On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project FINAL REPORT

Submitted to San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) by IBI Group June 2009 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PROJECT INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTUAL OVERVIEW ...... 1 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1 1.2 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ...... 1

2. OVERVIEW OF ...... 3 2.1 CARSHARE MODELS ...... 3 2.2 BENEFITS OF CARSHARING ...... 4 2.3 CARSHARING IN NORTH AMERICA ...... 5 2.4 IDEAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS ...... 15

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PRELIMINARY SCREENING ...... 17 3.1 DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS AND DOCUMENT REVIEW ...... 17 3.2 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) ANALYSIS, METHODOLOGY, AND SOURCES ...... 20

4. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND SURVEY FINDINGS ...... 36 4.1 SURVEY DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT ...... 36 4.2 SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS ...... 41 4.3 CROSS-TABULATIONS AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ...... 45 4.4 FOCUS GROUP DEVELOPMENT AND FINDINGS ...... 58

5. OPERATIONS PLANNING AND MARKETING ...... 60 5.1 SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION ...... 60 5.2 AGGREGATE SITE SELECTION PROCESS ...... 60 5.3 REVENUE-SENSITIVE LOCATIONS ...... 67 5.4 DEVELOPING AND SUSTAINING A BUSINESS MODEL ...... 75 5.5 MODEL INTRODUCTION ...... 78 5.6 OVERVIEW OF SCENARIOS ...... 80

6. NEXT STEPS – A WAY FORWARD ...... 85

i

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.3-1: Carshare Programs in North America ...... 6

Figure 3.2-1: Carsharing Market Schematic ...... 23

Figure 3.2-2: Sample Grid-based GIS Model ...... 24

Figure 3.2-4: Carsharing Market Analysis Process ...... 26

Figure 3.2-6: Land Use in Downtown San Diego ...... 30

Figure 3.2-7: Land Use Characteristics Score ...... 33

Figure 3.2-8: How to Market Carsharing ...... 34

Figure 3.2-9: Carsharing Program Potential Composite Map ...... 35

Figure 4.1-1: Carshare Survey Implementation ...... 40

Figure 4.2-1: Survey Respondents by ZIP Code ...... 44

Figure 5.1-1: Aggregate Site Selection Methodology Overview ...... 60

Figure 5.2-1: Compilation of All On-Street Carshare Vehicle Locations ...... 63

Figure 5.2-2: Final On-Street Carshare Vehicle Locations ...... 66

Figure 5.3-1: Existing Parking Meter Inventory ...... 69

Figure 5.3-2: 2010 Estimated Zero-Vehicle Households ...... 70

Figure 5.3-3: One Month Snapshot of Downtown Vehicle Crimes ...... 71

Figure 5.3-4: Proposed Revenue-Sensitive On-Street Carshare Locations ...... 74

Figure 5.4-1: Estimated Employment Density ...... 76

Figure 5.4-2: Estimated Population Density ...... 77

ii

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.3-1: U.S. Carshare Programs ...... 7

Table 2.3-2: Canadian Carshare Programs ...... 12

Table 3.1-1: Parking Inventory – Weekdays Daytime, 11 am-4 pm ...... 18

Table 3.1-2: Parking Inventory – Weekends Daytime, 11 am-4 pm ...... 18

Table 3.1-3: Parking Inventory – Weekdays Night-time, 6 pm-10 pm ...... 18

Table 3.1-4: Parking Inventory – Weekends Night-time, 6 pm-10 pm ...... 19

Table 3.2-1: Typical Demographic Characteristics of Carsharing Members (TCRP, 2005) ...... 22

Table 3.2-2: Demographic Characteristics Score per Cell ...... 28

Table 3.2-3: Land Use Characteristics Score per Cell ...... 32

Table 4.1-1: Site Location and Preferred Survey Hours Summary ...... 39

Table 4.2-1: Top ZIP Codes of Respondents ...... 43

Table 4.3-1: Familiarity by Age Cross-Tabulation ...... 46

Table 4.3-2: Level of Interest by Age Cross-Tabulation ...... 47

Table 4.3-3: Level of Interest by Parking Range Cross-Tabulation ...... 48

Table 4.3-4: Willingness to Use Transit by Age Cross-Tabulation ...... 50

Table 4.3-5: Willingness to Use Transit by Car Usage Cross-Tabulation ...... 51

Table 4.3-6: Willingness to Use Transit by Income Cross-Tabulation ...... 52

Table 4.3-7: Willingness to Use Transit by Non-MTS Bus or Trolley User Cross-Tabulation ...... 53

Table 4.3-8: Willingness to Use Transit by Non-COASTER User Cross-Tabulation ...... 54

Table 4.3-9: Downtown Residents by Vehicle Ownership Cross-Tabulation ...... 55

Table 4.3-10: Level of Interest by Vehicle Ownership Cross-Tabulation ...... 56

Table 4.3-11: Downtown Residents and Vehicle Ownership Cross-Tabulation ...... 57

Table 5.2-1: Final On-Street Carshare Locations ...... 65

Table 5.3-1: Existing Parking Meter Cost Information ...... 68

Table 5.3-2: Revenue-Sensitive Site Selection Criteria ...... 73

Table 5.6-1: Start-up Carsharing Service Scenario 1 – Unconstrained Model ...... 82

Table 5.6-2: Start-up Carsharing Service Scenario 2 – Revenue-Sensitive Model ...... 84

iii

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Intercept Survey

APPENDIX B: Focus Group Invitation Letter

APPENDIX C: Example Marketing Materials

APPENDIX D: Demographic and Land Use Characteristics Used in Suitability Study

APPENDIX E: Survey Frequencies and Means Results

APPENDIX F: Sample Requests for Proposals (RFP’s)

APPENDIX G: Previous San Diego Experiences with

iv

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

1. PROJECT INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTUAL OVERVIEW

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2006, California State Assembly Bill 2154 amended Section 22507.1 of the California Vehicle Code to allow a city or county, by ordinance or resolution, to designate certain streets or portions of streets for the exclusive parking privilege of motor vehicles participating in a carshare vehicle program or ridesharing program in an exclusive designated parking area. A City ordinance would then establish the criteria for a public or private company or organization to participate in the program.

With the potential for significant positive impacts for several community stakeholders and residents, SANDAG conducted the Carshare Grant II – On-Street Parking Demonstration Project. As an extension of SANDAG’s Station Car Pilot Program, the primary focus of the project is to increase transit users and support transit-dependent commuters who work in downtown San Diego. These workers need access to a vehicle as a last-mile solution for mid-day trips that are not on transit-supported corridors, and to support transit-oriented developments throughout the urban core. Also, the project aims to make carsharing vehicles available to downtown residents, as a fleet vehicle for downtown businesses, and to tourists who arrive in the region by transit, among other uses.

The following report examines the viability of such a service in the Downtown San Diego area. It includes examining local population and demographic subgroups that have historically been shown to be receptive to the carsharing concept, as well as reporting on the findings of the project team about local residents’ and employees’ attitudes towards carsharing. The report outlines a total of 19 potential on-street locations identified as part of its field analysis, and examines the potential for implementation of such a service by a private business or public agency at some point in the future.

1.2 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS

In an effort to examine the viability of implementing an on-street carshare demonstration project, the project team began an extensive data gathering effort on existing carsharing programs throughout the United States and selected services in Europe. Chapter 2 details these industry experiences and best practices, and begins to give the reader an idea what sort of conditions must be met to ensure a viable service. It is important to realize that viability is not consistently synonymous with profitability, as several start-up services are wrestling with pricing policies, fleet size and location issues, and other challenges that make the concept a dynamic and evolving one.

Chapter 3 outlines the document review and data analysis processes undertaken to review the City of San Diego and Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) documents outlining policies, parking availability and inventories, and existing and forecast demographic data used in the preliminary screening analysis efforts. The sum of these efforts yielded a series of general vicinities that would provide preferred carshare vehicle locations. This methodology was based on existing research conducted by a variety of government and private businesses, and provided an excellent starting point for the detailed screening of specific sites proposed in Chapter 5.

As part of the project Scope of Work, an extensive public outreach effort was undertaken to gauge downtown employees’ and residents’ familiarity, level of interest, and other insights into the concept of carsharing. Chapter 4 provides the methodology and implementation of these efforts, which include a 500-person intercept survey conducted in early 2009 and a focus group of interested respondents taken from the 500 responses. The findings are analyzed and discussed in detail in the Chapter and reveal interesting relationships between one’s interest in carsharing and several other measurables, including age, income level, existing transit usage, vehicle availability, and home ZIP code. These findings typically mirrored nationwide research on the subject and set the stage for the operations and marketing planning undertaken in Chapter 5.

June 2009 1 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Chapter 5 reveals the study’s efforts at establishing the viability of implementing an on-street carshare service in downtown San Diego. Building on the survey results and initial demographic assessments discussed in previous chapters, this chapter identifies 19 locations throughout the downtown area that could see the implementation of a carshare vehicle parking spot.

Following the site selection piece, two detailed marketing plans are presented, one of which relies on series of assumptions on vehicle utilization, membership recruitment and retention, marketing effectiveness, and other costs to turn a profit for the operating agency within 27 months. The second marketing plan outlines a more phased, conservative growth estimate with limited vehicles, a scaled-back series of assumptions on costs, service members, marketing and staffing efforts, etc., that would require a subsidy to break even.

It is important when reading Chapter 5 to understand that the marketing plans presented represent a series of assumptions. These assumptions, although rooted in the realities experienced by several domestic carshare services with regard to their challenging operating environment, would likely undergo a series of revisions as part of the implementation of the service.

In summary, while downtown San Diego has several aspects of its community that could support an on- street carsharing service, a few challenges to its sustainability and viability exist: ample free parking, limited pockets of residential density, and a limited familiarity with the carsharing concept all serve to provide a series of hurdles to be overcome as a service strives to become sustainable. Any carsharing service must realize that these challenges are likely temporary, but they must nonetheless be carefully weighed against the very real societal, environmental, and personal benefits of reducing congestion, emissions, and personal vehicle trips which would result from the creation and implementation of an on- street carshare service.

June 2009 2 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

2. OVERVIEW OF CARSHARING

In an effort to better illustrate the successes and failures of carsharing in the United States and abroad, several aspects of existing and previous carsharing business models were examined. The following section describes the concept of carsharing and highlights several examples of its implementation. As no one dominant business model has yet emerged, the discussion focuses on what works for each operator, and provides insight into the challenges faced upon entering the marketplace.

2.1 CARSHARE MODELS

Carsharing is a sustainable transportation service that provides communities with significant social and environmental benefits by reducing the use of personal vehicles and car ownership. Members of a carsharing program are able to view vehicle availability and reserve a self-service car via the internet or by telephone, usually in increments as short as one hour (or even a half hour). The reservation includes insurance, gas (through a gas card), reserved parking, and reimbursements for typical car maintenance items like car washes and window wiper fluid refills, and mileage (although some services charge a flat rate per mile). Some carsharing programs even offer a discounted all-day rate for their cars.

In a typical carsharing operation, members are given an access card which will open the vehicle they have reserved only at the time they have reserved it. Each vehicle records hours of usage and mileage, which is uploaded to a central computer via a wireless data link. If a vehicle is not returned at the scheduled time, a penalty is charged, since it may interfere with other drivers' reservations. Members are responsible for leaving the vehicles in the agreed parking area on time, clean, and in good condition for the next user. The carsharing company is responsible for the long-term maintenance of the vehicles.

Cost structures for carsharing plans vary, but generally cover application and membership fees, a security deposit, hourly rates, and mileage fees. Annual memberships frequently range from $25 to $100 per year. Some carshare programs require a security deposit in the $200-$500 range, while other programs have no security deposit requirement. Usage fees range from less than $2 an hour to $10 an hour; some companies charge for mileage (usually $0.25-$0.40/mile).

Carsharing differs from traditional car rentals in the following ways: • Carsharing is not limited by office hours. • Reservation, pickup, and return are all self-service. • Vehicles can be rented by the hour, as well as by the day. • Users are members and have been pre-approved to drive (background driving checks have been performed and a payment mechanism has been established). • Vehicle locations are distributed throughout the service area, and often located for access by public transport. • Insurance and fuel costs are included in the rates.

Fleet Vehicles

Another model of carsharing service is the fleet vehicle. In this model, government agencies or private corporations partner with local carsharing agencies, using carshare vehicles for work-related trips. Government and corporate vehicles are often underutilized during the work week. In addition to reducing the number of fleet vehicles that a corporation or government agency employs, such programs typically reduce the associated costs of maintaining and parking fleet vehicles.

The best American example of this practice is in Berkeley, California. In August 2004, the City of Berkeley contracted with City CarShare to provide City employees access to shared vehicles dedicated

June 2009 3 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

for work-related trips during the work week, and the public (including employees) on evenings and weekends. The program was named one of the “Top 50 Innovations in American Government” by the Ash Institute of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. It was also named as a Finalist in the U.S. Conference of Mayors City Livability Award.

Station Cars

Carsharing in the U.S. and generally follows the European model, where cars are parked in neighborhoods and not necessarily linked directly to public transit. Station cars, such as those in SANDAG’s previous pilot project, are a kind of carsharing model that primarily serve transit and rail commuters. These cars provide a demand-response extension to fixed-route rail services and may not be shared by multiple individuals.

Increasingly, the carsharing and station car concepts are merging to include both elements: transit linkages that serve commuters and distributed lots for spontaneous users or those not taking transit trips. As part of the recommended sites for this project, a handful of on-street locations have the dual benefit of serving high-volume transit stations and local downtown employment centers. It is hoped that this hybrid model of carshare service will allow for greater rates of utilization and higher market share than previous station car or off-street parking models.

2.2 BENEFITS OF CARSHARING

Carsharing has benefits for several distinct markets and, as such, has several selling points which may be developed in an effort to raise the appeal and viability of the service. As described below, these benefits apply to individual members (reduced vehicle-related costs versus car ownership) and to society as a whole (reduced congestion, pollution, and crashes, and increased public transit use and employment facilitation).

Individual Members

Carsharing allows members to save money over the cost of individual car ownership because of “pooled ownership,” which allows them to drive less, use alternative transportation, and utilize fuel-efficient vehicles when a car is needed. In addition to increased consumer choice, carsharing offers increased affordability, especially for lower-income drivers who occasionally need a vehicle. The average car expense for carshare members is $50/month, compared to the AAA estimate of $600-$700/month for car ownership.

It can also be an alternative to owning multiple cars for households with more than one driver. A long- term study of City CarShare (serving the San Francisco Bay Area) members found that 30 percent of households that joined sold a car and others delayed purchasing one. Transit use, bicycling, and walking also increased among members.

In Chicago’s I-GO Car Share program, nearly 50 percent of members who owned cars when they joined I- GO sold their cars within six months of participation in the program. Furthermore, 56 percent of participants report that they either postponed buying a car or sold a car before they joined I-GO.

June 2009 4 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Benefits to Society

Urban carsharing is often promoted as an alternative to owning a car where public transit, walking, and cycling can be used most of the time and a car is only necessary for out-of-town trips, moving large items, or special occasions. In this way, carsharing can help reduce congestion and pollution. Replacing private automobiles with shared ones directly reduces demand for parking spaces. Most studies suggest that carsharing typically results in an average net 40-60 percent reduction in per capita driving among participants, although this varies depending on the demographics of participants and the quality of travel choices in their community.

This reduction in per capita annual mileage results in reduced congestion, road and parking facility costs, and therefore a reduction in vehicle crashes, pollution, and energy use, as each carshare vehicle is estimated to take an average of 15 private vehicles off the road. This supports the primary goals that SANDAG had for this project: addressing congestion in downtown San Diego and supporting transit. Carsharing can result in reduced residential parking requirements and support for higher density residential development, basic tenets of the transit-oriented development that many increasingly congested cities are encouraging.

Carsharing as a Job Facilitator

Some studies indicate that access to vehicles significantly increases employment and average wages for disadvantaged people entering the workforce (such as welfare-to-work programs), and so recommend vehicle ownership subsidies. However, carsharing subsidies often present a better option, since they do not require large up-front costs for purchase, registration, and insurance, nor do they burden lower- income households with high fixed costs of car ownership, which may be unnecessary and unaffordable if, for example, a worker finds a job that can be reached more easily by alternative modes.

To reiterate, carsharing tends to increase equity by improving the mobility options of people who are transportation disadvantaged and transit-dependent, and by allowing lower-income drivers significant financial savings compared with vehicle ownership. It can also help provide basic mobility under some circumstances.

2.3 CARSHARING IN NORTH AMERICA

Today, more than 600 cities worldwide have carsharing programs, including more than 100 cities in North America. Three large rental car companies (Enterprise, Hertz, and Avis) either have or are considering entry strategies in direct response to , the largest carshare provider in the U.S. Whether the future belongs to non-profits or profit-making firms is hotly debated, with head-to-head competition in a growing list of cities, including San Francisco, Washington, DC, London, England (where 3 main operators are competing), and Hamburg, Germany.

Two U.S. cities have government-sponsored carsharing – Scoot in Bremerton, Washington (operated by the local transit agency) and Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles in Aspen, CO (operated in conjunction with the City of Aspen).

Figure 2.3-1 shows the distribution of North American carsharing programs. Table 2.3-1 provides an overview of the largest U.S. carsharing services. Table 2.3-2 provides an overview of the largest Canadian carsharing services.

June 2009 5 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 2.3-1: Carshare Programs in North America

Legend: Blue – For-profit citywide operator; Green – Non-profit carshare operator; Purple – Cities with multiple carsharing operators; Yellow – Serving college or university only; Red – Government-operated carsharing. A dot in the center of the marker indicates a major operation (more than 25 vehicles). Source: Dave Brook, carsharingus.blogspot.com.

June 2009 6 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 2.3-1: U.S. Carshare Programs Provider Cities Served Fee Structure Cars / Members Notes / Special Programs Zipcar Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, • From $9/hour, $66/day. • 5,000 cars. • Members can automatically reserve and use a Zipcar in New York, Philadelphia, any Zipcar city. Pittsburgh, Portland (OR), • 180 free miles per • 200,000 San Diego, San reservation. members. • Zipcar also offers its service for businesses (called "Z2B") Francisco, Seattle, and and organizations. These programs typically provide a • $50 annual fee, $25 discount on the annual membership fee, as well as Washington DC, with application fee. plans to expand. discounts on Monday – Friday driving. International operations • Zipcar has also partnered with over 30 colleges and include London, Toronto, universities to provide students with access to their and Vancouver. carsharing service on or near campus. • In late 2007, Zipcar merged with competitor Flexcar. It is currently the largest provider of carsharing services in the U.S.

U Car Share Ann Arbor, Austin, Boston, • One time membership • 75 cars total. • Operated by U-Haul. Chicago, Madison, fee of $50. Philadelphia, Portland • Cars parked on U-Haul lots, not decentralized throughout (ME), San Francisco, • Hourly rates vary by the city (hence its status in the literature as a “quasi- Seattle, and Washington, state, generally around carsharing program”). $10/hour. D.C. • U Car Share asks its members to take the car in for • 125 free miles per routine maintenance (such as oil changes) in exchange for reservation. credit on their account. • Program is currently being retooled (as of September 2008).

Boulder CarShare Boulder, plans to expand • $25 application fee, $90 • 8 cars. • Non-profit. to Denver, CO joining fee, $10 monthly fee. • 110 members. • $1/hour, $0.50/mile.

June 2009 7 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Provider Cities Served Fee Structure Cars / Members Notes / Special Programs City CarShare San Francisco Bay Area, • $45/month membership • 300 cars. • Non-profit. including Oakland and fee. Berkeley, CA • 10,000 • City CarShare works with local governments and • $30 application fee. members. businesses to place cars in neighborhoods. Some governments and businesses have also begun using City • $300 deposit. CarShare cars as part of their fleets during days, with those • $5/hour, $0.40/mile. vehicles available to CarShare members at other times. • City CarShare has worked with transit agencies to place cars in transit station parking lots. • City CarShare has partnered with Bay Area universities to offer incentives to students, faculty, and staff, including waived deposits and special discounts.

Community Car Madison, WI. • $50 application fee. • 17 cars. • 53% of the fleet are hybrid gas-electric cars that average 45 mpg. • Three prepaid plans at • 1,000 members. $7.75-$8.75/hour. • Three monthly plans with monthly fees ($4- $35) and hourly rates ($8.50-$9.25/hour). • 100 free miles per reservation.

June 2009 8 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Provider Cities Served Fee Structure Cars / Members Notes / Special Programs I-Go Car Sharing Greater Chicago, IL area. • $25 application fee, $50 • 200 cars. • Non-profit. joining fee, $25 annual fee. • 10,000 • 100% low-emission vehicles. members. • Four pricing plans, from • Partnered with several Chicago area universities. casual to heavy users. • Special midnight to 6:00 am plans – every member, • Plan 1: $6.75- regardless of plan, pays only $4/hour from midnight to 6:00 $10.25/hour, $0.40/mile, am. (Mileage charges based on plan.) all day rates from $65. • Plan 2: $8.50-$12/hour, 150 miles included/ reservation, additional miles $0.40/mile, all day rates from $70. • Plan 3: $15/month (6 month commitment), 3 hours/month and 150 miles/reservation included, additional hours $8.50-$12/hour, additional miles $0.40/mile, all day rates from $70. • Plan 4: $30/month (6 month commitment), $7/hour (unlimited hours, no included hours), 150 miles/reservation included, additional miles $0.40/mile, all day rates from $70.

June 2009 9 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Provider Cities Served Fee Structure Cars / Members Notes / Special Programs Hourcar Minneapolis and St. Paul, • Several pricing plans, • 16 cars, planned • fleet. MN from casual to heavy to expand to 26 users, businesses, and over the next two • Sponsored in part by the McKnight Foundation, a private non-profits. years. charitable family foundation. • All plans – all day on select vehicles only, includes 100 free miles. • Personal plan fees: $50 application fee, $25/additional driver. • Business and non-profit plan fees: no application fee, $25/additional driver. • Personal Plan 1: $8/hour, $0.25/mile, $5 monthly fee, all day $65 weekday/$75 weekend. • Personal Plan 2: $6/hour, $0.25/mile, $15 monthly fee, all day $55 weekday/$65 weekend. • Business Plan 1: $8/hour, $0.25/mile, $10 monthly fee, all day $65 weekday/$75 weekend. • Business Plan 2: $6/hour, $0.25/mile, $30 monthly fee, all day $55 weekday/$65 weekend. • Non-profit Plan: $6/hour, $0.25/mile, no monthly fee, all day $55 weekday/$65 weekend.

June 2009 10 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Provider Cities Served Fee Structure Cars / Members Notes / Special Programs PhillyCarShare Greater Philadelphia, PA • Both plans: $25 • 400 cars. • Both plans include one free hour in any hybrid per month. area. application fee, $0.16/mile. • 2500 members • Provider pays for member trips on SEPTA (local rail service) to PhillyCarShare pods located at SEPTA stations • Plan 1: no monthly fee, by reimbursing transit fare. $5.90/hour Mon-Fri, $7.90/hour Sat-Sun. • Provider serves over 500 area businesses, universities, and government agencies. • Plan 2: $15 monthly fee, $3.90/hour Mon-Fri, • Provider is partnered with the University of Pennsylvania $5.90/hour Sat-Sun. in the largest university carsharing program in North America, with dozens of vehicles and special contract rates.

Austin Car Share Downtown Austin, Hyde • Both plans: $25 • 11 cars. • Non-profit. Park, and University of application fee, $300 Texas areas. security deposit, • 175 members. • Models include Toyota Scions and Tacoma pickups. $0.55/mile. • Plan 1: $10 month, $5/hour, daily rate cap of $60. • Plan 2: $50/year, $8/hour, no daily cap.

CityWheels Cleveland, OH • 20 miles included/hour, • 4 cars. • Cars are available for as little as 30 minutes at a time. $3/10 miles over that. • 220 members. • Charter Member service available for Cleveland • Both plans: $25 businesses. application fee, $25 annual fee. • Plan 1: $15/month, $6.90/hour, $55 max/day. • Plan 2: $8.90/hour, $65 max/day.

June 2009 11 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 2.3-2: Canadian Carshare Programs Canadian cities Provider Fee structure (Canadian dollars) Cars / members Notes / special programs served Quebec, , • Members: $500 membership fee • Over 250 cars. • Cars are available for as little as 30 minutes at a Sherbrooke, (refundable after 1 year), choice of three time. . Operates packages (annual fee of $35-$350, $1.55- • More than in Ottawa as $2.05/hour, $0.20-$0.34/km). 11,000 • Provider is partnered with public transit agencies VrtuCar, Canada members. in each city; in exchange for purchasing 12 monthly • Non-members: no membership fee, $35 public transit passes in advance, provider allows annual fee, $4.95-$5.95/hour, $0.13/km. the transit user to reserve cars at the basic member rate, while waiving the $500 refundable membership fee. (A higher annual fee does apply, however.)

