DOCSLIB.ORG

Less Parking, More Carsharing: Supporting Small-Scale Transit-Oriented Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Less Parking, More Carsharing: Supporting Small-Scale Transit-Oriented Development Working Paper 2012-04 Less Parking, More Carsharing: Supporting Small-Scale Transit-Oriented Development Colin Dentel-Post October 2012 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LESS PARKING, MORE CARSHARING: SUPPORTING SMALL-SCALE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT COLIN DENTEL-POST PROFESSIONAL REPORT Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF CITY PLANNING in the Department of City and Regional Planning of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY APPROVED Karen Chapple Daniel Chatman Date: Spring 2011 Less Parking, More Carsharing: Supporting Small-Scale Transit Orie nted Development Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 4 Parking Demand .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Carshare Market Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 5 Carshare Pod Viability ................................................................................................................................... 6 Policy Mechanisms to Reduce Parking Requirements and Support Carsharing ........................ 6 II. BACKGROUND ON MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 8 Parking Requirements and Vehicle Miles Traveled ............................................................................. 8 Parking Requirements and Housing Costs .............................................................................................. 9 Parking Requirements in Transit Oriented Development ............................................................. 10 III. RESEARCH METHOD ................................................................................................................... 13 Study Areas ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Parking Demand ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Carshare Market Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 14 Survey Method ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Carshare Pod Viability ................................................................................................................................ 17 Policy Mechanisms to Reduce Parking Requirements and Support Carsharing ..................... 18 Parking Demand in Neighborhoods Near Transit ............................................................................. 19 Station Area On-Street Parking Occupancy ......................................................................................... 20 Carshare Member Opinions of Street Parking .................................................................................... 22 Parking Demand Findings Summary ..................................................................................................... 23 V. PROFILE OF CARSHARING MEMBERS ..................................................................................... 24 Carsharing Demographics in the Literature ........................................................................................ 24 Demographic Findings of Survey Results ............................................................................................. 25 Vehicle ownership and parking ............................................................................................................... 29 Carshare use and travel patterns ............................................................................................................ 30 Carshare Member Profile Implications ................................................................................................. 31 VI. CARSHARE POD VIABILITY ....................................................................................................... 33 General neighborhood characteristics .................................................................................................. 33 Pod Revenue and Costs ............................................................................................................................... 34 Carshare vehicle access modes and distances .................................................................................... 36 Other pod viability factors ......................................................................................................................... 38 Carsharing viability with smaller-scale infill development ........................................................... 38 2 VII. POLICIES TO REDUCE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPORT CARSHARING ... 40 Established public policies for carsharing support .......................................................................... 40 Providing public parking spaces for carshare vehicles ................................................................................ 40 Requiring developers to include carsharing spaces ....................................................................................... 41 Startup costs or revenue guarantees .................................................................................................................... 41 Marketing and promotion ......................................................................................................................................... 42 Combined policy approach ........................................................................................................................................ 43 Parking and carsharing: potential policies .......................................................................................... 43 Reducing parking requirements ............................................................................................................................. 43 Limiting residential parking permits .................................................................................................................... 45 Transportation demand management and parking in-lieu fees ............................................................... 45 Green transportation districts ................................................................................................................................. 46 On-Street Carshare Parking ...................................................................................................................................... 47 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 48 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................... 51 APPENDIX A: CARSHARE MEMBER SURVEY INSTRUMENT .................................................. 57 APPENDIX C: CARSHARE PROVIDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ............................................ 71 3 I. INTRODUCTION Most cities in the United States require property owners and developers to provide a minimum amount of auto parking for each land use on a property. From their introduction in the 1920s, these minimum parking requirements gained popularity as a way to reduce parking congestion on public streets. Yet, by requiring land and construction funds to be devoted to parking rather than housing or other uses, minimum requirements have increased housing costs and become an obstacle to increasing urban densities even as land use policies encourage infill development on underutilized sites in the metropolitan core. Parking can be especially problematic for small-scale infill in the form of secondary units, or accessory dwelling units, on single family lots; minimum parking requirements entirely prevent much potential development because the required spaces simply will not fit on a property. Parking minimums also encourage car ownership and use because mandating construction of more parking spaces than the market would build artificially pushes the price of parking down, typically to zero. Parking requirements are especially problematic in areas near transit because car ownership is lower, resulting in underutilized parking spaces. Residents also drive their cars less, so many of the vehicles in required parking spaces are used relatively infrequently. Neighborhoods near transit stations are also the ideal places for housing development because it maximizes access to environmentally-friendly and affordable transportation options. In this study, I focus on reducing parking requirements for infill development in BART station areas in the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, and El Cerrito, California. Given the need to encourage affordable infill housing development, particularly near transit, this study investigates carsharing as a potential means to reduce the development barrier posed by minimum parking requirements while minimizing any real or perceived street parking overcrowding the development may cause. Carsharing services provide short-term vehicle rentals to members, and are designed to provide the same convenience as a personal vehicle. Cars are located in dispersed neighborhood
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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Carsharing's Impact and Future
    Carsharing's Impact and Future Advances in Transport Policy and Planning Volume 4, 2019, Pages 87-120 October 23, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.atpp.2019.09.002 Susan Shaheen, PhD Adam Cohen Emily Farrar 1 Carsharing's Impact and Future Authors: Susan Shaheen, PhDa [email protected] Adam Cohenb [email protected] Emily Farrarb [email protected] Affiliations: aCivil and Environmental Engineering and Transportation Sustainability Research Center University of California, Berkeley 408 McLaughlin Hall Berkeley, CA 94704 bTransportation Sustainability Research Center University of California, Berkeley 2150 Allston Way #280 Berkeley, CA 94704 Corresponding Author: Susan Shaheen, PhD [email protected] 2 Carsharing’s Impact and Future ABSTRACT Carsharing provides members access to a fleet of autos for short-term use throughout the day, reducing the need for one or more personal vehicles. This chapter reviews key terms and definitions for carsharing, common carsharing business models, and existing impact studies. Next, the chapter discusses the commodification and aggregation of mobility services and the role of Mobility on Demand (MOD) and Mobility as a Service (MaaS) on carsharing. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of how the convergence of electrification and automation is changing carsharing, leading to shared automated and electric vehicle (SAEV) fleets. Keywords: Carsharing, Shared mobility, Mobility on Demand (MOD), Mobility as a Service (MaaS), Shared automated electric vehicles (SAEVs) 1 INTRODUCTION Across the globe, innovative and emerging mobility services are offering residents, businesses, travelers, and other users more options for on-demand mobility. In recent years, carsharing has grown rapidly due to changing perspectives toward transportation, car ownership, business and institutional fleet ownership, and urban lifestyles.
