DOCSLIB.ORG

Impacts of Carsharing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Impacts of Carsharing UC Berkeley Recent Work Title Shared Mobility Policy Playbook Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9678b4xs Authors Shaheen, Susan, PhD Cohen, Adam Randolph, Michael et al. Publication Date 2019-12-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California BUS Shared Mobility Policy Playbook December 2019 Susan Shaheen, Ph.D., Adam Cohen, Michael Randolph, Emily Farrar, Richard Davis, Aqshems Nichols doi:10.7922/G2QC01RW Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for generously funding this research. We also thank Tyler Monson, Erik Alm, Kayo Lao, and Roy Abboud of Caltrans for programmatic support. The authors give special thanks to Cayla McDonnel and Kate Meis of the Local Government Commission for their support of this research. Special thanks also go to the public agencies, private companies, and practitioners who participated in the small group discussions, expert interviews, and the shared mobility and modeling workshop. We would also like to thank the workshop and webinar speakers and moderators. The authors also thank Luyu Chen, Elaine Hsieh, Sam Klapper, Marcel Moran, Rhett-Alexander Paranay, Emma Polhemus, Valerie Tan, and Mingyuan Yang of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center (TSRC) of the University of California, Berkeley for their support developing this toolkit. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily indicate sponsor acceptance. Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Acknowledgments | 1 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 Shared Mobility Definitions and Key Concepts .................................................................... 8 Mode-Specific Tools Carsharing ............................................................................................................................. 20 Microtransit ............................................................................................................................ 39 Ridesharing (Carpooling and Vanpooling) ............................................................................ 50 Shared Micromobility ............................................................................................................ 68 Transportation Network Companies (TNCs)......................................................................... 90 Shared Automated Vehicles (SAVs) ..................................................................................... 111 Last-Mile Delivery ................................................................................................................. 126 Policy-Specific Tools Shared Mobility and Public Transit Integration ..................................................................... 137 Shared Mobility and Equity ................................................................................................... 148 Rights-of-Way for Shared Mobility ........................................................................................ 159 Shared Mobility and Incentive Zoning .................................................................................. 171 Shared Mobility and Data Sharing ........................................................................................ 178 Incorporating Shared Mobility into Planning & Modeling ..................................................... 191 Multimodal Tools and Trip Planners ..................................................................................... 199 Shared Mobility and Electrification ....................................................................................... 209 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 222 Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Introduction | 2 Shared mobility – the shared use of a vehicle, bicycle, or other travel mode – is an innovative transportation strategy that enables short-term access to transportation modes on an “as- needed” basis. Sharing can include sequential sharing (i.e., different users share the same transportation vehicle or equipment, one after the other) or concurrent sharing (i.e., sharing of the same transportation vehicle or equipment by multiple non-household users for the same trip). Shared mobility can also include core services such as: shuttles, taxis, public transit, pedicabs, and paratransit. Although important to the shared mobility ecosystem, policies for these modes are not included in this toolkit. Please see Figure 1.1 below for the shared mobility ecosystem. Figure 1.1 Shared Mobility Service Models. Adapted from Shaheen et al., 2016 Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Introduction | 3 Shared mobility can include roundtrip services (a vehicle, bicycle, scooter, or other mode is returned to its origin); one-way station-based services (a vehicle, bicycle, scooter, or other mode is returned to a different designated station location); and one- way free-floating services (a vehicle, bicycle, scooter, or other mode can be returned anywhere within a geographic area). To help manage free-floating services, cities and shared mobility operators may use technologies like geofencing. Geofencing is a technology that uses GPS or RFID technology to create a virtual boundary, enabling cities to determine when and how often vehicles or equipment cross predetermined boundaries, as well as alert riders who operate in restricted areas. A number of environmental, social, and transportation-related benefits have been