DOCSLIB.ORG

Shared Mobility Accessibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shared Mobility Accessibility Study THE OAKLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Shared Mobility Accessibility Study JUNE 2020 Acknowledgments City of Oakland Department of Transportation (OakDOT) • Kerby Olsen, Project Manager • Anh Nguyen, Project Manager Technical support provided by Bay Area Outreach and Recreation Program Funding provided by ACTC and BAAQMD Special thanks to the supportive and insightful committee members and chair persons who participated in this process, including: • WAV TAC • Mayors Commission for Persons with Disabilities Bike Share Accessibility Technical Advisory Committee • Jake Darby, Lyft • Greg Milano, BORP • Kara Oberg, MTC • Neal Patel, Lyft • Leo Siecienski, BORP • Annette Williams, SFMTA • Emily Stapleton, Motivate / Lyft • Thomas Gregory, The Center for • Ginger Jui, Bike East Bay • Dave Campbell, Bike East Bay Independent Living • Frank Sperling, MCPD Alta Planning + Design • Jean Crowther, AICP • Beth Martin • Marisa Lee • Nick Aguilera • Brett Hondorp • Anne Bothner-By Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) • Chris Zeilinger Independent Advisors • Dr. Susan Shaheen • Adam Cohen COVER IMAGE: JEFF MOORE, CNET.COM Contents STUDY PURPOSE.................................................................. 1 The City of Oakland’s Commitment.....................................................1 Project Purpose .......................................................................1 Understanding Access to Shared Mobility...............................................2 What is Shared Mobility? ..............................................................3 STUDY PROCESS .................................................................. 5 Project Timeline ......................................................................5 Community Input .....................................................................5 Technical Assessment ................................................................5 ACCESSIBILITY OF SHARED MOBILITY............................................. 7 Common Policy Considerations . 7 Key Case Studies.....................................................................10 ACCESSIBILITY OF SHARED MOBILITY IN OAKLAND...............................13 Key Findings .........................................................................13 Bike Share Assessment...............................................................14 Scooter Share Assessment ...........................................................18 Ridehailing Assessment ..............................................................20 Carsharing Assessment ..............................................................22 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................25 Overview ............................................................................25 STRATEGY 1: Reduce Impacts to Persons with Disabilities Travelling by Other Modes.....25 STRATEGY 2: Modify Vehicle, Device, or Station Design.................................26 STRATEGY 3: Provide Alternative Service Models ......................................27 STRATEGY 4: Expand User Information and Transaction Opportunities ..................28 STRATEGY 5: Leverage New Partnerships, Planning, and Funding .......................29 APPENDICES.....................................................................31 1 - Shared Mobility Best Practices Memo 2 - Ridehailing and Carsharing Accessibility Data Memo 3 - Bike Share Station Assessment with Scooter Parking Opportunities 4 - Survey Results and Focus Groups Summaries 5 - Digital Accessibility Audit 6 - BORP Adaptive Bike Share Pilot Program Results 1 4 The City of Oakland Department of Transportation PHOTO: KIEN NGUYEN KIEN PHOTO: Study Purpose THE CITY OF OAKLAND’S COMMITMENT PROJECT PURPOSE The City of Oakland has a long-standing history of Recognizing the importance of providing an inclusive and working with the disability community to understand and equitable transportation system, OakDOT proudly offered address barriers that pose challenges to equal access the first Adaptive Bike Share program in the Bay Area for to services and facilities. The Mayor’s Commission on people with disabilities2. This vital program came together Persons with Disabilities (MCPD) serves as the City of through partnership between OakDOT’s ADA Programs Oakland’s primary advisory body on Americans with Division, the MCPD, the Metropolitan Transportation Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, disability access, and Commission (MTC), Lyft, and Bay Area Outreach and the advancement of disability rights. The Commission Recreation Program (BORP). In 2019, OakDOT was also operates in an advisory, review, and advocacy capacity to the first in the country to require that permitted scooter ensure City of Oakland policies, programs, and actions share providers develop an accessible scooter share provide consideration and accommodation for optimizing service within the first year of operations.3 In January disability access. 2020, OakDOT and Lime announced the first iteration of accessible scooter share with design modifications to the As a branch of the City of Oakland, the Oakland scooters themselves and new service options, such as Department of Transportation (OakDOT) is committed door-to-door delivery of a rented scooter, longer duration to serving the diverse transportation needs of residents of rental, and new pricing options.4 from all walks of life, and relies on the MCPD for policy, program, and project review to identify ways travelers As these pioneering efforts unfold, OakDOT with disabilities can be better served by transportation commissioned a study to evaluate the Adaptive Bike programs and infrastructure within the City. This includes Share Pilot Program and the accessibility of other advising on the needs of the 12% of Oakland residents shared mobility services in Oakland and to identify that identify as having one or more disabilities, as well as new ways of expanding access to these services for the 23% of residents who are older adults (39% of whom persons with disabilities. The Oakland Shared Mobility have a disability).1 OakDOT also recognizes that nearly Accessibility Study, summarized in this report, assesses every person will experience a disability at some point in barriers that travelers with disabilities encounter while their life, whether temporary due to surgery or injury or a using four primary shared mobility models that operate in more permanent transition into a new phase of life. the City of Oakland: bike share, scooter share, ridehailing, and carshare. At the time of this report, this included 1 Oakland Disability Access Policy, https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/ the following programs: Bay Wheels (operated by Lyft), documents/City-of-Oakland-Administrative-Policy-Regarding-Accessibility- OakDOT’s Adaptive Bike Share Pilot Program, Bird, Lime, under-Americans-with-Disabilities-Act-ADA.pdf Lyft (scooter share, and ridehailing), Uber, Getaround, Turo, Gig, and Zipcar. 