Feasibility Study for Vehicle Sharing in Charleston, South Carolina

Janet Li City of Charleston Department of Planning, Preservation & Sustainability

August 26, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 FEASIBILITY IN CHARLESTON ...... 7 DENSITY AND SETTING ...... 7 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION ...... 7 DRIVING ENVIRONMENT ...... 10 BICYCLING ENVIRONMENT ...... 23 DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 32 BEST PRACTICES ...... 36 BICYCLE SHARING ...... 36 CAR SHARING ...... 39 BOTH ...... 41 OPERATING MODEL AND IMPLEMENTATION ...... 42 PILOT ...... 42 SUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL MODEL ...... 43 SAMPLE BUSINESS MODELS ...... 50 EVALUATION SYSTEMS ...... 55 MARKETABILITY ...... 58 SCALABILITY ...... 63 PARTNERS ...... 64 TIMELINE AND ROLLOUT OF OPERATIONS ...... 69 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ...... 70 MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS ...... 71 CONCLUSION ...... 72 REFERENCES ...... 73

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Susan Collins Brian Sheehan

2 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: CARTA DASH Trolley Routes ...... 88 Figure 2: Most Congested Streets on the Peninsula in 1999 ...... 1010 Figure 3: 2000 Traffic Congestion ...... 1111 Figure 4: 1990‐2000 Change in Traffic Volume and Population ...... 1212 Figure 5: Hours Worked and Mode of Transit of Charleston Residents ...... 1313 Figure 6: 1999 Major Pedestrian Areas on Peninsula ...... 1414 Figure 7: 1999 Carriage Tour Zones ...... 1515 Figure 8: 1999 Bus Tour Zones ...... 1616 Figure 9: Before and After Improvements in Signal Retiming Project ...... 1717 Figure 10: 1999 Charleston Peninsula Parking Inventory ...... 1919 Figure 11: Current Parking on the Charleston Peninsula ...... 2020 Figure 12: Affect of Climate on Cities’ Bike Share Rentals ...... 2323 Figure 13: Charleston Shared Use Path System Map ...... 2424 Figure 14: Charleston Bicycle Network, 2008 ...... 2525 Figure 15: Assessment of Cycling Infrastructure in Specific Cities ...... 2626 Figure 16: Central Minneapolis Bike Facilities ...... 2727 Figure 17: Charleston Peninsula Bicycle Parking ...... 3030 Figure 18: Successful Car Sharing Demographics As Compared to Charleston ...... 3232 Figure 19: Bike Share Liability Options ...... 3737 Figure 20: Vendor‐Operator Operating Models ...... 4242 Figure 21: Franchise vs. City‐Built Bike Share in New York City ...... 4444 Figure 22: Vehicle Sharing Costs and Revenue Streams ...... 4444 Figure 23: Estimating the Market Near a Potential Car Share Pod ...... 4646 Figure 24: Summary of Public Sector Car‐Sharing Trends ...... 4747 Figure 25: Car‐Sharing Market Penetration in Downtown San Antonio ...... 4848 Figure 26: San Antonio Business Model 1 ...... 4949 Figure 27: San Antonio Business Model 2 ...... 5151 Figure 28: San Antonio Business Model 3 ...... 5252 Figure 29: Sample Car Share Budget Template ...... 5353 Figure 30: Car Share Performance Measures to Monitor ...... 5555 Figure 31: Car Share Partner Evaluation Techniques ...... 5656 Figure 32: Visitor Transportation Modes to the Charleston Area ...... 5858 Figure 33: Breakdown of Overnight Visitor Expenses ...... 5959 Figure 34: Charleston City Fleet Vehicles ...... 6666

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Charleston, South Carolina is committed to green initiatives and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over the next several decades. The City is working on many different solutions in order to tackle the large proportion of emissions that come from transportation. One idea—vehicle sharing—would be a very large‐scale project if executed. This feasibility study was therefore launched first to determine the potential success of these types of programs in Charleston. Vehicle sharing encompasses both car and bicycle sharing. They are an extension of the public transit system. Vehicles are distributed at stations across a region and can be rented by the hour by members of the program. They are intended for short‐term uses and enrich existing modes of public transportation by offering an additional flexible, alternative form of transit. While Charleston has a large percentage of people who own and drive their own vehicles, along with some lack of full bicycle network connectivity, the market for vehicle sharing still looks promising. This is due in most part to the city’s huge population of tourists and students, which represent two key target markets for a car or bicycle sharing program. In addition, the City’s overall dedication to sustainability and their determination to make vehicle sharing a reality are criteria that can really boost the potential success of a program.

4 INTRODUCTION

Charleston, South Carolina is a city dedicated to sustainability and protecting the beauty and functionality of its natural environment. The City leads by example in addressing these goals through steps such as increasing efficiency in City buildings, improving traffic flow and reducing idling, replacing traffic signals with energy‐saving LEDs, requiring the use of recycled paper in all city departments, and much more Non‐governmental entities throughout the county have also participated in energy‐conscious efforts, including the development of a wind industry cluster and the introduction of energy and sustainability curricula at local universities. Mayor Joe Riley formed the Charleston Green Committee in 2007 to flesh out these sustainable goals in a Green Plan for Charleston. What started out as a think tank of 22 citizens became a collaborative community effort of over 800 people. Subcommittees were formed to tackle six main objectives: better buildings, cleaner energy, sustainable communities, improved transportation, zero waste, and green education (Charleston Green Committees Plan, 2010). The Green Plan, truly the result of dedicated, widespread community participation and teamwork, was accepted by the City Council in 2010. One of its comprehensive goals was to address Charleston’s levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Back in 2005, Mayor Joe Riley had been one of the first to sign the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 7% of 1990 levels by 2012 (Green Plan 17). From data collected in 2006, roughly 58% of greenhouse gas emissions in Charleston are generated through buildings and energy use, while 40% come from transportation (measured through cars, trucks, and motorcycles; not ships or rail, which could not be easily assessed) (Green Plan 22). The City has already launched two programs aiming to reduce building‐generated emissions: the Green Business Challenge targeting commercial buildings, and CharlestonWISE for residential developments. Addressing emissions produced through transportation is therefore crucial to meeting Charleston’s goal in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. South Carolina itself is also ranked fifth in the nation for amount of gasoline consumed per capita (Green Plan 68). To tackle these statistics, the Plan recommends minimizing vehicle emissions in planning for future growth, deciding where growth should go before planning transportation, and pursuing transit‐oriented development. It also encourages compact, complete, mixed‐use communities. These are, incidentally, the types of communities where ride and vehicle sharing programs would thrive.

5 The Green Plan’s main transportation goals are: to reduce dependence on single‐ occupancy vehicles (SOVs); to increase convenient, reliable public transportation; to expand bicycle and pedestrian options; to increase fuel efficiency and use of biofuels; and to improve air quality (Green Plan 93). An overarching aim addresses vehicle miles traveled (VMT): in fact, according to the Berkley‐Charleston‐Dorchester Council of Governments Long Range Transportation Plan (2003), the greater Charleston area’s VMT are estimated to increase 39% by 2030 (Green Plan 93). The Green Plan therefore aims to prevent this VMT growth. One strategy is to promote alternative forms of transportation to SOVs, including walking, biking, multiple‐occupancy vehicles, and increasing public transit. Improving infrastructure to accommodate these alternate modes of transport, as well as targeting important groups such as tourists and employees who commute, is key. Other suggestions include using efficient City fleet vehicles, improving traffic flow through system management or through the encouragement of automobile alternatives, adopting a complete streets ordinance, and providing free or preferred parking for high‐ efficiency vehicles, among others. The development of a bicycle or car sharing program will help carry out and define the transportation goals of the Charleston Green Plan.

6 FEASIBILITY IN CHARLESTON

DENSITY AND SETTING

Ride sharing has been proven to work best in areas with high population density. Higher density means that there are a greater number of potential customers within walking distance of each vehicle sharing station. In addition, dense neighborhoods tend to have lower rates of automobile ownership and travel, because destinations are usually closer and trips are thus shorter (TCRP Report 108, 2005). On this front, the greater Charleston area has been undergoing steady population growth, with a 21% growth rate over the past ten years; making today’s population about 665,000 (Charleston Regional Development Alliance). Charleston County makes up more than half of this population, with 350,209 residents and 144,309 households. The City itself has a population of 120,083, a 24% increase since 2000. 94% of car sharing membership in the United States is concentrated in the cores of large metropolitan regions; as of 2003, these included Boston, New York, DC, San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Portland, and Seattle (TCRP Report 108, 2005). However, some smaller American communities also run successful programs. The programs need to be large enough to support how much it costs to keep them in operations.

EXISTING TRANSPORTATION

Ride sharing has been shown to be successful in high‐density metropolitan areas that have existing public transit systems, as this shows that commuters already utilize many different types of alternate transport to single occupancy vehicles. Charleston is the second most populous city in South Carolina after Columbia, and has an extensive and varied transportation system. The Charleston International Airport supports six airlines, brings in more than 100 flights every day, and runs non‐stop service to and from 14 major airports (CRDA, 2011). Six other smaller airports are located throughout the Charleston‐N. Charleston‐Summerville metropolitan statistical area (Charleston MSA). Three freight railways offer inbound and outbound express services out of Charleston daily: CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern, and South Carolina Public Railways. Amtrak runs daily Silver Service and Palmetto passenger routes from the emerging North Charleston Intermodal Transportation Center, connecting Charleston with almost the entire east coast

7 from Miami to New York (Amtrak.com). The station served approximately 80,000 riders in total last year. This North Charleston transportation hub had been in planning stages since 1997, and construction began in 2007 after enough state, federal, and local funds were collected to start the project. Once complete, the center will serve both passenger trains and regional and long‐distance buses (GreatAmericanStations.com). In addition, Charleston MSA is home to three interstate highways (I‐26, I‐95, I‐526), three major United States highways (US 17, 78, 52), and seven major state highways (SC 7, 30, 61, 171, 517, 700, 703) (South Carolina Department of Transportation). An important component to Charleston’s transportation system, the Port of Charleston is the most highly rated container port in terms of customer satisfaction in North America, and the eighth largest by cargo value in the United States (CRDA, 2011). The Port is made up of five terminals: two on the Harbor in Charleston, two on the Cooper River in North Charleston, and one on the Wando River in Mount Pleasant. It serves 40 steamship lines and more than 150 countries globally. Port activity is one of Charleston’s highest sources of revenue. On land, the Charleston Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA) operates a total of 24 bus routes, including two express routes and one free downtown trolley, mainly geared towards tourists looking to see Charleston’s historic sites (RideCARTA.com). There are three of these routes (see Fig. 1), and the vehicles are marked by their green, old‐time trolley structure. CARTA routes provide service to the counties of Charleston and Dorchester, including the cities Charleston, North Charleston, Mount Pleasant, James Island, and parts of Isle of Palms and Sullivan’s Island. CARTA is the entity managing the development of the North Charleston Intermodal Transportation Center. The transportation authority also operates smaller Tel‐A‐Ride shuttles in designated areas for those who meet the criteria of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CARTA’s Rack & Ride program integrates biking into the public transit system, with bicycle racks available on all CARTA buses. These are capable of carrying two bikes at once. CARTA would be a very important partner in a car or bicycle sharing program, and their administration have been very informative and supportive in preliminary discussions. Some of their initial recommendations regarding a potential vehicle sharing program are included in later sections of this report.

