DOCSLIB.ORG

Floating Carsharing in Oakland California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Floating Carsharing in Oakland California AN EVALUATION OF FREE- FLOATING CARSHARING IN OAKLAND CALIFORNIA ELLIOT MARTIN, PH.D. ALEXANDRA PAN SUSAN SHAHEEN, PH.D. UC BERKELEY TRANSPORTATION SUSTIANABILITY RESEARCH CENTER FINAL REPORT NOVEMBER 2019 Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Shared Mobility Programs and Outreach in Low-Income Communities: Overview of Barriers to Usage and U.S.-Based Programs ........................................................................................................................... 12 Barriers to Shared Mobility for Low-Income Communities .................................................................. 13 Spatial Barriers ................................................................................................................................... 13 Financial Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 14 Cultural Barriers ................................................................................................................................. 15 Operator-Specific Barriers .................................................................................................................. 16 Catalogue of U.S.-Based Programs and Outreach ................................................................................. 17 Summary of Insights from Previous Work ............................................................................................. 25 Methodological Overview .......................................................................................................................... 27 Survey Analysis Results .............................................................................................................................. 31 Demographics ......................................................................................................................................... 31 Adoption of GIG ...................................................................................................................................... 33 Recent Trip Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 35 Day of week of most recent trip ......................................................................................................... 35 Monthly average mileage ................................................................................................................... 36 Trip Occupancy .................................................................................................................................... 37 Reason for selecting GIG ..................................................................................................................... 42 Impact of GIG Car Share on Travel Behavior .......................................................................................... 43 Impact of GIG Car Share on Vehicle Ownership ................................................................................. 43 Impact of GIG Car Share on Miles Driven for Survey Respondents .................................................... 49 Impact of GIG Car Share on Total VMT Driven in Oakland ................................................................. 50 Impact of GIG Car Share on Other Modes .......................................................................................... 54 Summary and Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 58 References .................................................................................................................................................. 60 Table of Figures Figure 1: Mode shift as a result of GIG ........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2: Use of Public Transit and GIG Carsharing Together ................................................................... 10 Figure 3: HomeZone Growth of GIG .......................................................................................................... 28 Figure 4: Question Structure Evaluating Vehicles Shed ............................................................................ 29 Figure 5: Question Structure Evaluating Vehicles Suppressed ................................................................. 30 Figure 6: How pre-survey respondents heard about GIG ......................................................................... 34 Figure 7: Reasons why people joined GIG Car Share ................................................................................ 34 Figure 8: Outreach Events attended by Pre-survey respondents ............................................................. 35 Figure 9: Day of the week of most recent trip taken ................................................................................ 36 Figure 10: Monthly mileage estimates ...................................................................................................... 37 Figure 11: Number of travelers in most recent trip .................................................................................. 37 Figure 12: Purpose of most recent trip ...................................................................................................... 39 Figure 13: Miles driven on most recent trip .............................................................................................. 40 Figure 14: Most recent rental trip duration .............................................................................................. 41 Figure 15: Time of day when most recent trip was started ...................................................................... 42 Figure 16: Reasons for selecting GIG Car Share......................................................................................... 43 Figure 17: Current vehicle holdings of GIG survey respondents .............................................................. 44 Figure 18: Vehicles Shed Due to GIG Car Share ......................................................................................... 45 Figure 19: Vehicle Acquisition Plans before GIG Car Share ...................................................................... 47 Figure 20: Vehicle Purchase Plans within the Next 2 Years ...................................................................... 47 Figure 21: Vehicle holdings of respondents who suppressed vehicle purchase ...................................... 48 Figure 22: Contribution of Other Modes to Suppressing Need to Acquire Vehicle ................................. 49 Figure 23: Decrease in miles driven on personal vehicle(s) after joining GIG .......................................... 50 Figure 24: Frequency of use of other modes ............................................................................................. 55 Figure 25: Usage shift in modes as a result of GIG Car Share ................................................................... 56 Figure 26: Number of fewer trips taken on other modes due to GIG Car Share...................................... 