DOCSLIB.ORG

A New Way to Go: the Transportation Apps and Vehicle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A New Way to Go: the Transportation Apps and Vehicle A New Way to Go The Transportation Apps and Vehicle-Sharing Tools that Are Giving More Americans the Freedom to Drive Less TRAIN TICKETS CAR SHARE CARSHARE RIDESHARE BIKESHARE BUS SCHEDULE NEXT BUS HOME ARRIVES 2 MINUTES . NE UTES... NEXT TRAIN ARRIVES 6 MINUTES... BIKESHARE 4 BLOCKS . CARSHARE 3 BLO A New Way to Go The Transportation Apps and Vehicle-Sharing Tools that Are Giving More Americans the Freedom to Drive Less U.S. PIRG Education Fund Frontier Group Tony Dutzik and Travis Madsen, Frontier Group Phineas Baxandall, Ph.D. U.S. PIRG Education Fund Fall 2013 Acknowledgments U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group sincerely thank David Burwell, director of the energy and climate program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Robin Chase, founder and former CEO of Zipcar, Buzzcar and GoLoco; Amanda Eaken, deputy director of sustainable communities at the Natural Resources Defense Council; David Gold- berg, communications director at Transportation for America; Darnell Grisby, director of policy development and research at the American Public Transportation Association; Todd Litman, executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute; Deron Lovaas, director of federal transportation policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council; Kirstie Pecci, staff attorney at MASSPIRG Education Fund; Susan Shaheen, co-director of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley; Serena Unrein, public interest advocate at Arizona PIRG Education Fund; and Sue Zielinski, managing director of SMART (Sustainable Mobility & Accessibility Research & Transformation) at the University of Michigan for their review of drafts of this document, as well as for their insights and sugges- tions. The authors also thank Gary Shepard, Berkshire, Massachusetts RTA administrator for his insights about transit in less densely populated areas, and the many transportation industry experts and practitioners who supplied information or patiently answered our questions. The authors sincerely thank Jordan Schneider and Ben Davis of Frontier Group for their editorial support. U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group thank the Rockefeller Foundation for making this report possible. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of U.S. PIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. 2013 U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Unported License. To view the terms of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0. With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, U.S. PIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and offer Americans meaningful opportunities for civic participation. For more information, please visit our website at www.uspirgedfund.org. Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org. Design: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design Cover images: street scene, Yuri, iStockphoto.com; phone, Sunny studio - Igor Yaruta, Shutterstock.com; map & compass icon, Vladru, iStockphoto.com; travel icons, Puruan, Shutterstock.com Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 6 America’s Technological and 8 Social Networking Revolution From Dial-Up to iPhone: America in the 2000s 8 Young Americans Have Been the First to Embrace New Technologies 9 Social Media and the Sharing Economy 10 Technology Is Changing Our Transportation Needs 11 Technology-Enabled Transportation Services: 13 What they Are and Why they Matter The Impact of Technology on Transportation Choices 13 How Technology Can Enable “Car-Free” and “Car-Light” Lifestyles 14 A Field Guide to the Transportation Technology 18 Revolution and its Impacts on Driving Carsharing 18 Bikesharing 21 Transit Apps 24 Ridesharing 29 Taxi Hailing and Transportation Network Services 30 Multi-Modal Apps 31 Policy Recommendations 34 Notes 41 Executive Summary merica is in the midst of a technologi- networking are beginning to change cal revolution … and a big shift in America’s transportation landscape. Aour transportation habits. New transportation services are providing Over the last 15 years, the Internet and people with an abundance of new options, mobile communications technologies have helping to overcome barriers to the use transformed the way Americans live and of non-driving forms of transportation, work. During that same period, growth and shifting the economics behind indi- in vehicle travel slowed and then stopped, viduals’ travel choices. Collectively, they with Americans today driving about as are also opening up the opportunity for much on average as we did in 1996. more Americans to adopt “car-free” and Both changes have taken place most “car-light” lifestyles with dramatically rapidly among young Americans, who have less driving. been the earliest and most enthusiastic adopters of new technologies, as well as America is in the midst of a techno- the new social networking tools that are logical revolution. the foundation of the emerging “sharing economy.” They have also been the group • Between 2000 and 2012, the percent- that has reduced its driving the most, with age of adults who use the Internet in- the average American between 16 and 34 creased from 46 percent to 82 percent. years of age driving a startling 23 percent The percentage of adults who own a less in 2009 than in 2001. cell phone increased from 53 percent Could these developments—the rapid to 88 percent. The share of Americans spread of mobile, Internet-connected tech- with access to high-speed Internet nologies, the emergence of social network- at home increased from 5 percent to ing, and the recent decline in driving—be more than 70 percent. And roughly related? And what does the future hold? half of Americans now own smart- Early evidence suggests that new in- phones, which did not exist in their novations in technology and social modern form in 2000. Executive Summary Figure ES-1. Market Penetration of Major Technologies in 2000 versus 20121 • These technologies are changing how unleashed a wave of new technology- Americans live and work. Participa- enabled transportation services. tion in telework and e-commerce has increased dramatically in the last • Carsharing – Classic roundtrip car- decade. Meanwhile, social