8 Figure 1: CARTA DASH Trolley Routes

Daniel Island

Park at the Visitor Reception & Transportation Center Garage and ride the Trolley! RIDE The Trolley is a component of CARTA’s public transportation system. THE TROLLEY CARTA Trolleys are not utilized as tour vehicles. For your convenience, information concerning Charleston’s many privately owned tour companies is available at the Visitor Reception & Transportation Center. How to Use This Brochure. The Trolley System map inside this brochure is color-coded by route and corresponds with schedule information. Shuttle stop locations are also shown. CARTA Trolleys display color-coded destination signs in the windows beside the passenger doors. Identifying Your Bus. When the trolley approaches be sure to check the overhead P O I N T S O F I N T E R E S T sign, right above the bus windshield, to insure you are boarding the right trolley. Meeting/King Shuttle Shuttle Stops. Shelters, benches and trolley Visitor Center stop signs are located throughout the city. Historic King Street It is very important that you wait at the trolley stop. For your safety, Trolley drivers are When Four Corners of Law Comments and Complaints. instructed to serve only posted trolley stops. calling or writing with a comment or Broad Street Shopping District NO SPECIAL STOPS CAN BE MADE. Stops can complaint please: be identifi ed by a green CARTA Sign with a Waterfront Park UÊ Note the time and date of the incident CARTA route number. City Market and any identifying outside factors or Charleston Museum Animals. Police dogs, guide, signal or service circumstances (i.e. location of shuttle stop) dogs are the ONLY pets permitted on CARTA Upper King/ Design District UÊ Give the route name and trolley number. Trolleys. C of C/Aquarium Shuttle UÊ If a driver is involved, try and get his/her Effective November 22nd, 2010 CARTA SC Aquarium Fares. name. Trolley route rides are FREE. College of Charleston T R O L L E Y R O U T E S UÊ Leave your name and address or phone The seats located in the front Visitor Center Courtesy Seats. number so a full investigation of the Trolley Stops of each trolley behind the driver are reserved Lockwood/Calhoun complaint can be made. for senior citizens and disabled passengers. Visitors Center RT 210 C of C/Aquarium C of C Lost and Found. Lost items are turned in Send comments or complaints to: RT 211 Meeting/King at the CARTA Operations Center in North Charleston Area Regional Medical Complex RT 213 Lockwood/Calhoun Charleston. Please call (843) 747-0922. The Transportation Authority Ashley River Hotels route and description of the driver is helpful 36 John Street Offstreet Parking Facilities when calling. Citadel/ Stadiums Charleston, South Carolina 29403 Telephone: (843) 724-7420 THE MOST CONVENIENT WAY TO SEE www.ridecarta.com www.ridecarta.com CHARLESTON

9 Finally, it is important to mention the existing ride sharing service that was introduced to Charleston within the last year, known as Trident RideShare. Trident RideShare (TridentRideShare.org) is a free program supported by the Federal Transit Administration. It connects people looking to share cars, taxis, bicycles, transit, or walking trips, using a web‐based service. The program currently serves Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester Counties, and helps connect users by searching for commuters who live near them and have similar trip locations and schedules. Users often share trips to commute to work or school, but some have also used the service to share rides to one‐time events. Trident RideShare helps promotes its service to companies in Charleston through the message that ridesharing has been shown both to reduce employee absenteeism and turnover and to strengthen work relationships (Minis). The City should consider working with and gathering more data and information from Trident RideShare as it pursues the development of vehicle sharing programs. Currently, there are more than 200 registered users, and they work at a variety of different companies and institutions; the biggest include SPAWAR (which has 10,000 employees altogether), Kiawah Resorts, and Trident Technical College (Gilreath).

DRIVING ENVIRONMENT

The City commissioned a traffic and parking study of the Charleston Peninsula in 1999 to complement the Charleston Downtown Plan. This plan for increased development downtown, including the building of the Charleston Aquarium and the 65‐acre Union Peer Terminal redevelopment, required the City to form a strategy to accommodate these growing transportation needs (City of Charleston Peninsula Traffic and Parking Study, 2000). With the increased growth of the residential population and the constant incoming flow of tourists, downtown Charleston’s streets were already facing transportation pressures that would only increase if not addressed. A map from the study (Fig. 2) shows the arteries with lower than acceptable congestion grades at the time. Another analysis completed by the BCDCOG (Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Council of Governments) in 2002, using data from 1990‐2000 from the South Carolina Department of Transportation, similarly highlights the areas of greatest congestion (Fig. 3); and the percent change in volume growth from 1990 to 2000, as compared to the increase in population in various regions (Fig. 4) (Traffic in the BCD Region, 2002). From all of these maps, we can see that traffic volumes were steadily increasing and that, in 2000, there

10 were areas of unacceptably high rates of congestion across Charleston County and especially in the Peninsula, which needed to be addressed.

Figure 2: Most Congested Streets on the Peninsula in 1999

11 Figure 3: 2000 Traffic Congestion

12 Figure 4: 1990-2000 Change in Traffic Volume and Population

In terms of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the total number across all county residents has been increasing faster than the rate of population growth. In 2000, daily VMT was ~8.4 million and the population of Charleston County was ~310,000. Four years later, in 2004, daily VMT had increased to 9.3 million while the population had increased to ~330,000, a 10% increase in VMT and a 5% increase in population (Growth Indicators in the BCD Region, 2005). This is consistent with past VMT growth, which has more than doubled population growth; essentially, the same people are driving further and more every day. A survey conducted in 2001, in conjunction with a Community Benchmarking Collaborative project, showed that, in the Berkeley‐Charleston‐Dorchester region, residents pinpointed traffic/roads as the single worst factor about living in the area, beating climate, crime, economy, and education (Traffic in the BCD Region, 2002). 82.2% of respondents said

13 that they consistently avoid certain areas with high congestion; 57.7% were dissatisfied with road maintenance; and 43.5% were happy with public transit. One suggested possible solution to some of these problems was to increase use of transit and ridesharing, which work to directly reduce congestion by taking vehicles off of the road. Use of transit has declined for decades in correspondence with sprawl development patterns and the ascendency of single‐occupancy vehicles; however, in larger metropolitan areas, this decrease has stopped as more people turn to public transit with the rise of traffic and congestion. As can be seen by the table below (Fig. 5), in the Charleston Peninsula, where 59.8% of those who live there work there (Traffic in the BCD Region 24), there are high proportions of residents who use alternative methods of transportation to commute to work, including carpooling, public transit, walking, and biking. Only a little more than half drive alone to work every day, and this probably mostly incorporates those who live on the peninsula but work elsewhere in the region.

Figure 5: Hours Worked and Mode of Transit of Charleston Residents

This population of residents who already utilize alternative modes of transportation would be a good one to target for vehicle sharing programs, which give people even more flexibility in their everyday transit.

14 Figure 6: 1999 Major Pedestrian Areas on Peninsula

15 Another analysis of existing conditions from the 1999 Peninsula Study shows the areas with greatest pedestrian activity downtown (Fig. 6). These included tourist and shopping areas like Market and King Street, as well as the zones surrounding the College of Charleston and the MUSC campus. In developing vehicle sharing stations, it is very important to take into account the traffic generated by all types of vehicles, including pedestrians, and where this occurs most. While placing a station in an area with high intermodal uses might allow it to have the most visibility and accessibility, it might also increase congestion if not planned effectively. On the other hand, it could relieve congestion if marketed well, and if enough commuters choose to make the switch to this program. To this end, it is important to work not only with car and cycling paths, but also with existing pedestrian, carriage (Fig. 7), and tour bus (Fig. 8) routes. The City must figure out the best locations to place vehicle sharing stations in relation to these tracks, or potentially reconfigure these routes if that would make both sets most efficient.

Figure 7: 1999 Carriage Tour Zones

16 Figure 8: 1999 Bus Tour Zones

Since these studies, the City of Charleston has worked to decrease emissions generated by traffic, completing a citywide traffic signal retiming project to minimize time spent idling for motorists. In 2008, new coordinated timings were implemented on 189 traffic signals in downtown Charleston and its surrounding arterials, allowing drivers to save an impressive total of 569,659 hours spent waiting and 341,795 tons of gasoline per year (Downtown and West Ashley Signal Timing Effectiveness Study, 2008). Assuming a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.2, $3.50 per gallon of gasoline, and $10/hour as the value of a motorist’s time, the program is estimated to generate almost $9 million in annual savings. The charts below (Fig. 9) show the cumulative average “before” and “after” improvements in timings, measured over AM, PM, and peak times on weekdays.

17 Figure 9: Before and After Improvements in Signal Retiming Project

However, the sheer number of vehicles traveling every day has remained relatively constant over the past decade, and the average time spent driving to work for Charleston residents is still about 20.1 minutes (InsuranceUSA.com). These are the problems that we are now aiming to address with a vehicle sharing program. The 1999 Charleston Peninsula study recommended policies such as providing adequate capacity for traffic and pedestrian circulation and movement on/off the peninsula, as well as providing a sufficient supply of parking. Specific policy recommendations included “revising the parking rate structure to encourage use of alternative transportation modes south of Calhoun Street” and “providing improvements to enhance the use of bicycles on the peninsula” (Charleston Peninsula Traffic and Parking Study, 2000). A vehicle sharing program would continue to work towards the achievement of these goals. Charleston’s current Traffic Management Center was opened in 2007 and uses state‐ of‐the‐art technology to monitor and control over 235 signalized intersections throughout Charleston and Mount Pleasant (Charleston‐SC.gov). The traffic signal system works 24/7, constantly supervising equipment and adjusting plans according to specific traffic

18 conditions. In particular, these conditions are closely monitored along the Arthur Ravenel, Jr. Bridge and Interstate 26, where the police department can be immediately notified when accidents occur, thereby minimizing congestion. The current widening of US Highway 17 from Mount Pleasant to Charleston shows that it is a prime example of the high traffic volumes and congestion affecting the county. The highway has long been infamous for its non‐moving congestion, worst on weekday mornings. To address the problem, this $84 million Charleston County Roadwise project was developed. It is funded by a half‐cent transportation sales tax that was endorsed in a referendum. Construction work began in April to expand the highway from four to six lanes and is set to finish by spring 2013 (ParkWestPalazzo.blogspot.com). Charleston’s Department of Traffic & Transportation is constantly running programs in order to optimize traffic and transportation flow within the city. One, the Traffic Calming Program, seeks to reduce the negative effects of vehicular traffic in residential neighborhoods (Charleston‐SC.gov). The Pedestrian Safety Program aims to increase pedestrian safety through brochure and poster‐driven education initiatives, and the implementation of barricades at school crosswalks. These programs show the City’s commitment to improving transportation from many different approaches. Parking in Charleston encompasses several options: public street parking, private and public parking garages, public parking lots, and private residential parking. An interactive online map on the Charleston Department of Traffic & Transportation’s website (http://www.charleston‐sc.gov/shared/docs/0/parking.html) marks all public parking garages in the city and includes detailed information such as hours of operation (Fig. 10). If a vehicle sharing program were to be implemented, it might be efficient to reassign some of these city‐owned spaces as stations for car sharing; however, Charleston must be careful not to unduly increase parking pressures on its visitors by taking away lots and garages that are currently highly utilized. The Charleston Peninsula study also recommended increasing on‐ street parking rates from $.75 to $1/hour, to encourage drivers to park in garages and use alternative transit options for circulating on the peninsula (Charleston Peninsula Traffic and Parking Study, 2000).