Victoria Car Victoria, BC, • Both plans: $2.68/hour, $0.40/km. • 16 cars. • Non-profit. Share Co-op Canada • Individual membership (up to two drivers • 275 members. • Car Share Caretakers program enables members in one household): $400 membership fee, to subsidize their carshare use by helping the Co- $10 monthly fee. op to maintain its vehicles. • Group membership: $700 membership • Reciprocal agreements with Nelson and fee (up to four drivers from a small Vancouver programs. business or organization), $17.50 monthly fee. • Members of the Co-op vote on program issues. • No hourly charge from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am. • Daily rate decreases on the 2nd consecutive day.

Co-operative Vancouver, BC, • Non-members: $20 registration fee, $50 • Unknown • Non-profit. Auto Network Canada annual fee, $7/hour, 150 km included/trip. number of cars. • Reciprocal agreements with Nelson and Victoria • Co-operative Auto Network (CAN) • Unknown programs. member: $500 refundable deposit, $20 number of registration fee. members. • Special Excursion rate for trips over 72 hours (either $45/day for cars, $60/day for trucks and • All CAN member plans: $2.50/hour. minivans or regular rates, whichever is higher), designed to mitigate co-op losses due to the car • Low usage CAN (<80 km/month): being out of rotation. $6.25/month, $0.38/km. • Operates a Company Car program for businesses. • Moderate usage CAN (80-250 km/month): $15/month, $0.28/km. • High usage CAN (>250 km/month): $40/month, $0.18/km.

June 2009 12 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Canadian cities Provider Fee structure (Canadian dollars) Cars / members Notes / special programs served Nelson Nelson, Kaslo, and • $500 refundable deposit. • 12 cars. • Non-profit. Carshare Co-op Revelstoke, Canada • All plans: $1.50/hour for first eight hours, • 93 members. • Cars are available for as little as 30 minutes at a $0.50/hour after. time. • Low usage (<100 km/month): • Reciprocal agreements with Victoria and $4.16/month member fee, $0.38/km. Vancouver programs. • Moderate usage (100-300 km/ month): $10/month, $0.31/km. • High usage (>300 km/month): $35/month, $0.23/km.

AutoShare Toronto, Canada • All plans: $100 membership fee. • 200 cars. • Offers a business plan for Toronto businesses. • Plan 1: $9.50/hour, $35 annual fee, 150 • 8,000 • Offers discounts for VIA light rail, as well as bike km included per reservation. members. and in-line skate shops. • Plan 2: $6.25/hour, $0.20/km, $10/month. • Plan 3: $5.25/hour, $0.20/km, $25/month.

Grand River Kitchener, Waterloo, • Regular member: $25 application fee, • 11 cars. • Non-profit. CarShare and Cambridge, $400 refundable deposit. Canada • 215 members. • Cars are available for as little as 30 minutes at a • $0.27/km. time. • $3.70/hour weekdays, $4.20/hour • No charge 11:00 pm to 7:00 am. weekend, flat rates for 10, 24, and 72-hour blocks. • Co-op offers business and non-profit organization rates. • Non-driver associates can support the program by investing $10 (refundable) in • Co-op also operates a bikeshare network, with the co-op. hubs located at six carshare vehicle locations.

June 2009 13 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Canadian cities Provider Fee structure (Canadian dollars) Cars / members Notes / special programs served Carsharing Co- Edmonton, Alberta, • All plans: $25 application fee/person, • 2 vehicles. • No charge 11:00 pm to 7:00 am. op of Edmonton Canada $2.50/hour, $0.40/km, $20/day, $140/week. • 9 members. • Full members: $55 joining fee, $400 membership fee, $10/month. • Associate members: $100 membership fee, $2.50/month. • Group members (up to four members): $55 joining fee, $17.50/month.

June 2009 14 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

2.4 IDEAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS

As currently practiced in North America, carsharing programs require several elements, detailed below, to be successful.

Location Matters

Carsharing tends to be most effective and appropriate in higher-density, lower- and middle-income residential areas where there are good alternatives to driving (so a significant portion of residents do not need to own an automobile) and sufficient regular users within convenient walking distance (typically 0.3 miles) of the vehicles. It can also be implemented in commercial centers and industrial parks.

There are some programs, mostly in Europe, for providing services in lower density and rural areas. Low- density areas are considered more difficult to serve with carsharing because of the lack of alternative modes of transportation and the potentially larger distance that users must travel to reach the cars.

In a typical US region, 10-20 percent of residents live in neighborhoods suitable for carsharing, and perhaps 3-5 percent of those residents would carshare rather than own a private vehicle ownership if the service were available.1 People who shift from owning a private vehicle to carsharing are typically lower- annual-mileage drivers who reduce their vehicle travel about 50 percent (i.e., they reduce their mileage from 6,000 to 3,000 annual miles once they become a member). This suggests that carsharing services can reduce total vehicle travel by 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent, although by much more in suitable urban neighborhoods such as downtown San Diego.

A previous market study, based on analysis of North American carsharing, identified the following neighborhood factors that contribute to successful carsharing programs:2 • High density of individuals aged 21-39. • High proportion of residents commuting by transit or walking. • High proportion of renters, non-family households, and single-person households. • A shortage of parking.

In its efforts to improve mobility in downtown San Diego, facilitating on-street carshare parking is a direct step that SANDAG can take to encourage people to switch to carsharing. This both increases the public image of a carsharing service and aids in congestion relief in dense urban areas. By relieving congestion, cities experience greater turnover of the existing parking, which contributes to more available metered parking revenue. It also increases access to downtown shops, entertainment, and restaurants.

In order to encourage carshare use, North American cities have implemented a wide variety of innovative parking management policies: • Seattle has parking stalls that are designated to carsharing vehicles as a class, similar to taxi zones. • Portland, Oregon created "option zones" to designate on-street carsharing parking, denoted by orange public art poles that attach to parking meters. • The Austin, Texas city council passed a resolution providing free parking spaces and exempting carsharing cars from city parking meter charges. • Parking spaces in Philadelphia have been granted on the premise that shared-vehicle use helps maximize overall parking availability.

1 Source: TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm7.htm. 2 Source: Developing a Model for Car Sharing Potential in Twin Cities Neighborhoods. James Andrew, Frank Douma, State and Local Policy Program, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota.

June 2009 15 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Ideal Carshare Users

Carsharing is generally not cost-effective for commuting to a full-time job on a regular basis, but is generally more cost-effective than car ownership for those who do not drive daily or who drive less than 6,000-7,500 miles annually. A more detailed demographic breakdown of ideal carshare users can be found in Chapter 3.

To establish and maintain a carsharing program, a critical mass of users (typically 25 members or more per car) in individual neighborhoods is needed. Carsharing cannot develop until enough potential users in each area are familiar with the concept, understand how it can benefit them, and are willing to commit themselves to a carshare organization. This requires education and marketing.

Other Ideal Carshare Program Elements

Based on research, the following are elements of an ideal carshare program: • Structure the program to meet the needs of the community. Larger cities can support much larger carsharing programs than smaller communities. • Implement carsharing in conjunction with other transportation demand management programs that improve transportation choices. It is particularly appropriate as part of transit encouragement efforts. • Minimize administrative and overhead costs. • Provide a variety of pricing options to serve different types of users (infrequent, frequent, extended trips). • Structure rates to include both time and mileage fees, so the organization will not lose money with either a high-mileage trip during a short rental period, or low-mileage trip during a long rental period. • Develop partnerships with organizations that are interested in reducing vehicle ownership, promoting public transit use, or providing occasional vehicle access to a particular group. • Develop partnerships with businesses, focusing on the “replacing company cars” and “inexpensive employee benefit” angles. In San Diego, this would include partnering with companies like Qualcomm, which provides discounted carsharing use as part of their Q-Life employee benefit program. • Use innovative, target- and use-specific marketing. • Integrate the carshare program with the local transit agency’s transit pass.

June 2009 16 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PRELIMINARY SCREENING

As part of the preliminary assessment of the viability of establishing an on-street carsharing program, an extensive effort was undertaken to collect existing conditions data and develop screening criteria based on this data to assist the site allocation and carshare location development process.

3.1 DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS AND DOCUMENT REVIEW

The 2006 Downtown Community Plan and recently-issued working documents involving the development of a Downtown Comprehensive Parking Plan were summarized to achieve a better understanding of the downtown on-street parking inventory and its role in accommodating residents and commuters. In addition to these documents, a series of performance measures relating to Flexcar’s experience in San Diego were reviewed to help develop a viable carshare service in San Diego.

Downtown Community Plan Update

Chapters 6-8 (Neighborhoods, Transportation, and Public Facilities) Adopted 2006

The San Diego Downtown Community Plan was adopted by the San Diego City Council in 2006. Chapters discussing neighborhoods and districts, transportation, and public facilities were reviewed to understand opportunities and constraints concerning the feasibility of implementing carsharing in downtown San Diego.

The transportation chapter offered the most detail concerning the feasibility of carsharing. Specific goals and policies are outlined that explicitly support carsharing. Goal 7.4-G-23 speaks to allowing shared parking where possible. Policy statements supporting carsharing are also imbedded in policies 7.4-P-24 and 7.5-P-1,5 namely to emphasize shared parking approaches and to “work with public and private entities to encourage carshare programs downtown.”

Chapters discussing neighborhood districts and public facilities do not directly address carsharing opportunities; however, there does not appear to be any significant constraints to enabling the practice.

3 7.4-G-2: Site and design new parking structures to accommodate parking needs from multiple land uses to the extent possible and allow shared parking where possible 4 7.4-P-2: Emphasize shared parking approaches, including: • Development of parking facilities that serve multiple uses, to enable efficient use of space over the course of the day. • Parking under new parks that are full-block or larger in size, where not limited by geologic or other constraints. • Enhanced on-street parking by restriping streets where appropriate. 5 7.5-P-1: Encourage TDM approaches and various SANDAG programs to: • Rideshare and carpool in all levels of government with offices and facilities downtown as well as other major downtown employers. • Make available designated preferential, conveniently located car/vanpool parking areas. • Provide transit reimbursement and other benefits to other users of non-motorized travel. • Establish a car/vanpool matching service that could use mechanisms such as sign-ups at individual buildings, or via electronic mail or an internet website. • Continue SANDAG’s guaranteed ride home for workers who carpool. • Work with public and private entities to encourage carshare programs in downtown. • Provide flextime and telecommuting opportunities to employees.

June 2009 17 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Comprehensive Parking Plan for Downtown San Diego

Summary of Comprehensive LU & Parking Inventory, Final Report June 20, 2008

This document was prepared by Wilbur Smith & Associates for the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC). It reviews and examines 1) existing and planned land uses, 2) on-street parking inventory and utilization, 3) special event parking utilization, 4) off-street public parking inventory and utilization, and 5) on-street turnover and duration rates.

Parking inventory and utilization analysis from the report indicates the following neighborhoods had a shortage of stalls relative to the Centre City average during weekdays 11 am-4 pm:6

Table 3.1-1: Parking Inventory – Weekdays Daytime, 11 am-4 pm

Downtown Neighborhood Occupancy Rate (%) Horton Plaza 88 Marina 88 Columbia 84 Little Italy 79 Gaslamp 74 Cortez Hill 70 Downtown / Centre City 67

Table 3.1-2: Parking Inventory – Weekends Daytime, 11 am-4 pm

Downtown Neighborhood Occupancy Rate (%) Horton Plaza 80 Marina 72 Little Italy 64 Gaslamp 55 Columbia 53 Downtown / Centre City 53 No weekend daytime data for Cortez Hill.

Horton Plaza and Little Italy appear among the most constrained during the daytime. Weekend data was not collected for the Cortez Hill neighborhood.

Table 3.1-3: Parking Inventory – Weekdays Night-time, 6 pm-10 pm

Downtown Neighborhood Occupancy Rate (%) Horton Plaza 90 Gaslamp 84 Cortez Hill 77 Columbia 68 Marina 68 Little Italy 65 Downtown / Centre City 64

6 Complete utilization is defined as 80% occupancy.

June 2009 18 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 3.1-4: Parking Inventory – Weekends Night-time, 6 pm-10 pm

Downtown Neighborhood Occupancy Rate (%) Horton Plaza 88 Gaslamp 88 Marina 76 Columbia 72 Little Italy 62 Downtown / Centre City 48 No weekend night-time data for Cortez Hill.

Many neighborhoods exhibit high occupancy rates during night-time hours. The Horton Plaza, Gaslamp, and Columbia districts appear to exhibit the greatest occupancy rates. The Little Italy and Marina districts also exhibit relatively high occupancy rates.

Concerning off-street public parking spaces, the report provides the following observations arranged by neighborhood. No citation is made concerning the day of the week that data was collected.

Assuming carshare usage is best enabled in locations where parking supply is short and/or parking turnover rates are high, several neighborhoods would appear to provide suitable initial locations. These include the Horton Plaza, Gaslamp, Columbia, Little Italy, and Marina neighborhood districts.

Comprehensive Parking Plan for Downtown San Diego

Summary of Future Parking Demand Estimates August 8, 2008

This document depicts anticipated parking demand for downtown and neighborhoods for the years 2010, 2015, and 2030. Relative to near-term 2010 projected conditions, morning parking demand exceeds supply by a marginal amount in the East Village, Columbia, Gaslamp, and Horton neighborhood districts. Sufficient parking supply exists in all other neighborhoods, but appears to be constrained in the Civic Core, Little Italy, and Marina neighborhood districts.

For the same year, sufficient supply exists during evening times for each neighborhood district; however, supply appears to be constrained for the East Village and possibly the Little Italy neighborhood districts.

Comprehensive Parking Plan for Downtown San Diego

Draft Recommended Strategies August 26, 2008

This document discusses parking management techniques and strategies, guiding parking principles applicable to downtown San Diego (developed from input from a public workshop), discussions of priority markets concerning the competition for parking, and recommended parking management strategies.

Concerning applicability to carshare use, the practice is not explicitly discussed. It is suggested that on- street parking supply should favor customers and visitors to downtown over employees and residents. The most commonly used strategy is reducing the number of long term on-street car parking stalls, such as overnight parking and longer than 2 hour parking stalls. This strategy appears to support carsharing services in downtown San Diego, since carsharing services would likely target predominantly residential and employee markets, and reduced-time parking stalls would promote joining carsharing services.

June 2009 19 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

The Flexcar Experience

San Diego has had prior experience with carsharing. Flexcar (since purchased by Zipcar) began operations in San Diego in September 2002. In March 2004, SANDAG awarded Flexcar a contract to provide carsharing services as part of its Station Car Pilot Program. The pilot was designed to introduce carsharing as a compliment to its regional transit and land use goals, specifically to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT), emissions, and increase transit usage by providing an answer to the commonly-cited barrier to transit usage of the lack of a “first and last mile” solution to bridge the gap between a transit station and a commuter’s home or work site. Additional funding was obtained to augment this pilot program with a value-added “Mobility Pass” service, known as Compass+, which would bundle the cost of a carsharing membership with the cost of a monthly transit pass. This section is a summary of Flexcar’s time in San Diego.

The pilot service began in July 2004 with eight vehicles located in Downtown San Diego and one vehicle in Sorrento Valley, adjacent to the Qualcomm complex. The downtown locations are listed below. Based on the available evidence, each of the vehicles was parked at an off-street location, typically a parking garage or surface parking lot.

The locations were as follows:

• One America Plaza : Broadway & Kettner • 3rd Avenue between A & Ash Street (2 Flexcar Sites) • West A Street & 1st Avenue • Kettner & West B • Wells Fargo Center: 4th Avenue & B Street • 8th Avenue & Broadway • 4th Avenue & Beech Street

From the data, it is apparent that while steadily increasing both its personal and business memberships, Flexcar did not have a sustainable model in downtown San Diego. This may be due in part to a decrease in active, habitual users, particularly those using the service outside of regular business hours. This vehicle utilization ratio proved too little for the organization, and Flexcar left San Diego in 2007 when Zipcar purchased their operation. A full review of the Flexcar experience in San Diego can be found as Appendix G of this report and also at www.ridelink.org.

3.2 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) ANALYSIS, METHODOLOGY, AND SOURCES

In order for an on-street carsharing program to be successfully implemented, rigorous market analyses are critical, as carsharing is not applicable everywhere. This section focuses on identifying and analyzing carsharing locations in the study area, based on demographic data and neighborhood analysis.

Demographic Characteristics

Demographic market analysis identifies distinct groups of customers who share specific demographic characteristics, such as age, income, education, and auto ownership, and who are likely to exhibit similar purchasing behavior. Considerable research has been conducted by various agencies and consultants to highlight the patterns of demographic characteristics shared by persons who are currently using carsharing services. These patterns demonstrate which kinds of persons (group of customers) are more likely to be attracted to a carsharing program. These individuals can then be the focus of targeted marketing campaigns through which carsharing operators can prepare market strategies to appeal to the customers.

June 2009 20 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

In his comprehensive 2004 carsharing study, David Brook discussed some of the decisions to be made when starting a new carsharing service. These include business type, pricing, target membership market, scheduling system, parking, and marketing. According to the study, carsharing members spanned all age groups, but had an average age in the mid 30s. Member incomes were close to the median for the areas served, and likely often related to a higher education level. Participation in very wealthy neighborhoods was low, likely due to a high rate of vehicle ownership.7

Brook also found that carsharing members were evenly divided as to gender, marital status, and home ownership. Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic was the high level of education, with more than two-third of members being four-year college graduates or holding advanced degrees.

In 2005, the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) conducted a web-based survey of current carsharing members in the U.S. and Canada to understand the demographic market segments attracted to carsharing.8 This study confirmed the results of Brook’s study that the majority of carsharing members were highly educated middle class young professionals living without or with less than one car.

According to the TCRP report, the average age of respondents was 37.7 years old and the median was 35 years old. Half of the respondents reported an annual income of $60,000 a year or more and only 13 percent of participants earned less than $30,000 a year. More than 80 percent of participants hold a bachelor’s, post-graduate, or advanced degree. The average household size was 2.02 persons, and about 72 percent of the households did not have a car. Another interesting finding was that a high percentage of carsharing service members lived in rental housing units.

Clayton Lane’s research evaluated PhillyCarShare, a carsharing program in Philadelphia9. One year into the program, the results revealed that a greater education level was closely related to the propensity toward joining a carsharing program. His study also showed that PhillyCarShare members were mostly in their late 20s and 30s.

In 1999, Susan Shaheen developed an early-adopter profile in her study on CarLink, the carsharing program in the San Francisco Bay Area, based on individuals who expressed interest in the CarLink field test and those who joined the program.10 The profile showed the following:

• 50 percent of them belonged to households of two or three members. • 70 percent of them were married. • 56 percent of them were between 24 and 40 years old and 39 percent were between 41 and 64 years old. • 60 percent had a bachelor’s or master’s degree. • 60 percent had household incomes over $50,000 a year.

Similar demographic patterns can be found in the European carsharing services. Hope found that membership of three carsharing programs in Edinburgh, England was, on the whole, characterized by relatively young professional households with lower than average car ownership and higher than average incomes. Reviews of these carsharing programs consistently identified members as being typified as young families (35-50 years old), environmentally aware, middle class, and well-educated.11

7 David Brook (2004), “Carsharing – Start Up Issues and New Operational Models,” Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. 8 Transportation Research Board (2005), “Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 108: Carsharing: Where and How It Succeeds.” 9 Clayton Lane (2004), “PhillyCarShare: First-Year Social and Mobility Impacts of Car Sharing in Philadelphia,” Transportation Research Board 84th Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. 10 Susan Shaheen (1999), “Dynamics in Behavioral Adaptation to a Transportation Innovation: A Case Study of CarLink – A Smart Carsharing System,” PhD Dissertation, Institute of Transportation Studies, Davis. 11 Steven Hope (2001) “Monitoring and Evaluation of the Edinburgh City Car Club,” Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

June 2009 21 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

On the other hand, for a variety of reasons, people over 50 years old are least likely to consider the carsharing program as a suitable alternative to car ownership. However, for most other people the issue was not the principle of a carsharing program but concerns about the practicality of it. A carsharing case study conducted in Austria also showed that most of the members were in their 30s and 40s with higher education degrees.12

In summary, the consensus of the previous literature is that the typical carsharing member is likely to be well-educated (college or post-graduate degree), have a small household, be between the ages of 25-45 years old, and possess a higher than average income. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the findings from the previous studies.

Table 3.2-1: Typical Demographic Characteristics of Carsharing Members (TCRP, 2005)

Characteristics Typical Carsharing Member Age • Average age from mid 20s to mid 40s Income • Above average income Education • Upper level (college or above) Household Size • Smaller than average (1-2 persons) Auto Ownership • Half own one vehicle Home Ownership • Lower than average (about 70% live in rental housing)

12 Karl Steininger, Caroline Vogl, and Ralph Zettl (1996), “Carsharing organizations: The size of the market segment and revealed change in mobility behavior,” Transportation Policy, Vol. 3, Issue 4, page 177-185.

June 2009 22 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Land Use Characteristics

Many studies concluded that in general, high density urban areas have the highest propensity for developing carsharing. However, the crucial thing is that high density urban areas presuppose well- developed public transit.13 Therefore, an existing public transportation system is a crucial component for starting a carsharing service, as carsharing is designed to supplement existing transportation systems (including walking and bicycling).14 Figure 3.2-1 illustrates the market niche of carsharing.

Figure 3.2-1: Carsharing Market Schematic

Source: Eric Britten (2000), “Carsharing 2000 – Sustainable Transport’s Missing Link,” World Transportation Policy and Practice.

Low-density areas are considered more difficult to serve with carsharing because of the lack of alternative modes of transportation and the potentially larger distance that users must travel to reach their cars.

Carsharing depends on creating a network of closely-spaced vehicles providing easy access to the greatest number of people. At the present stage in the development of carsharing, this tends to be closed-in urban neighborhoods and downtown districts, particularly those with a mix of business and residential members, such as downtown San Diego. Some suburban areas, particularly mixed-use and transit-oriented developments or businesses near light rail stations, are also potentially promising carsharing locations. Although census data does not include all the desired indicators, a good indication of the promising areas can be derived by a simple analysis of education and income levels, and transit and bike commuting. Congested on-street parking is another indicator of promising neighborhoods for carsharing.15

Several neighborhood characteristics necessary for successful carsharing programs have been identified in various studies.16,17 These factors include:

13 Mikael Klintman (1998), “Between the Private and the Public: Formal Carsharing as Part of a Sustainable Traffic System – an Exploratory Study,” Lund University Research Report. 14 Michael Lafond (1994), RAIN Magazine. 15 David Brook (2004), “Carsharing – Start Up Issues and New Operational Models,” Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. 16 Brook, David (1999), “So You Want to Start a Carsharing Service?” World Transport Policy and Practice. 17 Transportation Research Board (2005), “Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 108: Carsharing: Where and How It Succeeds.”

June 2009 23 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

• High Density – Dense neighborhoods have a larger customer base within walking distance of each carsharing station. In addition, potential customers in dense neighborhoods have a higher propensity to join the program since dense neighborhoods tend to have a lower rate of vehicle ownership. • Mix of Uses – Business members tend to use carsharing services for business purposes during workdays. On the other hand, people who tend to use carsharing for personal trips, such as shopping, have a peak demand in the evening and on weekends. Mixed-use neighborhoods can attract both business and individual members, which in turn efficiently utilizes the carsharing service. • Parking Shortage – Car ownership is more expensive and less convenient in places where parking is scarce, making carsharing a relatively more attractive option. If residents have to walk a block or two to their car, they may as well walk the same distance to a carsharing location. • Transit/Pedestrian/Bike-Friendly Environment – Carsharing is not designed to meet a household’s entire mobility needs, but to complement other modes, such as transit. The availability of reliable public transit is, therefore, a critical element of the carsharing market, along with local shopping opportunities and a pedestrian and bicycle network.

Grid-based GIS Model

This section documents the methodology and results of a GIS-based analysis of potential carsharing locations in downtown San Diego. To identify potential carsharing locations, a grid-based GIS model was developed. A grid-based model was chosen in order to combine various data sets in different geographic boundaries. For example, demographic data was collected at the census block level, commuting mode data was collected at the census tract level, and parking inventory data was collected at the community level. A grid model allows us to combine this data without creating problems as in vector models.

Each cell was set at 100 feet by 100 feet, smaller than a downtown block but large enough to reduce computational difficulties. Figure 3.2-2 describes how the grid-based GIS model represents geo-spatial data. The picture on the left represents a typical vector layer containing population and income data. The picture on the right shows a grid layer which is generated from the vector data. Each grid cell (small rectangle) in the grid layer contains a numeric score based on attributes in vector layer.

Figure 3.2-2: Sample Grid-based GIS Model

June 2009 24 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Following the preceding procedure, one grid layer was created per each variable. As a result, each grid cell in each grid layer contains a numeric score from 1 to 5, based on a scoring scheme which will be described in more detail in the following sections.18 After generating variable grid layers, they were combined to produce a result grid layer through a process called “Grid Calculation.” As a result of this process, each cell of the result grid layer contains the sum of the scores of grid cells of variable grid layers. Figure 3.2-3 illustrates the grid calculation process.