56 Figure 27: Modes used in combination with GIG Car Share ..................................................................... 57 Figure 28: Impact of trips combining public transportation and GIG on usage of personal vehicles ..... 57 Table of Tables Table 1: Demographic Distributions ............................................................................................................ 8 Table 2: Shared Mobility Systems Programs Engaged in Low Income Outreach (1) ............................... 18 Table 3: Shared Mobility Systems Programs Engaged in Low Income Outreach (2) ............................... 19 Table 4: Shared Mobility Systems Programs Engaged in Low Income Outreach (3) ............................... 20 Table 5: Shared Mobility Systems Programs Engaged in Low Income Outreach (4) ............................... 21 Table 6: Shared Mobility Systems Programs Engaged in Low Income Outreach (5) ............................... 22 Table 7: Shared Mobility Systems Programs Engaged in Low Income Outreach (6) ............................... 23 Table 8: Shared Mobility Systems Programs Engaged in Low Income Outreach (7) ............................... 24 Table 9: Shared Mobility Systems Programs Engaged in Low Income Outreach (8) ............................... 25 Table 10: Demographic Distributions of Gender, Age, and Education ..................................................... 31 Table 11: Demographic Distributions of Income and Race/Ethnicity ...................................................... 33 Table 12: Estimated Miles Driven on Suppressed Vehicles ...................................................................... 51 Table 13: Estimated Miles Driven on Shed Vehicles ................................................................................. 52 Table 14: Summary of Estimated VMT Impacts under Baseline Assumptions .......................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toronto Urban Sharing Team
    URBAN SHARING City report no 2 in TORONTO URBAN SHARING TEAM URBAN SHARING IN TORONTO City report no. 2 URBAN SHARING TEAM: Oksana Mont, Andrius Plepys, Yuliya Voytenko Palgan, Jagdeep Singh, Matthias Lehner, Steven Curtis, Lucie Zvolska, and Ana Maria Arbelaez Velez 2020 Cover design: Lucie Zvolska Cover photo: Oksana Mont Copyright: URBAN SHARING TEAM ISBN: 978-91-87357-62-6. Print Urban Sharing in Toronto, City report no.2 ISBN: 978-91-87357-63-3. Pdf Urban Sharing in Toronto, City report no. 2 Printed in Sweden by E-print, Stockholm 2020 Table of contents 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 2 THE CITY CONTEXT ................................................................................. 5 2.1 Geography and demographics ................................................................ 5 2.1.1 Topography and urban sprawl .................................................. 5 2.1.2 Socio-demographics.................................................................. 6 2.1.3 Tourism ..................................................................................... 6 2.2 City governance ....................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Governance structure ................................................................ 6 2.2.2 City regulatory policies for sharing ............................................ 8 2.3 Economy ................................................................................................ 11 2.3.1
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Mobility Technologies and Trends
    Emerging Mobility Technologies and Trends And Their Role in Creating “Mobility-As-A-System” For the 21st Century and Beyond OWNERSHIP RIGHTS All reports are owned by Energy Systems Network (ESN) and protected by United States copyright and international copyright/intellectual property laws under applicable treaties and/or conventions. User agrees not to export any report into a country that does not have copyright/ intellectual property laws that will protect ESN’s rights therein. GRANT OF LICENSE RIGHTS ESN hereby grants user a non-exclusive, non-refundable, non- transferable Enterprise License, which allows you to (i) distribute the report within your organization across multiple locations to its representatives, employees or agents who are authorized by the organization to view the report in support of the organization’s internal business purposes; and (ii) display the report within your organization’s privately hosted internal intranet in support of your organization’s internal business purposes. Your right to distribute the report under an Enterprise License allows distribution among multiple locations or facilities to Authorized Users within your organization. ESN retains exclusive and sole ownership of this report. User agrees not to permit any unauthorized use, reproduction, distribution, publication or electronic transmission of any report or the information/forecasts therein without the express written permission of ESN. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY AND LIABILITY ESN has used its best efforts in collecting and preparing each report. ESN, its employees, affi liates, agents, and licensors do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, correctness, non-infringement, merchantability, or fi tness for a particular purpose of any reports covered by this agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • EN160706 BMW Group and Sixt SE Extend Car Sharing Programme
    Corporate Communications Media Information 6 July 2016 BMW Group and Sixt SE extend car sharing programme Brussels becomes 10th DriveNow city in Europe Five years of premium car sharing More than 600,000 customers Car sharing most important driving force of electric mobility More than three million electric kilometres since 2013 Consistent implementation of strategy NUMBER ONE > NEXT Munich - Brussels. As it celebrates its fifth anniversary, DriveNow is extending its service to Brussels. The Belgian capital is the tenth European city where the premium car sharing joint venture from BMW Group and Sixt SE will operate. Car sharing without a branch office has been allowed in Brussels since June and the service will offer a range of BMW and MINI models on the proven free-floating car sharing concept. Speaking on the occasion of DriveNow’s fifth anniversary, Peter Schwarzenbauer, BMW AG management board member responsible for MINI, BMW Motorrad, Rolls- Royce, Aftersales and Mobility Services said, “We are delighted to welcome Brussels as the tenth DriveNow city, a fitting way to celebrate five years of premium car sharing in Europe. In terms of customers, we already lead the car-sharing market in Germany and our aim is to achieve that across Europe. We are convinced that our premium individual mobility services will be a key factor for success in the future. Of course services will not replace the automotive sector, but they are an important additional area for our business. That’s why we are constantly looking at where we can take DriveNow next.” Following its launch in Munich in June 2011, DriveNow has constantly expanded its mobility services in Europe and now has more than 600,000 customers.