19 Figure 10: 1999 Charleston Peninsula Parking Inventory

The City operates 1800 parking meters in Charleston (Fig. 11). The on‐street parking meters are enforced Mondays through Saturdays from 9 am to 6 pm, while the

20 Figure 11: Current Parking on the Charleston Peninsula

21 meters in surface lots are enforced starting at 8am (Somerville). As for parking not controlled by the City, in 1999, MUSC provided 6245 parking spaces for its campus and ran a shuttle program to encourage its employees to utilize remote parking areas (Charleston Peninsula Traffic and Parking Study, 2000). Through 2020, MUSC plans to increase its parking supply by 30%. The College of Charleston provided 2650 spaces and was also considering ways to accommodate an increase. Charleston does seem to have a few parking pressures, as street parking can occasionally be difficult to find. Although parking at Battery Park is free, spaces often fill up by noon. From discussions with regular Charleston visitors, parking garages rarely seem to be full, except during special occasions such as the Piccolo Spoleto festival, and lot spaces are also usually available. Parking in public garages and lots is also relatively inexpensive compared to other American cities with similar density, with rates of $1/hour (Morrison). In terms of residential parking, there are currently ten designated residential areas where homeowners can apply for residential parking permits. These areas cover much of downtown Charleston, which leaves less space for visitor parking. This program began in 1975 and now issues over 8000 residential parking permits every year (Morrison). The Hampton Park Terrace Neighborhood was just added this year and is the first four‐hour enforcement district in the City. The Parking Division of the Charleston Department of Traffic & Transportation tries to optimize parking for all vehicles by performing parking studies and site distance analyses to determine the best locations for on and off‐street parking spaces, commercial loading zones, tour bus pull areas, handicapped parking spots, etc. It also led the innovative SmartCard Parking Program, which allows drivers to use a card instead of coins to pay at over 50% of the enabled parking meters in Charleston (Charleston‐SC.gov). Peter Tecklenburg, the transportation planner at CARTA, believes a car sharing program would work well in West Ashley, perhaps around Citadel Mall; another option is near the College of Charleston. Citadel Mall is a stop on five different CARTA routes and, since it is not in downtown Charleston, would target commuters who would want to use a car for shopping trips and errands off of the peninsula. The busiest CARTA bus station on the Charleston Peninsula is at the intersection of Meeting and Mary Streets; eight routes utilize this stop, and it is located next to a parking garage, which would provide space for a sharing station. Most of the riders who use this location are employees coming from outlying areas for work in the service industry and patients coming for medical needs. The second two busiest stations are at Calhoun and Jonathan Lucas and Calhoun and St. Philip Street. At Calhoun and Jonathan Lucas, almost all dismounting riders are MUSC or Roper

22 students or staff and probably do not need extra transportation, as they only need to walk two or three blocks to their destination. The Calhoun and St. Philip Street stop, on the other hand, serves many College of Charleston students, is close to businesses on King Street, and is the closest express stop (8‐10 blocks away) for those who work on Broad or Meeting Street. Many choose not to ride because of this distance, although they could access their destination by transferring to a DASH route. The population of college students around this station is younger and more urban and would probably be more open to joining a vehicle sharing program. Parking in this area is also difficult, leading many to already utilize alternative transportation such as bicycles.

BICYCLING ENVIRONMENT

In order for a bicycle sharing program to be successful, there needs to be a minimum standard of bicycle infrastructure for safe and convenient cycling, as well as sufficient space for racks or parking stations in order to guarantee accessibility (NICHES, 2007). Public bicycles can be the gateway to promote urban cycling; however, people will only use them if they see them as a convenient, efficient, safe way to get somewhere. This means there need to be good framework conditions before implementation, including measures such as traffic calming, the continued development of a bicycle network, secure parking facilities, education, etc. Traffic education is especially vital in cities where cycling is not well established or commonplace. Educational campaigns to promote mutual respect between drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians can help prevent problems and accidents between these different sets of commuters. The City can also think about measures to discourage car use and incentivize vehicle sharing. Charleston’s cityscape is well suited for bicycling. Its compact, dense metropolitan area, flat topography, and year‐round reasonable weather all elevate Charleston’s potential as a cycling community (Clemson Architecture Center, 2009). As can be seen below (Fig. 12), from the Optimizing Bike Sharing in European Cities Handbook, climate contributes to bicycle sharing by allowing or limiting accessibility to the program during different seasons (OBIS, 2011). Since Charleston has a mild climate all year round, it could make the most use of and revenue from its sharing program by running 365 days of the year, unlike cities with more extreme weather.

23 Figure 12: Affect of Climate on Cities’ Bike Share Rentals

In addition, research by the City of Charleston’s Economic Development Division in July 2006 determined that approximately 5000 bicycles are rented in Charleston yearly, indicating high bicycle usage (Charleston 2012 Bike Draft Plan). With regard to existing bicycle infrastructure and facilities, Charleston citizens, including the non‐profit group Charleston MOVES and Mayor Joe Riley, are currently working hard to qualify the city as a League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Community. This means taking clear steps to include bicyclists on as many roads as possible and to make use of bike lanes, paths, and correct signage and signals. Charleston, and the whole of South Carolina, have been working toward similar goals for years. In 2004, the Bikes Belong Coalition and the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) awarded a $50,000 “Complete Streets” grant to South Carolina, requiring SC counties to incorporate bicycling and pedestrian improvements into all transportation planning where state or federal funding is utilized (SCDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Milestones). This helped raise South Carolina’s national rank in bicycle friendliness, as determined by LAB, to rise from #50 in 1989 to #15 in 2008. As for Charleston itself, in 2008, Mayor Riley signed the Complete Streets Resolution, pledging that the City would assure the accommodation of pedestrians,

24 bicyclists, public transit, and motorized vehicles in planning or maintaining all future public streets. Many of the current specific projects related to this resolution can be found on the City of Charleston Department of Transit and Transportation’s website (Charleston‐SC.gov). A draft 2012 Bike Plan for Charleston, put together by city planners and staff in collaboration with other experts, lists all existing bicycle routes and facilities and makes extensive, well thought out recommendations regarding network and parking improvements. The report also includes educational and marketing plans to encourage bicycling to Charleston residents and visitors (Charleston 2012 Bike Draft Plan).

Figure 13: Charleston Shared Use Path System Map

This map from the report (Fig. 13) shows the existing network of bicycle paths, lanes, and sidewalks throughout Charleston. Most notable include the bike/pedestrian path

25 on Highway 17 over the Cooper River on the Arthur Ravenel, Jr. Bridge (11) and the West Ashley Bikeway (4). The addition of the separate 12‐foot‐wide cycling and pedestrian lane on the Ravenel Bridge was incorporated into the bridge’s plans due to the strengths of a campaign by locals. It runs for 2.7 miles and is truly a jewel of an attraction for walkers, runners, and cyclists from around the world, and a testament to the City’s commitment both to working hand‐in‐hand with its community and to pursuing healthy, alternative transportation. As is evident by the map, more investment and planning are needed to increase overall network connectivity and coverage, and for Charleston to become a truly bicycle friendly city. More bicycle route maps of Charleston can be found at CoastalCyclists.org.

Figure 14: Charleston Bicycle Network, 2008

26 The above table from the report (Fig. 14) lists the total number of miles of bicycle networks in Charleston as of 2008 (about 24 miles), as well as the 14 different specific paths and systems throughout the county. The East Bay Path (10) was helped funded by a 2007 grant from Bikes Belong. Unfortunately, Charleston’s cycling network seems smaller than the networks of other cities with successful bicycle sharing programs (Fig. 15, Philadelphia Bikeshare Concept Study, 2010). Its current total length is comparable to Lyon’s network before the program began, but this expanded by almost 600% as the program continued.

Figure 15: Assessment of Cycling Infrastructure in Specific Cities

The lack of full connectivity of the bicycle paths and lanes that do exist in Charleston is also something that needs to be addressed. Compare the map of Charleston’s bicycle network with the one below of Minneapolis (Fig. 16, Philadelphia Bikeshare Concept Study, 2010), a city with a mostly seasonal bicycle volume. Minneapolis’ network differs from Charleston’s in that there are fewer holes; cyclists have access to more of the city.

27 Figure 16: Central Minneapolis Bike Facilities (lanes blue, paths green)

Despite some of Charleston’s shortcomings, its bicycle plan draft still shows that Charleston is serious about its commitment to make bicycling safer and more ubiquitous across the city. Charleston MOVES is a non‐profit organization that encourages bicycling and walking by advocating a safe environment and educating the public on the benefits of a community that is friendly to bicycles and pedestrians. One of its current projects is supporting the City of Charleston’s plan to complete the West Ashley Greenway (3), a recreational trail route connecting Folly Road to Main Road, which is to be part of the bigger, almost 3000‐mile East Coast Greenway along the east coast of the United States. Charleston MOVES has long backed Charleston’s progress in connecting various bikeways throughout the city and encourages the city to go even further. Suggestions include building a bicycle and pedestrian lane on a bridge over the Ashley River and extending the West Ashley Bikeway (4) (CharlestonMoves.org). In fact, as of early 2010, $800,000 had been invested into ongoing design and engineering of a planned multi‐use cantilevered path over the Ashley River drawbridge, connecting biking between West Ashley and the Charleston Peninsula (Charleston LAB Bicycle Friendly Community Application, 2010). Total construction will cost an estimated $4

28 million, which will be pursued through federal, state, and local transportation funding. Other specific immediate projects include repaving and adding striped bike lanes to the two‐mile Saint Andrews Boulevard in West Ashley; paving and making surface improvements in the West Ashley Greenway; mounting way‐finding signage for both; improving bicycle parking infrastructure through an increase in bicycle racks, the installing of on‐street bike corrals on King and St Philip Streets and a covered bike state prototype at the Charleston Civic Design Center; and continued enforcement of policies and provisions requiring developers to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians in new projects. The City recently reinstated several streets from one‐way to two‐way traffic to reduce speeds and make them more friendly for bicyclists and pedestrians, including parts of King St, Ashley Ave, Rutledge Ave, Beaufain St, and Wentworth St; Spring and Cannon St are next. Altogether, 25% of the bicycle plans in Charleston’s Century V Comprehensive Plan had been completed as of early 2010 (Charleston LAB Bicycle Friendly Community Application, 2010). The projects are supported by a combination of funds, from the Charleston County Transportation Committee to the Transportation Sales Tax to federal Enhancement grants, among others. Moving forward in pursuing cycling safety, more support is needed from the state government and SCDOT. Charleston’s historic, narrow streets are sometimes difficult to retrofit for extra transportation, which is why more expertise, funds, and collaboration are needed to come up with creative solutions. Still, a multitude of cycling events every year, including FestiVelo and Charleston Moves festivals, demonstrate the strength of the cycling community in Charleston and contribute to its growing culture. The City is very serious about bicycle safety and as such, has produced a Bike Safe brochure (Charleston Dept. of Traffic & Transportation, Ride Safe). Bikelaw—a network of bicycle lawyers (BikeLaw.com)—and the Palmetto Cycling Coalition—a bicycling advocacy non‐profit (PCSSC.net)—have also been working tirelessly toward bicycle safety. They helped reform South Carolina’s outdated bicycling laws in 2008 and launch the campaign Safe Streets Save Lives to drive bicycle safety education (SafeStreetsSaveLives.org). 13% of elementary schools offer a Safe Routes to School program, which mostly target lower income student populations who have fewer transportation options (Charleston LAB Bicycle Friendly Community Application, 2010). Three schools also are gaining LAB curriculum programs through a Cooper River Bridge Run grant. Other entities, such as bike clinics, a Safety Town, helmet fit seminars, and trail riding classes (through County Park and Recreation Commission programs), contribute to education as well. Additional

29 specific safety schemes include public service announcements, dedicated blogs and newspaper columns, share the road signs and awareness in driver education, etc. Charleston is home to five League Cycling Instructors and has hosted League Cycling Instructor seminars. City staff, as well as transit and school bus operators, all participate in bicycle awareness training. The City of Charleston and MUSC both offer incentives for employees who cycle, including free lunches and giveaways. In 2009, the City Police Department started an educational safety initiative with the College of Charleston. The City also maintains a fleet of bicycles located at several offices for shared utilization by staff. All of this combined work towards cycling safety and awareness has helped to lower South Carolina’s rank in the number of bicycle accident fatalities per capita from 5th in the nation (in 2008) to 11th (in 2009) (USDOT National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, 2009). The death of a beloved cyclist earlier this month prompted increased discussion on bicycle safety in the City. Before the accident, the Charleston County Council had been working on a feasibility study for a project to reassign one lane of the Ashley Bridge for bicycles and pedestrians. Mayor Riley emphasized how this proposal would give cyclists a safer option for commuting to James Island, over the connector where the fatal accident happened (Knight). After the accident, the mayor wrote a letter to the South Carolina Department of Transportation asking if they had any other recommendations regarding bicycle safety on the James Island Connector. With the potential implementation of a bike sharing program, Charleston must continue to make the safety of cyclists and all those around them a priority. A study done by the Oregon Department of Transportation did link increases in per‐rider safety levels with growth in the total number of cyclists, which makes sense due to the increased visibility and presence of bicycles on the road; however, this increase in bicyclists still represents a greater number of potential casualties, which the City should obviously wish to avoid (Philadelphia Bikeshare Concept Study, 2010). In terms of downtown Charleston, the following map from the 2012 draft Bike Plan shows the concentration of existing bicycle racks throughout the city (Fig. 17). There are currently 2543 bicycle racks, 9 bicycle lockers, and 1 bicycle depot in the community (Charleston LAB Bicycle Friendly Community Application, 2010). The vast majority (91‐100%) of schools and libraries have bicycle racks or storage units, compared to 76‐90% of parks and recreation centers and 61‐75% of government buildings. The locations that need more parking include transit stations (currently only 31‐45% have storage facilities), office buildings (16‐30%), shops (16‐30%), and public housing (16‐30%) (Charleston LAB Bicycle Friendly Community Application, 2010). Current rack locations could potentially be reassigned as stations in a bicycle sharing program. However, it would probably be wise to

30 build more, as the perceived current number of bicycle facilities seems to be insufficient. Last year, a proposal to outlaw locking bicycles to street signs or parking meters, which was a regular occurrence in the city, was removed from the bicycle ordinance after protests from Charleston MOVES and The Holy City Bike Coop supporters, as well as other citizens (Slade). Their stance was that Charleston did not have enough bicycle racks, and that the City should not be further discouraging cycling due to its own lack of available parking facilities. However, it may not be true that there is an inadequate amount of bicycle parking space; rather, some racks are actually located in parking garages or other areas with low visibility, which makes them more difficult for cyclists to find.

