Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 219-239

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 219...
... The City of Boston, for example, has not issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) , since it does not wish to be in the business of regulating car-sharing, according to City staff.
From page 220...
... For example, King County Metro was eager to receive bids from the rental car industry when it began its procurement process in 1999. To date, rental firms have either declined to submit proposals (as in the case of King County Metro)
From page 221...
... The RFP might specify locations where services are required (e.g. King County Metro)
From page 222...
... Objective The objective of the program is to provide vehicles at a reasonable per-hour and/or mileage cost to students, staff, faculty, and campus departments for personal and business related purposes. This program will support the university's effort to reduce the number of commute vehicle trips to Stanford University, reduce the demand for parking spaces, and encourage use of transportation alternatives such as mass transit, biking, car and van pooling, etc.
From page 223...
... King County Metro, meanwhile, was keen to negotiate a partnership, rather than a standard vendor agreement. While the selected firm would be responsible for operations, Metro wanted to solicit a firm that would welcome input, and treat the growth and development of car-sharing as a partnership.
From page 224...
... Contracts may also be necessary where a partner organization passes through funding received from federal or other external grants, such as the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality and Job Access Reverse Commute grants, respectively administered by the City of Chicago and King County Metro.
From page 225...
... It is important to stress, however, that perhaps the majority of partnerships are highly informal. Partners such as Arlington County, VA; Brookline, MA; and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have no formal contract or procurement process at all.
From page 226...
... For example, Arlington County is completing its initial evaluation in Spring 2005, in order to support the case for continuing the program beyond the first year. In other cases, data may be needed before the program even begins.
From page 227...
... However, quantification of outcomes, such as changes in vehicle ownership and travel, still pose difficult challenges for car-sharing operators, as discussed below. Many partner organizations interviewed for this study believe that car-sharing is a "soft measure," the impact of which will never be comprehensively quantified.
From page 228...
... Only eight respondents stated they have performance standards for their partner car-sharing organization – four with formal standards and four with informal standards. Exhibit 7-3 Techniques to Evaluate Success 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Utilization data Impacts evaluations Financial data Other None required Formal Informal None N um be r o f R es po nd en ts Monitoring and Evalution Required Performance Standards 0 4 8 12 16 20 Very successful Fairly successful Neither successful nor unsuccessful Fairly unsuccessful Very unsuccessful N um be r o f R es po nd en ts
From page 229...
... For example, the prime measure of success for The Defender Association in Seattle is the halving in the number of parking spaces leased for employees, from 20 to 10, and the associated ability to continue the transit pass benefit for employees. When information is collected by partners, the material falls into four broad groups: financial and utilization data; trip information; surveys; and independent evaluations.
From page 230...
... Surveys A small number of partners have asked operators to conduct surveys of their members, in order to gain information on the impacts of car-sharing on travel behavior, vehicle ownership and transit ridership. In most cases, the operator conducts the surveys, generally through e-mailing members.
From page 231...
... City of Chicago Quarterly reports are passed through to Federal Transit Administration as a condition of CMAQ grant funding. The report outlines the demographics of members, car usage, trip destinations, member usage, and emission reductions estimated from car ownership changes.
From page 232...
... Independent Evaluations King County Metro University of Washington conducted initial evaluation. Metro is currently seeking to fund a second independent study that will focus on changes in transit ridership, pass sales and achievement against other goals.
From page 233...
... TCRP Report 88 identifies 11 characteristics of a successful performance measurement system. The following discussion tailors these findings to the field of car-sharing.
From page 234...
... They indicate progress in achieving goals, such as impacts on vehicle ownership, parking availability, transit ridership and mobility for low-income households. (See also Shaheen, Schwartz & Wipyewski, 2004.)
From page 235...
... Exhibit 7-5 Car-Sharing Performance Measures Measure Definition Significance How Measured Internal Measures (normally proprietary) Utilization Revenue hours per vehicle per month.
From page 236...
... Fleet database Outcome Measures Vehicle travel Net change in annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in private vehicles.
From page 237...
... For example, a common measure of the effectiveness of proposed transit investments is "cost per new rider." While useful, this indicator does not directly relate the benefits of transit to reductions in vehicle travel, parking demand or emissions – data which many partners wish to see for car-sharing. Similarly, parking garages, intersection widenings or vehicle fleet expansion may be approved with little or no analysis of the potential for demand management alternatives.
From page 238...
... Monitoring programs need to acknowledge these challenges; it may be preferable to focus on simpler indicators, at least initially, even though a partner may have broader goals. For example, changes in vehicle ownership may serve as a proxy for vehicle travel impacts, in that more vehicles taken off the road are likely to equate to greater reductions in vehicle travel.
From page 239...
... 2nd Edition. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.