    [Show full text]
  • RECONNECTING FORT WAYNE: Transportation Transportation Management Associations
    RECONNECTING FORT WAYNE: Transportation Transportation Management Associations Prepared for City of Fort Wayne, Indiana By Janice Metzger & Stephen Perkins, Ph.D. Center for Neighborhood Technology December 2007 Reconnecting Fort Wayne: Transportation Transportation Management Associations Reconnecting Fort Wayne: Transportation is a six part report designed to promote sustainable transportation planning in Fort Wayne. The first five reports, published in December of 2007, are innovative approaches or tools for analyzing current conditions and offering more transportation choice and lower household transportation cost. These reports include: Car Sharing Housing + Transportation Streetcars Transportation Management Associations UPASS: Unlimited Transit Pass A sixth report, on transportation funding in Fort Wayne, will be produced in early 2008 to complete the series. Acknowledgements The Center for Neighborhood Technology would like to thank Mayor Graham Richard for his vision in initiating a multi-faceted review of opportunities for Fort Wayne to become a more sustainable city. We also thank Wendy Barrott for her energetic and thoughtful oversight of this and many other facets of the Reconnecting Fort Wayne consultation. Staff from several city, county and private entities offered valuable feedback on the potential receptivity of employers to the idea of a Transportation Management Association in Fort Wayne. We are especially grateful to Dan Carmody, former Executive Director of the Fort Wayne Downtown Improvement District, Chloretha Davie,
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Transport Efficiency Policies and Programs in APEC Economies
    Survey 2.0 of Policies and Programs that Promote Fuel-Efficient Transport in APEC Economies The Alliance to Save Energy May 2008 Updated September 2009 EWG 03/2007A Prepared by: Judith Barry and Angela Morin Allen, Lead Authors Update by Laura van Wie McGrory, Diana Lin, and Sally Larsen Alliance to Save Energy 1850 M Street NW, Suite 600 Washington DC 20036 USA For: APEC Secretariat 35 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119616 Tel: (65) 68919 600 Fax: (65) 68919 690 Email: [email protected] Website: www.apec.org © 2008 APEC Secretariat APEC#208-RE-01.10 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................................................................iii Abbreviations and Units .................................................................................................................................... iv Case Studies .......................................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Increasing Fuel Economy of New Vehicles ............................................................................................. 1 Encouraging Purchase of Fuel-Efficient
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtrip Carsharing in New York City: an Evaluation of a Pilot Program and System Impacts By
    ROUNDTRIP CARSHARING IN NEW YORK CITY AN EVALUATION OF A PILOT PROGRAM AND SYSTEM IMPACTS ELLIOT MARTIN, PHD ADAM STOCKER AQSHEMS NICHOLS SUSAN SHAHEEN, PHD UC BERKELEY TRANSPORTATION SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH CENTER FINAL REPORT FEBRUARY 2021 1 doi:10.7922/G2R49P23 Acknowledgments A number of people contributed to this research over the course of the study. The authors thank Ann McGrane of NYC DOT and David Ganz of BCW for their continued engagement and guidance throughout the study. The authors are also grateful for the support of William Carry and Michelle Kaucic of NYC DOT. A number of staff members within UC Berkeley TSRC also contributed to the development and implementation of the study, including Rachel Finson, Hannah Totte, Michael Dysart, as well as other student and staff members who pretested the surveys. Finally, the authors are thankful for the collaboration with the carsharing operators, most prominently Zipcar and Enterprise CarShare as well as ReachNow during the early phases of the study. The study was funded by NYC DOT. The analysis and conclusions presented were produced solely by the authors and do not necessarily indicate sponsor acceptance. 2 Contents Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]