Figure 17: Charleston Peninsula Bicycle Parking

31 Also, there is currently a bicycle route that attempts to direct cyclists through the downtown street network via signage. Unfortunately, the route was designed twenty years ago. There is a lack of original signage remaining, and patterns in traffic, road conditions, and land use have all changed significantly. This route desperately needs to be updated if Charleston wants to implement a successful bicycle sharing program downtown. From talking to Peter Tecklenburg on CARTA’s thoughts on a bicycle sharing program, he believes that it could potentially be a good fit downtown. As mentioned in the previous section, the busiest bus stops on the peninsula include the intersections of Meeting and Mary Streets, Calhoun and Jonathan Lucas, and Calhoun and St. Philip Street. Tecklenburg sees most promise in locating a bicycle sharing hub near the Calhoun and St. Philip Street station, since it is close to the College of Charleston and King, Broad, and Meeting Streets. The college students would be a key target population, and are already bicycle friendly. Off of the peninsula, the need for bicycles still exists but the spread out nature of the biking network would make it more difficult to establish a high enough density of stations. Tecklenburg believes the biggest challenge to bike sharing is finding enough locations where they can be returned around the city. He does not think that tourists would be a good fit for understanding bike sharing. Other problems with Charleston include less bicycle parking and access to bicycle‐friendly transit. There is also a survey being done by the Department of Planning, Preservation & Sustainability that asks specific questions about bicycle use in Charleston (Philip Overcash). Questions address issues such as perceived riding skills, purpose and location for cycling, length of rides, hindrances to cycling, etc. Final survey results should be obtained and analyzed as the City continues to think about and pursue bicycle sharing.

DEMOGRAPHICS

The left part of the table below (Fig. 18) is from a 2005 report on car sharing sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration (TCRP Report 108). The right column compares how Charleston matches up with these statistics.

32

Fig. 18: Successful Car Sharing Demographics As Compared to Charleston Variable Low Growth High Growth Charleston

Demographics

% 1‐person households 30% 40‐50% 28.3%

Commute Mode Share % drive alone to work 55% 35‐40% 73.5%

% walk to work 5% 15‐20% 8.5%

Vehicle Ownership

% households with no vehicle 10‐15% 35‐40% 11% % households with 0 or 1 vehicle 60% 70‐80% 47%

Neighborhood Characteristics

Housing units per acre 5 5 10.7

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census; City­Data.com; Charleston Real Estate Guide, U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2005­2009; CLRSearch.com

For all variables, the values are the suggested minimums needed for a viable car‐sharing service, except for “% drive alone to work,” for which the values are the suggested maximums. As can be seen, Charleston does not meet the recommended values for any of the criteria as applied to high growth zones, except for the number of housing units per acre. In fact, in the categories of % 1‐person households and % households with less than two vehicles, Charleston’s statistics fall even lower than what they are recommended to be at for low growth areas. The most worrisome number is perhaps the statistic that more than half of residents own two cars or more. However, over time, other car share programs have seen a large percentage of their users either sell one of their cars or refrain from buying one, if they do not own one, so there is still hope for Charleston. The vast majority of car owners in Charleston and South Carolina in general are insured. In 1997, 28% of South Carolina drivers were uninsured, which meant that the state had the third highest rate of uninsured motorists. A decade later in 2007, only 9% were uninsured, compared to the national 14% average (Charleston Regional Business Journal, 2009). More research needs to be done to determine whether the uninsured

33 population would be a target population for car sharing programs. They likely may not be, as most participants in vehicle programs have mid to high incomes, and not having car insurance is closely correlated with unemployment. On the other hand, a car share program would give its users access to insurance if they did not have any, so this could be an incentive to join. Those who are uninsured and unemployed drivers may possibly be more likely to participate in a bicycle sharing program, as they probably could not afford to drive themselves; however, vehicle sharing memberships and rates can be more expensive than other alternative transportation, like public transit. Therefore, it is also unclear if there is any market for bike sharing with the uninsured. Statistics from successful car sharing programs show that the vast majority of subscribers, over 80%, have a Bachelor’s or more advanced degree. Charleston County’s population includes an impressive 51.2% who share the same quality (CRDA, 2011). Also, both car and bicycle sharing programs have found success on or nearby university campuses, as the large population of students, who oftentimes do not own cars and are in need of alternate forms of transportation, makes an excellent consumer base. The city of Charleston is home to the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), which makes it a viable candidate for ride sharing programs. In fact, in addition to its large population of enrolled students, MUSC is the second largest employer in Charleston, directly employing over 11,000 people. The MUSC campus complex, including its colleges, research facilities, and hospitals, makes up a large chunk of downtown Charleston. 26 other colleges are spread across Charleston County, making the total enrolled population of students over 38,000. The other main universities aside from MUSC include Charleston Southern University (3231 enrolled), The Citadel (3339), College of Charleston (11,772), and Trident Technical College (14,834) (CRDA, 2011). These universities would make an excellent market for vehicle sharing programs. Another major industry of Charleston is tourism. The visitor population must be taken into account when analyzing the potential customer market of a ride sharing program. Charleston has a history of being ranked as one of the top travel destinations in the United States by various polls and surveys. The tourist industry adds more than $3 billion to the local economy every year, making it one of greater Charleston’s top exports. Altogether, Charleston receives more than 4 million visitors annually, making tourists a key population in marketing vehicle sharing programs (CRDA, 2011). As for biking, according to the NICHES report, during weekdays, trip purposes are largely work or study related, and tourists can also be a relevant user group (NICHES, 2007). During evenings and weekends, more consumers use bike sharing for shopping and

34 leisure‐oriented activities. Interestingly, there is often a peak during night hours, when public transit is more infrequent.

35 BEST PRACTICES

BICYCLE SHARING

The first generation of bicycle share programs employed plain or used bicycle fleets, had no stations, and were free. They were also quick to attract thievery and vandalism and were thereby highly costly and ultimately unsustainable. An example of this type of program was Portland’s Yellow Bike Project, begun in 1994. It was a huge publicity success in terms of opening America’s eyes to the possibilities of bike sharing, but it had to be shut down because its bicycles kept disappearing and getting damaged. In a way, bicycle sharing became more and more advanced simply in response to this early wave of crime. Smart locks and stations were developed, becoming ever more technologically adept. One of the first programs to use smart stations was Bikeabout at the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom. The technology was called Grippa and was later utilized by programs in the Netherlands. Bikeabout began in 1995 only to be discontinued later in favor of minibuses. Security cameras began to be installed at stations to prevent vandalism and other crimes. Programs started requiring users to provide a security deposit, personal identification information, or a credit card in order to borrow a bicycle. Heavy fines were imposed if the bicycle was found outside of the city. Copenhagen City Bikes, which started in 1995, was the first program to use specially designed, unique bicycle parts that could not be sold or used with other bicycles. It also utilized nominal deposit locks, in which riders used coins to unlock a bike and retrieved them after properly returning it to a station. This was the second generation of payment, in between the first, free generation, and the third generation, operated entirely by smart phone or credit card. In any case, other programs followed suit with theft‐deterrent bicycles that were heavy, a bright color, single gear, and built with special parts that were unusable for any other bike. Many bike shares today also use brightly colored bicycles as a way to better establish their presence and market them to others as they are being ridden. To generate more revenue, bicycle sharing programs run by governments began partnering with advertising companies, who would receive advertising space on bicycles, stations, and throughout the city. In return, the company would fund the capital costs of bicycles and stations and sometimes also run the whole program. Paris’ Velib program, the second largest bike share in the world with about 20,000 bikes in circulation, is run by a ten‐year public‐private partnership with JCDecaux. The company paid startup costs of $115

36 million and employs the equivalent of 285 full‐time people to run operations (Anderson, 2007). Any revenue collected through bicycle sharing goes to the city. In return, JCDecaux has control over half of the 1628 city‐owned billboards and keeps all revenue generated from them (Anderson, 2007). Bicycle parking stations have become more high‐tech and complex over the last decade, and Velib is no exception. Each pick‐up/drop‐off station has 15‐40 electronic racks, which are connected to a centralized computer that monitors every bicycle’s condition and location. Montreal’s BIXI station system has seven patents (Capital.BIXI.com). It is portable and modular—able to be installed in less than an hour—and runs on solar power and batteries, sleeping when not in use. Bixi equipment is now used in bike sharing programs in London, Toronto, Ottawa, Minneapolis, DC, etc. The Washington State University Green Bike Program, which began in September 2009 and uses 50 Bixi bicycles, is free to all students, faculty, and staff with a Cougar Card (GreenBike.WSU.edu). The hilly campus discourages use; nonetheless, the university runs a free bicycle clinic a couple of times a month in order to go over a brief history of cycling as well as to explain general maintenance skills and safety precautions. College campuses make excellent locations for bike sharing programs. UC Irvine’s Zotwheels is another prime example. It makes use of an interactive map of stations and bicycle availability (Parking.UCI.edu/ZotWheels). Bixi is North America’s largest bike sharing system as of May 2009, and is unique in that it was designed, implemented, and now run by Montreal’s parking authority. While advertisements decorate 200 out of the 300 stations, ad revenue only makes up 5% of the operating costs. This means that the program is losing $7 million every year. Still, the company who operates Bixi makes money through all of the other bike shares it helps run. In fact, the Montreal government had agreed to provide $108 million in loans and guarantees for the city‐owned Public Bike System Company running the Bixi system, essentially making bike sharing a Canadian export (Bhattari, 2009). Toronto’s BikeShare, run by the Community Bicycle Network from 2001 to 2006, used to be the most popular bike share in North America until it had to be discontinued due to a lack of funding (Transport Canada, 2010). Denver’s B‐Cycle, launched in April 2010, was the first large‐scale municipal bike sharing system in the country. It began with 500 bikes, each with its own GPS unit. The program was initiated during the Democratic National Convention with Denver’s “Freewheelin’” program, during which 1000 bicycles were distributed to visitors and residents to use during the convention, promoting cycling beautifully (Denver.BCycle.com). It

37 is important to launch the program with a bang, in order to generate the most amount of interest in potential consumers. Lyon’s Velo’v introduced many new innovations to bike sharing when it launched in 2005, including electronic locks, smart cards, telecommunication systems, and onboard computers. It was also incredibly cheap: only 10 euros/year, and half of that money goes back to one’s own riding credit (Velov.GrandLyon.com). Almost all bike sharing programs nowadays have membership or subscription fees. It is important to keep these less than $70 per year or so, otherwise the high subscription fee would put off potential customers, and they might be inclined to simply purchase their own bicycles (OBIS, 2011). Another best practice includes steadily increasing prices as the length of rental increases. Bike sharing is meant for short trips; otherwise, one can go to a bike shop and rent a bike for a day. It is important to keep bicycles in circulation, and making only the first half‐hour or hour on the bike free is an excellent incentive (OBIS, 2011). To tackle redistribution problems and the costs, both monetary and environmental, of having to use trucks to redistribute bicycles across an area, Paris’ Velib came up with an innovative solution. The program began offering incentives if users returned their bicycles to harder‐to‐reach areas, like uphill stations or stations farther from the city center. These included extra time and credits useful for future cycling (DeMaio, 2009). Insurance can be tricky. In the early stages, most programs simply utilized a “ride at your own risk” insurance policy, not making them liable for any possible accidents or damage. Today’s programs often offer some kind of municipal coverage. The pros and cons of several different liability methods are listed below (Fig. 19, Philadelphia Bikeshare Concept Study, 2010). It is recommended to consult a lawyer or insurance provider when deciding on the appropriate avenue.