2 https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/05/13/ oakland-adds-bike-share-for-people-with-disabilities/ 3 https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/ordinances/ code_of_ordinances?nodeId=917183 4 The COVID-19 pandemic and shelter in place orders from the State and County interrupted the City of Oakland roll out of more adaptive scooters. https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2020/oakdot-and-lime-launch-first-ever- e-scooter-pilot-program-designed-for-riders-with-disabilities Shared Mobility Accessibility Study 1 The Shared Mobility Accessibility Study draws from both If one link is not accessible, then access to a subsequent technical analysis and the lived experience of travelers with link is unattainable and the trip cannot be completed. The disabilities to better understand how Oakland’s various inability to get to and from destinations is a persistent shared mobility systems are meeting, exceeding, or problem for travelers with disabilities. Accomplishing underserving the disability community’s diversity of needs. the complete trip is often handled by professional This project culminated in recommendations to: staff and agencies, but shared mobility presents new 1. Reduce Impacts to Persons with Disabilities Traveling by opportunities to allow users with disabilities to travel more Modes Other than Shared Mobility independently. This can be done by providing the right tools, such as accessible options to enable individuals to 2. Modify Vehicle, Device, and Station Design develop the skills needed to prepare for travel, travel from 3. Provide Alternative Service Models their locations easily, and use shared mobility products, devices, services, and enabling technologies. 4. Expand User Information and Transaction Opportunities 5. Leverage New Partnerships, Planning, and Funding However, not all mobility service providers may offer accessible options, or these options may not provide an equivalent level of service (e.g., wait and journey UNDERSTANDING ACCESS TO SHARED times). Understanding disability access to shared MOBILITY mobility services includes recognizing that the disability The accessibility of a complete trip can be defined in terms community has a diverse array of transportation needs. of an individual’s ability to plan for, and execute, a trip from Oakland residents with disabilities navigate the City origin to destination without gaps in the travel chain. The with mobility challenges, limited vision, limited hearing, links of this chain include: cognitive differences, chemical sensitivities, and varying • trip planning, combinations of these
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America
    Portland State University PDXScholar Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports Civil and Environmental Engineering Summer 2018 Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America David Soto Padín Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cengin_gradprojects Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Soto Padín, David, "Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America" (2018). Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports. 52. https://doi.org/10.15760/CCEMP.51 This Project is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP OF BIKESHARE AND TRANSIT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY DAVID RAFAEL SOTO PADÍN A research project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Project Advisor: Kelly J. Clifton Portland State University ©2018 Final Draft ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude for the academic guidance provided by my advisor Dr. Kelly J. Clifton. This project would not have been possible without the support and feedback of my fellow graduate students in the transportation lab of Portland State University. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the author. The author would like to thank bikeshare operators for making their data available, including Motivate and Bicycle Transportation Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Accessibility and the Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’S Impact on Public Space CYNTHIA L
    Accessibility and The Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’s Impact on Public Space CYNTHIA L. BENNETT Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] EMILY E. ACKERMAN Univerisity of Pittsburgh, [email protected] BONNIE FAN Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] JEFFREY P. BIGHAM Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] PATRICK CARRINGTON Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] SARAH E. FOX Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] Over the past several years, micromobility devices—small-scale, networked vehicles used to travel short distances—have begun to pervade cities, bringing promises of sustainable transportation and decreased congestion. Though proponents herald their role in offering lightweight solutions to disconnected transit, smart scooters and autonomous delivery robots increasingly occupy pedestrian pathways, reanimating tensions around the right to public space. Drawing on interviews with disabled activists, government officials, and commercial representatives, we chart how devices and policies co-evolve to fulfill municipal sustainability goals, while creating obstacles for people with disabilities whose activism has long resisted inaccessible infrastructure. We reflect on efforts to redistribute space, institute tech governance, and offer accountability to those who involuntarily encounter interventions on the ground. In studying micromobility within spatial and political context, we call for the HCI community to consider how innovation transforms as it moves out from centers of development toward peripheries of design consideration. CCS CONCEPTS • Human-centered computing~Accessibility~Empirical studies in accessibility Additional Keywords and Phrases: Micromobility, Accessibility, Activism, Governance, Public space ACM Reference Format: Cynthia L. Bennett, Emily E. Ackerman, Bonnie Fan, Jeffrey P. Bigham, Patrick Carrington, and Sarah E. Fox. 2021. Accessibility and The Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’s Impact on Public Space.