networking sharing services, such as Zipcar and has helped unleash an emerging “shar- City Carshare—as well as newer one- ing economy.” way services such as car2go—enable subscribers to access cars located in • Young Americans have consistently their neighborhoods and on their col- been the first to adopt and test the lege campuses, providing participants capabilities of these new technologies with the mobility benefits of access to and practices. As of September 2012, a car without having to bear the bur- young adults were six times more like- den of owning one. As of 2012, more ly to have a smartphone than people than 800,000 Americans were mem- in their grandparents’ generation, and bers of carsharing services (sharing a twice as likely as those between 50 combined fleet of more than 12,000 and 64 years of age. vehicles). Newer peer-to-peer carshar- ing networks enable individuals to Advances in the Internet and mobile rent out their own unused vehicles to communications technologies have people looking for a car. 2 A New Way to Go • Bikesharing – Six years after the Technology-enabled transportation launch of the first modern bikesharing services have the potential to change system in the U.S., more than 30 cities Americans’ transportation behaviors. now have programs where subscribers can access bikes by the minute or by • Technology-enabled services can subscription at kiosks located on city eliminate traditional barriers that pre- streets. In just its first season, New vent Americans from taking public York City’s Citibike program enlisted transit or sharing rides and vehicles. more than 70,000 annual members, with riders traveling more than • The array of new services can make 4.5 million miles. it easier for households to reduce the number of vehicles they own—a step that • Real-time transportation informa- generally leads to steep reductions in tion – The majority of U.S. transit driving. systems now make scheduling infor- mation publicly available, enabling • Technology-enabled services can developers to produce a variety of new expand the availability of transportation smartphone apps to help riders navi- choices in places and markets where gate urban transportation systems. they are not currently available. Smartphone-based tools enable riders to find the best route for their trip, • Access to mobile technology also en- track the progress of trains and buses ables riders to use their time riding in real time, and even, in some cases, on trains or waiting for buses more pro- pay their fare. ductively. This provides
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • SHARED MOBILITY Removing Regulatory Barriers in Canadian Cities
    SHARED MOBILITY Removing Regulatory Barriers In Canadian Cities Prepared for ÉQUITERRE MAY 2017 1 SHARED MOBILITY Removing regulatory barriers in canadian cities Submitted to : Prepared by : www.equiterre.org www.dunsky.com Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank representatives of the following organizations for their contributions and insights to this report : Équiterre (Annie Berube and Sidney Ribaux); Coop Carbone (Vincent Dussault); the cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver; and solution providers Car2Go, Communauto, Téo Taxi, Uber and Zipcar. About Dunsky Energy Consulting Headquartered in Montreal, Dunsky Energy Consulting supports an array of organizations in building a sustainable energy future. Dunsky’s clients include leading governments, energy utilities, private firms and non-profit orga- nizations throughout North America. EXPERTISE SERVICES CLIENTELE • Energy Efciency • Assess clean energy • Governments & Demand Management opportunities • Utilities • Renewable Energy • Design policies, plans, & Distributed Resources programs and strategies • Private firms • Sustainable Mobility • Evaluate performance • Non-profits SELECT CLIENTS 2 ABOUT ÉQUITERRE Équiterre is Quebec’s largest and most influential environmental organization, with 20,000 members, 200 volunteers, and a staff of 40 people. Mission Équiterre offers concrete solutions to accelerate the transition towards a society in which individuals, organizations and governments make ecological choices that are both healthy and equitable. Vision By 2030, Équiterre, in partnership with local communities, will have contributed to the development of public policies as well as civic and business practices that lead to a low-carbon economy and an environment free of toxic substances. Areas of Intervention Since its creation in 1993, Équiterre developed projects on key issues such as food, agriculture, transportation, buildings, consumption and climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Car Sharing Market In
    CarSharing: State of the Market and Growth Potential By Chris Brown, March/April 2015 - Also by this author Though aspects of carsharing have existed since 1948 in Switzerland, it was only in the last 15 years that the concept has evolved into a mobility solution in the United States. Photo by Chris Brown. In that time, the carsharing market has grown from a largely subsidized, university research-driven experiment into a full-fledged for-profit enterprise, owned primarily by traditional car rental companies and auto manufacturers. Today, Zipcar (owned by Avis Budget Group), car2go (owned by Daimler), Enterprise CarShare and Hertz 24/7 control about 95% of the carsharing market in the U.S. Compared to car rental, total fleet size and revenues for carsharing remain relatively small. The “Fall 2014 Carsharing Outlook,” produced by the Transportation Sustainability Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley, reports 19,115 carsharing cars in the U.S., shared by about 996,000 members. Total annual revenue for carsharing in the U.S. is about $400 million, compared to the $24 billion in revenue for the traditional car rental market. Those carshare numbers have roughly doubled in five or six years, demonstrating steady growth but not an explosion. Yet technology, new transportation models, shifting demographics and changing attitudes on mobility present new opportunities. Is carsharing poised to take advantage? Market Drivers As carsharing in the U.S. is essentially consolidated under those four market leaders, they will inevitably be the drivers of much of that growth. Market watchers see one-way — or point-to-point carsharing — as a growth accelerator.