Figure 3.2-3: Grid Calculation Process

Carsharing Potential Analysis Model Structure

The carsharing potential model developed consists of two GIS based sub-models: a demographic characteristics model and a land use characteristics model. The demographic model analyzed a set of six demographic indicators: education, car ownership, household size, home ownership, income, and age. These six indicators were chosen to identify geographic locations where typical demographic characteristics are similar to those who use carsharing in other U.S. cities. A six grid layer was created to compute demographic scores.

The land use model employed four indicators: population density, employment density, transit availability, and parking availability. This model was built to identify geographic neighborhoods where land use patterns are better suited for carsharing services. A four grid layer was created to compute land use scores.

Demographic characteristics primarily refer to the characteristics of carsharing users, while the land use characteristics refer to the characteristics of the neighborhood as a whole. Therefore, combining demographic and land use characteristics will provide us a clearer sense of where the carsharing market potential is higher. Figure 3.2-4 shows the structure of the GIS model and the analysis process.

18 Scoring schemes are summarized in Tables 3.2-4 and 3.2-5.

June 2009 25 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 3.2-4: Carsharing Market Analysis Process

Education

Car Ownership

Household Size Demographic Score

Home Ownership

Age

Carsharing Income Market Potential

Population Density

Employment Density Land Use Score Transit Availability

Parking Availability

1) Demographic Characteristics Model Demographic characteristics are important factors in identifying carsharing market evaluation. Therefore, quantifying demographic characteristics is an important precondition to understand carsharing market potentials. To analyze the demographic pattern of the study area, 2008 demographic data (estimated by SANDAG), 2000 census data, and San Diego parcel polygon data from SANDAG were obtained for the six demographic variables.

A total of six grid layers (one grid layer for each demographic factor) were generated and used to identify locations within downtown San Diego where demographic characteristics are similar to those from communities with carsharing programs.

June 2009 26 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

• Education – The education factor measures the percentage of people with post-high school education, such as a bachelor’s degree. Each cell is assigned a score of 1, 2, or 3, 1 being the lowest (less than 20 percent of people over 25 years old hold post-high school degrees) and 3 being the highest (more than 40 percent hold post-high school degrees).19 • Car Ownership – The car ownership factor is one of the deciding factors in carsharing market analysis. It measures the percentage of households without a car. Each cell is assigned a score of 1, 2, or 3, 1 being the lowest (less than 20 percent of households do not own a car) and 3 being the highest (more than 40 percent of households do not own a car).20 • Household Size – The household size factor measures the percentage of households with fewer than two people. Each cell is assigned a score of 1, 2, or 3, 1 being the lowest (less than 30 percent of households contain fewer than two people) and 3 being the highest (more than 60 percent of households contain fewer than two people). 21 • Home Ownership – This indicator presents the percentage of households that live in rental housing units. Each cell is assigned a score of 1, 2, or 3, 1 being the lowest (less than 30 percent live in rental housing) and 3 being the highest (more than 60 percent live in rental housing).22 • Income – The TCRP report (2005) surveyed six carsharing companies and found that carsharing members had median or higher than average income (between $30,000 and $75,000 per year). Therefore, the income factor measures the percentage of households with annual income between $30,000 and $75,000 dollars. Each cell is assigned a score of 1, 2, or 3, 1 being the lowest (less than 20 percent of households in that income range) and 3 being the highest (more than 40 percent of households in that income range).23 • Age – Previous research suggests that typical carsharing members are between mid 20s and mid 40s. The age grid layer captures the percentage of people in this age bracket. Each cell is assigned a score of 1, 2, or 3, 1 being the lowest (less than 30 percent of households in that age range) and 3 being the highest (more than 50 percent in that age range).24

Table 3.2-2 summarizes the definition of each demographic factor, weighting value, and scores that are assigned to each grid cell. Weighting values were designed to deal with the fact that particular variables might have stronger impacts on the likelihood of joining a carsharing program. Therefore, a weight value of 1, 2, or 3 was assigned to each variable based on the relative importance of each variable in determining carsharing market potential. For example, various carsharing studies agree that a high education level is the most common characteristic among carsharing members. Therefore, the highest weight value of 3 was assigned to the education variable. Small household size, higher income, and younger age have also been recognized by many studies as common demographic characteristics of carsharing members. However, each study presented different age groups, income brackets, and household sizes. As a result, a weight value of 2 was given to these three variables. The lowest weight value of 1 was assigned to the home ownership variable, as only a small number of studies identified it as a common demographic characteristic of carsharing members.

This weighting system is in some degree supported by a statistical analysis. According to the carsharing level of service correlation analysis conducted by Christine Celor et al (2007), automobile ownership has

19 According to TCRP Report 108, 37% of surveyed carsharing members have a post-high school level education. 20 Christine Celsor and Adam Millard-Ball (2006) suggested that communities where more than 35 – 45% of people do not own an automobile are ideal areas for a carsharing program. 21 TCRP Report 108 reported that the average household size of carsharing members is 2.02 and 64% of carsharing members’ household size is 2 or less. 22 Merritt Polk (2001) conducted a case study on carsharing in Sweden and found that most members live in a rental apartment in a household of fewer than two persons. 23 Based on the carsharing focus groups web-survey conducted by Transportation Research Board in 2004, 69% of survey respondents earned between $30,000 and $100,000 annually. Income range of $30,000 to $75,000 was chosen for the analysis in order to make the income range closer to the median income of the study area (about $50,000 per year, according to the 2000 census). 24 Various studies agree that carsharing is attractive to a relatively narrow age range, typically 25 to 45 years old.

June 2009 27 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

a statistically significant relationship with carsharing level of services in Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, and Philadelphia. Similarly, education, commuting means, and household size show a statistically significant relationship with a carsharing level of service but have a lower explanatory power than automobile ownership.

Table 3.2-2: Demographic Characteristics Score per Cell

Education Category Score Weight Total Percentage of people over 25 years <= 20% 1 3 old with post-high school degrees 20%< <= 40% 2 3 6 (associate, bachelor’s, master’s etc) > 40% 3 9 Auto Ownership Category Score Weight Total Percentage of households do not <= 20% 1 3 have an automobile 20%< <= 40% 2 3 6 > 40% 3 9 Household Size Category Score Weight Total Percentage of households with 2 or <= 30% 1 2 fewer household members 30%< <= 60% 2 2 4 > 60% 3 6 Home Ownership Category Score Weight Total Percentage of rental households <= 30% 1 1 30%< <= 60% 2 1 2 > 60% 3 3 Income Category Score Weight Total Percentage of all workers with <= 20% 1 2 income between 30k and 75k per 20%< <= 40% 2 2 4 year > 40% 3 6 Age Category Score Weight Total Percentage of population between <= 30% 1 2 25 and 45 years old 30%< <= 50% 2 2 4 > 50% 3 6

The scores of the six grid layers were then combined to calculate a demographic factor score. Figure 3.2-5 presents the analysis result of the six demographic factors. Darker areas represent the areas where residents are more likely to use carsharing services.

In general, downtown San Diego has high potential for a carsharing population, especially the Northern Civic/Core/Southern Cortez district, Horton Plaza, Columbia, and East Village districts, where middle income multi-family housing units are concentrated. Figure 3.2-6 presents the existing (2006) and planned (2008) land use patterns in downtown San Diego.

An interesting thing to note is that the demographic analysis results revealed that areas north of I-5 also have a high concentration of population who may be willing to use carsharing services if they become available. However, as shown in the land use analysis in the following section, areas north of I-5 are not dense enough or transit-friendly enough to be suitable for implementing a carsharing service.

June 2009 28 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 3.2-5: Demographic Characteristics

Demographic Characteristics map shows the neighborhood characteristics of downtown San Diego. Residents in darker areas are more likely to use carsharing services.

June 2009 29 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 3.2-6: Land Use in Downtown San Diego

Source: Centre City Development Corporation (2008), “Comprehensive Parking for Downtown San Diego,” page 7, Figure 2-1.

June 2009 30 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

2) Land Use Characteristics Model Many researchers have claimed that land use patterns, especially density, mix of land use, and transit/pedestrian-friendly environments have great impacts on people’s travel behavior.25,26,27 Even though the causality between land use patterns and travel behavior is still in debate, it is clear that people who live in high-density, mixed use neighborhoods with pedestrian-friendly streetscapes and convenient transit connections use more public transit and do less driving compared to people who live in low-density suburban neighborhoods. Since mass transit users are the main target population for carsharing services, it is important to analyze land use patterns of the neighborhood to understand the potential carsharing market.

Another important indicator is parking availability. According to Donald Shoup, a world-renowned parking expert, free parking alone increases driving by 60 percent. In addition, his research revealed that parking price affects people’s mode choice.28

Based on previous research, four land use indicators (population density, employment density, commuting pattern, and parking availability) were extracted from the 2000 census data, SANDAG’s 2010 demographic projection data, and the 2008 Comprehensive Parking Plan for Downtown San Diego to analyze physical characteristics of the study area. • Population Density – Population density represents land use patterns in the study area, which is one of the most important factors in determining carsharing markets. As many studies confirmed, density is an indication of the potential customer base for carsharing. For example, residential density served as the best predictor of vehicle travel, explaining 63-86 percent of the variation in vehicle miles traveled in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago.29 To obtain density data, 2000 census block data and SGRA30 employment data were used. Since density is one of the most influential factors in explaining carsharing market potential, a weight factor of 3 was used. • Employment Density – While population density represents the potential customer base for evening and weekend carsharing markets, employment density is an indicator of weekday, daytime carsharing customer bases. This means that a mix of residential and employment land use is important to ensure that the cars are used enough to make carsharing financially feasible. Shared cars in purely residential areas, for example, may not receive sufficient usage during the day, while those in an office park are unlikely to be used much in the evenings and weekends. Therefore, a weight factor of 3 was also given to the employment density variable. • Transit Availability – Transit availability is another one of the key pre-conditions for successful implementation of a carsharing program because carsharing can never be the sole transportation option for a household. In general, transit availability is measured based on proximity to a transit route or stops. However, this proximity measure does not capture the actual transit condition of an area. For example, living close to transit stations does not mean that transit will take you where you want to go. Also, entire downtown districts are well-served by various transit services and it is meaningless to run the proximity analysis. Therefore, commuting pattern is used as a proxy of transit friendliness, based on the assumption that areas with higher transit and non- motorized users have a more transit-friendly environment. Each cell is assigned a score of 1, 2, or 3, based on the percentage of transit commuters. A weight factor of 2 was assigned to transit availability.

25 Robert Cevero, Kara Kockelman (1997), “Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design,” Transportation Research D, Vol. 2, No. 3. 26 Susan Handy (1996), “Methodologies for Exploring the Link between Urban Form and Travel Behavior,” Transportation Research D, Vol. 1, No. 2. 27 Scott Rutherford et al (1997), “Travel Impacts of Urban Form: Implications from an Analysis of Two Seattle Area Travel Diaries,” Presented at the Urban Design, Telecommunication and Travel Forecasting Conference. 28 Donald Shoup (1997), “The High Cost of Free Parking,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 17. 29 John Holtzclaw, Robert Clear (2002), “How Compact Neighborhoods Affect Modal Choice – Two Examples.” 30 SGRA is a geographic boundary used by SANDAG for demographic forecasting and analysis, and is similar in size and content to the Federal Census Block Group unit of measurement.

June 2009 31 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

• Parking Availability – Parking availability is another key neighborhood characteristic in analyzing carsharing market potential. Where parking is difficult, there is a strong incentive to share a car in order to avoid the hassle and expense of parking. Starting carsharing where parking can be obtained cheaply seems to make sense, but will almost certainly be a counter-productive strategy in the long run. The Comprehensive Parking Plan for Downtown San Diego study from CCDC (2008) was used to extract an on-street parking occupancy rate in nine downtown districts. An average on-street parking occupancy rate was categorized into three groups (low, medium, and high occupancy) and correspondingly assigned a score from 1 to 3, 1 being the lowest and 3 being the highest. A weight factor of 2 was assigned to the parking availability variable.

Table 3.2-3 summarizes the description of the four land use indicators, weighting values, and scores that were assigned to each grid cell.

Table 3.2-3: Land Use Characteristics Score per Cell

Population Density Category Score Weight Total Population per acre <= 15 1 3 15 < <= 30 2 3 6 > 30 3 9 Employment Density Category Score Weight Total Employees per acre <= 30 1 3 30 < <= 60 2 3 6 > 60 3 9 Transit Availability Category Score Weight Total Percentage of people using other <= 30% 1 2 transportation modes to go to work 30%< <= 60% 2 2 4 (transit, walking, bicycling, etc) > 60% 3 6 Parking Availability Category Score Weight Total Average on-street parking <= 60% 1 2 occupancy rate (weekday, 60%< <= 80% 2 2 4 weekend, daytime, evening) > 80% 3 6

The scores of the four land use grid layers were then combined to calculate land use characteristics scores. Areas with high land use characteristics scores are more carsharing-friendly, as they are higher density, mixed use areas with easier access to transit but less parking availability.

Figure 3.2-7 presents the analysis result of the land use characteristics analysis. The land use model was designed to be largely driven by two density factors (population density and employment density), with the assumption that density is the single most important land use factor for successful implementation of carsharing services. As a result, the land use score map shows higher market potential in the west portion of downtown, where both population density and employment density are high. In addition, the west portion of downtown has higher parking occupancy rates and higher transit accessibility, which make it a more carsharing-friendly environment. On the other hand, East Village and areas north of I-5 appeared to not be suitable for a carsharing market, even though demographic characteristics of these areas show high potential for carsharing services. The differences between the demographic and land use analyses suggest that both factors should be considered to fully understand carsharing markets. In the next section, demographic characteristics scores and land use characteristics scores were combined to understand carsharing potential in downtown San Diego.

June 2009 32 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 3.2-7: Land Use Characteristics Score

Land Use Characteristics map shows the neighborhood characteristics of downtown San Diego. Higher density, mixed use areas with easier access to transit are shown in darker color.

June 2009 33 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

3) Carsharing Market Potential The Carsharing Market Potential Map identifies potential carsharing markets in downtown San Diego through a composite score of demographic characteristics and land use characteristics. As described in the previous sections, carsharing market segments can be better understood by combining potential carsharing users (demographic characteristics) and neighborhoods (land use characteristics).

Demographic Land Use Carsharing Characteristics Characteristics Potential Score + Score = Market

As shown in the following diagram, areas with the highest land use scores and highest demographic scores are the most carsharing-friendly areas. Start-up carsharing sites and marketing efforts should target these areas, where there are potential carsharing service users and a carsharing-supportive infrastructure (such as high-density and transit connections) in order to maximize the outcome of the initial investment.

More aggressive marketing and education efforts will be required to attract carsharing service users for the areas with high land use characteristics but low demographic characteristics, as those areas are where infrastructure supports carsharing services but the people are less likely to use carsharing services.

On the other hand, marketing and education has less impact on the areas with high demographic characteristics but low land use characteristics, at least in the short term, because even though people are willing to use carsharing services, the infrastructure is not ready for carsharing services. Longer term strategies would be required to transform the area before implementing carsharing services. These strategies may include reducing parking requirements, increasing floor area ratio (FAR), promoting mixed use development, and expanding the public transit system. Areas with the lowest land use scores and lowest demographic scores are the least favorable locations for implementing carsharing services. Figure 3.2-8 provides a visual representation of this relationship. Figure 3.2-9 shows the composite carsharing potential scores. Darker colors represent higher carsharing potential areas, while lighter colors represent areas where carsharing service is less likely to succeed.

Figure 3.2-8: How to Market Carsharing

June 2009 34 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 3.2-9: Carsharing Program Potential Composite Map

The carsharing potential map is a composite of the demographic characteristics and land use characteristics. Areas with higher carsharing market potential are shown in darker color.

June 2009 35 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

4. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND SURVEY FINDINGS

4.1 SURVEY DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

One of the key efforts of the project involved performing a Baseline Marketing Survey with the goal of identifying optimal carshare vehicle locations in the greater downtown San Diego area. Part of this determination was based on the results of an intercept survey of commuters to, and residents of, the greater downtown San Diego area.

Based on project team discussions, it was agreed that Flagship Research of San Diego would administer the survey. As an incentive to survey participants, 500 $5 gift cards for Starbucks coffee were purchased using project funds, and given to participants at the conclusion of their survey. The project team designed the survey instrument (Appendix A) and between March 12 and 14, 2009, supervised the administration of the survey as described below.

Survey Goals and Objectives

Per the Scope of Work, the survey was designed to gather information from a representative sample of the population of residents and commuters in the neighborhoods of Little Italy, Centre City, Gaslamp Quarter, and the East Village to determine: • The level of awareness of the carshare concept • Reasons for use/non-use of carsharing • Demographic profiles of residents / commuters • Driving patterns / reasons for driving • Location of primary residences • Preferred locations for carshare parking • Potential for increased use of public transportation if carshare were available

Prior to its implementation, the survey instrument was tested in several ways and the results of the test process were incorporated into the final draft: • Comments about the potential usefulness of the survey information were elicited from the marketing managers of three major carshare service providers: Zipcar, We Car (Enterprise) and Connect (Hertz). • The draft survey was administered to 12 colleagues and friends. Their response times were recorded and they were questioned to determine if any of the survey questions were unclear. • A survey expert who is not involved in this project performed an independent peer review. • The independent survey firm retained to administer the survey reviewed it with their survey takers and polling expert.

In consultation with SANDAG: • A final survey instrument was drafted. • A survey size of 500 respondents was determined adequate to constitute a valid sample. • Thirty survey locations throughout the targeted areas were identified (with an emphasis on train, trolley, and bus stop locations). • The surveying was scheduled to take place on two weekdays (Thursday and Friday, March 12 and 13) to better intercept commuters, and on Saturday, March 14 to intercept downtown residents.

June 2009 36 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

With these points in mind, and building on the existing conditions data and previous downtown parking inventory work done for CCDC, the following locations, times, and events were identified for potential survey deployment and public outreach.

While not inclusive, the following general vicinities provided guidance to the survey implementation subcontractor regarding potential survey implementation sites. It was encouraged that the subcontractor use their best judgment to refine the suggestions below based on foot traffic, employee safety, or any other factors perceived to affect the successful completion of the effort.

Little Italy – Either Weekday or Weekend Surveys; All Hours

Little Italy, generally defined as India Street between C and Kettner Boulevard., is characterized by a vibrant street scene that does not end at the end of the workday, and was very conducive to conducting surveys at any time of day or day of the week. Data indicates relatively high residential and employment densities as well. Suggested specific locations included: • Anthology Supper Club – 1337 India Street • Filippi's Pizza Grotto – 1747 India Street • Indigo Grill – 1536 India Street • Extraordinary Desserts – 1430 Union Street • Acqua Vista Condominium Complex – 425 W. Beech Street • 350 W. Ash Urban Homes Condominium Complex – 350 W. Ash Street • Porta d’Italia Condominium Complex – 1970 Columbia Street

Centre City – Weekday Surveys Only; Work Hours31

Centre City has the highest employee density of any of the downtown districts, and thus was sought to provide key feedback on the success of any carshare service in attracting daytime users who may use a carshare vehicle for quick errands, out-of-area meeting attendance, or other tasks. As such, it was proposed to target the survey efforts at worksite locations, including, but not limited to: • Wells Fargo Building – 401 B Street • Merrill Lynch Building – 701 B Street • Civic Center Plaza – Second and B Street • Emerald Towers – 400 W. Broadway • Starbucks – 525 B Street

Gaslamp – Weekday Surveys Only; Preferably at Lunchtime32

The Gaslamp District has high levels of pedestrian activities at all hours, and serves as a key destination for downtown employees at lunchtime.33 The proximity of the Gaslamp District to both the East Village and Centre City survey locations meant that there could potentially be some overlap of survey administrators, so to maximize efficiency, the consultant team proposed that the Gaslamp survey administrators focus on: • NBC Building – 225 W. Broadway • Horton Plaza and General Vicinity immediately South and East along 4th and 5th Avenues

31 “Work Hours” defined as 8:00 am-5:30 pm. 32 There will likely be some overlap between several sites within the Gaslamp, East Village, and Centre City districts, particularly among residential developments. 33 Lunchtime is defined as 11:00 am-2:00 pm.

June 2009 37 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

• Residential developments immediately West and North of PETCO Park between 7th and 4th Avenues, up to F Street, including: o Gaslamp City Square Condominium Complex – 450 J Street o Trellis Condominium Complex – 530 K Street

East Village – Either Weekday or Weekend; All Hours

SANDAG data indicates that the East Village has the highest residential density of any of the areas in downtown, and the largest expected growth in the amount of zero-vehicle households of any part of downtown. Locations considered included: • Albertsons East Village – 655 14th Street • Residential developments immediately North of PETCO Park between 7th Street and Park Boulevard, up to Market Street, including: o Metrome Condominium Complex – 1150 J Street o ParkLoft Condominium Complex – 877 Island Street o The Legend Condominium Complex – 325 7th Avenue

San Diego City College34 – Weekdays except Fridays; All Hours

Identified by the project team as a potential site, San Diego City College spans several blocks to the north of East Village and east of downtown. The official address is 1313 Park Boulevard, and for the sake of the survey implementation effort, survey administrators should focus on the area surrounding the campus to the south along B Street, including the San Diego Trolley stop at SmartCorner, located at 1080 Park Boulevard.

Santa Fe Depot/One America Plaza – Weekdays except Fridays; AM and PM Peak Hours35

As one of the busiest transfer points in the downtown San Diego transit network, the area in and around the Santa Fe Depot and the adjacent One America Plaza provided an excellent opportunity to capture the opinions of “choice” riders; i.e. those who may be willing to use a carshare service for their daily commute.

The site, officially located at the intersection of Broadway and Kettner Boulevard, was also selected for its proximity to several “white-collar” jobsites along the Broadway and C Street Corridors. To capture the opinions of choice riders, it was suggested that surveying take place at the am and pm peak commute periods, defined in the footnote below. The schedule was designed to meet several NCTD COASTER trains at the Santa Fe Depot, including:

AM Southbound Arrivals • 7:03 am • 7:42 am • 8:16 am • 8:42 am

PM Northbound Departures • 3:35 pm • 4:22 pm

34 No Surveys Friday-Sunday (few students in attendance). 35 AM Peak is considered 7-10 am; PM Peak is considered 3:30-6:30 pm.

June 2009 38 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

• 4:52 pm • 5:27 pm • 6:16 pm

Table 4.1-1: Site Location and Preferred Survey Hours Summary

Weekend/Special Location Weekday Event Specific Time Any Time Little Italy X X X Centre City X Work Hours Gaslamp X Lunchtime East Village X X X San Diego City College X X Santa Fe Depot / One AM & PM X America Plaza Peak

Figure 4.1-1 illustrates the general vicinities for survey implementation as provided to the survey team, who then refined their administration sites as needed based on the site location guidance provided above.

June 2009 39 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 4.1-1: Carshare Survey Implementation

June 2009 40 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

4.2 SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS

The survey was administered over the course of three days in March 2009. At the conclusion of the survey administration, Flagship Research coded the responses and provided the project team with several work products:

• 501 hard copies of survey responses • 1 Excel file of responses and another Excel file of the “answer key” used in coding efforts • 1 SPSS36 data file for statistical analysis and cross-tabulation efforts

Eighty percent of the responses were gathered on a weekday (Thursday or Friday), and the remaining 20 percent were gathered on the following Saturday. The most popular survey locations and the number of respective responses were as follows:

• Little Italy – India @ Hawthorn Street; 67 responses • East Village/Gaslamp – PETCO Park; 53 responses • East Village – San Diego City College; 51 responses • Columbia – America Plaza; 47 responses • Civic/Core – 6th and B; 25 responses

No other single implementation site received more than 25 responses, but the remainder of the distribution of survey administrators was evenly balanced among several downtown districts, with the exception of the lightly-travelled convention center area at the fringe of downtown.

Key Findings

The following observations regarding the survey were reported, and are consistent with national and international findings regarding demographics and attitudes of individuals who either indicate and interest in, or are already enrolled in a carsharing service.

Finding: Almost 82 percent of all respondents were under 50 years of age. The median age of respondents was 33 years of age. Implication: Nationwide research indicates that the concept and appeal of carsharing services is often highest among the youngest and most flexible members of the society (i.e. no children, renters rather than owners, etc.). Finding: The median household income for respondents was $62,100. Almost 71 percent of all respondents reported annual household incomes of under $75,000. Implication: Research indicates that carsharing is more popular among those with higher than average incomes. In 2007, SANDAG estimated the regional median household income at $68,388,37 so survey respondents were generally less affluent than the regional average. Viewed from a marketing perspective, one way to overcome this fact would be to tout the ability to use a carshare service as a way to save money over the cost of owning or leasing a vehicle. Finding: When asked to pick their top three reasons for preferring a private car to public transit, the top four responses were as follows: almost 83 percent of respondents reported that they use a car for work because it “is most convenient;” an additional 58 percent (multiple responses were allowed) cited the “need to go to multiple locations;” 40 percent cited safety and security, and another 31 percent cited it as the “most affordable option.”