Figure 19: Bike Share Liability Options

38 As recommended by NICHES, the locations where public bicycles can be found in the city should be very easy for the user to locate. Fixed terminals should not be located more than 300‐500 meters from important sources and destinations of traffic, and from each other (NICHES, 2007). A high density of stations is needed in order to have an extensive bicycle sharing network that is most convenient for riders. The Hangzhou public bicycle system, circulating 60,000 bikes and the largest bike share in the world, has stations every 200 meters, contributing to its popularity and success. Bicycles are also space‐efficient; in Lyon, five public bicycle racks, which have an average of 15 users/day, can substitute one parking space, which sees an average of 6 users/day. Another strategy for discouraging car use and encouraging vehicle sharing was demonstrated by London’s congestion charging scheme, which led to a 28% increase in cycling in its first year (NICHES, 2007). The Netherlands’ OV‐fiets scheme is a final case study of a bicycle sharing program that is almost directly a part of the larger public transport system. Bicycles are available at over 100 rail stations throughout the country and can be used as an extension of the rail trip. In addition, those commuting to work by train rent bicycles to travel from the station to their workplace. There were already 23,000 registered users as of 2006, and OV‐fiets is expected to be one of the few profitable public bicycle schemes, as it can achieve economies of scale (NICHES, 2007).

CAR SHARING

What sets car sharing apart from car rentals is the users’ desire to borrow a car for a short amount of time. Car shares therefore charge by the hour, making short trips cost effective. Car sharing programs also tend to use decentralized, neighborhood‐based pods of vehicles, in order to increase accessibility for as many people as possible. These stations should also be easily reached through public transit. In addition, the ability to self‐access a car is what differentiates car shares from car rentals: this means eliminating the check‐in process and allowing members to reserve a car, start it, and return it without dealing with anyone. Of course, this self service component requires that when the user first becomes a member, he or she needs to undergo a background driving check and have an established form of payment before being allowed access to the cars.

39 It is also important for programs to have diverse fleets with cars to suit everyone’s needs. Finally, car shares often include fuel, maintenance, insurance, and reserved parking all‐in‐one with the automobile, as one of the key attractions of car sharing lies in avoiding the hassles of owning a vehicle (City CarShare, 2005). Car sharing programs can be run by a commercial business, a democratically controlled company, a public agency, a cooperate, or an ad hoc group. There are currently over 1000 cities with car sharing systems globally, called “car clubs” in the United Kingdom. The United States was home to 60,000 car sharing members in 2004, and Canada 11,000. Car sharing is rapidly growing, although it still represents only .03% of the urban population and licensed drivers (TCRP Report 108, 2005). One of the first car shares was Amsterdam’s Witkar, active from the 1970s to 1980s. This program used small electric cars and electronically controlled reservations and return. Gradually, programs began to expand. As of 2010, the biggest car sharing service in the world by far is Zipcar, with 400,000 members in 4400 different locations. Zipcar represents 80% of the American market share and half of the world’s car sharing population. While Zipcar seems successful in some ways, and bought its competitor Flexcar in 2006, it is actually losing money every year. It also incurs very high capital costs for cities wishing to join the program. Another problem that users wanted to change was the inflexibility of the condition that cars must be dropped off in the same location they were picked up (Davis, 2011). The founder of Zipcar already left for France in order to start Buzzcar, a peer‐to‐peer sharing system. These kinds of programs are much more likely to be profitable than traditional car shares, since the vehicles used belong to the users, and there are no starting capital costs. The technology used in car sharing varies greatly. Card readers allow members to unlock cars and activate timers through blink technology. Newer programs are using plug‐ in hybrid electric vehicles (PHVE), which are much more expensive than regular fleets, and vehicles specially designed for carsharing and public urban use. However, these are mostly things of the future, and the majority of newly developing car shares utilize regular automobiles in their fleets. A good strategy in the implementation of a car sharing program is to have municipal fleets participate. This shows support and increases publicity and awareness of the program. Visible parking stations in strategic, key locations is also vital to the program’s success, as is the cleanliness and good maintenance of cars. As mentioned before, it is wise to be mission driven over profit driven, as profitability can pose a large challenge. Another variation of traditional car sharing is services that are run by car rental companies. These subprograms began arising in 2008; already, Connect by Hertz has

40 invaded Europe and America, WeCar by Enterprise Rent‐A‐Car runs carsharing in Mountain View, CA, Nashville, and at three universities (Washington University, University of Missouri, and Tulane). Even U Haul runs a U Car Share. Peer‐to‐peer car sharing programs, as mentioned above, work through existing car owners, who rent their cars to their peers when they are not in use. A bill known as the “Oregon Proposal” to ease car sharing through insurance policies passed Senate earlier this year. It ensured that the insurance of the car owner would not go up if the renter were the one who got into an accident. The car is insured through the car sharing company, and the car sharing company and the owner split the money earned. Importantly, insurance companies would not be allowed to drop people who participate in peer‐to‐peer car sharing programs (Hubbard, 2011). Final best practices, as enumerated by the Transit Cooperative Research Program Report, include the adoption of policies and regulations to support car‐sharing; marketing to generate community support; and the integration of the program with existing transit. The right neighborhoods to target will have density, walkability, public transit accessibility, mixed use, and parking pressures. Outreach, to get institutional and community buy‐in, is of utmost importance.

BOTH

Car sharing and bicycle sharing programs share some common best practices. As mentioned in biking, there needs to be a high density and number of stations, combined with long operating hours and times, in order for usage to be high. Using smart phone technology to allow users to check the status of nearby stations (e.g., through Spotcycle) has become more and more commonplace. It will be important to get community buy‐in by collaborating on vehicle sharing with universities and businesses with commuting employees, who are key serviceable markets. In addition, integrating the program with the public transit system and utilizing the same smartcard would encourage all forms of alternative transportation. Most vital is communication and working with community‐based organizations to help turn the idea of vehicle sharing into a reality.

41 OPERATING MODEL AND IMPLEMENTATION

PILOT

A vehicle sharing program can be significantly affected by many different factors. To test the waters before implementing a large‐scale system, it is advisable to first launch a pilot, in order to check the feasibility of the program, make changes and adaptations as necessary, and promote the program and generate increased interest in a long‐term sharing system. Of course, a pilot program requires a good amount of funding, and there are many different ways in which to obtain this.

Sources for pilot funding: Government funding - Requires a clear business plan, quantified information on the public policy benefits from vehicle sharing, proposal with specific objectives (e.g., establishing a station in a particular location or serving a particular market) - Potential federal level sources: o Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program o Transportation Enhancement Activities o Access to Jobs and Reverse Commute Program o Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program o Value Pricing Program - State/regional sources: o Metropolitan planning organizations o South Carolina Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Grants (http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/baq/DERA/) o More: http://www.statelibrary.sc.gov/docs/grant/foundation2010.pdf Private funding - Better suited for cooperatives and for‐profit vehicle sharing organizations o Some treat member deposits as shares in the organization, although they do not necessarily refund the money if the member leaves - Automobile industry o Through donations of discounted vehicles Leveraged value - For organizations that would be affected by vehicle sharing, such as car and bike rental companies - Vehicle sharing can help these companies recoup benefits - For example, a car rental company could agree to pay a fixed amount for each referral from a car‐sharing operator, for the volume of business that is channeled their way Private foundations - Good source for nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organizations

42 - Targeted programs are more likely to get funded - Charleston County: Coastal Community Foundation Other donations - From members, businesses - “Donate your car” program o Provides tax write‐off for members o Source of revenue if car can be sold o Takes more vehicles off the streets (Source: City CarShare: Bringing Car Sharing to Your Community, 2005)

It is also important to quantify the contribution that the City is able or willing to make to the program.

SUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL MODEL

The business model of a car or bicycle sharing program will vary depending on who runs the operations, and how involved the city is in the overall venture. The city has several options for the organizational structure of the operations, including how they are run and how they are funded. The Philadelphia Bikeshare Concept Study succinctly outlines the key possible arrangements for a bicycle sharing program and the benefits and detriments of each configuration (Fig. 20).

Figure 20: Vendor-Operator Operating Models

Vendor Operator Funding Example Private Private Advertising (usually Lyon, Paris through street furniture) Private Private Chicago (St. Xavier U) Private Public Barcelona Public Public Public Montreal Public Private Boston (sponsored by New Balance) Non‐profit Public/Private Minneapolis (federal, municipal, university funding)

43 Vendor/Operator The advantages of a public vendor and operator include their devotion to the cause, and having direct control over funding and operations. Disadvantages involve potentially high upfront capital investment costs and highly variable operational costs. There are also limited experienced vendors to choose from. Private vendors and operators usually require no upfront capital investment from the city. However, the operator is not driven by the mobility cause, and it can be hard for the city to work with them if conflicts arise. To combat this, the city should ensure that the contract between the entities clearly specifies terms and includes provisions like data‐ sharing, options for expressing dissatisfaction, etc. There should also be incentives for the operator to provide good service, e.g., through revenue sharing.

Funding Private funding removes the burden from the City to seek other funding. Programs that are not privately funded, on the other hand, have access to federal and public funding, as well as local funding sources such as universities that can be incorporated into the citywide system.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Another report examined the different business structures of a city‐run program versus a franchise. The table below (Fig. 21) comes from the bicycle sharing feasibility study done by the City of New York in 2009.

44 Figure 21: Franchise vs. City-Built Bike Share in New York City

Bike Share: Opportunities in New York City (The New York City Department of Transportation recently began a program to unify the look of all street furniture.)

No matter the organizational structure chosen, there are costs and possible revenue streams that are similar across all models. Some of these are specified in the table below (Fig. 22).

Figure 22: Vehicle Sharing Costs and Revenue Streams

Costs Revenue streams

Overhead/fixed costs Contract revenue

45 Office space - Larger businesses may be willing to pre‐ Salary and benefits pay for blocks of exclusive time Staff: design and engineering, customer service, - Developer could be willing to guarantee sales and marketing (it would be smart to automate level of revenue in exchange for placing as much of the system as possible) vehicles at specific location) Technology (for stations, etc.) Marketing, public relations: brochures, advertising Office supplies Advertising

Earned revenue (membership/subscription Variable costs and one‐off ride costs)

Vehicle capital Fines Liability and insurance costs Parking / station building Carbon offset credit sales (CityRyde) Gasoline Cleaning Maintenance and repairs Redistribution trucks, other distribution costs Lost, stolen vehicles

There are several different methods to determine the optimal pricing scheme. A market study utilizing surveys and focus groups seems like one of the most reliable, although this can be a costly and time‐consuming process. In addition, these kinds of studies can fail to account for long‐term changes in consumers’ approach to transportation. A different method is simply trial and error. One can use “best‐guess” pricing points based on other cities and based on estimations of the target demand profile. Then, periodic adjusting of fares and pricing schemes are crucial in order to respond to actual demand patterns. An important scheme to keep in mind is that off‐peak discount rates can help generate usage at night and at other times car sharing is not normally utilized. The following analysis (Fig. 23) was put together by City CarShare to estimate the market near a potential car sharing pod. It analyzes three different potential markets: residential, business, and transit transfer, and takes into accounts the most important factors for each market (City CarShare, 2005).

46 Figure 23: Estimating the Market Near a Potential Car Share Pod

The table below (Fig. 24) details the partnerships various cities across the United States have with different car‐sharing franchises, including both private and non‐profit ones. The level of the City’s involvement ranges widely across various programs, although there are similar commitments including providing free parking for car‐sharing vehicles, signing up city employees and fleets for the program, etc.