    [Show full text]
  • 1000 16 Street Urban Mixed-Use Project
    1000 16th Street Urban Mixed-Use Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Planning Department Case No. 2003.0527E State Clearinghouse No. 2004112037 Draft EIR Publication Date: January 26, 2008 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: February 21, 2008 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: January 26 – March 10, 2008 Written comments on this document should be sent to: Bill Wycko Acting Environmental Review Officer San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 DATE: January 26, 2008 TO: Distribution List for the 1000 16th Street Urban Mixed-Use Project Draft EIR FROM: Bill Wycko, Acting Environmental Review Officer RE: Request for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 1000 16th Street Urban Mixed-Use Project (Case Number 2003.0527E) This is the Draft of the Environmental Impact report (EIR) for the 1000 16th Street Urban Mixed- Use Project. A public hearing will be held on the adequacy and accuracy of this document. After the public hearing, our office will prepare and publish a document titled “Comments and Responses,” which will contain all relevant comments on this Draft EIR and our responses to those comments along with copies of letters received and a transcript of the public hearing. The Comments and Responses document may also specify changes to this Draft EIR. Public agencies and members of the public who testify at the hearing on the Draft EIR will automatically receive a copy of the Comments and Responses document, along with notice of the date reserved for certification; others may receive such copies and notice on request or by visiting our office.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Car Sharing on Urban Sustainability
    sustainability Review Impact of Car Sharing on Urban Sustainability Vasja Roblek 1 , Maja Meško 2,3 and Iztok Podbregar 3,* 1 Faculty of Organisation Studies in Novo Mesto, 8000 Novo Mesto, Slovenia; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Management, University of Primorska, 6000 Koper, Slovenia; [email protected] 3 Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Maribor, 4000 Kranj, Slovenia * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The article gives us an insight into the key issues of car sharing and its impact on urban sus- tainability. A selection of 314 articles published in peer-reviewed journals from the Scopus database were analysed using Leximancer 5.0 for Automated Content analysis. A total of seven themes were identified explaining the researched topic of the car sharing situation in Europe, which are sharing, economy, model, systems, electrical car sharing, policy and travel. There are two ways of sharing owned cars in Europe; access to cars from the fleet of private organisations and P2P car sharing. Sustainable environmental solutions in the context of the electrification of cars are used. Car sharing usually takes place online and can be free or for a fee as defined by The European Economic and Social Committee. The article provides an overview of understanding the concept of urban car sharing in Europe. Keywords: sustainability; urban sustainability; car sharing; Europe 1. Introduction This article aims to provide an overview of understanding the concept of urban car sharing, whose growth and development has been influenced by the recent financial crisis Citation: Roblek, V.; Meško, M.; that caused an economic recession in both the US and Europe between 2007 and mid-2009, Podbregar, I.