reported from the use of shared mobility. Several studies have documented reduced vehicle use, ownership, and vehicle miles/kilometers traveled. Cost savings and convenience are frequently cited as popular reasons for using a shared mode. Shared mobility can also make it easier for users to connect to public transportation, potentially helping to bridge gaps in existing transportation networks and encouraging multimodality by addressing the first-and- last-mile connections to public transit. Studies indicate that shared mobility users are typically young and have higher levels of educational attainment, higher income, and are less diverse than the general population. However, there is anecdotal evidence from some cities that indicates the user base of shared modes (e.g., bikesharing and scooter sharing) may be more diverse than other shared modes, as dockless bikes and scooters may have greater success reaching underserved areas of communities. Shared mobility presents an opportunity to provide additional mobility to populations who may be underserved by traditional transportation options or who may be unable to afford the high cost associated with vehicle ownership. Shared mobility can provide numerous economic benefits to communities, such as cost savings for users and increased economic activity near multimodal hubs. Development of this playbook was made possible by the public and private stakeholders who participated in workshops and webinars, small group discussions, and surveys throughout the development of this document. It is important to note, however, that shared mobility is rapidly evolving, and this playbook represents current understanding at the time of publication. This Shared Mobility Policy Playbook provides an introduction and definitions of shared mobility services, mode-specific resources for agencies looking to develop policies in their community, and policy-focused tools demonstrating case studies and best practices for Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Introduction | 4 shared mobility. Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Introduction | 5 How to Use This Playbook This Shared Mobility Policy Playbook has been designed for individuals and practitioners who want to know more about shared mobility and to communities interested in incorporating shared mobility into their transportation ecosystem. This playbook is a practical guide with resources, information, and tools for local governments, public agencies, and non-governmental organizations seeking to incorporate and manage innovative and emerging shared mobility services. The following are suggested uses of this playbook: • Access shared mobility resources including: opportunities, lessons learned, and best practices for deploying shared mobility across the United States. • Use this playbook as a guide for strategic transportation planning and incorporating shared mobility into transportation plans and models. • Reference best practices, lessons learned, and case studies to aid public policy development. Figure 1.2. Protected bike lane and loading zone in a city street. Photo Courtesy of Flickr/Sergio Ruiz Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Introduction | 6 Policy Playbook Overview This playbook presents an overview of current practices, lessons learned, and guiding principles for public agencies to advance shared mobility policy and planning. The playbook is organized into three distinct sections: 1) Shared Mobility Definitions, 2) Mode-Specific Tools, and 3) Policy-Specific Tools, outlined below: • Shared Mobility Definitions • Mode-Specific Tools: Carsharing Microtransit Ridesharing (Carpooling and Vanpooling) Shared Micromobility (Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing) Transportation Network Companies (TNCS, also known as ridesourcing and ridehailing) Shared Automated Vehicles (SAVs) Last-Mile Delivery • Policy-Specific Tools: Shared Mobility and Public
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Deloitte City Mobility Index Gauging Global Readiness for the Future of Mobility
    The Deloitte City Mobility Index Gauging global readiness for the future of mobility By: Simon Dixon, Haris Irshad, Derek M. Pankratz, and Justine Bornstein the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and Where should cities other digital technologies to develop and inform go tomorrow? intelligent decisions about people, places, and prod- ucts. A smart city is a data-driven city, one in which Unfortunately, when it comes to designing and municipal leaders have an increasingly sophisti- implementing a long-term vision for future mobil- cated understanding of conditions in the areas they ity, it is all too easy to ignore, misinterpret, or skew oversee, including the urban transportation system. this data to fit a preexisting narrative.1 We have seen In the past, regulators used questionnaires and sur- this play out in dozens of conversations with trans- veys to map user needs. Today, platform operators portation leaders all over the world. To build that can rely on databases to provide a more accurate vision, leaders need to gather the right data, ask the picture in a much shorter time frame at a lower cost. right questions, and focus on where cities should Now, leaders can leverage a vast array of data from go tomorrow. The Deloitte City Mobility Index Given the essential enabling role transportation theme analyses how deliberate and forward- plays in a city’s sustained economic prosperity,2 we thinking a city’s leaders are regarding its future set out to create a new and better way for city of- mobility needs. ficials to gauge the health of their mobility network 3.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Traveling Airport Mascot