47 Figure 24: Summary of Public Sector Car-Sharing Trends

(City of San Antonio Car­Sharing Feasibility Study, 2011)

48 Another table from the City of San Antonio (Fig. 25) shows how many vehicles would need to be a part of the program according to various factors. First is the member‐ to‐vehicle ratio. If calculated through a franchise such as Zipcar, which has >400,000 members and >7000 vehicles in operation, the ratio is approximately 57:1. However, if we exclude the five largest car‐sharing operators in the United States, the ratio becomes 20:1 (City of San Antonio, 2011). The other variable is the market penetration rate. This refers to the percentage of the residential population that would likely participate in the program. A rate of 0.5% is on the low end, for areas predetermined to be feasible based on their demographics statistics (as according to the study by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies). San Antonio used GIS analysis to determine its residential areas that would be most likely to participate in car sharing. After the City determined the four most targetable census tracts, the study further limited this population to only those aged 21‐55 (a market of 10,258 residents), added the number of potential employees who would join the program, and calculated the total number of vehicles needed in accordance with the aforementioned shifting variables.

Figure 25:

49 SAMPLE BUSINESS MODELS

The following are some basic sample potential business models, as put together by San Antonio. There are three different types: one is a model in which only city employees have access to car‐sharing vehicles (Fig. 26); one is a pilot program with gradual expansion of the program from city staff to the public (Fig. 27); and one is a partnership with a City‐ started non‐profit organization (Fig. 28). Of note, the term “guaranteed revenue” refers to the City’s financial commitment to the car‐sharing operator. Arguably, the easiest way to provide support is through subsidized parking, including providing dedicated on‐street parking spaces, off‐street parking, and/or free utilization of parking meters, etc. However, a good portion of cities also guarantee a certain amount of revenue per operating vehicle. This can be done through a semi‐dedicated fleet, where city employees have exclusive access to vehicles during certain hours and pay accordingly for this guaranteed availability. However, open systems are also in place, where the City and the general public have equal access to vehicles and there is less guaranteed financial commitment. For instance, neither Philadelphia nor Pittsburgh guarantees revenue per vehicle to their operator, Zipcar.

Figure 26:

50 In this model (Fig. 26), it is assumed that the car‐sharing operator requires $1500/month in guaranteed revenue per vehicle to cover operational costs (e.g., vehicle leasing, maintenance, fuel, insurance, cleaning) and profit margins. According to San Antonio, the data available for guaranteed revenue arrangements shows that $1500 is an upper‐bound, conservative figure, and real arrangements will vary. This model represents a worst‐case scenario where no residents—only city employees—use the cars, and the city simply pays the full $1500 per mostly idle vehicle every month. This second model (Fig. 27) incorporates three months of exclusive use by city employees, followed by a sustained marketing push to the general public, followed by a gradual increase in vehicle utilization by residents and local employers. This allows for the monthly subsidy from the City to decrease from $7500 ($1500/vehicle) to $0 after six months. This model assumes that each vehicle will be used six hours/day once fully operational and that city employees comprise four of these. According to this plan, the program would break even after six months. Finally, the third model (Fig. 28) estimates the potential costs of a non‐profit car‐ sharing organization. The following assumptions were used: car sharing costs $10/hour with no additional mileage or membership costs; each car generates 6 hours of usage every day; 125 members join each quarter; and 5 extra cars are added when the ratio of vehicles to members reaches 50:1. Overall, this type of non‐profit would require almost $200,000 in gross subsidization costs and would break even (revenues exceeding expenditures) in the late second year.

51 Figure 27

52 Figure 28

53 A sample budget with more specific line items is below (Fig. 29, City of San Antonio, 2011).

Figure 29: Sample Car Share Budget Template

54 It is important not to underestimate the scope of the savings that can be attained through a City’s participation in car sharing. In 2004, the Berkeley, California city government replaced 15 of its fleet vehicles with five carsharing vehicles, culminating in savings of $400,000 after three years (Cohen, Shaheen and McKenzie, 2008, 7). This included $250,000 in replacement cars, gasoline and maintenance and $150,000 on insurance and fleet management (City of Berkeley Mayor’s Office, 2004). New York City anticipates saving $500,000 from 2010 to 2013 through its partnership with Zipcar for fleet management of 300 employees through 25 vehicles (City of New York). Finally, in Philadelphia, the city government partnered with PhillyCarShare and reduced its fleet by 330 vehicles in one year, and had a projected savings of $9 million over five years (Millard‐Ball et al. 2005, 5‐ 21; City of Philadelphia 2004). These included reduced costs for acquisition, parking, vehicle maintenance, and fuel (Bieszczat, Schwieterman, 2011). Of course, PhillyCarShare was recently purchased by Enterprise WeCar. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed, although it is known that the PhillyCarShare brand name will be maintained through the integration process and that it will now operate as a for‐profit service (“Enterprise Holdings Acquiring PhillyCarShare,” 2011). In addition, almost all staff members from PCS were offered positions at WeCar. PCS seemed happy with the change, due to their goal to serve every neighborhood in Philadelphia and Enterprise’s intent on enhancing and expanding the system as quickly as possible. Enterprise is also currently strongly advocating for ending discriminatory car rental excise taxes (“Enterprise Holdings Stands up for Car‐Sharing Customers,” 2010).

EVALUATION SYSTEMS

In any business, it is wise to have systems to track, monitor, and assess performance milestones. Different vehicle sharing programs have used different types of evaluations, from user surveys to independent evaluations done by institutions such as local universities. These can sometimes be costly. Below is a table (Fig. 30) listing the key program aspects that should be evaluated.

55

Figure 30: Car Share Performance Measures to Monitor

Internal efficiency External impacts

Number of members, number of vehicles Percentage of members who have sold cars Utilization rate Number of cars taken off streets - Number of revenue hours/day a vehicle Amount of vehicle travel saved achieves Number of new transit trips - Revenue/vehicle Amount of transit agency fare revenue increase - Analyze vehicle, area, and fleet as a whole Tons of emissions reductions - Calculate utilization rate needed to break Percentage of low‐income members even Retention rate Net new members/month Fixed:variable costs ratio (should go down) Staff:vehicle ratio (should go down) Farebox recovery ratio (earned revenue as percentage of total costs) Member:vehicle ratio

Bringing Car-Sharing to Your Community (City CarShare)

The following (Fig. 31) are examples of other car sharing programs throughout the country and the specific evaluation techniques they use (TCRP Report 108, 2005).

56 Figure 31: Car Share Partner Evaluation Techniques

57

Figure 31: Car Share Partner Evaluation Techniques (cont’d)

(TCRP Report 108)

MARKETABILITY

As mentioned in the previous chapter, two of the key potential markets for vehicle sharing in Charleston are the tourist and college student populations.

58 Tourists Tourists spend, on average, $29 per day on transportation‐related costs (College of Charleston Office of Tourist Analysis). The demographics of most visitors align well with those of other successful car share programs throughout the country (see Fig. 18). In a survey from 2010 with data from 820 tourists, collected randomly by College of Charleston students and through voluntary participation, 73.7% were found to have a Bachelor’s or higher degree, while another 14.1% started college but didn’t finish (Smith, Pan, 2011). The mean age of visitors was 55.8. 42% were full time employees and 34.6% were retired. 77.1% reported an annual household income of $60,000 or more. In terms of how tourists get to Charleston, 73.2% drove, either with their own (67.3%) or rented (5.9%) cars. 15% arrived via plane, while 6.7% flew to another city and then rented a car (Fig. 32, Smith, Pan 13, 2011). It would probably make most sense to target visitors who come by airplane, and potentially some who drive their own vehicles, if parking in the city is an issue. A tourist family could, for example, leave their own vehicle at their hotel, inn, or rental house, and utilize car or bicycle sharing to travel throughout the city because of parking incentives. In fact, the factor that tourists said most negatively impacted their visit to Charleston was parking (24.4%). Second was uneven sidewalks/pavement (12.6%) and fourth was traffic (9.6%) (Smith, Pan, 2011).

Figure 32: Visitor Transportation Modes to the Charleston Area (820 Responses)

59 In addition, only 6.8% came to stay with friends or relatives. These tourists would most likely have access to their friends’ and family’s vehicles and would not be a good target for vehicle sharing. As for length of visits, only 8.5% of tourists came for day trips. Of the rest, the average time spent in Charleston was 3.7 nights: 3.4 for first‐time visitors and 4 for repeat visitors (Smith, Pan, 2011). This relatively lengthy span of time spent in the city means that the costs of renting a car would add up quickly. For tourists who rented cars to come to Charleston, it would actually be more cost effective for them to return the car upon arrival and then rent one again to leave. In between, they could utilize car or bicycle sharing to travel around the city, which would be much cheaper. The table below (Fig. 33) shows other tourist expenses and the average costs associated with each.

Figure 33: Breakdown of Overnight Visitor Expenses

Finally, the most common metropolitan area residence of visitors was New York City, with 35 tourists (4.7%), followed by Atlanta, GA; Charlotte, NC; Chicago, IL;

60 Washington, DC; Greenville, SC; and Baltimore, MD (Smith, Pan, 2011). All of these cities have their own bicycle and/or car sharing programs, which may make their residents more willing or interested in utilizing vehicle sharing in Charleston—New York: Mint, developing bicycle sharing; Atlanta: Zipcar; Charlotte: Hertz on Demand; Chicago: iGo, B‐Cycle; DC: Capital BikeShare, Zipcar; Greenville: WeCar (Miller, 2011); Baltimore: Altcar, Zipcar, developing bicycle sharing (Reutter, 2011); among others.

Students

Trident Technical College With 16,000 full‐time undergraduate students, Trident Technical College is the university with the second biggest undergraduate population in South Carolina. However, the students are spread out over five campuses, and none live at the college; all must commute to get there. One campus—Palmer—is located downtown and is, according to Russell Darnall (in charge of Green Business and Sustainability, and Continuing Education & Economic Development at the college), probably the campus most suited for a car sharing program. Trident Tech has very large growth, with an approximate 20% increase of students every year, which has stressed much of the infrastructure of the university, including parking. The college has tried to push public transit and ridesharing (through Trident RideShare) to address this problem. However, in a survey sent to staff and faculty, which asked what these programs’ barriers were, many responded with the need for flexibility: the ability to leave campus throughout the day, whenever necessary, and to accommodate a varying schedule which may not have the same hours every day. A car share might be able to address this better than carpooling, which is inflexible in terms of hours, and public transit, which may be more inflexible in terms of geography. Trident Tech has both day and evening classes which are pretty much split 50‐50 in terms of how many students are enrolled in each. Staff come in around 8:30 am – 5 pm every day. In addition, there are 500,000 “contact hours” for skills training every year, which is the total sum of the several hours each person comes in for set types of skill learning; this represents approximately 10,000 students (Darnall, 2011). In terms of bicycle sharing, the Palmer campus is unfortunately not very pedestrian or bicycle friendly. There are no sidewalks, and it was constructed in the 1960s‐70s, when cars ruled all. There are a few bicycle parking racks, but, according to Darnall, most students likely don’t live within bicycling distance anyway. With that said, the new

61 buildings that are being built have bicycle racks and showers (for people who bike to work and need to shower), in part to gain LEED points and also to accommodate those who do cycle to campus. As for automobile parking, currently grass fields are being used, but this is a temporary fix. The college is investing in environmental parking with loop parking lots in order to address their shortage of parking facilities. In general, however, these parking pressures, as well as the massive numbers of people who must commute to campus and seek more flexibility in their commute, gives Trident Technical College a lot of potential to be a successful place for car sharing.

College of Charleston WeCar of Enterprise Rent‐a‐Car has already been in contact with the College of Charleston. They are flexible in their approach to car sharing and in the shared business model between the company and the city or institution. For instance, currently at Clemson University, the City has no control over the vehicles or rates and only provides parking spaces for the cars. The City gains no subsidy but there is still a chance for Clemson to generate a portion of revenue once the program is more established on campus. The City has been in contact with Cheryl Rothenberger, WeCar’s Director of Business Rental Sales, and should continue to keep in close communication with her and others in the development of this program. Another key contact at the College of Charleston is Brian Fisher, an assistant professor in Political Science and Environmental Studies, who has been working on a transportation report for the administration. He intends on forming a subcommittee on transportation to comprehensively review and tackle the details of implementing specific recommendations from the report, and this includes car sharing and possibly bicycle sharing as well. Additionally, Jan Brewton, the Director of Business and Auxiliary Services, was the contact at the College of Charleston who worked with CARTA to bring DASH trolley routes to the campus.

