RECONNECTING FORT WAYNE: Transportation Transportation Management Associations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
3405 Carshare Report
Arlington Pilot Carshare Program FIRST-YEAR REPORT Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) Division of Transportation Department of Environmental Services April 15, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 1 INTRODUCTION . 3 What is Carsharing? . .3 Arlington: A Perfect Fit for Carsharing . 3 Two Carsharing Companies Operating in Arlington . 4 Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) . 4 ARLINGTON PILOT CARSHARING PROGRAM . 5 Public Private Partnership . .5 Program Goals . 5 Program Elements . 5 METHOD OF EVALUATION . 9 EVALUATION OF CARSHARE PILOT PROGRAM . 10 The Carshare Program Increased Availability, Membership and Use . 10 Arlington Carshare Members Trip Frequency and Purpose . 10 Arlington Carshare Members Rate Service Excellent . 11 Carsharing Members Feel Safer with Carshare Vehicles Parked On-Street . 11 Arlington Members More Confident Knowing Arlington is Carshare Partner . 12 Arlington Carsharing Members Reduce Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) . 12 The Pilot Carsharing Program Encourages Transit-Oriented-Living . 13 Carsharing Provides Affordable Alternative to Car Ownership . 14 Arlington Carshare Members Reduce Car Ownership . 15 The Pilot Carshare Program Makes Efficient Use of Parking . 16 CONCLUSIONS . 17 EXTENDING AND EXPANDING SUCCESS . 18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ARSHARING IS A SELF-SERVICE, SHORT-TERM CAR-RENTAL SERVICE that is growing in Europe and North America and has been available in the Cmetropolitan Washington region since 2001. Carsharing complements Arlington’s urban-village neighborhoods by providing car service on demand without the cost and hassles associated with car ownership. In March 2004, the Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) unit of the Department of Environmental Services partnered with the two carshare companies—Flexcar and Zipcar—to provide expanded carshare services and promotions called the Arlington Pilot Carshare Program. -
2018 Annual Report
2018 ANNUAL REPORT The New NY Bridge Project serve customers in a growth environment. We Letter to our increased rental revenue across all our regions and verticals, and we continued to foster organic growth through cross-selling. This was aided by Stockholders the expansion of our specialty segment to 323 Our record performance in 2018 underscored locations. our ability to capitalize on demand through a combination of scale, technology and other Furthermore, while the U.S. equipment rental sustainable competitive advantages. This is industry grew by a solid 8% in 2018, we grew how we best serve our customers and create faster. Our rental revenue, pro-forma for 2017 value for our investors. acquisitions, increased 10.5% year-over-year. Growth is synergistic for us: it creates the We entered 2018 from a position of strength, with potential for greater efficiency and generates a large and diversified presence in North America. cash that we use to advance our strategy. During the year, we acquired BakerCorp, a fluid solutions specialist business, and BlueLine, a In 2018, in addition to allocating capital for national construction equipment rental company, M&A, rental fleet, technology and productivity as well as several smaller operations. These initiatives, we embarked on a $1.25 billion share transactions helped us reach a new milestone of repurchase program to provide further value for over $8 billion in annual revenue. our stockholders. We intend to complete the program in 2019. For the full year 2018, United Rentals delivered GAAP earnings per diluted share of $13.12, Value through Productivity compared with $15.73 for the full year 2017. -
Evolution of E-Mobility in Carsharing Business Models
Evolution of E-Mobility in Carsharing Business Models Susan A. Shaheen1 and Nelson D. Chan2 Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Carsharing continues to grow worldwide as a powerful strategy to provide an alternative to solo driving. The viability of electric vehicles, or EVs, has been examined in various carsharing business models. Moreover, new technologies have given rise to electromobility, or e-mobility, systems. This paper discusses the evolution of e-mobility in carsharing business models and the challenges and opportunities that EVs present to carsharing operators around the world. Operators are now anticipating increased EV proliferation into vehicle fleets over the next 5- 10 years as technology, infrastructure, and public policy shift toward support of e- mobility systems. Thus, research is still needed to quantify impacts of EVs in changing travel behavior toward more sustainable transport. 1 Introduction Carsharing enables a group of members to share a vehicle fleet that is maintained, managed, and insured by a third-party organization. Primarily used for short-term trips, carsharing can provide affordable, self-service vehicle access 24-h per day for those who do not have a car, want to reduce the number of vehicles in their household, or do not use their vehicle during the day for long periods of time. Rates include fuel, insurance, and maintenance. Ideally, carsharing works best in a neighborhood, business, or campus setting where users could walk, bike, share rides, or take public transit to access the shared-use vehicles. Carsharing has evolved through several phases since the first carsharing system began in Europe in 1948. -