36 SPSS is a predictive analytic software product that originally stood for “Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.” 37 Source: SANDAG Regional Estimates; http://www.sandag.org/resources/demographics_and_other_data/demographics/fastfacts/regi.htm

June 2009 41 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Implication: These findings mirror nationwide opinions on the shortcomings of public transit for business travellers. By allowing downtown workers an alternative to their personal vehicle that could satisfy their needs for flexible, affordable, and safe travel during the workday, users could begin to see transit as the solution to their daily commute options to and from work, with the option of a carshare vehicle for trips during the day. Finding: More than three quarters of those surveyed were unfamiliar with the concept of carsharing. Implication: Relatively inexpensive marketing and public relations programs could be employed if general name/concept recognition is a desired outcome. But any substantial marketing/advertising expenditure must be carefully targeted at the prospects with the current awareness of, the need for, and the ability to utilize carshare services.

Finding: Despite their limited knowledge of the concept, many of the respondents (41.7 percent) rated their interest in carsharing as either “very interested” or “somewhat interested.” Thirty-eight percent of open-ended comments received indicated that the concept was a “good idea.” Implication: When exposed to even the small amount of information about carsharing contained in the survey, a significant percentage of people stated they are interested in the concept. This implies that increasing the visibility of the service will be a key component of raising the likelihood of successful implementation.

Finding: Those who expressed no interest in carshare most often cited their existing vehicle (20 percent), the perceived lack of convenience (11 percent), or the fact that they don’t drive often enough (11 percent) as the reasons they are not interested. Implication: As with those that have an interest in carsharing, the perception that carsharing is an expensive, inconvenient alternative to one’s own private vehicle will have to be overcome to convert skeptics.

Finding: Nearly one quarter (23 percent) of the households own or lease 3 or more vehicles, and 14.2 percent operate no vehicles. Implication: There is opportunity for carsharing to eliminate “extra” vehicle ownership while also providing vehicles to those without a car who might only occasionally need one.

Finding: While only 6 percent of respondents said they currently use public transportation and that they do so on average just 2 days per week, more than half the respondents said that if carsharing were available they would be “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to use public transportation for their commute. Implication: The availability of carsharing could increase the frequency of utilization of public transportation, so successful efforts to introduce carsharing to San Diego would likely have multiplier effects throughout the transit system.

Finding: Table 4.2-1 and Figure 4.2-1 indicate that a majority of total responses came from residents of ZIP codes in and around the San Diego urban core, with nearly 20 percent living in the 92101 ZIP code, and another 12 percent living in ZIP codes immediately adjacent to downtown. Several other ZIP codes with high numbers of responses came from areas adjacent to trolley and rail lines. Implication: When combined with the age data gathered by the survey, it appears as though the survey administrators did a good job of identifying downtown residents and those familiar with transit options (6 percent transit mode share is almost twice the San Diego County average).38

38 Source: SANDAG Regional Snapshot; 2000 Census; http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/cen00/reg999cen00.pdf

June 2009 42 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 4.2-1: Top ZIP Codes of Respondents

Number of ZIP Code Responses 92101 98 92103 24 92104 20 92113 19 92102 16 92114 16 92115 16 91911 14 91977 14 92020 12

June 2009 43 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 4.2-1: Survey Respondents by ZIP Code

June 2009 44 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

4.3 CROSS-TABULATIONS AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

The survey administrators provided the project team with an SPSS data file for their continued use in analysis of trends and patterns among survey respondents.

A dynamic software application used in statistical analysis, SPSS is able to display the joint distribution of two or more variables, isolating or re-classifying particular survey responses (i.e. taking the range of ZIP code responses and grouping responses into downtown/92101 residents and all others) and cross- checking these responses with additional variables. With this application, relationships between and among variables can be observed that would otherwise be difficult to discern from a summary of responses or an Excel digital file of the survey results.

The analysis conducted yielded positive results, and can be seen on the following pages. The SPSS file used for the analysis is available for continued use at the conclusion of this project.

Carsharing Familiarity

While the percentage of vehicle ownership was much lower among downtown residents (68 percent versus 89 percent for non-92101 residents), familiarity with carsharing was slightly higher compared to those who do not live downtown (27 percent versus 21 percent). Those who did not own cars were slightly more likely to be familiar with the concept (22 percent compared to 21 percent).

Respondent age had a small amount to do with their familiarity of the concept; respondents between the ages of 41 and 60 were more likely to be familiar with the concept than the other age groups (26 percent versus 20 percent for the remaining age groups in total).

One interesting exception was the fact that those under age 21 had less knowledge of the concept, but upon hearing a brief description, they had some of the highest percentages of interested individuals of any age group; those 21-29 had the highest percentage of any age group expressing at least some interest.

June 2009 45 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 4.3-1: Familiarity by Age Cross-Tabulation

Are you familiar with the Carshare concept? Yes No Total Under 21 4 31 35 21 to 29 24 110 134 Which of the following age 30 to 39 26 93 119 categories 40 to 49 31 90 121 matches your age? 50 to 59 16 45 61 60 to 64 8 12 20 65 to 74 0 9 9 75 and older 1 1 2 Total 110 391 501

June 2009 46 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Carsharing Interest

At the conclusion of the survey, respondents were asked about their level of interest in carsharing. Twenty-nine percent of those with a vehicle were “not at all interested” in carsharing, compared to 20 percent of those with no vehicle. Further, a strong indicator of level of interest was the income level of the respondent. The percentage of those showing at least some level of interest in the concept peaked among those making between $15,000 and $45,000 in annual household income, with approximately 82 percent showing some level of interest. Those making more or less than these amounts averaged 66 percent of respondents showing some level of interest in the concept.

Interestingly, the amount of money paid in monthly parking fees had a correlation with one’s interest in the concept, as although only 48 percent of total respondents paid for monthly parking, those who paid more were more likely to show high levels of interest in the concept, although the sample size was limited. Seventy-three percent of those paying under $50 in monthly parking fees showed some level of interest, compared to 87 percent of those paying more than $50.

Table 4.3-2: Level of Interest by Age Cross-Tabulation

What is your age group?

Under 50- 60- 65- Over 21 21-29 30-39 40-49 59 64 74 75 Total Very 4 22 19 21 10 5 0 0 81 How would you Interested rate your level of Somewhat 12 41 26 33 13 6 2 0 133 interest in Interested Carsharing? Slightly 7 36 42 37 17 2 5 1 147 Interested Not at all 12 35 32 30 21 7 2 1 140 Interested Total 35 134 119 121 61 20 9 2 501

June 2009 47 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 4.3-3: Level of Interest by Parking Range Cross-Tabulation

How would you describe your level of interest in carsharing? Very Somewhat Slightly Not at all interested interested interested interested Total Under $50 25 56 51 49 181 Parking range Over $50 and Under $100 11 10 10 6 37 Over $100 and Under $150 3 3 3 0 9 Over $150 5 5 3 2 15 Total 44 74 67 57 242

June 2009 48 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Willingness to Use Transit for Commuting

The percentages of individuals who were either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to commute by transit if a carsharing service was available to them were affected little by the age of the respondent, as the study average of a combined 56 percent was within 6 percent of any one particular age group’s willingness to do so.

Relating to income, households making less than $30,000 annually were more likely to be willing to use transit for their commutes if a carshare service was available, and responded that they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to do so at a 12 percent higher rate than the study average of 56 percent.

Not surprisingly, those who already used transit regularly were more likely to use transit if a carshare service was in place. Seventy-one percent of those who use transit at least one day a week said they would be “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to continue to use transit. Interestingly, 42 percent of those who reported using their car 7 days a week would be either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to commute via transit if a carshare service was available.

An additional series of analyses were also run to examine the likelihood that someone who currently does not use transit would be compelled to do so for their commute if they had access to a carshare vehicle during the day. These findings showed that of the 286 people who do not use an MTS Bus Route or Trolley route at all during their week, 14 percent would be very likely to consider using transit if they had access to a carshare vehicle. An additional 30 percent of these respondents replied that they would be “somewhat likely.” Twenty-five percent said that even with a carshare vehicle available, they were “definitely not likely” to use transit for their commute.

Similar percentages were expressed by those who reported that they did not take the COASTER at any point during their work commute, but these findings must be weighed against the relatively small percentage of respondents who reported using the COASTER one or more times per week (~7 percent of all respondents).

June 2009 49 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 4.3-4: Willingness to Use Transit by Age Cross-Tabulation

Would you consider using public transit for your commute if Carsharing were available? Very Somewhat Not very Definitely not No likely likely likely likely answer Total Under 21 9 12 12 2 0 35 21 to 29 24 51 28 30 1 134 30 to 39 21 38 32 25 3 119 What is your age? 40 to 49 31 41 27 21 1 121 50 to 59 20 16 13 11 1 61 60 to 64 7 4 5 4 0 20 65 to 74 4 2 2 1 0 9 75 and older 0 0 1 1 0 2 Total 116 164 120 95 6 501

June 2009 50 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 4.3-5: Willingness to Use Transit by Car Usage Cross-Tabulation

Would you consider using public transit for your commute if Carsharing were available? Very Somewhat Not very Definitely not No likely likely likely likely answer Total 1 1 7 0 1 0 9 2 6 2 3 2 1 14 How many days per week do you travel by 3 11 9 4 5 0 29 car? 4 5 8 4 1 0 18 5 15 30 20 10 1 76 6 3 13 6 8 0 30 7 31 66 71 63 2 233 Total 72 135 108 90 4 409

June 2009 51 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 4.3-6: Willingness to Use Transit by Income Cross-Tabulation

Would you consider using public transit for your commute if Carsharing were available? Very Somewhat Not very Definitely No likely likely likely not likely answer Total Under $15,000 31 19 14 11 1 76 Which of the following $15,000 to $29,999 31 27 17 9 0 84 income $30,000 to $44,999 17 43 16 15 4 95 categories best matches $45,000 to $74,999 18 30 32 22 0 102 your annual household $75,000 to $99,999 8 16 15 14 0 53 income? $100,000 to $149,999 5 18 17 12 1 53 $150,000 or more 6 8 8 11 0 33 Refused 0 3 1 1 0 5 Total 116 164 120 95 6 501

June 2009 52 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 4.3-7: Willingness to Use Transit by Non-MTS Bus or Trolley User Cross-Tabulation

Those who currently do not use bus or trolley service

Very likely 40 Would you consider using public transit for Somewhat likely 87 your commute if Not very likely 85 Carsharing were available? Definitely not likely 72 No answer 2 Total 286

June 2009 53 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 4.3-8: Willingness to Use Transit by Non-COASTER User Cross-Tabulation

Those who do not use COASTER service Very likely 105 Would you consider using public transit for Somewhat likely 156 your commute if Not very likely 109 Carsharing were available? Definitely not likely 87 No answer 5 Total 462

June 2009 54 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Zero-Vehicle Households

Seventy-one of 501 respondents (14 percent) reported that they have no vehicle available for use in their household. Of these 71, 60 use transit at least once a week, with 88 percent of those reporting that they use transit at least 5 days a week. Fifty percent of these individuals who use transit use it 7 days a week.

These 71 individuals were generally low-income (42 percent made less than $15,000 in annual household income, with another 27 percent making under $30,000 annually). Nearly half (44 percent) of all of these respondents lived downtown (92101), and another 8 percent lived in the adjacent ZIP code of 92102. Close to 30 percent of these respondents were between the ages of 40 and 49, and over 90 percent were between the ages of 20 and 60. Vehicle ownership rates were much lower among downtown residents than non-downtown residents (68 percent to 90 percent).

When combined with the cross-tabulation summary above outlining carsharing interest and income levels, it becomes apparent that several respondents likely take an interest in carsharing because they cannot afford a personal vehicle, rather than simply being interested in it as an alternative to a second vehicle. This low-income market may prove difficult to capture with current pricing options.

Table 4.3-9: Downtown Residents by Vehicle Ownership Cross-Tabulation

Does respondent have a vehicle? No Yes Total Does respondent live downtown? Yes 31 67 98 No 40 363 403 Total 71 430 501

June 2009 55 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 4.3-10: Level of Interest by Vehicle Ownership Cross-Tabulation

How would you describe your level of interest in Carsharing? Very Somewhat Slightly Not At All Do you own or Interested Interested Interested Interested Total lease a Yes 61 119 124 126 430 vehicle? No 20 14 23 14 71 Total 81 133 147 170 501

June 2009 56 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 4.3-11: Downtown Residents and Vehicle Ownership Cross-Tabulation

Do you own or lease a vehicle?

Yes No Total Do you live downtown (92101)? Yes 67 31 98 No 363 40 403 Total 430 71 501

June 2009 57 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

4.4 FOCUS GROUP DEVELOPMENT AND FINDINGS

A Focus Group was held on April 28, 2009 to help identify what members of the community deemed important in a potential carshare service. The attendees were identified as a result of an email and telephone outreach effort stemming from the intercept survey. Following the intercept survey, all respondents had the option to give their contact information. From that information, an effort was made to contact as many individuals as possible to gauge their level of interest in providing the project team with additional insights.

While it was hoped that two separate focus groups could be held to better capture both daytime and evening populations of downtown, after the initial email and telephone outreach efforts yielded a limited number of attendees for each group, it was determined that it would be best to combine the two focus groups into one evening group. The total group size was roughly 10 individuals.

The focus group was designed to last one hour, and following a brief description of the carshare concept, the project team put forth the following discussion questions for the group:

• What do you like about a potential carshare service? What do you dislike? • How likely would you be to use a carshare service? How often? • Under what conditions would you use it? • What would you look for in a carshare vehicle? • What price would you be willing to pay for the service? • Where would you like to see vehicles located? • What does a successful carshare program look like to you?

The discussion was wide-ranging and informal but, based on meeting notes, the following categorical classifications can be made:

Location Preferences • Dispersed locations are better • Downtown for business use, Little Italy and East Village for residential use • Off-street is safer • ¼ mile walking distance between cars would be acceptable

Successful Program Characteristics • Range of vehicle types • Hybrid vehicles not that important • Convenience – when less expensive than taxi • Travel with children needs to be viable (i.e. no pickup trucks without cabs) • Rental car company unused fleet vehicles would be OK if they were well-maintained • Must market to different individuals, commuters, and residents – advertise on buses, bus stops, high-density developments

June 2009 58 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Financing/Pay Plan Preferences • Membership – $500 annually was OK, or $100 monthly fee • Hourly could also work – $5-$10/hour would be acceptable, + small monthly fee • Pre-tax incentives for corporate/business use, similar to transit passes/reimbursements is an appealing concept

Reservation System Preferences • Online, but a phone operator would benefit those with limited technical savvy or no internet access • Web-based/GPS enabled tracking/iPhone & other “smart phone” applications should be considered for the tech-savvy users • Defined locations and possibility of one-way vehicle use linking key destinations with additional amenities or preferred parking for carshare vehicles (a Boston-area IKEA was cited as an example of a private business that gives preferential parking for carshare vehicles close to store entrance) • Up to 30-day advance booking, at least 24 hours in advance • Premium for same-day rentals and peak periods/holidays • Guaranteed availability for booked trips • No-shows still pay full price • Premium imposed for not returning the vehicle on time

At the close of the focus group, participants were thanked for their attendance and told that they might be contacted in the future for additional insights as the project develops.

June 2009 59 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

5. OPERATIONS PLANNING AND MARKETING

Given the relatively limited exposure and familiarity the survey respondents had regarding the carshare concept, plus several factors as they exist currently in the downtown environment (including relatively high levels of available free parking, varied land uses, limited pockets of high density commercial and residential developments) it is best to propose two types of operations scenarios.

The first scenario involves a series of composite assessments of the potential for successful on-street carsharing implementation. It utilizes a variety of sources, each of which contributes to a series of locations shown through GIS to have a high market potential for success. These sites were selected regardless of the existing nature of the on-street space.

The second scenario involved similar GIS market suitability concerns, but is more sensitive to the revenue needs of the City. It focused on selecting locations without existing parking meters. As such, these locations could be converted into a space for a carshare vehicle with minimal impact to the City in the form of lost meter revenue or special curb markings. These sites would require limited capital and manpower outlays, and would be still be largely reflective of the market potential analysis conducted during the course of the study, and outlined in Chapter 3.

5.1 SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION

The project’s preliminary site analysis efforts involved combining the GIS market potential analyses with field review efforts, and are discussed at length below. Following project team discussions, two additional screenings were conducted involving locations identified through previous research. These focused on a SANDAG memo outlining previously-identified locations deemed preferred sites for an on-street carshare demonstration project, and a review of the most popular off-street Flexcar sites from the previous demonstration project. The site selection workflow is illustrated below and explained in depth in the following sections.

Figure 5.1-1: Aggregate Site Selection Methodology Overview

GIS Screening Initial GIS Memo Most- of All Sites and Field Sites Used within 500’ of Final Review of From Flexcar Highest Carshare Sites SANDAG Sites Market Vehicle Potential Sites Blocks

5.2 AGGREGATE SITE SELECTION PROCESS

To determine the best site to develop on-street carshare spaces, a series of screenings were conducted to create a selection process and yielded the 19 sites outlined below.

June 2009 60 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Memo Locations

A June 2005 memo to SANDAG from the City of San Diego highlighted ten on-street locations that could be used for a potential carsharing service. Of these ten sites, six were to be placed in metered spaces, and the remaining four were to be non-metered. A series of projections were also developed in the memo, which outlined the potential benefits to Downtown San Diego’s parking demand, air quality, and energy needs. The sites were as follows:

1. State Street & G Street 2. One America Plaza; Broadway & Kettner 3. Columbia & West B Street 4. West Beech & State 5. Date & Columbia 6. 5th Avenue & A Street 7. 6th Avenue & Cedar 8. 8th Avenue & Beech 9. 9th Avenue & F Street 10. 8th Avenue & Market

Flexcar Locations

Based on the Flexcar experience in Downtown San Diego, the ten most popular vehicle locations based on usage rates were identified. These locations were based on May 2007’s data, which was selected because it was one of the last full months of the service for which data was available, and one in which the service enjoyed a high number of members and rate of vehicle utilization. The most popular Downtown locations were as follows:

1. 3rd Avenue & G Street 2. 7th Avenue & Market 3. 8th Avenue & Market 4. 2nd Avenue & A Street 5. One America Plaza; Broadway & Kettner 6. 11th Avenue & Broadway 7. 1st Avenue & West A Street 8. 3rd Avenue & Ash Street 9. 4th Avenue & B Street 10. 3rd Avenue & G Street

Revenue-Sensitive Locations

The project also examined a series of sites that combined the GIS suitability research and analysis aspect of the project with a consideration towards selecting non-metered parking spaces. These spaces provide an alternative to the above locations, as they were selected to represent the best possible combination of environmental suitability and minimal expense (in the form of lost revenue) to the City. These sites were as follows:

1. B Street & Park Boulevard 2. Park Boulevard. & B Street 3. Park Boulevard. & Market 4. 6th Street & J 5. State Street & Beech 6. Kettner Boulevard. & Cedar 7. India & Hawthorn 8. Kettner & B

June 2009 61 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

9. B & Columbia 10. 2nd & C 11. 5th & B 12. 3rd & Market

The figure on the following page illustrates the distribution of the entirety of the sites examined through the three processes.

June 2009 62 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 5.2-1: Compilation of All On-Street Carshare Vehicle Locations

June 2009 63 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Aggregate Results

The three series of proposed sites (GIS/Field Review of Revenue-Sensitive sites, SANDAG memo sites, and the top 10 Flexcar sites) were then screened one final time in GIS. A shapefile of the Downtown blocks identified as having the highest market potential in previous screening efforts were isolated and used to finalize the location of the on-street parking locations39. The analysis yielded a total of 19 sites out of the initial 32 that fit these criteria.

GIS Screening Initial GIS Memo Most- of All Sites and Field Sites Used Final within 500’ of Review From Flexcar Carshare Highest Vehicle Sites SANDAG Sites Market Sites Potential Blocks

Pods versus Single Vehicle Locations to Combine Sites

As seen in Figure 5.2-2, the close proximity of several sites to one another in the Downtown core suggests there may be some value in combining locations, and having more than one vehicle at a particular location. This is known as a “pod” of vehicles.

The 1997 "Pay as You Drive Report" by Graham Lightfoot for the European Union included statistical calculations showing that three vehicles in a particular location provides an optimum balance of availability when compared to individual vehicle stations. Where appropriate in this study, several sites in close proximity have been combined into pods. Pods have proven to be successful concepts in several City Carshare markets, particularly San Francisco, which has up to four vehicles per pod at several intersections within the central business district40.

As with individual sites, there are other considerations in developing carsharing pods than merely market potential. They include curb availability and the reluctance of business owners to lose portions of, or an entire, blockface. Even so, the idea that users in high-activity areas would require more than one car at a location is one worth considering. This concept has been used to combine the 19 individual sites into the following 14 final on-street locations, identified in Table 5.2-1, and illustrated on the following pages in Figure 5.2-2.

39 This was done by selecting the point shapefile of all 32 sites (twelve consultant sites, 10 memo sites, and the 10 most-popular off- street Flexcar sites) and selecting the points that were within 500 feet of the blocks with the highest market potential. 40 Source: City Carshare Vehicle Locator; http://www.citycarshare.org/findbylocation.do

June 2009 64 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 5.2-1: Final On-Street Carshare Locations Final On-Street Carshare Locations District Pod Sites – 3 Vehicles per Site 5th & B Street Core 8th Ave. & Market East Village 3rd Ave. & G Street Horton Plaza/Marina/Gaslamp Individual Sites – 1 Vehicle per Site Park Blvd. & Market East Village 9th Ave. & F Street East Village 11th Ave. & Broadway East Village Kettner Blvd. & Cedar Little Italy Date & Columbia Little Italy 6th Ave. & Cedar Cortez 8th Ave. & Beech Cortez 3rd Ave. & Ash Street Cortez 5th Ave. & A Street Cortez (Consolidated into Core pod) State Street & G Street Marina One America Plaza: Broadway & Kettner Columbia

June 2009 65 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 5.2-2: Final On-Street Carshare Vehicle Locations

June 2009 66 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Discussion

As discussed, by combining selected sites in close proximity to one another into pods of vehicles, the final results yield a total of 14 unique locations throughout downtown, which, if each standalone site is to have one vehicle and each “pod” is to have the preferred three vehicles per pod, a total of 19 parking spaces downtown for 19 vehicles would be needed. In this scenario, the breakdown of sites by district is as follows:

District Total Number of Carshare Sites Total Number of Potential Vehicles41 East Village 3 standalone and 1 pod 6 Civic/Core 1 pod 3 Horton Plaza 1 pod 3 Cortez 3 standalone 3 Little Italy 2 standalone 2 Columbia 1 standalone 1 1 standalone, plus a pod is proposed Marina 1 adjacent to Horton Plaza None, however a pod is proposed Gaslamp 0 adjacent to Horton Plaza

Assuming users would not have to walk more than 1,000 feet at any given time to access these 14 sites, very few areas of downtown would ever be more than a few minutes’ walk from an on-street carshare vehicle. Only a small stretch of Front Street between Broadway and B and a stretch of A Street between Front and Kettner would be more than 1,000 feet away from a vehicle location. These gaps could easily be closed by placing a vehicle at or around the intersection of Columbia and B Streets, or by assuming the preferred walking distance to be 1,500 feet rather than 1,000.

While the number of spaces identified in this section may seem high, it allows for a significant amount of fill-in locations that could be used in the event of uncooperative property owners, incompatible land uses (construction sites, unsafe areas), or other implementation issues that may arise over the course of the demonstration project. All sites have been shown to be interchangeable. The phasing-in of additional sites following launch is another potential strategy, and would allow for the utilization of a series of the proposed sites as the service grows.

Further, additional pods of vehicles may be created through the consolidation of several proposed sites. One pod could combine sites 2 and 6 in Little Italy (Figure 5.2-2) into a pod at or around the intersection of India and Cedar Streets, the other sites 8 and 9 in Cortez Hill at or around 8th and Cedar Streets. This would allow for greater service visibility and easier access to vehicles. Recommended implementation is discussed in detail in Chapter 6.

5.3 REVENUE-SENSITIVE LOCATIONS

To provide SANDAG and the City of San Diego with a series of suitable locations that could be used for carsharing, the project team began with the GIS suitability analyses from Chapter 3 and supplemented these efforts with additional site analysis fieldwork efforts. Several levels of screening were added to the analysis conducted previously by considering additional factors in determining carshare sites. These included parking meter locations and type assessments, zero-vehicle household analyses, and safety concerns.

41 Totals assume one vehicle per space and 3 vehicles per pod

June 2009 67 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Parking Meter Locations

Among the additional factors considered was the limited availability of free parking spaces in several preferred locations. Implementing a carshare parking space would likely require the removal of an existing parking meter, which would affect the financial bottom line to the City. The project team sought out specific locations and destinations that were desirable to the diverse groups of stakeholders: • Carshare service members who would seek popular, safe, and accessible destinations, both residential and commercial. • Business owners who could benefit from the potential profile and image enhancement those nearby carshare service vehicles could provide. • Local government officials who would not see a decline in meter revenue or traffic flow as a result of the removal of a metered space, commercial loading zone, disabled parking space, or other special designation.

With these considerations in mind, the site selection process was screened and refined to account for parking meter inventory. Table 5.3-1 summarizes existing parking meter cost information. Figure 5.3-1 outlines existing meter locations and duration. For the purpose of understanding revenue per meter, the following summary chart was developed. It is important to consider that utilization rates rarely approach 100 percent, but the information was helpful in evaluating summary-level impacts of meter removal.

