DOCSLIB.ORG

On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Program Evaluation Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. to extend the benefits of car sharing and Performance of the spaces was analyzed allow more people to live with fewer cars for how many individual users accessed a or no car at all. space, how long the trips were, and how often the vehicle was rented, among other factors. An on-street car share vehicle was judged to perform well if it was: • Available for reservation most of the time • Used frequently • Used by many unique users • Used for short trips SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY | SUSTAINABLE STREETS DIVISION | PARKING 2 On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Evaluation Challenges • Some neighbors didn’t like on-street spaces used for this purpose • Theft and vandalism of shared vehicles • Implementation coordination • Construction and street closures Because construction permitting is not controlled by the SFMTA and street closures are not always communicated to the SFMTA, unpredictable street closures can take car share pods off-line for days or months, diminishing the utility and reliability of the service. SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY | SUSTAINABLE STREETS DIVISION | PARKING 3 On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Evaluation An Overview of Car Sharing The Transportation Research Board Some forgo vehicle ownership entirely. describes car sharing a “mobility option One comprehensive study showed that that allows individuals to pay for and use every shared car replaces as many as 13 automobiles on an as-needed basis through private vehicles.2 Lower car ownership membership programs.”1 Car sharing differs rates reduce overall parking demand, from conventional car rental because car especially in residential and mixed-use share vehicles typically are reserved and areas. utilized in small (usually hourly) increments with round-the-clock unattended access to Reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) cars with no rental office or staff required. Overall, members of CSOs travel fewer Insurance and fuel charges are usually miles by car than car owners, which helps incorporated into hourly rates. to reduce congestion and parking demand.3 One estimate concluded that each shared Car sharing businesses have existed in vehicle leads to about 18,000 fewer VMT San Francisco for 15 years. City CarShare every year.4 was founded in San Francisco 2001, and for-profit car share organization (CSOs) Reduced greenhouse and entered the San Francisco market a few other emissions years later. Reducing VMT translates to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On average, Car sharing differs from carpooling and ride by reducing VMT and using fuel efficient sharing, in which one or more passengers vehicles with low emissions profiles, each share a ride to the same destination as a vehicle’s driver. Car sharing is also different from ride hailing or ride sourcing, also 2 Martin, Elliot, Susan Shaheen, and Jeffrey Lidicker. referred to as transportation network 2010. Impact of Carsharing on Household Vehicle Hold- company (TNC) ride sharing, which ings: Results from North American Shared-Use Vehicle effectively is a taxicab or limousine service Survey. Transportation Research Record: No. 2143: managed by a smart phone app platform. 150–158. 3 Martin, Elliot, and Susan Shaheen. 2011. The Impact of Benefits of car sharing Carsharing on Public Transit and Non-Motorized Travel: An Exploration of North American Carsharing Survey Data. Car sharing has been shown by academic Energies 2011, 4: 2094-2114. Cervero, Robert and Yushin analysis of to achieve the following effects: Tasi. 2004. City CarShare in San Francisco, California: Second-Year Travel Demand and Car Ownership Impacts. Reduced automobile ownership rates Transportation Research Record No. 1887: 117-127. Cer- vero, Robert, Aaron Golub, and Brendan Nee. 2006. San By having access to a vehicle households Francisco City CarShare: Longer-Term Travel-Demand and often give up a second or third vehicle. Car Ownership Impacts. Working Paper. 4 Osgood, Andrea. 2007. Curb Dreams: Allocating On- 1 Transit Cooperative Research Program. 2005. Report No. Street Parking for Carsharing. Unpublished master’s 108: Car Sharing: Where and How it Succeeds. thesis. University of California, Los Angeles. SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY | SUSTAINABLE STREETS DIVISION | PARKING 4 On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Evaluation shared vehicle reduces carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated seven tons “CORE VALUES FOR every year.5 Shared vehicles tend to be used more frequently, which reduces the THE TRANSPORTATION number of cold starts, further lowering NETWORK: emissions when compared to private automobiles. TRANSIT FIRST: TRANSIT, WALKING, Reduced household transportation expenses and increased BICYCLING, TAXI, CAR economic reinvestment SHARING, AND RIDE AAA estimates the average US car costs SHARING HAVE THE $8,698 per year to operate.6 Some of these savings are reinvested in the local HIGHEST PRIORITY. “ economy. (SFMTA STRATEGIC More walking, PLAN) bicycling, and transit use San Franciscans already walk, bike, and use public transit more than most people in the nation. However, those who are choice of CSOs. CSOs report that one members of CSOs do so more than non- of the key challenges for expanding car members, with 77% of trips compared to sharing is the difficulty of acquiring parking 67%, respectively.7 spaces for car sharing parking or pods, which are locations where customers can pick up a car sharing vehicle. The SFMTA SFMTA’s interest in car sharing can use parking policy to encourage and facilitate car sharing, thereby realizing The SFMTA’s car sharing policy is intended more of its benefits. to expand the availability of car sharing across San Francisco, increase the usage The SFMTA can advance a number of of car sharing, and preserve or increase key objectives in its 2013-2018 Strategic Plan by facilitating the expansion of car sharing. These include increasing travel 5 Martin, Elliot, and Susan A. Shaheen. 