    [Show full text]
  • On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Program Evaluation Report
    On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Evaluation On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Program Evaluation Report JANUARY 2017 SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY | SUSTAINABLE STREETS DIVISION | PARKING 1 On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Evaluation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GOAL: “MAKE TRANSIT, WALKING, BICYCLING, TAXI, RIDE SHARING AND CARSHARING THE PREFERRED MEANS OF TRAVEL.” (SFMTA STRATEGIC PLAN) As part of SFpark and the San Francisco Findings Municipal Transportation Agency’s (SFMTA) effort to better manage parking demand, • On-street car share vehicles were in use an the SFMTA conducted a pilot of twelve on- average of six hours per day street car share spaces (pods) in 2011-2012. • 80% of vehicles were shared by at least ten The SFMTA then carried out a large-scale unique users pilot to test the use of on-street parking • An average of 19 unique users shared each spaces as pods for shared vehicles. The vehicle monthly On-Street Car Share Parking Permit Pilot (Pilot) was approved by the SFMTA’s Board • 17% of car share members reported selling of Directors in July 2013 and has been or donating a car due to car sharing operational since April 2014. This report presents an evaluation of the Pilot. Placing car share spaces on-street increases shared vehicle access, Data from participating car share convenience, and visibility. We estimate organizations show that the Pilot pods that car sharing as a whole has eliminated performed well, increased awareness of thousands of vehicles from San Francisco car sharing overall, and suggest demand streets. The Pilot showed promise as a tool for on-street spaces in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Transportation Network Companies Policy Guide
    POLICY GUIDE Regulation of Transportation Network Companies January 2019 “Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures” Founded in 1988, we are an interdisciplinary strategy and analysis firm 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1000 providing integrated, creative and analytically rigorous approaches to Seattle, Washington 98121 complex policy and planning decisions. Our team of strategic planners, policy P (206) 324-8760 and financial analysts, economists, cartographers, information designers and www.berkconsulting.com facilitators work together to bring new ideas, clarity, and robust frameworks to the development of analytically-based and action-oriented plans. BERK Consulting Subconsultants Allegra Calder Robert Feldstein Kristin Maidt April Rinne Sherrie Hsu Emily Walton Percival Ben Silver Regulation of Transportation Network Companies: Policy Guide Washington State Joint Transportation Committee |January 2019 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 State TNC Laws ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Regulatory Authority ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Quickar(PDF 8.49
    7 September 2017 The Secretary, Economy and Infrastructure Committee Parliament House, Spring Street EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 Dear Secretary, Please accept this cover letter and attached report as a submission to the Committee’s Inquiry into Electric Vehicles. A mushrooming of Melbourne’s population over the next 20 years combined with the phenomena of significant population detachment from economic hubs driven by growing rates of car ownership and burgeoning investment by government in private car driver-driven infrastructure is a looming urban mobility crisis. We risk sleepwalking into a situation where our once “world’s most livable city” has insufficient public transport, overloaded infrastructures, a default logarithmic expansion of motorised means of transport, a vast rise in air and noise pollution and CO2 emissions, a concomitant parking capacity problem and increasing disparity in the social equity standards between communities of very near proximity. What should the Victorian Government do? The attached report assesses the opportunity for Free Floating Car Sharing in Zero Emission urban transport. This report concludes that Free Floating Car Sharing is an innovative technology with a smart operating model that improves cities. It offers cities a no-cost, scaleable transport alternative to supplement existing transport systems and reduce inner urban vehicle congestion. Moreover, Free Floating Car Sharing offers Melbourne’s best opportunity for a definitive, practical and evolutionary pathway into a sustainable Zero Emission urban mobility future through the accelerated uptake of Electric Vehicles. Quickar Pty Ltd (ABN 99 611 879 513) Melbourne, 3000 Victoria, Australia Page 1 of 66 In light of these conclusions, the Victorian Government should: • Enable Free Floating Car Sharing.
    [Show full text]
  • Ischannel Volume 12 Online
    iS CHANNEL Closed Platforms Open Doors: Deriving Strategic Im- plications from the Free-Floating Car Sharing Platform DriveNow Curtis Goldsby MSc in Information Systems and Digital Innovation Department of Management London School of Economics and Political Science KEYWORDS ABSTRACT Open platforms This paper examines the free-floating car-sharing company DriveNow, Closed platforms governed by a joint venture of BMW Group and Sixt SE. The platform-mediated network model is used to determine DriveNow is a closed platform. Relating Drivenow this to adoption/appropriability characteristics, I show how the closed nature Car-sharing of the platform strategically affects DriveNow. Business strategy It is concluded that DriveNow, although closed, can pursue at least three Platform strategy successful platform strategies, but struggles capitalizing on multi-sided network effects. The paper thus shows how a closed platform born through traditional ventures, despite growth bottlenecks, also has the potential to disrupt industries. 1. Introduction a closed platform that does not yet fully capitalize on open multi-sided network effects. Digital platforms are radically transforming every industry today (de Reuver, Sørensen, & Basole, 2017). The relevance of exploring digital platforms and The competitive edge and profit growth achieved researching them in the IS field has been recently through digital platforms indicate why so many emphasized by de Reuver, Sørensen, & Basole (2017). firms are including the power of platforms into their The challenges highlighted by the researchers stem existing business strategies (Parker, Van Alstyne, & from the exponentially growing scale of platform Choudary, 2016). For some “born-digital” companies innovation, increasing complexity of architectures like Microsoft and Amazon, this inclusion of and and the spread of digital platforms to many industries diversification through platforms is easier than for (de Reuver, Sørensen, & Basole, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]