Table 5.3-1: Existing Parking Meter Cost Information Potential 100% Hours of Utilization Daily Meter Type Cost/Hour Operation Revenue 15-Minute $1.25 8 am – 6 pm $12.50 30-Minute $1.25 8 am – 6 pm $12.50 1-Hour $1.25 8 am – 6 pm $12.50 2-Hour $1.25 8 am – 6 pm $12.50 4-Hour $1.00 8 am – 6 pm $10.00 9-Hour $0.50 8 am – 6 pm $5.00

June 2009 68 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 5.3-1: Existing Parking Meter Inventory

June 2009 69 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Estimated Zero-Vehicle Households

The project team also supplemented demographic research with an understanding of the amount and location of zero-vehicle households. Of particular interest to the study were the 2010 estimates developed at the SGRA level. Figure 5.3-2 summarizes the results, and shows higher than average amounts of zero-vehicle households in the southern periphery of downtown.

Figure 5.3-2: 2010 Estimated Zero-Vehicle Households

June 2009 70 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Safety Concerns

No matter how well-planned a carshare site may be, the reality is that the vehicle utilization rate will be lower than anticipated if the area is perceived to be unsafe. Figure 5.3-3 was generated with SANDAG’s online crime-mapping software (ARJIS) to document vehicle thefts and break-ins over a one-month period.

This figure shows that vehicle crimes were concentrated in the downtown core, plus a collection of incidents in the Cortez Hill District and the southeastern corner of East Village. It is important to understand that due to the limitations of ARJIS, this figure represents only a 30-day snapshot of vehicle crimes.

When the on-street carshare program approaches the implementation stage, careful planning and additional refinement of vehicle locations should be undertaken with guidance from the San Diego Police Department. This will ensure vehicle and user safety, as unsafe areas, or areas merely perceived as unsafe, would negatively impact any service, regardless of other demographic or environmental positives.

Figure 5.3-3: One Month Snapshot of Downtown Vehicle Crimes

June 2009 71 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 5.3-2 on the following page represents the efforts at screening each district for suitability based on the factors of density, parking meter location and type, safety, and additional demographic concerns. As with the aggregate results listed previously, the screening matrix and weights represented should not outweigh the practical realities involved in determining the best possible sites for carshare vehicle location, including loading or disabled parking zone requirements, traffic or vehicle flow concerns, or emergency vehicle access.

Following the table, Figure 5.3-4 illustrates the distribution of proposed revenue-sensitive on-street carshare sites by district, and their locations within Downtown San Diego.

June 2009 72 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 5.3-2: Revenue-Sensitive Site Selection Criteria SANDAG ON-STREET CARSHARE DEMONSTRATION STUDY SCREENING DOCUMENTATION - SITE LOCATION SCORING

Combined Potential Estimated Parking Lost Meter 2010 Zero- TOTAL Residential Employment Vacancy Revenue Vehicle Vehicle Downtown District SCORE Density Weight TOTAL Density Weight TOTAL Rate (a) Weight TOTAL Impact (b) Weight TOTAL Households Weight TOTAL Security (c) Weight TOTAL East Village 35 3 3 9 2 3 6 3 2 6 3 1 3 3 3 9 2 1 2

Little Italy 31 3 3 9 3 3 9 2 2 4 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3

Civic/Core 31 2 3 6 3 3 9 3 2 6 2 1 2 2 3 6 2 1 2

Columbia 29 2 3 6 2 3 6 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 3 9 3 1 3

Horton Plaza 27 2 3 6 3 3 9 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 3 6 1 1 1

Marina District 27 1 3 3 2 3 6 2 2 4 2 1 2 3 3 9 3 1 3

Gaslamp District 24 1 3 3 2 3 6 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 3 9 1 1 1

Cortez District 22 2 3 6 1 3 3 2 2 4 2 1 2 2 3 6 1 1 1

Convention Center 21 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3

Scoring: 3 - Above Average Compared to Other Districts 2 - Average Compared to Other Districts 1 - Below Average Compared to Other Districts

(a) - Parking Vacancy Rate Determined by Averaging Combined Occupancy Rates Contained in CCDC Parking Inventory Final Report, J Notes: une 2008 (b) - Impact Determined by Percent of Total On-Street Spaces With Meters; Scores Are Reversed to Reflect Potential Impacts (ie Districts With Higher Percentage of Metered Spaces Score Lower) (c) - Based on ARJIS Report on 30-day Reporting of Vehicle Break-ins and Thefts, April 2009

June 2009 73 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 5.3-4: Proposed Revenue-Sensitive On-Street Carshare Locations

June 2009 74 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

5.4 DEVELOPING AND SUSTAINING A BUSINESS MODEL

Marketing and Advertising Approach

In most markets, carsharing struggles to be profitable in the short- to medium-term. Although financial self-sufficiency is a realistic goal, it must be viewed long-term. Carsharing transforms vehicle use from a purchased product to a service, and it has proven to be a challenge for several operators to communicate the full costs of vehicle ownership. Example marketing materials in Appendix C of this report provide an illustration on how other agencies have attempted to convey this to the benefit of the service.

A challenge for operators is recruiting and retaining members. Several studies have cited various “break even ratios” – the needed ratio between members within a quarter mile of a given vehicle – required to cover the costs of the service. Carsharing Portland reports a 15:1 ratio of members within a quarter-mile walk to its vehicles,42 while the Bay Area’s City CarShare cooperative reports a 25:1 ratio.43 As noted previously in Tables 2.4-1 and 2.4-2, some services report ratios as high as 40:1 (Zipcar) or 50:1 (I-GO Car Sharing); for this report, an average ratio of 25 members per vehicle will be used.

Several locations within downtown San Diego currently possess necessary density levels, although these density levels vary by time of day. Evening populations are best reflected by residential densities, and daytime populations are best reflected by employment densities. Figures 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 on the following pages represent the estimated population and employment densities by SGRA, and help illustrate the amount of potential members in any given area of downtown at any one time.

It is important to remember, however, that these estimated totals do not always cleave at downtown neighborhood boundaries, and are not maintained at a parcel-level of detail. When a carshare service is implemented, additional research will be needed (for example, safety concerns and consultation with local businesses) to refine the locations suggested above and target new developments or any shifts in populations that may have occurred since this analysis was conducted.

42 Source: “The Beginners Guide To Carsharing”; http://www.autoshare.com/beginners/dbrookhowto.html 43 Source: “Bringing Carshare to Your Community’; http://www.citycarshare.org/download/CCS_BCCtYC_Long.pdf

June 2009 75 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 5.4-1: Estimated Employment Density

June 2009 76 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 5.4-2: Estimated Population Density

June 2009 77 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

The previous figures illustrate that the potential users of a carshare service exist in the community, but may be difficult to reach. Survey results from San Diego and other places indicate that the concept itself will need to be marketed to raise the awareness of an additional mode of transportation, and link the concept to regional and local goals of reducing emissions and congestion. One popular advertisement coined in Toronto used the tagline “The Smart Alternative to Owning a Car.” Another measure that has been considered successful is communicating the cost of the service through websites with “cost calculators” designed to illustrate the hidden costs of vehicle ownership, including maintenance, parking fees, insurance, and other expenses. Simple service pricing structures are another helpful, low-cost solution.

Service Launch

Prior to launch of a service, advertising should focus on web, print, television, and radio ads, plus advertising on transit services like bus stops and trolley locations. Residential advertising could be coordinated through HOA newsletters, doorhangers, water bill supplements, or any other number of targeted marketing efforts. These efforts would focus on introducing the carsharing concept and providing cost comparisons to traditional vehicle ownership.

A service website distinct from transit service pages is essential, as it helps differentiate the service from traditional non-private vehicle modes like buses and trolleys. In addition, newly-emerging “Web 2.0” services like Facebook and Twitter allow for an innovative way to reach the young, educated, and relatively high-income who could sell either their first or second car and supplement their transit usage with a carshare service.

One potential benefit to an on-street carshare demonstration would be the visibility of the service. Cars parked on streets in high-traffic, high-visibility locations will be noticed more than those buried in surface lots or nondescript parking structures. In addition, the majority of proposed sites are standalone one- vehicle sites at locations currently without parking meters or other usage regulations. This allows for an easy scalability to the service – as service visibility grows, usage will likely increase, and an adjacent parking space may be implemented at little cost to the City.

Additional work will have to be done to refine marketing and service visibility efforts when the service approaches implementation. Marketing materials targeting the commuter and corporate fleet markets should be developed.

5.5 MODEL INTRODUCTION

As mentioned previously, several challenges exist in the development of a sustainable carsharing model. Dave Brook, founder of Carsharing Portland, developed a simple spreadsheet designed for the planning and implementation of a carsharing program. It is this simple spreadsheet that was used to develop two scenarios designed to illustrate the challenges of developing a sustainable carshare service. The two scenarios completed for this report represent a conservative growth model and an aggressive growth model. The models are developed month-to-month for six months, plus annual and semi-annual totals projecting costs over several years.

These scenarios simplify several operational realities and rely on a series of cost assumptions, but are useful to begin the discussion of implementing a successful carshare service. Definitions for the spreadsheet are as follows:

New Members Added: The amount of new members assumed to be added each month, and to be added to the estimated number of members enrolled at launch. The models assume no loss of members over the short-term of the service.

June 2009 78 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

New Vehicles Added: The total number of new vehicles added each month. It is important for the financial models that new members added outpace new vehicles added, so that each vehicle’s daily use rate increases.

Total Members: The total of all members in the service.

Total Vehicles: The total number of on-street carshare vehicles. The conservative growth model assumes that ten of the twelve proposed locations would house one vehicle at launch, while the aggressive model proposes 19 vehicles at the twelve locations at launch.

Members per Vehicle: The number of members per vehicle. This ratio is important to grow the service, but not make the existing vehicles so popular that members stop using the service after not being able to reserve a nearby vehicle when they want.

Vehicle Utilization: The total number of hours each day each vehicle is in use, and the assumed distance traveled in one hour of use.

Revenue per Hour: Total calculated revenue per hour.

Mileage Charge: Some carshare services propose a mileage charge in lieu of a higher hourly rate. Neither model imposes this charge.

Membership Fee: A monthly membership fee in lieu of an annual fee.44

Total Revenue: Total revenue brought in each month by the service.

Vehicle Cost: The monthly cost of leasing a vehicle for the service.

Vehicle Insurance: The monthly cost of insuring a vehicle for the service.

Maintenance: The monthly cost of maintaining a vehicle for the service.

Repair: The monthly cost of repairing a vehicle for the service.

Cleaning: The monthly cost of cleaning a vehicle for the service.

Parking: The monthly cost of parking a vehicle for the service, possibly a payment for lost meter revenue.

New Location Setup: The cost for preparing a new location for carsharing, including signage, striping, and other maintenance/treatment.

Average MPG: The assumed fleet miles per gallon.

Fuel Cost/Gallon: The assumed cost per gallon of fuel, based on market conditions.

General Manager: Responsible for leading the effort, organizing funding and grant applications, coordinating with local stakeholders, etc.

Customer Service: Process applications, answer questions, present at community meetings and new member recruitment events.

44 For the purposes of spreadsheet development, a monthly model was used. To adjust to an annual fee, mulitply by 12.

June 2009 79 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Marketing: Develop and implement marketing materials, manage media relations.

Fleet Manager: Coordinate vehicle placement and location management, negotiate vehicle leases, procure parking, and monitor demand on a site-by-site basis.

Reservation/Billing: Estimated costs for handling billing.

Marketing/Advertising: Estimated marketing budget.

Office Rent: Estimated monthly rent or lease budget, based on market conditions.

Phones/Internet: Estimated monthly phone and internet bill.

Supplies/Mailings: Estimated monthly mailings costs.

5.6 OVERVIEW OF SCENARIOS

As mentioned previously, the two scenarios proposed in this section are an unconstrained scenario and a revenue-sensitive scenario. The series of tables on the following pages outlines the proposed business models, and key differences between the models are highlighted below.

Unconstrained Model • Assumes 19 vehicles and full development of proposed sites at launch • Assumes a total downtown population of 101,554, based on SANDAG estimates. • Adds 1 vehicle per month until the total number of vehicles reaches 40 • Assumes 30 new members each month for two years, then 15 new members each month until the market is saturated at 1,016 members (about 1 percent of SGRA projected residential and employment population within the study area) • $10/hour usage rate, plus $5/month membership fee • Higher members-per-vehicle ratio; assumes 4.5 hours of use/day • Assumes $3,000 in monthly advertising and marketing • All other figures identical to aggressive growth scenario

The Unconstrained model assumes an ambitious startup, with 19 vehicles at launch. Membership would grow steadily, but slowly, and members would have an 18:1 member:vehicle ratio by the end of the first year of the service, which would be a higher ratio than the revenue-sensitive model, but in line with industry standards.

To recruit and retain the high levels of membership, advertising and other office costs would average $5,600 a month, and staffing would be set at $9,167. In addition, the cost per carshare vehicle parking space is estimated at $3,500, which accounts for the physical preparation of the site by City work crews, but also takes into account a rough estimate of $2,000 in lost annual revenue per removed parking meter.

Of the two models, the capital costs involved in launching the service are markedly higher in this scenario. Several agencies have explored federal funding sources for pilot program capital and operations costs, but these often must be routed through city or regional governments to successfully apply for funding. One example came in 2005, when the City of Chicago secured a $250,000 FTA Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant for the Center for Neighborhood Technology to provide the operating costs for 11 vehicles as part of the I-GO carsharing pilot program. All told, the City obtained $600,000 over three years for start-up operations “seed money” thorough CMAQ. To date, the City has received over $1,000,000 in federal funding for the I-GO program.

June 2009 80 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Another federal funding source that could offset the operating losses could be Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) funding. The JARC program funds transportation projects designed to help low-income individuals access employment and related activities where existing transit is unavailable, inappropriate, or insufficient. The JARC program also funds reverse commute transit services available to the general public. This is an interesting option for downtown residents; study findings indicated they have lower rates of vehicle ownership and lower household incomes than the respective regional medians.

San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Seattle have all received federal funding for subsidizing low-income job-access vehicles, and low-income members often pay significantly less than regular members for the carshare service.

Table 5.6-1, on the following page, outlines the conservative growth model.

June 2009 81 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 5.6-1: Start-up Carsharing Service Scenario 1 – Unconstrained Model ScenarioAssumption Launch Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Year 1 Year 2 Projected Population 101,554 Market Saturation Level Goal 1.0% 1,016 Members New Members Added 30 15 per month 200 030303030303030303030 30 30 Duration 24 months New Vehicles Added 1 per month 19 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Total Members 1,016 Maximum 200 200 230 260 290 320 350 380 410 440 470 500 530 890 Total Vehicles 40 Maximum 1919.020.021.022.023.024.025.026.027.028.029.0 30.0 40.0 Members per Vehicle 111112121314151516161717 18 22 Vehicle Utilization 4.5 hours/day 2,565 2,565 2,700 2,835 2,970 3,105 3,240 3,375 3,510 3,645 3,780 3,915 4,050 5,400 5 miles/hour 12,825 12,825 13,500 14,175 14,850 15,525 16,200 16,875 17,550 18,225 18,900 19,575 20,250 27,000 Revenue per Hour $10 per hour $0 $25,650 $27,000 $28,350 $29,700 $31,050 $32,400 $33,750 $35,100 $36,450 $37,800 $39,150 $40,500 $54,000 Membership Fee $5 per month $0 $1,000 $1,150 $1,300 $1,450 $1,600 $1,750 $1,900 $2,050 $2,200 $2,350 $2,500 $2,650 $4,450 Total Revenue per month $0 $26,650 $28,150 $29,650 $31,150 $32,650 $34,150 $35,650 $37,150 $38,650 $40,150 $41,650 $43,150 $58,450 Expenses Vehicle Cost $300 per month $5,700 $5,700 $6,000 $6,300 $6,600 $6,900 $7,200 $7,500 $7,800 $8,100 $8,400 $8,700 $9,000 $12,000 Vehicle Insurance $250 $4,750 $4,750 $5,000 $5,250 $5,500 $5,750 $6,000 $6,250 $6,500 $6,750 $7,000 $7,250 $7,500 $10,000 Maintenance $20 $380 $380 $400 $420 $440 $460 $480 $500 $520 $540 $560 $580 $600 $800 Repair $20 $380 $380 $400 $420 $440 $460 $480 $500 $520 $540 $560 $580 $600 $800 Cleaning $40 $760 $760 $800 $840 $880 $920 $960 $1,000 $1,040 $1,080 $1,120 $1,160 $1,200 $1,600 Parking $25 $475 $475 $500 $525 $550 $575 $600 $625 $650 $675 $700 $725 $750 $1,000 New Location Setup $3,500 per vehicle $66,500 $0 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $0 Average MPG 25 mpg Fuel Cost/Gallon $3 per gallon $1,539 $1,539 $1,620 $1,701 $1,782 $1,863 $1,944 $2,025 $2,106 $2,187 $2,268 $2,349 $2,430 $3,240 Variable Costs per month $80,484 $13,984 $18,220 $18,956 $19,692 $20,428 $21,164 $21,900 $22,636 $23,372 $24,108 $24,844 $25,580 $29,440 Staffing per year General Manager (0.25 FTE) $40,000 $3,333 $3,333 $3,333 $3,333 $3,333 $3,333 $3,333 $3,333 $3,333 $3,333 $3,333 $3,333 $3,333 $3,333 Customer Service (0.25 FTE) $25,000 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 Marketing (0.25 FTE) $25,000 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 $2,083 Fleet Manager (0.25 FTE) $20,000 $1,667 $1,667 $1,667 $1,667 $1,667 $1,667 $1,667 $1,667 $1,667 $1,667 $1,667 $1,667 $1,667 $1,667 Staff Costs per month $9,167 $9,167 $9,167 $9,167 $9,167 $9,167 $9,167 $9,167 $9,167 $9,167 $9,167 $9,167 $9,167 $9,167 Reservation/Billing $200 per month $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Marketing/Advertising $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 Office Rent $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 Phones/Internet $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Supplies/Mailings $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Office Costs per month $5,600 $5,600 $5,600 $5,600 $5,600 $5,600 $5,600 $5,600 $5,600 $5,600 $5,600 $5,600 $5,600 $5,600 Total Expenses per month $95,251 $28,751 $32,987 $33,723 $34,459 $35,195 $35,931 $36,667 $37,403 $38,139 $38,875 $39,611 $40,347 $44,207 Net Profit/Loss -$95,251 -$2,101 -$4,837 -$4,073 -$3,309 -$2,545 -$1,781 -$1,017 -$253 $511 $1,275 $2,039 $2,803 $14,243 Cumulative Profit/Loss -$95,251 -$97,351 -$102,188 -$106,261 -$109,569 -$112,114 -$113,895 -$114,911 -$115,164 -$114,653 -$113,377 -$111,338 -$108,535 -$10,145 yr 1 yr 2 Revenue $0 $26,650 $28,150 $29,650 $31,150 $32,650 $34,150 $35,650 $37,150 $38,650 $40,150 $41,650 $43,150 $58,450 Net Profit/Loss -$95,251 -$2,101 -$4,837 -$4,073 -$3,309 -$2,545 -$1,781 -$1,017 -$253 $511 $1,275 $2,039 $2,803 $14,243 Expenses $95,251 $28,751 $32,987 $33,723 $34,459 $35,195 $35,931 $36,667 $37,403 $38,139 $38,875 $39,611 $40,347 $44,207

yr 0 yr 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr 4 yr 5 yr 6 yr 7 yr 8 yr 9 yr 10 Cummulative Profit/Loss -$95,251 -$108,535 -$10,145 $166,175 $345,195 $524,215 $703,235 $882,255 $1,061,275 $1,240,295 $1,419,315

June 2009 82 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Revenue-Sensitive Model • Assumes 12 vehicles and 100 members at launch • Assumes $1,500 per vehicle location in setup costs • Assumes growth of 10 new members each month for a year, then 15 new members monthly thereafter; 0.5% market saturation in Year 3 • Adds 1 vehicle every month until 30 vehicles (build-out) • $10/hour usage fee, plus $5/month membership fee • Assumes each vehicle in use an average of 4.5 hours/day • $3,000 for monthly marketing/office costs • $3,000 in monthly staffing costs

This scenario assumes a smaller service launch, and focuses on serving locations without parking meters. It assumes 100 members at launch, who would have the use of 12 vehicles at a combination of the 10-12 proposed revenue-sensitive locations. As described, three to four “pods” of vehicles could also be an option, dispersed throughout the downtown and Little Italy areas to provide high-visibility hubs and ensure vehicle availability at periods of high demand.

Members would pay the same rates as in the unconstrained model, yet would a lower member-to- vehicle ratio, roughly 8:1 at startup and 13:1 by the end of Year 2.

Monthly costs are less than the unconstrained model. The advertising and marketing budget has been set at $3,000/month to recruit and retain members, and to keep usage rates at an assumed 4 hours/day. Staffing costs are also lower, as there would likely be less involved in running a smaller operation than the unconstrained model. Lastly, startup costs are also low, as the site preparation costs are lower than those of the unconstrained model because there are few parking meters removed in this scenario.

As assumed, this model would recoup all initial expenses and operate a cumulative profit by the middle of Year 3.This potential for long-term profitability may help allay fears of stakeholders and decision makers who would likely face resistance from local business owners and residents upon the removal of an on- street parking space, a luxury not afforded by the unconstrained model.

Obviously each model is subject to the limitations of assumptions, and neither model assumes changes in fuel or insurance costs, which research has shown to be very volatile and one of the largest operating challenges for carshare services.

Lastly, through model development, it was found that the single greatest factor in determining profitability was the hourly usage rate. Should revenue assumptions prove to be in error, the hourly usage rate may have to be readjusted to best reflect the market for carsharing and its potential for elasticity and price sensitivity.

Table 5.6-2, on the following page, outlines the Revenue-Sensitive model.

June 2009 83 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table 5.6-2: Start-up Carsharing Service Scenario 2 – Revenue-Sensitive Model ScenarioAssumption Launch Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Year 1 Year 2 Projected Population 101,554 Market Saturation Level Goal 0.5% 508 members New Members Added 10 15 per month 100 010101010101010101010 10 15 Duration 12 months New Vehicles Added 1 per month 12 01111111111 10 Total Members 508 Maximum 100 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 390 Total Vehicles 30 Maximum121213141516171819202122 23 30 Members per Vehicle 888999999999 913 Vehicle Utilization 4 hours/day 1,440 1,440 1,560 1,680 1,800 1,920 2,040 2,160 2,280 2,400 2,520 2,640 2,760 3,600 5 miles/hour 7,200 7,200 7,800 8,400 9,000 9,600 10,200 10,800 11,400 12,000 12,600 13,200 13,800 18,000 Revenue per Hour $10 per hour $0 $14,400 $15,600 $16,800 $18,000 $19,200 $20,400 $21,600 $22,800 $24,000 $25,200 $26,400 $27,600 $36,000 Membership Fee $5 per month $0 $500 $550 $600 $650 $700 $750 $800 $850 $900 $950 $1,000 $1,050 $1,950 Total Revenue per month $0 $14,900 $16,150 $17,400 $18,650 $19,900 $21,150 $22,400 $23,650 $24,900 $26,150 $27,400 $28,650 $37,950 Expenses Vehicle Cost $300 per month $3,600 $3,600 $3,900 $4,200 $4,500 $4,800 $5,100 $5,400 $5,700 $6,000 $6,300 $6,600 $6,900 $9,000 Vehicle Insurance $250 $3,000 $3,000 $3,250 $3,500 $3,750 $4,000 $4,250 $4,500 $4,750 $5,000 $5,250 $5,500 $5,750 $7,500 Maintenance $20 $240 $240 $260 $280 $300 $320 $340 $360 $380 $400 $420 $440 $460 $600 Repair $20 $240 $240 $260 $280 $300 $320 $340 $360 $380 $400 $420 $440 $460 $600 Cleaning $40 $480 $480 $520 $560 $600 $640 $680 $720 $760 $800 $840 $880 $920 $1,200 Parking $25 $300 $300 $325 $350 $375 $400 $425 $450 $475 $500 $525 $550 $575 $750 New Location Setup $1,500 per vehicle $18,000 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $0 Average MPG 25 mpg Fuel Cost/Gallon $3 per gallon $864 $864 $936 $1,008 $1,080 $1,152 $1,224 $1,296 $1,368 $1,440 $1,512 $1,584 $1,656 $2,160 Variable Costs per month $26,724 $8,724 $10,951 $11,678 $12,405 $13,132 $13,859 $14,586 $15,313 $16,040 $16,767 $17,494 $18,221 $21,810 Staffing per year General Manager (0.25 FTE) $30,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Customer Service (0.25 FTE) $23,000 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 Marketing (0.25 FTE) $23,000 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 $1,917 Fleet Manager (0.25 FTE) $18,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Staff Costs per month $7,833 $7,833 $7,833 $7,833 $7,833 $7,833 $7,833 $7,833 $7,833 $7,833 $7,833 $7,833 $7,833 $7,833 Reservation/Billing $200 per month $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Marketing/Advertising $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Office Rent $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 Phones/Internet $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Supplies/Mailings $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Office Costs per month $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 Total Expenses per month $37,657 $19,657 $21,884 $22,611 $23,338 $24,065 $24,792 $25,519 $26,246 $26,973 $27,700 $28,427 $29,154 $32,743 Net Profit/Loss -$37,657 -$4,757 -$5,734 -$5,211 -$4,688 -$4,165 -$3,642 -$3,119 -$2,596 -$2,073 -$1,550 -$1,027 -$504 $5,207 Cumulative Profit/Loss -$37,657 -$42,415 -$48,149 -$53,360 -$58,049 -$62,214 -$65,856 -$68,976 -$71,572 -$73,645 -$75,196 -$76,223 -$76,727 -$39,630 yr 1 yr 2 Revenue $0 $14,900 $16,150 $17,400 $18,650 $19,900 $21,150 $22,400 $23,650 $24,900 $26,150 $27,400 $28,650 $37,950 Net Profit/Loss -$37,657 -$4,757 -$5,734 -$5,211 -$4,688 -$4,165 -$3,642 -$3,119 -$2,596 -$2,073 -$1,550 -$1,027 -$504 $5,207 Expenses $37,657 $19,657 $21,884 $22,611 $23,338 $24,065 $24,792 $25,519 $26,246 $26,973 $27,700 $28,427 $29,154 $32,743

yr 0 yr 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr 4 yr 5 yr 6 yr 7 yr 8 yr 9 yr 10 Cummulative Profit/Loss -$37,657 -$76,727 -$39,630 $27,950 $97,630 $167,310 $236,990 $306,670 $376,350 $446,030 $515,710

June 2009 84 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

6. NEXT STEPS – A WAY FORWARD

Upon the completion of this study, it is recommended that SANDAG should begin to work with the City of San Diego staff to garner approval for designating the selected on-street spaces as locations for an on- street carshare demonstration project.