The Citadel WeCar has also been in communication with The Citadel, specifically Charlie Adams, the Executive Director of Auxiliary Services. Preliminary discussions included talks of a partial subsidy; for example, a system where The Citadel would reap half of the revenue of the program in exchange for providing other benefits. This model is still highly negotiable.

62 Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) MUSC recently sent out a survey addressing transportation uses, focusing on bicycling, to its students and employees. Out of the 1157 respondents, 83.8% were staff, 8.6% were faculty, and 7.5% were students (MUSC Commuter Survey, 2011). The survey found that 48.7% of people travel fewer than 10 miles to get to work every day, while another 27.5% have a 10‐20 mile commute. These short distances reduce the incentive for MUSC students and employees to require their own car for commuting. While 75% take an automobile to work, 9% bus, 2% bike, 2% walk, and 11% utilize a flexible combination of all different types of transportation. This is promising because it shows that a good portion of people are willing to experiment with alternative modes of transit and are not necessarily glued to one particular form, i.e. single occupancy vehicles. 26% said “yes” or “maybe” to a question asking if they would consider biking to work. Incentives for cycling included, in order of importance: for fitness benefits, for environmental benefits, for lowering transportation costs, and for being a practical transportation alternative. The biggest barriers for cycling included, in order: a lack of bike paths and lanes, excessive commuting distance, lack of showers or changing facilities, difficulty crossing the Ashley River, inadequate parking, and the need for multiple trips during the day (MUSC Commuter Survey, 2011). MUSC may be a good place to explore the initiation of a car or bicycle sharing program, as it has, due to parking and traffic pressures, already partnered with CARTA and made available to its students, staff, and faculty various shuttles and buses that are widely utilized throughout downtown Charleston and even off of the peninsula. CARTA buses are, in fact, free to ride for anyone with an MUSC identification badge. In addition, MUSC runs a carpool program which gives permits and designated parking locations to its members (MUSC.edu). Because many MUSC employees and students already have experience with public transportation and carpooling, they may be more likely to participate in other alternative forms of transit such as vehicle sharing. In addition, the population of people who work or study at MUSC is enormous and represents a large potential market for a car or bicycle sharing program.

SCALABILITY

Scalability will depend upon the franchise the city chooses to partner with, and can change as the vehicle sharing program develops and expands. Even with a pilot or the initial launch

63 of the program, however, it is important to ensure a sufficient number of stations and vehicles in order for usage to be at a solid rate and for the program to be successful.

PARTNERS

In addition to the institutions mentioned above, there are other key players that the City should try to work with in establishing a vehicle sharing program.

CARTA A major partner is CARTA, the Charleston Area Regional Transportation Authority. Car and bicycle sharing are newer forms of public transport and can be used to augment and improve the existing public transit system in the city. To do this, it is necessary to understand any and all problems with the current system. The main problem that CARTA faces, according to Peter Tecklenburg, their Transportation Planner, is funding. CARTA only gets 17% of the ½ penny sales tax, while many other cities’ transit authorities get a full penny. This means that the transit system is robust and extensive in urban areas closer to the city center, but becomes limited the farther it gets from the city. In past years, funding has played an enormous role in the image that Charleston residents had of CARTA. CARTA used to be funded by SCE&G, a power company, which made sense in the 1900s to 1940s when public transit was essentially entirely made up of electric streetcars and trolleys. However, with the shift to automobiles and diesel buses, SCE&G was losing more and more money every year, and they had no incentive to provide good service or improve it if that would cost more money. Finally, CARTA took over, with an agreement that SCE&G would continue to pay for an extra ten years of service. At the end of this term, the residents of the county had to vote on a ½ cent sales tax (Tecklenburg, 2011). The referendum wound up barely passing and was overthrown in the State Supreme Court because people had the misconception that the bus system was only for the poor and minorities, and was dirty and unsafe. The second referendum also failed, which forced CARTA to cut 75% of its routes. This led to the loss of jobs for hundreds of people and the inconveniencing of thousands more, further increasing the poor perception of CARTA. Only riders who had no other options used the routes, and buses could only come every 2‐3 hours. Finally, the referendum passed the next year, in 2005, and of the ½ cent tax, some went to green spaces and roads while only a portion made it to transit. This drastically

64 changed what CARTA was able to do, however; they began rebuilding their system, bringing back the express system and 25 routes, and the ridership increased from 70,000 to 300,000 passengers/month in the first few months. Today, ridership is almost 400,000/month and is coming closer and closer to reaching CARTA’s 5 million passengers/year benchmark (Tecklenburg, 2011). The perception of CARTA has improved greatly; MUSC and the College of Charleston both partnered with the transit authority and demonstrated the positive effects of doing so, especially boosting employee morale and helping to address their difficult parking situations downtown. The Town of Mount Pleasant is especially interesting because it is one of the cities with the highest home value and per capita income in the state, yet is the only area that has had routes added in the last few years. The ridership of routes in Mount Pleasant is probably the most diverse out of all of CARTA’s routes, and includes people who work at the Walmart or Target or fast food restaurants in Mount Pleasant but cannot live there because of the high prices. The new green movement and the suboptimal parking and traffic situation in the city have also boosted ridership and helped to change CARTA’s image. According to Tecklenburg, there is also a younger generation of riders who see past the perceptions that afflicted CARTA from the 1960s to the 2000s, and are content to use the system. All of these conditions, combined with the inability for CARTA to expand their routes beyond what they make with their ½ penny sales tax, make for an excellent environment in which to introduce vehicle sharing. As a specific example, Tecklenburg mentioned that a car share would allow someone to drive to Costco, Lowe’s, or Walmart in an hour, which might normally take 3‐4 hours via bus, with the added convenience of being able to transport a large volume of goods. As for CARTA’s long‐term vision, they are mostly working towards the continual expansion of their system to Summerville and Goose Creek, as well as the development the intermodal transportation center in North Charleston. This phase of growth and expanding the existing system ties perfectly in with adding extra modes of transit through car or bicycle sharing. Peter says that CARTA has “proven [they] can be part of the fix” when it comes to real solutions to the traffic and parking issues in the city.

South Carolina State Ports Authority A partner of CARTA is the South Carolina State Ports Authority, who currently has a renewable annual agreement to provide $50,000 worth of funding to run, service, and help modify the free DASH shuttle (Byron Miller, 2011). The shuttle has a station at the Port of

65 Charleston’s cruise ship passenger terminal at the intersection of Concord and Market Streets. There are also stations at nearby parking lots. The agreement is contingent on the continuation of Charleston’s successful cruise business, which brings in hundreds of visitors every day, who are directed via the shuttle to the Visitor Center and other historic attractions in downtown Charleston. The agreement is also dependent on the success of the planned redevelopment of the Union Pier Terminal. The Ports Authority, in collaboration with the City of Charleston, are planning to move the cruise terminal to the northern end of the Pier. The point of this is to increase public access to the pier and to the waterfront, and to utilize the area for more than just maritime commerce and cargo ships, trains, and trucks (Union Pier Plan Interactive Brochure, 2011). Other points of the plan include connecting Charleston neighborhoods to the water and extending Market Street to the waterfront. Establishing a bicycle or car sharing station in this area seems to mesh perfectly with these goals. Both would allow more people, both residents and visitors, to explore the waterfront, and would make it easy for visitors to travel wherever they want, supporting the DASH trolley system. As the first point of the plan is to increase access to the area, establishing vehicle sharing there would be very useful.

Boeing WeCar has also approached The Boeing Company in a potential plan to develop a car sharing program for its many employees in Charleston. The Boeing facility in North Charleston is huge and includes a cutting‐edge Boeing 787 jet assembly plant, which is set to bring in 3800 more jobs over the next seven years. More information on the potential for car sharing with Boeing employees can be found through Cheryl Rothenberger of WeCar.

Hertz on Demand Preliminary discussions have been had with Hertz on Demand, specifically through Lucas Bellamy, the Hertz sales representative for both North Carolina and South Carolina. Hertz on Demand is unique from several other car sharing companies in that it allows for one‐way car rentals and requires no membership fees. The business relationship between Hertz and the City is negotiable and depends on the changing utilization of the program. Hertz on Demand has found success at college campuses across the United States and has a good deal of experience with exposure and marketing targeting college students in particular, for example, through Facebook campaigns. There is currently a Hertz on Demand program at the University of South Carolina and in Charlotte, NC, and they are

66 looking at branching into the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University as well. The pursuing of a potential relationship with Hertz on Demand will go through the Director of Sales, who has not yet been a part of the conversation.

City Fleets In other cities that have partnered with franchises in developing car shares, often the city itself has converted some of its own fleets into car sharing vehicles. This serves both to stimulate the program through the ensuring of a certain level of usage, as well as to promote the program through the increase of its recognizable vehicles on the streets. Below (Fig. 34) is the data regarding the City of Charleston’s fleets by the department they fall under and the types of vehicles in each (Charleston City Fleet Management Office, 2011). Some would obviously be impractical and impossible to replace with car sharing automobiles, including special vehicles such as tractors, mowers, trailers, dump trucks, compressors, excavators, sweepers, chippers, generators, etc. However, for some of the departments which use automobiles or sports utility vehicles, whose employees do not need to operate and drive the vehicles as an essential part of their jobs, switching to car sharing vehicles may be feasible. Ideally, this switch would happen only for departments where employees utilize cars for a brief period of time every day. In pursuing the converting of some of these fleets to car sharing vehicles, continued discussion should be had with the City’s Fleet Management office.

Figure 34: Charleston City Fleet Vehicles Department # of Types of vehicles vehicle s Parking management 6 Automobile Republic parking 11 Generator, floor sweeper, trailer, automobile, pickup truck Parking meters 1 Pickup truck Municipal auditorium 6 Generator, floor sweeper, forklift, pickup truck, van Golf course 12 Tractor, mower, pickup truck Municipal court 1 Automobile Mayor’s office 2 Automobile BFR 4 Generator, automobile BFR revenue collections 5 Pickup truck Human resources 6 Generator, automobile, sports utility vehicle Safety 1 Automobile Information technology 7 Minivan, sports utility vehicle, automobile

67 Telecommunications 3 Pickup truck, van, sports utility vehicle Parks – electrical 14 Generator, trailer, pickup truck, aerial bucket truck Parks – facilities maintenance 21 Water tank, mower, compressor, pressure washer, trailer, pickup truck, van Public service – stormwater 72 Compressor, excavator, mower, concrete mixer, back hoe, tractor, cutter, sewer trailer, dump truck, semi, sewer truck, sports utility vehicle Public service – engineering 7 Pickup truck, sports utility vehicle Public service – inspections 18 Pickup truck, automobile Livability 6 Pickup truck Traffic & Transportation 40 Compressor, excavator, paint striper, line maker, message board, trailer, sports utility vehicle, aerial bucket truck, pickup truck, van, automobile Public service – administration 1 Sports utility vehicle Public service – streets & 36 Tamper, air compressor, back hoe, roller, front loader, sidewalks grader, trailer, dump truck, pickup truck, asphalt truck Public services – 2 Automobile, pickup truck environmental services – administration Public services – 27 Side loader, rear loader, automobile, minivan environmental services – garbage collection Public services – 83 Claw bucket, front loader, dump truck, pickup truck, side environmental services – trash loader collection Public services – 10 Floor sweeper, van, pickup truck, street sweeper environmental services – street sweeping Fleet management 31 Forklift, air compressor, floor sweeper, steam cleaner, welder, pressure washer, mower, chipper, trailer, pickup truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle Design, Development & 3 Sports utility vehicle Preservation Planning & Neighborhoods 1 Sports utility vehicle Housing & Community 5 Pickup truck, automobile, sports utility vehicle Development Cultural affairs 1 Minivan Recreation 19 Pickup truck, van, minivan, bus, automobile, sports utility vehicle Parks – capital projects 6 Sports utility vehicle, automobile, pickup truck Parks – administration 6 Generator, minivan, pickup truck, sports utility vehicle, van Parks – ground maintenance 100 Tractor, chipper, mower, water tank, floor sweeper, rake, gator, back hoe, bush hog, trailer, dump truck Parks – construction 13 Bull dozer, roller, back hoe, trailer, pickup truck, dump truck Parks – urban forestry 18 Back hoe, compressor, forklift, stump grinder, chipper, dump truck, pickup truck, water truck, aerial bucket truck, sports utility vehicle, crane truck Parks – horticulture 9 Mower, bush hog, water tank, trailer, pickup truck Dock street theatre 2 Generator Maritime center 1 Pickup truck

68 administration Tourism 1 Pickup truck Business services 2 Automobile (Jackie Pechon, Office Manager, Fleet Management, City of Charleston)

Existing Franchises As stated before, WeCar of Enterprise Rent‐a‐Car has already approached several institutions throughout the county, including The Citadel, College of Charleston, and Boeing, and had been already planning on introducing car sharing to these areas even before this study was first initiated. The City has also had preliminary discussions with Hertz on Demand, and has reached out to Zipcar, BMW, and PBSC (the Public Bike System Company) of Montreal. Moving forward, the City should continue to communicate with all of these potential partners and keep them informed of the steps being taken to develop the program.