2011. Greenhouse by non-private automobile (Objective 2.3), Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America, improving parking management (Objective IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2.4), and reducing resource consumption Vol. 12, No. 4: 1074-1086. and emissions (Objective 3.1). In 6 Stepp, Erin. “Annual Cost to Own and Operate a Vehicle combination with the SFMTA’s efforts Falls to $8,698, Finds AAA.” American Automobile Associ- to better utilize transportation demand ation, April 28 (2015). management strategies, improve parking 7 Cervero, Robert, Aaron Golub, and Brendan Nee. 2006. management, and make transit, walking, San Francisco City CarShare: Longer-Term Travel-Demand and bicycling more attractive, car sharing and Car Ownership Impacts. Working Paper. SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY | SUSTAINABLE STREETS DIVISION | PARKING 5 On-Street Car Sharing Pilot Evaluation helps achieve all these goals. to rent their privately-owned vehicles to other members via a matching service. Additionally car sharing supports San Companies that use the peer-to-peer model Francisco’s “Transit-First Policy.” The policy include Getaround and Turo (formerly states: “Decisions regarding the use of RelayRides). limited public street and sidewalk space shall encourage the use of public rights of One-way way by pedestrians, bicyclists, and public These services allow members to pick transit, and shall strive to reduce traffic up a vehicle parked near them, make and improve public health and safety.” a trip, and leave the shared vehicle at On-street car sharing increases access to a different location anywhere within a shared vehicles, thereby using the public defined operation area, typically at an on- right-of-way to reduce traffic and improve street parking space. One-way car sharing public health through decreased vehicle requires a permit that exempts the shared ownership, decreased emissions, and vehicle from parking meter payment increased street safety. and/or time limits
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]
  • Annual Report 2011
    Annual Report 2011 41046.indd 1 4/3/12 6:20 PM First to scale and building momentum Revenue $242 in millions $186 $131 $106 Adjusted $58 EBITDA (1) $10.9 in millions $4.2 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 $(1.6) $(9.8) Members $(13.6) in thousands 673 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 540 349 258 140 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (1) See inside back cover for reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to U.S. GAAP Net Income (Loss). 41046.indd 2 4/3/12 6:20 PM 2011 Report Dear Stockholders,, This is our fi rst stockholder letter andnd we are delighted to share with you our vision for the future as well as our results from the past year. We believe the stage is set for a new world of urban mobility. We are building momentum around a deliberate shift away from Zipcar’s mission is urban car ownership toward an array of smart transportation options that improve life for many people. As we lead the creation of an to enable simple and exciting new industry, we are dramatically reducing the second largest expense in most households—transportation spending responsible urban living. —and we’re doing it in a way that makes urban life smart, more sustainable and fun! We are inspired to be part of a rare company that can do well by doing good. In short, the information highway is becoming a substitute for At Zipcar, our mission is to enable simple and responsible urban paved highways. In a 2011 survey, 55% of Millennials (ages 18-34) living.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Transportation Bus Information
    OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS Phone: 504.280.6021 // Fax: 504.280.7317 E-mail: [email protected] // Web: http://oiss.uno.edu TRANSPORTATION BUS INFORMATION The bus fare in the city of New Orleans is $1.25, exact change only. If you will be changing buses, give the driver an additional 25 cents to obtain a bus transfer. When you get on the second bus, just give that driver the transfer. Express buses cost $1.50 — they do not make as many stops as the regular buses. Bus stops are marked with a white sign with purple, green and gold stripes. They say BUS STOP and most of them (not all) list at the bottom of the sign the numbers of the buses which stop at that location. If you’ll be riding the bus several times during one day, you can buy a one-day pass for $3 from any of the bus drivers. With this you can take unlimited rides for the day. You can buy a three-day pass for $9, for unlimited rides during that period. You can buy a five-day pass for $15. If you ride the bus on a daily basis, you might want to buy a monthly bus pass for $55. The passes are color-coded by month, so you should buy the pass at the beginning of the month. Check the bus system web site for a route map and individual bus schedules www.norta.com. Note: Fare prices subject to change without notice. Please check website to confirm current rates.
    [Show full text]
  • 1000 16 Street Urban Mixed-Use Project
    1000 16th Street Urban Mixed-Use Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Planning Department Case No. 2003.0527E State Clearinghouse No. 2004112037 Draft EIR Publication Date: January 26, 2008 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: February 21, 2008 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: January 26 – March 10, 2008 Written comments on this document should be sent to: Bill Wycko Acting Environmental Review Officer San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 DATE: January 26, 2008 TO: Distribution List for the 1000 16th Street Urban Mixed-Use Project Draft EIR FROM: Bill Wycko, Acting Environmental Review Officer RE: Request for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 1000 16th Street Urban Mixed-Use Project (Case Number 2003.0527E) This is the Draft of the Environmental Impact report (EIR) for the 1000 16th Street Urban Mixed- Use Project. A public hearing will be held on the adequacy and accuracy of this document. After the public hearing, our office will prepare and publish a document titled “Comments and Responses,” which will contain all relevant comments on this Draft EIR and our responses to those comments along with copies of letters received and a transcript of the public hearing. The Comments and Responses document may also specify changes to this Draft EIR. Public agencies and members of the public who testify at the hearing on the Draft EIR will automatically receive a copy of the Comments and Responses document, along with notice of the date reserved for certification; others may receive such copies and notice on request or by visiting our office.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Regulation of Transportation Network Companies Policy Guide
    POLICY GUIDE Regulation of Transportation Network Companies January 2019 “Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures” Founded in 1988, we are an interdisciplinary strategy and analysis firm 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1000 providing integrated, creative and analytically rigorous approaches to Seattle, Washington 98121 complex policy and planning decisions. Our team of strategic planners, policy P (206) 324-8760 and financial analysts, economists, cartographers, information designers and www.berkconsulting.com facilitators work together to bring new ideas, clarity, and robust frameworks to the development of analytically-based and action-oriented plans. BERK Consulting Subconsultants Allegra Calder Robert Feldstein Kristin Maidt April Rinne Sherrie Hsu Emily Walton Percival Ben Silver Regulation of Transportation Network Companies: Policy Guide Washington State Joint Transportation Committee |January 2019 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 State TNC Laws ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Regulatory Authority ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]