20-03 Residential Carshare Study for the New York Metropolitan Area
Residential Carshare Study for the New York Metropolitan Area Final Report | Report Number 20-03 | February 2020 NYSERDA’s Promise to New Yorkers: NYSERDA provides resources, expertise, and objective information so New Yorkers can make confident, informed energy decisions. Mission Statement: Advance innovative energy solutions in ways that improve New York’s economy and environment. Vision Statement: Serve as a catalyst – advancing energy innovation, technology, and investment; transforming New York’s economy; and empowering people to choose clean and efficient energy as part of their everyday lives. Residential Carshare Study for the New York Metropolitan Area Final Report Prepared for: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority New York, NY Robyn Marquis, PhD Project Manager, Clean Transportation Prepared by: WXY Architecture + Urban Design New York, NY Adam Lubinsky, PhD, AICP Managing Principal Amina Hassen Associate Raphael Laude Urban Planner with Barretto Bay Strategies New York, NY Paul Lipson Principal Luis Torres Senior Consultant and Empire Clean Cities NYSERDA Report 20-03 NYSERDA Contract 114627 February 2020 Notice This report was prepared by WXY Architecture + Urban Design, Barretto Bay Strategies, and Empire Clean Cities in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (hereafter the "Sponsors"). The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the Sponsors or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further, the Sponsors, the State of New York, and the contractor make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. -
User Perspectives on Location Efficient Mortgages & Car Sharing
2005-24 Final Report User Perspectives on Location Efficient Mortgages & Car Sharing Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. MN/RC – 2005-24 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date User Perspectives on Location Efficient Mortgages & Car Sharing June 2005 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Kevin Krizek 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. 301 19th Avenue South (c) 81655 (wo) 50 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Minnesota Department of Transportation Final Report Research Services Section 395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330 14. Sponsoring Agency Code St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 15. Supplementary Notes http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/200524.pdf 16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) A burgeoning population seeking relatively affordable housing is placing high demands on outlying, auto-dependent residential markets. Simultaneously, public policies addressing housing, transportation, and land use aim to increase homeownership, decrease drive-alone travel, and harness outlying development. A relatively new mortgage lending procedure aims to address each of these public policy aims synergistically by allowing low- and moderate-income households the opportunity to purchase homes in transit-accessible neighborhoods that would otherwise be unobtainable because of cost. The goal of this research is to evaluate this initiative, as well as position it within the broader goals of smart growth, describe its application, and comment on its prospects. This report constitutes a primer of the current state of knowledge about these unique loan programs. -
Workplace Charging: Charging up University Campuses
Workplace Charging: Charging Up University Campuses Carrie Giles, ICF International Carrie Ryder, ICF International Stephen Lommele, National Renewable Energy Laboratory March 2016 DRAFT REPORT Workplace Workplace Charging: Charging Up University Campuses As leading regional employers, colleges and universities are on the front line of local- and national-level technology trends. To remain competitive, many schools are offering plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) charging to their faculty, staff, and students. While the installation and management of PEV charging stations requires planning, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Workplace Charging Challenge, launched in 2013, aims to support these charging efforts. This document highlights the experiences of university partners in the Top 5 Reasons for Campus Charging: Workplace Charging Challenge (Challenge) that demonstrate the many benefits charging - Reduce commuter emissions provides to higher education institutions. PEV - Offer research opportunities charging stations, known as electric vehicle - Provide employee and student benefits supply equipment (EVSE), provide a service to - Enable fleet