AB 2419 (Bowler) Chapter 293, Statutes of 1996). Jurisdictions throughout the state have chosen to opt out of the CMP process as provided for in the law, including San Diego, Fresno, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo counties. Los Angeles County began the opt out process in 2018. MTC has encouraged local consideration of the opt out process, noting that the CMP legislation is outdated and the CMP’s primary measure – LOS – has largely been superseded by other statewide priorities to reduce vehicle miles (“VMT”) and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -
Cycle 2 California ZEV Investment Plan
California ZEV Investment Plan: Cycle 2 Public Version – October 3, 2018 1 California ZEV Investment Plan: Cycle 2 Table of Contents List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 12 2. Outreach Efforts and Key Learnings .................................................................................................. 18 3. Infrastructure Investments ................................................................................................................ 34 4. Public Education, Awareness, and Marketing Activities ................................................................... 67 5. Green City ........................................................................................................................................... 78 6. Community Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 80 7. Closing ................................................................................................................................................. 83 Sources Cited ............................................................................................................................................. -
Draft Forecasting and Modeling Report
DRAFT FORECASTING AND MODELING REPORT MAY 2021 Metropolitan Transportation Association of City Representatives Commission Bay Area Governments Nikki Fortunato Bas Alfredo Pedroza, Chair Jesse Arreguín, President Councilmember, City of Oakland Napa County and Cities Mayor, City of Berkeley London Breed Nick Josefowitz, Vice Chair Belia Ramos, Vice President Mayor, City and County of San Francisco San Francisco Mayor's Appointee Supervisor, County of Napa Tom Butt Margaret Abe-Koga David Rabbitt, Mayor, City of Richmond Cities of Santa Clara County Immediate Past President Pat Eklund Supervisor, County of Sonoma Eddie H. Ahn Mayor, City of Novato San Francisco Bay Conservation Maya Esparza and Development Commission County Representatives Councilmember, City of San José David Canepa Candace Andersen Carroll Fife San Mateo County Supervisor, County of Contra Costa Councilmember, City of Oakland Cindy Chavez David Canepa Neysa Fligor Santa Clara County Supervisor, County of San Mateo Mayor, City of Los Altos Damon Connolly Keith Carson Leon Garcia Marin County and Cities Supervisor, County of Alameda Mayor, City of American Canyon Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cindy Chavez Liz Gibbons Cities of Alameda County Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Mayor, City of Campbell Dina El-Tawansy Otto Lee Giselle Hale California State Transportation Agency Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Vice Mayor, City of Redwood City (CalSTA) Gordon Mar Barbara Halliday Victoria Fleming Supervisor, City and County Mayor, City of Hayward Sonoma County and Cities of San Francisco -
Electric Scooter
This document is one of three forms required for a complete license application. Please submit signed and completed documents to Austin Transportation's Mobility Services Division. Please include payment of $30/unit with your application. City of Austin Austin Transportation Department, Mobility Services Division 1111 Rio Grande St, Austin, TX 78701 [email protected] DOCKLESS MOBILITY LICENSE APPLICATION APPLICATION TYPE (check one): New Renewal Supplement (if adding units to a licensed system) APPLICANT INFORMATION The following information must be provided for the applicant, each officer, director, partner, and any other person who will participate in the business decisions of or who has the authority to enter contracts on behalf of this dockless mobility company. This information is to be provided on a separate page and attached to the application. Applicant Name: City: State: ZIP Code: Phone: E-mail: PARENT COMPANY Business Name: Business Structure (describe): Address: City: State: ZIP Code: Contact Name: Phone: E-mail: BUSINESS INFORMATION Business Name/DBA: Sales Tax Number: Business Structure (circle one): Corporation Limited Liability Company Partnership Sole Proprietorship Other (describe): Address: City: State: ZIP Code: Phone: E-mail: PAST PERFORMANCE Have you held a permit issued by the City of Austin and/or any adjacent cities or counties that has been revoked? Yes No If you answered yes, attach additional sheets explaining why. Has your company been fined or had property impounded by the City of Austin and/or any adjacent cities or counties? Yes No If you answered yes, attach additional sheets explaining why. Does your company have any outstanding fees or fines owed to the City of Austin and/or any adjacent cities or counties? Yes No If yes, in what jurisdiction(s)? SERVICE AREA AND SIZE OF FLEET FLEET SIZE: ______________ (write in total number of units) Initial Fleet Additional Units PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WHEN SUBMITTING THIS APPLICATION: 1. -
Success Factors for Electric Carsharing
WORKING PAPER 2021-30 © 2021 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION AUGUST 2021 Success factors for electric carsharing Authors: Michael Nicholas and Marie Rajon Bernard Keywords: electric vehicles, charging infrastructure, carsharing, business models This briefing examines electric carsharing and the elements that are found in successful programs in North America and Europe. Specifically, it describes the benefits of electric carsharing, presents examples of carsharing, provides charging infrastructure insights, and identifies best practices for electric carsharing. Introduction Carsharing is the short-term use of vehicles from a designated parking station or distributed throughout a city in public parking spaces. Cars typically are accessed with a member card or smartphone without the need for human interaction, and users usually are charged by the time or distance driven, or a combination thereof.1 This allows people to give up their cars while still maintaining the mobility that they previously had with car ownership. Carsharing also allows carless households better and more equitable access to goods and services that require a car to obtain. Electric vehicles can be used for carsharing services when there is access to sufficient charging. Electric carsharing can enhance the environmental benefits of conventional combustion-engine carsharing and mitigate negative impacts. In 2019, a survey showed that 66% of all carsharing fleets were either all-electric or offered some electric vehicles, and 25% of countries with carsharing -
CARSHARING OUTLOOK Carsharing Market Trends in North America
INNOVATIVE MOBILITY: CARSHARING OUTLOOK CARSHARING MARKET OVERVIEW, ANALYSIS, AND TRENDS ▪ Winter 2020 TRANSPORTATION SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH CENTER - UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY By Susan Shaheen, Ph.D. and Adam Cohen doi:10.7922/G2BK19MF This Issue Carsharing Market Trends in North America P.2 Carsharing Data for North America P.3 Carsharing Market Trends in South America P.4 Carsharing Data for South America P.5 About TSRC and Upcoming Publications P.6 Save the Date! Carsharing Market Trends in North America Since 1998, 94 carsharing programs have been deployed in North America - 40 are operational and 52 are defunct. As of January 1, 2018, there were 18 active programs in Canada, 21 in the United States (U.S.), and one program in Mexico. In North America, carsharing membership totaled approximately 2,110,111 members sharing 23,376 vehicles. The three largest carsharing We invite you to save the dates and look for operators in the U.S. and Canada accounted for 91% and 86% of the total detailed announcements on speakers, membership, respectively. Only one operator provided service in Mexico as of registration, lodging, and other special January 2018. events for the: Membership: As of January 1, 2018, 18 Canadian operators claimed Carsharing Association Conference 642,472 members and shared 8,052 vehicles. In the U.S., 1,439,399 members Please mark your calendars for May 28 to shared 15,224 vehicles among 21 operators. Mexico had 28,240 members May 29, 2020 for the Carsharing Conference sharing 100 vehicles. (Note: Multi-national programs with operations in both the to be held in Vancouver, Canada.