DOCSLIB.ORG

An Evaluation of Free-Floating Carsharing in Oakland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Evaluation of Free-Floating Carsharing in Oakland 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 doi:10.7922/G2N014SJ JUNE 2020 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 Catalog of U.S.-Based Programs and Outreach ................................................................17 Summary of Insights from Previous Work .........................................................................25 Methodological Overview .......................................................................................................27 Survey Analysis Results ........................................................................................................30 Demographics .......................................................................................................................30 Adoption of GIG .....................................................................................................................33 Recent Trip Characteristics ...................................................................................................34 Day of week of most recent trip ..........................................................................................35 Monthly average mileage ...................................................................................................36 Trip Occupancy ..................................................................................................................36 Reason for selecting GIG ...................................................................................................41 Impact of GIG Car Share on Travel Behavior ........................................................................42 Impact of GIG Car Share on Vehicle Ownership ................................................................42 Impact of GIG Car Share on Miles Driven for Survey Respondents ...................................48 Impact of GIG Car Share on Total VMT Driven in Oakland ................................................49 Impact of GIG Car Share on Other Modes .........................................................................56 Summary and Discussion ......................................................................................................60 References ..............................................................................................................................62 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 ......................................................................... 33 Figure 7: Reasons why people joined GIG Car Share ................................................................................ 34 Figure 8: Outreach Events attended by Pre-survey respondents ............................................................. 34 Figure 9: Day of the week of most recent trip taken ................................................................................ 35 Figure 10: Monthly mileage estimates ...................................................................................................... 36 Figure 11: Number of travelers in most recent trip .................................................................................. 37 Figure 12: Purpose of most recent trip ...................................................................................................... 38 Figure 13: Miles driven on most recent trip .............................................................................................. 39 Figure 14: Most recent rental trip duration .............................................................................................. 40 Figure 15: Time of day when most recent trip was started ...................................................................... 41 Figure 16: Reasons for selecting GIG Car Share......................................................................................... 42 Figure 17: Current vehicle holdings of GIG survey respondents .............................................................. 43 Figure 18: Vehicles Shed Due to GIG Car Share ......................................................................................... 44 Figure 19: Vehicle Acquisition Plans before GIG Car Share ...................................................................... 46 Figure 20: Vehicle Purchase Plans within the Next 2 Years ...................................................................... 46 Figure 21: Vehicle holdings of respondents who suppressed vehicle purchase ...................................... 47 Figure 22: Contribution of Other Modes to Reduced Need to Acquire Vehicle ....................................... 48 Figure 23: Decrease in miles driven on personal vehicle(s) after joining GIG .......................................... 49 Figure 24: Frequency of use of other modes ............................................................................................. 57 Figure 25: Usage shift in modes as a result of GIG Car Share ................................................................... 58 Figure 26: Number of fewer trips taken on other modes due to GIG Car Share...................................... 58 Figure 27: Modes used in combination with GIG Car Share ..................................................................... 59 Figure 28: Impact of trips combining public transportation and GIG on usage of personal vehicles ..... 59 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 ...................................................... 32 Table 12: Estimated Miles Driven on Suppressed Vehicles ...................................................................... 52 Table 13: Summary of Estimated VMT Impacts under Baseline Assumptions ........................................ 54 Table 14: Sensitivity Analysis of Net Impacts by Personal Vehicle Suppression Miles ........................... 56 Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank a number of people who supported the development of this report. At the City of Oakland, we thank Michael Ford, Kerby Olsen, and Danielle Dai of the City of Oakland, as well as former staff members Sara Barz, Jaime Parks, and Michael Randolph. The authors would like to thank Jason Haight, Naila Ahmed, Dermot Hikisch, Hamza Khan, Sloane Morgan, and Tony Sifontes of AAA and GIG. Staff members at UC Berkeley also contributed to the development of this report, including Rachel Finson, Adam Stocker,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Impacts of Changing Transportation Trends and New Mobility Technologies on Future Parking Demand
    Downtown Parking Study White Paper #7: Impacts of Changing Transportation Trends and New Mobility Technologies on Future Parking Demand 1.0 Introduction Parking is inseparably tied to how people and goods move in a city and is significantly impacted by how people choose to travel. With a changing landscape of mobility technologies that enable access to a variety of travel modes, the role of parking in downtown areas is likely to change dramatically in the future. This paper explores how changes in transportation trends and new mobility technologies are likely to impact parking demand in the future. It also identifies tools and information that the City of Hood River can use to better balance the promise and perils related to new mobility future. 2.0 New Mobility Options Figure 1 shows how the landscape of mobility has changed since 2013. Before 2013, access to private automobile travel was limited to people who owned, rented, or used traditional taxi services. Since 2013, car sharing services and ridehailing apps allow vehicles to be shared or rented for single trips and short periods of time. In the future, people may be able to access an autonomous vehicle without the need to drive it or hire another person to drive the vehicle. Figure 1: Growth of Shared Mobility, 2013‐2018 Similarly, since 2013, mode choice has expanded from the traditional modes (drive alone, walk, bike, taxi, and transit) to include carshare, bikeshare, ridehailing, microtransit, e‐scooters, e‐bikes, etc. Central to these options is the concept of shared mobility, the technology that enables users to have short‐term access to a fleet of shared vehicles on an as‐needed basis.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • TSRC Section Cover Page.Ai