    [Show full text]
  • DATE: January 4, 2019
    DATE: January 4, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager ENC: NACTO Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation (Version 1: July 2018) PREPARED BY: Greg Hermann, Interim Deputy City Manager Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager SUBJECT: SHARED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DEVICES The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to inquiries about the proposed operation of shared active transportation devices, such as scooters and bicycles. This memo provides pertinent background information, an overview of relevant City ordinances, policy and safety considerations and potential next steps for City Council consideration. Background In September 2018, the City was informed that Bird, an electric scooter sharing company, had unannounced plans to launch in San Luis Obispo without the proper permits or licenses. City staff reached out to Bird representatives and invited them to take part in a dialogue before beginning a “rogue launch” similar to the company’s practice in other cities. Bird responded favorably, traveled to San Luis Obispo and met with City staff to discuss their business model and has so far agreed to follow City policy and procedures relating to their business. Since then, four other scooter share companies have also inquired about operating in the City. They include Lime, Spin, Gotcha, and Uscooter. Staff has been in discussion with these companies and has informed them that a memo would be distributed to the Council outlining issues and potential paths and that no City actions would take place until such time as Council provided direction on whether to proceed with any ordinance changes and provide input on outreach, vendor selection, etc.
    [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]
  • Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study
    Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED FOR: The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Bike Sharing Advisory Working Group Alisha Oloughlin, Marin County Bicycle Coalition Benjamin Berto, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Eric Lucan, TAM Board Commissioner Harvey Katz, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Stephanie Moulton-Peters, TAM Board Commissioner R. Scot Hunter, Former TAM Board Commissioner Staff Linda M. Jackson AICP, TAM Planning Manager Scott McDonald, TAM Associate Transportation Planner Consultants Michael G. Jones, MCP, Alta Planning + Design Principal-in-Charge Casey Hildreth, Alta Planning + Design Project Manager Funding for this study provided by Measure B (Vehicle Registration Fee), a program supported by Marin voters and managed by the Transportation Authority of Marin. i Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ ii 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Report Contents ................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 What is Bike Sharing? ........................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • The Oregonian Apartment Construction Is Drying Up. Is
    The Oregonian Apartment Construction is Drying Up. Is Affordable Housing Measure to Blame? By Elliot Njus February 19, 2018 Portland’s apartment-building binge appears to be headed off a cliff. Applications for new housing developments have nearly ground to a halt over the past year, and there are plenty of reasons for that. Construction costs have ballooned, as have land prices. The glut of new construction, meanwhile, has taken the wind out of rising rents, at least at the high end. But Portland officials are increasingly worried the city’s inclusionary zoning policy, which compels developers to set aside rent-restricted units in large apartment and condo projects, might be playing a role, too. And if home construction dries up, it could ultimately push housing costs even higher. Only 12 privately financed developments large enough to trigger the mandate, totaling 654 units, have sought building permits since the policy took effect last year. A more typical year in the recent housing boom has seen thousands of new apartments proposed. Those projects would create 89 units geared toward households earning significantly less than the median income. It’s difficult to say, given the many conflicting variables, whether or to what extent inclusionary zoning is to blame for the drop-off. Meanwhile, there’s a backlog of projects that had been submitted before the rules took effect, representing up to two years of future development. Nonetheless, a city economic planner tasked with monitoring the program says it might be time to consider changes that could give developers a better deal — or risk putting an artificial cap on the housing supply, driving rents higher in the long run.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Shared Mobility Pilot Program
    RESPONSE TO RFA: SHARED MOBILITY PILOT PROGRAM Prepared by Lyft Bikes and Scooters, LLC for the City of Santa Monica Primary Contact Information Name: David Fairbank Address: 1705 Stewart St., Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone #: < > Email: [email protected] CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT Please note that the information designated as confidential herein contains proprietary and confi- dential trade secrets, and/or commercial and financial data, the disclosure of which would cause substantial competitive harm to Lyft. Accordingly, Lyft requests that the City of Santa Monica main- tain the confidentiality of this information. Lyft further requests that, should any third party request access to this information for any reason, the City of Santa Monica promptly notify Lyft and allow Lyft thirty (30) days to object to the disclosure of the information and, if appropriate, redact any in- formation that Lyft deems non-responsive to the request before any disclosure is made. We have clearly marked each page of our proposal that contains trade secrets or personally identi- fying information that we believe are exempt from disclosure. The header of each page with confidential information is marked as illustrated to the TRADE SECRET - PROPRIETARY right: The specific written content on each page subject to these restrictions are bracketed < This specific content marked with the following symbols < >, as in this confidential and proprietary.> illustrative example to the right: Visual content and tables (e.g. images, screenshots) on each page subject to these restrictions will be highlighted with a pink border, as in this illustrative example below: The bracketed sections and highlighted visual content and tables are exempt from disclosure.
    [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]