The first step will require amending Chapter 8, Article 6 of the San Diego Municipal Code (Section 86 et al.) to accommodate the exceptions of a carshare parking space designation, a power given to the City under California Assembly Bill 2154. In addition, this approval should include meetings with, but not limited to, City of San Diego Traffic Engineering Staff, the Office of the City Manager, the Downtown Parking Management Group, Centre City Development Corporation, and City Council approval, and move through the process as directed.

Upon completion of the legislative framework, SANDAG should also develop a series of information requests, up to and possibly including a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit operators that would work in concert with SANDAG's RideLink program to provide carsharing services to the region. This would necessitate either additional work by SANDAG staff to identify funding sources (such as Federal CMAQ or JARC funds used in other jurisdictions), or solicit a no-cost project. The series of solicitations should provide the potential operators the chance to bid on use of the public on-street carshare spaces designated in Chapter 5 of this report, and may require coordination and input from adjacent property owners.

It is important that any solicitations set detailed performance benchmarks and expectations to avoid confusion about which agency will be responsible for evaluating and maintaining sites. TCRP Report108 outlines the following issues to be considered for a carsharing scope of service, and it is recommended that any SANDAG RFP provide a combination of these requirements as is appropriate:

• Locations - The RFP might specify locations where services are required, or describe places where the City is willing to provide parking.

• Technology - Most RFPs simply describe the type of systems required, such as 24-hour reservations by Internet and phone, and secure vehicle access, rather than mandating a particular technology. Advanced technology requirements integrating transit (such as the Compass card) have also been proposed by SANDAG in the past.

• Vehicles - Requirements might include the type of vehicles, age, amenities, and accessibility (such as the provision of hand controls for users with disabilities)

• Maintenance and Cleaning - This could include the provision of roadside assistance, and adherence to maintenance and cleaning schedules.

• Reporting and Evaluation - The scope may specify the types of information required by the partner, and the frequency of reporting. This is done to provide data for decision-makers on the service’s impact on achieving its stated goals of reducing VMT, emissions, or downtown parking demand.

• Administration - This should include monthly meetings, presentations, and points of contact.

Frequent performance monitoring will be required and the process must be an iterative process to fine- tune locations, pricing, and vehicle utilization rates. Sample RFP’s are included in the Appendix of this report.

June 2009 85 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Public-Private Partnership Recommendations and Case Studies

In addition to SANDAG’s role in the creation of a sustainable carsharing organization, the City of San Diego and MTS should also be approached to work with the selected carshare vendor to determine appropriate levels of cooperation. Other locations have involved both local governments and transit agencies to implement successful carshare programs.

Portland, Oregon

The City of Portland's pilot program with Flexcar provided approximately 70 free on-street parking spaces for carsharing, 34 of them in metered parking zones. Most were marked with an orange "Options Zone" pole to represent multi-modal options at that location.

The RFP developed for the spaces was based on recovering lost revenues - Portland averaged $1,700/year from parking spaces in the meter zones and the administrative costs for all spaces estimated at $264/year. A cap of 50 meter spaces for each of up to 2 carsharing companies was proposed, but there would be no limit on the number of parking spaces in non-meter zones.

The proposal described the rationale of the fees for metered spaces as follows:

Rather than set the fee based on average revenue and costs, the recommended policy would allow individual permit fees to reflect the actual demand for each parking space. Using parking meter data, permit fees were set and adjusted on an annual basis to reflect changes in demand (based on meter revenue) for each block face.

Based on average daily meter revenue for March 2006, the highest annual permit fee for existing metered Flexcar spaces in Portland was $3,046 ($2,782 + $264) and the lowest fee was $435 ($171 + $264). Phased in over two years, the total permit cost for Flexcar’s existing 34 metered and 38 unmetered spaces was approximately $35,00 (50 percent of full costs) in the first year, and approximately $70,000 (100 percent of full costs) in the second year. Year one would thus required a $35,000 public subsidy to mitigate the risk involved in initiating a carsharing service. This phasing provided the service with valuable seed money to allow consumer visibility and service viability to grow in the initial phases of service development, and then allowed the operator to take over full operation of the service after year one.

As of July 2009, there are over 238 Zipcar vehicles in the Portland metro area.

Arlington, Virginia

This risk-sharing strategy was also used to provide seed money for the City of Arlington, Virginia’s carsharing program in 2004. It took the form of a guaranteed sliding scale subsidy and subtracted actual revenue earned over the course of the first six months of each car’s operation. The total amount allocated for subsidies was never fully utilized, since revenue growth outpaced the subsidy amount. The risk- sharing subsidies provided by the City were discontinued with the expansion of service in May 2005. As of 2009, there are over 50 cars at 32 locations in Arlington, with over 720 carshare vehicles owned by Zipcar in the Washington, DC metro area.

Phased Implementation

It is recommended that SANDAG and City staff mimic the above examples and move forward with identifying a collection of sites from this report that would be used for carshare vehicle parking. This will involve careful cooperation with City Parking Management staff to refine the list of locations in this report, gather meter data, and estimate administrative costs associated with each proposed downtown location.

June 2009 86 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

It is important to understand that not every site identified in this report needs be converted into a carshare site, especially at launch. SANDAG, along with the carshare provider, should monitor locations and vehicle usage trends to decide how to best grow the service. This could involve the conversion of additional non-metered spaces throughout the outlying areas of Downtown (Little Italy, East Village, etc.) at relatively low cost (essentially the cost of administrative overhead), or it could involve additional analysis of the remaining proposed metered sites throughout downtown to determine meter revenues and the “price” of the metered space to the carshare operator. This phasing process should be revisited quarterly at the very least, and as frequently as monthly if the service proves robust enough to warrant such detailed analysis.

Despite all these performance measures, customer feedback may itself prove to be a significant factor in the siting and development of new spaces, so this should be solicited and monitored as well.

Transit Agency Partnerships

It has been seen nationwide that transit agencies rarely provide direct financial support for carsharing. Where they do, it usually comes from grants and external funding rather than operating budgets. Examples of successful agreements have included discount transit passes for carshare service members, the shared or converted use of older transit agency vehicles to carshare service vehicles, or the bundling of a limited amount of carshare privileges with the cost of a monthly transit pass.

SANDAG is recommended to work with City and MTS Staff to identify several factors that would contribute to a successful on-street parking implementation, including, but not limited to bundling of carshare usage privileges with the regional Compass Card.

City Fleet Recommendations

In an effort to incentivize carshare operations within Downtown San Diego, it is recommended that the City and SANDAG explore the possibility of offsetting at least part of the city-owned fleet with carsharing vehicles. This provides the carsharing company initial operating revenue while its’ neighborhood visibility, membership and vehicle use grows.

Once again, Portland, Oregon, led the way in innovative carshare operations. In 2005, the city converted its downtown fleet of 16 sedans and replaced them with . Employees had access to any vehicle in the Flexcar Portland fleet at $7/hour with unlimited mileage. In anticipation of higher usage of its downtown vehicles, Flexcar added 3 vehicles for a total of 11 vehicles within walking distance to City Hall. Cars that were assigned for exclusive use by various city offices were not replaced, although employees of all city departments could join Flexcar under the program. As with other carsharing services, Portland employees must first have had applied and received approval from Flexcar's insurance company. When approved, they also received a free one-year personal account. The city expected to reduce costs on these motor pool vehicles by roughly 25 percent. Part of the City's analysis in making their decision included looking at the more extensive use of rental cars for peak periods as well as installing in-vehicle computers and running their own scheduling system, both of which proved less viable than working with an existing carshare service to meet the daytime work needs of City staff.

In San Diego, businesses with significant operations in Downtown that would be willing to shift at least a portion of their fleet expenses to carshare vehicles would help with the viability of the service. Upon the introduction of a carsharing service to San Diego, SANDAG staff is encouraged to work with local businesses to increase visibility of the service, and to illustrate the ways in which the businesses could save money with corporate carshare memberships.

The fleet vehicle model is not flawless, however, because it does not recover all of the operating costs. It has been reported that the utilization rate of City vehicles before carsharing was introduced as a fleet option was 29 percent of a workday, or just over 2 hours of use, a very low figure for a carsharing operation and one that would present challenges to operators looking to achieve financial viability, but a

June 2009 87 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

rate which could supplement the early stages of program implementation. A challenge with this model is managing the expectations of employees, and training them on scheduling the vehicles and returning them on time, a series of requirements not often imposed on City vehicles (nor is there currently any financial penalty for late returns of City vehicles).

Roll-out and Marketing Recommendations

It is recommended that the City and SANDAG make use of their access to several resources to market carsharing to Downtown residents, businesses, and employees. Several successful strategies used elsewhere in the country have included:

Marketing Strategy Projected Cost

• Transit advertisements on buses or light rail High

• Marketing to businesses with fleet vehicles or requirements Medium of staff to use vehicles for daytime meetings

• Marketing to sales offices of new & existing downtown condo Medium developments

• Target marketing to office building management regarding Medium Carsharing available to tenants

• Informational inserts with water bills Low

• Inserts with the pay stubs of downtown businesses Low

• Host information on Carsharing on the SANDAG RideLink Low web site

• Information mailed out to downtown residents with vehicle Low registrations

Conclusion

On-street carsharing presents an innovative way for Downtown San Diego residents and employees to reduce vehicle trips, parking demand, emission levels, and the costs associated with private vehicle ownership, while simultaneously providing transit users with a flexible, affordable travel mode to serve their daily vehicle needs. By providing well-situated, attractive vehicles at a number of locations throughout the downtown core, SANDAG can help to improve the quality of life and mobility options for hundreds of individuals daily.

Recent state legislation has provided measures to facilitate the implementation of on-street carshare parking throughout San Diego. Downtown San Diego provides an ideal location with which to examine the feasibility of a service, owing to its existing and forecast residential densities, demographics consistent with existing carshare members throughout the country, and the prevalence of favorable attitudes towards carsharing expressed through this project’s public outreach efforts.

June 2009 88 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

As a regional planning entity, SANDAG is uniquely positioned to implement an on-street carsharing project with the consent and consultation of the City of San Diego and CCDC, and should begin taking measures to plan, develop, market, and roll out a service consistent with those recommendations contained in this report.

June 2009 89 APPENDIX A

Intercept Survey DATE: ______TIME ______LOCATION ______

Need a car for only an hour? Want to run errands at lunch? Have a business meeting? Spouse has the car for the day? Try Carsharing.

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is sponsoring an On-Street Carshare Demonstration Project. This project will evaluate the feasibility of a Carshare program in downtown San Diego.

We are doing a quick survey to find out if people who live or work in the downtown area would be interested in a new transportation service called Carsharing. Carsharing is similar to with the main difference being you can use the Carsharing vehicle for as little as a half-hour and the cars are located in the communities (possibly in a dedicated on-street parking space) rather than a central car rental location.

Please take a moment to complete this questionnaire. Thank you!

First, are you familiar with the Carshare concept?

A. Some basic questions…

1. What is your home zip code?

2. What is the nearest intersection to your home?

3. How many licensed drivers are there in your household?

4. How many vehicles does your household own or lease?

5. Which of the following income categories best matches your annual household income?

Under $15,000 $15,000-$29,999 $30,000-$44,999 $45,000-$74,999

$75,000-$99,999 $100,000-$149,999 $150,000 or more

6. Which of the following age categories matches your age?

Under 21 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59

60-64 65-74 75 and older

B. Your travel habits and preferences…

7. How many days in a typical week do you travel by car for each of the following trip purposes:

Work: days / week Shopping / Errands: days / week School: days / week Recreation / Social: days / week Other: days / week

If “other” type of trip purpose is made on a regular basis, please specify: .

8. When you choose to use a car for work, what are the three (3) most important reasons? (please check only 3):

It is the most convenient Need for Scheduled Business Errands It is the most affordable Need for Scheduled Personal Errands Have to go to multiple destinations Need for Unscheduled Business Errands I feel safe and secure Need for Unscheduled Personal Errands Other (please state)

9. Approximately how much do you spend on parking in a typical month? $ .

1 of 2 SANDAG Carshare Survey

Yes No 10. How many days per week do you use the following modes of transportation?

Car / Auto: days / week Bus or Trolley: days / week Motorcycle: days / week Coaster: days / week Carpool: days / week Bike: days / week Vanpool: days / week Walk: days / week Taxi: days / week Other: days / week

If “other” mode of transportation, please state

C. Your interest in Carsharing… Carsharing is a service where members have access to a fleet of vehicles that can be reserved for business or personal use for a predetermined period of time, often from 30 minutes to several days. Rates are typically $7. to $9. per hour. An annual membership fee of approx. $50. covers all maintenance, insurance, and fuel costs.

11. How would you describe your level of interest in carsharing?

Very Somewhat Slightly Not At All Interested Interested Interested Interested

12. If a carshare vehicle were stationed in your vicinity, what is the nearest and convenient intersection where it should be located? AND Ex: Kettner Blvd AND Date Street .

13. What are the main reasons why Carsharing would not be of interest to you?

14. Would you consider using public transit for your commute if Carsharing were available?

Very Somewhat Not Very Definitely Likely Likely Likely Not Likely

Comment:

Help us with your impressions of the Carsharing concept… Please use the space below for any additional comments you may have about Carshare.

Interested in attending a Focus Group meeting? As part of the study process, we will be scheduling a focus or Thank you for your time. discussion group meeting to further discuss opportunities for a downtown Carshare program. If you are interested in being Your input is valuable to us selected to attend, please provide your contact information. and to your neighborhood. NAME:

E-MAIL:

PHONE: Please direct any additional information requests to: ADDRESS:

[email protected] APPENDIX B

Focus Group Invitation Letter April 10, 2009

Hello:

You are receiving this email because last month you were surveyed in Downtown San Diego regarding your knowledge and interest of carsharing services. We thank you for your participation in the survey and continue to value your inputs and opinions on this project.

As part of the ongoing development of the service, the project team will soon be hosting a Focus Group designed to collectively explore ways to plan, market, and implement the service. We would like you to attend in order to provide us with your ideas and feedback.

The meeting will be approximately one hour to 90 minutes in length, and will be held at The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) on Tuesday, April 28, beginning at 12 noon. As an expression of our gratitude, lunch will be provided for all confirmed attendees. As attendance will be capped at no more than 15 people, please RSVP so that we may plan lunch accordingly.

We truly value your opinion and look forward to seeing you. Please RSVP by Tuesday, April 21, to [email protected] and you will be contacted if you are selected to participate in the Focus Group. Thank you again for your interest in carsharing services and participation in the planning process.

Sincerely,

THE CARSHARE PROJECT TEAM

Location: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 401 B Street, Downtown San Diego (Wells Fargo Building) 7th Floor Conference Room 12 noon to1 p.m.

MFI/cda

APPENDIX C

Example Marketing Materials Carshare Benefits To Austin Retail Business

Carsharing can provide many benefits to Austin’s retail business community in addition to the general benefits of having carsharing available to the broader public.

1 A service for your customers Carsharing can be offered as a convenient service for your customers who travel by bus, bike, or walking. Rather than worrying about how to get home with purchases that aren’t easily carried, your customers can shop freely knowing they have a vehicle available on demand to shuttle their purchases home.

2 Placing your business close to a service customers use regularly Much like being located next to a bus stop, having a Austin Carshare vehicle located near your business means customers will pass your store regularly increasing the chance customers will shop with you often.

3 Cross Marketing Opportunities While Austin Carshare is a non-profit organization, we want to ensure our partners are properly promoted to our members and the general public. From listings on Austin Carsharing promotional materials and member correspondence to cross marketing promotions and branding on carshare vehicles, we have a variety of options to let the public know about your commitment to this valuable service

4 Relieve parking shortages For locations with chronic parking shortages, carsharing offers a way of easing demand. By having a carshare vehicle on your property, employees are encouraged to carpool or take public transit instead of adding an additional car to limited space.

5 Perk for employees to encourage alternative commuting solutions Carsharing can be presented to employees as an “errand car” perk much like an on-site gym or day-care. Employees are encouraged to carpool, take public transit, or another commuting alternative without having to worry about not having a car if they need one for mid-day appointments and errands.

6 Partnering to improve our quality of life Carsharing is an important component in making our city more livable. From reducing emissions and providing great access to transportation to promoting pedestrian friendly land use, your partnership shows a public commitment to improving our city’s quality of life. APPENDIX D

Demographic and Land Use Characteristics Used In Suitability Analysis Appendix D

APPENDIX E

Survey Frequencies and Means Results

Carshare Survey Implementation Frequencies and Means Statistics Date

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Thursday 248 49.5 49.5 49.5 Friday 162 32.3 32.3 81.8 Saturday 91 18.2 18.2 100.0 Total 501 100.0 100.0

Location

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Kettner & Broadway 47 9.4 9.4 9.4 Petco Park 53 10.6 10.6 20.0 San Diego City College 51 10.2 10.2 30.1 14th & Market 10 2.0 2.0 32.1 14th & G 20 4.0 4.0 36.1 1st & Broadway 10 2.0 2.0 38.1 5th & Broadway 21 4.2 4.2 42.3 India & Hawthorn 67 13.4 13.4 55.7 Columbia & Broadway 11 2.2 2.2 57.9 Broadway & Union 13 2.6 2.6 60.5 8th & D 12 2.4 2.4 62.9 7th & Broadway 17 3.4 3.4 66.3 6th & B 25 5.0 5.0 71.3 Kettner & Grape 15 3.0 3.0 74.3 5th & F 12 2.4 2.4 76.6 India & W. B 7 1.4 1.4 78.0 Cedar & Kettner 7 1.4 1.4 79.4 6th & C 8 1.6 1.6 81.0 6th & Broadway 9 1.8 1.8 82.8 5th & C 10 2.0 2.0 84.8 5th & B 7 1.4 1.4 86.2 4th & B 6 1.2 1.2 87.4 2nd & C 11 2.2 2.2 89.6 4th & Broadway 4 .8 .8 90.4 6th & E 5 1.0 1.0 91.4 C & 1st 8 1.6 1.6 93.0 E & Broadway 4 .8 .8 93.8 4th & C 4 .8 .8 94.6 Civic Center Plaza 4 .8 .8 95.4 Other 23 4.6 4.6 100.0 Total 501 100.0 100.0

1

First, are you familiar with the Carshare concept?

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes 110 22.0 22.0 22.0 No 391 78.0 78.0 100.0 Total 501 100.0 100.0

Q3 - How many licensed drivers are there in your home?

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 19 3.8 3.8 3.8 1 172 34.3 34.3 38.1 2 197 39.3 39.3 77.4 3 68 13.6 13.6 91.0 4 25 5.0 5.0 96.0 5 12 2.4 2.4 98.4 6 5 1.0 1.0 99.4 7 2 .4 .4 99.8 8 1 .2 .2 100.0 Total 501 100.0 100.0

Q4 - How many vehicles does your household own or lease?

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 71 14.2 14.2 14.2 1 180 35.9 35.9 50.1 2 135 26.9 26.9 77.0 3 66 13.2 13.2 90.2 4 24 4.8 4.8 95.0 5 13 2.6 2.6 97.6 6 7 1.4 1.4 99.0 8 5 1.0 1.0 100.0 Total 501 100.0 100.0

2

Q5 - Which of the following income categories best matches your annual household income?

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Under $15,000 76 15.2 15.2 15.2 $15,000 to $29,999 84 16.8 16.8 31.9 $30,000 to $44,999 95 19.0 19.0 50.9 $45,000 to $74,999 102 20.4 20.4 71.3 $75,000 to $99,999 53 10.6 10.6 81.8 $100,000 to $149,999 53 10.6 10.6 92.4 $150,000 or more 33 6.6 6.6 99.0 Refused 5 1.0 1.0 100.0 Total 501 100.0 100.0

Q6 - Which of the following age categories matches your age?

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Under 21 35 7.0 7.0 7.0 21 to 29 134 26.7 26.7 33.7 30 to 39 119 23.8 23.8 57.5 40 to 49 121 24.2 24.2 81.6 50 to 59 61 12.2 12.2 93.8 60 to 64 20 4.0 4.0 97.8 65 to 74 9 1.8 1.8 99.6 75 and older 2 .4 .4 100.0 Total 501 100.0 100.0

Q7 - How many days in a typical week do you travel by car for each of the following trip purposes?

N Average # Days Work 501 3.50 School 501 1.12 Shopping/Errands 501 2.36 Recreation/Social 501 2.00 Other 501 .60

3

Q8 - When you choose to use a car for work, what are the three most important reasons?

Count Percent It is the most convenient 418 83.4% It is the most affordable 156 31.1% Have to go to multiple 288 57.5% locations I feel safe and secure 204 40.7% Need for scheduled 107 21.4% business errands Need for scheduled 96 19.2% personal errands Need for unscheduled 41 8.2% business errands Need for unscheduled 106 21.2% personal errands Other 42 8.4% No Car 4 .8% Don't Work 5 1.0% Total 501 100.0% Multiple Responses Allowed.

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Q9 - Approximately how much do you 501 23.46 spend on parking in a typical month? Valid N (listwise) 501

Q10 - How many days per week do you use the following modes of transportation?

Average # # Days Respondents Car/Auto 4.8 N=501 Motorcycle .1 N=501 Carpool .4 N=501 Vanpool .0 N=501 Taxi .1 N=501 Bus or Trolley 1.8 N=501 Coaster .2 N=501 Bike .4 N=501 Walk 1.5 N=501 Other .1 N=501

4

Q11 - How would you describe your level of interest in carsharing?

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Very interested 81 16.2 16.2 16.2 Somewhat interested 133 26.5 26.5 42.7 Slightly interested 147 29.3 29.3 72.1 Not at all interested 140 27.9 27.9 100.0 Total 501 100.0 100.0

5

Q13 - What are the main reasons why Carsharing would NOT be of interest to you?

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Already have a car, don't 68 13.6 13.6 13.6 need to carshare I don't drive/don't drive 26 5.2 5.2 18.8 enough, don't have a car Prefer driving alone/like 18 3.6 3.6 22.4 my own car Too expensive 59 11.8 11.8 34.1 Too inconvenient/short notice 69 13.8 13.8 47.9 trips/timing/availability Too crowded/don't want to 18 3.6 3.6 51.5 share with others I go too many 7 1.4 1.4 52.9 places/great distances Need my car for 10 2.0 2.0 54.9 work/work schedule Hapy with bus/trolley/Coaster/carpo 13 2.6 2.6 57.5 ol/bike Drive a lot/multiple 17 3.4 3.4 60.9 destinations Car not clean/not 7 1.4 1.4 62.3 maintained/not MY car I live close to work/don't 8 1.6 1.6 63.9 need acar Location of cars not convenient/I live far out of 9 1.8 1.8 65.7 town Commute to work, then 3 .6 .6 66.3 park my car all day Need more info/this is too 13 2.6 2.6 68.9 new/too good to be true Just not interested/Don't 9 1.8 1.8 70.7 Know No reason to not be 22 4.4 4.4 75.0 interested Sounds like a good idea 4 .8 .8 75.8 Other 18 3.6 3.6 79.4 No Answer 103 20.6 20.6 100.0 Total 501 100.0 100.0

6

Q14 - Would you consider using public transit for your commute if Carsharing were available?