    Susan Shaheen, Ph.D., Adam Cohen, Michael Randolph, Emily Farrar, Richard Davis, Aqshems Nichols CARSHARING Carsharing is a service in which individuals gain the benefits of private vehicle use without the costs and responsibilities of ownership. Individuals typically access vehicles by joining an organization that maintains a fleet of cars and light trucks. Fleets are usually deployed within neighborhoods and at public transit stations, employment centers, and colleges and universities. Typically, the carsharing operator provides gasoline, parking, and maintenance. Generally, participants pay a fee each time they use a vehicle (Shaheen, Cohen, & Zohdy, 2016). Carsharing includes three types of service models, based on the permissible pick-up and drop-off locations of vehicles. These are briefly described below: • Roundtrip - Vehicles are picked-up and returned to the same location. • One-Way Station-Based - Vehicles can be dropped off at a different station from the pick- up point. • One-Way Free-Floating - Vehicles can be returned anywhere within a specified geographic zone. This toolkit is organized into seven sections. The first section reviews common carsharing business models. The next section summarizes research on carsharing impacts. The remaining sections present policies for parking, zoning, insurance, taxation, and equity. Case studies are located throughout the text to provide examples of existing carsharing programs and policies. Carsharing Business Models Carsharing systems can be deployed through a variety of business models, described below: Business-to-Consumer (B2C) – In a B2C model, a carsharing providers offer individual consumers access to a business-owned fleet of vehicles through memberships, subscriptions, user fees, or a combination of pricing models.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew C. Taylor Executive Chairman Enterprise Holdings Inc
    Andrew C. Taylor Executive Chairman Enterprise Holdings Inc. Andrew Taylor, who became involved in the automotive business more than 50 years ago, currently serves as Executive Chairman of Enterprise Holdings Inc., the privately held business founded in 1957 by his father, Jack Taylor. Enterprise Holdings operates – through an integrated global network of independent regional subsidiaries and franchises – the Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Alamo Rent A Car and National Car Rental brands, as well as more than 10,000 fully staffed neighborhood and airport locations in 100 countries and territories. Enterprise Holdings is the largest car rental company in the world, as measured by revenue and fleet. In addition, Enterprise Holdings is the most comprehensive service provider and only investment-grade company in the U.S. car rental industry. The company and its affiliate Enterprise Fleet Management together offer a total transportation solution, operating more than 2 million vehicles throughout the world. Combined, these businesses – accounting for $25.9 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2019 – include the Car Sales, Truck Rental, CarShare, Commute vanpooling, Zimride, Exotic Car Collection, Subscribe with Enterprise, Car Club (U.K.) and Flex-E-Rent (U.K.) services, all marketed under the Enterprise brand name. The annual revenues of Enterprise Holdings – one of America’s largest private companies – and Enterprise Fleet Management rank near the top of the global travel industry, exceeding many airlines and most cruise lines, hotels, tour operators, and online travel agencies. Taylor joined Enterprise at the age of 16 in one of the original St. Louis offices. He began his career by washing cars during summer and holiday vacations and learning the business from the ground up.
    [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]
  • Andrew C. Taylor Executive Chairman Enterprise Holdings Inc
    Andrew C. Taylor Executive Chairman Enterprise Holdings Inc. Andrew Taylor, who became involved in the automotive business more than 50 years ago, currently serves as Executive Chairman of Enterprise Holdings Inc., the privately held business founded in 1957 by his father, Jack Taylor. He also serves on the Crawford Group Board of Directors. Enterprise Holdings operates – through an integrated global network of independent regional subsidiaries and franchises – the Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Alamo Rent A Car and National Car Rental brands, as well as more than 9,500 fully staffed neighborhood and airport locations, including franchisee branches, in nearly 100 countries and territories. Enterprise Holdings is the largest car rental company in the world, as measured by revenue and fleet. In addition, Enterprise Holdings is the most comprehensive service provider and only investment-grade company in the U.S. car rental industry. The company and its affiliate Enterprise Fleet Management together offer a total transportation solution, operating nearly 1.7 million vehicles throughout the world and accounting for nearly $22.5 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2020. Combined, these businesses include the Car Sales, Truck Rental, CarShare, Commute vanpooling, Exotic Car Collection, Subscribe with Enterprise, Car Club (U.K.) and Flex-E-Rent (U.K.) services, all marketed under the Enterprise brand name, as well as travel management and other transportation services to make travel easier and more convenient for customers. The annual revenues of Enterprise Holdings – one of America’s largest private companies – and Enterprise Fleet Management rank near the top of the global travel industry, exceeding many airlines and most cruise lines, hotels, tour operators, and online travel agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Car Sharing: Electric, Affordable, and Community-Centered the Community Electric Vehicle Project
    The Future of Car Sharing: Electric, Affordable, and Community-Centered The Community Electric Vehicle Project June 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The project team would like to acknowledge and thank all funders and supporters of the Community Electric Vehicle (CEV) Project. First, thank you to Meyer Memorial Trust, The 11th Hour Project, a program of the Schmidt Family Foundation, and Pacific Power for their generous funding of CEV. Thank you to American Honda Motor Company, and especially Robert Langford from their team. Their support shows their leadership in emerging vehicle technologies and their commitment to making advanced vehicle technologies accessible to everyone. Thank you to Blink Charging and Amy Hillman from their team. Your participation in this project exemplifies your leadership and dedication. To the team at Hacienda CDC, especially those who helped manage and facilitate the project— thank you for taking a chance on our team and this project. Your bold leadership and willingness to try something new proves your dedication to and care for your community and the residents you serve. Thank you to the Cully community for allowing us to pilot this project in your community and for always providing honest feedback and opportunities for growth. Lastly, we are eternally grateful for the support from everyone on the Forth team who helped the project team from start to finish. This project and case study were a collective effort and a product of hundreds of hours of hard work and dedication. This project would still only be a figment of our imaginations without everyone’s support, leadership, and commitment to making transportation more accessible and equitable for all.
    [Show full text]