charging employees and students, signal environmental - Signal environmental leadership. leadership, deliver educational and research opportunities, and play an important role in achieving greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals. Clean Commute Workplace charging at universities is an effective way to reduce a school’s Scope 31 emissions, which include emissions generated through employee commuting. Many universities have pledged to reduce GHG emissions either individually or through national pledges, such as the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). PEV charging stations are effective tools to help achieve these goals. Reducing commuter emissions through workplace charging is particularly important on suburban, rural, and remote campuses with limited public transportation options. -
San Diego Station Car Pilot Program Partner Agencies
San Diego Station Car Pilot Program Partner Agencies: CCDC Coalition for Sorrento Valley Congestion Relief BOMA Golden Triangle Chamber of Commerce City of San Diego San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp. San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce A Report compiled by: Thomas Bruccoleri Senior Transportation Planner Chris Burke Planner I Maria Filippelli Planning Technician Jeremie Brown Marketing Analyst I Table of Contents Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................2 Market Study ...............................................................................................................................7 Operations Plan .........................................................................................................................12 Lessons Learned .........................................................................................................................16 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................19 Appendices - please note appendices are available online at www.ridelink.org Appendix A – Mobility Pass Program Demonstration Appendix B – Flexcar Marketing Plan for San Diego Appendix C – Pricing of the Mobility Passes Appendix D – Regional Carshare Working Group Charter and Meeting -
Acquiring Zipcar: Brand Building in the Share Economy
Boston University School of Management BU Case Study 12-010 Rev. December 12, 2012 Acquiring Zipcar Brand Building in the Share Economy By Susan Fournier, Giana Eckhardt and Fleura Bardhi Scott Griffith, CEO of Zipcar, languished over his stock charts. They had something here, everyone agreed about that. Zipcar had shaken up the car rental industry with a “new model” for people who wanted steady access to cars without the hassle of owning them. Sales had been phenomenal. Since its beginning in 2000, Zipcar had experienced 100%+ growth annually, with annual revenue in the previous year of $241.6 million. Zipcar now boasted more than 750,000 members and over 8,900 cars in urban areas and college campuses throughout the United States, Canada and the U.K. and claimed nearly half of all global car-sharing members. The company had continued international expansion by purchasing the largest car sharing company in Spain. The buzz had been wonderful. Still, Zipcar’s stock price was being beaten down, falling from a high of $31.50 to a current trade at $8 and change (See Exhibit 1). The company had failed to turn an annual profit since its founding in 2000 and held but two months’ of operating cash on hand as of September 2012. Critics wondered about the sustainability of the business model in the face of increased competition. There was no doubt: the “big guys” were circling. Enterprise Rent-a-Car Co. had entered car sharing with a model of its own (See Exhibit 2). The Enterprise network, which included almost 1 million vehicles and more than 5,500 offices located within 15 miles of 90 percent of the U.S. -
Nancy Schneider
'If you live in a city, you don't need to own a car.' William Clay Ford Jr., CEO, Ford Motor Company Ltd. Car Facts: zThe American Automobile Association (AAA) says that, on average, it costs 52.2 cents to drive one mile. zHousehold income spent on cars: 20% (1990 - 13.2%) or zOver $8,000 per household per year (39% of income for lower income households) 1 More Car Facts: zThe average N.A. car is driven just 66 minutes a day z$8,000 to drive about 400 hours a year {Or $666 to drive about 30 hours a month {Or $22 to drive an hour a day ÅOur Ranking The areas with the lowest expenses are those that have the highest public transit use, probably because those areas have lower car ownership. Even a modest reduction in the average number of motor vehicles per household translates into a significant drop in average household car expenses. 2 Car Sharing/ Car-Sharing/Carsharing What is it? History… Car Sharing, launched in 1987 in Switzerland and later in 1988 in Germany, came to North America via Quebec City in 1993 and to Portland, OR in 1998. 3 Car Sharing: What it isn’t... zCar pooling zRide sharing zFlex fuel vehicles In the news… 4 At U of F: Zipcar speeds toward expansion; car-sharing seeks inside track San Francisco Business Times - July 14, 2006 by Eric Young Fueled by an injection of cash, a car-sharing service said expansion plans in the San Francisco Bay Area are moving full speed ahead. -