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Very likely 116 23.2 23.2 23.2 Somewhat likely 164 32.7 32.7 55.9 Not very likely 120 24.0 24.0 79.8 Definitely not likely 95 19.0 19.0 98.8 No answer 6 1.2 1.2 100.0 Total 501 100.0 100.0

Q14 - Comment

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Have a car 7 1.4 11.5 11.5 Use transit already 4 .8 6.6 18.0 Dislike area public 9 1.8 14.8 32.8 transportation Would love to use public 3 .6 4.9 37.7 transportation It's a good idea, keep 11 2.2 18.0 55.7 thinking Good for the environment 2 .4 3.3 59.0 Cost concerns 6 1.2 9.8 68.9 Convenience/timing/avail 5 1.0 8.2 77.0 ability issues Would not use Carsharing/only in 4 .8 6.6 83.6 emergency Other 10 2.0 16.4 100.0 Total 61 12.2 100.0 Missing System 440 87.8 Total 501 100.0

7

Comments

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Great idea/cool/good idea 59 11.8 37.6 37.6 Need/want more 16 3.2 10.2 47.8 information Just not interested 5 1.0 3.2 51.0 Good for others, not for 24 4.8 15.3 66.2 me Would help save 12 2.4 7.6 73.9 gas/pollution/time/money Need my own car/kids/car-seats/place 10 2.0 6.4 80.3 for my own stuff Concerned about the 10 2.0 6.4 86.6 costs/insurance/gas Maybe for occasional 3 .6 1.9 88.5 use/emergencies Why not just rent a car by 4 .8 2.5 91.1 the day? Good if you don't own a 3 .6 1.9 93.0 car Other 11 2.2 7.0 100.0 Total 157 31.3 100.0 Missing System 344 68.7 Total 501 100.0

8

APPENDIX F

Sample Requests for Proposals (RFP’s) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CARSHARE PROGRAM

The San Francisco Community College District/City College of San Francisco, hereinafter referred to as the “District”, is seeking proposals from qualified bidders to implement a carshare program. This Request for Proposal (RFP) will provide interested bidders with sufficient information to prepare and submit proposals for consideration to the District.

Please submit five (5) copies of your response to this RFP in a sealed envelope clearly marked:

PROPOSAL – CarShare Program by mail or hand delivery to: Stephen J. Herman Chief Administrative Services Officer San Francisco Community College District 33 Gough Street San Francisco, CA 94103

Proposals must be received by 3:00 p.m., August 18, 2006. Proposals received after that time and date will not be considered.

Requests for clarification or additional information should be submitted in writing to the Chief Administrative Services Officer at the above address. Responses to all requests will be in writing as addenda to this RFP. Telephone questions are not encouraged, but may be permitted if they pertain only to mechanical aspects of the RFP process. Phone inquiries should be directed to Stephen J. Herman at (415) 241-2327. In any event, answers given to telephone questions will not be binding unless confirmed in writing by the Chief Administrative Services Officer or his designee.

Chief Administrative Services Officer Stephen J. Herman I. INTRODUCTION

In 2004, the District adopted a Facilities Master Plan which addresses the long-term development of the San Francisco City College campuses. In consideration of the terms and conditions of the Environmental Impact Report, the District adopted certain mitigation measures that serve as guidelines for future campus developments. In particular, in response to the issues of “Transportation and Circulation”, the District has established a “Transportation Demand Management” (TDM) program. One of the main goals of the TDM program is to reduce the number of auto trips to and from all campuses by faculty, staff and students. The establishment of a carshare program is being considered as one of the viable measures toward this goal. As a pilot project, the District wishes to consider implementing a program initially at the Ocean Campus and the Administrative Offices at Gough Street before the end of 2006.

II. GENERAL INFORMATION

The District is a two-year institution of higher education, one of 108 in the California Community Colleges system. It has nine campuses and numerous off-campus locations throughout the city, the main campus being located at intersection of Ocean and Phelan Avenues:

Alemany Campus………………….750 Eddy Street Castro-Valencia Campus………….120 Noe Street Chinatown/North Beach Campus... 940 Filbert Street Downtown Campus……………….800 Mission Street Evans Campus…………………….1400 Evans Street John Adams Campus……………...1860 Hayes Street Mission Campus…………………..106 Bartlett Street Ocean Campus……………...... 50 Phelan Avenue Southeast Campus………………...Oakdale & Phelps Street

While most instructional programs are conducted at the nine campuses and numerous other off-campus locations, the District’s Business Office, Human Resources Department, and other administrative offices are located on Gough Street, San Francisco.

The District operates on a semester basis, with the Fall Semester beginning in mid- August and the Spring Semester ending near the end of May. A Summer Session of 6-8 weeks duration is normally held in the months of June and July. The District has an enrollment of about 90,000 full-time and part-time students [approximately 35,500 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)].

A city map identifying the locations of all nine campuses is attached as Appendix A for your reference.

2 The following data will be of particular interest to potential bidders:

Ocean Campus 33 Gough Street No. of Students 42,000 200 No. of Faculty 1,260 17 No. of Support Staff 716 113 No. of Parking Spaces 2,618 61 Usage at Peak Hours 100% 100%

There has been no attempt to survey faculty and staff as to their likelihood of utilizing a carshare program, should one be established. Without specific program details, such surveys would not be reliable.

III. The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program

The potential implementation of a carshare program is only one of the measures of the TDM program for reducing the number of auto trips among campuses. Other elements of the program include the following:

• Public Transportation Access. All campuses are well served by the mass transit network. The District will conduct periodic surveys to identify and respond to transportation needs of faculty, staff and students. • MUNI/BART Class Pass Program for Students. Discussions are underway with MUNI to establish a class pass program for students. The Class Pass, a sticker attached to student ID cards, would allow students to ride on MUNI 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There will be further discussions and negotiations with MUNI. • “Transit One” Program for Faculty and Staff. Transit One is a pre-tax transportation program which the District has contracted with AFLAC Insurance Company to manage for faculty and staff who use public transit systems. The goal is to encourage faculty and staff to switch from driving to using public transportation to work. Outreach programs are currently underway to increase participation. • Shuttle Service. The District will continue to evaluate possible future use of shuttle services to support the public transportation system. • Vanpooling. The District will continue to evaluate the possibility of promoting employee-sponsored vanpools. • Parking Fees. Subject to Board of Trustees approval, daily permit parking fees on campus could be increased in the future as part of efforts to decrease demand for parking. • Carpooling. The District is researching the possibility of developing a database to capture the travel modes of faculty, staff and students. The Parking and Transportation Committee will review the feasibility of designating parking spaces for carpoolers.

3 • Ride Share Program. The Parking and Transportation Committee continues to work with the Bay Area Regional Ride Share agency to promote the 511 Regional Rideshare Program. The program is a free service that connects commuters who live and work near each other so they can carpool, vanpool, or even bicycle together to work.

IV. LENGTH OF CONTRACT

This contract shall be for an initial period of twelve (12) months, beginning as soon as practicable, with a six-month optional review period by both parties. Subject to a review by the District through its designated committee or staff, the contract may be extended by mutual agreement for two (2) additional one (1) year periods. Terms and conditions of the extensions shall be determined at the time the extensions are granted.

V. SCOPE OF SERVICES

The District wishes to obtain from the successful bidder, hereinafter referred to as “Contractor”, carsharing services that include but not limited to the following elements:

• One (1) pod at Gough Street and two (2) pods at Ocean Campus. Contractor may propose alternative configurations • Reservation priority for District faculty and staff during peak business hours to be determined • Discounts for faculty and staff usage • Application fee waiver and deposit fee waiver, if any, for District enrollees • Use of fuel and cost efficient model cars • Potential pretax benefits for staff usage • No insurance liability for the District

VI. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

The District invites all interested bidders to submit proposals in response to this RFP to provide the desired services as listed in Section V above. All proposals should include the following and any other documents in support of the proposals:

• Official registered name and address of the firm • Names of the principals of the firm • Brief history of the firm, including the number of carshare programs currently in operation, both locally and nationally • Potential benefits of program to the District • Marketing plan for District program • Respective roles of District and Contractor in program operations • Expected average monthly break-even revenue for each pod operation

4 • Reimbursement to District: percentage of revenue or fixed amount per space • Possible program enhancements beyond carshare operation

VII. AWARDING OF CONTRACT

• Financial considerations will not be the sole determining factor in evaluating the proposals. Proposals will be evaluated based on their overall quality, with the interest and welfare of the faculty, staff and students of the District being of prime importance.

• The overall business profile of bidders will be evaluated, including experience and track record in carshare program operations.

• The District may elect to interview selected bidders in the evaluation process.

• The District reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to procure services by any other means and to modify the selection procedure or scope of the contract.

VIII. NONDISCRIMINATORY EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

It is the policy of the District to provide equal employment and educational opportunity without regard to ethnic group identification, national origin, religion, age, sex, race, color, ancestry, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, marital status, medical conditions, gender identification, domestic partner status, AIDS/HIV status, status as a Vietnam-Era veteran, or status as a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. These matters are reflective of Policy Manual Section 1.12 of the San Francisco Community College District, a copy of which is attached as Appendix B. Contractor agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of ethnic group identification, national origin, religion, age, sex, race, color, ancestry, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, marital status, medical conditions, gender identification, domestic partner status, AIDS/HIV status, status as a Vietnam-Era veteran, or status as a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. To violate this agreement would constitute cause by which the contract could be immediately terminated by the District.

IX. PUBLIC LIABILITY AND DAMAGE INSURANCES

Throughout the term of this contract and any extension thereof, Contractor, at Contractor’s expense shall maintain an insurance policy issued by an insurance company satisfactory to and in a form approved by the Chief Administrative Services Officer, San Francisco Community College District. Said insurance company shall have a policyholder’s surplus of at least ten times the amount of the liability coverage under said policy.

5 Said policy shall afford liability insurance coverage of Contractor’s operations, including but not limited to, premises, products and personal injuries. Said policy shall be expanded to include contractual liability assumed under the agreement with respect to bodily injuries, personal injuries and property damage. Policy shall include the San Francisco Community College District, its Board of Trustees, officers, employees and agents as additional insured and shall stipulate that no other insurance effected by District will be called on to contribute to a loss covered thereunder. Said policy shall cover loss or liability for damages for bodily injury, personal injury, death, or property damage for a single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) applying to bodily injuries, personal injuries, and damages in any one occurrence.

Policy shall provide that written notice of cancellation or of any material change therein, shall be delivered to the Chief Administrative Services Officer, San Francisco Community College District, 33 Gough Street, San Francisco, CA 94103, by the issuing company within thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date thereof. Contractor shall increase the aforesaid limit upon the written demand of the Chief Administrative Services Officer of the District provided that such increase is found reasonable and necessary by the District.

A certificate of insurance showing the required coverage and the endorsement of additional insured shall be delivered to the District, prior to the Contractor’s commencing service of this agreement. On a renewal anniversary of said policy, if the term of the agreement has been extended, District will accept a certificate of insurance from the insurance company indicating that the policy has been renewed without change.

X. INDEMNIFICATION

Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the District, its Board of Trustees, officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, loss, damage, injury, and liability of every kind and nature including those from or on behalf of employees of the Contractor, arising directly or indirectly from Contractor’s performance of this Contract, including but not limited to, the use of facilities or equipment provided by District or others, regardless of the active or passive negligence of whether liability without fault is imposed or sought to be imposed on District, its Board of Trustees, officers, employees and/or agents except to the extent that such claim, loss, damage, injury or liability is the result of the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of District, its Board of Trustees, officers, employees and/or agents. Contractor specifically acknowledges and agrees that it has an independent obligation to defend the District, its Board of Trustees, officers, employees and agents from any claim, which actually or potentially falls within this indemnification provision even if such claim is or may be groundless, fraudulent or false.

6 XI. BIDDER AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

Contractor agrees that Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the District. As an independent contractor, Contractor shall be responsible for any payroll or withholding taxes and workers’ compensation benefits which may be required for it or its employees. District shall not be liable to Contractor for any expenses paid or incurred by Contractor in the performance of this agreement unless otherwise agreed in writing. Contractor is not eligible for and shall not participate in any employer pensions, health, or other fringe benefits plan of the District.

XII. ASSIGNMENT

This contract or any interest therein may not be assigned without prior approval of the District.

XIII. GOVERNING LAW

Any agreement or contract between the District and Contractor shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue for all litigation relative to the formation, interpretation, and performance of said agreement or contract shall be in San Francisco.

7 Appendix A: Campus Locations Map

8

Appendix B: SFCCD Policy Manual Section 1.12 Unlawful Discrimination Policy

As of December 19, 2002, the policy of the San Francisco Community College District regarding unlawful discrimination has been as follows:

Policy Manual 1.12 UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION POLICY

The policy of the San Francisco Community College District is to provide an educational and employment environment in which no person shall be unlawfully denied full and equal access to, the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination on the basis of ethnic group identification, national origin, religion, age, sex, race, color, ancestry, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability in any program or activity that is administered by, funded directly by, or that receives any financial assistance from the State Chancellor or Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. Nor shall any such persons be denied full and equal access to, the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination on the basis of marital status, medical conditions, gender identity, domestic partner status, AIDS/HIV status, status as a Vietnam-Era veteran, or status as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning person in any District program or activity.

The policy of the San Francisco Community College District is to provide an educational and employment environment free from unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or communications constituting sexual harassment.

Employees, students, or other persons acting on behalf of the District who engage in unlawful discrimination as defined in this policy or by state or federal law may be subject to discipline, up to and including discharge, expulsion, or termination of contract.

9

February 9, 2004

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE QUALIFIED SERVICES FOR IMPLEMENTING A CARSHARE PROGRAM FOR SANTA BARBARA COUNTY AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA

A. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

The County of Santa Barbara and University of California, Santa Barbara are inviting qualified firms to prepare a proposal for consideration to implement a carshare program for the Isla Vista Redevelopment Project Area and the University of California, Santa Barbara (Attachment 1). The County of Santa Barbara (County) and University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) are interested in jointly sponsoring a carshare program to serve Isla Vista residents and UCSB students, faculty and staff.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Purpose A carshare program is an implementation item of the draft Isla Vista Master Plan (Master Plan). An overall objective of the Master Plan is to develop an effective, efficient multi-modal transportation system for the Isla Vista community. Components of this plan include improving the street network, managing the quantity and location of parking, providing convenient and affordable transit services, offering carsharing opportunities and improving the pedestrian and bicyclist environment. Policies included in the Master Plan seek to reduce automobile impacts by minimizing automobile dependence and ownership, implementing sidewalk improvements, reducing automobile travel speeds, and by providing alternative transportation options. Master Plan adoption is anticipated in December 2004.

Developing and implementing a carshare program at UCSB has also been suggested as one remedy to the campus’ increasing deficit of parking spaces. The campus is currently in the midst of an aggressive building campaign in an effort to achieve consistency with the Long Range Development Plan (1990). The addition of new academic, administrative and student residential buildings has largely impacted surface parking lots and has further exacerbated the existing parking problem, including parking impacts in Isla Vista.

Carsharing is viewed as one of several proposed solutions to this problem. Additional solutions include expanding UCSB’s existing Transportation Alternatives Program, building two new parking structures, expanding and improving transit services, expanding carpooling and van pooling options, and improving bicycle and pedestrian circulation networks throughout the campus and to adjoining areas (Isla Vista, Goleta, etc.).

1 Background For the last 35 years, the public planning process in Isla Vista has been active. Numerous issues have been identified during successive planning efforts including limited parking, overcrowding, substandard housing, and deteriorating infrastructure. These problems in Isla Vista have persisted for years and past attempts to solve them have resulted in relatively little permanent change.

Isla Vista Master Plan

In 1999, under Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors’ direction, a working group composed of UCSB, Isla Vista Recreation and Parks District (IVRPD), and Planning and Development (P&D) began meeting to discuss the status of Isla Vista and how to address identified community issues. In 2000, Santa Barbara County, UCSB, and IVRPD established a strategy to jointly fund the Master Plan effort for the Isla Vista community.

To facilitate community participation, the IV Project Area Committee/General Plan Advisory Committee (IV PAC/GPAC) was formed in October 2001. The IV PAC/GPAC is a group of residents, property owners, business owners, and representatives of community organizations from the project area. The IV PAC/GPAC played a critical role in developing the draft Master Plan.

UCSB/Santa Barbara County Carsharing Partnership

Recognizing that both Isla Vista and UCSB could benefit from carsharing opportunities, the University and the County are partnering to investigate and develop a carshare program. Such a program could potentially serve over 35,000 students, faculty, staff and residents from the surrounding community and represents perhaps the best opportunity for carsharing between the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles.

Issues Isla Vista is home to almost 20,000 residents. Most of these people leave the community at least once per day. On average, nearly 36,000 automobiles, 15,000 bicycles, and 8,000 pedestrians enter or leave Isla Vista each day. In addition, each weekday more than 2,300 riders begin or end a public transportation trip in Isla Vista. Furthermore, changes in access and parking at UCSB affect traffic and parking in Isla Vista. Likewise, proposed redevelopment plans for Isla Vista will affect access to UCSB. For instance, increases in UCSB permit rates tend to shift commuters to park in Isla Vista, thus exacerbating the parking problem there. Development of a residential parking permit program in Isla Vista will impact commuters who park in Isla Vista instead of on campus.

Parking

At the present time, parking in Isla Vista is largely unregulated. Virtually all residents (96%) live in a household with at least one vehicle and 80% of all residents own a car themselves. This level of car ownership, coupled with approximately 1,000 UCSB commuters who park in Isla Vista during the day and walk or bike to campus, means parking in Isla Vista is often scarce. Studies have shown that of the approximate 3,000 available on-street parking spaces, 2,800 are consistently occupied. The remaining 200 spaces are generally located on the

2 western fringe of Isla Vista, a significant distance from the downtown core and UCSB’s main campus.

Recent development and increased enrollment at UCSB have exacerbated on-campus parking issues. Coupled with underdeveloped transportation alternatives and the perceived necessity of having access to a personal automobile, finding viable solutions to the University’s parking problems has been a challenge. Furthermore, pricing and convenience issues currently make driving to campus on a daily basis the most attractive alternative for many employees and students.

Solutions

Implementation of a carshare program is seen as one potential solution to parking issues in Isla Vista and at UCSB. Other solutions to Isla Vista parking issues include a parking management program. This program is expected to be implemented in fall 2004 and will include:

· Parking meters in the downtown; and · Residential parking permit program that requires residents to purchase an annual or short-term permit to park in the public right-of-way.

UCSB has established a comprehensive alternative transportation plan. Carsharing would enhance the existing options and eventually reduce the demand for parking throughout the campus.

County staff anticipates that as a result of discontinuing the practice of providing free unregulated on-street parking in Isla Vista, a significant amount of interest and participation in a carshare program will be generated. Given the anticipated level of participation, providing a carshare program that serves a majority of Isla Vista residents and UCSB students, faculty and staff is essential. One major objective of the Isla Vista/UCSB carshare program will be to provide services to individuals 18 years or older; even if doing so increases program costs. Emphasis is placed upon this objective because 60% of Isla Vista residents are under 21 years old and almost all students who live on the UCSB campus are under 21 years old. In addition, automobile ownership is low among on-campus resident hall students, creating a significant carsharing enrollment opportunity.

Area Characteristics

Isla Vista

Isla Vista is an unincorporated community located 9 miles west of the City of Santa Barbara on the south coast of Santa Barbara County, California. Surrounded on three sides by UCSB, Isla Vista is built on a coastal bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean.

The current population of Isla Vista is almost 20,000; including 13,000 students. Isla Vista is known primarily for its role in providing housing for students from UCSB as well as Santa Barbara City College. However, the community is also home to almost 8,000 non-student residents. The median resident age is approximately 21, and few residents are over 61 years old. Isla Vista is ½ square mile or 320 acres. The median annual incomes in Isla Vista are low

3 in comparison to County median incomes. In 1999, the median income was $26,250 for a family household and $13,165 for a non-family household. Of the 4,908 housing units in Isla Vista, 94% are renter occupied.

UCSB

UCSB is located at Goleta Point, in an unincorporated portion of southern Santa Barbara County. The campus sits on approximately 1,000 acres and occupies a narrow marine terrace overlooking the Pacific Ocean. The University is home to 20,000 graduate and undergraduate students and is one of the nation’s leading research institutions. UCSB is also the County’s largest employer, with over 4,300 employees.

Community Input

Isla Vista has a long history of community activism. Public input and participation will be significant throughout the implementation of this program. As previously mentioned, a PAC/GPAC has been appointed to guide the community’s revitalization process. The PAC/GPAC meetings, which are held on a monthly basis, are regularly attended by Isla Vista residents, and UCSB students and staff. In addition, UCSB has several committees that work to address parking and transportation related issues. Participation and interest in the carshare program is likely through many on and off campus organizations.

Project Approval and Funding

Most carsharing programs require funding to begin implementation. Several potential funding sources have been identified. If a proposed program is chosen to be implemented, final allocation of project funding will be subject to approval by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors/Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors and UCSB. County staff anticipates presenting a proposed carshare program to the Board of Supervisors/Redevelopment Board of Directors in spring 2004.

C. SCOPE OF WORK

Providers should propose how to structure a carshare program for Isla Vista and UCSB. Each provider is encouraged to propose several different scenarios, including a partnership program. In addition, staff is requesting separate proposals which outline program options for participants 18 years or older and for participants 21 years or older. A primary objective of this new program is to offer services to a broad range of individuals.

Proposals must include a program that includes the following requirements:

· A program which provides services to participants 18 years old and older; · An alternate program which provides services to participants 21 years old and older; · A minimum of two total parking pods to serve Isla Vista residents and UCSB students, faculty and staff; · Implementation beginning September 2004 or concurrent with implementation of residential parking permit program; · Vehicles which are leased on an hourly basis using telephone and internet technology;

4 · Vehicles which are leased for extended trips (i.e. Thanksgiving visits to students’ home towns) · Local staffing, including marketing support; and · Multiple registration options, including in-person, telephone and internet.

F. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION

1. Provide a cover letter that includes a brief summary of the provider’s qualifications and approach and understanding of the desired program.

2. Explain your team’s approach to develop and implement the project.

3. Provide a detailed scope of work.

4. A line item budget or growth model for a minimum of three years.

5. Marketing and outreach support plan.

6. Discuss unusual aspects of the program and potential challenges that may be encountered.

7. Identify each member of the team and describe the role and responsibility of each member of the proposed team.

8. Provide a Statement of Qualifications for your company, including relevant projects completed within the last five years. Include with each project the following information:

§ Name of project/program § Name of client § Client contact information – include name, title and telephone number § Location of project/ program § Status of project/program § Description of services provided by provider § Project completion date § Total project/program costs § Budget of services provided § Names of staff involved in project

9. List all contracts terminated (partially or completely) by clients for convenience or default within the past three years. Include contract value, description of work, sponsoring agency, name of contracting entity, and reason for termination.

5 G. AVAILABLE MATERIALS

The following relevant documents, which contain additional information on the topics mentioned above, are available by calling (805) 568-2000. Copies of the draft Isla Vista Master Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines are available online at www.islavistaplan.org. Copies of relevant UCSB campus planning documents are available online at http://bap.ucsb.edu/planning/index.html

1. Draft Isla Vista Master Plan 2. Draft Isla Vista Downtown Design Guidelines 3. Isla Vista Transportation Survey (2002) 4. UCSB campus planning documents

H. CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS

The proposal will be evaluated based on responsiveness to the submittal requirements outlined above. This includes relevant experience as well as understanding of the desired program, approach, and ability to meet schedule requirements. The provider will be selected based on the following criteria:

1. Experience/Expertise of Provider. Demonstrated competence in completion of similar projects/programs; performance on other work; relevant expertise.

2. Management Approach. Presentation of organization; responsibilities and, management approach

3. Qualifications of principal personnel who will be handling a majority of the work.

4. Proposal’s responsiveness to the community context as expressed in this RFP. (i.e. creativity of proposal and approach)

5. References

Once the proposals are received, they will be reviewed by representatives from the County, UCSB, and representatives from the Isla Vista PAC/GPAC and campus community groups. Interviews will likely be scheduled for the week of March 17, 2004 through March 26, 2004 and an interview panel will make a selection following the presentations. The top ranked company will be selected in April 2004.

At this time, the County and UCSB will begin contract negotiations with the top ranked provider. If a contract cannot be negotiated with the top ranked provider, the County and UCSB may choose to begin negotiations with the second ranked provider. Prior to contract issuance, the County and/or UCSB may elect not to participate in this program. Implementation of this program is subject to approval by both the County Board of Supervisors and UCSB.