TIMELINE AND ROLLOUT OF OPERATIONS

• Writing a Request for Proposals (RFP) or Request for Information (RFI) • Pilot program

To continue the pursuit of a car or bicycle sharing program, it is essential for the City to keep in communication with existing car and bicycle sharing operators. To formally announce a request for a partner operator, the City can send out either an RFI or an RFP. While an RFP pre‐defines the specific scope of many of the services to be engaged, an RFI is much more loose and flexible. It asks vendors to propose a scope and a business model for their delivery of services. Unlike RFPs, RFIs are non‐binding. Their open‐ended quality would make service providers more likely to propose non‐traditional business models which, for example, could combine both private and public vehicle use. The RFI should ask potential operators how they would operate their service; the scope and organization of a pilot program; and how much subsidy, if any, they would require from the City. RFIs can be issued to established car‐sharing companies as well as community groups that may be interested in founding a non‐profit car‐sharing organization. An RFI could help focus the development of an RFP.

69 Sample RFIs – Bike sharing: Boston: http://www.cityofboston.gov/transportation/PDFs/BikeShareRFI.pdf King County, Seattle: http://www.metrobike.net/index.php?s=file_download&id=4 Wilmington, NC: http://www.wmpo.org/PDF/2008‐10_RFI_BicycleSharing.pdf

Sample RFPs – Bike sharing: Boston: http://www.metrobike.net/index.php?s=file_download&id=20 Minneapolis Nice Ride: http://www.metrobike.net/index.php?s=file_download&id=32 Arlington, VA: http://egov.arlingtonva.us/purchasing/pdf/contracts/56‐09.pdf Boulder, CO: http://www.metrobike.net/index.php?s=file_download&id=33

Sample RFPs – Car sharing: Baltimore: http://www.carsharing.net/rfp/BaltimoreCarShareRFP2009.pdf Miami: http://www.carsharing.net/library/rfp/RFP42‐07‐08.pdf Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: http://www.carsharing.net/library/RFP_SVP_2004_WMATA_2.pdf Santa Barbara: http://c0133321.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Model%20RFP%20‐ %20Car%20Sharing%20Santa%20Barbara%20SF.pdf San Antonio: http://sanantonio.gov/rfplistings/Content.aspx?id=1331

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Most of the resources relating to car or bicycle sharing would be provided by the franchise, if the City decided to partner with one. These include the fleets of vehicles themselves, in addition to any equipment needed for smart stations, especially for bicycle shares. Car shares usually utilize parking lots or garages and do not need special technology to keep the vehicles locked. Other resources needed for vehicle sharing include staff to run operations. Again, these will probably come from the company; however, the City could also appoint a person to be the contact in charge of relations between the partners, although this isn’t entirely necessary. Finally, something that needs to be done, whether through the franchise or through the city, is GIS analysis across downtown and other potential vehicle share areas to determine the ideal locations for stations. Analysis includes mapping of various demographics, proximity to spaces that could be converted to vehicle sharing hubs, proximity to other transit stations, etc.

70 MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS

There are various tools that the City and franchise can use in partnership to promote the vehicle sharing program. Certain ones can be used across all markets, whereas others are better suited for specific target populations.

All - Website - Information sessions for city employees, public - Public announcements, news coverage - Advertising (billboards; TV, radio commercials, etc.) - Work with community groups - Discounts, special deals during initial launch o Free helmets, lower membership rate - Safety initiatives

Tourists - Information in the Visitor Center - Work with airlines/airport, trains/train station, cruise lines

Students - Student representatives for the program; work with student governments to gain advocates - Booths at fairs, orientation, open houses - Facebook, other social media

71 CONCLUSION

The City of Charleston should not lose momentum in bringing car and bicycle sharing programs to the area. The work that has been done so far should be utilized in the continued development of relationships with potential partners. Charleston is a city ripe for vehicle sharing, and vehicle sharing programs could really help to reduce transportation‐driven greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to change the culture of transit in the city for the better.

72 REFERENCES

Amtrak. Silver Service/Palmetto Route.

Anderson, John Ward. “Paris Embraces Plan to Become City of Bikes.” The Washington Post. 24 Mar. 2007.

Berkeley‐Charleston‐Dorchester Council of Governments. Growth Indicators in the Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Region 2000‐2004. Oct. 2005.

Berkeley‐Charleston‐Dorchester Council of Governments. Traffic in the Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Region: An Analysis of 1990‐2000 Data. March 2002.

Bhattari, Abha. “Bike‐Sharing: Cycling to a City Near You.” Fast Company. 26 June 2009.

Bieszcat, Alice and Schwieterman, Joseph. Are Taxes on Carsharing Too High? A Review of the Public Benefits and Tax Burden of an Expanding Transportation Sector. DePaul University. Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development. June 2011.

“Bicycle Sharing Systems Worldwide: Selected Case Studies.” CityRyde. Sep. 2010.

Bike Law.

“BikeShare: A Community Bicycle Lending Program.” Transport Canada. 15 Aug. 2010.

“Bringing Car‐Sharing to Your Community.” City CarShare. 2005.

Charleston Area Regional Transit Authority.

Charleston Area Ride Maps. The Coastal Cyclists. 2008.

“Charleston Car Insurance Statistics.” Insurance USA.

“Charleston County, South Carolina Population and Housing Narrative Profile: 2005‐2009.” American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder.

Charleston Green Committee and City of Charleston, Charleston Green Plan. 2010.

Charleston MOVES!

Charleston Regional Development Alliance. Berkeley, Charleston, & Dorchester Counties. 2011.

“Charleston South Carolina Demographics.” Charleston Real Estate Guide.

73 “Charleston, South Carolina Demographics Summary.” CLRsearch.com.

“Charleston, South Carolina.” City‐Data.com.

City of Charleston Department of Traffic and Transportation. Peninsula Traffic and Parking Study. June 2000.

City of Charleston Department of Traffic and Transportation. Ride Safe: A Quick Guide to Cycling in the Lowcountry.

City of Charleston Department of Traffic and Transportation. Traffic Signal Timing Project: Downtown and West Ashley Signal Timing Effectiveness Study. Oct. 2008.

City of Charleston. 2012 Draft Bike Plan.

Clemson Architecture Center. Metro‐Charleston Bike Plan Fall 2009. Dec. 2009.

Cohen, Adam, Shaheen, Susan, and McKenzie, Ryan. Carsharing: A Guide for Local Planners. 2008. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California Davis.

Davis, Troy. “Zipcar Prize Proposal: User‐Sourced Car Sharing Planning Algorithm.” Inputs & Outputs.

DeMaio, Paul. “Bike‐sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future.” Journal of Public Transportation 12.4 (2009).

“Enterprise Holdings Acquiring PhillyCarshare.” St. Louis. 9 Aug. 2011.

“Enterprise Holdings Stands up for Car‐Sharing Customers.” St. Louis. 29 Oct. 2010.

“Estimation of Tourism Economic Impacts in the Charleston Area 2010.” Office of Tourist Analysis, College of Charleston. 2011.

Findlay, Prentiss. “Part of U.S. 17 Project Kicks Off with Fanfare.” Park West Palazzo. 12 Apr. 2011.

Gilreath, Vonie. “Re: Discussing Ride Sharing and Vehicle Sharing in Charleston.” 4 Aug. 2011. E‐ mail.

Hubbard, Saul. “Bill to Ease Car Sharing Passes Senate.” The Register‐Guard. 7 June 2011.

Interactive Parking Guide. Places to Park on the Charleston Peninsula. The Official Website of the City of Charleston, SC.

JZTI and Bonnette Consulting. Philadelphia Bikeshare Concept Study. Feb. 2010.

74 Knight, Deja. “Fatal Bike Accident Prompts City of Charleston to Take Action.” Live5News: James Island. 7 July 2011.

League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Community Application for Charleston. 2010.

Miller, Byron Miller. Personal interview. 22 Aug. 2011.

Miller, Scott. “GE Chooses Greenville as EV Test City.” GSA Business. 19 July 2011.

Minis, Wevonneda. “Ridesharing: Making Friends and Saving Money.” The Post and Courier. 14 May 2011.

Mullin, Dawn. South Carolina Foundation Directory 9th Edition. Part 1 – Foundations Accepting Proposals. South Carolina State Library. 2010.

“MUSC Carpool Program Information.” MUSC Finance & Administration Operations.

MUSC Commuter Survey. Berkeley‐Charleston‐Dorchester Council of Governments. 2011.

NICHES New Seamless Mobility Services Public Bicycles Policy Notes. 2007.

NYC Department of City Planning. Bike Share: Opportunities in New York City. Spring 2009.

OBIS: Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities: A Handbook. June 2011.

Overcash, Philip. “Re: Follow up from Yesterday’s Meeting on Bike Sharing.” 5 Aug 2011. E‐mail.

Pechon, Jackie. Equipment List. Charleston City Fleet Management Office. 2011.

“Pedestrian and Bicycle Milestones in South Carolina.” South Carolina Department of Transportation.

Reutter, Mark. “City Puts Brakes on Bikeshare Program, Citing Costs.” Baltimore Brew. 5 Apr. 2011.

“Ride with BIXI: Design, Innovation & Technology.” Capital BIXI.

Safe Streets Save Lives.

“S.C. Has Fewer Uninsured Motorists than a Decade Ago, Study Finds.” Charleston Regional B Business Journal. 27 Jan. 2009.

Slade, David. “Brakes Put on Bike‐Parking Plan.” The Post and Courier. 21 July 2010.

“SmartCard Parking Program.” The Official Website of the City of Charleston, SC.

Smith, Kevin and Pan, Bing. 2010 Charleston Area Visitor Intercept Survey. Office of Tourism Analysis, Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, School of Business, College of Charleston. 23 Mar. 2011.

75

Somerville, Robert. “Re: Question from City Sustainability Intern on Parking Issues.” 29 July 2011.

“South Carolina Census Data: Occupied Housing.” Census Charts Index.

South Carolina Department of Transportation. Getting Around in South Carolina.

“South Carolina Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Grants.” South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.

Tecklenburg, Peter. “RE: Charleston Bike or Car Sharing Program, and Integration with CARTA.” 1 Aug 2011. E‐mail.

“The Denver Bike Sharing Story.” Denver B Cycle.

The Great American Stations: Revitalizing America’s Train Stations. North Charleston, SC (CHS).

“The Need for Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.” South Carolina Department of Transportation.

The Palmetto Cycling Coalition.

“Traffic Management Center.” The Official Website of the City of Charleston, SC.

Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 108. Car Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. 2005.

Trident RideShare.

U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis. “Traffic Safety Facts: 2009 Data.”

Union Pier Plan Interactive Brochure. About the Union Pier Cruise Terminal. South Carolina State Ports Authority.

Velo’v Rates. Grand Lyon Urban Community.

Washington State University: Green Bike.

Zotwheels. University of California Irvine: Parking and Transportation.

76