Docstoc

On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project

Document Sample
On-Street Parking Carshare Demonstration Project Powered By Docstoc
					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 CARSHARING ...................................................................................................... 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 Flexcar




                                              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 Canada 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 Zipcar, 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”).
                   D.C.                          $10/hour.
                                                                                                • 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   • Toyota Prius 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
Communauto     Quebec, Montreal,    • 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.
               Gatineau. 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                                                                                                                  rd
  David Brook (2004), “Carsharing – Start Up Issues and New Operational Models,” Transportation Research Board 83 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
                   th
Research Board 84 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                                                                                                                    rd
   David Brook (2004), “Carsharing – Start Up Issues and New Operational Models,” Transportation Research Board 83 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
         Score               +           Characteristics
                                             Score              =               Potential
                                                                                 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
How would you                        4        22      19      21        10        5       0         0         81
                      Interested
rate your level of    Somewhat
interest in                          12       41      26      33        13        6       2         0         133
                      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                     Carshare
      Review              From                  Flexcar                Highest
        Sites            SANDAG                  Sites                                                  Vehicle
                                                                       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
      rd
     3 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
      th
     8 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

Notes:
(a) - Parking Vacancy Rate Determined by Averaging Combined Occupancy Rates Contained in CCDC Parking Inventory Final Report, June 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
           Scenario               Assumption                        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           0          30          30          30          30          30          30          30          30           30          30             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                19        19.0        20.0        21.0        22.0        23.0        24.0        25.0        26.0        27.0         28.0        29.0        30.0         40.0
Members per Vehicle                                                      11          11           12         12          13          14          15          15          16          16           17          17          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 enjoy 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
           Scenario               Assumption                        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          0         10             10         10         10         10         10         10          10         10         10             10            15
                     Duration       12            months
New Vehicles Added                            1   per month              12           0          1             1           1          1          1          1          1          1          1          1           1             0
Total Members                              508    Maximum               100         100        110           120         130        140        150        160        170        180        190        200         210           390
Total Vehicles                               30   Maximum                12          12         13            14          15         16         17         18         19         20         21         22          23            30
Members per Vehicle                                                       8           8          8             9           9          9          9          9          9          9          9          9           9            13
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 Flexcars. 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 car rental 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:
   carshare@sandag.org
      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 carshare@sandag.org 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 bene fit 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 optio ns 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: jendres@co.santa-barbara.ca.us




                                                                                                                  7
County of Santa Barbara Redevelopment Agency
1105 Santa Barbara Street, 4th Floor, Santa Barbara County Courthouse East Wing
                                                                                   SBCO RDA
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: jheaton@co.santa-barbara.ca

\\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
   Total Number of Members



                              1200

                              1000

                               800

                               600

                               400

                               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
   Total Number of Vehicles




                              40

                              30

                              20

                              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
   Number of Trips




                     1000

                     800

                     600

                     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
   Average Trips per Member




                                     28

                                     24

                                     20

                                     16

                                     12

                                     8

                                     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%
   Percentage of Business Memebers




                                     9.00%


                                     8.00%


                                     7.00%


                                     6.00%


                                     5.00%


                                     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%
    Percentage of Active Users




                                 90%


                                 85%


                                 80%


                                 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
      Vehicle Utilization Rate (VUR)




                                       5.00


                                       4.00


                                       3.00

                                       2.00


                                       1.00

                                       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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:10
posted:8/25/2011
language:English
pages:158