6 I. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. CONTRACT

Please note, the provider will be required to accept the terms of the County’s standard consultant agreement. The County’s standard consultant agreement will be available prior to contract negotiations.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL a) Late Submittal. A proposal is late if received at any time after 5:00 p.m. (according to date stamp or clerk of Redevelopment Agency) on March 10, 2004. Proposals received after 5:00 p.m. on March 10, 2004 will not be considered and will be returned to the proposer unopened and marked "LATE PROPOSAL". b) Schedule. The anticipated schedule of activities related to this RFP is as follows:

Activity Date

RFP Issued...... 02/09/04 Proposal Submittal Deadline ...... 03/10/04 Interviews ...... 03/17/04 Select Top Firm ...... 03/29/04 Negotiations Begin...... 04/05/04 Negotiations Complete...... 04/19/04 c) Inquiries. Inquiries concerning this RFP should be directed to:

Jenna Endres Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department 123 E. Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 884-8059 Fax: (805) 568-2030 Email: [email protected]

7

County of Santa Barbara Redevelopment Agency SBCO RDA 1105 Santa Barbara Street, 4th Floor, Santa Barbara County Courthouse East Wing Santa Barbara, CA 93101-6065 V: 805.884.8050 FAX: 805.884.8053 www.ivrda.org

April 15, 2009

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE QUALIFIED SERVICES FOR IMPLEMENTING A CARSHARE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY OF ISLAVISTA IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

A. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

The County of Santa Barbara is inviting qualified firms to prepare a proposal for consideration to implement a carshare program for the Isla Vista Redevelopment Project Area (Attachment 1). The County of Santa Barbara (County) and is interested in sponsoring a carshare program to serve Isla Vista residents and University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) students, faculty and staff.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Purpose A carshare program is an implementation item of the approved Isla Vista Master Plan (Master Plan). An overall objective of the Master Plan is to develop an effective, efficient multi-modal transportation system for the Isla Vista community. Components of this plan include improving the street network, managing the quantity and location of parking, providing convenient and affordable transit services, offering carsharing opportunities and improving the pedestrian and bicyclist environment. Policies included in the Master Plan seek to reduce automobile impacts by minimizing automobile dependence and ownership, implementing sidewalk improvements, reducing automobile travel speeds, and by providing alternative transportation options.

Car-sharing is viewed as one of several proposals to improve transportation options and alleviate parking problems in Isla Vista.

Background For the last 35 years, the public planning process in Isla Vista has been active. Numerous issues have been identified during successive planning efforts including limited parking, overcrowding, substandard housing, and deteriorating infrastructure. These problems have persisted in Isla Vista for years and past attempts to solve them have resulted in relatively little permanent change.

Isla Vista Master Plan

In 1999, under Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors’ direction, a working group composed of UCSB, Isla Vista Recreation and Parks District (IVRPD), and Planning and Development (P&D) began meeting to discuss the status of Isla Vista and how to address identified community issues. In 2000, Santa Barbara County, UCSB, and IVRPD established a strategy to jointly fund the Master Plan effort for the Isla Vista community.

To facilitate community participation, the IV Project Area Committee/General Plan Advisory Committee (IV PAC/GPAC) was formed in October 2001. The IV PAC/GPAC is a group of residents, property owners, business owners, and representatives of community organizations from the project area. The IV PAC/GPAC played a critical role in implementation the adopted Master Plan.

UCSB/Santa Barbara County Carsharing

Recognizing that both Isla Vista and UCSB could benefit from carsharing opportunities, the University and the County previously partnered to investigate and develop a carshare program. Subsequently in 2005, Flexcar (now Zipcar) entered into an agreement with UCSB and currently has three vehicles located on campus. We are now seeking to expand carsharing to have a presence in Isla Vista. Such an expanded program could potentially serve over 35,000 students, faculty, staff and residents from the surrounding community and represents perhaps the best opportunity for carsharing between the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles.

Issues Isla Vista is home to almost 20,000 residents. Many of these people leave the community by private automobile infrequently. On average, nearly 15,000 bicycles, and 8,000 pedestrians enter or leave Isla Vista each day and more than 2,800 transit trips begin or end in Isla Vista each day. Limited access and parking on UCSB campus negatively affect traffic and parking in Isla Vista with many commuter students, staff and faculty choosing to park in Isla Vista rather than on campus where parking is fee based. Increases in UCSB permit rates tend to shift commuters to park in Isla Vista, thus exacerbating the parking problem there.

Parking

At the present time, parking in Isla Vista is largely unregulated. Virtually all residents (96%) live in a household with at least one vehicle and 80% of all residents own a car themselves. This level of car ownership, coupled with approximately 1,000 UCSB commuters who park in Isla Vista during the day and walk or bike to campus, means parking in Isla Vista is often scarce. Studies have shown that of the approximate 3,000 available on-street parking spaces, 2,800 are consistently occupied. The remaining 200 spaces are generally located on the western fringe of Isla Vista, a significant distance from the downtown core and UCSB’s main campus.

Recent development and increased enrollment at UCSB have exacerbated on-campus parking issues. Coupled with underdeveloped transportation alternatives and the perceived necessity of having access to a personal automobile, finding viable solutions to the University’s parking problems has been a challenge. Furthermore, pricing and convenience issues currently make driving to campus on a daily basis the most attractive alternative for many employees and students.

2 Implementation of a carshare program is seen as one potential solution to parking issues in Isla Vista and at UCSB.

Area Characteristics

Isla Vista

Isla Vista is an unincorporated community located 9 miles west of the City of Santa Barbara on the south coast of Santa Barbara County, California. Surrounded on three sides by UCSB, Isla Vista is built on a coastal bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean.

The current population of Isla Vista is almost 20,000; including 13,000 students. Isla Vista is known primarily for its role in providing housing for students from UCSB as well as Santa Barbara City College. However, the community is also home to almost 8,000 non- student residents. The median resident age is approximately 21, and few residents are over 61 years old. Isla Vista is ½ square mile or 320 acres. The median annual incomes in Isla Vista are low in comparison to County median incomes. In 1999, the median income was $26,250 for a family household and $13,165 for a non-family household. Of the 4,908 housing units in Isla Vista, 94% are renter occupied.

UCSB

UCSB is located at Goleta Point, in an unincorporated portion of southern Santa Barbara County. The campus sits on approximately 1,000 acres and occupies a narrow marine terrace overlooking the Pacific Ocean. The University is home to approximately 22,000 graduate and undergraduate students and is one of the nation’s leading research institutions. UCSB is also the County’s largest employer, with over 6,200 employees.

Community Input

Isla Vista has a long history of community activism. Public input and participation will be significant throughout the implementation of this program. As previously mentioned, a PAC/GPAC has been appointed to guide the community’s revitalization process. The PAC/GPAC meetings, which are held on a quarterly basis, are regularly attended by Isla Vista residents, and UCSB students and staff. In addition, UCSB has several committees that work to address parking and transportation related issues. Participation and interest in the carshare program is likely through many on and off campus organizations.

Project Approval and Funding

It is recognized that a car-sharing program may require funding to begin implementation. Several potential funding sources have been identified. If a proposed program is chosen to be implemented, final allocation of project funding will be subject to approval by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors/Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors. County staff anticipates presenting a proposed carshare program to the Board of Supervisors/ Redevelopment Board of Directors this summer.

3 C. SCOPE OF WORK

Providers should propose how to structure a carshare program for Isla Vista. Each provider is encouraged to propose several different scenarios, including a partnership program. A primary objective of this new program is to offer services to a broad range of individuals.

Proposals must include a program that includes the following requirements:

A program which provides services to participants 18 years old and older; A minimum of two total parking pods to serve Isla Vista residents and UCSB students, faculty and staff; Implementation beginning August/September 2009; Vehicles which are leased on an hourly basis using telephone and internet technology; Ability to scale the program up quickly to meet need; Local staffing, including marketing support; and Multiple registration options, including in-person, telephone and internet.

F. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION

1. Provide a cover letter that includes a brief summary of the provider’s qualifications and approach and understanding of the desired program.

2. Explain your team’s approach to develop and implement the project.

3. Provide a detailed scope of work.

4. A line item budget or growth model for a minimum of three years.

5. Marketing and outreach support plan. Please provide a detailed plan for how you will market and promote car-sharing to residents and students of Isla Vista and UCSB.

6. Discuss unusual aspects of the program and potential challenges that may be encountered.

7. Identify each member of the team and describe the role and responsibility of each member of the proposed team.

8. Provide a Statement of Qualifications for your company, including relevant projects completed within the last five years. Include with each project the following information:

. Name of project/program . Name of client . Client contact information – include name, title and telephone number . Location of project/ program . Status of project/program

4 . Description of services provided by provider . Project completion date . Total project/program costs . Budget of services provided . Names of staff involved in project

9. List all contracts terminated (partially or completely) by clients for convenience or default within the past three years. Include contract value, description of work, sponsoring agency, name of contracting entity, and reason for termination.

G. AVAILABLE MATERIALS

The following relevant documents, which contain additional information on the topics mentioned above, are available by calling (805) 884-8050. Copies of the approved Isla Vista Master Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines are available online at www.ivrda.org.

1. Board Certified Isla Vista Master Plan 2. Isla Vista Downtown Design Guidelines 3. Isla Vista Transportation Survey (2002)

H. CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS

The proposal will be evaluated based on responsiveness to the submittal requirements outlined above. This includes relevant experience as well as understanding of the desired program, approach, and ability to meet schedule requirements. The provider will be selected based on the following criteria:

1. Experience/Expertise of Provider. Demonstrated competence in completion of similar projects/programs; performance on other work; relevant expertise.

2. Management Approach. Presentation of organization; responsibilities and, management approach

3. Qualifications of principal personnel who will be handling a majority of the work.

4. Proposal’s responsiveness to the community context as expressed in this RFP. (i.e. creativity of proposal and approach)

5. References

Once the proposals are received, they will be reviewed by representatives from the County and representatives from the Isla Vista PAC/GPAC and campus community groups. Interviews will likely be scheduled for the week of May 11, 2009 through May 15, 2009 and an interview panel will make a selection following the presentations. The top ranked company will be selected at the end May 2009.

5 At this time, the County will begin contract negotiations with the top ranked provider. If a contract cannot be negotiated with the top ranked provider, the County may choose to begin negotiations with the second ranked provider. Prior to contract issuance, the County may elect not to participate in this program. Implementation of this program is subject to approval by the County Board of Supervisors.

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. CONTRACT

Please note, the provider will be required to accept the terms of the County’s standard consultant agreement. The County’s standard consultant agreement will be available prior to contract negotiations.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

a) Late Submittal. A proposal is late if received at any time after 5:00 p.m. (according to date stamp or clerk of Redevelopment Agency) on May 8, 2009. Proposals received after 5:00 p.m. on May 8, 2009 will not be considered and will be returned to the proposer unopened and marked "LATE PROPOSAL".

b) Schedule. The anticipated schedule of activities related to this RFP is as follows:

Activity Date

RFP Issued ...... 04/15/09 Proposal Submittal Deadline ...... 05/08/09 Interviews ...... 05/15/09 Select Top Firm ...... 05/29/09 Negotiations Begin ...... 06/01/09 Negotiations Complete ...... 06/19/09

c) Inquiries. Inquiries concerning this RFP should be directed to:

Jim Heaton County of Santa Barbara Redevelopment Agency 1105 Santa Barbara Street, 4th Floor Santa Barbara County Courthouse, East Wing Santa Barbara, California 93101-6065 (805) 884-8050 Office (805) 884-8053 Fax Email: [email protected]

\\Its01\cao$\GROUP\RDA\IV Projects\Infrastructure Projects\Car Share Program\RFP\Car Share RFP 4-15-09.doc

6

7 APPENDIX G

Previous San Diego Experiences With Flexcar San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Previous San Diego Flexcar Experience

San Diego has had prior experience with carsharing. Flexcar (since purchased by Zipcar) began operations in San Diego in September 2002. In March 2004, SANDAG awarded Flexcar a contract to provide carsharing services as part of its Station Car Pilot Program. The pilot was designed to introduce carsharing as a compliment to its regional transit and land use goals, specifically to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT), emissions, and increase transit usage by providing an answer to the commonly-cited barrier to transit usage of the lack of a “first and last mile” solution to bridge the gap between a transit station and a commuter’s home or work site. Additional funding was obtained to augment this pilot program with a value-added “Mobility Pass” service, known as Compass+, which would bundle the cost of a carsharing membership with the cost of a monthly transit pass. This section summarizes Flexcar’s time in San Diego.

The pilot service began in July 2004 with eight vehicles located in Downtown San Diego and one vehicle in Sorrento Valley, adjacent to the Qualcomm complex. The downtown locations are listed below. Based on the available evidence, each of the vehicles was parked at an off-street location, typically a parking garage or surface parking lot.

The locations were as follows:

• One America Plaza : Broadway & Kettner • 3rd Ave. between A & Ash Street (2 Flexcar Sites) • West A Street & 1st Ave. • Kettner & West B • Wells Fargo Center : 4th Ave. & B St. • 8th Ave. & Broadway • 4th Ave. & Beach St.

Figure 1 displays the start-up Flexcar locations in Downtown San Diego

1

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 1 Flexcar Pilot Program Downtown Start-up Locations

2

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Based on usage reports, Flexcar reported a total of 352 members and 29 business accounts at the end of the first quarter. While the initial fleet of vehicles remained the same, one vehicle was removed from Downtown and moved to Sorrento Valley. A summary of the first quarter’s utilization rates is provided below.

First Quarter Utilization Statistics Business Members 12 Total trips 219 Total hours used 780 Total miles driven 5,293 Individual Members 366 Total trips 134 Total hours used 834 Total miles driven 3,902 Total trips: 353 Total hours: 1,614 Total miles: 9,195

Based on the above table, business trips accounted for 62% of the total trips, 57% of the total miles, and 48% of the total hours of use. Vehicle utilization rates were highest during business hours and the middle of the workweek (Tuesday-Thursday). Business trips averaged 24 miles in length, while personal trips were slightly longer at 29 miles. Business trips were also shorter in duration, averaging just over 3.5 hours, while personal trips averaged just under 6.5 hours.

Flexcar grew significantly after two years of operation, largely due to the increase of individual members, and by the end of FY06 there were 45 vehicles and more than 1,100 members in San Diego fleet, with 22 of those vehicles in Downtown. The service had expanded to several additional locations, including the Golden Hill and Banker’s Hill, Sorrento Valley, North Park, Ocean Beach, and Hillcrest.

These 45 vehicles averaged 25 members per vehicle, which is the industry-preferred ratio for a successful carshare program. Business trips accounted for 52% of the total trips, but accounted for 38% of the hours in use and 24% of miles driven. Therefore, members using vehicles for personal trips were likely to use the vehicle for longer periods of time and drive more miles (9.5 hours and 60 miles, respectively) compared to business users (2.9 hours and 13.8 miles)

FY2006-Q4 Utilization Statistics Business Members 478 Total trips 359 Total hours used 1,057 Total miles driven 4,968 Individual Members 411 Total trips 358 Total hours used 3,410 Total miles driven 21,588 Total trips: 717 Total hours: 4,467 Total miles: 26,556

Flexcar continued to grow throughout FY07, to a total of 2,027 members and 75 vehicles. Figures 2 and 3 below illustrate the growth of the service.

3

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 2 Growth of Flexcar Members 1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400 Total Number of Members of Number Total 200

0 FY05- FY05- FY05- FY05- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY07- Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

Figure 3 Growth of Flexcar Vehicle Fleet 60

50

40

30

20

Total Number of Vehicles 10

0 FY05- FY05- FY05- FY05- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY07- Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

Figure 4 represents the downtown Flexcar locations by the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2007. As we can see from the map, 9 Flexcar pods had been installed in the East Village area where downtown residential developments were concentrated. Also the Flexcar pod locations serve well to all major locations, such as Civic Core, East Village, Little Italy, Columbia, Marina District, and Gaslamp District.

4

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 4 - Flexcar Locations, December 2006

As a result of increase number of memberships and number of vehicles, number of Flexcar trips had increased both individual trips and business trips. Figure 5 presents the growth of the number of trips from the start of the program to the end of September, 2006.

5

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 5 - Growth of Number of Trips per Quarter

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600 Number of Trips 400

200

0 FY05- FY05- FY05- FY05- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY07- Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

Business Individual

As we see from the above evidence, Flexcar seemed to have some success, service area had been expanded, more cars had been added, and as a result, the number of memberships had grown, and total number of trips had gone up. Then the question is how did they fail to sustain the service in downtown San Diego? However, a closer look at existing data gives us different pictures of the two and half years of Flexcar operations in San Diego.

One notable finding is that, despite increased memberships, vehicles, and total trips, vehicle usage rates had not improved much since the beginning of the Flexcar service in FY05 as shown in Figure 6. For example, based on quarterly Flexcar usage reports, between the first quarter of FY05 and the first quarter of FY07, average trips per member per quarter had only increased from 1 trip to 2 trips per member per quarter. On the other hand, each business member used the service 20 to 30 times per quarter.

This means, whether it was intended or not, San Diego Flexcar service depended more on business members than individual members, as one new business member would generate 20 to 30 trips per quarter while one new individual member would generate less than one trip per quarter even during the high usage quarter. However, the percentage of business members had declined from 7~8% to just over 5% after two years, which might have led to the decrease in financial sustainability.

6

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Figure 6 - Average Number of Trips per Member per Quarter

36

32

28

24

20

16

12

8 Average Trips per Member 4

0 FY05- FY05- FY05- FY05- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY07- Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

Business Individual Total

Figure 7 - Percentage of Business Members per Quarter

10.00%

9.00%

8.00%

7.00%

6.00%

5.00% Percentage of Business Memebers Business of Percentage 4.00% FY05- FY05- FY05- FY05- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY07- Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

Another important finding is that the number of active users had sharply declined in San Diego once it peaked in late 2006, while the number of members had steadily increased during the same period. As shown in Figure 8, the percentage of active users had declined 20 % point by the first quarter of 2007

7

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project even though the number of members had increased about 4 times since the beginning of the service in 2004.

In summary, 80% of business members are actively used the Flexcar services. Among individual members about 75% of the members were considered as active users. It is unclear at this point why Flexcar was not utilized by individual members as much as business users. However, one thing is clear- the Flexcar model was a business-oriented system. It can also be argued that the Flexcar service had been expanded to the areas where people supported the car-sharing concept but lacked a car-sharing supportive infrastructure (i.e., lack of transit connectivity or willingness to use existing transit, or lower density rates)1.

Figure 8 - Percentage of Active Users

100%

95%

90%

85%

80%

Percentage of Active Users 75%

70% FY05- FY05- FY05- FY05- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY07- Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

Business Individual Total

The percentage of active Flexcar users declined over time, which resulted in a financially negative impact on the Flexcar operation. Numerous vehicles had been added to accommodate the increased members but apparently the vehicles had not been fully utilized. Inconsistent availability of vehicles was another key factor in the challenges Flexcar faced. The number of vehicles increased from 10 in July 2004 to 51 in May 2006. The number of vehicles was reduced to 37 for the next two months, but had been increased again to 75 vehicles within less than 6 months.

The critical underlying indicators of a sustainable carsharing program are the vehicle utilization rate and the proportion of time that cars are used by members. If these indicators are above a certain threshold it has been shown to be illustrative in determining whether a car-sharing operation is generating revenue. The rate, generally expressed in “revenue hours per vehicle per day”, is the core measure of an operator’s financial health. Therefore, estimating a vehicle utilization rate of Flexcar provides a valuable insight on the financial foundation of the Flexcar service.

Based on the given data, the average vehicle utilization rate of Flexcar had been improved from 1.79 hours per day per vehicle to 3.91 hours per day per vehicle2. According to previous market studies, for a

1 Demographic factors and Land Use characteristics for successful car-sharing program were discussed in Chapter 3. 2 See Table A-1 at the conclusion of this report.

8

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project car-sharing program with 50 to 100 vehicles, a minimum vehicle utilization rate of greater than five hours per day per vehicle is required to maintain a reasonable price structure. Considering the fact that FY 2007 is the third year of the Flexcar service, therefore Flexcar had passed its start-up phase, the utilization rate of 3.91 hours per day per vehicle might have not been enough to sustain the service. Table 1 and Figure 9 compare the vehicle utilization rates from the beginning of the service until the first quarter of FY 2007.

Table 1 - Vehicle Utilization Rate

Total Vehicle Vehicle Hours Number of Vehicle Utilization Rate Hours per Day3 Vehicles (Hours/Day/Vehicle) FY05-Q1 1,615 17.94 10 1.79 FY05-Q2 1,970 21.89 10 2.19 FY05-Q3 2,415 26.83 12 2.24 FY05-Q4 3,449 38.32 14 2.74 FY06-Q1 2,620 29.11 31 0.94 FY06-Q2 3,859 42.87 35 1.22 FY06-Q3 8,183 90.92 44 2.07 FY06-Q4 12,591 139.90 45 3.11 FY07-Q1 17,936 199.29 51 3.91

Figure 9 - Vehicle Utilization Rate

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00 Vehicle Utilization Rate (VUR) Rate Utilization Vehicle

0.00 FY05- FY05- FY05- FY05- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY06- FY07- Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

Flexcar VUR Recommended VUR

Without access to proprietary financial data on the specifics of the Flexcar business model, it is difficult to identify definitive reasons why the Flexcar service proved unsustainable in San Diego. Some may simply argue that downtown San Diego and surrounding areas were not ready for a carshare program due to low-density development patterns, highly automobile-friendly parking policies, and a lack of convenient and reliable transit systems for use by the same members Flexcar sought to enroll.

3 Vehicle hours per Day = Vehicle Hours Per Quarter / 90, assuming 30 days per month

9

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

However, this is changing. closely reviewing Flexcar case, it became apparent that marketing and operations planning also played critical roles in the discontinuation of Flexcar program in San Diego. Below are the summary of findings and lessons learned from the Flexcar case.

• Flexcar succeeded in attracting members to join the service. • Flexcar was highly-utilized by business members, although business accounts comprised less than 10% of total memberships. • Greater levels of effort should be provided to attract and maintain business members as business members yield higher vehicle usage. • Flexcar identified several key locations for car-sharing pods, especially in the downtown area. • Flexcar located diverse vehicle types from two seaters to hybrid vehicles to attract users. • Despite increased memberships and increased number of vehicles, however, the Flexcar system did not fully utilize its vehicles. • Low utilization rates might stem from a variety of reasons, such as lack of proper advertisement efforts or over-expansion of the service. • Off-street locations might limit service visibility. • Due to low vehicle utilization rate, Flexcar might not have a financial foundation for a self sustainable program even after two years of service. • Strategic planning efforts are needed to increase the vehicle utilization rates especially for individual members.

Compass+ Effectiveness

Twenty-nine total participants provided approximately 100 surveys over the course of the Compass+ Mobility Pass program, and also provided their insights at two focus groups. The majority of respondents were highly satisfied with the program, and were found to have reduced their drive-alone mileage by 45% as a result of the availability of a carsharing vehicle for their last-mile solution between a transit station and their jobsite.

Regarding the fee for the service, participants paid a median monthly fee of $116 for the service, which included the use of a Flexcar vehicle for a total of 10 hours per week. About half of all respondents indicated they were willing to pay a small additional fee for additional service enhancements, typically preferred parking or additional service hours.

10

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Table A-1 - Flexcar Usage Statistics from FY05-Q1 to FY07-Q1 Total Total Average Average Average Member Total Total Vehicle Vehicle Hours Miles Trips per Period Type Members Trips Hours miles per Trip per Trip Member Business4 29 219 780 5,293 3.56 24.17 7.55 FY05-Q1 Individual 405 134 835 3,902 6.23 29.12 0.33 Total 434 353 1,615 9,195 4.58 26.05 0.81 Business 29 334 1,314 11,283 3.93 33.78 11.52 FY05-Q2 Individual 405 138 656 2,467 4.75 17.88 0.34 Total 434 472 1,970 13,750 4.17 29.13 1.09 Business 29 440 1,610 10,786 3.66 24.51 15.17 FY05-Q3 Individual 405 165 805 5,073 4.88 30.75 0.41 Total 434 605 2,415 15,859 3.99 26.21 1.39 Business 29 979 2,219 13,923 2.27 14.22 33.76 FY05-Q4 Personal 405 182 1,230 4,693 6.76 25.79 0.45 Total 434 1,161 3,449 18,616 2.97 16.03 2.68 Business 40 642 1,839 8,994 2.86 14.01 16.05 FY06-Q1 Individual 479 117 774 4,116 6.62 35.18 0.24 Total 519 759 2,613 13,110 3.44 17.27 1.46 Business 46 582 1,672 10,068 2.87 17.30 12.65 FY06-Q2 Individual 537 431 2,187 15,580 5.07 36.15 0.80 Total 583 1,013 3,859 25,648 3.81 25.32 1.74 Business 52 694 3,167 18,387 4.56 26.49 13.35 FY06-Q3 Individual 660 889 5,015 22,693 5.64 25.53 1.35 Total 712 1,583 8,182 41,080 5.17 25.95 2.22 Business 60 1,072 3,872 14,631 3.61 13.65 17.87 FY06-Q4 Individual 1,054 1,001 8,719 45,357 8.71 45.31 0.95 Total 1,114 2,073 12,591 59,988 6.07 28.94 1.86 Business 70 1,585 4,587 26,770 2.89 16.89 22.64 FY07-Q1 Individual 1,338 1,330 13,350 83,674 10.04 62.91 0.99 Total 1,408 2,915 17,937 110,444 6.15 37.89 2.07

4 “Business Membership” refers to number of business accounts, and does not consider number of employees at a particular business.

11