Letter to Our Stockholders
In 2020, we achieved a net income margin Letter to our of 10.4% and an adjusted EBITDA margin1 of 46.1% — within 220 and 50 basis points Stockholders of 2019, respectively, despite significantly lower demand. We also generated net cash provided by operating activities of We executed well in a difficult year, drawing $2.7 billion and record free cash flow1 of on the disciplines we’ve engineered into $2.4 billion, contributing to the $3.1 billion of our business for more than a decade. Most total liquidity we had at year-end. importantly, we delivered on our promises. These results reflect the considerable economic Nothing about 2020 was business as usual. The constraints of the pandemic, mitigated by the year began on a positive note that dissipated resilience of our business model. Beyond that, as the pandemic took root. We moved quickly our performance reflects the fierce determination to establish the priorities that would guide us of our team, strong capital management and in the coming months: protect our employees, rigorous cost discipline. provide continuity of service for our customers, maintain our service capacity and safeguard the A purposeful response interests of our investors. We’re proud that United To manage effectively through the pandemic, we Rentals met all of these objectives, while providing took a balanced short-term and long-term view. essential services to our communities. Each time we committed to a course of action, we considered all of the implications of that The trough for equipment rental came in April, decision. For instance, with capital expenditures, and demand stayed at low ebb for several weeks we aggressively curtailed fleet purchases in 2020 before starting to improve. -
Build a Carsharing Community 2
Final Technical Report TNW2003-06 TransNow Budget No. 62-2513 Flexcar Program Evaluation Flexcar Seattle Carsharing Program Evaluation by G. Scott Rutherford Robert Vance Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Report prepared for: Transportation Northwest (TransNow) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 129 More Hall University of Washington, Box 352700 Seattle, WA 98195-2700 December 2003 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NO. TNW2003-06 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5.REPORT DATE FLEXCAR SEATTLE CARSHARING PROGRAM December 2003 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. G. Scott Rutherford, Robert Vance TNW2003-06 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Transportation Northwest Regional Center X (TransNow) Box 352700, 123 More Hall University of Washington 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Seattle, WA 98195-2700 DTRS99-G-0010 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED United States Department of Transportation Final Report Office of the Secretary of Transportation 400 Seventh St. SW 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE Washington, DC 20590 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES This study was conducted in cooperation with the University of Washington. 16. ABSTRACT Flexcar is a public-private partnership based in Seattle that provides short-term automobile rentals, called “carsharing.” The program began in 2000 with an agreement between King -
Enterprise Rent-A-Car UK S.H.B Hire: Full Text Decision
Anticipated acquisition by Enterprise Rent-A-Car UK Limited of S.H.B. Hire Limited Decision on relevant merger situation and substantial lessening of competition ME/6807/19 The CMA’s decision on reference under section 33(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002 given on 31 May 2019. Full text of the decision published on 14 June 2019. Please note that [] indicates figures or text which have been deleted or replaced in ranges at the request of the parties or third parties for reasons of commercial confidentiality. SUMMARY 1. Enterprise Rent-A-Car UK Limited (Enterprise) has agreed to acquire S.H.B. Hire Limited (SHB) (the Merger). Enterprise and SHB are together referred to as the Parties. 2. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) believes that it is or may be the case that each of Enterprise and SHB is an enterprise; that these enterprises will cease to be distinct as a result of the Merger; and that the turnover test is met. Accordingly, arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation. 3. The Parties overlap in the supply of vehicles for hire by way of flexible rental (flexible rental services) in Great Britain. The CMA assessed the impact of the Merger against separate product frames of reference for: (i) light commercial vehicles (LCVs) and cars (including pick-ups); (ii) heavy goods vehicles (HGVs); (iii) temperature-controlled LCVs; (iv) temperature-controlled HGVs; and (v) accessible vehicles. As to the geographic scope, the CMA has 1 assessed the Merger on: (i) the basis of a frame of reference covering Great Britain; and (ii) on the basis of regional frames of reference.