    A CORPORATE PUBLIcaTION BY THE AUGUSTA REGIONAL AIRPORT Mascot • Boarding Pass goes MoBile • Parking shuttle WINTER 2014 AGS Introduces a Traveling Airport Mascot Augusta Regional Airport (AGS) has initiated a new Airport Mascot Program. This program has been established to honor AGS’s former canine employee, Mayday. Mayday was AGS’s longtime employee who spent ten years keeping airport passengers safe by chasing birds and other wildlife off and away from the runways. She will be represented by two traveling plush border collie rides with pilots and/or passengers The two mascots will be posting companions, Mayday and Little Miss transiting through general aviation pictures, videos and comments from Mayday. Together these two travelers terminals located in airports around their travels on their social media will promote the love of aviation in the world. channels so anyone who is interested may follow their adventures. the hearts of the young and old alike! Little Miss Mayday will temporarily Mayday will hitchhike with the goal be adopted out to select youngsters of visiting all 50 states in the U.S. and within the CSRA to accompany For details on the 10 different countries. She will hitch them on their family vacation. Mayday Mascot Students first through eighth grade Program with interest in participating in the please visit program must submit a one page www.FlyAGS.com/Mayday essay stating why they believe Little or call Lauren Smith, AGS’s Miss Mayday should accompany Communications Manager them on their family’s next vacation. at (706) 798-3236. Holiday Spirit • Holiday ExoduS • Military HoSpitality facElift WintEr 2014 Mobile Boarding Passes Make Travel Easy at AGS! Due to the influx of requests for digital boarding passes electronic boarding pass upon arrival.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Part B)
    7UDQVLW&DSDFLW\DQG4XDOLW\RI6HUYLFH0DQXDO PART 2 BUS TRANSIT CAPACITY CONTENTS 1. BUS CAPACITY BASICS ....................................................................................... 2-1 Overview..................................................................................................................... 2-1 Definitions............................................................................................................... 2-1 Types of Bus Facilities and Service ............................................................................ 2-3 Factors Influencing Bus Capacity ............................................................................... 2-5 Vehicle Capacity..................................................................................................... 2-5 Person Capacity..................................................................................................... 2-13 Fundamental Capacity Calculations .......................................................................... 2-15 Vehicle Capacity................................................................................................... 2-15 Person Capacity..................................................................................................... 2-22 Planning Applications ............................................................................................... 2-23 2. OPERATING ISSUES............................................................................................ 2-25 Introduction..............................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Why Some Airport-Rail Links Get Built and Others Do Not: the Role of Institutions, Equity and Financing
    Why some airport-rail links get built and others do not: the role of institutions, equity and financing by Julia Nickel S.M. in Engineering Systems- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010 Vordiplom in Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen- Universität Karlsruhe, 2007 Submitted to the Department of Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Political Science at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY February 2011 © Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2011. All rights reserved. Author . Department of Political Science October 12, 2010 Certified by . Kenneth Oye Associate Professor of Political Science Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . Roger Peterson Arthur and Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science Chair, Graduate Program Committee 1 Why some airport-rail links get built and others do not: the role of institutions, equity and financing by Julia Nickel Submitted to the Department of Political Science On October 12, 2010, in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Political Science Abstract The thesis seeks to provide an understanding of reasons for different outcomes of airport ground access projects. Five in-depth case studies (Hongkong, Tokyo-Narita, London- Heathrow, Chicago- O’Hare and Paris-Charles de Gaulle) and eight smaller case studies (Kuala Lumpur, Seoul, Shanghai-Pudong, Bangkok, Beijing, Rome- Fiumicino, Istanbul-Atatürk and Munich- Franz Josef Strauss) are conducted. The thesis builds on existing literature that compares airport-rail links by explicitly considering the influence of the institutional environment of an airport on its ground access situation and by paying special attention to recently opened dedicated airport expresses in Asia.