    [Show full text]
  • I R TRANSPORTATION
    CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE Date: July 15, 2008 To: The City Council c/o City Clerk, Room 395 City Hall Attn: Honorable Wendy Greuel, Transportation Committee From: fo~ Rita L. Robinson, General Manager /) "~ Department of Transportation I r Subject: STATUS OF PROPOSED CARSHARING PILOT PROGRAM IN LOS ANGELES, C.F. NO. 05-2017 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council, subject to review and comment by the Transportation Commission and the approval of the Mayor: 1. AFFIRM the City's desire to conduct a one-year carsharing pilot program near the UCLA and USC campuses in the City of Los Angeles with Zipcar, the only carsharing operator who responded to the City's solicitation of Letters of Interest in such a pilot program. 2. AUTHORIZE the Department of Transportation to execute an agreement with Zipcar covering the terms of the carsharing pilot program. 3. DIRECT the Department of Transportation to submit a progress report to Council on the carsharing pilot program in the two areas 180 days after carsharing service begins. DISCUSSION: On October 31, 2007, the City Council authorized the Department of Transportation (DOT) to solicit, through a direct mailing to all carsharing companies with revenue operations in the United States, Letters of Interest in participating in a one-year carsharing pilot in the City of Los Angeles. This report summarizes the progress on that task and seeks Council guidance on the direction of the program given the responses to the City's solicitation. Solicitation of Letters of Interest . On November 2, 2007, DOTe-mailed the attached "Solicitation of Letters of Interest" to the following four medium- to large-size carsharing providers identified through a search of the Internet: .lJI.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Own a Car When You Can Share One?
    Why own a car when you can share one? By Carolyn Said February 10, 2015 Living car-free or car-light in San Francisco is increasingly easy — and it’s not just thanks to Uber. Car sharing is quietly spreading throughout the city, allowing people to rent cars by the hour or mile, pick them up at widely dispersed locations, reserve them with a smartphone, and unlock them with a phone or credit card. “Technological advances are giving people new and convenient ways to get around more freely without having to own a car,” said CalPIRG spokeswoman Diane Forte, whose consumer group recently released a report on the growth of high-tech transportation options nationwide. It found that San Francisco is a national leader in innovative ways to get around town, second only to Austin, Texas. To support car sharing — and try to reduce car use — San Francisco is experimenting with reserving up to 900 on-street parking spaces sprinkled throughout the city for the exclusive use of car-sharing vehicles. The three companies getting spaces over the two-year pilot program, which is being phased in slowly, are City CarShare, a nonprofit; Avis’ Zipcar, perhaps the best-known service; and Getaround, a “peer-to-peer” service that helps regular people rent their cars to others. Street presence “It’s more flexible and convenient to have a street presence versus an off-street presence (such as in parking garages), where people may not be aware it’s there,” said Susan Shaheen, co-director of UC Berkeley’s Transportation Sustainability Research Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Mobility Overview
    Appendix 1 - Shared Mobility Overview Shared mobility is a term that refers to any type of shared transportation service “that enables users to gain short-term access to transportation modes on an as-needed basis”1 This includes the use of vehicles that are both operated as fleets or owned privately and shared using a dedicated platform. The focus of shared mobility has changed as our nation’s transportation system has evolved. Previously, more traditional shared transportation modes like public transit and taxis were the only types of shared modes users could engage in. However, in recent years, several new options have appeared in the marketplace. Carsharing, bikeshare, and ridehailing, and have risen to prominence as major transportation options for those who live in places where such services are available. Traditional carsharing and bikesharing are a type of mobility program in which users typically pay membership fees for access to shared vehicles, automobiles and bicycles respectively, and that can be reserved for private use. The fleet vehicles are owned, maintained, and insured by a 3rd party entity that operates the system. These operators range from private companies to public entities, such as transit agencies or municipal governments, as well as non-profit organizations. While the specific operations models vary from system to system, in all cases, users reserve the vehicle they seek to use and use it in a rental capacity for a given period of time. Additionally, both modes are on-demand options and do not require pre-planning by users. In recent years, however, non-traditional models have emerged in this market.
    [Show full text]