    [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]
  • Cusecar – Community Car-Sharing Program: Car Sharing Lessons Learned
    CuseCar – Community Car-Sharing Program: Car Sharing Lessons Learned The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Joseph D. Tario Project Manager and New York State Department of Transportation Robert Ancar Project Manager Prepared by Sarah Stephens Director of Business Development and Public Relations CuseCar of Syracuse Syracuse, NY August 2011 1 1. Report No. C-08-26 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date CuseCar – Community Car-Sharing Program: Car Sharing Lessons Learned August 2011 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) Sarah Stephens 8. Performing Organization Report No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. 11. Contract or Grant No CuseCar of Syracuse, 360 Erie Blvd. East, Syracuse, NY 13202 Contract No. 11103 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered NYSERDA, 17 Columbia Circle, Albany, NY 12203 Final Report (2008 – 2011) NYS DOT, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12232 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Project funded in part with funds from the Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract CuseCar of Syracuse launched services in December 2008 with 3 Toyota Prius Hybrids. CuseCar initially, due to concerns about availability, limited membership to Origination Sponsor Locations, which in turn developed few members. In 2009 CuseCar opened to the general public and has seen a small growth in membership and usage. CuseCar to date has close to 100 members. CuseCar has vehicles centralized in the City of Syracuse Downtown area, with 4 vehicles located within a few city blocks of one another.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Bus Rapid Transit Feasiblity Study
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 MODES AND TRENDS THAT FACILITATE BRT ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Microtransit ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Shared Mobility .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Mobility Hubs ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Curbside Management .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 VEHICLES THAT SUPPORT BRT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Automated Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • REQUEST for INFORMATION (RFI) Zero Emission Vehicle Program Implementation
    REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) Zero Emission Vehicle Program Implementation (bid #: I2015113012) Responses due: November 22, 2019 at 4:00 pm PDT Submit electronically, in PDF format, via the City of Sacramento’s online bid center at: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=15300 City Representative for RFI: Jenna Hahn, Sustainability Analyst, Department of Public Works Request for Information Zero Emission Vehicle Program Implementation Contents 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 2 2. RFI Schedule .................................................................................................................................................. 3 3. Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 4. Potential Projects of Interest ....................................................................................................................... 6 5. Program or Project Considerations ............................................................................................................ 7 6. Submittal Requirements ................................................................................................................................ 8 7. Questions .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bikesharing Research and Programs
    Bikesharing Research and Programs • Audio: – Via Computer - No action needed – Via Telephone – Mute computer speakers, call 1-866-863-9293 passcode 12709537 • Presentations by: – Allen Greenberg, Federal Highway Administration, [email protected] – Susan Shaheen, University of California Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center, [email protected] – Darren Buck, DC Department of Transportation, [email protected] – Nick Bohnenkamp, Denver B-Cycle, [email protected] • Audience Q&A – addressed after each presentation, please type your questions into the chat area on the right side of the screen • Closed captioning is available at: http://www.fedrcc.us//Enter.aspx?EventID=2345596&CustomerID=321 • Recordings and Materials from Previous Webinars: – http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/revenue/road_pricing/resources/webinars/congestion_pricing_2011.htm PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS Susan A. Shaheen, Ph.D. Transportation Sustainability Research Center University of California, Berkeley FHWA Bikesharing Webinar April 2, 2014 Bikesharing defined Worldwide and US bikesharing numbers Study background Carsharing in North America by the numbers Operator understanding Impacts Acknowledgements Bikesharing organizations maintain fleets of bicycles in a network of locations Stations typically unattended, concentrated in urban settings and provide a variety of pickup and dropoff locations Allows individuals to access shared bicycles on an as-needed basis Subscriptions offered in short-term (1-7 Day) and long-term (30-365
    [Show full text]